Oprah and KFC Controversy
First of all, let me state that I am by no means a "fan" of Oprah ["Is Oprah's KFC Promotion Hypocritical?" usnews.com]. I don't like her show, and I don't like her politics. That aside, I don't think Oprah meant any harm to anyone or anything by this gesture. I believe her intentions were at least mostly honorable (she does need to maintain her ratings). Obviously some chickens will be offered to provide a meal for someone, but there are many who believe (myself included) that this is one of the purposes of animals (I know I'll catch a lot of flak for that, so don't bother). Maybe this was something Oprah didn't consider. Or maybe she did consider it, and felt it was more important to feed a few million people. At any rate, it was her call to make, and she's not breaking any laws by doing it. She may appear like a hypocrite, but perhaps this will teach us that we can't rely on celebrities as our moral examples. They're humans, too. They make mistakes (in the eyes of some). If you were relying on Oprah to be your moral compass, perhaps you should do some deep soul-searching, and determine what your beliefs are, and then do something about it, instead of waiting for a big name with deep pockets to do it for you.
Comment by Andy Jackson of IL
It's difficult to put into words the disappointment of Oprah's actions. She knows the torture these factory farms promote in the name of profit and the need to minimize their use. So why help them, why cause more pain and suffering, why not help feed people using a vegan approach? Oprah, what were you thinking? You are better then this.
Comment by Tom DiCarrado of NY
There are a lot of families that can't afford to eat out. This is a great way to help Americans. Everyone is always talking about countries where children are starving. Well, America has them too! How many people do you know that can give a good meal to everyone in the USA? It is not only unusual but one of the most awesome things that I have seen in a long time. For those of you who talk about abuse to animals ... people eat this kind of food all the time. Don't be mad because [Oprah] didn't give away fruit instead!
Comment by Christina of AZ
Oprah is a reasonable woman. I'm sure when she hears from her audience about how KFC ignored animal welfare guidelines from its own animal welfare experts, she will make the decision not to promote KFC anymore.
Comment by William of MI
Miss California on Gay Marriage: The Saga Continues
Miss California said nothing about the basic rights gay couples deserve to have, whether they are called marriage or something else ["Do Obama and Miss California Have the Same Position on Gay Marriage? Sort of." usnews.com]. If she believed that gay people deserved those rights she surely would have said so in the two weeks since the event. Further, Obama's stance is pro-civil unions, not just "hospital visitation rights" but full equity, very unlike Carrie Prejean. What rights are called is a matter for debate, the denial of those rights is not a tenable position in our country—it is in fact bigotry. If you feel that way, fine, but embrace your bigotry. If you would stand in the door and deny a gay couple visitation rights or tax equity that you yourself expect then you can't use the "I have gay friends" to make yourself feel better.
Comment by Chris of AZ
When it comes to the issue of gay marriage, for better or for worse, Miss California has more personal integrity. She voiced her opinion and the basis for that opinion regardless of the potential fallout. On the other hand, I believe that my beloved president is secretly a whole-hearted supporter of marriage equality, but would not dare say so lest he lose the election. I'll readily admit that I give Obama a pass for what I believe to be a political lie. But, I give him this pass because the religious right has had a stranglehold on this nation's politics for the last eight years. And, I'll readily admit that I don't think Miss California should have won because I straight-up disagree with her opinion. I take this position because I don't think that civil marriage equality should be up for debate or popular election. And, I take this position because I question the compassion of an educated woman from California whose assistants, supporters, and fans are predominantly gay. I question the character of a woman who can work so closely with members of the gay community and still not see that her personal religious beliefs are not what should dictate their right to marry.
Comment by Meryl of CA
President Obama gets the opportunity to be nuanced because he is an expert at controlling the questions. Ms. Prejean, on the other hand, was mugged by a hostile questioner and didn't have the experience to deal with it. Other than that, the content of their answers is the same—although it remains to be seen whether Mr. Obama's answers reflect his true beliefs.
Comment by Jeff of MD
I don't agree with Obama's position, but I'm of the camp that thinks it was a politically expedient position to take, versus a less popular full-marriage-equality position, and right before the election, too. Carrie Prejean's comments are puzzling and contradictory. She thinks its "great" that people in the United States have a "choice" for same sex marriage or heterosexual marriage, yet also indicated that according to her, they should not have a choice. What? Of course, most people don't have a choice, the legalities are a mess, and some voters, just to be mean and spiteful, I guess, also banned civil unions. It was right that Ms. Prejean lost the competition because Miss USA should at least be informed. Despite her confusion, Ms. Prejean will continue to impress the desperate conservative news [outlets], and she'll of course sign a book deal (though someone is going to have to help her there). She should be thanking Perez Hilton from the bottom of her heart for all the cash she's pocketing these days, because without Hilton, she wouldn't even have her 15 minutes.
Comment by Serge Bacchus of IA