Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Hmmmmm and what, prey tell, is that?
    
    This couldn't be a possible nudge toward boycotting Idaho now would it?
    
    nawwwww that would be a political solicitation.... and thats
    wrong....... right?
    
    

    In re base note, I would appreciate it if you expanded on the
    purpose of your note.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod
    
    and my answer is 'my garden'

    
    I like to buy "locally grown" produce and, right now, at this time 
    of year, in Massachusetts, if I'm buying potatoes, this means Maine 
    or Prince Edward Island.
    
    CQ

    
    Do they grow potatoes in Florida?
    
    Kathy

    Re .1, why is "political solicitation" wrong?
    
    Re .0, I don't have any potatoes.
    
    Lorna
    

    As things stand now, my garden, or we eat rice, bulgar, kasha, or pasta
    in all varieties.

    re 'solicitation', just discussing a news item doesn't necessarily
    translate to a call to participate therein.
    
    For folks who hadn't heard, the governor of Idaho is under pressure to
    veto some new state legislation forbidding abortion.  The pressure is
    in the form of a threat to organize a boycott of Idaho potatos, one of
    their top three agricultural products (beef and sugar beets being the
    others.)  My news is about two days old, so if anyone has heard an
    update, please fill us in.  And I didn't catch the name (if it was
    given) of the group or groups applying the pressure.
    
    DougO
    
    

    I'm going to be eating more Idaho potatoes if the gov signs.
    
    Marge

    um, Marge, I think only *buying* them is required.  :-)

 I am disturbed by this line of reasoning.

 What I see is "Don't do 'the right thing.' Bow to the largest arm twister."

 So if the governor signs the legislation, pro-choicers will boycott potatoes,
even if it hurts other pro-choicers (they should know better than to live 
there). The hope is that by hurting the common people, some pressure will come 
to bear on the governor & legislature. Doesn't that beat all? Hurt people so
THEY can pressure the people you want to control.

 On the other hand, if the governor vetoes the legislation, he stands to see
an equally vocal and organized boycott from the pro-life faction. And the very
same people get hurt (meanwhile, some secretary is filtering the governor's
calls). 

 No matter what happens, there are going to be alot of really pissed off people.
It's unavoidable. We have two equally insistent_they_are_right factions whose
views are diamterically opposed. Zero sum game. 

 I personally feel that, at least in this instance, leveraging pain of the
common people to affect government is wrong (for me). I will not engage in
economic sanctions against people who happen to live in a certain area of
the country simply because I don't like the way their elected officials
govern their state. To do so places an unfair burden on the people and 
establishes a precedent that I do not wish to see established.

 Are we to become a country where all states must do exactly as the largest
economic block dictates? Where self-government is abandoned and economic
control from afar takes a front seat? Are we to deny to states the right
to govern as the majority of its consitutents sees fit?

 The Doctah

    Well, actually we're a country run by the majority of the interested. 
    And boycotts have been a time honored tradition in concretely
    expressing displeasure by one group of another.  
    
    Dondi

> Are we to become a country where all states must do exactly as the largest
>economic block dictates? Where self-government is abandoned and economic
>control from afar takes a front seat? 

    we already are.
    

    I am sure that the feedback of "reduced sales" won't make it to Idaho
    before the time that the law must be signed or rejected.
    
    ed

 Ask yourself this question:

 If the Supreme Court decides it is entirely up to the states to decide, would
you want YOUR state to be subject to potentially crippling economic sanctions
if they went eh way that you wanted them to go? Would you want the opposing
groups to organize and manipulate markets such that you became unemployed,
and lost your home? How would you feel if YOUR OWN GROUP'S actions caused
the same result?

 We are talking about PEOPLE here. What is proposed is potentially ruining
OTHER people's lives by cirumventing the democratic process.

 While it may sound like a good idea when you believe in the cause, it doesn't
seem like such a good idea when you think the cause is flagrantly wrong.
And besides, how many people have friends or family in Idaho? The vast majority 
of those calling for this boycott will never hear of the personal pain and
tragedies their policies would cause.

 A sword has two edges, both of which can cut.

 The Doctah

    That's interesting, Mark...it sounds like the arguments made by the
    folks who lost their jobs in Woburn because a woman blew the whistle on
    some Love-Canal-type polluters:  why was she trying to ruin their
    lives, they were *innocent*.
    
    						=maggie

 If you can accept the possibility that this precedent might be used to deprive
you of your livelihood etc at some future time by some group with an axe to 
grind, and you still think it's worth it, then be my guest. I can't and don't.

 It sounds to me like the people who are in favor of the boycott are the same
ones that think it is ok for the police to ignore procedure to incarcerate 
someone who they *know* is guilty without their police work withstanding the 
rigors of "proper procedure." "We all *know* he's guilty. Let's just get it over
with." But these procedures are put into place to prevent people who may
appear guilty or who may be out of favor with the angry mob from being 
railroaded without due process. To me, the same operating principle is involved
here. What appears to be a "good thing" is really only an expedient method
of obtaining the desired result. It is more clearly not such a good thing when
our political opponents use the same tactics against us. "Live by the sword,
die by the sword."

 If the pro-choice movement decided that computers were something worthy of
being boycotted and you lost your job as a result of a pro-choice sponsored
boycott of computers, how would you feel in light of your stance on the
abortion issue? How about the same scenario, only the pro-life movement
sponsored the boycott. What feelings are shared in both scenarios? What feelings
are different?

 The Doctah

<<< Note 1056.10 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "No longer fill my head w/ empty dreams" >>>

> Are we to deny to states the right
> to govern as the majority of its consitutents sees fit?

    In this case NPR reported that the governor's mail was running 3
    to 1 against the bill.  I'd suggest that the majority opinion is
    not being enacted.

    When I heard the report about the boycott, I was depressed . . .  My gut
 reaction is that the governor will use the threat of a boycott (by those "East
 Coast liberals") as an excuse to sign the bill.  "They can't tell us what
 to do" is a very powerful argument in Idaho. 

     I thought there was a real chance that he might veto the bill because
  his mail was running 3 to 1 against.  I thought it was possible that he
  would use the reasons his constituents were giving him  "we don't like
  abortions but we like government control even less".  

      It is a worse political mistake to bow to outside pressure than
   it is to sign a bill that most of your constituents dislike.  

      Last election
   year, the senior senator from Montana was defeated by a newcomer; the most
   frequent reason I was given (by friends and relatives) was that he had
   received a lot of PAC money from some outfit in New Jersey . . .  that's
   bad political news in the rural west.



Barbi

    I can see boycotting something *until* action X takes place.  For
    example, there was a time when pro-ERA groups boycotted conferences,
    tourism, etc., in states that had not passed the ERA.  Or boycotting
    Nestle's until they *changed* the way they marketed their infant formula.
    
    But since a bill-signing is a one-shot thing, this doesn't make a lot
    of sense to me.  First, it makes no sense to threaten to do something
    you won't carry out -- and you must realize you are making a long-term
    commitment (as I understand it).  Second, if the gov signs the bill, he
    can't "un-sign" it if/when the boycott becomes too economically painful. 
    Meanwhile, an awful lot of people would (theoretically, at least) not
    eating potatoes.
    
    I could stay out of North Carolina for a lot longer (because of ERA)
    than I would be willing to give up potatoes.

    Maybe we should all just grow our own potatoes. It was my family's main
    crop for years. THey are easy to grow and I'm sure the country folks
    would be glad to grow some for the city folks. Then we could take the
    pressure off of the poor governor.
    
    Phil, who won't win any friends by saying he is pro-life.
    

    Well, sinse noone has answered yet, I will.
    
    Molly Yard of NOW has called for an allout boycott of their potatos.
    
    as whomever aske me (maggie?) whu I felt that it was a political
    solicitation, thats what it appears to be to me.
    
    Sorta like a quick subliminal reminding all those up on the news, and
    those that agree with the agenda, to act accordingly.
    
    See what I mean?  I may be wrong, but that is why I am explaining it
    now.

    You might be right, Al, Atlant might indeed have intended it to be one,
    but if so then he did it the right way:  he didn't actually come right
    out and ask us to do anything.  
    
    [brief recap of policy for anyone interested is below the ff]
    
    As to the value of the boycott, I'm more with Nancy. It makes more
    sense t'me to send mail to some states board of tourism (I shouldn't
    think this is a large office in Idaho, though :-) and let them know
    your age, income, and family size and tell them that while certain laws
    are in effect you won't be coming to visit.
    
    						=maggie
    

    
    By "solicitation", corporate policy means actually saying "I urge you
    to...", "Please do...", "I suggest you do..."; there's nothing wrong
    with saying other things that in fact amount to the same thing, it's
    the actual language that's the problem.  If you say "I'm planning to do
    X and if you want to do X too, here's how...", or "If anyone wants to
    do Z, mail me and maybe we do it together..." that's perfectly okay.
    
    We typically do not enforce the strict letter of the policy except for
    controversial solicitation or money solicitation; solicitation to get
    up a lunch party or something normally gets ignored (or signed up for
    :-)

    A slight tangent to this note:

    I read an article in USNEWS last night where they maintain that MOST
    Americans are not with either the PRO-life or PRO-choice movement but
    somewere in-between. And that all the news hype is just that, hype,
    created by BOTH sides and aggrevated by calls for boycotts and
    sensationalist mailings to attract donations. Both sides have more than
    doubled their revenue since the (I think) Webster case.

    As far as boycotting potatoes, I doubt this will have much effect and
    seems rather a poor tactic. It's not affecting the right people. liesl

  In reference to not eating potatoes, remember, that's not necessary.
  As others have pointed out, potatoes come from lots of places includ-
  ing Maine and lots of local farms.  I don't know where the big fast-
  fodd chains buy theirs.

                                   Atlant

Marge:

> -< where I come from, that's blackmail >-

  What's it called when the anti-sex crowd prevents Americans from
  having access to advanced conception control by boycotting the
  pharmaceutical companies?

                                   Atlant

    Knowing Marge, I expect she regards *that* as blackmail too, Atlant.
    
    						=maggie

    I stand corrected Maggie.
    
    Al

       Two apparent parallels to the Idaho situation would be China and
       South Africa.  The events of last June in Tienamen Square should
       have revulsed any person who holds freedom dear---would it not be
       appropriate then to make a personal decision not to purchase goods
       made in China?  Is it also not appropriate for individuals to
       elect to consciously avoid purchasing those products either made
       in South Africa or produced by companies that support the South
       African economy?  Now, some individuals have already made these
       decisions, but not in sufficient numbers to effect the economies
       of China or S Africa (at least to the extent that the people in
       these nations would demand that the governments change their
       policies). 
       
       The situation in Idaho may not be a perfect comparison: unlike
       China and South Africa, most adults in Idaho are eligible to vote,
       and the voters can choose either to re-elect or to toss out the
       people who have made (and signed) the laws.  But, fundamentally,
       the system is the same: a government will fall from power when
       enough people become dissatisfied.  So, individuals ought to feel
       the freedom (if not the responsibility) to make a political
       statement with their economic decisions.
       
       If I were to decide to avoid buying products from Idaho, I would
       also strongly consider avoiding products whose puchase implicity
       supports other, even more repressive governments. 
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    The idea for the potato boycott is not an east coast innovation: It 
    originated with the California NOW group.
    
    There is sort of a reverse scenario going on in New Hampshire, which is
    closer to home for most Deccies than Idaho. (Not that that location
    matters; these events effect everybody.) For the second year in a row,
    the New Hampshire legislature is about to pass what is probably the
    most liberal abortion bill in the country. It would essentially
    preserve the right of abortion without restriction until the 25th week
    of pregnancy. The bill has already passed the house, and the vote in
    the senate will also be in favor of it. 
    
    Governor Gregg vetoed the bill last year, and has vowed to veto it
    again. There probably is not enough legislative support, particularly
    in the senate, to override the veto by the required 2/3 majority in
    both houses.
    
    Why has this not attracted the intense attention of the media?
    
    Bruce

    re .25:
    Hunh?
    
    1) Who is the anti-sex crowd?
    
    2) Please define advanced conception control?
    
    3) What boycott are you referring to?
    
    Marge

    I like to buy Good Ol' Maine potatoes anyway - support the (somewhat)
    local farmer, and all that.....
    
    So I may have one *more* reason to do it....
    
    --DE
    

    Atlant, I think this belongs in 183.*.  Moderators, feel free to move.
    
    If someone wants to make a point by boycotting a company which is doing
    somethig that they disapprove of, I don't have a problem with that.  I
    cut up my EXXON card last year along with lots of other folks.  I got a
    form letter back from the company asking me, "Why?"  I told them.
    That's what the free market system is about.  
    
    Now, boycotting the purchase of potatoes from Idaho because the
    legislators of the state have passed a bill which you, and others,
    disapprove of, is not an expression of free market; it's blackmail.  If
    you happen to be a citizen of Idaho and wish to withhold your vote at
    the next election, that's fine; it's a direct response to an action.
    
    I think your characterization of people who disapprove of birth control
    is rather extreme.  I don't happen to disapprove of birth control, but
    I do know people who do.  They are not anti-sex based on the number of
    their progeny.  :^)
    
    respectfully,
    Marge

>       The situation in Idaho may not be a perfect comparison: unlike
>       China and South Africa, most adults in Idaho are eligible to vote,
>       and the voters can choose either to re-elect or to toss out the
>       people who have made (and signed) the laws.  But, fundamentally,
>       the system is the same: a government will fall from power when
>       enough people become dissatisfied.

 The point, Don, is the reason the people are "dissatisfied." If people are
dissatisfied because they feel that the law in question is wrong and they
act within the system to change it, that is one thing. But if they are 
dissatisfied because an outside group has taken economic control and put the
screws on them while they do not feel the legislation is unsatisfactory, that
is another thing.

 If Massachusetts passed a law allowing completely unfettered abortions up until
the time of delivery, and a group of pro-lifers from around the country got
together to boycott DEC computers because our headquarters are in Massachusetts,
causing thousands who had lost their jobs to support a repeal of the bill out
of economic necessity, does this constitute self-government in your opinion?

 The Doctah

The Governor of Idaho can be reached by mail:

	Cecil Andrus
        State House
        Boise, Idaho 83720

re.34

While I'm not Don Topaz, I _can_ answer your question for myself.

Yes, such an action taken against business concerns in Massachusetts would
constitute self-government.  Those impacted by such a boycott would
then be free to choose their own course subsequent course[s] of action.

It wouldn't be pretty, it never is.

  Ann

        <<< Note 1056.33 by CSSE32::M_DAVIS "Marge Davis Hallyburton" >>>

>    If someone wants to make a point by boycotting a company which is doing
>    somethig that they disapprove of, I don't have a problem with that.  I
>    cut up my EXXON card last year along with lots of other folks.  I got a
>    form letter back from the company asking me, "Why?"  I told them.
>    That's what the free market system is about.  
>    
>    Now, boycotting the purchase of potatoes from Idaho because the
>    legislators of the state have passed a bill which you, and others,
>    disapprove of, is not an expression of free market; it's blackmail.  If
>    you happen to be a citizen of Idaho and wish to withhold your vote at
>    the next election, that's fine; it's a direct response to an action.

    Marge, I don't see that it's that big a difference.  Calling up the
    governor of Idaho when you're not a citizen of Idaho and trying to
    influence his decision falls in the "marginally ethical" category to
    me, but not buying potatoes grown by people who elected representatives
    whose actions you disapprove of?... well, I think it's blackmail only
    to a point.  You are still respecting their right to choose their
    representatives and the right of those representatives to answer to
    their constituency, but at the same time you are making a statement
    that yes, there are consequences, in particular that you no longer
    wish to do business with them (or wish to do business with them
    preferentially).  That's our prerogative as consumers.

    Idaho does not exist in a vacuum.  From the news reports I've heard,
    the legislature is acutely aware of that and are hoping that this
    law's constitutionality will be upheld in the Supreme Court, therefore
    counteracting Roe vs. Wade.  And that would pose consequences for
    people in other states.

    Given that, I'm not sure who's blackmailing whom: those who refuse
    to buy Idaho potatoes, or the Idaho representatives potentially
    shaping the face of the future for those they do not represent (who
    can do so in part _because_ they only represent the people of Idaho).

	Sharon

    The nerve of those people in Idaho. Imagine trying to run their
    own destiny. Shame on them for electing officials that represent
    the majority of their own state rather than the majority of NOW.
    Don't they realize that they don't have the right to pass laws that
    people in the rest of the country don't want? Let's all punish them.
    Yes that's the ticket. Choice only to make politically correct laws.
    Stop them now or the next thing you know they'll be wanting democracy.

    ~Cliff

    Cliff it is the people of Idahoe's right to elect their own
    representitives, but it is also my right not to subsidize their
    decisions by supporting the economy.  I also understand that in-state
    mail to the governor's office is running 3-1 against the bill.
    
    We all make multiple decisions on what we are going to buy or not buy
    and, by not purchasing the same basic item from all the companies who
    produce it we are impacting the other companies negatively.  Now
    personally I would look ridiculous and much poorer if I tried to own
    and drive equally one car made from every auto manufacturer so as not
    to adversly impact the other companies.
    
    By buying only potatoes grown in Colorado, changing my long distance
    service from AT&T to another long distance provider because I don't
    approve of a situation may be adversly impacting Idaho and Ma Bell, but
    inthe same vein it is improving the economy of the state I live in, and
    enriching another company whose current politics I can agree with
    better.  No blackmail, just honestly voting my conscience with my
    pocketbook.
    
    Meg
    

    
    
    If I'd a hoe, I might grow my own potatoes...
    
    Anyway, on a more serious note, I'd like to suggest that the government
    and people of Idaho let people make their own decision about whether
    to have an abortion or keep their baby.
    
    /Eric

    Maine potatoes are good :-)

    He is a novel idea, put the question on the ballot and let the people
    decide. If Idaho wants to end up like Mass and let the State run
    everything then they get what they deserve.
    
               REK
    
    PS Maryland did the right thing, let the people decide!!

    
    	In case no one's mentioned it yet, the governor of Idaho has
    	vetoed the bill restricting abortion.
    
    	The legislature lacks the votes needed to override his veto.
    
    	Let's go out and buy some nice Idaho potatoes!
    

    re:-1
    
    All Right!!!!!!!!!
    
    In Unity there is strength!
    
    KATE
    

    From the wire services today -

    In apparent response to the threat of a boycott of Idaho potatoes by
    pro-choice groups, the Governor of Idaho declared a ban on the export
    of potatoes to other states.

    "The law I vetoed may have been bad legislation", he was quoted as
    saying, "but I just don't like being bullied."

    The Governor of Maine publicly applauded Idaho's move.

        Don't believe anything that you read that is dated April 1st!
        
        Dan

    re .44 >In Unity there is strength.
    
    Actually, the strength of the people is directly proportional
    to the cowardice of the politicians :-)

    Andrus is weaseling out of acting on his own spoken beliefs.
    In this case it works *for* us. Next time...

>    In apparent response to the threat of a boycott of Idaho potatoes by
>    pro-choice groups, the Governor of Idaho declared a ban on the export
>    of potatoes to other states.

 The governor specifically stated that the threats had no impact in his 
decision. The press, being so much more knowledgeable about the true motivations
behind the decision than the person who made the decision, came to such a 
profound conclusion without the benefit of listening to the rationale behind
it. SOOOOO typical.

My understanding is that the governor was stated he was worried about raped
women being able to get an abortion if the bill was enacted. One comentator,
before the governor vetoed the bill, said that it was unclear how a woman who
was, for instance, married (and therefore presumably having sex with her
husband) could 'prove' a pregnancy was the result of the rape, and not
consensual sex.
	Mez

    For vetoing the legislation, Andrus has now been targetted by both
    in-state and national so-called right-to-life groups for re-election
    defeat.  (From either the Saturday or Sunday SF Chronicle.)
    
    DougO

    	I wonder what he'll do whenthe R-T-L groups boycott his potatoes???
    
    	The world has finally come down to $$$ vs life........a decision
    by a govenor that has nothing to do with the issue.
    
    Ken

>    For vetoing the legislation, Andrus has now been targetted by both
>    in-state and national so-called right-to-life groups for re-election
>    defeat. 

 I would have been shocked if this didn't happen. It's called "damned if you do,
damned if you don't."

 Had he signed the legislation, the pro-choice groups would have done the same
thing.

 The Doctah

    Thank the Goddess that even though I am pro-life, I am not a member of
    any R-T-L grup. I will eat his potatoes if I have no choice. I do
    prefer local (Merrimack Valley) potatoes though.
    
                               Phil

Interesting how the papers purport to know the real drive behind the 
Governor's action, when he claims differently.  My cynicism factor
runs high these days for both the Governor (the govenment in general)
and the media.  Last night's show on PBS showing the Presidential Press
Secretaries of the last 30 years (that's JFK to RWR) saw most of the
former PSs admitting that lying to the public (some called it "shading
the truth") was commonplace...  just as it was commonplace for the media
to "shade" their interpretations.

I once saw TV news coverage that showed what looked like a large mob picketing
some establishment, until the camera panned out to show that it was a small
group.  (It was a documentary on covering issues - and the bias of the media.)

I agree with whomever claimed that the majority of folks are somewhere
between NOW and RTL, and that each group has its vocal constituents
attempting to pull people away from the middle to "their" side.

"Dog bites man" doesn't make the news.  "Man bites dog" does.  What does this
say about the Pro- *and* Anti-abortion ends of the opinion spectrum on those
40 weeks of progeneration?

                           "Give us Barabas!"

Translation: them that shouts the loudest gets the media/political attention.
It isn't the majority that rule in this country; it is the loudest and the 
richest and the most saturated groups.  For *us* patriots, we're still
better than most other countries in freedoms and in other ways, but it 
gives little solace to say that as we careen into mediocrity.

    I don't see this as all that indicative of the issue coming down to
    money versus life, or pressure versus conscience.
    
    First off, this is a democracy.  As such, let the voters decide. 
    Whatever way the majority vote goes, GOES!
    
    Secondly, I don't give any more weight to a legilator's "conscience"
    than I do to the conscience of any citizen.  The conscience of elected
    officials is to be exercised in exactly the same way as the consciences
    of the rest of us - privately and at the polls.  They are elected to
    *represent the majority*.  Their consciences and their personal
    opinions are just that and worthy of no more weight than yours or mine.

    hmmm...I'm not sure I would agree that they're "elected to represent
    the majority", Sandy.  I see them is being elected *by* the majority to
    represent *everyone*.  
    
    Not that they typically do, of course.
    
    						=maggie

    Sandy,
    
    I see it as *theoretically* being a little more complicated than
    that.  If a politician were to run on a platform of "I will vote
    my conscience." and be elected, then it would be legitimate for
    said politician to do so.  But, to be realis--er, cynical, it doesn't
    seem likely that many politicians, especially career politicians,
    could win on such a platform, and hence, cast their votes on such
    grounds.
    
    							Ann B.

    Still, some *do* vote their conscience on certain specific key issues
    -- so it's important to know what their conscience contains.

    Back when I was in high school, my Congressman, Lee Hamilton, was once
    invited to speak to my Government class.  In response to a question, he
    made the comment that he did not always vote on every bill the way his
    constituents wanted him to vote, nor did he think that he necessarily
    should.  This comment surprised my Government teacher, but frankly I
    suspect that most elected officials would say the same thing.

    This, of course, does not rule out the fact that politicians can be and
    often are influenced by voter opinions, particularly on controversial
    topics.  But it does mean that politicians don't *necessarily* go along
    with public opinion on every single issue, as a matter of practice.
    
    -- Mike

    re-1 (Mike)
    
    I think we pay our politicians to represent our wishes. They are not
    kings, queens, martyrs or priests. Most of them try to represent the 
    wishes of their constituates to preserve their jobs. The game is to
    make us think they are moral, upright etc,etc. Just because they have
    their motives straight doesn't mean they have to tell us about it.
    
    
    Kate