more twitter files releases, still haven’t gotten to them all. meanwhile
Corporate execs are becoming more partisan and, with a single company, those with minority views often leave and go elsewhere exacerbating this impact.
Combining Execucomp data on top executives in U.S. S&P 1500 firms with voter regis- tration records, we show executive teams became more partisan between 2008 and 2020. We define partisanship as the degree to which a single party dominates political views within the same executive team. More specifically, we measure the partisanship of executive teams as the probability that two randomly drawn executives from the same team are affiliated with the same political party.2 Based on this measure, we find a 7.7-percentage-point increase in the average partisanship of executive teams over our sample period. As a reference point, this increase is almost three quarters of the decrease in gender homogeneity that we observe over the same time period. The increasing partisanship of executive teams is even more remarkable in light of the increasing diversity along the gender dimension, which should, if anything, lead to greater diver- sity in political views. We can further rule out the possibility that the increase in partisanship reflects executives’ strategic behavior to appear more politically aligned with their peers.
What drives the increase in the political polarization of executive teams? One possibility is that the increase in partisanship is a reflection of changes in the share of Republicans and Democrats in the overall population of executives. Alternatively, the increase in partisanship could result from an increased tendency of executives to match with like-minded partisans. Using Monte Carlo simulations to generate measures of randomly occurring partisanship, we document that 61% of the increase in partisanship is driven by an increased tendency of executives to match with other executives who share their political views. The remaining 39% is driven by the executive population as a whole becoming more politically homogeneous (i.e., Republican).
the fun AI chatbot by google is pretty entertaining to play with, but be aware of its’ creators biases that get hardcoded into some replies.
Lest you forget how much the current Prez lies, here’s a long recap.
they won’t make arguments for fossil fuels anymore either.
This is from a couple years ago, but I’m pretty sure I’d remember that headline had I seen it before now.
IIRC, they also have a trans-species dog that is a giraffe.
The ruling, released Thursday, upheld the law and found that, although gender is separate and distinct from biological sex, “Classifications based on gender identity serve no legitimate relationship to the State of West Virginia’s interest in promoting equal athletic opportunities for the female sex,” and that “Classifications of teams according to biological sex is necessary to promote equal athletic opportunities for the female sex.”
Hopefully this signals the beginning of the end of this fallacy. Virtually every instance of “gender segregation”, from sports to bathrooms to prisons, is derrived from one’s biological sex, not some abstract lifestyle choice. This is the argument that everyone against trans rights is making, and that the trans activists keep trying to ignore (because they have no defense to it, beyond pounding on the table and silencing those making the argument). No one cares if you want to grow your hair long and wear dresses and whatever other stereotypes you want to indulge in, in the locker room you are still male.
This is all that needs to be said about this case:
I can image any part of the legal code that grants a legal right to that.
All Him/Her/It/Them/They have to do is quit drinking beer, and do some sit-ups. That beer belly will disappear.
More positive outcomes.
Writing for the 7-4 majority, Judge Barbara Lagoa pointed out that much of the law regarding sex is based on the understanding that men and women are different and that separate spaces protect the rights of both sexes. Title IX, for example, specifically grants schools the right to separate bathrooms by biological sex, she wrote.
It’s a shame that common sense like this has to be spelled out by a judge in an appeals court opinion.
It’s even more of a shame that 4 out of 11 judges disagree with this common sense.
Important to get that word in there. Because otherwise, the rabblerousers will yell that they know there’s a difference, which is why they are entitled to choose which group they’re most comfortable peeing with. The correct answer to this question is based on biological fact, and has nothing to do with comfort or association or identity or any other subjective psychological variables.
I feel like if this guy’s suggestions were some version of 2 + 2 doesn’t have to equal 4, Fox would’ve included that in their report. Which makes me curious about what his ideas are for breaking down the supposed structural inequities.
Without ever hearing of this prior to your post, I’ll lay odds his solution involves either:
- Spending money
- Cutting non-white males and all females some slack on their grades/curriculum requirements
Vegans try to stop a truck carrying cows. Nearly get run over. LOL
You gotta love Governor DeSantis. He knows how to drive the left apoplectic:
“No tax permanently on gas stoves,” said DeSantis. “They want your gas stove and we’re not going to let that happen.”
The move comes as the Department of Energy proposed new efficiency rules for natural gas stoves and other consumer cooking appliances. The proposal would set limits on energy consumption for gas stoves, and overall energy usage standards on both electric and gas stoves and ovens.
DeSantis’ plan was included in his new budget - the first of his second term. Among the many breaks for taxpayers would be a permanent $7 million exemption on appliances fueled by combustible gas - including propane, butane, liquefied petroleum, natural gas and syngas.
And this is a Frisco jury
By driving the left apoplectic, do you mean rolling their eyes at what an absolute demagogic clown he is? His whole shtick is pushing absurd culture war issues. Gas stoves have never been in any danger of being banned.
Google would disagree
Another department is considering imposing efficiency requirements.
And NYC has in fact banned gas in any new construction starting next year.
See this article from my local Silicon Valley newspaper. Once they ban other gas appliances, stoves are next.
The Bay Area Air Quality District board will vote March 15 whether to ban new gas-powered furnaces and water heaters, something Mid-Peninsula cities have been considering in order to stop global warming.
Most cities in the area have approved what are called “reach codes,” which ban new gas appliances in most new construction. Palo Alto and Menlo Park officials want to go further and are looking at ways to get residents to replace their gas-burning appliances with electric ones.
The air district, headed by a board comprised of officials from throughout the Bay Area, will discuss a regional ban on the sale of gas-burning water heaters by 2027 and furnaces by 2029.
Come on. DeSantis is referring to the scare of a national ban, not new construction in the two most liberal cities in America. Honestly, how much of a clown do you have to be to want to give a special tax exemption on something that has a lot of safety concerns and is bad for the planet just to score cheap political points? Only 8% of Floridians even have gas stoves. It’s really super embarrassing. He’s actually a smart guy, who went to Yale and Harvard Law, but needs to play to the rubes in his quest to gain political power.