My thoughts?
So here we have two extremes.
On one end is Robertson, far right; on the other Jackson, far left.
I can't genuinely back either.
If I had to choose between the two? Hmmm...if I had a gun to my head and would have to choose between Jackson and Robertson; I'd probably choose whomever the gun holder supports.
Neither Jackson or Robertson are worth dying over.
Are their differences worth dying over? Yes, perhaps; but it would have to be in a far more serious context.
I wonder who has more money, Robertson or Jackson? I wonder who has labored more for their money?
I first heard about the Phil Robertson drama about a week ago. The conversation went something like this:
Neighbor: "There's some controversy brewing about something Duck Dynasty Phil said."
Me: "What'd he say?
Neighbor: "Something about equating gays with beastiality and terrorists."
Me: "And that's a surprise to people?"
I've never seen a full episode of Duck Dynasty (DD). I saw partial parts of the show some years back while staying at a hotel that carried the A&E network. (We don't carry A&E on our home TV. We pay less than $10 a month and get about 15 channels.) I got a few chuckles at the DD snippets I watched but soon found myself bored with yet another reality show. I'm not a big fan of reality shows. I get enough reality on my own. I wonder how much "real" is in "reality shows?"
This past week I read some articles (including the GQ interview) regarding the recent DD and A&E brouhaha. My initial thoughts were along the lines of:
- Yup. That's what Robertson said. That's his opinion. Who would expect differently?
- A&E is a company and can suspend whomever it deems suspendible.
- Follow the money trail; ultimately showbiz boils down to money.
- I wonder if A&E has a policy regarding the speech of reality actors when those actors are offset?
- On the other hand, if A&E remains silent, that would be like an endorsement of Robertson's statements. Why not just make a response statement and let the chips fall were they may? Meh; the network made a judgement call.
- As far as the black-history statements, Phil plain old showed his ignorance. Sure folks were singing in the fields; including Robertson I reckon. That doesn't negate the voluminous historical accounts of black oppression in our country...nor the origin of some of their songs. I wonder if these folks have seen "12 Years A Slave"? Even though "12 Years..." recounts times before Robertson's days but was also "pre-entitlement and pre-welfare."
- Robertson's black-history statement would be kind of like me saying, "I never saw leaders in The Way abuse their power of trust with women. Those women where happy in The Way Corps." Right (not).
- I wonder if down the road some sort of underbelly regarding the Robertson's will come out? I wonder if one of the Robertsons may be in the gay closet?
I am somewhat surprised that many of my high school friends (whom I've read on FB) have joined ranks with the conservative religious right. Many of those high school friends were sexers, druggies, and rock-and-rollers (SDRs). From what I've read Robertson followed the same pattern. Then again I was a young SDR and shortly thereafter became a young Bible thumper...before my high school friends followed a similar route.
I'm no longer an SDR nor a Bible thumper.
Neither do I believe in karma.
****
(Following is a link to an interesting article that addresses the damnable so-called-what-goes-around-comes-around "Law of Karma": Komments on Karma.)
****
10 comments:
Interestingly, A&E changed their mind ... money-related, I feel sure. They are reinstating him. Guess too many people complained. Like you, I have never seen Duck Dynasty ... or Survivor or The Amazing Race or American Idol or The Voice, etc. Reality shows are not my bag. NCIS? Now that's another story ...LOVE that!
SP
Our family did watch Duck Dynasty but I don't think we will anymore. We were all disgusted with Phil's stupid remarks. Especially him thinking blacks were happier before they got their Civil Rights. How bigoted does one have to be before they ban him from a "reality" show? I too have old high school friends who were once hell raisers and now cling to extreme conservative thinking.
It's kinda like a reformed smoker or alcoholic...they think once they have "converted' they know it all and should preach it to others. No thank you. I have a fine mind of my own. :D
NCIS should start paying you royalties. ;D
Yeah, I read about the reinstatement later last night. I imagine the far right are applauding that God gave them the 'victory'...when God probably had nothing to do with any of it.
I like Criminal Minds. I am a big Big Bang Theory fan. :-)
Hahaha. Yuppers. You tell 'em Anna. ;-D
That pre-Civil Rights statement....I know. Can Phil really be that ignorant? (rhetorical) If not, he could at least say he made a mis-take.
"High school daze." I may have to borrow that. :) Great post. I would have had to ignore those FB comments too. When I start to feel my blood pressure rise I know I need to step back.
What I don't understand is (or more accurately, what pisses me off is) why a person can't be on the "far right" without saying and believing such idiotic things. The fundamental underpinning of the political conservative, from my understanding is to uphold the founding fathers' constitutional tenets--keeping government from infiltrating ever aspect of the citizens' life and and allowing taxpayers to keep as much of their hard earned dollars as possible. But no, conservatives have to go off the grid and make asinine comments that completely discredit the idea of conservatism. It pisses me off that the media homes in on these types, then any affiliation with right-wing is given the idiot label.
Bigots and assholes will always be in our midst. We can't change them. But maybe if we ignore them they won't get the attention they crave.
"Far-right politics, or extreme right politics, are right-wing politics that are considered to be further to the right of those of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum.. Far-right politics usually involve support for social inequality, social hierarchy,, elements of social conservation, and opposition to most forms of liberalism, and socialism.. Both terms are commonly used to describe fascist, , neo-fascist, or other ideologies and organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views. Some extreme right movements, such as the Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority."
And herein lies the problem Grace. We live in a Democracy where everyone is supposed to be considered equal and free to choose religion or not to.. The "Tea Party Conservatives" in this nation have leaned way too far to the right when they want to take away the rights of gays, blacks, and anyone who doesn't adhere to their warped way of thinking. It has nothing to do with upholding the founding father's constitutional tenets...it has everything to do with freedom and equality.
Hey Grace...
Thanks for stopping by and reading and commenting.
Haha...You don't have to borrow it. ;-) It's freely given.
Yeah...I find some conversations can induce near-emotional seizures. (Ha!) I think part of my reaction is due to feeling a pressure (self-imposed or other) that I *should* choose one of the two sides...and that there are only two sides. But therein is part of the trap...black/white thinking; ie: that there are only two choices. When probably there are more than two sides to most any situation.
To add to that, I feel quite inept at discussing politics and some of the discussions seem that folks aren't really listening to each other; but rather trying to convert(?) 'them' to 'us.' I guess that is one of the reasons for argument...to sway. And then there are so many different issues and different people stating different 'facts.'
I wish common sense could rule. Of course then all would need to agree on what is common sense.
Sometimes Facebook reminds me of middle school. Maybe politics does too!
:-)
Anna,
This part of your quote (Wikipedia, I think?) struck a familiar chord: "...Some extreme right movements, such as the Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority."
When I read political (or belief) discussions online, often name-calling ensues...which (from my perspective) implies inferiority. Not to the extreme of genocide, but it can end up in oppression.
Perhaps I am over-sensitive to this type name-calling because I have dealt and continue to deal with feeling I'm less intelligent than others. I've come a long way in addressing that distortion...but it may always be with me. It is oppressive and can result in silencing. (Maybe my challenge is partly due to my personality type ... somewhere in the INFP and INFJ camps.) And yes, I am guilty of sometimes name-calling too.
Earlier today I said to my husband something along the lines of what I stated in my previous comment to Grace... that is: "I guess that is one of the reasons for argument...to sway. "
I was pondering this irritation and discomfort I go through with online discussions between (or with) people who are adamantly cemented in their absolute rightness. And then I thought, "Do people really listen to each other...or are they already prepared to spout their belief regardless of what the other party states? Is it really dialogue? Or is it people listening more to themselves state what their beliefs are? So how can we change that...maybe if we ask questions...such as...How did you come to your belief? How does it benefit you, your family, your community?"
Then I 'chanced upon' (we all know how those serendipitous chances appear) a book excerpt regarding the toxicity of "New Atheism." (which is something I have been observing myself the past few years.) The book, "Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground With the Religious," is written by Chris Stedman, a gay ex-evangelical-Christian-turned-atheist. The book excerpt states: "..I fear that some atheists are doing what I used to do in my antireligious days: engaging in monologue instead of dialogue. After years of dismissing religious people outright, I realized that I was so busy talking that I wasn’t listening. I was treating religion as a concept instead of talking to people who actually lived religious lives. When I started listening, something interesting happened:..."
Link to excerpt:
Toxic atheism drives people apart
Upon reading the "monologue" statement...my little brain went: "Bingo! I'm not the only one."
Well, this is a long comment...and it could be longer if I went into our founding fathers. I may have mentioned in one of my previous comments/posts the book entitled
"A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present" written by Howard Zinn. I still haven't finished that book...but what I've read so far is thought provoking...and stomach turning....but not surprising.
I'll shut up now...at least on this comment. I think I should write a blog piece instead. Haha! ;-)
:) Yes Carol...if you put "far right politics" in a search engine you come up with a lot of definitions such as that and I went with the first one because I've know for decades that is how it is defined..
I have observed and been interested in politics ever since WWII and am amazed at how much they have changed just in my lifetime.
The radicals on both sides of the fence have taken moderation and stretched it so far left and right it's difficult to know what to call oneself these days. The last election proved that. I think we all want the same thing, freedom to live as we choose, security, with or without belonging to an organized religion. You don't have to believe in the Christian God to be a decent person but those who can't believe this are trying to force the concept that our founding fathers decreed this to be. They did not.
A lot of them hate our President just because of the color of his skin. They want to tell all women what they can and can't do with their reproductive system. They consider gays evil and against their God. It's this kind of rhetoric that makes me speak up. It's no longer Republican or Democrat...it's conservative or liberal when what we need are a lot more Moderates. Shall we form a new party? Maybe if women did it we could get it right for everyone and not just half a nation. :0
Anna stated: "...I think we all want the same thing, freedom to live as we choose, security, with or without belonging to an organized religion..." I often think about this when it comes to politics...that us citizens want about the same thing. Yet...either congress (or we) just can't figure out how to get there. Such a dichotomy. I also think that the love of money (and power) is part of what gets in the way.
I'm glad that at least there are some women in the higher political offices now. Of course...there have always been the President's wives.
I did some more online searching today in regard to Chris Stedman's book (mentioned in one of my previous comments). Of all things...I found a clip from the beginning of December, 2013, where Chris (an ex-Christian-gay-atheist) appeared on the O'Reilly Factor. And...O'Reilly and Stedman found common ground. (yup)
Here's a link to a post on Chris's author FB page and the O'Reilly clip:
Stedman on O'Reilly Factor, December, 2013
Thanks Anna Maria!
Post a Comment