The clip is also teased on the NYT front page like this:
We're sandwiched between teasers Jay Leno...
... Mr. Leno shocked the television world ... by agreeing to stay at NBC to create a new version of his show, tentatively titled “The Jay Leno Show,” at 10 every weeknight starting next September, moving from late night to prime time.... and the presidential electors:
In a quadrennial ritual that has been criticized by some as an outdated part of the American political system, 538 electors, chosen for their party loyalty, cast their votes on Monday.... Electors are not legally bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, but they generally do.So it's a NYT sandwich: Bloggingheads... on moldy old constitutional bread and Lenoaf. Yum!
Posts
22 comments:
Lucky Pierre?
I'm in agreement on the terminology change, but how do you sell it? How do you get an electorate off the path of bigotry?
"I'm in agreement on the terminology change..."
It isn't my proposal, and I don't personally support it.
People are already married and you can't take that away from them. The phase-out period that Jack describes is a cure worse than the disease, in my opinion.
Wow, NBC is cutting their prime time TV production needs by one-third with that Leno move.
The best proposal I have heard about marriage is the move to ban celebrity marriages.
Ban marriage?
Ban deodorant!
Ban daids
What I can't understand is why Jay Leno is popular and getting a primetime spot.
I think he is so awful and boring and not funny.
If gays and lesbians really want to marry (I have my doubts) they should start a campaign to win the harts and minds of the people.
Have town meetings, knock on doors, do the hard work. Do some PSA’s. There is no such thing as an easy efing button.
The tactics of an insurgency will only get people against you.
As a layman, not knowing the legal ramifications, I've long thought it seemed a reasonable solution. And again, as a layman, grandfathering in the existing definition into a split marriage/civil union arrangement was also reasonable.
I'm willing to keep an open ear to learn more about this, but I'm kind of maxed out on what I can offer.
"Ban daids"
If you're gonna ban daids, then it's only fair that you ban mommas too.
Doesn't something similar exist in Louisiana with the Covenant Marriage? And isn't it sort of the same when people get married by a JP instead of a preacher?
What about common law marriage?
And why hasn't someone written a country song about this???
Banapple gas!
When it comes to gay marriage I have no idea on how it should go as my political and religious views are generally conflicted on this point.
That said, I have to agree with Lem. Even prior to the recent prop 8 idiocy it always struck me that the gay marriage proponents tended to be their own worst enemy. Between black lists, gay pride parades, and attacking churches they seem intent on making caricatures of themselves.
If they truly want gay marriage to be accepted they need to start portraying themselves as average citizens. Toss the parades and lead marches, lose the bizarre costumes and wear suits and ties, stop calling the opposition bigots and start holding talks.
A big leap?
; )
Geez...
I remember when I was a liberal. Life was so easy-- I could get angry at anyone who disagreed with me and never worried about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. All those conservatives were old fogies tied to a dead past (which I never examined because it was, like, you know, dead), steeped in their racism and hatred.
Ban Marriage. Sure, why not? What good has marriage done for civilization anyway? Of course, that's a rhetorical setup for a dismissive sneer as opposed to a real question, which might require a real answer which might lead to thinking about hard choices. But there are no hard choices as long as you believe, right?
Lots of words are overused and misapplied today and they have lost all real meaning. Word like Bigot, Outrage and Hate have become part of that list. When people use them, I tend to automatically dismiss their argument because they typically don't have one.
Ban ana!
Ban al
It's on!
It is?
Well then take it back off!
siyeh pass said...
I'm in agreement on the terminology change, but how do you sell it? How do you get an electorate off the path of bigotry?
How about the concept that the bigotry was never there to begin with? How is it bigoted to say that marriage is between one man and one woman while homosexuals stand around pole-axed and having their heterosexual co-conspirators rah-rah from the peanut gallery without understanding the full context of what they are cheering for because it's a new age, it's a new trend?
So to gently ausage the 2% - 4% electorate that wants to have their unique, but unequal unions called marriage we are now willing to throw the word and meaning of marriage under the bus by calling all unions civil unions? You would support dragging down an institution that is already defined and in place to sooth the savage and yet ultimately toothless homosexual beast? You would, but you want to turn this into a slick PR/Communications campaign of trying to sell it to the masses. Most of which don't want it. If you want to sell anything in life, you have to create a need for that product. Think of marriage as a product, but in order to acquire it, there are certain requirements. Create the need, but if it isn't there, you won't sell it. Just like you won't sell the notion that Marriage be killed at the altar of terminology and lexicon to make homosexuals feel better about themselves how gosh darn it, people will like them.
Post a Comment