The New Way to Make Money

What is the scariest three-letter combination in the English language?

I would vote for “GOP.” But maybe it’s “CIA.” Or perhaps you would say “MSG” or “NFL,” or for some emotionally complicated reason, “TLC.”

But if you are an easily triggered Republican, the diabolical combo is “ESG.”

That phrase stands for environmental, social, and governance, and it refers to a set of standards for a corporation’s behavior. Socially conscious investors look at an organization’s ESG initiatives — things like carbon footprint, diversity programs, ethics guidelines, and so on — to gauge if it is a business that they want to work with.

This seems pretty straightforward, and it makes sense that, for example, an environmentalist might not want to invest his money with a corporation that’s destroying the planet.

But where you see a principled stand, conservatives see the hideous creep of wokeness.

ESG has become “a lightning rod for the GOP, as the party turns the investing form into an emblem of left-wing politics.”

Republicans believe that anything that promotes racial diversity or combats climate change must be an insidious communist plot to round up all the white Christians and execute them. So they spew “hysterical rhetoric about ‘wokeness’ in response to everything from school shootings to police violence to the Pentagon budget, all while the party struggles to even define what they think the word means.”

Yes, the people who live for culture wars now believe that their old ally — big business — is a fifth column of social justice warriors who are selling out American values and making it impossible for straight guys to buy their products.

As a result, red states are “passing laws blacklisting state investment funds from doing business” with those companies that they claim are pushing “liberal agendas.”

Conservatives are trying to use “their own market influence to try to steer the larger project of American culture-building back in their direction.”

But it’s not going so well.

You see, despite “the increasing pushback against ESG by Republican politicians, including some potential presidential aspirants, and their fossil-fuel industry donors,” many companies view the “the ESG backlash [to] be a bump in the road” that won’t have a real impact. 

Hell, even some CEOs say the ESG “trend is just going to continue growing.”

There’s a good reason for this, and it’s not because Wall Street suits are secret progressives clamoring for Scandinavian-inspired utopias.

No, it’s because ESG is good business. 

This approach to investing “examines a company's social or environmental impact precisely because it considers non-financial information useful for determining whether the company would deliver strong investor returns.”

Corporate ESG initiatives are designed to help companies operate more sustainably and to create long-term value for stakeholders. And studies have shown that younger consumers take a company’s ESG policies into account before buying their goods or products. 

So in yet another display of spectacular hypocrisy and backwards thinking, it turns out that conservatives are the ones jeopardizing companies’ returns by demanding everyone adhere to their agenda.

Consider that “muzzling ESG activity is causing financial losses – again, which should be contrary to conservative financial principles.” For example, Texas “banned cities from having their funds managed by companies whose policies restricted investment in fossil fuels and weapons.” Because so many banks left the market, and Texas officials “had fewer choices of investment management,” the law wound up costing the state “between $303 million and $532 million extra in interest.”

Wow — owning the libs is not cheap.

Or consider that many experts believe “failing to consider ESG risks and opportunities would more
likely result in a breach of fiduciary duty,” meaning that company leaders are actually being negligent and sabotaging their organizations if they are anti-ESG.

Finally, keep in mind that companies “that get ‘woke’ aren’t going broke — they’re more profitable than ever.”

Even though conservatives will continue to rant against ESG, and blame business failures on leaders who “may have been distracted by diversity demands,” there is no real evidence for the harmful effects of this approach.

Again, the exact opposite is true.

And that’s why the letters “GOP” are far more terrifying than “ESG” will ever be.

Default Setting

In a few weeks, the US government will end COVID-19 emergency declarations, meaning that the pandemic will officially be over.

Hey, that wasn’t so bad, was it?

You know, aside from the years of death and madness and depression and trauma and societal unraveling, it wasn’t that big of a deal, right?

Ahem.

In any case, the pandemic provoked behavioral changes that we could not have imagined in 2019, like carrying a mask everywhere or washing your hands incessantly or sticking those weird clamp things on your fingers to check your oxygen levels.

Those were called pulse oximeters, by the way, and they were “a crucial tool for tracking the health of COVID-19 patients.”

Yes, pulse oximeters helped gauge the severity of the illness. They were a sterling example of medical knowledge, technological innovation, and white supremacy.

OK, that last one is an unpleasant addendum. But unfortunately, it is true.

You see, pulse oximeters were often “inaccurate when measuring oxygen levels in people with dark skin tones.”

This is because medical products are often developed using data from “trials that involve primarily white individuals.” As a result, pulse oximeters were designed to work well on white people. For the rest of us, however, not so much.

Experts say “it's not possible to know how much pulse oximeters have contributed to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on people of color.” But considering Latinos and blacks “experienced higher rates of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 compared to white people,” it was likely a factor.

Of course, the assumption that white is the most common skin color, or even the only skin color, has a long history in America.

Until the 1960s, Crayola crayons had a pinkish hue that was labeled, “flesh.” 

And as we all know, band-aids don’t come in dark brown, which has “long been a point of contention among people of color who have questioned why white skin is the default shade for a range of flesh-toned products, including nude bras and other garments.”

Why, indeed?

But you will be happy to know that the baseline for the human experience is not just white people, but white men specifically.

We’re not just talking about the fact that white men hold over 60% of all elected offices, despite being just 30% of the population.

Or the fact that most films and TV shows focus on a white male protagonist. 

Or that white men are apparently the only group whose opinions matter, and that the rest of us are pretty much at their mercy.

No, I’m talking about air conditioning.

Yes, you heard me correctly.

Back in the 1960s, when air conditioning became common in office buildings, engineers needed a standard to ensure the temperature would be comfortable.

And of course, they based this standard on the preferences of white men in wool suits — the Don Drapers of the era. 

These temperatures “favor the thermal preferences of men," and are the baseline to this day, which is why women in office settings often feel like they’re freezing.

It’s because they are.

But don’t worry. Those white guys in suits are perfectly comfortable.

It seems that “everything in our society is centered around preserving white male power regardless of white male skill or talent.” And this is not just annoying. It’s also detrimental to our nation.

You see, the “rewarding of white male mediocrity not only limits the drive and imagination of white men; it also requires forced limitations on the success of women and people of color in order to deliver on the promised white male supremacy.”

When everyone just assumes that a certain group should be in charge (i.e., white guys), members of that group don’t have to excel to succeed, while members of other groups struggle, and the culture as a whole stagnates.

In this way, “white male mediocrity harms us all.”

Unfortunately, this situation is unlikely to change any time soon.

But hey, at least the pandemic is over.

Always Forward

My relentless quest to conquer all media channels continues unabated.

Recently, I wrote my first article for Latino Rebels, which is the premier site for Latino-centric news and insights. I hope to write many more for them.

You can read my debut by clicking here.

Sticking Together

I’ve been married for many years now, so I am blissfully unaware of the intricacies of the dating scene. But I’ve heard from single friends that it’s a hellish endeavor

Yes, it has to be difficult to go out on date after date, vainly searching for that one person with whom you can laugh, open up, and plot the overthrow of the lizard people who are trying to enslave humanity.

This universal dilemma has provoked fed-up and ostracized conspiracy theorists to set up “their own dedicated dating sites, in response to what they see as their growing incompatibility with mainstream society.”

Hey, just because someone is a raving lunatic who believes Jewish laser beams are targeting patriots doesn’t mean he isn’t looking for love. Come on, after a hard day of ranting on Reddit about liberal pedophiles, guys just want to cuddle with a lucky lady who will agree that Islamic terrorists are poisoning the water supply.

One such dating site asks users “to list which conspiracy theories they consider to be real — such as coronavirus, QAnon, New World Order or prepper ideology.”

Really, that’s a lot of craziness to choose from, and one wonders if the person who picks all of them is considered a real catch.

In any case, the desire of conspiracy theorists to mate only with people who share their belief in chemtrails is understandable. After all, so-called normal people are unwilling to put up with lengthy diatribes about JFK Jr. coming back to life. And as one dating-site owner puts it, “vaccinated people are hardly an option” for true believers.

Conspiracy-oriented dating sites are part of a larger pattern. In America and Europe, “hardline conspiracy groups have set up their own off-grid “education hubs” to pull their children out of mainstream education, while others have launched efforts to set up entire breakaway communities.”

Just imagine that community. Every town hall would deteriorate into a shouting match about secret symbols and which neighbor is plotting to betray the others to the one-world government. 

In such an environment, can true love last?

Smarty Pants

I will be on vacation and away from my computer, so I will not publish a new article next week. As such, I am doubling up this week with another post. 

However, I don’t have time to create a new earthshaking diatribe that will alter your perception and shred your preconceived notions. You see, I have to pack my luggage.

Therefore, I yet again called upon artificial intelligence to help me out. Anyone who has read my posts lately knows that I am semi-obsessed with AI, and its potential to propel us forward into an enlightened, technology-enhanced utopia and/or kill us all.

And it’s also great for creating images of, say, a one-armed zombie killer on a rampage.

So I asked AI a sadly relevant question:

“What is the best way to decrease gun violence in a nation?”

Here are its responses:

1. Strengthening gun laws: One of the most effective ways to reduce gun violence is to strengthen gun laws. This could include measures such as universal background checks, waiting periods for gun purchases, and restrictions on the sale of high-capacity magazines and assault weapons. Research has shown that countries with stronger gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun violence.
2. Improving access to mental health care: Many incidents of gun violence are committed by individuals with mental health issues. Improving access to mental health care and addressing the stigma around mental illness can help prevent these incidents.
3. Investing in community-based violence prevention programs: Violence prevention programs that work with at-risk individuals and communities have been shown to be effective in reducing gun violence. These programs can include initiatives such as conflict resolution training, mentorship programs, and job training.
4. Encouraging responsible gun ownership: Encouraging responsible gun ownership can help prevent gun accidents and reduce the likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands. This could include measures such as safe storage requirements, gun safety education programs, and mandatory gun training and licensing.
5. Addressing systemic issues: Gun violence often occurs in communities that are disproportionately affected by poverty, racism, and other systemic issues. Addressing these underlying issues through measures such as economic and social policies, education, and criminal justice reform can help reduce the root causes of gun violence.

Now, we certainly don’t want to take AI’s pronouncements as infallible insights that we must follow. The factual and ethical flaws with AI’s outputs have been well-documented. 

At the same time, AI is a great tool for synthesizing data. In the case of reducing gun violence, AI presumably looked at studies, research, and case studies of what has worked in other countries.

Also, keep in mind that I didn’t ask a politically loaded question like “How can we overturn the Second Amendment” or “What does effective gun control look like?”

I asked, “What is the best way to decrease gun violence in a nation?” This is a goal that we all supposedly share.

Look again at the suggestions. Nowhere do you see “More guns” or “Loosen gun laws” or “Arm the teachers.”

Unless you want to accuse AI of being a cyber liberal, it appears that the most logical solutions for reducing gun violence are all progressive ideas.

It seems that if you strip away political posturing, fear-based reactions, and crazed conspiracy theories, you get a list of rational solutions that just about every other industrialized nation has adopted. You get ideas that are the very antithesis of Republican talking points.

We can reduce gun violence, which is stratospheric when compared to every other industrialized country, or we can literally shrug and say, “We’re not gonna fix it.”

Yes, it’s too bad that AI can’t eliminate apathy, greed, and cowardice.

But let’s end on a lighter note.

You’ll be happy to know that I also asked AI to rewrite the Gettysburg Address in the style of an AC/DC song from the 1980s. The chorus is where it really gets rocking:

GETTYSBURG! A battle cry for freedom 

GETTYSBURG! A nation's call to arms 

GETTYSBURG! A sacred ground we defend 

GETTYSBURG! Where heroes live forevermore

Can’t you just hear the crunch of the power chords?

See you in a couple of weeks.