PDA

View Full Version : The New Blacklist



Eric McTavish
06-09-2005, 08:31 AM
I just dont understand why ANYONE cares about anyone else's love life...

Story (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/29/features-ireland.php)


The New Blacklist
Corporate America is bowing to anti-gay Christian groups’ boycott demands
by DOUG IRELAND

Spurred on by a biblical injunction evangelicals call “The Great Commission,” and emboldened by George W. Bush’s re-election, which is perceived as a “mandate from God,” the Christian right has launched a series of boycotts and pressure campaigns aimed at corporate America — and at its sponsorship of entertainment, programs and activities the Christers don’t like.

And it’s working. Just three weeks ago, the Rev. Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association (AFA) announced it was ending its boycott of corporate giant Procter & Gamble — maker of household staples like Tide and Crest — for being pro-gay. Why? Because the AFA’s boycott (which the organization says enlisted 400,000 families) had succeeded in getting P&G to pull its millions of dollars in advertising from TV shows like Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. P&G also ended its advertising in gay magazines and on gay Web sites. And a P&G executive who had been given a leave of absence to work on a successful Cincinnati, Ohio, referendum that repealed a ban on any measures protecting gays from discrimination was shown the door.

“We cannot say they are 100 percent clean, and we ask our supporters to let us know if they discover P&G again being involved in pushing the homosexual lifestyle,” growls the AFA’s statement of victory over the corporate behemoth, “but judging by all that we found in our research, it appears that our concerns have been addressed.” The Wall Street Journal reported on May 11 that “P&G officials won’t talk publicly about the boycott. But privately, they acknowledge the [Christer] groups turned out to be larger, better funded, better organized, and more sophisticated than the company had imagined.”

But the P&G cave-in to the Christers is only the tip of the iceberg. In just the past year and a half, AFA protests and boycotts — or even the simple threat of boycotts — have been enough to make a host of American companies pull their ads from TV shows the Christers consider pro-gay or salacious. Desperate Housewives has lost ads from Safeway, Tyson Foods, Liberty Mutual, Kohl’s, Alberto Culver, Leapfrog and Lowe’s after the AFA’s One Million Dads campaign targeted the show’s sponsors. Life as We Know It got the same AFA treatment — and lost ads from McCormick, Lenscrafters, Radio Shack, Papa John’s International, Chattem and Sharpie.

And it’s not just programs on the broadcast networks and their local affiliates that are feeling the heat from the Christers. When the AFA targeted Comedy Central’s South Park, the popular cartoon satire saw ads on the show pulled by Foot Locker, Geico, Finish Line and Best Buy.

Nissan, Goodyear and Castrol stopped running ads on The Shield after AFA complaints. Sonic Drive-In pulled its ad support from The Shield after a single e-mail request from AFA’s Rev. Wildmon. S.C. Johnson and Hasbro ordered their ads taken off He’s a Lady when it got the AFA treatment. And the list goes on . . . Call it a new, 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not advertise” if the religious primitives smell sin.

Just two weeks ago, the AFA undertook a new letter-writing campaign aimed at Kraft Foods (makers of Oreo cookies, Maxwell House coffee, Ritz Crackers and the like) for supporting the “radical homosexual agenda.” Kraft’s crime? It’s a corporate sponsor of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. Founded in 1980 by Dr. Tom Waddell — a 1968 Olympic decathlete — these Gay Games VII will bring gay athletes from all over the world to the Windy City for a complete catalog of Olympic-style competitions. The honorary chairman of the Chicago Gay Games? The city’s mayor, Richard Daley, who declared that he is “committed to the success of the 2006 Gay Games because it is an expression of international goodwill and a celebration of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, which are important to Chicago.” But, following the AFA’s lead, another Christer group — the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) — has asked its members to take on Kraft and five other Illinois companies that are sponsoring what it calls the “Homosexuality Games.” Proclaimed the IFI: “By allowing their corporate logos to be used to promote the ‘Gay Games,’ Kraft, Harris Bank and other sponsoring companies are celebrating wrong and destructive behaviors, and showing their disdain for the majority of Americans who favor traditional morality and marriage.” Here’s a nice touch: The IFI’s Web site features a statue of Abraham Lincoln, who some historians now credibly say was gay or bisexual. Will Kraft stand up to the pressure? The company’s answer to this protest campaign is, for the moment, yes — but for how long?

All across the country, the Christian right and its allies in the culture wars are mobilizing — sometimes spurred on from the top by the AFA, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and similar national groups, but with increasing frequency local pressure campaigns and boycott threats are self-starters. They target everything from local broadcast outlets and local cable operators to libraries, bookstores, playhouses, cinemas and magazine outlets. “The Christian right is incredibly mobilized,” says Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, a 30-year-old alliance of 50 nonprofit groups. Bertin says, “There’s been an explosion of local book and arts censorship — a lot of activity by an emboldened grassroots, who think they won the last election on moral grounds. They barely need to threaten a boycott to get those they target to back down — hey, nobody had to threaten to boycott PBS to get them to back off Postcards From Buster.” Bertin affirms that “This new threat from below as well as above has already achieved a widespread chill” on creative and entertainment arts throughout the country.

A good example of successful up-from-below pressure in making corporate America bend the knee to the Christers: the Microsoft Corp. Earlier this year, under pressure from a local protest led by Ken Hutcherson — a conservative National Football League linebacker turned preacher — Microsoft made a decision to stay neutral in the fight over legislation in Washington’s state Legislature banning discrimination in employment against same-sexers, although many other companies headquartered in the state took positions in favor of the bill. But after an avalanche of counterprotests to Microsoft about their cave-in to Hutcherson, from their own employees (many of whom are gay), gay groups and the blogosphere, Microsoft reversed itself and supported the anti-discrimination bill. Too late: Two weeks earlier, the bill had been defeated by just one vote in the state Senate. Now, Microsoft is being targeted by a new, national Christer protest campaign for having flip-flopped again.

Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School of Communication at USC, calls the new Christer offensive a drive toward “theocratic oligopoly. The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country,” adding that “e-mails to the FCC are more worrisome to me than boycotts” in terms of their chilling effect.

Even The New York Times is feeling the chill. At the beginning of May, an internal committee of 19 Times editors and reporters, who’d been asked how to improve the paper’s “credibility” with a wider swath of America, came up with a key recommendation: *Deliberalize the paper’s news columns, *especially through more coverage on religion from a sympathetic point of view. The committee’s report, “Preserving Our Readers’ Trust,” added that “the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, approaches cheerleading. By consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter — gays fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else — we failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of American social, cultural, and religious life.” Oh, “disturbing” to whom? Why, to the Christers, of course — whose e-mail complaint campaigns against the Times are legion: It’s the paper the fundamentalists love to hate. So why is the Times — one of the few newspapers in the latest available study of circulation released earlier this year to significantly increase circulation rather than lose it — feeling the need to kowtow to the religious opponents of gay marriage? The paper’s willingness to do so is about as frightening a testimony to creeping theocracy as one could imagine.

Is the new Christer anti-gay and anti-sex crusade a back-to-the-future nightmare? Remember your history: In the 1950s, the anti-Communist owners of a small chain of supermarkets in upstate New York started threatening the TV and radio networks with boycotts of sponsors’ products if they employed any persons listed as supposed Communists or lefties, in a sloppily researched little pamphlet called “Red Channels.” It didn’t take long for this small protest to instill fear throughout the broadcast industry, and the result was the Blacklist, a witch-hunt that lasted for years — even after John Henry Faulk, the blacklisted star CBS-radio host and actor, won his landmark $3.5 million libel suit in 1962 against the blackmailers of AWARE Inc., which — for a suitable fee — offered “clearance” services to major media advertisers and radio and television networks, investigating the backgrounds of entertainers for signs of Communist sympathy or affiliation. But Faulk didn’t work in national broadcasting for another 13 years, until he landed a spot on the TV series Hee-Haw in 1975. It took that long to end a quarter-century reign of terror in the entertainment industry, 18 years after Senator Joe McCarthy was dead and buried.

Today’s Christer protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet — who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on “Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right” — says that “What’s motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it’s motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes.”

The key to those doctrines is what fundamentalist religious primitives call the Great Commission, which is basically an injunction to convert everyone to Christianity. In the Bible (Matthew 28:19-20), it says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . .” The fundamentalist interpretations of these and other texts can be found on evangelical Web sites like Thegreatcommission.com, Transferableconcepts.com and Gospelcom.net. They have incredible motivating power for the religious right, and help explain the vehemence of the Christers’ intolerance of the freedom of others to think or act differently.

Says Berlet, “The re-election of Bush was a sort of tipping point for these people, who take it as a mandate from God — they see that the leadership of America is within their grasp, and when you get closer to your goal, it’s very energizing. It reaches a critical mass, in which the evangelicals feel they have permission to push their way into public and cultural policy in every walk and expression of life.” All that, says Berlet, is what is motivating the skein of Christer boycotts, protest campaigns and censorship drives bubbling from the bottom up — which get added emotional and pressure power from the fund-raising-driven crusades launched by political Christer organizations like AFA at the national level. The confluence of from-above and from-below is a powerful mix.

There’s one big problem: Nobody at the national level is tracking these Christer censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. “People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at Political Research Associates would love to do it,” says Berlet, “but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or Americans United for Separation of Church and State could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it, because nobody wants to give it. There used to be three major journalists writing about this stuff — Sara Diamond, Russ Belant and Fred Clarkson. But none of them could make a living doing it, and they’ve all dropped out of the game.”

Unless Hollywood, and the entertainment and broadcast industries, all want to live through an epoch of increasing content blackmail and blacklists, the wealthy folks who make a lot of money from those industries better wake up and start funding intensive and systematic research on the Christian right and its censorship crusades against sexual subversion and sin in the creative arts — or soon it will be too late, and the “theocratic oligopoly” of which Martin Kaplan speaks will be so firmly established it cannot be dislodged.

DOUG IRELAND can be reached through his blog, DIRELAND, at http://direland.typepad.com/direland/.

Captain Stamina
06-09-2005, 09:16 AM
You realize that companies can’t win on this issue. If they support gay rights, their condemned by some group. If they don’t support gay rights, then their condemned from another group.

Personally, if two people want to get a civil union, that’s their business. (Marriage, to me, has the connotation of a church union and a majority of the churches won’t let gays get married in the ‘hallowed’ establishment). My concern is how they draft up the laws permitting this and the EO laws. They keep using the phrase ‘sexual orientation’. Those two words can be construed to mean different things.

While the intended definition is for two men or two women, this can easily be twisted around and be an adult and child or an adult and animal. This also opens a door for groups of people to be united. Now which takes precedence, the fact that multiple people want to join together or bigamy laws?

Unfortunately law makers deliberately make the laws ambiguous and force the laws into the courts to have them make the decisions.

Eric McTavish
06-09-2005, 09:22 AM
MY problem is...I dont see how a gay couple affects anything in my life...
I've had gay neighbors, what they do has NO effect on my world at all (except when I ran out of spices for my chilli one night and need to barrow some Rob was an amazing cook and kept a very well stocked spice rack) so whay do these people even care?? I just dont get it.

RichardMacHugely
06-09-2005, 09:23 AM
They keep using the phrase ‘sexual orientation’


This is not to be confused with Sexual Orienteering, a wonderful sport that sends naked couples tramping through the woods armed only with a map, a compass, and a set of clues, searching for hidden nookie sites.

Dmitri
06-09-2005, 09:30 AM
They keep using the phrase ‘sexual orientation’


This is not to be confused with Sexual Orienteering, a wonderful sport that sends naked couples tramping through the woods armed only with a map, a compass, and a set of clues, searching for hidden nookie sites.

Ok you... :?

Pathos
06-09-2005, 09:43 AM
I've had gay neighbors, what they do has NO effect on my world at all (except when I ran out of spices for my chilli one night and need to barrow some Rob was an amazing cook and kept a very well stocked spice rack) so whay do these people even care?? I just dont get it.
So...what?Only gay people are good cooks and have spices? How dare you! :x

Eric McTavish
06-09-2005, 09:46 AM
So...what?Only gay people are good cooks and have spices? How dare you! :x

Talk to that hand...bitch! Truethfully...When I was in collage I think Rob was the ONLY person in my apartment complex with more than 5 types of spices! LOL

RichardMacHugely
06-09-2005, 10:00 AM
Are there five Spices? There's Baby, Sporty, Scary, Dopey. . . . that's all I got.

Drea Beth
06-09-2005, 10:06 AM
Are there five Spices? There's Baby, Sporty, Scary, Dopey. . . . that's all I got.

You forgot Ginger.

Pathos
06-09-2005, 11:35 AM
Rob was the ONLY person in my apartment complex with more than 5 types of spices! LOL
Well let's see...at the minute I have chili powder, curry, garlic powder, and paprika. That's only 4. Wshew!!! 8)

Constance Innuendo
06-09-2005, 12:41 PM
Rob was the ONLY person in my apartment complex with more than 5 types of spices! LOL
Well let's see...at the minute I have chili powder, curry, garlic powder, and paprika. That's only 4. Wshew!!! 8)

surely you have black pepper?

Pathos
06-09-2005, 12:52 PM
surely you have black pepper?
Not at the minute. And now thanks to Eric...I won't get it again until I run out of one of the other 4. :)

Ysobelle
06-09-2005, 12:58 PM
It's hand-in-hand with the Christian mandate to evangelise and witness: there's no boundary between what come Christians believe, and what they believe they have to convince others. Not all Christians are like that, of course, but in the main-- especially with these kinds of Fundamentalists-- they believe it's their mission to shape the world for Christ.

Giselle
06-09-2005, 01:05 PM
To me Love has always been the main message of any religion. Anything else to me is just picking away the pieces that suit someone's cause at that time and place. Not to mention very inhuman to me. I work in a law office and often deal with divorces. I wish everyone was equally protected by our laws. Just think, we allow homosexuals to adopt children (which I fully support) but not to be protected by divorce laws...what happens to that child then? Just think about it.

Ysobelle
06-09-2005, 01:08 PM
Just think, we allow homosexuals to adopt children (which I fully support) but not to be protected by divorce laws...what happens to that child then? Just think about it.

Not everywhere. In Texas, you can't even be a foster parent and be gay. And if Child Services discovers you ARE gay, they'll take any foster children you have away from you.

Laws vary. The homophobia, alas, doesn't seem to.

Giselle
06-09-2005, 02:26 PM
I find that wrong myself. Again, I openly express my opinion and never judge others for theirs. I'm in Oklahoma and it's not allowed here either. In fact they recently went as far as making an actual state law that marriage is between one woman and one man.

Anyway, I just like to debate subjects and this is definately one I feel strongly about. I mean, your god might say being a homosexual is wrong..someone else's god might say it doesn't matter as long as you live your live with love and respect for other being a good person. Who is right? Your god or their's? Honestly that is what I believe the problem amounts to, religion. Express yourself, your religion happily...I love that people have faith in their religion but don't let YOUR religion dictate a melting pot country with thousands of religions. Don't let YOUR bible make laws for other people with different beliefs. Again, just my opinion. I support gay marriage fully. I think is should be a marriage, legal...binding and before the eyes of the god they have faith in. They are people, flesh and blood so why treat them as anything less?

If you can't tell this is a topic I speak of often. My best (and I do mean best) friend and I debate this often. We'd do anything for eachother but have completely different views on this subject. We express and we listen...never offending. I do hope I haven't offended anyone by what I've said but I do hope if you feel offended you realize this is my opinion and would never force it one another person. Should someone feel want to say anything in response I am totally open to that. I have no shame in my way of thinking and respect for other's point of view.

Cyranno DeBoberac
06-09-2005, 02:30 PM
surely you have black pepper?
Not at the minute.
...and don't call him Shirley! ;)

Jeannie Fitzgerald
06-09-2005, 07:30 PM
It's hand-in-hand with the Christian mandate to evangelise and witness: there's no boundary between what come Christians believe, and what they believe they have to convince others. Not all Christians are like that, of course, but in the main-- especially with these kinds of Fundamentalists-- they believe it's their mission to shape the world for Christ.

Personally, I have no problem with "the Christian mandate to evangelise and witness" nor "to shape the world for Christ." But what so many of these people do not realize is it can't be done by ramming God and Jesus down other people's throats, especially by being obnoxious (such as most door to door missionaries), spreading hatred, or through intimidation. Invading government is just the latest tactic these people have been using (and the most frightening). These kind of people lose sight of the fact that one can "attract more flies with honey than vinagar." Unfortunately, there are also those that do recognize that and will paint a pretty picture for you until you take the bait, then they set the hook and reel you in no matter how you struggle.

DameGoode
06-14-2005, 01:33 PM
Umm.... maybe me being unobservent and such....

In the article, is there any particular reason that the author keeps refering to the opposing group as Christers? Just wondering...

Tapestry MacGillicuddly
06-14-2005, 01:53 PM
Are there five Spices? There's Baby, Sporty, Scary, Dopey. . . . that's all I got.

You forgot Ginger.

and you can't forget Cinnamon

and Marjoram, Cardamom, Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme, too.

Tap ;~D

Myfanawy
06-14-2005, 03:03 PM
Yes, I keep coming back to the same thought every time I see/read something like this:
What is so wrong with gay people?

The majority of my friends are gay--most of the time when we go out, I (and my fiance if he's there) am the only heterosexual person of the bunch. They don't seem to have a problem with me being straight (though my friend Laura teases me and says "Eww...you like penises!")--and I have no problem with them being gay. And frankly, their bars are better!

Having just started work at Starbucks, it's nice to know we won't hear any of this crap from them (as Starbucks encourages diversity--incidentally, my fiance is about to start work at another Starbucks store, and will be allowed to wear his Utilikilt to work! :ilu: )

Not to mention the fact that my dad is a transsexual (she just legally changed her name and gender a few weeks ago.)
--M

Giselle
06-14-2005, 03:58 PM
Works for me.....one more woman to help take over the world!!! Mwahahahaha!

One of our mermen is gay and OMG it is the best! We (of course) can't talk while in tail but always make a point to scope out the lovily buns strollin' through the crowed. Hell at least he's honest with me if my new hair color (which changes almost as frequently as my undies) looks less than yummy. Besides, it helps to have a gay friend or two...at least they can tell the difference between a Metrosexual and a Homosexual when others can't....LOL.

Myfanawy
06-14-2005, 04:08 PM
I have a flamboyantly gay friend who is a hair stylist--I get the best haircuts and color from him. And yes--he will let you know when your hair, make-up, or clothes are a no-no. He is just too funny!
--M

Tapestry MacGillicuddly
06-14-2005, 04:16 PM
I refuse to have a woman cut my hair. I'm never happy with the way it turns out. I'm basically hair styling stupid. I can't work a curling iron to save my life and I have absolutely no desire to learn.

Guys just seem to pay more attention, they don't assume that it is a genetic predisposition to be able to style your own hair, and they give me what I want. I just got my hair cut by a new guy and I love him. He told me what he thought would be good, listened to what I wanted and could manage with my hair, and we came to a joint agreement... I have a wispy fringe of hair around my face which is exactly what I've been asking for for months. I can brush my hair back behind my ears when it is hot at work and the danged ear piece for the walkie is bugging me and my hair still looks great.

Viva la Difference!!!

Tap ;~D

Giselle
06-14-2005, 04:59 PM
Brutally honest...that's for sure...

Bean
06-14-2005, 06:10 PM
Well, I for one, would like to show support for any company that doesn't discriminate, and I think anyone who wants to should email, call, or write these companies that are being harassed and let them know that there are people out there who like what they are doing. As it has already been said, who cares if somebody is gay? What people do in the privacy of their own bedroom has nothing to do with me.

Lady Laurel
06-14-2005, 06:27 PM
Not everywhere. In Texas, you can't even be a foster parent and be gay. And if Child Services discovers you ARE gay, they'll take any foster children you have away from you.

I have never heard that, there is a gentlemen in east Texas that is single and gay who adopted a baby girl. It was his counsins child, she was very young. He had been wanting to adopt and when she became pregnant he adopted the baby. Now I don't know if the adoption was done somewhere else but he has not had any problems that we have heard off. Now he is just an acquaintence so I don't know how many problems hed did have or the particulars.

Kae
06-14-2005, 06:39 PM
homosexuals can still foster and adopt in Texas, there are just too many children who need a home and too few of the "right" type of people willing to step up. they tried to change the law this year but failed for economic reasons.

kae

Ysobelle
06-14-2005, 07:57 PM
Sorry! I was somewhat too hasty: the bill passed the House, but failed in the Senate.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/052805txAdopt.htm



(Austin, Texas) Legislation that would bar gays and lesbians from becoming adoptive parents in Texas has been dropped from a Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services bill.

The bill, with the ban, had passed the House, but a Senate version passed without the provision.

Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) has been working to ban gay foster parents for the past two years.

"I don't think it is right for young children to be exposed to this type of behavior when they are young and innocent," Talton said during debate on the legislation last month. (story)

"It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual."

The legislation would have required the Texas Department of Child Protective Services add a question to its forms for prospective foster parents inquiring whether the person is gay.

If the person answered yes they would be automatically disqualified.

The legislation also would have required the state to remove foster children already placed in the homes of gays or lesbians.

But, the provision ran up against tough opposition in the Senate.

A House-Senate committee, made up of five members from each chamber, that harmonized the bill so that it could be presented to each house for a final vote stripped out the anti-gay provision Friday.

"This bill was about reforming Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services, and I certainly didn't want it to get side-tracked on an entirely different issue that was volatile," said Rep. Suzanna Hupp, R-Lampasas, who headed the conference committee with Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, Senate sponsor of the legislation.

Talton refused to vote for the revised bill, vowing to bring a proposed gay ban back next year.

The new bill is expected to pass easily. It will provide for the hiring of more caseworkers, require better training and transfer duties for managing Child Protective Services foster care cases to private agencies as part of its effort to reform the troubled system.