[Sosfbay-discuss] A Proposal to endorse that boycott

[Tian Harter]

Wes Rolley wrote:

>JamBoi wrote:
>  
>
>>Yes, and the other part that needs to be mentioned is that the purpose
>>of the Boycott is to support impeachment!!!  
>>    
>>
>I support the idea of a boycott. I also think that the association with 
>the issue of impeachment is a stretch for most. 
>
I'm up for impeachment and I'm up for the boycott. I'll roll with it
either way.

>But, there is a much 
>more insidious intrusion of corporations into our lives that needs to be 
>called out and stopped. There is trouble right here in River City, oops, 
>I meant Santa Clara County.
>  
>
River City... You mean where the mouth of the American River
pours clear, cold water into the big, muddy, Sacramento River?

Santa Clara County was formerly known as "the valley of hearts delight",
now it's "Silicon Valley". Moving the rivers out of River City is a much
bigger project than taking the orchards out of Santa Clara County
and replacing them with Silicon Wafer Fabs, assembly lines, and
Software Development Labs.

I'd say River City will be a river city a lot longer than Sacramento
will be Sacratamato, judging by the way developers are doing in
the farms around town.

>I would suggest that we are selling our future for a pittance just 
>because we fail to take acknowledge what we owe our neighbors, our 
>children and grand children, our selves. So, we have HP Pavilion, Oracle 
>Arena & McAfee Coliseum. We allow Pepsi and Coca Cola exclusive rights 
>to sell food in our schools just to raise a bit more money instead of 
>our taxes. We have the Federal government seeking to sell naming rights 
>to our national parks. Some have even branded their towns, as in Dish, 
>Texas.
>  
>
When I lived in River City the Kings played at Arco Arena.
That bothered me a lot less than the fact State Staffers had
a gas station near where they lived that seemed to always
have cheaper gas than was available in the rest of Sacramento.

>According to Friday's Morgan Hill Times,
>
>  
>
>>The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is endorsing a plan 
>><http://www.sccgov.org/SCC/docs/SCC%20Public%20Portal/keyboard%20agenda/Committee%20Agenda/2007/February%201,%202007/TMPKeyboard201806071.pdf> 
>>to raise money from the private sector by selling opportunities for 
>>advertising and marketing.
>>
>>The county is considering several ways to generate additional revenue 
>>that include: beverage and snack vending contracts, offering a variety 
>>of advertising opportunities including Web site advertising, selling 
>>special event sponsorship packages, selling naming rights and 
>>community giving campaigns.
>>
>>The county's consultant, Active Public Enterprise Group 
>><http://www.theactivenetwork.com/>, (1.)outlined the possibilities in 
>>presentation Tuesday to the board of supervisors, showing the program 
>>could up to $5 million annually by its third year of operation.
>>
>>The board endorsed much of the proposal, but raised concerns about 
>>billboards and vehicle advertising being too excessive. The board 
>>directed staff to make a few modifications to the proposal and return 
>>in April with plans for implementation.
>>    
>>
>(1)The Active Public Enterprise Group is a division of The Active 
>Network linked above.
>
>There is a desire to have services without paying for it. We want a full 
>range of healthy, active, community oriented government services. We 
>want to cut our taxes and keep it all for ourselves.
>
>Just how much of ourselves are we willing to sell to have it all?
>
>Think globally, act locally, we are told. The more of our lives that 
>gets a Corporate Sponsor, the more of our soul that they sell.
>
>Antonius Bloch
>
>  
>
I got an email from somebody I knew in Sacramento to the effect
that the City Council there was selling the right to advertise on
the boxer shorts of the Police and Fire Departments.

Ever get that "this is going too far" feeling?

-- 
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
We had an earthquake during Thursday's Green Party meeting.