Boycotts

                                             

A columnist in my home town newspaper recently wrote a tongue in cheek essay on the strategy of boycotting companies whose owners have objectionable political positions or who have contributed to objectionable causes. The columnist is unabashedly liberal and even though he objected to conservative causes, he admitted that it was not always possible to toe the boycott line.

For example, he claimed that he had boycotted Hobby Lobby for years although his original motive had faded from memory.  Moreover, he admitted that he was not a hobbyist and had no idea of Hobby Lobby’s product line. Obviously, this boycott represented no sacrifice on his part, nor did it have an effect on Hobby Lobby whose large ads appear regularly in his newspaper.

It was somewhat different with New Balance, the sneaker company. Despite the objectionable politics or political donations of one of the company’s owners, he liked the sneakers and had recently bought two pair. Moreover, he even admitted to patronizing notorious Chick-Fil-A on occasion to satisfy the needs of a hungry daughter.

I do not object to boycotts in principle and do admit that I have been tempted to participate in my own personal boycotts. For example, I have often thought of cancelling my subscription to his newspaper, the CT Post, not because its political views are objectionable, but because it increasingly obscures the difference between reporting and opinion. However, I persist, largely because the obituaries are very important to someone of my age.

I would like to suggest, however, some potential boycott targets for liberals and progressives.  First, I suggest they boycott or at least protest real estate companies and agents that deal in fourteen-million dollar estates especially on secluded hideaway islands like Martha’s Vineyard. Why should a family of four need a home with seven bedrooms and 29 acres?

Second, I suggest that they follow the lead of NYC Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and boycott the airlines. Since she lives in NYC it would be easy for her to take the train to Washington D. C., but fellow members of the “Squad” might have more difficulty. Actually, it would make it very difficult for the “Squads” Ilhan Abdullah Omar to visit her grandmother in Israel (Palestine). Since steamships still must use fossil fuel, she would have to sail.

Senators from northern states like Vermont could lead a boycott against companies that supply and deliver oil and gas to heat their homes. That would involve real sacrifice on their part since they also might be averse to cutting down trees to heat their homes. 

They may also want to boycott the meat and dairy industries. After all, methane from cow flatulence is a greenhouse gas and can impact global warming. I know many have already given up on beef burgers and substituted veggie or turkey burgers but what about the milk and cream in their “lattes” from Starbucks and other coffee chains?

Personally, here are some of my own boycott targets. I boycott cable news stations like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News which spew millions of words into the atmosphere each and every day. It is truly sound and fury signifying nothing. I would like to boycott my cable company since I use only a couple of the hundreds of channels provided even in my basic package. However, it includes my Internet access and I’ll stick it out for now.

Actually, I can’t think of any products or companies I boycott because of the political, religious, or cultural views of their producers or owners. I am a film buff and like to watch films from all over the world. I don’t care to even know about the personal lives or political views of the directors, actors, and actresses who make these films come to life. In my retirement I have become an amateur art historian specializing in the art of the Venetian Renaissance. I know many of the artists led scandalous lives but they were great craftsmen and their works are still things of beauty.

###

Voter Suppression 2019

The Squad

Democratic politicians and commentators routinely criticize Republicans for engaging in voter suppression. They claim that their opponents engage in attempts to keep voters away from the polls, especially those who might be likely to vote for Democrats. Here is another instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

In Democratic strongholds election results are so certain, that most Democratic politicians are elected with overwhelming majorities but with only by a small percentage of the voters. For example, if we look at the “Squad”, the name appropriated by the four minority females recently elected to the House of Representatives, we see examples of what might be called reverse voter suppression.

In each case, while they won overwhelming victories in their largely urban districts, only a small percentage of the people actually voted in their districts.  For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the now famous AOC, received 110000 votes or 78% of the votes cast in New York’s 14^th Congressional district. However, the population of the district that includes parts of the boroughs of the Bronx and Queens is 691000. So, 16% of the people in the district actually voted for her, and on the basis of those 110000 votes, she calls for sweeping and substantial reforms that would impact the whole country. 

Rachida Tlaib received 165000 votes or 84% of the votes cast in Michigan’s 13^th Congressional district.  The district is carved out of parts of Detroit and its environs and has a population of 705000. So, she was elected by 23% of her constituents. Ayanna Pressley received 212000 votes or an astounding 98% of the votes cast in the 7^th Massachusetts Congressional district. That district surrounding Boston has a population of 806000. She was elected by 27% of her constituents. 

 Ilhan Abdullah Omar was the “Squads” top vote getter. She received 267000 votes or 78% of the total votes cast in Minnesota’s 4^th Congressional district. Largely centered in Minneapolis, that district has a population of 708000. She garnered the votes of 38% of the people in her district, a very impressive total. Despite her radical views, she has more claim to electoral legitimacy than the other members of the Squad. 

Actually, these low urban turnout rates in safe Blue State districts do not seem to be abnormal. James Himes, the incumbent representative from Connecticut’s largely suburban Fairfield County, won an easy victory in 2018 but only 23% of his 735000 constituents voted for him. In the hotly contested 2016 Presidential election 60% of the population did not vote. 

The most striking examples of voter suppression or apathy would appear to occur in American cities. Mayor Bill De Blasio of New York City was reelected in 2018 but his 736000 voters were only 8% of the City’s 8 million plus population. With that underwhelming mandate, he decided to run for President. A couple of years ago, in nearby Bridgeport, Mayor Joseph Ganim gained an easy victory with only 11000 votes, 8% of the voters in Connecticut’s largest city. He took this victory as a mandate to run for Governor in 2018.

Are Democrats in this blue cities and districts suppressing the vote, or is it just a question of voter apathy? I suspect that apathy is the real answer. Voters realize that it is largely futile or irrelevant to vote in Congressional districts that have been so designed or “gerrymandered” that they guarantee re-election for incumbents. The four members of the Squad will never have to worry about Russian interference in their future campaigns. They probably will hold their positions for life unless they decide to go on to bigger and bigger things. 

It is hard to take voting rights advocates seriously when they claim that every vote counts. What does it tell us about democracy in America when someone can get elected with 98% of the votes cast, or when only 8% of a major city’s population is all that is needed to elect a mayor?  

###

Gun Violence

The recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton have once again led to the same kind of debate that followed the terrible massacre of 20 children and six teachers in a kindergarten classroom in Newtown seven years ago. At that time, the governor of Connecticut led the charge for stricter gun control laws but others argued that the focus should be on the mentally ill young killer who wielded the weapons. At the time, I wondered why people on both sides of the issue preferred to "demonize" each other instead of working together. I still feel the same way and revisit my Newtown article below since the current response has been much the same....                                   

I know that violent acts are going on all over the world but the massacre of twenty innocent children and six school staff in Newtown hit so close to home that it broke through our psychological firewall. At the time, we had a grandchild in kindergarten in Newtown's other elementary school. 

Since the tragedy innumerable words have been written and by now the newspapers are full of articles and letters offering solutions to the problem. Inevitably, most take a one sided view. Some writers call for stricter gun control laws. Others decry the violence in our entertainment media and overall culture. Finally, others call for reforms in treatment of the so-called violent mentally ill.

I would like to suggest all of the above. It seems striking to me that most advocates of stricter gun control are also ardent defenders of Hollywood’s right to do whatever it pleases in depicting violence. At the same time, opponents of violence in the media are often strong supporters of gun ownership. It seems that it is time for those on both the left and the right to come together and adopt each other’s solutions.

I have never owned a gun and never plan to own one, but I know very good people who do. Two beloved uncles were avid hunters, and so is my younger brother, a retired NYPD officer who also happens to be a fanatic about gun safety.

Even before the massacre of the children and their teachers in Newtown, it was hard for me to understand the intransigence of some people on both sides of the issue of gun control. On the one hand, I have never been able to understand why a hunter might require an assault rifle or a handgun that is just about the modern equivalent of the machine guns that were banned in the 1930s.

On the other hand, I am aware that even states like Connecticut that have the most stringent gun-control laws are among those with the most violent crime rates. Bridgeport, Connecticut is usually among the Nation’s leaders in firearm related murders. Frankly, I believe that the possibility that one of my neighbors might actually own a revolver is a real deterrent to crime in my neighborhood. 

Still, I don’t believe that the right to bear arms allows me or my neighbor to assemble an arsenal fit for a SWAT team. We have banned especially lethal firearms in the past and we can do it again. I know that criminals will probably find ways to get their hands on assault rifles, but the supply could be limited at the source.

While we are at it, I think that there is another so-called right that needs to be somewhat restricted. Why is it that proponents of stricter gun control laws never seem to oppose the acts of violence that appear daily in films, video games, and on TV?  You could be watching "Why the Grinch Stole Christmas" this Christmas season only to see it interrupted by commercials for films full of bloodshed. I can’t imagine the violence that my grandchildren see on their video games where they themselves become the shooter.

Maybe, most of us wouldn’t be led to commit acts of violence by witnessing violence, but what about the mentally ill? Some will say that exposure to this violence does no harm. Some also argue that it limits free speech and stifles artistic creativity.   If what people see on TV does not influence behavior, why do advertisers spend so much money promoting their wares, or politicians buy so much ad-time to get elected?

As far as artistic creativity is concerned, I believe that I can make a very strong case for censorship. During the 1930s the film industry adopted the now infamous “Production Code.” Faced with the threat of government censorship resulting from a public outcry, Hollywood agreed to police itself. Any new film would have to be reviewed and modified if it failed to meet certain set standards. The Production code was abandoned decades ago but modern filmmakers and critics still bemoan the censorship that gripped Hollywood.

Turner Classic Movies has released DVD sets of some of the pre-code films and a reviewer in the Wall St. Journal thought that the Code had been a great tragedy. However, in his own review he could only point to one or two films of even limited value from the pre-Code era. He failed to mention that the adoption of the infamous Code coincided with what most critics regard as the Golden Age of film. 

For example, 1939 is regarded as one of the greatest years in Hollywood history. “Gone with the Wind” swept most of the Oscars, but moviegoers that year also saw: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; Wuthering Heights; Goodbye, Mr. Chips; Stagecoach; the Wizard of Oz; Ninotchka; Of Mice and Men; and Dark Victory. The next two years saw the likes of Citizen Kane and Casablanca—two of the greatest films of all time. Restrictions on the so-called creativity of producers, directors, and artists only forced them to greater heights of excellence. 

I originally put up this post seven years ago. Since that time, states have passed increasingly strict gun control laws but the violence in the movies, in video games, and on TV has gotten worse and worse. I don't play video games and rarely go to the movies anymore. On those rare occasions I am struct by the violence in many of the coming attractions, especially with the use of computer technology. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people on both sides of the political spectrum could come together next year to make America a more peaceful society? It wouldn't take a constitutional amendment for Hollywood to voluntarily ban the AK-47 from its movies and games.

###

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Revisited

                                             

 On August 5, 1945 a U.S. Air Force bomber dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Four days later a second atomic bomb was dropped on the port city of Nagasaki. Five days later  on August 15 Japanese Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese government agreed to accede to Allied demands and surrender unconditionally. 

Earlier that year, on May 8, 1945, the European Allies had accepted the surrender of Germany after Hitler’s suicide. VE Day marked the end of the war in Europe and the Allies could now turn their full attention to the defeat of Japan. Joseph Stalin, the brutal Communist dictator in Russia, had refused to open an Asian front against Japan until the defeat of Germany. 

After VE Day Stalin agreed to launch an attack on the Japanese puppet state in Mongolia within three months. On July 26, 1945 the Allied leaders met at Potsdam and issued a demand to Japan to surrender unconditionally or face utter destruction. While the Russians built up their forces in the East, the United States launched a series of devastating firebomb attacks on Japanese cities from recently taken islands in the Pacific.

When these attacks failed to bring the Japanese to their knees, the Allies made preparations for a full-scale attack on the Japanese mainland. Massive casualties were projected on both sides.  Finally, by the beginning of August scientists had successfully tested the Atom bomb. President Truman then made the decision to use the bomb.

I was six years old at the time and have only the slightest recollection of that world-shattering event. I don’t think anyone at the time could have imagined the awful destruction caused by those two bombs. A few years later, after the Soviet Union had managed to steal the technology and build their own bomb, I remember participating in air raid drills in school. Teachers told us to crouch under our desks or just put our heads on the desks with our hands over them. I guess that this exercise was to protect against shattered windows but even we children realized its futility.

As  I got older I became somewhat aware of the debate that had gone on within the Truman administration about the decision to drop the bomb, as well as the debate that still goes on among scholars and other commentators about the necessity and morality of the action. I’m sure that this question is one in which there are strong arguments on both sides. For myself, I still wonder why it was necessary to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki only four days after Hiroshima. 

Coincidentally, at the time Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan. The day the Japanese government agreed to surrender was August 15, for Catholics the feast day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven. Although Catholics had celebrated the feast of the Assumption on August 15 for centuries, the doctrine had never been officially defined by the Church. 

Maybe it was the awful destruction of the Second World War, maybe it was the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and maybe it was the prospect of an atomic arms race, but only five years after the surrender of Japan on August 15, Pope Pius XII, in a rare exercise of Papal infallibility, declared that belief in the Assumption of Mary was a binding doctrine of the Catholic church.

So far, despite the Cold War and the continued development of nuclear weapons, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain unique.  Although warfare has continued, there has thankfully been no worldwide conflagration to match either WWI  or WWII. It might not seem so, but since August 15, 1945 we have witnessed an unprecedented era of peace between world powers.

 One of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was his stated concern about the danger of nuclear war. I cannot find the exact source but I recall that when he was asked about the greatest issue facing the country, he put the threat of nuclear war at the top of the list. In the coming 2020 Presidential campaign, I believe that it should still be at the top of the list. It certainly far surpasses in importance any issues that "progressive Democrats" have raised since 2016.

###