Perhaps the first question is why GQ magazine was interviewing Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson.

After all, GQ describes itself as “the definitive men’s magazine with style advice and tips.”  The down-home, born-again, duck-call maker hardly fits between features on Bradley Cooper and Denzel Washington.

But Robertson and Duck Dynasty are white hot.

It’s the most popular nonfiction cable show ever.  Forbes magazine reported last month that “By the end of 2013, Duck Dynasty product tie-ins will have raked in a massive $400 million in revenues, according to industry sources.”

I suspect GQ, like everyone else, was trying to cash in. And it was in the now-infamous magazine interview that Robertson went verbal commando on a variety of subjects, including homosexuality and race relations.

On gay sex, Robertson stated that he believes homosexuality is a sin (a view shared by 41 percent of Americans, according to Gallup) and he opined graphically on gay versus straight sex.

On race, Robertson said that growing up as white trash (his words), he worked the fields with blacks in Louisiana.  “We’re going across the field… they’re singing and happy. Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

His wistful description of the Old South is a simplified caricature.  It’s inaccurate, but likely not uncommon among whites of a certain age—Robertson is 67—who came of age prior to the civil rights movement.

A&E Network suspended Robertson indefinitely, saying it’s “extremely disappointed” in his comments.  Notably, the Duck Dynasty marathons scheduled for last night, this weekend and on Christmas Day are still on the network’s broadcast schedule.

Sarah Palin is among those who have come to the defense of Robertson, saying “free speech is an endangered species.”  It’s perfectly appropriate for Palin to support Robertson, but the basis of her argument is flawed; this is not a free speech issue.

The First Amendment provides protection from government action, but not private employers.  Robertson has a right to his opinion, but he does not have a First Amendment right to a TV show.  A&E is within its rights to suspend, discipline or even dismiss an employee whose conduct or comments are deemed offensive.   Any disagreement between Robertson and A&E will be sorted out in court.

Still, there’s something unsettling about the uproar over Robertson’s comments.  This is the Duck Dynasty guy, not the President, the Pope or even the school principal. And he was expressing opinions in an adult magazine, not teaching junior high history or science class.

While not all forms of speech are equally protected by the Constitution, we should still value the marketplace of ideas.  Challenging Robertson on his views makes for a worthwhile discussion.  It would be enlightening for one of those “happy, singing” field hands to give Roberston the other side of the story.

But making him a public pariah, as some want to do, has a chilling effect on the national dialogs on race, homosexuality and all controversial topics in between.

 

 

 

 

bubble graphic

165

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Rick

    We do have relatively free speech in this country. We are free to speak our minds on any subject and voice our views to whom ever will listen. The point here is that like it or not this guy represents a business. A & E is the "brand he rides for." They certainly do not want to alienate approximately 10 percent of their audience. Martin Bashir said some very stupid things last week about Sara Palin and was fired because his view did not represent his company very well. That is the bottom line on this incident. Not about free speech or so called political correntness it is about how you represent the company you work for.

    • Don Jr.

      Rick
      The attack against Sarah Palin by Bashir was just that, an attack against someone personally on a live TV show. The comments made by Robertson were his viewpoints that he expressed while answering questions at an interview. Comparing these two occurances makes no sense, they are not alike in the least. A good portion of the country, and the liberal media, have a problem with the Robertson comments mainly because most of the comments are true. If he would have been spouting garbage, like you can here on nearly every TV channel you turn on, the media and liberals would have loved him.

      • J the C

        he was spouting garbage.

        • You'reFULLOFIT

          He was spouting garbage? So you find a mans anus more desirable than a woman's vagina?

          OH!! You probably meant Bashire was spouting garbage

        • Jason412

          I dont understand why my post about Phil admitting to committing felonies and beating women for the first 30 years of his life didnt make the moderation cut

  • CaptainQ

    Hoppy, I have never, ever watched Duck Dynasty and regardless of this 'news story', I still do not plan to watch it.

    That being said, apparently this program's been running on A & E for a while and if this Phil Robertson character is smart enough to have a successful TV show for this period of time, he should've been smart enough not to say anything like this in this 'politically correct' era of America. Celebrities of all kinds have destroyed their own careers with their mouths (just ask Paula Dean, the late Jimmy the Greek, etc.) and it appears Phil could be the latest one to add to this list. A few have recovered from things like this ('Dog' of "Dog the Bounty Hunter' and Michael Richards come to mind) but it remains to be seen how well this guy will do.

    Word to the wise, celebrity or not, THINK before you speak/text. Easier said than done? True. But in modern America, all it takes is one misspoken word, one ill advised phrase, even an angry Facebook or Twitter message can smash a person's reputation.

    Anyway, MERRY CHRISTMAS to all! And HAPPY NEW YEAR too!

    • Don Jr.

      Q,
      "Modern America" translated to those with a mite of vision is "politically correct era in America", this is only one among many other truths which the media and a good portion of the public cannot even hear, much less act on in a sensible, responsible manner. I fear the writting may be on the wall already for our country.

    • Wowbagger

      Captain,

      I'm inclined to think Robertson didn't slip, but made some very pointed, carefully thought out statements on purpose. These folks are reported to have an aggregate net worth of $400 million and this will sell out their volumes of Christmas merchandise. I doubt I will be able to find a Duck Commander tee shirt this weekend.

      I understand if the legalities can be worked out they have offers from other, more Duck friendly media outlets.

      I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop.

      • CaptainQ

        Maybe the 'other shoe' will be dropping soon. According to a report on Yahoo.com, one of the Duck Dynasty's wives said that the family does NOT want to proceed with the TV show without Phil. If this is true, then GLAAD could be viewed as directly responsible for the show's demise and end.

        I don't really care either way, since I'm no fan of the show, but this is a very interesting development.

        • Don Jr.

          I will admit to watching the show twice. The first episode that I watched was about the beaver hunt. I was not overly impressed as I found the "reality" to be too far on the phoney side for me. However, the second episode that I watched was about as good as you'll get from a modern TV show I think. It was the eposide where they are looking for a dog for SI, one to match his personality. It was hilarous, I can't remember laughing so hard watching TV in a long, long time. I'm not sure how the other episodes compare to these two, but I highly recommend the one about SI and the hunt for a new dog for him. lol.

  • TB

    Keep kneeling to political correctness (fear of the fringe) and you will become a mime.

  • TD

    Could it be old Phil isn't as smart as everyone seems to give him credit for? Either that or he wanted to stir a big controversy because anyone who has been awake the past 30 years should know better than to take the bait on questions like this.

    This is not about religion or the first amendment (no surprise Sarah Palin shows her intellect, more accurately lack thereof, again). Phil is absolutely free to speak his mind anywhere he wants and A&E is free to broadcast his views or not, whichever they choose, so how is the First Amendment being attacked?

    Que the redneck victim outrage, they're as good at playing victim as anyone.

    • The bookman

      Oh good God I hate this, but +1!

    • You'reFULLOFIT

      Your fallacy shows your intellect-- Did he say it on his A&E Show? This guy never espoused "his views" on or at A&E-- IE: his workplace.
      So, unless A&E owns GQ what business is it of theirs to broadcast or not broadcast this particular view of his..

      Do you people not see the Pandora's Box you are arguing to expand-- At this rate we will soon risk being fired from our work-place for reciting the Gospel in church

      • DB

        False. Anything you say even on a medium such as Facebook can be grounds for dismissal by an employer. GQ comments are fair game.

        Most employers require training for this, mine included.

        • You'reFULLOFIT

          False? what's false? you're confused.

    • Jesse's girl

      Your ongoing opinions show you to be in competition for poster-child of the "barefoot and pregnant" crowd.

    • Newspeak

      TD, you aspire to be in the "inner-party" don't ya.......

      • TD

        perhaps, what exactly is the inner party?

        • You'reFULLOFIT

          Given the screen name and the "inner-party" I would say it's the top 2% of the population under Big Brother in 1984...

          • TD

            well I guess I'm not in the "inner party" then. I'd be glad to go to a party though, where's the liqour?

    • J the C

      Nailed it, TD.

  • Marcus

    And we wonder what's wrong with America......

  • Bruiser

    Hoppy, Lets face it, this is about religion. A&E wanted to cut the prayer out of the show and they refused. As far as the magazine, the "in crowd" has been trying very hard to hurt them, because it is a very very popular show and it scares the heck out of them that so many Americans like a good wholesome show. A&E have garbage shows, Miley Cyrus lets them hump her on a tv show, a MSNBC reporter states what gross things they should do to Sarah Palin and no outrage, what a bunch of phonies. A&E has the right to "punish" him, but we have the right to quit watching A&E. They did not want his opinion, they wanted to bring him down.

    • Christine

      Perfectly said. Freedom of Religion, is a right.

      • J the C

        Christine, please read the 1st Amendment. If, after doing so, you don't appreciate that it doesn't apply to A&E (which, by the way, I never watch), get a brain transplant.

  • TLC

    I don't understand why many people say this is not a free speech issue. More than just the Gov. can try to control speech. A&E is trying to stop his speech because they personally hate it. This is not about business. All you need to do is listen to the trash other A&E actors say to understand that this is personal. A&E is a business and can do what they want. What they are doing is using their business to bully others. This time they may have bitten off more Duck than they can chew.

    • The bookman

      And you may be right as they have issued a statement, and will be held accountable for exercising their right to speak freely...we live in a world of consequences, and what was good for Phil will be good for A&E..they may have opened themselves up for a backlash as their consequence for suspending Phil...if so, so be it! In the end though I think we will be able to say no one's right to speak was infringed.

      • TLC

        By taking him off the air while leaving others that say trash on, A&E is trying to silence him. That to me is infringing on his free speech.

        • The bookman

          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.

          That is the full text...I see nothing that applies in this situation, other than both parties, Robertson and A&E, are free to speak as they have without government interference, as they have not!

  • Medman

    I doubt that A&E and the Robertsons will get this resolved. Phil Robertson has two college degrees, made millions and is a man of strong religious beliefs. He refused a NFL contract because he wanted to go home and live his life as he wanted. Money is a non factor in his life. The family will not abandon him. The Constitution question is irrelevant in this discussion and there will not be a mea culpa in my opinion. This incident reflects a growing backlash to political correctness which has invaded this country and is destroying our basic principles of freedom. Muslims murder homosexuals, but you can bet there will never be anyone suspended or condemned in the Media because they quote the Islamic beliefs in that regard.

    • Gilbert Gnarley

      Got to agree with you, Medman.

  • Don Jr.

    The truth has never been popular. Too bad that freedom of speech does not cover those speaking the truth.

  • MaryL

    I agree with Hoppy. Duck Dynasty is hot and magazines are NOT selling. All of them, including GQ are grasping at straws to save themselves. Now, a media frenzy is exactly what they wanted to sell magazines. A&E has a right to suspend him, but they have a LOT to lose if they take this too far with The Robertsons.

  • A & E

    The militant homosexual movement immediately went on the attack, demanding Phil Robertson be fired from the show. This movement, which has wrapped itself in the language of tolerance, is in fact intolerant of men and women of faith and is determined to punish anyone who dares to speak up for biblical values.

    • Don Jr.

      I have seen it first hand several years back. These folks are not content to be left alone to excercise their freedom to sin. Being left alone and leaving others alone is not what they are about. This is the first time I've seen someone call them "millitant", but I'd have to agree. They have an agenda and it can only be fueled by evil and so the results of their work.

    • Honey Badger

      Very correct. Its just not the militant homosexual crowd. It is basically the whole liberal leftist socialist wing of the democratic party. They are the ones who lob hate bombs all over the place.

    • Jephre

      +1

    • J the C

      Wow, you people are nothing but nitwit puppets. I always thought that God gave me an intellect to use. Guess not.

      • You'reFULLOFIT

        The latter is the only time you have been 100% correct.

  • A & E

    The militant homosexual movement immediately went on the attack, demanding Duck's Phil Robertson be fired from the show. This movement, which has wrapped itself in the language of tolerance, is in fact intolerant of men and women of faith and is determined to punish anyone who dares to speak up for biblical values.

    The Arts & Entertainment Network, has "indefinitely" suspended Robertson from its highest-rated show, "Duck Dynasty." Why? Because Robertson dared to speak openly about his biblically-based values on marriage and human sexuality during a GQ interview. (Robertson's remarks were not made on the TV series.)

    When asked by GQ about his views on homosexuality, Robertson quoted Scripture and, as his many fans appreciate, he elaborated in his own colorful way.

    On one segment of the Duck Dynasty, Robertson lectured his grandson about having sex with his teen-aged girlfriend: "a good way to get crabs"... Now when have we had such plain talk? And, Hollywood, of all industries who sell porn and illegal underaged sex should have made front-page ...

    A&E's knee-jerk reaction caused even one homosexual columnist to ask, "Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?"

    Men and women of faith must stand up and defend our First Amendment rights of free speech and religion!

    • The bookman

      He said what he wanted to say, was provided a national platform to say it, and I would suggest he was paid handsomely, and he is a free man walking among us!!! Pray tell how was his speech infringed? And before you say, "But A&E suspended him," remember that A&E did not infringe his right to speak, they distanced themselves from his comments via a legal contract to retain an audience they value...now do you have an answer?

  • Syme

    Really Hop, the First Amendment only protects us from government action, Really?

    May I ask you who “educated” you to this conclusion? A middle-aged, pudgy white guy wearing a corduroy sports jacket with a balding hairline pulled back in a pony-tail and sporting a hipster-dufus ear-ring in one ear, no doubt. The same guy that argues First Amendment infringements if the Dean directs him NOT to instruct his students Capitalism and Christianity are the root of all that is wrong in the world.

    I’m sure there are provisions in this Duck Dynasty guy’s contract that provide some legal footing for his employer to fire him but for you to say the Constitution are only guaranteed protections from government action is ludicrous.

    And how would you know his “depiction” of his own environment while growing up is “inaccurate” and a “wistful caricature” of his home place? – because you maybe read “To Kill A Mockingbird” while in Middle School and that makes you an expert on the “Old South”?

    • The bookman

      I don't think anyone believes he is not protected in his constitutional right to say what he said, accurate or inaccurate. A&E is certainly within its right to place him on suspension as no one is protected from the legal consequences of exercising your free speech right. His romantic recollection of black life in the South under Jim Crow maybe an accurate portrayal of his experience in that moment, much like my grandfather longed for the good ole days... But to make that leap to things were better for blacks under that oppression is as misguided as my grandfathers memory of the good ole days, where things like indoor plumbing, hot water and accessible healthcare were non existent. If I were you I would be careful in using that platform to try to make that argument!

    • Chris

      The United States Supreme Court has been as clear as possible on this point: the First Amendment only protects us from government interference with speech. This precedent has been around for a long time.

      • You'reFULLOFIT

        Is that right. Chris, please post that precedent so I can have some proof.

        My neighbor really makes my skin crawl every morning when he comes out in his front yard with his prayer rug and sings that annoying call to prayer while facing Mecca and praying to Allah.
        I didn't know his First Amendment Right was only protection from the Government and not me. I'll demand him stop and desist, today.
        BUT
        I hope my other neighbor never learns this-- she's very anti-gun and she might make a move to suspend my Second Amendment Rights..

        Am I being ridiculous? you betcha

        • Chris

          I'll be happy to give you the cases later. But your analogy doesn't apply. The first amendment doesn't stop you from hitting the person praying, but criminal statutes do. If you stop the person from praying you'll be arrested for battery. No magistrate will tell you you can't do what you did because you violated the persons first amendment rights. Unless something is in the contact, A&E cannot be successfully sued or have any action taken against it. The people at A&E have first amendment protections too. And if you don't like what they did start your own cable company and hire them on.

          • You'reFULLOFIT

            Post it

          • Jason412

            A good example of the First Amendment and its effect on work/personal life, is to note how many people have recently been fired for Facebook posts they made on personal time.

        • Chris

          It's called "the state action action doctrine." The case it came from is Shelly v. Kraemer. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/334/1
          The basic idea is that you cannot use the constitution as a sword against private citizens and companies. However, the constitution can be used as a shield to protect people from government. That's the point. The constitution is meant to protect us from government. The state action doctrine is further applied to the First Amendment in Hudgens v. NLRB. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/507/case.html
          I disagree with what A&E did. However, the government does not have a right to dictate who they have on their channel.

          • You'reFULLOFIT

            Sorry, wish I could of gotten to a computer sooner and saved you the trouble.
            After listening to a guest on Hoppy's show today I tend to agree that is CURRENTLY the interpretation... I stand corrected

          • You'reFULLOFIT

            But after further consideration I'll just employ this Muslim and control his Bill of Rights' that way

          • J the C

            Chris, you're wasting your time. This guy's obviously a brick or two shy of a load.

          • You'reFULLOFIT

            Jeesh! I thought you said you wouldn't be back until Monday.

        • Mtnman

          You are seriously misinformed. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights relate to what government can and cannot do. This is such a basic tenet of law that there is no need to post case law. It is the way it is. It matters not whether you agree or not. That is the way it is.

    • J the C

      Sorry Syme, but that's the law. Maybe you, with your high level of intellectual functioning would care to rewrite the U. S. Constitution. Let us know how that works out for you. Idiot!

  • The bookman

    What a waste of time! A self proclaimed redneck from Louisiana has extreme views on the oppression of blacks and the morality of homosexuality? Shocker! This too shall pass, as A&E didn't cancel the program. They've placed the guy on probation, and he will return as soon as he presents a mea culpa that satisfies the masses, and the media moves on to the next non story in the slowest news period of the year! He is obviously not in the mainstream culturally, but isn't that why the Robertson's are so popular? I know this much is true. I would fire the publicist who set up that interview. And that's a fact, Hoppy!

    • Syme

      With all due respect Mr. Bookman, I'm not so sure you know what he said.

      After reading Hoppy's editorial and your post I searched to find out for myself as to what "extreme views" this person said about the oppression of blacks--- I only read the 'Huff-Po" and they made no mention of any "extreme" views about race.

      • The bookman

        Read the Chicago tribune article!

        • Syme

          I read it. Now what was extreme?

          • The bookman

            Are you not left with the impression Phil Robertson believes blacks were better off under Jim Crow? Do you believe Jim Crow was oppressive to blacks? Maybe we don't see the same thing from his comments, but that is where I'm coming from with my comments.

          • Syme

            Mr. Bookman,

            I always pause to read your post as I find them polite, informative, interesting and honest.
            I wish my articulation skills were as clear as yours.
            But what I took away from this particular comment was that regardless of your circumstances if you have God in your heart—you will be happy—“Joy In Your Heart”
            I believe he said: “They were happy- They were Godly”

          • The bookman

            Syme,

            Jim Crow was inserted because that was the historical frame of reference Phil was describing...my comment is more centered in the fact that these guys have made millions and are very public personalities. What was he thinking in giving an interview and discussing such controversial subjects, and then acting as though he could say anything he wanted without consequence. I believe IMHO that homosexuality is an abomination before God, although I don't go quite as far as Phil with his graphic description. I also think the Great Society movement by Johnson in the 60's have led to the destruction of the family in the African American Community...was Jim Crow a better way? No way. Phil Robertson put himself in this position, and now he has either exposed his true beliefs on these issues or allowed himself to be misconstrued by GQ...that's on him, not A&E. He can't go back, only forward..I don't like the PC world we live in, but we do live in it...he should have recognized that, or someone should have told him.

        • Jason412

          Bookman I have to say I agree with you.

          The comment about black people is insanely offensive. He says black people didnt complain to him, of course they didnt complain about white men to a white man. How many white people do you know that tells a black guy how much they hate black people?

          "They're singing and happy."
          "They were godly"

          During the era of slavery black people sang and were "godly" That damn sure doesnt mean they were better off.


          He pretty much is saying post Jim Crow all black people are self entitled and on welfare. But at the same time labels himself "white trash" a group as notorious as any for being self entitled and using welfare.

          • Concerned

            Yea, the implication that the only white people that would be around blacks were white trash was the most offensive thing he said, IMO. Seemed to justify, or belittle slavery. Don't know if he meant it in that manner, but that's the way he said it.

          • You'reFULLOFIT

            Concerned, Phil is 67 not 167-- he knew no slaves to belittle.

          • The bookman

            He meant civil Rights era, not civil war era! But if you had been paying attention instead of tormenting Chris with homework you would have noticed that a long time ago. I knew what he meant...I don't usually agree with Jason, but he does his research...

          • You'reFULLOFIT

            Bookman, being as civil as I can-- and much more than you deserve in this instance, YOU pay attention-- because you seem a bit confused.

      • The bookman

        http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78604063/

        • Hillbilly

          With all due respect, there was much more read into this than was actually said. In the above mentioned Article, Phil never mentioned Jim Crow - someone else invented that statement. I salute Phil Robertson for his faith and beliefs and do anyone of other faiths as well. His only sin here is not having the same beliefs as A&E execs.

          • Jason412

            The quote about pre civil era black people was taken directly from the interview. He didnt use the words Jim Crow but he was referencing that period in time

          • Martin

            Anyone who says that the blacks were real happy when "Duck" was growing up with them in the south is either kinda on the stupid side or not very honest.

    • WV Man

      What mainstream are you in, sir? I strongly suspect there's one book you never read.

      • The bookman

        Not in the mainstream anymore. Proof of that sits in the White House! And even though you think that I have missed a book along the way, it is most likely not the one you are thinking...I prefer the KJV over all others, as I like the poetry!

        • Daphene

          I suggest you try a little Rudyard Kipling.

          • The bookman

            What could a book set in India during English colonial rule add to a discussion about Phil Robertson and his views on these topics?

          • Arthur

            Me thinks Bookman needs to read more books. Altho', he probably would have a hard time understanding them.

    • WV Man

      WV Man

      thebookman needs to read The Book.

      • The bookman

        What would The Book tell me that is inconsistent with my comment you reference?

        • You'reFULLOFIT

          if your book is of the Scofield Edition,,, then it aint THE BOOK

          • The bookman

            Full of it is certainly the perfect screen name for you! What is so astonishing is that your posts being completely deficient of substance make it on the MB, yet mntnman gets moderated. The world is truly upside down! Hope your holiday is happy and that you don't leave family and friends with the sense of aggravation you have provided to the rest of us here! Merry Christmas!

          • You'reFULLOFIT

            Ah!! Some more of that famous tolerance and love that has Christianity in such sharp decline.

            Bookman, do you know the major hurdles this country and Christianity itself faces going forward? The same ones that got us where we are today, the social, educational and political contributions from YOU and your ilk.

            For now no Earthly man other than Phil himself knows for sure if Phil Robertson's implications were that blacks IN HIS isolated "backwoods" area of Louisiana were happier BECAUSE of Jim Crow-- but that sure hasn't kept the easily influenced from inferring it and then parroting it as his intent.

            Seems Kool-aide drinkers aren't particular of the flavor they drink.

          • The bookman

            And as I have stated in other posts, Phil's mistake was giving the interview, as I don't know if what has been reported in the interview are his actual words or intentions or if he has been grossly misconstrued...he put himself into a bad position by allowing GQ to frame his thoughts and beliefs on controversial topics all in an effort to sell the magazine...and as for the rest of your post, my personal relationship with my God is mine and mine alone...haven't been to church in twenty years, save for a few funerals, and it was my sincere wish for you to make merry with family and friends next week. But your approach of posting short distasteful tidbits of nothing is nothing short of annoying...it smacks of the three stooges that post mainly on sports related topics...It appears you are hung up on religion for some reason as others on this topic have been...it isn't a first amendment issue, or a religious one. It is a business issue between Phil and A&E...and I could care less if they work it out! I don't watch TV! I've never watched Duck Dynasty, and I don't subscribe to GQ...I simply get annoyed when people try to expand on a constitution that is pretty straight forward, especially the Bill of Rights! On the issue of Free Speech, you can say anything you want short of creating a harmful event. But nothing protects you from non governmental consequences, because that would infringe on the rights of other individuals...right or wrong, A&E or any entity has the right to decide who or what they want to do business with. People inflect religion and speech into the argument because they like what Phil said or don't like what he said to make their point for mass action either for or against them...that is why my first post yesterday led with "what a waste of time." And after 150+ posts, can you really disagree?

        • Daphene

          Book, just so you'll know, Kipling was one of the world's most prolific writers of poetry. MOST people can learn what life is all about by reading Sir Rudyard.

          • The bookman

            Not much for poetry as a genre..but there is just something special about the Book of Luke in the KJV...the Book as WV Man seemed to be alluding to has many different forms, as I'm sure you are well aware. But since WV Man was being a bit veiled in his inquiry, I enjoyed the opportunity to play along...Enjoy your Kipling if you will! I'll stick with the inspired word of God with a little Twain and Poe mixed in for pleasure, along with an interesting biography on Lincoln or Audubon or Churchill. Thanks for the tip though!

  • zero tolerance

    The response from both sides of this argument has been quite over the top. Fueled by social media each side proclaims tolerance yet is very intolerant of each others position.

    And only a day or two before we were arguing over the race of a fictional character. Whodda thunk it!

    Merry Christmas everyone, errr Happy Holidays, err Seasons Greetings .. .. .. . . . nevermind.

    • Joe

      Lol Zero.....just go with Happy New Year!!

      • Coalwiz

        This is more like Happy Festivus (and the announcement of our grievances!)