There are several reasons to not watch “Duck Dynasty”:
- You might be opposed to duck hunting–and the fact that the family of Phil Robertson has grown wealthy by selling duck-calling products.
- Or you may be disgusted at the sight of long hair and beards, which the males in the Robertson family wear with abandon.
- Or you might be turned off by the sight of so many shotguns and rifles, which the family loves to display.
These are perfectly legitimate reasons to switch channels when this A&E “reality series” comes on.
But there’s one reason that shouldn’t apply: Blacklisting Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, because he expressed his opinion during a Gentleman’s Quarterly (GQ) interview.
GQ itself best summed up the image and values of the Robertsons: “a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters.”
So when A&E signed them up in 2012, the network should have known what it was promoting–and that the words “politically correct” didn’t apply.
Thus, the network shouldn’t have been surprised when Robertson, asked during an interview for his views on homosexuality, frankly stated them.
At 67, he is an unabashed Christian fundamentalist and a proud member (along with the rest of his family) of the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ.
Phil Robertson
“It seems like to me, a vagina–as a man–would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” said Robertson, a Louisiana native. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking. There’s more there. She’s got more to offer.
“I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical my nam. It’s just not logical.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers–they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
The First Amendment to the Constitution declares, in part:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….”
Thus, the most important legislative body in the nation is strictly forbidden from interferring with the rights of Americans to express their opinions.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers didn’t have the foresight to imagine wealthy conglomerates such as A&E usurping powers that were denied to Congress.
Thus, when the issue of GQ hit the newsstand–and the Internet–A&E quickly announced that it was indefinitely suspending Phil Robertson from appearing on the “Duck Dynasty” series.
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty.
“His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”
The network stated that the rest of the family (who almost certainly share his views, but haven’t done so publicly) would remain on the program.
Of course, the homosexual/lesbian/transgender community were outraged by Robertson’s views–which were precisely those of an Old Testatment-quoting patriarch.
And they have every right to be upset. They have long been and continue to be targets of abuse–much of it violent. And no doubt they see Robertson’s views as justifying further such abuse aimed at them.
And they weren’t shy about expressing their views about Robertson–and his beliefs. According to a statement released by GLAAD (formerly Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation):
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.
“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans–and Americans–who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.
“Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”
From a First Amendment perspective, so far, so good–two diametrically opposing opinions on a vital social issue. May the best argument win.
But according to A&E, there can be only one prevailing view on homosexuality–whatever view the network’s topmost officials decide is correct at any given moment.
This is the liberal version of the 1950s “Red Scare” reign of Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Anyone accused of being a “Communist,” a “Comsymp” or “fellow traveler” could suddenly find himself out of work.
This was especially so in the area of television–where simply being labeled “controversial” could earn you a pink slip.
Love him or loathe him, Robertson has never hidden his views from anyone.
A&E surely knew what it was getting when it signed him and his Louisiana family up for this “reality series” which brings in huge profits from its 14 million viewers.
Only when those profits are threatened by the public statement of views that A&E officials surely knew long ago has the network tried to distance itself from its ratings-winner.

ABC NEWS, AMERICAN REVOLUTION, BARACK OBAMA, CALVIN COOLIDGE, CBS NEWS, CHINA, CNN, DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS THEORY, EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY ACT, FACEBOOK, HARDBALL, JOB CREATORS, JOHN BOEHNER, LOS ANGELES TIMES, NEW YORK TIMES, PETER CAPPELLI, READERS DIGEST, REPUBLICANS, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, SUSAN COLLINS, TED RALL, THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT, WASHINGTON POST, WHY GOOD PEOPLE CAN'T FIND JOBS
JOBS, YES; TEMPORARY BENEFITS, NO: PART ONE (OF FIVE)
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on January 8, 2014 at 3:04 amOn January 7, the United States Senate voted to allow debate to go forward and avoid a filibuster.
The topic under discussion: Reinstating temporary unemployment benefits for 1.3 million long-term unemployed Americans.
The federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program was created in 2008 and has since been reauthorized 11 times. But those benefits expired on December 28 and have not yet been renewed.
For renewal to occur, the measure must clear the Senate by 60 (out of 100) votes and then the House of Representatives by a majority of its 435 members.
At present, there is no set time by when lawmakers in the House plan to reinstate unemployment insurance.
And even if Congress votes to restore the benefits, those payments will run for only three months. Then, once again, more than one million jobless Americans will be on their own.
The battle lines have been clearly drawn.
Democrats claim:
Republicans claim:
Republican Senator Susan Collins (Maine) said she wanted to see changes to the unemployment system:
“If someone has been unemployed for more than a year it is very likely the job they once had is not coming back. It would be better if a condition of continued unemployment benefits after a year … [was linked] to a job training program participation.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he told President Barack Obama in December, 2013, that another extension of temporary emergency unemployment benefits “should not only be paid for but include something to help put people back to work.
“To date, the president has offered no such plan. If he does, I’ll be happy to discuss it, but right now the House is going to remain focused on growing the economy and giving America’s unemployed the independence that only comes from finding a good job.”
Collins’ and Boehner’s support for job-retraining programs ignores several brutal truths:
Boehner is correct, however, when he says the country needs “something to help put people back to work.”
And that “something” is a nationwide Employers Responsibility Act.
According to Right-wing Republicans, every employer is now a “job creator.”
But if that’s true:
Meanwhile, U.S. corporations sit on nearly $2 trillion in cash.
Among the monies they sit upon are those that could be used to hire those millions of qualified, willing-to-work Americans who can’t find fulltime, permanent employment.
An article in the March, 2011 issue of Reader’s Digest gives the lie to the excuses so many employers use for refusing to hire.
Entitled “22 Secrets HR Won’t Tell You About Getting a Job,” it lays bare many of the reasons why America needs to legally force employers to demonstrate as much responsibility for hiring as job-seekers are expected to show toward searching for work.
Click here: 22 Secrets HR Won’t Tell You About Getting a Job | HT Staffing
Among the truths it reveals:
Share this: