Lildis

Hypocrisy: Parts One and Two

Part One – “Your Winnings Sir”
 Just sitting here thinking about the latest fad in the UK – the “inquiries” into the behaviour of some of their deceased and nearly deceased celebrities, seeking to bring them to account for sexual misadventures from decades ago.  The latest poster boy for this craze is a slimy looking fellow by the name of “Jimmy Savile” who hosted various music shows and earned a degree of celebrity for himself in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s.  Other targets include Rolf Harris (singer of the hit song “Tie Me Kangaroo Down” and, I gather, host of certain TV shows) and William Roache, the most iconic of the stars of Britain’s longest running soap “Coronation Street”.

It’s not that I find the alleged behaviour of these men acceptable – indeed it is extremely distasteful.  However – during the times these offenses took place this sort of activity, far from being the subject of public scorn was the object of popular acclaim.  “Teenage groupies” were routinely reported on, held up as one of the “perks” of stardom and exalted as the sign of a society finally relaxing their centuries old sexual inhibitions.  Now that everyone has sobered up after the party they are looking for someone to blame for the mess.  It reminds me of nothing so much as the famous scene in “Casablanca” where Claude Rains, pressed for a reason to shut down Ric’s Café Americain declaims that he is “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is taking place on the premises”.  This is followed immediately by an employee approaching him to hand over some cash with a polite “your winnings sir”.

 And I still wouldn’t have a huge problem with this except I think I smell more than a wee bit of selective prosecution here.  It seems to me that the Brits are having a go at primarily their “B” list celebs, while overlooking a few inconvenient truths about the culture that pervaded all of British celebrity at the time.  Have a look at the lyrics to “Stray Cat Blues” by “Sir” Mick Jagger’s group, (I believe they are called the “Rolling Stones”):

I can see that you're fifteen years old
No I don't want your I.D.
You look so rest-less and you're so far from home
But it's no hanging matter
It's no capital crime

Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
Oh yeah, don'tcha scratch like that
Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
Bet your mama don't know you scream like that
I bet your mother don't know you can spit like that.

That sounds awfully close to a confession to me – but Jagger is (probably deservedly) a Knight of the Realm – not facing the rest of his life in prison.  Making a one-time tryst or even a few the subject of a criminal trial thirty years plus after the fact may appear to provide justice – but, as much as the actions of so-called adults during that time make me cringe now – I know that really isn’t the case.  What is going on here is sensationalism and a forlorn attempt to renounce a time that was indulged in by the same society that now seems to want to collectively deny it ever happened.  It is doing that by very selectively stoning iconic old men.  I seem to remember something about who was entitled to cast such stones – and I really don’t see too many such people wandering around.

 Part Two:  Duck, Duck, Goose

 When I decided to write about the recently suspended Phil Robertson I knew I would be flayed alive by one side of the controversy or another.  My whole point in bothering to address the situation is to show that I don’t understand why there are “sides” in this at all – somehow a weird rich guy from Louisiana has managed to become a political cause, but I believe I can show in three easy steps that Robertson is not worthy of being either a conservative poster boy or a liberal target.  He’s just a guy who said some stupid shit and should be treated as exactly that. 

First of all – let’s dispense with the conservative outrage that Robertson has somehow been denied his “first amendment rights”.  The first amendment protects the right to freedom of speech and the press.  Last time I looked Robertson had absolutely no problem speaking freely.   Boy, did he ever speak freely.  In fact, he spoke freely in the press – GQ magazine to be exact, thereby completing a first amendment doubleheader.  You or I don’t get to speak in GQ – I get this stupid ass blog and most anyone who reads this will only get to call me a jerk on my Facebook page.  But Ole Phil – he spoke just about as freely as you can imagine.

 What I hear most often complained about is not that Robertson was unable to speak freely – but that he was unable to speak freely without consequences.  Here’s the thing – ain’t no amendment that guarantees that.  Here’s what the first amendment actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 See – it says “Congress shall make no law” not “A&E network shall make no law”.  Congress has to let you talk – A&E can pretty much tell you to shut the f*** up.  A&E pays the bills and if they want to tell Phil to take a little down time, well in the battle of competing “rights” here, they pretty much win out.  We’ll talk about their motivations for doing that in a bit but let’s all agree that, much as McDonalds has the right to tell the guy working the drive thru to take the Burger King crown off and head home without facing a “free speech” argument, A&E gets to tell the “patriarch” of America’s favorite redneck clan to go work on his tan if they want to.

 I’ve also heard people say that “if you don’t want to hear the answer, don’t ask the question”.  Try telling that to the cop who pulls you over and asks how fast you think you were going.  But really, this is another one that is really easy to deal with.  A&E didn’t ask the question – GQ did.  A&E is simply reacting to something that they did nothing to instigate – again they are within their rights to do that.  But why they are doing this goes to the second of the points I want to make.

 A&E did not tell Phil to go off camera for a bit because they are a bunch of granola crunching, dashiki wearing, McGovern voting flower children left over from the sixties.  It should surprise absolutely no one that major networks are actually run by some fairly large corporations – and fairly large corporations (other than perhaps some that make ice cream) are usually staffed by more than a few Republicans.  A&E is, in fact, owned fifty-fifty between the Hearst Corporation and Disney.  That would be Hearst as in William Randolph Hearst and Disney as in Walt Disney, neither of which was known as pansy assed liberals, and it’s pretty safe to say that their companies continue that legacy.

No, A&E acted as they did not because they’re a bunch of pinko’s – but color was involved.  That would be the color green, as in “greenbacks”.  A&E shut Phil down for that most conservative of reasons – it might possibly have unbalanced their budget if they kept him on.  This is why liberals should take no great joy in Robertson’s suspension – this hasn’t been done because A&E has such a huge concern about gay rights or a tremendous aversion to the Jim Crow South.  It’s been done to avoid a potential impact to A&E’s balance sheet.

And here we come to where the whole “Duck Dynasty” horseshit really pisses me off.  You see, I can understand A&E acting based on the bottom line – they’re a corporation – that’s what corporations do.  But it turns out the Robertson’s signed a contract at the inception of this so-called “reality” show agreeing that they would not talk about these type topics.  Phil wasn’t blindsided by this – he agreed specifically not to do it.  In other words the Robertsons agreed at the outset of their precious reality show not to be realistic. It’s all been a scam – designed to make their business more profitable and to project not the reality of their lifestyle and beliefs, but a carefully doctored and sanitized version of what they’re about.  We shouldn’t be surprised.  Phil Robertson and his family no more represent middle America than Snooki represented New Jersey.  We all know it – let’s just say it - reality TV is like watching a bad intersection during an ice storm – and you just saw a crash. 

 Finally, and this is in fairness to Phil Robertson himself, what he actually said deserves to be look at on its own merits.  Robertson said some fairly strong things – but they should at least be considered on a rational basis – tested for whether they actually are offensive, or whether they have something to contribute to reasoned dialogue.  The Robertson family, in their statement, said “Phil would never incite or encourage hate”.  Here’s what Phil actually said when asked what he thought was "sinful":

 “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

 So this is the simple test I would ask you to take concerning that statement:

 We all know gay people.  I don’t know or care whether you condone their lifestyle, but tomorrow, just to see how loving Ole Phil’s words are, tell me whether you would be willing to walk up to one of your gay acquaintances and say “Hey Joe (or Carol) I just wanted to let you know that I consider your behavior to be the same as when someone has sex with a dog”.  If your answer to this is “no” then I say Phil has flunked your test, not just mine.  Oh – and Phil also said that pre-civil rights era black people (who would not, I assure you, have been referred to as “black people”) were actually happier before they were burdened with such things as “equality”.  So, as another little test of Phil’s loving nature, go up to any African American you know and say “Tyrone, I believe you would be happier if you would just stop drinking out of the same water fountain as me – really”.

 You see unless Phil, or any of his defenders, has the balls to say what he said to the face of the people he targeted, then his speech wasn’t really about being true to the Bible, or his religion, or the “truth” as he sees it.  It was simply the rantings of a privileged rich jackass who, unlike you or I, doesn’t have to worry about the consequences resulting from his speech.  And yes, if he were here, I would say that to his face.