An evil politician is always:

So much for Democrats being wise and highly educated. I have not seen so much idiocy in all my life. Even cats walk around them, and dogs hump their legs. I would not allow myself to become one again and vomit at the thought.

The best thing about fishing is attempting to join the fish.

You can take everything away from me, but don't take my glowing abs.

The lice were pleased with his sexual thoughts.

Yahoo Finance Yahoo Finance Search query Search for news, symbols or companies News Finance Sports More Mail Sign in My Portfolio News Markets Research Personal Finance Videos Streaming Now Upgrade to Premium Fortune Apple, Coca-Cola, IBM, Berkshire Hathaway: These companies are facing a DEI shareholder showdown in 2025 Shareholder proposals that would have once been unremarkable are now a closely watched battlefront in the war against corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives. · Fortune · Richard Drury—Getty Images Lila MacLellan Mon, February 10, 2025 at 1:00 AM PST 8 min read 3 In This Article: StockStory Top Pick COST +1.10% IBM +1.32% KO +1.15% When Costco asked investors to vote against an anti-DEI shareholder proposal at the company’s recent annual meeting last month—and won their support—it should have been a nonevent. Such an exchange is typical in the corporate world: A small group of investors buy a tiny stake in a company and use that platform to call for a specific change, like pushing it to adopt better climate change policies or take succession planning more seriously. Their proposal then goes to a vote among all shareholders at the company’s annual meeting. Boards usually urge everyone to reject the ideas for the simple reason that companies don’t like to be told how to run their businesses. Over the past few years, anti-DEI resolutions like the one Costco faced have become increasingly common, but their support rates are usually in the low single digits. In any other year, Costco’s vote would have garnered little to no attention. But this year, Costco’s stance became a noteworthy symbol of resistance. As President Donald Trump issues executive orders to end DEI, and one company after another rolls back their DEI initiatives, a fresh crop of shareholder proposals that would have once been unremarkable are now a closely watched battlefront in the war against corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives. To be sure, the results of proxy votes are nonbinding, making the exercise somewhat symbolic. But companies will find it hard to ignore a proposal that’s popular with investors. It’s also worth noting that several companies that have received resolutions have moved to have the proposals excluded from their 2025 shareholder votes, which requires approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Here’s a look at anti-DEI shareholder proposals set to be presented this year. Fortune reached out to all of the companies on this list and will update the story with any relevant responses. American Express Meeting date: April 17, 2025 The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a conservative activist think tank, is requesting that the financial company remove DEI considerations from its executive pay formulas. American Express has moved to have the proposal excluded from its meeting. "The shareholder proposal challenges a metric that is no longer being used in the company's scorecard," according to a company spokesperson. Apple Meeting date: Feb. 25, 2025 Apple has asked its shareholders to reject a proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a conservative advocacy group, asking that the tech company cease all DEI-related activities, including dropping its diverse supplier programs. Apple’s response to the proposal centered on the company’s preference for not being micromanaged. In its proxy statement, the company wrote: “We strive to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work.” Berkshire Hathaway Meeting date: May 3, 2025 Berkshire Hathaway has asked the SEC to exclude a proposal from the NCPPR asking the company to perform a legal audit of its race-based initiatives. Its letter to the SEC cited studies on the benefits of diversity, and included a quote from Warren Buffett speaking at Berkshire’s 2023 annual meeting: “If [I] had been born Black, a woman, or in a different country, [I] wouldn’t nearly [have] enjoyed the same type of life [I] have].” Bristol Myers Squibb Meeting date: TBA A shareholder proposal submitted by the NCPPR requests that the company consider abolishing its DEI program, policies, department, and goals. The drugmaker wants to omit the proposal, calling it “vague and open to interpretation.” Coca-Cola Meeting date: May 1, 2025 Coca-Cola hopes to block a proposal on executive pay and DEI hiring goals, submitted by the NLPC, from its general meeting. In a letter filed with the SEC, the company states: “The Coca-Cola Company maintains ‘employee representation goals’ designed to achieve diversity so the company ‘mirror[s] the markets we serve.’ The company expects ‘by 2030, our employee population across all job levels will align with U.S. Census data by race/ethnicity: Black: 13%; Hispanic: 18%; Asian: 6%.’” Deere and Co. Meeting date: Feb. 25, 2025 Deere scaled back DEI last July, following an online campaign by conservative influencer Robby Starbuck. However, the NLPC had also submitted a shareholder proposal asking Deere to produce a report on its racial and gender hiring statistics. The NLPC argues that emphasizing diversity in hiring leaves companies open to legal challenges from employees, and that white employees may feel that they are the victims of discrimination. In its 2025 proxy statement, the company urges shareholders to vote against the resolution “because Deere is committed to treating our employees, who propel us toward achieving our business ambitions, fairly and inclusively.” Deere also states that it already provides investors with comprehensive hiring data. General Motors Meeting date: June 4, 2025 The NLPC is calling on the automaker to drop the practice of attaching DEI goals to executive pay. In a letter to the SEC, GM said the company had already substantially implemented the proposal. Goldman Sachs Meeting date: April 24, 2025 The NLPC has submitted shareholder proposals over diversity aspirations and executive pay incentives, including the compensation of CEO David Solomon. A spokesperson for Goldman recently told Fortune: “We strongly believe that organizations benefit from diverse perspectives, and Goldman Sachs is committed to operating our programs and policies in compliance with the law.” IBM Meeting date: TBA In partnership with an IBM shareholder, the Heritage Foundation, a powerful conservative think tank, has asked the company to drop pay incentives for executives tied to DEI targets. IBM has moved to block the proposal on the grounds that it falsely depicts the company’s practices. JPMorgan Chase Meeting date: May 19, 2025 The NLPC and the NCPPR are targeting the bank for DEI incentives in executive pay and its general DEI programs, respectively, claiming the practices leave the bank open to reputational and legal risks. The company has moved to have the proposals blocked since, among other reasons, they pertain to the company’s ordinary manner of doing business. (The SEC generally allows companies to exclude resolutions about a company’s ordinary operations.) The bank also said the executive pay shareholder proposal does not accurately represent the company’s practices. CEO Jamie Dimon has been vocal about the bank’s resistance to anti-DEI groups. “We’re going to continue to reach out to the Black community, the Hispanic community, the LGBT community, the veterans community,” he said at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos this year. A spokesperson for JPMorgan declined to comment on the anti-DEI proposals and directed Fortune to the bank’s philosophy around diversity as outlined by Dimon’s most recent annual letter to shareholders. Levi’s Meeting date: TBA The NCPPR is asking Levi’s investors to vote in favor of its request that the company “consider abolishing its DEI program, policies, department, and goals.” Levi Strauss & Co. has moved to have the proposal left off its proxy, saying that, among other reasons, it makes false claims. The decision from the SEC is still pending. Levi’s CEO Michelle Gass recently told Women’s Wear Daily, “We’ve been committed to diversity and inclusion for literally decades, and it’s the core to who we are. So our commitment remains unchanged. We will do what’s right for our people, for our business. And at the end of the day, building a diverse and inclusive workplace helps us deliver stronger results.” Mastercard Meeting date: June 18, 2025 The NLPC says it has submitted a proposal to the credit card company over executive pay and DEI goals. The proposal, seen by Fortune, asks “the board of directors’ Human Resources and Compensation Committee to consider eliminating discriminatory DEI and ESG goals from compensation inducements.” Mastercard did not respond to a request for comment, but the company touts the value of inclusion on its website. McDonald’s Meeting date: TBA McDonald’s recently scaled back some of its DEI programs after facing online activism from Robby Starbuck. The NLPC has also submitted a shareholder proposal over executive pay at the company and its connection to diversity targets. But the company hopes to keep the issue from reaching its annual meeting, telling the SEC that it has already implemented many of the requested changes. Merck Meeting date: TBA The NLPC submitted a proposal over Merck tying DEI goals to executive pay. The company hopes to omit the proposal from its annual meeting both because the pharmaceutical company has implemented many of the suggested changes, and because the proposal relates to the company’s ordinary operations. Mondelez Meeting date: TBA The NLPC wants investors in the food and beverage company to support its call for a corporate financial sustainability report outlining Mondelez’s “association and support for controversial issues” such as LGBTQ+ rights. The conservative think tank claims the company lost money when it partnered with PFLAG to produce Pride-themed Oreo cookies. Mondelez has moved to have the proposal excluded from the company’s proxy statement, arguing that it resembles a proposal submitted in 2024 that did not receive enough support to be resubmitted. PepsiCo Meeting date: TBA The NLPC has called on PepsiCo to “revisit its incentive guidelines for executive pay, to consider eliminating discriminatory DEI goals from compensation inducements, to reduce risk exposure.” Pepsi did not respond to a request for comment. The company’s commitments to diversity and racial equality are described on its website, and in its most recent DEI report. This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

If you want to be a writer it is partly for others, but it is also for your pen, you must love your pen, even desire it, that you can gaze upon it, and marvel at what it does, and armies it destroys, for love is there in all dimensions, pleading against the indifferent universe.

The lies oh what clever human's telling lies, like weaving a giant blanket, they sleep in them for comfort and wear a hat full of them, some who confess don't know where it began, till darkness descends.

I think it was a wake up call during this difficult time on how hard it is to count your friends. At least the underwear industry is going strong.

Its not all bad, I have made it this far, and I'm not so bored with reality. A lot of my childhood reality seems distant now, but getting older has me facing the child within myself. He is much like myself and his eyes glow as he offers me things.

The problem I have faced to my face as a Jew. 1. You're rich. 2. Jews are aggressive :The issue really is I can't convince them otherwise when one of the two happens. Nothing can change their mind, unless I let them see my bank account and perform monk like passivity for a month. The other one is being watched as I tip, as if I was on stage.

Congress Should Pass Antisemitism Awareness Act Mackenzie France | RealClearWire Mar 14, 2025 Facebook Twitter Email Facebook Twitter Email Print Copy article link Save Much ink has already been spilled on the antisemitism crisis plaguing the United States. As the new Trump administration seeks to crack down on antisemitism on university campuses, Congress should finally pass legislation that treats the subject with the importance it deserves. Politicking by Sen. Chuck Schumer prevented the Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) from passing last December, largely due to fears over exposing a divide amongst senate Democrats. Now, there is a fresh opportunity for Congress to act after the bill was reintroduced in the House in February with bipartisan support. Senate Republicans and Democrats should show the same bipartisanship as their House colleagues and get this legislation over the line. The fundamental aim of the AAA is to force the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In this way, the act would require schools receiving federal tax dollars to protect students adequately from antisemitic discrimination, lest they forfeit their funding. Despite an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote passing the AAA in the House (320-91), spurious misunderstandings and lies about what the bill would accomplish have abounded. From bizarre claims from some Republicans that the bill would “ban” some portions of the New Testament to hysteria from some far-left Democrats that the bill codifies special protections for Israel into U.S. law, the AAA is the victim of serious slander. The AAA does not criminalize any speech, even the most virulent antisemitism. Rather, it seeks to ensure that taxpayer-funded institutions protect their Jewish students from harm and discrimination just as they would for any other minority student group. The IHRA’s given examples of antisemitism have proven to be the chief cause of concern for opponents of the bill. For some progressives, the greatest concern is how these examples might be used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. Others have focused on free-speech concerns. Take a closer look at the examples themselves, though, and you’ll be left wondering what exactly these opponents are afraid they can no longer say. Sponsored Here's The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Gutter Guards Installation Here's The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Gutter Guards Installation LeafFilter Partner Prostate Pain? NASA's Bizarre "Zero Gravity Pee Protocol" Can Help [Watch] Prostate Pain? NASA's Bizarre "Zero Gravity Pee Protocol" Can Help [Watch] Always Healthy Me How To: Move Your IRA/401k Out of Stocks- Tax Free How To: Move Your IRA/401k Out of Stocks- Tax Free American Hartford Gold Prostate Problems? Why Astronauts Don't Have Them (Secret Ingredient) Prostate Problems? Why Astronauts Don't Have Them (Secret Ingredient) Living Finest 2025's Most Realistic Bunny Toy 2025's Most Realistic Bunny Toy Sherum Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe! Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe! Health Headlines Firstly, the free speech objections presented by a small minority of Republicans in the House seem to be a misunderstanding of the bill in its entirety. Of course, any attempt to bring about legal consequences for speech in itself would be unconstitutional and met with opposition by most Americans. The AAA does not seek to do this, but rather to address the problem of taxpayer-funded institutions failing to protect their Jewish students and staff, a problem that is clearly rife today. Wilder objections from the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson – that the bill somehow bans or restricts the New Testament or that it could be used to persecute Christians – are farcical. Perhaps ironically, the fact that Taylor Greene seems to believe that the Jewish people were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ is evidence of the clear need for a bill addressing antisemitism in a straightforward way. The majority of opposition to the bill last time came from anti-Israel Democrats. It seems only natural to me, though, that any working definition of antisemitism would cover examples of how prejudice against the world’s only Jewish state can stray into antisemitism. The IHRA covers several specific examples of this, including comparing Israeli policy to that of Nazi Germany, using classic antisemitic symbols like the blood libel to criticize Israel, and denying the Jewish people their “right to self-determination” by calling for the destruction of Israel or by suggesting that Israel is in itself a racist pursuit. It also covers specific accusations against individual Jewish people that relate specifically to Israel, including accusations of “dual loyalty” or holding Jews worldwide responsible for the actions of the Israeli government. Daily headlines delivered to your inbox Get our free newsletter Your email Submit Opponents of IHRA often characterize these examples as incredibly broad and, therefore, a risk to free expression, when in fact the opposite is true. Where criticism of Israel is concerned, it’s a deliberate, conscious choice to compare the Jewish state to Nazi Germany. This is almost never done from ignorance, almost always from malice. There is a reason why Hamas uses terms like “Nazi Zionism” in its propaganda. It is deeply malicious to accuse Jews of inflicting or invoking the same evil that murdered 6 million of their own people in Europe. It’s generally a good idea to stay away from Nazi comparisons in any civilized political debate, but it should not be difficult to see why Nazi comparisons levied against Israel stray into antisemitism. There is also a convincing case as to why calls for the destruction of Israel, or the denial that a Jewish state could ever exist legitimately, is antisemitic. Firstly, only when criticizing Israel do calls for dissolution of the state itself appear. Even when criticizing the most murderous autocrats on the planet, whether it be President Putin or Ayatollah Khamenei, nobody calls for the dissolution of Russia or Iran. One can be the harshest critic of Netanyahu and his far-right coalition without calling for the total disestablishment of Israel (especially knowing what the consequences would bring). If the only country on earth you wish to see destroyed is coincidentally the world’s only Jewish state, ask yourself why IHRA might incorporate this into its definitions. Secondly, denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination by claiming that Israel could never exist legitimately in any form, like the “racist endeavor” example found in IHRA, is nigh on indefensible. Much is rightly made in the international arena of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and, therefore, their eventual right to statehood. If an Israeli politician were to say that a Palestinian state in principle would always be illegitimate, there would rightly be outraged accusations of deeply irrational anti-Palestinianism. This is the exact same principle behind the self-determination example found in IHRA. The examples relating to Jewish individuals are even more clear cut. Accusations of dual loyalty and collective responsibility are tales as old as time. Of course, in matters of national security, it is perfectly legitimate for governments to be wary of any external loyalties of their employees, but when this noble aim turns inquisitorial against Jews, there is an antisemitism problem. Henry Kissinger famously declared to Golda Meir as she petitioned for support for Israel during the Yom Kippur war, “First I am an American, second I am Secretary of State, third I am a Jew.” I ask critics of the IHRA to reflect, if they are unsatisfied by this answer, whether they would feel differently if Mr. Kissinger had declared himself a Catholic last, or had a different ancestry. Passing the AAA will help to counter the current surge of antisemitism in the U.S. As the Republican administration seeks to ensure that college campuses and other federally funded institutions protect their Jewish populace, Congress has the chance to support that mission in a bipartisan way. Lawmakers should not hesitate.