Boycott Apex

It's tempting to think that regular citizens have no voice in the big game of politics, and for good reason. When you see guys like Paul Stam and Keith "Mini-me" Weatherly cooking up schemes to screw over women in Apex, it feels pretty frustrating.

That's why I'm frequent and enthusiastic boycotter of businesses. For example, I'm still boycotting Whole Foods because their lunatic CEO uses his bully pulpit to preach a dangerous brand of free-market fundamentalism. I also boycott South Carolina for its racist leanings. The list goes on, but the point is the same. I don't want my money going to support things I find morally irresponsible or offensive.

So today, I've officially begun my boycott of Apex and will continue to do so until they reverse their anti-woman health insurance plan.

It's not that I go to Apex every day, but I pass through often ... and will continue to. But businessess in Apex have gotten the last nickel they're going to see from me.

For example, I've been known to visit Dixie Belle's for good barbecue. Not any more. Same goes for the Peak City Grill. Sorry guys. In fact, I'm not even going to stop for gas or fast food on Highway 64 anymore. And then there's Peakfest, a wonderful event that pulls in visitors from all around. Not this year.

I'm guessing Apex will be happy to not have a commie like me visiting their fair town. I can only hope that a few hundred thousand other commies join me in steering clear.

Comments

Hell no

So you want to hurt the private citizens and private business owners of Apex for what the Apex government is doing.
Hell NO!!!
You want to kill these business owners and ruin their lives. These business owners who have everything at stake, who have taken out personal loans and are barely hanging on in this economy. You want to ruin their families.
You're a real shit James.

Maybe these business owners should get off their asses

and tell the city council they want the insurance plan reversed.

Every time I boycott something, a person like you comes along and says "Oh noooooo. We can't do that. Somebody might get hurt." And then nothing changes. Not one damn thing.

You keep going to Apex to do your shopping. I'll take my business elsewhere. And if more people join me, I say "amen." Maybe the ignorant yahoos who made this decision will understand they're on the wrong side of something important.

CockBugger Apex?

." Maybe the ignorant yahoos who made this decision will understand they're on the wrong side of something important.* James

Etymology

The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish "Land War" and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, on Achill Island in County Mayo, Ireland, who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880. In September that year protesting tenants demanded from Boycott a substantial reduction in their rents. He not only refused but also evicted them from the land. Charles Stewart Parnell, in his Ennis Speech proposed that, rather than resorting to violence, everyone in the locality should refuse to deal with him. Despite the short-term economic hardship to those undertaking this action, Boycott soon found himself isolated—his workers stopped work in the fields and stables, as well as the house. Local businessmen stopped trading with him, and the local postman refused to deliver mail.

The concerted action taken against him meant that Boycott was unable to hire anyone to harvest the crops in his charge. Eventually 50 Orangemen from Cavan and Monaghan volunteered to harvest his crops. They were escorted to and from Claremorris by one thousand policemen and soldiers—this despite the fact that Boycott's complete social ostracism meant that he was actually in no danger of being harmed. Moreover, this protection ended up costing far more than the harvest was worth. After the harvest, the "boycott" was successfully continued. Within weeks Boycott's name was everywhere. It was used by The Times in November 1880 as a term for organized isolation. According to an account in the book “The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland” by Michael Davitt, the term was coined by Fr. John O'Malley of County Mayo to "signify ostracism applied to a landlord or agent like Boycott". The Times first reported on November 20, 1880: “The people of New Pallas have resolved to 'boycott' them and refused to supply them with food or drink.” The Daily News wrote on December 13, 1880: “Already the stoutest-hearted are yielding on every side to the dread of being 'Boycotted'.” By January of the following year, the word was being used figuratively: "Dame Nature arose.... She 'Boycotted' London from Kew to Mile End" (The Spectator, January 22, 1881).

On December 1, 1880 Captain Boycott left his post and withdrew to England, with his family and died a broken man with no funds for his funeral. Some Irish Historials experts have suggested, what if his last name was CockBugger since that was his Mother's Maiden name, would the history of Boycott have an entirely different meaning to procreate one over?

Interesting!

Very interesting history lesson, Rachel!

I have always wondered about the word boycott

Now, my life is complete ! :)

And that "CockBugger" thing...that was just icing on the cake. I cannot imagine being a young man telling my parents that I am dating this girl named Penelope CockBugger from over in Horry county.

Thanks, Madame. Just back from a long, dreary drive from Raleigh and you have now significantly lifted my spirits.

What a manly man I tell ya

"The next time you engage in an ad hominem attack against me or anyone else, I will ban you from BlueNC." in an email to me from James.

James you have some nerve acting like you are all upset with my little "attack" when you posted the phone call with your friend on here yesterday that was laiden with all kinds of horrible, abusive, filthy sailor language and name calling. Give me a break. It takes a lot more shock value to shock someone like you than my little retort.

Now to the subject of the Apex boycott. Your call on the Bluenc visitors to take away money from the small business owners of Apex is down right pathetic. You see James, I happen to know one of those business owners. Now, I don't mean the Target on 64 or the franchise Panera Bread but a great family that owns their own small business in that cute little downtown district. I don't have to tell you what a terrible economic year this has been for all people but probably more so for the small business owner. Perhaps you didn't know that a couple of businesses had to close in cute little downtown Apex this year. Now you are calling out for a boycott that could possibly cause even more business owners to lose everything they have. James those folks who own this business have cried a lot this year and have come so close to having to close their doors as it as without someone like you sticking the knife in and turning it. I bet you wouldn't stand in front of their two small children and say what you said on this board today. "Sorry Bonnie and Mack but I want to close down your parents business. I want to make you have to sell your house, if you can in this economic downturn and lose everything you have just so I can prove a point that really has nothing to do with your parents"

You take a lot of pride in your boycotting James, but this one is a doozie. The more you boycott the more you're gonna paint yourself into a corner. Good luck with that.

Why do you hate people freely choosing to spend their money

...wherever they damn well please?

If I don't want my sales tax (or other) revenue supporting ass-backward fools like Keith "I've-Got-Two-Gummit-Jobs" Weatherly, then I won't shop in Apex until Apex voters toss Weatherly or get him to reverse course.

Why do you hate free choice?

 

That's a big sacrifice...

That's a big sacrifice, James. Dixie Belle's has the best Texas-style BBQ brisket in the Triangle, if not in all of NC.

I love that place! It's not quite County Line, but it is as close as you'll find around here.

And you'll give that up, in order to...

James, dude, you have your priorities way mixed up!

It is a terrible, terrible tragedy when a mother chooses to end the life of her child.

Often that decision is made for financial reasons, because abortions are cheap compared to bearing children. It is an awful, awful thing to put a price on the life of a baby. Yet you want to increase the financial incentive to end those babies' lives, to increase the number of such tragedies.

There's no bounty on wolves in NC anymore, but the cost differential between abortion and childbirth means there's effectively a bounty on unborn babies -- and you want to increase it?!?

Let's put a face on what you are supporting. These are two pictures of young Samuel Armas. He's now 10 years old. The first picture (where you can see only his left hand) was taken when he underwent surgery for spina bifida, 4.5 months before he was born (3 weeks premature). The second picture was at age 9-1/2.

Here's little Samuel's left hand at 21 weeks (~19 weeks after conception), August 19, 1999:

Same hand, 10 years later, at age 9-1/2 (last summer):

In one picture he's grasping a surgeon's finger. In the other he's grasping an oar. How can anyone say he's valueless, or not a human being, or unworthy of protection in the first picture, and precious in the second?

How can you support letting someone kill him -- and, in fact, provide financial incentives to encourage someone to kill him?

How can you support such a thing at any age? How can you fail to know that killing a child like him is a horrible, monstrous act? How can any civilized person justify such a thing, let alone seek to incentivize it?

Dave

Knock it off with the spam. If you have something new to say, you're welcome to do so. Thanks.

but...

James, you said similar things in two threads, and I replied with similar things in two threads, and you complain that I'm spamming?

Hey, it's your blog, so you can do what you want to, and I am grateful to you for letting me have my say. But I'm trying hard to follow the rules around here, and I didn't see any rule against making a similar argument twice, in reply to someone else taking the opposite side twice, nor any rule against taking unpopular positions.

You said that if I answered your specific question, you'd be "happy to indulge" mine. Now it appears that you're reneging. Say it ain't so!

I answered several of your questions, James. Please just answer my one question.

I understand that it is a hard question, perhaps harder than the questions you asked me. So, in that sense, maybe I'm being a little unfair. Please forgive me, because it is an important question. It is the important question you need to come to grips with, if you are going to take the position you're taking.

Because if you can't say why a child like Samuel Armas is precious and deserving of protection when he's at the age to grasp an oar, but not when he's at the age to grasp a surgeon's finger, then you have no business supporting policies which incentivize killing him at the younger age.

Note that Samuel is not a random child. He's one of the rare "hard cases" that even many pro-life politicians would permit to be aborted. In fact, most babies diagnosed with his condition at the age when his was diagnosed are aborted.

The only reason Samuel turned ten in December is that his parents shared my opinion, rather than yours. They were offered the choice of abortion. But if they had made that choice, or if he had died during his surgery for spina bifida, or at any other age, surely you can see that it would have been tragic.

You contend that Apex should provide insurance coverage to make elective abortions even cheaper than they already are, compared to the cost of childbirth. But if you are going to advocate policies which increase the financial incentives to kill unborn babies, you need to be able to answer my question. So please try.

I asked how you can think that a baby like Samuel is valueless and unworthy of protection in the first picture, yet precious in the second? How can anyone support letting (even encouraging!) people to kill him at the younger age? How can that be justified? Why do you believe what you believe, that killing a child like him is not a horrible, monstrous act?

Woman's choice

Your questions are based on a false premise. The surgeon in question disputes your interpretation of the photograph. The choice to undergo the risky surgery was the woman's.

false premise?

Welcome to the conversation, Greg.

There's no false premise. You probably didn't read the other thread on this subject. As I wrote there, "It is disputed whether Samuel awoke from anesthesia prematurely and slipped his arm out of the womb on his own, or whether the surgeon pulled his arm out."

There is no dispute over whether or not a baby his age was capable of reaching out, only whether he actually did so.

The photographer says Samuel reached out through the incision. The surgeon says that Samuel's arm "appeared" in the incision, and he stuck in his finger and pulled Samuel's hand out for the photo. Either way, the doctor placed his finger where Samuel could grasp it, and in the slide show you can clearly see Samuel's grip tightening on the fingertip and pulling it down:

(Click on the images to pause the slideshow, then move mouse away to resume it)

You can read all about the argument over whether or not Samuel extended his arm through the incision on his own, here:
http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Fetus_hand_reaches_out

and here, on the photographer's web site:
http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html

and, here, on the UrbanLegands page:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-handofhope.htm

These three quotes are from the UrbanLegends page, about a chain-email which circulated about Samuel's surgery:

The photographer said:

"Samuel came out from under anesthesia too soon and thrust his clenched fist out of the surgical opening to his mother's womb. In my opinion, Samuel was in pain. Dr. Joseph Bruner reached over and gently lifted Samuel's hand, and Samuel reacted by squeezing the doctor's finger."

The surgeon, Dr. Joseph Bruner, said:

"Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus ... which is what I did." (Quoted in The Tennessean, Jan. 9, 2000)

UrbanLegands concludes:

Perhaps it all boils down to semantics. Dr. Bruner has stated elsewhere that Samuel's hand "appeared" in the uterine opening before he reached out and lifted it, lending credence to photographer Clancy's version of events. In any case, although it appears the [chain-]email does exaggerate when it says the fetus "reached ... through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger," something akin to that really did happen.
Such quibbles don't lessen the impact of the photograph itself, which Dr. Bruner has described as "powerful" and Michael Clancy calls "miraculous."

I suggest that you view the slide show and decide for yourself which version you believe is most accurate.

Last warning

If you want to spam other websites, feel free. The next time you post another version of this same content here, I will block you from BlueNC.

You have a problem, Dave. Take it somewhere else.

Oh, for Pete's sake

I call foul. James, you can see perfectly well that I did not post the "same content." All I did was address the point that Greg raised in his reply to me.

Greg was confused about what the photo of Samuel Armas's hand really depicted, and I replied to clear that confusion up. The only "same content" in my reply was the single sentence I quoted from the other thread, and I only quoted it to him because he obviously hadn't read it in the other thread. (Well, one of the views in the slide show is the same as the photo I originally posted, but that was unavoidable.)

Greg seemed to think I was unaware of the tiff over whether Samuel reached out through the incision (as the photographer says), or the surgeon reached into the incision and drew out Samuel's hand (as the surgeon says). But I had already mentioned that argument, in the other thread. So I quoted it, and linked to it.

Should I have not done that?

What's more, Greg thought the argument between photographer & surgeon invalidated the "premise" of the photo. The only way I could think of to prove that the photo really does show what it seems to show -- Samuel's tiny fist grasping the surgeon's fingertip -- was to display the slideshow, where you can see from three successive photos Samuel's fist clench and tug down on the surgeon's fingertip. Also, note that I shrunk the slideshow to half its original size, to make it less "in your face."

Can you think of any other way that I could have proven that point, to clear up Greg's confusion?

Please don't accuse me of "spamming" when I specifically answer the point raised by someone who has posted a message to me.

Can I give you a great big THANK YOU !!

I think we ALL have seen Dave's pictures and presentation enough now to understand where he is coming from. He needs to take it over to some Fox-affiliated blog or something. He will get a FAR better reception there.

Geeezzzz.....

"some people"

Everything else? "Some people" like me have weighed in on other things, without even causing controversy here.

We cannot do real well

I appreciate the comment, Dave, but when you get right down to it, we are on totally opposite sides on this issue.

Personally, I would like to see this thread and any other thread that is discussing this to come to an end. It serves no real purpose here other than for people to give their point of view which, as I said before, is not going to change the opinion of anyone. Most of us here, as you have seen, are pretty dedicated to women having the ability to choose when it comes to their reproductive rights. It is kind of odd, that it seems that we men are the ones that are discussing it, actually. This is about women (and yes, I know you also feel it is about the fetus).

There has been disagreement about this issue for a very long time. But, at the end of the day, women having the right to "choose" is legal in this country.

It's about women's rights, nothing else

Restricting a health insurance plan from covering a perfectly legal procedure is just plain wrong and probably illegal. I hope someone working for the city of Apex challenges this in court and the city has to raise taxes on business owners to pay for it.
Syd

Syd

right vs. rights

When the focus of a debate becomes "whose rights" instead of "what's right," it means the wrong question is being asked. And if you ask the wrong question, you'll usually find the wrong answer.