Advertisements

Tag Archives: boycott

A Day Without Immigrants

So apparently today was supposed to be some kind of statement – a “Day Without Immigrants.”

Washington, D.C., will experience a “Day Without Immigrants” along with a number of other major cities across the country on Thursday. The grassroots movement is calling for immigrants not to go to work or make purchases on Feb. 16 to show President Trump ho [sic.] much legal and illegal immigrants contribute to the economy.

2017-02-15-day-without-immigrants_0Let’s put aside the obvious economic ignorance exhibited here. One day without a fairly small percentage of the population working and making purchases will hurt no one except maybe their employers who seem more than happy to virtue signal their support for immigration, which no one has proposed to ban writ large, by giving their foreign-born workers a paid day off. Those same immigrants staging this protest and not buying anything, will purchase what they need tomorrow… or the next day. No harm, no foul. Any money “lost” from any sale today, will be made up tomorrow or the next day, because ultimately people need what they need.

Second, just how many illegal immigrants do we have working in the DC area? Do they really make such a huge impact on the local economy? And also, will it honestly impact the President, who I’m pretty sure isn’t going out to Bub & Pop’s to get a sandwich or picking up street food at a cart today.

I wouldn’t even have known this was going on if I hadn’t come across it in a news feed.

Local restaurants – if they support this “boycott” – closed. So what? This immigrant brings her own lunch to work.

The employees of those establishments that do not support this empty action and who decided not to show up for work today anyway, could find themselves shitcanned in favor of someone who will actually work. And if not, they’re simply not going to get paid for that day, unless they have earned leave. Who loses? They do.

Smoke & Barrel in Washington DC had the following up on their Facebook page two days ago.

As a Latino business owner I stand in solidarity with all of my immigrant staff. Therefore, we will close our kitchen this Thursday in support of our immigrant staff’s desire and right to protest the evolving state of immigration policies in our country. Our bars will remain open and our guests are welcome to BYOF (bring your own food.) -John Andrade, owner

OK, so they’ll still sell booze, and they’ll allow people to bring their own food, because they can’t possibly lose the profits! But yay, solidarity! No sacrifice. No business lost. So what is it, exactly, that they’re trying to impact?

Boycott school? Really? The one place that should educate and give them something of value, they’re encouraged to skip. What, exactly, will that do to the school? The teachers will continue teaching. The other students will continue learning. And the illegal immigrant kids who are skipping school are only shooting themselves in the foot.

Methinks these people have a much inflated view of their own value.

The flyer claims that without them the country is “paralyzed.”

Well, this immigrant is at work today, and for once, I didn’t experience metro fuckery. Correlation, of course, does not equal causation, but the 20 minute commute was pretty darn good today.

I bring my own lunch, and I don’t eat at the restaurants that are participating in this “boycott” anyway. (We ate at Pupatella in Arlington once, and the service was so shitty after an hour and a half wait, that I swore never to go there again. The food wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t even remotely worth it.)

I don’t plan on going shopping, because most days I work 10-11 hours, and I’m too tired to do anything but go home and go to sleep.

When I need to go shopping, it will be on a weekend, so the “boycott” ultimately means nothing to me.

If the purpose of this action was to “paralyze” the country, the organizers might want to learn economics first.

Advertisements

Destroying the Enemy

OK, at first it was kind of amusing. Snowflakes nationwide were losing their collective shit over the election of someone they did not support, because they were so enamored with the idea that Queen Pantsuit would be crowned on January 20, 2017. Things didn’t quite pan out that way, and things got out of hand very quickly.

There were recount demands.

There were unhinged lectures by out-of-touch, billionaire Hollywood actors, ivory tower academics, and snotty artists demeaning and harassing their fellow Americans, as well as the President’s family.

There were protests… sometimes violent ones.

And then there were the boycotts.

Uber, Nordstrom, UnderArmour, Nieman Marcus, “grab your wallet,” hearings on Trump nominees, unhinged demands that Ivanka Trump take art she has purchased off her walls, deranged mommies soiling themselves because a toddler – A FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD – whose grandfather happens to be the President, is attending pre-school with their precious snowflakes…

I’m no longer amused. Frankly, I’m a bit disturbed by the concerted snowflake effort to literally destroy what they perceive to be “the enemy” at any cost.

wegmans1And in case you were wondering, the enemy is not just anyone who voted for Trump. The enemy is anyone who does business with him or his family. They can’t just walk away from the product and not buy it. They must destroy the entire business for selling it, and in the process impact jobs – work for the very people they claim to want to defend against those evil rich bastards who take advantage of them and keep them down. Because the little folks don’t matter if your overall strategic goal is to decimate the enemy.

So this week it’s Wegmans.

Believe it or not, I’ve only discovered Wegmans recently, but having seen the selection of cheese, wine, international foods, meat, teas, prepared foods… I’m a convert.

Of course to the demented prognazis, nothing is sacred. Not even Wegmans. The store’s “crime?” Selling wine produced by a winery Trump purchased in 2011.

The regional supermarket chain with a cult following is facing calls to remove Trump Winery products from its 10 Virginia stores. Over the weekend, about 300 members of the Prince William County chapter of the National Organization for Women made plans to pressure Wegmans to stop carrying products from the Charlottesville winery.

“Certainly if Wegmans is carrying Trump wines, I personally will not shop there,” said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, who was not present at the meeting. The nonprofit, which was founded 50 years ago, has more than 500,000 contributing members, making it the country’s largest feminist organization.

The Rochester, N.Y.-based Wegmans sells 237 Virginia wines from 58 wineries at its local stores. Among those wines are five varieties from the Trump Winery, including Trump Blanc de Blanc and Trump Winery Chardonnay. According to Jo Natale, vice president of media relations for Wegmans, the company has been selling wines from the Charlottesville winery since 2008, before it was owned by Donald Trump — and long before he campaigned for the White House.

You see, to the prognazis, choice is not an option. If they refuse to buy the product, no one should be able to purchase it! Conform, or face boycotts and hits to your bottom line. They don’t want you to even have the option of purchasing a wine from Trump’s Charlottesville winery, and they’re willing to impact the bottom line of a store — which, by the way, is committed to charitable giving and improving its communities, in addition to employing hundreds of workers, who I would guess make a fraction of what NOW president Terry O’Neill rakes in — to achieve their goal.

The prognazis, as usual, have a very tenuous grasp on economics. They don’t understand that if enough people simply refuse to purchase a product, the drop in sales will inevitably cause the store to stop carrying it. No boycott of the store needed. If the product is not profitable, it will go away.

But they’re not willing to wait that long. They don’t want you to have that choice. And they’re willing to work to destroy a business, rather than let economics take its course. They don’t want you to vote with your wallet. They simply want to force you and the store to conform to their desires.

And, not to Godwin myself out of the conversation, but there’s a certain familiar feeling to the prognazis’ actions of late.

On April 1, 1933, the Nazis carried out the first nationwide, planned action against Jews: a boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals. The boycott was both a reprisal and an act of revenge against Gruelpropaganda (atrocity stories) that German and foreign Jews, assisted by foreign journalists, were allegedly circulating in the international press to damage Nazi Germany’s reputation.

On the day of the boycott, Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung; SA) stood menacingly in front of Jewish-owned department stores and retail establishments, and the offices of professionals such as doctors and lawyers. The Star of David was painted in yellow and black across thousands of doors and windows, with accompanying antisemitic slogans. Signs were posted saying “Don’t Buy from Jews” and “The Jews Are Our Misfortune.” Throughout Germany, acts of violence against individual Jews and Jewish property occurred; the police intervened only rarely.

Much like the Sturmabteilung troops refused to allow people to make a individual choices with their wallets, opting instead to forcibly prevent them from making that choice, the prognazis would rather force an entire store to close its doors, firing personnel and leaving the community of which they are a part – they would rather destroy a business – than allow people to make individual choices with their wallets.

Those who forget history and all that…

Or maybe they remember, which makes their actions all the more disturbing.

c2juvc0wqaaoh01PS: If this unhinged fuckstick really keeps his promise of snipping off his schlong in response to us building a wall, I’ll personally contribute money for that venture and will spend my vacation laying bricks! Anything to keep these freaks from reproducing!

Keeping track of boycotts is hard

So let’s see…

We have shit flinging Trumpanzees boycotting Starbucks, because the company has the unmitigated gall to announce they’re hiring 10,000 refugees. Worldwide. Over the next five years. Never mind Starbucks also hires veterans and as of 2015 gives not only them, but their families college benefits. Outrage first, boys and girls!

We have screeching progtards boycotting Uber, because they’re not boycotting Trump… or something.

Then there were the Democrats boycotting a vote on two Trump cabinet picks. Well, guess what happens when you don’t show up for work? The work goes on without you, but whatever.

And the whining lefties who are encouraging boycotts of companies that dare sell Ivanka Trump’s products – companies such as Nordstrom (which has coincidentally or not stopped carrying her line), Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, TJ Maxx, and others. Never mind that Ivanka Trump has been nothing but gracious and generous toward the very people her father is accused of hating. Some of the charities she supports are Habitat for Humanity, AIDS Life, and the Children’s Aid Society. And in 2010, Ivanka designed and sold a bracelet specifically to benefit the United Nations Foundation’s Girl Up campaign, which “aims to raise money and awareness to educate and propel adolescent girls in need to the next generation of leadership.” And let’s not forget that these department stores also employ immigrants, but hey… it’s the outrage that matters, right?

landscape-1486139059-audi-super-bowl-commercialI also read yesterday that people were boycotting Audi, because of some spot they did virtue signaling equal pay for women, while showing fat, male rednecks losing a go-kart race to a pretty, obviously rich and privileged girl. I’m not even sure what I should be outraged about with that one. But that’s not the reason I’m not buying an Audi.

Today’s outrageary comes from the Trumpanzees again. Apparently the hashtag #boycottbudweiser is trending on Twitter, which basically means there is a sufficient number of retards using that hashtag to virtue signal their displeasure with Budweiser’s Super Bowl ad.

The ad shows a fresh off the boat Busch encountering hostile anti-immigrant sentiment upon his arrival in America – a sentiment that some say parallels current attitudes toward Muslim refugees.

It couldn’t possibly parallel a respect for the entrepreneurial spirit in the face of adversity of people who come here with nothing and build empires, right? It couldn’t be a tribute to legal immigrants, right, since that’s exactly what Busch was?

Nope!

Look boycott Budweiser, because it’s a lousy beer. As the old joke goes, it’s much like having sex in a canoe – fucking close to water.

I wouldn’t spend my money on something that tastes like rancid carbonated water.

But it seems like the outrageary is morphing into something more insidious – efforts to destroy the livelihoods of millions of workers, innovators, and yes, many of them include immigrants and refugees, but also U.S. military veterans, common street kids trying to eke out a living, and middle managers – all because we don’t like a commercial, or we don’t like the type of people these companies hire, or we don’t like the political or social points of view of their leadership.

If you don’t toe the line, we will destroy you!

I completely understand voting with your wallet. If you don’t like the product, you shouldn’t spend money on it. If you don’t like the store, you shouldn’t shop there. If you don’t like the music/play/movie, you shouldn’t buy that ticket.

But I find the effort to destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people because you disagree with the policies or political views of these companies’ leadership to be more distasteful than Budweiser beer.

Bear Hug Boycott

I don’t watch TV, so I didn’t know about this, but apparently there’s some pizza shop owner who bear hugged the President. Why it’s important, I have no idea, but apparently, people are boycotting his shop.

Why, I don’t know. Is it because he’s an Obama supporter? Is it because he enveloped the President in a bear hug?

“People are saying a lot of bad things and boycotting my restaurant,” Scott Van Duzer, 46, told POLITICO. “There’s no middle line anymore, and that’s exactly what’s wrong with our country right now.”

Judging by the comments after the Politico story, people are appalled that Republicans would boycott a business supportive of Obama and his policies. Here’s a sampling:

This is exactly what Clinton spoke about. The Tea Party ‘hates Obama’, they are obsessed. People are beginning to see the GOP for what it really is, a party with confusing to no plans (now Romney wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare) but full with irrational hate. Clinton’s devastating logic was this ‘America was losing 750,000 jobs a month, are we better off today?’. Really liked that line and it is beginning to resonate.

[…]

This is what republicans have done for the last four years…they have physically kicked out any republican who hugged, shook hands with and spoke nicely of the President. Regardless of your politics, he is a small business owner, the ones “they” say they want to help.

[…]

Wow, people are boycotting this guy because he hugged President Obama? That is a pretty sad reflection of the right-wing in this country today.

[…]

I could see why Republicans would be boycotting his pizza shop, because they are idiots and somebody told them to do it. I think that if you are a Democrat in Florida, you should pay a visit there, so that Bain Capital doesn’t get anywhere close to that Business.

Wow. How stupid. People boycotting this guy’s pizza joint because of his political views. Terrible.

I wonder how many of the more than 1000 supporters of this pizza shop spoke up about the mass boycotts of Chick-Fil-A based on nothing more than the views of the CEO…

Chick-Fil-A and free speech

I don’t like chicken. I’ll say that up front. When I was pregnant with the Redhead, we were stationed in Germany and lived in Wiesbaden. One bright, shiny day, we decided to go to Popeye’s and get chicken. I was 6 months pregnant or so, and I got chicken strips.  The first one I bit into was raw. I don’t mean pink or slightly undercooked. I mean underneath the crunchy layer of batter was slimy, raw meat. Biting into it was like biting into slightly stale, rancid meat-flavored Jello. Let’s just say, gagging followed.

That’s not the only reason I don’t like chicken. Frankly, the white meat is dry and rubbery, and the dark meat is somewhat slimy. Not my thing.

Needless to say, I don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A precisely for that reason.

But today I did.

I don’t like fundamentalist anythings, whether it’s Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians or Unitarians.

I don’t agree with the views of Chick-Fil-A owner Dan Cathy on gay marriage. As a matter of fact, I vehemently disagree with him. I don’t need the government telling me whom to love, with whom to spend my life and whether or not it approves of my lifestyle choice. Dan Cathy is a Christian. His mileage varies. Whatever. He’s entitled to his views. He should also be able to run his business the way he sees fit – to hire whomever he wants, and to observe any holy day he wants, even if that means closing his stores on Sundays, which will affect no one but his business. He obviously considers his religion more important than his Sunday profits, so good for him. I wouldn’t have made that particular decision, but it’s not my business.

That said, while I disagree with Dan Cathy’s views, I will fight to the death to defend his right to hold them.

Do I support the right of anyone who disagrees with him to take their business elsewhere? You bet I do!

Do I support the right of his critics to encourage others to take their business elsewhere? Damn straight!

Do I support some mayors’ (Menino of Boston and Emanuel of Chicago) decision to use zoning laws (read: government force) to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening in their cities? Not in a million years!

And do I agree with Cathy’s opponents who are pressuring localities to use government force to destroy his business merely because they disagree with his views? Fuck no!

It’s one thing to make the individual choice to spend your money at another fast food joint.

It’s one thing to encourage others to do so.

But it’s quite another to pressure corrupt politicians to promote your views by abusing their authority and using force to destroy someone’s livelihood!

Some of these assholes don’t see the difference.

One is free choice; the other is government force.

So even though I don’t eat chicken, and I’ve never eaten at Chick-Fil-A, I bought a large container of their waffle fries today.

Just as a big FUCK YOU to the asshelmets who can’t tell the difference between individual choice and government coercion.

Om nom nom nom nom!

%d bloggers like this: