Red State Embargoes and Boycotts
Rosie sent me a concession speech from Adam Felber in LA that is hilarious, sad, and true. The gist regarding secession is posted below because it is giving me some ideas.
"There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"
More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I concede that."
So secession? Maybe not quite yet. Still I'm really starting to wonder if the South shouldn't have been allowed to secede after slaves were liberated for all of the reasons Felber mentions above. Is it too late? If it is, maybe the blue states could secede. I'm sure the red states wouldn't mind. They think we are amoral snobs anyway.
OR! Let's talk embargo and boycotts. Both are very difficult to enforce. There is a lot I do not know about interstate trade laws, but how hard would it be for blue states to begin restricting trade to certain states? It would be a crazy ride to get there, but if blue states started to trade only with those states or even areas (urban vs. rural) or companies that did not commit civil rights violations it could be really interesting. Could we figure out a way to pretend the red states do not exist? I'm already not spending money in states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions. Is there a way to beef that up?
Even if only the threatened minority communities--women, ethnic groups, glbt people participated I think we'd see some results. After all, Coors hired Mary Cheney for a specific reason years ago and that was to bring gay business back into the fold after the glbt community recognized Coors' anti-gay values.
But we have to be vigilant. Pete Coors began to offer domestic partner benefits, while simultaneously giving tons of money to anti-gay organizations. Do you see? He offered dp benefits, which costs little but gets him glbt business and sympathy. BUT he also quietly donates scads of money to anti-gay organizations, which costs a little more, but in return he receives far right-wing support. So the only loser here are glbt people. Pete has an appearance of looking supportive of civil rights, as he does his part to destroy them. No one can say these people aren't clever.
Economic secession from the red states is what we are talking about (this will be challenge for us since we live in one, at least for now). I can certainly live without Coors. What are some other red state products we can live without? What are some blue state products we might want to see red states live without? What else can we do to avoid spending money in these bigoted cesspools? What exceptions might we make if a state or company is truly trying to support civil rights?
"There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"
More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I concede that."
So secession? Maybe not quite yet. Still I'm really starting to wonder if the South shouldn't have been allowed to secede after slaves were liberated for all of the reasons Felber mentions above. Is it too late? If it is, maybe the blue states could secede. I'm sure the red states wouldn't mind. They think we are amoral snobs anyway.
OR! Let's talk embargo and boycotts. Both are very difficult to enforce. There is a lot I do not know about interstate trade laws, but how hard would it be for blue states to begin restricting trade to certain states? It would be a crazy ride to get there, but if blue states started to trade only with those states or even areas (urban vs. rural) or companies that did not commit civil rights violations it could be really interesting. Could we figure out a way to pretend the red states do not exist? I'm already not spending money in states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions. Is there a way to beef that up?
Even if only the threatened minority communities--women, ethnic groups, glbt people participated I think we'd see some results. After all, Coors hired Mary Cheney for a specific reason years ago and that was to bring gay business back into the fold after the glbt community recognized Coors' anti-gay values.
But we have to be vigilant. Pete Coors began to offer domestic partner benefits, while simultaneously giving tons of money to anti-gay organizations. Do you see? He offered dp benefits, which costs little but gets him glbt business and sympathy. BUT he also quietly donates scads of money to anti-gay organizations, which costs a little more, but in return he receives far right-wing support. So the only loser here are glbt people. Pete has an appearance of looking supportive of civil rights, as he does his part to destroy them. No one can say these people aren't clever.
Economic secession from the red states is what we are talking about (this will be challenge for us since we live in one, at least for now). I can certainly live without Coors. What are some other red state products we can live without? What are some blue state products we might want to see red states live without? What else can we do to avoid spending money in these bigoted cesspools? What exceptions might we make if a state or company is truly trying to support civil rights?
posted by Troy at 2:50 PM
2 Comments:
Dear Troy: I was reading Jennie's blog and saw your question about BloggerBot. Flipped over to your blog and was just scanning the posts. Saw what I think was a typo on the Nov. 6, 2004 post. I think it should be gist instead of "jist". I'm sure it was just a typo. The only reason I have the liberty to be so OCD is that I've made worse mistakes in my life. One I will never forget is when you taught me how to pronounce chic. I always pronounced it "chick" never realizing there was no cluck in it. Later. cmmjr
CMMJR, I would like to think that "jist" has been the only typo I've made in three months, but I doubt it. I'm going to change it right this very minute though. And if you find anymore errors, let that OCD just kick on in and chime up. And no matter how you say it, you'll always be the embodiment of chic to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home