Just so you know: love is a terrible thing.

It’s a distraction, like pornography.

It’s all-consuming, also like pornography.

In fact, love is a lot like pornography, except that love makes you worry, and porn doesn’t, unless you’re the sort of person who worries that you’re eating up too much space on your hard drive with videos organized into handy folders labeled with acronyms like ATM and ATOGM and MMMMFFT, in which case, love is totally, 100% EXACTLY like pornography.

Maybe the only way that love is NOT like pornography is in its gift of empathy.* Love has the unfortunate side-effect of making you identify with complete strangers, including fictional characters. Inside your love-addled brain, love reshapes the movies that you see, the TV shows, the commercials, casting you and your paramour in the roles of hero and victim. Love makes every zombie film a story of you and your honey, cheating death, every sweet undead goodbye a stab in your heart.

Love is even worse when it comes to newscasts of real-world tragedy. They’re almost unwatchable. I usually opt for Family Guy reruns, which don’t have the same effect at all, thankfully.

And yet: love is something that most people aspire to, while only a sliver of the population aspires to porn stardom. Seems like a conundrum to me. Perhaps more people would find love if they opted for careers in the adult entertainment industry. I should talk about that more next week….

 

* Actually, I once wrote a seminar paper arguing that pornography depends on empathy: it assumes that the viewer will identify with someone in the scene. But then I got distracted (not with love, but with hatred for my advisor) and moved on to other things, so I think I’ll drop the argument.

I think something’s wrong.

By now, I should be covered in glittery residue, reeking of booze and sweat. I should have made a fool of myself at least once and, ideally, made a fool of someone else, too. At the very least, I should’ve paid homage to the corner of Bourbon and Dumaine, sneered at drunk sorority girls on their way to karaoke bars, pondered a meal at Clover Grill and quickly decided against it.

But none of that. I’ve seen no parades, nothing. I did go to the Society of Ste. Anne ball, which is always amusing. But even there, I spent most of my time in corners, talking to friends I haven’t seen in a while.

I outgrew xmas ages ago: it became an ordeal, a gauntlet of social obligations. Carnival doesn’t feel that way — it’s a vacation with pals, really — but something is different. Maybe it’s the length of this year’s season — one of the longest possible. Maybe I’m distracted with work. Maybe I’m older and more worried and less carefree. Or maybe I’m annoyed by the huge crowds, especially the huge crowds in our neighborhood.

Whatever the reason, I’m feeling grouchy this year. The suddenly cold weather isn’t helping. Hopefully I’ll perk up by the time guests arrive for this morning’s open house. And if not, well, at least there’s king cake and the knowledge that it’ll all be over at midnight.

Gallup released some interesting poll numbers last week — state-by-state figures on President Obama’s approval rating, which averaged around 46.9% in 2010.

It wasn’t the ratings themselves that I found surprising; it was the ups and downs they’ve seen over the past two years.

The map at left shows where Obama has gained and lost on the approval front. Shades of red indicate that he’s slipped more than six percentage points since being elected in 2008. Shades of blue indicate a loss of less than six points. And in the eight darkest-blue states — Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas — Obama has actually gained in popularity.

Which is weird and not-so-weird, all at the same time.

You could argue, of course, that Obama lost the most ground in states where he received the most initial support. After all, he’s had to compromise on a lot of issues, which has made many of his ardent fans angry. Conversely, in states like Mississippi, where Obama’s score was already modestly low, there was almost nowhere for him to go but up.

But personally, I like to take a more optimistic view. Specifically, I like to think that my fellow Southerners are finally beginning to understand how fundamentally screwed-up certain elements within the Republican party are. Sure, there are plenty of sensible Republicans roaming the Capitol, but they’re not the ones who get airtime. That’s given to the extremists, many of whom still sound like they’re fighting to keep America lodged in the 1950s.

I know the Dems are also flawed, and I know there are plenty of extremists on the left who are just as shrill and bothersome as Mike Huckabee and Michele Bachmann. But frankly, I’d rather put my faith in people looking forward than people trying to hang on to an America that hasn’t existed since the Joseph McCarthy was alive — if it ever did. Maybe sensible Mississippians are finally catching on, too.

UPDATE: An hour after this went up, Towleroad posted news that Target had changed its political giving policies. (All because of me? Alas, probably not.)

Don’t get too excited, though — from what I can tell, Target hasn’t actually changed its giving priorities, only the way in which gift recipients are identified. In other words, Target’s political contribution process will now have more oversight, but Minnesota Forward and other PACs may continue to get sizable donations, provided their goals align with those of Target.

* * * * *

The problems began last summer, when it was revealed that Target had made $150,000 in campaign contributions to the Minnesota Forward PAC — a group created to prop up conservative, LGBT-hating politicians like gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.* When Target was called on it, the company didn’t apologize, it didn’t offer to “make it right” (whatever that might’ve meant). No, Target said, in essence, “It’s our business. Buzz off.”

As we all know, Target has continued making donations to conservative politicians and PACs. And the company shows no sign of changing paths.

I, for one, was annoyed — not because Target made the donations, since businesses have a right to give money to whomever they like (and apparently, as much of it as they like, because companies are just like people, only with more snack machines). No, I was annoyed because I felt sucker-punched. And just as bad, I was annoyed that Target’s idiotic communications department didn’t come up with a nominal “make it right” plan. That’s what they’re paid to do: keep everyone thinking happy thoughts about Target.

I haven’t shopped at Target since, and I’ve encouraged family, friends, and complete strangers to avoid the stores, too.

Months later, I don’t know if the larger Target boycott — which was never a well-organized affair — is having an effect, but I found it interesting that last night’s Top Chef was all about Target. Because we know who watches Top Chef, right? Andy Cohen and his Big Gay Army. From where my gay ass sat, it seemed as if Target wanted to reintroduce the LGBT community to those big red walls.

Now, if Target had simply hosted a Top Chef challenge, I might not’ve raised an eyebrow — at least not very high. But Target also ran a couple of Top Chef-themed commercials. And of all the Top Chef contestants they could’ve chosen for the ads, who did Target pick as its star? The adorable, straight, much-beloved ginger bear Kevin from season six.

Cute? You bet’cha, even with that terrible hair. But it’s going to take more than that to get me in a Target again, assholes.

* I take some satisfaction in the fact that Emmer lost his race. I don’t usually like to see money wasted, but when its $150,000 of bad money, I’m happy to make an exception.