The struggle of progressives will always be just that... a struggle. It will be a struggle because it's premised on truth and facts. The tendency of all cognition is to ignore those truths and facts that aren't appealing to our desires and wishes. It will be a struggle because the tendency of the left is to advocate justice, yet justice entails fairness and reason and it's difficult to explain to those with power over others why one ought to pursue these virtues. It is for this reason that Republicans represent the party of human nature... and by that I mean what is most primative and base in our nature. It's the duty and responsibility of Democrats to represent humanity as it ought to be or could be.
Post Register self-censoring Dilbert. Because teh Gay.
Hmm. One of these things is not like the other -- today's (2/8/2014) Post-Register's Dilbert:
But today's Dilbert.com was (Crime to be Gay)
The Post-Register has quietly self-censored, and a quick search reveals they reprinted the January 30, 1995 Dilbert: A Lighter Laptop
Yesterday's Dilbert.com (2/7/2014), (Nuke the Taj Mahal) also talks about anti-gay laws. Post-Register readers ironically got Hosed:
A search shows that was the Jan 28, 1995 comic: (I have an Idea)
In 2013, Scott Adams commented that the public opinion blowback sometimes causes him to self-censor. He'd concluded that what he felt was some of his best work just isn't worth days of responding to blowback.
Like Scott Adams, the Post-Register has decided to slink back into comfortable convenience rather than (snort!) publish a syndicated cartoon that mocks India, but coincidentally mocks Idaho's legislature, too. It's a strange row publisher Roger Plothow chooses to hoe: The Post-Register has printed hard-nosed pro-equality editorials from Corey Taule. And they're sticking to their editorial guns over the innocuous 'controversy' of changing which comics to publish: We've endured weeks of letters to the editor as readers protest dropping stale old cartoons for newer ones. Throughout, the Post-Register remains resolute about ditching BC, Kathy, Blondie and Shoe for new comic strips like Wumo, Soup to Nutz, etc. But the Post Register silently preemptorily caved without even mentioning their self-censorship when Dilbert mocks anti-gay laws. During a week when anti-gay laws are prominent Idaho News.
Last week, the Statesman's Dan Popkey was similarly inept: Popkey wrote a piece on Teabagger Vito Barbieri's Tourettes-like grandstanding. Barbieri has repeatedly been blurting out incorrect / inflated numbers of how much of 'our money' the Idaho Legislature was spending. Rather than mocking Barbieri's lack of decorum, Popkey quoted numerous people and wrote an article so inconclusively noncritical that it's likely inflated Barbieri's warped ego until now he'll probably NEVER SHUT UP.
Yet the day before, Popkey pulled slight of hand to dismiss the Idaho 44 protest for 'Add the 4 words'. Popkey wrote that Nichole LeFavour's remaining in protest until she was also arrested was 'Look At Me' grandstanding, and headlined his editorial by paraphrasing Bart Davis's view that LeFavour harmed the protest. Now, if LeFavour simply left without being arrested like the other 43 protesters, Popkey and conservatives could have pounced on her for being a fair-weather protester unwilling to face arrest. So, rather than examining Idaho's grotesque lie ("worsens their chance at a hearing"), Popkey found a way to redirect attention and demean the protesters. Frankly, I haven't been this disgusted by a political writer since DFO at the Spokesman babbled that his (ahem) softballing questions to Bill Sali was an essential quid pro quo to being granted an interview in the first place.
Newspapers silencing themselves is tragic, since if not the press, then who? Molly Ivins (or Finley Dunne) said it best: a newspaper's job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Tolerating a bigoted effort to undermine a basic tenet of civil society maliciously wrapping itself in a mantle of 'freedom' isn't acceptable, either. Society is intrinsically about constraint of **BEHAVIOR**, regardless of ideas. And in a free society, ideas or beliefs can be spoken freely, but we restrict **practices** deemed corrosive to civil society. Milquetoast editorials stating false equivalencies at a time like this aren't ok. When misguided people seek to undermine fundamental civil institutions, there can be no equivocating.
Hopefully, both papers will reconsider. I won't hold my breath.