At first, I thought this was the influence of longtime dairyman and Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, since it came from his Senate Republican Caucus. I remember when Harvey used to pass out cow-shaped erasers over at the State House. (Or was that his brother Bob? No, I believe it was Harvey.)
Now, I see it’s something else. Sigh. The Kultukampf does go on, doesn’t it?
Dang. I heard something about this flap on the radio the other day, and it reminded me of something else entirely that I wanted to share here on the blog, and now I can’t remember what it was.
Oh, well. It will come to me again at some point…
Related Posts
I STILL can’t remember what I wanted to say, which is weird for me. Here’s what I was listening to when I thought of it…
I am 100% in favor of gay marriage but I am also 100% in favor of Chick-Fil-A being opposed to it.
The only response from people who disagree with Chick-Fil-A’s position should be to not patronize their restaurants. Protests, sit-ins, government bans, etc. should not even be considered.
Their views won’t stop me from eating at Chick-Fil-A.
This whole boycott Chick-fil-a kind of took a hit today. Maybe they’ll learn they should just stick to the parade.
I, among the vast majority, have a nuanced view on this. Maybe tinged with a bit of chagrin over the hypocrisy of both sides.
I think Martin Luther King (among a number of others) could do justice to the situation.
There is a real opening here to lead toward a more widely shared cultural vision that placates both sides.
The owner of Chick-fil-a stated his beliefs. I don’t agree with him, but he’s welcome to hold them as long as he doesn’t force them on others. But it seems as if those who like to magnify what would otherwise be minimal blips on the cultural screen into complete films, are going to make this one into an action movie. Yawn.
Chick-fil-a profits are helping support the Ugandans who are actually murdering gays.
Your dismissive attitude toward the struggle, the Kampf, of people who love people of the same sex, and the people who care about them, seems out of character with your general kindness.
I don’t have a strong opinion on gay marriage, but I strongly oppose government bullying.
Those senior moments come fast and furious once you turn 50.
Why is the cow wearing a cow suit?
Kathryn, I thought I was primarily being dismissive of the other side in this case, but you’re right, my overall problem is with the Kampf itself, whichever side of it is under discussion.
I suppose struggling against the prevalence of such wedge issues is sort of Mein Kampf.
Mr. Cathy smugly announced that all his peeps are “married to their first wives.” Seriously.
I have no problem with his holding or announcing whatever views he wishes. It’s funding his funding of truly horrible groups, according to neutral analyzers. (well, they may be RINOs to some here.)
David, you’re asking the million-dollar question here. I was wondering the same thing: Why is the cow wearing a cow suit? Is it to seem more, or less, like a cow? Is it to persuade people that it is not really a cow, but merely someone wearing a cow suit? And if so, why?
I was thinking it had something to do with layers of meaning, or layers of reaction. The head of the company said something, which provoked a reaction, which provoked a counter-reaction, and these Republicans are seeking to ride on that (piggyback on it, if you don’t mind my confusing things by bringing another barnyard animal into it), and superimpose upon it their separate agenda of defeating political opponents.
But I still don’t see why the cow is wearing a cow suit.
Ah, I’ve got it! It’s a metaphor for the shaky existence of a South Carolina Republican. They live in constant fear of having a primary opponent who will paint them as a RINO, so they have to adopt all sorts of postures and attitudes that are really OUT THERE in order to appear even more “Republican” than they actually are. So essentially, they are real Republicans who are compelled by the insanity of their intraparty politics to don phony “Republican” disguises atop their real Republican skins, in order to survive.
To quote Tom Sawyer, “I’m glad we found it out detective fashion; I wouldn’t give shucks for any other way.”
Hey Doug, I agree with you! 🙂
But I also am moved by Kathryn’s observation.
And I also really like their food.
Now what am I to do?
Go to rushes and get a root beer float 🙂
So a real cow (republican) is not recognizable enough to people – the cow has to wear a stupid stylized fake looking cow (republican) outfit for people to recognize it as a cow (republican), is essentially what you are saying? That works for me, but is that what THEY were actually thinking ????
I’m thinking, I bet that cow is hot.
I like CfA food, too. The waffle fries taste like real potatoes and the chicken filets are real chicken and surprisingly low calorie. The lemonade is awesome. However, Wendy’s has stepped up their game, food wise, made a nice inclusive statement and also chastised a Columbia franchisee for announcing his support for CfA. If I eat fast food, it will be at Wendy’s.
To mention some other animals, I have neither a dog in this fight nor a frog in this pond, as I am allergic to what Chick-fil-a sells.
I’ve always appreciated, in the abstract, that they are closed on Sundays, though. Anything that disrupts the modern pattern of go-go-go busy-ness 24/7 is a step in the right direction in my book. Let’s hear it for downtime!
Yes, except here in Germany, if you are on a trip or otherwise not very organized, you are out of luck in many places from midday Saturday to Monday morning, outside of the train station in a metropolitan area. In the village where we are stores also close for two hours at lunchtime. Kinder, Kueche, Kirche is great, but if I were working, it would be tough.
There are some stores making in roads, though, but no 24/7. More like 7/10 rather than 7/11.
Gut on them.
@Brad
Imagine alowing a business to decide for itself when it chooses to be open or closed rather than relying on the whims of a few Christian bureaucrats. How liberating!
I don’t really care about this thread, but CFA, while closing on Sundays, doth hire contractors to maintain its facilities and grounds on the Holy Sabbath.
@Kathryn – You’re still in Germany?
@Kathryn – You mean the same midlands Wendy’s franchise owner that had “We support Chick fil A” on their signs out front yesterday?
Yes, Doug, I realize that all my libertarian and Culture Warrior friends oppose me on this commonsense idea. It’s a given. You don’t have to throw all your bumper stickers at me.
Yup, and yup.
What commonsense idea is that? A government mandated period of selectively disallowed commercial activity on a county by county basis?
Sounds totally practical and fair to me over the alternative of letting businesses decide when they want to be open.
Here’s a digression I started to write before a lunch meeting, and failed to post then. I share it now even though quite a bit of water has run through this thread since then…
Here in the states, our habit of dropping immediately into Kulturkampf mode prevents us from doing common-sense things.
There is nothing, NOTHING more civilized than taking a collective break, as a community, from the strains of daily worklife. Having a peaceful refuge in which you don’t have to get things done, because you CAN’T get things done. (And anyone who understands anything about how the human animal works understands that if you CAN get it done, you’re just half a breath away from HAVING to get it done. These people who say you can take a break from it all on your own if you choose to are terribly disingenuous.)
As Thomas Cahill wrote in The Gifts of the Jews, “The Sabbath is surely one of the simplest and sanest recommendations any god has ever made; and those who live without such septimal punctuation are emptier and less resourceful.”
But if we try to implement this simple, sane, humanistic measure, the Culture Warriors scream that we’re establishing a religion. Which is nonsense.
It’s a peculiarly American problem, which we owe to the fact that Madison got talked into enumerating rights, and Jefferson then twisted our understanding of this particular enumerated right. We have all these exposed nerves, ready to twitch at the slightest exposure to any idea that at any time has been associated in any way with a religion — which is of course light years from ESTABLISHMENT of religion…
I’ve always appreciated, in the abstract, that they are closed on Sundays, though.
-Doug
Not sure what “in the abstract” means here. Couldn’t any business close on Sunday if it so choose? Or Wednesday, or at lunchtime, or on holidays? What is objectionable is when “in the abstract” becomes “as law requires”. We’re getting close to getting rid of closing time laws but there is still one major exception. We still have a closing time for liquor stores mandated by law. Plus they cannot open on Sunday. But beer is widely available on Sunday now. Progress in SC is slow but in this at least good progress is being made.
Actually it was Brad and not Doug that I’m quoting above.
There is nothing, NOTHING more civilized than taking a collective break …
-Brad
Ok. Then take a break whenever you see fit to do so. What exactly is your point. Surely you don’t think THIS is something government should require?
Reading further:
But if we try to implement this simple, sane, humanistic measure, the Culture Warriors scream that we’re establishing a religion. Which is nonsense.
-Brad
Brad IS suggesting we mandate siestas!!!! OH – MY – GOSH!!! Is there nothing off limits to Brad’s mandate mania? Brad you really, really, really do have a very different view of the world and the role of government than anyone else I’ve ever known.
Doug takes it as “proof” that if one business closes on a day when its competition is open, then any business can get away with it.
But we talk about Chick-fil-A in this context because it is so very, very unusual. Few businesses, given similar circumstances, would even dare to try it, much less try and succeed.
My poster child for this is a department store back in Jackson, TN. It was a completely local business, a family business, that had been a significant part of the local market for three generations. During my time at the paper there, this business was our largest advertiser, and it was a sufficiently small town and small newspaper that I knew the family pretty well. In fact, the wife of the head of the business was our “society” columnist, and his son worked as an intern photographer at the paper in the summers.
Our paper had advocated editorially for years for doing away with blue laws, so that everything could be open, and anything could be sold, on Sundays. The owner of this department store used to grumble a great deal to our publisher about this, because he felt it would be the ruination of his business.
He knew that the blue law was keeping larger competitors, businesses that simply had resources and economies of scale with which he could not compete — such as the Goldsmith’s chain out of Memphis — out of our market. He said that if Sunday sales were allowed, it would destroy his business, which was such a bulwark to the local economy.
He was Jewish, but he greatly valued his ability to give his employees — many of whom had worked for him for decades — Sundays off. And he didn’t want that choice taken away from him. (I know it’s impossible for Doug to conceive of this, but yes, one’s options can be closed off by factors larger than one’s own mighty Ayn Randian will.)
Well, the paper (which used all the usual cliche modernist arguments on the subject) got its way, and the blue laws fell, and Goldsmith’s came to town, and before long, our largest advertiser was out of business. I wish I could remember whether, in a last-ditch effort, he caved and started opening on Sundays. But I can’t after all these years (close to 30).
And Jackson, TN, took a big step closer to being yet another community with no local business culture to distinguish it, a town full of franchises, so that every street looked like streets everywhere else.
And I believe the town was poorer for that. And I much regretted the position my newspaper had taken.
Yes, I know all the usual fascist arguments about how businesses that can’t compete with the big boys on their terms DESERVE to be crushed, but I don’t accept them. I think there should be space in our lives for human scale. And it really doesn’t take so much for us to keep the door open to that…
In other words, I guess I’m sticking up for George Bailey in the face of Mr. Potter’s onslaught. Call me Frank Capra.
But we talk about Chick-fil-A in this context because it is so very, very unusual. Few businesses, given similar circumstances, would even dare to try it, much less try and succeed.
-Brad
Zesto also closes on Sunday. There may be others as well so it really isn’t THAT rare.
As someone who used to work for a food chain I was quite happy to have the opportunity to get Sunday hours. If there was a law preventing Sunday restaurant sales I would have lost a substantial portion of my part time income. In the days I worked there I really needed the extra income.
Name another NATIONAL fast food chain, a business that manages to keep competing on that level, that makes that choice.
There might be some, but the fact that I always hear about Chick-fil-A makes me think it’s a bit of a standout in that regard.
Also — you asked what I meant by “in the abstract.” I had just explained that Chick-fil-A has zero impact on my life, since I’m allergic to chicken. I’ve never had any interaction with that business at all, to my recollection. I don’t think I’ve even gone in to buy a cold drink or anything. So my thought about the Sunday-closing thing was being offered “in the abstract,” rather than based on experience with that business.
Others were talking about how they like the chicken there. I was saying I know nothing about that, but as an abstraction, I approved of something that business does…
@Brad
You have yet to make the case for why the government should decide which businesses can operate and whcih cannot on a particular day of the week.
I’ll believe you are serious about this when you call for The State newspaper to cease selling its product on Sundays.
Does ADCO ever do work work on Sundays?
We’ll never be able to have a meaningful conversation about this Doug, because of the way you frame things. A person who frames this as “why the government should decide which businesses can operate and whcih cannot on a particular day of the week” is simply never going to get what I’m talking about, because I don’t think in terms anywhere near those.
See, I’m an American. I totally get what America is about, which is SELF-government. You think of the government over HERE and the individual over THERE, as separate entities. As though government were some capricious, uncontrollable entity that DOES THINGS TO PEOPLE without their having any input into the decision, like a medieval king or something.
Me, I don’t even think of the word “government” at all in thinking about this. It’s not significant to me. To me, its about what a COMMUNITY decides to do, through whatever local arrangements they have for making decisions that affect the whole community in common. It’s about what WE decide we want to do, through whatever rules we have for making such decisions. A community, of course, can be a neighborhood, or a town or city, or a state or even a nation — although the larger it gets, the harder it is to have meaningful interactions, and the more things tend to degenerate into abstract symbols, rather than neighbors working together to improve things for the community. Which is one reason I believe in subsidiarity — although again, words fail us, because Paul Ryan sees “subsidiarity” as meaning something quite different from the way I define it.
It’s like we’re speaking entirely different languages that reflect wildly different cultures and undertandings of reality. And it’s very difficult for a concept that is the simplest thing in the world to express in one language to be understood, translated into the other.
This pains me because my whole adult life has been about the communication of ideas in ways that they can be fully understood and interacted with in a meaningful way. But I’ve had to acknowledge that sometimes, the obstacles to such communication rise far higher than my own poor ability to surmount them…
OK, now before someone sees my “See, I’m an American” to be some snide way of saying I am and Doug’s not…
What I’m saying is that I’m an American, and my understanding of what that means is as follows…
I realize there are people out there who think it is quintessentially American to use the terminology that Doug does, who not only use “government” the way he does, but who HATE government in all its manifestations, including the American versions, and see that hatred as particularly and admirably American.
I believe they misunderstand, and miss the true promise of this country and the way we are free to govern ourselves.
So if I want to see the blue laws repealed at a state level, who do I petition?
This is one of those issues that would best be settled with a ballot initiative. Let the people actually decide rather than have to work thru the utterly complex and inefficient legislative process.
I am fairly confident that a ballot initiative abolishing all blue laws except for setting the time when alchohol can be sold each day (no sales between 1 am and 10 am) would pass by a 2/3 majority.
And it’s borderline ludicrous to say that the “community” had any input into the blue laws as they exist. The fact that we waste resources deciding what products can be sold during which time periods of a single day of the week in certain counties (based on sales tax revenues I believe) just proves what an inefficient farce the state government is.
Why would you want to let the government dictate to a businessman that he couldn’t exercise his God-given right to sell liquor between 1 a.m. and 10 a.m.?
🙂
Brad, I think what gets you so frustrated is that you just simply cannot grasp the notion that some people really don’t think it’s a good idea that businesses close on Sunday. I think that’s a terrible idea and I just offered a very personal reason why. Many of us just flat out do not think it would be a good idea for businesses to close on Sunday EVEN IF it were done voluntarily. In fact I find it annoying not to have the option of eating at Zesto or Chic-fil-a on Sunday. But I would never mandate that they stay open in order to accomodate those who wish to work or eat there on Sunday. To me that would be a tremendous over-reach of government.
But then when you go to the next level and MANDATE businesses be closed then that is essentially doubling down on a bad idea.
I’m guessing Doug is suggesting that a referendum that did not bad nighttime liqour sales would not pass. As for me I’d get rid of any hours for selling booze.
@Kathryn – So, if I understand your stance… you’re against Chick-fil-A, but are supporting Wendys for supporting Chick-fil-A. Is that correct?
Brad if bars can sell liquor during those hours why can’t off-sale?
“Does ADCO ever do work work on Sundays?”
No, haven’t you noticed that Brad doesn’t update his blog on Sundays.
Actually, I do — although I’ve been making a particular effort NOT to recently, and I don’t think I’ve started a post on a Sunday for months now.
I do, however, approve comments on Sunday, and sometimes respond to them.
Yeah, I just checked, and the last time I posted on a Sunday was May 13, and the last time before that was April 1.
And that’s good, because I’ve intentionally avoided doing it, without making a big thing of it. I think it’s critically important for humans to take breaks from time to time, so I try to make myself do that on Sunday.
But I’m much more successful avoiding blogging on Sunday than I am at avoiding other activities… I wish I could stop everything — on Saturday, or Sunday, or someday — but the entanglements and obligations of modern life demand otherwise.
Tomorrow is boys kissing boys and girls kissing girls day at Chick-fil-A. The bigger question is whether this will just be a getting to 1st base event or if they will actually buy anything while they’re there.
I wonder how many will show up looking like members of the Village People.
How I should spend my Friday at Chick-fil-A.
Just go and stand uncomfortably close to two lesbians kissing and breath heavy and make grunting noises. Every once in a while just say “Ya that’s right, just like that”
@Brad and David
It is obvious why the cow is wearing a cow suit. It is because of the vast, left-wing, super gay, design agendists. It isn’t a cow, but a post de-horned bull dressed as, you guessed it, a female cow!
Right in front your very eyes and deep within Chick-fil-A itself, the agent provocateurs of the trans-gender super powers have managed to plant subliminal messages. Sadly, the invisible culture war runs so much deeper.
@Kathryn – Wendy’s burgers have improved lately, but they totally fouled up their freedom fries. Yuck!
Has anyone noticed that our local Taco Bell’s refer to themselves as “Taco Bell Ministries” in their literature?
@Silence – You still go to Taco Bell? Even after they were required to replace “beef” with “beef flavored filling” on their menu?
Is there a day of the week that is not associated with any weekly religious observance? If so, maybe we could take that day off.
Does ADCO have employees who work on Sundays or support events that take place on Sundays? If so then what steps do you plan to take to influence them to stop what is obviously a practice that goes against community standards?
Steven
Read closely: Wendy’s corporate peeps have come out in favor of diversity acceptance and chastised their franchisee for supporting CfA.
In reality, I very seldom eat fast food of any sort.
I miss my kitchen and big salads!
Nice, Jesse!
Also, cows cannot write, so it must be a trans-species cow.
Hobby Lobby is also not open on Sunday which I know because I usually am remembering something I’d like to have for school the next day that only they sell. sigh.
It is the lemonade that I will miss.
I am flying to a section of the nation that has Chick-fil-a. I’ve never eaten there so I’m bite-curious. Thanks to this issue, I’m now aware that Chick-fill-a isnt something lesbians do.
Oh, wow… based on Kathryn’s comment, I sense a double-feint here: The “cow” is actually a human in a realistic cow suit, inside a phony-looking cow suit — which distracts us from the fact that the realistic cow suit is ALSO false.
Diabolical. As the Fremen warn us, don’t be blinded by expectations. “Be prepared to appreciate what you meet.” Or, in this case, “… what you meat.”
@Doug – Brad’s not going to answer questions about ADCO. You’re lucky he doesn’t delete your posts that even mention ADCO.
OK, getting serious…
Y’all know that I would stop at nothing to get an answer to such a critical question. So I asked Wesley Donehue, who works for the Senate Republicans, what the cow-within-a-cow meant.
He promptly and confidently replied, “I have no clue. I guess bc its funny,” and asked Joel Sawyer. (Y’all know Joel Sawyer. Former press secretary to Mark Sanford, helped run Jon Huntsman’s campaign in SC, now works with Wesley at Donehue Direct.)
Joel said, “Yeah, that’s pretty much it. Don’t over-journalist it. It’s funny.”
So, I said, it’s kinda like when the New Yorker editor, in response to Elaine’s demand to know why a certain cartoon was selected, admitted he didn’t get it; he just “liked the kitty”…
Responded Wesley: “It’s kinda like a CINO — cow in name only. That’s why he has to wear the cow costume.”
Which of course is almost EXACTLY what I told y’all it meant earlier.
I don’t know why I ever bother to do legwork (on the rare occasions when I do), when my intuitive answers are so stunningly accurate that it’s scary…
Burl, go with a male coworker on Friday.
Stephen, the truth is that I’m often at a loss as to how to answer Doug, because the things he asks are just so completely off the point, the way I look at things. As I said before, it’s like we’re speaking different languages. Actually, it’s worse than that. Almost like we’re from different planets, because the concepts are just so different.
To his first off-the-point question, ADCO’s offices are not open on the weekends. If I want to go by the office and pick up something I need over the weekend, I have to use my key, and remember to shut off the alarm.
As to the second part… “If so then what steps do you plan to take to influence them to stop what is obviously a practice that goes against community standards?”…
Again Doug makes assumptions about what I say that are quite different from what I’ve said.
When did I say that “community standards” demand that a business be closed on the weekend? I haven’t even suggested that.
If they DID demand it, I think you’d see all the businesses closed. And that would be appropriate. Doug and Bud suggest that it would NOT be appropriate, that it would be a violation of rights by the government, and I believe that’s completely wrong.
What I lament is that our society has come to this pass, when we are no longer sane enough to recognize the value of downtime. If we would recognize it, our community would be a better place to live. Bud and Doug believe it would be some sort of abomination, and that’s what I argue against.
I don’t think anyone is arguing the value of downtime. That is a red herring. The argument is whether the government should dictate the specifics of when that downtime should occur and do so in what is easily recognized as inconsistently applied and based on Christian theology.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Your downtime is built around Sundays. Enjoy it, don’t legislate it.
Just because you think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean it has to become a law.
And if you want to go the legislative route, let the people truly be involved in the decision. Put it to a vote. The blue laws would be overturned in no time because they don’t match community standards. They are archaic remnants of fundamentalist legislators.
And I don’t see why you miss the hypocrisy of supporting blue laws after spending the majority of your career working in an industry that derives a large portion of its revenue from sales on “the day of rest”. You either support the concept of mandated downtime for everyone or you don’t. It takes a huge leap of logic to make the case that purchasing a shirt on Sunday morning should be illegal while purchasing a can of soup is not. The government needs to stop wasting time on idiocy.
Brad, when did you stop beating your wife?
“Chick-fil-a profits are helping support the Ugandans who are actually murdering gays.”….Burl
The most successful lie always contains an element of truth. Do you honestly think that for one moment Mr. Cathy would support the murder of anyone including gays?
It always surprises me but shouldn’t, when a newspaper person does not include ALL of the pertinent information when making a comment like the one you made.
Chick-Fil-A is owned by S. Truett Cathy who in turn founded the WinShape Foundation from profits HE earned from Chick-Fil-A. WinShape donates money to promote the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman and opposes same-sex marriage. However, traditional marriage is not the only charity or community organization it contributes to.
Over an 8 plus year period, WinShape has received approximately $8 million from the Cathy family. In turn, WinShape sends financial support to several other organizations with the main recipient of funding being the Marriage and Family Foundation. Over the years, the one organization receiving the least amount of money, Family Research Council, received a grand total of $1,000 in 2010. Based on available information, that is the most FRC has ever received from WinShape. In 2010, the Family Research Council spent $25,000 in a failed attempt to lobby against the resolution because it DID pass both chambers.
Now, if the logic applied to Mr. Cathy and Chick-Fil-A when it comes to donating money to an organization can be used to make an allegation like the one Burl made, then the same logic can be applied to every donation made to any organization that advocates any position anyone objects to.
If one wanted to take this to a ridiculous point, Burl can be “accurately” portrayed as one who supports the killing of innocent women and children by the fact that he restores antique military vehicles usually considered instruments of war. So, there is a legitimate thread to connect Burl with military vehicles that were used in supporting the death and destruction caused by war. Therefore one can ”accurately” conclude that Burl is helping to support the deaths of innocent civilians and soldiers by his involvement with antique military vehicles. While the conclusion may be accurate, the truth is that we all know Burl does not support the killing of innocent civilians.
So, save the hypocrisy for the gullible who never bother to check the source of the information provided in a throw-away line. My favorite line from a movie about the press is from “Absence of Malice”. When asked if what was printed was the truth, to paraphrase the line, “It may be accurate but not true” is a perfect fit. In this instance, while it is accurate that WinShape did contribute $1,000 to Family Research Council, Burl’s contention that Chick-Fil-A is helping support the murder of gays in Uganda is not true.
As I have said before, how a person chooses to live their life is their business, not mine. I have had and still have gay friends. I do not condemn nor condone their lifestyle, it is not my right to do so. Our daughter and son have gay friends and work with gays. Their postition is the same as mine, “its your life, live it as you please”.
My point is that the truth becomes the ultimate victim by both sides when it is convenient to use a half-truth to denigrate their opponent in support of a cause.
Bart,
Your dots are not connecting for me. You seem to think you made a case for how Chick-Fil-a did not support murders in Uganda – and it may be a true point – but I can’t tell from your information.
I sense that there are things you are assuming we know already about Winshape and/or the Family Research Council. I’m guessing maybe there is some connection between them and Uganda – but I’m not already aware of it, and I’ve read your post twice now and don’t see how anything you cite relates to Uganda. ?????
My chemistry teacher used to go on about how a measurement could be precise but not accurate, if for example, your ruler was not calibrated correctly – are you talking about something like that. Or are you just talking about inferences. If something is accurate, it is true. They are synonyms. But it could be that something is accurate and the inference someone draws from it is not true. It could be that less than scrupulous people take advantage of the inference you will draw and actively promote misunderstanding. Those people are scum, in my opinion.
But I can’t even tell if that is what you are saying is happening here. Help – how does it relate to Uganda?
Scout,
the FRC lobbied Congress opposing a resolution condemning a Ugandan law outlawing homosexuality, with punishments of 7 years in prison, or death in the case of something called “aggravated homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill
In addition, CFA has given to Exodus International, an anti-gay group, advocates for discredited and harmful “ex-gay” reparative therapy.
Exodus likewise works with other CFA funded groups, The American Family Association and the Family Research Council with close ties to those calling for the execution of gay people in Africa.
It is far from a small percent of a small percent of CFA’s giving. CFA has funded multiple groups that have the same agenda and that were key to pushing this legislation in Uganda, in particular.
“But it could be that something is accurate and the inference someone draws from it is not true.”…Scout
If you make an accurate statement but the intent is to have someone draw an inference that is not true, then the statement fits the description of being accurate but not true. If you want a statement to be accurate and true, you do not purposely leave out pertinent facts that will lead the reader to draw an erroneous conclusion.
1) Chick-Filet-A earns profit
that go to the Clary Family.
2) The Clary family uses some of the profits earned from Chick-Fil-A to support WinShape.
3) WinShape supports several organizations whose purposes are to support and promote traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriages. I would suggest you do a little research on WinShape.
4) One of the organizations that received funding is the Family Research Council – they received $1,000 in 2010. This was the smallest contribution to any of the organizations receiving funds from WinShape and only accounted for .01% of the overall budget for FRC. (research the origins of FRC)
5) The Ugandan government has laws that impose the death penalty on several gay sex activities, one being gay sex that results in transmitting the HIV virus.
6) In 2010 a resolution was introduced to condemn the harsh Ugandan laws against gays.
7) The Family Research Council spent $25,000 in 2010 to lobby against passing the referendum condemning the Ugandan treatment of gays and homosexuals.
8) The resolution passed in both chambers.
9) The Family Research Council’s lobbying efforts failed and so far, there is no documentation that FRC sends support via financial aid to the Ugandan government.
10) There is no evidence or documentation to support the inference that funds from Chick-Filet-A profits were sent direct or indirectly to Uganda to help support the murdering of gays. The funding alluded to was the $1,000 given to FRC.
Burl took the fact that Chick-Fil-A’s profits used by the Clary family to support the WinShape Foundation who in turn contributed $1,000 to FRC and who in turn, lobbied against the resolution and used this accurate information to make the statement, “Chick-fil-a profits are helping support the Ugandans who are actually murdering gays.”
However, the statement is misleading and does not include all of the facts.
So, in conclusion Scout, if you only take points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 together, they are accurate. But, if you then take points 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 and add them all together to form the total picture, they contradict the inference in Burl’s comment therefore rendering it accurate but not true.
And, if by your own comments, by using a partially accurate statement to lead someone to draw an inference on the actions of Chick-Fil-A that are not true, would it qualify Burl to meet your definition of “scum”?
Sorry, the smiley face was unintentional. Should be 8).
More on Brad’s appreciation of down time. Nice for the non-agricultural men, but traditionally women who did not have servants still prepared meals, which used to be a whole lot of work. Many women cared for the farm animals, too, who need to eat every day. Perhaps less work was done, but someone had to do some work.
Today on my last day in Germany, I might have bought a bunch of stuff to take back out of sentiment, since I won’t have much more lugging to do. Instead, SC and the Internet (which my husband points out has greatly reduced the need to buy things when one is abroad to bring back, since pretty uh everything is readily available now on the webs.) will benefit from the money I would have spent. Or maybe the Frankfurt airport duty free shops;)
You’re saying there are ladies who do not have servants? I believe my friend Darcy would call that “insupportable!”
When I was a kid I read a biography — I think it was about John Paul (who later added “Jones”) growing up in Scotland — and it said the women in that time and place did their Sunday cooking on Saturday.
It made sense. That way everyone got the day truly off.
But whoever does the cooking, now that we have better ways to preserve food, and effortless ways to reheat it, there’s little reason not to treat food preparation like other forms of labor — do enough of it in six days, and you can take the seventh off.
“It is far from a small percent of a small percent of CFA’s giving. CFA has funded multiple groups that have the same agenda and that were key to pushing this legislation in Uganda, in particular.”…..Tim
I have forwarded a scanned copy of WinShape’s donations for the year 2010 to Brad. He can post them if he wants. However, the only two organizations you referenced who received funds from WinShape Foundation were FRC and Exodus. They received $1,000 each. None of the others you referenced received one penny.
And, if you want to compare hate to hate, a photo of a protester in California was forwarded to Brad. Let him make the decision to publish it or not.
Many restaraunts close on Mondays including San Jose and Harbor Seafood. Since this is not supposed to be a religious issue (wink, wink) seems like businesses are choosing when to allow a day of rest. So what’s the issue?
Bart,
thanks for the little bit of digging. I think if you dig a little more, you will find that the biggest recipient of Winshape contributes directly only 1000 to those organizations cited. However, the various penumbra organizations it massively funds, i.e. Focus on the Family and the Marriage and Family Foundation, provide considerable direct and indirect support to Exodus and FRC, et al. Its much more shadowy, much harder to audit. Oh, and 1000 bucks is 1000 bucks. It says something.
Tim,
Could you provide a link with actual numbers that WinShape contributed to Focus on the Family because they were not listed on the IRS forms I sent to Brad. Also, after much digging and trying to find a link to the contributions the Marriage & Family Foundation supposedly makes to Exodus and FRC, I had no luck. So, if you have one that can provide me with verifiable information and if it shows a definite link of financial support, direct or indirect, it will be greatly appreciated.
I’m not asking for links to links to links which end up as dead ends, I am asking for actual proof. If you will provide the information and it is proof positive, I will write an apology to you and Scout for Brad to publish.
Bart,
since you want me to do all of your work for you, it really is not that hard to look up 990 filings.
here is this one from 2009 for Winshape.
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/581/581595471/581595471_200912_990PF.pdf
Focus on the Family shows up
As for FotF,
here is their 2011. Oh, about page 36, I think. Exodus
http://media.focusonthefamily.com/fotf/pdf/about-us/financial-reports/2011-990.pdf
I know I know, not the same years, what ever.
But, as I am sure you are well aware, if you pour through these filings, what is lost is the vague “consulting fees” ($660K in MFF’s 2007-8) with no details.
Not a dead end there, okay? I know, probably not exhaustive enough, but you get the point.
I don’t need or want an apology. No one is putting CFA on trial, or taking away some free speech right. They put themselves in play in this arena and it comes with consequences. People start looking at your laundry hanging out there.
And stack the dishes in the sink? Ewww
Tim,
Thank you for the link and your assistance is greatly appreciated. Until this issue come up, researching 990 filings was not something on my agenda of things to do.
Bart
Bart,
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on something. You say,
“If you make an accurate statement but the intent is to have someone draw an inference that is not true, then the statement fits the description of being accurate but not true.”
If it is accurate, it is true. The inference that happens or doesn’t happen occurs in the mind of the reader, and is not part of whether the statement itself is true or false. If the reader draws a false inference, then that is the reader’s fault, and doesn’t change the accuracy or inaccuracy of the words on the page. They either are or are not accurate regardless of what inference the reader draws. How could it be otherwise when 5 readers may draw 5 different conclusions? By your definition then, would you call a statement, true or false, if 2 readers drew a true inference and
3 readers drew a faulty inference? The conclusions readers draw are their own and not related to the objective accuracy of the words.
That being said, there are certainly people, mostly in advertising and politics from my observations, who do try to encourage false inferences by the way they state things. I detest the practice, but I don’t have any great respect for the reader who allows himself to be mislead either. Mental laziness is almost as bad as purposeful deceit, in my opinion.
I wasn’t necessarily doubting the facts of your case, I was just trying to point out that I didn’t know them because you didn’t include them. You argued as if they were common knowledge. They were not. If all that was explained earlier in the thread, then I apologize. I may have scanned and missed it.
And to answer your question, no I don’t think Burl is scum because I am far from convinced that his statement was an attempt to be purposely deceitful, which was part of my definition.
I think you make a lot of assumptions. Burl made one single statement, “Chick-fil-a profits are helping support the Ugandans who are actually murdering gays.” and from that you claim to know “The funding alluded to was the $1,000 given to FRC.”
I don’t know what funding Burl was alluding to. He didn’t say.
I didn’t get the impression he was trying to purposely mislead. I got the impression he honestly believed what he said and maybe had other or additional information than you.
For me, the knowledge that this group is alright with the Ugandan government killing gays is pretty disturbing – even if they failed in their efforts to stop the resolution – their actions show what they believe, and Cathy is obviously alright with it. I find that disturbing, and it’s enough for me to not give Chick Fil A any of my money to pass on to them.
Scout,
Thank you for your response. I agree, we will agree to disagree – respectfully.
“I don’t know what funding Burl was alluding to. He didn’t say.
I didn’t get the impression he was trying to purposely mislead. I got the impression he honestly believed what he said and maybe had other or additional information than you.”
Your comment goes direct to the heart of the matter, Scout. It was the fact that Burl did not clarify his comment by referring to other or additional information.
However, I will add this one final point to consider.
“The Heinz Corporation’s profits are helping support the Ugandans who are actually murdering gays.”
The Heinz Corporation donated a large sum of money to WinShape. (The donations were made well after Teresa Heinz married John Kerry in 1995.) Does the fact that Heinz donated money, $55,000 total to WinShape as did CFA who contributed millions, and in turn, WinShape Foundation donated money, $1,000 to FRC an indication that it can be said with accuracy that “Heinz profits supports the Ugandan murder of gays”?
Although the donations were not in 2010 but much earlier, does that make a difference or should it be taken into consideration when making a decision on an issue?
Using your logic to no longer patronize CFA, will you continue to purchase Heinz products or buy another brand?
The Metro Chamber of Commerce of Atlanta is a major contributor to WinShape. Are they guilty of using their funds to “support the murder of gays in Uganda”? Will you avoid going to Atlanta or doing business with companies who are members of the Metro Chamber of Commerce?
Scout, this is the point I was trying to make. Burl is a newspaper reporter and knows how to dig for facts and present them in any way he chooses. There is no way I will ever believe Burl was not aware of how the profits made by CFA were given to WinShape then to FRC and then FRC used donated funds for their lobbying efforts.
Thanks to Tim, I was able to complete my research into the money trail of all who made contributions and were listed on the 990s.
This closes my comments on the subject. Thanks for the discourse from you and Tim. It certainly gave me something to think about and educated me on how to find pertinent information to assist with evaluating the subject.
Bart,
Thank you for your response also. The news about Heinz is troubling as well because I dearly love ketchup. Please Please Please don’t tell me anything bad about dark chocolate or I might cry.
Seriously, it is a lot to think about and I don’t know exactly where I stand on everything, but it is good to have a civil discussion. I appreciate that.
Scout,
To address your concerns about products and how the manufacturers or sellers of a product use their profits is much like the old saying about a really good hot dog. You don’t want to see how they are made and if we were to admit it, we would be a little disappointed in how the profits earned from our patronage of purveyors of the free market spend them, especially if it goes against our beliefs and principles.
I try not to worry too much about most goods and services I purchase unless there is a very good reason.
As for chocolate, I don’t think you have anything to worry about. And as for Heinz ketchup, to emphasize my point, (sorry for bringing it up again), Heinz has not contributed to WinShape since 2004. FRC lobbied in 2010. So, as you can see, without ALL the facts, an accurate statement can be misconstrued if critical information is omitted.
Enjoy your chocolate.
Have a great day!! 🙂
I try not to worry too much about most goods and services I purchase unless there is a very good reason.
-Bart
Maurice more than crossed that line with his overt bigotry. His BBQ is off limits in the bud house.
@ Scout–Of course, you are eating Fair Trade, organic chocolate?
“Maurice more than crossed that line with his overt bigotry. His BBQ is off limits in the bud house.”…bud
Couldn’t resist weighing in could you? Have a surprise for you. I totally agree with you on this one.
What is ironic is that his sauce is one of the best sellers in a local supermarket whose customer base is primarily African-American. We live close by and shop often shop there. I asked a customer one day if they were aware of his views. The answer? – “The sauce is damn good and I like it. I don’t care what his views are.” I think the look on my face surprised the customer.
His sauce is… interesting.
I’m a Memphis-style guy myself. Corky’s is what I like. I regret that the local franchise didn’t work out. Although I have to say, as kindly as possible, that it wasn’t up to Poplar Avenue standards.
When I go for SC-style, I go for vinegar-and-pepper. I was, after all, born in the Pee Dee. I particularly enjoyed the pig from Scott’s Bar-B-Que in Hemingway that I had back in February. Of course, part of that might have been the ocean air, the excellent beer, the bracing temperature and the company. Or the fact that I had just seen a good documentary about Scott’s. But it was really good barbecue. And the pork rinds on the side were the best I’ve ever tasted.
Our own Phillip was anointed a barbecue expert recently in the Free Times, and he recommends True in Triangle City (West Cola.)
Maurice’s is off limits in my household to… not because of his beliefs, that’s his business. It’s off limits because his food sucks.
Dammit, now you are getting into really controversial territory. Barbeque. Let the madness begin,…
Alright, a whole new thread to discuss the merits of Barbeque!!!
I tried some of the stuff they call Texas BBQ when I worked in Texas and it was awful. The only places in America where BBQ is really good is in South Carolina first and North Carolina second. Then, the rest of the country can vie for 3rd thru 50th.
I actually like the NC vinegar stuff, also found in the PeeDee, and the more tomato-y sauce found closer to the Savannah River.
The Kansas City sweet tomato/molasses glop, no. KC Masterpiece? I think not.
I did have some wonderful beef barbecue with a tomato-based sauce at the Flying W Ranch, which recently burned down in the Colorado Springs wildfire. Mostly, it’s all good!