BOYCOTT WHOLE FOODS

@lowcarbconfidential (and those who think alike)

Know the difference between suppression of free speech and conscientious consumership.

Every single one of us loves free speech. The United States was founded upon that very principle. If required, many of us would die to uphold living in a country with free speech. That includes upholding the rights to make sentiments we may detest. Mackey, within the law, is free to say almost anything he wishes to say.

This issue isn’t about free speech. It’s mostly about one thing.

The issue is about health. It’s about providing health coverage to the /whole/ of our society by having a public option. To us, this issue is a life and death matter. Repeat. It’s a life and death matter. The 50 million people who lack health care and the tens-to-hundreds of millions more who are under-insured or one misfortune away from bankruptcy are, in our views, lives caught in the threshold of a broken system. It is a sick system. We feel the urgency with which it must be fixed. Countless people are suffering right now. Internally, there is no greater ethical imperative facing us. The United States needs a public option and needs to enter the 21st century.

We care. Get that point and you’ll begin to ‘get’ the boycott. And we’re at the precipice. Is one part of the solution or is one part of the problem?

Then came Mackey.

Mackey, as an embodiment of Whole Foods, chose to become part of the problem. So why, exactly, is he part of the problem; just free speech, is it not? When a company chooses to engage in politics, that company must be prepared to pay the ultimate price. That means voting with dollars. Just as a shopper would likely not support a company whose CEO writes op-eds that favor imprisoning or sentencing to death 50 million people chosen at random, so too might a shopper who sees a public option as especially-important be unlikely to support a company whose very image and CEO acts as a vehicle of opposition. It’s that important.

Whole Foods built its reputation as a haven for liberal, concerned, rather-intelligent shoppers, if I may say. We’re the label readers. We’re the people who care about the source. Sometimes we fall into complacency and become too trusting ourselves; it’s hard to not. But, on the whole, we try to give a damn. We, in effect, represent Whole Foods. And we’re the exact demographic who most supports social health coverage.

The boycott is one answer.

In capitalism, boycotts can have meaning. Let it serve as an answer to all companies out there who are thinking about being callous and opposing real reform of this broken insurance market. Let it serve as an answer that says, “think twice about politics; choose your words wisely or die by your sword/pen.” Mackey chose. Free speech (freedom in general) is nice. This same freedom allows me to choose not to give thousands upon thousands of dollars to an entity and directorship that chooses to go against my deepest interests. In doing so, other companies that do serve my interests will grow. Then they will receive my thousands upon thousands of grocery dollars per year, as will their employees. That’s the market.

As with any divisive political issue, many in the opposition will attempt to make Whole Foods their new grocery store. I’ve read a lot of comments by neocons mocking and bashing “liberals and hippies” while in the same sentence saying they will shop at Whole Foods to more than make up the difference. That’s great. …more power to them. At least, they’ll likely be moving up in the spectrum of brands/goods they purchase. Though it certainly causes this liberal to wonder whether Mackey is scared at the prospect of shoppers of his own right-wing libertarian ideology becoming the new perception of Whole Foods. Who knows?

Boycotting Whole Foods is not suitable for everyone who supports a public option. It’s entirely a judgment call. Many people don’t have sane alternatives. Some people will do it temporarily, maybe a few months or more, just to show a dent in Whole Food’s bottom line, to show they’re out there. Some will do it for certain types of products or whatever the case. One must make that choice. “Am I able to do without shopping at Whole Foods and still shop ethically?”

It’s pretty simple.

Keep buying ethically. Support the farmers, producers, and companies who make good things. Find alternatives to Whole Foods if you can.

Not American!? Silencing free speech!?

By that logic, because of Mackey’s words and his use of Whole Foods as an instrument to come out against a public option, he must be, ahem, trying to “silence” the supporters of a public option. That sure is “un-American” of him! Of course, in reality, supporting one’s causes AND opposing one’s opposition is rather quite “American” by tradition.

Want better ideas, do you?

I have one. Let’s care about our society. Let’s give people the right to the option of having public health insurance.

Mackey is a egocentric idiot.

He has got to be unhinged.

And he does not understand the real world or the needs of real people which includes adequate healthcare.

The Whole Foods Board will hopefully take action and get a new CEO.

If you think his ideas are good, YOU shop there. The ability for us to act on our beliefs and actions is very American, and we choose to boycott. It is our right.

Perhaps you’re the one that should come up with better ideas.

The Whole Foods store here in Austin is very expensive and most of the customers look very wealthy. It seems John Mackey is power hungry and feels no compassion or apathy for poor and working-class folk. I believe a boycott of his stores will send a strong message to him that health care is an intrinsic (inalienable) right that belongs to all us as members of the human race. Mackey’s selfish individualism has blinded him from the realities of capitalism and how by its very nature it places most people at a huge disadvantage.

i sent an email to the local store (here in San Diego) that my wife and I joined the boycott. Sorry im not on facebook (I waste my time in other ways lol)