opinion

The Research Is In: Americans Love McDonald’s More Than Jesus

Standard

[An expansion on Wired’s excellent article theorizing about the biggest business partnership since Johnson & Johnson…]

As Phil Cooke put it, there’s no question that McDonald’s restaurants have enormous influence in our culture. Some sources indicate that Ronald McDonald is the most widely recognized name among small children, and when the sign says “billions served” you can count on it. That kind of influence in the culture is the Holy Grail for business leaders.

While we’re talking about Holy Grails:

Any American who has traveled more than 10 miles from their home has seen the ubiquity of McDonalds outposts with their own eyes. If ever asked to opine on the matter, I would suggest that in the U.S.,  there are few institutions with greater reach than Ronald McDonald.

And I would have been very, very wrong. There is a statistic provided by The Barna Group that is startling, and has sparked a fascinating theological debate (yes: Jesus and Ronald are at it again…)

According to the Barna Group research:
For every McDonald’s in America, there are roughly 19 churches.

McD-v-God_pieChartQuoting David Kinnaman of Barna Group:

“Think about that for a moment: If there are 19 churches for every one McDonalds, why does the church today have so little influence in our culture?  Obviously its not just a numbers game, but when it comes to “presence” the church should have a much greater influence.

“The comparison was very striking to me. What about you? Why does the church have so many “offices in the field,” but has so little influence in the culture?”

This is wandering deep into apples-and-oranges territory, but if we put aside our own beliefs and biases we can ponder a profound question: what does all this say about the United States and what we’ve  become?

 

Discuss. Then a quick poll question…

 

Next slide, please:

 

Exhibit A:

Studies Show American Kids Recognize Ronald McDonald More Than Jesus

 

 

Exhibit C:

Report Says Americans Love One Brand More Than All Others:

Did you guess ‘McDonalds’?

 

 

Finally, a representative government carries out its People’s will…

Standard

Since UKIP has received much deserved rebuke of late over their Charter for Muslims, we here at White People HQ have taken it upon ourselves to develop a charter for them. No reasonable UKIPer should have any issue adding their name to its list of signatories.

 

UKIP Charter of Reasonable Behaviour
for creating a more Positive Britain

Preamble

As UKIP members we recognize the importance of building tolerance and understanding in Britain. In the past (and present (and honestly speaking the future too)) we haven’t been the best at preaching tolerance being a rabidly racist anti-immigrant party without even a veil over our actions and all. We now move forward into the future, by presenting the following articles to guide our actions in the future.

Article 1

The UKIP hazing ritual (the one involving squirrels and the sex thing) shall no longer be practiced. Although by signing this as UKIP members we acknowledge we’ve done it, and liked it. New UKIP members or non-UKIP members shall not be required to participate it. We UKIP members admit participating in it makes us very naughty boys.

Article 2

No UKIP member shall publicly or privately blame tolerance of gay people for the weather. UKIP members ergo shall not seek employ as meteorologists either on the television, radio, any other media, or in general comment on the weather and its reason for being. This includes the use of comments similar to, but not necessarily “it’s really coming down out there, someone in an official capacity must have failed to use their position to discriminate against a gay couple.” For the safety of all of Britain meteorologists who are UKIP members shall resign immediately or understand themselves to be banished from the house of UKIP.

Article 3

The place Bongo-bongo land shall no longer be referred to in any official policy or as part of any dialogue. Any references to said place shall be punishable by the following:

  • Those using this term shall be place on a small raft given nothing but a single British meat pie.
  • Those using said term will be denied re-entry to Britain until they can prove they have discovered said place.
  • Proof of said place shall include: full nautical charts, a complete list of local species, and a sculpture made from the bedrock.
  • Anyone caught attempting to return without full proof shall be served buffet-style at the next party conference on the third day.

Article 4

No UKIP member shall write or disseminate any policy. Any existing policies shall be destroyed and memory of them physically erased from UKIP members brains.

Article 5

The signatories to this charter affirm their profound belief in the necessity of UKIP to maintain the charade of reasonableness for other white parties in the British political system.

5 Myths About 9/11 (from Washington Post)

Standard
In a historic address to the nation and joint ...

Image via Wikipedia

We all remember where we were on Sept. 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda launched its horrific attacks on the United States. In the decade since, no number of commissions, books, films and reports has been able to end the misconceptions about what 9/11 meant, America’s response to it and the nature of the ongoing threat. As the anniversary nears, let’s tackle some of the most persistent myths…

1.Sept. 11 was unimaginable.

In 2002, the White House described 9/11 as “a new type of attack that had not been foreseen.” An understandable response to being caught off guard, perhaps — but the fact is that the possibility of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings was neither unimaginable nor unimagined. The idea dates at least to 1972, when hijackers, during a protracted domestic incident, shot the co-pilot of a Southern Airways flight and threatened to crash the plane into the nuclear facility at Oak Ridge, Tenn.

2.The were a strategic success for al-Qaeda.An audacious and unprecedented strike, 9/11 certainly was a tactical success. But it also was a strategic miscalculation.

In Osama bin Laden’s eyes, the United States was a hollow power. Despite the nation’s apparent military strength, in his view Americans had no stomach for losses, and a devastating terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland would drive the Americans out of the Middle East. In his 1996 fatwa declaring war on America, bin Laden pointed out that the United States withdrew its forces from Lebanon after the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. And in 1993, after 18 U.S. soldiers were killed on a single day in Mogadishu in an attack for which al-Qaeda claimed some credit, the United States hastily got out of Somalia.

Many of al-Qaeda’s commanders disagreed, predicting that an enraged United States would focus its fury on the terrorist group and its allies, but bin Laden pushed ahead. When the United States did just what the others had feared, bin Laden switched gears, asserting that he had intended all along to provoke the United States into waging a war that would galvanize all of Islam against it. That didn’t happen, either.

Read the full article at Washington Post Online

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
More On This Topic

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Related articles