Duck Dynasty's Robertson and Momma Moose Palin...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
It is astounding to many that this country, given all it's really important issues and problems (the national dept, deficits, the (Un)Affordable Care Act, crony capitalism, off-shoring of business activity, the shrinking middle class, etc.), still finds time to fixate on Duck Dynasty's outspoken bigot Phil Robertson and Momma Moose Sarah Palin's support of Robertson's bigotry.
However one may view it there is no question it diverts attention from real issues of importance. Driven by the the now dying old guard relics that yearn for a return to the era they grew up in Mamma Moose Sarah Palin is trying to equate the suspension of a bigot by a private business entity as suppression of free speech. Apparently what she hopes is all of us are as ignorant of the 1'st amendment as she is.
Free speech as enshrined in our Constitution was meant to insure the right of free and uncensored political speech could not be infringed by the government. Its purpose was to prevent the government from censoring opposing political viewpoints.
Certainly people are entitled to their opinions and have the right to make them verbally and or in writing. Hopefully there are few if any Americans who wold dispute this. Robertson and Momma Moose Sarah Palin certainly have the right to express their views no matter how bigoted and offensive they may be to others so long as they can find an outlet willing to give them an audience.
The decision to suspend Robertson was made by a private business concern based solely on what it believed the ramification could be to its legitimate business interests. The decision had nothing to do with hate or the desire to stop free speech. It was a business decision made by executives that are acutely aware that the opinions expressed by Robertson could have a negative effect on viewership of A&E and thus negatively impact their bottom line. In a free capitalist market that us libertarians all profess to want this is adecidedly desirous thing. Were it the government taking police action to silence Robertson then the concern expressed by Momma Moose Palin would indeed be valid and I would be penning an entirely different viewpoint.
That's my take, what say you?
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
.jpg) |
| ,Momma Moose Palin and Homespun Idiocy |
It is astounding to many that this country, given all it's really important issues and problems (the national dept, deficits, the (Un)Affordable Care Act, crony capitalism, off-shoring of business activity, the shrinking middle class, etc.), still finds time to fixate on Duck Dynasty's outspoken bigot Phil Robertson and Momma Moose Sarah Palin's support of Robertson's bigotry.
However one may view it there is no question it diverts attention from real issues of importance. Driven by the the now dying old guard relics that yearn for a return to the era they grew up in Mamma Moose Sarah Palin is trying to equate the suspension of a bigot by a private business entity as suppression of free speech. Apparently what she hopes is all of us are as ignorant of the 1'st amendment as she is.
Free speech as enshrined in our Constitution was meant to insure the right of free and uncensored political speech could not be infringed by the government. Its purpose was to prevent the government from censoring opposing political viewpoints.
Certainly people are entitled to their opinions and have the right to make them verbally and or in writing. Hopefully there are few if any Americans who wold dispute this. Robertson and Momma Moose Sarah Palin certainly have the right to express their views no matter how bigoted and offensive they may be to others so long as they can find an outlet willing to give them an audience.
The decision to suspend Robertson was made by a private business concern based solely on what it believed the ramification could be to its legitimate business interests. The decision had nothing to do with hate or the desire to stop free speech. It was a business decision made by executives that are acutely aware that the opinions expressed by Robertson could have a negative effect on viewership of A&E and thus negatively impact their bottom line. In a free capitalist market that us libertarians all profess to want this is adecidedly desirous thing. Were it the government taking police action to silence Robertson then the concern expressed by Momma Moose Palin would indeed be valid and I would be penning an entirely different viewpoint.
POLIICO - Sarah Palin says the suspension of one of the stars of the show “Duck Dynasty” over recent anti-gay comments he made is an attack on free speech.
Palin re-posted a picture of her meeting with the stars of the A&E show on her Facebook page Wednesday night, writing that “intolerants” were behind the suspension of the show’s patriarch, Phil Robertson.
“Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us,” Palin wrote.
Earlier this month, Palin met the cast of the show when she was in Monroe, La., on her book tour and posted several photos of their time together to her Facebook page.
Robertson was suspended on Wednesday by A&E after comments he made in an interview with GQ.
“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,” A&E said in a statement, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “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.” {Read More}
That's my take, what say you?
Via: Memeorandum
"...the suspension of a bigot by a private business entity as suppression of free speech..."
ReplyDeleteThanks for schooling us on this issue: some of is need this education, I am sure.
"...Were it the government taking police action to silence Robertson..."
A good example of those who need schooling on this is those who support outright censoring the Citizens United individuals for daring to say things that upset a sitting US Senator.
Citizens United was NOT about upsetting the tender feelings of sitting US senator. It was about a violation of federal campaign finance laws, i.e. the funding of a film used for political purposes. In striking down all restrictions on funding, the SCOTUS conferred legal personhood status upon corporations at the expense of actual, living persons.
DeleteWhen a corporation goes off to war, bleeds for the country, and dies for the country, then I'll believe it.
One consequence of the Citizens United decision: Special interest groups and their lobbyists can now purchase unlimited amounts of free speech at the expense of actual persons. Let me rephrase this: The SCOTUS has legalized what we used to call graft and corruption.
Octo said: "Citizens United was NOT about upsetting the tender feelings of sitting US senator. It was about a violation of federal campaign finance laws, i.e. the funding of a film used for political purposes."
DeleteA film which got in trouble because it, individuals dared to criticize a sitting US senator. These individuals were NOT part of a campaign.
"In striking down all restrictions on funding"
No, they left in place restrictions on campaign funding. What they ended was the banning of criticizing those in power.
"the SCOTUS conferred legal personhood status upon corporations at the expense of actual, living persons."
Not at all. There is no instance of this part of Citizens United (corporate personhood) which I disagree with, by the way, causing anything. Yet. However, the lifting of censorship has allowed people to speak out more. People, protected by the First Amendment. I strongly support this.
"One consequence of the Citizens United decision: Special interest groups and their lobbyists can now purchase unlimited amounts of free speech..."
Blame the First Amendment. The Constitution. It does NOT include what you are demanding: a clause which allows Congress to gag people if they are associated with organizations that Octo finds repulsive.
"... at the expense of actual persons." This has not happened.
Let me rephrase this: "The SCOTUS has legalized what we used to call graft and corruption. "
Your rephrase has absolutely nothing to do with this ruling allowing individuals to speak against those in power. You are clearly one of those who needs schooling: the thought of individuals having the right to speak out gets you in a tizzy.
More concerning Citizens United. It left campaign finance laws intact and in place.
DeleteFrom the Wiki description: "The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office"
Glad we have this ruling, and the US is not a place like North Korea where it is a crime to make movies critical of those who rule.
Octo, if you don't like the movie, don't watch it. It is not hyperbole to say that wanting to see such films censored is nasty and fascistic.
I thought this was behind us
ReplyDelete... I kinda thought the old bit about the happy darkies singing and smilin' in the fields was behind us.
And hating on he gays is becoming passe but some need to get the message.
You've had Palin and Bobby Jindal and undoubtedly others defending this guy.
Get ready for a backlash. Get ready to get an even better look at the far right.
But I feel optimistic these days. I think a progressive government is building in America and
I am very hopeful that Pope Francis is serious about the social gospel.
Well, yes and no.
ReplyDeleteYes to understandong free speech as it relates to the constitution and political speech.
No to the progressivism on government you and others dream of. That is as sure a path to tyranny as is the path the far right would have us take.
Reasoned deliberative moderation my friend.
Here's the comment I left over at The Swash Zone. It pretty much echoes what Les wrote:
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure this is about free speech. I have a feeling that A&E is making a business decision, and that decision is based upon how many people will tune out a program where someone denigrates gays and lesbians. It's no longer acceptable to bash this minority, and a majority of Americans agree with that. I don't think that what Robertson said (and I'd never heard of this cable show until the other day) would be acceptable if he had slammed or denigrated Italians for being mafiosi thugs, or Jews for being responsible for killing Jesus, or African-Americans for being inferior because of the "curse of Ham.". Trashing gays and lesbians is not a profitable thing to do when you're in business. Plus, since the government had no part in this, there was no infringement on anyone's free speech. A business made a decision, I think, for its bottom line.
A&E is probably concerned about corporate image and advertisers.
DeleteI doubt the latest display of racism and homophobia is going to do anything but make the viewers more loyal. The show is hardcore.
Also I do not believe he has been fired. Just put on the back burner for awhile. Could well
be back next season. A&E is tying to finesse this.
Ducky: Racism? I've seen the anti-gay statements.... What did I miss?
DeleteAhhh Ducky, found the racism: click here"
DeleteWhere we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy."
Walt Disney's "Song of the South" anyone?
The thing that leaves me scratching my head is why in the hell would "GQ" or anybody else for that matter ever bother to interview this clown in the 1st place? I mean, it absolutely makes zero sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThis incident reminds me of a defense I wrote some years on behalf of Pamela, a conservative blogger like Les who has been a friend of conservatives and liberals alike.
ReplyDeleteTo recall events, I was caretaking Shaw’s blog and invited Pamela to contribute a short post. Gracious of Pamela, I thought, that all of Shaw’s friends would rally and help her in time of need.
The rabid rabble accused Pamela of nothing less than apostasy and treason. Why? Because Pamela dared to contribute an article to a liberal blog; because Pamela dared to associate with liberal friends; because the rabid rabble demands nothing less than ideological purity and partisan SEGREGATION and cultural WARFARE. Here is an excerpt from A Blessed Kristallnacht to All:
“Rightwing critics disparage the term political correctness as a Marxist plot whose aim is to undermine conservative values and impose social conformity … [Skip]. Yet, the same rightwing critics employ a far more sinister version of political correctness. They make use of litmus tests to enforce ideological orthodoxy in thought, speech, and personal associations. They will not hesitate to browbeat fellow conservatives into submission with condemnation and excommunication. How ironic! The rightwing accuses the left of using political correctness to impose social conformity; yet, the same rightwingers use coercive means to enforce groupthink within their ranks.”
I believe the more common expression is ‘RINO’ whenever a conservative Republican fails to pass the ultra-lunatic litmus test.
For the rabid rabble, the term political correctness serves another purpose. They wield the term to create an unequal playing field. Huh? After they say something utterly repugnant and offensive, they invoke the PC term to neutralize any criticism of them. IOW, they invoke their right to act as jerks, but revoke our right to call them to task. You see, any criticism, any rebuttal is ohhh sooo PC.
If homophobia, misogyny, racism, and anti-Semitism are forms of protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment, then political correctness is free speech too.; and don’t forgot that!
At least political correctness serves a justifiable purpose. We describe the framing effect of language and word-choice in shaping the attitudes and actions of speakers and listeners. The abuse and misuse of language contributes to negative stereotypes that can restrict the rights, opportunities, and freedoms of people. One goal of political correctness is to render pejorative labels as socially unacceptable, thus encouraging us to view individuals on their merits as opposed to stereotypes.
Oh, but I forgot. How clumsy of me! The rabble has never been wowed by concerns for equality and justice. That’s just tooo … PC!
Octo: I remember Pamela. Her blog seems to be just dormant now. She's a true class act.
DeletePamela is a class act. I believe she is writting a book and she is well as far as I know based on a fairly recent correspondence.
DeleteI told her if she is ever interested in political blogging again she has an open invitation here as to be a guest contributor.
Postscript:
ReplyDelete“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …” (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution).
While Congress (meaning our government) may not infringe upon free speech, there is no language in The Constitution that obligates me to post offensive remarks on my blog, obligates my local newsstand to sell copies of the The Daily Worker, or obligates A&E to employ persons who may expose the company to legal actions or civil lawsuits due to discrimination.
There is no language in the Constitution that stops me from calling out Fishe Stinke or Colonel Klinke for verbally abusing my friends; and if Sarah Palin or The Stinke doesn’t like my opinion of them, they can either improve themselves, find a good shrinke, or suck it up!
Martin Bashir got canned for this:
ReplyDeleteHe was, appropriately, outraged at the slavery reference, arguing, rightly, that the comment belittled the awful treatment and abuse slaves endured. He went into detail, reading from a journal entry by Thomas Thistlewood, an 18th century plantation worker. Thistlewood described how a slave was punished by having another slave defecate in his mouth.
He could have left it at that – reminding people how offensive it is to compare the treatment of slaves to fiscal policy or pretty much anything. But he went a step further, suggesting that Palin, too, might need to be subject to such treatment. Said Bashir:
"When Mrs. Palin invokes slavery, she doesn't just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, she would be the outstanding candidate."
Robertson was not canned, he was suspended for giving his opinion about something he finds reprehensible. So he got to say what he wanted to say, and he will most likely keep his job.
Martin Bashir lost his job.
Seems worse to me, Shaw.... Robertson was describing how things existed, or were in the past.. according to his opinion. Bashir was recommending specific outrageous actions be perpetrated against Palin.
DeleteNo, I have remained unaware of the Bashir incident, Shaw. No pre conceptions. In fact, all I know of it is from what I just now read fro myou.
Here are links to two reads on the Bashir resignation/firing from MSNBC:
Deletehttp://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/martin-bashir-resigns-from-msnbc-following-palin-comment
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/19/piers-morgan-accuses-sarah-palin-getting-martin-bashir-fired
I don't why Bashir said Palin should have a shit taken in her mouth. Seems kinda redundant to me.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Sometimes jmj your comments can be just plain jackassery.
DeleteThersites and JMJ sounding more alike than not at this time, RN.
DeleteMore like opposing book ends. Extremes at the polar opposites... Putting it another way.
DeleteG_d forbid that someone should offend the fudge packers!
ReplyDeleteAnd once again we see the genius of a dunce. Thanks for stopping in and demonstrating the depth of your intellect so concisely Thersites.
ReplyDeleteHappy Holidays to You and Yours.
".... the fudge packers..."
DeleteWould it be too much to offer Thersites a nice box of chocolates?
It's just a bit comical Shaw and her ilk are taken aback by the firing of Bashir. One could only imagine her reaction if a conservative commentator suggested defecating into Michelle Obama's mouth.....I'd guess Shaw would get the vapors and faint and after coming to she would demand not only the firing of said commentator but also their flogging in the public square.
ReplyDeleteRusty has a good point. Many on the Left tolerate a level of disparagement for Sarah Palin that they don't tolerate at all for Michelle Obama.
ReplyDeleteCriticism of a politician's views and record, and even their spouse if the spouse injects themselves into the murky waters of politics, is fair game.
ReplyDeleteThe comments by Bashir were reprehensible and showed zero class or respect. In short the critcism could have been couched in perfessional terminology. Bashir chose to be a borrish uncouth a**hole. Shaw is certainly entitled to her view and on this we will simply agree to diagree.
Michelle Obama is the First Lady of the United States. The pictures floating around the internet, the derogatory, vulgar, and disrespectful comments from the most extreme right a**holes are pathetic and say everything about them and nothing about Michelle Obama.
RN: We agree, largely. I readily accept that what is done to Michelle Obama is worse than what is done to Palin, for reasons of the racial comments and other reasons. However, even if it is "fair game" to bash politicians and spouses like this, I don't think it is proper, right, or shows good upbringing. Rude and classless.
DeleteYes indeed. I agree, Michelle has been treated more harshly than any other First Lady. Palin was made fun of by the left but not in the ways the right has treated Michelle Obama.
DeletePolitics get personal sometimes, always have going as far back as the founding fathers. It is unfortunate and is really not necessary. We are humans and humans are capable of some really nasty stuff. In politics it infects both sides and neither side seems to have a problem engaging in it when they feel it will further the likelihood of victory.
Whoever it was who opened this Pandora's Box of advocacy journalism, that's the person who I want to see get "it" in the mouth. Figuratively obviously (fingers firmly crossed behind my back).
DeleteYou have a great point there. While I do applaud the principle of journalists being able to soundly criticize those in power, I do agree with you on the quality of advocacy "journalism".
DeleteAnd Will, to answer your question... "Whoever it was who opened this Pandora's Box of advocacy journalism"
DeleteIt might have been the removal Fairness Doctrine, which had formerly imposed such rigid control of station content involving issues, that it in was a strong blanket of censorship (so AM stations would play Mantovani instead of any issues-oriented show). Do you want to go back to that?
Where can I get Mantovani on radio?
DeleteBB: Back in the deep 1970s. Get a time machine. You will find radio stations filled with schmaltzy easy listening due to the "Fairness Doctrine" preventing issues-oriented radio.
DeleteBring it back, and you get rid of not only Rush Limbaugh, but all those NPR news-only stations also.
dmarks: preventing issues-oriented radio
DeletePoint of clarification: The Fairness Doctrine did not prevent issues from being aired; it mandated that all sides of an issue be represented back-to-back - or more simply put: For every action, there would be an equal and opposite reaction.
The Fairness Doctrine may have gone away but it left behind another idiotic practice: The 'talking heads' format, another half-assed attempt to create 'balance.' The problem with 'talking heads' is that broadcasters make no attempt to determine the veracity of competing claims. One panelist might be lying, another could be telling the truth, and the network leaves the burden of proof to the viewer. So the liar has his or her viewpoint legitimized on a national stage without challenge, and that is how hype and manufactured fright gains traction. I call this "error of the mean" journalism, which is no better than what we had before.