RANGER AGAINST WAR: Ducks, Redux <

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Ducks, Redux

--Prefer your hunters look like Fernando Fernandez?
by Leonard Nones, GQ (1968)

I beg to present you as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah, 
with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition,
and also about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton.
--W. T. Sherman, Major-General

Now I don't mind choppin' wood,
and I don't care if the money's no good
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should never have taken the very best 
--The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, The Band

~“Officers, what offence have these men done?
~Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady; 
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves. 
--Much Ado About Nothing; William Shakespeare
_____________________

How embarrassing, predictable and perfectly-scripted is the outrage to the religious and social comments voiced by a character (Mr. Robertson) on the Duck t.v. program. If you played any part in this, you are being manipulated and are perfect pawns of the power brokers. Your outrage to an imagined offense is energy dissipated.

Not that this silly t.v. episode is of any import, save for the fact it shows the hatred, derision and bigotry which has riven our nation.

The producer's shameless manipulation in their construction of the Ducks (=Robertsons) as god-fearin' is a way to conduct a free Nielson-type survey. They -- whoever they are -- are gauging your tolerance for the exercise of your freedoms. Predictably, the good liberals are howling with disdain for the Duck brand of Christianity, which is to say, Christianity. They are persecuting the "dynasty" in their own bloodless and craven way.

Do you want to reform Christianity? Send the Ducks to a re-education camp? If so, what side of history are you on? Are you shocked and awed that Christianity is so judgmental? Outraged? Did you not know that Christian dogma rejects homosexuality, and that this is why a church wedding service for gays makes no sense? Are you Christian and finding yourself drawing into fellowship with these erstaz t.v. bumpkins by necessity?

Do you believe in the Constitution, and find your mouth agape at the insanity of the virtual lynch mob of the supposed best-and-brightest, the compassionate liberals, who are tripping over themselves to show their intolerance and distrust of their own constitutional rights?

The furore which erupted in the liberal commentariat, the palpable anger and hatred towards the actor, a stereotypical redneck, is ridiculous. Hatred is hatred -- it is absolute, and there is no "good" form. It is corrosive to fraternity and cannot survive a genuine impulse to brotherhood, which is the thing we most lack today.

The producers of the Duck program are forcing and revealing your bigotry to you. Is every effort by a white man to express his experience with a black person, without genuflecting, to be condemned? If so, kiss your democracy goodbye. 

What part of freedom of speech and religion is too unpalatable to the mostly white liberals? From whence this white liberal fear and anger, and why the thought that muzzling one's non-hate free speech is the way to a better society? The liberals chomping at the bit to curtail and discredit this character's speech wish to trample our Constitution as badly as do the neo-Cons. 

Our collective movement seems to span the small metronomic arc of a couple of thousand years (if that), and we are now back to persecuting Christians. It all looks very familiar, and we are not past our bloody-minded urges. The bible is the guidebook for Christians, and it proclaims, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) That's simple and clear. Now, you can deride those you think gulls who believe it's the word of God, but for them, it is.

The nice thing about our separation of Church and State is that one may believe or not, and the State may not intrude into that realm. (Separate is that fact that in a democratic society gay couples in civil partnership deserve all benefits accruing to any legal domestic partnership. You may think Chrisianity is old-fashioned, but most other faith systems aside from from Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, Urantianism are even older. If you're a totemist, wiccan, pagan, polytheist, polyandrist, etc., you're beliefs are even more antiquated than those of Christians.)

If you're in a persecutorial mode, you can find succor with like minds in The Inquisition and the Joe McCarthy trials, but please do not fancy yourselves enlightened or democratic. What has you in a lather is not hate speech, but the personal views of a member of your society voiced on a television program.

If you are railing against this t.v. character's views on anything (religion, race relations -- anything), you are drawing into a safe community of like-minded bigots who would seek to curb another's speech and try him in the court of public opinion (never a reliable inquisitor.) Who are you to label someone as a cad, fool or liar? Worse yet, a t.v. persona, an unreal thing.

Why does the liberal commentariat feel it is their obligation to protest a white man's declaration that he worked in the fields with black men and did not see his black co-workers singled out for mistreatment? In the quote, Mr. Duck did not use a racial expletive when speaking of his experience ("I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once"), yet the liberals are on him like hyenas (much to the delight of the program producers.) The unenlightened arrogance is unsavory. 

This is the vitriol that creates a polarized society. In the past several years, I have seen Baptist friends who were once proud of and involved with their society's move to inclusivity now too drawing in amongst their own, feeling the burn of marginalization which the Tea Party and their too-ready liberal antagonists fan.

We have lived through ten years of war. Try and let go your anger as a gift to yourself, your country and your world.

I am loathe to call myself "liberal" against such a wave of fetid and naked bigotry.

Labels: , , , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

What? Being mad or disgusted by a bigot is the real "fetid and naked bigotry"?

How is this a freedom of speech issue?

Friday, December 27, 2013 at 9:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Gene,

How is it NOT a freedom of speech issue?

Why are the liberals up in arms about a character's expression of personal thought on a t.v. show -- how can this be?!? If you do not wish to watch "Two and a Half Men" or "Andy Griffith" or the "PTL Club", then do not watch it.

The character expressed straight line Christian doctrine and expressed his experience picking in the fields? WHAT is possibly the problem here?

I do not see any problem, other than liberals wanting to silence speech, and that really scares me, actually.

Yes, Gene, claiming to be for a true democracy and then crying to muzzle someone's freedom is very bigoted, indeed.

Saturday, December 28, 2013 at 1:37:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous the other Jim said...

Lisa -

I am a Liberal and have no problem with the duck caller expressing his views. I agree with much (not all) of what he said. And I don't hear any liberal friends crucifying him, Must be a different brand down there in FL. The only folks I know that tried to shut him up was the A&E channel but I note they backed off after being crucified themselves. Their original decision to shuck him (which BTW was a business decision and not an ideological one) was overridden by another business decision when the fundies got their panties in a knot.

Saturday, December 28, 2013 at 11:14:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

Phil Robertson in 2009,

"Look, you wait ‘til they get to be 20-years-old and the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they’re about fifteen or sixteen and they’ll pick your ducks.”

Boycotting a TV show and advocating for others to boycott including advising/threatening the parent station is censorship but's it's not an abridgment of Freedom of Speech.

Robertson's welcome to say all these vile things whenever he wishes. He hasn't been arrested.

But, I entreat all Republicans to align themselves with a bigot who advocates child molestation and oppression it'll show their true beliefs, just as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock did in 2012.

Sunday, December 29, 2013 at 8:35:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Gene,

I have no idea about Robertson pre-this moment, nor do I have any desire to go further.

Bill Maher said during the Paula Deen controversy: "Do we always have to make people go away?" It is kind of a gulag mentality, no? A liberal gulag mentality.

What do we gain by throwing punches at a person (a character) for his views? I feel the absolute hypocrisy of the "shock" surrounding his religious views (which he shares with a billion others.) This is all a great circus and a perfect waste of our time.

G.K. Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.”

This tempest in a teapot reveals liberals bigotry, which is a pity as they were the last redoubt.

(Since you know me from LT. NIXON's old site, you know my political sensitivities.)

__________________

The other Jim,

I'm glad you haven't seen any protests in your neck o' the woods. The outrages I've witnessed are not FL-based ... it is all emerging from the liberal hotbeds.

You provide me some centering, though. Being too much in the world of the press, I sit front seat before these petty brouhahas.

I'm growing mighty bored with it, for the record.

Sunday, December 29, 2013 at 3:42:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home