Thursday, April 13, 2023

Today's Comments: Just wondering who will be next on the hit list?

Canada continues to watch Poilievre and the CPC shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths. 
And funny, isn't it, how hostile they are toward journalists?
At this point, I just have to ask, who is going to be next? Twitter has some suggestions: The stupid still burns!
Some interesting commentary:
Dale Smith: Roundup: No, David Lametti isn’t threatening to tear up the constitution
Late last week, justice minister David Lametti attended a special chiefs’ assembly of the Assembly of First Nations, and was asked about the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930, and how these treaty nations were not benefitting from them, and Lametti said he’d look at it, but acknowledged this would be controversial.
And how! Immediately, Danielle Smith, followed by Scott Moe and later Heather Stefanson insisted this was a plan to “tear up the constitution” and nationalise the control over natural resources, and before long, Pierre Poilievre got in on it, along with a chunk of his caucus who insisted this was some sinister federal plan. It’s not, and this is more bad faith bullshit...
It’s actually in the legislation that the federal government can give back land to the First Nations to honour treaty obligations, and that’s at the heart of this. It’s their land. The treaties are to share the wealth, and, well, we haven’t been. They have a legitimate point here and the government has an obligation to at least hear them out on this. Is that going to cause a fuss? Yeah, probably, because settler governments, particularly in provinces, particularly those who are dependent on resource revenues, are not going to want to share that wealth. But the time is coming, sooner or later, when these conversations need to be had, because economic reconciliation means more than just dangling bribes to affected First Nations when resource extraction projects happen on their lands. Not that bad faith actors like Danielle Smith, Scott Moe or Pierre Poilievre will acknowledge this reality...
Oliver Willis Explains, Beer is Transgender Now Because The Money Is In Transgender Beer
To be very clear, the Anheuser–Busch companies do not give a single damn about LGBTQ rights. ...
What Anheuser–Busch does care about is making money, and that’s why the company has allied themselves with a transgender influencer and has a marketing campaign professing support for transgender and gay equality. ..
The company’s decision is the latest in a long line of corporate decisions in this direction, not because corporate America is “woke,” but because corporate America is in the business of making money and there isn’t a whole lot of money (comparatively) in being bigots....
Turn on any television or YouTube stream nowadays and you’re likely to see a multiracial family selling you car insurance or breakfast cereal or a trip to Walmart. There’s a good chance a same-sex couple will star in an ad for a multivitamin or luxury cruises. Asian couples selling wedding jewelry! Latino people pushing McDonalds! Black people hawking wealth management products!
Any crazy thing could happen.
These companies aren’t appealing to demographics outside of the traditional American majority because they suddenly grew a diversity-filled conscience. They’re marketing to an increasingly diverse America because that is where the money is.
... Conservatives are desperately trying to hold on to an America where they are the only ones who matter. To them, the world is only right when everyone else bows before straight, white, wealthy males. They don’t think the rest of us, the people who don’t tick their boxes, actually count.
But big business has the power to look at their balance sheets and see very clearly that we do. They don’t care if the bank accounts handing them money are gay, transgender, Latino, Asian, or Black. As long as the money is green and the stock line goes up, they will be happy.
The conservative movement and its affiliated Republican Party professes to love capitalism, but the way they freak out when a company does the most capitalistic thing possible — attempt to increase profits by broadening the customer base — would seem to indicate otherwise. They don’t want true capitalism, not if it means the money of transgender Americans talks as loudly as straight dollars. God forbid.
The trend is in favor of increased diversity in marketing and customer appeals. Companies cannot continue to grow just by selling to the Fox News crowd, who are dying off like Reagan voters.
The future is transgender beer. Got to move product. That’s the way.


Cap said...

No, if Anheuser-Busch has proven anything it's that the money isn't in transgender beer. Shortly after A-B started running its ads featuring Dylan Mulvaney drinking Bud Light, its parent company Inbev's market cap dropped $8 billion in just six days. When Bud Light, Miller Lite and Coors Lite all taste pretty much the same, brand loyalty is everything. So when your ads cause your customers to switch to your competitors, chances are they won't be back. This is a failed ad campaign, and no amount of spin about the changing makeup of America changes that.

So why did A-B do it? Misogyny sells beer, and that's been the case before and after feminists started pointing it out over 50 years ago. A-B figured men would love Mulvaney's over-the-top impressions of women's mannerisms, and they could brush off criticism as transphobia. They were wrong about their customers. When your product is sold to men, and you want to be inclusive, try partnering with a celebrity trans man like Elliot Page.

Cathie from Canada said...

That's interesting Cap - I had read that the Busch stock had gone up, so I thought the Willis comment was accurate.