Comments on: Taxes and Proposition 8

By: Tom Dibble

Tom Dibble — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:57:52 +0000

“Generally I find boycotts to be kind of stupid. It seems that they don’t really work because while you have people boycotting it also seems that it gets people on the other side to support those businesses. Also sometimes people can’t boycott places because they just can’t afford it.”

IMHO, the opposite is true in more cases. Take Leatherbys here in Sacramento. It is a hell of a lot easier for me to tell my six ice cream-loving kids ‘no’ to Leatherbys (and explain why) than for another truckload of folks from Simi valley to drive up and buy ice cream.

At the same time, my dentist gave to the Yes on 8 campaign, but good luck finding another dentist who isn’t ultra-conservative (what IS it with that profession???) and who is covered by my dental plan …

The difference is this: boycotts on “luxury” and commodity items works. Boycotts on necessary and unique items tend to fail. There are a dozen more “Music Circus” type theaters around town, so that would have been easy to boycott (commodity); there is no reason we have to go out and get slightly better boutique ice cream instead of the cheap stuff (luxury).

By: Jamie Holts

Jamie Holts — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:59:28 +0000

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

By: Mike Harmon

Mike Harmon — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:31:08 +0000

Hello. I was reading someone elses blog and saw you on their blogroll. Would you be interested in exchanging blog roll links? If so, feel free to email me.

Thanks.

By: jonolan

jonolan — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:57:18 +0000

The 1st amendment – and several federal court rulings – would demand that ALL tax exempt statuses be removed then, if they were removed from the churches. To do otherwise would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.

“If religious institutions benefit, it is in spite of rather than because of their religious character. For religious institutions simply share benefits which government makes generally available to educational, charitable, and eleemosynary groups.”

– Abington School Dist. v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203, 301 (1963) (concurring opinion).