home

Boycott AZ! Byron York Is Whining So You Know It Is Working

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:28:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Funny stuff from Byron York:

When left-leaning activist groups, civil rights leaders and lawmakers in several cities called for a boycott of Arizona over the state's new illegal immigration law, they did more than make a point about illegal immigration. They also set off a war -- a war that no one will win.

[. . .] "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if that started, at any level, there would be reciprocation from Arizona," says Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council. "A boycott can only lead to harm."

Yep. Arizona will boycott the rest of the country, gawdammit! They may even boycott MLB and throw the Diamondbacks out of the state! The "concern" coming from one of the strongest advocates for AZ SB 1070 is just precious. Ha!

Boycott Arizona!

Speaking for me only

< On Kagan: Answers Are A Must | Ezra Klein: Apply The "Kagan Standard" To Kagan >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Boycott AZ! Byron York Is Whining So You Know It Is Working | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well, there goes winter tourism (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Cream City on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    -- the number-one industry in my state -- when all those Arizonans will just stay home now, having to put up with all that warmth and sunshine and lack of howling winds bringing blizzards.
    If Arizonans boycott (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jen M on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:52:07 AM EST
    going to other states on vacation, will they go to Mexico?

    Parent
    No Mexico is coming to them (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    That's the problem.

    Parent
    As it was Mexico first, and (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Cream City on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:44:52 PM EST
    for centuries before Polk pulled his appalling action (do read Ulysses Grant about that war, for example) . . . it seems Arizonans came to Mexico.

    Parent
    Surely you don't believe that (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    AZ will lose a single Snow Bird..

    Parent
    What I don't believe (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Cream City on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    is that I had to label that as snark.

    Parent
    Now more than ever (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jondee on Tue May 11, 2010 at 06:14:42 PM EST
    There's no such thing as a snow bird that's too white..

    Parent
    Sounds like someone... (none / 0) (#59)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 11, 2010 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    ...forgot the Scout Motto.  

    The desert SW is packed with all kinds of places that rival, if not surpass the GC or any other place in AZ--and are generally less crowded and developed.  Arches/Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, Chaco, Mesa Verde, and so many, many others.  Truly a wondrous, spiritual land that doesn't begin and end in AZ.  

    Parent

    The Southwest... too much! (none / 0) (#65)
    by desertswine on Tue May 11, 2010 at 09:37:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Death Valley (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue May 11, 2010 at 10:50:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Bad Lands (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Tue May 11, 2010 at 10:48:23 PM EST
    Highway 6. Lonliest road in America.

    Parent
    They made their bed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    Arizona is among the top ten state in country dealing with foreclosures. I really don't think their economy is so strong that they can take on the country.

    I also feel this law is going to make it much harder for Arizona to attract new business. Most companies have no desire to get caught up in a mess like this.

    I would have thought that the president of the Economic Council would have weighed the negative impact of a law like this.

    Pffft. (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    We're already winning.  Convention bookings are up since the trouble in AZ started brewing.  

    Ka-ching!

    You can bet the professional society I belong to won't be going to AZ for our annual convention anytime soon either.  

    Retaliate with what? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    Do they think they can send their law enforcement officers out to other states to enforce their screwed up law in those places?

    OTOH, I'd bet that there would be a number of states that would be very happy if AZ boycotted their water supplies.

    perhaps (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    they plan to embargo dry heat

    Parent
    And endless asphalt. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:01:55 PM EST


    Parent
    and old people (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    although we always have the Floridians


    Parent
    Ah, now you take me back (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:14:34 PM EST
    to the anti-Bill Richardson movement, when he blithely said that the Southwest ought to just blithely lower the Great Lakes level even more.

    If this idiocy by Arizona does slow development there, all the better for the environment -- there and here, where I live along the Great Lakes.

    Btw, a city to the west of mine, and just across the watershed (so its water table drains west to the Mississippi) is on its third draft of a proposal that will be the first before the Great Lakes Compact (eight states and Canada).  Worth watching, as the proposal is appalling:  that city figures it's fine to meet the requirement to return the water to the Great Lakes by just dumping not fully treated (aka still with fecal matter) water across the divide into the rivers through other cities on the way to the Great Lakes.  I do not think that this first appeal before the Compact will fly.  At least, I hope not.

    The answer, here and there, is to curb urban sprawl and require sustainable environments.  Don't have water?  Then stop putting in sod to have laws, Arizona!

    Parent

    You'd probably blow a gasket (none / 0) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    if you saw the fine sprinkler systems that they turn on outside (!) of entrances when it is really hot in AZ.  Forget about the lawns...  Those sprinklers are the craziest thing I ever saw/experience.  Didn't make a whit of difference to me in 111 degree heat - in fact, the sprinkler was so high up that while I could see the mist, the actual water evaporated well before it reached the level where people would be walking through the door.  So, it was more like "decor" than anything else as far as I could tell.

    Parent
    Observation: you know it is hot in (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    Phoenix when, despite the misters, no one is sitting outside at Starbucks.

    Parent
    You know it is hot in Phoenix when (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 11, 2010 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    you get into your car and nearly die.  Only other near death experience of the body nearly shutting down ilk - bad oysters.  It would not be popular to say this amogst Arizonans, but I think it should be illegal to live there during the really hot months.

    Parent
    Oops, cx: not laws but lawns in AZ (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue May 11, 2010 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    Okay, well, I have problems with both the laws and the lawns in AZ.  And now I am educated on "misters" as well.  Appalling.

    Parent
    Seattle PD Not Unique (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    This is biz as usual here in NYC and I suspect anywhere in the US. Unless the cameras are rolling the officers often do as they please. And I do not think that in general, liberals join up to become police officers, so a liberal bastion, does not translate to a liberal PD.

    not unique at all (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:56:47 PM EST
    I have rural cops in my family.   they could give out of control lessons to their city brothers.
    I have been preaching here for a long time that police all over the country are out of control.

    and it is part of the culture.  when a guy get tasered for running out on the field during a sports event and everyone yawns we are circling the drain.


    Parent

    Too Bad So Sad (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by WS on Tue May 11, 2010 at 05:47:58 PM EST
    Arizona should have thought this out before passing an unconstitutional racial profiling law.  

    The AZ law explicitly prohibits racial profiling. (none / 0) (#60)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 11, 2010 at 08:08:57 PM EST
    In fact, the law was modified last week to strengthen its restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning. They also changed the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

    Gov Brewer said, "These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona."

    The law may be unconstitutional based on overstepping the federal government's area of responsibility, but it does NOT legalize racial profiling.


    Parent

    You trust their word? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by WS on Tue May 11, 2010 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    Really? I'm guessing you're not one of the black or brown people who will be harassed by these types of laws.  

    Parent
    Cops have always profiled. (none / 0) (#64)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 11, 2010 at 09:27:15 PM EST
    Does that mean we shouldn't enforce the laws? Should we get rid of drug or gun laws because cops profile while looking for drug and gun dealers? This law explicitly prohibits racial and other profiling, yet the biggest complaint is that cops might abuse their power.

    Maybe it would help if liberals came up with some solutions to the problems caused by illegal immigration. Then we wouldn't have such a culture war issue when border states desperately try to force the federal government to do its job and deal with the millions of illegal aliens living in this country. (Quick, Sher, rate my comment 1 to show your disapproval of my acknowledgement that illegal aliens are bad for our country.)

    Parent

    Feeling Harassed? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by WS on Tue May 11, 2010 at 09:38:05 PM EST
    Hmmm, you seem to advocate for it wholeheartedly for "those people".  I guess for you it's "harassment for thee but not for me".    

    Parent
    Who are "those people?" (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed May 12, 2010 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    My complaint is that liberals resort to knee jerk name calling when they disagree, especially on the topic of immigration. I think one can be left wing and still understand that 1) Illegal immigration is bad for our country, and 2) In spite of the historical and contemporary racism imbedded in the GOP's positions, the assumptions and accusations of racism toward all who are against unchecked and uncontrolled illegal immigration is not just counterproductive and unfair, it inhibits communication that might actually result in reasonable solutions to the problems caused by illegal immigration. Troll ratings by blog participants show a similar strategy to shut down posters who aren't willing to toe the party line and support open borders (at least for one group of immigrants).

    My perspective is that if we are going to have rules and laws limiting immigration, and pay millions of tax dollars for our immigration process, then all immigrants should have to abide by the rules. Allowing illegal immigration from one particular country (Mexico) indicates a pro-Hispanic bias that out to be codified in law if we want it, or stopped if we don't. It's not fair to immigrants who wait years to live and work here to be superseded by those who sneak across the border. Worse, the result of the federal government ignoring this problem is that it becomes a hot button issue that the right wing utilizes to rally its base. Hence, it's foolish for the left to continue bashing those of us who are NOT racist, but who recognize and acknowledge the problems and are willing to look for solutions.

    Parent

    Well said. (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:52:40 PM EST


    Parent
    UN rights experts criticize Arizona law (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.

    The basic human rights regulations, signed by the U.S. and many other nations, regard issues such as discrimination and the terms under which a person can be detained, the experts said.

    "A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin," the experts said.
    Well, that does it for me (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    I mean the UN. The group that appoints Muslim countries like Iran to women's rights committees..

    Yep. I must fall in line with these hypocrites.

    Parent

    As lifelong hypocrite (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jondee on Tue May 11, 2010 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    I think I speak for many when I say I resent being lumped in with Jim.

    Parent
    A water carrier (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Tue May 11, 2010 at 06:25:56 PM EST
    for the hard Right: what more proof would you need that a man was solidly committed to women's rights?

    Parent
    what makes you think (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 04:14:33 PM EST
    they would have you?


    Parent
    Ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 09:15:37 AM EST
    the old denial and attack defense.

    Parent
    Oh my, you are the nasty one, aren't you (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 11, 2010 at 06:18:48 PM EST
    Now,explain to me anyone who cares about womnen's rights should pay any attention to the UN and its present make up of Muslim states.

    And if you can't see that then you should quit be nasty to those who can.

    Parent

    My lame-duck Governor may be (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    wrong on most things, but he's got this right:  link

    No segue:  I asked tutoree (age 12, born in U.S. of Mexican immigrants) if he had heard about the new AZ law.  He sd., about immigration?  I sd., Yes.  I asked if there was discussion of the law at his school (charter school, predominantly Latino students).  He sd. no, we have so much else to study.  

    I hope this is the end of McCain (none / 0) (#3)
    by Saul on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    Not that I cherish his replacement if it comes from the GOP camp but I feel McCain has become such a poor excuse as a person in his desperation to be nominated again.  What a failure he has become.  Thank G-D that he and Palin  lost the 08 election.

    +1 (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    sick of him.
    and I am hearing that Hayworth is not a sure win.  they say the dem candidate is a serious one.

    fed up with the beltway crocodile tears about all the righteous and wronged "centrists".

    Lincoln, Specter, McCain etc.  
    let a couple of Hayworths (or worse) be elected to the senate and let the repubulicans be forced to apologize for them at every appearance they make for a while.  

    lets see how that works out.


    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    Won't look so good if the Repubs get the majority in 2012.  They won't be apologizing for Hayworth then.

    Parent
    talk to me (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    when they do that

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:02:37 PM EST
    They won't be apologizing for anything for the next few years .

    Parent
    I wouldn't order the champagne just yet (none / 0) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:31:46 PM EST
    If the tea baggers and right wingers continue to be the face of the Republican party, it's going to be very hard for them to attract the moderates that they would need to take everything back.

     

    Parent

    case in point (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    check out this ad for the governors race in Alabama.
    I know its a governor but this is what coming.  and lots of it.

    is this what the country wants.  I do not believe it is.  we shall see.

    Parent

    Isn't not apologizing, one of (none / 0) (#48)
    by Radix on Tue May 11, 2010 at 05:10:26 PM EST
    the benefits of being Republican? If we were to define Republicans as being wrong strictly by what they have apologized for then they have never been wrong in their entire history, about anything.

    Parent
    you could be right (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 05:14:00 PM EST
    still.  I would like to see them asked about things like this ad.

    of which we will see more I have no doubt.

    Parent

    Totally craven--what a panderer (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    And his campaign slogan was "Country First"?  What a pathetic joke....

    Parent
    Getting rid of McCain this time around (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 12, 2010 at 03:20:56 AM EST
    and his good buddy, Holy Joe in 2012, would make me very happy.

    Parent
    Letter to the Editor... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:55:26 PM EST
    in the NY Daily News the other day made a good point...the AZ embarassment bears an eerie resemblance to the NYPD Stop & Frisk program...maybe we should be boycotting NY too...a warrantless search is a warantless search.

    That is asking toooo much. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:24:28 PM EST


    Parent
    C'mon Oc... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    I know this is where the classical is at...but what's right is what right...and boycotting NYC over Stop-n-Frisk is the right thing to do...cuz Stop-n-Frisk is dead wrong.

    Sh*t...what goes down on Wall St. is enough to blacklist the joint.

    Parent

    My go-to guy re fixing garage door (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    opener sd. today he can't retire yet--stock market.  Echoing CC.  

    Parent
    Maybe They Will Secede (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue May 11, 2010 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    Then we can rent them the land.

    Absolute revenge (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    Give it back to Mexico!

    Parent
    It isn't yours to do anything with. (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:45:23 PM EST


    Parent
    It ain't Brewer's either... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    we're all renting the space...we need to keep that in mind when we set out to play the landlord from hell.

    Parent
    Brewer is the elected Rep. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 11, 2010 at 10:34:23 PM EST
    If the voters don't like her they can toss her out.

    And no one should be having to play landlord to uninvited guests.

    Parent

    Better yet (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    Sell the land to Mexico

    Parent
    sorry for the OT (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    but isnt this pretty big news?

    Senate Backs One-Time Audit of Fed's Bailout Role

    The Senate on Tuesday voted unanimously to require a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve's emergency actions during and after the 2008 financial crisis as part of broad legislation overhauling the nation's financial regulatory system, The New York Times's David M. Herszenhorn reports  from Washington.
    No (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 11, 2010 at 02:43:33 PM EST
    there is a reason I have not written a single post on it.

    Imo, it is not big news at all. It is a silly charade.

    Parent

    ok (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    this is why I asked

    Parent
    The solution to Too Big to Fail (none / 0) (#47)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 11, 2010 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    is to break up the banks and make the Fed transparent. They nixed those ideas and went for this lame, ineffective audit instead.

    Congress is bought off. How can we expect them to even begin to protect the interests of the 99% of the country that's not rich?

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 11, 2010 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    try reading the comments.

    note:
    firm control of the gag reflex may be required

    Its cool to still (none / 0) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue May 11, 2010 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    wear Suns stuff though right? Because I don't want to  let a friend out of a bet on the Spurs. I mean they're pretty clearly against the Immigration law (in an almost unprecedented way for a sports team).

    I think their GM is a Canadian... (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 11, 2010 at 10:48:23 PM EST
    Maybe he can arrange some transport from AZ to the northland....

    Parent
    Phoenix, which is full of liberals who (none / 0) (#50)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 11, 2010 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    don't agree with the new AZ law will lose an estimated $90M because of the boycott. But perhaps when other states enact tough immigration laws, the boycott fire will die down.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by szielinski on Tue May 11, 2010 at 06:48:45 PM EST
    Those states considering unconstitutional legislation like this might think twice about passing such a law when they see how Arizona suffered until...

    Perhaps Arizona will secede by 2015 before being annexed by Mexico in 2016!

    Parent

    except for the counties (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jen M on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:58:21 AM EST
    That secede from Arizona a couple of months later.

    Parent
    I hope they name themselves... (none / 0) (#81)
    by szielinski on Wed May 12, 2010 at 03:13:47 PM EST
    ...the state of West Berlin, USA.

    Parent
    That or (none / 0) (#61)
    by WS on Tue May 11, 2010 at 08:33:58 PM EST
    Arizona's economy would collapse because of the extreme cost of water projects.

    Parent
    Arizona and water (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by szielinski on Tue May 11, 2010 at 09:23:58 PM EST
    Indeed. I can't imagine Arizona would want an economic war with Colorado and Utah given Arizona's need for Colorado River water. Those two states could dam the river and sell the water to the newly independent country of Arizona!

    Parent
    It's Ironic (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by WS on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:58:53 AM EST
    that Arizona complains about "freeloaders" when the entire state is freeloading off others for something as basic as water.  

    Parent
    I recall watching a show on the SW water problem (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by szielinski on Wed May 12, 2010 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    When the interviewer asked a fat cat Arizona homeowner about his water supply the fine fellow replied with something that amounted to: "I'll have because I can pay for water."

    I always wonder how individuals that stupid acquire that much cash!

    Parent

    Actually Nevada gets the lion share of the (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 11, 2010 at 10:45:21 PM EST
    Colorado river.

    And I don't think Utah is too concerned with new law.


    Parent

    Or not. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:03:05 AM EST
    After 11 years the mammoth and complicated case concluded. The decision in Arizona v. California resulted in major power shifts, between the states and between the states and the federal government. Colorado River water was apportioned, with California receiving 4.4 maf, Arizona 2.8 maf and Nevada 300,000 af, with each state also awarded all the water in their tributaries. Arizona was a big winner, gaining almost all the advantages it sought in the 1922 compact. A nagging water supply problem was resolved.
    [Emphasis added]

    Link

    Parent

    Interesting I would never have thought AZ (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    getting more water than NV.... But UT and CO are completely out of the picture because they are in the Upper Basin.

    Parent
    Boycott AZ! Byron York Is Whining So You Know It Is Working | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment