THE BARREL HAS NO BOTTOM. Just in case you thought the conservatives screaming about the New York City mosque had reached, or could possibly reach, their apex of lunacy, here's a column from Breitbart's latest vehicle comparing Michael Bloomberg to Nazi collaborator Marshal Petain.

Mencken said no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people. I'm beginning to think counting on the psychosis of the American Right has become equally reliable.

(h/t Daniel Coyle)

SHORTER GREG GUTFELD: I hate Muslims so much, to get back at them I'll even pretend to like fags.

UPDATE. Comments are cherce. ("That tears it," says Jay B., "I'm going to open a library next to Fox.") But mds is a little behind the curve: "Imagine the whining" among conservatives, says mds, if the alleged bar can't get a cabaret license. "Islamists can build a monument to their conquest of America on an open grave, but we're denied a license by the leftist NYC government. Etc, etc." Sorry, Megan McArdle already got there. It's like they're preempting our satire!

ESSENCE OF PALIN. Sarah Palin, once again defending herself against reporters:

The LSM has now decided to use this brief encounter for another one of their spin operations. They claim I – wait for it – “appear to roll my eyes” when the lady tells me she’s a teacher. Yes, it’s come to this: the media is now trying to turn my eyebrow movements into story lines.

I'm actually sympathetic toward her on this score. But you know what would have really won me over? If she'd compared this attention to her facial expressions with the attention also absurdly paid to the facial expressions of Al Franken by wingnut shit-stirrers.

But that would never happen. Not only because -- to use a phrase traditionally employed by gomers -- it doesn't fit the narrative, but because it would require Palin to show sympathy for someone other than herself.

And I've never seen her do that.

She does defend her kids, but only when she fantasizes that they've been attacked by the media -- which isn't really a sign of interest in their welfare, but of an interest in the exploitive possibilities of one's own family that would have embarrassed Richard "Checkers" Nixon.

In other people's families, she's less interested. When Palin talks about "mama grizzlies," for example, she's clearly not talking about any actual people whose families are under threat -- such as single mothers who, unlike Bristol Palin, find it increasingly difficult to provide for their young. Her videos show lots of women, but we never hear a thing about their lives.

The sort of vulnerable mothers you or I might think of in this context never come up in Palin's mythology. Rather, it's all about winners: Grizzlies observed in their moment of protective rage -- rage being something to which her biggest fans of either gender can relate; mothers who are victorious just because they're angry (assuming that whoever they're mad at isn't holding a big old gun on them).

She doesn't bring up these symbols of motherhood to make her listeners sensitive to motherhood's perils and pains. She does it only to reflect glory upon herself, and her own brave, motherly defense of her clan against David Letterman and The Family Guy.

I still expect Palin to run for President, but her apparently ineducability to her own limitations may be a drawback to her. I think her awful poll numbers have very little to do with her affect as a politician (I actually think she's got a pretty good schtick), or with her politics, though they are perhaps a little more dumbed-down than even ordinary Americans can tolerate, at least so far.

No, the big thing Palin seems not to know or even be capable of noticing, and which ignorance may sink her, is that, except for the densest and most depraved rubes, anyone can tell that she doesn't give a damn about anyone except herself.

SHORTER MEGAN McARDLE. People who want to tax the super-rich are just jealous. If you want real fairness, cut social programs for the poor.

(You want to know what the real Reagan legacy is? That in a country where top earners once had a 91 percent tax rate, people like McArdle portray a 35 percent top tax rate on bazillionaires as bizarre and cruelly unjust. And get away with it.)

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, in which the rightblogger mishegas about the Prop 8 ruling, Michelle Obama's vacation, Mexicans and Muslims leads me to ask: Are conservatives a white people's movement? Yeah, I know, de facto they've always been, but recently haven't they observably given up even pretending?

I know they've got a few non-honky operatives, conservative blacks, gays, and what not, but from the way they use them -- like in those Tea Party scenes where they go, "See? We do so have African Americans!" -- it seems they've decided that minority representation is totally a symbolic thing, which one engineers to reassure one's white supporters that one's virtually minority-free movement is not racist.

But the lion's share of their rhetoric is turned toward denouncing the Other. You will hear far, far more from them about the damned blacks, Mexicans, etc., than you will about Paul Ryan's pathetic tax reform plan. Stack up their recent references to Ryan against those relating to the Ground Zero Mosque -- in both volume and ferocity -- and you'll see what I mean.

I usually try to be careful about saying such things, but fuck it: These people are counting on racism and homophobia to get elected. And it just might work.

DON'T YOU FUCKING LOOK AT ME! Did you mother ever tell you, "Don't give me that look?" Power Line's Scott Johnson thinks this is a good basis for political outrage:

[Senator Al] Franken was presiding over the Senate during [Senator Mitch] McConnell's approximately 10-minute speech. During the speech Franken was making faces, rolling his eyes, laughing to himself, throwing his head back and shaking his head, shifting his chair from one side to another, and making obvious theatrical movements displaying his disagreement with the speech.

First punchline:

Everyone in the chamber at the time was acutely aware of his absurd behavior. Given the limitations imposed on the C-SPAN cameras, we don't have video of Franken's antics.

In other contexts, of course, Johnson finds lack of video of an event proof that it didn't happen.

Perhaps sensing that even some of the zombies who take Power Line seriously won't consider eye-rolling an impeachable offense, Johnson adds some shady sources-say, indicating that this is not the end of Franken physiognomic crimes:

I was told that Franken has become notorious on Capitol Hill for incidents of this kind. He is described as someone who frequently becomes rageful and lacking in control over the behavior related to his emotions. He is susceptible to outbursts, involving Republican Senators as well as staffers, immediately following which he is consumed with regret. He fits the profile of a guy with serious anger management issues.

Given the context, not the mention the lack of any specific incidents in the report, maybe these "rageful" acts go from eye-rolling to eye-crossing, nostril-flaring, double-takes, spit-takes, and the Curly Shuffle.

Or maybe it's total bullshit. With these guys that's always a possibility.

Actually, as I thumb through the blistering notices of other rightbloggers who jumped on this story, it reminds me less of of maternal intolerance of backsass and more of the famous New York child-killer Joel Steinberg, who said he was driven to violence because the damn kid wouldn't stop staring at him.

UPDATE. Commenter lawnorder asks, "So rolling eyes is a crime but shouting 'liar' to the President is peachy?"

YOUR MOMENT OF GOLDBERG. Busy with paying work ("Moscow gold!" as Alexander Cockburn's father used to say, "Where was it when we needed it?") so I'll just leave you with a portion of Jonah G. in full foot-in-bucket mode, on the New York mosque tsimmis:

But, truth be told, I also suspect it’s not as big a deal as a lot of people are making it into, on either side of the question.

Update: A number of friendly readers take great exception to my “not as big a deal” line above. A few quick thoughts: I didn’t say it isn’t a big deal, I just said I didn’t think it is as big a deal as some are making it. I get a lot of email from folks telling me this is a sign of encroaching American Dhimmitude and surrender and whatnot. I don’t buy that. Nor do I buy the liberal line that this shows what a wonderful and tolerant country we are. I think Bloomberg et al. are acting more through cowardice and parochial groupthink than open-mindedness. I think that this is offensive, as I said. I don’t think this will be a P.R. coup around the world nor do I think it will a P.R. disaster. Rather, to the extent it has any impact at all, it will confirm to radical Muslims that we are weak. Moderate Muslims will probably interpret it many different ways. Some will agree with the radicals, some with Tom Friedman. Most, however, just won’t care.

I'm beginning to think Goldberg farts these things out -- literally, like Le Petomaine -- and some poor intern has to transcribe. Writers, take note: This is what happens when you try to split the difference between two points of view and you neither understand nor genuinely give a rat's ass about either one.

PROP 8 RULING: FIRST DELIGHTFUL RESPONSES. Good news about Prop 8, not only for America but also for followers of conservative bloggers, who have begun step up their game in response.

Gay Patriot consoles his constituents that this is "a huge boon to Republicans in the Golden State," who will "make inroads into certain segments of the Democratic base when some Democrats who supported Prop 8 see a Republicans criticizing a court which overturned by fiat an issue they passed with their ballots" and "reconsider their partisan affiliation." It's a good schtick -- not only to promise that Democrats who don't want no fags gittin' hitched nohow will run to the GOP, but also providing these refugees with the socially acceptable cover story that they're really just fleeing judicial activism.

Speaking of bullshit libertarianism, Michelle Malkin skrees that "the decision from Judge Vaughn Walker is no surprise if you watched his show trial antics over the last several months." Her link indicates that by "show trial" she means proposed delayed-video transmission of the proceedings. I thought the blogosphere was all about maximum freedom of information! Well, except for gay trials, I guess. And Wikileaks.

"Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” roars Robert P. George. "This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand." He also finds the ruling a victory for "those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution." George, longtime readers will remember, is also against heterosexual adults choosing their own marriage partners, so it's been a hard couple of centuries for him.

Anything that gets Kathryn J. Lopez palpably shaking with rage brightens my day:

Actual quote from the ruling today: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

This is a court ruling, not an academic seminar at Berkeley.

This isn’t about equality. This is about recreating our fundamental institutions.

Visions of same-sex in Berkeley (with the Jefferson Airplane on the stereo and the smell of patchouli in the air) will leave K-Lo thrashing on the daybed in her office for weeks to come.

UPDATE. Also from Twitterland:



UPDATE 2. Rather massively missing the point, Ben Howe: "Let's legalize gay marriage and open a gay marriage chapel next to the #GroundZeroMosque. Then we'll see who's tolerant." I wish New York would do just that, thus enabling the sort of frank and free streetcorner exchange of ideas that makes the city great, but I suppose the "gay marriage chapel" would be required by the terms of liberal pluralism to marry hets as well.

Or would they? Maybe it's like one of those things where black people get to sit at their own table in the school cafeteria. Good Lord, not only are conservatives kept down by black people, they're also victims of homoppression!

UPDATE 3. Oh oh, the brethren are finding out that the judge was gay. "Homosexual California judge overturns citizen amendment banning gay marriage," roars Bryan Longworth. Next they'll be letting lady judges rule on abortion.

UPDATE 4. More from Evan Hurst.

UPDATE 5. Jeff Goldstein wants you to know that when he slaps you with his cock, it's not a gay thing.

MONEY TALKS, BULLSHIT WALKS. As I've observed before, conservatives vacillate between delusions of grandeur and delusions of persecution, depending on their psychological need at any given moment. These days, with Obama's poll numbers down, they're on the peppy side of the mood swing, and think they can do anything. At Ricochet, Peter Robinson:

Here on Ricochet the other day, Conor Friedersdorf asked, in effect, What would it take? What would those behind the mosque at ground zero have to do to demonstrate good faith? An arresting question. If the organizers of “Cordoba House” would publish the following brief manifesto, I’ve decided, I would welcome them to lower Manhattan. Heck. I’d contribute a hundred bucks to their construction fund.

Robinson then supplies a script for the mosquers to mouth, including much shit-eating and a declaration that "we will accept no Saudi funding whatsoever" (which, oddly, does not include an invitation to the Bush Family to do likewise).

Josh Treviño has been tweeting his own demands: "In exchange for the "Ground Zero mosque," Cordoba/ASMA could cover the legal bills of the Christian evangelists arrested in Dearborn... In exchange for the "Ground Zero mosque," Cordoba/ASMA could advocate for religious liberty in Saudi Arabia..."

They're acting as if they have anything to say about it. But Mike Bloomberg wants the mosque -- and, as one may observe by watching, Bloomberg gets what he wants, unless the complicating factor (as with the West Side Stadium project) is money.

And money isn't in it this time. No conservative group is going to make a serious counter-offer for the space. And none will ever be made. Because all their righteous yelling about those damn Mooslims isn't meant to stop the project -- it's meant to exploit it, so that their honky base will know that whenever White Christian America was under attack by liberals, conservatives were there, standing athwart everything crying, "Restricted!"

Whatever happens, one side will feel outrage and another will feel vindication. But in the end the disposition of the mosque, like so many of our allegedly moral issues, will be settled by money. Conservatives think they deserve a seat at the table, but it's covered with green felt and they simply don't have the chips.

BREAKING: OBAMA USES NEGRO CODE TO RILE THE SAVAGES! neo-neocon informs us of the latest racist attack by President Obama on white people:

"…[T]hey’re betting on amnesia. That’s what they’re counting on. They’re counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. Bamboozle you."

Like many of Obama’s most revealing remarks, these were made at a Democratic fundraiser, this time in Atlanta. And the word “bamboozle” is an especially nice touch, harking back to a famous scene in Spike Lee’s film “Malcolm X,” a reference that would most likely be recognized by a great many people in his Atlanta audience...

[NOTE: Obama has been called on this before, during the 2008 campaign, when he used “bamboozled” and “hoodwinked” repeatedly to describe the actions of opponents (see also this).]

Stay tuned -- I understand Stanley Kurtz has documentary evidence of Obama using lines from Car Wash and Three the Hard Way.

UPDATE. In case you don't want to get out of the boat, I will add neo-neocon's explanatory passage: "Rest assured that Obama (who has used these phrases quite a few times to describe his enemies) is aware of the racial code he’s employing, and what it means to many of the black people in his audience." Because black people are the real racists, and also primitives who can't control themselves when they hear magic words like "bamboozle" and "ungawa."

neo-neocon claims a "background as a therapist," so I guess we can include her among our previously-noted squad of volunteer rightwing shrinks. This bunch really needs a name. How about the New Serbsky Unit?

UPDATE 2. Something called ...With Both Hands gets in on it:

Who the hell ever uses Bamboozle, besides W. C. Fields and Spike Lee?... Please, President Obama,quit dropping your Gs, Mr. President, please on the verbals please, especially the gerunds and deverbals! Don't abort the Gs! Let them come to full-term...

...With Both Hands treats the angle neo-neocon didn't get to: The way these people talk. I'm waiting now for some cowboy to take it further. Do they have wifi in klaverns?

THE CONSERVATIVE COMEBACK, PART 54,993 -- MUSLIM-HATERS EDITION.Thanks to the completely normal actions of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission in refusing to block the Park Place mosque, conservatives switched from attacking black people for their racism to attacking Muslims because they were all in on 9/11.

Though I can be convinced that these people are actual bigots, the way they zip from one kind of racial appeal to another like paparazzi chasing a celebrity suggests that they don't have any feelings about any particular race, but are just eager to jump on any opportunity to energize the white yahoo vote, which is their most reliable constituency.

You can see it in the formulaic outrage signifiers put up by people like Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. Rubin's always a horrible propagandist, but her shit today is really paint by numbers.

The left continues to feign confusion (it is hard to believe its pundits are really this muddled) as to the reasons why conservatives (and a majority of fellow citizens) oppose the Ground Zero mosque. No, it’s not about “religious freedom” — we’re talking about the location of the mosque on the ash-strewn site of 3,000 dead Americans.

Nice italics! Also, bullshit. The proposed site's a block over and a block up from Ground Zero. I've trod that turf many times, as do thousands of people every day, and they're not marching somberly and crying "Never Forget" but going to work. There's a Cohen's Optical there, and a Starbucks. Shall we smite them for making lattes and eyeglasses on the ash-strewn site of 3,000 dead Americans?

Ugh, God, how she goes on:

Again, no one is telling Muslims not to build or pray in mosques; we on the right are simply asking them not to do it in the location where Islam was the inspiration for mass murder.

By that reasoning, the city should put up flyers around Catholic churches that read SEX OFFENDER LIVES HERE.

And I certainly do believe “you are either for us or you are for them” — when it comes to Israel and to America. That this notion disturbs the left tells you precisely why it is estranged from the vast majority of Israelis and Americans.

It's pretty creepy the way she keeps saying, Yeah, don't fuck with America -- and Israel! I wonder if she does this during her regular life? Only in America -- and Israel! God bless America -- and Israel! Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike, they've all come to look for America -- and Israel!

Apparently she does:

But the left – which has become obsessed with universalism and finds particularism and nationalism noxious – thinks it unseemly for Americans to look after the interests of Americans, and Jews to look after Jews (as to the latter, we can only be grateful that so many pro-Zionist Christians do as well).

I didn't know only Jews died at the World Trade Center. Looks like the Times owes Retracto a big correction! Bonus points for getting the millenarians in there -- and so what if they only love Israel as a staging ground for the Apocalypse? You know it's Moses, I know it's Moses -- business is business!

Maybe the left is simply being oppositional — i.e., whatever the right believes is wrong.

Gotta admit, we're batting a thousand so far.

But if not, it is, quite vividly, advertising its own intellectual crack-up and unfitness to govern.

No offense, honey, but we don't sound like the ones cracking up.

UPDATE. Jay B in comments: "You know what else is blocks away from Ground Zero and lavishly funds every crooked Arab shiek and shady international billionaire? Wall St."

BEEN A WHILE since I looked at Lileks, and I thank Robert Kempe for pointing this out:

...At the Disney stores you can find all manner of Grumpy-branched merch, intended to tell the world you’re pretty much contemptuous of everything that impinges on your definition of how the world ought to work, and we should not hold you accountable for your moody, difficult, anti-social behavior because you have identified with a cartoon character intended to express a narrowly defined emotional condition. Got it!

Holy Jesus, he's complaining about the malcontents who wear Grumpy shirts. Don't they have hipsters that he can yell at in Minneapolis? It's like those family comic strips where the Bad Kids are still dressed like Seattle grunge rockers.

Clearly I'm not spending enough time on the internet.

UPDATE: Oh and:

Which is a roundabout way of saying the only Disney shirt I’ll wear around the Kingdoms is a Classic Mickey.

By which I'm sure he means Mickey Kaus. Mickey Kaus! (Howard Kurtz!) Mickey Kaus! (Howard Kurtz!) For others let us keep our standards high! BTW here's Kurtz on the nastiness of the modern world. Conservatives poison the airwaves, and liberals had "an off-the-record discussion group." Can't we all just throw our weapons down?

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, in which I survey the recent spate of New American Revolution stories like that wacky "Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?" thing at IBD. This stuff sounds slightly crazier than usual to me, and I begin to wonder whether the strategy is to drop a lot of revolutionary ravings in the blogs, where not much of anyone will see them, and then claim when the Republicans pick up seats that this proves America has judged Obama a tyrant who must be impeached, at least. Let's just go with the simplest explanation: They're nuts.

ANOTHER DAY AT THE PLANT. The Ole Perfesser finds a outrage:

TIME: The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? “Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska 21 years ago..."

A few hours later, the Ole Perfesser finds a outrage:

UH OH: Did The Government Cause The Gulf Oil Spill? “A new report by the Center for Public Integrity, based on testimony from people on scene and Coast Guard logs..."

The White House isn’t talking about this.

To recap, the BP spill was no big deal -- scandalously caused by the Obama Administration!

We blog writers like to think of our work as conversations with the reader, but some of us are the guy in the filthy parka having his conversation at the top of his lungs on a streetcorner.

PLEASING THE AFFILIATES. I see we sometimes have a Fred Thompson ad here at alicublog (example, far left). Always happy to take their money, but we can always run our own versions. If you have other punchlines, please leave them in comments.



UPDATE. Aw, thanks commenters, partic Whitstone ("What did I know, and when did I know it?"), cleter ("Sea monkeys ain't primates, son"), willf ("Maaatlock!"), Travis G. ("Y'ever watch an old man eat soup?"), and Halloween Jack ("You ain't never caught a rabbit, and you ain't no friend of mine"). But go look, they're all winners.

HOW COME THEY CAN SAY N****R AND WE CAN'T? PART INFINITY. President Obama, who has previously referred to himself as a "mutt" because of his mixed racial heritage, referred to both black and white folks as a "mongrel people" on The View today. It's the sort of End of Race thing that normally passes without incident.

But here it was uttered by ObamaHitler the Racist, so skreeeee!

On the View, off script, off teleprompter, Barack Obama declared blacks a mongrel race. He will be fitted for a pointy sheet later today.

Can you imagine the uproar if any white guy had called Black Americans MONGRELS? The libs would be blowing the roof off the sky, that’s how bad it would be... Anyhow, just amember that it wasn’t The Self Defense Guy who called Black Americans mongrels, it was President Barry hisself. [dips snuff, pulls on jug]

What was he thinking?!? I mean, was he channeling Robert Byrd or Harry Trumann or something? That statement reads as if it were a press release from the KKK! Can you imagine the mess I'd be in if blah blah blah...

Of course, if I had called Obama a mongrel on this site, a bunch of assholes would have called me a racist. I hadn't thought to do so before, but I will be referring to him as the Mongrel in Chief from here on in. So much better than Sea Monkey.

There's already plenty of them, mostly to the effect of ooh, ah'd get in a heap o'trouble if'n ah was to say thet 'bout one o' them "African-Americans"!

As these comments show, of all the enormous advantages these people imagine black folks have over white folks in this country, the one that seems to madden them most is the freedom to speak frankly about race, of which they imagine they have been deprived by the New Black Panthers or something. Of course, no one's stopping them from saying boo, but they aren't just satisfied with the right to say whatever they want about it -- they want to be approved of and taken seriously, and have their stories of white oppression made into stirring TV movies.

And they can, of course, enjoy this validation in the select klavans of Rightblogger World. Call it a virtual Dixie! Hopefully they will restrict themselves to such self-selecting communities, and leave the rest of us free to move forward.

UPDATE. Oh, for... Doctor of Chiropractic Melissa Clouthier:

Yes, most Americans are racially mixed people. Most of us do not refer to ourselves as mongrel. In addition, many Americans enjoy going into their history and know their geneology. This is an American activity not exclusively the provenance of black mongrels.

I think she meant to write "province," but got so excited by the excuse to say "black mongrels" she got confused.

Man. What is wrong with out President?

Out President? You mean he's gay too? It's worse than we thought!

Clouthier also essays a volley of non-sequiturs at Amanda Marcotte, which is like trying to take out Wonder Woman with Jello cubes.

THE RETURN OF THE SPERM DONOR MENACE! Back in May the folks at Family Scholars opened what appeared to be a brave new front in their usual war against gay marriage: Alerting their constituents to the menace of sperm donation. As detailed here, they found a young woman sired by a sperm donor who was mad that marriage-deprived gay people got to claim victim status while she, who had suffered the stigma of turkey-baster parentage, had neither fund-raisers nor pride parades of her own.

I doubted this risible schtick would lead to anything, but apparently Family Scholars are still working it. And in furtherance of it, they're even pretending to be open to same-sex marriage. That's how big a deal this is!

Family Scholars has a "My Daddy's Name is Donor" tag under which they file extensive complaining on the subject ("he’s not just a sperm donor, he’s my father"). Though Family Scholars has traditionally been hostile to gay marriage (because Won't Someone Please Think of the Children), at least one anti-sperm spokesperson says she's open to a parlay with the marriage equality people.

"I do believe it’s possible to have two mothers, or two fathers," says Elizabeth Marquardt in the craftily-titled "The Compromise I Think I Could Accept," "...But I do NOT believe that having two mothers means you do not also have a father out there, somewhere." So states that made it possible for fatherless victims of donation to harass their donor-daddies might get a prize from Elizabeth Marquardt:

That is, jurisdictions that ban anonymous donation of sperm, eggs, and wombs -- and with it, the erroneous idea that children are just made from random gametes and don’t care where they come from -- could also institute legal same sex marriage.

Generous of her, ain't it? But Marquardt's follow-up suggests she was just toying. Among her added reservations: "I worry that the next step will be recognizing poly arrangements and group parenting rights." Experience shows that once they start talking like that, there's no dealing with them.

But though the deal between them and their imaginary gay friends seems to be off, Family Scholars is still standing athwart the tidal wave of donor jism, crying "Glub!" They currently seek publicity with anti-donor glosses on the new film The Kids Are All Right, which involves a sperm donor whose contribution has enabled a lesbian couple to have a kid. Marquardt takes to Opus Dei stroke book First Things to explain that "The Kids Are Not All Right." (They must not pay editors very much at First Things; I'd have gone with "Dykes Do Cum Shots, Kids Get Hangover" or something like that.)

The movie, she allows, is OK as a movie -- it's "rich on particulars and complexity," by which Marquardt means the lesbians have some faults. But not enough, alas; nor do they drop down a trap door into hell at the end like Don Juan, nor repent and promise to accept cock as the only legitimate conveyance of love juice. So Marquardt decides that "despite the attempts at realism, the movie is a fantasy," and devotes the rest of her review to the sorrows of fatherless beaker babies:

And what about those whose sperm donors have no interest in being fathers? In the COLAGE guide, one young woman says, “My donor doesn’t seem to be particularly into the whole father thing with me, and it caused me quite a bit of pain trying to get him to be.” Another says: “I grew up having certain expectation of what roles my [sperm donor] . . . would play in my life and when [he] didn’t fulfill those expectations, I was hurt.”

I would like to be more sympathetic toward them, but I lost my father quite young, and would be embarrassed to go about in public as a grown man blubbering about it, let alone blaming it on science. And though I tend to be pessimistic on the subject, I would say that if the anti-gay-marriage team is reduced to tugging at heartstrings with adults who weep because some guy who jerked off into a cup with their mommy's name on it 20 years ago won't take them fishing, they can't be doing very well.

OUR SICK SOCIETY, BY O.J. SIMPSON. The latest National Review guy to write a book about how Obama is HitlerStalin is Stanley Kurtz. He begins his sales pitch by implying that he's been sequestered in a secret underground lab lest his enemies meddle with his death-ray:

Given my various adventures during the last presidential campaign, it seemed best to remain discreet until now. The goal has been to minimize any possible interference with my research, which has proceeded non-stop since 2008.

By "adventures" he seems to mean "delusions," in this case that anyone gives a shit about Bill Ayers anymore. At this point if Kurtz revealed that Obama and Ayers toured the provinces singing "Fit As a Fiddle and Ready for Love" no one would care except the people who scream every time Obama has a scheduling conflict.

Kurtz' spiel for Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism is all about the CoC's socialism: "RADICAL-IN-CHIEF marshals a wide array of never-before-seen evidence to establish that the president of the United States is indeed a socialist... the book confirms that the president’s harshest critics have been right about his socialism all along."

I will reserve judgement, as I haven't read it. But this is the strongest example of consider-the-source I've seen in a while.

Kurtz has proposed destroying Social Security so that families will be forced to put young'uns to work and keep aged, infirm grandparents at home, thereby promoting strong family life.

When San Francisco prevented military recruiters from working their high schools, Kurtz proposed that Congress pass a "resolution of censure" against San Francisco.

He said that conservatives couldn't be blamed for ignoring bad news from Iraq because "conservative distrust of the media’s very real bias has inclined us to dismiss reports about problems in Iraq that are real. In the end, I think the media bears fundamental responsibility for this."

Kurtz has said that Hollywood studios are uninterested in making money, preferring to fritter away their billions on radicalizing youth, which surely would be news to Tinseltown trade-readers. In fact, Kurtz thinks country music has also been infiltrated by Reds ("the cultural left has decided to use CMT to try to proselytize the South"). And don't get him started about hip-hop:

Perhaps most interesting of all, rap has been taken up by many of Europe’s discontented Muslim youth. Their infatuation with hip hop is a sign of Europe’s broader failure to assimilate Muslim immigrants to mature democratic mores, again because of a multiculturalist sensibility parallel to the one that emerged at Cornell nearly forty years ago.

On sex, Kurtz has described "conversion from liberal to conservative politics" as "the ultimate aphrodisiac," and says "the most potentially stable form of multi-partner union" is "a man and two bisexual women. That union does reduce jealously, and also points to the potentially powerful bisexual constituency for multi-partner unions."

The idea of Kurtz writing about anyone else's "radical" ideas is rich like Coffee-mate.

UPDATE. Thanks, bgn. for typo alert.

I HAVE HERE IN MY HAND...In addition to going on and on about the now discontinued Journolist, the wingnuts have taken to publishing alleged lists of participants.

I am alerted to this by Foster Kamer back at the old firm, who has been named as part of the conspiracy. Foster, basically a media reporter, is politically astute, especially considering that he is not yet old enough to shave, but he has about as much business on such a list as Dave Barry. (It might make sense if they needed a dick joke consultant, but any liberal worth the name should able to come up with dick jokes on demand.)

Also, Kamer says he was never on Journolist. So does fellow nominee Cenk Uygur.

I know some names that should be on that list and are not. I am making this public now because I could use the publicity of an appearance before a Congressional committee as a hostile witness.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, about the maddening Shirley Sherrod case, and how the rightbloggers have essentially taken the position that the least culpable party is the guy who put up the doctored tape. It's as if someone framed a blameless citizen for murder, but no one cares about that, and everyone instead focuses on the gendarmes who briefly detained the wrong man.

There are so many little niggling schticks being used in this case -- many of the "I don't spell my name with an 'e,' your argument is invalid" variety -- that I couldn't use many of them. One of my favorite outtakes is Big Government's Jeff Dunetz, who didn't see why the NAACP's Ben Jealous was so huffy about the misleading tape: "Mr. Jealous had access to the entire tape," sniffed Dunetz, "but he never bothered to look at it before he blasted Ms Sherrod." And this guy is from Breitbart's own site! You at least have to admire his nerve.

Also all balls at Big Government, Alexander Marlow, who says, "to not see Sherrod on television Sunday morning sends a clear signal the mainstream media no longer feels allowing the public to get to know the real Shirley Sherrod advances their agenda." I guess they were afraid she'd lose control and start screaming about Whitey.