Memo To Jan Brewer: Boycotts Work, Ask Rosa Parks

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu May 06, 2010 at 07:44:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is panicked that the outrageous law she signed, AZ SB 1070, has made her state a pariah. In response, she pens an absurd column for ESPN that ignores history and insults the very "out of state interests" she is hoping will not boycott Arizona:

Urging Major League Baseball to take away next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix is the wrong play. In Arizona, both proponents and opponents of Senate Bill 1070 have stated that economic boycotts are an inappropriate and misguided response to an issue that is clearly worthy of proper public debate and discourse. Put simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests.

(Emphasis supplied.) Boycotts do not work? Really? Remember Rosa Parks and the Montgomery boycott of 1955? South Africa? Or, wait for it, the NFL refusing to hold a Super Bowl IN ARIZONA after it repealed MLK Day? All of those boycotts worked. More . . .

But the truly ironic part was Brewer's attack on "out of state interests." If you do not want "out of state interests" involved, then why in Gawd's name do you care if they choose to not go to your state? Because that is what moving the All Star Game would entail - "out of state interests" not coming to Arizona.

Arizona has chosen to make itself a pariah. If it wants to avoid being a pariah, it should repeal the law that has made it a pariah. If Arizona does not care what "out of state interests" think, then it can stick with the law that has made it a pariah and suffer the consequences. Those consequences should, and will imo, include losing the 2011 All Star Game.

Speaking for me only

< Lindsey Graham: Love The Gun, Hate The Suspected Terrorist | Want To End The Criminal Justice Approach To Terrorism? Repeal Federal Laws Criminalizing Terrorism >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Memo To Jan Brewer: Boycotts Work, Ask Rosa Parks | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ask a Coloradian... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:07:43 AM EST

...who was around when we passed Amendment 2 and were labeled "the Hate State" if boycotts have an effect.

In addition to the immediate economic damage, there is a negative impression that lingers in the public mind even after the situation has been rectified.

The best reason I can think of to (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Anne on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:20:54 AM EST

boycott Arizona is to send a message to legislators and governors in the other 49 states that this is not the way to address the problem of illegal immigration.

It ought to also be a warning to the president and Congress that turning this nation into a place where people feel they cannot move freely, where even more power resides in law enforcement, where suspicion reigns supreme, where discrimination and persecution of people who do not look "American" could easily reach new levels, is just flat-out unacceptable.

So far, "reform" that includes a proposal to issue biometric Social Security cards sounds like a move in the wrong direction.

Jan Brewer thinks Arizona's laws are none of anyone else's business. Well, unless and until Arizona becomes a country unto itself, Arizona's laws are the business of every citizen of this nation: just because I don't live there, or have a business there, doesn't mean I shouldn't have what amounts to an ownership interest in what is happening there. I think it is my responsibility, as a citizen to care, and I would defy Jan Brewer to explain to me why I'm wrong about that.

I do get tired of the whiners (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:28:40 AM EST

who whimper about how a reaction to their action is inappropriate. Would there be any reaction to what she did that she would consider appropriate outside of completely agreeing with her or just sitting down and shutting up? I'm not a child, she is not my more mature mother with something of infinite importance she is teaching me, and boycotts have sat on the back burner too often in our country's political discourse for the past 30 years. I remember in the 70s, I was still a kid, but boycotts were used and used very effectively and there is nothing inappropriate about them. The whiners are annoying as hell though, and the people who start feeling "guilty" and listen to them and violate their own personal beliefs trying to make the whiners not cry are too.

What's the difference (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:53:00 AM EST

between the "politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests" as stated by Brewer, and the "outside agitators" stated by the opponents of civil rights in the South in the 1960s?

Brewer is defending her state legislature using phrases remniscent of the white supremacists.

If I choose to NOT spend any money in Arizona, Not use a U-haul, Not use American express, and not travel to Arizona because I think the state government is dangeroulsy, even criminally myopic and misguided, and tremendous numbers of others act the same way, then maybe there's a reason all those folks act the same way.

But boycotts come from the people deciding to do something against the will of government and business. In other words, boycotts are 'dangerous' because people think for themselves and make affirmtive choices about where their dollars and bodies go.

Oh, the horror.

Of course boycotts work (5.00 / 5) (#20)
by DancingOpossum on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:59:54 AM EST

Anything that inflicts financial pain works, every time. Often it is the only thing that works, and it's a tool that's available to all. Ask South Africa if boycotts (in that case, coupled with divestment and sanctions, two other forms of financial pressure) work. Ask Cesar Chavez (well, I know he's not around anymore but you get the picture).

hopefully not considered OT (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:10:30 AM EST

I dont think it is.

Robert Rodriguez has a message for Arizona in the new trailer for MACHETTE

OFFICIAL MACHETE TRAILER in Honor of CINCO DE MAYO especially in ARIZONA

A must see. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:16:03 AM EST

Of course, I think that about any Rodriguez film.


: totally (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:24:53 AM EST

hes a genius.

Watching the Phoenix Suns game (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by MKS on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:19:47 AM EST

last night....I was surprisingly moved. They had the "Los Suns" jerseys on. And they won.

The change in uniform was no big deal--a mere gimmick....but it really affected me....I'm a Lakers fan, so I didn't think I'd care two figs about the Suns....But I did.

Those of us who oppose this statute may be a minority.....but we are right and will change minds....

that panic you here in her voice? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by denise k on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:29:33 AM EST

that is the sound of aboycott working...

What is the intention behind a boycott? (none / 0) (#1)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 06, 2010 at 07:49:57 AM EST

To force AZ to not try to solve what they believe is a big problem in their state? To let them know the rest of the country doesn't agree with their solution, but has no better idea so they will use financial brute force against them? Better cancel your AMEX cards if you're going to participate in the boycott. How aggressively will those who call for the boycott announce when it is over and encourage people to return to business in AZ?

AZ still doesn't recognize MLK Day IIRC, and they had the SuperBowl there just a couple of years ago.

I'd be really interested in the better ideas everyone has for how AZ can manage their border problems, drug crimes, kidnappings, drain on their social services. This isn't a great way to manage it, but I think they could use help rather than aggressive abandonment.

You recall wrong (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 06, 2010 at 07:53:46 AM EST

"Brute force" of not spending money in Arizona? Are you serious? What a ridiculous thing to write.

Let me put it this way, at the least, those of us who advocate for a boycott have every right to do so, just as you have every right to defend the Arizona law.

Finally, you recollect wrong on the MLK Day in Arizona. It was in fact reinstated.

BECAUSE of the boycott.

You may not like that boycotts work (heck, you may condemn Rosa Parks and MLK too), but they clearly do work.

There is no need to be as ignorant about that as Jan Brwer in order to defend the Arizona law.


: Boycotts (none / 0) (#34)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 06, 2010 at 02:00:54 PM EST

don't always work though. Obvioulsy she thinks that it is going to work but the IIRC the boycott by the Southern Baptists against Disney wasn't very effective.

I would add (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 06, 2010 at 07:57:03 AM EST

"I'd be really interested in the better ideas everyone has for how AZ can manage their border problems, drug crimes, kidnappings, drain on their social services. This isn't a great way to manage it, but I think they could use help rather than aggressive abandonment."

You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

There is no "drain on their services."

That is not an increase in "drug crimes, kidnappings" as a result of illegal immigration.

Arizona has no border problems that are unique to Arizona.

This is a racist bill inspired by bigotry against Latinos. That is my opinion.

What is clear is that many people share my opinion and Arizona is suffering because of it.

Clearly this law is hurting Arizona and whining about that fact will not change that reality.


Illegal aliens use resources (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by MyLeftMind on Thu May 06, 2010 at 03:24:18 PM EST

Most of the millions of people who sneak across the border are poor. If they get sick and go to the emergency room, they may be unable or unwilling to pay their bill. The people who have insurance or who pay for medical services have a higher burden because of those who do not pay. When illegal immigrants have children here, those "instant citizens" are eligible for Social Security, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, welfare, foster care and even free college. People who have never paid into the system can use resources our citizens have paid for their entire lives.

How are we going to solve the problems associated with illegal immigration if so many on the left won't even acknowledge that illegal immigration drains our nations resources? Not saying we shouldn't help poor people from Mexico or any other country, I just don't think that allowing them to break the law and come here is an appropriate solution to their plight.


This is scarcely veiled racism (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by andgarden on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:07:37 PM EST

How embarrassing for you.


: Pfffttt (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by MyLeftMind on Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:14:56 PM EST

Calling someone racist is the classic, lame response at TalkLeft whenever anyone posts something suggesting we should stop illegal immigration. Gee, andgarden, what race am I being racist against? What about the white people who come across the border illegally? Am I saying what they do is OK, but if a dark skinned person does it, they're in the wrong? No, I'm against ALL illegal immigration because it hurts our country. If you want open borders, go try to make that policy change. We're already paying huge amounts of tax dollars to run the US immigration process, but we're supposed to just ignore the fact that millions of illegal aliens are being allowed to come and live here outside the system, while other immigrants are held to the rules? Now that's stupid.
Psst, Mexican refers to a country of origin, not a race.

Happy to help... (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:20:33 AM EST

out AZ, but first they gotta stop playing the arseholes...a boycott might slap some sense into them so we can get down to brass tacks solutions. But there is no desire to help arseholes.

As for those solutions....

A) Drug Crimes....piece of cake, lets legalize drugs and watch the violence associated with the black market trade go away like magic. The taxes on 'em could further fund social services.

B) Kidnappings...with all the extra cops with nothing to do with drugs no longer criminalized, we've got extra manpower to arrest and prosecute kidnappers...could even probably lay off a few cops and reallocate the funds to social services.

C) Drain on Social Services...See A and B, AZ has more money to spend. If thats not enough, further budget reallocations. If thats not enough, raise taxes...sales taxes ideally so everybody with their boots on the ground in AZ pays.


Brewer's "out" is if the statute (none / 0) (#26)
by MKS on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:24:19 AM EST

is declared unconstitutional--and it probably will be. Then, maybe the boycott and related talk will subside.

But it would still be remembered. Prop 187 was declared unconsitutional too, but people still remember. And the Arizona statute is much wprse.


In-state problems over new law (none / 0) (#3)
by MO Blue on Thu May 06, 2010 at 07:56:35 AM EST

The Tucson and Flagstaff city councils voted Tuesday to sue Arizona over its tough new immigration law, citing concerns about enforcement costs and negative effects on the state's tourism industry. link

Evidently Tucson and Flagstaff think a boycott would impact their tourism industry.

You think? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 06, 2010 at 07:58:16 AM EST

Actually, I wonder if an opt out to the law might save Arizona.

Allowing counties to opt out might save Arizona.


: If that concession were made, (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:25:41 AM EST

I would absolutely hold out for a full repeal.

Too bad the Cube boycott (none / 0) (#7)
by me only on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:15:20 AM EST

hasn't worked.

It failed for two reasons (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:18:55 AM EST

First, only the US did it.

Second, Castro does not care. Indeed, he welcomes it.


Cuba, Cuba, Cuba, Cuba (none / 0) (#8)
by me only on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:17:26 AM EST

can't spell before Mountain Dew. (Who am I kidding, can't spell at all.)


oh good (none / 0) (#30)
by Jen M on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:53:00 AM EST

for a second I thought you meant that weird new car


I'm boycotting them, too. (none / 0) (#31)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:58:25 AM EST

But it's because I think they look awful. I will not ask anyone else to join my boycott, however.


: I'll volunteer to join (none / 0) (#32)
by me only on Thu May 06, 2010 at 12:11:58 PM EST

Will you accept me?

Now Brewer is concerned... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:23:34 AM EST

about harming innocent people...where was this concern for the innocent when she signed this blasphemous bill?

As for the boycott harming innocents, it will probably cause some harm to the paperless, and that is unfortunate...but everybody else ain't so innocent, imo.

There is a difference between brown (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 06, 2010 at 08:30:25 AM EST

innocence and other innocence I guess. Does she hear herself?


: Just more authoritarian (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by lilburro on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:02:47 AM EST

BS - "Boycotts backfire." Riiiiight. They worked in your own state, MORAN.
She is pretty scary though. From her wikipedia page:

Gun Rights
Jan Brewer also signed legislation that entitled persons in Arizona to carry guns into bars, unless the bar has specifically stated that guns are not to be permitted. She also signed a bill that allows Arizona citizens to conceal weapons without having to get a permit.[15] The new law has proved to be controversial in the state with passionate views and opinions on both sides of the debate.
Well that is f*cking brilliant isn't it.

LGBT Issues
Jan Brewer signed a bill repealing legislation put into place by the former governor Janet Napolitano, which had granted domestic partners of state employees the ability to be considered as "dependents," similar to the way married spouses are handled.
About 750 state workers will be affected. They are currently receiving $3 million of the state's $650 million budget for employee health care.
Talk about innocents...what an @sshole.

Shorter memo to Jan Brewer (none / 0) (#27)
by ruffian on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:28:42 AM EST

bite me.

Sorry J, you can delete this comment. It had to be said.

Truly ironic indeed (none / 0) (#29)
by ruffian on Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:31:31 AM EST

and lol funny

We are happy to stay out of your state, and are encouraging others to be just as happy. You can do fine without us? Good for you. Shut your piehole and go on about your business then. Good luck.

This is NutZ (none / 0) (#33)
by ScottW714 on Thu May 06, 2010 at 01:27:25 PM EST

http://www.620ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1291444

I accidentally went to this page looking for the Hayworth statement. He is demanding an apology from the Sun.

So JD is crazy, but read the comments, it must a right wing site because the idiots are actually calling for a boycott against their own team. Seriously, and the comments, lots of them saying how they are lifelong Suns fans but now they are going to cheer for whomever they are playing tonight (Cinco). Ya, OK super fans not knowing their team is playing the Lakers in the playoffs.

Anyways, there are republicans boycotting their own businesses if they speak out against the law. They sure are determined to extend the recession in the AZ.

Republicans sure are funny folks. And thanks for helping us liberals boycott AZ businesses. Oh, but I just remembered, Brewer says "boycotts backfire", and that they are being lead by "out of state interests". The irony and hackery, mixed with completed idiocy is not lost on this Texan.

Thanks AZ for taking some of the heat off my state and thanks for forcing business to spend AZ dollars in TX. Smooches.

You last (none / 0) (#35)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 06, 2010 at 02:08:56 PM EST

paragraph kind of says it all. If she thinks it's such a good law then she should defend it. Anyway, I'm tired of people writing bad laws and then basically telling everybody who disagrees with it to shut up. She wants to have it both ways it seems.

Oh my God (none / 0) (#37)
by WS on Thu May 06, 2010 at 03:30:05 PM EST

How did Jan Brewer ever rise to the office of the Governor. How?

: Obama (none / 0) (#38)
by ScottW714 on Thu May 06, 2010 at 05:01:06 PM EST

Brewer was governor elect, she replaced Janet Napolitano. I am not sure AZ's rules for electing the governor elect, but in some states they are appointed, some run with the governor, and some run separately from the Governor. Which is what I suspect because she is a republican and the governor was a democrat.
Either way the people of AZ did not elect Brewer as their executive officer, she was the default after Obama pulled Napolitano for Homeland Security Secretary.
I bet he wouldn't mind a mulligan on that one. After all, Napolitano was a voice of reason in an insane state breaking the veto record with 115 of them.

different situation (none / 0) (#41)
by diogenes on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:09:17 PM EST

Most of the country supported ending Southern bus-type de jure, separate but equal discrimination, especially since the majority Northerners had no plan of applying racial equality to themselves in the 1950's.
60% of the country today supports the Arizona law; a different situation.