I think it means what the dictionary says it means:
“Many” or “most”? Unless it’s “most”, it’s a boycott. In fact, unless it’s “overwhelmingly most”, it’s a boycott.
Whats the matter, you can’t make out simple transferred double reverse inverted negatives when you see 'em? 
GIGObuster: I’ve got The News Hour w/ Jim Leher on right now (PBS), and they’re calling it a boycott. Their guest, Juan Jose Gutierrez (Latino Movement USA), who they say is one of the organizers is calling it a boycott. I don['t see how you can continue with you’re claim that it isn’t a boycott.
I’m claiming only that there is a bit of argumentum at populum here.
I see the media just grabbing the most radical members of the movement to make better copy, old news. Did they mentioned that the most important organizers and leaders discouraged the boycott? If not, I can say with certainty that that this is manufacturing consent in all it’s glory.
As for the use of boycott maybe I got confused by many of the critics here and elsewhere but the criticism concentrated on the buying part of it. Now a strike is more likely what we have here rather than a boycott.
As for Arizona, My family and I can confirm that there is indeed very little to see regarding a boycott. And yes I do notice that regardless if the Boycott has been officially called off or discouraged, the Arizona Republic is calling it also that… while showing pictures of peaceful protesters with American flags not stopping traffic.
Not that the semantics is all that important at this point-- what’s done is done-- but how do you know that “the most important organizers and leaders discouraged the boycott”? Who are these leaders and why are they “the most important”?
Anyway, I think it went off better than it could have. Still, the demand for citizenship just isn’t going to fly. And I really get tired of the way the supporters seem purposely to blurr the distinction between “immigrants” and “illegal immigrants”. Very, very few Americans are anti-immigrant. In fact, one can make a strong case that supporters of citizenship for illegal immigrants are anti-immigrant. If that were to come to pass, people trying to enter legally would suffer the most, since they will have to wait longer. You can’t expect the US to suddenly accept 11M new “immigrants” and leave the rest of our legal immigration poilcy alone.
You ignored my post earlier? Ever since last Monday 99% of all organizers (once again in Arizona) officially came against the boycott.
I’m a believer of better funding for the enforcement of our immigration policies, I still think that a big chunk of money for that enforcement will come from the ones that for being illegal should pay once they prove that in the future they’ll be good Americans. Deporting all of them could be possible, but at a stiff price, both in money and in our humanity.
I didn’t realize that Arizona = the entire USA. My bad, I guess…
The thing is that when I see the local media ignore what the leaders said and go for what the minority radicals are calling it, I can only deduce it is being applied to the entire USA; that is the mainstream media not bothering to tell their audiences that a boycott was actually discouraged by most of the leaders. In fact I do remember that the tone on many web news reports is to begin calling it a boycott and only in the end mention that the “opinion was divided regarding a boycott”
Well, that does not fit a nice TV new bit, boycott it is, lets not bother interviewing the ones that opposed it.
One thing I forgot, many groups in Arizona are a chapter of larger countrywide organizations, I only deduced it would be unlikely that they would disobey their HQs.
Do you still maintain there was no boycott today?
There’s still the issue that “boycott” can apply to work as well as to purchasing. Anyway, you’re fighting a losing battle if you want to insist this wasn’t a boycott. It was.
Popularly speaking yes, I concede that, it does not make it correct since I can say the radical elements succeeded with the help of the media to make it so. When it was discouraged by the leadership, I do think it will remain a bit of a shame by the media at large that they ignored that and decided to go for going for the sound bite, but as I say from the beginning, I’m ambivalent about it. The Latino media is reporting it as a boycott-protest-work stoppage, and some other newscasts too.
And when I see on Larry King Bill Frist looking like “I better move the senate bill pronto”, I have to say that as a practical man I take it, I’m happy if you guys think a boycott moved Frist, but I do think it was the peaceful nature of the protests that did the job.
I know around here the managment at the businesses at the port have known about this for weeks, knew who all was not going to be in, and made arrangments to make up for the loast time. It’s been the main topic of conversation on the docks for a while and not one bit of it is a surprise. Like I said before, all of the dockworkers asked for time off, the managment didn’t fight them, and the whole thing was very civilized and not at all a fight or battle. It’s much like what would happen if there was any other major city-wide event going on.
Yes, these were remarkable peaceful. I think that overall they came off better than I thought they would. Much better than the previous ones, at any rate. Still, don’t get too excited about speedy legislation-- that is no guarantee of good legislation.
Speedy legislation is, in general, also bad legislation.
I suppose you could say “the protests did the job” if by “job” you mean “diverted America’s attention away from the real issues, exactly as GWB wanted”. If you mean they could have anything to do at all with the silly House bill that was proposed that would make Illegals felons- no, the protests had nothing whatsoever to do with that, as that bill was never intended to pass. It was proposed entirely for the purpose of diverting attention away from the real issues at the time where the GoP elephant was foundering in the tarpits of a never-ending war and a huge deficit. And, the Hispanic?migrant lobby in the USA rose to the bait perfectly. :rolleyes:
They weren’t all that “peaceful” either. And, the “boycott” had almost 0 effect on “anglo” owned businesses (according to todays paper, retail was almost entirely “as usual”), only Hispanic businesses were hurt.
So, this whole Boycott thing was incredibly stupid.
The boycott thing went over as no big deal around here. My friend, a manager at a restarant, had to fire some of his staff for failing to show up without notice, but he has already started interviewing for these positions.
Who did they really screw over? It wasn’t me and mine, I can tell you that.
Cite? The reporter on the local news last night said the portest in San Francisco was the most peaceful one she had ever covered. Was there massive violence somewhere else?
Massive? I don’t know. But for example in San Jose, all that was reported was “a few arrests”. I saw personally quite a bit of low level violence (throwing plastic bottles, mostly harmless I’ll concede) and one female freind of mine was completely terrorised when some “youths” amoung the protestors started rocking cars that were stopped, and I *do * consider that “violence” (they hadn’t got to her’s yet when she called me, scared out of her wits, and the police- after fighting their way through the resisting crowds- stopped it before she got hit.) Protestors were noisy, littered like crazy, and violated traffic laws with distain- jaywalking right in front of traffic for example. Some windows & windshields were broken, there was a lot of broken bottle-glass; I don’t know if it was litter or thrown bottles. It could have been FAR worse, and it seemed like the organizers were trying to stop actual serious violence, I’ll admit. OTOH, it seems like the mostly sypathethic local press downplayed what violence did occur.
FWIW, that sounds like any typical Friday night in downtown San Jose. 