People are often taken in by my MSM spoof reporter Todd Unctuous, then whenever he appears, sure enough, some MSM smart aleck comes along and almost makes Todd look smart.
This time it’s Michael Hiltzick writing in the LA Times here about Chick-Fil-A’s Dan Cathy ‘getting involved in politics’ when he expressed his opinion about gay marriage. I think Hiltzick must have gone to the same journalism course as Todd. He says Cathy was involved in politics?? Dan Cathy’s comments were in a religious journal and on a religious radio show and the man never mentioned a politician, a political party, who to vote for or any particular legislation or political body. Neither is it shown that Chick-Fil-A or the Cathy family support any particular candidates or party or have ever interfered in politics in any way.
Is this man and his company to be blamed for interfering in politics simply for being opposed to gay marriage? If so, then anyone who speaks publicly against this measure may be blamed for interfering in politics, and even if Mr Cathy was involved in politics why on earth would there be anything wrong in that? The whole political system in this country is run by businessmen who get involved in politics in one way or another. They’re openly involved in funding candidates, backing political parties, funding lobbyists etc. Why should the owner of a restaurant chain not have the freedom to get involved in politics if he wants to, and why should he not get involved in an issue like gay marriage if he wants to?
Where was the outcry when Ben and Jerry’s named an ice cream in support of gay marriage or Starbucks declared their corporate policy (not just one executive’s opinion) to be in favor of specific legislation supporting gay marriage. Why is Starbucks and Ben and Jerry’s allowed to support specific legislation in support of gay marriage with corporate policies, public marketing decisions and explicit information and public relations exercises, but Mr Cathy and Chick-Fil-A must remain silent? Who was really getting involved in politics? Starbucks, Ben and Jerry’s, Nike, Microsoft and other companies. They did so with public policy statements, ‘values’ statements and well funded propaganda.
The equivalent of Starbuck’s move would be for Chick-Fil-A to issue a public corporate policy statement in formal opposition to gay marriage and to fund measures to repeal it. An equivalent action by Chick-Fil-A to Ben and Jerry’s marketing and publicity blitz would be for Chick-Fil-A to name a new sandwich ‘The Mom and Dad Traditional Chicken Sandwich’ with a marketing campaign saying, “If you support Mom and Dad not Dad and Dad–then buy this sandwich, along with a media blitz to convince people to be against gay marriage.
The hypocrisy, lying and mendacity of the current propaganda in this country is shocking. I’m not the paranoid conspiracy theory type, but when you see such blatant lying and manipulation of the truth you can’t help but fear for the future.
UPDATE: Meanwhile, in NYC the speaker of the city council sent a letter on official stationery urging a local college to kick Chick-Fil-A off campus. The story’s here.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.