We had a pleasant tête-à-tête yesterday in the comments of SFist's "SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera Calls for Arizona Boycott" post. The quest to be right on the internet was, as expected, just as normal as any other day. Kudos to you, readers.

One prominent voice countering Herrera's call to boycott was SFGate's Phil Bronstein. His post regarding the Arizona boycott, promoted by yesterday's signing of SB 1070, countered some of the more, shall we say, unfortunate Godwin's Law arguments stifling the delightfully hand-wringing controversy. In part of his anti-boycott article, Bronstein writes:

In our great rush to protest potential discrimination, we should be careful that we don't discriminate ourselves. Since Arizona is about 58 percent white, could we be guilty of reverse discrimination if our boycott affects some of those people who may not support their new law? Or how about the 30 percent of Arizonans who are Hispanic? It seems likely that banning SF-to-Arizona business and the reverse could end up hurting not Gov. Brewer - the evil signatory - but, instead, innocent folks just trying to get by.

Interesting point.

Also, one excellent question SF Appeal raises is, if the AZ boycott darkens the skies at the border, what will happen to SF Weekly? Village Voice media, its parent company, is headquarted in Phoenix. Does this mean City Attorney Dennis Herrera (who has called for "a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona") and Supe. David Campos will refuse to return calls from a prominent San Francisco paper? We should hope not. (By the way, yesterday's boycott scoop went to SF Weekly, which is nothing short of rain on your wedding day.)