I cannot think of a single movement to change the status quo, be it liberal, conservative, whatever, that did not involve, 1) the making of a lot of noise, and 2) the criticism of the noisemakers as self-righteous finger-waggers.

In the end, it comes down to what you as a person believe in. If you agree with the noisemakers, you adopt their positions; if not, you laugh at them and fight them. Ultimately, one side wins, and either future generations take it for granted that the change was a long time coming and good, or they launch a backlash. The key is to win without bloodshed, though as with the American Civil War, even that is not always possible.

And as always, they will be people smirking on the sidelines and claiming to be above it all.

I won't eat anything that casts a shadow."

Speaking as a vegan, I found that line very amusing when "The Simpsons" did an episode on Lisa becoming a vegetarian. It was a poke at vegans, sure, but a funny one devoid of malice.

I am enjoying the exchange on this thread, especially the letters of Amity and Clockwork Smurf. Amity made this thoughtful point:

Good satire requires intimate understanding of, even some degree of compassion for, your subjects. Archie Bunker became an iconic character because he was written with such familiarity, and portrayed with such warmth.

Right. Archie was the hero of the show, and a bigot, but at his core he was a kind and decent person, and so his bigotry could be satirized and played for laughs. If Archie was an evil person, the comedy would have been vicious, not gentle, and so it would not have succeeded in changing minds. I contrast that with the acid satire of "Gulliver's Travels," which might have satisfied the misanthropes who read it (like me), but would be less effective at changing minds.

Clockwork Smurf noted, The assumption of goodness and decency associated with a lifestyle is turned on it's head. It isn't the lifestyle that makes one a good person, it's the person. And trying to do good by doing what you perceive as good is not really being good at all.

That's a provocative statement. Is a nasty person who lives a life of good deeds (e.g., recycles, rejects bigotry, is kind to animals) a "better" person than a nice person who litters and embraces bigotry and ignores a suffering dog in the street? (I'm reminded of the sweet old lady in "Blazing Saddles" who says, "Up yours, N----r!" to the black sheriff).

Effective satire recognizes that people are flawed, and it targets the flaws, not the people. My fear about "The Goode Family" is that Mike Judge -- as an activist libertarian -- will not target the flaws, but rather, the liberal ethical stances of the characters (environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, etc.). The results may be funny to people who share his views, but for liberals such as myself, it would be an unwelcome new obstacle to our efforts to further our visions of social and economic justice.

You seem to hate Broadsheet as much as you hate "fucking Jew bastards," so why do you even bother reading and responding to the articles here? You should stay at Stormfront.

I envision a pol-pot-esque reckoning of societies' miscreants

Whatever you say, tough guy.

Sorry Comedian, but you're nothing but a bad joke. One day, and sooner than you think, people like you will appear as obsolete and grotesque as the Klan.

[sarcasm alert] More hippy bashing. What a laff-riot. Taking on the powerful pro-hippy, pro PC lobby! Thay don't care whose toes they step on![end sarcasm alert] -- ash2323

I once had occasion to be sitting in the passenger seat of a young wealthy Republican's Mercedes. He saw a beat-up old car in a parking lot with an "End World Hunger" bumper sticker and remarked to me, "Those are the kind of people I make fun of."

I'll bet that kid will love this show.

I'd recommend Tel Aviv though, but too Jewish; you know how THOSE people are.

Brilliant.

He could have made a cartoon that mocked all those earnest young people marching and dying for racial equality. I also imagine the hilarity that would ensue when a silly do-gooder refused to use racial epithets to describe black people.

It is truly fascinating how people are so eager to mock common decency and attempts to make the world a better place, as if indifference or worse, destructive behavior are somehow more admirable.

Leaving aside the merits of this article, this study is yet another indication that common sense needs to be confirmed by "experts" to be taken seriously. That is a trait of authoritarian societies.

Today's decision was a setback, but gays and their non-gay supporters will one day celebrate full equality for homosexuals, from marriage to every other right that straight citizens enjoy.

Until then, don't despair. Gays deserve full equality NOW, but the other side is fighting to the end to keep the status quo. Always remember that social justice is never easy or quick. It took a civil war and one hundred years of suffering for black Americans to gain fully equal rights; gays will get there too, despite what happened today.

Homophobes: your days are numbered.