Author: Andrew Sullivan

The Southern Poverty Law Center is particularly appalled by the vile rhetoric of Peter Sprigg. But this may be the bottom line:

The SPLC designation of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group potentially poses a challenge for Republicans. Though many conservatives view the SPLC as a progressive group and therefore no more worthy of respect than, say, ACORN, the SPLC hate group label will almost undoubtedly make it into press reports about future events like the Values Voter Summit. That means Republican presidential hopefuls who may want to reach out to gay and lesbian Republican groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud — which can be good sources of fundraising as well as "I'm not anti-gay" cred on the campaign trail — may have to explain why they publicly praised and rushed to address a group that SPLC is calling one of the worst perpetrators of ugly myths about gays.

Tom DeLay gets his jury verdict:

Prosecutors presented a mountain of circumstantial evidence — emails, telephone records, calendars, brochures and other documents — trying to persuade jurors that Mr. DeLay played a leading role in the plan and intended to break the Texas election law from the moment his political operatives solicited the donations.

But the lead defense attorney, Dick DeGuerin, maintained the money swap was legal and a common practice. He also presented evidence to distance Mr. DeLay from the actions of his political operatives, arguing that while Mr. Ellis told Mr. DeLay about the transaction, Mr. DeLay never gave his approval.

Judge Pat Priest has wide discretion in sentencing the former majority leader, who was known as “The Hammer” for his no-holds-barred style during 20 years in the House of Representatives. Mr. Delay could be sentenced from 2 years to 20 years in prison for the conspiracy count, and from 5 years to 99 years, or life in prison, for the money-laundering count.

No contest. A little insight into how American foreign policy is sometimes decided in the Middle East. Israel gets what Israel wants.

Decision tree here. This is genius:

Obama Outlines Moral, Philosophical Justifications For Turkey Pardon

Joel Wing updates us:

Iraq’s politicians have already taken eight months to just reach a power sharing agreement, and can be expected to take several more before a cabinet is finally formed. In total, it could be almost a year before Maliki has a new government put together. The whole ordeal has taken so long because of the many divisions amongst Iraq’s parties. There were disagreements amongst the Shiite lists over Maliki’s return to power. Allawi remains bitter that he was not named to form a new coalition, and still may walk away while other members of his National Movement take up new jobs. In the end though, the new regime will look and act a lot like the old one. The most important positions will be divided along ethnosectarian lines, and because so many parties are involved there will be little consensus to do much of anything about the major problems the country faces.

Apart from that, freedom is on the march!

Another day of glory for the UN.

"There's no subject on which Richard Cohen is not completely inessential. The looming debt crisis? Caused by kids today and their tattoos and hippety-hop music! The financial collapse? Did you know that Richard Cohen went to high school with Ruth Madoff? 'Cause that's all he's got. Richard Cohen is the worst hack in the country," – Alex Pareene, making more friends in high places, and finishing off his hackiest hack list.

Greenwald rubs it in, with this classic quote from Cohen from 2003:

This is where Colin Powell brought us all yesterday. The evidence he presented to the United Nations — some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail — had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.

On this, I should add, I have not a leg to stand on.

A reader writes:

I understand the point Mark Peters is trying to make, but in doing so he compares "gay" to "lame." Does he realize that the supposedly neutral word he's trying to compare "gay" to is a pejorative for people with disabilities?

Instinctively, we want to defend the incumbent pejoratives we grew up with and that don't affect us ("it's not about people with disabilities; horses can be lame too!"), but is there any qualitative difference between calling something "lame" or calling it "retarded" or "gay?" Do you think people with mobility impairments like the word "lame" in that sense any more than gay people like "gay?"

Another writes:

While helping my grandmother clean out some old boxes, I came across an old booklet called "How to improve your vocabulary" made by the Home Service Newark Star-Eagle, which went out of business in 1939. I would love to share with you the section "Objectionable Slang Expressions"

And how!
kid for a child or to tease
for crying out loud
nutty and nerts
invite for invitation
inside dope
bamboozle
gink
guy
pinched by the cop
bird for man
all wet
ain't it fierce?
nix on the rough stuff
applesauce
bean for head
scram
boy friend
nifty or snappy dresser
dago
dump for house
cussed
guts
gutter rat
tux for tuxedo or dinner-jacket
soup-and-fish for a man's formal dress
skirt and dame for girl or woman
gent

And my favorite sentence from the section: "The application of swell to anything from a ham sandwich to a symphony concert, though countenanced by many, is a practice to be discouraged."

Choire Sicha explains: we all have to make the same mistakes on the web, sequentially.