[Vision2020] Boycott Redux . . . or Pot Calling Kettle (was RE: When is it and when is it not my business? (update))

[Saundra Lund]

Bill London wrote:
"how about boycott as the tool that was used by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
et al to integrate buses and other public services in the American South a
few decades ago?"

Actually, I think lemeno heirdoug has a different kind of boycott in mind.
You know, the kind members in his congregation have used to target
businesses that they disagree with, like Moscow's own Card Farm.

Just to save myself the time recreating the wheel and for those who weren't
reading the Viz back then, I'm reposting something I wrote in January, 2004:
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2004-January/006921.html

Visionaries:

I, for one, have been incredibly annoyed by Wilson et al's continued whining
about supposed "boycotts" of CC-affiliated businesses.  As was discussed
many times in this forum, there is/was no organized boycott but rather
individuals making personal conscientious spending choices, which is
something we're still free to do in the good old United States of America.
Among others, both Melynda Huskey (11/8/2003) and Laurie Danahy (on
11/9/2003) did excellent jobs of clarifying the difference.

Nonetheless, those involved in the Wilson cult have continued cries of
"Foul!" with respect to non-existent boycotts:
"To top it all off, local businesses have been boycotted . . ."  (Greg
Dickison, 12/31/2003)
"Lots of proud boycotts of businesses owned by people who went to Christ
Church . . .  (hatesploch.net, 1/22/2004)

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that individual conscientious
spending choices to not patronize businesses advocating anti-choice,
anti-gay rights, and anti-feminism ideologies amount to boycotts.  OK.

According to Wilson et al, those of us choosing not to patronize businesses
with which we have HUGE ideological differences makes us "intolerant."

Why?  What is it that makes us "intolerant" sinners when we make personal
conscientious spending choices but makes people like Gary Greenfield and
Heidi Scheibe saints when they organize formal boycotts, circulate
petitions, and threaten pickets???

As history, before his connection with Bucer's and Zume's, Gary Greenfield,
founder & then-president of a local chapter of American Family Association
(the organization we can thank for the wording of Moscow's ridiculous
so-called nudity ordinance) decided that the Lewiston-Clarkston area had a
problem with pornography and organized *two* boycotts four years apart to
target businesses that sold or rented what he defined as pornography
(including Playboy magazine).  The following information comes from a
Lewiston Morning Tribune article by Mohsin Askari entitled "Porn Fighter
Goes Back on the Warpath" (3/11/1990; 1B):
"Within a month, Greenfield said, he hopes to have another boycott campaign
under way and he has targeted 18 businesses at Lewiston-Clarkston which
operate about 25 stores.  He intends to extend the boycott to other towns in
the region also.  "We hope that a boycott will be sufficient, but I wouldn't
rule out picketing,'' he said. . . Greenfield, who last year set up
affiliation with the American Family Association as its Lewiston-Clarkston
chapter, said his organization will provide ''concerned citizens'' with a
list of stores and a boycotting strategy. . . "Those magazines, they promote
statutory rape.  They promote incest.  They have encouraged that sex at any
age is healthy.  They have sought to tear down every traditional Christian
value that promotes the typical family,'' Greenfield said.  "That kind of
philosophy contributed to teenage pregnancy and sexual disease, like AIDS.''
***He does not want his money to support businesses which sell magazines
that support such philosophies.***"
[Note:  emphasis is mine.  SL]

So, what's the difference?  Those of us exercising personal conscientious
spending choices not to patronize businesses which espouse (among other
things) anti-choice, anti-gay rights, and anti-feminism philosophies
*haven't* organized?  Our scope is *too* small?  We've *not* threatened to
picket?

I don't understand  . . . can someone please explain the difference?

Oh, wait . . . maybe Jim Fisher already figured it out.  According to his
editorial in the Lewiston Morning Trib (How to Fight Lewiston-Clarkston's
Town Bully; 3/13/1990; 8A), Greenfield claimed his earlier boycott a
success.  Over time, however, some businesses backslid, so he was again
organizing a boycott to get them to toe the line.  According to Fisher's
editorial:
"He [Greenfield] says Playboy is especially dangerous because it has
advocated legalization of drugs.   As have former Secretary of State George
Schultz, Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke and William F. Buckley, editor of the
conservative political magazine National Review.  Is that on Greenfield's
list?  If it isn't maybe it should be, because it's clear Greenfield isn't
declaring war only on pornography. He's declaring war on incorrect ideas. .
. "

Well, never fear, Doug Wilson came to Greenfield's defense with his own
editorial four days later (LMT; If Porn Boycott is Out, What About Others?;
3/17/1990; 12A)!  Wilson decided Greenfield was "someone who is trying hard
to defend people" for his willingness "to organize a boycott of those
establishments which promote the degradation of women."  Wilson took great
exception to "bully" being used to describe Greenfield & his tactics, and
Wilson "examined" what he perceived to be the Trib's real objection to
Greenfield's boycott:
"There are two elements to Greenfield's efforts; his opposition to porn, and
his willingness to use a boycott as a means of persuasion. . . At first
glance, it might look as though they [LMT] believe boycotts are a bullying
tactic, and unfit for use in a democratic society. But this is not true. The
Tribune would defend the use of boycotts, provided the target was
ideologically suitable.     For example, would the Tribune identify Martin
Luther King as a ''bully'' because of his successful use of boycott in the
pursuit of his goals? . . .It means that Greenfield is to be opposed, not
because he is willing to organize boycotts, but because his target is
pornography. If Greenfield were boycotting something else more fashionable,
like stores carrying white supremacist stuff, then it would be no problem.
But he isn't, so there is.  You see, if a store carries magazines which
treat blacks and Jews in a degrading way, Greenfield would be a ''good
citizen'' and ''civil rights activist'' if he organized a boycott. But if
stores treat women in a degrading way, the Tribune thunders against the town
bully. . .    So then, boycotts are all right provided the target is a good
one. Porn must not be a good target, even though it is degrading to women.
Therefore, those down at the Trib must want this type of material around.
They have chosen sides: they want to defend those who degrade women, and
attack those who honor women. . . ''

A pretty simplistic, not to mention relativistic, way of looking at things,
huh?

So, it's OK for Wilson et al to support an *organized* boycott of businesses
who rent/sell material *they've* decided should be off-limits, but it makes
those of us who personally choose conscience spending philosophies
"intolerant"?

What's that saying . . . something about what's sauce for the goose is sauce
for the gander?

And, it doesn't stop there:  Heidi Scheibe, another of Wilson's flock, took
exception with products sold at the Card Farm in the Palouse Empire Mall in
late 1990.  According to an AP story carried by the LMT on 12/2/1990:
"***A group of fundamentalist Christians is taking a Moscow card shop to
task with a boycott***, petitions and complaints to police about the sale of
allegedly obscene greeting cards and other material. . . Heidi Scheibe of
Moscow filed a written complaint with local police, saying three cards and a
book sold at the Card Farm violate state obscenity laws. She contends the
cards and book promote casual sex by the young, debauchery by adults and an
increase in broken marriages, single mothers and abortions."
[Note:  emphasis is mine.  SL]

Never fear, once again Wilson jumped forward to support his follower with
his "Obscenity on Display at Palouse Empire Mall" column in the LMT on
12/1/1990 (6A):
"The Card Farm is a shop in the Palouse Empire Mall in Moscow. . . But
unlike respectable shops and stores in that mall, this particular store
sells gross and obscene material. . . For those parents who are trying to
impart basic moral values to their kids, the store is a moral nuisance.  For
the past few months, a number of people have been seeking a way to resolve
this problem quietly.  They were organized by Heidi Scheibe, a concerned
Moscow resident. . . . So this last Thursday, Mrs. Scheibe filed a complaint
with the Moscow Police Department.  ***The Card Farm is in violation of the
Idaho Code at several points, particularly with regard to the law protecting
minors from obscenity. . . Public congratulations are in order for Heidi
Scheibe.***"
[Note:  again, the emphasis is mine.  SL]

Ahhh . . . so when someone organizes a boycott that supports Wilson's notion
of Good & Bad, Right & Wrong, Moral & Immoral, Tolerant & Intolerant, then
they deserve public kudos for being "concerned," but when those of us with
philosophies differing from Wilson et al's make personal conscientious
spending choices, then we are "intolerant."  Clear as mud, don't you think?

As a side note, it's a good thing Wilson kept his day job because his
understanding of Idaho Code & obscenity was woefully lacking according to an
AP wire story:
"Three cards at a local gift shop that offended a Moscow woman cannot be
considered legally obscene, Moscow City Attorney Mark Moorer has concluded.
. . the cards sold at The Card Farm in the Palouse Empire Mall are within
the city's community standards. . . Last week, Heidi Scheibe of Moscow
complained to police about cards at the store she said depicted sex acts or
obscene words. She linked such materials to broken homes, unwanted
pregnancies and mass murders . . . "
(LMT; Gift Shop Cards Ruled Not Obscene; 12/6/1990; 1C)

So, please remind me again which group is supposedly intolerant???

The more I read, the more I become convinced that Wilson truly deserves a
title that seems to have been overlooked:  he's the King of the
Double-Standard!

Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****