Sunday, December 22, 2013


It’s my birthday. I’m 62 years old. ‘Nuff said.

I’ve little love for so-called “reality shows.”  Outside of Fangasm
and Heroes of Cosplay, which I watched because they touched on my
world, the only such programs I watch even occasionally are House
and House Hunters International. 

I loathe most reality shows.  If I come across them while channel-
surfing or if I walk into a room where a loved one is watching one
of them, I find myself wishing a flaming meteor would fall from the
sky to flatten Jon and Kate...or the sister wives and their creepy
“husband”...or the teen moms...or, well, you get the idea. I know
there must be a special hell reserved for each and every adult who
is involved in making pedophile TV programs like that Toddlers and
abomination. I’m a hater and I cannot lie.

In my defense, I hate such TV shows because they are terrible shows
and because they suck the intelligence out of viewers and promote
a sordid voyeurism.  Firefly didn’t last a year, but they have made
how many seasons of The Real Life and Big Brother?

If you want to see true hate and ignorance, gentle readers, I give
you Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty, who, in an
interview with GQ magazine, paraded his bigotry and racism for all
to see.  My Facebook and Twitter response to him:

Fuck Duck Dynasty and the bigot it rode in on.

Elegant it wasn’t, but it expressed my long-established disdain for
so-called “Christians” who wrap themselves in their soiled bibles
and embrace a hatred the Savior they claim to worship would never
condone, a hatred He never stated in the precious book they believe
comes from God and not from fallible men who were products of their
ancient unenlightened times and likely pursuing their own agendas.
Any wonder I now revere a giant radioactive lizard?

One of the more common responses to this Facebook/Twitter rudeness
of mine boiled down to...he’s entitled to his opinion.

Technically, that’s absolutely correct, though I’ll never see such
bigotry and racism as a legitimate opinion.  I consider it to be a
mental illness and a moral deficiency.  Even more so when it’s put
forth as some sort of affirmation of one’s religious beliefs.  If
your God actually requires such intolerance from His followers, I
respectfully suggest you need a better God.

Speaking of intolerance, I saw this “tweet” coming ten miles away
because this bilge always surfaces when I write about bigotry and
my unswerving opposition to bigotry.  An anonymous fellow who goes
by the name “Old Comic Smell” posted this:

Because the guy has an opinion that differs from yours? How very
tolerant of you.

It’s true.  I am intolerant of intolerance. This fellow exposed me
as a hypocrite to all six of his followers.  My reputation has now
been destroyed and my career is over.  It’s a shame the heroic “Old
Comic Smell” apparently can’t reveal his real name.  I’m guessing
that would put his loved ones in jeopardy.

If you want to talk actual hypocrites, you need go no further than
the ninnies of the right.  When Martin Bashir made unkind comments
about one individual, the perpetually toxic Sarah Palin, on MSNBC,
the Fox News crowd exploded with frothing rage.  Bashir apologized
for his remarks and resigned from MSNBC.

No one called this a First Amendment issue, probably because most
educated people understand that the First Amendment only applies to
government censorship.  Some called it a freedom of speech matter,
though, again, educated people do understand that while a person is
perfectly free to say almost anything, said person is not and has
never been guaranteed freedom from the consequences of what he
or she has said. 

The ninnies of the right were incensed by Bashir’s comments about
an individual.  They were perfectly fine with Robertson’s horrible
comments about all homosexuals...and they seem to think it’s some
terrible violation of basic decency and the Constitution that A&E,
the network which airs Duck Dynasty, has suspended or maybe fired
Robertson from the series.  Because consequences should only apply
to those who disagree with the hypocrites of the right.

I’ll be back tomorrow with the third installment of this “unsavory
topics” series.  Collect them all.

© 2013 Tony Isabella


  1. My understanding of the 1st Amendment, is, if you verbally or in writing threaten to harm or kill somebody, then it may or may not become a legal matter.
    Other then that, apart from sheer libel against an individual, you're covered. But that's a different question.
    On the other hand, the company or business you work for can fire your ass anytime they want to. And for much less than saying something offensive.
    Bottom line, the man's got a right to his opinion, but his employers have a right to suspend or fire him as they see fit.
    The government and the constitution don't enter into this; it's a business matter.

  2. Have a great birthday and wishing you many more.

  3. I was involved in a similar discussion regarding the Duck Dynasty uproar just two days ago on Flint Dille's FB page. The bigoted mindset of at least one of Robertson's defenders, the sleazy tactics he used to try to defend the undefendable, and the laughable insistence he displayed in completely ignoring my points while attacking me on grounds he clearly had no business attacking me for, would have been mind blowing if it weren't so typical.

    Oh, and before I forget: have a very Happy Birthday, good sir, and many more to come!

    David Peattie

  4. I tend to agree with Anonymous above. Phil Robertson has a right to an opinion, a right to express that opinion, and a right to not be censored by his government while expressing it. However, he has no right or guarantee protecting him from public backlash or employment repercussions after having expressed said opinion, especially in a public and national forum.
    That being said, some of this blame lies at the feet of GQ and its interviewer, who had to know full well going into this interview what sort of answers they were bound to get when asking this sort of man these sorts of questions. It was a premeditated move on the magazine's part, garnering them attention at the cost of an individual. It was not an expose'. It didn't bring any great wrong to light. It was a ratings move plain and simple.
    Bottom line, I don't have to agree with anyone else, and I will defend their right to free speech insofar as it is constitutionally protected, but I will not protect them from their own ignorance.

  5. first: birthday.
    second: maybe a la carte tv will help solve it. that and a large solar emp
    third: i read what that duck said. i dont know anything other than that.
    foruth: anyone into comics knows that not all old comics smell good. a virgin comic can have the finest bags and acid free boards and stored perfectly, but it will eventually start to stink. saving all the geek, old print material smells the way it does from what its made of, and some comics are made with shitty material and in fact make them smell like shit. the kind that sarah palin should choke on. BOOM! -drops the mic-
    fifth: i have you heard the good news about michael boatman? i have some literature if youre interested.

  6. I disagree with one of Overlord's points, although I do commend him on the whole for speaking intelligently about this.
    The point I disagree with is that GQ was partially to blame. I just disagree. The function of an interviewer, whether in print or on TV, is, where celebrities are concerned, to coax them into revealing something juicy or weird, or get them talking about their sex lives, addictions, wacky views, etc.
    Many of these celebrities strike me as schmucks, walking in there think it's a puff-piece or the interviewer is their pal. It ain't so. They're looking for dirt, and know if somebody yaps long enough, something dumb is gonna come outta their mouth. God knows, I'm a case in point.
    It's Robertson's own damn fault. And for the record, I find his views moronic.

  7. Down in the deep, deep South, they take their religion waaaaaaaay too seriously. Worse, it seems as though their interpretation of the doctrines stops at the Old Testament. Same with the windbags from the Westboro "Church" in Kansas.

    Thus, it is borderline hypocritical of Robertson or anyone with a similar mindset to condemn those of an alternate lifestyle, when Jesus preached nothing but love. I have friends in the gay community, some of whom I haven't seen in a while, but I treat them as equal individuals, as we're supposed to.

    Man alive, if they made the Beverly Hillbillies today, Jed would be Phil Robertson in the mind of some deranged Hollywood scribbler with no sense of history........