From: bob@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency re CO boycott
Organization: Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
	<1992Nov6.164747.11376@hemlock.cray.com>
Distribution: soc
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:34:48

In article <1992Nov6.164747.11376@hemlock.cray.com> axtell@cray.com
(Maureen Axtell) writes: 

   Well Bob,

   I'll try.

   First of all, it's not your states economy a boycott would mess
   with, it's mine.  And I may be selfish, but I'd really like to stay
   employed.

I'm a student.  My parents live in Colorado.  So does my sister.  My
father is trying to start up a new business.  My sister will soon be
out of a job.  A bad economy in Colorado will hurt everyone in my
immediate family.  If Colorado is not "my state" it is close.

   Second, a boycott is going to hand CFV and other such organizations
   more amunition in their fight to prove 'we' are not good for
   Colorado.  'We' just might threaten 'their' livelihoods and give
   them yet another cause to hate us.

Reasons have *nothing* to do with this.  The CFV *exists* to hate.
They spew any number of rationalizations for their hate, but the hate
is prior to any of the supposed "reasons."

   Third, a boycott is not going to hurt CFV or affect the business
   leaders in any significant way.  It will not hurt everyone in the
   state, it will hurt the poor, a lot of women, racial minorities,
   and the gay community.  Every openly gay person here is going to
   have to wonder when their job will be lost, because their
   'community' is 'helping' them by boycotting the company whose
   employing them.

A bad economy will affect everyone.  Some people will lose their jobs.
The fat cats will make 9% this year instead of 10%.  I personally feel
more for the people who lose jobs than for the fat cats.  But, the fat
cats aren't going to like losing that 1% at all.  And the fat cats are
in a position to act.

   Fourth, when we're all out of work, whose gonna help you when CFV
   or OCA targets YOUR state?  And believe me, they will.

Do you really think a boycott could be that effective?  If it were
that effective, how long do you think amendment 2 would stand?
Remember, the 55% who voted "yes" on that piece of crap are not all
fundamentalists.  

   Now, I'm not much of a pacifist, and I'm quite willing to defend my
   principles, but I've got enough of a brain to put my efforts into
   things that at least have a chance of the results I want. I can't
   see a boycott accomplishing anything besides a lot of hardship and
   bad feelings.  And inflating egos of people who don't have to live
   with the economic and emotional wreckage their actions cause.

Again, I simply cannot see a boycott being that effective.  At any
rate, my original question is what gives the state of Colorado a
"right" to anyone's disposable income.

I see a boycott as a call to examine how one spends disposable income,
with an eye toward what one's spending habits may be supporting.  

Sure, Colorado needs tourism and healthy businesses to have a good
economy.  That need does *not* translate into a just claim on my
disposable income.  Should I rent office space in The City of God (a
white elephant in Oklahoma) simply because they need the income? 

Am I supposed to be a "completely rational consumer" (that
phantasmagorical beast much beloved by economists) and choose Colorado
products and services if they are in some way the "best on the
market"?  What if I prefer to ski in a state with less air pollution?
Is that rational?  What if I prefer to ski in a state with less CFV
political pollution?  Is that rational?

If I inform others who may be unaware of the extent of CFV political
pollution in Colorado, and let them make up their minds as to what (if
anything) they want to do about it wrt to their spending habits, what
wrong have I done?

   In this age of family values, and xtians using their religions as
   marketing stratgies, do we really expect for colorado to care if we
   boycott?  Have we got enough support that colorado businesses would
   even notice the impact? And can we assure that the fundies wouldn't
   be able to use a boycott to their own advantage - specifically
   using the buying power of their memberships against ours. Also,
   lets realize that the fundies have considerably more money to use
   as bait; and that money makes the world (or at least business) go
   round.  Somehow I don't think a straight business person is going
   to give a damn about gay discrimination; they just want to make a
   profit.

If the boycott is ineffective, then it will cost the state of Colorado
no jobs, in particular no GLBO jobs.

   Surely, with all the bright minds in this community, we can drop
   the idealistic nonsense for a while, and come up with an effective
   response.                                             ^^

Surely you don't think there is one right response.  The boycott,
legal action, a nationwide propaganda war against the fundies, etc.,
etc. all have their uses.

- Bob