Cathy

While most websites noted the death of Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy by focusing on his rags-to-riches story of building the largest chicken chain in America, the liberals at TheWire.com decided to take a parting shot by labeling Cathy as “polarizing” in its obituary.

SEP 8, 2014 8:13AM ET / NATIONAL

Chick-fil-A’s Polarizing Founder S. Truett Cathy Has Died

The wire pointed to an article in Forbes to back up their claim that Cathy was polarizing, but that article focuses on Cathy’s son Dan who is the president and CEO of the company.

In 2012, Cathy inadvertently occupied the center of a national firestorm when comments he made against same-sex marriage were widely reported just as ballot initiatives to legalize gay marriage were being introduced in four states.

Even if the same-sex brouhaha was about S. Truett Cathy, it still isn’t a reason to call him polarizing.  The company is private and can say and do what it wants.  If customers don’t like it they can take their business elsewhere, which some did. At the same time conservatives rallied behind the company and turned out in droves to show their support after the media and the LGBT bullies pounced on the company.

What irks liberals in the media is that Chick-fil-A continues to prosper despite holding to Christian principles which include closing on Sundays which is unheard of in the fast food industry.

Cathy is probably having a big hearty laugh in heaven.

 

 

 

Jennifer_Lawrence

The weekend release of nude photos of over 100 Hollywood celebrities who apparently had their iCloud accounts hacked has stirred anger and outrage from those that were exposed in more ways than one.  While the hacking is clearly illegal, all the anger and angst at the pictures spreading across the web are being directed at the wrong target.

As comedian Ricky Gervais tweeted, if you don’t want your nude pictures on the web perhaps you shouldn’t take any, or at least not store them where they can be hacked.

Gervais was hammered to what Hollywood saw as insensitive though it was just common sense.

Are Hollywood stars narcissistic? Yes.  Why else would you take nude photos of your beautiful and often cosmetically enhanced body?  And don’t tell me you haven’t sent a few of those pics to paramours in an effort to excite them.  We know that happens all the time.

It is always beyond me why those in Hollywood or otherwise cry foul when nude pics or sex tapes wind up in the public domain, either free or for a fee.

Just admit your a narcissist and move on.  And don’t take any more nudie pics unless you want to repeat this episode in the future.

Hillary

Hillary Clinton, whose book tour hasn’t exactly gone as planned, defended her high college speaking fees by saying she donates those fees to charity- The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Clinton was trying to fend off criticism of the massive wealth she and Bill have accumulated since leaving the White House, when she made her comments to ABC’s Ann Compton.

All of the fees have been donated to the Clinton Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and life-saving work. So it goes from a foundation at a university to another foundation.

That’s generous of her. While the donated money doesn’t add to her family’s wealth it does keep them in the spotlight and advances their personal agenda which could benefit her if she decides to run for president again in 2016.

Clinton said the point of her speaking tours isn’t to collect money, but to spar debate about income equality- and based on her $200k plus speaking fees makes her the poster child for income inequality. That just shows how out of touch she really is.

Hillary’s college speaking fees have come under fire recently when students as the University of Nevada Las Vegas demanded that she turn down the $225,000 the university is scheduled to pay her for a speech in October. This has led to an investigation of Clinton’s speaking fees at other schools which has shown that she has found the college speaking circuit very lucrative.

It’s been a rough few weeks for the former Secretary of State as she has been criticized for saying that she and Bill were “dead broke” when the left the White House and struggled to pay their mortgages (plural), and that they weren’t “truly rich,” despite earning over $100 million since 2001.

In 2012, the Democrats made a big deal of Mitt Romney’s vast wealth, but at least he built businesses and created jobs. Hillary’s wealth has been created by writing books and giving speeches,- not exactly something that benefits the middle class and gets Americans working again.

Photo by Rex C. Curry Associated Press

Photo by Rex C. Curry Associated Press

As expected Sen. Ted Cruz easily won the presidential straw poll at the Texas state Republican convention this past weekend in Ft. Worth, but the margin of victory over Gov. Rick Perry was the real story. Cruz, the freshman Tea Party Senator, “cruised” to victory with 43.4 percent of the vote.  Coming in a distant second was Dr. Ben Carson-who wasn’t even at the convention with 12.2 percent, narrowly edging out Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who garnered 12.1 percent of the vote.  Finishing a disappointing fourth was Perry, who spoke at the convention and is leaving office after a record 14 years leading the state.

Perry who ran for president in 2012, but flamed out after a disastrous debate where he lost his train of thought, is believed to be a potential 2016 candidate and has been relatively popular in Texas, but he left the convention badly wounded with his poor showing.

In general straw polls don’t matter that much and are generally conducted with 1,000 or so votes.  But in Texas there were over 5,000 votes cast and Perry just totally fell flat.  If he has finished a distant second that would have been okay, since Cruz has become a star on the national stage.  But not only did he finish fourth he trailed Ben Carson who is gaining greater national prominence but has never held public office and has avoided any discussion of any presidential aspirations.

Perry wasn’t really ready to run in 2012, and it’s still early, but to badly lose a straw poll in his home state can’t be good for his chances going forward.

 

Manatee High School in Bradenton Florida has broken new ground with the institution of a $200 premium seating fee for graduation this year, and some parents are squawking.

The school which holds its graduation ceremony at the high school’s football stadium,is instituting the fee to help defray expenses since the school system isn’t kicking in its annual $3,400 due to budgetary restrictions.

According to principal Don Sauer, the setup at the stadium costs $13,000 and that they are only selling seats in the first 10 rows and hopes to generate $3,000 towards the costs.

The other alternative according to Sauer is to hold graduation ceremonies at the convention center-which other schools do for free, but he said that would leave out 2,500 people.

Fees have become a way of life in public schools across the nation-lab fees, ACT test fees, etc… I recall paying a small cap and gown fee when I graduated from high school, but the idea of paying for “premium seating” seems outlandish to me.

Where’s the Occupy movement when you need them?

My guess is that despite the ridiculous fee that the school will probably find 15 parents with enough ego and money to cough up the $200.

But why stop there?  Maybe the school can sell personal seat licenses or legacy seating to families who will have multiple graduates over the years to guarantee them premium seating and class envy for as long as they are willing to fork over the dough.

Or why not graduation sponsors?  Get local businesses to pay for advertising on the top of the caps and back of the gowns. This should generate enough money to not only cover the graduation ceremony fees but maybe even a reception or party afterwards.

The possibilities are endless as they go down a slippery slope.

You would think a company that is in the business of helping individuals and corporations improve their public relations efforts would have known better than to send out an email chiding a basketball team for losing in the NCAA basketball tournament, but apparently someone just couldn’t resist.

The email was sent out to various PR professionals with the subject line of  Don’t be like Wichita State.

That was immediately followed in the body of the email with this:

…and not seize a big opportunity like $300 off a PR News subscription. Take your PR game and know-how to a championship level with proven communications tactics that you can implement today. This is your last chance to score big. This limited-time offer expires this Friday, March 28.

Now for those that don’t follow college basketball, Wichita State was the only undefeated team in the country, having won 35 games this season and was picked by many to make the Final Four and maybe even the championship.  That came to a screeching halt on Sunday when the Shockers (how appropriate) lost to Kentucky 78-76 ending their dream season.

That stab at Wichita State, however tongue-in-cheek in its intentions apparently upset fans of the school, causing the publisher to issue an apology:

Dear Readers,

On behalf of PR News, I wish to apologize to Wichita State University and its many basketball fans and supporters across the country for the reference to the university in our March 26 email solicitation. The subject line was inappropriate and reflected poor judgment on our part. We have taken steps to ensure such statements made in our email solicitations will not happen again.

Thank you for understanding that mistakes happen, even to those who serve the PR trade. We are humbled by the incident and appreciate your continued support.

Sincerely,
Diane Schwartz
Senior Vice President & Group Publisher, PR News

I guess that means no more basketball references.

Instead of a clever attempt to get recipients to open the email, PR News received a lot of grief instead and learned a little about PR in the process.

Chalk another victory up to the PC police.

The annual conservative lovefest is concluding today and I can’t help but feel that the conference which is now in its 42nd year is beginning to lose its luster.

There were a lot of changes this year, some seen, some unseen by the attendees, but all signaling that the conference may be running into trouble and that its long-term future may be in danger.

One of the biggest changes was that CPAC hired an outside company to handle the sponsorships and exhibits this year. With that change also came a large increase in fees for organizations to participate.

Even though the fees had been on a steady march upward they were still considered affordable by most of the organizations that I spoke with.  But this year the minimum fee to co-sponsor increased from $5,000 to $18,000.  After some howls of protest, the minimum fee was lowered to $9,000, which is still an 80% increase in one year and slightly above the rate of inflation.

Not only that, because of rumored financial issues, CPAC eliminated the Thursday night dinner and replaced it with a smaller event, decreasing the value of a sponsorship since sponsors received tickets to an albeit overpriced dinner.

CPAC also reserved fewer meeting rooms for sponsors, explaining that it was a hotel decision since they needed the rooms for other groups.  But I know that wasn’t true because a check with the hotel a few weeks before found that there were at least three meeting rooms available that weren’t part of the CPAC block.

Exhibitors this year were also subjected to newer and tighter access rules to the exhibit hall, with each exhibitor being given just two passes for their staff and with every badge being checked scrupouslly at the doors by a guy who looked like he was a bouncer from a bar.

The worst part of the exhibit rules, were the shortened hours.  Where in the past sponsors and exhibitors could access their booth early in the morning and stay into the early evening,  CPAC limited the hours to five each for the first two days and four on the last day.  That’s fourteen hours of official time compared to an estimated twenty-five in previous years.  This isn’t an activist oriented exhibit hall, but one that resembles a professional trade show and makes CPAC look very corporate.

In speaking to some long-time attendees the feeling is that the fun has gone out of CPAC.  One person I spoke to said he used to look forward to the event, but now is pretty lukewarm thanks to all the changes.

A few groups have dropped out in protest of the inclusion of GOProud, a gay Republican group, and the American Atheists –  though that invitation was rescinded after a loud protest by co-sponsors.

For those that were either priced out or were protesting the inclusions of gays and atheists there was an alternative meeting on Thursday sponsored by Breitbart called the Uninvited. It was only a one-day meeting, but it could possibly grow into the counter-CPAC if things keep going the way they have been for the last few years.

As the exhibit hall shrinks and sponsors flee, CPAC will become less important to the movement in the future as true conservative alternatives spring up to take its place.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,815 other followers