Friday Open Thread

10 thoughts on “Friday Open Thread”

1. Conservative Affirmative Action. H/T Brad DeLong

   the author complains that the underrepresentation of conservatives in academia (relative to the American population) is an indication of liberal bias. Apparently creationists, climate denialists, vaccine “sceptics” etc deserve some affirmative action

   Log in to Reply

   1. That was the rationale for hiring John Eastman at CU Boulder: "ideological diversity". So while Eastman was on the Colorado tax and tuition-payers' dime, he was plotting the overthrow of a democratic election. 

      The Jake jabs and Leeds school of business folks love that " affirmative action".

      Log in to Reply

      1. State support to CU Boulder is fairly minimal, so you are referring to nickels and dimes almost literally.

         The Institute that brought Eastman to campus is in large part supported by tax-deductible donations, not direct funding of state revenue.

         Log in to Reply

2. A foreign power is spending millions of dollars in Democratic primaries, to defeat candidates whom they see as promoting policies agaimst its interests. Russia? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? 

   No. Israel.

   Aipac Targets progressives with $100 million in its coffers.

   Aipac has already taken out Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush. Who's next? 

   And how is it even legal for a foreign nation to interfere with American primary elections?

   Log in to Reply

   1. AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Its funding falls under US law barring foreign sources of money, and the donations can be researched on the Open Secrets website.

      Where do you see the PAC as getting money from "a foreign power" Israel? Rolling Stone, your link, says specifically "A significant portion of funding for the organization comes from wealthy Republicans and Trump donors."

      Log in to Reply

   2. Kwtree, are you really starting to talk about the Jews controlling the world with their money?

      Do you realize who you sound like?

      CHB had it right. These two were particularly dimwitted left wing shills who were bounced their constituents.

      They are are not like AOC who even I will admit, is smart and strategic. (She will probably get elected president some day.) They were AOC's useful idiots.

      One of these clowns pulls a fire alarm. Kind of juvenile, wouldn't even you admit? (And he lists his profession as being an educator! Oh, the irony!)

      And the other one wouldn't denounce Hamas although she did have one of staffers who had the good sense to issue a statement saying that Hamas was terrorist organization. At least Bush hires people who are smarter than she is.

       

      Log in to Reply

3. "AIPAC has already taken out Jamal Bowman and Cori Bush….."

   Nope, they both got bounced because they weren't serving their constituents. Similar to Tony Hernandez and Elizabeth Epps in Denver. 

   Log in to Reply

4. Customers didn’t stop spending. Companies stopped serving

   I was happy to see this headline and read this article on CNN today. So many economic headlines focus on the consumers as if we are somehow at fault for not buying things.

   It's always "Consumers slow spending in <industry>, could the US economy be in trouble?!" and never "Companies in <industry> are failing to offer more things that consumers actually want to buy. What will they do?" Cuz what the companies could do is use Business 101 knowledge to make their offerings more attractive. I guess that's not exciting enough for most headlines.

   Log in to Reply

5. On the subject of companies not listening to consumers, the “Oily Boyz”, as Bowman refers to them, will pitch a fit in a couple of years when new O&G laws make the ballot to stop their bull-in-a-china-shop attitude toward poorer communities. But, they’re asking for it: https://www.denverpost.com/2024/08/09/colorado-pollution-cumulative-impacts-oil-gas-drilling/

   Log in to Reply

6. Judge Gives More Time in Trump Election Case to Assess Immunity – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

   Two possibilities ….

   Scenario # 1:

   Early next February, Kamala Harris' nominee to be attorney general will be facing the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Lady G and stacked with flaming assholes like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. (The GOP holds a one seat majority in the Senate thanks to winning WV and MT, and holding everything they already held.)

   That nominee is asked point-blank whether he/she/they will go forward with prosecuting Donald Trump. He/she/they ethically and appropriately tries/try to avoid answering the question. The committee votes down the nominee on a party line vote.

   Scenario # 2:

   Trump is elected and his AG, Ken Paxton, goes into Judge Chutkan's courtroom to dramatically move to dismiss the case.

   I'd rather be dealing with Scenario # 1. Also, doesn't Merritt Garland stay on as AG unless and until a successor is confirmed?

   Log in to Reply