Pure, Distilled Essence of Hate

I'm sure most of you have heard that some variation of the argument that ending even state-sponsored bigotry against gays and lesbians is wrong because it would violate certain unspecified "religious rights." But when you do it with the stupidly as Tony Perkins does for CNN, you've provided a definitive example. The basic argument is that ending bigotry might create some discomfort for people who want to continue expressing bigotry, and the latter is much more important than the former. I especially enjoyed this bit:

As an ordained minister and a Marine Corps veteran, I was invited to speak at a prayer event at Andrews Air Force Base earlier this year. I had every intention of delivering a spiritual message, not a political one.

But the invitation was withdrawn after I criticized President Barack Obama’s call to open the military to homosexuality in his State of the Union address. The base chaplain told me they had received some complaints - about a dozen. I pointed out that orchestrating a handful of calls was a simple task for homosexual activist groups.

If I was blacklisted merely for supporting existing law, what will happen to those who oppose the new, politically correct law?

We cannot have freedom and equality, and must support qualified people being fired by the military during the war for irrelevant factors, because is might violate the inalienable right of hateful assholes to be invited to speak at prayer events. I'm convinced!

Read more...

Immoral Liar of the Day

Bart Stupak.

I actually think Digby is being a little too charitable when she says that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is "willing to deep six the rest of their social justice agenda for political reasons." I don't see any real evidence that the Bishops (an interest group that should, as Digby says, not be conflated with Roman Catholics per se) have a meaningful social justice agenda at all. As far as I can tell, their actual policy agenda is 1)making it as hard as possible for poor women to obtain safe abortions and 2)there is no #2.

...as a number of commenters point out, I forgot about rule #2: no pooftahs.

Read more...

Corner Comedy Classics

Andrew McCarthy, ladies and gentlemen!

Today's Democrats are controlled by the radical Left...

Ok, the second-biggest supporter of capitalism among major liberal democratic political parties controlled by the radical left, funny stuff. But do you have a punchline?

...and it is more important to them to execute the permanent transformation of American society than it is to win the upcoming election cycles.

[rimshot] Try the veal!

The remarkable thing is that I don't think this is just propaganda...I think he believes this abject nonsense. Sad.

Read more...

Stop the Presses!

Apparently, defense lawyers may have represented people accused of crimes. This is truly shocking in its own right, but here's something more shocking: they're being permitted to work in the Obama administration! Oh the humanity!

I suppose it's difficult for anything else to be the dumbest winger faux-scandal of the week given the assertions that anti-communist books about communism being in the White House library prove that Michelle Obama is a Maoist, but York sure has given it an Olympic-caliber effort.

Read more...

Just To Clarify

People arguing that civilian trials are never appropriate for terrorist suspects are arguing from a position well to the right of the Bush administration (at least the 2006 version.) And if you have less respect for due process than the Bush DOJ...I think this point makes itself.

Read more...

Giving Away The Show

The first thing one is likely to notice about the Mount Vernon Statement is that a manifesto supported by many John Yoo-era Republicans asserts that their constitutional conservatism "applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal." Sure. But Jack Balkin notices something even more striking -- the statement is not willing, even on the most abstract level, to commit itself to any form of equality or equal protection of the law. So I think David Frum isn't going far enough when he posits this hypothetical about a voter examining the statement:

• Do you generally agree with conservatives – but wonder whether there is room in the conservative world for nonwhites, or the disabled, or the secular-minded, or the gay? The statement does not say “no,” but it does not say “yes” either.

I dunno, I'd have to say that the lack of mention of equal protection or any equivalent principle as a major value is a pretty clear "no."

Read more...

Feminists Stole My Car Keys!

In today's installment, we have Charlotte Allen -- remember her? -- essaying some MoDo-like gender analysis for the readership of The Weekly Standard, with inevitably embarrassing results.

Read more...

Winger Myths Never Die

Narratives about the estate tax really do represent one of the great con jobs of all time. The "double taxation" argument would irredeemably stupid even if it was true; if it's impermissible for money to be taxed twice this would seem to rule out state sales taxes, and more to the point even if some estate income was subject to the income tax heirs certainly haven't paid taxes on it. And then, of course, you have the "if Paris Hilton has to pay taxes on her unearned inheritance every family farm in America will totally go out of business!" routine...

Read more...

And Crazier...

Remarkably, this wasn't even Reynolds's first episode of bizarre projection of the week -- earlier, he claimed that Obama can't be trusted with national security because...he's...wearing a polo shirt? Again, being neither insane nor consumed by a hatred for Obama I can't even reconstruct the "reasoning" here. Attempts by other wingers to explain haven't helped...

Read more...

Things Can Always Get Crazier

Sorry for the absence -- visiting family followed by visiting significant other's family (important news for upper midwesterners: Bell's Rye Stout and Old Ale are exceptional even by their standards.) It's almost reassuring to return to the intertubes to find Reynolds and Althouse engaging in analysis of an ordinary photo of Obama that's crackpot even by their extremely high standards. Actually, especially in the case of the former it's even worse than that; rather than analysis, he and his readers seem to think that what's wrong with the picture (a black man in a tux who isn't carrying a tray?) is so obvious it doesn't even require analysis, although said wrongness is certainly not apparent to sane people. And to think these people used to talk about Bush Derangement Syndrome...

Read more...

Ridiculous Republican Puke Funnel of the Day

Andrew Malcolm. (See also known Man of Ethics Mark Foley.)

Read more...

Right Addition, Wrong Subtraction

I'd have to agree that Richard Cohen -- if only for his status as a nominal "liberal" -- merits addition to this list. But I'd remove the merely boring Hoagland instead; while I understand Duncan's point, I'll insist that three years of Kelly is worth a full decade of the typical winger. For those who don't remember, read this.

I'd also have thought that Applebaum would be an easy choice, but honestly I can't identify anyone else I'd remove...

...Henley, despite his inclusion of Dionne (hey, electing Obama was always going to fray the libertarian/liberal alliance) makes a good case for Cohen. And he's also right about how horrendous Broder is.

Read more...

Winger of the Day

Treason In Defense Of Slavery Yankee.

Although Erick certainly gave it a nice effort.


...added (by davenoon): And today, TIDOS Yankee withdraws himself from the hindquarters of a pig, dons his John Calhoun wig, and expresses his doubtlessly sincere hope that a dormant posse of armed yokels decide not to wake up and begin shooting people over HCR and cap-and-trade legislation....

Read more...

Priorities

Shorter Erick Erickson: moderate reform legislation modestly increasing access to healthcare is vastly worse than the Fugitive Slave Act or Alien and Sedition Acts. Freedom!!!!1!111!One!

Read more...

Having It All Ways

This gets it right. Obviously, trying to pose as defenders of the rule of law when you believe that the government needs to be doing a lot more arbitrary detention and torture is going to lead you to a lot of illogical arguments, but I'm especially amused by the "if prosecutors have good evidence, it's like you're not having a trial at all!" routine.

Read more...

On the Bedwetter Caucus

I assume that the fact that the latest ad hoc conservative arguments that following the rule of law is a luxury the United States just can't afford are illogical isn't news to most of you, but Lithwick provides an excellent summary:

Opposition to the Obama administration's plan to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates in a federal court in New York City is hardening into two camps. One is concerned that we may be unwittingly playing into the terrorists' hands. The other is incensed that we already have. What both camps share, besides a kind of unhinged logic and complete disregard for the legal process, is an obsessive fascination with the accused. The result is a broad willingness to sacrifice our commitment to legal principles in favor of the symbolic satisfaction of crushing the hopes and dreams of a motley group of criminals.

Of course, the idea that the alleged desires of terrorists should be of paramount importance to our own decisions is a long-running feature of the perpetual bedwetter set.

Read more...

Responding to Stupak-Pitts

Via ema in comments, some crucial info about Stupak's handiwork:

• The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
• Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

For all intents and purposes, then, Stupak-Pitts prevents private insurance plans from offering coverage for abortions. Appalling stuff.

So, the wager-for-charity I owe Howard from the regular season will be going to Planned Parenthood in Stupak's name; I hope he and many other LGM readers will join me!

UDPATE: See also Amanda and Sarah.

Read more...

Today In Kaplan Test Prep Weekly

Shorter Charles Colson: Without religious belief, it's difficult if not impossible to have the kind of consistent moral compass that allows you to become a convicted felon on behalf of a lawless, disgraced president.

Read more...

Scozzafava Out

Conservative third-party candidate knocks GOP nominee out of the race in NY-23.

I think we can be pretty confident that this won't be followed by a series of claims about how Republicans are bad for having a "litmus test" on abortion, despite the fact that their position is the minority one...

Read more...

Actors May Actually Differ From Characters They Portray

If you understand this, you're probably too smart to write for the Weekly Standard.

In comments, p emphasizes Continetti's argument that to women "fulfillment" can be assumed to come from motherhood, not professional success. Gak. And cer reminds us of this classic scene from Extras which could perhaps be shown to all staffers at the Kristol ship:

Read more...