This article, How an Organized Republican Effort Punishes Companies for Climate Change, is messed up on several levels.

The worst part is also the most mundane: the sheer shittiness of Republicans. Sure, it's not enough to defend industries that destroy the environment, and prevent any legislation, and perpetuate climate denialism. You also have to sabotage companies that are choosing to respond to public pressure?

But then there's a much less important issue but I'm going to focus on it, because there's not much to see about the mind-boggling horror of fighting to accelerate climate change. The ancillary thing I'm struck by is that usually hypocrisy is primary, essential feature of Republicans. Ban guns from the NRA conference, get abortions for your side piece, etc. Their moral positions are so tissue thin that if they're not going to gin up the base in some way, they're usually not going waste time on any action.

The thing that's weird to me here is that Republicans only have a very few motives, ever:
1. Gin up the base.
2. Protect the white male hierarchy
3. Line their pockets.

Punishing companies behind the scenes like this doesn't do any of those things, at least not quite as directly as usual. They're not usually subtle. The most parsimonious explanation is that they genuinely want to accelerate climate change.

Of course, It matters zero whether you're genuinely wanting to accelerate climate change or merely doing the identical actions out of hypocrisy. And I've long since lost the ability to articulate the mundane-rage they inspire in new or interesting ways. So while this article feels slightly novel in the brand of gross Republican things, it's also not in the slightest.

I'm getting the impression that entities like Girl Scouts, local booster clubs, local sports leagues, etc are absolutely rife with petty embezzlement. It seems like these groups are always scrambling for volunteers, and have poor standardized operations and poor oversight, and ordinary parents and volunteers are constantly being placed in high-temptation low-risk settings.

I have no words for the Uvalde shooting.

All the mechanisms for fixing the problem of school terrorism are gone, and they've been sabotaged against future repair.

Chill writes: Should Wimbledon have banned Russian and Belorussian tennis players from competing?

They did, and the mens' and womens' tennis associations just decided that anyone playing at Wimbledon this year would not earn "rankings points" for it, and I saw a tweet from the Times of London saying that reduced Wimbledon to an "exhibition." That's hyperbole - anyone who wins Wimbledon won't care about tour rankings points, because they will have won Wimbledon!

But was it the right thing to do? I can see both sides. Con: it's not a team sport, the athletes aren't really playing for the glory of Russia, they're playing for themselves. Punishing those individuals is pointless, maybe counterproductive. Pro: athletes bring prestige to their nation, whether they intend it or not, and banning them from Wimbledon is one more way to ostracize Russia, and one that might leak into the controlled information bubble that Russian civilians apparently experience, because a lot of the same people that are proudly apolitical still care about sports.

Heebie's take: Probably yes, the right thing to do? I think it's part of providing a unified front. You don't want to get into a splitting hairs race over when it's appropriate and when it's not.

What's happening in other industries? I'm assuming Russian academics are still welcome at academic conferences? Although it might be hard to get there?