Television, Duck Dynasty, & Free Speech...What The Duck...?

Outside of the news and programs that are political, historical, or current-events-oriented (as well as one or two guilty pleasures), there is very little on television which interest me enough to waste my valuable time watching. This goes double for anything that fits into the so-called “reality television” genre of programming; I for the life of me cannot begin to fathom why such mental junk food is so appealing. I suppose it represents the dumbing down of America on the whole. At any rate, it is an issue regarding reality television’s current breakout hit that has me posting yet again an issue that begs discussion.
The issue at hand surrounds the unexplainable-to-sophisticated-minds popularity of the Arts and Entertainment cable network’s “Duck Dynasty” reality television series. Dynasty follows the “day-to-day” life of a mostly backwoods Louisiana living-off-the-land-type redneck family, who happen to run a successful a duck-call manufacturer (if you can believe that). Being dyed-in-the-wool, God-fearing, hard-patriotic, hard-hunting, hard-drinking, hard-fun-loving types of individuals, you can imagine that the family—and their members—might just harbor some attitudes and ideas about life that simply don’t conform to the all-inclusiveness aspirations of a society hell-bent on making everyone happy. Just looking at the family, any such ideas shouldn’t come as a surprise (at the risk of prejudging). But strangely enough, the words and thoughts of an elder from the television-spotlighted family actually shocked a large portion of sensitive Americans.

The cast of "Duck Dynasty"

As a result, once again as a nation we’re forced to confront not only another serving of numbskullery from television network producers, but the fallout from yet another case whereby a television personality is forced to endure the barbs and arrows of those who would seek to police the thinking of those of us who would dare to speak our minds. The issue this time around centers on remarks made by an elder-family member from the mind-numbing weekly show.
In an interview with GQ magazine (here), Phil Robertson, the elder of the now-famous Robertson family the show follows and founder of the family business candidly gave his opinions about—among other things—his thoughts on homosexuality. In responding to the question “what in your mind is sinful,” posed by GQ reporter Drew Magary, the unapologetic conservative Southern Christian responded:

“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,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “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.”

Needless to say, this set off a furor in both the press and society at large. The sanctions came fast and furious; Robertson was suspended from being part of the filming of further episodes of the show. Keep in mind that this was an interview about Robertson’s personal thoughts and views, not a man running for public office or calling a press conference to shout out his beliefs.
More and more, it seems the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech without government impediments is becoming irrelevant in a society where private enterprise and public interest groups are able to level socioeconomic sanctions that not only attempt to enforce political correctness of thought, but punish words and personal opinions. In fact, given the ubiquity of such policies in the public and private sectors, the way these institutions are able to enforce and impose “corrections” for daring to speak out has more than the force of law itself.  This social policy is more of a threat to our collective civil liberties relating to Free Speech than anything the government is doing at the moment.

Now in the interest of full-disclosure, before this issue came to light, I hadn’t even heard of “Duck Dynasty.” And being agnostic, I can honestly say that I do not purport to know or even predict where a person’s soul goes in the Hereafter due to their actions in the Herenow. But I’ll wager that that “God” is not in the cell phone contacts of anyone presumptuous (and arrogant) enough to inform another person that they are doomed to Hell (or some other spiritual torment) for not embracing someone else’s dogma—I know He/She isn’t in mine. However, I am of the mindset that whenever someone says something stupid, unreasonable, or judgmental, the best means to deal with it is to either ignore it or say something more intelligent and reasonable as a counter. Imposed censorship and/or sanctions, especially whereas they affect a person’s livelihood is not the way to counter a person’s right to express their opinions and thoughts. Regardless of what someone believes, everyone deserves their say—without being forced to the carpet for it.
Any sanctions for expressing one’s personal opinions should come naturally. If a CEO of a major corporation says something offensive to a particular group, then people have a right not to purchase what that firm produces as a natural consequence. If you don’t like what you read here, you have every right to leave a response with something more reasonable to say as a counter to the postings...or you can ignore it altogether and leave. But contacting my employer and telling him that I should be fired for offending your “sensitivities” is not a valid, or even a civilized response. Such actions prevent the free exchange of ideas and thoughts, which is how policies and laws are formed. It is also how we evolve overall as a species.

Read More

Closing Out 2012...Issues (Still) In The News!

In less than 24 hours, we will welcome in the New Year 2013. As we prepare to say goodbye to 2012, it’s time to look back at the events that shaped the year in both politics and pop culture, as well as the underlying issues they illustrated.

The Fiscal Cliff:
Here we are, nearing the 11th hour of the impasse between the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat President, negotiating to create a mutually satisfactory legislative compromise to avoid the automatic tax increases and spending cuts that are set to kick in if no deal is struck. Diehard Republicans in Congress are sticking to their political mantra of no tax increases as being a component of any remedy to cut government spending, while Democrats seem to be resisting Social Security and Medicaid restructuring as part of any negotiated settlement to slow their (or lower) their contribution to runaway government spending. Needless to say, these two opposing parties don’t seem to be nearing anything in the way of an agreement.

This ongoing political drama has real-life implications for everyday Americans that neither party is willing to acknowledge—outside of bumper-sticker statements made in front of the television cameras as they jockey to paint the other party as the villain. The politicians involved are only part of the problem…we the people are just as polarized as our political leaders, and they know this. No one is willing to be the bigger person and set aside their ideological beliefs for the greater good. And as long as this remains a reality, nothing is ever going to get done to any benefit. This is one of those instances where those involved need to forsake their outside-the-Beltway political pledges, ignore what they perceive to be the often-as-wrong opinions of their political constituencies, ignore their narrow dogmatic “principles,” and put the good of the country ahead of their political parties, and do the right thing. But then, that would involve people actually agreeing…and we know that’s not going to happen before the end of the year (See also: "Why I'm Not A Republican...Or A Democrat.")

Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo: 

The “reality” television craze, spotlighting the misadventures of pint-sized Southern corn-pone child beauty pageant Alana "Honey Boo Boo" Thompson and her family, is one of those phenomenons that make one question the sanity of Americans. Stereotypes. Child exploitation. The anything-for-fame ethos. Irresponsible parenting. Unhealthy dieting. Questionable programming by money-grubbing corporate interests. This was one of those multi-faceted experiences that reflected everything wrong with our collective mindsets. It shows how—for a few bucks and airtime—we are willing to surrender our both our dignity and good sense to become “famous;” that we are willing to do anything to get a piece of the limelight. We are willing to exploit our children as well as ourselves, jeopardize their/our health, and reinforce negative cultural beliefs on the mistaken belief that just because half the nation is willing to pollute it minds by being fixated on such insanity validate that this is “what the people want.” In fact, such pop culture dysfunction is not “what people want;” it’s what television executives force us to watch because they are too cheap to invest money necessary to produce the quality and artistically redeeming programming most of older types grew up with. The more obsessed we are with wanting to become individually famous for no reason that its own sake, the more we reveal how famously self-absorbed and mis-prioritizing we are (See also: "The Great Balloon Hoax And Our Obsession With Fame," and "Adults...Children's Worst Enemy! Conclusion").

Aurora, Oak Creek, Sandy Hook, et al.:
The sad thing is despite the numerous incidents of mass shootings this year, there are people on both sides of the argument who continue to ignore common sense in favor of assuming their customary retreating positions when the issue of gun control comes up. Those on the political left ignore the danger of the new “normal” that some individuals will seek notoriety (there’s that “fame-seeking” angle again) or even infamy as a way deal with whatever demons haunt their souls. Something radical has to be done to protect the law-abiding and innocent among us as Americans, particularly males, embrace the distorted notion that spreading their pain to others in some way creates a sense of balance within their narrow universes. Maybe there needs to be armed officers in the public schools, seeing as how most of these mass shooters are not choosing targets where armed protectors are on duty (police stations, military bases--not counting Fort Hood--, National Rifle Association meetings, etc.). They are ignoring the new reality of a society which has adopted way of dealing with personal problems. Those on the political right want to maintain the near-open availability of semi-automatic weapons which are better served on the battle field than in the homes where citizens already own multiple weapons. Many among them defend their intransigence with regards to the Second Amendment right to bear arms as a way of being able to “defend themselves against a government tyranny.” Needless to say, this is pathetically weak excuse in the face of a government which is not really obligated to allow them any gun possession at all…if in fact such a government were truly out to “get their guns.” Finally, there are those who are not able to factor in that the siphoning away of money and community resources formerly used to confront and treat mental illness as an ingredient in such tragedies. For whatever reason, we don’t want to admit that guns in and of themselves—which have always been available to some degree are not as much of the problem as our shifting values.

President Obama shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings

We don’t want to admit that we use unreasonable excuses based on paranoid fears to maintain a obviously crippled status quo with regard to virtual open access to weapons…even weapons that have no place in a civilized society where we have reasonably armed police officers as a first-line of defense. We also don’t want to admit that there is a stigma attached to mental illness which prevents those suffering in silence from seeking redress…and those in the seats of power from providing funding to ensure that those who suffer can get assistance. When paranoia can be justified and weakly explained away by those who are not willing to set aside their petty desires and/or dogmas for the greater good; when we count pennies and cut budgets to fund a growing problem of mental illness; and when we favor rhetoric over actions, we should prepare to gear ourselves up for even more of these sad tragedies (See also: "Sandy Hook, Guns, And Questions," "Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?" and "How To Stop School Shootings").


Gungnam Style:
South Korean rapper was Psy sure made the ‘rounds on the internet and television circuits…but not for his catchy You Tube breakout video dance craze “Gangnam Style.” At the height of his probable flash-in-the-pan notoriety, it came to light that Psy made some rather off-putting anti-American remarks which he rapped during the height of the Bush Administration’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq. That 2004 performance was widely circulated online once it came to the attention of Westerners, who were still dancing to the You Tube sensation’s video hit.
That performance included lyrics calling for the death of American troops serving in Iraq after two incidents involving South Korean citizens and the American military. Psy’s statements reflected the general anti-American sentiment expressed by many South Koreans at the time, relating to the brutal killing of a South Korean hostage by Iraqi insurgents, and the killing of two Korean schoolgirls who were struck and killed by a U.S. military vehicle.
The lyrics in question went as follows:

“Kill those f--ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives and those who ordered them to torture," and going on to say, "Kill them all slowly and painfully," as well as "daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers."

Naturally, the lyrics were inflammatory to those with a sensitive soft spot for love of America. However, we forget in this country that those who our policies adversely affect have hearts and soft spots too. It’s not for us as a country to judge the anger of another people, especially our allies. Other people, groups, and countries, and hurt too, and their anger is just as much justified as our own when our citizens are hurt or killed by others.

South Korean rapper, Psy

So Psy spoke out of anger...who hasn't...or doesn't? We're supposed to be a nation that favors and promotes freedom of both speech and expression. We can also be a nation of extreme hypocrisy.  As long as Psy was entertaining us with his feel-good lyrics and dancing, we had no problem with him.  The minute he says something which steps on the toes of overly sensitive people, he becomes the Anti-Christ! Let him have his minute in the sun...without the narrow judgments of his opinions.
We in this country are quick to make a big deal out of our right to freedom of expression, but don't seem willing or capable of tolerating it in others.  As I look in retrospect at this issue, I can't help but wonder--especially as a blogger--that is speaking one's opinions, thoughts, and observations all it takes to be hated in America (See also: "Here We Go Again - Ozzie Guillen, Free Speech, And American Foreign Policy," "A Nation of Whiners - Part 2," and "A Nation of Whiners - Conclusion")?

Read More

Too Many Rights Make Wrong

Let’s face it…sometimes, people can be allowed too much freedom. The opportunity to engage in certain behaviors or make certain decisions, just because the law allows us to, does not necessarily mean that that we should do certain things. Freedom of expression should not, and does not mean “anything goes.” Take for example the law in San Francisco. Up until this week, the law in the Golden Gate city allowed public nudity, particularly within the confines of the Castro district, the gay capital of America. But a 6 to 5 ruling by the city’s Board of Supervisors Tuesday ended the practice within the city limits, with the exception of certain street fairs and events. The new city ordinance effectively bans anyone "over the age of 5 from exposing his or her genitals, perineum or anal region" in most public locations. The ban was spurred as a result of the growing number of complaints by citizens of increasing numbers of naked men walking around and/or gathering in public, particularly around the Castro district.

A nude backpacker walks the street of San Francisco last year. Such an act is now illegal. 

Nudists and other opponents of the new ban argue that it infringes on their “rights.” A federal lawsuit has already been filed arguing the proposal infringes on free “speech” and “expression” rights. However, the Board’s actions interjected a bit of sanity and prudence into an otherwise contentious issue in the city. However, the Board’s actions interjected a bit of sanity and prudence into an otherwise contentious issue in the city. The issue is a metaphor for other’s who defend their otherwise questionable practices as a “right.” No one has a total “right” to do as they wish, even if it is legal (or need I remind you that slavery in this country was legal at one time; it didn’t make it right) for the greater good. Some make the argument exposing the human body, even in public is an expression of “body love.” But how selfish is it tout one’s “right” to expose their genitals—men included—in public view of young children? How can anyone with a level cognitive reasoning justify that public nudity should be a “protected right,” when men exposing themselves to women and children is a crime in every municipality in the country?

We now live in a country where every individual whim, no matter how ridiculous, challenges the law as a protected “right.” The National Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a pedophile advocacy organization of men with a predilection for sexual relations with underage males says their “rights” are “violated. Homosexuals now claim their desires to be married to others of the same sex as a legal ”right” (as opposed to a recognition). Our public schools are teeming with disruptive students with questionable mental and emotional diagnoses (e.g., Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorders, etc.) whose parents say they have a “right” to bring their particular brands of disruptive hells to our classrooms, and interfere with the learning process of other students.  People who live in relatively crime-free areas have the “right” to own insane arsenals of weapons despite no existential threats to their lives or liberties.
We Americans love our “rights,” but are not willing to take note of their results:

-The nation’s divorce rate is higher than any other industrialized nations. 

-We have the highest rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity—adult and childhood—than any other industrialized nation. 

-We have the highest rates of childhood poverty of any Western nation. 

-We can also claim the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, murder, and incarceration rates of any advanced nation in the world.

We in America are so obsessed with trying to avoid individual discontent that we find ourselves actually being held hostage by our “rights” to freedoms. Our problem as a nation is that we all want to claim special rights, but not recognize that we have responsibilities as well. And the biggest responsibility we have is to protect not our rights, but common sense.
Everyone cannot be allowed to do what they want.  In order to serve the greater good, some individual rights have to be not only curtailed, but denied. As individuals and representatives of various interests groups, we need to break the delusion that most of us live under that we all have a "right" to do what we want.
We don't allow children to vote. We do not legally recognize the right to drink and drive.  Marijuana is still illegal in most states as well as the federal government.   Let's face it...some of us are not going to be allowed to do what we want.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if we are willing to take our emotions and beliefs out of the driver's seat of our lives and allow reason to pilot our thinking.

Read More

Here We Go Again - Ozzie Guillen, Free Speech, & American Foreign Policy

So I’m watching HBO’s “Real Time” with comedian and social critic Bill Maher, and during his final “New Rules” monologue he reminded me about how important it is that we not limit freedom of expressions or opinions in this country.
I’m a firm adherent to the doctrine of free speech, whether it promotes hate or inspires love. Simply put, putting restrictions on someone else’s right to voice their opinion potentially limits my own. Individuals—unless it is obviously and immediately disruptive to society—should be able to speak without censor or sanction, except that of counter opinions.
What makes attempts to put a lid on free speech dangerous and counter-productive is that it limits the information that we use to engage in a reasonable discourse on potential and actual government and/or social policies. Especially policies which seek to influence thinking and opinion of the general public…regardless how devoid of reason such policies are.
These converging issues, free speech and irrational government policy, became the focus of news earlier this week when Florida Marlin’s baseball team coach Ozzie Guillen responded to a question by a Time Magazine writer about men he admired. The often outspoken veteran sports figure reportedly responded,

"I love Fidel Castro" and "I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that [expletive] is still here."

As is the case whenever a public figure airs a personally-held opinion, he was condemned and forced to apologize.
As a blogger, voracious reader, and information-news junkie, I must admit that I have heard far more controversial and far worse commentary by other public figures, some being our elected officials. However, what I find disturbing are the calls for Guillen’s firing…and for what? For daring to express a personally-held admiration for someone whom nine American presidential administrations have blindly expressed contempt for based on an outdated international policy?
In the early 1970s, the Nixon Administration established formal diplomatic relations with then “Red China”s as a counter to Soviet adversarial relations, and forsaking the previous recognition of the “real” Chinese government on the island of Taiwan (where Western-friendly Chinese Nationalists fled after being defeated by pro-Moscow Mao Zedong’s Communists in 1949). During this time, 50 million Chinese were being starved to death as a result of Mao’s state-sanctioned policies. Also during this time, thousands of Chinese were still being arrested and summarily executed for ambiguous “crimes against the state,” and free speech was still harshly suppressed. Chinese military forces had even fought against American forces during the Korean War. And as late as the 1989, the year of the massacre of young dissidents in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, the United States continued its diplomatic ties to (yes…”communist”) China.
But we still continued and continue to condemn Cuba based on our ideological demonization of Castro’s brand of “communism” (and the fact that the American government couldn’t stand that Castro nationalized foreign-owned interests in order to pay for socioeconomic reforms he instituted in order to establish his communist policies only 90 miles off our shores). Ok, so Cuban exiles in Miami are still a little peeved that Castro is still alive and kicking. You’re not there, and he’s not in power—in theory anyway. Is that a reason to rake a man over the coals because he is able see through the propaganda machine of our often irrational policy toward Cuba to still admire the man who’s made such a mark on the country for the last 50 years?
However, practical as it was that Guillen apologized, it says a lot for the erosion of free speech in this country when people must yield to the opinion of a small but vocal minority group...especially when our foreign policy toward Cuba makes no rational sense. Censoring Guillen’s and others’ right to be heard and to put forth opposing points of thinking with regard to public policy limits discourse. America has been in bedfellows with far worse dictators, had relations with far worse regimes…some guilty of war crimes! Yet, we continue to ostracize the government of Cuba based on an outdated ideological--not rational--policy.
For a brilliant summary of this issue, I invite you to watch Friday’s broadcast of Maher’s “New Rules” segment from “Real Time.”




It seems that when it comes to American foreign policy, there are "Communists" and there are Communists. And when it comes to personal opinions and free speech, there are opinions which are "honest" and those which are "correct."

Read More

Juan Williams, Free Speech, and Something To Think About

America witnessed a bona fide, honest-to-goodness miracle. Liberals and Conservatives alike found common ground in their free defense of quasi-Liberal commentator Juan Williams after he was fired from National Public Radio (NPR) after remarks on FOX News’ O’Reilly Factor, hosted by Bill O’Reilly. Given the depth of news coverage which this story received, we should all know those now-infamous words which Williams spoke on the conservative commentator’s news show:

"I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot,” Williams said on the "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday. “But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."



Granted it’s easy to see how such ideas could further religious intolerance in post 9/11 America, Williams’ firing from NPR last week speaks a great deal about how much free speech has become a target by those who political sensitivities cannot stand to be challenged. Take Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s response to the firing of Williams. The Conservative senator has vowed to introduce legislation calling for the elimination of federal funds used to supplement NPR’s mostly donation-funded operating budget. In defending his stance, DeMint stated that

"Once again we find the only free speech liberals support is the speech with which they agree. The incident with Mr. Williams shows that NPR is not concerned about providing the listening public with an honest debate of today’s issues, but rather with promoting a one-sided liberal agenda."

The ironic thing about such political posturing is that any legislation to cut NPR’s federal funding (only 10% of its total funding anyway) will go a long way toward doing the same thing which DeMint accuses NPR of doing...curtailing free speech. Go Figure.



Free speech—any free speech—should be protected at all cost"

Read More