Editors Show Anti-Business, Pro-Protestor Liberal Bias

Why is it that the Fish Wrapper editors can't contain their liberal bias, even when it comes to business? They have to have some awareness of the fact that small businesses are some of the biggest drivers of Oregon's economy, and yet they matter little when it comes to liberal causes such as anti-fur protesters.

The case of Schumacher's Furs is a classic example. In their editorial on Saturday, the editors get in their last liberal shot at Schumacher's. The point in their multiple editorials was that Schumacher's themselves were mostly to blame - not the liberal moonbat protesters who harrassed customers outside of the store every Saturday, and who demonstrated that they care more about animals than human beings.

The blame is placed on Schumachers because they failed to negotiate with the protesters. My question is this; why exactly were they supposed to negotiate? They were a legitimate business that had been in Portland for 112 years, contributing to the economy. WHy should they have to sit down with these moonbat protesters, who are doing nothing (contrary to the high opinions they have of their activities) to help society, even in non-monetary ways. As Major Mike explains here and here, sitting at the table with someone gives them standing, which shouldn't be given if it isn't deserved.

And we get to the crux…what of those “negotiations?” Painting the windows with an opaque paint…requiring Schumacher to display a large tag inside of the garment proselytizing the bible of some fringe animal rights group whose entire membership may constitute a number somewhat less than that of a men’s synchronized swimming team…and generally allowing a business to be bullied by protestors can hardly be considered fair “negotiations.”

Wow, that's really fair negotiations.

One statement really stood out to me that really showed the editor's ignorance.

Customers shouldn't be hassled for exercising their free choice to buy a legal product. Still, protests of this sort also are a hazard of being in the fur business.

Schumacher's has been in business for 112 years. Have these protests been going on for 112 years? I doubt it. Yet it's Schumacher's fault for being in the fur business, not the protester's fault for harrassing customers. Great logic.

The great logic continues:

At some point, the Schumacher family has seemed to blame almost everyone in sight for the store's departure, and yet the family itself had a great deal of control of the situation. Admittedly, weekly, noisy, protesters weren't helpful, but the store's reaction -- to mock the protests and personalize the conflict -- made matters much worse.

As The Oregonian's Joseph Rose reported recently, the record shows that police intervened frequently, both in 2005 and 2006, and also made numerous arrests outside the store when called on to do so.

So it was the Schumacher's fault for daring to respond? Personalizing the conflict is their fault? Wouldn't you take it personally if your 112 year old family business was being harrassed illegally? And before you start whing about First Ammendment rights, note the second paragraph I just quoted; if the police had to intervene frequently and make numerous arrests, that doesn't sound like legal activity, does it?

The final sentence of the editorial pretty much sums up the typical opinion of the Fish Wrapper:

In the final analysis, everyone worked hard to prevent this loss, everyone except the people who actually could have prevented it -- the Schumachers.

So tell me again how the Schumacher's could have prevented this? By just rolling over and letting the protesters have what they want? It's a typical item of the liberal agenda; make the conservative majority bend to the wishes of the liberal minority.

It reminds me of the fight over gay marriage; according to a federal government stufy, gays make up approximately 4% of the US population, yet for some reason the other 96% of us are supposed to accept their lifestyle choices as normal.

The irony of all this is that the Schumacher's didn't go out of business. Instead, they are just moving to a new location. So basically, all that was accomplished was that the city of Portland lost business and tax revenue, revenue that always seems to be short of. But long term, coherent planning doesn't seem to be something that these liberal protesters are capable of.

Great points Steve! Although

Great points Steve! Although I would like to say that it amazes me how absolutely ignorant and hypocritical the fish wrapper is, it just doesent surprise me anymore.

I have to laugh when they get behind these idiot protesters though. Most of these folks dont have jobs, some never have had jobs (I'm sure that GB's fault too.) and likely never will have a job. Yet they are the ones gulping down thousands upon thousands of dollars of social service money because they dont want to work. It's not that they can't, its because there are way to many protests during the year and they would never be able to hold down a job.

They just ran out one of the hands that fed them. I doubt they will ever go hungry, but I suspect it's gonna take turning downtown Portland into a ghost town before they figure it out. The DFW staff and these protesters remind me of sheep.

 

 

John

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content