Program Note
[ Posted Thursday, December 26th, 2013 – 17:13 UTC ]
Just a quick note for everyone with the hope that Santa brought what you wanted this year. There will be no column today, as we're getting the final "McLaughlin Awards" together.
Which means, of course, that tonight is pretty much your last chance for any nominations, which you can list as a comment here or back on the open call article (either way, I'll see them).
Once again, hope everyone's having a great holiday and join us back here for Part 2 of our big year-end wrapup tomorrow!
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Well, since we seem to have an open thread here, let me play catch-up... :D
CW,
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.
I concede the point. While every American does HAVE a First Amendment right to Free Speech, every American does not have the Constitutional OBLIGATION to allow Free Speech. That is the sole responsibility of the Government.
So you were correct there.
However, in my defense (and in defense of all others who scream FIRST AMENDMENT) this debacle IS a "Free Speech" issue. So it's understandable that people (myself included) would conflate the two..
Having said that.....
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?
I don't have a problem with individuals exercising their right to choose where and how they spend their money or who they give their patronage to..
I don't even care if they take to FaceBook and brag about how socially conscious they are..
My beef is with groups who conspire to further their own agenda by making innocent people suffer thru coercion, threats and intimidation.
Further, the total and blatant hypocrisy of a group who screams and yells about bigotry and intolerance and then turns around and so blatantly displays bigotry and intolerance is especially grating..
I don't think anyone would disagree that GLAAD et al are displaying the EXACT bigotry and intolerance that they accuse others of...
That's my beef...
Michale
(now, where was I???)
0271
Liz,
It sounds an awful lot like you are rooting for Obamacare to fail.
Am I misreading your comments?
I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. :D
Abso-frakin'-loutly I am rooting for Obamacare to fail..
Just like I am certain all of the entire Left was rooting for the Patriot Act to fail..
I am sure the Left believed of the Patriot Act that it was bad for this country and this country would be better off if the PA failed..
That's what I believe of obamacare.
As it turns out, the Left was wrong about the Patriot Act.
It's beginning to look more and more that I am dead on ballz accurate (I.T.) :D about obamacare..
Michale
0272
TS,
Regarding drones..
If drones were not effective, why would our government continue to use them??
You can bet that we are not given the entirety of what is going on in the war on terrorism.. That is to be expected..
But we DO have facts that we can look at and come to a logical conclusion.
And the fact are these.
Our government is not stupid..
Drone strikes are continuing..
Ergo, one can only logically conclude that the Drone Strikes ARE having the desired effect...
Michale
0273
A&E CAVES!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/27/duck-dynasty-to-resume-filming-with-phil-robertson-ae-announces/
Now, let's see GLAAD issue an apology for their bigotry and hatred and intolerance...
Michale
0274
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/28/duck-dynasty-reversal-shows-glaad-has-an-expiration-date/
GLAAD gets handed an F.O.A.D sandwich from A&E...
{{{Full On Gloat snipped}}}
The sport ends...
Michale
0277
Michale [1] -
OK, I'll concede the point on "free speech" as by some definitions (yours included) this could encompass the DD situation. I would argue that it's "corporate speech," but I'd be splitting hairs, so like I said I'll concede the point.
As long as you don't drag the 1st Amendment into it, then I have much less problem with the whole argument, personally.
As you point out later, A&E caved. Or reversed. Or whatever you call it.
I refuse to see much sinister in the entire episode, though. Because it's not as bad as you think -- it's all about the bottom line.
Here's the scenario: you are head of a big TV network (I was going to say "God help us all" here, but then I thought about it and I bet the Michale Network would run some pretty cool old TV series, so I withdraw the snark before I even say it. Heh.).
Where were we? Oh, right, your network. OK, some guy on some show you run (first run, not repeats) gets interviewed and says something offensive to a certain segment of the population.
You are faced with a business decision. You can legally can the guy, due to the clause in his contract that says you can in just such a situation. So there's no legal problem, just a public relations problem of some sort or another.
"People Against That Offensive Comment" call your network up and ask for a meeting to air their views (exercising their free speech and free association, I might add). You still haven't made up your mind what to do, so you allow them to schedule a meeting.
In the meeting, they "threaten" you (threw that one in there just to keep you interested) with a gigantic boycott of all their fellow-travelers.
You politely thank them, they leave, and then you call in your demographics staff. You ask for an overview of your audience.
Now, your decision is a cold cash decision. Is the number of people who might actually boycott both your network and your advertisers significant enough (ie. a big enough segment of your own audience) to decrease your revenues? And, equally, is the number of people who either won't care about the so-called offensive comments or actively be annoyed with you for firing the guy actually bigger than that first segment of your audience?
You weigh the question, and you make a purely business decision.
So what is so sinister about that? Were you this upset when Bill Maher was canned? I mean, one way or another you could call it corporate cowardice, but I still have trouble seeing it as anything more than a bottom-line, dollars-and-cents decision.
Both A&E and Cracker Barrel misjudged their consumer base. They realized it, and reversed themselves. Pressure was applied from both sides -- equally. So where's your "free speech" beef, really?
-CW
OK, I'll concede the point on "free speech" as by some definitions (yours included) this could encompass the DD situation. I would argue that it's "corporate speech," but I'd be splitting hairs, so like I said I'll concede the point.
If Phil was speaking for A&E or even Duck Commander, then you would have a point.
But Phil was speaking for Phil Robertson..
What's ironic here is that, if one actually READs the GQ article, Phil had not a single hateful word or thought..
But when one reads GLAAD's response, it was full of hatred...
Funny, eh?? :D
I refuse to see much sinister in the entire episode, though. Because it's not as bad as you think -- it's all about the bottom line.
As far as A&E is concerned, sure... They are not the real villains here..
They do what businesses do and protect their bottom line..
It's obvious that they completely misjudged WHO would have more impact on that bottom line.. They thought that GLAAD would..
Apparently, it's the VIEWERS that have more impact..
Which is as it should be...
You weigh the question, and you make a purely business decision.
Naw, this is the MICHALE Network after all.. I would look at the people who are trying to tell me how to run my network and I would tell them to bugger off...
But, it's widely known that I ain't a good business person.. :D
One only has to read USENET during the heady days of DirecTV to know that.. :D
But my whole point about this was GLAAD.. How they use extortion, threats and intimidation to push their agenda...
An agenda that the majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT..
Like that article I posted in #5.. THAT is from a gay person and a full on supporter of GLAAD...
And even HE said that this incident is more about GLAAD's bigotry than it is about Phil Robertson...
To sum up..
Yes, it's not really a First Amendment issue...
Yes, it's (what APPEARED to be) a logical and rational business decision by A&E...
But my entire point of this three-four-five day long comment spree is that Phil Robertson was displaying ANY hatred or ANY bigotry..
ALL the hatred and ALL the bigotry came from GLAAD...
Both A&E and Cracker Barrel misjudged their consumer base. They realized it, and reversed themselves. Pressure was applied from both sides -- equally. So where's your "free speech" beef, really?
The fact that GLAAD was able to get away with their threats and intimidation with the full support (by commission or omission) of the Left...
The Left fully and supported GLAADs hatred and bigotry because it fit the agenda...
What I would like to see is more Americans stand up to organizations like GLAAD and their hatred and bigotry......
Like Cracker Barrel did.
Like A&E (eventually) did...
Wouldn't you??? :D
"It isn’t shocking that a conservative Christian duck-hunter from Louisiana has opinions that GLAAD deemed “anti-gay,” and it isn’t shocking that A&E immediately kowtowed to GLAAD at the first drop of the word “homophobic.” What is shocking, however, is that A&E lifted Phil’s hiatus in spite of the fact that they knew GLAAD wasn’t going to be happy about it. A few years ago, I couldn’t imagine a network disregarding GLAAD’s recommendations. A&E is certainly setting a precedent – which makes me wonder about where we are today with queer politics."
-Brandon Ambrosino
Times are a-changin' people...
As we used to say in OCS....
"LEAD..... FOLLOW..... OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!!"
Michale
0278
M (3)
"If drones were not effective, why would our government continue to use them??"
First, I'm not making the case that UAVs are inherently ineffective, just that the technology is being misapplied.
Government policy is implemented by people and people are prone to folly. War is fertile ground for folly. As I see it, the following factors are driving this particular variant.
1) Lack of good strategic options for combating low intensity war and terrorism (good = quick, decisive and cheap) leading to wishful, outside the box thinking. The shock of 911 has left the US unusually vulnerable to this.
2) The US love for technology, and the faith that high tech always prevails over low tech.
3) Career building within the drone community.
4) Confusing tactical success with strategic purpose. Similar to "we're lost, but we're making great time." Drones produce compelling videos of people vaporizing and vehicles blazing. Tactical success is not the whole story.
5)UAV warfare leaves a small footprint in the United States. No US captives, no US casualties result (directly) from UAV warfare. UAV war is relatively cheap, and again, all those compelling videos from the drones.
6) Little on site journalism. The attacks are far away, and hard/dangerous to get to.
7) Human reluctance to admit failure.
8) Lack of strong oversight at the highest levels of the US military and government. Not much pressure for strong oversight.
Finally:
"Our government is not stupid." Really? YOU of all commentators build your case on this? :)
First, I'm not making the case that UAVs are inherently ineffective, just that the technology is being misapplied.
Nothing succeeds like success..
If we're killing terrorists, where is the misapplication??
Collateral damage would be a LOT worse if conventional means were utilized...
"Our government is not stupid." Really? YOU of all commentators build your case on this? :)
Yea, ironic iddn't it :D
But, in THIS case, Obama seems to have done the smart thing by building on Bush's policies...
Terrorists ARE being killed... Collateral damage is proportionally a LOT less...
It's a WIN/WIN....
I mean, who DOESN'T want to see terrorists bite the big one???
Michale
0288