posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:13 PM
San Francisco Leads Charge to Boycott
Arizona, But Calls Could Spark Backlash.
In a fit of moral ambiguity, California wants to punish Arizona for their new law. But they don't want to further hurt the already bankrupt state of
California in the process by losing money in the process.
To me it sounds like you really do not want to boycott at all then. I mean if the boycott is going to be too much of an inconvenience, then you really
are not supporting the message you want to send then are you? It would be like a PETA demonstration sending out for McDonald's because they are
hungry and there just happens to be one across the street.
Or a group boycotting Procter & Gamble, but still stocking Ivory Soap in the restrooms because it was the cheapest option.
Maybe it is because, deep down, they know that boycotting a law designed to stop an illegal activity is ethically and morally the wrong thing to do,
despite that a large segment of California's population is offended by the actions of neighboring state.
I boycotted baseball for a number of years because the player's strike kept the Reds out of the World Series, I didn't listen to games regularly
until 2000. Sure I lament not watching the Reds 1990 Series Sweep and regret all those years not listening to Joe Nuxhall calling the games.
Especially now that he is gone. But that is the point,boycotting means sticking to your guns.