What's all this about the last two elections being the most stable "in American history"? The concept of "red" and "blue" states is very recent - I don't think it's more than ten years old. So how can we use it to judge the "historical" impact of an election? Our political system has had other parties in its history, though not for a long time. But still, this idea that the Democratic and Republican parties are all that ever were, are, or will be is ridiculous. And the dividing of populations into "red" and "blue" is even more idiotic, a market researcher's simple-minded idea of summing up the complex realities of this country. If this is how the problem is stated right off the bat, then I can't imagine this debate would have much of relevance to say.

Reframe the question in a way more in line with reality, and then maybe you'll have something. Otherwise, I haven't got time for such simplistic "analysis".

What exactly is wrong with the post? There was a joke at the end, but it quoted Church officials accurately. In fact, it's an unusally NON-snide post.

Oh my god, Catherine, you must be joking. Do you honestly believe that teens need an ad to make them more interested in sex? What, do you think that because of some faux JC Penney's ad, of all things, some kids might be tempted to lust after each other, while if they hadn't seen it, they'd stay pure? *eyeroll* Methinks you've been drinking the family values Kool-Aid if you really believe such hogwash.

Teens will either have sex or not based on their own hormones and the availability of a partner. Whether there are ads around, witty or not, makes no difference. Get a clue already.

...judging from the majority of comments here.

I swear, PC ruined this culture.

You know, he won me over for about 15 minutes with his recent comments on religion and secularism. Now he pulls this. Thank the gods for small favors - at least I've got my cynicism back. Saved by the bell indeed. I was almost part of a movement there!

Pity a real liberal like Chris Dodd has no chance in this political climate. Things might actually change, instead of just getting a makeover.

I should have said Obama almost won me over. My bad.

As to Olbermann, all I can say is I'm deeply disappointed. Where the hell did that crap come from? Bandwagons are dangerous vehicles, and any skeptic should take care never to hitch a ride on one, Keith.

They try to reason or argue or explain. You can't talk to a troll. That'll never ever work. He just keeps fulminating or screaming or whatever.

What I would have done in that situation was laugh. As soon as he started his clueless ninnery, I would have burst out in shrieking laughter and not stopped. (I probably wouldn't have been able to stop, actually.) And if he tried to shout me down, I would have laughed harder. THAT would have made the point quickly, succinctly, and in a way he would not have been able to defeat, no matter how hard he tried.

Nope, you didn't get it. As several people have pointed out, although it is a cute ad, the joke falls flat because gay couples are not unusual anymore. This robs the joke of its punchline.

It's not a joke about a gay couple at all. The idea is that the usual "mom" who normally would be in that picture - wife making lunch for her family - uses a mayonnaise that is so spectacular that it makes her sandwiches tasty enough to be sold in a deli. Thus the presence of a deli sandwich-maker in place of the mom. Get it?

It isn't as funny when laid out like that, but that's what happens with any joke that has lost its juice and has to be explained. Kinda like having to explain why Hamlet's "nothing" is funny - once the context is lost, the humor is lost with it.

Now you know why I don't "support the troops".

except the stages are wrong. It's anger first, then denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Thanks for the correction. I wasn't referencing the film, though, but rather an article on grief I read a few years ago (although I have seen the film and love it.) Apparently, the author of the article saw the movie too!

of those interviewers, how many were men and how many women? Men aren't the only ones who indulge in sexism - I've had plenty aimed at me from other women. Did the sexist attitudes "hurt" more coming from men or from women? Did the applicants react differently to being told by a man that they were rejected because they were women? Did it worry them more to be told by a woman that they "gave the wrong answers"?

Or did the study take the basically sexist stance that only men display sexist attitudes?