“Duck Dynasty Bigots Will Fade Into Obscurity”: The Robertsons Are Country-Clubbers Posing As Rednecks
Now that I’ve actually seen a few episodes, Duck Dynasty is relatively harmless entertainment. Whatever “reality TV” means, it’s definitely not that. It’s a semi-scripted sitcom, basically cornball self-parody. Think Hee Haw without the music. I find it utterly inane, but then I don’t watch TV with children.
The “tell” is the show’s women; cute Southern sorority girls turned mommies. In real life, no way would those women tolerate their “menfolk” running around looking like a truckload of ZZ Top impersonators. They’re also not going on TV with hay in their hair like some Hollywood director’s idea of a country girl. Every comedy needs a straight man; on Duck Dynasty it’s the women.
But realism? Please. The beards, hair and overalls are costumes every bit as theatrical as the outfits the Rolling Stones wear onstage. In the rural Arkansas county where I live, you could hang around the feed store for a month without seeing anybody like Duck Dynasty “patriarch” (and head bigot) Phil Robertson. And if you did, his wife wouldn’t have any teeth.
The Robertsons are country-clubbers posing as rednecks. Duck hunting itself — requiring, as it does, quite a bit of expensive gear and pricey leases — is mainly a rich man’s pastime in the South. Deer hunting makes economic sense; duck hunting’s a luxury. It’s what doctors, lawyers and bankers do when the weather’s too lousy for golf. Bill Clinton used to go duck hunting once a year to prove he loved guns.
(My own most recent—and final—duck hunting trip began with me tasked with lugging an outboard motor across a muddy soybean field at 5:30 AM. Never again.)
But I digress. Although many Southerners wince at yokel stereotypes, the basic Duck Dynasty joke is that every redneck is a Peter Pan at heart. The Robertson men spend their time bickering like children and making mischief with pickup trucks, ATVs, shotguns, handguns, deer rifles, chainsaws, outboard motors, dynamite, etc. Basically anything that makes loud noises and/or throws mud around.
How long, I wonder, before the Duck Dynasty boys endorse the “Bad Boy” brand of riding mowers? Currently represented by a half-clothed model urging guys to “Get a Bad Boy, Baby!” these machines have the magical capacity to convert a tax accountant mowing a suburban half-acre under his wife’s supervision to a daredevil NASCAR racer. Yee Haw!
But the laughter ended abruptly when “Duck Commander” Phil Robertson inserted himself into the nation’s vituperative culture wars. The whole thing looked like a publicity stunt gone wrong—possibly successful in the short run, but almost certain to prove destructive in the end.
Concerning which, a few thoughts:
First, Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal notwithstanding, nobody has a First Amendment right to appear on TV. Make controversial public pronouncements deeply offensive to your employers, and you’d better have a backup plan.
The creator and producer of Duck Dynasty is one Scott Gurney, who once appeared in a gay-themed film called The Fluffer. (Don’t ask.)
The guy helps make you rich and famous, and you denounce gays as evil? That’s appalling.
Second, it has nothing to do with Christianity. Robertson didn’t just say he’s against gay marriage, nor even that God is. He spoke in the coarsest possible terms about homosexuality, equating it with bestiality.
He’s elsewhere characterized gay men and women as “full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God haters, they are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless, they invent ways of doing evil.”
Here’s my favorite moral philosopher, Fox News’ own Bill O’Reilly:
“It’s not about the Bible, or believing or not believing in the Bible. It’s singling out a group, could be any group, and saying to that group ‘Hey, you’re not worthy. You’re not worthy in the eyes of the Lord, or in the eyes of God, you’re not worthy because of who you are.’ So once you get that personal, once you get down into that kind of a realm, problems arise.”
Third, 10 years ago, many of the same people portraying Robertson as a martyr burned Dixie Chicks CDs and cheered their banishment from country radio stations for the terrible crime of saying they were embarrassed by George W. Bush before everybody was.
And those girls have genuine talent.
Fourth, as for the happy, singing darkies of Robertson’s Louisiana childhood, where are they on Duck Dynasty? Know what the African-American population of Monroe/West Monroe is? It’s roughly 60 percent. I’ve seen no black faces on the program.
Another prominent American from West Monroe is Boston Celtics great Bill Russell—a black man who’s been known to have strong opinions about race. Maybe Robertson ought to talk with him, although it wouldn’t be easy.
Duck Dynasty may be this month’s right wing cause célèbre. Longer term, however, unapologetic bigots always fade into obscurity, basically because they embarrass people.
By: Gene Lyons, The National Memo, December 26, 2013
“The Duck And Jackass Dynasty”: Has It Become Acceptable Again For An American Politician To Embrace Unashamed Bigotry?
I got the gist of the “Duck Dynasty” thing after my first and only viewing: bunch of rural jackasses who somehow struck it rich get brought into our living rooms to be laughed at by the rest of us aristocrats.
Well, all right. When the archetype first appeared on television via the “Beverly Hillbillies” it was also enormously popular, but also taken as an illustration of how TV was living down to its condemnation by FCC Chairman Newton Minow as a “vast wasteland.”
In any event, A&E knew what it was doing when it put these people on the air, so its show of indignation in “suspending” one of them for speaking out against gays and the aspirations of African Americans falls a little flat.
What’s truly ghastly, however, is the reaction of a couple of political figures. Sarah Palin‘s opinion isn’t worth the eleven words I’ve just written to dismiss it. But Bobby Jindal still holds down office as the governor of Louisiana. That raises the question: Has it become acceptable again for an American politician to embrace unashamed bigotry?
In the old days, news that public funds (via the Louisiana state film and television incentive program) had helped finance racism and gay-bashing of the variety espoused by Phil Robertson, the outspoken duck dynast, would have presented a moral dilemma and created a political embarrassment for a governor. Most self-respecting political leaders would have run away from association with such views; that’s the essence, after all, of the “leadership” part of the equation.
Not for Jindal. His only public statement on the matter thus far has praised Robertson as a member of a family of “great citizens of the State of Louisiana.” He defends Robertson’s views on the “it’s a free country” principle, which as a debating point generally gets dropped by most people before the fourth grade. “Everyone is entitled to express their views,” he says.
In Jindal’s seven-sentence statement, not a word of defense for gay people so crudely mocked by Robertson. Not a word to remind us that the life of black sharecroppers in Louisiana’s Jim Crow era was not “godly” or “happy.”
In January of this year, Jindal lectured his fellow Republicans on the need to “stop being the stupid party.” Remember? He talked about how the Republican brand had been damaged by its candidates’ “offensive and bizarre comments.” That was supposed to represent the launch of a new GOP outreach to communities that had been excluded by Republican doctrine, including the gay and minority communities.
But that was eleven months ago. Now, according to Jindal, Republicans are supposed to embrace offensive and bizarre comments. The party’s transformation into a marginal and regional movement thus continues. Jindal has made himself the biggest jackass in the story, and his career as a national political figure the thing to be laughed at.
By: Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2013
“It’s Instructive Whose Sticking Up For The Worse”: There Are Two Americas, And One Is Better Than The Other
Matt Lewis writes of the controversy over Duck Dynasty that “There really are two Americas” and that the divide over the show “has as much to do with class and geography and culture and attitude as it does with religion.”
That’s true.
Specifically, there’s one America where comparing homosexuality to bestiality is considered acceptable, and another where it is rude and offensive.
In one America, it’s OK to say this of gays and lesbians: “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.” In the other America, you’re not supposed to say that.
There’s one America where it’s OK to say this about black people in the Jim Crow-era South: “Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” There’s another America where that statement is considered to reflect ignorance and insensitivity.
In one America, it’s OK to attribute the Pearl Harbor attacks to Shinto Buddhists’ failure to accept Jesus. In the other America, that is not OK.
There are two Americas, one of which is better than the other. And it’s instructive who’s sticking up for the worse America.
The conservative politicians who are complaining that Phil Robertson’s firing flies in the face of “free speech” are generally smart enough to understand that Robertson doesn’t actually have a legal right to be on A&E. When Sarah Palin and her cohorts talk about the importance of “free speech,” they mean something much more specific: That the sorts of things that Robertson said are not the sorts of things a private employer should want to fire someone for saying. That they are, or ought to be, within the bounds of social acceptability.
But they’re wrong. The other America — the America I live in — has this one right. Racist and anti-gay comments and comments disparaging of religious minorities are rude and unacceptable and might cost you your job. It’s not OK to say that gay people are “full of murder.”
I will add one caveat, in the vein of Andrew Sullivan’s comments. The things Phil Robertson said should get you fired from most jobs. But starring on a reality show is a special kind of job, one where demonstrating that you are a good person who follows good social conventions may not be necessary.
For example, if at a Business Insider function I were to flip over a table and call one of my colleagues a “prostitution whore,” I’d probably be fired. But when a Real Housewife of New Jersey does that, she’s doing her job just fine. Similarly, Phil Robertson represents some very real pathologies of his culture, and his job is to provide a look into the reality of that culture to the TV viewer.
In some sense, when Robertson compares gays to terrorists, he’s doing his job, too. So I’m sympathetic to the idea that A&E shouldn’t suspend him for this. But if they shouldn’t suspend him, it’s because it’s acceptable for Robertson to say unacceptable things, not because his remarks were acceptable.
By: Josh Barro, Business Insider, December 20, 2013
“A Wall That Protects Us All”: Sarah Palin Can’t Tear Down The Wall Between Church And State
“We have just enough religion to make us hate,” wrote Jonathan Swift, “but not enough to make us love one another.” A lifelong religious controversialist, the 18th-century Irish satirist definitely knew whereof he wrote. After all, it’s fewer than 20 years since Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland quit dynamiting each other’s gathering places.
Even here in the United States, it often seems that picking fights over religion increases during the Christmas season. If anything, claiming to be persecuted while expressing contempt for others’ belief appears on the rise.
And, no, I’m not talking only about the annual invocation of paranoid triumphalism Fox News calls the “War on Christmas.” Nor even about noted theologian Rush Limbaugh assailing Pope Francis as a “Marxist” for criticizing the tyranny of markets and the worship of money. Because Jesus was all about capital formation and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Everywhere you look, somebody’s insulting somebody else’s religion.
To me, the cultural left’s only marginally better than the right. I recently witnessed a remarkable online colloquy concerning a Catholic organization’s shipping 3,000 rosaries to the Philippines to victims of Typhoon Haiyan, “so that they can thank God” as one cynic wrote.
“Do these people ever use their minds for one second?” one person asked. “Hearing this is thoroughly depressing. It shows how ignorant and warped so many people are and how daunting is the amount of education there needs to be to cure the world.”
Cure it of what, I wondered. Of typhoons? Of charity? Or merely of belief? Almost needless to say, Roman Catholic churches worldwide were taking up special collections for storm victims in that largely Catholic nation—along with religious and humanitarian organizations worldwide.
“They are vultures sweeping down on those in need to shove more control down their throats,” wrote another. “I have nothing but contempt for the Catholic church and religion as a whole.”
News flash: The world will never be cured.
Meanwhile, how this kind of free-floating rage differs from Bible-beating preachers who blame earthquakes and tornadoes on other people’s sexual sins escapes me. The main characteristic of the fundamentalist mind is an inability to refrain from expressing contempt for beliefs different from one’s own—whether one’s spiritual leader is Pat Robertson or Christopher Hitchens.
Which brings us back to Sarah Palin’s remarkable appearance at the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University last week—the last stop on a tour publicizing her book Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas.
“I say in a very jolly Christmasy way,” the Alaskan babbler claims, “that, ‘Enough is enough.’ Say enough is enough with this politically correct police out there that is acting to erode our freedom to celebrate and exercise our faith. Some Scrooge wants to force Christ out of Christmas and wants to ban Jesus out of the reason for the season?”
To hear Palin tell it, there’s a veritable army of “angry atheists armed with an attorney” who “want to try to abort Christ from Christmas” by filing lawsuits “when they see a plastic Jewish family on somebody’s lawn—a nativity scene, that’s basically what it is, right?”
Actually, no.
But never mind theology, here’s the deal: If Palin or anybody else can provide a single, verifiable instance of somebody being successfully sued for exhibiting a crèche, a cross or any religious symbol on private property anywhere in the U.S., they’d have something to complain about.
They’d also have the certain support of the American Civil Liberties Union in defense of their First Amendment rights.
But of course that’s not what these (to my mind overblown) fights over nativity scenes at courthouses, city halls and state capitols around the country are about. Instead, they’re about an “establishment of religion” which the same First Amendment categorically forbids.
In typical scattershot fashion, Palin even invoked Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson, a conventionally pious Founding Father in her mind, who would, like, totally object to the persecution of people like her who can’t make everybody admit that their God is America’s God:
“I think Thomas Jefferson would certainly recognize it and stand up and he wouldn’t let anybody tell him to sit down and shut up.”
Now it’s definitely true that Jefferson was rarely shy about his religious views. Courtesy of Martin Longman in Washington Monthly, here’s his opinion about what Palin calls “the reason for the season” from an 1823 letter to John Adams: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.”
Like Swift, Jefferson recognized the dangers of religious strife. That’s precisely why, he assured Connecticut Baptists in 1802, the First Amendment decreed “a wall of separation between church and State.”
A wall that protects us still.
By: Gene Lyons, The National Memo, December 11, 2013
“The Death Panels Are Coming”: Conservatives Are Going To Have To Turn Somewhere, And I’m Guessing “Rationing” Will Be On Their Lips
Now that Healthcare.gov seems to be working reasonably well (at least on the consumer end), Republicans are going to have to find something else they can focus on in their endless war against the Affordable Care Act. So get ready for the return of “death panels.”
They never really went away. Those who aren’t immersed in the fantasy world in which conservatives move were reminded of that last week, when chronicler of changed games Mark Halperin, the embodiment of most everything that’s wrong with contemporary political journalism, did an interview with the conservative news organization Newsmax. When the interviewer mentioned “death panels, which will be coming,” Halperin responded, “I agree, it’s going to be a huge issue, and that’s something else about which the President was not fully forthcoming and straightforward.” Halperin didn’t explain what lie he imagines Obama told about death panels (perhaps he thinks that when Obama said the government wouldn’t declare your grandmother unfit to live and have her murdered, he wasn’t telling the truth), but what matters isn’t Halperin’s own ignorance of the law (after all, understanding policy is for nerds, right?), but the fact that it came up in the first place. Which, if you pay attention to places like Newsmax, it still does. A lot.
But wait, you say. Wasn’t this all debunked years ago? Yes, it certainly was. But why should that matter?
It’s important to remember the switcheroo conservatives pulled on the “death panel” issue. They started off complaining that one provision in the law constituted “death panels,” then when their unequivocal lie was exposed and condemned roundly even by neutral observers, they switched to asserting that all along they had been talking about an entirely separate and unrelated provision, and when they say “death panels” they aren’t talking about death, or panels for that matter, but about health care “rationing.”
Here’s how it happened. The ACA originally included a provision allowing doctors to get reimbursed by Medicare for sessions in which they counseled their patients about their end-of-life options and how to make sure their wishes were properly carried out. The problem is that most of the time, when a patient shows up in the hospital in crisis, the staff has no idea what the patient wants if they can’t communicate. Do they want to be resuscitated, or intubated, or have every heroic measure taken until the moment they expire? All of us have different ideas about this, and it’s important that we think about it beforehand. So the ACA said, if a doctor spends a half hour talking to a patient about it, they’ll be paid for their time. It didn’t say what they had to tell them, it just said they could get paid for doing it, because right now if they do that counseling, they’re doing it for free, which makes it much less likely to occur, which is not only bad for the system but bad for individual patients.
So that part of the law said simply that doctors can bill Medicare for the time they spend doing that kind of counseling, just like they do for a physical exam or performing a procedure. To the people who supported it, the idea seemed commonsensical. Wouldn’t you want doctors and patients to have those kinds of conversations? You’d think. But turning that into the “death panel” lie began, as a remarkable number of health care lies have in the last couple of decades, with policy fraudster Betsy McCaughey, who went on Fred Thompson’s radio show in 2009 while the law was being debated and told his listeners, “Congress would make it mandatory—absolutely require—that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” That would be terrible! It would also be terrible if our beloved elders were then hurled from hot air balloons hovering over volcanoes, but the law doesn’t require that either.
Unlike most deceptions in politics, which can be justified by pleading that there was some misinterpretation of ambiguous language, or that what the speaker meant just got garbled in the articulation, this was a clear and specific lie—or two lies, in truth—that McCaughey simply made up in her attempt to subvert the law and then repeated multiple times. There was nothing mandatory or required about counseling, every five years or ever, for any patient, and the counseling was not about “how to end their life sooner.”
To continue our story, then Sarah Palin took things the next step, turning a blatant lie (but at least one with some connection to what the law was about) and spinning it out into an extravagant fantasy one can only imagine came from some obscure 1970’s dystopian sci-fi movie she saw at four in the afternoon one day while the snow fell gently in Wasilla. “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel,'” she wrote on her Facebook page, “so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” 11 The quotation marks were a nice touch, since we in the English-speaking world use them to denote actual quotes from a specific person or document, not just something you make up. For instance, I could write, “I wouldn’t like to go to Sarah Palin’s house, where ‘heroin is given to children’ and ‘homeless men are hunted for sport.'” But that would be extremely misleading, since as far as I know, no one has said those things about Sarah Palin’s house, least of all Palin herself. And thus “death panels” were born.
And of course, the charge was picked up by Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, and all the other far-flung outlets of the conservative media universe. But then the existence of any such panel was debunked and debunked and debunked again. The fact that the evocative phrase originated with Palin probably made it more difficult for conservatives to make it stick beyond their own self-contained world, since Palin is widely understood to be one of America’s most celebrated nincompoops. In addition, cowardly Democrats removed the provision on end-of-life counseling from the bill (to their unending shame) so even the entirely worthy provision of the law was gone. In response, conservatives cast about, and decided that the “death panels” they so feverishly warned of never referred to end-of-life counseling, but to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which did end up in the final bill and which has the benefit of resembling an actual panel.
In brief: the IPAB is a group of 15 health-care experts appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate who will make recommendations on how Medicare could save money. Those recommendations are due at the beginning of each year, and Congress has until August to overrule them. If Congress doesn’t, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will implement the recommendations. But the IPAB only makes the recommendations if Medicare’s growth exceeds certain target rates.
Now listen to this part carefully: the text of the ACA prohibits the IPAB from recommending that care be rationed. It also prohibits them from recommending other things, like increasing premiums or cutting benefits. And perhaps most importantly, if Medicare’s growth is modest, IPAB won’t make any recommendations at all. And if things go the way they’ve been going and the way they will if many of the other reforms contained within the ACA succeed (including steps to transition from a purely fee-for-service model in which sicker patients means more revenue for providers to one in which they have incentives to keep people healthy), the IPAB might never have to make cost-cutting recommendations. Although things could change of course, the Congressional Budget Office believes that for the next decade Medicare’s growth is unlikely to be large enough to trigger any IPAB recommendations.
You may wonder why conservatives, who are constantly saying we need to control the cost of Medicare, are so vehemently opposed to the existence of a panel of experts whose job it is to come up with ways to control the cost of Medicare. That just shows how little you understand. IPAB, they will tell you, will ration care, which will kill your grandmother, no matter what the law says. 22These kinds of claims, and a general feeling of hysteria around end-of-life issues, circulates relentlessly throughout the conservative world. You may remember that during the 2012 presidential primaries, Rick Santorum told an audience that in the Netherlands, which has a tightly regulated system of physician-assisted suicide, “people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized—ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands—half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick.” This was about as true as if he had said that all Portugese people have ESP or that Mongolia is ruled by a parliament made up of dogs and cats. But he didn’t get his fantasy bracelets and fantasy statistics from nowhere—the idea surely arrived to him via the cretinous version of the “telephone” game that is the conservative information bubble, where such things circulate and mutate until they come out the mouths of candidates for president. Just as a for instance, go on over to National Review and search for IPAB, and you come up with articles with titles like, “AARP Betrays Seniors By Supporting IPAB,” and “IPAB, Obama, and Socialism,” and “New England Journal of Medicine Supports Unamerican Expansion of IPAB.” As I said, once they can no longer complain about healthcare.gov, and once those people who had their junk insurance cancelled turn out to be getting much better insurance, conservatives are going to have to turn somewhere, and I’m guessing “rationing” will be on all their lips.
So what started as “Obama is forcing doctors to encourage their patients to die,” then became “Obama’s death panel will assess individuals one by one and withhold treatment from those they find unworthy, leaving people like Sarah Palin’s kid to plead for their very lives,” ends up as “Obama’s IPAB death panel will force health-care rationing on us.”
I do think that the chances that renewing the “death panel” scare will successfully undermine the ACA are slim. The fact that they don’t exist does matter. If you’re a reporter wanting to write a story about someone who lost their junk insurance and will have to buy real coverage, at least there are individuals you can focus on, even if you do a poor job of telling their stories. But there’s no one you can interview who went before a death panel, or whose relative went before a death panel. Because, to repeat myself, they don’t exist. So this whole discussion is likely to remain very abstract. Eventually, conservatives will find something else to cry wolf about. Did you know that under Obamacare, if you kiss a person with herpes, you could get herpes? That’s right: Obamacare will give you herpes. Pass it on.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, December 2, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 