Less Furry, More Awesome
Posted by: kmikeym | From: December 1, 2006
Portland Mayor Tom Potter bids farewell to Schumacher Furs in a blog entry titled "Schumacher Furs will be missed". In the actual entry however, it seems like Tom agrees that Schumacher Furs is a business that doesn't belong in Portland.
"The City also assigned police officers to monitor the protests each weekend, at a cost of $25,000 in overtime."
"We ... offered to facilitate mediation between the protesters and the Schumachers. Unfortunately, they repeatedly declined our help."
"I also understand why they believe their business may be more successful in a mall in a suburban setting. Some businesses may flourish more where private property laws will allow them to avoid protests."
Ha! Nice burn Mayor Potter! I think most of us can agree that the Fur industry is a relic of the past and is pretty gross and isn't very Portland.
Protesters: 1
Fur Industry: 0
I very much disliked the fur protesting. Why pick on a small, locally owned business like that? The store was fulfilling a niche in business. It's not like fur is no longer going to be manufactured. It seemed to me the protesters were just looking to pick a fight. Fitting that Schumachers bit, staging "protest sales" and such. I guess I'm just opposed to people trying to shove their own beliefs down others' throats. Also, my own encounters with the people on the sidewalk showed them to be sophomoric, juvenile, quixotic, and plain rude. Picket McDonalds or something. I smoke cigarettes. Picket Rich's tobacco store next. Drive out anything you deem less chimerical.
Posted by: john at December 1, 2006 1:04 PM
I don't think the protesters were just looking to pick a fight. They are morally opposed to the fur industry, which has a pretty atrocious history.
Schumacher's unwillingness to work with the local government or even the PBA shows a willful disregard to find a solution and is evidence of how little they care about where they live. Portland is a better place without them.
Posted by: Mikey at December 1, 2006 1:15 PM
> The fact is,there is nothing cool or revolutionary about letting people do what they want
Thanks, Nicole, for summing up so eloquently the views of nanny-state liberals who think they are entitled to determine others' freedom. The people who founded this country are rolling in their graves right now at this pure, unadulterated idiocy:
> criticizing the actions of activist groups and clothing manufacturer's with dubious sexual practices but excellent labor practices. all of which borders along the lines of conservatives and their rational for driving SUVs and terrorizing the Middle East.
I can't spell, or punctuate, but I sure can tell you what to do! Or, more accurately, what you can't do, which is anything that I disagree with.
I'm forever seeing bumper stickers on people's cars reading, "Don't like abortions? Don't have one." A worthy sentiment, with which I agree wholeheartedly. How is that different? Don't like fur? DON'T WEAR IT. Don't like foie gras? DON'T EAT IT.
Anti-abortion protesters are also "morally opposed" (to say the least) to the practice that they are protesting. So tell me: would you offer the same defense to a group of anti-abortion protesters whose violence and insults drove a clinic to the suburbs? Allow me to answer for you: HELL NO.
Hypocrites.
Posted by: brett at December 1, 2006 4:43 PM
P.S. Abortions are also "pretty gross". Does that factor in? Just checking.
Posted by: brett at December 1, 2006 4:45 PM
Can we have a recession now? It's obvious the lilly-white faux progressives that have moved here in the past 15 years are more concerned with ideological purity and Berkley-style symbolic liberalism than economic diversity.
It must be nice to have a trust fund.
Posted by: Ash at December 1, 2006 4:51 PM
Ash: Unless I'm completely missing your point here... How does Schumacher Furs represent economic diversity? (I think you meant to comment on Jack Bogdanki's Grumpy Old Man blog) Who has a trust fund? Fur protesters? What?
Brett: Arguments based on spelling are pretty petty. People make typos, it's part of the web, and it's okay. As for "nanny-liberals", Nicole isn't in a place of power to tell anyone what they can or can't do (that I know of). She's expressing support is all (rolling in their graves at freedom of speech?). Schumacher Furs left of their own free will, after choosing to inflame and egg on the protesters, and ignoring the offers of help from both the City and the PBA.
I'm happy to discuss the situation with people who feel differently, but jumping in on someone else's blog to drop in angry and contrary opinions and making personal accusations is no way to behave.
(Also, if you have a lot to say on a subject, setting up your own blog is really easy, and I find it enjoyable)
Posted by: Mikey at December 1, 2006 6:46 PM
Just dropped in after discovering your blog. That WAS really handled well Mikey. I'm impressed. And I'll be back.
Posted by: Madam Hatter at December 1, 2006 9:43 PM
Taking someone's words out of context is not an appropriate way to conduct a debate, Mr. Brett.The thing I am asking is :Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and exploitation? Many people assume democracy gives them a right to not make that choice.The whole "don't like_, don't have one" argument is the direct result from this mentality, equally employed by the right and the left. However, many acitivists are more sophisticated than this, and can coherently back up thier resoning.
ps-Didn't our "founding fathers" own slaves? Don't like slavery, don't have a slave.
pps.-I think childbirth is gross, as well as impoverished and reluctant parents. But you have made it obvious that you do not have the ability to sympathize with others.
Posted by: Nicole at December 2, 2006 11:26 AM
I have to agree with Nicole and Mikey here. I would say that I'm really leftist politically, but I also think individuals should be able to make their own choices in their lives, to the extent that those choices aren't hurting others. For instance, if somebody wants to snort cocaine up their nose or smoke a cigarette, that's their own perogative and I'm not going to judge them or attack them for it (of course, I voted for the indoor smoking ban that passed in Washington State last year, but to me that's a question of public health in general and not of individual choice) If a person wants to punch somebody in the face or drink and drive, however, that's a pretty obvious case of when I would say "not cool."
Of course, these ideas of "pain" or "violence" or "suffering" are difficult ones. What constitutes violence? Is it direct physical attacks on others, or can symbolic violence be just as bad or worse?
In the case of foie gras or the fur industry, I am personally opposed to both, because the practices are well-known to cause suffering on the part of the animals. Force feeding ducks and geese through feeding tubes? To me, it seems like a brutal case of humans demonstrating a will to dominance over nature. "We're at the top of the food chain, and we're going to cause you to suffer because we have the technology and consciousness to do so."
Some people will continue to wear fur, and others will continue to disagree with the ways in which the fur industry operatres. This isn't "ideological purity" or "Berkeley-style symbolic liberalism", it's people actually deeply believing in something and living it out. If you believe deeply in wearing fur, go out and kill it yourself. If you believe deeply in opposing the fur industry, go out and oppose it.
While I don't believe in dualistic "black and white" approaches to ethics, morals and behavior, I think that we can make everyday decisions that help to reduce suffering and oppression in small ways. There's not any sort of guidebook or rule to this. I'm rambling now.
Posted by: Alex at December 3, 2006 5:37 AM
I was handed a 4 color pamphlet from those protesters. I generally support their cause, but it seems like the SOLVENT-BASED PRINTING of a 4-COLOR PAMPHLET also KILLS ANIMALS, albeit, perhaps of the smaller and less furry kind, but part of the furry mammals' ecosystems, nonetheless.
I hope that is just a small flaw in their holistic perspective concerning the deaths of higher (furry) mammals...and that none of them drove oil-consuming cars to the protest, for instance. Might the Valdez spill have killed more mammals than the fur industry during the 90's? I don't know, but there is a lot of damage to mammals populations through oil consumption even without spills in sensitive habitats.
It makes me sad when protesters who I generally support end up giving mixed or (worse) hypocrital messages. I hope that they are more careful next time.
Posted by: solenoid at December 3, 2006 8:34 PM
It makes me sad whenever anyone brings up as a counterpoint the idea that there are *worse* things out there that need to be dealt with.
The issue that this post is about (what we call the "subject") is Fur. We are not saying that Fur is more important than the environment, or AIDs, or orphans, or sexism, or racism, or war, or any of the other woes of the world. We are simply discussing Fur.
Personally, I don't like an in-your-face protesters handing me images showing awful things done to animals. But I still support their cause.
Posted by: Mikey at December 4, 2006 4:35 PM
Dude, don't open comments on your blog if you're going to be bitchy when people COMMENT. If you're paying any attention at all, you know the argument wasn't about spelling. The argument is about choice, which no one bothers to address. So I'll ask again: Why is it OK to choose one thing that some people find immoral (abortions), but not another (fur)?
Posted by: brett at December 11, 2006 4:52 PM
Brett: "Dude," comments are not an open invitation to act like a jerk. Your comments are mean-spirited. And you brought up the spelling and punctuation issue, so pay more attention to what you write.
And the argument is not about "choice", it's about cruelty to animals.
You think you have some bulletproof logic about how abortions and fur coats are the same thing, but no one else in the world thinks they are the same, and I find your simplification of the issues insulting.
I'm not here to argue with you or change your mind. If you honestly think these issues are the same and if you honestly want to know the answer to your question then I suggest you go out on the world wide web and learn about the issues. Heck, start a blog about "Fur and Abortions" and document what you learn. After you feel like you have a real handle on the intricacies of both issues then you can come back to this thread and answer your own question.
Posted by: Mikey at December 11, 2006 5:18 PM
The environment is not a "counterpoint", it is, in fact, at the *center* of the issue. The environment contains all of the animals' habitats, silly.
The scale of cruelty and death to animals due to toxins and petroleum most likely dwarf that of the fur farms. Valdez was an example.
Where did "AIDs, war, sexism, racism" come from?
I agree with these protesters and want them to do well-- not have gaping loopholes in the logic of their presentation.
Posted by: solenoid at December 11, 2006 5:50 PM
Solenoid: If it wasn't for my refusal to give you the last word, I'd ignore your comment. These people are not protesting polluters (or war, sexism, racism, etc). They are protesting the fur industry.
The Valdez oil spill has nothing to do with this argument. It was a terrible thing, it killed a lot of animals, whatever. We're not talking about that. The center of the issue has nothing to do with the environment because you are the only one talking about that. Just because something is worse than fur (AIDS, war, sexism, racism, pollution, etc) doesn't invalidate a protest. I think those gaping holes in their logic are only visible by you.
I think I'm coming off a lot more angry than I feel n these comments. I just feel a little peeved that everyone wants to fill up the comments with any issue that is not about the post. I like comments. I like people talking. I like arguing the points. I don't mind be called silly or bitchy.
Posted by: Mikey at December 12, 2006 12:03 PM
Someone else said: "Ash: Unless I'm completely missing your point here... How does Schumacher Furs represent economic diversity? (I think you meant to comment on Jack Bogdanki's Grumpy Old Man blog) Who has a trust fund? Fur protesters? What?"
Happy New Year, everyone. To clarify my statement:
1. Schumacher furs represent a niche retailer selling someting I don't see very many shops selling here in town.
2. Yes, I meant to imply that the protesters were living off of a trust fund.
First they'll take away your foie gras, then they'll take away your goose.
Posted by: Ash at January 5, 2007 11:32 AM
Don't eat meat, don't wear fur, don't give a fuck!
As a vegetarian, and friend of many vegans, I find the "let me shove this down your throat" aspect of these subculture lifestyles quite annoying to say the least. Each to his own, I say. I don't care if you eat or kill animals. While I, personally, find it to be disgusting, I'm not going to egg your house because I found out you had meatloaf last week for dinner.
We all know that 50% of the protesters there were there for "street cred" among their vegan fwendz.
Hey, you guys!
Newsflash: Opinions aren't right or wrong.
Posted by: nein! at April 25, 2007 4:03 AM
"Each to his own"? Really? Then why are you posting? And if "we all know" then why does it have to be stated?
Newsflash: Sarcasm isn't very convincing.
Posted by: Mikey at April 25, 2007 3:43 PM
Congradualtions Portland for being awesome! Recently, I feel as if a weird Republican/libertarian culture of apathy has been propogated by certain institutions of "cool" and independent media under the guise of democracy, freedom, and dissafected hipsterdom, e.g, "Why should fioe gras be illegal?People should be able to make up their own mind", "People should be allowed to pollute their lungs" and criticizing the actions of activist groups and clothing manufacturer's with dubious sexual practices but excellent labor practices. all of which borders along the lines of conservatives and their rational for driving SUVs and terrorizing the Middle East. The fact is,there is nothing cool or revolutionary about letting people do what they want when it ultimately impacts another species right to happiness, or pretending you are playing the devil's advocate. It's amazing what some so called "liberals" tell themselves in order to appropriate the behavior of every other over consumptive American.I am happy that at least some people can take a stand over a great evil and triumph. I wonder what the papers will write!
Posted by: nicole at December 1, 2006 12:05 PM