We're talking about environmental regulations. It is no more good for a small business to pollute than a large one, and it's precisely the poor who are most harmed by environmental pollution.
You're noting how they describe themselves, but my experience has been the same as the parent comment, that "independent" always means conservative/Republican but not wanting to call themselves that.
> my experience has been the same as the parent comment, that "independent" always means conservative/Republican but not wanting to call themselves that.
Nobody is denying the existence of this phenomenon. And there's perhaps good reason for people to eschew identification with political parties, which are corrupt in various ways, though one may hold one's nose and vote for some major party candidate on election day.
I dispute the "always" claim, however, which appears to be based on your own anecdotal experience. I would trust Gallup polling more than that. Moreover, the existence of the Green party for example would appear to be proof that independent does not equate with conservative/Republican. The Libertarian party of course gets votes too.
>When skiing in the US, people see it as an opportunity to use a hobby to gain an advantage, to network, to talk business, to flaunt, to compare, to use an escape as a entrance.
I'd like to see any evidence of this because this has not been my experience at all, ever. I've skied all my life, just went with my family over the holidays, and neither we nor anyone we met, or anyone I've ever met on ski trips, was doing it for any reason other than fun.
>why else would a ski lodge need a boardroom?
Just because a venue has the capacity to host business events does not mean that that is its sole or main purpose. The obvious answer is that offering this amenity gives the lodge the option of attracting corporate clients in addition to its normal patrons.
This is like saying because the Tour de France exists no one in France bikes recreationally.
I don't recall any of his rightwing stuff, but I remember one of his 90s books had some stuff at the end about how quantum physics meant you could control reality by envisioning what you want and then you'd enter the universe with it. I was a teen and remember being utterly baffled.
That's basically the premise of the book "The Secret", which ironically destroyed the lives of a few friends of mine for a few years before they snapped out of it.
This is premised on promotions and other work rewards having any kind of rational basis or connection to the work.
It could simply be that spending time with your boss makes them know and like you more, and people tend to reward people they know and like, making up some post hoc rationalization about performance or whatever to justify it.
No one wants to think of themselves like this, though, so they would never admit, even to themselves, that this is what's going on, but I suspect for most people it's the actual reality.
>Like when CEOs openly salivate at the prospect of firing all workers and replacing them with AI.
I saw a series of ads in a train station the other day for some company claiming to offer "AI employees" that had slogans like "our employees never complain about overtime", "our employees don't ask about vacations", etc. and was just shocked at the brazenness of it.
You will find many such Marie Antoinettes in certain social circles, m/v, but mostly m. Living in such a bubble tends to warp one's perspective, also as self-justification. Those people below become resources, accounted for like energy, materials and other consumables. People wouldn't notice it anymore, but it is still a telltale sign how much a company value humans if they delegate herding to a so called Human Resources department.
The default rebuttal is that Human Resources is just a standard term. <= the point
Money.
reply