Daniel Beers's Blog

I'll be honest. I've never watched Duck Dynasty, nor do I see myself starting any time soon. To me, reality television is repugnant in every way. That aside, I decided to pay attention to the whole controversy surrounding the Phil Robertson GQ interview just for funsies. If anything, I figured it would reaffirm my decision to avoid this kind of entertainment and provide the need to pray for another season of Arrested Development.

What I discovered was shocking. Not really because of the self-proclaimed "white-trash" fellow's remarks, mind you. There have always been (and sadly always will be) narrow minded bigots roaming this great land of ours, relying on a 2500 year old text rewritten countless times by uncountable unknown people as a primary source for their undeterred and inconsistent belief system. Nothing shocking about that. It was no surprise to hear that A&E put him on suspension. A lot of people forget they are a business at heart. You cannot blame them for trying to do the right thing when advertiser money is on the line. They have employees to think about, shareholders, and bottom lines. It was the smart move.

What I found to be most reprehensible is the outflow of support for the man's comments. "Free speech," I hear. "The words were taken out of context." There's even a website with a petition that as of this writing broke 100,000 signatures for his reinstatement. Are you kidding me? Let's break it down for what it really is.

Let's start with free speech nonsense. Phil Robertson did not go to jail for saying that homosexuality is sinful. Ladies and gentlemen, the first amendment is working. I advise everyone to go ahead and scan our Bill of Rights one more time to make sure we understand what these freedoms actually mean. Anyone can call their boss a pompous douchebag to their face and not be jailed for it. It is our right to do so. It is very likely, however, that you will be fired for it. Freedom of speech doesn't give you a free pass to say whatever idiotic thing that's on your mind. His employer made the decision, a decision well within the law.

The next is the term "out of context." Unless GQ blatantly edited the interview, the question that was asked was "What, in your mind, is sinful?" Robertson answered "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there." How is this out of context? It sounds to me that the context says that Robertson believes that homosexual behavior (et. al. if you read the whole interview. He also doesn't care for bestiality or adulterers either) is sinful.

Okay. Fine. We get it. Mr. Robertson isn't a fan of gays, bestiality, or adultery. Not sure how consenting adults and sex with animals are related, but whatever. It's not illegal to be a bigot, but it did cost him his job.

Too bad, I say. You're a celebrity now. People, for some asinine reason, listen to you whether you like it or not. Children listen to you. You are (and I cringe when I type this) a role model. You are now responsible for the spreading of your disdain about a measurable part of the population to the masses. For that, you should be ashamed. You're not, but you should be.

Yet for me, the issue isn't with him. It's with his defenders.

What is it with this defense of flat out bigotry? If the man said changed "homosexual behavior" to "black people" or "women", would we be singing a different tune? Would the masses still say "he's just white-trash, he doesn't know any better?" I doubt it. It has taken a long time (WAY too long) for our society as a whole to start evening out the racial and gender divide. We're not there yet, but we've made headway in the past 50 years.


But apparently not so for the LGBT community. And why? Apparently, being gay is still considered a choice to many, that these predators have nothing better to do than make things uncomfortable for everyone. And that, my friends, is appalling. It's sad too because recent studies have shown that suicides among gay teens are higher than those of their straight counterparts. You think kids who feel different than the rest of their peers do it because they WANT to? That everything would be okay if they just "chose" to be straight? Yeah. Okay. Tell that to their grieving parents.

And I know what the pro-Duck advocates are going to say. It's a religious belief, Dan. Surely, you know that the Bill of Rights also include a clause for freedom of religion. Fair enough. The "Good Book" plainly states it's opposed to homosexual behavior. Old Testament, of course, but still there for all to see. But then again, this same book has a few other skeletons in its closet, doesn't it? It seems to have no problem at all with other aspects our society finds despicable. Examples include selling your daughter, owning slaves, and sacrificing animals. I'm sorry folks, but I was under the impression we've moved on from that kind of foolishness. Maybe we can agree that everyone's favorite bedside table read is a little long in the tooth in areas, and should be treated with a few predetermined grains of salt. After all it's the message we are looking for, right? Love, understanding, compassion? Interesting that only applies when we feel comfortable. But two dudes consensually wanting to live their lives together? That's just arrogant, God-hating behavior.

But then here's where I get nervous, my devout Christians. You DO at least realize that slavery is wrong right? That selling your daughter is probably not the right thing to do either? There aren't goat intestines lining your door, are there? Do you think that maybe not EVERYTHING in those pages is worth continuing to pass down, that mankind has improved in these regards?

I was under the impression that our society was working out the kinks of inequality, and that the issues of racism/sexism/sexual orientation was going to die out with the baby boomers. But a lot of these complaints I've been hearing are from generations younger than my own, that the seeds of hate and non-acceptance are growing once again. And if it is your religion that condones these rationalizations, maybe it is high time you change it.

You may think what Phil Robertson said was just a comment. It isn't. It's intolerance.

And for that, I'm sad. Really sad. Like "beginning of Finding Nemo" sad. It tells me that even my offspring is going to have to unlearn base generalizations taught by a society incapable of thinking for themselves, that we are continuing to base our judgment of a person not by their actions, but by the nature of their being.

And that, my friends, is pretty lame.

My generation gets news from the internet. I am no exception. We think newspapers are for suckers. I tend to check to see what's going on in the world a few times a day, doing my best to keep up with current events so I don't sound like an idiot when someone with a brain decides to strike up a conversation with me. But I got to tell you, it can be tough to find the actual news sometimes. Instead of the latest discoveries on Mars, I see that Chloe Kardashian is going through a rather “smooth” divorce, whatever that means. Instead of the Kim Jon Un's latest antics, there's an article on which celebrity looks better in a rather ugly green dress. That’s not news. Those aren’t even facts. They’re opinions about facts so useless, it’s a wonder that they were reported on at all. Who in their right mind would click on something so stupid?

Now the first, and perhaps most the obvious, fault lies with the websites themselves. These so-called news sites are giving me, well, not news. But I understand that what they are really selling is advertisements, and a click on a specific "news" story means whatever is advertising on that page gives them a slice of cake. I can't blame them for giving the people what they want. It's the American way.

I don't blame them. I blame all of us.

It's sad that our society is more interested in Kate Gosselin's money troubles than whether or not our national budget passes, that we would rather watch Honey Boo-Boo over footage of the Mars Rover.

And why is this? Because we're lazy? Because intelligence isn't cool?

I get a little woozy in the old cabeza when I think about the so-called celebrities out there that have done nothing other than be related to someone famous. You know the ones I'm talking about. They're the ones on those magazines at the checkout line that you can't help but look at. Some picture of an over-Photoshopped woman with so much work done on her face that you assume she must have been Quasimodo ugly at one time. She's famous, but no one realty knows why. And yet we seem to care about what kind of bag she brought with her to get a cup of coffee, about who spited her at the Grammys, about who her next baby daddy is going to be. I don't understand why we care, and yet it is clear that we do.

All the same, it seems that we are romanticizing the wrong thing. We are saying that we might get lucky and be famous one day for no real discernable reason whatsoever. This message sucks.

And it's completely incorrect. Intelligence brings the money, not luck. Hard work. Dedication for your own education. For every Octomom, there are hundreds of Robert Jarvik's, Bill Gates's, and Mark Zuckerberg's. These people worked for what they got. And while some of these folks didn't get education in the conventional sense, we applaud them for their intelligence, not because they were born into a famous family or because a professional basketball player knocked them up.

You and I both know this, yet we still click news about whether or not Lindsay Lohan's last rehab stint is going to actually work before learning about the national changes of our healthcare. I'm guilty of it too. I know it's hard to look away from a train wreck. But something is wrong here. We are smarter than this. We have to be if we want to even compete with the rest of the world. We're not on top anymore. Hell, I doubt we're even in contention for a Wildcard.

So I beg of you, my dear generation, the modern movers and shakers of the world, let's make a pledge. Let's click on news worthy links. Let's find out about that gigantic new planet our telescopes discovered in a far away solar system. Let's be informative about the current political climate. Let's respect intelligence, not fame. Let's give our news agencies a reason to give us actual news. It's okay to be aware of events. And besides, it doesn't hurt to bring those pseudo-celebs down a few pegs. Someone has to.

The books we force kids to read in high school suck. It’s not to say that the books are bad literature. Far from it. I consider Hemingway and Faulkner among the best of the best. But these days, where the highlights of our culture stem from Duck Dynasty or whatever the hell one of the Kardashians decides to name her kid, reading has taken a back burner. Not even from the kids, but from the adults that spawned them: the Gen Xers, the Y’ers. Hell, maybe even the baby-boomers. Who knows how long this rift has been going on? The fact is, people don't read like they used to. The issue? High school books. These books, these horrible and wonderful books are taking away the will for the average kid to even want to read. Maybe we need to start fresh. Maybe we need to electrify their senses before they fall asleep from boredom and depression.

And can you really blame them? Let’s see, the first real novel your average non-reader gets their pretty little hands on is Where the Red Fern Grows or Of Mice and Men. They are not bad pieces of work per se, but they are both as depressing as dead puppies. Some helpless creature mercilessly destroyed because of what? The sign of bygone times? The coming of age of the readers themselves? Who knows? Either way, pages that crush the spirit of an audience is not what I would call a book to start kids on.

And yet it gets worse. As they grow the capacity to comprehend, we throw them a curveball with a little Shakespeare. Granted, it’s Romeo and Juliet, but the thee and thou (not to mention the whole murder suicide thing) does nothing to keep it compelling for the average student to want to break out the completed works and start going to town on Henry IV. So while they're wiping the tears away from Steinbeck, they are now abashed with incomprehension and confusing family feuds.

And right around the time when they’re willing to give up, we get super mean. The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Gatsby, anything by Hemingway. You know, the real uppers. And what makes it worse is the gaping hole of time between these classics and the children that are forced to read them. Due to the fantastic writing, they are still capable of evoking a certain sadness, but it’s hard to envision a world without television, cell phones, or the internet anymore. Gone are the days of “Remember when…” Hell, my son won’t even know what film is. Why would he possibly care about the general malaise that soldiers felt at the end of WWI? He couldn’t be further from it. Reading great works is important, sure, but not at the cost of a potential lifetime reader.

Is this everyone? No, of course not. But a majority. The majority of people don’t read for fun anymore unless Oprah tells them to, or if there is going to be a feature film due out in a few months with the latest heartthrob in the starring role.

Now, I was blessed with a few people in my life that encouraged me to read, regardless of what it was. I read very adult books as a kid because I wanted to. I enjoyed the sense of pride they bestowed upon me when I fumbled through Hamlet the first time on my own. But I was a rare case. The majority of the people I knew barely read the sports page. So when it was time to get their hands dirty, what do the powers that be decide on? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Sun Also Rises, Macbeth, The Catcher in the Rye, A Tale of Two Cities, (or perhaps the ultimate insult to a novice reader) Heart of Darkness. In my mind, amazing works, each and every one. But it is literature so dense that scholars have been discussing and discovering their nuances for at least 100 years. What business do high school kids have to be forced to reading that kind of complexity? Even if they could (and I’m sure there are a lot that can), why on earth would they want to? Not one of these stories end happy. Not a single one.

Now I’m not saying we have to go all Frank Capra on everything, but the classics that high school are forced to kids read are depressing. They’re about war, the horrors of slavery, alcoholism. How is this supposed to want to get them to hooked on the joys of reading?

It’s so funny how quick we jump them too. It’s Dr. Seuss one minute, then the Great Depression the next. No wonder the sports page is so appealing. It's fairly uncommon to for a character to die during a scan of the box scores.

I think we need to rethink how literature is taught. Some kids dig scary stuff (I was counted among the many Stephen King fans pretty much immediately), some kids George R.R. Martin, there maybe even a few history buffs out there (and more power to them). Some kids want to read John Grisham or Sue Grafton. Some want to read the biographies of Jim Morrison or Kurt Cobain. Who cares? They’re reading. Granted, there may not be a whole lot of longevity in some of it, but why punish them with literary hieroglyphics? They have college to read the hard stuff. Why not simplify and just be happy they’re cracking a paperback over watching Here Comes Honey Boo Boo? And when those kids finish the book, why not ask them about it? Why not have them learn to write a paper about something they're passionate about? Maybe Patterson’s Alex Cross may have a few layers about him that most overlook. Maybe the Harry Potter books might actually be modern classics and therefore deserve some thought provoking criticism.

Now I know what you're thinking. The classics are classics for a reason. They are amazing, pivotal, thought-provoking, and perfect. And I agree for the most part. But they aren’t going anywhere. Maybe we should let them sit until someone is ready to tackle them. Let those kids get their feet wet with Twilight and His Dark Materials. You don’t learn to ride a horse one day and expect to win the Kentucky Derby the next. Slow it down some. Let’s move away from the required reading list and just make it required reading any book they please. Who gives a crap what they’re reading? As long as they sit down, take a few breaths, and enjoy as their eyes dance across a page. That's the only way I kept at it.
So all you kids out there, you have Daniel the Spaniel’s permission to pick up Danielle Steele or Hunter S. Thompson. If you don't like it, put it the hell down and try again. We all have our niches. That's what makes us individuals. And if you want to jump in the deep end with Paradise Lost, knock yourself out. You might be pleasantly surprised.

As for the parents and teachers, think of the first book that made you think "Wow, I really dig reading!" I guarantee it wasn't Lord of the Flies.