Governing through Reason
Eat Mor Crow
The blogosphere and commentariat has been all agog over statements by Chick-fil-A President and COO Dan Cathy, who gave his frank opinion on same-sex marriage. On the Ken Coleman radio show, he offered this wisdom:
We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.
Chick-fil-A is a privately held company that has made no secret of their corporate culture, which is built on an evangelical Christian foundation. Chick-fil-A stores are closed on Sundays. Hymns are piped into the PA system on the corporate campus.
Long ago, I learned that it’s unwise to (for example) put a political lawn sign out in front of a house for sale. The theory is that buyers would be just as likely to be turned off by my naked political posturing as they would be likely to be supportive of my views.
Eating into corporate profits?
Chick-fil-A is no stranger to controversy. For example, their aggressive enforcement of a very broadly defined trademark on their tagline “Eat Mor Chikin” opened them up for ridicule when they went full-bore to stop Bo Muller-Moore, a Vermont t-shirt maker who innocently tried to popularize the slogan “Eat More Kale”. The “Eat Mor Chikin” campaign began in 1995 but Muller-Moore began making the shirts in 2000. There are no Chick-fil-A stores in Vermont. Still, the company’s lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter saying the “Eat More Kale” slogan “is likely to cause confusion of the public and dilutes the distinctiveness of Chick-fil-A’s intellectual property.”
Muller-Moore’s attorney calls this patently ridiculous. He was quoted by The New York Times, saying, “There’s no one out there that’s going to come forward and say, ‘I thought I was buying a Chick-fil-A product but I got this T-shirt.’”
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago (Chick-ago?) Mayor Rahm Emanuel both fil-Aed Cathy, indicating that the Chick-fil-A president’s comments will be used as a political football. For example, Menino’s letter said:
We are indeed full of pride, for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples coming her to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city’s long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick-fil-A across the street from that spot.
Chicago First Ward Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno has vowed to block the siting of a Chick-fil-A location in his neighborhood, and Emanuel has announced that he supports the alderman’s position. Emanuel said:
Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.
Certainly Cathy has a First Amendment right to offer any opinion he wishes on the news of the day. And, in accordance with this, nobody has suggested that his comments should be illegal. But should his business concerns lead him to chikin out of expressing those opinions? Are the responses good politics? What about the (predictable) response from politicians and the LGBT community?
Related articles
- Chicago Alderman Says Chick-fil-A Is Not Welcome In His Ward (patheos.com)
- Supporters Rally as Cities Ban Chick-fil-A (radio.foxnews.com)
- Read Mayor Tom Menino’s Full Letter to Chick-Fil-A About Not Coming to Boston [Image] (bostinno.com)
- Emanuel goes after Chick-fil-A for boss’ anti-gay views (suntimes.com)
- Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Backs Alderman’s Plan to Block Anti-Gay Chick-Fil-A from Opening Restaurant (towleroad.com)
- Chick-Fil-A No Longer Welcome in Chicago Neighborhood (theatlanticwire.com)
- Chicago Alderman: No Building Permits For Chick-Fil-A (outsidethebeltway.com)
- Chick-fil-A exec takes stance against same-sex marriage — USA TODAY (usatoday.com)
- Chick-fil-A’s PR crisis: Chicago, Boston block restaurant chain (prdaily.com)
-
#2 written by Max 10 months ago
Various unit of governments DO NOT need to be refusing Chick-fil-A permits in their areas. First, I believe it to be unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st Amendment. Second, the people themselves, without any such violation, can vote with their pocketbooks.
Frankly, if you happen to like their chicken breast sandwich, try this. (And you can use skinless, grilled breast if you prefer. But if you only have one once a month or so,you don’t have to wuss out)
Brine: 1 cup NaCl in gallon water, 2 tbsp dill seed
Brine chicken breasts overnight
rinse chicken, dip in buttermilk, coat in flour mixture (your favorite recipe, you can even find close copies of KFC on the ‘net, but keep seasoning light)
Peanut oil!!(if you’re allergic, sorry!) 1/2″ in COVERED cast iron skillet @ 375, Lay in chicken, turn once @ 3 min., turn again after 3 more. Reduce heat to 350. Keep covered, turn occasionally, keep covered (it’s that steaming action that works like a pressure fryer to keep the chicken moist and tender), 12–15 min. Set out, drain well, pat dry to remove most oil. Keep warm.
On steamed bun, assemble breast, shredded lettuce, 5–6 slices dill chips and tarter sauce (yes, I said tarter sauce).
Beats their stuff hands down! And you can boycott all you want!
-
-
@Treme… I kept wondering if Chick-fil-istro was going to make a comment.
Well, as a bona-fide Chick-fil-istro, I really have to stand with Big Bird.
What’s more, when Bert and Ernie finally make it legal and confirm what we’ve all known all along, there’s not a snowball’s chance of the reception being held at Chick-fil-a. I hear they’re leaning toward Chuck E. Cheese.
Much more forward looking, tolerant and inclusive… and skytubes!
-
In answer to the question posed in the article… no, it’s not good business. In fact, this is one area where I’m quite content to let the issue be solved by pure market forces rather than well-meaning intervention.
Any business that is openly unfriendly to gay people is not going to do well outside a very small corner of the nation. Gay people have a lot of money and a lot of friends, and they all love to eat out.
Chick-fil-a is actully providing a valuable service for others here… by gathering all the gay-bashers together in one place, they assure the rest of us a pleasant dining experience in a bigot-free environment. Because there’s nothing to spoil a healthy appetite like finding a bigot in your entrée.
-
#9 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Ok, I’ll bite on this non-story disguised as a crises.
Anyway, I’m against businesses taking political stands, but this sounds
like a savvy PR move by ChickFila, despite what the liberal handwringers
at PRDaily and Fili say. I’ve never been to the place, but now they’ve hooked
me. I count only 1 location in Chicago, so I suspect most of their
locations are in the South and in non urban areas. They should survive
nicely without Boston and Chicago. -
@rgb… I’m against businesses taking political stands
Ummm… for ChickFila, isn’t this supposed to be a religious stand?
Not that there’s much difference between those two in the modern “evangelical” community, who no longer even make a token effort to disguise the fact that their “religion” is almost totally political (and vice-versa.)
-
#12 written by Max 10 months ago
Frankly, I don’t care one way or the other about business, or any person (since businesses are NOT people) taking an honest public stand on their political or religious beliefs. One DOES have the 1st Amendment right in support.
The problem is that, in this highly partisan atmosphere, there will be people who put their partisanship ahead of other things. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks. At Hank Jr.. There can, and will, be possible repercussions at the cash register. And that’s OK as well, because that is ALSO a 1st Amendment right.
-
#13 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks. At Hank Jr.. There can, and
will, be possible repercussions at the cash register.True. Thats why I don’t think these people really take stands that will offend their actual customer base. The Dixie Chicks.…should have kept there mouth shut. Anyway, I’m almost to the point that I think celebrities should be banned from political commentary as I think all these entities are using it for marketing, which I’m sick of. Shootings are political.….chicken sandwiches are political…movies are political. Enough already. Maybe I’ll start marketing myself as the anti-Obama actuary. Heck, it’ll offend many.…but it’ll suck alot of people in.
-
@Max.. I don’t care one way or the other about business, or any person.… taking an honest public stand on
their political or religious beliefs.
But then we get into the “Rand Paul” weeds, where a business owner should be able to limit his property to whites-only, if that’s his wish, or ban people in wheelchairs because their eating habits can be messy and turn off other patrons… or kick out left-handed people because he thinks they’re demon-possessed…I tend to think, like you, that a businessman who is so inclined will not prosper, and market forces will take care of him. And that’s okay as long as it is applied fairly across the board.
But what if (as I suspect) the people who support Chick-Fila’s right to be inhospitable to gays, are the very same people who would get incensed and demand legal intervention if a Muslim cab driver refused to pick them up on a rainy night because they had obviously been drinking?
-
#15 written by Max 10 months ago
-
#16 written by Max 10 months ago
-
But what if (as I suspect) the people who support Chick-Fila’s
right to be inhospitable to gays, are the very same people who would
get incensed and demand legal intervention if a Muslim cab driver
refused to pick them up on a rainy night because they had obviously
been drinking?I’d think most of those people should be grateful to that cab driver. Would they really want to be in a cab driven by a terrorist? [/sarcasm]
If Chick-Fil-A or any of their supporters view their announcement as “political,” it’s an offensive misuse of religion. (Well, to be honest, Chick-Fil-A’s position is an offensive misuse of religion to begin with; I don’t recall Jesus trying to encourage hatred, discrimination, or denial of rights, and he said nothing whatever about gay people). That evangelicals and far-rightists had turned religion into just another political tool is beyond reprehensible, and flies in the face of the purpose of religion.
Having said that, I still agree that Chick-Fil-A’s owners have the right to take any religious or political position they choose, and their customers have the right to react to it how they choose. rgbact thinks it’s a smart move business-wise. That may be true in some parts of the country, but it’s lousy from a humanitarian standpoint, and our country really doesn’t need yet another public geyser of hatred.
Nor does Christianity need yet another presentation of itself as a source of such geysers.
-
@max… you’re right, there’s no indication that Cathy was making any actions based on his stated beliefs. But when you said.. I don’t care one way or the other about business, or any person taking an honest public stand on
their political or religious beliefs… then it’s legitimate to question just what form “taking a stand” might take.If it’s limited to saying bigoted stuff in public then you’re right, that’s fine… and in the case of a business the market will likely have its say in the form of boycotts and bad publicity, and all is well.
The problem is when business owners say things like this in public, suffer no backlash at all, and then are emboldened to take it to the next level which involves not just words but discriminatory actions.
-
#19 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Since you will not engage on a multiplicity of other issues I have requested, I don’t have much hope for this one, but:
I have, you’re just (per usual ) not getting the answers you want or you choose to ignore them.
Why do you say that?
Cuz they offended the majority of their customer base and probably didn’t attract a bunch of liberals to country music. Chickfla probably didn’t offend their customers and liberals weren’t gonna eat there anyway and conservatives like me are now more likely to eat there. Ben + Jerry’s does something similiar. They essentially market themselves as ice cream for liberals. Granted, I’ll never eat their ice cream.
-
#20 written by Max 10 months ago
“
I have, you’re just (per usual ) not getting the answers you want or you choose to ignore them.”Not true. Most recently:
1) I note that rgbact refuses to specifically state for the record what HE THINKS he heard Z say.
2) And a simple “no, thank you” would resolve the matter of the offered wager.Two instances, two cases of refusal to directly respond. And those were my questions. Add one more from dc:
3) By the way, rgbact, I asked you on another thread, I think you missed it. Does it matter to you that Romney’s campaign rhetoric is primarily based on lies?Now, you could have responded “Yes”, or maybe “No, because I think lies are a part of campaigning”. Or even: “No, because I don’t believe his rhetoric contains lies”, but that would open you up to possible challenge with examples of dc’s assertion.
But you refuse to respond, for whatever reason.
Have Dan Cathy’s courage of his convictions.
-
#21 written by Max 10 months ago
fili,
Yes, it is fine to question. But it is NOT fine for some people to act as though there actually were discriminatory practices. THAT is unfair, unethical and blatantly dishonest.
And is at odds with liberal and progressive values. The politicians and groups that so act are doing a disservice to that side of the aisle.
-
rgbact,
this sounds like a savvy PR move by ChickFila
The Dixie Chicks.…should have kept there mouth shut.
I’m confused, and so I’m sure you can enlighten me. These two statements together suggest that you think Cathy expressing his beliefs was good and should be done, but the Dixie Chicks expressing their beliefs was bad and should not be done. What makes one instance of expressing one’s beliefs a good thing, and the other instance a bad thing?
-
#23 written by rgbact 10 months ago
1) I note that rgbact refuses to specifically state for the record what HE THINKS he heard Z say.
Please reread post #47 on previous thread.3) By the way, rgbact, I asked you on another thread, I think you missed
it. Does it matter to you that Romney’s campaign rhetoric is
primarily based on lies?
Please reread post #56 in previous thread and discussion we had a few weeks ago about documenting candidate “lies” in an article.
What makes one instance of expressing one’s beliefs a good thing, and the other instance a bad thing?
Please reread post #19 in this thread. Or in the immortal words of Ricky Roma in the masterpiece Glengarry Glen Ross,“you never open your mouth, ’til you know what the shot is” -
To the main series of questions raised in the article:
I don’t see anything legally wrong with Cathy giving his opinions on anything. I similarly don’t see anything wrong with boycott campaigns resulting from his words.
I do, however, see something wrong with a government agency denying business permits because the head of the company shared his opinions publicly. No, it doesn’t criminalize his words (which would be a clear violation of the First Amendment), but they do penalize him for his words, which, in my opinion, should be considered a violation of the First Amendment.
I can’t determine whether opening a franchise in Chicago would prove fruitful for the company. They are certainly plentiful in Max’s part of the country, and they do well out there. I’ve had them before, and found them decidedly lacking in character. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.
-
rgbact,
…this non-story disguised as a crises.
Who called it a crisis? It’s news because it’s going on now. It has political, social, legal, and economic implications, which makes it something right in Logarchism’s wheelhouse. And it’s about something other than who will be the next President, a topic on which we will have an awful lot of posts over the next few months, so it’s nice to hit something else to maintain a degree of variety. Those are all reasons for us to run the story. We have had almost zero “crisis” stories at Logarchism. Those sorts of stories require more dedication than people with day jobs can support, so we can’t really do them justice. The best we can do here is to run a metastory on a crisis, which gives more opportunity for rumination and less credit for rapid response.
-
rgbact,
Please reread post #47 on previous thread.
That post referred to CNN’s statement. But you have chosen not to elaborate. What did CNN say? What about it do you agree with? How about you state, in your own words, what you believe happened? Is that so hard?
Please reread post #19 in this thread.
Yeah, about that…a few minutes before, you stated
I think all these entities are using it for marketing, which I’m sick of. Shootings are political.….chicken sandwiches are political…movies are political. Enough already.
Yet in post 19, you then said that you actively encourage the use of politics for marketing. You said you are more likely now to eat at Chick-fil-A, and will never taste Ben & Jerry’s, both specifically because of their use of politics for marketing. Odd behavior for someone who’s sick of it, wouldn’t you say?
-
#27 written by Max 10 months ago
-
#28 written by Mainer 10 months ago
I may well be wrong and I have not had the time today to do any digging (paying clients get first dibs on my time) but it seems to me that there have been some actual actions by Chicfilet that were in the discrimination area. Some thing about an employee and another one about a customer or customers in some place. I’ll have some time later to look. If as has been said the boss has just voiced his opinion then it is just in the world of every one has one and sure it is 1st Amendment protected. Mumbles Menino speaking on most any thing is going to come out jumbled to some extent. Should a governmental entity take prohibition stances based on such statements? Probably not, but in other parts of the country some one wanting to build a mosque will run the risk of worse reaction from public figures so where does one trump the other?
Only have eaten at Chicfilet a couple of times and wasn’t impressed. Do like some of their ads though.
-
#29 written by mclever 10 months ago
@Michael
Considering the “Who Knows?” article pointing out the general apathy and lack of political interest of most Americans, I’d say that a prominent figure within a business organization making political statements is likely only going to have an impact at the margins. A few people (like rgbact) will now be more likely to look for Chick-fil-A restaurants (except on Sundays), while a few others will opt for KFC (except those for whom the Colonel’s secret recipe causes an upset stomach). Most people won’t care, except those who happen to be either involved in LGBT activism or particularly hate-motivated. No matter how much coverage this gets in the politisphere, I would wager that it’s only on the radar of a very small minority of the general population.
For example, I generally consider myself fairly well plugged in to political goings on, and I was unaware that Ben & Jerry’s was a liberal ice-cream. My mother would be so disappointed to give up Chunky Monkey. Do you think I should tell her??
-
#30 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Is that so hard?
Yes. Sorry, I’m a bit frustrated that nearly every liberal on here was likely aware of the accusation video but it appears none are aware of the retraction. It seems even after I noted it exists, most on here can’t be troubled to find the retraction video on Youtube, even though I know they have good Googling ability. So I just feel like proving the point that even liberals actively seek out news that fits their bias…and actively ignore news that doesn’t.
You said you are more likely now to eat at Chick-fil-A, and will never taste Ben & Jerry’s, both specifically because of their use of politics for marketing.I didn’t encourage it.…but I also didn’t say using politics as a marketing ploy wasn’t effective. Its hard to have a message not influence you, when you crack open the freezer and try to decide between Haagen Daz and B+J’s and you know B+J’s is a bunch of tree hugging socialists.
-
#31 written by shortchain 10 months ago
Ah, the joys of politicizing everything. Which, make no mistake, Mr. Cathy did. Please contrast the statement of Mr. Cathy with that of another company spokesman, who, when asked why the franchises were all closed on Sunday, said that it was not because the company is religious, but because the company was “family oriented”, and referenced the difficulty of having family obligations with working on Sunday.
I smell a bit of opportunistic re-interpretation in the air. And possibly a bit of lying by someone. Now, we lucky folks in the Twin Cities, we have the opportunity to either patronize Chick-a-fil or boycott them, as they’re expanding into our area. In fact, they already have franchise operations in our local universities, operating out of the student union at the University of Minnesota, for example. I’m willing to bet that some of the workers at these franchises would disagree most strenuously with Mr. Cathy.
As with Michael, I have no trouble with Mr. Cathy expressing his beliefs. Another arrogant religious twit expressing his belief that his is the only true interpretation of the only true religion. Meh. Boring. I hereby retroactively boycott Chick-a-fil (it was good enough for Mitt Romney, and, unlike Mitt, I never partook of anything associated with the concern in question). And I’m going to continue to boycott them until they beg my irreligious self for forgiveness for their sins, so there.
I’m a great deal more troubled by elected officials declaring that they’ll use their offices to step on a company on the basis of religious statements they don’t happen to like. I’m going to boycott Boston an Chicago also. Make that retroactive since the last time I went.
On another note:
There’s a local hardware store here, just a little place, not the closest to my domicile, but the walk there and back is pleasant (in good weather) although a bit long — takes about an hour, round trip. They have neither the best selection of tools nor the best selection of screws, nuts, and bolts — I can get better at the local Menards or Home Depot, or even at the local chain HW 10 minutes walk away. The owners generally have various right-wing talk radio shows on, and I prefer not to be exposed to the idiocy of Rush Limbaugh and the like — it may be irrational, but I find the intellect of people who listen to that stuff wanting, and I don’t want to have that happen to me. But I still patronize the store, because they are helpful (or at least try to be — they may have listened to Rush a bit too long, if you know what I mean, so they give me bad advice from time to time). And I’m going to continue going to that store and trying to keep them in business. One of my neighbors expressed an opinion that he wouldn’t go there because of their taste in radio, but I pointed out that the alternative was to have no hardware store where you could go and deal directly with the owners. He started going again.
And, if I actually desired the kind of thing Chick-a-fil supplied, I’d go there as well. If there is any evidence that they discriminate based on their religion, it’s a matter for legal authorities. Personally, my taste in fast food runs more to fat, salt, and fungus. Pizza, in other words.
-
mclever,
I’d say that a prominent figure within a business organization making political statements is likely only going to have an impact at the margins.
I suspect you’re right.
A few people (like rgbact) will now be more likely to look for Chick-fil-A restaurants
Apparently complaining bitterly all the way about how everything has become so politicized…
I was unaware that Ben & Jerry’s was a liberal ice-cream.
“Was” is the operative word. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield (yes, they’re not only liberal, they’re also Jewish!) sold out to Unilever in 2000, so it’s not like it’s a liberal company anymore.
-
#33 written by Max 10 months ago
“
Yes. Sorry, I’m a bit frustrated that nearly every liberal on here was likely aware of the accusation video but it appears none are aware of the retraction. It seems even after I noted it exists, most on here can’t be troubled to find the retraction video on Youtube, “Well, about that. Personally, I don’t give a fat rat’s ass about what CNN’s opinion is. No more than I do any news outlet. And YOU weren’t ASKED what CNN’s opinion was, but whether YOU would go on the record as to what YOU thought was said and what that was. Guess it’s in character, though, as you seem only to give pre-recorded responses of what you heard somewhere. Must be why you prefer Romney in the election, as THAT is his M.O.! Maybe it’s why you were pretty much MIA in the recent 2nd Amendment debate in last weeks Open Mike, something most conservatives would be loathe to miss out on.
I must congratulate you on being willing to even peek out on the limb in calling 301 EV for Romney. But even there, you’re flailing in the dark, with not even a penlight to light your way, while several of us have been using realistic data, even changing the numbers as state-wide polls change, for over a year.
-
#34 written by mclever 10 months ago
@shortchain
Your local hardware store story reminds me of my experience with a restaurant here that used to show Fox News all day on their two TVs in the main eating area. After my second or third visit, I had a nice chat with the manager about how impossible it was to eat in peace while being confronted by political hacks yelling at each other about nonsense, and how me and many of my friends were finding it difficult to frequent their establishment despite truly enjoying the food. I suggested that they try something less overtly polarizing, such as sports or something neutral, especially during the main eating hours. The manager listened. Fox News now only airs on one TV during the “off-hours” with local TV during the lunch and dinner hours, and the other TV is on ESPN full time. And me and my university friends bring all our friends for the best burgers in town! The owner/manager probably complains nightly about the drawbacks of being a conservative business owner in the most liberal town in Iowa, but his willingness to be accommodating has kept business thriving.
Visits to a hardware store aren’t as frequent or predictable as the need to grab a quick lunch between classes or meetings, but it might be worth a friendly chat with the owner to let him know that he might be losing customers do to his choice of audio. Perhaps some accommodation–innocuous music or Twins games–could be reached, and you and your other neighbors could shop with greater peace of mind.
Just a thought.
-
#35 written by mclever 10 months ago
@Michael
“Was” is the operative word. Ben Cohen and
Jerry Greenfield (yes, they’re not only liberal, they’re also
Jewish!) sold out to Unilever in 2000, so it’s not like it’s a liberal
company anymore.I guess my mother will be relieved to know she can keep enjoying her Chunky Monkey without any political qualms.
-
rgbact,
Is that so hard?
Yes.
Well, there’s your problem.
It seems even after I noted it exists, most on here can’t be troubled to find the retraction video on Youtube, even though I know they have good Googling ability.
I went looking for it. Didn’t find it. Perhaps you can help? Or, moreover, since you are agreeing with what CNN said, presumably you remember what CNN said. So you should be able to go from memory. And that’s why that shouldn’t be so hard. You don’t have to provide a link. You don’t have to provide a transcript. You merely have to write two words, whatever the two words are that you believe Zimmerman said. Instead, you wrote eighty-two words to explain why you won’t write two. Seems like an awful lot of work.
I didn’t encourage it
Sure you did, and do. You refuse to pay a dime to Unilever because of things that Ben and Jerry said a decade ago. You said you will make a bigger effort to pay money to Chick-fil-A because of things that Cathy said. Both of those actions encourage the continuation of the use of politics in marketing. You choose to let that drive your decision, and therefore you choose to encourage politics in marketing.
-
#37 written by shortchain 10 months ago
@mclever,
When you say: “Visits to a hardware store aren’t as frequent or predictable as the need to grab a quick lunch between classes or meetings” — you apparently don’t own a hundred-year-old house, and also are not male.Your advice is unnecessary. They hired a young lady as a clerk a while back, and, although I am not privy to their internal discussions, the radio has not been playing now for some months, now that I think about it.
-
#38 written by mclever 10 months ago
@shortchain
Considering that I frequent the hardware store at least 10X as frequently as any male member of my household (one of whom will only go if I accompany him to explain things), I would ask you to kindly retract your prejudicial projection. I’m the “fix-it” expert in my household.
You’re right, I don’t own a 100 yr old house, however. That probably is why my local Lowe’s visits are more likely to be monthly rather than daily.
And, I suspect you are also right that the addition of the young employee may also have altered their radio habits…
-
#39 written by shortchain 10 months ago
@mclever,
I decline to retract pointing out that you aren’t male.Also, the observation specified that visits to a HW store would be as “frequent and predictable”. I stand by the statistics of local hardware store visits broken down by gender, not that I think there’s anything wrong with either gender or hardware stores in that statistic.
As I’m sure rgbact and Michael (as well as everyone else) will agree, statistics don’t lie — they just don’t tell the whole truth all the time.
-
#40 written by Max 10 months ago
And BTW, I probably listened to the 4+ minute CNN clip with Gary Tuckman MORE often the rgbact. One of the reasons I dismiss the CNN “retraction” is that there is a noticeable difference in the pronunciation of the vowel sound in the second half of the clip from that of the first.
I’m not in any way an audio technician, nor do I use or know personally anyone who does audio analysis, but, as was noted by Tuckman “cleaning up the wind noise” should NOT change pronunciation of spoken sounds. In this case, from an “oo” to more of an “uh”. (But STILL not a long “o”!) Seems to me that removing a certain frequency or set of frequencies corresponding to “wind noise” would not do that, and if it did, would disqualify the result as valid.
Perhaps someone here has some experience and could enlighten us.
-
#42 written by rgbact 10 months ago
Seems like an awful lot of work.
Not really, since my real goal was to prove that liberals can’t be troubled to research things that don’t confirm their bias. Mission accomplished. What I think he said is fairly pointless, since I stated before that I still wouldn’t swear to it in court and it could
just as likely be a “shaba doo” for all I know.You refuse to pay a dime to Unilever because of things that Ben and Jerry said a decade ago.
Nah, their CEO was on CNBC a few weeks ago. Seem like largely the same corporate philosophy. But back to yesterday’s thread, we all make decisions daily based on imperfect information. Some people aren’t up on current politics, some people aren’t up on changes in our ice cream makers management. -
#43 written by shortchain 10 months ago
Max,
I’m not a specialist in audio — just a theoretician with some expertise in filtering. I have not listened to the clip, nor downloaded it, but the basic method for cleaning it up (or trying to) is to characterize the signal (in the frequency spectrum) and to characterize the noise. Then create a filter which reduces, as much as possible, the frequencies other than those in the signal you want to pull out.There are more sophisticated methods which involve using the statistics (autocorrelation) of speech to make a better estimate of what the original sound was like, but those all simply minimize the mean-square error. They do not give you an absolutely unquestionably correct signal.
-
#44 written by Max 10 months ago
Further, there is a SECOND audio “analysis” by CNN done by a Tom Owen that says the works was “punks”.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-expert-reports-george-zimmerman-said-%E2%80%98punks%E2%80%99-not-racial-slur/So now we have CNN “experts” saying that the consonant sound is a labial instead of a gutteral, unlike the first “analysis”: “puh” instead of “cuh”. And the two BOTH have changed the vowel sound from an “oo” to and “uh”, even though Tuckman says Z said “cold”, pronouncing it as “kuhld”. Then Savidge tells us “punks”.
Now you see why I dismiss CNN?
MW, the original Wolf Blitzer report on the “retraction”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOt1wEDy0SI -
#45 written by Max 10 months ago
“
since my real goal was to prove that liberals can’t be troubled to research things that don’t confirm their bias. Mission accomplished.“Bullshit! Pure bullshit. Gutless, cowardly bullshit to cover for your own lack. Shame on you! In three comments on the one issue, I’ve produce more ACTUAL research than you have in months!
Sad.
Yep. “Mission accomplished” is correct. But not the way you thought.
-
#46 written by mclever 10 months ago
@shortchain
My comment was in reference to visits to a hardware store being as frequent and predictable as eating lunch. If everyone in your neighborhood visits the hardware store roughly every day at roughly the same hour, then I’ll consider retracting my implication that it wouldn’t be as feasible for a hardware store owner to alter his audio selections during the one hour every day when it was virtually guaranteed to be busy with people who might find the audio objectionable. In the case of the restaurant, the owner needed only turn it away from Fox News during the noon and dinner hours, for example, but could continue watching whatever he wanted in mid-afternoon when the place was virtually empty.
And as for my gender and its relevance to my proclivity for tools and hardware, I’ll gladly match my farm-bred mechanical skills against just about any suburban boy and teach him a trick or two… You can say what you want about statistics, but I reserve my right to be offended at your suppositions, just as I was at the dolts in Texas who couldn’t believe that I knew the difference between an alternator and a distributor cap…
-
#47 written by rgbact 10 months ago
In three comments on the one issue, I’ve produce more ACTUAL research than you have in months!
Good grief, you’re pathetic. Spend a day harassing me while ignoring that I’ve answered you.…then congratulate yourself and berate me when you finally get up to speed. I’ve just enjoyed sitting back watching you look like a fool.
-
re; chickfila.… I think we’ve strayed from the central issue with talk of FOX news and Ben@Jerry’s. Those are entities expressing political viewpoints. The CEO of CFA expressed an opinion about a minority group based on his own religious views… and the question is whether he can legally be denied a business license for doing so.
Now, what if the CEO of Olive Garden expressed the view, based on his reading of the Bible, that black people really ARE 3/5ths of a person, and that interracial marriage should be forbidden as an abomination to God.
Are there statutes on the books that would allow a city to forbid him to do business in their jurisdiction if he loudly and firmly expressed that opinion in public?
-
#49 written by shortchain 10 months ago
-
#50 written by mclever 10 months ago
FWIW, since rgbact has refused to offer his own opinions, I thought the original recordings that were released sounded most like GZ said “f*ckin’ goons.” The word “coons” that many heard is not part of my lexicon, so I would never have considered that as a possibility without a lot of prompting. I don’t know what he said. Nor do I particularly care, because his actions–stalking the boy even after the 911 operator told him not to–were sufficiently troubling for me. Beyond that, I’ve tried to avoid coverage of the incident, because I think it was an isolated case that has now gotten far too much national attention for all the wrong reasons.
The concern should be on defining the limits of what a citizen “neighborhood watch” person can legally pursue, and defining better limits on what constitutes “self defense” or “justified violence” depending on the legalese in your state. Not just for GZ, but for future folks, so that it is clearly understood where the line is. I know where the line is here in Iowa, but I would be worried about where that line is drawn in certain other states that allow both Concealed Carry and Stand Your Ground type laws. It’s more a matter of how those provisions are enforced than it is with the laws themselves.
But this has very little to do with the CEO of a boring fast food joint bashing LGBTs.
-
#51 written by Max 10 months ago
rg,
If you actually think that today is the first time that I listened to the citation from #37 yesterday, then you are terribly, sadly, mistaken. None of us here are as incurious as you, so don’t even try to judge us by your habits. And, as further proof of your mistaken opinion of yourself, MW has also well countered you excuses for sloppiness. And I’ve always admitted those times when MW has slapped me down for my own, so I trust him to be an honest player. Were you so honest.
-
#52 written by mclever 10 months ago
@filistro
From my understanding of the laws regarding discrimination, the hypothetical CEO of a food chain could publicly declare that interracial marriage is religiously taboo and blacks are inferior according to some whacko interpretation of scripture, but as long as the company’s hiring decisions are clearly unbiased and customer treatment is equal regardless of race, then there is no law on the books that would allow barring the business.
However, anyone who’s spent time on a City Council knows that there are ways to manipulate zoning regulations to make it extremely difficult for an “unpopular” business to open a new establishment. Also, there may be other reasons for not wanting the business. For example, many communities successfully fight new Walmarts, but not because of the religious views of the executives, but because of their predatory hiring practices and the assumed harm to local businesses. That can muddy the whys and wherefores of the zoning dismissal.
The debate over a particular religious slant doesn’t come up very often, however. Regardless of one’s hypothetical religious or political beliefs, statements by senior corporate officials that openly disparage a protected minority are rare, because such a public statement would allow anyone in the potentially persecuted class to have a much easier time raising a lawsuit against the company if there are any discriminatory misdeeds… So most bigoted executives are savvy enough to keep their mouths shut.
-
#53 written by Max 10 months ago
-
#54 written by mclever 10 months ago
@shortchain
Apology accepted.
I also apologize if you feel I overreacted. In my experience, casual comments about activities that are perceived as unfeminine (or unmasculine, for that matter) can foster a subtle societal attitude of sexism, even if the person isn’t particularly sexist. It’s the sort of thing that discourages girls from math and physics, for example, because “everyone knows” that girls don’t do that.
I also confess to being a bit contrarian by nature, so anytime someone said that someone like me couldn’t do something, I generally felt obliged to prove them wrong… Just be glad you’re not the guy in college who, while ostensibly trying to flirt, made a simple baseball reference and then apologized while suggesting that a girl wouldn’t possibly know what it meant. His ears are probably still stinging…
-
#55 written by mclever 10 months ago
@Max
your “goons” and “coons” both begin with the guttural consonant sound, that the 2nd CNN “analysis” says you don’t hear.
Sure, whatever. Which is why I tried to be clear that what I thought I heard was based on the first recording that was released. I did not listen to any follow-up re-scrubbed recordings or the additional ponderings from alleged experts from CNN, except to note that analysts had backtracked from the original “coons” assumption. I do know that it would take a lot of convincing to get me to believe he said “punks” based on that first recording. But, again, I wasn’t convinced that he said “coons” in the first place. Since I haven’t been concerned with proving that GZ was racially motivated, it hasn’t been a priority to me.
Now, making sure that my mother’s joy in eating Ben & Jerry’s is destroyed by telling her that she’s supporting a socialist liberal commie company… priceless!
-
rgbact,
Not really, since my real goal was to prove that liberals can’t be troubled to research things that don’t confirm their bias. Mission accomplished.
It seems your definition of “Mission Accomplished” matches that of GWB. I did the research and came up empty. Since you were the one who originally had the source, it would have (naturally) taken you far less time to find the item you referenced. Instead, you had everyone else doing your research for you…again.
What I think he said is fairly pointless, since I stated before that I still wouldn’t swear to it in court and it could just as likely be a “shaba doo” for all I know.
No, it’s not pointless, since your claim is that he didn’t say what it sounded to me (and many others) as if he did say. So, if you think he said something different, then stating what you think it was gives everyone else a chance to listen again and see if they can hear what you claim to have heard. Nobody’s asking you to testify under oath, they’re asking you to supply an alternative, testable hypothesis to the one already presented.
-
filistro,
Are there statutes on the books that would allow a city to forbid him to do business in their jurisdiction if he loudly and firmly expressed that opinion in public?
I don’t think so. But, just as law enforcement agencies have a great deal of leeway in choosing which laws to enforce, on the grounds that there are too many violations to be able to cover them all, so, too, do (most) permitting departments have leeway on the prioritizations of permit applications. It’s the way that government agencies express their biases without violating the law.
And I don’t support that, either. I’m merely acknowledging that it happens in practice.
And now that I read further, I note that mclever expressed much the same sentiment, but better than I did.
-
#58 written by Mainer 10 months ago
-
#60 written by shortchain 10 months ago
@mclever,
I didn’t take offense.As for what was said, I think “goons” would be a rather peculiar malapropism for a southerner under the circumstances. Of course, we hear and interpret what we understand through preconceptions we bring to the listening.
I wonder what a southern jury would hear.
-
-
@mclever
It’s the sort of thing that discourages girls from math and physics,
for example, because “everyone knows” that girls don’t do that.I think I grew up in a weird place. In the grammar and high schools I went to, girls did better than boys in all academic subjects — English, history, math, science, you name it. The boys considered it unmasculine to be good at anything other than sports. Books were for girls, and there isn’t a single academic subject that doesn’t need books.
I didn’t find out until I got into college that girls weren’t supposed to be better at math and science than boys.
I grew up either in a weird place, or a weird time — or perhaps on another planet or a parallel reality. It is any wonder I write fantasy and science fiction?
-
#63 written by mclever 10 months ago
@DC
We know you grew up in a weird place!
Wherever you were, you were guaranteed to make it weird. And I was lucky enough to grow up with a dad who thought an appropriate toy for his 3-year-old daughter was a calculator…which I admit fascinated me for hours at a time. Maybe I wouldn’t have been thought of as so weird if I’d grown up where/when you did.
-
#64 written by Max 10 months ago
shortchain,
They’re selling them Taurus 732 semi’s with PINK FRAMES, down at the hardware store nowadays.http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/74631
I wouldn’t be pissing off them women no more!!!!!
-
We know you grew up in a weird place!
Wherever you were, you were guaranteed to make it weird. I appreciate that.
And I was lucky enough to grow up with a dad who thought an
appropriate toy for his 3-year-old daughter was a
calculator…which I admit fascinated me for hours at a time. Maybe I
wouldn’t have been thought of as so weird if I’d grown up where/when
you did.Your dad sounds great.
There were definite drawbacks to growing up where I did. People ask where I get my ideas for fiction. I give them Rod Serling’s explanation — I take real life and tone it down a little.
-
#66 written by Max 10 months ago
John Kelso:
I’ve only been here three days and it’s just a shooting, but give it time, okay. This place is fantastic. It’s like Gone With the Wind on Mescalin. I know you’re my agent. Listen to me, they walk imaginary pets here, Garland. On a fucking leash. Alright? And they’re all heavily armed and drunk. New York is boring!
Yep, dc.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
As I wrote this, I kept wondering if Chick-fil-istro was going to make a comment.