OK, now we're approaching a reality we can both agree upon.

There was no legal problem, no illegality, indeed no law involved at all. That was my main concern -- folks who scream "First Amendment!" when there really is no constitutional issue at all.

As for arguing pro or con A&E or the DD guy, others are out there making that argument, but as I said from the beginning, I don't really have a dog in that fight, as it were. I don't watch the show, I don't watch the network, therefore I really don't care at all about the whole fracas, one way or another.

You can argue the anti-A&E or anti-GLAAD case on moral or ethical grounds. Whatever -- as long as you're not making any sort of legal case or argument, I'm OK with you doing so.

Here's one question to boggle your mind, in closing:

Do you agree with the people who pressured Cracker Barrel to reverse their decision? Why or why not, and how is that any different from a group pressuring Cracker Barrel the other way?

The evils of free speech are countered by adding more free speech by the opponents -- that's what I believe. But I refuse to put corporate decisions (by A&E or Cracker Barrel) into that category, because I do not agree that corporations are people, or that they have any sort of constitutional rights at all.

-CW

Once again, I have been proven right..

A&E stepped on their wee wees by giving in to GLAAD's extortion..

GLAAD is also being pinched by their hateful, intolerant and bigoted play...

Sure... What A&E and GLAAD did might have been perfectly legal to do... Probably was..

But it was totally and completely moronic..

Michale
0270

I am not claiming that what GLAAD or A&E did was illegal..

It was morally repugnant and ethically challenged, but it was not illegal..

My point is (as usual) that YA'ALL should take issue with it because ya'all are on record as being really big on Free Speech.

But, as with most everything else, rank and file Weigantians are all about Free Speech when the speech is agreed with.

A certain Florida pastor with an itchy lighter comes to mind as well..

My beef begins and ends with GLAAD and the other gay activist assholes.. As you point out, A&E made a business decisions. Knuckle under the extortion from GLAAD or face their wrath..

It's apparent that A&E made the WRONG decision as the support for Robertson is a lot more far reaching than A&E (and GLAAD for that matter) realized.

Cracker Barrel found that out as well and they have the good sense to reverse their decision.

So, let me be clear..

While GLAAD et al may have the LEGAL right to extort entities to further their agenda, they don't have the MORAL or ETHICAL right to do so..

A point that rank and file Weigantians would definitely agree with me on if it was some gay person who suffered the same fate as Robertson for making pro-gay lifestyle comments..

My further point is the hypocrisy of GLAAD and the other gay activist assholes.. The preach tolerance and respect for someone else's opinions, yet they are the most bigoted and intolerant group of jerks when it comes to opinions they don't agree with..

I mean, you don't seem to have answered the basic question. OK, we get it that you're annoyed. But what would you have had A&E do differently?

Simple..

A&E should have shown they have some cajones and told GLAAD to stuff it. Robertson has a right to his opinion. GLAAD may not LIKE that opinion and that is GLAAD's right...

I would have A&E remind GLAAD that, in this country, people are free to speak their mind without fear of threats, extortion or intimidation..

In almost every single case they sign a contact before getting this money which has a "morals clause" in it. "

Dood!

The guy was quoting from the frakin' BIBLE!!!

The book that the vast majority of our morals COMES FROM!!

Granted, he colorized it considerably. But, again, that is his right.

You tell me how quoting from the Bible, the SOURCE of the morals, violates ANY "morals clause"??

I mean, what example can you come up with that would fit both the Dixie Chicks and the Duck Dynasty guy? What sort of rule, and how would you enforce it?

I would simply tell them one of the golden rules.

"I disagree vehemently with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it"

THAT is the entire crux of the issue..

Still don't want to touch the 'homophobic' part, eh? :D I'll take that as "silence gives assent".. :D

As to your Trek point. I consider myself an authority on Trek and I don't recall ever hearing that story.

That's pretty kewl!! Go GBOTG!!!! :D

Michale
0267

The Dixie Chicks did indeed have an organized opposition. And Lipton dropped them as spokespeople.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_chicks#2003.E2.80.9305:_Political_controversy

So what were the Dixie Chicks entitled to? That radio stations would be forced into playing their music? That corporations continued to back them?

I mean, what example can you come up with that would fit both the Dixie Chicks and the Duck Dynasty guy? What sort of rule, and how would you enforce it?

-CW

OK, one further example, close to your heart. This is kind of a double-reverse whammy, just to warn you.

When Gene Roddenberry had finished season 1 of the original Star Trek series, the studio (or maybe the network, forget the details) indicated they were going to cancel the show. After one year.

Roddenberry launched an "AstroTurf" effort to save the show. He faked a ton of letters, and faked a picket line against the network in Hollywood. The executives, astonished that the show had so much (seeming) support, gave the show another year.

This all happened once again at the end of the second season. Same cancellation threat, same fake "boycott" call, same (fake) letter-writing campaign. They relented and gave it a third year.

Of course, the third time it didn't work, and the show was cancelled.

But seriously, would we even remember the name Star Trek today if all that hadn't happened? If there had only been one season?

Like I said, it's not really germane to our conversation, as it is a story about someone faking outrage for their own corporate reasons (against another corporation), but still, a story you should ponder when denouncing pressure groups trying to influence TV networks!

:-)

-CW

OK, new article is up to amuse everyone.

Government censorship is the only one we are protected against. We have no right to avoid corporate censorship (otherwise known as "a business decision"). None.

Who is stopping the DD guy from speaking? Who is stopping him from taking his show to another network? Who is saying he should not be allowed to speak?

Nobody. You are saying that he has some sort of constitutional right to continue on television no matter what he says. Nobody has that right, sorry. It is the network's "free association" rights, not free speech at all. The DD guy is still perfectly free to speak in America. That has not changed a bit.

The First Amendment does not guarantee you an audience or a medium to speak in. It does guarantee a free press and free speech -- free from any GOVERNMENT interference.

I mean, what outcome would you have rather had happen? Someone forcing A&E to keep the guy on the air? Who? The government? Are you KIDDING me? You're really advocating that?

A&E made a business decision. They made the decision freely. You got a problem with that? Boycott them. They also made a free decision to meet with a pressure group. Freely. They could have had security bar the door, but they didn't. It was a business decision to do so. Just because they made a different decision than you would have is immaterial. They weren't coerced by anyone. As they shouldn't have been. That is freedom. There is no freedom not to be offended by a corporation's decision. None, sorry.

A group organizing a boycott is also protected freedom, under the same First Amendment. Free association. Groups have been pressuring everyone in sight for the entire history of America, in fact. People are free to come together for a political purpose (such as a boycott), and free to speak of their efforts to others. There are no threats, there is no "extortion" because a boycott only involves people's own money. Did GLAAD threaten to rob an A&E armored car? No, they did not. All they said is "we'll take our money elsewhere, and try to convince everyone else to do so as well." Freely. Legally. That's the American way, pal. It is in no stretch of the imagination an "economic attack" at all. It's just the other side of the coin called freedom.

Your CW.com example is perfect, in fact. Any donor is free to give me any money they wish. If they are annoyed at my writings, they can either tell me they won't donate in the future or they could even ask for their money back. They could state that they're going to lead an anti-CW.com effort all over the place, too.

As an independent editor, I would have to choose to either (a) knuckle under and accept your demand, (b) tell you that you are free to take your money elsewhere (it's never come up, but I would likely refund a donor's money if they were that upset with me), or (c) try to reach a happy middle ground.

But it is entirely my decision, no matter what I choose to do. Your "threat" begins and ends with a loss of money for me. Just like A&E. There is no violence, there is nothing illegal (assuming you don't slander me or write libel about me all over the internet or anything). It's the power of the purse.

If you'll notice, in part 1 of my yearly awards, I took PBS to task for knuckling under in precisely the scenario you propose. But I'd never suggest that PBS was doing anything illegal. And my attempt at shaming them isn't illegal either, even if I led a crusade for people to stop donating to them (or even if CW.com officiallly led such an effort).

I mean, you don't seem to have answered the basic question. OK, we get it that you're annoyed. But what would you have had A&E do differently? Or how would you enforce such an idea against any other media entity? Pass a law? Which would say exactly what? Anyone who has ever been on TV gets a lifetime contract? We have to watch Jay Leno until he dies? I mean, what, exactly, are you arguing for -- not against mind you, but for?

Complete the sentence: "I would avoid what just happened with DD and A&E by the following method...."

Oh, one last thing (I'll try to revist the comments again in a bit)...

Pretty much every famous person (sports, television, movies, etc.) gets money from certain media entities (as a commerical spokesman, as an on-air personality, as a movie star, whatever...).

In almost every single case they sign a contact before getting this money which has a "morals clause" in it. This states (in general terms) "if your behavior -- even off our airwaves -- is so offensive that we would prefer you no longer be paid by our media entity, then we can sever the contract immediately."

Every single media/fame contract has some version of this within it. I bet the DD guy has just such a clause. In a contract he signed freely. He didn't have to sign -- nobody was twisting his arm. He probably had his own lawyer look it over, even. But he did agree to that clause. So, once again, how is it any business of the government?

That's enough for now....

-CW

Would ya'll unequivocally support ANY company, business or corporation who fired someone because said someone made pro-gay comments??

Of course ya'all wouldn't..

Michale
0265

Yes, I support the Dixie Chicks right to say what they said..

But I did not support WHAT the Dixie Chicks said... I disagreed with the vehemently..

And I support the INDIVIDUALS who say they won't buy Dixie Chick records because of what they said..

But I would NOT support, I would UNEQUIVOCALLY condemn any group or individual who went after those who SPONSOR the Dixie Chicks because of what the Dixie Chicks say..

If GLAAD had simply held a press conference and stated THEIR opinions on the issue, that would have been fine with me..

But they stooped to extortion..

And THAT is just not right. No matter WHAT political agenda is in play..

My CW.COM analogy is a perfect example of what I am talking about..

Michale
0264

Forgot the quote attribution:

"-George W. Bush"

-CW

OK, I haven't read your recent posts yet (still reading the news), but had to pass this along for you to contemplate:

"The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say … they shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out. … Freedom is a two-way street."

Of course, you supported the Dixie Chicks, didn't you? Heh.

I'll return and read and answer your comments later today, promise, but just had to toss that your way. Haven't even finished the article, but it seems to be saying almost the same thing as this conversation, so you might find it interesting too:

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/23/free_speech_hypocrites_dixie_chicks_duck_dynasty_and_americas_pointless_shell_arguments/

-CW

And therein lies the ENTIRE crux of the issue, compiled down to a sound bite...

Michale
0263

Time's MAN OF THE YEAR, Pope Francis, has said pretty much the same exact thing that Phil Robertson has said..

No one has suggested that the Pope be fired..

Before his (oh so convenient) awakening, President Obama had stated pretty much the exact same thing as Phil Robertson..

Why wasn't the GLAAD arseholes calling for Obama's head on a platter??

Is a little consistency from moronic activists too much to ask???

Apparently so....

Michale
0262

But, since you chimed in, let me ask ya this..

Now, having said all of that, let's see if we can agree on a few things, or at least see eye-to-eye on them.

Would you agree that there is absolutely nothing "homophobic" about Robertson's comments??

Michale
0260

OK... Sounds good..

Then let's see GLAAD spend some time with devout Christians and learn about THEM and THEIR beliefs...

I bet a million quatloos that Robertson will get along a HELLUVA better with gay people than GLAAD assholes will get along with devout Christians.

Am I wrong?? :D

Michale
0259

Government is not the only entity that can censor, don'tcha know.. :D

If the government is not involved, though, then there is NO First Amendment issue at all. None.

Technically, you are correct.. But it's STILL an issue of Freedom Of Speech, even without government involvement.

And that makes it a First Amendment issue.

Why do people get fired, on right and left? Because the business (the TV network) makes a business decision that it is better for them not to air that guy or gal.

And WHY did A&E make this business decision??

Because GLAAD threatened them...

I will freely NOT spend my money on a business that is seriously offensive (for whatever reason). That is freedom, not censorship, when it is exercised by free people or free groups.

And, as I have stated on many occasions, I don't have a problem with that.

If *I* choose not to spend my money at A or B or C or if *YOU* choose not to spend your money at D or E or F, that is a personal choice that we make.

Absolutely NOTHING wrong with that..

However, if group gets together and threatens an entity with economic attacks and ruin unless said entity does a particular action, THAT is extortion.

Textbook definition..

Let me put it this way.

Say, for the sake of the argument, that I held some power over CW.COM. I was bankrolling it or something.. And I told you that I didn't like what Joe Blow had posted and, if you don't ban Joe Blow than I would pull my funding and CW.COM would die..

THAT is extortion. THAT is censorship.

And THAT is exactly what happened with this Robertson issue..

Do I think TV networks are too timid about this stuff? Maybe. You are right -- I tend to cheer when some odious idiot gets fired whom I don't agree with politically. And I get annoyed when it happens the other way around. Hey, I'm only human.</I.

But no constitutional rights are even involved in such a decision, so you're wrong -- I would never bring the issue up even if a lefty got their ox gored in such a fashion.

Of course not. YOU wouldn't. But my comments are directed to the Left in general and rank and file Weigantians in particular...

To bring this back to the original subject, should the state of Utah have had the power to shut down "Sister Wives" because it blatantly showed a family breaking Utah law? That would have been censorship...

You seem to be hung up on this idea that only the government can censor..

Constitutional freedoms apply to EVERY American. And they can be violated by ANY American, not just government entities..

"They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing! Do you understand?"
-James T. Kirk, STAR TREK, The Omega Glory

Michale

Um, no.

Did the government stop GQ from publishing the interview?

No, they did not.

Did the government stop A&E from airing the show, or allowing the guy on the air?

No, they did not.

Therefore, there is no censorship at all. None. Not a bit of it. Not one tiny shred.

Censorship is CBS bleeping Craig Ferguson, when he uses profanity. CBS is forced to do so by the government, or they will pay stiff fines levied by the FCC (see: Janet Jackson's boob). Even though Craig's show is on at an hour when all children should be in bed. THAT is censorship, and yes, it does annoy me.

If the government is not involved, though, then there is NO First Amendment issue at all. None.

Now, having said all of that, let's see if we can agree on a few things, or at least see eye-to-eye on them.

You're right -- the left howls when things are said they don't like. They threaten economic damages in the form of boycotts, etc.

So does the right. People on TV do get fired for saying things the right doesn't like, too. I could dig up examples, but I'll bet you'll even concede this point.

Why do people get fired, on right and left? Because the business (the TV network) makes a business decision that it is better for them not to air that guy or gal.

Now, I know we don't see eye-to-eye on boycotting as a valid exercise of freedom, but that is also included in the rights every American has under the very same First Amendment. Free association -- I will freely NOT spend my money on a business that is seriously offensive (for whatever reason). That is freedom, not censorship, when it is exercised by free people or free groups.

And, incidentally, it was part of how our country was born -- look up boycotting (usually called "embargoes" back then) during the Revolution if you don't believe me. And look up how the rebels used the threat of force on shopkeepers who didn't agree with the embargo, if you really want to open your eyes a bit.

History aside, though, boycotts are free association of groups of people who band together to withdraw their economic input to a certain business. How that is any business of the government IN ANY WAY is beyond me.

It is just a tool, and like any political tool can be used for good reasons and bad. Look up the Montogmery (? think that's the right city?) bus boycott in the Civil Rights era, to see how the power can be effectively used for good.

But good or not, the freedom of any one or any group to call for a boycott is nothing more than more free speech.

To sum up: nobody got censored. The government should not be involved at all, in fact. And it wasn't, at least as far as I know. Pressure was put on a TV network by a group which you don't agree with (or at least, don't agree with their tactics). That's tough, but that's also a part of freedom -- you are now free to call for a boycott of GLAAD. Knock yourself out -- that's what freedom is all about.

Do I think the guy should have been fired? I don't really care -- I've never seen the show, so it doesn't affect me much, nor do I even watch that network. So, personally, I'm neutral.

Do I think TV networks are too timid about this stuff? Maybe. You are right -- I tend to cheer when some odious idiot gets fired whom I don't agree with politically. And I get annoyed when it happens the other way around. Hey, I'm only human.

But I certainly don't decry the tactics, or the pressure groups. If I would point the finger at anyone, it would be the timid TV executives (like whoever decided to cancel "Politically Incorrect" for being ... gasp! ... politically incorrect).

But no constitutional rights are even involved in such a decision, so you're wrong -- I would never bring the issue up even if a lefty got their ox gored in such a fashion.

I'll repeat it once more: there is NO right in the Constitution to have a television contract. It doesn't exist. There is also no right not to be fired because your boss doesn't like something you said (which may have been a breach in your contract, in fact). Constitutional rights don't enter into this discussion at all.

To bring this back to the original subject, should the state of Utah have had the power to shut down "Sister Wives" because it blatantly showed a family breaking Utah law? That would have been censorship...

-CW

When a group of people get together and say, "Let's make sure this guy pays dearly for his opinions!!" that is attempting to censor..

In it's most purest and basic form...

We DO agree that Robertson's statements were NOT homophobic, right??

A LITTLE bit of common ground???

Michale
0254

Cite??

A&E chose to talk with GLAAD.

Cite??

More likely GLAAD made it clear what they would do to A&E if A&E did not submit to the extortion.

Why else would GLAAD need to "research" other Phil sponsors??

It's also nice to see Cracker Barrel and all the other sponsors telling the GLAAD assholes to stuff it... :D

Phil can say anything he wants but as a media star and "brand" he is not magically free of responsibility for those words or business ramifications they might cause. There is no first amendment issue here nor anything illegal.

Of course, given my GLEE star example I used, you would be completely opposite.. :D

No matter how you try to spin it, when some group says, "Do as we say or else we will make your life a living hell" that's a text book definition of extortion..

You can add all the spin you want, but a spade is a spade...

The simple fact that there is such backlash AGAINST the gay activist assholes is sufficient evidence to show who is right and who is wrong here...

GLAAD was wrong.. A&E was wrong...

That's the whole issue in a nutshell..

Michale
0253

I know you independent in name only conservatives (IINOC's?) limit yourself to simple arithmetic but...wait what are we talking about and how did math get in here? :D

A&E chose to talk with GLAAD. They were not forced to by law. They then made a business decision. Other companies will make their own business decisions depending on their interests. Phil can say anything he wants but as a media star and "brand" he is not magically free of responsibility for those words or business ramifications they might cause. There is no first amendment issue here nor anything illegal.

It's also interesting that with all the hyperbole about "fear of harassment, extortion, threats or intimidation" you do not condemn the death threats and suspicious packages A&E has received from Duck Dynasty fans...

:D

Michale
0252

You are confusing me with GLAAD and the other gay activist assholes...

Did GLAAD do anything other than release a strongly worded press release? That is, exercise their right to free speech?

Yes, they did..

They met with A&E executives Weds morning.

Weds afternoon, A&E suspended Phil Robertson.

Further, GLAAD is "researching" Duck Dynasty's other sponsors so that THEY can also be targeted...

I know you Lefties like different math and all, but back here on planet Earth, 2+2 still equals 4...

But I am sure you will say it's all just a big coincidence...

Michale
0251

If so, it's a pretty gutsy call and has succeeded beyond any likely expectations...

Further, can we add a little precision to the discussion and lose the word "homophobic"..

There was absolutely NOTHING homophobic about Phil's statements.

Michale
0249

No, but there IS a right for every American to be able to state their opinions w/o fear of harassment, extortion, threats or intimidation.

Wouldn't you agree??

You have said so yourself on many occasions. Nice polite acceptable speech doesn't NEED 1st Amendment protections.

It's the vile, hateful and hurtful speech that the 1st Amendment was DESIGNED to protect..

In short, Phil had the RIGHT to say what he said.

The gay activists did NOT have the right to extort A&E into firing Phil..

I hate to pick on him because I know that he is a nice guy..

But remember when Kevin suggested that I be limited in my postings.

Remember the (very pleasantly surprising) responses from Weigantians??

That's the kind of response that EVERY decent American needs to give to GLAAD and the other activist morons..

And, garnering from the press reports, MANY decent Americans ARE telling GLAAD et al to STFU... INCLUDING many gay and lesbian people...

I'll ask again. Why does GLAAD et al care about what some ultra-religious bayou redneck thinks???

Answer. They don't.. GLAAD et al just saw this as an opportunity to show the world what hateful, ignorant, intolerant bigoted pricks they really are...

GLAAD et al preach constantly about tolerance and respect. But they have ZERO tolerance and ZERO respect for any opinions that don't match their own...

I know, I know.. I shouldn't keep it all bottled up. I should tell ya'all how I REALLY feel.. :D

Michale
0246

Taking him off the show effectively censors him.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot..

Take an actor from GLEE who says in a magazine article how great it is being gay and how much fun it is and blaa blaa blaa. A powerful Christian group exerts pressure and successfully extorts the producers of GLEE into firing the actor because of his views..

You tell me the entire Left (and every Weigantian) wouldn't have a conniption fit?? :D

Remember..

AT night...

Not LAST night... :D

Michale
0245

Thanks for the update.

[17] -

When I was a youngun in the software business, I had to contact a company in La Jolla. I pronounced it "La Dzoll-ahhh" and was immediately informed it was actually "La Hoyah."

Been studying Spanish pronunciation ever since!

Michale [various] -

Because that's how society moves forward. Did anyone "censor" the Duck Dynasty guy? No. his interview was published in full. Did he suffer for it? Yes, but that is an economic decision by a private company -- no government involvement or censorship at all, sorry.

There is no right, in the Constitution, to host a television show.

More later, SNL's on... sorry...

-CW

Approval or disapproval of how they came to be, sure, that can make sense: we can have opinions about the morality or prudence of conceiving and bearing a child out of wedlock, for example. And we can have opinions about whether to transmit or transform a cultural heritage, whether to embrace it or repudiate it. But it makes no sense to approve or disapprove of the child for existing, or a person for having a cultural background.

Still, when someone mis-applies their disapproval to someone else's existence, it's futile to suppose that they can be cured of the tendency by coercion.

And therein lies the crux of the issue... I am in complete and 1000% agreement with you..

People who choose to live differently ARE entitled to tolerance and legal equality..

The problem now is that those who are activists for those who choose to live differently aren't SATISFIED with tolerance and legal equality.

They are demanding approval.. And they are refusing to be tolerant of those who will not, will NEVER approve of them.

And that's the beginning and the end of every conflict we are experiencing today over this issue..

Michale
0239

There are problems with polygamy as a norm, as you say. But there's little or no danger of it becoming a norm. For the foreseeable future, it's a question of how society deals with those who choose to live contrary to prevailing norms, and of whether norms should be decided culturally or politically. As a liberal, of course I say that norms should be decided culturally; and that people who choose to live differently are always entitled to tolerance and legal equality, just not to approval.

Of course, that does raise the question of what legal equality entails, and I've said I don't think it means giving people a one-size-fits-all legal status when they're looking for a custom set of legal arrangements. My opinion has been represented as being about whether laws should be changed; as far as I'm concerned it's about the range of possibilities of what the laws might be changed to. Regardless of whether any hypothetical set of laws facilitating custom legal arrangements for polygamy is a good idea, none is all that closely analogous to simply changing who is allowed to enter into a one-size-fits-all status.

The similarity is that irrational animus against gays and blacks was responsible for denying same-sex couples and interracial couples access to legal marriage, just as irrational animus against Mormons was responsible for the persecution that led them to flee Ohio and Illinois, and irrational animus against splinter-groups of Mormons is responsible for the persecution that Utah courts rightly rejected last week.

Perhaps I should have made more noise about that similarity, when I've discussed the issue in the past. I may have emphasized the non-analogy because of the political impact, when I should have stood up for the principle that no law should be based on irrational animus. I apparently haven't discussed it all that much, though, because googling "dsws polygamy" mostly just turns up a bunch of stuff about Direct Service Workers and the David's Sling Weapon System. DSW Shoes and I are no longer the only users of my initials.

Check out this primer: a bit tongue and cheek but gives a good overview:

http://gawker.com/what-is-duck-dynasty-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-a-1486356857

I think the ignorant racist stuff may have played as big a part as the homophobia.

Best comment in that linked thread:

No, they were singing the blues. They were literally singing the blues.

Not exactly...

The problem is those that are Professionally Offended by things that make America America and work their hardest to make people pay for opinions that the Professionally Offended don't like to hear..

I mean, honestly..

Why do the gay activists care what some ultra-religious bayou redneck thinks about the gay lifestyle??

By doing what they do best (being complete assholes) they have done their "cause" great harm..

On that article I posted, many gay people state in the comments section that they are sick and tired of the gay activists spewing hatred on behalf of the gay community...

Joe SixPack is getting pretty tired of the 2% trying to dictate to the 98%....

Michale
0228

It's not even Puritanism, it predates the Puritans.

Theoretically, that should be "It's not even Puritanism; it predates the Puritans.", or "It's not even Puritanism. It predates the Puritans.". However, only the version you wrote is an accurate rendering of the prosody that the spoken statement naturally would have.

I think that many Weigantians are of the same mind about the Duck Dynasty/Gay issue..

I am not familiar with Duck Dynasty, and haven't read about it. I saw that there were headlines, and I have a vague impression.

Someone said something disapproved-of, and it's getting compared to a previous time where some celebrity I don't know much about said something disapproved-of. People on both sides of the political spectrum are loud when they want the guy on the other side not fired or the guy on their side not-fired, or quiet if it's the other way 'round. There really is some hypocrisy on both sides, of course, but it looks much worse if you hear only the loudest voices from either side and imagine that the change in who's loudest reflects a change in the opinion of everyone on that side. So both sides honestly think that the other side is full of extreme hypocrites.

Is that about right?

This may represent the intolerant, bigoted and hate-filled gay activists' Gettysburg...

A&E really stepped on their wee-wees by submitting to the extortion, the (dare I say it :D) economic terrorism of the Professional Haters in the gay community...

Michale
0227

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/19/paglia-duck-dynasty-uproar-utterly-fascist-utterly-stalinist/?onswipe_redirect=no

Sorry, YoYo.. I think you are on the wrong side of this issue..

It's not about homophobia or anything..

It's all about freedom of speech.

And ANY American citizen has the right to speak their opinion without fear and without threats, extortion or intimidation..

These are the facts. And if you took an objective look at the issue, rather than an emotional look, I am sure that you would agree with me..

Michale
0226

Two things wrong with that..

1. WHO do you think Robertson is a role model for?? Gay people??

and

B. Where was the gay communities concern for role models when Miley Cyrus was being all trashy???

Michale
0225

If I am wrong in this assumption, for the gods' sake, correct me!!

And I know that some Weigantians are loathe to even CONSIDER another opinion on the issue..

But here one is..

From a writer, a professional dancer and a gay man.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?

If he is right—and he usually is—then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.
-Brandon Ambrosino

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/#ixzz2nxrcIGx0

Makes ya wonder, eh??

At least, I HOPE it would...

Michale
0224

REGARDLESS of what "stage" it's on...

Michale
ROOM 222

Untrue?? Robertsen rendered AN OPINION..

Such is his right..

He has the right to be WRONG in that opinion as well..

Something I am sure ya'all can understand. :D

OK, sorry. I just couldn't resist.. :D

If you say bigoted and untrue things on a national stage, it's going to turn around and bite you.

Using that reasoning, if I got ya'all fired from your jobs because of all the bigoted and untrue things ya'all have said, ya'all would just have to accept it...

Where is the "tolerance" on the part of the gay activists??

They demand tolerance from everyone yet they are the most intolerant bunch of assholes on the planet..

In their minds, "tolerance" means, "Believe how we believe or you will suffer.."

Michale
0221

They go on and on about tolerance, but let someone say something that the gay activists don't like and they become the most intolerant assholes on the planet...

Once again, it's pure and blatant hypocrisy..

The gay activists didn't compare Robertsen's sexuality to bestiality in a National interview. If you say bigoted and untrue things on a national stage, it's going to turn around and bite you.

I grew up in La Mesa... Right next door to El Cajon.. About 10 years ago, I took my wife and kids to San Diego and showed them all the places I visited as a kid. Balboa Park was an especially fun treat for them because there is a coquina ball in Balboa Park that marks the end of the Old Spanish Trail. The corresponding ball, the one that marks the beginning of the Old Spanish Trail is in St Augustine, FL. Where we live now..

Anyways, while we were there, my kids kept asking about the funny names our cities have. They asked what "La Mesa" meant and I told them "the table". They asked what "El Cajon" meant and I told them "the box".

Since we were in La Jolla at the time, they asked what "La Jolla" meant..

After spending a few seconds wracking my brain, I blurted out the first thing I could think of..

"The Jelly Roll"....

My wife and kids spent about 10 minutes laughing their asses off... :D

Michale
0215

It simply proves what I have been saying all along.

With the asshole gay activists, it's not about rights. It's about acceptance.. It's about forcing their views and their opinions on people who simply do not want to share them...

If they can't do it by legislating, then they'll do it by threats, extortion and intimidation.

That puts them SLIGHTLY above terrorists on my scumbag scale...

Michale
0213

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-indefinite-666808

This is why gay activists piss me off so much..

They go on and on about tolerance, but let someone say something that the gay activists don't like and they become the most intolerant assholes on the planet...

Once again, it's pure and blatant hypocrisy..

Which is why, I suppose, it pisses me off so much...

Michale
0211

One last thing -- I have heard (but haven't confirmed) that English is the only language where such a thing as a thesarus exists. In most languages, there is one and only one word for an idea. There is no "nice version" and "naughty version." Again, don't know if this is true or not...

-CW

What strikes me is how welcoming English is to other words. Only two other languages seem in the same league, in fact, Russian and Japanese. At the other end of the scale is French, where they actively resist such non-French words as "le weekend".

The intro to this FTP column should be of interest to you:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/12/12/friday-talking-points-58-expletive-deleted-blagojevich/

Heh.

In modern times, I've found a marked difference between East Coasters (for these purposes, defined roughly as "up to the Rockies") and West Coasters. East Coasters are adept with Native American in geography (Chappaquiddick, Assateague and Chincoteague, Massachusetts, etc.) while West Coasters are much more familiar with the pronunciation of Spanish in their geography (El Camino Real, El Cajon, San Francisco, La Jolla, etc.). But that's a whole different subject, really...

:-)

-CW

Let me know what she says... thanks.

Betina said that, by and large, it's an accurate description... The emphasis of the show was the family normality...

She also mentioned that the show really didn't run afoul of the Utah laws anyways, even the unconstitutional part because the "wives" each had their own, for all intents and purposes, residences.. So technically, there really wasn't any co-habitation...

She also mentioned that, just as her personal opinion, that this Cody guy seemed to be a media whore (that sounds so bad but I don't know how else to put it) who seemed to go out of his way to tell people about his group family arrangement..

He DID have a show to market, so that could be explained that way...

Michale
0210

Funny!

Just think about that the next time you drive your autokineton down the road. Or is it actually an egomobile? Your choice....

Heh. English is endlessly adaptable in what it "borrows" from other languages. Which is precisely why it's such a successful language!

:-)

-CW

Could you ask your wife a question?

I wrote, about Sister Wives:

[The show] reportedly (I have not seen the show myself) showed the Brown family without undue exploitative focus. The show, if not explicitly sympathetic to polyamory, at the very least provided a normative effect -- showing viewers: "Hey, this is just a family -- a bit different than yours, perhaps, but similar in many ways to any American family." In other words, fairly good press rather than being portrayed as some sort of freak show.

Does she think that is an accurate portrayal of the show? I was going out on a limb, there, since I've never seen it myself and was just going on what TV reviewers said about it, so I do wonder if that's close to the truth.

Let me know what she says... thanks.

-CW

LizM's going to be upset...

I'm going to make a correction in the above article. Originally, I wrote:

before Al Gore made the same point about Will And Grace, incidentally

This should now read "Joe Biden"... my apologies for the error.

Mea culpa.

-CW

Actually, it's a go-to argument for me. When talking with a "homosexuality is abomination" type Christian, my next question is: "Have you ever eaten a ham and cheese sandwich?"

But my point is that, taken literally (as people so often do), the Bible is not against polygamy, and actually supports it in many instances.

Islamic countries practice polygamy today, legally. That is something gay marriage didn't have going for it (an existing culture that approved of the matter legally).

I hear your points about changing the laws, but it wouldn't be too tough to do -- it would involve a more-complicated marriage license, that's all. The ultimate pre-nup, where things would be spelled out in advance.

Marriage (as the State sees it) would go back to being a legal and economic merger. Any decent contract law sort of lawyer could come up with a one or two page form, I'd bet, which would cover most eventualities.

Laws would indeed need to be changed, but the problems are not insurmountable.

Michale -

I wouldn't go so far as "hypocrisy" -- reasonable people could hold differing beliefs. I just would like to hear them, and their reasoning, which was the point of this article.

The initial article I wrote on HuffPost was one of the most popular ever, in terms of comments received. Unfortunately, I think they lost their archive of early comment threads, so you can't see it anymore. Which is a shame, because the discussion was one of the most fascinating I've ever participated in. There were viewpoints from people who had been raised in poly households, who were in poly relationships, who hated the whole idea, who were affronted by the linkage with gay rights, and a whole lot who had never really thought any of it through before, some of which were deeply insightful. As I said, it is a real shame I can't point to the whole comment thread any more.

-CW

Yes, statutes had to be changed in order to repeal anti-miscegenation law, and to allow same-sex couples to legally marry in states that did it by legislation rather than by court decision. But once an interracial or same-sex couple is married, all the same law could apply. That is not true for polygamy.

I'm for changing the law as needed to avoid persecution of polyamorous households. If there is a one-size-fits-most legal status that would work for a sufficient number of polyamorous households, I'm fine with that too. But it's not a matter of the same legal status being granted or withheld.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but if your "wife" is actually a husband" then that too would be legally "ambiguous"..

The laws are needing changing to take into account this new reality of the here and now.

Extrapolating that to it's next logical step, the laws would have to be changed to accommodate a group marriage or union..

I think that's the point CW is trying to make.

If one is for changing the laws to accommodate gay marriage or union, then one MUST be for changing the laws to accommodate a group marriage or union.

Anything less is hypocrisy...

Michale
0207

I don't know what to say. Have you ever actually spoken to a Christian? Shrimp are an abomination.

a challenge to all those who are for "civil rights" in the abstract, but who flinch when it comes to civil rights not wholly supported as somehow officially politically correct

I reject this characterization.

Legal marriage has two key features.

First, it designates a specific individual for various purposes. If I'm in a medical situation where I cannot give any opinion about my own treatment, who has the last word about whether to pull the plug on me? My wife does. If my wife dies intestate, who gets all assets we hadn't already put in both our names? I do. If I were married to more than one other person, those answers would be rendered ambiguous.

Second, it provides a one-size-fits-most set of legal arrangements, for the convenience of couples and bureaucrats alike. I don't know what about 99% of the legal ramifications of marriage are, and I don't have to. My situation is similar enough to that of every other married person that I can just be married and have a reasonable hope that the legalities will be more or less as I would want them if I had the expertise to figure them out. To mangle the Anna Karenina quote, legal marriages are all alike; every ad-hoc legal arrangement is ad hoc in its own way.

People have a moral right to decide their own domestic arrangements, as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else. Even when it does affect others, if religion is involved, they're entitled to reasonable accommodation under the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

Certainly a church has every right to perform plural marriage ceremonies. Consenting adults have every right to cohabit. People in such situations, finagling the legalities of who inherits what and who decides what and so on, have every right not to be discriminated against, compared to people making custom legal arrangements for other reasons.

But that doesn't make an unusual domestic situation with individualized legal arrangements fit with any plausible variation on the institution of legal marriage. To mangle the Mark Twain quote, if you call a custom contract a one-size-fits-most legal status, how many legal spouses has a polygamist? Five? No, calling a custom contract a standard legal status doesn't make it a standard legal status.

Now THAT's funny!! :D

Michale
0206

My lovely wife is a big fan of Sister Wives..

Anyone who wants to watch it, let me know. I have every episode available on our Video Server.

As to the question itself. I have no problem with ANYTHING that two or more consenting adults do as long as no innocents are harmed.

Gay marriage, polyamory, or anything else.

MY beef comes in when activists of said group try to force acceptance of said groups activities.

Michale
0205