A ‘Vote of No Confidence’

 

     I know, I’m silent for months and then I start putting out multiple posts in a week.  It’s all part of the fits and starts with me.  Sometimes I can’t put things together for months and then it’s a big blaze of posts all at once.  Just bear with me on this one, as I try to work through my thoughts.

     I have some difficulty with recent events regarding the ‘outing’ if you will of Mozilla’s CEO (he gave $1,000 in 2008 to a group which did not want California to have same-sex marriage) and the subsequent reaction by both sides before and after his resignation.  It’s not whether or not I agree with his opinion (he is more than welcome to it), or his choice to resign (if you’re becoming the focus instead of the company, than maybe you need to remove yourself from the situation).  I have an issue with this concept of ‘boycotting’ a product or company seemingly for almost no reason.

     Here is what gets to me. Calling for a boycott of Mozilla products (or Chik-fil-A as another example) for whatever reason says to me that you don’t believe simply telling your friends, family, neighbors, and acquaintances that you will no longer use said product is not enough to achieve your desired result. Or, more specifically, you don’t believe your position is in the majority (aren’t we supposed to be under the rule of the majority?) and so you intend to force your position through coercion rather than reason.

     Allow me to give an example of what I mean:  I do not like Rite Aid.  I have used them in the past, and their customer service has left much to be desired.  As a result, I do not get my prescriptions from them and avoid shopping there for anything.  I also let people know (when an appropriate situation comes up) that I will not shop there and why.  Is that a boycott?  No.  In my mind, it is a choice.  I have ‘voted’ if you will with my feet and my wallet.  Now, if enough people follow my lead (or maybe I’m following someone else’s lead, who knows?) then their bottom line will suffer to the point they will either change (feedback is important) or go out of business.

     To summarize, I believe screaming ‘boycott!!!’ because a business does,or doesn’t do something you think is right is ‘quitting the field’ of persuasion because you either can’t be bothered to try and persuade others, or you’re just being selfish and throwing a tantrum to get what you want.  Either way, to the adults of the world you end up looking and sounding childish.

So this is what it takes to get me back to blogging

 

     Yeah, I know, it’s been a really long time.  I went and looked at my blog and realized it’s been almost six months (October 2013 was the last post) since I last posted.  It’s not that there weren’t things to post about.  Christmas, New Years, current events, I would see something and start thinking ‘I should post about this’. Then life would take over and it would be two weeks later and the momentum for posting was gone.  But now, I’ve latched on to something and I’m not going to let go.  So, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, and off I go...

     Political minded individuals are aware the Supreme Court decided today that there should not be any limits to how much an individual (or corporation – I believe they can be considered the same thing for the purposes of money and campaigns) can donate to campaigns.  The bottom line is:  for those individuals and entities who are so inclined, they can contribute the maximum individual amount (there is still a limit to how much can be given to an individual campaign) to as many campaigns as they like.  So, now your favorite bogeyman (George Soros or the Koch brothers are the best known for both sides of the political spectrum), can spend as much money as they like on as many races as possible to get the government they want into power.  Does it scare you?  Maybe it should.

     There are some people who believe this is another of those decisions that signal the end of the republic (or at least the end of the world as we know it – yes I like that using that phrase just to give people the earworm), others believe this is freedom.  I tend to look at it this way:  Those who have the money can spend it on the candidates they want, as many as they want.  I do not have a lot of disposable income that I can invest in the political process, and the only thing I have is my vote.  This decision tells me that money is more important than voting.  Remember the golden rule.  No, not the ‘do unto others’ one, that’s just crazy talk, the one I’m thinking of is ‘ he who has the gold, makes the rules.’  Money has spoken, and the vote just lost part of its voice.  How long before voting has no voice?