Duck Dynasty - Over. . . on A&E?

[Palehorse]

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Robertson Family and "Duck Commander" of the popular Duck Dynasty program on A&E Cable Network, did an interview for GQ in which he made statements that reflect his hard-line, Christian Conservative views; that are a product of his 67 year old life and conditioning.

A self-entitled, "reformed" honky tonk owner and hellion, the senior Robertson found religion in the 70's and 80's and along the way found personal comfort. And now in the golden years of his life he has found a "bully pulpit" of sorts, with the popularity of his family owned company and it's "reality" program.

To be fair, I have watched this program; which ends with the family at the dinner table saying grace before strapping on the feedbag. It is humorous in a family friendly way, and to be honest I find it occasionally entertaining. (And safe to have on the tube when my 2 year old grandson is around. At least he won't hear profanity and go around repeating it based upon what is on the tv when he is in my home).

His interview with GQ is full of typical hardline Christianity and biblical verse paraphrasing; and within a few passages of said interview one can find reason to be offended if one wants to be. (For that part, most of us can find a reason to be offended by going to church and sittig through a sermon if we want to).

I certainly don't agree with everything Mr. Robertson said within the GQ interview; and sometimes I don't agree with things he says in his program "Duck Dynasty" either. For example; when the final scene of each episode comes on and they're at the table saying grace, if I don't switch channels or turn the TV off, I don't listen or watch that portion of the program. Ever.

Also to be fair, the media has jumped all over this man's interview in GQ, and taken his statements out of context and spun them into a racial and homophobic rant that it certainly was not intended to be. And when combined with the typical reactionary and emotional response battle-plan society has forced people of color, or those living alternative life-styles toward as a means of survival, the media has now created a mountain out of a mole-hill and in all likelihood brought the Duck Dynasty program to an abrupt end.

Do I think Phil Robertson's opinion on the topics of civil-rights and gay lifestyles are wrong? Yes. I do. However, when taken with the context of the entirety of his interview, his responses are no more offensive than watching some of the episodes of Duck Dynasty that have been repetitively aired by A&E for 5 years. Albeit admittedly somewhat more covertly within the televised versions when compared to the printed one; but very similar in content and intent.

No, I do not agree with his position on civil rights and the gay lifestyle. Absolutely not. But I do agree with his right to speak his mind, while I myself make a consistent effort to take into account the fact that he is a 67 year old, conservative, Christian man, that grew up in Louisiana in a time long ago past; and thusly he is a product of that environment.

The issue I now am confronted with is that the friends and family within my circle of life, consists of individuals who are the subject of Robertson's comments in his GQ interview; and a lot of them are now forced via the media, to choose a side surrounding the emotional storm the media has turned this thing into. Facebook pages on both sides of the issue are cropping up, and friends and family on both sides of the issue are sending me requests to "Like" pages on both sides of the issue. And I am choosing to like none of them, because I refuse to let the opinions and interpretations of a 67 year old conservative, Christian, and the nefarious actions of an insidious media, dictate conditions within my personal circle of life.

The fact is, A&E chose to suspend Phil Robertson over his statements made within the GQ interview, and has stated they disagreed with his views; strongly. And as I expected, (and as anyone who has watched that program should have expected), his family has chosen to align themselves with the Patriarch and tell A&E that without Phil, there will be no Duck Dynasty on A&E.

Good for them, I say. While I may not agree with the views of the Robertsons, I also do not agree with the Draconian acts taken against Phil Robertson just for expressing his views and opinions. Opinions that anyone with gray matter between their ears would have, and should have expected to come from his mouth if asked the questions that GQ presented to him. They aren't full of profanity nor sexual in nature, but they are hard line, conservative Christian in basis, and pretty damn typical at that.

And this is a surprise to anyone? Seriously? Come on! 

Again, I absolutely do NOT agree with those views of Phil Robertson being bandied about by the media, and I certainly do not agree with GQ even asking those questions of him; but hey, in all cases it is their company, magazine, network, etc. so they can do as they please, right? And it is Phil's view/opinion too, and he is free to express it as he sees fit.

The rub though is this; Duck Dynasty started out on the outdoor channel as a wholly owned entity of the Robertson Family. It gained popularity and was lured to A&E due to that popularity. And the Robertson Family retained ownership of it. In fact, they insisted upon it before ever agreeing to move to A&E.

So, it would appear A&E just cut their most popular program from it's lineup, based upon the risk they took in televising a program that is based upon the lives of a hard-line, conservative, christian family. And that family owns the full legal rights to the program.

Wonder what channel it will be on next? 

And to those who are squalling about "constitutionally guaranteed free speech" being violated, I say this; Welcome to the results of granting constitutional rights to face-less / soul-less corporations while simultaneously failing to require those same face-less / soul-less corporations to conduct business within a means that respects those very same rights that are held by their employees.

Companies now own you. You may not believe that is true but wait until the very first time you say or do something within your private life that is brought to their attention via the media; (and your Andy Warhol predicted "15 minutes of fame"). If it happens to be against something your employers hold dear, you will be escorted from the premises and have your livelihood taken from you and your family, just as quickly as Phil Robertson, and with no legal recourse open to you for redress. NONE. (That's a fact Jack!)

And Phil is still wrong. 

[Anne]

Gee, PH, I think it has frozen over, I agree with everything you wrote.

[Locutus]

This sums up my feelings about the whole brouhaha quite nicely.

[Palehorse]

This sums up my feelings about the whole brouhaha quite nicely.

On the face of it I couldn't agree more, however, the reality that it is imposing itself within my personal life forced me to state my position on the matter; if only for those within my personal life.

That, and the very real implications it holds for everyone; which many have chosen to overlook in favor of the emotional turmoil it is driving.

Free speech is a double-edged sword, and the sooner those who hold that right realize it, the better. Many think that constitutional right provides them with immunity from consequences for spewing every single thought that enters their heads. Nothing could be further from the truth, and since corporations now hold those very same rights, you run the risk of being subjected to corporation imposed consequences if you say or do something that those corporations don't like.

[me]

And by the same token a corporate owner cannot express his/her feelings either lest those groups scream for boycott of their products/services.  No one is exempt it would seem.

[Locutus]

What's driving me crazy is that idiots like Sarah Palin, and other miscellaneous idiots with Internet access, who are treating this like it's a "free speech" issue when nothing is further from the truth.  Nobody infringed on Mr. Robertson's right to free speech whatsoever.

A perfect analogy is this one. You're more than welcome to walk into the office of your boss on Monday morning and tell him he's a fat bastard with an ugly wife and kids.   See how long you keep your job after exercising your right to free speech. 

[Palehorse]

What's driving me crazy is that idiots like Sarah Palin, and other miscellaneous idiots with Internet access, who are treating this like it's a "free speech" issue when nothing is further from the truth.  Nobody infringed on Mr. Robertson's right to free speech whatsoever.

A perfect analogy is this one. You're more than welcome to walk into the office of your boss on Monday morning and tell him he's a fat bastard with an ugly wife and kids.   See how long you keep your job after exercising your right to free speech.

Yup. It's amazing how high ignorant people can rise within our social structure. 

[me]

What's driving me crazy is that idiots like Sarah Palin, and other miscellaneous idiots with Internet access, who are treating this like it's a "free speech" issue when nothing is further from the truth.  Nobody infringed on Mr. Robertson's right to free speech whatsoever.

A perfect analogy is this one. You're more than welcome to walk into the office of your boss on Monday morning and tell him he's a fat bastard with an ugly wife and kids.   See how long you keep your job after exercising your right to free speech.

He was simply disagreeing with an ideology not a person or people.  He said "he" felt it was wrong but held nothing against the person. He has every right to disagree with an ideology and voice it, that is totally different than condemning a person.  He and his belief are both being condemned by this group so what's the difference?  Oh I get it, he must be a conservative.     Oh, and your analogy is condemning a person and his family, not even close to the same thing.  And newscasters were allowed to call Palin and her kids all kinds of vile names so where was your outrage over that?  Oops, you were right in there with them. 

[Palehorse]

He was simply disagreeing with an ideology not a person or people.  He said "he" felt it was wrong but held nothing against the person. He has every right to disagree with an ideology and voice it, that is totally different than condemning a person.  He and his belief are both being condemned by this group so what's the difference?  Oh I get it, he must be a conservative.     Oh, and your analogy is condemning a person and his family, not even close to the same thing.  And newscasters were allowed to call Palin and her kids all kinds of vile names so where was your outrage over that?  Oops, you were right in there with them.

See what I mean? 

Let's take Locutus's analogy and rephrase it this way: You walk into the office of your boss and tell him he is going to burn in hell because he married a divorced woman.

How long do you think you will keep your job after that? Especially within an "at will" and "right to work" state like Indiana?

[Locutus]

See what I mean? 

Let's take Locutus's analogy and rephrase it this way: You walk into the office of your boss and tell him he is going to burn in hell because he married a divorced woman.

How long do you think you will keep your job after that? Especially within an "at will" and "right to work" state like Indiana?

Exactly. 

I didn't intend to turn this thread into an indictment of Sarah Palin, but since I like to point out double standards when I see them, I'll say this.  Where was Sarah Palin's championing of free speech back when Martin Bashir said that someone should defecate in her mouth?  I didn't see her on the same side of the argument back then. 

[me]

Exactly. 

I didn't intend to turn this thread into an indictment of Sarah Palin, but since I like to point out double standards when I see them, I'll say this.  Where was Sarah Palin's championing of free speech back when Martin Bashir said that someone should defecate in her mouth?  I didn't see her on the same side of the argument back then. 

That was also being said about a specific person and not an ideology.  A better question would be where was the woman's right group that would have been up in arms had that been said about a liberal woman.

[me]

See what I mean? 

Let's take Locutus's analogy and rephrase it this way: You walk into the office of your boss and tell him he is going to burn in hell because he married a divorced woman.

How long do you think you will keep your job after that? Especially within an "at will" and "right to work" state like Indiana?

That is still against a person not an ideology.

[Locutus]

That was also being said about a specific person and not an ideology.  A better question would be where was the woman's right group that would have been up in arms had that been said about a liberal woman.

The bottom line is that none of these cases have anything whatsoever to do with free speech. 

[Locutus]

That is still against a person not an ideology.

Doesn't matter.   See above.

[me]

The bottom line is that none of these cases have anything whatsoever to do with free speech.

Duck Dynasty's does.