It’s very important to me given the current stakes. We need to be able to hold corporations accountable for their actions (after all they have the same rights as individuals). A great example is the companies still doing business with Russia. I use an app called Push To Leave to ensure I am not buying any products from those companies. The data is based off of a Yale project tracking each company. This is a great way for me to be able to hold Russia accountable for their war crimes.
I endorse the idea that not materially supporting Russia with our purchases is morally important.
Just a follow-up because this discussion is interesting: What about your dollars supporting domestic political initiatives or movements that you're not aligned with?
Are you less concerned with that since it doesn't rise to the level of an international, geopolitical adversary that is authoritarian and bad?
Generally, I do not ever choose products, goods and services based on the political affiliation of the owners, companies, or stock holders. Those choices are driven by cost and quality. Most companies and corporations probably support many things that I find loathsome. I believe people have the right to boycott businesses if they wish but I have never joined any boycotts because rarely do they actually have an impact.
I don't choose art, theater, films, recordings, books, etc. based on the political orientation or moral failings of the artists. Orff and Strauss were apolitical and Nazi adjacent. Wagner was a raving Jew-hater. Picasso, Gaugin and Dali were misogynists. The list could go on but I don't believe any creative (I hate that word almost as badly as influencer!) should be cancelled but their creations judged solely on themselves and in the historical context from which they came. Soviets and fascists created some awesome art.
That said, I do not choose products, goods and services from companies who use religion and/or politics (right or left) as a marketing strategy. They are free to enter the market however they choose. They are free to distribute profits as they choose. But any company for whom implied discrimination against other religions, social and political affiliations will not have my business.
Yes, they are in tension. As I said it is the overt marketing that offends me. Marketing is supposed to attract consumers but overtly religious and political marketing is not attractive except to those who share those same religious and political values. But in reality very few businesses actually market themselves that way unless they are specifically dealing in religious goods and services. I have never found any such business to be the indispensable source for any good, service or product. So I "just don't go there..."
This avoidance isn't so much a matter of principles as it is a matter of taste. And as Harry Selfridge (may) have said: "The customer is always right, in matters of taste."
It is important to us. We left AT&T b/c of their support for insurrectionist Republicans, didn't buy a Toyota for the same reason, and I never shop at Home Depot, Overstock, or L.L.Bean b/c the owners or CEO supports Trump.
Has Trump's presence within the GOP and the insurrection he incited made the difference for you? That is, in the pre-Trump days, would you have refrained from purchasing products from sellers who donated to Republican causes?
Trying to gauge if it's Trump and Jan. 6 that has proven to be the dividing line for you.
While I had loads of antipathy for the pre-Trump GOP (Christian hypocrisy, failure to govern, etc) it is definitely the Trump effect that has made me abandon businesses who support insurrectionist GOPers.
The life-term to 15 year old Ethan Crumbley who had opened fire at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021,with a semi-automatic handgun his father had bought him as a Christmas gift days earlier killing 4 students and 6 injured takes the number of juveniles in jail without parole in the US to 74.
This is when only in 19 States can children below be arrested.
Human Rights and Child Rights advocates in the largest democracy of the world India assert that this phenomenon reflects more the prevalence of the gun culture than rise in juvenile crime.
As ABC News points out,there have been 40,136 homicide deaths this year in the USA due to gun fire.What is less highlighted is the fact that half of these deaths were suicides.Easy access to guns stands out starkly from these stats but people are not asking questions because the National Rifle Association set up in 1871,holds a sway on emotions of people and politicians of both parties.
Says a BBC report,"In 2022, the NRA received $97m (£78m) from membership dues. That is down by more than 40% from its peak year, 2018.In 2021, it spent $4.2m on lobbying, according to non-partisan US research firm OpenSecrets.
The NRA also grades members of Congress from A to F on their perceived friendliness to gun rights.Those ratings can cost pro-gun control candidates their seats."
So strong and aggressive is this lobby that it manages to sway emotions even after a huge tragedy.
Says Upkar Chopra, an Indian born engineer, settled in Virginia, the Headquarters of NRA," So powerful are they that when the country was reeling under the impact of school children killed in a shoot-out, instead of asking parents to keep their guns under lock and key it managed to persuade the Administration to supply more guns to teachers and staff for self-defence."
This scenario is a reflection of the disturbed and distressed state of the common man in the country which is reflected in the number of crimes by its children.
Not that children in under developed countries such as India the largest democracy of the world are not committing 'heinous' crimes which includes robbery,dacoity,rapes and murders which is duly reported by the National Crime Reports Bureau (NCRB) but murders form the least fraction of this.And by guns, hardly any.
India made international headlines in December 2012 when a 23 year old girl (nicknamed Nirbhaya by the media) was brutally gang-raped in a moving bus by six persons and later succumbed to her injuries.There were candle light marches and protests near Parliament demanding hanging for the culprits but what is remarkable is that despite all this, a 17 year old involved in this gruesome crime was spared the gallows and released after completing a reform home term.
This has to be understood in the context that policing in India is much more lax and the number of have-nots is much higher than in developed countries.
Says Amod K Kanth, former DGP and Founder General Secretary of Prayas an NGO working for Child Rights,"Despite dealing with such large number of juveniles we in India have a very strong Juvenile Justice Act.This ensures that the offending children called 'Children in conflict with Law' can be tried only in Juvenile Courts.Due to a surge in crime laws have been changed to bring down the age of juveniles from 18 to 16 for heinous crimes.But even now juveniles are neither handcuffed,sent to adult jail or awarded life-term and death penalty.Till a child is seven he is not charged for any crime."
His is an important voice because in 2005, he was honoured in the White House by George Bush as a "TIP Report Hero Acting to End Modern Slavery".
A US equivalent to institutes like Prayas in my view is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)that gives grants to improve its juvenile delinquency prevention programs.
But given the current scenario its Vision statement,"Youth contact with the Justice System should be rare,fair and beneficial" appears a Utopian mirage.
Prayas in its 35 years of existence has proved that giving a second chance to 'Juveniles in Conflict with Law' has been miraculous.
One of its inmates who had murdered his sister's assailant at age 13 is a renowned painter whose works adorn the Rashtrapati Bhavan (President's House).
Several children in 'Conflict with Law' in India have set up their own start ups or doing very well in life. This is also because of a provision in Juvenile Justice Law that the records of a deviant child would be eliminated for ever.
The belief in the innate human qualities of a 'human child' (not always Juvenile delinquent) and of course denying access to guns makes the big difference.
While the 'civilised' nations like US, UK, Europe view these children as criminals the under-developed countries like India believe in reforming them by offering them a second chance.
I am not a consumer. I am a client or a customer. You apparently regard readers as equivalent to bovine or ovis entities who eat without producing value.
What is the problem with folks developing parallel economies or societies? None of the folks that I see demand that other folks participate in their economies or societies.
It’s very important to me given the current stakes. We need to be able to hold corporations accountable for their actions (after all they have the same rights as individuals). A great example is the companies still doing business with Russia. I use an app called Push To Leave to ensure I am not buying any products from those companies. The data is based off of a Yale project tracking each company. This is a great way for me to be able to hold Russia accountable for their war crimes.
I endorse the idea that not materially supporting Russia with our purchases is morally important.
Just a follow-up because this discussion is interesting: What about your dollars supporting domestic political initiatives or movements that you're not aligned with?
Are you less concerned with that since it doesn't rise to the level of an international, geopolitical adversary that is authoritarian and bad?
Generally, I do not ever choose products, goods and services based on the political affiliation of the owners, companies, or stock holders. Those choices are driven by cost and quality. Most companies and corporations probably support many things that I find loathsome. I believe people have the right to boycott businesses if they wish but I have never joined any boycotts because rarely do they actually have an impact.
I don't choose art, theater, films, recordings, books, etc. based on the political orientation or moral failings of the artists. Orff and Strauss were apolitical and Nazi adjacent. Wagner was a raving Jew-hater. Picasso, Gaugin and Dali were misogynists. The list could go on but I don't believe any creative (I hate that word almost as badly as influencer!) should be cancelled but their creations judged solely on themselves and in the historical context from which they came. Soviets and fascists created some awesome art.
That said, I do not choose products, goods and services from companies who use religion and/or politics (right or left) as a marketing strategy. They are free to enter the market however they choose. They are free to distribute profits as they choose. But any company for whom implied discrimination against other religions, social and political affiliations will not have my business.
Do you think these two statements are in tension with each other?
"Generally, I do not ever choose products, goods and services based on the political affiliation of the owners, companies, or stock holders."
and
"I do not choose products, goods and services from companies who use religion and/or politics (right or left) as a marketing strategy."
Does the second statement suggest you sometimes allow marketing considerations to override things like product quality?
Your comment, as a whole, was well-written.
Yes, they are in tension. As I said it is the overt marketing that offends me. Marketing is supposed to attract consumers but overtly religious and political marketing is not attractive except to those who share those same religious and political values. But in reality very few businesses actually market themselves that way unless they are specifically dealing in religious goods and services. I have never found any such business to be the indispensable source for any good, service or product. So I "just don't go there..."
This avoidance isn't so much a matter of principles as it is a matter of taste. And as Harry Selfridge (may) have said: "The customer is always right, in matters of taste."
It is important to us. We left AT&T b/c of their support for insurrectionist Republicans, didn't buy a Toyota for the same reason, and I never shop at Home Depot, Overstock, or L.L.Bean b/c the owners or CEO supports Trump.
Has Trump's presence within the GOP and the insurrection he incited made the difference for you? That is, in the pre-Trump days, would you have refrained from purchasing products from sellers who donated to Republican causes?
Trying to gauge if it's Trump and Jan. 6 that has proven to be the dividing line for you.
While I had loads of antipathy for the pre-Trump GOP (Christian hypocrisy, failure to govern, etc) it is definitely the Trump effect that has made me abandon businesses who support insurrectionist GOPers.
I want to send my own write up as I have a point of view on many issues that 'normal' publications find very unpopular.
Send me a link please!
The link to the video, and to our YouTube page, is above.
Feel free to post your write-up right here!
I want this to go as article on UnPopulist
Ban the guns not children
By Amitabh Srivastava
The life-term to 15 year old Ethan Crumbley who had opened fire at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021,with a semi-automatic handgun his father had bought him as a Christmas gift days earlier killing 4 students and 6 injured takes the number of juveniles in jail without parole in the US to 74.
This is when only in 19 States can children below be arrested.
Human Rights and Child Rights advocates in the largest democracy of the world India assert that this phenomenon reflects more the prevalence of the gun culture than rise in juvenile crime.
As ABC News points out,there have been 40,136 homicide deaths this year in the USA due to gun fire.What is less highlighted is the fact that half of these deaths were suicides.Easy access to guns stands out starkly from these stats but people are not asking questions because the National Rifle Association set up in 1871,holds a sway on emotions of people and politicians of both parties.
Says a BBC report,"In 2022, the NRA received $97m (£78m) from membership dues. That is down by more than 40% from its peak year, 2018.In 2021, it spent $4.2m on lobbying, according to non-partisan US research firm OpenSecrets.
The NRA also grades members of Congress from A to F on their perceived friendliness to gun rights.Those ratings can cost pro-gun control candidates their seats."
So strong and aggressive is this lobby that it manages to sway emotions even after a huge tragedy.
Says Upkar Chopra, an Indian born engineer, settled in Virginia, the Headquarters of NRA," So powerful are they that when the country was reeling under the impact of school children killed in a shoot-out, instead of asking parents to keep their guns under lock and key it managed to persuade the Administration to supply more guns to teachers and staff for self-defence."
This scenario is a reflection of the disturbed and distressed state of the common man in the country which is reflected in the number of crimes by its children.
Not that children in under developed countries such as India the largest democracy of the world are not committing 'heinous' crimes which includes robbery,dacoity,rapes and murders which is duly reported by the National Crime Reports Bureau (NCRB) but murders form the least fraction of this.And by guns, hardly any.
India made international headlines in December 2012 when a 23 year old girl (nicknamed Nirbhaya by the media) was brutally gang-raped in a moving bus by six persons and later succumbed to her injuries.There were candle light marches and protests near Parliament demanding hanging for the culprits but what is remarkable is that despite all this, a 17 year old involved in this gruesome crime was spared the gallows and released after completing a reform home term.
This has to be understood in the context that policing in India is much more lax and the number of have-nots is much higher than in developed countries.
Says Amod K Kanth, former DGP and Founder General Secretary of Prayas an NGO working for Child Rights,"Despite dealing with such large number of juveniles we in India have a very strong Juvenile Justice Act.This ensures that the offending children called 'Children in conflict with Law' can be tried only in Juvenile Courts.Due to a surge in crime laws have been changed to bring down the age of juveniles from 18 to 16 for heinous crimes.But even now juveniles are neither handcuffed,sent to adult jail or awarded life-term and death penalty.Till a child is seven he is not charged for any crime."
His is an important voice because in 2005, he was honoured in the White House by George Bush as a "TIP Report Hero Acting to End Modern Slavery".
A US equivalent to institutes like Prayas in my view is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)that gives grants to improve its juvenile delinquency prevention programs.
But given the current scenario its Vision statement,"Youth contact with the Justice System should be rare,fair and beneficial" appears a Utopian mirage.
Prayas in its 35 years of existence has proved that giving a second chance to 'Juveniles in Conflict with Law' has been miraculous.
One of its inmates who had murdered his sister's assailant at age 13 is a renowned painter whose works adorn the Rashtrapati Bhavan (President's House).
Several children in 'Conflict with Law' in India have set up their own start ups or doing very well in life. This is also because of a provision in Juvenile Justice Law that the records of a deviant child would be eliminated for ever.
The belief in the innate human qualities of a 'human child' (not always Juvenile delinquent) and of course denying access to guns makes the big difference.
While the 'civilised' nations like US, UK, Europe view these children as criminals the under-developed countries like India believe in reforming them by offering them a second chance.
Amitabh Srivastava
Senior Journalist
I am not a consumer. I am a client or a customer. You apparently regard readers as equivalent to bovine or ovis entities who eat without producing value.
What is the problem with folks developing parallel economies or societies? None of the folks that I see demand that other folks participate in their economies or societies.