It's amazing all the outrage that has been generated by a law that calls for officers to attempt to establish whether a law has been broken if they suspect it has been broken. What else would you have them do?
Of course police suspicions may be misplaced or even in some cases entirely manufactured, but how is that not the case for any other law? Y'all seem to interpret this as a licence for rogue cops to engage in harassment but there are any other number of existing laws and police powers far more open to abuse. Look at the presumption of legal residence as defined by the law. It is far and away easier for an Az resident to demonstrate legal residence than it is that they weren't loitering with intent or otherwise 'acting suspiciously'. If a cop wants to be a prick there are much better methods than those offered by this law and as such the fear on display, or that which is being affected at least, is totally misplaced
plaese to explain how the police are to rebuild the trust of the citizens, in order for the citizens to help with investigations, that was destroyed by the passing of this law...
also, it seems that someone like you, who identifies with the right wing, conservative element would be aghast at the financial strain this is going to place on the taxpayers...undoubtedly it will cost more to incarcerate/detain folks than it does to deport...is it worth the $ to do this and at the same time lose workers who do jobs nobody else wants and help keep prices down...because I am sure these have to be concerns of the right-wing-whats-in-it-for-me-because-I-am-a-good-white-citizen people
Last night I turned down a very high-paying corporate gig because it's being held in Scottsdale. It's a lot of money, but I gotta do what I gotta do...
Citing Individualism, Arizona Tries to Rein in Ethnic Studies in School By TAMAR LEWIN Less than a month after signing the nation?s toughest law on illegal immigration, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona has again upset the state?s large Hispanic population, signing a bill aimed at ending ethnic studies in Tucson schools.
Under the law signed on Tuesday, any school district that offers classes designed primarily for students of particular ethnic groups, advocate ethnic solidarity or promote resentment of a race or a class of people would risk losing 10 percent of its state financing.
?Governor Brewer signed the bill because she believes, and the legislation states, that public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people,? Paul Senseman, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement on Thursday.
Judy Burns, president of the governing board of the Tucson schools, said the district?s ethnic studies courses did not violate any of the provisions of the new law and would be continued because they were valuable to the students.
?From everything I?ve seen, they empower kids to take charge of their own destiny, gain a sense of the value of their own existence and become more determined to be well-educated contributing members of society,? Ms. Burns said.
The new law, which takes effect at the end of the year, is a victory for Tom Horne, the state superintendent of public instruction, who has fought for years to end Tucson?s ethnic studies programs, which he believes teach students to feel oppressed and resent whites.
?The most offensive thing to me, fundamentally, is dividing kids by race,? Mr. Horne said.
?They are teaching a radical ideology in Raza, including that Arizona and other states were stolen from Mexico and should be given back,? he continued, referring to the Mexican-American studies classes. ?My point of view is that these kids? parents and grandparents came, mostly legally, because this is the land of opportunity, and we should teach them that if they work hard, they can accomplish anything.?
Mr. Horne, a Republican who is running for state attorney general, said he also objected to the textbook ?Pedagogy of the Oppressed? by Paulo Freire.
The schools in Tucson, where about 56 percent of the students are Hispanic, offer Mexican-American studies classes in history and literature and African-American literature classes. Although the classes are open to all students, most of those who enroll are members of the ethnic or racial group being discussed.
In June 2007, in an open letter to the residents of Tucson, Mr. Horne said, ?The evidence is overwhelming that ethnic studies in the Tucson Unified School District teaches a kind of destructive ethnic chauvinism that the citizens of Tucson should no longer tolerate.?
In that letter, he said he believed that students were learning hostility from La Raza teachers, citing an incident in which students at the Tucson High Magnet School walked out on a speech by his deputy, a Republican Latina, who was trying to refute an earlier speaker who had told the student body that Republicans hate Latinos.
Sean Arce, director of Tucson?s Mexican-American studies department, said the ethnic studies courses do teach students about the marginalization of different groups in the United States through history.
?They don?t teach resentment or hostility, in any way, shape or form,? Mr. Arce said. ?Instead, they build cultural bridges of understanding, and teach the skills students need to understand history.?
Furthermore, Mr. Arce said, the ethnic studies courses have been highly effective in reducing students? dropout rates and increasing their college matriculation well above the national average for Latino students.
Mr. Arce and Ms. Burns said that they had repeatedly invited Mr. Horne to visit the ethnic studies classes, but that he had declined the invitations.
?We wish he?d come see it, so he?d know what we do, and not just go on hearsay,? Ms. Burns said.
Mr. Horne acknowledged that he had never sat in on a class, but said he did not believe that what he would see would be representative of what regularly took place.
have you heard of the tea-bagger's "buycott"? They are trying to encourage people to actively seek out Arizona businesses and buy from them...its cute when they try to be all "activist"
after stating he thought it was a waste of money and he advocated comprehensive immigrtion reform here is da boy mccain and his dangedfence.com
"youre one of us" what a old stale piece of shit.
the ethnic studies laws is basically walking down the road of censorship. i would to be surprised at all to see republican activists engaging in book burnings sometime soon.
Last night I turned down a very high-paying corporate gig because it's being held in Scottsdale. It's a lot of money, but I gotta do what I gotta do...
bravo,cos did you tell them why you couldnt take the gig? did they have any comment?
Last night I turned down a very high-paying corporate gig because it's being held in Scottsdale. It's a lot of money, but I gotta do what I gotta do...
bravo,cos did you tell them why you couldnt take the gig? did they have any comment?
Yeah I did, letting them know I'm taking part of the economic boycott. It's the second gig in Arizona I've refused, although this one was a corporate gig so it's a really healthy number (well into the 4 figures.) Granted I didn't tell the company, just a third party source that solicited me. But I wonder why the company (one of the largest shoe companies in the world) is even having their annual sales meeting there. Motherfuckers gotta learn, man...
Last month the owner of the company I work for, and my mentor, Milton P. Levy passed away. He was the greatest man I have ever had the honor of calling my friend. He was a philanthropist who in his lifetime donated over $200 million dollars to various charities and was the founder of a group that advocated for adults with extreme learning disabilities.
Many years ago I was making a presentation to our Board of Directors about some new products on the market that I thought we should add to our product line. After I presented one product in particular Milton asked me who the manufacturer of the item was. When I told him their name he went off "Don't you EVER bring any products from that company in here again!! We will NOT do business with them...EVER".
Damn I was shook.....whatever I just did seemed to really piss him off and I was at a loss as to why. After the meeting I asked Milton to stay behind and I asked him what the deal was with why he hated this particular company so much. he went on to explain that it had been started by two guys who used to work for him and that they had a very nasty falling out because of it. As a result he was intent on never doing business with them.
After hearing his diatribe I simply said "Wouldn't it make more sense to carry their product and make money off of them as a payback?" Now keep in mind, I'm just a punk who was still green behind the ears and this dude was a guy who built a business from the ground up and was now one of the richest men in Dallas. He looked at me and smiled and said "Yeah, I guess that would be a good way of getting back at them".
We introduced the product later that year and it is still to this day one of our bigger sellers bringing in 6 million annually for almost 15 years now....and quite a bit of that has certainly gone to Milton's favorite charities.
You had to read all that to have me say this.
Cosmo....take that gig and the money that comes with it and donate 50% of it to an appropriate group that represents your views on the Az. immigration issue.
So he should work towards weakening the boycott, which gives people the power to hit companies who support racist policies where it really hurts, and try to make it a battle for funding instead, which puts Mexican-American advocacy groups at a distinct disadvantage.
So he should work towards weakening the boycott, which gives people the power to hit companies who support racist policies where it really hurts, and try to make it a battle for funding instead, which puts Mexican-American advocacy groups at a distinct disadvantage.
Yeah, that's Rock-a-logic all right.
Yeah dude because they probably won't be able to get another DJ and will have to cancel the event.....and as a result they will probaly move out of Arizona and stop selling their shoes there too.
To each his own....
I know where my way of thinking has gotten me...and I'm cool with that.
Rock: I understand what you're saying but what Cos is doing isn't a boycott; it's more akin to a strike. He's withholding labor/productivity by sacrificing compensation. Different form of economic protest.
JP: What gives you the sense that Selig is going to move the All-Star game? Everything I've been hearing/reading suggests dude is tenderberries and isn't going to get involved in the issue.
Tripledubs: I agree with you that the ethnic studies law is ridiculous. If you read the bill, it's so vague as to its application that it's hard to tell what it *can't* be used for. However, as my constitutional law prof. friend pointed out, technically, there's nothing illegal with restricting forms of curriculum. This is, after all, what school districts do all the time. The main difference here is that the state legislature is dictating curriculum standards; unusual but not, in his opinion, illegal or unconstitutional. What I'm trying to figure out is how applicable this law is to public university classes. I can't really see ASU, for example, eliminating Chicano Studies courses.
So he should work towards weakening the boycott, which gives people the power to hit companies who support racist policies where it really hurts, and try to make it a battle for funding instead, which puts Mexican-American advocacy groups at a distinct disadvantage.
Yeah, that's Rock-a-logic all right.
Yeah dude because they probably won't be able to get another DJ and will have to cancel the event.....and as a result they will probaly move out of Arizona and stop selling their shoes there too.
To each his own....
I know where my way of thinking has gotten me...and I'm cool with that.
Sure they'll get another DJ, but it just won't be me. And I understand the reasoning behind what you're saying and it makes sense in ways but Two-Ply hit the nail on the head about it, the boycott remains the boycott at the end of the day. It's larger than the financial issues to me - obviously since I'm turning down money. All good though, Rock.
Rock: I understand what you're saying but what Cos is doing isn't a boycott; it's more akin to a strike. He's withholding labor/productivity by sacrificing compensation. Different form of economic protest.
Yeah you have a point - strike seems to fit better.
Also can I just take the time right now to say fuck Bud Selig - what fucking crumb. Even if he does go through with the All Star boycott, he's still and always will be a crumb.
Last night I turned down a very high-paying corporate gig because it's being held in Scottsdale. It's a lot of money, but I gotta do what I gotta do...
bravo,cos did you tell them why you couldnt take the gig? did they have any comment?
Yeah I did, letting them know I'm taking part of the economic boycott. It's the second gig in Arizona I've refused, although this one was a corporate gig so it's a really healthy number (well into the 4 figures.) Granted I didn't tell the company, just a third party source that solicited me. But I wonder why the company (one of the largest shoe companies in the world) is even having their annual sales meeting there. Motherfuckers gotta learn, man...
Sh*t holmes, give 'em my number! (I'm not supposed to boycott my own state, am I? Always wondered how that works...)
I know where my way of thinking has gotten me...and I'm cool with that.
Your way of thinking has gotten you into a trap where you think that most world events can be distilled down to some story you remember.
Don't get me wrong, I know you've experienced a lot. And I enjoy your insight into things you have genuine experience with. Stories relating to records, personal anecdotes about people, parenting, etc. But I'm just saying that relating Cosmo's situation to that particular business experience of yours doesn't make sense. They're not the same situation at all. Not even remotely.
Last night I turned down a very high-paying corporate gig because it's being held in Scottsdale. It's a lot of money, but I gotta do what I gotta do...
bravo,cos did you tell them why you couldnt take the gig? did they have any comment?
Yeah I did, letting them know I'm taking part of the economic boycott. It's the second gig in Arizona I've refused, although this one was a corporate gig so it's a really healthy number (well into the 4 figures.) Granted I didn't tell the company, just a third party source that solicited me. But I wonder why the company (one of the largest shoe companies in the world) is even having their annual sales meeting there. Motherfuckers gotta learn, man...
Sh*t holmes, give 'em my number! (I'm not supposed to boycott my own state, am I? Always wondered how that works...)
I'm not sure how that should work but I don't think that you would be hurting the cause by doing the job. But I do like the idea that homie said above - you should play all Chalino Sanchez and shit. Check PMs...
I know where my way of thinking has gotten me...and I'm cool with that.
Your way of thinking has gotten you into a trap where you think that most world events can be distilled down to some story you remember.
Don't get me wrong, I know you've experienced a lot. And I enjoy your insight into things you have genuine experience with. Stories relating to records, personal anecdotes about people, parenting, etc. But I'm just saying that relating Cosmo's situation to that particular business experience of yours doesn't make sense. They're not the same situation at all. Not even remotely.
I don't expect everyone to see things my way.....and I do think the analogy is a good one.
In one scenario you leave money on the table and keep your integrity, someone else takes the money and life goes on.
In the other scenario you take the "dirty" money and use it to fight against the issue you have a problem with.
Which one accomplishes more when it's all said and done??
I know where my way of thinking has gotten me...and I'm cool with that.
Your way of thinking has gotten you into a trap where you think that most world events can be distilled down to some story you remember.
Don't get me wrong, I know you've experienced a lot. And I enjoy your insight into things you have genuine experience with. Stories relating to records, personal anecdotes about people, parenting, etc. But I'm just saying that relating Cosmo's situation to that particular business experience of yours doesn't make sense. They're not the same situation at all. Not even remotely.
I don't expect everyone to see things my way.....and I do think the analogy is a good one.
In one scenario you leave money on the table and keep your integrity, someone else takes the money and life goes on.
In the other scenario you take the "dirty" money and use it to fight against the issue you have a problem with.
Which one accomplishes more when it's all said and done??
The problem I have with the analogy is that you're comparing a personal vendetta to legalized discrimination. The stakes are not the same.
Are the views on this board that you are supposed to boycott me because my business happens to be in AZ?
I'm 100% against the bill, but come on now....I can understand trying to boycott the state, but to economically disadvantage small businesses here are beyond ridiculous. To say you won't play a show in AZ for money is semi-ridiculous. I MIGHT understand not wanting to do a corporate gig, but what if some hiphop weekly wanted to book you? Would you tell them no? I can pretty much guarantee that 99.9% of the people in that crowd would not be in support of 1070.
Killing the big fat cat is one thing. Sticking it to the little dude trying to make a living is another.
its too bad that innocent folks get caught up in all this but what other way is there to put actual pressure on the state to repeal or amend this awful act?
the world is going to squeeze your state until it screams uncle.
its too bad that innocent folks get caught up in all this but what other way is there to put actual pressure on the state to repeal or amend this awful act?
the world is going to squeeze your state until it screams uncle.
Uncle will most likely result in the Federal government enforcing immigration laws in Arizona(and elsewhere) that they have ignored in the past.
It's amazing all the outrage that has been generated by a law that calls for officers to attempt to establish whether a law has been broken if they suspect it has been broken. What else would you have them do?
Of course police suspicions may be misplaced or even in some cases entirely manufactured, but how is that not the case for any other law? Y'all seem to interpret this as a licence for rogue cops to engage in harassment but there are any other number of existing laws and police powers far more open to abuse. Look at the presumption of legal residence as defined by the law. It is far and away easier for an Az resident to demonstrate legal residence than it is that they weren't loitering with intent or otherwise 'acting suspiciously'. If a cop wants to be a prick there are much better methods than those offered by this law and as such the fear on display, or that which is being affected at least, is totally misplaced
plaese to explain how the police are to rebuild the trust of the citizens, in order for the citizens to help with investigations, that was destroyed by the passing of this law...
also, it seems that someone like you, who identifies with the right wing, conservative element would be aghast at the financial strain this is going to place on the taxpayers...undoubtedly it will cost more to incarcerate/detain folks than it does to deport...is it worth the $ to do this and at the same time lose workers who do jobs nobody else wants and help keep prices down...because I am sure these have to be concerns of the right-wing-whats-in-it-for-me-because-I-am-a-good-white-citizen people
I see little evidence that the trust of the citizens in their officials has been adversely effected by this law. Firstly, and most importantly, the law has overwhelming public support in Arizona, and the country at large for that matter. Secondly, most of the criticism of the bill rests on things that are either not in the bill or which the bill explicitly prohibits. The objections themselves spring from an existing mistrust. You have the cause and effect back to front.
Regarding your second 'point' it is obviously up to the people of Arizona to decide whether the cost of enforcing the law represents value for money. They think it does and I would agree with them. More effective enforcement of immigrations laws would almost certainly result in a fall in those crimes related to the mixican drug cartels and illegal immigration more generally, some of them very serious(drug smuggling, homicide, kidnap ect.)
I shall finish off this stomping with a kick to the face on the matter of that old 'jobs no-one else will do' canard. A more accurate way to put it would be 'wages no-one else will work for'. It is not the existence of jobs that no-one else will do which produces a need for a large number of illegal immigrant workers, it is the large number of illegal workers who produce jobs no-one else will do by suppressing wage rates. Again you have the cause and effect back to front.
Comments
plaese to explain how the police are to rebuild the trust of the citizens, in order for the citizens to help with investigations, that was destroyed by the passing of this law...
also, it seems that someone like you, who identifies with the right wing, conservative element would be aghast at the financial strain this is going to place on the taxpayers...undoubtedly it will cost more to incarcerate/detain folks than it does to deport...is it worth the $ to do this and at the same time lose workers who do jobs nobody else wants and help keep prices down...because I am sure these have to be concerns of the right-wing-whats-in-it-for-me-because-I-am-a-good-white-citizen people
after stating he thought it was a waste of money and he advocated comprehensive immigrtion reform
here is da boy mccain
and his dangedfence.com
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH
Yeah they losing a grip. Economic boycotts are the business, dude.
By TAMAR LEWIN
Less than a month after signing the nation?s toughest law on illegal immigration, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona has again upset the state?s large Hispanic population, signing a bill aimed at ending ethnic studies in Tucson schools.
Under the law signed on Tuesday, any school district that offers classes designed primarily for students of particular ethnic groups, advocate ethnic solidarity or promote resentment of a race or a class of people would risk losing 10 percent of its state financing.
?Governor Brewer signed the bill because she believes, and the legislation states, that public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people,? Paul Senseman, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement on Thursday.
Judy Burns, president of the governing board of the Tucson schools, said the district?s ethnic studies courses did not violate any of the provisions of the new law and would be continued because they were valuable to the students.
?From everything I?ve seen, they empower kids to take charge of their own destiny, gain a sense of the value of their own existence and become more determined to be well-educated contributing members of society,? Ms. Burns said.
The new law, which takes effect at the end of the year, is a victory for Tom Horne, the state superintendent of public instruction, who has fought for years to end Tucson?s ethnic studies programs, which he believes teach students to feel oppressed and resent whites.
?The most offensive thing to me, fundamentally, is dividing kids by race,? Mr. Horne said.
?They are teaching a radical ideology in Raza, including that Arizona and other states were stolen from Mexico and should be given back,? he continued, referring to the Mexican-American studies classes. ?My point of view is that these kids? parents and grandparents came, mostly legally, because this is the land of opportunity, and we should teach them that if they work hard, they can accomplish anything.?
Mr. Horne, a Republican who is running for state attorney general, said he also objected to the textbook ?Pedagogy of the Oppressed? by Paulo Freire.
The schools in Tucson, where about 56 percent of the students are Hispanic, offer Mexican-American studies classes in history and literature and African-American literature classes. Although the classes are open to all students, most of those who enroll are members of the ethnic or racial group being discussed.
In June 2007, in an open letter to the residents of Tucson, Mr. Horne said, ?The evidence is overwhelming that ethnic studies in the Tucson Unified School District teaches a kind of destructive ethnic chauvinism that the citizens of Tucson should no longer tolerate.?
In that letter, he said he believed that students were learning hostility from La Raza teachers, citing an incident in which students at the Tucson High Magnet School walked out on a speech by his deputy, a Republican Latina, who was trying to refute an earlier speaker who had told the student body that Republicans hate Latinos.
Sean Arce, director of Tucson?s Mexican-American studies department, said the ethnic studies courses do teach students about the marginalization of different groups in the United States through history.
?They don?t teach resentment or hostility, in any way, shape or form,? Mr. Arce said. ?Instead, they build cultural bridges of understanding, and teach the skills students need to understand history.?
Furthermore, Mr. Arce said, the ethnic studies courses have been highly effective in reducing students? dropout rates and increasing their college matriculation well above the national average for Latino students.
Mr. Arce and Ms. Burns said that they had repeatedly invited Mr. Horne to visit the ethnic studies classes, but that he had declined the invitations.
?We wish he?d come see it, so he?d know what we do, and not just go on hearsay,? Ms. Burns said.
Mr. Horne acknowledged that he had never sat in on a class, but said he did not believe that what he would see would be representative of what regularly took place.
"youre one of us"
what a old stale piece of shit.
the ethnic studies laws is basically walking down the road of censorship. i would to be surprised at all to see republican activists engaging in book burnings sometime soon.
bravo,cos
did you tell them why you couldnt take the gig? did they have any comment?
Yeah I did, letting them know I'm taking part of the economic boycott. It's the second gig in Arizona I've refused, although this one was a corporate gig so it's a really healthy number (well into the 4 figures.) Granted I didn't tell the company, just a third party source that solicited me. But I wonder why the company (one of the largest shoe companies in the world) is even having their annual sales meeting there. Motherfuckers gotta learn, man...
Last month the owner of the company I work for, and my mentor, Milton P. Levy passed away. He was the greatest man I have ever had the honor of calling my friend. He was a philanthropist who in his lifetime donated over $200 million dollars to various charities and was the founder of a group that advocated for adults with extreme learning disabilities.
Many years ago I was making a presentation to our Board of Directors about some new products on the market that I thought we should add to our product line. After I presented one product in particular Milton asked me who the manufacturer of the item was. When I told him their name he went off "Don't you EVER bring any products from that company in here again!! We will NOT do business with them...EVER".
Damn I was shook.....whatever I just did seemed to really piss him off and I was at a loss as to why. After the meeting I asked Milton to stay behind and I asked him what the deal was with why he hated this particular company so much. he went on to explain that it had been started by two guys who used to work for him and that they had a very nasty falling out because of it. As a result he was intent on never doing business with them.
After hearing his diatribe I simply said "Wouldn't it make more sense to carry their product and make money off of them as a payback?" Now keep in mind, I'm just a punk who was still green behind the ears and this dude was a guy who built a business from the ground up and was now one of the richest men in Dallas. He looked at me and smiled and said "Yeah, I guess that would be a good way of getting back at them".
We introduced the product later that year and it is still to this day one of our bigger sellers bringing in 6 million annually for almost 15 years now....and quite a bit of that has certainly gone to Milton's favorite charities.
You had to read all that to have me say this.
Cosmo....take that gig and the money that comes with it and donate 50% of it to an appropriate group that represents your views on the Az. immigration issue.
That way people actually win.
Yeah, that's Rock-a-logic all right.
Yeah dude because they probably won't be able to get another DJ and will have to cancel the event.....and as a result they will probaly move out of Arizona and stop selling their shoes there too.
To each his own....
I know where my way of thinking has gotten me...and I'm cool with that.
JP: What gives you the sense that Selig is going to move the All-Star game? Everything I've been hearing/reading suggests dude is tenderberries and isn't going to get involved in the issue.
Tripledubs: I agree with you that the ethnic studies law is ridiculous. If you read the bill, it's so vague as to its application that it's hard to tell what it *can't* be used for. However, as my constitutional law prof. friend pointed out, technically, there's nothing illegal with restricting forms of curriculum. This is, after all, what school districts do all the time. The main difference here is that the state legislature is dictating curriculum standards; unusual but not, in his opinion, illegal or unconstitutional. What I'm trying to figure out is how applicable this law is to public university classes. I can't really see ASU, for example, eliminating Chicano Studies courses.
Sure they'll get another DJ, but it just won't be me. And I understand the reasoning behind what you're saying and it makes sense in ways but Two-Ply hit the nail on the head about it, the boycott remains the boycott at the end of the day. It's larger than the financial issues to me - obviously since I'm turning down money. All good though, Rock.
Yeah you have a point - strike seems to fit better.
Also can I just take the time right now to say fuck Bud Selig - what fucking crumb. Even if he does go through with the All Star boycott, he's still and always will be a crumb.
Sh*t holmes, give 'em my number! (I'm not supposed to boycott my own state, am I? Always wondered how that works...)
Your way of thinking has gotten you into a trap where you think that most world events can be distilled down to some story you remember.
Don't get me wrong, I know you've experienced a lot. And I enjoy your insight into things you have genuine experience with. Stories relating to records, personal anecdotes about people, parenting, etc. But I'm just saying that relating Cosmo's situation to that particular business experience of yours doesn't make sense. They're not the same situation at all. Not even remotely.
I'm not sure how that should work but I don't think that you would be hurting the cause by doing the job. But I do like the idea that homie said above - you should play all Chalino Sanchez and shit. Check PMs...
I don't expect everyone to see things my way.....and I do think the analogy is a good one.
In one scenario you leave money on the table and keep your integrity, someone else takes the money and life goes on.
In the other scenario you take the "dirty" money and use it to fight against the issue you have a problem with.
Which one accomplishes more when it's all said and done??
How 'bout we just chalk this one up to "different strokes for different folks"?
The idea that you can quantify the set of options in this case is barking up the wrong tree.
Agreed....and all I did was present a second option.....I love the "choice close".
The problem I have with the analogy is that you're comparing a personal vendetta to legalized discrimination. The stakes are not the same.
I live in Arizona.
I have a family owned, HISPANIC owned business.
Are the views on this board that you are supposed to boycott me because my business happens to be in AZ?
I'm 100% against the bill, but come on now....I can understand trying to boycott the state, but to economically disadvantage small businesses here are beyond ridiculous. To say you won't play a show in AZ for money is semi-ridiculous. I MIGHT understand not wanting to do a corporate gig, but what if some hiphop weekly wanted to book you? Would you tell them no? I can pretty much guarantee that 99.9% of the people in that crowd would not be in support of 1070.
Killing the big fat cat is one thing. Sticking it to the little dude trying to make a living is another.
its too bad that innocent folks get caught up in all this but what other way is there to put actual pressure on the state to repeal or amend this awful act?
the world is going to squeeze your state until it screams uncle.
Uncle will most likely result in the Federal government enforcing immigration laws in Arizona(and elsewhere) that they have ignored in the past.
I see little evidence that the trust of the citizens in their officials has been adversely effected by this law. Firstly, and most importantly, the law has overwhelming public support in Arizona, and the country at large for that matter. Secondly, most of the criticism of the bill rests on things that are either not in the bill or which the bill explicitly prohibits. The objections themselves spring from an existing mistrust. You have the cause and effect back to front.
Regarding your second 'point' it is obviously up to the people of Arizona to decide whether the cost of enforcing the law represents value for money. They think it does and I would agree with them. More effective enforcement of immigrations laws would almost certainly result in a fall in those crimes related to the mixican drug cartels and illegal immigration more generally, some of them very serious(drug smuggling, homicide, kidnap ect.)
I shall finish off this stomping with a kick to the face on the matter of that old 'jobs no-one else will do' canard. A more accurate way to put it would be 'wages no-one else will work for'. It is not the existence of jobs that no-one else will do which produces a need for a large number of illegal immigrant workers, it is the large number of illegal workers who produce jobs no-one else will do by suppressing wage rates. Again you have the cause and effect back to front.