My letter to John Kasich re: Aruba boycott

[mwb970]

Hello John Kasich -

I caught the segment on your show tonight (Nov. 12) about the planned boycott of Aruba by the state of Alabama in their attempt to force the government of that country to conduct the investigation of the Holloway disappearance in a manner that the Alabama legislature approves of. I have a couple of problems with this idea.

First, who is the boycott intended to hurt? A successful boycott would decimate Aruba's tourism industry, the source of 70% of its income. It would throw hundreds or more likely thousands of Aruban citizens out of work as they lose their jobs as maids, cashiers, servers, taxi drivers, etc. This would, of course, ruin these individuals and their families economically. But did these people make, or influence, the decisions the Alabama legislature finds so offensive? I think not.

So - the Alabama government wants to hurt thousands of innocent people in order to force those people's government to behave in a certain way. Does this sound familiar? It should. It's called terrorism. Hurting innocent people to effect political change. That is what the 9/11 attackers did to America. That is what the Alabama legislature wants to do to Aruba.

A second concern is the appropriateness of one of the 50 states in the USA taking independent action in the international arena, essentially mounting an economic attack on a sovereign country. Alabama is a state, not a country. They should not be allowed to act on behalf of the citizens of America in this outrageous manner.

A final concern I have is that neither you nor any of your guests brought up any of these points, resulting in a vapid, inconclusive "discussion" of a truly terrible idea. People rightly ask, "What's wrong with Kansas?" Maybe it's time to ask, "What's wrong with Alabama?"

[QC]

1. Boycotts are terrorism?

Are you sure you really want to go there, considering that boycotts are one of the most effective tools progressives have?

Frankly, all the complaining here about tv news and The Great Unwashed being obsessed with the Holloway case seems misdirected, considering how many threads there have been on this subject right here at DU. Seems like we have our own obsession.

[aquart]

3. If Alabama parents refuse to send their kids on drinking vacations

in Aruba, it ain't a bad idea.

And my suspicion is that tourist travel from Alabama cut out all on its lonesome, because nobody wants to think it ain't safe to get drunk in a strange bar.

[mwb970]

4. If a boycott hurts innocent people, I have a problem with it, yes. (n/t)

[QC]

5. All boycotts hurt innocent people.

Taking money away from the bossman always means hurting the people who depend on the bossman for their livelihoods.

That's why boycotting is never to be done lightly, and yes, some boycotts are irresponsible. You could very credibly argue that about this one. But to declare that boycotts are, by definition, terrorism is pure foolishness. Dissent is being redefined as terrorism quickly enough lately without helping things along.

[mwb970]

6. Um, OK.

How about "analogous to terrorism" then? Or "structurally similar to terrorism"?

I think you can see what I'm trying to say.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

2. Verra good. :D nt