New jobless numbers out today: the official number for October is 10.2 percent. I decided to see how closely related President Obama's approval numbers are with unemployment. I used these data points for unemployment:
Feb: 8.1 percent
Apr: 8.9
Jun: 9.5
Aug: 9.7
Oct. 10.2
I got average disapproval numbers from Pollster.com:
Feb: 24 percent
Apr: 32
Jun: 35
Aug: 40
Oct: 44
When you run a simple correlation you get 0.987544 or about 99 percent. Now, correlation is not causation. These trends could be entirely independent. Lots of other things have probably trended upward over the same period. But: 1) there is a logical connection between these two and 2) the trends are not just similar but are almost perfectly correlated.
Conservatives would say the correlation is really between Obama's disapproval and the national debt. But consider this: are people more concerned about their ability to feed and clothe their families or about the abstract debt? And if people worried about debt are offered the choice of lowering the debt by ending wars or by eliminating job creation plans, which will they choose?
We need a stronger focus on job creation regardless of who bears the most blame for job destruction.
Creigh Deeds on October 20: I'm against the public option.
Voters on November 3: We're against you.
That's an oversimplification, but not by much. Here's some data:
In the eight October polls taken before Deeds' comments about the public option he trailed Bob McDonnell by 11 points with 8 percent of voters undecided. Deeds' support was at 40.25 percent in those polls
In the 11 polls taken after Deeds' comments he trailed McDonnell by 14.3 with 4.5 percent undecided. Deeds' support was at 40.7 percent in those polls.
On election day, with no more undecided voters, Deeds lost by 17 percent. He won 41.2 percent of voters.
Summary: In the aftermath of Deeds' comments on the public option, his support, even as undecided voters finally decided, never really climbed. Either a lot of Democrats stayed home or the vast majority of undecided voters broke for McDonnell.
There are plenty of Democrats in Virginia these days. President Obama won the state by a margin of more than six percent. Recent Democratic Governors include Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. Both Senators are Democrats. But you have to get them to show up and you have to give them reason to be excited about your campaign. Also, when a policy is very popular and will actually help people in a time of great need, you should probably not oppose that policy. Just a thought.
U.S. stocks were poised to open higher Wednesday, as Wall Street cheered a number of Republican election wins ahead of the Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting decision.
And later in the story:
But positive market momentum appeared as investors were encouraged by several Republicans victories, including the governor races in both New Jersey and Virginia.
More broadly, the wins reflect a sharp rebuke by Americans of current policies in Washington, including massive spending programs that have helped grow the federal deficit.
"The election results suggest that perhaps the referendum of the Democratic Party, more specifically President Obama, is being challenged in the marketplace," said Mark Luschini, chief investment strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott.
So the stock market, which has been going mostly up for 8 months (apparently cheering uh...something), is set to go up some more this morning. And this is proof that investors are happy about the races for Governor in NJ and Virginia. Nevermind that a lot of investors, like Warren Buffet, George Soros, etc. are Democrats, apparently it is just a given that:
1. Investors are Republicans
2. Happy political results for Republicans = market goes up
Of course the market has been going up and down for the last month. I guess that's because, on some days, Republicans are feeling happy and confident and on other days they are feeling sad.
Obviously this is just as ridiculous as the "markets hate Obama" meme from last February which mysteriously faded away when the markets began moving upward. Amazingly this story is not posted as an editorial but asa front page story on CNN Money.
Anyway, even if you accept the premise, what does that say about the markets? "We like it when Democrats lose because then the gap between the rich and poor widens and we can buy another chateau."
The bulk of your "A list" progessive bloggers are now between the ages of 30 and 50. Many blog readers also fall into this age range. Those of us in this demographic are too young to have personal memories of progressive political power. There was some of that in the 1960s according to what I've seen on the History Channel and in books but I've never felt it.
This age group is also too old for unfettered idealism. Our political memories include the dark Bush-Cheney years, the "pragmatic" Clinton years (and an impeachment) and, for some, the Reagan-Bush years and the less-than-successful Carter years. There may be some idealism still lurking inside but it's, well, fettered idealism.
And so, perhaps unsurprisingly, your thinking can become limited by what has been rather than what could be. I think that, in part, explains the persistence of voices, even in Democratic circles, underestimating the chances for real progressive change. Today Nate Silver is acknowledging his error on the chances of success for the public option (though he noted, presciently, that is wasn't a done deal yet). As usual, Nate is trying to be reality-based when making predictions. He has not been alone is expressing pessimism on the public option's chances.
I would suggest to Nate and other empiricists that the ground has shifted and if you want to be reality-based you need to appreciate the new terrain. I'll describe this inside and offer what I think are reality-based reasons for embracing optimism for a progressive future.
Various outlets (see Quick Hits on the right) are reporting that the White House and/or Nancy Pelosi are moving away from a robust triggerless public option and toward accomodating Olympia Snowe. Others say these stories are a fiction.
Instead of adding to the he said/she said on that I'd like to propose a new kind of trigger and here it is:
If a trigger-based public option passes Congress and is signed into law the entire netroots, or as much as we can corral, withholds all campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Organizing for America for the 2010 and 2012 campaign cycles.
No money to these groups. None for the next 3 years. Instead, we only give money to those leaders or groups we know fought to do the right thing. Open Left does a great job highlighting these Better Democrats and other groups advancing progressive causes.
So this shouldn't be too hard a sell on this site. But should we work to spread this idea throughout the netroots?
The latest poll of Nevada residents by MasonDixon/Las Vegas Journal-Review shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to be very unpopular:
Favorable/Unfavorable:
Harry Reid: 38/50
Sue Lowden (R): 31/15
D.Tarkanian (R): 30/11
General Election:
Reid: 39; Lowden: 49
Reid: 43; Tarkanian: 48
When an incumbent is around 50-54% in a poll a year away they are considered vulnerable. Reid isn't even close to 50% in this poll or in this poll from Rasmussen in September. Reid is going to lose without a game-changing event.
Part of Reid's problem, aside from his own lack of leadership ability, is the state of Nevada's economy. It's very bad. Perhaps Reid thinks the game-changing event will be an improving economy is 2010. But it's not likely that citizens will notice much improvement in the next 12 months and, even if they do, they may have soured on Reid too much for him to recover. When progressives in Congress are trying to pass measures to help average citizens it doesn't look good to keep saying "We can't do that, we don't have the votes."
Reid has one chance to reinvigorate his chances which I discuss inside.
Update for Andrew Davey (see comments): You say the polls are lying and you also say Harry Reid always polls badly before ultimately winning. Can you back that up with some data? Here is what I found. First, the two polls I linked to are by MasonDixon (for Las Vegas Journal-Review) and Rasmussen. According to Nate Silver's analysis of 30+ polling companies, they are both in the top 7 for accuracy. I don't think the polls are lying. Second, a poll commissioned by the Journal-Review 8 months prior to the 2004 election found that Reid would easily beat his GOP opponent with 61% support in the poll. Guess what? Reid ultimately won with 61% of the vote. That result would seem to refute both your claim that the paper's polls are always biased for the GOP and that Reid is always polling badly before ultimately winning on election day.
Open Left has learned that political news website The Politico has a cozy relationship with controversial film director Roman Polanski. Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in 1977 and is currently being held in Switzerland for extradition to the U.S.
Here's the connection to The Politico: the site's Executive Editor is Jim VandeHei who is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh where former XFL promoter Shane Schutz also matriculated. Shutz is friends with Jeff Dowd, real life inspiration for The Big Lebowski. Actor Steve Buscemi appeared in that film and also appeared in New York Stories with then little known Adrien Brody. Brody later starred in The Pianist directed by, you guessed it, Roman Polanski. To recap:
The Politico --> Jim VandeHei --> UW-Oshkosh --> Shane Shutz --> Jeff Dowd --> Big Lebowski --> Steve Buscemi --> Adrien Brody --> Roman Polanski
No word yet from the Politico about this sordid relationship. However, they would like you to know that some Polanski supporters contributed, last year, to the DNC and the Obama campaign.
Prominant blogger Andrew Sullivan is often very in tune with mainstream public opinion. Here are some examples:
He was a fan of Ronald Reagan back when Reagan was popular
He endorsed George Bush Sr. in 1988
He endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992
He endorsed George Junior in 2000
He endorsed John Kerry in 2004 (very slightly ahead of public opinion there)
He endorsed Barack Obama in 2008
On gay marriage he was far ahead of public opinion but on most other issues his position evolves as does that of the American public at large. This is all a preamble to this development: Sullivan, after months of skepticicm on the public option, seems in this post to be leaning toward support.
Additionally, he cites this new NY Times poll showing widespread support for the public option. Hey, he's moving toward the prevailing public mood, what a surprise! Anyway, take that for what it's worth, a possible sign of the punditry moving toward public option support.
Via fladem, Florida Senator Bill Nelson now says the public option won't work because it would be complicated to design. So this is his belief system:
1. Creating a publicly-run insurance option would be hard.
2. Progressives are dumb: they "don't have a clue" (that's a Nelson quote) how complicated it would be.
3. Bill Nelson, on the other hand, is smart.
4. Bill Nelson, despite being so smart he can grasp things others cannot, is not smart enough to design a public option.
I guess he's right in the sweet spot of "smartness." Smart enough to see problems more clearly than the rest of us but not smart enough to actually solve those problems. Further he's apparently a narcissist because he believes that if he can't solve the problem, it's an unsolvable problem. Kind of like the problem his 2012 campaign manager will face.
Meanwhile, the "journalist" in the St. Petersburg Times story linked above, Alex Leary, is buying Nelson's crap and declaring the public option dead. Apparently Leary is a novice reporter or just bad at his job. He refers to the Baucus committee draft as the "Senate health care bill" as if it's not just an unmarked-up draft by one of several committees. Leary, and Nelson, are pushing the co-op idea as the best approach.
Funny, when I read something like this I always think it's a desperate bluff. Others read the same stuff and are sure the public option is doomed. Maybe I'm too optmistic.
Public policy dropout Sarah Palin has written an opinion piece on health care for the Wall Street Journal. I know what you're thinking: "Oh, Sarah, please educate me on this complicated topic." Okay, here we go:
Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care
The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers
You mean like the unelected, unappointed, unregulated, unprincipled folks currently doing the rationing for the insurance industry?
By SARAH PALIN
And a team of gifted copy editors.
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward. I couldn't agree more.
If, that is, by "more" you mean "less."
Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
What other kinds of "laws" are there? Non-governing? Someone fire the gifted copy editors.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
Obligatory Reagan quote? Check. Reagan was awesome at saying stuff and then backing it up with nothing.
Remember last November and December when Open Left was advocating for progressive cabinet members and criticizing some of the Obama team's picks accordingly? Lots of dissent then, a lot less now, 10 months later. One big flippity flop appears to be former Deputy Campaign Manager Steve Hildebrand.
THEN
NOW
The point I'm making here is that our new president the Congress and all Americans must come together to solve these problems.
The problem is Obama isn’t listening enough.
This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making.
The American people put confidence in the Democrats because they thought we could get things done and if we fail they’re not going to give it back.
Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years I can tell you that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead.
There are a lot of Blue Dogs in the House and moderate Democrats in the Senate who are standing in the way of getting things done.
The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges.
The Republicans don’t have power unless the moderates and the Blue Dogs give it to them — which is what they’re doing now.
[H}e was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left.
I don’t want to have to listen to one more candidate talk about ‘reforming health care’ and not get it done. I’m tired of it.
The Hildebrand quotes from the first column come from a HuffPo piece he wrote in December and the second column from a recent speech he gave. In closing the new Hildebrand quotes from the Open Left bible:
Change is not going to come by people in the Beltway deciding we should have change -- it's going to come because they're feeling pressure from all over the country.
There's lots of worry on the Internets today over a report that the Obama administration will ditch the public option. But I would like to argue that for the progressive block in the House of Representatives it will be a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of thing.Why?
Win Scenario 1
Let's say, despite reports, that Obama decides to embrace the public option. This is an obvious win for the progressive block and the Democratic party as a whole. Progressives will have flexed muscle and won. Win. People who currently can't afford health care will eventually be able to do so. Win. The activist base of the party (which I would argue is quite large, not just a fringe) would be super enthusiastic and would likely go "all in" on donating and working for the party during the 2010 cycle. Win. Shore up the large Democratic base and Obama's approval numbers will also go back up. Win.
Win Scenario 2
The Obama team tries to lead from the middle and kills the public option in the Senate. The progressive block in the House responds by voting "no" on the resulting crappy health reform measure and the bill is defeated. What's good about this? While obviously not as good as win scenario 1 above, there are benefits to this:
a) In all future legislative fights, the progressive block will have to be bargained with and accomodated. There are more than 3 years left of President Obama's first term and, despite the current mood, a potential 4 years of his second term. That's a lot of bills the progrssive block will be able to mold if they are seen as potential bill killers. If they fold, they'll have no leverage in future fights. None.
b) Health care reform will not be dead if the first bill dies. Just like it won't be dead if Obama decided to veto the first bill. Democrats will still have large majorities in both chambers and can try again. The second time they will have no choice but to accomodate the progressive block.
c) Mainstream Democratic voters are just starting to engage on this issue and if the first bill is defeated may voice their displeasure loud enough for Representatives and Senators to really hear them.
Now, faced with a progressive block that will gain power and influence with either of the outcomes above, what will the Obama team do? My opinion: they really need a bill passed. If the progressive block sticks to their commitment on the public option the White House will have to bend to their will. As Chris has documented there are already enough votes to pass health care reform with a public option if Obama wants to.
The only "lose" secenario for the progressive block: cave in to Rahm Emanuel's scare tactics (which could be intense and convincing) and agree to some kind of crappy compromise. That's just a win for the insurance companies and a loss for any future demands progressives want to make on any future issue.
When a GOP Senator says there would be a "minor revolution in this country" if Senate Democrats go it alone and pass health care reform using the reconciliation process you know they're nervous. That's what Lamar Alexander said today. The only way to avoid said revolution, according to Alexander, is to work in a bipartisan fashion. Of course that is just code for "we want to kill health care reform." (Aside: Remember when LAMAR! ran for President? Talk about your minor revolutions.)
Alexander is not alone in his desperation. GOP Senator Judd Gregg says "Republicans will wage a vicious fight" if the Democrats use the parlimentary maneuver which would undermine Republican filibuster plans. Ooooh. I really want to see a vicious fight in the Senate. Unfortunately Gregg is just talking about his own parlimentary trick. Basically he plans to object. Repeatedly. Now that's vicious!
Personally I take these dire warnings as good news. We're getting closer.
The boycott of Whole Foods we helped spur a couple weeks ago continues to gain new members. And now the UFCW is involved:
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union and CtW Investment Group, an arm of several unions including the Service Employees International Union, are part of the boycott effort and say Mackey should be ousted as CEO of the grocery chain.
They also are pushing for the Bravo cable network, owned by NBC Universal-General Electric, to drop Whole Foods as the sponsor of its popular “Top Chef” show.
CtW also pushed for the ouster of Ken Lewis at Bank of America. The UFCW has fought with Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Whole Foods and Bashas Inc. over unionization efforts.
"Mr. Mackey attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views, but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base," CtW Investment Group's Executive Director Bill Patterson said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which is part of Change to Win, said it will be giving out information to Whole Foods shoppers about health care reform. The group said Mackey's op-ed was an "attempt to undermine Obama's health-care reform."
A Facebook group created to get spread the word on the boycott now has almost 30,000 members (update: mark hit). Help them to that mark if you can.
Update:The New York Times reports on a picket at the grand opening of a new Whole Foods in New York.
(h/t HouseOfProgress in Quick Hits)<!--Session data-->
Three weeks ago at a Baptism party in Virginia, Prince William County police tasered the grandfather of the boy being Baptized. Here is a local news report on the incident:
The grandfather was tased multiple times for the crime of being drunk on private property while trying to show his I.D. Tasering has become routine. Cop thinks you're being mouthy: you're tased. If the charges are later dropped, which they often are, the tasing was your punishment for the crime of not being deferential enough. An internal investigation concluded procedures were followed.
A New York mom was tasered in front of her kids because she questioned why she was being ticketed for driving with a cell phone when she didn't have one. She filed suit this week. Take a look at the video:
In this case our "heroic and manly" officer, embarrassed at his own mistake, tries to save face by tasering the mom in front of her crying kids. All charges against her have been dismissed and police are conducting an internal investigation to see if they can find a way to justify what happened.
In Michigan, two teenage boys died this spring in separate incidents. These and many other cases are detailed inside.
The Whole Foods Boycott, now nearing 15,000 members on Facebook alone, is putting financial pressure on the grocery company. Monday the stock took a big drop but partly rebounded during today's trading. That is, before CNN ran a story critical of CEO John Mackey at 5 p.m.
The company was already under some stress before the boycott, according to CNN:
Whole Foods, like most other retailers, has struggled to grow its sales through the recession as consumers..... clamped down on their spending or shift more of their purchases to lower-priced offerings.....
Michelle Chang, analyst with investment research firm Morningstar, said the company has been struggling with declining store sales for the past three quarters.
They've been trying to lose their high-price image, said Chang. She said the retailer's acquisition of rival Wild Oats in 2007 also was a "costly endeavor" and its international expansion hasn't been as successful as it had hoped.
So it probably wasn't a great time for the CEO to alienate most of his customers.
"Whole Foods relies heavily on its brand and image," Chang said. "Any concern about its image would damage sales heavily."
"Whole Foods holds a certain appeal to consumers and if it deviates from that it could see some negative reaction from consumers," she said.
The above quotes are from the meat of the story, the lead is even more devastating:
Whole Foods' CEO John Mackey is known for his tendency to shoot from the hip.
This time, Mackey may have shot himself -- and his company's brand -- in the foot by getting too personal on the very public issue of health care reform which has sparked calls to boycott the grocer.
"Certainly when our customers tell us they are unhappy to extent that they are boycotting our stores, we are concerned," said Libba Letton, spokeswoman for Whole Foods. "We don't want them to leave us."
So this story ran at 5 p.m. today right during after hours trading. Guess what happened to Whole Foods (WFMI) stock? Details inside.
Some new developments today in the Whole Foods boycott. The purpose, to reiterate, is a show of support for real health care reform and to oppose the Whole Foods CEO who wrote an editorial favoring pretty much the opposite of what we'd like to see in health care policy.
Here are the newest developments: 1) a demonstration at Whole Foods headquarters in Austin today. A couple dozen sign-carrying demostrators came out to agitate for the cause, bringing the boycott right to corporate headquaters. Some local media coverage will likely result.
The other new development concerns the boycott Facebook page which is nearing 10,000 members. It needs just over 500 more members to hit that milestone. Here is a link to it, please help spead the word and get it over the mark. Tomorrow could be a pivotal day. It may be the day Wall Street traders really notice the story. Two publications, the Motley Fool and The Business Insider, ran stories late Friday and this weekend respectively. They took a mostly pro-business stance, not surprisingly, but it served to bring the controversy to investors attention. Fox News was the latest national media outlet to run a story.
The Whole Foods boycott we helped initiate with a post late Wednesday night finally got a response from the company this evening. I'll respond more fully tomorrow with a post here which I'll cross post at the Big Orange Satan. But here are a few things to chew on in the meantime:
1. The apology doesn't come from CEO John Mackey but from the PR team at Whole Foods. It's kind of a "sorry our CEO is an asshat" kind of thing.
2. The PR folks say he was just giving his opinion on health care not Whole Foods' opinion but then they go on to defend his opinion. Huh? When I give my own personal opinion I don't have a PR team which doesn't represent me then go and defend me.
3.They blame the WSJ editors for a misleading headline which made it seem like it was a Whole Foods' position, not just Mackey's but a) Mackey's piece included Whole Foods' health plan as an alternative solution and b) was invited into the WSJ because it was written by the Whole Foods CEO, not just some citizen named John Mackey. In short, their headline was not surprising. And it was clear from the piece he was not a fan of almost every health care reform element the President has advocated.
4. You can't have it both ways. You can't have a CEO against real health care reform, using his CEO status to write high profile opinion pieces, and at the same time say "sorry, it's just his personal opinion. Please keep shopping here because we're a progressive store and many of our employees have tattoos even if our CEO wears an ass-shaped hat."
5. "Coincidentally" this apology comes just as Wall Street noticed the boycott. A piece ran this evening on Motley Fool, a widely read report on stock trading which is affiliated with CNN.com's Money section.In after hours trading the stock continued it's downward fall and finished the day down 2%, a sizable one day drop. The Dow fell 0.82% today and the Nasdaq 1.19%. A few days before his WSJ OpEd, Mackey sold more than a million dollars worth of Whole Foods' stock. Details here.
You can see my earlier post on this here but there have been several new developments. This all stems from a WSJ piece written by the CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods called "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare" in which he argues for insurance industry deregulation and a shrinking of the Medicare program. Here are the new developments:
1. A newly formed Facebook group promoting the boycott will soon surpass one thousand members. Not bad for a few hours but please join and send to your friends/family.
2. I cross posted the original Open Left post at Daily Kos this morning and it sat atop the rec list for three hours, useful exposure.
3. The Austin American Statesman (hometown of Whole Foods headquarters) has run a piece on their business blog with a link to both the Open Left post and the Facebook group.
4. The subject "Whole Foods boycott" has been Twittered about 200 times today with links to the aforementioned sites.
Help keep the momentum going and join the Facebook group, send the stories to your own networks, Twitter if you got it. It's only been hours but if we can increase this by an order of magnitude or two it will get significant publicity and send a message to corporate America.
Update: This plan is beginning to spread on Twitter. Help it along if you can.
The CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods has written a WSJ editorial attacking the still-in-the-works Obama health care plan in favor of less regulation on the insurance industry and downsizing Medicare. Here's one blogger's take:
Not very smart for a company that depends almost entirely on wealthy Democrats who are willing to pay five dollars for a six ounce carrot soda. Come on, you can do it, boycott them for at least a week and discover how much money you can save at Trader Joe's.
Actually, I think this is a great idea. A stupendous idea. Here's why:
1) Pretty much the only way to get the attention of corporate fat cats and the Senators and House members they own is to hit them in the pocket book. Remember when Sinclair Broadcasting was planning to air the anti-John Kerry "documentary" in 2004? The "sell Sinclair stock" meme was born and spread through the tubes and the stock started going down. Soon, plans for airing the documentary "changed." If a boycott of Whole Foods plan spreads, even if it is targeted for, say, the rest of August, they will notice. Similarly, a sell Whole Foods stock (WFMI) might also be effective.
2. My impression is that the customers of Whole Foods are left-leaning. If true, a boycott by even a quarter of Democratic customers would have a major impact.
3. While Whole Foods used to be a regional operation, it has now spread to 39 states. There are 3 locations in DC, 8 in Maryland and many more in Virginia. Congress members know of it and probably shop there.
4. If such a plan works, if the stock falls for example, the press will pick up on it and it will spread.
5. If the plan works it will be another example to corporate America that people want change. You would think nearly 70 million votes for Obama would have sent that message but I guess that's yesterday's news. We need to send a reminder and this could be a really good one.
6. It's a good opportunity to seek out local alternative sources for the stuff you might normally buy at Whole Foods. Farmers markets, etc. If you go to Whole Foods and stock up on essentials in anticipation of the boycott, it's not really going to hurt them is it?
There are downsides. For example, the people who work at Whole Foods could be negatively affected. That may argue for a time-specific boycott, or, alternatively, a stock-selling plan.
What do you think? Put your ideas in the comments. And if you have better Facebooking skills than mine or other viral messaging abilities, get to work.
Some new developments today in the Whole Foods boycott. The purpose, to reiterate, is a show of support for real health care reform and to oppose the Whole Foods CEO who wrote an editorial favoring pretty much the opposite of what we'd like to see in health care policy.
Some local media coverage will likely result. 
