It was mentioned on Conan (a repeat) last night that Stephen Colbert teaches Sunday school. I know someone who goes to an adult form, and she too underlines that we should not have a stereotypical view of such things. Both, btw, are from South Carolina. Meanwhile, good article on Norah Jones in the NYT last Sunday ... here's a song that was mentioned, inspired by an old boyfriend. Hits home re recent events.
Stephanie Miller, a popular liberal leaning radio host, was simulcast in NYC yesterday, apparently (so noted Atrios, a fan and previous normal guest on the night show) because the local Air America affiliate was annoyed that Sam Seder criticized Armstrong Williams. As referenced in the past, 1600AM here stuck with the conservative leaning morning show when Air America moved for 1190AM, adding to the annoyance of the weaker signal (nights, I simply cannot listen to the station ... my computer also makes listening on the web a bit annoying). [She was okay enough but had an annoying "morning drive" type feel that felt a bit fake. Some people enjoy her though as some commentary on the message boards suggest.]
If true, that was really petty -- but AA itself did petty things like a last minute firing (to be honest about it) of Mike Malloy, after promising he would eventually return. I think MM was a bit over the top, but that was a crude way to get rid of him. Hopefully, talk that Mark Maron will return with the new ownership (the company -- which many note is badly managed -- underwent bankruptcy) is true. The station really needs the offbeat flavor he brings to the table. As I noted in the past, the line-up these days is honestly a bit boring. Al Franken's safe (and sometimes too precious) progressivism that serves as the keystone underlines the point. Seder was back today, but I didn't catch the beginning of the show.
Finally, again, I don't really agree with the stance here that somehow the Canada experience respecting securing abortion rights by court action worked "with similar legal materials" as ours. How exactly is a 1980s (the time lag already notable) ruling based on a "fundamental justice" (substantive due process is a logical implication, but it is just that, an implication) provision of the Canadian Constitution that was recently amended (showing democratic support more debatable in this country) particularly to give the courts more power to secure fundamental liberties really working from the same basic ground as Roe v. Wade? This includes material focusing on women equality and independence, a strand that in our country was just developing in the Supreme Court of the U.S.
I know the person raising the point in effect deals with this sort of thing for a living, it being a part of his expertise as a scholar and educator. Who am I to disagree? But, it is -- sorry -- simply misleading. The ruling and opinions is informative -- though the way they are constructed makes it a bit hard to read -- but (as Mark Tushnet suggests in Jack Balkin's book on the case) we need to focus on the time and place of both rulings. They are different -- underlining that though foreign law can be informative, Scalia is not totally wrong in being wary about its use ... or misuse.
Sadly, though his comments often are quite on point, there remains some "talking past each other" qualities that are fairly typical on there in the blogs. Still, a nod to Glenn Greenwald -- in an entry cited in today's NY Daily News (nice little "blog excerpts" feature recently added to editorial page) no less -- bending over backward to determine how much of an ass Joe Lieberman was in his most recent "please don't criticize the President ... just give him one more shot" campaign.
Props as well to BTC News ... inviting critical feedback, but not to the level of the person being criticized. Such fairness -- while still having a nice edge -- deserves respect.