Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
I say all this as a preface to commenting on a television program I watched (well, most of it) last night. Needless to say, commenting on pop culture isn't my strong point, and is in fact a rare occurrence in these pages. But I was so struck by what I saw that I felt it merited mentioning.
Today is 3/14, therefore a happy Pi Day to all! Next year will be even more fun, though, since it'll be 3/14/15....
Republicans in the House have announced they are now ready to do something on immigration. I only mention this in passing here, because the entire talking points section is going to be devoted to a warning for Democrats: there will be traps laid by the Republicans, so Democrats have to be vigilant about defusing each one as it pops up.
A federal judge just made news by ruling that the state of Utah overstepped its constitutional bounds in their definition of bigamy, ruling in favor of a polygamist who had previously left the state for fear of being prosecuted. This is the first step along a path I predicted six years ago, and is a big victory for polygamists' rights. Or for "polyamory," which has been adopted as a more-neutral term for those who "love many." It is not quite the victory that some of the news headlines would have had America believe ("bigamy," or being legally married to more than one person, is still a crime in Utah, even after the ruling), but it certainly is a first step along the path of securing legal equality.
This is an article about Paula Deen, racism, and the upcoming gay marriage decisions from the Supreme Court. But mostly it's an article about the long, slow road to true changes in American society. The beginning of this road always starts with the prevailing casual acceptance of bigotry and prejudice in everyday life, and the road doesn't end until society as a whole reaches the point of near-universal condemnation of a way of thinking which used to be widespread and unremarkable.
Frank Luntz, celebrated spinmeister, has taken on a new task, it seems. He'll be in charge of figuring out a way to convince the public that a blatantly racist major sports team's name is really nothing to get upset about.
Last night, on a primetime television show, a character had an abortion. Does this shock you? It might, if only for the fact that such a plotline is so incredibly rare on American television. In less than two weeks, the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Roe v. Wade case will be forty years old. Four decades later, the debate over abortion still rages. But it is a debate which is largely silent on the small screen. Even last night, abortion did not really dare to speak its name.
This week, the punditocracy had no Republican primary contest to distract their attention ("The upcoming primary/caucus in some state I've never traveled through because it's a flyover state could be the crucial turning point in the entire race... details at 11:00..."), and so the political pontificators and prognosticators had nothing else to talk about (one would think) except the serious business before the Supreme Court this week -- Obamacare.
"Turn on your television... to any channel."
The Tea Party movement could possibly be generalized as a group of people who are proud of (and sometimes revel in) being impossible to generalize. This, of course, doesn't stop the media from trying. In today's sad state of American journalism, everything's got to have a simplistic narrative that fits within a 15-second soundbite, at the very maximum. Nuances and subtleties are out. Strong statements beginning with phrases like: "The Tea Partiers are..." (or "...believe...", or "....as a group...") are what is in. But even given this reduction in critical thinking, what's amazing is how wrong the media has gotten the Tea Partiers (or, at the least, a goodly portion of them).