«

»

What The Duck!!!!

I did the unthinkable the other day. Doing some last minute Christmas shopping on line, an item that I wanted was only available in store. So yesterday I drove to my local Kohls, grabbed what I wanted and was going to be outa there in less than 5 minutes. While standing in the check out line, I noticed Duck Dynasty crap everywhere, toys in the center isle and books (both on the family and cooking) near the cash registers. Clearly, I was tickled, not so much because I was a fan (at the time I never saw the show but have lately been watching the first season on Amazon Prime, the show is terrific) but anytime those whinny cry baby gay advocate groups get their nose tweaked and their thuggish brown shirt tactics don’t garner the intended results (not everyone will be bullied) it restores my faith in humanity.

No need to go over what happened, everyone should know by now and the sides have pretty much been drawn, except for the sponsors. Some initially bowed to the pressure and reversed course, while others got on the right side right away, knowing which side their bread is buttered.

Initial impression could indicate that Phil Robertson is a red neck hick, too stupid to know what he has wrought, that impression could not be more wrong. He can read his bio. here, the guy is a walking cliche for the American dream. I did not know he was such a football stud, a Masters in education, a self made millionaire. I was also taken by his Come To Jesus moment, as the song says, was lost but now am found.

Re: the GQ interview, as much I thought he was in command of the whole process, clearly he was trying to pander somewhat to his audience, hence the talk about vagina’s, but he knew what the central theme would be, sin, in all it’s manifestations.

I always wonder why famous people talk to these magazines in the first place, anything positive rarely results, except catching the interviewee in a controversial comment, which is then used to sell more magazines (Stanley McCrystal comes to mind).

I’m not surprised that GLAAD had a hissy fit, nor am I surprised that out of all those things he described as sinful ,” 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”, that part got them the most upset.

I got an education on how the gay activists work during the Prop. 8 kerfuffle a few years back, they give new meaning to “might makes right” and “There is no prize for second place”, while businesses were vandalized, people were attacked, and real laws were broken. Clearly A&E did not want to tangle with them, and we have seen this play out before, both at Target and Chick fil A.

The Robertson family does not need A&E, my guess is that they will cave and restore Phil pronto, it is all about the samolians.

In watching a few of the episodes, I get the popularity. The concept is about as foreign to me as you can get, never ever killing a critter for food, but the simplicity of living off the land (“I don’t trust store bought meat, never have”), and camaraderie of family (the biggest insult imaginable is calling someone a “bird watcher”) makes it very entertaining. The episode where Phil goes to “career day” at his grand daughters school, then shows the 8th grade class how to field dress a duck, with the resultant nausea in the audience, solid gold.

20 comments

No ping yet

  1. Seattle Outcast says:

    The real issue with these people is that many (most) were raised in some sort of christian fashion, and having their religion tell them that they are royally fucked and going to hell is driving them nuts. What they want it the religion to change, so that homosexuals go to heaven. When someone gets up there on a podium and reminds them that they are officially the spawn of satan and that god hates them, they go ballistic and start sputtering insane hate toward the messager.

    They’d be a lot better off if they gave religion the heave-ho and forgot about it. Religion will end/be marginalized due to being ignored, not because of attacks upon it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. richtaylor365 says:

    They just can’t help themselves;

    http://weaselzippers.us/?p=165260

    The “tolerance” door only swings one way.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Section8 says:

    Excellent post Rich. This PC hierarchy is a joke to begin with and this whole thing is nothing but designer politics. How many times did Alec Baldwin get away with actual hateful shit rather than an opinion (which Phil was asked for it in an interview) of what is and is not sin according to this man’s religion. If Phil were advocating stoning homosexuals, calling for them to be jailed or institutionalized I could see an uproar. He did none of these.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    Was mulling a post on this but Ken said basically what I’m thinking, particularly points 2, 5 and 8.

    http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/21/ten-points-about-speech-ducks-and-flights-to-africa/

    I actually had more of a problem with what he said about the Jim Crow South than what he said about gays. People had kittens because he included bestiality in the discussion, but he also included drinking and heterosexual promiscuity. The more I think about it, the more this seems designed to propagate the Left’s Endless Meme of “See! All conservatives are hate-filled religion-addled gay-bashing monsters!”

    I didn’t like what he said. But then again, I’ve not been raking in the cash on his personality the way A&E was.

    If Phil were advocating stoning homosexuals, calling for them to be jailed or institutionalized I could see an uproar. He did none of these.

    More to the point, he specifically said that judgement is reserved for God and that his role is to love everyone and tell them what he sees as the truth about Jesus (Although his 2010 comments were much harsher). What he said wasn’t even in the same ballpark at the hate-filled insults Alec Baldwin was spewing at a gay man. I would be willing to bet that if Robertson were to meet an openly gay man, he would be far more polite than Baldwin is to just about anyone.

    What they want it the religion to change, so that homosexuals go to heaven. When someone gets up there on a podium and reminds them that they are officially the spawn of satan and that god hates them, they go ballistic and start sputtering insane hate toward the messager.

    However … the religion *has* changed. And not by a small amount. The Bible is filled with laws that we basically ignore. How many people impregnate their brother’s widow, as commanded in Deuteronomy 25? Do we stone to death people who work on the Sabbath as in Exodus 31? How many people think a woman should be stoned to death if she wasn’t a virgin when she was married, as in Deuteronomy 22? The Bible shows signs of having been revised at later times. Christ’s preachings threw out parts of the Old Testament (e.g., legal divorce). There’s an entire massive volume of wisdom called the Talmud that is basically reinterpretation of the entire Torah.

    (Can you tell I was once a nationally ranked Torah student?)

    My point is not to bash religion. My point is that the religions we have bear only a passing resemblance to the ones we had just a few centuries ago, least of all two millennia ago. My point is that people are engaging in what I call highlighter fundamentalism. They pick the things they want from the Bible (gays are bad), ignore the stuff they don’t want (don’t eat shrimp, sacrifice animals, slavery is OK) and proclaim what they have selected to be the unimpeachable word. I don’t see any problem with challenging that within the faith.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  5. West Virginia Rebel says:

    I think the good thing about Christianity is that its development allowed for changes in society that allowed the religion to survive.

    As for the Duck Commandos, they’ll come out fine…they can go to History Channel, or make A&E eat duck callers. If anything, this has shown that there is a huge section of “flyover country” that will not be ignored or denied.

    PS it also looks like Cracker Barrel has changed their tune, probably because they operate in the heart of Duck Country.
    West Virginia Rebel recently posted..The Obamacare SyndromeMy Profile

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  6. salinger says:

    Three points:

    One: This is not a matter of free speech – unless A&E are now the government.

    Two: These guys know what they are doing and are playing all their fans to the bank.
    http://www.today.com/entertainment/beards-duck-dynasty-stars-are-unrecognizable-8C11411204

    Three: We should forget about worrying about the secularists taking the Christ out of Christmas and worry more about the right wing taking the Christ out of Christian.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  7. richtaylor365 says:

    I actually had more of a problem with what he said about the Jim Crow South than what he said about gays.

    Why? Wasn’t he speaking more anecdotally? Lets examine exactly what he said;

    “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person,” Robertson is quoted in GQ. “Not once. Where 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. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

    I fail to see anything racist in those remarks, and it’s interesting that you would paint his comments with the “Jim Crow” paintbrush. If he launched into a diatribe that ALL black people were treated just like ALL white people, that there never was any discrimination or bigotry anywhere, and that the very idea of Jim Crow and racial inequality is all made up, then yeah, I could understand the outrage. But he was speaking specifically about what he experienced, what he saw with his own eyes. More manufactured faux outrage, if you ask me.

    However … the religion *has* changed. And not by a small amount. The Bible is filled with laws that we basically ignore.

    Since this has already been covered in other older posts, I will just bullet point. The religion itself has not changed. The Old Testament is filled with edicts written specifically for the Jews as a means of showing fealty and respect for their maker, it in no way was meant for Christians. The New Testament was written for Christians, it boils down all those old antiquated restrictions down to two basic commandments, Love God and love your fellow man, pretty simple really.

    PS it also looks like Cracker Barrel has changed their tune, probably because they operate in the heart of Duck Country.

    Already mentioned in the original post.

    One: This is not a matter of free speech – unless A&E are now the government.

    Who said this is a free speech matter?

    Three: We should forget about worrying about the secularists taking the Christ out of Christmas and worry more about the right wing taking the Christ out of Christian.

    Please elaborate (this outa be good).

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

      
  8. Hal_10000 says:

    But he was speaking specifically about what he experienced, what he saw with his own eyes. More manufactured faux outrage, if you ask me.

    Speaking about an era when black were regularly lynched and where complaining about white people could get your house burned down. No, I’m sorry, this was not acceptable. This was of the “slaves were always singing in the fields” variety. Check out TNC here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/phil-robertsons-america/282555/

    The Old Testament is filled with edicts written specifically for the Jews as a means of showing fealty and respect for their maker, it in no way was meant for Christians. The New Testament was written for Christians, it boils down all those old antiquated restrictions down to two basic commandments, Love God and love your fellow man, pretty simple really

    1) The early Christians were Jews and many Jewish practices — circumcision, kosher, Jewish holidays — were maintained among early Christians. They didn’t split off until the late 1st century. You should read Josephus on this subject.

    2) That is a bunch of garbage. There is very little about homosexuality in the NT and even those passages are disputed. When fundamentalists talk about gays, they are talking about the Old Testament. This business about “hey, that only applied to Jews” is only thrown about in response to the points I raised. It is a cop-out of why the Old Testament is selectively cited. When it comes to damning homosexuality, the fundamentalists are *all about* the OT, which is crystal clear on the subject. No one walks around with “Romans 1:26″ on a placard. It’s Leviticus 20.

    3) Even if we confine ourselves to Christianity, we are talking about a religion that has changed enormously. Jesus outlawed divorce, which we allow. He also embraced poverty and freeing oneself of material things; our country has seen the rise of the “prosperity gospel”. Christ said to pray in secret; now we have preachers raising millions on national television. For centuries, the Church maintained that the Bible should only be accessible to priests; William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible. The Christianity practiced today is very different from the one practiced a few centuries ago, least of all the one practiced in Christ’s time. If you have non-Latin bibles around and haven’t executed anyone divorcees or widows for adultery, you’re practicing a modern faith.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      
  9. Hal_10000 says:

    PS – Just to be clear, my problem is not with the Bible itself, but with the way people use it. I think everyone should read the Bible. And I’ve taken on some of the Bible bashers myself (particularly the lie that Exodus says you can sell your daughter into slavery). But it’s the beginning of wisdom, not the end.

    update: Here’s my old post on the subject: http://archives.right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/comments/biblical_illiteracy/

    http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=864

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  10. richtaylor365 says:

    Speaking about an era when black were regularly lynched and where complaining about white people could get your house burned down. No, I’m sorry, this was not acceptable. This was of the “slaves were always singing in the fields” variety.

    So let me get this straight, in Louisiana back then it was a physical impossibility to walk from point A to point B without seeing a black man tangling from a tree and a burning cross at every black man’s front yard? You seem to be missing the distinction between the presence of racial inequality in the deep south and what Robertson’s personal experiences were in growing up in the deep south, are you calling him a liar? I Guess it would depend on the question put forth to him, just maybe the author was asking him about his experiences growing up in the deep south, should he have just made stuff up more to perpetuate the deep south stereotype?

    That is a bunch of garbage.

    Sorry, but the distinction between the Old and New Testament is very clear, one was written for the Jews (the Nation of Israel to be precise) and the other was written for Christians, this fact is not in dispute. Christians are not bound by the sacrificial system, all the food and clothing rules, or any of all the other shalls and shalt nots as listed in the Old Testament. We don’t stone gays, adulterers or idolitors like the Old Testament commanded, and for those Christians that think we are bound by these edicts (or the nonbelievers that just love to bring these up as proof of Christian lunacy), they are all wrong.

    And all those other things mentioned about praying in secret and the profits of evangelism, nothing is changed at all, many people do sinful things in God’s name, been that way for a couple thousand years, they get it wrong. The true believer puts his faith in God, not man, man is fallible, God is not.

    The New Testament provides an easier and much different path to God than the old. We don’t need to dress a certain way, to eat a certain way, to make animal sacrifices on a regular basis to atone for our sins, someone has already done that for us.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

      
  11. Hal_10000 says:

    So let me get this straight, in Louisiana back then it was a physical impossibility to walk from point A to point B without seeing a black man tangling from a tree and a burning cross at every black man’s front yard? You seem to be missing the distinction between the presence of racial inequality in the deep south and what Robertson’s personal experiences were in growing up in the deep south, are you calling him a liar?

    No. I believe he didn’t hear blacks complaining about whites … in front of whites. The South was under a racial reign of terror for almost 100 years after the civil war. You don’t have to have a lynching or a cross-burning every day to be scared of it. We’ve had a handful of terrorists attack on US soil over the last decade. Does that mean we’re not afraid of it? Or that we shouldn’t do anything about it? Can you imagine what we would be doing if there were a few hundred terrorist acts every year? And our government mostly looked the other way? That was Black America for a a century.

    My grandparents grew up in Atlanta. The one thing they would never talk about was the lynching of Leo Frank. But every Jew knew about it and every Jew acted to make sure he wouldn’t be the next one that would end up dangling from a tree. These events do not have to be common to have a massive effect. That’s what that kind of terrorism is for: to make an example of someone to scare everyone else into line.

    When Robertson was nine years old, a boy named Emmett Till was dragged from his home tortured and murdered in nearby Mississippi for (supposedly) talking to a white woman. This event was seared into black consciousness. You can not possibly think that black people would be free and honest about their feelings in that sort of environment.

    I’m pretty sure Robertson never saw overt racism; I’m also pretty sure he wasn’t looking. Or maybe he missed the whole Civil Rights movement, complete with murdered civil rights workers, church bombings and cross burnings. Maybe he missed that many of the black working with him in the fields had no other choice because they couldn’t borrow money or go to good schools.

    I’ve heard Robertson’s line of crap a thousand times and it’s still crap. Anyone who thinks black people were better off in the Emmett Till era than today doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    As for your OT/NT distinction, I don’t think all Christians see it that way. But be sure to tell it to the fundamentalists when they start dragging out Leviticus in response to gays. If the OT doesn’t apply, where they are getting this anti-gay stuff from? Why do they obsess over every culture issue except the one that Christ actually spoke to, which was remarriage? Why are they not condemning Rush Limbaugh for, in Christ’s words, committing adultery at least three times through marrying other women?

    And that still doesn’t change the fact that Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam and everything else) has changed significantly over the last five centuries, independent of the OT.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7

      
  12. richtaylor365 says:

    I’m pretty sure Robertson never saw overt racism; I’m also pretty sure he wasn’t looking.

    Again, how could you possibly know and why would you naturally assume “he wasn’t looking”? I tend to take people at their word, Robertson makes no bones (not here but in his other bios.) of his colorful history, his drinking, his lawlessness, in essence his degradation, then from there to his religious conversion. If he saw acts of racism, even participated in it at one time, why lie about it, he didn’t lie about all the other bad stuff that he did? I have reread his comments on the subject and the only thing that you could bang him on was his statement that “they were happy”, I guess he should have said ,”To me, those that I came in contact with appeared happy”, but the implication from the MSM (and you) is that he obviously is either lying or was blind to the reality staring him in the face, and how dare he make any references to blacks( that he had contact with) that were not scared shitless every second of their waking lives, in fear of being lynched at the drop of a hat. And to assume that some might be happy, as you said;

    I actually had more of a problem with what he said about the Jim Crow South than what he said about gays

    .

    He clearly has something to hide.

    In the 60′s I grew up in Oakland and as everyone knows Oakland is a predominantly black city. My mom worked in a factory in Oakland and we did not have a car so she took the bus to work and I went to the local schools. Me being white, I was the minority from like 2nd grade to high school. The 60′s was a time of great upheaval, much racial strife going on, but if some GQ reporter asked me about growing up in Oakland and my personal experiences, none of what I would say would have anything to do with black inequality or injustice, to me I was just trying to survive. And if you read that GQ article you would be forced to say that I must have been blind to what was going on, or you are pretty sure I wasn’t looking.

    As for your OT/NT distinction, I don’t think all Christians see it that way

    No doubt, but then again I never claimed to speak for “all” Christians. As far as I’m concerned, Leviticus has nothing to do with the two fundamental commitments of Christianity, namely to love God and to love your fellow man.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  13. Hal_10000 says:

    One of the defining elements of racism in the South was the inability of many white people to see it. White newspapers would not run stories about black issues. When Emmett Till was murdered, the Southern papers said justice was served by his murderers getting off and ran ongoing stories about his dad’s crimes. I grew up in the South and never heard of, for example, contract mortgages. These were the only mortgages available to most black people until the 1970′s. They paid a massive down payment and a high monthly payment. And if they missed one payment, all their payments turned into rent and the speculator owned 100% of the house. And you can imagine what happened if they went to court when a payment mysteriously vanished. That was just one of a hundred issues that were ignored by the MSM, who treated the black community like it didn’t exist.

    For someone who grew up in Louisiana to say he never saw an overt act of racism sounds like the thing I have heard over and over again, through history and through discussions with people who lived through it. Apparently, no one actually witnessed the entrenched racism in the South. Robertson probably never did any racist stuff. And maybe he was closer to blacks because he lived with them. That’s all fine. But to say he never saw a black person mistreated? In 1950′s Louisiana?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

      
  14. Mook says:

    Speaking about an era when black were regularly lynched and where complaining about white people could get your house burned down

    Of course you exaggerate the “regularity” of lynchings for emotional effect. Rich was entirely right to call you out on that. By the 40′s, the number of lynchings had reduced to a tiny dribble. More whites are murdered in the US by blacks every year BY FAR than the entire total number of blacks lynched in the US post-1900. According to that bastion of white racism, the Tuskegee Institute, there were a total of 8 blacks lynched nationwide between 1950 – 1959, and it’s a good bet that at least a couple of those involved criminal action on the part of the lynchee, rather than solely racist murder of innocent. Not nearly as widespread a “reign of terror” as you have asserted..

    Given that reality, and that that poor “white trash” in the South wasn’t treated much differently than blacks during that era, Phil’s comments are entirely plausible. I’m sure he saw some blacks being mistreated, but I’m equally sure he saw much of the same happening to whites too. Phil, like the blacks he worked the fields with, were poor and didn’t know better, so they very well may have been happy. My mother and her sisters grew up in abject poverty, often without adequate food to eat.. but overall they would tell you that they had a happy childhood, despite deprivation. Again, when you’re poor and don’t know better, you may not “see” many inequities because life was difficult. Sounds like that’s where Phil was coming for. He never said there was no racial discrimination in the south, he only made a comment based on his personal experience.

    As for contract mortgages, I suspect that’s more emotional bullshit as plenty of whites and other races have been scammed by shady loan dealings since forever. It never was/is a black-only problem and it’s not because of my white “inability” to see otherwise. I’m sure there was racial discrimination in home loans back in the day, but mortgage lenders want to make $$, so the main color they are incentivized to see is green. Other discriminated races of non-whites such as Chinese and Japanese Americans were able to somehow purchase homes and land during that time.

    Hot! Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

      
  15. AlexInCT says:

    Excellent post Rich. This PC hierarchy is a joke to begin with and this whole thing is nothing but designer politics.

    ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

    I suspected that they misrepresented what he said and it looks like that’s precisely the case. Funny how the leftists demand tolerance of their believes and ways, but will not extend the same courtesy to others. I guess tolerance these days means tolerance for those that have the “right” beliefs, meaning you believe only what the left wants you to believe. I guess another victim of the progressive PC culture is that freedom thing we were supposed to have guaranteed by the constitution.

    As I have often told people: I may disagree vehemently with what some people say and do, but as long as they are not causing harm, I will defend their rights to do just that.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Hal_10000 says:

    Mook, the number of white people murdered every year by blacks is a few hundred, according to the justice department (http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all&kr=B&vr=W). In the last year, it was about 400. The first 5 years of the 20th century has as many lynchings. And you simply can’t compare murders committed mostly because of arguments and robberies to a mob dragging a man out, torturing him, castrating him, stringing up from a tree, burning him and leaving him out there as an example to everyone else. You simply can’t compare a situation where murderers are prosecuted, jailed and sometimes executed to situations where no one was ever prosecuted, where people boasted about it. Those aren’t even in the same solar system.

    The incident I am most familiar with is the Leo Frank case because of my upbringing in Atlanta and numerous books I’ve read on the subject and people I’ve spoken to who were alive at the time. The people who lynched him boasted about it. Many of them went on to huge successes in politics and finance. The man who’s newspaper called for Frank to be lynched and then gloated over it has a fucking statue near my dad’s office. Meanwhile, the Governor who commuted Frank’s sentence was run out of town on a rail and his political future was destroyed. The attorneys who defended him and later found the evidence of his innocence were ruined. Comparing that to someone killing a guy during a robbery and then being jailed for thirty years is insane.

    With contract mortgages, again you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. This was a financial scheme that was almost exclusively confined to money lent to blacks. You’re right: home lenders did want to make money. That’s why they foisted contract mortgages on blacks, because they could make insane profits and keep the house. Read TNC on it here (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-ghetto-is-public-policy/275456/) where he shows a document and talks about the dozens of people he interviewed about them.

    Contract mortgages like that are now illegal because they were so corrupt (although they were still legal in Arkansas in the 80′s when Hillary did paperwork for them in Whitewater and swindled one guy out of his house). This wasn’t subprime lending. That was legalized theft.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      
  17. Hal_10000 says:

    Returning to Robertson, I have a post planned on that, but I’ll save it for after Xmas.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  18. Xetrov says:

    I is confused.

    Are we talking about blacks getting lynched, or Jews like Leo Frank getting lynched?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  19. Argive says:

    it’s a good bet that at least a couple of those involved criminal action on the part of the lynchee, rather than solely racist murder of innocent.

    Whether or not a lynching victim committed a criminal act does not excuse extrajudicial murder by mob. That’s why we have a legal system. Indeed, a lot of lynchings (including Leo Frank’s) involved mobs taking victims from prisons so that they could be lynched.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  20. richtaylor365 says:

    Breaking news……………fish swim, birds fly, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, oh, and fascism is defeated. As everyone knew they would, A&E caved;

    http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/a-duck-dynasty-to-resume-filming-in-spring/

    The people have spoken (or was that the almighty dollar?)

    I wonder if they will still have Chick-Phil-A day?

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/26/national-chick-phil-a-day-to-support-free-speech-explodes-wear-camos-90479

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.