General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSorry but I want to scold you.
So if you don't feel like being scolded then read no further...but if you don't mind it and think something cold be learned from being critical of yourself for a while.
As too the HL thing, our reaction to it is all wrong.
Who did us wrong?...HL?...no silly me it is the SCOTUS that did us wrong, and HL is just an exploiter in this...so we attack the exploiter?
If we wanted to win public opinion, and that is what this is ultimately about, we wold have a demonstration at the SC building...and a sit in where you actually get arrested...and all that goes with a serious effort to actually win.
Or better yet we could perhaps prevented it in the first place, with massive and persistent demonstrations in front of the SC building carrying signs saying, "Don't allow religion to decide about your health" or something like that, framing the issue instead of waiting for the media to frame it their way...it could have changed one mind there maybe.
The phrase that keeps coming to mind is "keep your eyes on the prize"...because the right wing power men know majic...and know the art of slight of hand...you know what that is right?...it is misdirection...where the magician uses his right hand to point off and direct your eyes from his left hand as he palms the coin.
Well that is my scold for the day...hope it was not unbearable.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... for being so condescending, so patronizing, so insulting and so sanctimonius. Goodness knows women need some instruction on how to do these things properly.
Please do let us know when you'll be holding a protest at the steps of the SC and I'm sure some of us who actually do rise up will be there.
Small Accumulates
(149 posts)As if women haven't been fighting this battle for the last 150 years. Yeah, we have no clue what we're up to.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That is why the title and the warning.
But for what it's worth, I don't have the ability to do a damn thing so I won't be there, although if I had the resources and the health I would be there...I would like nothing else better than to be able to do something important for us all, but those days are over for me....All I have left is words.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)In the meanwhile, keep "scolding" us as if we were children.
You want to do something important? Encourage those who are still in the fight, rather than belittle and insult them.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I have my own ideas and opinions, of course, but I don't presume to tell others of like mind that they're "doing it wrong."
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)We will find out soon enough whether you were right or the OP. Good luck!
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I'll be there.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I just said that between the two of you, one will lose and one may win if they go that direction. We can't look into the future on this.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Some of us just wouldn't know who or what to protest without you.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I am here to publish my thoughts and opinions and observations...I have no expectations that you or anyone else will take what I said in anything but a negative way...but if you can look past the criticism part you will see an effective path...Not one I invented but one that is proven over and over again to work if there is a real effective movement.
But you don't want to hear it and so the warning.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)simply cannot get enough of males "scolding" us women as if we were addle-brained children, incapable of making our own decisions. Please don't presume that you can tell others how to feel and behave and expect gratitude. Especially since you don't have a f*cking clue what women are experiencing.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But you don't seem to understand that...and I am sure I would never be able to convince you of that.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)So the idea that this isn't about gender politics seems questionable at best.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)and truly, ONLY women, must not be focused on.
The effect of the ruling on women is not a frickin big deal. It doesn't deserve to be discussed... well.... because.... there are bigger issues.... and to rally around the discriminatory action by focusing on the party this ruling aggrieves, s is not good for the cause of the bigger issues......
It sure takes a lot of twisting to think that focusing on how this affects women is somehow hurting a larger cause...
Fuck.that.shit.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I'm sure someone will Godwin me for this, but downplaying the Dominionists' hatred of female sexuality - and really, femaleness in general - would be as foolish as downplaying Nazi anti-Semitism circa 1933.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and the lexicon.
Godwin: 'Never bring up the Nazis or Hitler'
Holocaust survivors: 'Never stop bringing up Hitler and the Nazis. Never forget.'
So the whole 'Godwin' thing is at best a bad joke, at worst an attempt to prevent constant trashing of people who should be constantly trashed. It is a form of history denial, in that it attempts to claim that Nazism was a unique, one time only aberration and not a symptom of the worst states of the human condition.
It's not really a harmless internet trope. It's a politically toxic rhetorical tactic used to control content and form of discussion. Not at all unlike the OP's message.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)can't. even.
Response to zeemike (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)Texasgal
(17,045 posts)It was Hobby Lobby's decision to take this all the way to the supreme court. Ofcourse people are pissed at SCOTUS but the bottom line is HL fought the issue with no regard for Women's health.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Only actually people regards women's healt...a corporation has not the least bit of concern for anyone or any thing.
And so what if this non living entity takes it all the way?...so what?...Well now we got a bad rueling...so what do we do?...punish the accuser?...bad form and will not win the hearts and minds of middle America.
Texasgal
(17,045 posts)by injecting their personal religious biases into the fray.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Sorry, not buying it. I've heard this same line used against LGBTs when they protested for their rights. Don't get Middle America upset! Don't be too loud, too angry, too obvious. We have to think about the elections! Yadda, yadda, yadda.
It's our turn now.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)SCREW Middle America. Seriously.
randome
(34,845 posts)But a productive line of assault can still be to make it so untenable -and expensive- for HL that other corporations will not be tempted to repeat their mistake.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the more we punish them the more sympathetic people become to them...
Our beef is with the courts, including the SCOTUS and it is one that will win the sympathy of the people...government is at it's lowest approval rate.
randome
(34,845 posts)They don't need to listen to public opinion. They aren't elected. They don't give a shit and that's how it should be overall.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And while they don't have to listen to public opinion it does effect them...only the cream of the sociopaths are not effected by what others think of them.
And it always speaks to politics...an politicians wind up having to chose sides, and fear being on the wrong side.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Silly boy...
zeemike
(18,998 posts)they always post creepy gifs with short digs.
madamesilverspurs
(15,801 posts)It's appropriate to hold protests at HL locations.
And if the Supreme Court had as many scattered locations as Hobby Lobby, that would make a difference, too.
But then, there's no court ordered buffer zone at the stores, so . . .
boston bean
(36,221 posts)or taken a seat at the front of the bus...
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because they were fighting for the right to sit there and be served...and sit on any seat in the bus.
That is not even close to having birth control covered on your insurance policy now is it?
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)is how they distract us from something much worse ... which is what? taking away the rights of people? Except, you know, women are people, so ..
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)(an excerpt from a post of mine, one that I made before the SC decisions)
What frustrates me is that there seems to exist either a lack of recognition of or an unwillingness to confront the unholy alliance of church and state in creating a misogynic society. We tiptoe around the subject as to not hurt someone's feelings. Well that's just bullcrap my friends and it's exactly what the purveyors of misogyny count on -- that we'll react well, like "women", not wanting to bruise anyone's delicate ego especially if it involves religion, even to the point of silencing ourselves. Right here on DU there are those who would contend that we have a choice -- we can support the war on poverty OR women's rights. We can fight for environmental protections OR women's rights. Etc, etc, etc. But not both. So women are asked to choose either the planet or their rights, or between the poor and their rights, or between income inequality and their rights. The arguments are posited as a choice for which women must make the sacrifice and too often, some do just that. Anything else is called selfish. I see it all the time on what is touted as a progressive forum. The fact that it should be a choice at all is a ridiculous, manipulative fallacy.
mercuryblues
(14,531 posts)and when you stop playing nice......Well you aren't asking nice enough for me to support your cause.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)mercuryblues
(14,531 posts)Too blunt= too rude to support
Too nice= not serious
women are expected to be perfect, by their own ambiguous standards of perfection.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I can't even tell you how angry and aggravated I am right now. Precisely for the reasons you have stated above. It's just nice to know that others feel the same.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nope. Both.
The SCOTUS made a really bad decision.
Hobby Lobby is getting between their employees and their employee's doctors.
Both are wrong.
Hobby Lobby we can directly affect. The SCOTUS we can not.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But who is responsible for the situation?...not HL they just can now follow the law.
If they arrest you and take you to court, and the judge rules you were right, is it fair for the defense to come after you to ruin you?...well that is how the public will see it, because that is how the media will frame it for them.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, the case just magically appeared before the SCOTUS. Hobby Lobby was a completely innocent bystander.
And I've got this Nigerian prince friend who's got a great deal for you.
Hobby Lobby was perfectly happy to provide birth control for years. Then two years ago, a conservative group approached them about suing the government. They agreed to bring suit. And they agreed to press, and fund, that suit all the way to the SCOTUS.
That is not an innocent bystander. They sure as hell knew they were inserting themselves between their employees and their doctors. And they paid a shitload of money and took a shitload of effort to do so. And apparently the status quo was just fine until they thought they might score political points.
So many screwed up parts here.
First the trivial: If you were arrested, then you are the defense. The state that arrested you is the prosecution. You'd be ruining yourself if the defense "came after you to ruin you".
Second, if you were arrested, you were forced to do something against your will - go to jail, and then go to trial. Hobby Lobby was happily paying for birth control for years. If it was such a horrific burden on their religious beliefs, don'tcha think they'd have sued before someone sought them out? Dont'cha think back before coverage was required by law, they wouldn't have covered these forms of birth control? Don'tcha think they'd have demanded their retirement plans not profit from other people's birth control? Don'tcha think they wouldn't send large piles of money to China, the abortion capital of the planet?
And no, "we didn't know" is a bullshit excuse. People keeping kosher know to ask "does this have pork in it?" If it was such a horrific religious affront, they'd have specified no coverage for those birth control devices when they started the health plan. Long before the ACA existed.
Hobby Lobby spent a lot of time, money and effort in order to get in between their employees and their doctors. But Chinese babies? They can be slaughtered to help Hobby Lobby's bottom line.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Just trying to reason out an effective way to deal with a bad SC ruleing...
But go on with your making me the enimimy...makes no difference to me.
And you know full well I was presenting that as how they would frame it not how it is or how I feel about it...that is why I hate to post OPs about anything like this...and seldom do...you get bombarded by nit picking words and miscariterizations of what is said.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The entire point of this thread appears to be to stop protests at Hobby Lobby, as if they were not a major driver in the current situation. If that isn't your intention, don't do that.
One of the major benefits of posting on a discussion board is you get better at discussing. If you think people constantly misunderstand you, then get better at explaining what you mean. Look at what they are saying and what parts they are reading and how your arguments are coming off. That'll help you better express what you really mean.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And no word-smith will change that, when going against the flow.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It is entirely possible to explain to people exactly why you think it's best to do something awful. For example, "A Modest Proposal". People don't misunderstand that. Even with it being a sarcastic writing.
If you are always being misunderstood, then that isn't your reader's problem. Instead of pretending you're being persecuted, work to get better at making your point. You might convince some people.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But human nature being what it is makes it imposable to do what you suggest where emotions are concerned...and no amount of language will change a mind that has an emotional attachment to an idea.
And they will do what is natural to them...to lash out at every word, punctuation and if possible re interpret what is said in a negative way...there are some examples of that right hear in this thread...thus the several comments that I am defending HL...and once that is established in the mind and attached to emotional response, no words will change the belief.
But on the other hand let me put it right back on you...why did you not try harder to understand me?...Do we need to be Johnathan Swift to be understood?
And do I automatically become the enemy if my ideas diverge from yours?...because that is a weakness not a stenth...and if my weakness is in my writing skills then yours must be in understanding that other POV are not the problem.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)See the second photo of post #28: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025198117
This was at the HL protest in Laurel, Maryland.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)implying that they *are* people
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/pronouns-relative.htm
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)to scold us.
It is true that the SCOTUS did us wrong, but they did not do this alone. HL took the case to them. And let's be clear, when people spend their money at HL, they are adding to the profits of the Green's who will use that money to fight against us. I don't call it a boycott as much as I call it a business that I will just not patronize. But whatever it is called, it will keep our money from working against us.
I don't see why you are so upset that many are choosing to boycott HL. Boycotts can work, although they don't always work. It doesn't matter to me...my money will not go there.
As to your idea that protesting the SCOTUS and getting arrested being the way to win public opinion.....I am not sure that would work. Look at the reactions to the Occupy Movement and tell me how well that worked to win public opinion. Not that I am opposed to demonstrations against the SCOTUS, but swaying public opinion?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They retired to their little chamber and made the decision...they are responsible for it...HL was the complainer and we all have the legal right to file complaints for redress of grevences...shurly you don't think this is some Kafka like world where the losing party gets to attacks the complaining party is it?
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I didn't think so.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)If you don't see that HL is culpable at all in this, we are all wasting time trying to have a discussion with you.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)You nailed it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And no crime, just a just settlement of greviences...and when the settlement is not just it is the fault of the court not the winner..
But as long as you cannot see that you are right, we can not discuss this because it becomes all personal.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)First, it was Hobby Lobby that initiated the lawsuit in order to deny full medical coverage to some of their employees. (You know which ones.) They were not just some hapless corporation who stumbled into all of this.
Second, I have little doubt that they were egged into this--maybe even greased into it with a little money--by various forces who wanted to knock a few chips off the edifice of female empowerment. Else why would they have bothered? Their many hypocrisies give the lie to any pretense that they did it out of moral conviction.
OK, 3 points.Stories like this don't come with only one villain. The five mustelidae who created this abomination of a legal ruling also bear responsibility. With something this egregious, there's plenty of blame to go around. Publicly shaming Hobby Lobby does not preclude finding ways to express one's displeasure with the Robed Ratfinks.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But once in the court hands it is all their decision to rule for or against.
That is the whole purpose of a legal system, to take two sides that are fighting and settle it...it is totally on them then.
When you are the loser in a legal case you do not have the right to seek vengeance on the winner...and the people that we want to reach to get a consensus will see it as vengence...and will not think as highly of us because of that...but few would think badly of us for protesting the court and the ruling.
But none of these cases get there by accedent...it was planed I am sure...but just because you can't see the purpose does not mean there is none...and I think the purpose is clear to me, to attack the ACA as a political strategy, and to create the outrage in us to spend our time attacking HL, (which will probably turn out like the chicken sandwich), and dividing the onlookers into their fold...and once again take our eyes off the prize while they work on the next election.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)No doubt about it..! And, yes we need to look "behind the Curtain of "HL's" support to go to the Supremes.
But...they should pay for that with "Dem Crafters" boycotting them and making sure they pay for their participation in a Major Supreme Court Decision against Women's Choice and denying their Workers right to choose by lopping off what "they feel" are abortion BC when in fact it is not.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And plenty of us - women and men alike - have more than enough anger to spread around.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)That, and the investing in "abortion pill" mfrs.
The whole nation now equates this latest attack on women by forcing the company's "religious" rules on employees. Challenges are coming down the road, both to the SC ruling and HL's business income.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)We should ignore how Hobby Lobby was approached about bringing the suit and chose to peruse the chance to chip away at women's rights once again just to make a political statement? Which is exactly what took place.
Oh, right, our simple little minds can't handle being angry at more than one entity at a time, so we need to focus on the most recent betrayal. Silly me, I almost forgot my place. It's not as if by holding the tool responsible we may somehow stymie others from overreaching and taking rights away from groups of Americans.
Those who voted the way they did on the SC do not care about protesters, or what the majority of Americans think, feel or believe. Why should they? They're lifetime appointments. They know they hold the ultimate power to declare what will or will not be, with basically no reprisal for their actions. They are free to peruse whatever agenda they choose to take on. Our only recourse as citizens is to vote in people we think will nominate and approve better judges to represent our rights.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you will not help elect good people to office this way...that is MY opnion...but we shall see in November...prove me wrong.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)We won't elect good people to office what way? By energizing women to get to the polls? That makes zero sense.
You do realize women understand the impact the SCOTUS nominations have on our rights? We get the whole process. At least all the women posting here do. We're politically savvy like that, thus the reason we bother engaging in discussion on a political forum such as this.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)That's what it all boils down to. Insulting load of CRAP. But you know what? His opinion won't mean squat to the thousands of women and men who will be marching.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)To assume we cannot understand the larger picture of what is taking place, when they haven't even begun to touch on the full ramifications of this ruling, is insulting. I touched on the reasons why it was in all our best interest to hold Hobby Lobby culpable in my post they replied to above. They ignored my words and replied with a comment which skirted the real issue and addressed something not in question. Never touching on their false assertion that protesting at the SCOTUS would have been more effective, ignoring my reasons why they wouldn't have cared. I agree, that's insulting and crap.
For the most part I believe more of those active here have better political activist history than the majority of those who bother to turn out to vote. We are the people who care, who volunteer our time and know what needs to be done to create change in our government. We may disagree on some matters, but the SC is one issue we seem to be by majority be united on. This OP is either preaching to the wrong group, or as you said is just insulting crap. We'll keep on doing what's right and working our fingers to the bone to change things. It's just another day in another election cycle, and there's work to be done.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Too angry at this poster to even comment right now.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)protests or "heart and mind" campaigns so the battle is being taken to those who can be affected by such (to what degree of effectiveness or any positive benefit at all remains to be seen), I think it is possible an example could be made here that other tempted companies may see and choose to steer clear even Hobby Lobby goes about their business without skipping a beat because their model and who uses them may be different.
Of course it may be that a failed effort here might be extra vexing because of what I would guess is a much greater dependence on female customers which means if the effort fails other may be emboldened to stick it to women knowing the likelihood of any damage due to blowback to be minimal.
dballance
(5,756 posts)Some facts:
- Before the Beckett Fund approached the Greens their insurance coverage provided for all the types of contraception approved by the FDA. That is, until very recently, 2012/2013 the Greens didn't have any sincere religious objection. Not at least, until it could fuel a right-wing crusade against the ACA and Obama.
- The types of contraception they called abortifacients are, in fact not.
- The Greens lent their name, their company's name and their vast wealth to fighting for their victory from SCOTUS.
- The Greens could have dropped their case at any point along the way to SCOTUS but it was, clearly, The Beckett Fund and the Green's intention to get to SCOTUS.
- There have ALREADY been plenty of demonstrations at the SC Building and there will be more. They are ineffective at best.
YES, your scold was UNBEARABLE, UNNECESSARY, UNWANTED, UNPROVOKED, UNINFORMED, and UNIFORMLY rejected.
If I were a lesser person I might suggest you do something sexually oriented that one cannot usually do with oneself.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)not you personally but for those who feel like you do.
So if you feel that way it is the way you want to feel...but I don't hate you for it.
dballance
(5,756 posts)PUH-FRICKING-LEESE. Posting that and saying don't read any further is like saying "FREE SEX, but don't click on this link" and you know it.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I echo your sentiments.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It sounds like it just might be some "mansplaining".
Is it?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But you will have to tell me...if it's a pejorative it probably is.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)"I want to scold you"? WTF??? I have never heard anything so insulting in all my years at DU. Do we women need to be scolded now? By our superior "Manlords"? This is just infuriating.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Hobby Lobby is because they are a business that depends on consumers. I don't live anywhere near DC, so I have no ability to protest there, or the money or time to travel and luxury to afford lost time due to an arrest. But go for it and tell us all about it. In the meantime, I'm promoting a boycott of Hobby Lobby.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)will send a clear signal to all the other Corporations lining up to discriminate in one form or another.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But this will not do it...no more than it did Chicken Sandwich guy...it will just make people angry at liberals...and liberals angry at them.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)This is institutionalized discrimination. But hey, nothing might happen anyway. Americans are soft, pampered creatures.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think the protests aimed at Nestles, which was eventually forced to institute a zero-deforestation policy for its palm oil products; or the boycott directed at Fruit of the Loom to re-open a recently unionized plant in the Honduras; Greenpeace brought about another successful boycott, compelling Kimberly-Clark to institute a new paper procurement policy that would reduce its impact on ancient forest in North America; Marine campaign group Oceana's boycott of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd led to the company installing Advanced Wastewater Purification technology (AWP) on all its ships.
All these were successful and achieved their stated goals. All these had zero negative impact on the liberal brand. It seems to beg the question, what then is the precise and relevant difference between the aforementioned successes, and boycotting Hobby Lobby?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Groups such as the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) and Save the Children claim that the promotion of infant formula over breastfeeding has led to health problems and deaths among infants in less economically developed countries.[2][3] There are four problems that can arise when poor mothers in developing countries switch to formula:
Nestlé's marketing strategy was first written about in New Internationalist magazine in 1973 and in a booklet called The Baby Killer, published by the British NGO War On Want in 1974. Nestlé attempted to sue the publisher of a German-language translation (Third World Action Group) for libel. After a two-year trial, the court found in favour of Nestlé because they could not be held responsible for the infant deaths 'in terms of criminal law'.[18] Because the defendants were only fined 300 Swiss Francs (just over US$400, adjusted for inflation[19]), and Judge Jürg Sollberger commented that Nestlé "must modify its publicity methods fundamentally", TIME magazine declared this a "moral victory" for the defendants.[20]
The widespread publicity led to the launch of the boycott in Minneapolis, USA, by the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) and this boycott soon spread to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Europe. In May 1978, the US Senate held a public hearing into the promotion of breast milk substitutes in developing countries and joined calls for a Marketing Code. In 1979, WHO and UNICEF hosted an international meeting that called for the development of an international code of marketing, as well as action on other fronts to improve infant and early child feeding practices. The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) was formed by six of the campaigning groups at this meeting.[15]
In 1981, the 34th World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted Resolution WHA34.22 which includes the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. The Code covers infant formula and other milk products, foods and beverages, when marketed or otherwise represented to be suitable as a partial or total replacement of breast milk. It bans the promotion of breast milk substitutes and gives health workers the responsibility for advising parents. It limits manufacturing companies to the provision of scientific and factual information to health workers and sets forth labeling requirements.[21]
In 1984, boycott coordinators met with Nestlé, which agreed to implement the code, and the boycott was officially suspended. In 1988 IBFAN alleged that formula companies were flooding health facilities in the developing world with free and low-cost supplies, and the boycott was relaunched the following year.[4]
In May 1999 a ruling against Nestlé was issued by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Nestlé claimed in an anti-boycott advertisement that it markets infant formula ethically and responsibly. The ASA found that Nestlé could not support this nor other claims in the face of evidence provided by the campaigning group Baby Milk Action.[22]
In November 2000 the European Parliament invited IBFAN, UNICEF, and Nestlé to present evidence to a Public Hearing before the Development and Cooperation Committee. Evidence was presented by the IBFAN group from Pakistan and UNICEF's legal officer commented on Nestlé's failure to bring its policies into line with the World Health Assembly Resolutions. Nestlé declined an invitation to attend, claiming scheduling conflicts, although it sent a representative of the auditing company it had commissioned to produce a report on its Pakistan operation.[23][24][25
Current status of the boycott[edit]
As of 2013, the Nestlé boycott is coordinated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group Baby Milk Action.[26] Company practices are monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200 groups in over 100 countries.
In parallel with the boycott, campaigners work for implementation of the Code and Resolutions in legislation, and claim that 60 countries have now introduced laws implementing most or all of the provisions.[27]
Some universities, colleges, and schools have banned the sale of Nestlé products from their shops and vending machines in the period since the revelations.[28][29][30] In the United Kingdom, 73 student unions, 102 businesses, 30 faith groups, 20 health groups, 33 consumer groups, 18 local authorities, 12 trade unions, education groups, 31 MPs, and many celebrities support the Nestlé boycott.[when?][31][32]
So there we go, it has been going on sense 1977 and is still not over and that company is doing just fine.
So if you have 35 years to wait it still could work.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)And the others are dismissed due to their inconvenience to your premise. Boycotts can work and can change policy. And the list is a long one.
What is the precise, objective and specific reason you prophecy this one can't...?
Or (and I find this most likely) is this merely unsupported editorial on part?
If you indeed, have the desire to scold others, one should posses a valid premise rather than an unsupported editorial, otherwise, your ineffectual and peevish "scolding" results in little more than my bemusement, while yet others merely giggle at you...
Mission accomplished?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But I just researched the first one...don't have the time it would take to do them all, but how much does the average person know about them?...I bet you could find few that do, because they don't make the news...and that in itself is why it fails.
And in this thread i think I covered why I think it won't work...and don't feel like repeating myself...if you chose to dismiss it then do so, if you want to be bemused or giggle at it then have a blast...such condescending things do not bother me.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"but how much does the average person know about them...?"
Hence, the successful boycotts did not negatively impact the liberal brand in these instances...? I.e., it seems to directly counter your unsupported premise.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)the average person did not know about them...and to me that is not successful boycotts.
But there is no doubt in my mind that we will know about these in a negative way because the right wants it to happen...and they have a great big megaphone to deliver it with...and that is my prediction....now we shall know in a few months from now if I am right or wrong.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)should actually be giving anyone advice...... with that pretzel logic? I'm going to say no. You're pulling our leg.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He said he was getting OUT of the "activist" business.
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/chick-fil-backs-down-will-stop-funding-anti-gay-groups
Chick-fil-A Backs Down, Will Stop Funding Anti-Gay Groups
The boycotts and vociferous protests of Chick-fil-A's anti-gay stance appears to have worked. An Illinois-based gay rights organization has announced that the company will no longer fund anti-gay organizations, according to Boston Spiritmagazine.
The furor over Chick-fil-A's anti-gay stance was sparked by their president's harsh anti-gay marriage stance. "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Dan Cathy said.
What followed that statement were protests, same-sex "kiss ins" at Chick-fil-A locations and (unconstitutional) threats from elected officials to punish the business.
Now, the Illinois group, The Civil Rights Agenda, says that Chick-fil-A announced the policy change in a letter. "In meetings the company executives clarified that they will no longer give to anti-gay organizations, such as Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage," ...."senior management has sent an internal memo to franchisees and stakeholders that stated that, as a company, they will 'treat every person with honor, dignity and respect-regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation and gender.'"
Response to zeemike (Original post)
taterguy This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They'd be rounded up quick as a wink.
They'd have better luck standing outside on the sidewalk of the Supreme's homes.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)I would be amazed and delighted if American Woman crashes Hobby Lobby to the ground.
That will get the BOY SCOTUS masters' attention:
Generic Brad
(14,275 posts)I did not come here to be scolded.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)accomplish nothing. They don't mind the displeasure of the masses. In fact they relish it. But Corps like HL need customers. We can hurt their bottom line. We need to teach Corps not to mess with us.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But judging from the past my guess it won't...and right now I would bet the right is making them a martyr and painting us as radicals to inspire the right wingers to vote against the dems.
That is how politics works, when they make it political.
But protest is a media event...or it used to be...and it is to bring the issue to the public attention...it don't matter what the ugly 5 think...it still has an effect on them. And it would address the issue without making HL a martyr to a religious cause.
But what will be the media event be for this?...scatered all over the country makes it look small and it will be seen that way on your TV...and it will be framed as if it is about liberals angry about HL not wanting to pay for birth control...And who do you think the people in Peoria will side with?
But the good thing about this is we will know fairly quick how it goes...and what good or damage it does in November...and I hope I am wrong and you will be able to tell me I told you so.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)+1
I do a lot of crafts, sewing, crochet, picture framing, painting, paper crafts. I reduced what I buy at Hobby Lobby when I noticed they pushed their "Christianity" which is always a dead give away that they are cheating customers. Once they started the attack on the ACA, I have not spent a dime there and never will.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)the general public really doesn't understand the progressive point of view on this and such we have lost the public relations messaging as a result.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Hint: >90% of women use it. They are extremely familiar with birth control. And now they know Hobby Lobby wants to get between it's employees and their doctors, but only when birth control is involved.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,979 posts)There's already fall out from it at Wheaton collage, some backlash against Gay rights, etc
"the Court described the accommodation as "a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage." And the Court concluded that the accommodation "constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty." Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today."
http://gawker.com/supreme-court-men-waited-three-days-to-undermine-contra-160112687
Hobby Lobby put itself out there as the visible example of this, so HobbyLobby will stand, for now, the recipient of boycotts, protests etc. Until a proper challenge comes up through the courts.
Consider this a reverse scolding, because I judge you to be an intelligent person, who should understand human psychology. Hope it wasn't unbearable.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But my point is that HL went out of the picture when the SC made that ruleing...now their policy is sanctioned by law...and there is no doubt in my mind, that the 5 that ruled that way did it for political reasons just to create the controversy to pit us against them and not surprisingly just before an election...and it worked...and now there will be a war between the religious right and the left...and will not only fire up the right base, but will give ammo to the third way to blame it on the professional left.
And I do understand human psychology, but not in the technical sense but from personal experiences in life itself...and my experiences span many social and economic classes of people, so I think I have some knowledge of people...and in politics triangulation works, and we still have not understood how and why.
ismnotwasm
(41,979 posts)Ok. How about this, study the history of protests in general, and you'll find much the same thing. The Vietnam protests were partly against a enormous concept-- war, not just that particular war. What I meant was people need a visible target, if you will. Hobby Lobby is everywhere. The SC is in DC.
Actually wiki has a decent page on protests, not perfect but decent if you care to look.
The way I look at it as a potential erosion of Church and State, yes I'm a woman, and am disgusted by the decision primarily because of that, but there are, as you point out other considerations. Court cases will abound. Hobby Lobby is in the way, which is why I disagree with your assessment. They're the ones who spent the funds to get it to the supreme courts---they get the fall out. Meanwhile, they'll be a lot of work to develop a case that will render this decision to the pile of SC decision mistakes. Which will take who knows how long.
Striking down DOMA had some very positive effects, but it took decades. Meanwhile, we have one hell of a legal mess. Or, rather it will be
I hadn't thought about the religious left truth to tell-- they're far less litigious than the right. Interesting point, but I doubt that the religious right was planning on voting democract.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)I see nothing wrong with letting both know they were wrong.
merrily
(45,251 posts)that is taking advantage of the SCOTUS decision.
True, Hobby Lobby is only one asshole corporation and the SCOTUS decision opened the door for ALL asshole corporations and there is the biggest offender. But, there is plenty of blame to go around. It's not either or.
FYI: A boycott of Hobby Lobby and every corp that asks for a waiver will do a lot more than signs at the SCOTUS would have done. Government in general seems not to care a hell of a lot about our signs; and the SCOTUS seems to care even less about how we feel than other branches.
At least the President and Congress need our votes to stay on the public teat for both money and power (and they seem indifferent enough to our calls and petitions, anyway). Members of the SCOTUS do not even need votes.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but you can't deny "I wanna scold your hand" is a great fucking tune.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I thought it was "I wanna scold your band"
Damn rock music, what they are singing about is never clear.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)and well worth the whippin'.