bencr

I'd like to take a stab at your obviously rhetorical question. Of course, this is all speculation on my part. When the show first began (and didn't it begin with just a few specials?), the Duggars probably thought that it would be a good forum for them to showcase their particular brand of religion, that it would enhance their reputation in the community, and that very few people would watch it anyway. Therefore, the risk of this big secret being exposed was minimal. Then, lo and behold, the show becomes something of a success. Now the Duggars have a vast platform on which to preach as well as a lot of money coming in. Now the decision to continue shifts to a risk/reward issue. Specifically, what are the odds this secret will emerge balanced against the rewards (monetary and otherwise) of this platform? Who knows, maybe they believed God would shield their secret. My guess is the Duggars spun the wheel, made a few million bucks, spread the word, and then this Josh thing happens. That said, I think they could have mitigated the consequences if they had been less outspoken with regard to judging other people's sex lives. When they made the decision to go forward with the show, that's a compromise they should have made.

If true, this is at odds with the story supposedly leaked by a family associate that the Duggars are focusing on family and faith and not on their television show. To be honest, I wouldn't blame them if they were rallying behind the scenes to try to save their show. But why do they feel it is necessary to try to spin the general public by telling us that all that matters to them is faith and family?

Even if there weren't a ton of other reasons for wanting this show off the air, getting their "homophobic asses off the television" is enough for me. I don't understand why TLC would provide a forum to such a bigoted brood in the first place. I guess the LGBT community is the last group of people you can disparage as sinful and still have a national TV show. If this family were smart, they never would have expressed their views about abortion and homosexuality in public. They could have stayed quiet and we probably would have figured out where they stand anyway. But they chose to do so, and they've made enemies. And now they've given those enemies ammunition to use against them on the very issue where they have been so judgmental of others -- sexual mores. So I think there are plenty of reasons to get this family off the airwaves, but even if there weren't, their homophobia is enough for me.

One bit of news to come out today that I thought was fairly important is that according to thewrap.com two other sponsors have joined General Mills in dropping the program -- Choice Hotels and Payless Shoes. (I hope this has not already been reported -- I try to keep up with the boards, but there's a lot.)

This must be a mistake since we are told over and over by Duggar defenders, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There's an old saying that applies, which is "it all depends on whose ox is being gored." The gored ox problem is the problem of tolerance. We love to hear sin condemned from the pulpit, as long as our ox is not being gored, meaning that our sin is not being condemned.

For me, the million dollar question is this: Given a horrible and painful incident involving several of their children, did the Duggars' faith and convictions lead them down a path that was (a) best for their children and (b) consistent with their stated values regarding sexual mores? And if the answer to one or both of these is no -- as I believe it is -- I have to question whether the Duggars deserve a platform that lets them showcase their values and lifestyle to a viewing audience. And let me just add, when I say "best for the children", I'm not implying there's a perfect solution to this problem. But I am saying that if the Duggars did what they thought was best for their kids -- and I think they probably did -- then I think their values were very wrongheaded, and they do not warrant being showcased on TV.

I read a report somewhere that TLC is considering continuing this show without Josh. That does not suffice for me. I think the parents have to go as well. To me, the villains of this story are Josh's parents and, secondarily, the community of adult clergy and law enforcement that let down Josh and his victims. The parents and other adults are the ones who failed to provide Josh and his victims with the counsel and therapy that might have prevented the ongoing molestations and might have helped the victims somehow come to terms with what happened to them. The fact that the Duggar parents failed to provide adequate support based on their religious and familial beliefs is further reason why I do not think they should have this platform. I don't like the idea that TLC provides a platform that enables bigoted people like JB and M Duggar to espouse their views and values to the public at large. I can't help but think of the gay children and children with uncertain sexual identities who live in households where this program is watched by a parent and viewed aspirationally. Based on these considerations, if TLC/Discovery wants to keep me as a viewer, they will have to get rid of both Josh and his parents.

Yes, but the tenor of the discussion would be different if Josh Duggar were just a molester and not a hypocritical molester. If the Duggars were a nice family who were supportive or even silent on the issue of LGBT issues, we would be saying, "Look, even in a nice family like that, bad things happen." But because the Duggars have gone out of their way to be intolerant of people who they consider sexually deviant and who want to deny basic human rights to those people, we say, "Those hypocritical bastards have a nerve to be intolerant of other people when their own son is a pervert." Much of the rancor comes from the blatant hypocrisy.

Regarding this whole issue of forgiveness, I think a lot depends on whether you view what Josh Duggar did as a sin requiring forgiveness or a crime requiring treatment and punishment. Or both -- which is where I stand. I just don't think forgiveness is enough given the severity of the offense, and (based only on what I've read) I don't think Josh has received the therapy he needs for his crimes. I think treatment alone is sufficient if it works and I think forgiveness is optional and at the discretion of the victims.

Thanks for the link, NextIteration. The author's comments had a ring of truth to them, and they prompted me to look at this Duggar situation somewhat differently. First, it made it clear to me that these strict fundamentalists have a much different worldview than I do in many more ways than I ever imagined. It's truly like we come from different countries and speak different languages. Second, it made me think the "cover-up" of Josh's sexual assault was less about maintaining the Duggar's status and preserving their TV show, and more about twisting facts and events in a way to support their religious viewpoint and their perception of the role of family (both in terms of sexual role play and power structure). It takes some twisting and creative interpretation of facts, but the Duggar family seems to have made Josh's molestation seem less like a crime that needs to be punished and dealt with and more like a sin that needs to be repented and forgiven -- but also teaches the family important lessons and brings them closer to God. I imagine the Duggar family is shocked that so much of the world sees events so differently from how they see them, and I doubt very much if they are capable of learning any lessons from this.

You may be right. I hope not. I think it's especially problematic to pretend that nothing happened when the predator and his victims are living in the same house. But even if it is true, aren't we allowed to hold the Duggar family to a higher set of standards than just us mere mortals? Isn't that what they've been preaching at us these many years?

So Michael Seewold writes, "There is blood in the water and the sharks are in a feeding frenzy. Finally, the Duggar family’s opponents have found what they have been eagerly waiting for: shocking revelations of scandal by Jim Bob and Michelle’s firstborn son, Josh." Well no shit. When the Duggars claim to hold the moral high ground and actively advocate to deny gay people their basic human rights based on their religious beliefs, you better believe that their opponents are going to pounce when the Duggars show their true colors. The irony here, of course, is that the Duggar family stumbled on the very issue with which they are most vocal and judgmental -- sexual mores. What's that they say about people who live in glass houses? If it were not for the righteous hypocrisy of this clan on sexual matters, I'm not sure this whole thing would be nearly as big a story as it has become. And BTW, Mr. Seewold, the "shocking revelations of scandal" are not just about the firstborn son, Josh. They are also about the community of adults who chose to try to sweep this event under the rug for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the children affected.

The young Josh Duggar and his victims were all let down by the community of adults whose job it was to protect them. At the top of the list has to be Josh's parents -- Jim Bob and Michelle -- who conspired with law enforcement and clergy to cover up the sexual abuse and deny real treatment to both the perpetrator and his victims. I would add to that list politicians (I'm looking at you Huckabee) and TLC who chose to do the wrong thing for reasons of money and/or power. It's amazing to me that when money and power are involved whole communities of adults will disregard the needs of children.

Nene's strategy of deflecting an honest discussion of what went on during the season by saying "you're right/I'm wrong" is very immature. It's also disrespectful to us viewers who invest in this show and turn into the reunions to find out what the cast really feels about things that went on during the season.

Regarding the poll results, roughly 30% of respondents said that Sean was their favorite designer (or something like that ... I can't remember the question exactly), while about 43% said the judges made the right decision. From that perspective, Sean polled better than would be expected based on his popularity.

I know Andrew had a lot of negatives, but I will say one thing on his behalf. Of all the crew, Amy and Andrew seem the most friendly to the charter guests and the most committed to making sure the guests have a good time. There is a difference between the two as Amy seems much more professional and appropriate, while Andrew seemed perhaps a little too collegial and too flirty. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but notice that at the end of the first charter, one of the guests gave Andrew a big, affectionate hug. That affection can translate into bigger tips. This doesn't mean Andrew didn't deserve to be fired. But that kind of friendliness is sorely needed with this crew.

Regarding your first point ... of course they're related. It was a cause/effect. That doesn't mean Kelley had to threaten to quit if he didn't get his way regarding Andrew. Thus, two separate issues. Regarding your second point, I would not frame Kelley's threatening to quit if Andrew wasn't fired as the case of the "little man" striving to be heard. Rather, I think Kelley knew that he was all the more essential to the crew now that it was clear just how weak Andrew was, and, in the heat of the moment, he was throwing his weight around. Not cool, especially so since Andrew's livelihood was at stake. It's not like Kelley had anything new to tell Andrew's superiors about Andrew that could potentially change their decision. He was just being petulant and immature (and, in fact, has apologized on Andrew's twitter page for what he said in the heat of the moment). I think Captain Lee has shown over the past couple of seasons that he is willing to listen to the opinions and gripes of his crew, though he is not always sympathetic to what they say. So to frame this discussion as some sort of populist divide between the little man and the big boss misses the point, in my opinion. And one other point I would like to make, it is not "commonplace" and rarely "understandable" for one employee to lobby to another employee's boss to have that person fired. In my experience managing people it only happened once when a woman was going out on pregnancy leave and another employee lobbied to have her fired because of all the extra work her absence would create for him.

There are two separate issues here. One is did the captain and Eddie make the right call regarding Andrew? And the second is whether Kelley has the authority to stick his nose into this personnel matter. You make a lot of good points regarding why the captain may have made the wrong decision. But Kelley has no authority to tell Andrew's bosses that he should be fired ... let alone threaten to quit if Andrew is not fired. My advice to Kelley would be to keep your head down and do your job well. Then one day when you are captain you'll have the authority to make those decisions. I guarantee that when Kelley becomes the captain of a yacht he will not want his deck hands telling him what he should do. Captain Lee's authority to make decisions -- even arguably wrongheaded decisions -- is earned through experience, talent and success.

I really enjoyed Captain Lee's take on the latest episode in his Bravo blog. He comes down hard on Andrew, but says he sees some redeeming personality traits that kept him from firing Andrew on the spot. He also comes down hard on Kate and Kelley. He's critical of Kelley for sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong. Everyone understands the frustration of having to pick up the slack for a lazy or incompetent co-worker ... especially so since Andrew lied about his qualifications. But Kelley needs to butt out with respect to whether or not Andrew should be fired. It's not his job to make that determination. Kelley seems to react rather emotionally to things, which sometimes serves you well in the business world and sometimes does not. With respect to Kate, Captain Lee correctly points out that she is working in a service job in a service industry -- serving people who have paid a shitload of money for this experience. Even Captain Lee smiles when he is with the charter guests and you know he isn't happy to be socializing with them. I'm not saying women aren't expected to smile more than men or told more often to smile, but I think this is a bad example for making that point.

I would think if there's one thing Kelley would have learned in the Marines it would be respect for the chain of command. His "it's him or me" complaints to Eddie about Andy are not acceptable (even if they are understandable). In the business world, those kinds of threats are a sure way to get yourself fired. I suspect Andrew will not be fired, as he is one of the major story lines of this season. I suspect he will have his share of the take cut by the captain. I wouldn't be surprised to see a redemption story line for Andrew as the season progresses, with his story arc showing greater maturity and, eventually, some measure of respect from the crew. On the other hand, maybe not.

With respect to game strategy, I don't think it's ever a good idea to tell the judges on PR that you didn't use the full amount of time allocated for a challenge. While the judges may express admiration that you are fast, I don't think the judges take speed into consideration in their judging. On the other hand, if anything is wrong with the garment, it leaves the judges with the opportunity to criticize the designer for not fixing the problem when they had the chance. Also, I think there may be a feeling among the judges that the competition is so important that the designer should want to use all the time allotted to perfect their garment. That said, nothing was shown to indicate that the judges rated Kini either more or less favorably for finishing early, so I guess we'll have to assume that in this case it was a non-factor.

In my opinion, Sandhya's garment was editorial because it was futuristic -- thus, outside the scope of Tim's instructions. If you're going to design an editorial garment for the relatively near (20 year) future, you'd better have a damned good concept in support of your design. I think it's a cop-out to design a futuristic garment and position it as an editorial design of a garment for the (relatively near) future.

Twenty years is not that far into the future. Somebody born today would be in undergraduate school 20 years from now. From that perspective, it is hard for me to imagine that Sandhya's design is the best representation of what fashion will look like 20 years from now ... 100 years, maybe, but 20? Her design is too futuristic to think it represents what might occur over a 20-year period. I am far from a fashion historian, but my sense is that fashion is more likely to evolve over a 20-year period than to change in some "futuristic" manner. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that when you look at the change in fashion over the past 20 years, is the difference more like the difference versus today envisioned by Sandhya or by many of the other designers? In this sense Angela's concept of the 20-year future makes more sense to me than Sandhya's, ever if Angela's dress was poorly designed and sewn.

Sandhya's dress reminded me of one of those air hose thingies you put your deposit into when you go to the drive-in window at a bank. The judges made such a big deal that the dress was designed to enable you to sit in a chair ... like that was the most clever design detail ever. But could you lean back in a chair wearing that dress? Maybe in the future there are no chairs.