We have been discussing the right of shareholders to push back on the social and political campaigns of corporations that reduce share value or damage brands. The concern over the “Go Woke, Go Broke” trend is greatest with companies like Disney, which has been particularly open about its corporate advocacy. That has proven most controversial not just in its announced opposition to the Florida education bill but also children’s movies that contained controversial sexual elements. Now, Deadline has released an analysis showing that Disney lost a staggering quarter of a billion dollars on two of these woke movies: Lightyear and Strange World.
According to Deadline, Lightyear lost $106 million and Strange World lost a whopping $152 million.
“Strange World” is about an explorer family named the Clades. The movie, however, caused a great deal of buzz due to young Ethan talking to his grandfather about his same-sex crush on another boy.
Then there is the actual “Buzz.” In Buzz Lightyear, Disney featured a same-sex kiss. Pixar initially removed the scene. However, after the controversy over the Florida education bill, it was put back into the movie as a reported statement of solidarity.
For many parents, the sexuality elements were a statement that they did not want to address with their young children. The movies bombed at the box office to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollar loss.
Disney has even entered the fray over racial reparations with a controversial children’s episode.
Obviously Disney has company these days in being the subject of a public backlash.
In the case of Bud Light, there has been a backlash and boycott over its sponsorship deal with controversial transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
While Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a non-apology apology, customers are reportedly shunning not just Bud Light but other Anheuser-Busch products.
For its part, Nike is unapologetic and pushed back on critics over its campaign featuring Mulvaney. It told consumers that they needed to be “kind” and “inclusive” while declaring “hate speech, bullying, or other behaviors that are not in the spirit of a diverse and inclusive community will be deleted” from its sites.
These companies could trigger shareholder revolts if the moves continue to spark boycotts or diminish sales.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies have already led to limited litigation, including shareholder demands for greater transparency or ESG commitment from companies. Some shareholders have also argued that the political views of corporate officers are being pursued over the profits of the company.
Such lawsuits on both sides can be difficult. Shareholders may allege a breach of the “duty of loyalty,” but must show that the officials acted in a self-interested manner or in bad faith. Alternatively, they could argue a breach of the “duty of care,” which requires a showing that the officials acted in a grossly negligent manner.
Disney executives were clearly willing to risk taking a loss over these political and artistic decisions. These moves may be personally gratifying and even professionally advantageous for individual executives, though it did not work out well for former Disney CEO Bob Chapek. The question is whether shareholders will continue to subsidize such campaigns regardless of their impact on the brand or the bottomline.
Jonathan: Let’s move from the discussion of what some on this blog call the “blatant sexuality” and “pornography” in recent Disney movies to other important news this week–things you don’t want to discuss. Despite all his narcissistic bravado Trump is a worried man. It is an understatement to say Trump faces some serious legal problems. His army of second-class are running from court to court to try to put their fingers in the dike. Here are updates on two of the cases Trump now faces:
—In the E. Jean Carroll defamation case it goes to trial starting April 25. Trump has demanded to know the identities of prospective jurors. Judge Kaplan refused saying he feared the threat of juror harassment–considering Trump’s threats against prosecutors and judges in other cases. Now why would anyone even think Trump would try to intimidate jurors?
—On Thursday Trump was back in Manhattan for his second deposition in the civil fraud suit brought by NY AG Letitia James. If successful this lawsuit could put Trump and his children out of business in NY state. And there is an interesting legal twist to this case. In his first deposition Trump refused to answer prosecutor’s Qs. He took the 5th 450 times. In the second deposition on Thursday Trump answered all Qs. Why the abrupt change? Because, unlike a criminal case, in a civil case the refusal of a defendant to answer Qs in a deposition can be used against the defendant. A jury can draw “adverse inferences” from a defendant’s refusal to testify truthfully in a deposition. In any case, Trump is between a rock and a hard place. His refusal to testify in the first deposition can be used against him at trial. And, what is even worse, whatever Trump said in the second deposition can be used by Alvin Bragg in the 34 count criminal prosecution. Some legal observers think Trump should have invoked the 5th Amendment in the second deposition and taken his chances at trial. That trial starts October 3rd.
Now you have argued Trump can run and win next year as a “criminal defendant”–or even if convicted and facing a long prison sentence. Do you really think that is still possible?
Instead of defending Disney and Budweiser Dennis McIntyre one again changes the subject to Trump. I am not surprised. When no proper defense is possible just change the subject. It has a ring of dishonesty to it. Perhaps a more appropriate word would be din.
@Thinkitthrough: RE:”When no proper defense is possible just change the subject.” Negatory!! It’s always..’just change the subject’ when he has something more important that he feel his captive audience must be obliged to consider his pontification upon and he can seize the day by putting in his oar to achieve that end.
@thinkitthrough: “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others.” It should be clear by now, and from the substance of his reply to you, what is being manifested at the heart of all of his posts. He takes control of the conversation and redirects it to his own purpose. It would be certainly be a positive step if going off topic the way he does would be deemed unacceptable by the administrator, Not an act of censorship, but rather the consequence of not playing by the rules, if one such might be established.
Thinkitthrough: You are the perfect foil. Your problem is that you can’t hold 2 simultaneous thoughts in your pea brain at the same time. I am more fortunate. I am like Superman. I can leap tall buildings in a single bound. I can go from Disney to Trump without losing a beat. I know it is painful to have to read about all the legal travails of your cult leader Donald Trump .I sympathize. But, hey, since Turley doesn’t want to I guess the responsibility has fallen to me.
When I see all your babble I am reminded of the movie “A Few Good Men”. My character says to your character: ” You can’t handle the truth…I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom”. Don’t you just love the movies?
lotta assumptions there, the first fake news is your belief that Trump’s going to be convicted,.. and it gets dumber after that.
Enjoy living in the Bizzaro World.
Yah, ah this Budd for you. Did you see their new ad? 2 transgendered Clydesdales. Oh giddy up.
In today’s America, businesses endorsed by the woke are propped up with government subsidies, while businesses opposed by the woke are attacked with government penalties. The result is an economic system where businesses live and die depending on the whims of politicians, not on whether businesses can meet the needs of customers at prices they are willing to pay. Disaster looms.
Disney has not yet lost enough in producing controversial entertainment that impassions sensibilities among its broader consumer public. When it has, it can be expected it will alter itself much like Anheuser-Busch has with its new ad that it hopes will alleviate the pain caused it by its last ad.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1646958880654516226
Republicans are reversing their stance on boycotting Anheuser-Busch. Apparently they didn’t realize the company is one of their biggest donors. 62% of the company’s political donations are to republicans. Oops.
Trump Jr. is calling for the boycott to end because it’s harming their own donor. Republican ignorance at its best.
Now that Anheuser-Busch has shown a return to advertising responsibly, it should be in everyone’s interests to end the boycott. I believe we can expect that nothing of the 62% was ever going to be lost to the Republican Party. Anheuser-Busch has as much as confirmed it.
Anheuser-Busch has learned a lesson. Advertise your product, not anyone’s politics.
They were a major donor. The boycott didn’t end the bud light marketing. They simply realized that they were biting the hand that feeds them.
Their donations were significant enough to force republicans to back off on their attacks against Budweiser. Money is more important than their shallow principles apparently.
Who drinks Bud lite? After a six pack these guys could care less about political contributions. They’ll swap Bud lite for miller lite. After a six pack, they could care less.
Anheuser-Busch will always be a major donor to the Republican Party. The company knows that nothing any number of republicans did in supporting the expression of protest, i.e., boycott takes away from the company’s own self-inflicted error in failing to exercise sound and rational business judgment. Anheuser-Busch fully appreciates its leading role in its own comeuppance, and it will continue to appreciate that its money is of importance to the principles it shares with the Republican Party.
Which Anheuser-Busch ad do you like best? The newest one or the one it promoted with the in-your-face transgender?
https://youtu.be/SWsm3bfVT9U
Where are the Disney shareholder to demand these idiot leaders/boards change course?
And patriots need to keep voting with their wallets
Mental illness is a Liberal condition.
Can I kindly ask that you do not use liberal to describe the left.
Turley is a liberal.
Derschowitz is a liberal.
The nut jobs we are dealing with are anti-liberal
Few if any call themselves liberal.
They use a variety of labels to describe themselves. Liberal not comonly among those.
Progressive, post modern. left, socialist.
A liberal is one who values individual liberty.
These people do NOT.
And yet the data show an epidemic in anxiety and depression that is exclusively on the left.
There is a reason for this.
Anxiety and depression are caused by and in a viscous circle cause cognitive distortions.
If you beleive that everything is going to h311, that the condition of the world is far worse than 50 years ago,
that racism, sexism, … are worse.
That trans people homosexuals, etc are experiencing higher rates of violence than the rest of us, that we are on the verge of climate catastrophe,
it would not be surprising that you also suffer from anxiety and depression.
It is not just Lightyear And Strange Worlds. Disney is also losing money on virtually everything else it touches outside of the parks. They have a disastrous lineup of movies coming up led by a black Little Mermaid and black Snow White. There is also the Marvel movie slate which includes Ant-Man 3 which was a box office bomb and future bombs in Guardians Vol 3, Elemental, Indiana Jones 5, The Haunted Mansion remake, The Marvels, Wish, and more.
On the one hand they tell you that they are not attempting to groom your children and on the other hand they put out books like these. https://books.google.com/books/about/Queering_Elementary_Education.html?id=3jrULETBwt8C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1#v=onepage&q&f=false. They somehow can’t understand how most people in the nation don’t want their children to be taught about sex in third grade. We should believe what their plan is when they tell us what their plan is. Their political philosophy is really to much is never enough and they will continue to indoctrinate your children if you let them. Next step: approval of minor attraction previously known as pedophilia. To perpetuate their philosophy they are willing to loose millions of shareholder money. If you continue to participates in the growing propaganda aimed at your children very few people will be saddened by your loss.
TiT, your paranoia is getting the better of you. You see porn everywhere apparently. It’s unhealthy, seek help.
Disney has been perverted for years, that mouse wears no pants!
In a hilarious about face the Republicans are calling for an end to the bud light boycotting because it turns out their biggest donor is InBEV. The company that owns Budweiser and other beer brands. LOL!!! Talk about irony.
Svelaz, you present an interesting point. It would be worthwhile to further explore your thinking but you make it difficult by never providing a source that would substantiate your argument. Of course there are people in this forum who will just blindly accept your assessment and these are the people who you are catering to and you know it. Are you here for the sake of argument or for the sake of dictating your position. I have asked many times that you provide a source but you only on an infrequent occasion provide a back up to support what you have posted. One would think that you might not know how to copy and paste.
TiT, you don’t know how to do a quick google search? I would be shocked if you didn’t.
You’re a smart guy. Find out for yourself. That way you can choose only the sources you trust. Right?
So Svelaz, you tell us that money should be more important than principles. It appears that Republicans are willing to tell a large donor to their party that their actions are not acceptable. Principle over money. I know it’s hard to fathom in your world. How ironic.
Are you talking about a party that still supports a proven documented known liar disgraced twice impeached ex-president. What kind of “principle” is that.
TiT says, “So Svelaz, you tell us that money should be more important than principles.”
Apparently republicans believe money is more important than principles. They are calling for the boycott of Budweiser products to stop, because it seems they are a very big donor and weirdly enough critics of bud light are boycotting bud light by unknowingly buying other InBEV products. Kinda shows the stupidity of the boycott and the ignorance that is involved. It’s hilarious and embarrassing at the same time.
“SABMiller agreed to divest itself of the Miller brands by selling its stake in MillerCoors to Molson Coors. On October 11, 2016, SABMiller sold its stake in MillerCoors for around US$12 billion after the company was acquired by Anheuser-Busch InBev, making Molson Coors the 100 percent owner of MillerCoors.”
https://www.ab-inbev.com/our-brands/
They own more than 500 brands which includes soft drinks, energy drinks, even Corona. LOL!!! Good luck with that boycotting.
“It appears that Republicans are willing to tell a large donor to their party that their actions are not acceptable.”
Lol!!! Nope. They are backpedaling so fast it’s hilarious.
“The decision to reverse course is almost certainly a reaction to the reality that the parent company behind Bud Light is a major donor to the group—and comes after Donald Trump Jr. urged an end to a boycott of the “conservative-leaning” beer. In the 2022 cycle alone, Anheuser-Busch and its employees gave the NRCC $464,505.
One GOP operative who spoke to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity wondered why Republican donors would open their wallets back up to give to the group. “I assume they backtracked because they realized they were biting the hand that feeds them, and as soon as word gets around about that, why would anyone else give them big money in the future?” the Republican operative told The Daily Beast Saturday afternoon.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-quietly-backs-off-attacking-184805475.html
InBev is a EUROPEAN-owned conglomerate, Pretty sure they can’t LEGALLY donate to politicians here.
More Copium from the Leftards.
The American division can. InBEV is HUGE. Americans buying American beer from a foreign company. Hilarious. Did you know NESTLE is also a foreign company too? The Chinese own AMC theaters.
Florida banning books is the biggest lie since “hands up, don’t shoot”. Anytime anyone says that FL is banning books just ask them is a teacher places Penthouse Magazine in the library can parents remove it? If so is that book burning? Would it be ok to have King’s Carrie novel in the library at an elementary school? How about the poems of Alan Ginsburg? How about the Kinsey Report?
Ask the liars to name one book that is banned in Florida, one book that adults cannot purchase. Meanwhile the left bans To Kill A Mockingbird and Doctor Seuss.
Shareholders of publicly traded companies can always vote with their feet, and many shareholders are doing just that! I think that the undercurrent here is the tension between two models of corporate governance, i.e. the “shareholder primacy” model and the “stakeholder” model. Consider a statement that appeared on a Fidelity Investments webpage encouraging investors to consider “sustainable” investing: “181 CEOs from some of America’s largest companies have committed to lead their companies for the benefit of ALL stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders.” The statement illustrates the ongoing debate over corporate purpose. The investing public is finally coming to the realization that some companies have embraced a mission to deliver benefits for a variety of stakeholders while other companies believe that their purpose is to maximize value for their shareholders.
In a now famous essay published in The New York Times Magazine in 1970, economist Milton Friedman articulated his views on the appropriate purpose of the corporation, stating that: “A corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”Friedman’s formulation of the shareholder primacy governance model enjoyed wide support in business schools and corporate boardrooms for nearly a half century.
After 40 years of supporting the shareholder primacy approach, the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs of leading U.S. corporations repudiated that approach three years ago in favor of a “modern standard for corporate responsibility”. On August 19, 2019, it announced that it had released a new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation that had been signed by 181 CEOs who had committed to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders. The announcement drew an immediate, stinging response from The Wall Street Journal which characterized the redefinition of corporate purpose as a strategic maneuver to placate politicians who propose to redefine corporate governance explicitly to incorporate and serve stakeholders. The WSJ stated that the moral and practical superiority of the stakeholder model is hardly clear, noting that the CEOs are themselves employees hired by directors who are supposed to be stewards of the capital that shareholders have invested. The controversy continues.
Last year the Securities and Exchange Commission released a controversial proposal that, if adopted, would impose outlines numerous disclosure mandates that are intended to enhance and standardize disclosures to address perceived “investor needs” for information about a company’s climate-related business risks. The proposed rules would require public companies to disclose information about the oversight of climate-related risks by their boards of directors and management. They would also be required to disclose how any climate-related risks identified have had, or are likely to have, a material impact on a company’s business and consolidated financial statements over the short-, medium- and long terms and the risks associated with a company’s transition to a smaller carbon footprint. The proposed disclosures about direct and indirect GHG emissions would require companies to disclose very granular information.
While the Proposal might appear to be an investor protection initiative, it might be more accurate to describe it as an effort to regulate corporate behavior through disclosure mandates. The Proposal does not differentiate between information that would be useful to investors and information that would be material to an investment decision – a distinction with a difference from a liability perspective. The concept of “materiality” is the cornerstone of the federal securities laws. It is a standard oriented toward financial outcomes. It is not clear how corporate policies that might be implemented in an effort to comply with the new disclosure regime would impact financial performance. The shareholder primacy model focuses the corporate mission on measurable financial results. In contrast, the stakeholder governance model requires management to juggle the demands of the various stakeholder constituencies. If adopted in its current form, the Proposal will impose substantial disclosure burdens on public corporations, and it will likely be subject to challenge in the courts. For investors who have an expectation of profit from the enterprises in which they invest, disclosure of a corporation’s governance model might be more meaningful than the disclosures currently proposed.
good. it is my hope they go flat broke and all their holdings are sold at auction to satisfy creditors with NOTHING left over for ‘those in charge’ at that grooming operation.
One reason only Turley is pushing this nonsense, feeding the rage for the right-wing. Movie studios lose money on all kinds of different movies and subjects, but to imply somehow Disney is in trouble because of two movies, really? What’s wrong Turley, can’t come up with a good Hunter Biden story?
Thanks for your comments, Mr. Mulvaney
LMAO — nicely done sir
He’s trying to avoid discussing things like Musk’s unforced errors at Twitter and the Dominion lawsuit against Fox going to trial.
I don’t know if you could call them “unforced errors”. More like unbecoming of a free speech absolutist.
I’m more curious as to how Turley will handle the trial. Will he mention his absence of reporting on it or will he go to the good ol’ stand by, Another Hunter Biden story?
Musk isn’t a free speech absolutist, and if you look at comments from Twitter’s users, you’ll find that there are many unforced errors that have been introduced into Twitter’s functions since Musk took over.
Anonymous says, “Musk isn’t a free speech absolutist,..
“Musk, who proudly described himself as a “free speech absolutist,” repeatedly vocalized that his north star for Twitter is treating the platform as a public square and upholding freedom of expression, something conservatives celebrated as puncturing a hole in an industry dominated by the progressive left. ”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/elon-musk-self-described-free-speech-absolutist-limits-free-speech-since-taking-over-twitter.amp
He’s been a free speech absolutist like Turley for a while.
Musk can call himself whatever he wants, but that doesn’t make it true.
Musk isn’t a free speech absolutist, and Turley isn’t either.
“Musk can call himself whatever he wants, but that doesn’t make it true.”
He calls himself a free speech absolutist which is the opposite of what you claimed. It’s true because he calls himself a free speech absolutist. Turley also calls himself a free speech absolutist. You’re a liar which is also true.
“He calls himself a free speech absolutist which is the opposite of what you claimed.”
Nope. I said “Musk isn’t a free speech absolutist,” which is a claim about his behavior, not a claim about what he calls himself.
“It’s true because he calls himself a free speech absolutist.”
No, the truth or falsity is determined by his behavior, not by what he calls himself.
“Turley also calls himself a free speech absolutist.”
Correct. However, his behavior — namely, the removal of legal speech here — shows us that he isn’t one.
“You’re a liar…”
I’m not. If you paid closer attention to my actual claims and what the evidence shows, perhaps you’d correct your mistake.
Kind of like when Svelass calls himself intelligent.
I guess Hunter and Trump have a lot in common. They’re both innocent.
Rather than rant about what you think Musks views are – why not LISTEN TO THEM FIRST.
Musk is doing fine. Twitter is doing fine.
Musk jjust spent a fuill hour embarrassing a BBC journalist that tried to play YOUR stupid games.
And I suppose Anheuser Bush loses 6.65 Billion over advertising .. all the time.. right ???
It is not that Disney is in trouble.
It is they made a bad decision. They are trying to market to a small part of the market while ignoring their base.
Will they learn from their mistakes?
Or continue to put out movies no one wants to watch?
Disney recognizes a growing market when it sees it. The LGBTQ community is a big part of where their creativity come from, it’s part of their brand. They are being criticized by a small group of offended folks who think they are in the majority. Disney’s stockholders are not going to abandon ship because a couple of movies didn’t make the amounts expected. They CAN afford to lose that much and still be profitable for their stockholders. That’s why Disney isn’t worried about the criticism from a few offended Karens and whiny conservatives.
Growing the market for gay movies so fast- they lost 250 million, that’s good business in loonyland.
“Disney recognizes a growing market when it sees it. The LGBTQ community is a big part of where their creativity come from, it’s part of their brand. They are being criticized by a small group of offended folks who think they are in the majority
If that is true – Disney will do fine.
But so far that does not appear to be the case.
“Disney’s stockholders are not going to abandon ship because a couple of movies didn’t make the amounts expected. ”
And yet that is EXACTLY what they have done. Disney’s market cap is down almost 1/2.
That littlerally means Shareholders have LEFT – sold disney cheap.
Someone will always buy the stock – the extent to which shareholders are standing with Disney is expressed by the PRICE of the stock.
Which is way DOWN.
“They CAN afford to lose that much and still be profitable for their stockholders.”
Disney is not going bankrupt. But the value of disney has dropped by almost 50% in 18 months.
That is a big deal. That DOES mean LESS ability to make movies etc.
Absolutely they will continue to pay dividends to shareholders – though lower dividends on stock that is worth far less.
“That’s why Disney isn’t worried about the criticism from a few offended Karens and whiny conservatives.”
They were so not worried they fired their CEO and brought back Iger,
Svelaz,
I am perfectly willing to let the people – the free market decide.
So far they are NOT saying what you are claiming.
Fishwings, that is because there is no Hunter Biden story, it’s been a flop ever since he’s been flogging that story. Republicans have nothing to show for all that time and money wasted on the non-story that was the Hunter Biden “scandal”.
Turley has been trying mighty hard to avoid the Fox News Dominion case because deep down he knows Fox News is in real trouble. Their ‘advocacy journalism’ and outright lying will be exposed and it will put Turley in a very difficult position of not being able to criticize his employer and upset thee majority of his readers. He knows the moment he does they will turn on him like rabid dogs.
Nothing to show ?
As Hunter accompanies Joe to Ireland we learn that the Bidens were blackmailing Irish Soverieng wealth funds for investment while Joe was VP.
This just gets worse and worse. And Biden’s performance ? Increasingly no one can make any sense of what he is saying.
I do not know what the WH did during the 2022 election season – dosed Joe with Meth or something, but for a while he did not function quite as demented as before.
But it is unarguably getting worse. Democrats are starting to setup to run – because they KNOW Joes is not – whatever he might say.
The good news is the Joe Problem is going to solve itself.
Quit beating a dead horse.
it is just a matter of time until the DVS case dies.
There is no there there – we have been over this
Turley does not imply Disney as a corporation is in financial difficulties due to their losses on two movies. He does attribute the financial losses of the two movies to the Disney agenda of promoting LGQBTZYPNJDVSE.
You first.
Oh fishy wishy wings… Ye of low intelligence and speaking out of ignorance….
Its far more than that…
Subscribers of Disney streaming are also down. While they have shows like the Mandelorian, (Star Wars) and the Marvel movies which are now becoming hit or miss… Those numbers are down again to the ‘go woke, go broke’ strategy.
If you think there’s another reason… you may also have missed the videos where Disney creatives are proud of their efforts to introduce LGBT+ themes and contents into their shows.
Note: Its one thing to be inclusive and to recognize that there are kids who are gay/lesbian and we should accept them… yet to shove it down the throats and to indoctrinate kids? Naw. That’s why many parents are saying no to Disney. Same for Apple or other networks.
Rule one of movies… people don’t want to be lectured to. (Unless its a documentary) They want to be entertained. That’s why the anti-woke movies tend to crush the box office against the PC Woke BS.
And yeah… no Hunter story for now… Congress is still getting bank records and building a case.
Poor Fishy wingz.
Dude, most people are able to multi-task.
Disney is going broke not just over these two films, but also their streaming channel.
Take a look at their subscription rates.
Free clue. People want to be entertained, not educated… unless its a documentary and those have to be factual and not the PC BS that the ministry of Biden’s truth want to shove down our throats. And that’s a different story Turley has (see the column on FDA’s censorship push.)
There’s more… you can look at the box office numbers for non woke PC carp.
Among other numbers which may not be public or shared by the other streaming services.
It seems you’ve got a raging case of TDS and a hatred for Turley calling out the left.
He’s not a Trump fan, Republican… maybe you’d call him a conservative Dem or an Independent because he’s afraid of what the DNC has become.
-G
2 movies??
You been under a rock for the last 5 years??
The last movie Disney made a profit from, was Endgame, and that was what, 7-10 movies ago??
Keep huffing that Copium.
Leftist people in business can get away with sacrificing profits for ideology when there is an expanding economy fueled by artificially suppressed interest rates. The demise of the low interest rate gravy train, however, will cause woke business plans from coast to coast to crash and burn, making room for a new generation of free-market capitalists.
This is what ideological capture looks like. The media, entertainment, academia, and most of government, especially the bureaucracy. They are but a small percentage of the population, yet they very shrewdly have occupied positions of control. Will we meekly submit? I am not encouraged.
Jonathan: One of your big themes this week is how the Biden administration is trying to “censor” conservative critics. What you don’t want to discuss is what Gov. DeSantis is doing on Florida. He has censored school teachers, shutting down African American history classes, restricted the discussion of LGBTQ+ issues and has banned books. When a teacher in Duval County posted a video of empty library bookshelves–and the video went viral–DeSantis held an angry press conference calling the video “false narrative”. One day later the teacher was fired!
Now, DeSantis wants to silence journalists in FL that are critical of his policies. He wants to make it easier for politicians to sue reporters. If DeSantis gets his way, the Florida legislature could rewrite the state’s defamation laws and gut protections for anonymous sources. This is the latest in the governor’s attacks on 1st Amendment protections–something you are not concerned about in your attacks on Disney.
South Florida is currently underwater. Climate scientists predict south Florida could be all underwater by 2100. That might not be a bad thing considering Mar-a-Lago might also be underwater. Is DeSantis concerned about climate change and how it might affect the residents of his state? Apparently not. He is on a crusade against the LGBTQ+ community and he is running for president. He has his priorities straight!
Um, Teachers are public employees and have certain restriction on free speech while in the classroom, even students while n the classroom have some restrictions on speech.There is APPROVED curriculum in all states for what can be taught to children. If there wasn’t teachers can show porn in classrooms (though some have.. really). It is not the job of teachers to tread on parental rights, not their job to be social justice warriors and indoctrinate impressionable children with their personal of “pack” ideology and dogma. These subjects are out of bounds of government employees. No public schools in Florida or anyone else are teaching children that men dressing like and pretending to be women is a bad thing or that being gay is sinful and THAT is the difference. No schools should be trying to indoctrinate children by teaching them to “accept” or “reject” other people and their lifestyles. Again, this is not the governments business, These are private matters.
This is either satire or a stealth DeSantis campaign ad.
Lol. Removing CRT and similar Marxist propaganda does not equate to “censoring Black history”. Moreover, removing pornographic books from school libraries and classes is a must. I don’t care what kind of sex a book portrays, normal or the LGBTQ perversions, they don’t belong in schools or anywhere a minor could access them. Go groom somewhere else!
Jonathan: One of your big themes this week is how the Biden administration is trying to “censor” conservative critics.
Nice straw man you have created, and so efficiently beaten to death.
“Climate scientists predict south Florida could be all underwater by 2100” Do you actually believe that crap? They also said the Arctic would thaw, polar bears are all going to die, and the end of the world was going to be around 2015 according to Algore and his minions. If you go back to the 70’s they were talking about the next “Ice age” and how we’re all going to die because we won’t be able to grow enough food, and before that it was predicted that there would be mass starvation in the early 80’s because of overpopulation!! Doomsday prophesies have been coming forever, changing every 10-20 years and fools continue to believe them. Keeping the masses fearful makes them far easier to control, and those that can’t or won’t think critically are destined to fall in line. Fool.
Nan Ness, the 1970s “ice age” was just in the newspapers. As for south Florida note that already Miami Beach experienced flooding. For factual articles on global warming, visit Brave New Climate
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/
for the topics that most interest you, with the links organized by thread.
Just in newspapers, David? You must have missed that 1974 cover of Time magazine about the “Coming of the New Ice Age”
A weekly news magazine. Not based no scientific, peer-reviewed journal papers.
peer-reviewed journal papers.
+ 70% of published peer reviewed papers turn out to have reached the wrong conclusion. You don’t have a clue what the process does.
iowan2, I thoroughly understand the process, having both written and reviewed papers for scientific journals in my specialty. Since retiring, I have studied climatology. I certainly can separate the kernel from the chaff.
Instead of just Making Stuff Up, I suggest tht you would profit from exploring Brave New World Discussion Forum, linke above.
David, how do you falsify the hypothisis of Catastrophic, Anthropomorphic Global, Climate, Change?
iowan2, ‘catastrophic’ isn’t scientifically defined, so ignore that. ‘Anthropogenic’ is easy: humans burn fossil fuels, increasing the carbon dioxide in the climate. That carbon dioxide is a global warming gas has been known since the 19th century. I even put links to the classical papers in the off-topic section of Brave New Climate Discussion Forum.
Go read whaat is offered there and decide for yourself just how ‘catastrophic’ the climate change is already, much less what is to come…
David how do you falsify carbon is a global warming gas.
Oops. th climatology background’ thread of the Off Topic board.
iowan2, carbon is not a gas. Carbon dioxide is a tracee gase n the atmosphere. That it is a global warming gas is established by a so-called classical experiment asn then verified by Arrhenius’ observations of moonlight. Go see the original papers which I linked on the Brave New Climate Discussion Forum. Alternatively, read a beginning textbook on climatology.
https://www.wired.com/story/peer-reviewed-scientific-journals-dont-really-do-their-job/
Written by a person that has submitted work for peer review, and been an editor of 2 different peer review journals
the recent spate of decisions to bypass traditional peer review gives the lie to a pair of myths that researchers have encouraged the public to believe for years: First, that peer-reviewed journals publish only trustworthy science; and second, that trustworthy science is published only in peer-reviewed journals.
In many ways, journals don’t even pretend to ensure the validity of scientific findings. If that were their primary goal, journal policies would require authors to share their data and analysis code with peer reviewers, and would ask reviewers to double-check results. In practice, reviewers can only judge the science based on what’s reported in the writeup, and they usually can’t see the details of the process that led to the findings
iowan2, peer review assures the the proposed publication is not obviously wrong. Or anyway attempts to do that. It doesn’t mean that a published paper is part of the so-called settled science.
Also, there is a BIG difference between the so-called hard sciences and the social sciences. For the former is it rare indeed that a published paper has to be retracted, although it does happen.
Climatology is a hard science, with good explanations of the climates of Venus, Terra and Mars. The climate of Terra is the most difficult as biology, geology and chemistry all play a role.
“Climatology is a hard science,”
Climatology uses hard science and makes a mess of things. It’s like walking on eggshells.
iowan2, peer review assures the the proposed publication is not obviously wrong.
“In many ways, journals don’t even pretend to ensure the validity of scientific findings. If that were their primary goal, journal policies would require authors to share their data and analysis code with peer reviewers, and would ask reviewers to double-check results. In practice, reviewers can only judge the science based on what’s reported in the writeup, and they usually can’t see the details of the process that led to the findings”
Sure if you totally ignore the limits the reviewers work with.
iowan2, authors are now expected to provide access to their data and analysis computer programs.
De Santis is merely fighting pornography, for children, that has been placed in school libraries. You and others choose to call it “banning books.” False narrative.
Regarding African American history classes, he’s simply taking out the propagation of the “queer” part that was there. So you don’t object to the moral decline that is being instituted in our society. You only expose yourself when you follow the false narrative. I for one am very glad that at least someone is fighting this promotion of degeneracy for our kids under the guise of “inclusivity.” He is correct to fight it when you care about our kids.
It all boils down to money. We already know corporate is just concerned with their own pockets and will go along with whatever day’s agenda is the most popular. Most are not interested in the moral compass, such as Warner Brothers (Hollywood), Disney, Nike etc.
The shareholders must decide about their own morale and values compass, as I have done quite a few times concerning stock ownership and many times at my personal loss money gains for the future.
We already know corporate is just concerned with their own pockets and will go along with whatever day’s agenda is the most popular.
A publicly traded corporation is required to concern themselves with profit. They exist ONLY to provide goods or services, at a profit.
Period dramas, one of the most popular genres of TV, are not being made because of the cost. But those that are being made now still have a woke component that ends up being obviously forced. That’s what has so many people upset these days, it’s the forced, cram-down-the-throat content. The woke minority overplayed their hand by not letting this all grown organically.
There is a lot to digest in this short article, but like everything else that relies on force to achieve, power and money are at its root.
Regulatory Capture and Fifth-gen Warfare.
At some point in the last two decades, hospitals, surgeons and big pharma came to the realization that these new surgeries and drugs are big business. They appear to have lobbied medical organizations, specialty boards, insurance agencies, government institutions – including both HHS and DoJ (civil rights), state legislatures, WEF, UN and big tech to organize and coordinate the efforts to normalize these surgeries and procedures, under the banner or “transgender rights”.
This has led to deployment of a fifth-gen warfare campaign to brainwash the youth of this country that changing one’s sex is a necessary step to adulthood. That it is “cool” to rebel in this fashion. It is nothing short of brain washing.
At the heart of this campaign is the “Human Rights Campaign”, which has developed the CEI scoring system. What is the CEI scoring system? The Corporate Equality Index.
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-rogd?publication_id=583200&post_id=115023637&isFreemail=true
Totally agree Olly. We didn’t accept sexualizing children before the Era of Wokeness so why would we do so now?
Mary, this Era of Wokeness is unnatural. I have little doubt that if the % with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is accurately less than or equal to 5%, then 95%+ don’t naturally buy into it. That means something artificial is pushing it to appear “natural”. Look to what entities are profiting financially and politically. It will never be accepted as normal by anyone, even those profiting off of it…period.
It requires the approval of a psychiatrist to transition a kid. Think about it.
This article by Malone is worth reading in full. Because the US is more captured by medical, pharmaceutical and DEI interests than anywhere else, transgenderism has progressed further. While many European countries are putting the brakes on so-called gender-affirming care, including social transition (pronouns etc), puberty blockers, hormones and surgery, none of which is supported by sound scientific evidence, either as to safety or efficacy, the US federal government actively and increasingly promotes it. Great damage is being and will continue to be done to the physical and mental health of many children because of this.
I agree Daniel, thank you. Transgenderism is an unnatural state and it will never be accepted without force. If it were natural, we would see it in the oldest, primitive cultures first. Matt Walsh visited a Masai tribe in his What is a Woman film. In this clip here, it is quite clear that in this ancient culture, not subject to the force necessary in the industrialized world to push this mental illness as normal, they know naturally that transgenderism is a mental illness.
https://youtu.be/6yAnHFj4IK0
Jonathan: I call this one of your more mean spirited columns–choked full of homophobia. It took a lot of courage for Disney to take a stand against the homophobic policies of Gov. DeSantis. But you think Disney shareholders should file lawsuits against the Board–apparently to get the company to return to Walt Disney’s “family values” themes in his early movies.
The fact that Disney’s two recent movies dealing with LGBTQ themes have not done well at the box is not the end of the story. A lot movies initially flopped at the box office but have become classics. “The Big Lebowski”, “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory”, “It’s a Wonderful Life, “Blade Runner”, “The Shawshank Redemption”–just to name a few–all lost money. “The Wizard of Oz” ended up a $1.1 million loss at MGM. “Citizen Kane” only found acclaim years following its release. Orson Welles’ classic was a pointed attack on William Randoph Hearst. Hearst forbade his newspapers from even mentioning the movie by name.
A lot of people are finding ways to show solidarity with Disney’s LGBTQ+-friendly policies. The weekend editor of the LA Times just took all his kids to Disneyland. It took a big chunk out of his monthly budget. But it has prompted many of the readers of the Times to visit Disneyland again.
By the way, did you know that Howard Ashman, an openly gay lyricist and producer for Disney for 15 years, was instrumental in bringing classics like “The Little Mermaid”, “Beauty and the Beast” and “Alladin” to the screen. My granddaughters loved these movies–and I suspect your kids did too. Irony of ironies for someone who is on anti-LGBTQ crusade!
I wonder, do you know Prof. Turley personally because you sure do hurl a lot of epithets and accusations at him that you no doubt know him to be as you claim. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Mary: I don’t know Turley personally. I do now he is a conservative Catholic, his wife is Jewish and he has adult children. I also know he likes to hike and BBQ on the weekends. How do I know this? Because the Professor has talked about family life many times in his columns. But all this is irrelevant. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out Turley’s views–in this column and others. He is opposed to abortion. That’s clear from his last column re the incident at Yale. He refers to the anti-abortion students as “pro-life”. That’s a dead give away for where Turley stands on the abortion issue.
Same with this column by the Professor. He is encouraging Disney shareholders to sue the Board. Why? Because Turley doesn’t think the Board should be supporting the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in Disney movies. It’s that pretty obvious?
I don’t engage in “epithets”. What I try to do in my comments is to point out the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Turley’s positions. I don’t engage in personal invective, abuse or contempt. You apparently don’t understand the difference.
He is encouraging Disney shareholders to sue the Board. Why? Because Turley doesn’t think the Board should be supporting the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in Disney movies. It’s that pretty obvious?
That’s not a legal foundation for a law suit, is it???
You believe you can sue an entity because you don’t approve of ….what exactly are your saying?
Turley is pointing out, a board of directors has a fiduciary responsibility to share holders. Failing to fulfill that responsibility is a sound foundation to bring a law suit.
As is your standard, you ignore facts and logic to make stupid accusations.
“I don’t engage in personal invective, abuse or contempt. You apparently don’t understand the difference.”
Quick! Call the Irony Police!
But Mr, Ashman was, in addition to his gifts, apparently sensible enough to know what was and was not appropriate for children’s entertainment.
Who gives a crap about how adults choose to live their lives? That’s their business, as long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses. But pushing blatant sexuality, even that shared by the VAST majority of humans on this planet, into children’s imaginations is not appropriate.
Ellen Evans: “Little Mermaid” was released in 1989–at a time when many gays were still in the closet or struggling for recognition and acceptance. Ashman was the exception. Steve Rose, a gay activist, had an interesting article in The Guardian (5/7/22) entitled “How Disney found it pride–and riled the American right”. Rose points out that “the original Little Mermaid was written as an allegory for same-sex attraction, incidentally: Hans Christian Andersen was inspired to write the fairytale by his unrequited love for another man”.
Kind of frightening for the homophobes on this blog to think that the producer of “Little Mermaid” may have been secretly embedding gay themes in his movies–what you call “pushing blatant sexuality…into children’s imaginations”. Kids today are not frightened by gay themes in books or movies. Won’t have any affect on their sexuality. But those of you of the older generation bizarrely think it will. You apparently want to go back to a time when LGBTQ+ individuals were in the closet so they could not come out and “frighten the horses”. You do belong in the 19th century when there were only horses and carriages!
Dennis McIntyre: I have a few gay friends (a result of having gone to grade school with one, unbeknownst to both of us at the time, but who later introduced me to his friends and lover). I could not care less about their proclivity; they are polite, intelligent, respectful, and civil persons with whom I can engage in wonderful debate, on several topics. We broaden our minds, are good friends and trust each other.
I add that they agree with me on this: that, for some reason, gays are quite interested in gaining self-validation by always attempting to “out” others, to point out others who may be gay, to promote “normalcy,” and to erroneously interpret every subtle gesture as suppressed or innate homosexuality.
“It must be stressed that there is no evidence to support the idea that Andersen should ever have had what Wullschlager calls “physical liaisons” with men. It is likewise doubtful whether he ever had physical contact with a woman – in spite of several visits to brothels….
“… for example in [Andersen’s] diary from 11 July 1842: ‘Sensual, a passion of the blood, which was almost animal, a wild urge for a woman to kiss and embrace just as when I was in the Mediterranean,’ an exclamation, which no homosexual would make)…
“To conclude, it is correct to point to the very ambivalent (and also very traumatic) elements in Andersen’s emotional life concerning the sexual sphere, but it is decidedly just as wrong to describe him as homosexual and maintain that he had physical relationships with men. He did not. …quite outside the field of vision of Wullschlager and her like.” (quoted from the Hans Christian Andersen Center, https://andersen.sdu.dk/rundtom/faq/index_e.html?emne=homo)
Spoken like a dyed in the wool liberal… thanks for your “opinion”.
Where in your post did it say the openly gay lyricist advocated for kids to cut their junk off off or that boys were actually really girls. Before pharma big money hormone replacement and political “science” by “psychologists?” When has the belief of trans people existing ever been a real thing? Never. In fact tske away the medications, what happens yo their bodies even after they had mutilating surgery?
We used to cringe Centuries after hearing about the eunuchs and what was done to young boys and not to mention whats done to young female Muslims by adults. It seems enlightened western liberal lunatics hungry for attention are embracing that ideology.
Homophobia isnt a thing. The only pushback gay people get is when they advocate politically as a protected class demanding more rights and control than straight people just because they are gay.
Teach math class. Not gay sex class or any other activism class.
Hey Dennis, unlike what your side demands we offer you the right to “change the channel”. Your side demands that Fix be banned, Hannity be banned, Tucker be banned, Laura Ingraham be banned, conservatives on social media be banned, voices against “trans kids” being mutilated be banned, talk of the laptop be banned, questioning vaccines or masks or where the virus started be banned and yet all we ask of you is to leave the site if you hate the guy running it. I certainly wouldn’t visit and opine all the time on a site run by Joy Reid.
Dennis isn’t a lawyer, isn’t a fan of free speech, isn’t open minded enough to see that Turley ALWAYS sides with free speech and is just another Svelaz or “Anonymous” creep.
Hullbobby apparently decided to offer BS as usual.
“Your side demands that Fix be banned, Hannity be banned, Tucker be banned, Laura Ingraham be banned, conservatives on social media be banned, voices against “trans kids” being mutilated be banned, talk of the laptop be banned, questioning vaccines or masks or where the virus started be banned and yet all we ask of you is to leave the site if you hate the guy running it.”
They never demanded that. You’re the one claiming it without evidence or anything to back it up. You’re confusing criticism with “banning”. Conservatives can’t handle criticism about their awful ideas and views. Any criticism is an “attack on free speech” or “leftists want to ban conservatives”. What is evident is that when it comes to criticism conservatives and republicans devolve into mewling whining snowflakes who need to be seen as the victims of this awful and unfair criticism.
This blog is all about the feee exchange of views and ideas and that includes criticism, ridicule, mockery, and derision. All part of what free speech is about. Apparently you didn’t know that, did you ?
Svelaz says, “Conservatives can’t handle criticism about their awful ideas and views.”
I respectfully disagree. Conservatives just need to have the criticism coming from someone they find credible, knowledgeable, insightful, persuasive, intelligent. Would that be you?
Lin, criticism can come from anyone. Credibility is irrelevant. What matters is how one handles criticism and republicans and conservatives have shown often that they can’t handle criticism. Their responses almost always involve playing the victim and conflate criticism as an attack on their free speech or an attempt to censor.
It’s petty and silly. Being knowledgeable, insightful, persuasive, or intelligent on this blog has been proven to be a futile exercise. The right leaning posters would never admit to being persuaded or see something as insightful. This blog is just one step above Parler and Gab. There are other blogs where your comments are more relevant. Sadly not this blog.
Svelaz @5:39
Credibility is irrelevant.
Svelaz final admits he just doesn’t care about being credible.
Iowan2, that’s not what I said. Putting words into someone else’s mouth is the surest way to show your ignorance.
” Credibility is irrelevant. “
A telling statement from one who has no credibility.
“They never demanded that.”
Of course they did.
Not only that you demanded they were silenced.
Can we sue to bankruptcy the MSM that pushed the Collusion delusion hoax ?
You seem to expect that Fox will be sued to oblivion.
Yet you forget that the prior fox suit failed,. the Rachel Maddow suit Failed, the Carter Page suit failed, the Papadoulis suit failed.,
the Trump suit failed.
All these had much more merit than DVS.
In the unlikely event that you succeeded – it would just be more proof of the corruption of our courts.
Regarldees we constantly get nonsense from you justifying censorship of those on the right.
Hullbobby is coirrect and you are LYING./
“You’re confusing criticism with “banning”.”
Nope – shouting people down, censoring them, labeling them as misinformation. suspending, banning. shadow banning.
kidnapping, beating them up – that is not criticism – that is all BANNING.
And it is what th LEFT does.
It is what YOU have advocated and defended.
“Conservatives can’t handle criticism about their awful ideas and views.”
You do not criticise – you ban, cansel, shout down, and insult.
How could we tell that conservatives have “awful ideas” ? You do not actually criticise.
What is it that you think are awful ideas ?
Not taking payoffs and bribes from foreign countries ?
Not spending more than we have ?
Expecting that people who borrow money will pay it back ?
Not speaking utter indecipherable nonsense at meetings with foreign leaders ?
Not blundering into wars that could go nuclear ?
Not blundering out of forieng countries and getting people killed ?
Producing enough oil and gas to meet our own needs ?
Not allowing human trafficking and massive drug dealing at our borders ?
Not spying on journalists ?
Not weaponizing government against political enemies ?
Steady and stable economic growth ?
Not regulating the crap out of business ?
Not spiking inflation to 40 year highs ?
Not hanging up a neon sign inviting pedophiles to molest our children ?
Not pushing teens who can not get a tattoo without their parents permission into
inrreversable life altering surgery ?
Not pissing off the people who will actually serve int he military – so that
we do not have the military strength necessary for our commitments ?
Are these the awful ideas of conservatives ?
“Any criticism is an “attack on free speech” or “leftists want to ban conservatives”.”
Nope -= criticisze away.
The problem is not your incredibly poor criticism.
It is that because you can not wing arguments., you silence your opponents.
“What is evident is that when it comes to criticism conservatives and republicans devolve into mewling whining snowflakes who need to be seen as the victims of this awful and unfair criticism.”
Republicans are not mewling and whining. They are acting or preparing to act – and that is what terrifies you.
Republicans are not victims. That is a left wing nut thing.
They point out your LIES – like your lies above.
“This blog is all about the free exchange of views and ideas and that includes criticism, ridicule, mockery, and derision.”
It does where justified.
But when you engage in mockery derision, insult where YOU are the problem, you harm yourself.
“All part of what free speech is about. Apparently you didn’t know that, did you ?”
Actually no. Free speech is about the market place for ideas.
We tolerate the rest because it is dangerous to give anyone the ability to silence others for any reason.
ROFL.
Oh My Svealz as an advocate for free speech.
This would be the Svelaz who even now demands that Fox is punished for opinions on the election that he disagrees with.
This is the Svelaz who has been defending Twitter etc. Banning Shadow Banning. censoring, and labeling conservatives for years – claiming it was just enforcement of the TOS – when internal Twitter communicatiosn reveal that even left wing nut twitter execs KNEW they were violating their own TOS.
This is the Svelaz who has viciously attacked the J6 protests – you can not protest against things he does not like.
This would be the Svelaz who defending shouting down others – when it is the left doing it. But again – god forbid a Trump supporter raises their voice.
This would be the Svelaz that is STILL defending the silencing of those who were actully speaking the Truth about Covid.
And that is just the tip of the iceberg of Svelaz the censor.
At Long last have you no shame ?
There are some claims that everyone with a brain already is aware of the truth.
One of those is that the left ban’s and silences its oposition when it can.
It does in the US, it has done so everywhere through history.
Dennis, this is the second time you’ve commented on this post. You’re posts are completely fiction. Gov. DeSantis isn’t homophobic, this is nothing more than a blatant lie by the left. We parents who live in Florida don’t want our very young children exposed to sexual topics PERIOD. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality. In Florida we have “health” class in 7th grade which teaches children about heterosexuality and about the differences between boys and girls. These far left activist posing as teachers are trying to introduce homosexual topics to young children, as young as 6 years old. Who in their right mind would think this is acceptable? Can you answer that question? It’s a simple question, answer it to defend your position, otherwise, your position is flawed.
Transgenderism and homosexuality are not the same. The moment you begin with the “homophobia” invective in order to make a point you’ve lost the argument.
Toostisbug, I agree with you. Gay and lesbian people have been with us since the beginning. Everyone of us has the ability to produce a gay or lesbian child.
“Gay and lesbian people have been with us since the beginning. Everyone of us has the ability to produce a gay or lesbian child.”
Not according to evangelical Christians. They never existed.
It was just 15 years ago thaf nobody wanted them to have a right marry or have they’d marriages recognized.
It was just 15 years ago thaf nobody wanted them to have a right marry
Wrong is you natural state.
The debate was always to reject the power of the federal judiciary to make such ruling from the bench.
It’s all about the idea that a high ESG rating will maintain high stock value because retirement funds will buy the stock and and woke brokers will promote it. Corporations are no longer concerned with product sales, they are focused on stock sales.
Spot-on.