<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> Jim:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> Holy shit!  Hating on Whole Paycheck is seriously akin to anti-semitism?!?!?!?  Are you joking man?!?!  I do not mean to be dismissive but I seriously find this assertion to be the funniest thing I've ever read on here (a considerable thing). There's a good article on whole foods' busting of a union in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">wisconsin</st1:place></st1:State> by one of the busted union members, debbie rasmussen, reposted at <a href="http://djwilson.livejournal.com/130643.html">http://djwilson.livejournal.com/130643.html</a>. But I'm just putting this out there; I shop mostly at union stores, but not entirely, and I even shop of that bastion of (cheap) vegan elitism trader joes (three dollar wine man!).<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> [WS:] Look man, do not try to dismiss what certainly is a valid point here.  Almost every <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> business is like WF – fundamentally anti-union, embracing a “social cause or concern” of one sort or another for marketing and publicity reasons, and but really concerned about one thing – their bottom line.  It matters little whether that “social concern” is x-tian values (Wal Mart), all-American appearance (Hooters), fair trade (Starbucks), environmental protection (“people do” Chevron) or sustainable food production (WF) -  all of it is PR, marketing and name branding which covers up rather than reflects the true goal of the management and shareholders – profit uber alles.  So the fact that someone singles out for criticism a company that clearly has an “un-American” image is quite suspicious, no?  It certainly reminds me of populist anti-Semitism disguised as a “radical” critique of capitalism, or more recently – explicitly jingoistic and racist spectacles of auto workers or steelers smashing Japanese products in front of TV cameras, or construction workers filling the ranks of anti-immigrant nativist movement.  Are you trying to tell me that those things did not happen, or what?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I already addressed the issue of futility of this approach as a strategy in my previous posting.  Here, I’d like to look at this from a somewhat different angle: self interest vs. public displays of piousness.  People certainly have their personal preferences.  I may prefer to shop at Giantcorp Foods instead Trader Joe Schmoe, because I do not like to be excessively gauged, and Giantcorp’s big box is closer to where I live than Trader Joe Schmoe’s delicatessen.  Or conversely, I may hate the cavernous big box look of Giantcorp, and prefer the more cozy look and feel of Trader Joe Schmoe, or whatever.  The bottom line is that these are my personal preferences based on my tastes, convenience and expectations.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Turning those personal preferences into pompous political statements is one of the most annoying aspects of the US political culture.  One no longer buys what one likes and avoids what he dislikes – that would be too mundane.  One shops for a greater cause – saving the planet, following Jesus, freedom of butt-fucking, supporting <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>, fighting for justice, letting the freedom ring, whatever.  It is annoying, because it is a self-serving public display of piousness, no different than throwing a few pennies to beggars to secure one’s place in heaven or history, or business campaigns espousing “social causes” to improve their public image (and bottom line), but does absolutely nothing to actually advance the purported cause.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Stated differently, while I dislike Islamism as ideology, I feel certain respect for its followers who are willing to make significant personal sacrifices to advance its cause.  They are at least honest in what they are doing, even if what they are doing is reprehensible.  By contrast, I support the ideals of fair labor practice, equal justice, fair trade or environmental sustainability, but I am turned off by their supporters (or perhaps some of them) who do little more than pampering their own asses while making big claims to do it for a cause.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> To sum this up, while I am certainly supportive of organized labor (and other progressive, liberal causes,) I dismiss the idea of shopping for a cause as a bunch of crock.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Wojtek<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>