> One of the alarming innovations of the Obama years was the way the president’s aides enlisted corporations of various kinds—from Wal-Mart to the NCAA—to discipline recalcitrant American states in the same way. Indiana was going to have gay marriage and North Carolina was going to let conflicted males use ladies’ restrooms, or the administration would rally corporate friends to destroy their economies.
I'm not sure what the author was trying to imply here - obviously something about Obama getting help from corporations in an effort to force a couple of states to - gasp - treat humans with dignity and respect.
I guess I can understand the whole "goverments and corporate working hand-in-hand" fear thing; perhaps the author would have rather had the government withhold highway funds or something in that manner, and not get the corporations involved?
Or maybe the author doesn't like that citizens all over the United States are largely in support of gay marriage and LGBTQ rights - and that perhaps these companies, knowing this, knew that it was in their better marketing and brand interest to use their economic might against those states to change those laws?
Does the author think less of LGBTQ people? Should they not have the right to be married, or to use the bathroom of their gender identity? Does the author even understand what gender identity is, and how it is apart and separate from sexual orientation and physical gender?
I can't fault the author if they are simply ignorant on these topics, but I can fault them if they are and haven't taken the time to rectify that ignorance. Understanding these issues isn't difficult. For some, though, being empathetic and supportive of those who are different, yet still human, is.
I'm not sure where the author's bias lies, but that one section seems to indicate that it lies against that of basic human rights, dignity, and respect towards LGBTQ. This made the piece lesser than it could have been; it's arguments (whether you agree with them or not) were made solid and some other example than what was given to show a similar means of globalization on a local scale could have been illustrated.
Other than that, it was a great piece of writing; I only wish it could have offered or suggested potential solutions, or had explored more in-depth the consequences of the current status-quo; though one could say "look around you; these are the consequences" - and I would have to agree.