Fenster writes:
I favor reasoned discussion about the actually important issues brought out in the Robertson kerfuffle. But I recognize it is just so damn tempting, and so much fun, to just judge.
That’s on display in my area. In my part of the swamp–eastern Massachusetts–the conventional wisdom is that there are no serious issues to discuss, and that our side wins. Here, for instance, is how today’s Boston Globe discusses Duck Dynasty. Note that this is not a news article, an arts column, an editorial, or a critical review. It is a TV listing!

Ouch! Call Dr. Paglia!
Thankfully, not all of Boston is so hidebound. Here is a very nice essay in the most recent Bostonia magazine (put out by Boston University, so it’s got a nice Eastern pedigree). In it, a nice Boston liberal talks about how she has learned to respect conservative ideals. And she doesn’t even condescend. More of this would be welcome.
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan struggles with the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other in his handling of Robertson.
His conclusion is a generous one, and he does not favor the firing.
What Phil Robertson has given A&E is a dose of redneck reality. Why on earth would they fire him for giving some more?
But he is being exceedingly generous, since before coming to this conclusion he felt compelled to note that
to posit gay people as the true source of all moral corruption is to use eliminationist rhetoric and demonizing logic to soften up a small minority of people for exclusion, marginalization and, at some point, violence.
In other words, let him stay on the air, but watch him closely since he has a gun.
IMHO, the issue has been handled best in two recent pieces, one by Cathy Young, a kind-of libertarian, and the other by the Christian writer Larry Taunton, in The Atlantic. In both cases, the writers try to identify the issues at stake, and engage in reasoned discussion. More of that would be welcome.