Wayback Machine

My recent post on fiction brings to mind an old letter to the editor, which is in the system, though for some reason, could not find the original article. 

To the Editor:

I agree with Caryn James's concerns in her essay "The Politics of Paying a Visit to Prime Time" [March 16], but only up to a point. She unfairly degrades the value that fictional programs have in informing us about political matters of the day.

For example, the main problem with Vice President Dan Quayle's criticism of Murphy Brown was the content of his message, not his target alone. He and others are justified in criticizing matters that are important to our culture. Should excessive violence or the lack of complex minority roles on television not be criticized because the programs are fictional?

Likewise, limited involvement of public officials on fictional programs has some merit; "Chicago Hope" and other programs provide educational as well entertainment value.

Ms. James is right to be concerned about the possible effects of such exposure. But Senator Kennedy's message when he "speaks eloquently about the 10 million children of hard-working families without health insurance, children who suffer recurring illnesses without ever seeing doctors" is still powerful, even when spoken on a fictional program.

The reference suggests this was written in the 1990s -- there is a certain "same old" feel to so many things. We are left with interesting arguments and phraseology, along with new examples and details:

This provision displays the sober, good judgment of a congressional initiative to ward off vampires.

Things like that, from a piece* on DOMA by Andrew Koppelman, who shows that truth of the statement by citing a sex equality argument of his from 1989. It is somewhat depressing, but life goes on. And, I will continue to talk about the stuff. 

---

* The reference is to the redundant nature of Sec. 2 of DOMA, aside from the application to judgments, which would open up a can of worms if applied strictly.  The article also notes the changing nature of determining the rationality of laws, that is legitimate public purposes.

The article also in passing appears to reject the "necessary and proper" argument favored here, which leads to [crickets] when the person is cited the problem of SSM in D.C.  I think there is some sort of federalism concern here though it is somewhat opaque and is best seen as reason to avoid if possible such marriage laws and a sort of "and also" add on to a red flag that should rest more on equal protection grounds.