I’m trying to determine what the Los Angeles City Council actually did with their move to boycott Arizona over that state’s immigration law. From reports, it seems like there are a number of loopholes in the L.A. resolution.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the “resolution would still allow city officials to travel to Arizona under “special circumstances” that are in the city’s interests. Also, existing contracts with Arizona firms would be exempt from the ban if canceling them would lead to “significant additional cost” to the city.
You can read this as: We will punish you unless it hurts us, then forget about it.
Isn’t a boycott supposed to involve sacrifice on the part of those who boycott? The boycotters are giving up something to make a point. The L.A. resolution doesn’t seem to want to sacrifice much.
Here’s a sacrifice all L.A. would understand: There has been a call for Major League Baseball to take the 2011 All Star game away from Phoenix and move it someplace else to protest the Arizona law. It so happens that the Phoenix Suns are about to square off with the Los Angeles Lakers for the National Basketball Association’s Western Conference championship. Should the L.A. City Council make its point by asking the NBA to move the games out of Phoenix to a neutral site? If the NBA refuses, should the City Council demand that the Lakers refuse to play in Phoenix even if it means forfeiting those games? Talk about sacrifice!
(It should be noted that the Phoenix Suns owner and players have come out against the law, but the L.A. boycott proposal is about punishing Arizona.)
The L.A. City Council can’t tell the NBA what to do, but they can pass a resolution to that effect. Will the Council boldly ask the Lakers and their fans to make such a sacrifice?
Watching the L.A. City Council try to deal with the city budget deficit, it doesn’t appear the council wants to sacrifice much there, either. When it comes to making a sacrifice that hurts, with the city council, all bets are off.