Shakesville

Ohio's scarlet letter, redux

Ohio made news a while back with their "scarlet letter" campaign of giving repeated DUI offenders a bright yellow plate for their car(s). Now they are attempting a similar move for repeated sex offenders:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Lawmakers want to take another crack at tagging certain sexual predators, now that they've got a license plate color - fluorescent green - that no one seems to object to.

State Sen. Kevin Coughlin and Rep. Michael DeBose introduced identical bills Wednesday that would require the most serious sexual offenders to place the plates on their cars for at least five years.

The bills would require all habitual and child-oriented convicted sex offenders to display the easy-to-spot tags.

I feel like I should have Paul's disclaimer because I don't think this is necessarily a "good thing". For one, it's not like people can't take tags off their cars. Second, I think it plays into creating a false sense of security--people without tags aren't necessarily non-predators and, as I said, the tags aren't permanently put on the car. Also, it will probably create more problems with regards to vandalism and vigilantes going after the driver of the car (who may not actually be the original offender but someone else who borrowed the car).

I don't think that these plates are going to make anyone much safer in the long run. If more punishment is needed--as that is what this is--then the sentencing guidelines for these particular (habitual, child-oriented) offenders need to be adjusted. Frankly, I feel that they should rot in prison until they die. That seems like it would keep people safer from a relapsing pedophile than a green license plate, no?

Shaker Gourmet

The recipe this week comes from Shaker Alex, of Big Swinging Blog:

Smoked Gouda Risotto with Spinach and Mushrooms
(by Charles Dale)
Serves 6

Ingredients:

Risotto

2 cups water
2 16 oz cans low sodium chicken broth
1 tablespoon butter
1/3 cup chopped shallots
2 cups Arborio rice
1/2 cup dry white wine
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 1/2 cups smoked grated gouda cheese
5 cups chopped spinach

Mushrooms

1 tablespoon olive oil
2 cups sliced shiitake mushrooms
2 cups sliced button mushrooms
2 cups sliced cremini mushrooms
2 cups sliced oyster mushrooms
1/3 cup chopped shallots
1/4 cup dry white wine
1 1/2 teaspoons chopped fresh thyme
1 1/2 teaspoons chopped fresh rosemary
1 clove garlic minced
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon black pepper
1/4 cup parmesan cheese

Instructions:

To prepare risotto, combine water and broth: set aside. Melt butter in a large non-stick saucepan over medium heat. Add shallots, cover and cook 2 minutes. Add rice and cook 2 minutes, uncovered, stirring constantly. Stir in wine, cook 30 seconds or until the liquid is nearly absorbed, stirring constantly. Add salt and broth mixture, 1/2 cup at a time, stirring constantly until each portion of the liquid is nearly absorbed before adding the next (about 20 minutes total). Stir in gouda, cook until just melted. Stir in spinach and cook just until spinach is wilted.

To prepare mushrooms, heat olive oil in a large non-stick skillet over medium heat. Add mushrooms and sauté 5 minutes or until just beginning to brown. Add shallots, wine, thyme rosemary and garlic, and sauté 1 minute or until wine is absorbed. Sprinkle with salt & pepper.

To serve, divide risotto evenly among 6 bows, top with mushroom mixture and sprinkle with parmesan.

Alex notes: "It's easily adapted for vegetarians by substituting veggie stock for the chicken stock, and if anyone has mushroom allergies (one of our campmates does), then just keep the mushrooms separate and let people help themselves."

If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com

Libby Verdict In

Guilty on Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, including the most serious charge of obstruction of justice, which carries a max sentence of 10 years. Also found guilty of perjury.

Not guilty on count 3 (making false statements).

More shortly…

UPDATE: Here are the specifics:

Libby was convicted of:

~ obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;

~ making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;

~ perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;

~ a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.

Jurors cleared him of a second count of making a false statement relating to a conversation he had with Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

He faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and a $1 million fine.

Schooled

Ann Coulter, admitting she's nothing more than a highly-paid playground bully, dismisses her use of the word "faggot" as nothing but a schoolyard taunt.

Ann "Muntz" Coulter
Of course she's right. It was so silly to get worked up over what's just a schoolyard taunt. I mean, so what's a little "faggot" here, a little "queerbait" there? Ha ha—kids will be kids, ya know? And, let's face it, it totally is like the Soviet Union or some shit to ask people not to use those schoolyard taunts when they're so goddamned hilarious! Now that I think about it, I'm going to start using them again myself. Why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't we all, when they're so much fun?!

Faggot! Queerbait! Dyke! Tranny! Homo! Carpetmuncher! Gaywad! Fag! Queer! Cocksucker!

Who could possibly give up that kind of fun?

Pam has more.

The Plot Thickens

An interesting story gets interestinger.

Last week, Senator Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson (both R-New Mexico) wouldn't comment on allegations that they both called U.S. attorney David Iglesias "to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator." Then on Sunday, Domenici issued a statement in which he admitted having indeed called Iglesias, but, ya know, hey, it was no big deal; the Senator just wanted to see "if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at. … I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way." Big whoop. Geez, it's like everyone's making a federal case out of, uh, federal ethics violations, since communication between members of Congress and federal prosecutors about ongoing criminal investigations is, um, strongly discouraged.

Anyway, turns out Wilson also contacted Iglesias. But, hey, listen, it wasn't a big deal, either.

"I did not ask about the timing of any indictments and I did not tell Mr. Iglesias what course of action I thought he should take or pressure him in any way," Wilson said in a statement to The Washington Post. "The conversation was brief and professional."

Brief and professional, people. So, obviously, the fact that Iglesias, who is scheduled to testify before Congress today that "Wilson and Domenici were trying to sway the course of his investigation," is just a big fat liar. In fact, Wilson was just trying to help him!

Wilson said in her statement that many of her constituents had complained about "the slow pace of federal prosecutions" in corruption cases and that one unidentified constituent told her that "Iglesias was intentionally delaying corruption investigations."

Wilson also said she was trying to help Iglesias. "If the purpose of my call has somehow been misperceived, I am sorry for any confusion. I thought it was important for Mr. Iglesias to receive this information and, if necessary, have the opportunity to clear his name."

Aww, how sweet. She was worried for him because it was becoming obvious that, like seven other U.S. attorneys with good records and positive job reviews, Iglesias was probably going to get shit-canned for his terrible performance. Or something.

The furor over Domenici and Wilson has rapidly become the focus of the dispute over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys and a change in law that allows Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to appoint interim prosecutors for an indefinite period of time. The Justice Department has said that seven of the prosecutors were dismissed for failing to follow Bush administration policy on multiple issues, and acknowledged that one was sacked to make way for an ally of White House political adviser Karl Rove.

And Iglesias' removal naturally has nothing to do with the noisemaking machine Domenici, who "complained about him to Gonzales three times in 2005 and 2006 and spoke to Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty in the first week of October 2006."

So what's the big deal about all this? Well, here it is in a nutshell: The Patriot Act, otherwise known as The Gift That Keeps Giving, includes a provision which eliminates the time limit by which the Senate must confirm U.S. attorney appointees. Instead, now Gonzo can appoint interim prosecutors—who, unlike nominees for permanent appointment aren't subject to Senate confirmation—and the "interim" can last, well, pretty much indefinitely. In other words, this Patriot Act provision has created the ability for the Executive Branch to fill the U.S. attorney slots at the DOJ with their cronies—and the Senate can't do shit about it.

Welcome to America 2.0.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Thundarr the Barbarian

Question of the Day

Suggested by Spudsy after a rather amusing exchange in the comments thread to this post: "What song should accompany the faggoty little dance we'll do when Coulter finally crashes & burns?"

Mustang Bobby says: "Duh: Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead. Appropriate, and from the #1 Gay Icon Movie of All Time."

Dean Lewis suggests the Hamster Dance song—haha.

I say we all put on our pink tutus, jump into big barrels of nuclear waste, and then do a faggy little dance to The Dickies' Toxic Avenger.

He was 98 lbs. of solid nerd until he became...

TOXIC AVENGER!

Btw, feel free to disregard that graphic content warning unless you're younger than 13 or think that ketchup on macaroni looks like real brains.

[As always, misogyny and homophobia warning is in effect. Remember, the idea is to be better than her.]

Is it just me…

…or has President Bush had an inordinate number of photo ops where he's standing on or surrounded by a giant pile of rubble?

U.S. President George W. Bush inspects tornado damage to the science classrooms of Enterprise High School where eight people died in Alabama, March 3, 2007. REUTERS/Jason Reed

And no—I'm not blaming Bush for a tornado. It was just a random observation.

That said…OMFG. And I am so blaming him and his incompetent cronies for that shit.

Here's What Annoys Me

Michelle Malkin, in a post on the military health care system and how much Government-run health care "sucks,"spawned by the Walter Reed scandal (I don't link to her; it's in one of today's posts):

Will the Bush-bashers join with free-market critics to effect real change and help the troops who need and deserve better care?

Implying, of course, that if the troops don't get better care, it's all the left's fault for not doing enough. Because, you know, no one on the left has been demanding better care for the troops or investigations into Walter Reed.

Meanwhile, how is the right blogosphere doing on the Walter Reed scandal?

Oh.

In all fairness, Instapundit managed to cough up a post about the scandal. "This sucks." And that's about all that needs to be said, apparently.

I do so love this method of twisting responsibility around. Kind of like wingnuts that demand tons and tons and TONS of documentation about any negative comment you may have about the right, while feeling perfectly free to ignore your requests for "proof" when they start slinging the crap.

So, come on you Bush Bashers! Get to work! Fixing this is your responsibility!

Update: As oddjob points out, Bush, Cheney and Halliburton pop up again, and gee, there's that "privatization." Comments, Michelle?

(Energy Dome tip to C&L.)

It Is To Laugh

Well, it wasn't quite the insane, spittle-flecked rant that I thought it would be, but Michael Savage's response to getting dumped by the CAA is worth its weight in pure Wingnuttium.

Please, if you would, break out the World's Tiniest Violin.

"Those of you who think I'm your enemy -- if you think I'm a bigger enemy to you, for example -- let's start with this. For those of you who are obsessed with certain topics, and you think that I, a frank-speaking man, I, Michael Savage, am your biggest enemy, then you're proving to me that liberalism is a mental disorder. Why do I say that? Because I do not pose any direct threat to any of you. Who does pose a direct threat to you? Our common enemy. A common enemy would hang you, cut your throat, throw you down a well, anything they could do to you.

[...]

But how they could have such hatred in their hearts for people like myself, who spend their every waking moment, and with every fiber in their being, trying to wake America up to the danger it is in, how they will take the side of the Islamic extremists over the president and over the troops, how they will take the side of the enemy in virtually every interchange can only be answered with one statement: liberalism is a mental disorder, and I don't have the cure for it."

*Sob* How could you liberals be so mean? Why do you all hate him so much? He's just working his widdle fingers to the bone to save you. He wants to protect us all from those mean evil horrible wicked Islamic extremists - they're all going to fucking get you, you know - and keep us all safe! No one else will do it; without Michal Savage, you'd all be dead, do you know that? Now he's lost his agent - of course, he's still got plenty of book deals and a nationally syndicated show - but still! That was just so mean!

Yep, I can't figure it out. Why would anyone dislike Savage, especially when, in the very same segment mind you, he not only says that liberals suffer from a "mental disorder" (love how he manages to get the book plug in there), but adds:

All you snotty liberals, who look over all of these things like it means nothing; what's wrong with you? When did you lose your soul? When did it exactly happen? Was it the pot in high school? What exactly -- was it the coke in the '80s? When do you think, as a liberal, you lost your soul? What did it to you? When was the turning point? What was that tipping point in your life as a liberal, looking back, when you lost your soul and started to hate America, and you started to hate everything that was normal and sane about this country? When did you lose your perspective on reality, is what I'd like to ask you.

So, Savage calls liberals "snotty, soulless, abnormal, America-hating drug addicts," and then can't imagine why they might dislike him.

Just... can't... figure... it out! [/shatner]

"Mike shall return." To what, exactly? The CAA? Uh, I hate to break this to you Mike, but I'm pretty sure they're not taking you back. And since you didn't exactly lose anything else, there's nothing to return to. But hey, saying it certainly makes you feel like The Terminator, doesn't it?

There's been an awful lot of right-wing whinging going on recently; with Glenn Beck complaining about Christians being scrutinized, or conservatives whining that Ann Coulter makes them look bad, or Brit Hume complaining that the Walter Reed scandal makes the White House look bad, or O'Reilly complaining that his statements about Shawn Hornbeck were taken out of context, or insert your example here, we're going through a lot of kleenex.

But to hear this from one of the most vicious, hate-spewing, non-apologetic browbeaters on the right is just all too special. Seriously, I can't imagine why anyone on the left would possibly think that you're their "enemy," Mikey-boy.

Therefore, Michael Savage, we award you the "Big Boo-Hoo Award."

Feel free to wear it with pride. Or shove it directly up your ass.

(Energy Dome tip to Melissa for making the award!)

Keep Talking, Ann. Keep Talking.

Coulter opens the monstrous font of diarrheic vitriol she calls a mouth and another blast of wet frenzy spews into the ether:

Ann Coulter, fresh from implying that John Edwards is a "faggot," now has a statement on her Web site saying Edwards campaign manager David Bonior "is fronting for Arab terrorists."

Coulter made the homophobic slur about Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate married to a woman, during a Friday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."

A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists."

Bonior was elected to Congress half a dozen times in Michigan, and served in Vietnam.

She is truly absurd.

Btw, I'd like to add that I've spoken to David Bonior before, and he is just an incredibly nice man. I don't know what his favorite pastime is, although I imagine it's something more along the lines of "fishing" or "pinochle" or something equally unremarkable.

Quote of the Day

"The president divulged with convincing calm that when it comes to pressure, 'I just don’t feel any'. Why? His constituency, he feels, is the divine presence, to whom he must answer. Don't misunderstand: God didn't tell him to put troops in harm's way in Iraq; his belief only goes so far as to inform him that there is good and evil. It is the president who must figure out how to promote the former and destroy the latter. And he is confident that his policies are doing just that." — Irwin Stelzer, via Sully. H/T to Oddjob.

Lies and the Lying Liars

The White House—and a follow-up here.

Pete Domenici—as a follow-up to the brewing scandal I wrote about here.

"Why shouldn't I have to take some shit once in awhile?"

I have totally had this conversation. Like, nine hundred times.

When some feminist comments thread around here devolves into a flame war about how something has been said, as opposed to the actual content of what has been said, I try to be the kind of patient person who will have this conversation for, like, the nine hundred and first time. Mostly I succeed. But some days all I can muster is, "Oh fuck off. Honestly." And the reason is because I've already had this conversation, like, nine hundred times.

And it always makes me really tired, each and every time.

That's not even a complaint. It's just a fact.

Via Zuzu.

Honor the Army you have

It is increasingly difficult to consider the Army's refusal to reopen the investigation of the suspicious death of Pfc. Lavena Johnson in Iraq - a death whose circumstances belie official claims of suicide - without considering a wider range of insulting treatment toward the nation's soldiers and their families. I'm not talking solely about facts behind fatalities brought reluctantly to light, as in the infamous case of Cpl. Pat Tillman, but a broader pattern of dishonor and dismissal toward those who serve and sacrifice.

All too often, the remains of fallen soldiers are shipped home to their familes like common freight, finally delivered in the cargo holds of commercial jetliners and carted by baggage handlers. Fifty-nine thousand survivors of service members who died on active duty or service-connected disabilities while retired are subject to a Catch-22 style "offset" between compensation plans that actually costs them benefits: money first promised them, then taken away. The Army drastically reduces the number of disability retirement ratings allowed, even as the total number of Iraq War wounded and injured has risen above 15,000.

The past month has seen this pattern of dishonor raised to outrageous levels as Dana Priest of the Washington Post exposed the shocking treatment of patients at Walter Reed - a facility that has long been the symbol of our commitment to injured soldiers. The hollowness of that commitment now stands revealed as a nationwide pattern of neglect in military health care becomes apparent.

Every day, generals and politicians and pundits all compete to be the first and loudest to proclaim their pride in American soldiers. We are told that the troops represent the best that our nation has to offer. For all those proclamations, however, the sad truth is that we often treat those same troops - and their families - as though they were disposable.

You can't have it both ways.

They're not mercenaries, as some would have us believe. They're not, as former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld put it: fungible. They're not interchangeable faceless parts of a machine that eats money and spits out death and destruction. [...]
Every time they go, they leave behind spouses and children who must make do without dad or mom for a year at a time. They leave behind families who have to live with the terrible fear that a military sedan could pull into their driveway any day, carrying a chaplain and an officer and news that will break their hearts and destroy their lives.

Rumsfeld famously opined that "you go to war with the Army you have." What he failed to say - perhaps it didn't occur to him - was that you must honor the Army you have. Talk of honor is cheap. It's how you treat soldiers, in life or in death, that matters. It's how you treat their families that matters.

The media spotlight is currently on Walter Reed, for as long as that lasts. Meanwhile, the family of Pfc. LaVena Johnson awaits even a fraction of this kind of attention, and just enough light with which to discover what really happened to their daughter in Iraq.

Help them discover the truth by signing a petition to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.

(Cross-posted.)

Priceless

This is video apparently taken backstage at CPAC before either Mitt Romney or Ann Coulter spoke at the conference. The two get their picture taken together, and then Coulter says to Romney: "You know, the photo of you and me together is going to become famous when you do something I don't like and I viciously attack you for it." LOL. Irony! Can't make this stuff up.

Romney, of course, later introduced Coulter by saying "I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!" before Coulter took the stage and called John Edwards a faggot.

But of Course

Ann Coulter responds to the criticism over her "faggot" slur:

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

So, Coulter "responds" with her usual "It was just a joke" excuse, and probably the most predictable joke ever. Boy, didn't see that one coming.

Of the major Republican candidates, only Mr. McCain did not attend, but he denounced her remarks on Saturday morning. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said his spokesman, Brian Jones.

Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Where the hell did all of these rats come from?

Update: David shows me up again. Definitely check out these two posts.

Policing Their Own

A bunch of conservative blogs are publishing an open letter to sponsors and organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference, asking them to stop extending speaking invitations to Ann Coulter. You can find links to the various blogs publishing the open letter at Memeorandum. (Also, Spudsy's got a related post, not specific to the open letter, below.)

I was happy to see conservative bloggers condemning someone for using anti-gay slurs—until I actually read the letter and found it disappointingly short on support for the LGBT community, and what little there was squashed under the weight of self-defense.

The letter begins: "Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times." So…the real problem in having turned a heinous, homobigoted harpy into a prominent spokeswoman for the conservative movement isn't that she's propagating hatred; it's that she's making the conservative movement look bad. I'm sure there are some conservatives who will disagree with my interpretation here, but if the real concern was for the LGBT community, then the letter would read: "There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the LGBT community," know what I mean?

Three paragraphs later, we get to a denouncement of Coulter's language, but it couldn't be done without a passing swipe at the people who actually give a shit about the LGBT community: "At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a 'faggot.' Such offensive language—and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it—is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation's premier conservative gathering." Yeah, it's totally the same when I use fuck as when Ann Coulter uses faggot and raghead. Honestly, the reference to the whole naughtywords debate is just all kinds of silly; it undermines the purpose of this letter to use it for partisan sniping, and, not to put too fine a point on it, but some of the authors of the blogs highlighted for naughtywords usage are themselves gay men, like Paul the Spud, for a start. Way to minimize your ostensible commitment to equality by once again perpetuating a false equivalence between cursing and intrinsically offensive hate speech.

The letter continues: "Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas." The first sentence is great, but, again, immediately we veer off into a description of how she has victimized the conservative movement—whose members made her a star, and many of whom cheered and applauded her use of that "vicious word" at the conference—rather than what it means for the community she actually slurred.

And, you know, it's kind of disingenuous to pretend that conservatives have to "waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia" just because Ann Coulter used a homophobic epithet. There are some conservative bloggers who support same-sex marriage, and some who support civil unions, but there a lot more who argue that the LGBT community doesn't deserve marriage equality and enthusiastically supported the Federal Marriage Amendment and/or various similar state amendments. Some argue the LGBT community doesn't even deserve legally protected status, like inclusion in federal hate crimes legislation and employment protections. Some argue against gay fostering and adoption. Et cetera. Conservatives can argue from here to the moon and back that holding such policy positions doesn't make them homophobic, but many of us fail to see it that way for what ought to be obvious reasons.

The letter then notes that "Within a day of Coulter's remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter's words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?" Again, whinging about Ann's comment hurting the conservative movement, as opposed to criticizing her for contributing to a climate of fear and hatred in which people are brutalized and killed for being gay, or even wearing pink pants for cripes sake, is just pathetic. Poor us; Ann's making us look bad and helping our opponents raise money! Well, yeah, but aren't you the least bit concerned that she's also mainstreaming overt hatred of gay men in a week when a man died after being killed by a lunatic in a homophobic rage?

More dramatic pleas to be wrenched from Coulter's maniacal grip as the letter continues. "If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year, will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?" Yeah—how does that help conservatism?! (Wait—can anyone think of a way it would help us? No? Cool.) We don't want no racist outbursts if they aren't going to help us!

I'm quite certain that the writers of this letter didn't intend for that to be the inference of their letter, but it's there nonetheless. It just goes to show how not internalized a willingness and obligation to defend the LGBT community from attack is when the ramifications of epithets are focused not on what it means for the community at whom they're directed, but instead focused on what it means for the community the slinger of the epithet represents. The posters of this letter aren't nearly doing as much to defend "faggots" as they are to defend themselves—and that's the whole problem. The letter ends with a request that "that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter because her "words and attitude simply do too much damage." To us are the words left unwritten.

Intimidatin' for God

On Saturday, Pam wrote about her ongoing feud with Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality and the recent escalation in his campaign to silence her. In a recent interview, he had this to say:

Pam Spaulding … is quite open with her anti-Christian bigotry. She's a hater, through and through. … Spaulding heaps the most vile accusations against Christians…

It sounds like he ripped that right from Bill Donohue's press release about Amanda and me. Apparently "anti-Christian bigotry" is their new mantra, to be lobbed at anyone who has a problem with religion, or a single interpretation of a single holy text, being used to justify discriminatory legislation. And when the mendacious invective fails to silence someone, then it's time to go after her livelihood:

Peter and Co. had to move on another front -- to try to discredit me by mounting a media/email/calling campaign to my employer about me, painting the portrait of this "fanatical lesbian anti-Christian activist" to them, hoping to 1) get a response/condemnation, or 2) get me fired, or 3) both. Never mind that my employer is not connected to the Blend's content in any way, shape or form.

Pam's employer has stood behind her and refused to give LaBarbera an inch. (As I write, I just received from them a note responding positively to a letter of support I had written on Pam's behalf.) Not everyone would be so fortunate. I don't for a moment believe that LaBarbera is daft enough not to know that Pam's blog and her job have nothing to do with each other—she's not the public face of her employer, nor is she a paid advocate, nor is she a public figure—and yet he nevertheless has no compunction whatsoever about trying to get her fired. The more fraught they get, the more vicious and unrestrained people like Donohue and LaBarbera become—and it's only going to get worse, because they are losing this battle big time.

Recently, Mama Shakes had the occasion to interview a local student, and asked her what she thought the biggest issue for her generation will be in 20 years. The girl replied (paraphrasing): "You know how taking so long to end slavery is a shameful part of our history, and how long it took us to give the vote to women is a shameful part of our history? Well, I think in 20 years, we're going to think that denying marriage to gays for so long is one of the great shames of our nation, too." That's from a teenager in Redneckville. She's our future—and Donohue, LaBarbera, and company are just desperate dinosaurs.

And you don't even have to believe in dinosaurs to share their fate.

Conservatives Unbound

The Nation's Max Blumenthal braved the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, the conference at which Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, and came away with a 7-minute clip: CPAC: The Unauthorized Documentary, which opens with Blumenthal asking Michelle Malkin to sign a black and white photograph of a Japanese internment camp and Malkin angrily refusing. Why someone would write a book called In Defense of Internment, but be offended by being asked to sign a picture of an internment camp, is beyond me.

It's also interesting to watch Tom Tancredo fans get all pissy when they describe immigration as a cultural issue and Blumenthal asks if they mean protecting white culture. Then he moves down the line and a Tancredo supporter won't reveal his confederate flag lapel pin for the camera.

All I can say is that when Grover Norquist is the voice of reason, you know your movement is in serious, serious trouble.