[Kobi]

Sparkle,

Thank you for your response. I understand your positions better now.

One of the complexities with this situation which worries me is when I hear people calling to boycott a state (or anything else for that matter) and wishing harm come to any group (or government) because of their beliefs.

The reasons it bothers me are two fold. First, the vehemence with which these words are spoken are full of anger and "hate". Hate of hate is still hate.
If one wants a more rational approach to issues facing the world at large, using hate to combat hate just seems to breed more hatred. It doesnt make sense to me as an effective method.

Second, when I hear people talk about boycotts....sometimes this is effective, providing it is aimed at the correct places. If there arent enough dollars coming into Arizona because of a boycott, who do you think is going to be hurt most by this? Will the governor not have a place to call home or have an empty belly? NO. The very people you are trying to advocate for are the very people who get hurt when the government (and I use the term loosely here) doesnt have the money for the programs that people rely on.

I understand the outrage and I understand the issues around racial profiling. What I don't understand is how the methods being promoted to deal with it are any better than the initial issue.

In this respect, the government is saying there are "acceptable losses" in dealing with immigration issues. And the response is saying there are "acceptable losses" in boycotts. Both are throwing the groups in question under the wheels of the bus in their quest to be right.

It is a very complex issue for many countries. And no one, yet, seems to have a viable answer. But, I am pretty sure, crucifying the people you are trying to protect, from either standpoint, isnt it.