Barilla Pasta and The Sheeple

Oh my the outrage.  The CEO of Barilla pasta said this:

"If (gay people) like our pasta and our communication, they can eat it. If they do not like it, if they do not like what we say, they can eat a different one."

Due to this people are calling for a world-wide boycott.  No where did this man say that gay people are bad.  He said that in their advertising they use traditional families.  Now I worked in the fundraising/marketing field for more than a decade.  While much of what I did was for politicians, the idea behind is pretty much the same.  You speak to your audience.  You speak to the people who are the most likely to buy your product.  Companies spend millions upon millions doing market research.  They know who their main customer base is.  If the majority of people they are selling to are soccer moms, that is who they are going to go after in the large sums of money they spend on advertising.  

I remember once looking over the marketing plan for Joan and David shoes.  See I have a real weakness for shoes and Joan and David are some of my favorites.  They aren't overly expensive yet they are good quality and have the style that I prefer.  The listing that they had as their main customer base fit me to a tee, right down to the Volvo.  Yes they knew the type of car many of their shoppers prefer.  

But no, this isn't good enough for the gay agenda activists.  This was a gotcha question, not unlike what was done to Chick-Fil-A.  Of course asking a Christian conservative about gay marriage was going to come out the way it did.  Christian conservatives don't believe in gay marriage.  That shouldn't be a surprise.  The real question is does Barilla discriminate in their hiring practices?  The answer is likely the same as it is at Chick-Fil-A, no.  

The idea of tolerance is supposed to mean that all accept others belief systems.  Of course that doesn't happen with the gay agenda.  You must agree or you are a bigot, a homophobe, a hater.  Not only do you have to agree, you have to advertise a certain way.  You must use gay couples in your tv and magazine advertising, or you are a hater that doesn't deserve to stay in business.  Lets see gay people make up less than 10% of society worldwide.  The vast majority of people around the world aren't gay.  Of course companies are going to go after the main customer base.  Their job is make a profit, not to handhold a small segment of society to prove how open-minded and tolerant they are.  

What I find so funny about all this is that all the people who are outraged, most of which are heterosexuals, never bother to look into why the question was asked?  Could it be to further an agenda?  No, that couldn't be it.  Stop being sheeple and following along simply because someone with one is asking you to.  How many of these people who are so outraged even realized until a few days ago that gay couples weren't being used in their commercials?  Did you even think about it?  Did you actually care?  Did you actually hear what the man said as opposed to the headlines?  

Barilla Pasta hates gays!!!  Barilla Pasta said they don't want gay people to eat their pasta!!!!!  

No such thing was said.  But for the sheeple that matters none.  Just follow along and close your eyes to the fact that you are being manipulated.  It is easy, as long as you don't use your brain and research for yourself.  

Freedom of Speech and the Slippery Slope

While there always have been and always will be discussions on free speech, it seems to be at a fever pitch of late.  Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a slut, Bill Maher and his constant attacks on conservative women, a presidential candidate weighing in a new television show, the looney left's drive to remove Rush from the airwaves and to even have him prosecuted are all in the news.

Gloria Allred is on yet another crusade this time to see Rush stand in front of judge because he called Sandra Fluke a bad name. Seriously?  C'mon do you how many bad names I have been called since I starting blogging?  I am not interested in seeing the people responsible for it arrested.  I am on record saying that Rush was wrong for using that language.  Rush has since apologized for his poor choice of words.  The boycott attempt to push his sponsors from dropping his show has been a failure.

There is a push on the right to get the Obama to return the $1 million donation from Bill Maher to his super-pac.  Legally speaking, Obama has no control over that.  Of course we all know that there are ways around that, but legally he can't ask them to return anything.  There are "walls" between the candidates and the pacs.  The courts have ruled that money going to a super-pac is a form of free speech.  Agree or not agree, it is now the law of the land.

Does the left really have the right to tell a company who they can and cannot advertise with?  I don't think they do.  They are private companies, they can use their advertising dollars anyway that fits their business model.  Of course boycotts are part of the American fabric and allow an individual to make their choices as to whom they spend their money with.  But I, for one, do not have the time or the desire to listen to such shows like Ed Schultz to figure out who his sponsors are so I can boycott them to prove my point.  I do that by not watching and occassionally mocking him on my blog when he says something even more stupid than normal.

The ABC TV show GCB has even raised the attention of Newt Gingrich:

"Here's to show you the biases of the elite media, look at the new show that's on that has the word 'Christian' in it and I want you to take the exact name, drop out Christian and put in Muslim."

What he says is true.  The outcry for a show named GMB would be loud enough to be heard around the world.  But, I have to ask would he be joining in at that outcry?  Is it simply because it is Christian that upsets him?  One of the stars of the show, Kristin Chenoweth is a self-described Christian. Her view of the show is:

"There's a difference between making fun of something and having fun with something, and we do the latter."

I have not seen the show, nor do I plan on ever seeing the show so I can't say for certain if she is right or not.  But I do know that the book was not mocking Christianity.  It was mocking the way people use church as a social event and how some women never grow up and still live out the same fantasies that they had back in high school, and the conflict that causes in the lives of the people around them who do want to move beyond it.  I received the book as a gift during a chick lit secret Santa thing I went to, and I enjoyed the book and didn't find it offensive.  Although, I admit, I don't normally offend all that easily.

My point being that we are coming dangerously close to ignoring our freedom of speech rights in this country.  This constant back and forth about who is allowed to say what and the price they have to pay for it when they say it.  Look there is no law saying that we have freedom of speech as long as you are not offended by it.  You will be offended by the speech of others.  There are very few universally shared values in the U.S..

Bill Maher is offensive to me as conservative and as a woman.  Many women on the left find him to be equally offensive.  But, does that mean he is not allowed to participate in the political process?  I don't think it does.  Had it been anyone else that gave a $1 million check the chances are we wouldn't have heard about it at all unless we went through and looked up the donors.  Depending on how this pac is set up, they may not even have to disclose that information.  That mistake in the law is a post for another time, but my point being that it is only because he is so publicily offensive that we even heard about it.  I am sure their are plenty of other people who have given to Obama's pac that I would find equally or even more offensive and their is no outcry for them to give them their money back.

As much as I don't like Bill Maher, it is not my place to say that he isn't allowed to involve himself in the political process.  I certainly wouldn't want someone to say that to me.  I am sure that my writings have offended at least some people.  But as an American citizen I have constitutional rights.  Just because I don't like someone or disagree with their beliefs doesn't mean that I get to say someone else has to limit theirs.

The question we must ask ourselves is that do we really want to censor each other's speech?  Isn't their another more effective way of getting our points across?  The Constitution protects all Americans, not just the ones we agree with.

Targeting Target - Conservative Buycott This Weekend

George Soros' funded Moveon.org has targeted Target for making political contributions. Moveon.org doesn't even the intellectual integrity to be honest about what Target has done. Moveon.org is spreading the lies that Target gave money directly to a campaign that Moveon calls anti-gay. What Target actually did was donate money to a pro business group Minnesota Forward that then put out commercials talking about Tom Emmer's positions on taxes and small businesses. Minnesota Forward is a group that promotes policies that are pro business, and have backed both democrat and republican candidates. In the current economic environment businesses have been under attack, so this group spreads the message of what high taxation and over regulation do to stunt business growth and in turn keeps the country in this jobless recovery.


Emmer is both a social and fiscal conservative. As such, he has views on gay marriage that Moveon doesn't agree with. Although, it is the exact same position that President Obama is said to have. Target is an organization that has a 100% rating from Human Rights Watch and is known for maintaining a diverse workplace as well as doing community outreach to the needy in each community that their stores are located. Moveon.org is trying to force target to give money to the other candidate who is not "anti-gay". Target has so far stood up and refused to buck to this blatant form of intimidation and has been boycotted by members of Soros funded organizations.


It is well past time that conservatives fight back to this hi-jacking of our electoral process. Target has done nothing illegal. They have the legal right to make donations to organizations that they feel represent their corporate view and policies. Target employs thousands of employees across the country and gives a percentage of its profits to charity. While the executives are making donations to represent policies that will grow the bottom line of the corporation, that bottom line growth in turn gives more people jobs (and benefits, I may add) and helps individual communities, not to mention it grows the portfolios of the 401(k)'s of its stockholders, most people have some retail stock in their individual retirement plans.


So, this weekend stop by your local target and throw a little cash their way and tell Soros to stick his boycott where the sun don't shine!!

Liberal Logic - She Might Support Arizona's Illegal Immigrant Law If It Was On The Border

Sadly, this twit holds elected office.  She is on the Milwaukee County Board.  They must be so proud