In today's NY Times Maureen Dowd offers up a bit of elitist rationalization for the pointlessness of boycotts (would Cesar Chavez agree, I wonder?), in particular a recent effort by celebs to boycott the Sultan of Brunei's Beverly Hills Hotel, a fave gathering spot for rich and famous and wannabes, who object to the sultan's shariah rationalized punishment of gays and adulterous women. Here's what one commenter had to say about that slippery cop-out.
Susan Anderson
is a trusted commenter
Boston
2 hours ago
"Interesting that hatred of Islam only applies to refugees, the victims not the bosses and perps.
But to be honest, we are all aware of our hypocrisy. The life we live is made of illusion, we outsource our pollution to the third world and the ghetto (or to be politically correct, those who cannot afford to protest the for-profit dumpings of "job creators").
I and my friends study global warming, and have come to the conclusion that without systemic change our world is only good for a few decades (two?) absent a total reorganization which eliminates a wide variety of indulgences and deeply dishonest special pleading (see Jane Mayer's Dark Money).
But if we get rid of the unnecessary, how will the people who produce it earn a living? Instead, it's climate science to the guillotine: we don't want to know.
Best to eat, drink, dance, and be merry, I guess. But the Keep It In the Ground campaign and other protests are still worth the effort, I'd say. Just noticed the MIT sit-in got action, though not a commitment to divestment.
Can cities turn out some of the lights at night? It seems we won't even take potential extinction seriously enough to do the smallest easiest things.
Expensive luxuries, intellectual diversions, passion projects, they all take energy that, if we think about it, is no longer free. Small pleasures, simple things, they've been eclipsed, but are still worthwhile. "
Enjoy the spring weather, everyone.