Since I'm not blogging for dollars and don't have an employer to answer to, I could get away with shoddy writing and thinking on this blog. Nevertheless, I'd be embarrassed to publish this, and enraged if I was paying someone who did:
Remember the boycott of the French? Lasted about four weeks, until everyone figured out that this meant foregoing [sic] Dannon yogurt and Mephisto sandals, and spending hours looking for a decent American brie. Effect on French foreign policy: dubious [sic]. Perhaps negative [sic/WTF?].
Then there's the problem of counter-boycotts. Radley is one [sic]. I myself [sic] do not particularly care for Whole Foods--I find them overpriced, and their prepared food isn't very good. But as long as the progressive boycott lasts . . . well, Mr. Mackey, you've got another customer. I doubt I'm the only conservative or libertarians [sic] who will make the same pledge.
Dignity and a paycheck aren't motivation for some people.
Apart from grammar and spelling, the post is a model of fucked-up reasoning as well. Dagney Taggart Jnr. says boycotts don't work because people are lazy and won't follow through, and since "[s]hopping in mulitple [sic] places is a big pain in the butt." On the other hand, Dag imagines that wingnuts and Randroids will take time out of their busy days brandishing swastikas and small arms at town hall meetings and travel across town to buy shitty, overpriced foods out of spite.
If a boycott of Whole Foods gets Dagney to patronize merchants who overcharge her for substandard goods, it already has succeeded. But I suspect that in her case, it's just a way of life.
In any case, someone at The Atlantic should inquire as to how many people don't buy the magazine because of its association with crap like the foregoing.