Columnist
9 recent articles by Michael Nelson:
So much to talk about after the Mid-South midterm elections. Let me focus on some non-obvious things that happened in Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Memphis last night – in that order.
Memphians of a certain vintage may recall a time when the rest of Tennessee disparaged us as Big Shelby. It was a backhanded way of expressing East and Middle Tennessee’s resentment of – and, truth be told, our own vaulting pride in – the power wielded by Memphis and Shelby County in the state’s politics and government.
Early voting started in Arkansas on Monday. Memphis and Tunica aren’t on the ballot, but they may as well be.
In almost any previous era of our history, it would have been possible to begin a column two weeks after a controversial Supreme Court nominee was confirmed by writing, “Now that the dust has settled …”
When my wife was a girl, she and her seven brothers and sisters liked to trick their sweet, unworldly grandmother into posing for the camera with her middle finger held high. They told her it meant, “I love you but I don’t like what you’re saying.”
In an alternate universe the Memphis Hound Dogs are playing the NFL’s Thursday game tonight. In the real world it’s the eve of the Memphis Grizzlies’ first NBA preseason home game against the Atlanta Hawks.
Gambling 2.0, in the form of legal sports betting, and soon Gambling 3.0 – a state lottery – have come to Mississippi, which means they’ve come to neighboring Memphis and Shelby County as well. Mississippi will soon be the only state in the country with sports betting and a lottery and both commercial and Indian casinos.
By some accounts, Democrat Phil Bredesen narrowly leads Republican Marsha Blackburn in what may be the nation’s most important contest in determining which party will control the United States Senate for the next two years. Democrats in Tennessee are right to rejoice at the prospect that the popular former governor has at least an even chance to represent the state in Washington come January.
“Liberal science” is one of those terms that sort of makes sense after somebody takes 10 minutes to explain it but seems baffling on first hearing. Is it an oxymoron – science isn’t supposed to be ideological, right? Or is it, as conservatives might fear, science from the left end of the political spectrum?
Sign up for our morning and afternoon editions, plus breaking news.
