June 8, 2010

Spend to Punish

Justin Katz

In response to the Providence City Council's useless declaration condemning Arizona's controversial immigration law, Domenick Fabrizio, of Cumberland, has a suggestion:

Since this city council wants to use economics to punish Arizona, my wife and I have decided to draw an economic line in the sand. We've decided to boycott organizations in Providence that we have frequented for years, including the Barker Playhouse, the Providence Performing Arts Center, the Providence Place mall, the Rhode Island Philharmonic and several restaurants.

We urge others who agree with us to do the same.

The first consideration ought to be the state of the economy, and anything that hinders that is inadvisable. More deeply, though, an economic boycott in response to the foolishness of city officials seems to punish the wrong people; those who are actually out there being productive are probably not the decisive factor in electing such goons. Of course, one must adjust for the left-leaning inclinations of the specific industries, mainly in arts and entertainment, that Fabrizio lists. Increasing economic pain and government dependency would conceivably have an opposite effect to that desired, when it comes to electoral politics.

So, don't boycott. Spend more, but in targeted fashion in order to encourage business and maybe to put money into the hands of folks who'll support a change of government in the city.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

There is a good chance that these Arizona boycotts violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Posted by: Dan at June 8, 2010 1:55 PM

Dan, I believe that is true.

My favorite response from Arizona has so far been to the LA boycott. I think it was the Governor who mentioned that 25% of the electricity that LA uses is sent from Arizona, and wondered aloud what would happen if that was turned off.

Hey, if LA doesn't want to spend any money in Arizona, then why are they still buying so much electricity from there?

Posted by: Patrick at June 8, 2010 2:20 PM

This is the doing of swollen piece of filth Miguel Luna.He and professional agitator Shaun Joseph "investigated" the Honduran government last year.Too bad they weren't "disappeared".
Luna is a racist and an anti- American activist.
Shaun Joseph is active in all leftist causes;pro-illegal alien activity;and is a stinkin' apologist for terrorists under the flase flag of "anti-Zionism".
Not being a Zionist myself,I have a clear view of what he is.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 8, 2010 3:50 PM

Progressives-Someone who wants to boycott the elected government of a free American state but LIFT the boycott of Castro's mass murdering dictatorship.
Do I have that right Stuart and the rest of the comrades?????

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at June 8, 2010 6:52 PM

Destroying the arts scene seems like a great idea. I just wonder if the bar and restaurant owners who depend on the arts to bring in their clientele will agree.
No more concerts at the Dunk...oh well, it can book NRA conventions and Tea Party rallies every night, right?

Posted by: rhody at June 8, 2010 7:03 PM

There has to come a point when we realize the false promise of the corporate spend frenzy. No- spend less. Drop the salesmen in a ditch. Republican folly squared has got us into a fix that more spending- "So, don't boycott. Spend more, but in targeted fashion in order to encourage business and maybe to put money into the hands of folks who'll support a change of government in the city." Justin Katz - will not get us out of this expensive box.

Posted by: David S at June 8, 2010 8:32 PM

David, that was impressive. Not only the string of non sequiturs, but the absence of an original anchor point to start with.

Excellent example of a Progressive post.

Posted by: BobN at June 8, 2010 8:57 PM

I've already ordered Christie/Brewer 2012 bumper sticker

Posted by: BobN at June 8, 2010 8:58 PM

If some of the filthy rich limousine liberals put more money into the arts,we wouldn't be burdened with this type of discretionary spending of public funds in an era of governmental debt exceeding anything that was imagined.
Art is something that the government should stay out of.A lot of publicly funded "art works"truly beg that label.
I see the miserable weasel Rhody is busy dumping on the NRA,when in fact that organization is non-partisan and is concerned solely with firearms rights and training.It cannot take positions on other issues.
What's your problem with gun owners Rhody?Won't even identify yourself.WEASEL.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 9, 2010 6:55 AM

While I have never fired or owned a gun in my life, I do wonder why people who oppose guns allow knives in their own homes. It'd be interesting to see a study done to see whether more people are killed/injured each year from firearm or knife attacks. I'm guessing it's the latter, yet there are no fat-guy-liberal movies made about them.

Posted by: Patrick at June 9, 2010 11:52 AM

Patrick-the NRA supports laws which keeps guns out of the hands of those who have no right to be armed-convicted felons;people committed for mental illness;juveniles(unsupervised);illegal aliens;and "straw"buyers.
BTW "straw" buyers wouldn't exist if it weren't for gun hating demagogues like Bloomberg,Daley,etc.
Gun crimes are almost never committed by legitimate gun owners.
Rhody is a punk and a weasel who would never have the balls to say anything he does to my face.Because I'd do my best to shove his ponytail up his ass.Or maybe he'd kick my butt.It's been done to me enough times and the other way around.He's probably in the Obama "kick ass" club-never been in a REAL fight.
Gun control that exceeds common sense is a recipe for dictatorship.
"From my cold,dead fingers"is not a cheap political slogan.if the leftists knew how much it's meant they's sh*t themselves.Resistance doesn't mean waiting for them to come and seize your weapons.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 9, 2010 2:48 PM

Joe - do you support open-carry?

It would be difficult to find a bigger gun-rights supporter than me, but one of the most frequent obstacles I encounter in the general "pro-gun" crowd is their inexplicable opposition to open-carry laws. I have to assume it's for political reasons or they've simply never thought about it rationally before since I've never heard a good argument why concealed carry should be allowed but open carry should be banned. People legally open-carry in NH all the time without any problems, except for idiot authoritarian MA transplants who freak out and call the cops on them.

Posted by: Dan at June 9, 2010 4:17 PM

Open carry is something that is quite complicated.
I fully support concealed carry in public by people who have clean records and have demonstrated reasonable competence with a firearm.Even police are "rubber-gunned"if they don't qualify.
Open carry is okay in rural areas or in a place of business(which really isn't a "carry" situation except in commie sewers like NYC)but it's not a good idea in a city environment.It's an invitation to be jumped and disarmed.A lot of trained police officers die this way every year.A senior citizen or small,weak person is an invitation to this situation.
Just my two cents on the issue.

Posted by: joe bernstein at June 9, 2010 8:40 PM

Sounds reasonable, as long as individuals are still given the choice of whether they are willing to assume that risk or not.

Posted by: Dan at June 9, 2010 9:13 PM

"Sounds reasonable, as long as individuals are still given the choice of whether they are willing to assume that risk or not."

But the problem in our society is not whether that person is willing to accept that risk, its whether their family members were made aware of that risk and willing to accept it. Maybe I'm willing to die for my right to carry a gun but if I do get jumped and shot with it, maybe my wife will claim to be unaware and start suing the pants off everyone.

That's the next step to personal responsibility. When people take their responsibilities, it includes informing others of your decision as well. We do that for end of life medical decisions, but not much else.

Posted by: Patrick at June 10, 2010 7:46 AM

Patrick, I don't understand what you are saying at all. If I want to open carry downtown, what does my family have to do with anything? They have no right to decide what I do or not, I am a free individual. And what does suing have to do with anything - who are you afraid would be sued in that situation? This is extremely confusing.

Posted by: Dan at June 10, 2010 11:49 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.