Weekend reading

wiehkgowjnd8d0dqbkvv

Gun control group takes on open carry policies at grocery stores in new ads.

Janet Mock on how she came to embrace the term feminist.

A new Minnesota law provides doulas for incarcerated women.

10 documentaries about political women.

Police in North Carolina arrested a young black activist and politician for distributing voting rights leaflets.

Private prison stocks are rising with the influx of unaccompanied migrant children.

Advertisements

Author: Rebecca Griffin

I am a passionate advocate for progressive causes with over a decade of experience organizing for social change. That organizing experience informs the way I look at the world and the challenges we face in working toward social justice. I started Of Means and Ends to write about social issues I care about and share my thoughts on how we organize in a smart, strategic way. Please visit and join the conversation.

7 thoughts on “Weekend reading”

  1. Re the “gun control group” taking on Kroger–

    Isn’t it interesting that the ‘gun control group’ asked Kroger nicely to stop allowing people to carry firearms and were rebuffed in their attempt.

    Yet that doesn’t seem to be acceptable to Moms Demanding Attention does it?
    Nope, letting companies actually choose for themselves isn’t their agenda. They are trying to financially ruin a company because they wouldn’t agree to their politely worded demands.

    This is very telling of the nature of the group; they don’t want discussion, they don’t want to be polite, they don’t want people deciding for themselves or their company. No, they are going to keep pushing until they get their way.

    Bob S.

    Like

    1. It’s pretty standard for people organizing a corporate pressure campaign (or any other kind of advocacy campaign) not to take no for an answer when they clearly think the policy is wrong. They wouldn’t be very good campaigners if they did. Consumers have a right to use their buying power to influence corporate policy. I certainly wouldn’t want to shop in a store where people could carry weapons, and I’m sure a lot of people feel the same way. Kroger can continue to ignore the pressure if they want, but they also may have to pay the consequences for having a policy that is unpopular with the customers they want to serve.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s pretty standard for people organizing a corporate pressure campaign (or any other kind of advocacy campaign) not to take no for an answer when they clearly think the policy is wrong.

        Isn’t it telling that Moms Demanding Attention is going against a policy that is legal in 44 states – Open Carry — and Concealed Carry is legal in all 50 states?

        The point that I’m making and you are reinforcing is that MDA isn’t asking for dialog, they aren’t asking for consideration, they aren’t asking for a chance to be hurt — they had all those.
        Nope, they are going to try to blackmail – using Bloomberg’s money – companies into going against what the majority finds legal and doesn’t have a problem with.

        I certainly wouldn’t want to shop in a store where people could carry weapons, and I’m sure a lot of people feel the same way.

        Again allow me to point out that 50 states — all 50 states allow some form of Concealed Carry. So unless a store is legally posted as required by state law, the chances are you are shopping in a store where someone is carrying a firearm. And again in 44 states, the chances are people can and do Open Carry. Most people never even notice.

        Kroger can continue to ignore the pressure if they want, but they also may have to pay the consequences for having a policy that is unpopular with the customers they want to serve.

        Think Kroger doesn’t know that??? Seriously think they didn’t consider both sides?
        Of course they did. And they made a decision MDA doesn’t like and respect. Instead of accepting that and moving on to their next victim; they take out ads to try to force the issue. This isn’t a case of the customers demanding it; it is a case of a small advocacy group trying to dictate corporate policy.

        Bob S.

        Like

      2. Just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it’s good policy. This country has a long history of codifying bad ideas into law, and that has continued with the influence of groups like ALEC (Stand Your Ground, for instance). Again, the people campaigning for saner policy don’t have any obligation to take no for an answer, and I hope they don’t. A lot of gun control policies are popular, but politicians and corporations are too cowardly to act on them.

        Like

  2. Ms. Griffin,

    This country has a long history of codifying bad ideas into law, and that has continued with the influence of groups like ALEC (Stand Your Ground, for instance).

    I would ask what is wrong with a law that simply states that people don’t have to run away from a criminal if they are in a place they a.) are legally entitled to be and b.) did not initiate the conflict (or were committing another crime)?

    Again, the people campaigning for saner policy don’t have any obligation to take no for an answer, and I hope they don’t.

    And this is why we can not have compromise. People like you make it abundantly clear you will not respect the decisions of others you disagree with, you will not stop trying to restrict our rights.
    So much for only ‘reasonable restrictions’ and ‘compromise’ eh?

    Bob S.

    Like

    1. It’s clear we’re never going to agree on this issue. I think Stand Your Ground has allowed people to act recklessly and avoid punishment, the killing of Trayvon Martin being just one tragic example. There are stories every day about people accidentally shooting themselves or their friends or family (Talking Points Memo does a good job of keeping track of them) and I hope this country can someday overcome its insanity about guns.

      Like

      1. I find it incredible that despite the evidence, despite the legal analysis, despite the finding of “not guilty” people like you still refer to Trayvon Martin.

        Because that case had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH STAND YOUR GROUND.

        The evidence showed that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him and showing no signs of stopping. That made it self defense, classic self defense without a shred of ‘stand your ground’

        And as far as accidental shootings, yep they happen. Do they happen as often as ‘accidental’ auto injuries — NO.

        Focusing on firearms like you do shows what people like me fear; nothing will stop you and those like you from pushing ever more restrictive gun control laws. Probably to the point of complete and total bans.

        Bob S.

        Like

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s