Arizona Discussion

[CompassRose]

Marble Slab is actually US based. http://www.marbleslab.com/about-us/

Cold Stone, mind you, is not only US-based, but Arizona-based.
http://www.coldstonecreamery.com/about/about_cold_stone.html

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Cold Stone, mind you, is not only US-based, but Arizona-based.
http://www.coldstonecreamery.com/about/about_cold_stone.html

Which makes it worse? :p

[CompassRose]

Well, not that it comes up much here, but I'm not going to be deliberately supporting Arizona or any business that contributes to Arizona via taxation, at this time. You are aware of what they're up to there, aren't you?

[IEFBR14]

I'm not going to be deliberately supporting Arizona or any business that contributes to Arizona via taxation, at this time. You are aware of what they're up to there, aren't you?
So if the Ontario (or federal) government did something equally stupid you'd be OK with boycotting RIM because they contribute to Ontario (or federal) taxation?

[Urbanomicon]

You are aware of what they're up to there, aren't you?

I'm afraid I'm not up to date on my Arizona news. Can someone give me the Coles Notes version?

[CompassRose]

I might. It would depend on a lot of things. Presumably, as a resident of Ontario, I would have more avenues at my disposal to express my displeasure. However, in this case, I see no reason to go out of my way to send any of my money their way whatsoever.

[CompassRose]

Arizona vs. Latinos, Coles Notes version:
Arizona enacts stringent immigration law (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)
Arizona grades teachers on fluency (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html)
Arizona legislature passes bill to curb "chauvanism" (sic) in ethnic studies programs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/)

[Urbanomicon]

Arizona vs. Latinos, Coles Notes version:
Arizona enacts stringent immigration law (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)
Arizona grades teachers on fluency (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html)
Arizona legislature passes bill to curb "chauvanism" (sic) in ethnic studies programs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/)

Wow. Ok, I see what you mean.

[garthdanlor]

So if the Ontario (or federal) government did something equally stupid you'd be OK with boycotting RIM because they contribute to Ontario (or federal) taxation?
Absolutely, I'd expect other people and political jurisdictions to boycott Ontario industries (not just RIM) if we did something vile like that. Just like I expect Canada to be boycotted because off the seal industry, the tar sands, etc.

[IEFBR14]

What rock have you been hiding behind? ;)

This isn't just Arizona news but international news. Google Arizona immigration law (http://www.google.ca/search?q=Arizona+immigration+law) and behold the 1,000s of news items.

Here's the NY Times from 24th April when the law was enacted: Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants...

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”...

I can certainly see why people are incensed about this law, but I doubt that boycotting Cold Stone will have any effect.

[IEFBR14]

the seal industry
Then you know nothing about the serious negative effects that seal boycotts are having on aboriginals whose lives and livelihoods depend on harvesting seals. And it goes without saying that you must be a strict vegetarian. But really we should take this elsewhere. It doesn't belong in this thread.

[garthdanlor]

Then you know nothing about the serious negative effects that seal boycotts are having on aboriginals whose lives and livelihoods depend on harvesting seals. And it goes without saying that you must be a strict vegetarian. But really we should take this elsewhere. It doesn't belong in this thread.

It is also having a serious affect on Canada's reputation worldwide. I think most people (I certainly would) and countries would allow aboriginals to maintain a seal hunt. However, the majority of seals slaughtered in the commercial hunt aren't at the hands of aboriginals. You're right this is for a different forum... I am vegetarian though.

[panamaniac]

What rock have you been hiding behind? ;)

This isn't just Arizona news but international news. Google Arizona immigration law (http://www.google.ca/search?q=Arizona+immigration+law) and behold the 1,000s of news items.

Here's the NY Times from 24th April when the law was enacted: Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)

I can certainly see why people are incensed about this law, but I doubt that boycotting Cold Stone will have any effect.

As with all things related to illegal migration in the Excited States, the Arizona legislation will generate far more heat than light - it will certainly not solve the illegal migration issue. I do urge those considering boycotts to consider extending them to other countries (no names, we all know who they are) that treat undocumented migrants in far less humane fashion that that being condemned in Arizona.

[garthdanlor]

but I doubt that boycotting Cold Stone will have any effect.

Why not? If enough people boycott companies with headquarters in Arizona, then eventually these companies are going to start lobbying local politicians for change. Without a vote, we really don't have any other way of influencing the matter.

[mpd618]

Why not? If enough people boycott companies with headquarters in Arizona, then eventually these companies are going to start lobbying local politicians for change. Without a vote, we really don't have any other way of influencing the matter.

The more substantial boycott is a tourism one -- don't visit.

[garthdanlor]

The more substantial boycott is a tourism one -- don't visit.

That's very true, but for those us with no desire or no plans to visit that state, you do what you can. Here's a little dilemma for Toronto commuters, Greyhound is actually Arizona Based (see list (http://www.arizona-boycott.org/)). So is Sky Mall, Taser and US Airways...

[IEFBR14]

I think most people (I certainly would) and countries would allow aboriginals to maintain a seal hunt.How generous of you. I didn't know that aboriginals needed other peoples' approval to hunt seals.</sarcasm>


Without a vote, we really don't have any other way of influencing the matter.Well we do, see below, assuming that we should get involved in this at all. How would you feel about AZans meddling in our political affairs, e.g. the current Bill C-11? Unlike many other countries where human rights are abused as panamaniac alluded to, the US has perhaps the best federal legislative and judicial protections on the planet. Let their Supreme Court do what it's supposed to do. Wouldn't we expect the same from the US if the roles were reversed?


The more substantial boycott is a tourism one -- don't visit.And make sure to write to AZ tourism board, the media, et al to tell them why you're not coming.

BTW for all we know, which at this point is apparently nothing, the owners of Stone Cold could be dead against the new AZ law and are now working politically against it. How ironic it would then be if we called for a boycott of them.

[Spokes]

Ok this is getting a little off topic....if you guys want to keep discussing it, we can set a thread up in the "Outside Waterloo Region" folder.

[IEFBR14]

if you guys want to keep discussing itI don't, at least not on this forum.


we can set a thread up in the "Outside Waterloo Region" folderI would caution you to think carefully about that. This forum is for discussing Waterloo region matters. That's going to include some off topic, political and/or controversial stuff. You probably don't want to encourage that even though in practice, like on this thread, people are going to stray off topic and you'll have to intervene. In my experience once you allow, let alone invite, these sorts of discussions you'll have to deal with a substantial increase in demands on moderator's time. At the very least, if you do want to create an "off topic" section of WW, then draft some ground rules to define what's acceptable and what's not. But that's just my opinion and it's worth what you paid for it.

[garthdanlor]

How generous of you. I didn't know that aboriginals needed other peoples' approval to hunt seals.</sarcasm>

Well then, I guess you do think this topic is appropriate for this thread. It has nothing to do with generosity. I just think the most likely path to ending the commercial seal hunt would include an examption for aboriginal peoples. Do you feel so strongly about supporting the ivory, bear testicle and whale trades...



Well we do, see below, assuming that we should get involved in this at all. How would you feel about AZans meddling in our political affairs, e.g. the current Bill C-11? Unlike many other countries where human rights are abused as panamaniac alluded to, the US has perhaps the best federal legislative and judicial protections on the planet. Let their Supreme Court do what it's supposed to do. Wouldn't we expect the same from the US if the roles were reversed?

I have no problems whatsoever with anyone (from within or without) making a political choice with their pen, vote or wallet. I'm no chauvinist. If people or other countries don't like something that Canada does or implements then, by all means, let them have their say. The Supreme Court may very well decide this issue, but the bad press and financial setbacks due to the protests might make them think twice before enacting similar legislation in future.


And make sure to write to AZ tourism board, the media, et al to tell them why you're not coming.

And it is very easy to do this these days...a 2 minute e-mail.


BTW for all we know, which at this point is apparently nothing, the owners of Stone Cold could be dead against the new AZ law and are now working politically against it. How ironic it would then be if we called for a boycott of them.
This is true and unfortunate. In the boycott against South Africa, poor black workers and anti-apartheid business owners were just as affected by the protest as were the hardcore apartheid supporters. It did, however, help bring about political change in the case of South Africa, but the boycott is a scatter-gun technique.

[garthdanlor]

I don't, at least not on this forum.


Why bring up the issue again then? I would support an off-topic section though. Sometimes threads just develop into conversations worth pursuing that aren't strictly(or vaguely) related to the topic of Waterloo Region.

However, there are plenty of other sites for these discussions so I'm happy to keep on-topic-as-possible in future.

[IEFBR14]

Why bring up the issue again then?That's the problem: Which of us is going to have the last word on the current off topic digression before a moderator steps in and either demands that we all stop or locks this thread? (Answer: I'm done, so the last word on boycotts was yours -- assuming no one else wants to weigh in.)

This is one reason why I'm urging the powers-that-be to think carefully about the implications of opening an off topic subforum. Opening is easy. Keeping things civil isn't. It's something I've done before, or at least tried to do before, and it's not something I'd want to do now or ever again.

It's one thing to deal with digressions as they come up. It's quite another to invite controversy and then try to moderate it. But again, that's not my call.

[garthdanlor]

That's the problem: Which of us is going to have the last word on the current off topic digression before a moderator steps in and either demands that we all stop or locks this thread? (Answer: I'm done, so the last word on boycotts was yours -- assuming no one else wants to weigh in.)

This is one reason why I'm urging the powers-that-be to think carefully about the implications of opening an off topic subforum. Opening is easy. Keeping things civil isn't. It's something I've done before, or at least tried to do before, and it's not something I'd want to do now or ever again.

It's one thing to deal with digressions as they come up. It's quite another to invite controversy and then try to moderate it. But again, that's not my call.

Yeah, I can support that position. Off topic sections can be fun and interesting, but some people do have problems with civility and that can sour the rest of the forum.

[jay]

I'm not sure we need it here. There are other forums where that type of conversation can happen.