"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
"In response to this, many conservatives have attacked the Henson Company. Someone I personally know claimed that the Henson Company is being hypocritical, this person’s argument being that it is hypocritical for one to claim to be tolerant while at the same time “shunning” someone else simply because they disagree with that person’s beliefs. "
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
Henson, of course, has full rights to boycot doing business with Chick-fil-A for *ANY* reason, including the one given.
And those who dislike Henson's policy have the right to boycot Henson.
Unfortunate that rather than accept that this is how it is supposed to work in a free market, conservatives merely opt to whine about Henson's reasons.
Chick-fil-A prefers not accepting gay people. Henson prefers not accepting people who dont accept gay people. So everyone should stop complaining about the other's reasons and vote with their wallet. Until then everyone is hypocritical.
As I see it, this whole "Chick-fil-A "controversy" falls under what Daily Bell has been calling "dominant social theme" -- but in this case I suspect the result is totally opposite of its intended purpose. Chick-fil-A will enjoy a marvelous expansion of business thanks to media coverage of all this falderal. I, for one, will bike out at least once for lunch; and if I like eating there (even tho it's hardly kosher) I'll patronize them often if they build closer to where I live.
I would use the term "ultra covert dominant social theme" when it comes to the whole sexual "orientation" phenomenon -- the idea that a homosexual is no more responsible for his or her sexual "orientation" than I am for my skin color or my genetics (or my sex for that matter).
So the white man must enact a bunch of his famous "laws" to make certain everyone within what he claims to be his jurisdiction accepts that ridiculous equality premise without question.
As an educator I've watched The-Theory-Of-Evolution (and its equally bizarre "Creationism" counter thesis) used to legitimize agents claiming to be "state" supplant the family as the cogent governing unit. The sexual "orientation" meme has fit nicely (albeit clumsily for anybody with at least 1/3 of a brain) into that agenda.
The idea: Your children are now OUR children. You can go back hundreds of years in history to see the development of government ("public" ha ha) schools designed to make that condition unassailable in the minds of the unwashed masses.
"Free" education. Yip-eee!
But the "theory" leaves out obvious questions: sexuality being a minor one. Human kind is to be portrayed as "the highest form of the animal kingdom". But the human being does not fit into the animal kingdom.
The human newborn is unique among living beings in that it is entirely dependent upon adult supervision and care for a number of years. Therefore, human parentage is the only viable governing system.
The human being is not born with what "science" has come to identify as "instinct". There are many attempts to attribute certain human reflexes to "instinct", but in the end only animals are shown to have instinct. All human knowledge has to come from learning -- some from education by others, some from empirical experience.
Human sexuality also flies in the face of the "theory of evolution". I could go into detail. But other than the male being fitted with a penis and the female with a uterus, there is no direct comparison. And don't go to "public" educators for answers beyond HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy prevention -- they'll show you videos of doggies and horsies "doin' it", and claim to have given you a good sex education when all they've accomplished is the same as all other political action: obfuscation.
But it's all for a good cause: to teach you to love your country and to understand that this is a nation of laws and not men. Email me and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
Sam
Yet, Sam, despite the apparent lack of human instinct, I'm often told that humans have an amorphous, yet universal, "nature". This "nature" is rhetorically used to explain wars, crime, government-and its supposed "need", economic forces, legal structure, alcoholism, flatulence, and possibly body odor; yet it is really nothing more than a conceptual placeholder for incomprehensible behavior. It is also a way of defraying blame for ugly acts-the species is at fault for war and violence, rather than individual actors.
Perhaps, one day the mysticism will no longer be needed or wanted, rather like Zeus is no longer needed to explain lightening?
mhstahl:
"...a conceptual placeholder for incomprehensible behavior..."
You did, in 5 or 6 words, what it took my friend Delmar England 24 pages of single-space small type to do. And I think your phrase sez it all!
Sam
Thanks, Sam. It took two seconds to write; three and a half decades to compose. I hope it is never complete!
Thank you so much for the link-I'd not read that before, fascinating, and very much the same line of thought.
I am going to catch flack for this...but...I have no disparity towards a persons sexual preference. I have known in my past a number of homosexuals, male and female. They have been decent, respectful, law abiding individuals and not a party to the freak gays who passionately want to force their sexuallity upon others who have absolutely no interest or desire to affiliate. It is the freak homosexual that I disapprove of; those whom prance down the street half naked, suck faced and etc. just to spite the anglo saxon white middle class value structure. They do more harm to the law abiding, decent and respectful gay individual or individuals. I know a number of gay persons whom are embarassed over the actions of the current status of what is happening with Chic-fil-a. This is rather anecdotal because I have to presume there are some gays who find this sort of behavior amusing and may even support it which would countermand my anecdotal experiances with gay people. I have also had a few bad experiances with homosexuals which, in part, colors my perspective of gay persons but fundamentally I do not disparage the law abiding, decent, and respectful gay person.
It is my understanding that Chic-fil-a will serve gay persons, and I understand Chic-fil-a has no problem in hiring a gay person. Its just that the freak gays are upset that chic-fil-a supports financially one man one woman marrage. GLAD has an agenda also. So. What's wrong with that? Those of us here have an agenda!? Everyone has an agenda of some kind--it's the news media that wants to propogate this level of hatred and I guess they are doing a good job of it.
I will stand with Chic-fil-a, and if a store were in my area I would go to spite the Freak radical gay population. Screw the Mayor of Chicago and Boston who are banning chic-fil-a within their city limits. Is this right? For me, no, and I will personally boycott Chicigo and Boston as a protest against Big Brothers infringment upon anyones freedom.
That's it.