SolGrundy wrote:
“Lobbyists”???
There’s a hillbilly lobby now? Where do I send my check?
A good number of Kentuckians are bothered by it, not just “lobbyists”. It is especially derogatory to the Appalachian region of eastern Ky, which is where the network has been trying to recruit people for the show. And the biggest industry in eastern Ky is coal mining, hence the union’s interest.
Maybe they have the ability to multi-task and can focus on more than one issue at once, the large and the small…
I’m in love.
are, in fact, only second generation descended from WV coal miners. The old Beverly Hillbillies look like aristocratic geniuses compared to most of them. Missing teeth are common, they’re all born-again Southern Baptists, highest education averages 7th grade, they start smoking around age 9, they get pregnant out of wedlock about 8th grade and they talk like complete hayseed hicks. They have names like Zeke, Porky, Zack, and Hebe. In this case, I can attest, the stereotype is very real.
:rolleyes: Because ANY law is devoid of morality?
Are you telling me you do NOT select your Congressmen based on their moral views? So you don’t care about the abortion debate or freedom of speech or minority rights when you vote? Please.
I say, let them protest all they want. The results are usually better than when they make laws.
Miners, as in Appalachian miners.
There are some states (I believe Ohio is one) that has laws expressly forbidding discrimination or bias based on Appalachian origin. This is a group that has about as many negative stereotypes as you can count. However, these stereotypes are usually grandfathered in because a) they are not directed at people on the grounds of of racial, ethnic or gender identity, and b) because so many people believe the targeted group somehow deserves to be stereotyped – which is of course a primary motive behind most stereotypes to begin with.
Well, if you’re saying that a lot of posturing goes on in politics, I can’t disagree. But if you’re implying that any protest against offensive stereotypes is a cynical ploy, what do you say to offensive stereotypes hurled at blacks, Jews, gays, women, Asians … Are the objections always insincere?
You say “they weren’t trying to ‘prevent’ anything” and then quote that they “asked that plans for the show be scuttled.” How is asking that a show be scuttled not trying to prevent it from going on the air?
I have no problem with people – congressmen included – expressing an opinion; that’s one of the main tenets of this country, after all. People standing up and saying they think the idea of this hillbilly show is horrid, derogatory, etc. is great. Voicing those opinions in any forum, be it here, in front of CBS headquarters, writing to the show’s sponsors, etc. is great, wonderful, more power to you.
But the line is drawn when the opinion goes from “I don’t like this show” to “I don’t want this show to be aired.” That has crossed into the realm of wanting/trying to prevent others from being able to exercise their right to watch the show, if they so desire. And I can think of no other interpretation of “Asking that plans for the show be scuttled” than that the asker has the goal of preventing the show from being aired. The only definition of “scuttle” that could apply in this context is “destroy, wreck, or scrap” (I mean, I don’t think they’re asking to have a hole cut in the deck of the show).
So that’s my objection.
My point is that the job of Congress is strictly within the legal realm. Remember that the original quote I responded to asked if the job of Congress was not to stand up for their constituents’ morality, what else was their job? Well, the answer to that is that the job of Congress is to pass laws. It is not the job of Congress to simply echo their constituents’ opinions, moral or otherwise. It is not the job of Congress to try to put pressure on a TV network to prevent a show from getting on the air, no matter what their constituents’ feelings – or the congressmen’s own feelings – about that show might be.
It is the job of Congress to enact laws that are in keeping with the Constitution, and to do various other things that fall within the general legislative powers, as outlined in the Constitution.
As long as the show in question is legal, as long as nothing illegal is done on the show, as long as the show does not infringe on the rights of any US citizen, etc. etc., then Congress has no business trying to prevent the show from airing.
Trying to pressure a TV network to “scuttle” plans for a show has nothing to do with enacting laws, and is clearly in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, in that the goal is to prevent other US citizens from being able to exercise their right to watch the (perfectly legal, however objectionable it might be) TV show in question, should they desire to.
And personally, I find that much more objectionable than any TV show ever could be.
[hijack]
If anyone wants to read a great short story that examines the attitudes of TV executives towards “hillbillies,” may i recommend “Based Upon a True Story,” by David Sedaris. Side-splitting funny.
[/hijack]
Some black people steal.
Some Jews are greedy.
Some Polish folk aren’t smart.
Some Chinese are good at math and can’t drive a car.
Some blondes are bimbos.
So I guess it’s ok to go ahead and make fun of them, right?
This here might be the root of the problem. Congresspeople are salaried employees. They’re not paid by the hour – they’re paid by the vote.
(Okay, not really – but there really is no clock for them to be on).
It’s no skin off my butt if they write this letter. One of the accepted roles of a congressperson is to use a wee little bully pulpit on behalf of her constituents. She’s got no legislative power when using this bully pulpit, but she can say, “Look: these people elected me to this position, and they want me to tell you that they think you suck.”
Perfectly legitimate. It only becomes skeevy if they try to legislate their disapproval of the show.
Daniel
You don’t seriously believe this do you?! So you think Congressmen should just keep quite on issues unless they are on the floor or the campaign trail?!
What do you vote for when you vote for Congressmen? I vote for those that match my moral beliefs, because I want my Congressmen to PUSH my moral beliefs on a variety of issues. The best way is through laws, but protests will do just as well.
Yes it is. Laws are moral opinions, and people don’t vote for Congressmen simply based on the laws they will pass, but also for the moral opinions they will address.
So yes, I stand by my point, that Congress’ job is to represent the moral views of its constitutents.
Put it this way… if I vote for Democrat Congressman right now (in say, a special election), he won’t be able to enact many laws anyway! He’s in the minority and thus, chances are, he won’t have many, if any, laws credited to him.
Why did I elect him then? Because I want him to represent my moral views. I want him to speak out against the laws. I want him to hold press conferences about things that I think are important.
I don’t elect Congressmen simply on the laws they will pass. That is a very simplistic view of what a Congressman does.
I vote for which ever candidate I think will be most likely to keep his preconceived morality out of his or her legislations. I don’t want legislators making things illegal just because they don’t like it: I want them to make laws that prevent people from harming or defrauding other people, and that’s it. I guess you could say, I vote for ethical politicians, not moral ones.
More often than not, I don’t get either.
But that itself is a moral belief ;).
Politicians don’t have a very good track record when it comes to legislating morality. 18th Amendment, anyone?
Who’s making fun? That was an accurate description drawn from years of personal experience. Nothing funny about it. I would say it’s more along the lines of bathos.
OK, now I see your point. Where I was coming from is that a bunch of legislators asking that the show be cancelled has absolutely no chance of affecting the network’s decision one way or the other, and I feel certain the Congressvolken and the network people all knew this. It was worded as a request, but in all reality it was just speech for the point of establishing their position on this.
That’s my take on it, anyway; I’ve been wrong before.
Well, once.
Egypt recently ran a miniseries based on “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” If a TV station in the U.S. decided to air this, would you object? Why or why not?