I want you to notice something. Take a look at Charles C.W. Cooke’s argument against boycotting Dropbox because it has put Condoleeza Rice on their Board of Directors:
Apparently, Rice can’t serve on a board because Dropbox has a “commitment to freedom, openness, and ethics” and Rice ”helped start the Iraq War,” “was involved in the creation of the Bush administration’s torture program,” “not only supports warrantless wiretaps” but “authorized several,” and “was on the Board of Directors at Chevron.” In other words, because Rice holds political positions that the campaign doesn’t like — and which she has shown no evidence of having disavowed.
Mr. Cooke just called torturing people and starting a war of aggression on false pretensions “political positions.” Most people would call those things crimes of a rather high order. And I suppose anyone who doesn’t want to indirectly give their money to Condi Rice is now going to be accused of trying to stifle, what? The freedom to torture people and start phony wars without it interfering with your income?
You can’t have a debate with these folks because the way they set the terms of debate is simply unacceptable. And you know what Mr. Cooke would think about a company with Noam Chomsky on its board, don’t you?