Tag Archives: Business

Googlekrieg

The Google firing of James Damore could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Maybe.

Damore had done nothing wrong beyond stating his opinion (much of it based on what is scientifically/medically known general genetically-oriented differences between the sexes). He was not incompetent. He did not harass anyone (though he himself, as a white male, was being harassed by Google cultural commissars) nor threaten anyone. He merely offered a different perspective from the increasingly extreme hyperleft perspective of Google management.

Shockingly, Google has insisted and continues to insist, that it believes in “diversity”of opinion. The company’s inability to see how it is 180 degrees wrong is a premier example of the innate lack of self-awareness of the modern liberal. That it permeates a whole company and its culture is rather frightening.

A lot of people have countered that Google is a “private” company and thus can fire anyone it wants for any reason it wants. Actually, it’s a publicly-held company. I’m a part owner. If you have a 401k with any tech fund in it odds are that you too are an owner. I certainly didn’t approve this company cultural fascism.

If Google were really a privately held company – a single or small number of owners, all of whom agree that employees need to all have the same political opinion, then I’d buy the right to fire employees they don’t like.

The problem with that approach, however, is that liberals have spent the last five decades arguing vociferously against that point. They have pushed government and legal interference into every nook and cranny of the business world, even against single-owner businesses; those that are really “private.”

They’ve forced small groups to admit members who are antithetical to that group’s mission. All in the name of “justice.”

It’s also been said that California’s famous labor laws expressly forbid firing people for political beliefs. The laws were, of course, written to protect commies and similar types but they can be protect all.

In addition, Google is a federal contractor and clearly has run up against federal discrimination laws. Remember Grove City? Take a penny, you’re in for a pound.

On the legal front Google doesn’t have even a leg to stand on.

It is possible that any Google lawsuit could end up in the court of an idiot judge. We’ve recently encountered judges who disregard what the law clearly says but they dislike; judges who feel free to rewrite laws to what they want.

We’re seeing more and more of this “No conservatives need apply” from liberals in the business world. It should surprise no one that all of their arguing about justice and nondiscrimination for decades was just a convenient stalking horse. Once they began to populate the corporate nest they, like the Cuckoo Bird, push out anyone not like them. With them it has always been about accruing power.

Advertisements

Reebok Lectures Trump

Athletic shoe maker has decided to attack Donald Trump for… get this… his compliment to the French first lady.

So the cretins… er… superior moral judges at Reebok felt the need to chide Trump. What is it with these people that they feel compelled to mouth off on things that aren’t their business?

For Pete’s sake, it was a harmless compliment, yet these school-marmish scolds can’t control themselves.

Are they in such an echo chamber that they cannot see they are angering a large portion of their market? For no reason whatsoever? The people who don’t like Trump aren’t going to dislike him more for this. Do the geniuses at Reebok think those folks will toss aside their Nikes and run out to buy a pair of Reeboks because of this?

Anybody who doesn’t have an opinion on the topic certainly isn’t going to be swayed by this petty silliness and the large group that voted for Trump are now annoyed and certainly not thinking fondly of Reebok.

Well, Reebok, you just lost another potential customer… but look on the bright side, you’ll always have your arrogance to keep you warm at night…

I Can Feel My Ovaries Shriveling Inside of Me

Over at The Federalist Bre Payton has a piece on our continued cultural decline.

Any article that has the sentence, “Whenever I see a dude sporting a bun on top of his head, I can feel my ovaries shriveling inside of me,” is a must read.

The Ken doll was always considered a bit effeminate, even when I was a kid in the 1960s and 1970s. That so many girls considered him an ideal mate for their proxy — Barbie (instead of G.I. Joe or even Action Jackson) — was a harbinger of things to come in the decline of the culture/feminization of the country.

It also demonstrates the liberal corporate suite stranglehold that is turning so many American corporations against traditional America. What could these people be thinking? Oh, wait, I know, virtue signaling to other like-minded libtards.

I bet the girls at GMA were cooing with approval.

The Lowest Common Denominator

I recently finished a week-long business trip. On the first leg of the flight out, the first thing one of the stewardesses announced in the air was that there was a “peanut allergy” onboard so we’d have no peanut snacks.

I’ve never been on a plane where this was announced though I’m pretty sure that of the hundred or more flights I’ve been on there were some folks onboard that were allergic to peanuts.

Okay, there were still cookies and pretzels available (until the ‘wheat allergy’ onboard squawks in their desire for victim equivalency fame).

Now here’s where things get completely absurd. I had a bag of toffee peanuts and one of the stews made me stop eating them. I wasn’t sharing them or throwing them at anyone but peanuts had become verboten.

Maybe I should have pulled a Dr. Dao and challenged the stewardess’s control.

This is where the nanny state and the victimhood society are out of control. We’re being driven by the desire to accommodate lowest common denominators. We have 1% driving the activities of the other 99%. (Wow, that sounds suspiciously like gay marriage and gender confused people policies as well).

I’m (deathly) allergic to aspirin, yet I do not expect the world to stop and cater to my problem. I watch out and check products and go on my merry way.

Yet somehow, “Peanut Allergy” demands the world grind to a halt and cater to them.

Hey, “Peanut Allergy,” there are peanuts at the airport we’re heading to and I’ve heard there are peanuts in most every city you’re likely to visit — at least until the next Democrat administration begins the great peanut purge (and begins funding nonallergic peanut substitute research).

As a society, driven by liberalism, we’re heading downhill. People no longer seem to be able to take care of themselves but rely on authorities to take care of them, to protect them… from life itself. If they have any kind of weakness, no matter how minor or peripheral, they demand accommodation rather than putting up with their problem in an attitude of humility and wishing to not inconvenience others.

The modern libtard snowflake mentality is to inconvenience as many people as possible. It’s tied in with their intolerance of dissenting views. They expect everyone to be like them and any deviation must be crushed — even if it is the vast majority of people.

State Street Hypocrites

The Wall Street Journal recently reported in one of those typical feel-good-right-side-of-history stories, written almost always by its female reporters, that financial firm State Street, based in, where else, Boston, is insisting that companies it does business with put more women on those company’s boards and that it would vote against board members who were insufficiently enthusiastic with such causes.

It’s giving companies a year to comply. Or else, I guess.

The CEO of State Street Global Advisors, one Ronald O’Hanley, not a woman, said, oddly,“If someone could convince us that the absence of diversity or gender diversity is not a problem, we’re leaving that open. Will they? I doubt it.”

So, Ronnie, would that little bit of business philosophy include State Street Global Advisors own “Leadership Team”? It’s a regular Boys Club — 23 men to 5 women. It’s parent company, State Street, features 62 men and 18 women in its “Leadership Team.”

Perhaps some of those chaps will be leaving and be replaced by someone with her sex organs on the inside? (An odd way to measure qualifications for employment in a financial company.)

No?

Hhhhmmmmm, the classic liberal behavior, do as I say not as I do; AKA hypocrisy.

What’s changing, increasingly, is that the liberals that have take over so much of American business are willing to employ those businesses as weapons against other Americans. They are also abandoning their fiduciary duties in service of liberalism, fascism and socialism.

But back to that March 7 story. It deploys the usual weepy statistics about the lack of women on boards and how those companies with women do so much better than the small handful that don’t have any; or at least they did several years ago when the “study” conducted by State Street (surprise!) said so.

The story has one last kiss — a picture of a Dega-esque statue that State Street planned to place in front of the famous Wall Street bulls statue. I gather she’s supposed to face them like that lone Chinese man faced the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Subtlety isn’t exactly a liberal specialty.

Historical accuracy isn’t one either. But then history doesn’t serve as history for history’s sake or to be learned from in the eyes of the liberal but rather slaved to the propaganda mission and if it has to be plasticized and recast into different forms as if it were Play-Doh, then so be it; it served its purpose.

Bud Light Party Loses the Vote

Good news! Anheuser-Busch has pulled their disingenuous “Bud Light Party” liberal propaganda program masquerading as an ad campaign ahead of its previously scheduled run (until the election).

Apparently Amy Shumer’s and Seth Rogen’s smarmy commercials packed with “bipartisan” (AKA libtard talking points) disinformation didn’t set so well with beer buyers. Sales were down 5% for the quarter despite a lot of recent high-profile sports events which Bud was advertising within.

Of course the corporate liberals at A-B won’t admit that they might have made a mistake by going all liberal propaganda in simple beer commercials (liberals will politicize everything). A liberal will never admit a mistake if made in the furtherance of socialism. They are framing it as a change in branding and identity that was planned for.

Next up, Lady Gaga ads!

These people need to be fired.But you can bet that they’ll likely get promotions, bonuses and they’ll vote for Hillary (if not contribute to her campaign).

Taxing the Fizz Out of Us

Perhaps you’ve heard on the news about one of the latest bright ideas from our wise, Ivy League-educated governing mandarins — a tax on sodas.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg popularized the idea a couple of years ago and now the idea seems to be spreading to other locales. It might even be on the ballot in a couple of cities.

The one I heard about was a one cent tax on a soda (or “soda pop” as we said when we were young). It didn’t specify what size this soda was but the news reporter said it was being enacted to combat the “obesity epidemic.” This would categorize this tax as an old-fashioned sin tax.

So, a one cent tax is going to somehow discourage people from drinking sodas.

Seriously?

Think about that for a moment.

Now, draw an imaginary circle of say five miles from where you live. You’ll probably know half-a-dozen grocery stores within that range. If you are a soda purchaser you’ll know immediately that the price variance within those half-dozen stores can be 25 cents or more. Between sales and specials it can balloon even more. The difference between brand name and store brand can be almost 50%.

A one cent tax?

That will have the same affect as blowing against a stiff breeze. None at all.

And the people behind the tax know this. I should say, the cynical power-hungry fascist liberals behind this know that.

The tax isn’t about curbing behavior or even raising money (that’s a side-benefit) but it’s about control.

First the tax will seem low. Then it will be raised. It will be continuously raised to the point where it begins to somewhat affect sales, wherein it will settle.

Likely soda companies will push to get waivers or carve outs — adding in a certain percentage of a sugar substitute or dropping the sugar level to possibly avoid the tax or some of it. Of course they’ll be able to do this because they’ll be pumping large amounts of campaign dollars into politicians’ campaigns — mostly Democrats because they are the ones pushing the tax campaigns and they are the ones running the cities and counties where most of these taxes are enacted.

The large corporations making most of the sodas — notable Coca-Cola and Pepsi — will also be donating tons of money to “civic” projects (almost always run by Democrat cronies) in those locales in what are really passive bribes. There might even be replays of activities like Jesse Jackson’s famous shakedown of Coca-Cola wherein Jackson’s brother suddenly became a new distributor with a very lucrative and exclusive Chicago market segment. Cha-ching!

Anyone not playing along will find themselves under investigation by various authorities, have permits or whatnot denied by those same authorities and be under attack by media entities and Democrat activists and their auxiliaries such as unions and NGO/nonprofits.

And this is how businesses are captured and turned into tools for Democrats.