The Dish

I hear Hannity and Zahn are welcoming her tonight.

A reader writes:

It is interesting that Mohler first acknowledges that the development of tests for in-utero gayness and any subsequent "cures" for such a condition "would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America," but then ignores this salient point by advocating for the potential "treatment" anyway. It seems clear that since one of the main intellectual legs of the Pro-Life movement is the personhood of fetuses, any attempt to alter a fetus’ genetic makeup without its consent is wrong in the same way that they claim abortion is wrong. It’s a moral conundrum for those Pro-Lifers who continue to view homosexuality as an "objective disorder." 

I expect those who traditionally stand upon their values, such as the Catholic church hierarchy, to oppose this type of process, whereas the moralizing opportunists that are Christianist leaders would likely welcome this type of procedure with open arms, saying something along the lines of "it’s not as bad as abortion and we prevent the birth of another fundamentally sinful person."

The Catholic hierarchy is not as hostile to gay people as the Protestant Christianists. But it still seems extraordinary to me that a leading figure like Mohler can talk of genetically engineering fetuses to prevent homosexuality. Would he favor genetically altering fetuses to remove other genetic markers? Dark skin? Or the instinct for self-defense which could lead to murder? Or genetic markers for envy or greed? The Christian answer to sin, if that’s what Mohler believes being gay is about, used to be the grace of God. It’s instructive to watch a professed Christian go for eugenics instead.

New York magazine smells blood in the water. Money quote from newish editor, Rick Stengel:

"At the moment, none of us are happy. It’s more fun when you’re in an era of plenty rather than an era of scarcity, when you’re starting magazines."

I just got an email from the American Conservative Union. They won’t say if they’ll disinvite Coulter from CPAC next year. They won’t actually condemn Coulter’s speech. Money quote:

ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not. "Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech," said David A. Keene, ACU Chairman.

Does that mean he believes her speech was "hate-speech"? Why can he not just say so and disinvite her in the future? The answer: because the base would explode. Coulter is central to a core element of the conservative movement today. And Keene can’t risk taking her on.

Some conservative blogs fight back:

It’s something you apply to columnists and the homophobia just rises to the surface.

It’s small, it’s very, very Republican, and it has dumped Coulter.

Blogger, please.

You knew this was coming, didn’t you? Mickey continues his radio silence on his email from Coulter.

As the Democrats come closer to holding real power in Washington, the threat of unions to economic growth – and to individual liberty – is concentrating a few minds. Jane Galt is on the case, making an argument for secret ballots before unions are formed. What a concept! The usual leftists oppose such essential aspects of liberal democracy. But some of us come from countries where unions once ran affairs. And we remember what damage unions can do, and what bullies they often are.