Do You Buy Into These?

The Post-Election Edition        November 5, 2010  11:33 p.m.            Stardate 10843.838

Are you supporting deploreable conditions worldwide by buying any of the following?

You already know about the fur coats, leather [c'mon it's just cow hide], and cosmetics. Shampoos and chemicals you use regularly on your bodies [stearate means 'of hooved animals'], and rare delicacies [I wouldn't eat that shit]. Goose down comforters and jackets, sheep's wool. How many times were the animals plucked and sheared before finally dying?

Meat, fish, and poultry. Now come on, there is no humane way to end a life to put on your dinner table! Aren't those live crab a real San Francisco treat? Boiled, cracked, and served with tartar and a lemon while you watch mmmmm

Bootleg movies and music fund terrorists [or so they say]. It takes away revenues. Yet the same industry distributes new movies abroad before showing in the US, to 'pad' the opening gross. The countries they show them in, the same one with the 'terrorists' who are actually freedom fhghters. So you are funding both sides of a civil war! Enjoy the movie.

Chocolates from Europe are made from cocoa harvested in western Africa, more than 2/3s of the world's supply. Harvested by children no older than 15. In conditons more deplorable than sweat shops and farms near Mexico. So enjoy the Cadbury picked by a child who doesn't know what a candy bar is.

Expensive brand products that are marked up 1,000 times over labor? Congratulations, you just helped a seven year old feed his family at 12 cents a day. But an American lost his job today because of you. Oh well.

Products not made in the USA? Worse yet, Walmart's knock-offs? Customer service from around the world? Don't think of it as if you are supporting outsourcing...you just made a [US] CEO that much richer!

______________________________________________________________

California Marijuana Initiative

Proposition 19 did not pass. It would have legalized the production, sale, possession, and use of marijuana for recreational purposes.

There are reasons why it did not pass.

It did not define any restrictions as to its use, publicly or privately. I, for one, do not want the smell of it in public, even 'open' parks. I would avoid a person who reeked of it in their clothes, hair, skin just as I would with an obvious alcoholic, smelled of tobacco, or other foul smell.

The government wants to profit with the use of a substance known to cause effects that are so different in each individual. This is irresponsible. Politicians see this as a popularity tool. Bureaucrats would see this as a form of profit. Many would want a piece of this licensed business if made to look lucrative. 'Quality' growers see this a a threat to their business. Current legitimate medical users would see lesser quality products.

Ads were deceptive.

It would hurt the Mexican drug cartels. False! They never saw CA as a potential target or threat to their business, since they dealt more in cocaine and chemical processing. Although British Columbia would have seen CA as a trade partner since they legally produce quality pods.