It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: radioman on December 23, 2013, 01:51:16 PM
-
I heard, or read somewhere, another theory. It seems very logical to me, but that’s just me.
It goes like this:
A&E definitely knew who the Robertson family were, and what they were all about, from the very beginning when they approached them for the Reality Show series.
But, they were hoping that by televising these guys live, they would have the country laughing AT them, not WITH them.
They hoped that the Duck Dynasty Reality Show would illustrate how stupid and ridiculous Christian Red-Neck Hicks really were, and the show would help turn ALL Christian Bible thumping, Gun toting, Southerners into a Laughing Stock, Wing-nut stereo type, that would further separate them from ‘Normal’ people. And, they would make millions in the process. Win-Win! A two-fer. Screw American Christians and make millions!!
This fits into one of the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky:
The fifth Rule of Tactics:
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”
BUT!!! – NOT SO FAST! INSERT REALITY!!
The Law of Unintended Consequences:
What they didn’t know would happen however, is that the majority of Americans would actually Like them, and relate to them, in the manner that they did. The Duck Dynasty clan became the Real ‘American Idols’ to all the Americans that A&E had hoped would join in and Laugh AT them.
So.
A&E had to come up with a plan to throw away the Baby that they created, and have a valid reason to torpedo their creation. But, since this turn about wasn’t considered as a consequence, they didn’t, and still don’t, have an exit strategy to where they can keep from losing all of those millions that have become used to and save face.
Conundrum:
Do they keep Duck Dynasty?
Yes - This helps the people who they hoped they could destroy, - but, it would allow them to keep the millions coming in.
No – Ditch the Duck Dynasty and lose millions, - but at least it would stop the unintended consequence of supporting those they hate – but that’s not entirely true either, because other networks will surely pick them up if they cut them loose.
They are probably thinking right now:
Damn, I wish we hadn’t gone down this road, because no matter which path we take from here, it leads to sh!t in our face. ?
-
::thinking:: Could be. Unintended consequences.
-
Seems I read somewhere that the Robertsons, contractually, would not be able to take the show elsewhere
-
I could see this A and E reasoning. I don't know if this is true, but seems I read that A&E edited out the family prayer on a episode and were told by the Robertsons there would be no show if the prayer was gone. Again, I could be mistaken.
-
I think A&E's strategy is the same with any other station's reality show. They ALL show the dregs of society and make you wonder how they manage to live long enough to breed (making us wish they didn't).
I say this, but since I don't watch reality (or much of any kind) of TV, I'm guessing.
If A&E drops DD, they'll just come up with another reality show and the low information voter will eat it up. Maybe not with the number of viewers DD has, but enough to make money.
-
First my disclaimer: I have never seen duck dynasty. Not once. I never tuned in to see any part of it..to find out what the big deal was. I just wasn't interested. Duck dynasty is geared to a specific audience. But let's opine a moment.
Let's say A & E owns a barn and the Robertson's own some milking equipment. A & E and the Robertson's have already gotten the milk from the available cows and it's all well and good. But you've got some bankers...let's call them supporting advertisers.
These bankers are calling in the loan on the land where the dairy and it's equipment are sitting. Increase production or we will remove our support. But, the current crop of watchers has bought all of the duck calls they are gonna buy.
What to do? How do we increase the audience? Why, we outrage the Christians, just look how that helped Chic-fil-A. Any controversy really. Get flyover all riled up over a show that, perhaps 3/4 of them have never watched...but they will for a cause. So create a cause.
So, you say the Robertson's wouldn't pull such a stunt? Like you know these people? Well, Andy Griffith isn't Sheriff Taylor and Ron Howard ain't Opie...
-
I have NEVER watched one of the "reality" shows. I think they are not even worth my effort to check them out.
-
I have NEVER watched one of the "reality" shows. I think they are not even worth my effort to check them out.
Well, gotta be honest. I watch Survivor. I love the show, but I'm not so invested that if I miss a show I'm devastated or need to take meds. ::rolllaughing::
I know its fake. I take it for what it is- entertainment. It would be interesting to see the psychology behind my enjoyment.
The thing is, reality shows are still entertainment, they are coordinated, scripted, fake. Just because it is put forth as reality, does not make it real.
I love to read. I love an author that can invoke within me, suspension of disbelief. But while I'm reading, I know it is fiction, I read for enjoyment. Same with reality shows. Suspension of disbelief.
Know what it is. Enjoy.
-
I used to read a lot, but I cannot remember the last book I read. My wife buries herself with reading.
-
I used to read a lot, but I cannot remember the last book I read. My wife buries herself with reading.
I can't remember the last book I read either. I brought up reading to bring up "suspension of disbelief", which any good reality series will allow its watcher to do. Outside controversy is not conducive to this end.
Now, about reading.
Dean Koontz: Fear Nothing and Seize the Night
Stephen King: The Stand
Pearl S. Buck: The Good Earth
Richard Adams: Watership Down or The Plague Dogs ( which I could only read once, never again).
And several others. All fine examples of suspension of disbelief.
If I must believe the unbelievable, it must be presented in a believeable format.
-
My last one could have been, "The Perfect Storm."
-
My last one could have been, "The Perfect Storm."
That sounds reasonable for you.
I didn't like the movie, too PC. The book is seldom the same.
-
My last one could have been, "The Perfect Storm."
That sounds reasonable for you.
I didn't like the movie, too PC. The book is seldom the same.
The movie did not portray the book, nor did it portray what really happened that terrible night.
-
My last one could have been, "The Perfect Storm."
That sounds reasonable for you.
I didn't like the movie, too PC. The book is seldom the same.
The movie did not portray the book, nor did it portray what really happened that terrible night.
Of course to didn't! I'm sure I said as much. So now, I'm going to have to buy the book. I wasn't interested until you brought it up.
-
This is one of the FEW topics I am qualified to speak on....and so I must..... Phil is an Elder in the church of Christ in East Monroe, Louisiana. Each church of Christ responds ONLY to Christ. We do not answer to the pope, or the Mormon Prophet, or any other man. Each congregation seeks to serve Christ through His scripture. We do not believe in "special" revelation. God is no respecter of persons and he has commanded that there be no divisions among us. Another word for divisions is DENOMINATIONS. We do not accept any division. Let us study the scripture to find ourselves approved, as Paul told Timothy. The Elder is chosen BY the people of his own congregation from among themselves. There are MANY qualifications set by God Himself:
Titus1: 5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
-
This is one of the FEW topics I am qualified to speak on....and so I must..... Phil is an Elder in the church of Christ in East Monroe, Louisiana. Each church of Christ responds ONLY to Christ. We do not answer to the pope, or the Mormon Prophet, or any other man. Each congregation seeks to serve Christ through His scripture. We do not believe in "special" revelation. God is no respecter of persons and he has commanded that there be no divisions among us. Another word for divisions is DENOMINATIONS. We do not accept any division. Let us study the scripture to find ourselves approved, as Paul told Timothy. The Elder is chosen BY the people of his own congregation from among themselves. There are MANY qualifications set by God Himself:
Titus1: 5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Is Phil one of the duck dynasty people? If so, you think he is Holy because of the church he belongs to? I think not. Being an elder in the Church grantees nothing. With the exception of people thinking because one is an elder they can do no wrong..
I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just saying. The tenants of a Church are one thing, the attendants quite another. No person belongs on a pedestal .
-
I AGREE. The only thing here is that this man was appointed by those who KNOW him. Not by some national council or something. This is the big diffference. These people KNEW who he really was. He is NOT perfect and being chosen as an Elder does not mean that. WHat it does mean is that these LOCAL people actualy knew him. His whole congregtion CHOSE him to protect them and the gospel. They too may be imperfect, but they DO know him and they still chose him and some others. (No Elder serves alone, they are ALWAYS plural!)
-
I used to read a lot, but I cannot remember the last book I read. My wife buries herself with reading.
I highly recommend this one.
http://fearlessnavyseal.com/ (http://fearlessnavyseal.com/)
The obstacles this man endured to become one of America's fighting elite is truly an amazing story. It's one of those reads that's hard to put down.
-
What to do? How do we increase the audience? Why, we outrage the Christians, just look how that helped Chic-fil-A. Any controversy really. Get flyover all riled up over a show that, perhaps 3/4 of them have never watched...but they will for a cause. So create a cause.
So, you say the Robertson's wouldn't pull such a stunt? Like you know these people? Well, Andy Griffith isn't Sheriff Taylor and Ron Howard ain't Opie...
One might argue that the cause was already there, and they simply exploited it. The reason people are rallying to support and defend Phil, or Chik-fil-a is because they know they might be next. Because the danger exists for all of us. Yes, Phil and A&E may be expanding their million dollar empire using this tactic, but I do not think their faith is feigned, and we know the outrage expressed is real. People have had enough.. and in using this tactic A&E is playing with fire - because they have to play bad cop, even if they are in on it. I personally think they aren't - just dependable leftists doing what leftists do. A&E is tone deaf, and this is their version of Pajama Boy.
This is a Hunger Games Moment - a show meant to humiliate and subjugate the common, rural redneck tapped into a common feeling of that persecution an inspired others to stand tall. If that also makes the Duck Dynasty bigger and more wealthy, who cares?
And now, the Crumudeon (http://adaptivecurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/duck-dynasty/) quoted in his entirety on the subject, cause I think he has it exactly right.
[Note: I tried to avoid writing about the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle. I really did. You gotta' believe me! Wiser minds than mine have contemplated the subject and I don't get invested in TV shows anyway. Also progressives on a witchhunt make my beer go flat.
Alas I couldn't let it go unremarked. Events like these fit a pattern. Identifying patterns allows us to adapt. In a world that has redefined "tolerance" as hassling a redneck for the sin of devotion none of us is truly safe. The eye of Sauron may someday look your way. It could be an errant turn of phrase, a blog comment, a political onslaught, or nothing at all. Should that time come you'll have to stand proud (and very alone) or collapse in a pile of apologies and expedient groveling. The Duck Dynasty folks (I suspect) knew this day was coming and are handling it with class. A performance from which we can learn.]
Duck Dynasty is an anomaly. Hollywood views hunting as something between gladiator battles and a snuff film. It views rednecks as oafish clowns. I assume A&E envisioned a chance to laugh at the antics of rubes who are so dumb they eat squirrels instead of withering away on yogurt from Whole Foods. What they got was a live wire!
I was surprised to see a show that didn’t make me regret owning a television. It neither flooded my living room with depravity nor crammed progressive politics up my ass. People who aren’t human trainwrecks and moral black holes is all it takes to rise above. See how easy it is? It’s not Shakespeare but the tiniest glimmer of optimism and honesty is all it took to create a juggernaut.
Usually it doesn’t get this far. The entertainment industry somehow failed to smother it in it’s crib. I assumed sooner or later this oversight would be rectified. Certain parties can’t abide devout, fun loving folks, running around shooting ducks and eating jambalaya. That breaks the rule.
The Robertsons (or whomever writes their scripts) never let an episode wrap up without clearly and carefully breaking the rule. The rule is simple; anyone who’s rural, religious, or conservative must be portrayed along a spectrum from mouth breathing troglodytes to repressed homophobic racist dickheads. Deviation is verboten! The Robertsons surely know the rule as well as the rest of us. Yet they refused to toe the line. They’re portrayed as scrupulous, devout, kind, self reliant, hard working (when they want to be), fun loving, and free spirited.
Joy and goodness attracts its opposite. What hollowness causes such nihilism? I can’t quite get my head around it. I live here. America isn’t populated by lunatics and animals. You don’t need a passport and a Sherpa to experience America as it really is. How weak must one be to project their own fears on a whole nation, Rockies to Appalachians, deserts, plains, farms, factories, friends, and families? What inner damage causes one to look upon abundance and kindness and see only stupidity and menace.
How a nation of 300,000,000 lets a thin film of elites clinging to the coasts portray them en masse as deplorable idiots is mysterious. All I know is that Duck Dynasty broke the rule and made bank doing it! There is a hunger out there. Duck Dynasty and their silly pointless plots met that need.
I knew their days were numbered. “This cannot go on.” I thought. “Better enjoy it while it lasts.” Hollywood is pretty serious about the rule. I assumed the show would be ruined from within. Possibly rewritten to portray the Robertsons as gibbering idiots or extras from Deliverance. Maybe a couple episodes about a heroin overdose? An accidental shooting in a duck blind? An ATV mishap? For whatever reason this didn’t happen.
Instead the inevitable showdown came in an interview. The long awaited (and more or less pre-packaged) attack came when Phil Robertson, a man with deeply held beliefs articulated thoughts which, as far as I can tell, are in keeping with his church’s doctrine. I’m not a religious man but (unlike the media) I’m aware that there’s a book called the New Testament. It’s pretty old I’m told. With words and stuff. I’ve heard many people read it. They might even take it to heart. Mr. Robertson is among them. This does not scare me.
As far as I can Mr. Robinson is trying to live according to his beliefs. Among them that we’re all imperfect but one should strive to avoid sin. It’s not a new idea. Time for a Curmudgeonly Gem of Insight:
“The whole ‘sin ‘aint good’ idea was pretty unremarkable before America lost it’s balls and irrationally decided ‘sin’ was a word akin to ‘Voldemort’, which should never be spoken aloud.”
Mr. Robertson also intoned about brotherly love, forgiveness, etc… Words that were discarded as too nuanced and outmoded for a media anticipating a pissing match.
I read what he said, the actual interview. It’s not particularly crazy and all of his ideas are generations old. You’d have to have live in a bubble to miss exposure to his ideas; which, of course, many people have done. Further he’s not actively interfering with anyone. He’s not tracking my phone, regulating my food, mucking around with my health insurance, auditing my taxes, bitching about my guns, pissed that I don’t attend church, or spending my money. Thus I’m perfectly happy with whatever he says. His method appears to be leading by example. Such an excellent approach! The world would indeed be a better place if more people thought deeply about sin and the avoidance thereof and then acted accordingly. Which was the whole point.
Of course this is America, in 2013. Humility is as lost on some folks as the original definition of tolerance. Professional victims screeched in synthetic pain. Mr. Phil Robertson’s employer, to the surprise of nobody, folded instantly (which I presume they’d been planning all along).
The Robertsons came together (as I presume they’d been planning all along). They show no inclination whatsoever to ditch their patriarch or their religion for another paycheck. Why am I not surprised? We should all be so lucky as to have a loving patriarch and a deeply held religion.
Even as boycotts are organized I suspect the Robertson’s would be happy to go duck hunting with the ghosts of Liberace and Freddy Mercury so long as they didn’t scare the ducks. Which means nothing to folks who actively suggest Phil Robertson should be “re-educated”. (Ouch, now there’s a word phrase with some baggage!)
So professional victims soak in their perceived victimhood (which must feel good or they’d find a different hobby), A&E network has the dilemma of growing a spine or killing a golden goose, and the rest of us are amused. A man suggests another man’s ass isn’t particularly exciting and I’m supposed to be shocked? Possibly water is wet? A Christian suggesting that sin is best avoided? I suppose the Pope wears a pointy hat? The sky is blue, film at eleven!
I’ve long assumed the Robertsons knew this was coming and prepared accordingly. Their plan, I would guess, is to laugh all the way to the bank when their time in the sun has played out; then go fishing.
I base my guess on their marketing. The Robertsons have marketed the living crap out of their show. People who expect to last a long time meter their exposure. The Robertsons are probably as surprised as me they’ve made it this far.
In the meantime click this image to go to Duck Dynasty’s store:
You can’t stop the signal.
Phil Roberson’s and his beard walked through the land of Woody Allen and Phil Spector. He knew what he was doing, he knew what the response would be, and he smiled while doing it. Anyone who thinks he’s going to fold because of a boycott is mistaken. Instead he’ll sell a bunch of shirts while Hollywood ponders flushing a profitable show. Then, he’ll go duck hunting. That’s how it’s done folks! Live well, be strong, recognize and enjoy the opportunities, and should the professional victims call for your head, stand tall, regret nothing, and let them self immolate.
-
What to do? How do we increase the audience? Why, we outrage the Christians, just look how that helped Chic-fil-A. Any controversy really. Get flyover all riled up over a show that, perhaps 3/4 of them have never watched...but they will for a cause. So create a cause.
So, you say the Robertson's wouldn't pull such a stunt? Like you know these people? Well, Andy Griffith isn't Sheriff Taylor and Ron Howard ain't Opie...
One might argue that the cause was already there, and they simply exploited it. The reason people are rallying to support and defend Phil, or Chik-fil-a is because they know they might be next. Because the danger exists for all of us. Yes, Phil and A&E may be expanding their million dollar empire using this tactic, but I do not think their faith is feigned, and we know the outrage expressed is real. People have had enough.. and in using this tactic A&E is playing with fire - because they have to play bad cop, even if they are in on it. I personally think they aren't - just dependable leftists doing what leftists do. A&E is tone deaf, and this is their version of Pajama Boy.
This is a Hunger Games Moment - a show meant to humiliate and subjugate the common, rural redneck tapped into a common feeling of that persecution an inspired others to stand tall. If that also makes the Duck Dynasty bigger and more wealthy, who cares?
And now, the Crumudeon (http://adaptivecurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/duck-dynasty/) quoted in his entirety on the subject, cause I think he has it exactly right.
[Note: I tried to avoid writing about the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle. I really did. You gotta' believe me! Wiser minds than mine have contemplated the subject and I don't get invested in TV shows anyway. Also progressives on a witchhunt make my beer go flat.
Alas I couldn't let it go unremarked. Events like these fit a pattern. Identifying patterns allows us to adapt. In a world that has redefined "tolerance" as hassling a redneck for the sin of devotion none of us is truly safe. The eye of Sauron may someday look your way. It could be an errant turn of phrase, a blog comment, a political onslaught, or nothing at all. Should that time come you'll have to stand proud (and very alone) or collapse in a pile of apologies and expedient groveling. The Duck Dynasty folks (I suspect) knew this day was coming and are handling it with class. A performance from which we can learn.]
Duck Dynasty is an anomaly. Hollywood views hunting as something between gladiator battles and a snuff film. It views rednecks as oafish clowns. I assume A&E envisioned a chance to laugh at the antics of rubes who are so dumb they eat squirrels instead of withering away on yogurt from Whole Foods. What they got was a live wire!
I was surprised to see a show that didn’t make me regret owning a television. It neither flooded my living room with depravity nor crammed progressive politics up my ass. People who aren’t human trainwrecks and moral black holes is all it takes to rise above. See how easy it is? It’s not Shakespeare but the tiniest glimmer of optimism and honesty is all it took to create a juggernaut.
Usually it doesn’t get this far. The entertainment industry somehow failed to smother it in it’s crib. I assumed sooner or later this oversight would be rectified. Certain parties can’t abide devout, fun loving folks, running around shooting ducks and eating jambalaya. That breaks the rule.
The Robertsons (or whomever writes their scripts) never let an episode wrap up without clearly and carefully breaking the rule. The rule is simple; anyone who’s rural, religious, or conservative must be portrayed along a spectrum from mouth breathing troglodytes to repressed homophobic racist dickheads. Deviation is verboten! The Robertsons surely know the rule as well as the rest of us. Yet they refused to toe the line. They’re portrayed as scrupulous, devout, kind, self reliant, hard working (when they want to be), fun loving, and free spirited.
Joy and goodness attracts its opposite. What hollowness causes such nihilism? I can’t quite get my head around it. I live here. America isn’t populated by lunatics and animals. You don’t need a passport and a Sherpa to experience America as it really is. How weak must one be to project their own fears on a whole nation, Rockies to Appalachians, deserts, plains, farms, factories, friends, and families? What inner damage causes one to look upon abundance and kindness and see only stupidity and menace.
How a nation of 300,000,000 lets a thin film of elites clinging to the coasts portray them en masse as deplorable idiots is mysterious. All I know is that Duck Dynasty broke the rule and made bank doing it! There is a hunger out there. Duck Dynasty and their silly pointless plots met that need.
I knew their days were numbered. “This cannot go on.” I thought. “Better enjoy it while it lasts.” Hollywood is pretty serious about the rule. I assumed the show would be ruined from within. Possibly rewritten to portray the Robertsons as gibbering idiots or extras from Deliverance. Maybe a couple episodes about a heroin overdose? An accidental shooting in a duck blind? An ATV mishap? For whatever reason this didn’t happen.
Instead the inevitable showdown came in an interview. The long awaited (and more or less pre-packaged) attack came when Phil Robertson, a man with deeply held beliefs articulated thoughts which, as far as I can tell, are in keeping with his church’s doctrine. I’m not a religious man but (unlike the media) I’m aware that there’s a book called the New Testament. It’s pretty old I’m told. With words and stuff. I’ve heard many people read it. They might even take it to heart. Mr. Robertson is among them. This does not scare me.
As far as I can Mr. Robinson is trying to live according to his beliefs. Among them that we’re all imperfect but one should strive to avoid sin. It’s not a new idea. Time for a Curmudgeonly Gem of Insight:
“The whole ‘sin ‘aint good’ idea was pretty unremarkable before America lost it’s balls and irrationally decided ‘sin’ was a word akin to ‘Voldemort’, which should never be spoken aloud.”
Mr. Robertson also intoned about brotherly love, forgiveness, etc… Words that were discarded as too nuanced and outmoded for a media anticipating a pissing match.
I read what he said, the actual interview. It’s not particularly crazy and all of his ideas are generations old. You’d have to have live in a bubble to miss exposure to his ideas; which, of course, many people have done. Further he’s not actively interfering with anyone. He’s not tracking my phone, regulating my food, mucking around with my health insurance, auditing my taxes, bitching about my guns, pissed that I don’t attend church, or spending my money. Thus I’m perfectly happy with whatever he says. His method appears to be leading by example. Such an excellent approach! The world would indeed be a better place if more people thought deeply about sin and the avoidance thereof and then acted accordingly. Which was the whole point.
Of course this is America, in 2013. Humility is as lost on some folks as the original definition of tolerance. Professional victims screeched in synthetic pain. Mr. Phil Robertson’s employer, to the surprise of nobody, folded instantly (which I presume they’d been planning all along).
The Robertsons came together (as I presume they’d been planning all along). They show no inclination whatsoever to ditch their patriarch or their religion for another paycheck. Why am I not surprised? We should all be so lucky as to have a loving patriarch and a deeply held religion.
Even as boycotts are organized I suspect the Robertson’s would be happy to go duck hunting with the ghosts of Liberace and Freddy Mercury so long as they didn’t scare the ducks. Which means nothing to folks who actively suggest Phil Robertson should be “re-educated”. (Ouch, now there’s a word phrase with some baggage!)
So professional victims soak in their perceived victimhood (which must feel good or they’d find a different hobby), A&E network has the dilemma of growing a spine or killing a golden goose, and the rest of us are amused. A man suggests another man’s ass isn’t particularly exciting and I’m supposed to be shocked? Possibly water is wet? A Christian suggesting that sin is best avoided? I suppose the Pope wears a pointy hat? The sky is blue, film at eleven!
I’ve long assumed the Robertsons knew this was coming and prepared accordingly. Their plan, I would guess, is to laugh all the way to the bank when their time in the sun has played out; then go fishing.
I base my guess on their marketing. The Robertsons have marketed the living crap out of their show. People who expect to last a long time meter their exposure. The Robertsons are probably as surprised as me they’ve made it this far.
In the meantime click this image to go to Duck Dynasty’s store:
You can’t stop the signal.
Phil Roberson’s and his beard walked through the land of Woody Allen and Phil Spector. He knew what he was doing, he knew what the response would be, and he smiled while doing it. Anyone who thinks he’s going to fold because of a boycott is mistaken. Instead he’ll sell a bunch of shirts while Hollywood ponders flushing a profitable show. Then, he’ll go duck hunting. That’s how it’s done folks! Live well, be strong, recognize and enjoy the opportunities, and should the professional victims call for your head, stand tall, regret nothing, and let them self immolate.
Excellent article and I believe the writer hit the nail on the head.
Like many here, I don't particularity like reality shows. I've watched a few, but they are more in line of ridicule than entertainment, so I tend to discard them. I watch Duck Dynasty. This may be labeled a reality show, but IMO, it is much more. The focus for the Robertsons are on the "real". I have no doubt in my mind A&E took on this project and figured we would get stereotypical redneck, you don't want to be middle America, humor. It hasn't turned out that way and America, hungry for anything wholesome, embraced it.
Too bad our politicans don't have the fortitiude of a Phil Robertson when the left attacks. They will not defend their beliefs. it's too bad, because if they did, they might find an America who would defend them.
-
...Too bad our politicans don't have the fortitiude of a Phil Robertson when the left attacks. They will not defend their beliefs. it's too bad, because if they did, they might find an America who would defend them.
People only go to the wall to defend what they actually possess, or what they find to be of great value.
-
...Too bad our politicans don't have the fortitiude of a Phil Robertson when the left attacks. They will not defend their beliefs. it's too bad, because if they did, they might find an America who would defend them.
People only go to the wall to defend what they actually possess, or what they find to be of great value.
True.... Our politicans are like A&E. The fold at the first sign of another sicko group complaining. No backbone. Lost their moral compass.
-
. . .
What to do? How do we increase the audience? Why, we outrage the Christians, just look how that helped Chic-fil-A. Any controversy really. Get flyover all riled up over a show that, perhaps 3/4 of them have never watched...but they will for a cause. So create a cause.
. . .
KC, this was my sister's point of view: This was all contrived to increase ratings. My response was that they were the NUMBER ONE show on cable (12-14 million viewers compared to 600,000 MSNBC). Why on earth would they need to take part in such a charade?
I think the A&E folks felt like they had to do something. After all, the GLAAD PC Storm Troopers were making noise. The exec who fired Phil was hoping that the Robertson family would take the cash and go on with the show. This was a huge miscalculation on the part of A&E, which just goes to show you that they never understood the Robertsons.
-
The eye of Sauron may someday look your way. It could be an errant turn of phrase, a blog comment, a political onslaught, or nothing at all. Should that time come you'll have to stand proud (and very alone) or collapse in a pile of apologies and expedient groveling.
To wit:
"Steve Martin was joking with fans when a (Twitter) follower asked him, “Is this how you spell lasonia?” Martin replied: “It depends. Are you in an African-American neighborhood or at an Italian restaurant?”
Then, the fight started. (http://www.thewrap.com/steve-martin-apologizes-irresponsible-tweet-dings-salon-misquoting/)
He's a *comedian*; comedians make jokes.
-
. . .
What to do? How do we increase the audience? Why, we outrage the Christians, just look how that helped Chic-fil-A. Any controversy really. Get flyover all riled up over a show that, perhaps 3/4 of them have never watched...but they will for a cause. So create a cause.
. . .
KC, this was my sister's point of view: This was all contrived to increase ratings. My response was that they were the NUMBER ONE show on cable (12-14 million viewers compared to 600,000 MSNBC). Why on earth would they need to take part in such a charade?
I think the A&E folks felt like they had to do something. After all, the GLAAD PC Storm Troopers were making noise. The exec who fired Phil was hoping that the Robertson family would take the cash and go on with the show. This was a huge miscalculation on the part of A&E, which just goes to show you that they never understood the Robertsons.
I am certain that the faith portrayed by the Robertson's is real. I am also certain that A&E fully intended to exploit that faith in one way or another.
Was Phil Robertson complicit when he agreed to be interviewed by GQ? Come on, it's friggin' GQ!
Is he a defender of the faith, an exploiter of the faith, or both?
Maybe he wants out, but, his family wants to continue. If the show goes on without him. I have my answer. Duck Dynasty is money. Money, I've heard it said, is the root of all evil.
-
*Love* of money is the root of evil. It is the misplaced emotional attachment, not the inanimate object, that is the cause of trouble. And sin.
-
Like a good friend, & political activist, of mine says:
"We need to beat gays back into the closet. That's their place. That's where they belong. And that's where they're gonna' go."
These faggots deserve every consequence to the behavior they practice.
-
*Love* of money is the root of evil. It is the misplaced emotional attachment, not the inanimate object, that is the cause of trouble. And sin.
Thanks Pan. You are correct.
My general point is, none of us know the Duck Dynasty stars personally. We only know what we see on television or hear second-hand from someone else who has watched the a television show.
We know what is presented to us. Nothing more. Nothing less.
A & E and the Duck Dynasty folks make money regardless of the controversy or because of the controversy. Someone is laughing all the way to the bank.
-
You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank. It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.
I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.
-
You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank. It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.
I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.
I know that Phil and one of his sons serve as Elders in the church, the highest service a Christian man can attain to. It is not bought and rarely appointed. The men have many qualifications to be recognized as such and the fact they are in such office means I have a certain respect for them at the start, unless they SHOW otherwise. Then add on the top of that the fact that I have seen several of their UNEDITED sermons on the internet. They know the scriptures and they teach them. Phil was not raised to be a Christian and found Christ late, but he raised his sons well. Without real proof of wrong-doing, I will not lightly abandon them, not accept their modern day crucifixion. I too see no harm they have done and much good.
-
You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank. It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.
I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.
I know that Phil and one of his sons serve as Elders in the church, the highest service a Christian man can attain to. It is not bought and rarely appointed. The men have many qualifications to be recognized as such and the fact they are in such office means I have a certain respect for them at the start, unless they SHOW otherwise. Then add on the top of that the fact that I have seen several of their UNEDITED sermons on the internet. They know the scriptures and they teach them. Phil was not raised to be a Christian and found Christ late, but he raised his sons well. Without real proof of wrong-doing, I will not lightly abandon them, not accept their modern day crucifixion. I too see no harm they have done and much good.
I too, personally couldn't care if the Roberson's are good or evil, exploiting or spreading the faith . They brought attention to the word. They at least appear to have stood up for us and for the faith, no matter what happened in their hearts. I can assure you that God is perfectly able to make use of the imperfect men that serve him and even the ones that do not, or who sin and fail in the myriad of ways men always do when presented with chances for wealth and power. . The Founders of this nation were all imperfect men as well, and they achieved, with what I firmly believe was God's divine assistance, a miracle. As Pan suggested, we don't have access to their hearts - we can only judge them by their actions. I still think the Curmudgeon called it correctly-- and it is not clear which parties are being played and exploited. Perhaps that ambiguity will be dispelled, but for now, I am willing to bet the Robinson's knew what they were doing from the outset, trusted God to guide them, and will happily let the lucre fall from their hands if its a choice between their faith and the coin.
-
Given how disappointed I've been in some public people in whom I've placed confidence, I think that a bit of cynicism ala KittenClaws is not out of order here. I've jumped to people's defense, only to discover my trust was utterly misplaced.
That said, I'm inclined to give Phil the benefit of the doubt, and I reject the idea that he is colluding with A&E to create ratings. Do I have any reason aside from my gut feeling to justify that? Nope.
I've given public figures the benefit of the doubt before who have let me down, and I've had as much confidence in their character as I have in Phil's.
Bottom line is, we don't know, and yet we're compelled to line up across the culture war battlefield and square-off against the evil Left. I wouldn't suggest it should be otherwise, but when considering the amount of my own credibility I want to put on the line in defense of Phil Robertson, I must remind myself that men disappoint - reliably and consistently. And in light of all that, I defend.
-
You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank. It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.
I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.
Can I be that misunderstood? Have I said once I do not wish them well, or that they have harmed anyone? No. I put forth the idea that we could possibly be being manipulated.
Maybe I'm a cynic. I'm just saying, when it fits our world view, we eat the whole hog, instead of spitting out the bones.
-
Given how disappointed I've been in some public people in whom I've placed confidence, I think that a bit of cynicism ala KittenClaws is not out of order here. I've jumped to people's defense, only to discover my trust was utterly misplaced.
That said, I'm inclined to give Phil the benefit of the doubt, and I reject the idea that he is colluding with A&E to create ratings. Do I have any reason aside from my gut feeling to justify that? Nope.
I've given public figures the benefit of the doubt before who have let me down, and I've had as much confidence in their character as I have in Phil's.
Bottom line is, we don't know, and yet we're compelled to line up across the culture war battlefield and square-off against the evil Left. I wouldn't suggest it should be otherwise, but when considering the amount of my own credibility I want to put on the line in defense of Phil Robertson, I must remind myself that men disappoint - reliably and consistently. And in light of all that, I defend.
Note my earlier disclaimer. I have never watched Duck Dynasty. I knew it existed, I just was not interested. I knew the stars were Christians, so I thought the shows popularity was significant and meaningful as a reflection of faith in this country.
Now there is this controversy. Surely, I must start watching to defend Phil...and not just Phil, but the very Foundation of Christandom!
How many Christians are tuning in to defend Christ, through Phil, by proxy?
Not this one. I'm still not interested in the show.
I'm happy Phil is defending the faith. Ecstatic. I just don't buy into it. I do not think God needs good ratings on A & E.
Don't get mad at me ok? I'm really not trying to be mean.
-
You expressed my sentiment very well. I don't watch TV so I haven't seen the show. I'm not engaging the left to defend Phil - he's doing a great job of standing up for himself - but I fight evil right along side of him.
-
You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank. It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.
I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.
Can I be that misunderstood? Have I said once I do not wish them well, or that they have harmed anyone? No. I put forth the idea that we could possibly be being manipulated.
No. Did I write that? No again. The only reference I made to your post was about laughing to the bank.
I'm not being manipulated -- I've never watched the show either -- but Soup expresses my point:
I'm not engaging the left to defend Phil - he's doing a great job of standing up for himself - but I fight evil right along side of him.
Maybe I'm a cynic. I'm just saying, when it fits our world view, we eat the whole hog, instead of spitting out the bones.
And I don't believe I have done so. Regardless of what is in Phil's Robertson's heart, it is his words -- whether he truly believes them or not -- that strike Truth. That is for what I stand and what I defend, and his right to say them.
Easy, KC; you're among friends, yes?
-
You know, I don't really care if they're laughing all the way to the bank. It's either righteous and contemptuous laughter or not, but He judges their hearts and I don't have to.
I do know I wish them well; they've done no harm that I can see.
Can I be that misunderstood? Have I said once I do not wish them well, or that they have harmed anyone? No. I put forth the idea that we could possibly be being manipulated.
No. Did I write that? No again. The only reference I made to your post was about laughing to the bank.
I'm not being manipulated -- I've never watched the show either -- but Soup expresses my point:
I'm not engaging the left to defend Phil - he's doing a great job of standing up for himself - but I fight evil right along side of him.
Maybe I'm a cynic. I'm just saying, when it fits our world view, we eat the whole hog, instead of spitting out the bones.
And I don't believe I have done so. Regardless of what is in Phil's Robertson's heart, it is his words -- whether he truly believes them or not -- that strike Truth. That is for what I stand and what I defend, and his right to say them.
Easy, KC; you're among friends, yes?
Well, of course I'm among friends! How else could I say what's on my mind?
I'm on Phil's side in general. But not in particular.
I'm a little "black or white" on this issue. Defending Christianity is important. Defending free speech is as well. But the focus is not the man or his perceived perfection or imperfection. Phil may have given Christians a platform, but his show, or himself is not the platform. The two should not be confused.
-
KC, you are spot on with some of your observations. One writer asked the same question: Why would A & E allow Phil to be interviewed by GQ? After all, their audience is the urban, young, progressive crowd. "What good could have come of it?"
The theory is out there that A & E was complicit in the ambush in an attempt to get rid of Phil. That he would finally say something that would cause a great moral outrage; that the Jesus Freak had just gone too far. The plan was to get rid of Phil, and to allow the rest of the family carry on as if nothing had happened.
Somebody miscalculated.
-
I used to read a lot, but I cannot remember the last book I read. My wife buries herself with reading.
I highly recommend this one.
http://fearlessnavyseal.com/ (http://fearlessnavyseal.com/)
The obstacles this man endured to become one of America's fighting elite is truly an amazing story. It's one of those reads that's hard to put down.
I have to get a copy of this!
::thumbsup::
As for DD & A&E, I don't give Hollywood an excess of benefit of intelligence. Having said that they do have an agenda. Where agenda meets profits, profits will give way because they'll simply find something else to exploit. There is no way this arrangement would last forever, and I doubt either party would argue different. A&E cannot end this without getting crap in their face, the DD guys are just too smart to let a bunch of Hollywood jackasses get the drop on 'em, if A&E thinks they can wriggle out if this without looking like PC stooges they are only fooling themselves. The Robertson's can roll with whatever comes and not have a single worry one way or the other. The nice thing being true to your principles and beliefs is never having to remember what they are from moment to moment. Progressives can't remember half the crap that comes out their mouths...let alone the reasons behind them.