North Texas Nonconformist

...since CBS is clearly guilty of hypocrisy, by accepting an advocacy advert from Focus On The Family, when they refused to accept a similar advert 3 years ago from the United Church Of Christ.
Contrary to what some excitable individuals have written, there is no First Amendment issue here. CBS, as a commercial entity, is perfectly free to determine which advertising it will or will not accept on its network. However, my fundamental principle kicks in here; if I find businesses making ideological decisions about their products, advertising or activities, I reserve the right to make ideology part of my decision about whether to patronise a business.
So, in this case, I am making a decision in the best interests of avoiding hypocrisy. I will not watch the SuperBowl on CBS.
UPDATE - I wrote to CBS informing them of my decision, and the reasons for that decision.

Glenn Greenwald, in his usual brisk style, has produced an excellent summary of the Supreme Court decision here. As he points out, most of the arguments being made over the judgement by both sides are unpersuasive:

Critics emphasize that the Court's ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it's not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn't. In general, a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld because the law produces good outcomes (or because its invalidation would produce bad outcomes).
One of the central lessons of the Bush era should have been that illegal or unconstitutional actions -- warrantless eavesdropping, torture, unilateral Presidential programs -- can't be justified because of the allegedly good results they produce (Protecting us from the Terrorists). The "rule of law" means we faithfully apply it in ways that produce outcomes we like and outcomes we don't like. Denouncing court rulings because they invalidate laws one likes is what the Right often does (see how they reflexively and immediately protest every state court ruling invaliding opposite-sex-only marriage laws without bothering to even read about the binding precedents), and that behavior is irrational in the extreme. If the Constitution or other laws bar the government action in question, then that's the end of the inquiry; whether those actions produce good results is really not germane. Thus, those who want to object to the Court's ruling need to do so on First Amendment grounds. Except to the extent that some constitutional rights give way to so-called "compelling state interests," that the Court's decision will produce "bad results" is not really an argument.

However, the ruling seems to me to come perilously close to affirming the existence of corporations as persons. John Perry Barlow, via Twitter, asks the same question that I was mulling over last night:

If companies are persons with protected speech, can we now execute them when they kill?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me. If XYZ Industrials is found culpable of negligent homicide in a court of law, a felony which would net an average Joe like you or me at least 5 years in jail, then let the punishment for XYZ Industrials be suspension of all of their business activity for 5 years. Plus a requirement that all employees found to be culpable in the negligent homicide also be considered for jail terms, in addition to being terminated for cause with no compensation. In practice, the punishment will translate to the immediate liquidation of XYZ Industrials, with the sale proceeds going first to the victims, then innocent employees, then (and only then) to stockholders.
That would be a more equitable arrangement. As Barlow is implying, if corporations want the benefits of what has been termed "persohood" before the law, they should also sign up for the accountabilities of "personhood".

In which one of the more regressive states in the Union decides to lower the bar on its jurisprudence still further:

New Orleans city police and the district attorney’s office are using a state law written for child molesters to charge hundreds of sex workers as sex offenders. The law, which dates back to 1805, makes it a crime against nature to engage in “unnatural copulation”—a term New Orleans cops and the district attorney’s office have interpreted to mean anal or oral sex. Sex workers convicted of breaking this law are charged with felonies, issued longer jail sentences and forced to register as sex offenders. They must also carry a driver’s license with the label “sex offender” printed on it.
Of the 861 sex offenders currently registered in New Orleans, 483 were convicted of a crime against nature, according to Doug Cain, a spokesperson with the Louisiana State Police. And of those convicted of a crime against nature, 78 percent are Black and almost all are women.

Apart from the question of whether the enforcement of this legislation is merely a variant on the old theme of "doing something we don't like while being black", this is a classic example of the egregious abuse of the law by using laws for a purpose for which they were never intended. This is all rather reminiscent of the abuse of the Vagrancy Acts in the UK to stop people on the street without probably cause, which was a contributory factor to the race riots in several British cities in the early 1980's.
This sort of half-baked nonsense, which disrespects both the purpose of the law and the due process of law, is typical of other efforts being made across the USA to expand the definition of "sex offender". This is creeping, tyrranical authoritarianism, often sold to non-thinking communities using the old standbys of "protecting the children", when it reality it is undermining the very basis of a fair, equitable legal system.

...is not homosexual people marrying, but heterosexual married people misbehaving. You only need to look at published divorce rates to realize this. Plus, the reality is that there are less likely to be children in a gay marriage situation, thus there is less negative impact on children.
Of course, these pesky facts are usually irrelevant to religiously-driven ideologues with an animus against homosexuality...

From Ed Brayton's blog, yet another eye-popping case of judicial misconduct...

A parent has written an eloquent posting on the state of the US education system, explaining the system is deteriorating, which is going to negatively impact the competitiveness of the USA in the future.
My concern is that we are entering an era where ignorance is actually being embraced as a national value. On the rare occasions on which I watch network television news and discussion programs, I see little evidence of any use of critical thinking and evaluation skills, and the ability of people to construct arguments has been overtaken by "argument by slogan". This is not going to serve the US well in the world going forward. My ex stepkids' high school made no attempt to teach critical thinking and rhetorical skills, and I have reason to believe that this deficiency is widespread throughout the educational system.

Now I know what it is...