I agree entirely. Heck. Since most of Eastern Washington is rather conservative, maybe Seattle should boycott Eastern Washington. I am sure most of Eastern Washington would like that.

I was down at City Hall on Monday for the vote on the boycott, though I didn't testify. Now I wish I had. The majority of the speakers favored the boycott and spoke of the Arizona law in a way that, it must be admitted, was exaggerated. A few people spoke against the boycott, basing their argument on support for the Arizona law.

But in talking to various other people on the matter, I have found that a large portion of the city, perhaps a majority, shares my opinion that the Arizona law is misguided but a boycott is out of order. Ted Van Dyk wrote about that in an earlier column here. This piece shows what happens when the idea is taken to an absurd extreme. Some arguments against the boycott are that it punishes businesses, makes life harder for the city, and it punishes the very individuals in Arizona that the boycott is purported to protect. The most potent argument is that boycotts and other such measures harden the partisan divide that is responsible for the failure of the federal government to come up with immigration reform.

There's a common dynamic behind the boycott and the opposition to the panhandling ordinance that the council considered last month. Public policy in each of these cases was driven by the most vocal advocacy groups in the city, who might not represent the majority. Already the newspapers and pundits are piling up the criticism, and perhaps there are already some on the council who worry that they made a mistake. Best hopes for more constructive responses in the future.

Jason is kinda missing the point that, first, the AZ law is racial bias at its rawest (to leave no doubt of that, the AZ legislature also passed a law restricting ethnic studies to Anglo ethnicity), and secondly, that we have no vote in the AZ legislature.

We don't officially boycott ourselves at home because we can vote on these matters here.

Individually, of course, many of us do think about where we shop or vacation. After finishing high school I left Bellevue and never went back, because it seemed likely to me the place would fill up with people like Jason. My parents moved to Seattle because they didn't want to raise children in the racist environments of the South and the eastern cities. Sometimes boycotts are just good common sense, and I think not sending city staffers to AZ on junkets probably fits there.

Jason - you hit the nail on the head. Seattle leaders continue to demonstrate the apex of arrogance and hypocrisy, not to mention ignorance. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse, but Arizonans have demonstrated that ignorance of the facts can no longer be tolerated. Too bad Seattlites don't have the same affinity for the facts. I just had a meeting with myself, and I've decided to boycott Seattle: This year I won't spend hundreds of extra dollars on fine dining, waterfront junkets, and not to mention parking. Next January, I'll assess the emerald sea of ignorance for a continuation of the boycott.

Seems to me that everyone who favors the free market should endorse the concept of people using their market power to help create the kind of society they seek. That's even more true in a political system where commercial interests overwhelm your voting power. I don't give my business to places or businesses that engage in conduct that I find objectionable. Why shouldn't convention groups and others deciding where to locate their convention or go on vacation make a decision based on their feelings about the Arizona law, given how many good alternatives there are around the country? This seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't understand the hostility to the boycott idea. We're all Americans and we all have a responsibility for what happens in this country, no matter what state.

Look it's fake symbolic boycott that accomplishes nothing. It lets Seattle feel good but other then that zip zilch. Notice how the most important and money making contract the City of Seattle has with Arizona (the red light camera company is located in Arizona) was and is left intact. If Seattle really wanted to make statement the Council would have cancelled the contract outright or not renew it when it comes up for renewal this year but the city has already said it will not do that. Money trumps everything including Seattle's conscience.

Sometimes you have to look beyond the obvious. Seattle, with its history of deporting (sometimes lynching) Chinese, jailing Japanese and doing everything humanly possible to the Native Americans, is just sending a message to Arizona: YOU ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH TO THOSE MEXICANS.

Here's an idea. One sure to get our fair Council back on track leading the world to integral consciousness and out of the sweet smelling flowers of arrogance, hypocrisy, not to mention ignorance: "Whereas it would take six planets for all the world to live like a junketing Seattle Councilmember, we hereby pass this resolution pledging that the Council and Mayor (who may be half way there already) and all city employees will lead by example, reducing our consumption as close to the world average as humanly possible: http://bie.berkeley.edu/calculator "

Not so sure it's fake symbolism accomplishing nothing. NPR interviewed Mayor Gordon of Phoenix -- who opposes the boycott -- yesterday, and he said the boycott is already taking a serious economic toll on the city and state in terms of tourism and conventions.

Since the Arizona law simply lifts language from US immigration law directly, it would seem far more appropriate for the City of Seattle to go strait to the source and boycott the United States of America.

I agree with you Harris about it taking a toll on Phoenix but my point is Seattle's is pointless. You leave the highest contract you have with a business in the state of Arizona untouched by the boycott. In fact the resolution the Council passed specifically exempted the redlight contract from the Seattle City boycott. Truly money speaks. The city of Seattle doesnt want to lose it's revenue stream so hypocritical of our elected official but what else is new.

Harris: indeed the boycott has had the economic toll advertised, but one must question whether we would call that an "accomplishment". The goal here is to get a good immigration policy, not to punish the people of Arizona.

I wouldn't take Phoenix's Mayor Phil Gordon's word to heart since he "maintains a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens" and is against the law. For years Arizona's people have suffered while its politicians (McCain, Napolitano) held out the welcome mat to illegal aliens. Border hospitals have had to close because too many did not pay their bills. Would you, Seattle, like to be without emergency medical care? Would you, Seattle, think it okay to have the top rates of kidnappings and carjackings? What's the purpose of government if not to make every effort to keep citizens as safe as possible? Seattle's council should throw open their doors and allow any and all to stomp through their homes and help themselves to whatever they wish. Just keep on replacing and replacing whatever's taken until...you're bankrupt or close the door and chuck people out.

Boycott OneAmerica, the organization that staged the demonstration in Seattle yesterday. The President of that group's Board, by the way, is a faculty member at UW. Boycott the UW, maybe (or, at least, with-hold any contributions to that institution). Also on the OneAmerica board; the Human Resource Director for the City of Seattle and the Communications Director for SEIU Local 925.

Here's a link: http://www.hatefreezone.org/board

Following this piece to its logical conclusion, Seattle should also boycott the state of California for forcing its musical idols into rehab. This is clearly at odds with Seattle's preference for leaving junkie musicians alone to take themselves out in a blaze of hedonistic gore . . . er, uh, glory?!?

Harris Meyer highlights a practical reason why Arizona is losing financially because of declines in "tourism and conventions": organizations that have Hispanic members or employees will avoid bringing their people to a state where they are at risk of being stopped by police just because of how they look. I know of at least one very large national organization with a sizable affiliate here in Washington that moved their big annual convention from Phoenix specifically to prevent their members from being humiliated in this way.

Boycotts can be two way streets. The Seattle council members might want to consider that while they boycott Arizona, there are many people across the nation that support Arizona and have already begun to boycott Seattle.

This all got me to thinking about South Africa. For decades we awaited the bloodbath in South Africa. The white minority used increasingly violent means to keep power, and seemed to delight in mocking standards of decency or democracy. It seemed inevitable that at some point the overwhelming black majority would rise up and take power by force.

But eventually, the world started boycotting South Africa. Of course, there were all sorts of people in the US who opposed this, just as on this comment thread. Maybe some people think they're fooling God when they won't do anything to stop evil, but will try to stop those who are trying to stop evil.

Fortunately, the South African whites eventually did notice the boycott and somehow regained enough humanity to allow democracy to start working.

There's a lesson in there somewhere, but I'm guessing people who think they can fool God are way too clever to learn it.

Am struggling to figure out why crosscut publishes drivel like this.

Boycott Yakima, one of the highest crime rates in the state. No more softball, soccer tournaments, no more big state conventions. Stop buying produce grown, packaged and processed in Yakima, it supports evil employers who draw and hire illegal laborers. Yakima also has a Sheriff and a Government unwilling to protect the citizens of the community.

Every time I hear someone talk about "people being stopped on the street merely because of the color of their skin" I have to wonder: Have all of these critics, from the president on down, bothered to read the Arizona law?

Here's what I want to boycott -- Copper River Salmon.

It's $35 dollars a pound!

Let's break the Copper River Salmon combine!!

I propose a swap. The United States gives Arizona back to Mexico if the Mexicans would cede us Baja California. We double the size of the Left Coast!