Much ado about nothing

Question: “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”

Honest answer: “No baby. Your big ass makes you look fat.”

Dancing answer: “Um,… have you seen the remote?”

Deceitful answer: “No, you don’t look fat at all.”

The idea of the “gotcha” question is rooted in not the question itself, or in its framing, but the way in which it is answered. The respondent should answer direct questioning to the best of their ability, and if it makes them look stupid, well… gotcha!

Stupidity is bipartisan and non-denominational. It is usually a temporary affliction and can be cured with just a little bit of wisdom, empathy, and exposure to facts. Sometimes it can be chronic and untreatable, but those apply to only the most severe cases, and can be quarantined like any other potentially fatal disease.

Sarah Palin fell victim to the “gotcha” question of: “What do you read?” Her inability to answer a question as simple as that made it a “gotcha” moment. Even Ted Cruz would have been able to provide an answer to this question, even if it was a list of Dr. Seuss titles. But Palin stared at the camera and at Couric like a deer in the headlights - wham! Gotcha! It cost her what little credibility that she may have had, which was questionable to begin with.

America seems to have devolved into a knee jerk, reactionary society, with little if any real substance discussed anymore in the public forum. Media does us a disservice. Our education system does us a disservice. Intellectualism does us a disservice. Are we incapable of fleshing out serious content from the white noise that we call discourse?

The manufactured controversy regarding A&E’s pseudo-celebrity Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame is a perfect example of the knee jerk reaction to a perceived affront.

I have to admit, I have never seen (nor intend to see) the show. Twenty years ago, A&E was a fine network, even though awash with Bill Curtis programs. Since then, it has relied heavily on the “entertainment” side, eschewing the “arts” in it’s namesake.

The controversy stems from comments that Robertson made in an interview with GQ magazine that have been largely mischaracterized as homophobic. I say mischaracterized because his statements were not at all homophobic, but simply personal opinions about homosexuality based upon his faith. He said nothing that specifically advocated mistreatment or violence toward the gay community, only his opinion that homosexuality was sinful, and would keep them from “the kingdom of God”. He also mentioned "adulterers", but the cheating class has remained suspiciously quiet.

This is hardly incompatible with Catholic doctrine and statements made by Pope Francis himself, who is tolerant of homosexuals, but certainly does not advocate gay sex or marriage. But somehow, statements that this redneck makes in the same vein as the Pope are somehow homophobic and an attack deserving to be punished. Come on people, lighten up.

Religion is personal and bound by one’s own particular faith. It can be quite dangerous, yet it is not of itself, threatening. We live in a nation that leaves faith and religion untouchable as long as it is not forced upon an individual and creates no immediate or lasting damage. The ignorance of religion (apart from faith itself) is protected, and can be dismissed out of hand, but should not be punished.

Though I think he is wrong, and his faith is clouded, I will defend his right to have his own opinion, regardless of how fucking stupid it is. As such, I would tell him how stupid it is as well, because my opinion is just as sacrosanct, and certainly better informed.

His statements pertain to his particular religious dogma, which should be ignored or embraced as one would see fit. As an atheist, I don’t buy any of it, and see gays as equal human beings, all destined for the same end as me - worm food. But people of faith believe differently. Some believe that God loves all of His children, and they will all live eternally in the afterlife, while others believe that God punishes the “wicked”, and make great efforts to define those who are “wicked”. To me, that sounds like an abusive father and not a divine being of love. But then again, I’m not arrogant enough to claim that I know one way or the other.

The more disturbing statements he made in the interview - which have been brushed aside in favor of his "anti-gay" comment - were with regard to blacks in the pre-Civil Rights South. These comments however are not outright racist, just woefully ignorant.

He is under the false impression that blacks long for the halcyon days of Separate but Equal, cross burnings, beatings, and the occasional lynching. I’m sure that blacks would beg to differ.

Having spent the past decade in the South, I can attest to a certain amount of revisionist history that exists down here. The memories of whites differ dramatically from the memories of blacks from that time. As intermingling was rare, and upon the occasion of such intermingling, blacks were reserved and remote, whites seem to believe that everything was just fine. It wasn’t; and any whites who believe it was need a refresher in history, and possibly a course in Black American Studies.

His religious statements should be taken in the context of his faith and personalized accordingly, while his racial comments should be confronted for the ignorance that they portray. Faith is faith and stupid is stupid; the two may go hand in hand, but they are two separate ideas, and should be taken separately. All tolled however, nothing that he said comes as a big surprise to me, and shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone else either. Have you taken a look at this guy? What did you expect? Gandhi?

The silliest part of this whole kerfuffle is the backlash endured by the A&E network from the fuddy-duddy whiners of the gay community and of the left at large, is that none of it means anything at all.

The network has buckled under pressure by these groups and have suspended Robertson from his own show indefinitely. Big deal. Two things should be recognized in this situation…

First, his comments were made in a magazine interview. They were not made on the show, were not advocated by the show or the network, and are largely irrelevant to the success or failure of the program. Second, this is the network's highest rated hit show. Do you honestly believe that they are willing to scrap the show because people are upset? If you do, you are as ignorant as Robertson.

Rush Limbaugh, that moron disc-jockey with a hateful little heart and even smaller mind, routinely says things that are far more inflammatory, and he does so on his program. It occasionally prompts protest and costs him sponsors, yet the show must go on. That’s entertainment.

Duck Dynasty is hugely successful. This is a good example of the shallow nature of America’s television viewing public - right alongside Honey Boo-boo - but it makes money, and money makes the world go around. A&E will wait for the heat to die down, Robertson will make a public apology of some sort (probably insincere, but public just the same), and the show will go back into production, milking the cash cow that is Duck Dynasty.

The people who watch this show are likely to agree with his religious perspective, no matter how viscerally dumb that it may be. Likewise, fans of the show are likely to hold backward, though not necessarily racist views on integration and race relations in the South.

If these views are repugnant to you, don’t watch the fucking show or the network! Don’t buy their merchandise! Don’t purchase products from their sponsors! And most of all, don’t make this into a federal case, because it doesn’t meet the threshold of shit that matters! You vote with your pocketbook and your feet. So cast your vote wisely, and then move on. You really should have more important things to do.

Ignore all of the idiots who claim that this is a First Amendment issue. Ignore the idiots who claim that this was homophobic and racist. Ignore the idiot pundits, politicians, and personalities who can’t see this for what it is: an ignorant comment or two, taken out of context, and the inadvertent publicity stunt that it has created. There is no such thing as bad publicity, and A&E is well aware of that fact.

Manufactured controversy always benefits somebody, and often that somebody is the one that is controversial. Reactionaries come in all shapes and sizes, and often go off half cocked, with umbrage and ire, just for the sake of pissed-ivity.

Take it for what it is: a pseudo-devout redneck with an irrational spin on reality and the human condition. Giving this anymore legitimacy than that illustrates our own misguided faith and ignorance. Which makes us just like him.