As I wrote earlier today, Dougie: “You could have just shut up, [sat] back, and left us alone, but noooooooo, you had to stick your nose (and your money) into an issue that never had any effect on you, your family, or your hotels. Now you’re involved, Dougie, and you (and your employees, and your vendors, and everybody else who depends on you to make a living) have no one to blame but yourself.”
Officials at the Manchester Financial Group have argued for weeks that a boycott by gay rights and union groups hasn’t hurt business at its two San Diego hotels, the Manchester Grand Hyatt and The Grand Del Mar.
But a top company official, in an e-mail obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune, painted a different picture, saying the boycott could have dire consequences for hotel owner Doug Manchester that could cost him millions of dollars in lost business.
In a July 29 e-mail to Manchester, Paul Wilkins, chief financial officer for the group, said he believed “this boycott effort will cost you millions of dollars of lost revenue and possibly tens of millions of dollars in lost value for both the Manchester Grand Hyatt and The Grand Del Mar.”
Wilkins, who did not return several phone calls seeking comment, also warned about the dangers of alienating the gay community, which he called a “large and very affluent market segment.”
Further, he said The Grand Del Mar “is still struggling financially” 10 months after opening and the “absolute last thing The Grand needs right now is a boycott.” …
Since the boycott began, several groups, including the county retirement board and the Association of American Law Schools, canceled events at the Manchester Hyatt, one of the largest hotels on the West Coast. …
A prominent developer, Manchester has been a generous political contributor. State records show that in 2006 he gave about $147,000 to a variety of largely Republican causes. …
In a July interview, Manchester said he does not intend to give any more money to Proposition 8.
Yesterday, Manchester said he was rejecting Wilkins’ recommendations in the e-mail that Manchester try to defuse the controversy by asking for his $125,000 donation to be returned or by making an offsetting donation to the campaign against Proposition 8. …
Wilkins said that the controversy could prompt action from the Hyatt Corp., which manages the Manchester Grand Hyatt. He noted that there have been calls to extend the boycott to all Hyatt hotels and for the company to end its contract with Manchester. …
The campaign against Manchester’s business represents a rare use of boycotts in California’s expensive ballot battles.
Religious conservatives have used boycotts during the past decade against corporate giants that they believe are becoming too cozy with the gay and lesbian community, including Ford, Disney and McDonald’s.*
Some analysts say gays and lesbians are a critical market for high-end hotels. …
One San Diego hotel company, the Evans Hotels, which operates The Lodge at Torrey Pines … has been donating a percentage of its sales from same-sex weddings to help defeat Proposition 8, said Bill Evans, director of operations for Evans Hotels. …
More at the link, and it’s all quite encouraging. (The comments on this article, by the way, have been freeped by a bunch of pot-stirrers yammering on about a “cure” for homosexuality. What they need is a cure for compulsive assholism.)
Mind you, we’re not above feeling some good, old-fashioned Schadenfreude (in lieu of Manchester becoming an enlightened ally, which is never going to happen) — but, all emotion aside, Manchester is not going to donate any more money to Proposition 8. That, my friends, is a victory in itself — although no reason to take the pressure off Manchester. He will continue contributing to anti-gay causes (just look at his hard-right Republican donations, here, and here), but at least we’ve kept him from any further funding of the most immediate threat to our lives.
Whether he says his decision to donate nothing further to Prop 8 is or isn’t because of the boycott doesn’t matter. Doug Manchester is right in the middle of our radar screen, and he knows it; withholding money Manchester will use against us is the only way to stop his assault on our our families.
And who knows? Maybe one day he’ll come around and see just how un-Christlike he’s being.
Or: Just how A) stupid are creationists, and B) behind-the-times are freepers? Answer: Very, and very.
There’s not a thing we can say about this delusion from the “young earth” idiots that Ed Brayton hasn’t said already (he links to the freeper thread mentioned, which we won’t do):
You have to see this thread at Free Republic about a school in Malta called the Accelerated Christian Academy that teaches young earth creationism. Accelerated, you say? Well of course. Just look at what their director says is taught:
But the curriculum of the Accelerated Christian Academy in Mosta is not exactly free of such fanciful reinventions of history. Fenech reiterates the basic Evangelist tenet that the entire universe was created in 4004 BC… and this time, he also supplies “proof”. “When man landed on the moon (in 1969), they expected the landing module to sink in a deep layer of dust. But the layer was only a few inches deep. This proves that the universe is still young!”
. . .
But my favorite part of the article is when Fenech, the head of this “accelerated” school, says that the dinosaurs were alive with human beings and helped the Egyptians build the pyramids. No, seriously:
This is the word of Vince Fenech, Evangelist pastor and director of a fully licensed, State-approved Creationist institution which admits children aged between four and 18. “Of course the ‘dinoceros’ existed (as Fenech pronounces the word). It is mentioned in the Book of Job. They were used to help build the pyramids,” he says, adding that this latter observation is only “his personal belief”, and that it does not form part of the school’s curriculum.
. . .
Please don’t forget to read the comments. I love the argument about how ancient drawings that look like dinosaurs proved they must have lived with dinosaurs. Yet we don’t live with dinosaurs today and we draw pictures of them all the time. Amusing.
Well, the freepers always have been a day late and a dollar short. They probably won’t notice The Rapture has happened until after one of their co-horts posts a year-old headline about it.
Section 28.002(a) of the Education Code defines the required foundation and enrichment curriculum for school districts and charter schools but does not identify courses that school districts must offer. Education Code subsection 28.002(a)(2)(H) provides that the enrichment curriculum will include “religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature,” but the Legislature did not mandate that this curriculum instruction be provided in independent courses. The State Board of Education, however, may provide for enrichment curriculum offerings in school districts by rule.
In furtherance of the enrichment curriculum requirement concerning “religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature,” section 28.011 of the Education Code authorizes but does not require school districts and charter schools to offer elective courses on the Hebrew Scriptures and its impact or on the New Testament and its impact. Such discretion does not, however, mean that school districts or charter schools are not required to comply with the curriculum requirements in subsection 28.002(a)(2).
If a school district or charter school chooses to offer a course authorized by section 28.011 and fewer than fifteen students at a campus register to enroll in the course, the district or charter school is not required to provide the course at that campus for that semester, but that does not mean that the school is not required to comply with the curriculum requirements in subsection 28.002(a)(2).
Call me cold — I don’t care — but nothing about the Democratic National Convention has left me more un-moved than the “real people” speeches.
A Southerner whose husband got sick, and they lost everything… A man from Indiana who worked in a plant since 1973 until it closed in 2004…
Lifelong Republicans, and now they’re voting for Barack Obama.
Heartwarming, huh? They’ve finally seen the light, right?
Nuh-uh.
These “lifelong Republicans” are voting Democratic only because the consequences of voting Republican finally hit them where it hurts: in the wallet.
Ya think they’d go Dem if they still had their jobs and their health insurance?
Ya think they ever gave a damn about anybody else when they were voting into power the very people who finally destroyed their lives — after destroying ours?
Sorry, Pamela Cash-Roper from North Carolina and Whateveryournameis from Indiana, but you get no gold stars here — and no sympathy for your tortured states of existence now.
If you would have recognized what you were doing to the rest of our nation when you kept voting for such evil emperors as Reagan and Bush before you lost everything, we’d be more than willing to extend you every ounce of generous-to-a-fault compassion we liberals are so well known for.
But you didn’t. In fact, I bet you enjoyed sticking it to anybody who wasn’t like you: straight, white, Christian, and Republican.
I bet you felt your hearts race with excitement and swell with pride as our tanks rolled into Baghdad in 2003.
I bet you bought into all the BushCo lies about weapons of mass destruction, and how Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
I bet you didn’t care how many brown babies we blew to bits, because “we’re fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.”
I bet you commiserated with one another in your churches about stopping The Homosexual Agenda — and probably still do.
I bet you cheered the passage of draconian anti-gay rights measures in your own states.
I bet you felt awfully smug when one of those formerly well-off Californians (like me) was inches from the poorhouse when the bottom fell out of Silicon Valley.
I bet you spat with disdain at the less fortunate, who were just too damned lazy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
I bet a lot of things.
Am I making too many assumptions about your lives, Pam and Whateveryournameis? No, I’m not. I know all I need to know: You are Republicans who didn’t wake up until you became the victims of your own reckless, selfish interests.
You didn’t care how much you hurt the rest of us.
Now you care only because you hurt.
You spend the next forty or fifty years of your lives making up for the damage you helped wreak on our nation and on the world, and maybe I can see my way clear to extending a little sympathy to you.
Right now, all I’m experiencing is a grim Schadenfreude.
July Field Poll: 51% (good guys) oppose Prop 8; 42% (bad guys) support
August PPIC Survey: 54% oppose; 40% support
Ban on Gay Marriage Trails Voters Split on Teen Abortion Constraints, Redistricting
Economic Angst, a Partisan Divide, Softening Support for Obama Mark Start of Election Season
SAN FRANCISCO — August 27 — A majority of California’s likely voters oppose Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that would eliminate gay marriage, according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. Likely voters are divided on two other closely watched measures — one that would require a parent to be notified before a teenager has an abortion and one that would take the power to draw legislative district lines away from the legislature.
As the fall campaign season begins, Californians are united in their pessimism about the direction of the state and nation and in their worries about the economy. But they are split sharply on key issues ranging from the state budget to health care and the war in Iraq. Their views on the three state ballot issues — Propositions 4, 8, and 11 — reveal the fault lines among voters.
Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage, is favored by 40 percent and opposed by 54 percent of the state’s likely voters. Democratic (66%) and independent likely voters (59%) are against it, and Republican likely voters are in favor (60%). The last time voters decided this issue — in 2000 — they approved a ban on same-sex marriages by a wide margin (61% yes, 39% no). After the state Supreme Court ruled that ban unconstitutional, supporters of Proposition 8 qualified the initiative for the 2008 ballot.
Opposition to Proposition 8 this year is not an indication of a dramatic shift in voters’ opinions. Asked whether they favor letting gay and lesbian couples marry, likely voters are evenly split (47% in favor, 47% opposed) and have been since August 2005. Also playing a role in the November outcome is how strongly voters feel about the issue. A majority of likely voters (57%) in favor of Proposition 8 say it is a very important issue to them, while less than half (44%) of those opposed to the measure consider it a very important issue.
“It’s early in the campaign season, and in the end, the vote on this measure, like the other two, could be hard to predict,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “Overall views on gay marriage have not budged in a year. Californians who plan to vote for Proposition 8 appear to hold that view with greater intensity than the opposition — which means they are very motivated to vote.”
PROPOSITION 4 REVEALS PARTISAN SPLIT, PROPOSITION 11 LAGS AMONG ALL GROUPS
Likely voters are divided over Proposition 4, which would amend the state Constitution to require that a parent be notified at least 48 hours before a minor has an abortion: 47 percent are in favor and 44 percent are opposed. Most Republicans (62%) favor the initiative, most Democrats (56%) are opposed, and independents are divided (48% yes, 44% no). Californians defeated a similar measure in 2005 (47% yes, 53% no) and in 2006 (46% yes, 54% no). These views on Proposition 4’s parental notification requirement do not signal a shift in opinion on abortion: Seven in 10 likely voters (71%) think the government should not interfere with a women’s access to abortion, similar to their response in February 2004 (74%).
Proposition 11, which would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts, has split California’s likely voters as well (39% yes, 36% no, 25% undecided). Republicans (47%) are somewhat more likely than independents (39%) and far more likely than Democrats (31%) to support the measure, which is championed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In 2005, a measure that would have turned redistricting over to a panel of retired judges was trounced (40% yes, 60% no).
Likely voters’ apparent lack of support for Proposition 11 does not indicate satisfaction with the current system: Seven in 10 say the redistricting process needs major (42%) or minor (27%) changes, and more than half (56%) say state legislators would more effectively represent their districts if an independent commission of citizens redrew district lines.
VOTERS PREDICT MORE CLOUDS OVER CALIFORNIA
Worried about the state’s future and distrustful of their leaders in Sacramento, Californians are in a grim mood. A record-high percentage of likely voters (39%) name jobs and the economy as the most important issue facing the state. Other concerns expressed by residents include the state budget situation (14%), education (7%), immigration (7%), and gas prices (5%). Most likely voters (75%) say California is already in an economic recession, and most (68%) say the state is headed in the wrong direction.
With the state’s leaders locked in a stalemate over an overdue budget, the governor’s approval rating has dropped among likely voters from 49 percent in July to 43 percent. The legislature fares even worse, with only 20 percent of likely voters approving of the lawmakers’ performance.
Most likely voters (84%) consider the budget impasse a big problem —the highest percentage since May 2004, when voters agreed to close the state’s budget gap by borrowing money in a multibillion-dollar bond sale. How would they deal with the budget shortfall this year? A plurality (44%) opts for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Fewer (38%) would fill the gap mostly by cutting spending, and far fewer would do so mostly by increasing taxes (8%) or by borrowing money and running a deficit (4%).
OBAMA’S LEAD SHRINKS, PARTICULARLY AMONG INEDPENDENTS
The PPIC survey — taken before the conventions and announcements of vice presidential candidates — finds that Sen. Barack Obama’s lead over Sen. John McCain among likely voters (48% Obama, 39% McCain) has declined by 6 points since July (50% Obama, 35% McCain).
The most significant shift is among independent likely voters, with Obama’s share of their vote dropping 9 points (from 57% to 48%), while McCain’s share has increased 12 points (21% to 33%). Obama has the overwhelming support of Democratic likely voters (81%), and McCain’s support among Republicans is similarly strong (77%). Among other groups, female likely voters prefer Obama to McCain (53% to 32%), while men are divided (42% Obama, 46% McCain). Latino likely voters overwhelmingly prefer Obama (71% Obama, 16% McCain), and whites prefer McCain (38% Obama, 47% McCain). Likely voters under age 35 strongly favor Obama over McCain (65% Obama, 21% McCain), while support among likely voters age 55 and older is divided (43% Obama, 45% McCain).
In a worrisome sign for both candidates, likely voters are not especially satisfied with their choices for president. Just 48 percent say they are satisfied with their choices, and 49 percent are not. Now that the field has been winnowed, satisfaction with the candidates is much lower than it was during the primary season in January, when 64 percent were satisfied and 31 percent were not. Across parties today, more Democrats are satisfied (68%) than independents (40%) or Republicans (35%).
VOTERS TO CANDIDATES: IT’S THE ECONOMY, SENATOR
When asked what they would like the presidential candidates to talk about, the issue that California’s likely voters mention most often is the economy (34%), followed by the war in Iraq (12%), energy (8%), and foreign policy, health care, and immigration (6% each). The economy tops the list of issues among registered voters regardless of party (38% Democrats, 35% independents, 32% Republicans). It is also the top issue among Latinos (39%), followed by the war in Iraq (15%) and immigration (8%).
While united in their concern about the economy, California’s registered voters are split along partisan lines in their opinions about the government’s role in regulating it. In the aftermath of the subprime mortgage collapse, solid majorities of Democrats (67%) and independents (58%) think government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest, while less than half (41%) of Republicans hold this view.
Similar divisions show up on other issues likely to be discussed in the presidential campaign:
• War in Iraq: More than four in 10 likely voters (45%) say things are going somewhat well or very well for the United States in Iraq, a 26 point improvement since June 2007. But there are strong divisions across party lines in the views of registered voters: While 71 percent of Republicans feel this way, only 39 percent of independents and 20 percent of Democrats do. There are also vast partisan differences among registered voters about when to bring the troops home. While 76 percent of Democrats think the troops should be brought home as soon as possible, just 24 percent of Republicans share this view. Seventy-three percent of Republicans think the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq until the situation is stabilized, compared to 20 percent of Democrats.
• U.S. security: Half of likely voters (51%) doubt the positive effects of the Iraq war on the long-term security of the United States. But among registered voters, Democrats (68%) and independents (55%) are far more likely to hold this view than Republicans (27%).
• Immigration: California’s likely voters are divided in their perceptions of whether immigrants are a benefit (48%) or burden (45%) to the state. Once more, a closer look reveals a partisan split among registered voters, with 63 percent of Democrats viewing immigrants as a benefit and 66 percent of Republicans viewing them as a burden. Independents are more likely to say immigrants are a benefit (53%) than a burden (38%). When asked their views about immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years, 65 percent of likely voters say they should be given a chance to keep their jobs and apply for legal status, while 31 percent say they should be deported. Solid majorities of Democrats (77%) and independents (63%) favor a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, while Republicans are split (49% favor a pathway to citizenship, 45% favor deportation).
• Health care: A majority of likely voters (54%) favor a universal health care system run by the government and financed by taxpayers, compared to nearly four in 10 (39%) who prefer the current system. Among registered voters, Democrats (76%) and independents (62%) are more likely than Republicans (31%) to favor universal health care. Just over half of likely voters (54%) would be willing to pay higher health insurance premiums or taxes to increase the number of Americans who have health insurance. Among political groups of registered voters, most Democrats (66%) and independents (59%) would be willing to pay more, while most Republicans (59%) would not.
MORE KEY FINDINGS:
Californians say state government wastes a lot of money – Page 18
Six in 10 likely voters (63%) say the state government wastes a lot of the money they pay in taxes.
Approval of Congress drops to record low – Page 15
Approval rating of Congress hits a new low of 22 percent, while President Bush’s approval rating dips to 27 percent among likely voters, near his all-time low of 25 percent in July 2007.
Homeland security seven years after 9/11 – Page 21
A quarter of likely voters (24%) say terrorism and homeland security are big problems in California, nearly identical to perceptions before the last presidential election in 2004 and somewhat lower than the percentage in 2001 in the aftermath of September 11th.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
This survey is the 30th in the Californians and Their Government series and is supported with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. It seeks to raise public awareness, inform decisionmakers, and stimulate public discussion on state and national issues and the November general election. This is the 89th PPIC Statewide Survey in a series that has generated a database that includes the responses of more than 189,000 Californians. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,001 California adult residents interviewed from August 12–19, 2008. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish. The sampling error for the total sample is +/- 2% and for the 1,047 likely voters is +/- 3%. For more information on methodology, see page 25.
Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998.
PPIC is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
And here’s LCR’s* commercial that’s been making the rounds (’though I haven’t seen it on TV in my neck of the woods; guess there’s no reason to waste precious ad dollars preaching to the choir):
* Just occurred to me that while “Let California Ring” has a nice, er, ring to it, the initials “LCR” leave a bad taste in my mouth; that’s how the Log Cabin Republicans refer to themselves.
Good on Newsweek. There are still far too many people (especially on the so-called Left) who stick their fingers in their ears and go “Lalalalalalala!” when it comes to the government-sanctioned slaughter of our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters.
Nobody wants to talk about gays in Iraq, much less who is killing them.
When militiamen from the Mahdi Army came by the compact, two-story stone home in the Doura neighborhood of Baghdad, they weren’t looking for Sunnis to harass. They were hunting gays. “Bring us your son’s cell phone,” one ordered the middle-aged man who came to the gate. … This time they left, but vowed to come back if they found any evidence he was gay — or was talking to undesirable foreigners. Now that Iraq’s sectarian war has cooled off, it’s open season on homosexuals and others who infuriate religious hardliners. …
Iraqi authorities scoffed at the subject [of gays in Iraq] — when not scolding a reporter for even asking about it. …
As with a number of Muslim societies where homosexuality is officially nonexistent but widely practiced, the policy in Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s rule was “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But that has changed. Iraqi LGBT, the London NGO that Nadir works for, says more than 430 gay men have been murdered in Iraq since 2003. …
The only recourse for Iraqi gays seems to come from activists abroad. Iraqi LGBT, which was founded to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Iraqis, looks after about 40 young men between the ages of 14 and 28 in several Baghdad safe houses. There they are fed, can watch TV, hang out and sleep in cramped quarters, their beds inches apart. They stay away from neighbors and rarely leave their immediate area. …
Saif, one of the older residents at an Iraqi LGBT house, recalls Saddam’s repressive but secular regime wistfully. “Those were the most beautiful days of our lives,” he says. “The fall [of Saddam] was the worst thing to happen.”
Most people seem to prefer that the subject just go away. A written request for an interview at the Legal Section of the Ministry of Human Rights was greeted with a suggestion to delete the word “gays.” A sympathetic senior government official warned that a direct request to talk to a minister about gays could result in a short conversation. “I would ask about women, displaced people, children and others before you get to that,” he offered. …
Even relatively liberal people in Iraq seem to have harsh attitudes toward this subject. “These people are not welcome in the society because they are against the social, natural and religious rules,” said one well-educated Iraqi who did not want to be identified more closely. A Baghdad executive said religion and tradition have made the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hostile to homosexuals. “Nobody is interested in talking about this at all,” he says with a grim chuckle. …
The Catholic Church is under growing pressure to abandon the “homophobic” exhumation and reburial of the body of one its most famous cardinals, in defiance of his wish to lie for eternity next to the man he loved.
Gay rights campaigners have accused the Vatican — which has ordered the disinterment in the first step towards beatification — of attempting to cover up the sexuality of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who died in 1890.
Opposition to the reburial among some British Roman Catholics has been bolstered by a new poll organised by The Church Times which shows that a majority of Anglicans are now against the separation of Cardinal Newman, a former Anglican clergyman, and Father Ambrose St John who lived together as “husband and wife” for most of their late adult lives.
Yesterday, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell told The Independent: “The Vatican’s decision to move Cardinal Newman’s body from its resting place is an act of grave robbery and religious desecration. It violates Newman’s repeated wish to be buried for eternity with his life-long partner Ambrose St John.
“They have been together for more than 100 years and the Vatican wants to disturb that peace to cover up the fact that Cardinal Newman loved a man. It’s shameful, dishonourable betrayal of Newman by the gay-hating Catholic Church.”
When William Bolthouse, a California philanthropist, donated $100,000 in March to support a proposition to ban gay marriage in California, calls and emails poured in — not to Mr. Bolthouse, but to the corporate offices of a company that bears his name — even though he sold it three years earlier.
“It wasn’t us, it’s not our fault,” says Jeffrey Dunn, now the chief executive of Bolthouse Farms, whose juice bottles are sold at upscale markets such as Whole Foods.
Oh, let me call the wahhhhhmbulance for you, Jeff. As Alex Blaze (who did the initial research) summarized:
“The [Bolthouse] Foundation gets its money from William Bolthouse, and William Bolthouse’s philosophy, mission, even members of his family, still run the Company. Family members are on both sides of that aisle. The Foundation is looking out for the Company’s interests. The money that funds the Foundation originally came from the Company and may continue via other family member’s private donations that still work for the Company. They are not completely independent entities.”
The bottom line (literally) is this: Every time somebody buys a Bolthouse product, money flows to the Bolthouse Foundation, which in turn funds the anti-gay agenda.
Care to rebut that, Mr. Dunn?
Bolthouse Farms is the latest target in what has become an increasingly bitter political fight in California. As gay-rights activists attempt to defeat the upcoming ballot initiative, called Proposition 8, they are going after not just individuals, but also companies to which they are connected, however tenuously.
“Mr. Bolthouse has said, ‘I’m not connected to Bolthouse Farms at all.’ But we don’t accept that,” says Fred Karger, who runs Californians Against Hate, a new gay-rights group that is leading the charge to identify and publicize corporate connections to significant donors. He notes that Mr. Bolthouse’s son-in-law is chairman of the company and that Bolthouse Farms markets itself as a fourth-generation company.
Next week, Californians Against Hate is planning to push its tactic further by publishing a “Dishonor Roll,” a list of individual and corporate donors who give $5,000 or more to groups campaigning on behalf of Proposition 8. The list will include the donor’s name, employer and the corporate logo of that employer — even if the company itself didn’t donate to the Proposition 8 fight.
Mr. Karger said the tactic isn’t intended to keep individuals or companies from donating, but is meant to educate the public so consumers can make informed choices. He said including corporate logos of businesses whose employees donate is fair game, since that information is publicly available on government Web sites that track donors. “Our larger message is to other business people,” Mr. Karger says. “It’s a free country, you can give as much money to this campaign, but we are going to publicize that and people can make a decision on whether or not they want to support those businesses.”
Ready for the funny part? No, really, this is freaking hilarious:
Some Proposition 8 supporters see the effort as crossing a line.
Bolthouse’s Dunn also says Bolthouse Farms “has made an effort to correct wrong information on blogs that said Mr. Bolthouse still owned a large portion of the company.” If Bolthouse still owns one share of Bolthouse Farms, that’s one share too many. And if Bolthouse divested himself of all interests, I’d like to see proof that Bolthouse doesn’t benefit from the company. Does, for instance, the old man still get a nice, fat pension from Bolthouse Farms? I bet he does. And that still means that a chunk of every dollar the company makes is money being used against the rights of gay and lesbian Californians.
Anything to say to that, Mr. Dunn?
The article goes on to quote Terry Caster, owner of A-1 Storage, and Dunn as saying the effort hasn’t hurt business. Well, of course they’re going to say that — but if they weren’t worried, they wouldn’t be talking to the Wall Street Journal about it, would they?
Meanwhile, Doug Manchester is a bit more candid, admitting that the boycott of his San Diego hotels has indeed impacted business. (This bit alone is worth hitting the WSJ article for a full read.)
Still, Doug the Clueless says he’s “saddened by all the divisive nature of the movement.” Well, who made it “divisive,” Dougie? You could have just shut up, sit back, and left us alone, but noooooooo, you had to stick your nose (and your money) into an issue that never had any effect on you, your family, or your hotels. Now you’re involved, Dougie, and you (and your employees, and your vendors, and everybody else who depends on you to make a living) have no one to blame but yourself.
Also worth the full read is the idea that gay boycotters may not make the distinction between businesses run by anti-gay crusaders, and their parent corporations, which may or may not take a stand on a given issue. While Hyatt Corporation (the Hyatt name is on one of Manchester’s hotels) said it doesn’t “have a position” on Proposition 8, Hyatt has “a really strong, long track record of inclusiveness in terms of the way we welcome our guests and the way we treat our employees. Doug Manchester … in no way speaks for Hyatt.”
But:
That distinction may be harder to make as gay-rights groups offer fuller public profiles of private donors. Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com, the largest fund-raiser for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, says she expects it will become more difficult to entice corporations to contribute to her cause.
“The moment [Mr. Manchester] wrote the check, he found himself to be the target of numerous boycotts and protests,” she said. “Our side has a significant challenge in that.”
Good.
While it’s reasonable to question the fairness of punishing a parent corporation for the actions of one of its franchisees, the fact remains that there is a relationship between the two which benefits both parties. It’s regrettable that Hyatt Corp. may have to suffer for the actions of Doug Manchester, but in every war, there is always collateral damage.
We suggest that parent corporations which don’t want to be tagged as anti-gay reassess their relationships with franchisees and affiliates, and sever those relationships giving the parent a bad name.
In a first-person account of his time as a prisoner of war in North Viet Nam, John McCain, writing in US News and World Report in 1973, said of those who tortured him: “Some guards would just come in and do their job. When they were told to beat you they would come in and do it. Some seemed to get a big bang out of it. A lot of them were homosexual, although never toward us. Some, who were pretty damned sadistic, seemed to get a big thrill out of the beatings.”
The 12,000-word account that McCain published has also caught the attention of some bloggers, who are questioning the Republican’s account of a guard drawing the sign of the cross in the sand. McCain repeated the anecdote during his appearance this past weekend on the forum hosted by evangelical Pastor Rick Warren, saying it led to a moment of “just two Christians worshipping together.” Andrew Sullivan, a supporter of Senator Barack Obama, posted several entries questioning when McCain first related the story and concluding it was no earlier than 1999. …
More at the link about McCain’s Fairy Tale of the Cross.
