Tag Archives: Boycott

Occupy Every Day


Every once in a while it is important to revisit older topics, that we’ve discussed before.  Today, I would like to come back to a couple of those, because they remain important and relevant.

If we are going to maintain pressure and relevance, then we have to continue to remember to act, right?  One of the major knocks against the Occupy movement, for example, is that it lost focus.  Certainly the occupation of major parks, and the various actions that were taken beginning in September of 2011 were breathtaking and stoked the imagination.  They fired me up.  They captured the hopes of many who were struggling to find “hope and change” in an America that had yet again been lied to and misled.

And, then, they fell apart.  As with most inclusive movements, it fell prey to its own grand ideals.  Instead of staying focused on the financial purposes that it started with, it wanted to be leaderless and then it became amorphous and had so many tentacles and purposes that it lost its relevance.  Oh, to be sure, it still exists.  The movement that is.  I believe that there are still a few active occupations.  Somewhere… Maybe.  Even I have lost track, and interest.  They lost me when they got off track.  And, yes, I admit that I boisterously proclaimed that it was the last great hope for America.  I even went so far in my fervor at the time as to say that if it failed, then I would start voting for the most evil right wing candidate I could find in order to simply hasten the fall of America.  “Bring on the burning,” I said.

I retract those words, and acknowledge my own foolishness in having said them.  I can only say that I was fired up and hopeful.  I was excited and trying to get others equally fired up and motivated.  I do still believe that it had great potential.  Had there been some strong hands to guide it and maintain focus at the core, then it could have accomplished great things.  I do think that it had impact, in changing the focus of the conversation ever so slightly.  It was not the impact though that it could have had, and the damn Tea Partiers are still holding too much sway.  Largely that is because there was too heavy an influence in the Occupy movement that simply felt that they could somehow change the system without actually being participants in the system.

There are only two ways to change a political system.  One can either participate in and change it from with in, or one can violently overthrow it.  That’s it.  There are no other alternatives to changing it.  If you play a pussy-foot, half-in-half-out game then what happens is that you wind up supporting (whole heartedly) the status quo.  That is what happened with the occupy movement.  Too many wanted to try to maintain the illusion that they were above and beyond the system, while still enjoying the benefits of that system.  They wanted the technological benefits (the iPods, the smart phones, the lap top computers, the internet, the wifi, etc), they wanted the Constitutional protections, the responsiveness of the elected representatives, and all that the system had to offer.  They screamed for and demanded their rights.  “Whose park?  Our Park!” and “This is what Democracy looks like” they screamed.  Hell, I screamed, for I took my boys and went down to the streets, too.  But, for all too many of them, they didn’t then want to exercise their responsibilities.  They didn’t want to vote, or participate in the jury pools.  They didn’t want to pay taxes or support that same government that they railed against.  They didn’t want to participate by electing the candidates that would support the views that they wanted supported.  They were only half-in.
CONTINUED on PAGE 2


Pro-Health Care Action: Take A Stand!


The power of the boycott remains one of, if not, the most effective tools in the market place.  Particularly when combined with a vocal campaign to let the target know that is what is going on. In fact, it is almost pointless if the target is unaware of the action, as they may get the wrong message, and make the wrong changes.  If one simply avoids shopping somewhere and a store believes that their business is suffering because they’re offering the wrong products rather than because of the policies they have put into place, then they will make the wrong changes.

It is this economic vote which is both the strongest weapon in the consumer’s arsenal and the most difficult to wield.  It requires both perseverance and a willingness to sacrifice.  Perhaps it is only a small sacrifice of a selfish desire, but in this modern world of immediate gratification, that is a difficult thing for many to do.  It is also a group effort which is generally self-enforced.  Who really knows that you haven’t shopped at that store you’re supposed to be boycotting, except for you?  And, yet…

There is a long history of boycotts, and their effectiveness is undeniable.  Business groups hate them, and over the last few years those on the right would have you believe that they are somehow immoral, wrong, or anti-American.  This is really quite ironic.  After all, what at its core is a boycott?  At its core, a boycott is a decision to choose not to shop at a particular business, period. It is a choice made based on ethical reasons, or perhaps on reasons of solidarity.  Regardless of the reason, from the standpoint of the free marketer, is it not precisely what the market is supposed to do?  The consumer is to make a choice based on whatever factors they see fit including price, location, quality, etc and purchase the products they prefer from the supplier that they choose.  Well, that is precisely what the consumer is doing.  They are including in that, what we might call the moral quality of the supplier.  In the case of a company that is being boycotted, the consumer has found that supplier to be wanting in quality.

So, I choose to boycott Chick-fil-A, as I wrote back in April, because they openly discriminate against homosexuals.  When the rest of the world caught wind of this in July, I wrote again about how franchisees benefit from corporate names, and thus have to take the penalties that come with corporate blunders and foul policies.  It was reported that Chick-fil-A had bowed to public pressure and stopped their contributions to anti-gay advocacy groups.  Dan Cathy, the CEO, however announced this was a false report.  Thus, the boycott must continue.

Now a whole other band of greedy big business-men and women have forced those of us with consciences into action.  Again, we have to expand our list of restaurants to avoid.  Honestly, many of these places for me are not too difficult.  However, a small handful,…. well, I’ll almost miss them.

“Naturally, the Left is outraged. How dare a company try to stay profitable!”

No, Twitchy.  What we are outraged by is that this is unnecessary for the company to stay profitable.  The amount that prices would have to be raised is ridiculously small, and most of us would be willing to pay it.  Most of us are not the greedy, self-centered, selfish persons that the right wants us to be.

Papa John’s Pizza founder and CEO, John Schnatter, has announced that he would begin reducing employees’ hours in order to avoid having to either provide health care benefits or pay the penalty associated with the Affordable Care Act becoming the law of the land.  The additional cost, which he would pass on to customers, amounts to approximately $0.15 to $0.20 per order.  In other words, for less than a quarter per order, the third largest pizza delivery and take out chain in America could provide health insurance to its employees.  However, rather than do so, the CEO would rather make an example of his employees, and punish them in order to make his political point.  I cannot imagine that there are very many people who would be ordering from Papa John’s restaurants who would even notice a $0.25 increase on their order, much less actually care about that increase.

As a result, Papa John’s can be sure that I will no longer be ordering from them.  This is only slightly a shame.  Their pizza isn’t that good, but it was a convenience every once in a while.

You know the beautiful irony of this?  Even Schnatter himself has already admitted that this is just greed on his part.
CONTINUED on PAGE 2


Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started