First, all-a-y’all should know I’m on sabbatical this month since I’m taking one of the graphical sections of the architectural registation exam (Site Planning) at the end of the month. I’ll have internet at home all hooked up and resume posting regularly Feb 1st.
Second, Alan Chambers just couldn’t help but sign his name to another piece of tripe that came across his desk. Check it out at PageOneQ and Pam’s House Blend.
(Hat tip: Bruce Garrett, Scott)
It all sounds very reasonable that they ask Ford to “stop supporting any group involved in the current cultural war.” It’s not like they’re demanding Ford support THEM, they’re being really fair-minded and magnanimous in suggesting that corporations just shouldn’t take sides on important controversial issues. Now, I’m sure they’ll forward the same letter to Domino’s Pizza, Chick fil-A, and all those other corporations that have taken sides in the cultural war by donating to the religious right. In fact — maybe I’ll hold my breath!
This is the line of the AFA letter that I find really absurd:
“We can not, and will not, sit by as Ford supports a social agenda aimed at the destruction of the family.”
What social agenda are we talking about here? Elimination of employment discrimination? Same sex marriage? How can these goals be construed as “destruction of the family?”
Whose family is getting destroyed? What form does that destruction take?
The whole letter sounded like it was written by a crazy person with limited command of the English language. Like so much of the rhetoric that comes out of the evangelical right wing, it just doesn’t make any sense on the most fundamental level.
The coalition that signed the ad is outraged that very ordinary gay couples occasionally appear in auto ads, and — given its members’ habit of apocalyptic warfare as a solution to any problem — the coalition seeks to ignite cultural warfare between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
In order to honor the latest religious-right petition to drop support for both sides of the imagined “war,” Ford would have to drop all ads and sponsorships featuring heterosexuals. The petition’s demand isn’t just unbalanced — it’s mentally deranged. It’s… anti-automotive.
In reality, the petition — which is signed by leaders of the evangelical movement as well as the religious right — demands that the auto industry sign on to a culture war against community values and against a pluralistic American society in which different religions and moral priorities must co-exist peacefully and share resources. The auto industry already spreads its sponsorships among diverse groups, including religious ones, and there is no need for that to change.
“We can not, and will not, sit by as Ford supports a social agenda aimed at the destruction of the family.”
I don’t know who these idiots are, but Ford, Inc., has been engaged in “destroying the family” (whatever that means) for almost a century. Henry Ford supported the Nazis. Ford corporation has a substantial subsidiary in Germany. (So does General Motors, btw, but it’s called Opel)
Hey, whatever. Make other arrangements, learn a foreign language, and prepare to leave. The most recent suit, in California, of all places, regarding “intelligent design” merely indicates that there aren’t many intelligent americans. I’m exaggerating, of course, but not by much.
The “culture war,” as I remember, was launched by Pat Buchanan at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston. As I remember it was to be a war against anything that was objectionable to some evangelical Christians.
Gays, feminists, pro-choice, multi-cultural advocates, etc. did not declare a culture war against “pro-family” forces. So, it’s a one-sided war.
From AFA’s website: “43 pro-family groups ask Ford to honor commitment, stop funding either side in cultural war
(Tupelo, MS) – American Family Association (AFA), along with 41 other pro-family groups, has asked Ford Motor Company Chairman Bill Ford to honor Ford’s commitment to stop supporting homosexual groups. The organizations also requested that Ford stop supporting any group involved in the current cultural war.”
Looking at the numbers in the headline and the first sentence of the press-release, I see AFA plus 41 other groups. Since when does 41 + 1 =43?
In addition to being culturally challenged, they are mathematically challenged as well.
Given that there’s a GLBT presence in the public square in this country at this time, in the media, in politics, in corporate life, and many other places, it appears that any “culture war” is being lost by the likes of AFA!
This letter isn’t written to Ford. It’s for the general public’s consumption. They’re going to go forward with the boycott, and they’re trying to position themselves as the reasonable party in this dispute, by spinning it as Ford’s taking sides.
It’s disingenuous, but honesty isn’t exactly a defining attribute of the religious right. The AFA is saying there that Ford can simply choose to opt out of the cultural war…by essentially taking their side in it. Neutrality would be if Ford simply advertised to all groups of customers on an equal basis. But the AFA is trying to spin their demand that Ford snub the gay community Specifically, as a demand for neutrality. This letter is just a little grist for the PR mill.
At minimum, they’re giving their grassroots supporters a way to punish Ford while ducking responsibility for it. All we wanted was for Ford to not take sides… If the boycott costs any red state jobs, they’ll be needing a way to foist the blame for that elsewhere. Beyond that they’re simply pulling another fast one they hope will gain back some public support they lost in the last round. It’s exactly like that “special rights” rhetoric, where it’s made to seem as if homosexuals are asking for some unfair advantage over everyone else, by seeking equality. Equal rights become special rights. Neutrality becomes taking sides. It’s tactical syntax, and it isn’t directed at Ford.
I noticed the names of many people who want to get more press, like Phil Buress in Ohio, and Ken Hutcherson (who tried to bully Microsoft about the gay rights bill) in Washington. They also include Kris Mineau, who is leading the fight to ban gay marriage (and maybe civil unions, I think the amendment bans civil unions) in Massachusetts. I wonder what MA residents would think about Mineau supporting such extremism?
The “culture war,” as I remember, was launched by Pat Buchanan at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston.
Oh, no, it was much earlier than that. That may have been the first time that the term was used on national television, but it was evident in the 1970s when Phyllis Schafly went on her jihad against an equal rights for gay people ordinance in Dade County, Florida. The irony is that her son, who worked for her Eagle Forum then, and is still working for her, is gay. How many ways can someone say “momma’s boy”?
Buchanon picked up on this in some columns in the early 1980s. He made his speach at the 1992 Republican convention. And his speach, during prime time, was one reason why GHWBush lost.
From the “letter”
“4. Ford would cease all advertising in homosexual websites and media outlets…
We strongly suggest that Ford remove itself from involvement in the cultural war”
These two sentences are mutually exclusive.
“all-a-y’all”
I had a horrible time trying to figure this out, and all of my relatives are from the South. It’s “all o’ y’all” meaning “all of you all (you people)”.
When I try to go ethnic (Southerner) I use “y’all” quite often. No, it isn’t derogatory.
“It’s “all o’ y’all”…”
I’m curious…
Is there anything, ANYTHING, that raj does not feel compelled to correct?
Timothy Kincaid at January 11, 2006 05:58 PM
Not much. I don’t do much with religion mythology, but that’s about it.
NB: my tag is on my posts, if you don’t want to read them there is a simple option: don’t.
Yes, raj, it’s been going on much longer than 1992, but Buchanan was the first one to actually use the term. As I stated it’s a one-sided war, and the religious right is losing it. Pretty pathetic to be losing a one-sided war that they launched.
I’m outraged. I’m boycotting Ford.I am sick and tired of them supporting the Breast Cancer lifestyle. $84 million — can you believe it. Aren’t they aware that this is just God’s will? We’re all broken and we’re all sinners, but God knows what He’s doing even if we cannot understand His Plan. And since He chose to bring suffering to the sinners who are we to question.Not only that, they have a honky big DYKE frount and centre of their campaign. Need I say anymore?Well, yes. I should.Once again we get a clear idea of Alan Chambers and his views. Glib PR efforts at XGW do nothing to negate this sort of behaviour. Alan, you’re a fraud and assume us to be fools.–(I’m not even bothering with the secondary stream running through here. Someone should, perhaps, volunteer some time to an after-school remedial English programme and use their skills where most needed.)Raj — I really do find it offensive to visit the sins of the founder on the people who work for Ford today (or GM, or whoever). Do you have any evidence that the current workforce, or the organisation, is dedicated to fascist/Nazi causes?If you wished to take that approach there is barely a pre-1941 American corporation that didn’t have commercial ties to Nazi Germany. Let alone any German ones. And then there’s the Japanese ones.If you really like such scandals — find out about Standard Oil (New Jersey) and the development of high octane av-gas for the U.S. military in the few years prior to 1941. Today they are called Exxon. And when done… do some sniffing around the business activities of the grandfather of your current President.
Raj said:
“my tag is on my posts, if you don’t want to read them there is a simple option: don’t.”
Yes Raj, but some things are like the little present the dog leaves during one’s morning walk. One knows where it came from and would like very much to avoid it, yet it lingers in a most repugnant way nonetheless.
David
Oh, doh.Melissa is, of course, a honking big dyke. Not a honky one.(though I guess, reflecting for a moment, that she is that as well…)
Okay, the only way that Ford is participating in the destruction of families, is if a faulty vehicle wiped them out in an accident.
Money talks.
Gay folks spend it too.
A customer is a customer.
These family advocate groups sound really stupid when they complain about OTHER customers that pay for the same goods at the same rates that they do.
What they really should be demanding is that American car companies design really good small cars the way Japanese and German car companies do.
But being so obssessed with gay folks, common sense goes over their heads.
If you wished to take that approach there is barely a pre-1941 American corporation that didn’t have commercial ties to Nazi Germany. Let alone any German ones. And then there’s the Japanese ones.
I’ll give up my Krupps coffeemaker when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Yes, it’s silly to hold Ford responsible for Wacko-Henry’s antisemitism. And foolish.
If people (or companies) can’t turn over a new leaf, why on earth would they bother trying? How may things in your past can you think of that you’d rather put behind you? Only the worst, bitterest sort of person would hold something against someone forever.
Good As You successfully extracts some humor from the anti-Ford petition.
Jim Burroway at January 11, 2006 08:19 PM
I’ll give up my Krupps coffeemaker when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
I believe that the trademark is “Krups” (not the double “p”) version. Krupp Werks was the Nazi German armaments company.
I honestly don’t know where “Krups” came from. I’ve done a little research but can’t find much history. I believe that the Krups brand is a trademark that–in the US–is either licensed to or owned by the Gillette company, soon to be acquired by Proctor&Gamble. I suspect, but cannot prove, that most of the products that are sold under the Krups label are actually manufactured in China.
I don’t like coffee, so I’m not going to run out and check their packaging to verify this any time soon. (I actually did initiate a google search, but that turned up nothing of use.) But you should probably rest easy with the Krups issue.
grantdale at January 11, 2006 06:47 PM
Raj — I really do find it offensive to visit the sins of the founder on the people who work for Ford today (or GM, or whoever). Do you have any evidence that the current workforce, or the organisation, is dedicated to fascist/Nazi causes?
I really don’t care what you find offensive. We will not buy Ford products today, not because of their founder, because they are inferior. We owned two Mercury (a Ford label) Sables, starting in about 1990. On one of them, the crankshaft broke. The crankshaft broke. I will presume that you know what a crankshaft is–something that is supposed to be the sturdiest part of the engine.
I’ll stick with my Toyota Camry. It’s a Japanese label, but I believe that it was assembled somewhere in Kentucky. They’re not overly expensive and apparently their crankshafts don’t break.
BTW, I have “sniffed” around the business activities of the current American president. It’s amazing what politically connected business people like Prescott can get themselves involved in.
grantdale at January 11, 2006 06:47 PM
BTW, I guess you misunderstood my point. My point was that the Nazi party was supported, not only internally (by the Junker and German industrialists) but also by American industrialists such as Henry Ford and TJWatson (of IBM fame), some minor nobility in the UK, and some industrialists in France.
I acknowledge that the sins of the father should not be visited on the son, but the sins of the father should be acknowledged. I would presume that you understand the analogy.
Phil at January 11, 2006 06:37 PM
Yes, raj, it’s been going on much longer than 1992, but Buchanan was the first one to actually use the term. As I stated it’s a one-sided war, and the religious right is losing it. Pretty pathetic to be losing a one-sided war that they launched.
Actually, it is far from clear that the political Religious Right is losing it–the “Culture War”–in the US. How many states have voters passed constitutional amendments to ban state recognition of any form of same sex relationships in recent years? And, other than Vermont and Connecticut, how many states have legislators passed legislation acknowledging them–although they won’t go so far as to call it “marriage.”
Raj said:
I really don’t care what you find offensive.
Well then kindly start caring because civility and respect for one’s fellow posters is a bare necessity here and you know it.
We will not buy Ford products today, not because of their founder, because they are inferior.
I’ll stick with my Toyota Camry. It’s a Japanese label, but I believe that it was assembled somewhere in Kentucky. They’re not overly expensive and apparently their crankshafts don’t break.
Fascinating but what does it have to do with Alan Chambers signing a petition?
BTW, I have “sniffed” around the business activities of the current American president. It’s amazing what politically connected business people like Prescott can get themselves involved in.
This is at least the second time in as many days that you have tried to wedge this nonsense in. While I admit the visual of you “sniffing around the President’s business” is perversely humorous to me, unless you have something more than innuendo, please keep the tabloidesque comments to yourself. This is exactly the sort of tactic that is used by so many ex-gay organizations to distort the truth – it certainly has no business here.
David
Thanks, Mike, Phil, Bruce, etc… Your comments helped me stop to realize just how one-sided the “culture war” really is. Imagine for a second if Ford and other automakers were to take the “other side” in the “culture war” between “gays and families.” What would that look like? Would they maybe advertise in family-oriented publications? Perhaps they’d build minivans and SUVs outfitted for families? Perish the thought — they may even have commercials TAILORED to families, showing Mom, Dad, and a couple of kids in a car, or demonstrating how much of the kids’ soccer gear fits in the trunk. Oh my!
They’ve been doing that for YEARS. It’s not like they’ve been picketed by militant gays demanding that they stop “taking sides in the culture war.” That would be as ridiculous as what AFA et al. are doing now.
At least it’s comforting to note that if Ford ever asked to advertise any of the right-wing propoganda rags published by the signatories to this letter, they’d set the company straight! They wouldn’t want to accept any of Ford’s advertising money because it would clearly be evidence that the company was “taking sides in the culture war.”
raj at January 12, 2006 02:16 AM
“And, other than Vermont and Connecticut, how many states have legislators passed legislation acknowledging them–although they won’t go so far as to call it “marriage.””
California has a domestic partner registry that has very similar rights, benefits, and obligations as marriage. The legislature passed a gay marriage bill – it was subsequently vetoed by the governor because he interpreted that it was contrary to a previously passed proposition – it’s currently in the court system.
New Jersey also has a domestic partner registry that is less reaching but just this week it was strengthened. This obviously was passed by legislation.
The legislators in Massachusetts refused to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to overturn same-sex marriage.
There may be more but these leap to mind.
This may not exactly be on point of this thread in that it does not directly address Alan Chambers’ signature on a letter to Ford. But it does go to the growing desperation that is seen in the anti-gay efforts.
They are seeing the open change in public position on society’s acceptance of gay couples and are reacting.
If the AFA had their way, Ford/Lincoln/Mercury would be building the “Mark 3:21” instead of the Mark LT.
I was thinking last night about the demands of the anti-gay groups and something occurred to me.
I could understand an objection to Ford sponsoring a group or event that the anti-gays consider to be political in nature. I can see how they might reasonably object to Ford’s contributions to a group that has the stated goals of changing society in ways to which they object.
But the demands go further. In essence, they require that Ford not identify gay people as a customer group. By demanding that Ford not advertise in gay publications, and even more oddly that – if they do – there be no target ads, the anti-gays are insisting that Ford refuse to see this group of people as having commonality, of being an identifiable group.
The culture war position taken by these people is not that gay folks should not be allowed to marry, or that gay folks should not have the same rights as straight folks. It is that gay folks don’t exist.
This is the linchpin of the anti-gay movement. And they have rightly identified it as such.
The biggest fear of those who seek to stigmatize, demonize, or sublimate gay people is that society realize that they exist as such. They fear that average Joes will come to realize that a gay person is not a straight person that is confused, rebellious, sinful, or some other way flawed.
Should gay people be seen to be persons with a unique, intrinsic, immutable orientation, good people will logically stop treating them as “bad”. If a person’s sexual orientation is inevitable to them, good people will not seek to punish them for that orientation.
Even a most casual review of the focus and emphasis of anti-gay effort, and especially the use of ex-gay ministries in their propaganda, shows that the focus has moved from “he’s evil and a predator” to “he’s confused and can be changed”. The biggest and most emphatic claim of the anti-gay groups – usually proclaimed with bulging eyes and angry emphasis – is “No one is born gay!!”
Even the language of Exodus and others seeks to portray “gay” as simply a political label or social construct rather than a description of people that share the common aspect of being sexually and emotionally attracted to the same sex. They “leave the lifestyle” or “reject that label” without ever acknowledging that a person actually IS gay, or that a gay person exists.
This is a bizarre and inconsistent way of thinking. To an ex-gay minister, a person can be Christian, or American, or Republican, or tall, short, black, white, or left-handed, he just can’t be gay – he can only have a “gay lifestyle”.
I think that this way of thinking is losing on the battlefield of ideas. And this, I think, engenders the desperation.
SPEAK!
I was trying to work it out in my mind, and you got there for me.
Also being the STRAIGHT target of anti gay rhetoric is truly, very tiresome.
I have my moments of WTF?!
What IS it with these people? What are they trying to MAKE me think and if I reject what they say because as you point out Tim, most of the time they aren’t making rational sense.
For example, being upset at perceived or actual lack of honesty or deception regarding one’s orientation.
Since the anti gay DON’T WANT gay people to be honest or self determined.
And it’s ONLY the job of gay people to determine who and what they are…no one else.
Why do the anti gay get mad when they aren’t doing a job right, that isn’t theirs to do in the first place because they DON’T know what the hell they are doing?
Or let me put it this way, homosexuality MUST be God given…because look at how hard it is for mortal human beings to take it away.
Something this enduring, powerful and universal that’s been bestowed on compassionate and talented human beings, is something not to be tampered with at all.
Gay dollars and talent.
As I have said before, you can’t vilify a group you also benefit from-it’s a moral impossibility.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at January 12, 2006 02:07 PM
Timothy, I’ve gotten so I can almost always pick out Regan’s writing long before I see her name on it. I was convinced I was reading something she had written until near the end when I saw your name on it
Randi Schimnosky at January 13, 2006 09:02 PM
Thank you. I’ll take that as a compliment.
;0P