That Aud Smell

I expect that Seattle will immediately be good. And it looks like there's a difference between buying an existing franchise for $189M and paying a $650M expansion fee.

I love that video they put together. Someone theorized in the comments to the post -- Sirens. That could work.

I'm just catching that now. I appreciate your keen eye on it as well. What's our national illness rate? 1%? 2%? So the fact that COVID-19 is currently within the limits of Category 2 is a function of the steps that have been taken, not its likely lethality.

I follow some COVID-19 skeptics on Twitter, just so I'm not hearing just one message. One of them (Berenson?) pointed out this CDC slide deck from a few years back, which is interesting food for thought. https://www.cdc.gov/media/pdf/mitigationslides.pdf One takeaway: A Category 2 influenza pandemic would involve between 90K and 450K excess deaths. Category 2 flu pandemics were previously experienced in 1957 and 1968. The mitigation measures recommended for a "Cat 2" in these CDC materials are ... well, it's a little hard to tell whether they're less strict than what's being done now.

Jeebus. Later than Neil on Drury, but not quite as vicious either. What an awful incident.

A $60M stake isn’t really very involved? I will say this: The fact that they’re getting back in the game with a bunch more cash (presumably) may speak to their liquidity. Or maybe they’re pushing a lot of their chips back into the game.

This goes to the point, I think, that the family's still pretty closely linked to oil & gas.

Well, well, well. https://buffalonews.com/news/pegula-plans-stock-sale-to-raise-300-million-to-buy-energy-businesses/article_b3f3ecae-cb69-11ea-aa20-9760c74f17cc.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1 Buffalo Bills and Sabres owner Terry Pegula is looking to become a bigger player in the depressed oil and natural gas business. Pegula, who sold much of his natural gas business a decade ago at the peak of the industry's shale boom, now is planning to sell stock in a new venture that would raise $300 million from investors to purchase oil and natural gas businesses at a time when the energy industry is reeling. The new venture, called East Resources Acquisition Co., would be based in Pegula's hometown of Boca Raton, Fla. Pegula would be chairman, CEO and president of the new business, while his wife, Kim, would be a director. The Pegulas would own 20% of the new venture after the stock sale. All of the top executives in the new business currently are top officials at Pegula's other businesses. Pegula's plan is to use the money raised through the stock sale to build an energy business at a time when the value of energy companies and oil and gas properties have plummeted. +++ Not for nothing, I believe this is very much in-line with what someone posted upthread on this topic. Was it @JohnC? Buy low, dontchaknow.

this also seems helpful https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/all-metrics-per-state

^ Johns Hopkins - that's the ticket

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.