First Amendment Infringement

There's a saying: You can't teach an old dog new tricks.  So how does society expect an old dog from the backwoods of Louisiana to change his perspective of the world, especially one who relies so heavily on the teachings of the Bible?

Recently, the Duck Commander family patriarch, Phil Robertson, was quoted as stating some "off-colour" remarks involving gays and blacks, which has raised such a media hell storm, that the Arts & Entertainment channel (A&E) which broadcasts the Robertson's 'reality' show, Duck Dynasty, to act against Phil Robertson and suspend him from future episodes for an undisclosed period of time.  This is hogwash, in my opinion.

First of all, just about ANY comment, when taken out of context, can appear (on the surface) to be belligerent against a whole slough of people of differing faiths and lifestyles.  I recall a comment that former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura made a decade or so ago, in Playboy Magazine, where he was quoted saying that "people who need religion as a crutch".  In passing, this might be offensive to the entire Christian sect, but if you take the entire comment into consideration, it wasn't offensive at all, which referred to religion as: "a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength".  In it's entirety, the former Governor was referring to those in a moment of weakness, use religion as an instrument to gain strength.

The questionable comments made by Mr. Robertson in the January 2014 issue of GQ magazine, have been taken out of context, for the most part.  In his comments [Phil] never targeted homosexuals directly, but lumped all kinds of sin (as determined by the Bible) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Included in the comment were the sins of adultery, drunkards, the greedy and idolaters, just to name a few, but isn't it convenient that these facts have been omitted from the controversy?

It's a common misconception that gays and lesbians are too overly sensitive, a trait that they often denied, yet anytime a public figure makes an off-handed remark, HOLY SH!T, the claws come out and there's a rainstorm of tears.  It's not often that I would agree with Sarah Palin on anything (if ever), but I DO agree that Phil Robertson's Freedom of Speech is being infringed upon.

Adopted on December 15, 1791, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution clearly states the Freedom of Religion as well as the Freedom of Speech.  These days, 222 years later, you're allowed to practice Freedom of Speech, voicing your opinions, just as long as your opinions conform to those of the masses.  It may be because I am Canadian, but this just doesn't sound right to me.

Admittedly, I am not a religious person.  I don't believe in God, Jesus, Heaven or Hell, but if they do exist, I'm fairly certain I'm destined for someplace hot.  That being said, I don't condemn Robertson for his beliefs.  Whatever it takes to be a better person, then I'm all for it.  And while I may not fully support all of the comments made in this questionable GQ article, I DO support Phil Robertson's right to say it.

In the end, I doubt the author of the article, Drew Magary, referred to all of his notes from the interview accurately.  Thus, creating a more controversial article, selling more magazines and promoting himself into the limelight.

I work with a nice woman who happens to be a lesbian.  There are a few bible thumping people who work along side of us who strongly disapprove of her lifestyle "choice" and have voiced their opinions quite loudly.  This doesn't bother her though.  She knows the truth and is happy being who she is.

It's not right for A&E to boot Phil Robertson off the network.  For the most part, the show promotes a good, clean and healthy (despite the ratty beards) way of living.  They have wholesome values which is prominently conveyed to their viewers each week.  Although, Phil dislikes the amount of religion that fails to make it to the air, I'm happy that I don't have to listen to the jargon.  If anything, A&E should learn from CBS's Big Brother debacle this past summer, and simply post a warning at the start of every episode absconding themselves of any shared beliefs and/or opinions stated during the program (or the members thereafter).

The rest of the Robertson family are proudly standing by the family head and have clearly stated that they'll walk away from the smash A&E hit if Phil isn't allowed to be a part of the program.  I love this show and will miss seeing it every week, but I respect their decision to quit and support it whole-heartedly.

They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks...  I honestly believe that this old dog [Phil] doesn't need to be taught any lessons.  I DO believe that America simply needs to relax and not be so damned sensitive.  Quit being so.... uh... never mind.

The King of Wishful Thinking

It is amazingly stupid, what passes for viable news, sometimes.  Two big stories emblazoned on the media right now, is the Lance Armstrong "juicing" confession that he made to Oprah Winfrey, in her desperate attempt for ratings on her dying O Network.  The other is Notre Dame football star, Manti Te'o allegedly being the victim of an elaborate hoax, in which he carried on a lengthy romantic relationship with a woman who not only died, but apparently never existed to begin with.

As for Lance Armstrong, I really don't see the big deal if he used steroids or not.  Cycling really isn't a sport, per se, so where's the harm?  Athletes and athletic companies continually test to find more aerodynamic and lightweight materials to give themselves a competitive edge, why is a chemical substitution frowned upon?  On drag strips all across this continent, you have people racing their cars with blowers, turbochargers, and Nitrous Oxide Systems (NOS) to give a winning edge, so injecting a substance into one's body should be an acceptable option, too. Besides that, the guy lost one of his testicles to cancer, for f*ck sake.

That might be something to debate in the media and the judicial system, but as for the latter, Manti Te'o having a fake girlfriend who died.  I don't understand why that is considered ground breaking news.  For the last couple of days, on CNN's sister station, Headline News (HLN), the story has been running nonstop.  My opinion is of the position, WHO CARES?  I don't even understand it all.  He (Te'o) apparently met this girl online and carried on a relationship which eventually turned into a boyfriend/girlfriend type relationship in early 2012.  This part is understandable, to a degree.  I think it's a helluva lot easier to fall for someone through text than it is in person.  That wouldn't work for yours truly, as I'm much more of an asshole in print than I am in person.

Manti's "girlfriend", Lennay Kekua, apparently had a bad car accident last summer, but survived.  Then she experienced further bad luck, by being diagnosed with Leukemia which hospitalized her and she eventually succumbed to the brutal disease.  (It sounds like this "chick" has shittier luck than me...)  Manti Te'o had grown so in love with Lennay, that her passing was quite overwhelming.  After that, I don't know what prompted the media to investigate deeper into the existence of Lennay Kekua, but it was quickly discovered that the girl that Manti Te'o was so madly in love with, never actually existed, and therefore the shit storm ensues.

Now it's speculated that Manti, himself, perpetrated the entire ordeal.  Humiliated, he denies all allegations.  But who really gives a f*ck whether he did or not?  Where's the harm in whether he imagined a relationship or not?  If in the process, he inspired some of his fans to donate money towards the research to cure cancer, where's the f*cking harm?  Whether the girlfriend in question, exists or not, cancer is still a motherf*cker of a disease.  I say lie to everyone 'til you're blue in the face, if it means bringing an end to this plague.

Scads of males everyday, go online, find "questionable" (and tasteless) pornographic videos, and for an average of 20 minutes, according to a recent study, pretend to be in a tawdry affair with a skeezy skank.  It happens.  Internet access makes it easy.  No one's proud of it, but it exists.  More so in Washington D.C., according to the research, but it does occur everywhere...

With much more important issues in the world.  Continuous poverty and unemployment; war in the middle east; whether or not North Korea is aiming any nuclear weapons towards North America; or most importantly right now, gun issues, like why is it so easy for the mentally unstable to acquire weapons, or why it's necessary and important for people to possess not one or two guns, but a complete f*cking arsenal of weapons, all because the constitution declares it.  (Talk about "artistic license".)

Even in the time that it's taken for me to tap out these few words, I've overheard some stupid stories covered on the television that I've left on in the other room.  I suppose when you run a 24-hour news channel, you need to air a lot of fluff to fill those empty spaces.

The comment I read in researching this story that I found the most absurd was "Even though Kekua never existed, Te'o's grandmother Annette Santiago did pass away on September 11, 2012."  As if someone would be cagey enough to fake the death of a family member.

What's The Matter, Slugger?

There's another story in the news about some kid, who after feeling bullied, brought a 12-gauge shotgun to school and shot a kid.  Thankfully, he was stopped by a teacher and a school counselor before he had a chance to turn the gun on two more intended targets.

After tragedies like this, the movie theater catastrophe last summer and the slaughter of twenty school children before Christmas, I don't understand why people, gun enthusiasts included, don't see that there's an obvious problem with firearms.  "It's our right to own guns!" they say, "The Second Amendment* says so..."

(*Second Amendment of the United States Constitution)

Isn't it funny how there's 27 amendments in the U.S. Constitution, but people seem to only remember that one, or the first when they want to shoot their mouths off, or the fifth when they wish not to incriminate themselves in a court of law.

When these tragedies occur and all the zealots are exclaiming there Second Amendment rights, I'm a little confused as to why NO ONE HAS REALIZED that the Second Amendment was proposed in 1789 and enacted in 1791, when a gun consisted of loading a lead ball into a barrel packed with batten and gun powder.  Of course it would've made sense to own more than one rifle.  Especially with the threat of foreign invasion looming over your head.  If the suggestion would've been made to the forefathers of the great nation of the United States, that one day there would be guns made that could shoot off 25 bullets within two seconds* of time, their unusually small and narrow minds would've strung you up for heresy.  I guarantee, however, that if there were a time machine available and any one of the founding fathers were brought to modern day America, that Second Amendment would read a little differently.

(*I just watched an episode of Mythbusters, where a Tech 9's magazine (25 bullets) was emptied in just 2 seconds...)

In previous blogs, I've stated how I was bullied in school growing up.  I never once considered grabbing a shotgun from home and blowing those kids away.  Of course, I lived on a farm and rode a school bus into the city, where I was schooled, so it would've been quite an ordeal to smuggle a rifle to school unbeknownst.  That or the fact that, even to this day, I have no idea how to load a shotgun with shells.  I believe my dad kept the shells up on a shelf and I was too short to reach them anyway.  But I digress.  The thought of blowing them away, never even entered my highly imaginative mind.

As I recall, one time, while cornered by a bully, I did grab a large stick that was close by.  That seemed to fend them off long enough to escape to safety.  This memory prompts me to wonder why these troubled kids, don't just resort to bringing a Louisville Slugger to school to take care of business.  A baseball bat would prove to be much more personal when attacking their attackers.  Shooting them from a distance, seems like the cowardly way out.  

Of course, we live in a world that needs to direct blame on someone else, rather than owning up to our own gaffes.  Just as guns get the blame for school shootings, so would pro wrestling or baseball be blamed for a kids whacking off kids with a Louisville Slugger and not the fact that the social cliques in our schools are seriously fractured.

I realize that these statements make it sound like I'm condoning school violence.  I'm NOT!!!  Really!!  Believe me, the whole premise of using "vigilante justice" to get even with school bullies, is completely alien and retarded, in my opinion.  Especially in an era where "anti-bullying" is very trendy.  All a troubled student need do, nowadays, is go to a school counselor or teacher and report the bullying incident.  If the school official fails to take the problem seriously, the bullied teen can simply add the words, "I'm feeling 'shooty'...!"  That ought to grab someone's attention.

I've always thought communication was malformed and unreliable.  In most cases, referring to my own experience, the reports go unresolved and lost in the jumble of everyday lives.  These days, communication is a vital necessity.  Whether it be with a teacher, a parent, or whomever.

The student, that I mentioned at the top of this page, who was shot by that kid with the shotgun, is in hospital recovering.  Hopefully they will survive this ordeal and won't be permanently affected by the ordeal.  The teacher and counselor who distracted and disarmed the shooter are, today, understandably shaken.  At the time they didn't know if he would add them to the list of casualties (or worse), but knew something had to be done to stop him.  They don't want to be referred to as "heroes", although their acts were heroic.  And as for the kid who brought his shotgun to school, officials say he will be tried as an adult.

Ironically, he felt victimized and bullied, hence his acting out so violently.  If convicted, he will go to prison where he's going to really be bullied by fellow inmates, bullied up his ass.  That boy's going to be someone's bitch, this much is certain...