Quickie: Dialing it back edition

I may not be wild about Chik-fil-A, but a mayor of a major U.S. city saying that a private company - again, a fast-food restaurant, not a napalm factory - isn't compatible with his city's values? That kind of squicked me out.

Boston's mayor now admits that he can't actually keep Chik-fil-A from opening there, which... you know what? Just- thank goodness. This is still America, where we're free to have opinions and act on them. The Chik-fil-A owners can do what they want with their corporate profits, and I can disapprove and stop contributing to those profits. But, to me, an agent of a government (in this case, the mayor of Boston) chiming in in this fashion - not as an individual, but as a public official - crossed the line.

The government represents the public, and it should be as religiously, politically and culturally neutral as possible.

Quickie: An American in London

Mitt Romney's in London, y'all. We know this because yesterday the big presidential-race story was that an unidentified Romney advisor was quoted as saying:

"We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he (Romney) feels that the special relationship is special...The White House didn't fully appreciate the shared history we have."

... which is tacky because A) after a four-year term which included taking out both bin Laden and Qaddafi, the GOP is STILL going with "this skinny kid doesn't know anything about the world" as an attack line, really? and B) it's kind of racist-ish. Basically, you're saying that "America" and "Great Britain" both equal "white European," and that therefore someone whose heritage is African, Asian, etc., isn't really British or American, and can never really understand what it means to be American or British the way a white guy can. (Which I'm sure made our Native American citizens chuckle.)

To his credit, Romney disavowed the alleged comment, saying "It goes back to our very beginnings -- cultural and historical. But I also believe the president understands that. So I don't agree with whoever that adviser might be..." But now Romney has bigger problems with the Brits because then today this happened.

Before meetings with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband on Thursday, he told US television: "It is hard to know just how well it will turn out."

Romney told NBC News: "There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials – that obviously is not something which is encouraging."

In the interview he also called into question whether the British people were behind the Games.

"Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? And that's something which we only find out once the Games actually begin," he said.

Um... I really hope that Romney was either misquoted or taken out of context or something. (Video would help.) Because it's hard for me to believe that a candidate for the U.S. presidency would be dumb enough to say something like that publicly, especially less than 24 hours after lecturing the actual president about the importance of our relationship with Great Britain. Countries tend to take their Olympic hosting duties seriously, which I assume Romney would know given his involvement with the 2002 Salt Lake City Games. Going on TV and basically saying "I dunno, we'll just have to see if they can manage to pull this off, and their citizens probably don't care anyway," well, that's just weird. Why don't you just insult their teeth while you're at it?

The white dude's burden

When I was in the 8th grade or so, I got to go to a weekend academic camp at Duke University (yeah, I know - I'm a nerd). Students could choose from several camp topics, so I went with one that I thought sounded interesting, which was about looking at American history from viewpoints other than, say, presidential administrations (which is typically how our school history books teach it). Basically, it was a class about American history from an African American perspective. Like I said, I thought that was interesting. Out of maybe 15 students, two of us were white. (By the way... what the hell, other white students? Why didn't more of you sign up for this class?)

Anyway, it was one of the most illuminating experiences of my life. Not that I learned that much new information, but because it was the first time I'd been the racial minority in the room. Not even so much that... this was definitely a space that was designed to be safe for the the African American students, and I just wasn't going to be the star student or teacher's pet no matter what I did. In other words, I felt the way black people probably feel most of the time. I feel like I'm suggesting that I was discriminated against in some way, and that's definitely NOT true. It was more subtle, things the other students and the instructor probably didn't even realize they were doing.

For instance, the class's other white girl - I can't remember her name, so I'm just going to call her Kim Kardashian - was annoying as hell. Even for the other middle schoolers at Smart Kid Camp, she was socially awkward. And she apparently thought she was glued to me. On the last day of camp, I finally managed to shake her at lunch, and I guess my relief over this was noticeable, because one of the other kids in my class said to me, "Wow, I thought you guys were best friends." I couldn't figure out why the other kids thought this - I've been trying to lose Kim Kardashian all weekend, and luckily I'll never have to see here again, and you guys think we're friends? Why, because we're the same race? It sounds silly, but - again - it's also something not-white people get all the time.

Anyway, all this is a long way of introducing this post about why so many mass murderers tend to be white men. Relating this (thankfully uncommon) crime to white male privilege is an interesting perspective, and even one I alluded to (far less articulately) a few years ago when writing about George Sodini. I'm just not sure it's the most effective way to address the issue.

It's already difficult to make people who have white privilege understand what that means, because the nature of privilege is such that, when you have it, you don't see it. It can be extremely difficult to separate discussion of privilege as a social construct from an argument over blame. For a white person who's new at looking at the world through this lens, it's easy to feel defensive. "Hell, I didn't own any slaves. I didn't kill any Indians. Why are you yelling at me?" So, I'm not sure that adding on "... and also you white guys shoot up public places" is really the most constructive tactic.

But, I will say to my fellow white people - don't be afraid of things like diversity workshops or even blog posts the one above. The well-done ones will not be the white-guilt-a-thons you're worried about. Privilege is something you have even though you didn't ask for it. That doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for it, though. You live in a world where not everyone, or even most of everyone, is/are like you. That's a good thing. And if you're going to live and work and go to school and raise kids in this world, you need to understand it.

Leftover chicken

Yesterday I wrote about the whole Chik-fil-A thing, explaining why I don't go there. I feel like Chik-fil-A and the Cathy family, its owners, have become the focal point for a whole slate of issues, maybe unfairly given that they seem like very nice people who run a wholesome business (as opposed to, say, a napalm factory). A lot of people are asking why some of us have a problem with Chik-fil-A, and I think they're right - if you're going to publicly boycott a company, you should be able to explain why.

This discussion brings up a sometimes-uncomfortable (for activists) reality that some boycotts are just easier than others. I used to work at a college where students successfully led a drive to switch from one soft drink distributor to another, on the grounds that Soft Drink Company A demonstrated bad corporate practices like clear-cutting Amazon rainforests. The thing is, with an hour of Googling I could probably find just as much evidence that Soft Drink Company B did the same thing. You don't get to be a giant multinational corporation without screwing over a few low-wage workers. It's naive to think otherwise. And further, did having one drink with your cafeteria lunch and not another magically improve the life of one Amazonian? Nope. But it made them feel better.

I don't go to Chik-fil-A at least in part because I have the luxury not to do so. If I lived in a town where there was only one restaurant and that was a Chik-fil-A, it would be a different story. That's why I don't judge people who still "eat mor chikin," even if they agree with me that the Cathy family supporting anti-gay groups is bad. I mean, I still shop at Target, and plenty of gay-rights activists gripe at me for that one. If a principled boycott becomes only about how many people know about your awesomely principled boycott, then it isn't really that principled.

I also think I need to better explain why this particular company's actions bug me. Yes, most of us know that Chik-fil-A is a business operated by Christians. But I don't buy the "what do you expect?" argument in this case, simply because I don't concede that "Christian" automatically equals "anti-gay." In fact, that's something I try to argue against whenever I can, because I don't think homophobia is remotely compatible with a faith whose highest commandment is to love one another.

And, before you ask - "love the sinner, hate the sin" is NOT a loving thing to say, unless you think that love is something you just recite and not act. For Jesus, Love means treating that person that you don't even know and maybe even at first found kind of creepy as if he's your own child, or mother, or brother. You know how you love the people in your family even when you don't particularly like them very much, because you're family? That's how Christians are supposed to love everyone. Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be.

Which brings me to my biggest issue with the Cathys in particular and the whole religiously based anti-gay faction in general...

If we Christians were to make a list of every single thing currently going on in the world that's separating humanity from God - war, genocide, random acts of violence, those small acts of selfishness and greed that happen every day - you're telling me that two men kissing is at the top of the list? Really?

Early this morning a gunman with a sat-alone-on-prom-night complex killed 12 people in Colorado who just wanted to see a Batman movie. That a-hole in Syria bombs as many of his own citizens in the blink of an eye. Not far from where I live, a bunch of kids tortured a fracking kitten to the point where it had to be euthanized just this week. But I'm supposed to believe that keeping one life partner from visiting another in the hospital will make it all better?

My problem isn't with the Cathys' interpretation of our faith. My problem is with their perspective. The weight they put on homosexuality over true evils like poverty, sexual abuse, racism and the things that fill the front page of the paper - it just boggles my mind. There's so much pain and evil in the world that I truly don't understand Christians who think that love is the No. 1 problem when that love happens between two people of the same gender.

Principles are Hot: Ed Helms and gay chickens

Okay, anyone who knows me is aware of my long-standing crush on Ed Helms. I think he's just adorable. I'm a sucker for a funny guy who's willing to sing in public, and the fact that he's from Georgia is just icing on the cake. (Also a bit of a shock when I learned that, since I tend to assume that all funny people are Canadian.)

Now, about Chik-Fil-A... I couldn't eat at Chik-Fil-A for years because they cooked with peanut oil and peanuts make me not breathe. Being Chik-Fil-A-less was awful. Just looking at waffle fries made me cry. Then a few years ago Chik-Fil-A switched to a super-refined peanut oil that doesn't have the protein that causes us allergy sufferers to not breathe, and suddenly waffle fries and spicy chicken biscuits were back in my life again. Yay!

And - no exaggeration here - not a month after my first Chik-Fil-A experience since childhood, I found out that their CEO is a raging homophobe. Oh, come ON. So, I haven't been to a Chik-Fil-A since. Their owners are free to donate to anti-gay causes if they want, but I certainly don't have to help them out with my biscuit money.

This week, Chik-Fil-A's CEO Dan Cathy gave an interview in which he more explicitly outlined his family's ultra-conservative views: "We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit... We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that," he's quoted as saying. Well, good for you.

It was after that interview that Helms tweeted news of his apparent boycott of Chik-Fil-A, writing that they'd "lost a loyal fan." Now, it's not as if Cathy and family are going to change their views, or even their habit of donating to groups that actively work against gay rights just because the star of "The Office" isn't going to eat at Chik-Fil-A anymore. But it does matter when those us - not just celebrities - who benefit from privilege stick up for those who don't. It lets this group of people whose basic humanity is up for public debate know that they're not alone. And, more importantly, it signals to the people doing the debating just how far out of the mainstream they are.

As much as I take issue with Dan Cathy's view of "the biblical definition of family" - my divorced/remarried parents who are leaders in their church still make Jesus shake his head in shame, apparently* - they have every right to practice their interpretation of their faith in their home. And corporate America could only use more businesses that operate on principles like "don't cheat/lie/steal things."

But donating to groups that tried to "convert" gays to heterosexuality (Exodus International), or that are designated hate groups (Family Research Council), or that don't even have a web presence where someone could learn about their activities (the Marriage and Family Legacy Fund) is crossing the line. That's taking your private views and pushing them on the public. Again, they have every right to do that. But, unlike with one's private views, I then have every right to judge your public actions medieval and hateful and a total perversion of this religion that I love. The guy who said this is shaking his head in shame at one of us, Dan Cathy, and it isn't me.

So, no Chik-Fil-A for me. Y'all can still go there if you want; that's your business. But Ed and I are going to catch lunch somewhere else. (In spirit, at least.)

*I'm sorry, I'm still not finished with this... so, what, Dan Cathy, your family are better Christians because you're "still married to our first wives"? I must have missed the chapter in the Bible where Jesus goes over what it takes to be an extra-special Gold Star Christian. So, do you guys get to sit at the front of the bus to Heaven, and all the divorced/widowed/remarried/never married people get stuck in the back where the ride's all bumpy? Because I have to tell you, if Heaven's going to be just like middle school, I'd rather go to Hell with the gays.