NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54120

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!smithw
From: [e-mail] (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
Date: 30 Dec 1992 16:19:00 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

[e-mail] (Bob Donahue) writes:
>
>     All well and good --- I fail to see why then, that so
> many Coloradoans and Colorado businesses are spending more time
> telling us why we shouldn't penalize them for CO:2 than they
> are screaming to the power that be to have it removed.

I've gotten the impression that there was very biased coverage
of this whole issue, and this confirms it.  The 'powers that be'?
You mean like the governor of the state, who now has a group of
fanatics trying to get him *recalled* because he OPPOSES #2, and
has come out and said so?

As for businesses, there's a few things to be considered here.  First,
the passage is still a fairly recent event; second, it has become
such a emotionally and politically touchy issue, that I suspect
most businesses would rather be invisible on the subject rather
than risk making people locally even more angry.  Companies are
business units, not political units.

You've got to take human nature into account; I think a lot of
people were suprised that #2 passed.  I think there would have
been even more opposition to #2 WITHIN the state had the boycott
*not* happened.  Now it's turning into an issue of "will one state
allow other places to dictate to them how to handle their internal
politics".  It has become a matter of will, instead of a matter
of human rights, which is sad.

> perfectly honest, I have not heard anything other than the
> complaint issued by the city of Boulder that was co-signed
> by Martina Navratolova.  On the other hand, though, there doesn't
> seem to be any shortage of people pleading for economic clemency
> on behalf of <fill in supposed supportive community here>.

Look at it from a practical point of view.  A company may not
want to get involved in the political issue when it is being
turned into a battle of wills.  Instead, they emphasize the fact
that *they* are against discrimination, and have policies they
enforce to that effect.

>     The fact is, that no matter what an individual town/county
> did on 11/3, the net effect was that more people voted for bigotry
> that voted against it.

Bob, do you REALLY think that's what people were voting for, for
bigotry?  Do you REALLY think 53% of the people here are bigots?
It's just that sort exaggeration that makes people NOT want to
get involved.

What *is* suprising to me is that with all the national attention,
there have been no polls (that I've heard of) done to determine
why various people did vote for #2.  Does anyone know of any
plans for this?   It might serve to de-emotionalize the issue,
and lead to some (rare) intelligent commentary on how to fix it.

> Even in such supposedly enlightened
> places such as Aspen and Boulder there were certainly enough
> people who voted YES on 2, that I could spin in a circle, pissing,
> and hit more than one.

Charming picture...how many 'no' voters would you likely piss
on in the process?

> While standing in line in McDonalds, the
> odds are that either the person in front of me or in back of me
> voted to take away my rights.

Voted to take away your rights...(assuming you lived here...) and
people wonder why not enough is being done about this issue..Bob,
*most* people who voted for #2 had no desire to take away anyone's
rights.  They were voting 'yes' based on the 'special rights' part,
and not the basic human rights that MOST people think everyone
should have.  That has been said over and over again, and still
there is rhetoric like what you're saying, or spraying in places
like Boulder/Aspen...which only paints the picture that pro-boycott
people don't care about the 'issues' as much as they care about
a show of force, and 'punishing' people if they can.  Petty and
vindictive.  I've seen a lot more hatefulness in the boycott than
in the foolish vote that caused it.

>     People who are worried about how my not spending $$$ in
> CO will affect them should have done some more thinking prior
> to 11/3.

This struck me as a really pompous statement...but then I thought,
"what exactly could have been done prior to 11/3?"...I think the
most effective thing would have been to examine the 'special rights'
portion of the amendment, and show that nobody was trying to *get*
special rights in the first place, so there was no need to pass
an amendment to the constitution against them.  That would have
left the 'no protection from discrimination' part as the 'teeth'
of the amendment, and most people would not have voted for it
then.   We can't cry over spilt milk, saying what could have been
done beforehand; but that would be an effective thing that could
be done *now*.  But people seem much more motivated to attempt
a show-of-force, and to *make* people change their vote.

> I'm just a little weary of every
> mention of CO:2 having some obilgatory statement trying to
> instill guilt in irate out-of-staters...

And people here are weary of every mention of #2 having some
obilgatory statement trying to say that 53% of the people
want to take away your rights.  It shows either an uninformed
position, or an intentional attempt to furthur inflame the
issue more than it already is.

Walter