Ah, the boycotts.

You will all remember this, a boycott of McDonald's for "refusing to stay neutral in the culture wars":

It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald's has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

That's right. McDonald's doesn't hate gay people, so there's a boycott afoot. Again, I wonder aloud, what the hell is with these people and homosexuals?

McDonald's has signed on to a nationwide effort to promote "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures.

April 2, 2008

According to McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner, McDonald's will aggressively promote the homosexual agenda. In remarks on McDonald's Web site concerning the company becoming a member of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), Skinner wrote: "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world … and we do."

The company gave an undisclosed amount of money to the NGLCC in return for being recognized as a major promoter of the homosexual agenda. In return, NGLCC placed Richard Ellis, vice president of communications of McDonald’s USA, on the NGLCC Board of Directors.

Ellis was quoted as saying: "I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. I share the NGLCC's passion for business growth and development within the LGBT community, and I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

McDonald's refused to comment to World Net Daily on the placement of its executive on the board of the "gay" advocacy organization but did send an e-mail confirming the corporation's support for the agenda of the homosexual business lobby.

It's just horrible, what McDonald's is doing to society:

• high-calorie, high-fat foods
• encouraging car culture
• destroying local differences in cuisine
• dumbing down the job market
• pulling down the minimum wage, and actively agitating agains unions and fair work practices
• encouraging (to put it mildly) a factory farm system, which:
• threatens the food supply
• destroys the family farm, and consequently small towns
• is horribly cruel to animals
• and is incredibly wasteful and environmentally damaging

Oh, and they don't hate gay people.

WTF?

Well, here's a boycott I can get behind:

Donation to Same-Sex Marriage Foes Brings Boycott Calls

by REBECCA CATHCART

Published: July 17, 2008

LOS ANGELES — A hotel owner’s $125,000 donation to support a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state has become a flashpoint, with opponents calling for a boycott of two of his hotels and supporters highlighting the donation in a
fund-raising letter.

The hotelier, Doug Manchester, donated the money to support the collection of signatures to qualify the initiative, which would amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, for the November ballot.

See? Now we're actually getting somewhere. We're going to punish someone for being a hateful bastard, not because they're trying to reach out to marginalized communities.

It's not going to be hard for me to participate in this boycott. I have no plans to go to California soon. But if you're in the region, or will be, check it out, and avoid this homophobe's hotels. You might even want to call the hotel and teel them why you're not staying there. I'm kicking around the idea of calling or writing them myself.

You also might want to point out this charming bit of piosonous hypocrisy, which incidentally frames religious views as strictly political ones, in a subtle bit of obfuscation that actually snuck by me on the first reading:

Mr. Manchester said Wednesday: “This really is a free-speech, First Amendment issue. While I respect everyone’s choice of partner, my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

The hotel boycott has been framed by supporters of the ballot initiative as intimidation of those who express their political views.

On Tuesday, Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage California, a group supporting Proposition 8, sent out an e-mail message warning of the boycott, calling it a “bullying” tactic.(Emphasis is mine.)

Excuse me, kettle? It's the pot on line one.

Clinton

Every time I see the name "Clinton", I think of Kodos and Kang, possessing the bodies of the presidential candidates in '96, and the way they said it: "CLIN-TON". Sorry. That actually has nothing to do with the rest of this.

There's a fun little screed at WorldNetDaily, about how Clinton or Obama would be catastrophic for America, because they don't radiate sanity, values and serenity the same way that Bush or McCain do.

First, there's the obvious problem: Bush has been an unquestionable disaster as president. Any objections? Didn't think so. So any "fatherly radiance" that he has emitted for the last seven-and-a-half interminable years has been like a combination of Abe Simpson, Chief Wiggum and Cletus: all parents, and all astoundingly incompetent in their own way. "[A] basically decent, if very flawed, man in the White House" is how he's described. Genocide? Murder? Torture? All for profit? This is a decent guy?

Second, there's the idea that the character of the president directly affects the behaviour of youth. What? Clinton got a blow job, so America's youth went to hell? Are Kennedy's extramarital affairs responsible for the Civil Rights Movement? Did Hoover get hoovered and start the Depression?

Third, Reagan was not a saint. He increased the prosperity gap. He began the privatization of government. He gave the US Bush Sr. He was divorced. He was from fucking Hollywood! He was not the stand-up guy the neocons would have us believe. Hardly the worst president ever (the jury's still out, but Dubya's making a run for the title), but still kind of an idiot, a greedy bastard, and likely a bigot (he didn't like poor people).

Fourth, the cause is so powerful, that Clinton will bring Satan in to the White House, that the effects are already being seen, as acknowledged in the last few paragraphs. See that?

And finally, all three candidates promise varying degrees of more of the same, and I believe that the US needs something different. I think we all do, but the US more than most countries.

What galls me most is the fact that thes folks claim the moral high ground while constantly misrepresenting the facts, stats, causes and effects.

But who needs truth when Jesus is on your side?