SHORTER TIGERHAWK: Remember, if you do anything to punish BP, their employees will suffer. Think of them as moral hostages of the Free Market!

JONAH GOLDBERG, HARD ON THE JOB, LATEST IN A SERIES*. "The reason I have not commented on the series finales of Lost and 24 is that I have not been able to watch either yet. I will not read or respond to email on these subjects either until I've had a chance to catch-up. I know this reflects a shameful lapse on my part."

Christ Jesus, Goldberg is now too lazy to watch TV.

Also: "What's David Brooks Trying To Say?" in which Goldberg suggests Brooks is making a couple of connections not supported by the actual Brooks column (including one to himself), then concludes, "I have to assume that's the case, but Brooks just doesn't make it clear." One of the non-legacy-pledges at NR picks up his slack.

Goldberg also prints a bunch of reader letters, and has enough energy left over to link to BP propaganda.

* Compiled by Instaputz and Tbogg, among others.

SARAH PALIN ACCUSES AUTHOR OF LOOKING AT HER TITS. As R. Crumb once drew himself thinking in a comic jam about the apocalypse, I always hoped I wouldn't be alive for this.

THE BITTEREST PILL (THEY EVER HAD TO SWALLOW). A week ago at National Review, in honor of the 50th Anniversary of The Pill, Kathryn Jean Lopez came waving a celebrity news hook:

If you need a quick primer on the birds and the bees, on how a culture has been misled, and on why Carrie and her friends from yet another Sex and the City movie have had miserable, not-so-pretty lives...

(Yeah, that "conservative cause celebre" thing is really gonna happen.)

...the woman once declared “Most Desired Woman” by Playboy can help you out.

Surprise, it's Raquel Welch! Bless her, Rocky has a book out and says she's seen how contraception "has altered American society for better or worse" -- while it "made it easier for a woman to choose to delay having children until after she established herself in a career," it also made people less likely to get married, presumably by obviating the time-honored tradition of the shotgun wedding.

Though Welch is four times married and obviously didn't let child-rearing slow down her own career, K-Lo swooned. "What she writes knocks the glimmer off the rose of so-called 'sexual freedom,'" wrote Lopez. Also, "Raquel Welch echoes another pope when she talks about sexual explicitness in the culture." The crime of the Pill, in K-Lo's view, was that it turned women away from something they really wanted: "Motherhood is at the heart of what it means to be a woman, and, for decades now, the pill has been trying to deny that reality."

Later Lopez claimed her column "seemed to strike a nerve." But she only cited in evidence a couple of Catholic blogs, and there is no sign that in the wide world women started burning their Ortho Tri-Cyclen in response.

So Maggie Gallagher dropped by to both raise the stakes and change the subject: The Pill wasn't bad because it worked, but because it sometimes didn't:

If we had truly separated sex from reproduction, why would we need abortion?

It was the failure of the Pill to reliably separate sex and reproduction that led quickly to Roe v. Wade.

"The problem is not the Pill," Gallagher added later. "The problem is the idea, which promoters of the pill introduced and promoted with great fanfare, that we have separated sex from reproduction." Because we haven't -- "If you spend ten years being unmarried and sexually active, the odds you will get pregnant, or get someone pregnant, are quite substantial."

Apparently Lopez had been too idealistic: The kids weren't going to stop using birth control because it was morally wrong -- they could only be scared out of it. Pregnancy was not to be used to lure them to virtue, but to terrorize them out of having sex.

K-Lo agreed as much as pride would allow: "That pill alone was not the poison that made a mess between men and women, but it sure was a contributing factor."

And so it goes: Tactical debates among cultural warriors whose cause is long, long lost. They might as well be arguing about why the invention of washing machines turned the innocent women of their great-grandmothers' time into flappers, and what can be done about it today.

But keep pitching guys! Maybe the environmental angle will "strike a nerve" somewhere.

UPDATE: In comments, good point, PGE: "Wait a minute... It doesn't work, plus women don't REALLY want it. How has it survived the miracle of the free market?"

THE FILM'S NOT OUT, BUT THE PROJECTORS ARE ALREADY RUNNING. The Hollywood Reporter reviews that Sex and the City sequel and imagines that its jokes about Arab sexism are "politically incorrect," which makes it "proudly feminist and blatantly anti-Muslim, which means that it might confound liberal viewers."

This notion that liberals approve of Arab sexism is so dumb only rightwing law professors would buy it:

Oh! Poor liberals! Beset on all sides. Even "Sex and the City" has turned on them.

"The exit question I never thought I’d ask," says Allahpundit,"Is 'Sex and the City' about to become a conservative cause celebre?" Well, the first SATC film sure was -- and the conservative consensus then was that it was liberal evil because it made women want to have sex.

If Cassy Fiano's meltdown last week ("Sexual empowerment is a myth. Slutting around like Samantha on Sex and the City does not bring you love or happiness or freedom") is any indication, we can expect the same thing all over again. And when they get to the bit where the Arab ladies step out of burqas, under which they are dressed up all glam, it may reignite their hate-on toward Muslim-American Miss USA Rima Fakih. How can they be sure the Muslim tootsies aren't actually sleepover cells?

UPDATE. FilmDrunk caught up with this half-assed meme:

I hear in a scene after that, Samantha twists the top on a Bud Light bottle and like magic, all the burka ladies are magically transformed into bikini models and Bon Jovi starts playing, and an old snake charmer in a turban turns into Tyson Beckford with his shirt off and his huge wiener hanging out. I think it might’ve been product placement.

In other words, these guys have failed with smart-alecky 14-year-olds, and when you've lost them, the conservative movement is finished.

SHORTER ALLAHPUNDIT. Why didn't Obama misuse the power of the Federal Gummint like the fascist we know he is to stop the oil leak?

JONAH GOLDBERG, HARD ON THE JOB, LATEST IN A SERIES*. "Maybe one of my fellow Cornerites can explain to me why, exactly, it's a scandal (or would be) if it's proven that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job to abandon his race against Specter.

"Update: Ah, well, these are the perils of blogging after a long day. I meant to save this post and finish it later, not publish it publicly..."

* Compiled by Instaputz and Tbogg, among others.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP about that whole Rand Paul thing. (If that link doesn't work, try this one.) In trying to keep it a reasonable length, I had to peel off some of the humdingers. For instance, BitsBlog, who was mad that Michael Steele had the temerity to speak against Paul's Civil Rights Act reservations:

As to the success or failure of such government-based attitudes about minorities, Steel should perhaps look at the long-term implication of our government only wanting to help the American Indian.

Yeah, think if we'd tried to integrate them; what a disaster that would have been! Then there's Jacob G. Hornberger, who thinks liberals are hypocrites because they allow racism in private residences but not in businesses. Could there be a Constitutional reason for this? Ha:

I suspect that the answer lies in the long-time, deep antipathy that liberals have to the free market — to free enterprise -- to capitalism -- to profit.

But my favorite is this scary-looking dude who explains that his Randism stems from the night he and a buddy accidentally went to a black-people bar. They were treated civilly -- which for some reason convinces him that the proprietor should have the right to throw them out for being white, which in turn proves that white people should be able to throw someone else out for being black. The bottom line: "the elements of peoples' heart & mind character in which matters like racism abide are not available to your steel-patchouli do-goodery." This is as unanswerable as one of Mr. T's Commandments, though not as much fun.

SOMETIMES I THINK THE INTERNET IS NOTHING BUT A RIGHTWING RETARD FARM. Sonora in northern Mexico is, according to Wikipedia, a big tourist destination for Arizonans:

Sonora is a premier tourist destination, especially for visitors from neighboring Arizona.

Recently, Sonora has experienced a boom in tourism, especially in the city of Puerto Peñasco, due to its being the nearest beach to many population centers in Arizona.

So the Sonoran Tourist Bureau recently made an ad that said, "In Sonora we are looking for people from Arizona..." showing a guy in camo with binoculars. But surprise! It's a teaser, followed by (I learn from, of all people, a commenter at Free Republic) a follow-up that says, "...who want to have a great time."

The obvious message is that Mexico may be seen as a fun destination rather than a threat, as the Arizona anti-immigrant laws seem to suggest.

The rightwing reaction (ginned up by the madman Joe Arpaio) is that the Sonoran tourism board is threatening Americans. No, really:

Mexico Running Threatening Ads in Arizona Newspaper…

Threatening Ad from Mexican Tourism in Arizona News Paper... Newsflash, to get people to come and visit … maybe you do not want to threaten them!

Threatening American tourists. There’s a brilliant idea, Mexico. But, then again, I’m sure the Democrats will give you a standing ovation for this, too.

You'll find more of this all over the rightwing blogs today. Will they relent when someone tells them what's actually going on? Doubtful; when Repubx saw the follow-up, he interpreted it thus:

The Sonoro Tourism board has amended their advert, by putting a more friendly face on it (?) Perhaps the outcome of backlash stemming from complaints. To little to late. IMO What is done, is done.

And when you think about it:

So much better! Now you just have a sniper eying innocent people on the beach…LOL

The creme de la crackpots is supplied by Ironic Surrealism 3.0:

Personally I find it to be threatening. Very much so. Intentional or not.

These people probably shit their pants when George Lopez comes on the TV.

UPDATE. Duke Stern called the Sonoran tourism and they explained that a printing error kept the follow-up from being seen in at least one edition of the Arizona Republic. But Stern isn't so sure:

Maybe it was an error. The AZ Republic, which opposes the new Arizona immigration law wouldn’t purposely jeopardize the ad revenue of a client simply to cause a stir. Or would the rag actually do that?

The simpler and more logical explanation would be that it was a mistake, but alas, simple and logical explanations seem to have gone out of fashion.

UPDATE 2. Wingnuts, I got another one for you! From "Anytime you vacation, you’ll find friends in Sonora," a tourism pitch from a local writer appearing at Inside Tucson Business:

The chances of your having a bad experience in Sonora are no different than what we Mexicans have by crossing the border into Arizona.

Skree! He's defaming the Homeland, comparing it to his own stinky country! It's the Maine all over again! Do your duty and spread the outrage!

SHORTER MATT WELCH: Talk smack about libertarianism, will you? It just so happens we've been proved right about civil rights     deregulating banks     deregulating Wall Street     food safety     environmental protection     airline prices.

JONAH GOLDBERG, HARD ON THE JOB, LATEST IN A SERIES*. "...I think this is one of those rare, nice, moments in American politics where pretty much all-non hacks agree for the right reasons. I haven't been paying that much attention, but just going by the editorial pages and the like..."

* Compiled by Instaputz and Tbogg, among others. Thanks to Nom de Plume and Commie Atheist in comments.

SHORTER GEORGE SCOVILLE: Having once worked for minimum wage, I understand how bad it sucks to be a minimum wage worker, but those losers just have to understand, it's simply impossible to make any money paying the whole staff more than five bucks an hour. I mean, I sure can't do it. Go Rand Paul!

A RAD NEW WAY TO STOP THE GAY. Family Scholars is sponsored by the wingnutty Institute for American Values. Its mission is to get citizens to marry and procreate unless they're gay, in which case forget marriage because Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children.

A popular favorite! But alas, now that hot Republican gay sex is pretty much an American tradition, the IAV's kind of culture war yap isn't moving units the way it used to. Worse, evil liberals are making fun of them.

"In today’s NYTs, the columnist Frank Rich gets to call me ugly names again," gay marriage obstructor David Blankenhorn wails, because of a connection to luggage-lifter George Rekers which Blankenhorn says is totally bogus. Why Rekers' name appeared in a "lawyer-generated document" attached to his testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 trial, says Blankenhorn, "I haven't a clue."

That's what they all say. Probably Blankenhorn is just sore that his "expert" Perry v. Schwarzenegger testimony turned out to be a hot mess ("Boies went after Blankenhorn’s credibility immediately, noting that he apparently had only one peer-reviewed article to his credit and that was a thesis on a labor dispute between cabinetmaker unions in Britain") and, as you might expect from someone in his line of work, he's projecting his anxieties onto others.

In the face of such disaster, Family Scholars is pursuing new approaches. As these people cannot engender new members and so must recruit, they are trying to make their pitches more kid-friendly.

Blankenhorn’s fellow Values vulture Maggie Gallagher runs over to National Review to pimp a "mind-blowingly new" experiment from their culture-war labs:

An article on the travails of... sperm donor babies.

You think I'm kidding? Get a load of "Taboos and the New Voiceless Americans":

Gay couples are having children. Single women are having children. It’s just that we, the children, haven’t been empowered to vocalize our issues yet. But just wait, the monsoon is coming. All you adults get so mad and upset demanding you have the right to marriage and biological children because you want what everyone else has. Well- us kids want what everyone else has too (a mother and a father). And we’re pissed we’ve been denied them.

The big twist in this saga is that, in addition to being an entitled drama-queen, authoress "Alana S." isn't strictly heterosexual! Or at least she wasn't. "I’ve had crushes on women that have swallowed me whole," she informs her (now undoubtedly uncomfortable, whatever their politics) readers. But then one fine day (wavy lines, lap dissolve):

I used to date them, until one woman I was dating demanded to know why I didn’t want to get more serious. “I just don’t see the point in getting too serious with a woman because I want to marry someone I can have kids with,” is what I told her (anticipation of motherhood is a defining point in my personality). She got really sad for a second (lesbians hate bi women), then it occurred to her that she knew something I maybe didn’t, “You know Alana… you don’t have to have a man in your life to have children.” Oh God, I thought, there’s no way I can continue this.

And this is where the gay menace comes in: In addition to hating bi women, lesbians want to perpetuate the cycle of dadlessness that has left Alana S. a broken husk of a woman. Read deets & weep!

But you know what I am afraid to tell people? I’m afraid to tell them that my dad was a sperm donor. To me, that is creepy. To me, that sounds disgusting. To me, there is something wrong with that. It embarrasses me. So for the most part, I don’t tell anyone. I tell them my dad is dead.

I would be weeping real tears for Ms. S. (rather than my current tears of laughter) except, by a strange coincidence, my dad actually did die when I was little. And oh, how very sad it was. Maybe I should use it to both self-aggrandizing and political effect: "My old man died because we didn't have national health care! Well, not really, but -- boo hoo hoo hoo! On Father's Day I made a card for my creepy uncle! There was no one in the house to tell me there'd never be a center fielder like Tris Speaker, or that my hair was gay! Support National Health Care!"

What made Blankenhorn, Gallagher, and the rest of the kampfers run with this? Maybe they think it's modern. Alana S. does suggest that she made it with chicks, which will get the guys at the Promise Keepers meetings interested. And when she goes on and on about how homosexuals have it easy compared to her, she refers to "my old friends at Tranny Shack," and Lady Gaga.

That ought to get the kids rallying to the anti-gay-marriage cause! Until the inevitable unmasking, when we find out Alana S. is just Ben Domenech in a dress.

YOUR MOMENT OF ALTHOUSE. Just to let you know: Ann Althouse is yelling at the Dalai Lama for being a Marxist.

Sort of puts this whole blogging thing in perspective, doesn't it?

UPDATE. Ha, Whetstone in comments: "Wake me when a law prof who teaches at a private school wants to defend the feelings of the free market."

LAST GO-ROUND FOR RAND. Though Paul the Younger has capitulated, at Reason the libertarians hold aloft the Old Standard:

But this controversy does raise the very important topic of the government’s central role in American racism. First and foremost, Jim Crow was a legal regime, one that relied on state and local laws to restrict the political, social, and economic liberty of African Americans... we’re talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Similarly, slavery was a legal regime. As with Jim Crow, those poor white Southerners had no choice but to obey the law despite their inclinations, which would naturally have had them follow the enlightened, emancipating course of the Free Market -- that is, surrendering their unpaid laborers.

That's why white Southerners rejoiced when Jim Crow was overthrown. Further proof that the gummint that gums least gums best!

What planet are they from, and can they be sent back?

UPDATE. The rightblogger consensus is that Rand Paul was smeared by being quoted accurately -- the liberal media is more nefarious than we knew! -- and that Jonah Goldberg works very short days.

LIBERTARIANS IN THEIR OWN WORDS. This Rand Paul thing just gets better and better. Now Reason's Matt Welch has informed the troops that the expected liberal attack on the Son of the REVOLution has come to pass, "using as prime evidence his recent statements in opposition to the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act."

The comments are fucking delightful. It's like Free Republic for the high school debate team.

First, there's a lengthy discussion over whether or not to buy gold.

When the Wealth Producers get back on track, some -- perhaps hoping like Rand to convince onlookers that they too would march with MLK in defense of his so-called "rights" -- explain that in our modern, racism-free Valhalla, the Free Market would fail to reward segregated businesses: "Even if an owner wanted to run one, nearly all white people would refuse to eat at it, and it would go out of business." One says that if he were black, instead of "not knowing" a racist storeowner is "saying 'damn n-----' under his breath while he serves you, patronize his business and give him money," he'd rather the guy identify himself as racist; then, the thought-experimental black would be discriminated against, but he would live to see his white neighbors drive the racist out of business, perhaps with the aid of Superman. It would make a lovely After-School Special.

They also bitterly lament that, despite their solicitude toward African-Americans, the stupid liberals will call them racists anyway. This I suppose makes them moderate libertarians.

More hardcore commenters just get right to the nut -- if businessmen want a black-free establishment, Congress shall make no law! Some take the logical next step, and argue that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed ("If it is possible that the Civil Rights Act was the right thing to do in 1964, isn't it also possible that things have improved enough in nearly fifty years that we can now go back to respecting personal autonomy and property rights like we did before?").

Favorite isolated incidents:

[Joe] Scarborough sounds more like a liberal the longer he hangs out at MSNBC.

So Rand Paul thinks that it is okay to ask minorities to help support businesses with their taxes (to pay for police/court protection, roads, infrastructure, etc.) yet be prohibited from being able to patronize them?
They PAY taxes? News to me . . .

This is one of those things that is better left alone. Just lie about an answer and be done with it.

That last cowboy seems to have caught on. It remains to be seen if Rand has. (UPDATE: Apparently!)

I doubt this will scuttle Rand's campaign -- it is, after all, Kentucky. But if the incident informs more people of what libertarianism's really about, it will have been worth it.

UPDATE. James Joyner pitches in. Sure, maybe things were bad for black people back then....

The problem, circa 1964, was that there really was not right to freely associate in this manner in much of the country... More importantly, it meant that, say, a black traveling salesman couldn’t easily conduct his business without an in-depth knowledge of which hotels, restaurants, and other establishments catered to blacks.

...but now we have the internet, so we can get rid of the Civil Rights Act and make something like Yelp for black traveling salesmen seeking Jim Crow accommodations. Maybe we can call it HALP!

UPDATE 2: The Poor Man has the transcript of "Rand Paul’s speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Birmingham, Alabama in April, 1963 (hypothetical)."

NOW ASK HIM ABOUT BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION. I'm mildly surprised about the Rand Paul matter. I'm not surprised, mind you, to learn that Paul is against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and don't let his hemming and hawing fool you, he is against it; if the government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law, it's meaningless.

Nor am I surprised that Paul's supporters would try to play the victim, as if asking Paul about it were a dirty trick.

No, I'm only surprised at how few of them feel obliged to say they disagree with Paul on the Civil Rights Act but support his candidacy anyway. They're going all in -- saying, yeah, what do we need this gummint interference for, anyway? They must really believe that Tea Party thing is magic and will sweep out all evil, socio-molistic ideas, including desegregation.

A special prize should go to Another Black Conservative:

Here is the Catch 22. If Paul says he fully supports how the feds forced the private sector to end segregation he loses libertarian street cred, but by only supporting the results of the Civil Rights Act and not the actual legislation, Paul gives the left room to paint him as a racist.

That's a neat trick -- supporting what the Act achieved, but not the "actual legislation" used to achieve it. That's like saying you like milk, but disapprove the manipulation of cow teats. (ABC is finally reduced to suggesting "boycotts and the free market" as an alternative. Yeah, those lunch counters would have desegregated in a jiffy if, instead of sit-ins, those guys had gone to those lunch counters and said, "We refuse to patronize your establishment and are going back to Columbia University.")

Dan Riehl dishes out the "tough mope," telling his followers yes, it was "unfair" forcing Paul to dance around the question of whether the force of law should be used to prevent racial discrimination, but "this is politics," dirty as it is, and Paul has to learn to lie about it.

The Constitutional battle was fifty years ago. It was lost.

Which side of the battle do you suppose Riehl was on?

UPDATE. A Paul defender* agrees that boycotts and would have ended discrimination, because whites-only businesses "must have suffered significantly for their policies," and would have caught on to this fact sooner or later. Touchingly, he speculates of blacks who left the Springfield, Missouri area after the 1906 lynchings: "Wherever they choose to live after 1906, their economic influence guaranteed that they would be served equitably by businesses."

UPDATE 2. Mediaite gives it the old college try:

Except, regardless of what he may privately believe, Paul hasn’t publicly expressed outright opposition to the Civil Rights Act– or, at least, the part of the Civil Rights Act it would be scandalous not to support.

He's against using the power of the law to require businesses to desegregate. What part is he in favor of? The let's-feel-good-about-it-existing part?

*UPDATE 3. The "Paul defender" mentioned above says in comments that his post was a parody. I want to believe him, but I can't be too hasty -- so many people got badly burned believing Joe Lieberman was a Democrat. Still, his other material suggests he's telling the truth.

I hope that doesn't mean I have to go through the rest of them and see whether they were kidding or not. I frequently get the feeling that Liberty Pundits has to be shitting me.

YOU'RE STILL DOING THINGS I GAVE UP YEARS AGO. Ah, the Reason Draw Mohammed contest has commenced. Nick Gillespie delivers the "tell":

Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States (though even that deserves all the protection that the most serioso political commentary commands). It's a defense of what is at the core of a society that is painfully incompetent at delivering on its promise of freedom, tolerance, and equal rights.

This signals to conservatives (whom Reason seems of late dedicated to attracting) that this is no airy-fairy liberal enterprise, done for silly aesthetic reasons or shits and giggles, but a manly anti-jihad.

So if you're the kind of guy who supports, for example, the recent shut-down of the Tarleton State University production of Terrence McNally's gay Jesus play Corpus Christi, you can still spit-ball the Prophet; that Jesus play was at a state university, after all, and would have been paid for by gummint money, which should not even exist, and if it does exist should only fund endeavors which might be supported by a plebiscite of local farmers and tinsmiths. Whereas Reason is supported by a Foundation, which is more libertarian because its funds are not stolen at gunpoint by gummint stormtroopers, but contributed by the rich people who would in a perfectly Randian world be our natural leaders.

For those of us who were drawing insulting pictures of Mohammed years ago, this is all very 2006.

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. With Robert Stacy McCain, it's pretty predictable. Covering the Burns-Critz race for the late John Murtha's Congressional seat, Sunday:

I’ll be back to update in a little bit. However, I must not end without reminding you of this quote from February 2009:

If we are doomed to destruction, as least let it be said that we died fighting. But those who never fight, never win.

In a word . . .
WOLVERINES!

On election day, McCain gives us a story about a Gold Star Mom voting for Republican Burns; then, hopeful news for Burns ("The Burns people are encouraged by what they’ve seen, and cautiously optimistic... Roughly 30% turnout can be expected, which is good for the Republican candidate") and suggestions of Democratic election fraud ("OK, yeah, sure")...

...then, just three hours after "the music in the grand ballroom right now just hit Lynyrd Skynyrd’s 'Gimme Three Steps.' That’s a good omen," Burns concedes.

This is very like McCain's drill during the late hours of the Doug Hoffman NY-23 campaign last year: Predictions of a Hoffman "revolution", and laughing off the "'GOP divided' spin job" until, undone by a GOP divided, Hoffman conceded. (In that instance, though, McCain waited 'til after the election to start talking about election fraud.)

Who knows if McCain "lost it" at any point during the Burns campaign, or if he'll come back later to tell us, "BURNSMANIA LIVES!"

Maybe it's because I'm born to lose and a Mets fan, but though I prefer winning, I'm not inclined to count chickens before they're hatched, nor to feverishly whoop up everyone else to count them with me, as McCain does. Perhaps this is a psychological weakness on my part. Certainly, aside from the occasional episode of blind rage, McCain seems to suffer no ill effects from his fantasies, which in any case must be more pleasant than forebodings of doom. Of course he doesn't seem to learn any lessons from them, either, but who wouldn't rather be happy than educated?

JONAH GOLDBERG GOES BIRTHER. Oh Lord: First Jonah Goldberg asserts that Birthers have been given a bad rap (suggesting, oddly and without evidence, that the New York Times thinks Truthers are "okay"); then he publishes some of their speculations at The Corner. Finally, they're finding a use for that heretofore-mostly-empty Big Tent!

Normally I can resist the temptation to believe in an afterlife, but the idea of William F. Buckley seeing this wreckage from the flames makes it much more difficult than usual.