Broken Glass

And then it was over.

For whatever reasons, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay against same-sex marriages in Idaho; in the end, the Court decided to not hear the case.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay and put the issue to rest.

And, well, yeah. Then it was over.

Marriage licenses can legally be issued to same-sex couples statewide starting at 9 a.m. on Wednesday.

Deborah Ferguson, attorney for the four couples who sued to overturn Idaho’s ban on gay marriage, hadn’t even filed her reply to the state’s latest legal filings when the order came out mid-day Monday. “I guess they kind of knew what we were going to say,” she said.

(Russell)

Except, well, this is Idaho.

Naked Children Explaining that ‘No’ Means ‘Yes’

You know, the “naked kids” cartoon, otherwise known as Love Is, has always been at least a little creepy.

And then there’s … this.

Kim Bellware of Huffington Post, explains:

A long-running cartoon described as “heart-warming” received a cold reception after a panel published Tuesday appeared to send the wrong message about consent.

Tuesday’s syndicated “Love Is…” panel featured male and female cartoons above the caption, “Love is… knowing that ‘no’ means ‘maybe’ and ‘maybe’ means ‘yes.'”

In defense of Bill Asprey, the cartoonist responsible for this panel, we might^α point out that it’s silly to drag the rape question into this since neither of the kids has any genitals.

Still, though, Tribune Content Agency, the one-panel comic strip’s distribution syndicate, pulled the frame from its content system and issued an apology.

Yeah. That was the right move. Well, right. But we can also acknowledge the “breakdown in [TCA’s] editing procedures” that resulted in the distribution of a cartoon that “does not reflect the high editorial standards we have in place and work vigilantly to maintain”. To the one, it would be nice if they didn’t try to thump their chests in the middle of an apology; to the other, it’s more of a pat than a thump, and at least they didn’t pretend to be some sort of victim of unjust criticism.

____________________

^α But we also might wish to acknowledge that this probably isn’t the best time for the joke about the naked children having no genitals.

Bellware, Kim. “‘Love Is…’ Newspaper Cartoon Sends Misguided Message About Rape Culture”. The Huffington Post. 15 October 2014.

Image note: Detail of image provided by L.K., via Facebook.

Why Chuck Todd Should Resign or Be Fired

“Chuck Todd does not get it. Once he becomes the news in this manner he has failed as a journalist.”

―Egberto Willies

Maybe it is difficult for some to recall the days when journalism as an industry was raised on a pedestal as the Fourth Estate, the Guardians of the People against Tyranny.

Really. Was a time. Technically, it’s why we have a constitutional provision guaranteeing free press.

Journalism has, of course, changed. One would hope the industry has evolved, but the question remains whether the Fourth Estate has evolved with it, or “evolved to extinction”. While it is easy enough to pick on, say, FOX News in this manner, NBC’s Meet the Press has long been viewed as a fixture of the Fourth Estate.

And whatever we might think of David Gregory’s embarrassing watch, Chuck Todd seems determined to use the helm to run Meet the Press into the rocks. Or, as Egberto Willies explains for Daily Kos:

Chuck Todd does not get it. Once he becomes the news in this manner he has failed as a journalist. A few days ago Alison Lundergan Grimes was interviewed by the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board. They asked her whether she voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. She justifiably refused to answer.

The talking heads and pundits claimed she was not prepared for the question. The lack of sophistication of the traditional media is astounding. It was evident that she was prepared for the question and she intended not to answer it. It was evident that her team likely thought the downside was worse if she answered.

Chuck Todd in another case of irrational verbal diarrhea said that her answer “borders on disqualification.” One wonders how not answering an inconsequential and silly question borders on disqualification yet he never said such on the various substantive lies and misstatements by Mitch McConnell (e.g, implying that Kynect is not Obamacare, etc.).

It is a fair point, indeed even a necessary question. Observing that employers cannot ask job applicants who they voted for as a prerequisite of hiring, we can at least consider the principle in the question of politics. Willies notes that Grimes’ refusal to answer “denied Mitch McConnell’s team a sound bite that would have been replayed ad naseum in a state where President Obama is less popular than dog meat”. Tactically speaking, he has a point that, “In a low-information, sound-bite driven society, denying that sound bite was likely the better move”.

Stupidity of an Unbelievable Magnitude

There is a strange phenomenon in American politics whereby something is true just because one said it, even if what says is observably false. We often miss it, and tend to notice it when the tacit standard spectacularly fails.

For instance, here’s a statement from a politician, as reported by Ed Mazza of Huffington Post:

“I just wanted to know what oath (the military) took,” Dunnegan told St. Louis Public Radio in a telephone interview. “I’m not calling the president a domestic enemy. I’m not calling the president anything. He is the president. Do I agree with what the president is doing? Absolutely not. Anybody that asks me, I’ll be happy to tell you that.”

In the first place, what, is this a helluva scandal, or just some petty back and forth? And in truth, flip a coin. Heads, it’s scandalous. Tails, it’s just another Republican in Missouri.

Debbie Dunnegan Waters the Jefferson County Recorder, also tweeted, “The rest choose to hate me w/o cause. Judge me on half truth and spins.”

So, we’re all up to date? She’s not calling the president a domestic enemy. People are hating on her without cause, and judging her according to half-truths and spins.

Yeah. You know there’s a punch line, right?

The statement in question:

I have a question for all my friends who have served or are currently serving in our military … having not put on a uniform nor taken any type military oath, there has to be something that I am just not aware of. But I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the constitution gives you the authority. What am I missing? Thank you for your bravery and may God keep you safe.

(Boldface accent added)

Yes, really.