7 ms·

I read a quote somewhere (forget where) saying "folks in favor of universal healthcare keep saying 'lets have a debate'. OK, then Mackey's editorial was a PERF

by tjic 17y ago

I read a quote somewhere (forget where) saying "folks in favor of universal healthcare keep saying 'lets have a debate'. OK, then Mackey's editorial was a PERFECT example of having a debate ... and he's getting castigated for it. This shows that folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate - they are interested in complete victory, with zero dissent. It's an ideology, not a rational position." I 100% agree.

gloob 17y ago
That doesn't follow rationally, I don't think. The argument looks like this: 1. Some people support universal healthcare. 2. Some people are boycotting Whole Foods. 3. All the people boycotting Whole Foods support universal healthcare. Therefore, all people who support universal healthcare are ideologues who are incapable of carrying on a rational debate. Eh, I guess it appeals to the same sort of people who think Glen Beck is representative of everyone who votes Republican, though.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
gamble 17y ago
If you want to have a rational debate, opening as John Mackey did with a quotation that implies your opponents are parasitic socialists is probably not the best way to start.
- TheElder 17y ago
  Here's the quote which you are talking about to let everybody make up their mind on it: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...
  - cwan 17y ago
    His quote doesn't seem terribly unreasonable especially after they revised cumulative deficit projections for the next 10 years to be 9 trillion dollars this past Friday (up from 7) and that doesn't even include new healthcare entitlements at an estimated 1 trillion! Given how prone they are to underestimating costs like this, these numbers are more likely to be a floor than a ceiling and don't include the deficits that come after! It is however perhaps telling that those who support Obama's plan would be offended by the quote which doesn't necessarily use the term socialism in the pejorative sense. What I don't understand is the guy who compared Thatcher to the Third Reich. Do they forget what "Nazi" actually stands for? Anyway, what is even more frustrating is that unions now want to have John Mackay fired for having the gall to disagree with the President (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specialized-consumer-services-us-whole-foods-union_6813165.html http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specializ...). Is this thuggery what counts as discourse in the US now? If you don't agree with the current administration you must be racist, stupid and ought to have your livelihood taken away?
- Legion 17y ago
  Yet it's a perfect opportunity to show that your "side" is the rational one. I read an opinion piece in a local (Monterey, CA) weekly paper, trying to explain why the Whole Foods boycotters are completely different than the "teabaggers". It essentially was, "we think those guys are retarded, but he's why we're not retarded, even though you can't tell us apart by looking." The ability to self-delude is a key attribute in taking part of silly "us vs. them" partisan politics. Issues like health care are amazingly complex, but it's easier to go with the groupthink and take up a rallying cry than dig into the issue and realize how nonsensical the "bumper sticker answers" are.
tallanvor 17y ago
If people disagree with his position, they have every right to peacefully make their dissent known. If the easiest way they have to do that is to boycott his business, then it is entirely acceptable for them to do so. And lets be honest, the ability for people to engage in a debate with him is limited at best. The average person isn't likely to have the opportunity to write an editoral for the Wall Street Journal, and a small minority of anti-reform fanatics have made sure that it is impossible to have an actual dialog in town hall meetings. Debate would be great, but where is it going to happen? At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.
- Perceval 17y ago
  In an ideal world, the purpose of political speech is to persuade. Mackey's piece, while inflammatory in parts, is an argument that he intends to persuade at least some people. In an ideal world, the appropriate response to political speech that one find's wrong, objectionable, erroneous, or otherwise misleading is to engage in political speech yourself. The cure for political speech is more political speech. However, I agree with you that the average person does not have the same level of access to venues for political speech that Mackey does. It's not easy to get pride of place on the WSJ editorial page. Not even terribly easy to get your letter to the editor printed. Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the boycott is. We can all agree that free people are necessarily free to spend their money where they like, going out of their way to avoid certain brands in favor of others. Usually, we avoid brands because the products that the brand represents are flawed, sub-par, or fraudulent. Obviously, this is not the case with the Whole Foods boycott. Boycotting Whole Foods for the political speech of its CEO is an action not directed at Whole Foods per se, but at the political opinion of one man responsible for the company. Will affecting Whole Foods' bottom-line persuade Mackey? Will it persuade the rest of the public? Unlikely in either case. A boycott of this sort is not meant to persuade, it's meant to punish. This is why people like the author of the linked article and others think that this kind of boycott crosses the line from civil speech to incivility. The rationale seems to be: if we can't persuade Mackey or achieve a place on a soapbox comparable to his, then perhaps we can punish him enough that he will regret having spoken up. Seeking to punish Mackey for expressing his opinion is not an equivalent act of free speech. It crosses the line into incivility.
dtf 17y ago
He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of references to the Third Reich while he was at it. Maybe he does raise a few interesting points, but he then completely loses it by claiming that it's plant-based nutrition (organic, no doubt) that we all need rather than doctors and medicine. It's a perfect "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" moment that shows the man has zero clue what he's talking about. This isn't a cogent argument against healthcare reform that needs defending as free-speech-under-attack; it's just a public relations facepalm of the first degree. The boycotts are stupid, but that's just stupidity responding to stupidity.
- philwelch 17y ago
  "but he then completely loses it by claiming that it's plant-based nutrition (organic, no doubt) that we all need rather than doctors and medicine" That's not what he wrote. He wrote: Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices. Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age. I don't know enough about nutrition to discuss the second graf, but he doesn't imply that good nutrition negates the need for health care--people get diseases and injuries that aren't caused by bad decisions of their own the other 30% of the time--but it's equal "stupidity" to think "let's spend trillions of public dollars on treating each other for diabetes and heart disease instead of putting down the cheeseburger and going for a jog".
- tjic 17y ago
  > He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of references to the Third Reich while he was at it. Thatcher presided over a country with socialized health care and heavily unionized coal mining, and complained about them. In the US, we are now debating having the government run the health sector. I.e. "socialism". I don't think that a criticism of socialized healthcare from someone who's been there is quite the same thing as "referencing the third Reich".
mattmaroon 17y ago
This shows that SOME folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate. The laughable "tea parties" and town hall interruptions show that SOME folks on the other side aren't either. But then, unless you have the IQ of a watermelon, you really didn't need this to figure out that a lot of people on either side of the political spectrum already have their minds made up.
mikeryan 17y ago
If you're going to say: "This shows that folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate - they are interested in complete victory, with zero dissent. It's an ideology, not a rational position." You have to recognize this happening on both sides of the aisle (Town Hall Meetings anyone?)
- apotheon 17y ago
  There is a difference: 1. Demonstrating in front of the store and forwarding boycott emails targets consumers, trying to get enough pressure aimed at the Whole Foods founder to get him to recant or shut up and stop contributing to the debate based on his own principles. 2. Making noise at a "town hall" meeting (laughable misuse of the term for Presidential stumping for a Federal program) is just an attempt to make sure the President knows that there are many people who disagree with the idea, more directly addressing the figurehead for the whole policy. Obama is in a position to directly affect policy; the founder of Whole Foods is only in a position to foster debate.
pyre 17y ago
I can also find people in the anti-'government healthcare' camp whose only objection to the program is the throw up the nebulous term 'socialism' as if just saying 'socialism' means that they won the argument. While many of these same people don't bother to examine many of the government programs that we have in existence today that qualify as 'socialism.' I find these people particularly irritating.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
You remember that quote verbatim but don't remember where you read it? I thought my memory was screwy ...

by tjic 17y ago

gloob 17y ago

That doesn't follow rationally, I don't think. The argument looks like this: 1. Some people support universal healthcare. 2. Some people are boycotting Whole Foods. 3. All the people boycotting Whole Foods support universal healthcare. Therefore, all people who support universal healthcare are ideologues who are incapable of carrying on a rational debate. Eh, I guess it appeals to the same sort of people who think Glen Beck is representative of everyone who votes Republican, though.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

gamble 17y ago

If you want to have a rational debate, opening as John Mackey did with a quotation that implies your opponents are parasitic socialists is probably not the best way to start.

TheElder 17y ago
Here's the quote which you are talking about to let everybody make up their mind on it: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...
- cwan 17y ago
  His quote doesn't seem terribly unreasonable especially after they revised cumulative deficit projections for the next 10 years to be 9 trillion dollars this past Friday (up from 7) and that doesn't even include new healthcare entitlements at an estimated 1 trillion! Given how prone they are to underestimating costs like this, these numbers are more likely to be a floor than a ceiling and don't include the deficits that come after! It is however perhaps telling that those who support Obama's plan would be offended by the quote which doesn't necessarily use the term socialism in the pejorative sense. What I don't understand is the guy who compared Thatcher to the Third Reich. Do they forget what "Nazi" actually stands for? Anyway, what is even more frustrating is that unions now want to have John Mackay fired for having the gall to disagree with the President (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specialized-consumer-services-us-whole-foods-union_6813165.html http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specializ...). Is this thuggery what counts as discourse in the US now? If you don't agree with the current administration you must be racist, stupid and ought to have your livelihood taken away?
Legion 17y ago
Yet it's a perfect opportunity to show that your "side" is the rational one. I read an opinion piece in a local (Monterey, CA) weekly paper, trying to explain why the Whole Foods boycotters are completely different than the "teabaggers". It essentially was, "we think those guys are retarded, but he's why we're not retarded, even though you can't tell us apart by looking." The ability to self-delude is a key attribute in taking part of silly "us vs. them" partisan politics. Issues like health care are amazingly complex, but it's easier to go with the groupthink and take up a rallying cry than dig into the issue and realize how nonsensical the "bumper sticker answers" are.

tallanvor 17y ago

If people disagree with his position, they have every right to peacefully make their dissent known. If the easiest way they have to do that is to boycott his business, then it is entirely acceptable for them to do so. And lets be honest, the ability for people to engage in a debate with him is limited at best. The average person isn't likely to have the opportunity to write an editoral for the Wall Street Journal, and a small minority of anti-reform fanatics have made sure that it is impossible to have an actual dialog in town hall meetings. Debate would be great, but where is it going to happen? At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.

Perceval 17y ago
In an ideal world, the purpose of political speech is to persuade. Mackey's piece, while inflammatory in parts, is an argument that he intends to persuade at least some people. In an ideal world, the appropriate response to political speech that one find's wrong, objectionable, erroneous, or otherwise misleading is to engage in political speech yourself. The cure for political speech is more political speech. However, I agree with you that the average person does not have the same level of access to venues for political speech that Mackey does. It's not easy to get pride of place on the WSJ editorial page. Not even terribly easy to get your letter to the editor printed. Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the boycott is. We can all agree that free people are necessarily free to spend their money where they like, going out of their way to avoid certain brands in favor of others. Usually, we avoid brands because the products that the brand represents are flawed, sub-par, or fraudulent. Obviously, this is not the case with the Whole Foods boycott. Boycotting Whole Foods for the political speech of its CEO is an action not directed at Whole Foods per se, but at the political opinion of one man responsible for the company. Will affecting Whole Foods' bottom-line persuade Mackey? Will it persuade the rest of the public? Unlikely in either case. A boycott of this sort is not meant to persuade, it's meant to punish. This is why people like the author of the linked article and others think that this kind of boycott crosses the line from civil speech to incivility. The rationale seems to be: if we can't persuade Mackey or achieve a place on a soapbox comparable to his, then perhaps we can punish him enough that he will regret having spoken up. Seeking to punish Mackey for expressing his opinion is not an equivalent act of free speech. It crosses the line into incivility.

dtf 17y ago

He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of references to the Third Reich while he was at it. Maybe he does raise a few interesting points, but he then completely loses it by claiming that it's plant-based nutrition (organic, no doubt) that we all need rather than doctors and medicine. It's a perfect "qu'ils mangent de la brioche" moment that shows the man has zero clue what he's talking about. This isn't a cogent argument against healthcare reform that needs defending as free-speech-under-attack; it's just a public relations facepalm of the first degree. The boycotts are stupid, but that's just stupidity responding to stupidity.

philwelch 17y ago
"but he then completely loses it by claiming that it's plant-based nutrition (organic, no doubt) that we all need rather than doctors and medicine" That's not what he wrote. He wrote: Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices. Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age. I don't know enough about nutrition to discuss the second graf, but he doesn't imply that good nutrition negates the need for health care--people get diseases and injuries that aren't caused by bad decisions of their own the other 30% of the time--but it's equal "stupidity" to think "let's spend trillions of public dollars on treating each other for diabetes and heart disease instead of putting down the cheeseburger and going for a jog".
tjic 17y ago
> He starts his article with a line from Maggie Thatcher on socialism. Not a subtle way to tee off a debate - he may as well have dropped in a couple of references to the Third Reich while he was at it. Thatcher presided over a country with socialized health care and heavily unionized coal mining, and complained about them. In the US, we are now debating having the government run the health sector. I.e. "socialism". I don't think that a criticism of socialized healthcare from someone who's been there is quite the same thing as "referencing the third Reich".

mattmaroon 17y ago

This shows that SOME folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate. The laughable "tea parties" and town hall interruptions show that SOME folks on the other side aren't either. But then, unless you have the IQ of a watermelon, you really didn't need this to figure out that a lot of people on either side of the political spectrum already have their minds made up.

mikeryan 17y ago

If you're going to say: "This shows that folks in favor of government run healthcare are not really interested in a debate - they are interested in complete victory, with zero dissent. It's an ideology, not a rational position." You have to recognize this happening on both sides of the aisle (Town Hall Meetings anyone?)

apotheon 17y ago
There is a difference: 1. Demonstrating in front of the store and forwarding boycott emails targets consumers, trying to get enough pressure aimed at the Whole Foods founder to get him to recant or shut up and stop contributing to the debate based on his own principles. 2. Making noise at a "town hall" meeting (laughable misuse of the term for Presidential stumping for a Federal program) is just an attempt to make sure the President knows that there are many people who disagree with the idea, more directly addressing the figurehead for the whole policy. Obama is in a position to directly affect policy; the founder of Whole Foods is only in a position to foster debate.

pyre 17y ago

I can also find people in the anti-'government healthcare' camp whose only objection to the program is the throw up the nebulous term 'socialism' as if just saying 'socialism' means that they won the argument. While many of these same people don't bother to examine many of the government programs that we have in existence today that qualify as 'socialism.' I find these people particularly irritating.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

You remember that quote verbatim but don't remember where you read it? I thought my memory was screwy ...