The snarky tone within the recently written Washington Post article by Valerie Strauss, was hard to miss, and from the very first poorly structured sentence, which included the following words:
"Phil Robertson, now famously suspended from his family’s popular cable reality television show for making shockingly offensive remarks about blacks and gays in a GQ interview, once taught in Louisiana schools, has a bachelor’s degree in physical education and a masters degree in education, with an English concentration. He even “kinda liked” Shakespeare. That, at least, is what he has said in interviews and on the Duck Commander Web site."
Shockingly offensive, but to whom? Not to mention the questioning tone at the end, which seems to raise doubt as to Robertson's integrity:
"That, at least, is what he said…"
Point in fact, a majority of male Americans would tend to agree with Robertson's assertions that a woman's equipage is far superior to a man's, with regard to coital penetration.
Hint: Form-fitting, custom designed, with even a built-in wet sump!
But the writer went on to questioning Robertson's sagacity, as if it were virtually impossible for a backwoods, Christian, red-neck, Hick, like many of us, at least for her purposes, to somehow obtain a Masters degree in education:
He didn’t say exactly when he taught or what he taught, but he has made repeated references in interviews to teaching and his degrees in interviews.
So, what we are in essence seeing, is an elitist Washington Post Liberal making gross, if not broad-brushed assumptions, based on her apparent dysfunction of debasing anyone living in rural America, who also just-so-happens to espouse Christian virtue.
Strauss, by the way, who is an education writer, continually lambasted Mitt Romney on his education stance during the 2012 campaign, obviously in favor of Obama and his common core agenda.
Strauss finishes her column stating this:
"And now he also has a suspension from the A&E network for his outrageous and uninformed remarks, which incidentally, would have caused him huge problems if he were still a teacher."
Uninformed according to whom? Or should we infer that Strauss now fancies herself a theological expert?
However, to get straight to the point, we wonder which statement might be more believable, to most Americans, at this point?
This one from Robertson?
"If you like your duck call you can keep it."
Or this one from the President of the US?
"If you like your health plan, you can keep it."