That Aud Smell

Is there a place you go for reliable up to date data that provides more than total new cases, total new deaths, etc.? I hear a lot about hospitalization rates, deaths per 100,000, and so on -- it seems that we need more context than "cases are increasing in number."

As discussed somewhat upthread, I'm not sure whether SCOTUS in Bostock established sexual orientation as a protected class. And the more I think about it, the more I tend to doubt it. Gorsuch talked about how the basis of the ruling had been there all along, or words to that effect -- that the Court wasn't breaking new ground. The protected class remains the same: Sex. And that's in the statute itself, which makes sense given Gorsuch's professed textualism. So, in that light, I wonder whether the ruling in Bostock is going to be specific to adverse actions taken against gay people and transgender people on account of their sex, e.g., employer fires a male employee because he openly dates men, but the same employer would (perhaps obviously) not discipline a woman for dating men (thus, disparate treatment on account of the employee's sex). Maybe Roenick makes more traction with the Lipinski (sp) comparison -- the female commentator gets to make all kinds of blue, raunchy jokes (I think this is alleged?), but Roenick does not. Not because Roeneick is straight, but because he's male.

Those are fair points. I think I'm sort of hoping that there's more to it than a single incident giving rise to cancellation and banishment.

It's a weird test case (given how I feel about Roenick (he's a somewhat entertaining blowhard, and a total Delta Bravo)), but I agree with this sentiment. Cancel culture stinks. And it would stink if Roenick was fired for this lone lapse in judgment. I think that's a pretty big "if".

I don’t (yet) read Gorsuch’s opinion as extending to or even considering the matter of the sex of an alleged victim. It’s focused on the claimant being treated differently because they’re a man, and not a woman.

Put another way: Gorsuch seems to suggest that, under Title VII, the test is more or less: if the same adverse employment action would *not* have been taken if the claimant were of the opposite sex (e.g., for wearing a dress, for marrying a man), well, then, you have sex discrimination. But that’s not what a straight guy claims when he says “but gay guys get to say it.” In order for this to work, the rule would need to be: If the same adverse employment action would *not* have been taken if the claimant were of the same sex and a different sexual orientation (for calling a female coworker a sassy bitch (?)), well, then, you have sex(ual orientation) discrimination.

To follow on: I’m starting to read the opinion. Isn’t Gorsuch saying that an employer who takes adverse action against an employee because they’re gay or transgender is doing so because that person has exhibited behavior or attributes that are deemed unacceptable because that person is not of the opposite sex? If so, that’s not what happens when a straight guy gets dinged for something a gay guy would not. Nah?

You read it that way? I haven’t read it myself. I think that’s what it must mean. It’s an interesting wrinkle, though, to say that a straight male was discriminated against because he said something that a homosexual male could say with impunity. Having typed it, that now is more clear: The theory is that, owing to his sexual orientation, he was terminated for something that a homosexual male would have been permitted to say. Interesting. IIRC, there’s (or was) a case involving an allegedly transphobic heterosexual woman in which she claimed she was terminated owing to her sexual orientation. I forget any details, and can’t look it up right now. Edited: But now I’m less sure. Maybe I need to read the decision.

I think this is essentially correct. Many state laws expressly cover sexual orientation as a protected class. And the SCOTUS recently held that “sex” in Title VII encompasses sexual orientation. Now, SCOTUS did that relative to those who are gay or transgender, but arguably the rationale would extend to sexual orientation discrimination more generally.

Thing is, the Bills are being widely hyped as a contender this season.

Sure, okay. But as a stadium-name sponsor?

The Toilet Bowl references are too easy. Any chance this is just a publicity stunt by the bidet-maker, since they know there's NFW the offer would be accepted? Fwiw: Based on my anecdotal experience, bidets are starting to catch on in North America. The ones being marketed here involve installing an apparatus on the existing toilet, which I understand to be simpler and more accessible than the free-standing (?) bidets that exist in Europe.

I can't think of a single professional Buffalo athlete who I've enjoyed more - and that scope of enjoyment ranges from on-field excellence to overall personality. What a treasure.

Disagree that the downturn (collapse) of the energy industry isn’t affecting their liquidity.

This is all helpful insight, @Drag0nDan - and this especially so.

My point is whether and how the lack of cash flow from the wells could affect how the Sabres are managed.

He's not out of the business. JKLM Energy's predecessor company is East Resources Inc., which was formed in 1983 in Pittsburgh, PA. For 27 years, East Resources Inc. successfully operated in shallow and deep oil and gas formations in PA, WV and NY until 2010, when Royal Dutch Shell plc acquired East’s PA and NY assets. East Resources Inc. continued to operate in Ohio and West Virginia for approximately 3 years before those assets were sold to American Energy Partners LP. Soon after the sale of those assets, a core group of experienced staff reassembled to form JKLM Energy. http://www.jklmenergy.com/who-we-are/history

From the article: Oil and gas companies in the United States are hurtling toward bankruptcy at a pace not seen in years, driven under by a global price war and a pandemic that has slashed demand. And in the wake of this economic carnage is a potential environmental disaster — unprofitable wells that will be abandoned or left untended, even as they continue leaking planet-warming pollutants, and a costly bill for taxpayers to clean it all up. ... The industry’s decline may be just beginning. Almost 250 oil and gas companies could file for bankruptcy protection by the end of next year, more than the previous five years combined, according to Rystad Energy, an analytics company. Rystad analysts now expect oil demand will begin falling permanently by decade’s end as renewable energy costs decline, energy efficiency improves, and efforts to fight climate change diminish an industry that has spent the past decade drilling thousands of wells, transforming the United States into the biggest oil producer in the world.

This is a pretty remarkable overview of how the oil & gas business in the U.S., including fracking, may be in the process of a substantial, if not total, collapse. https://nyti.ms/2WcWmXy

Yeah, the death rate is not the most compelling statistic for me, given the stories I'm hearing about people having "recovered" only to find that they've sustained some form of long-term damage to an organ system (lungs, etc.). I do wish we could get definitive hospitalization data. I keep hearing, from certain sectors, that COVID hospitalizations are being over-reported because anyone in the hospital, for any reason, who tests positive is being categorized as a COVID hospitalization. The question being: How often is this actually happening? Is it inflating the data point? And, as I think @North Buffalo noted, if that's the case, then why are dozens of ICU's bursting at the seams?

I never gave it much thought, so I was learning for the first time that it was in the shape of an animal. I did find myself shaking my head at the OP who was *nerding* out on how utterly amazing the logo is (like, the best in all of sports?). I guess, from a design professional's standpoint, there's a lot to admire. As a fan/consumer, I think it's an unappealing mess. Also, it looks more like a bear than a wolf to me. But I think the designer intentionally made it ambiguous.

I think this was the first mention of him. He's on my totally arbitrary not very well informed list as well. But perhaps the vote is cast for his time as a non-Sabre. In addition to Wendel Clark and taking Gretzky as a given, I guess I'd go: 2. Dave Tiger Williams (unmatched goal celebration) 3. Ovechkin (the most fun player to watch live, in my experience) 4. Lafleur (reminded me of Perreault, yes, but perhaps more graceful whereas Perreault was more powerful) 5. Lanny McDonald (for the 'stache and his team's epic Cup win (in his final season?))

Yeah - that's not cool at all - characterizing DiBiase's opinion content as a sourced report.