Snowflake du Jour

None other than former governor and current trumpanzee Mike Huckabee, whose knickers are twisted because someone said mean things about him:

When a persistent critic, a lawyer on the public side of the beach access battle, tweeted back with sarcasm and humor, Huckabee tried to silence him by filing a formal complaint with the Florida Bar. The complaint should be tossed out as a sham and an abuse of the system of disciplining lawyers.

In his Bar complaint, Huckabee accuses lawyer Daniel Uhlfelder of “vile and unprofessional attacks” and “repeatedly posting disparaging information about me,” which Huckabee claims violate Bar rules on integrity of the legal profession. Huckabee argues that the Bar is the right forum because the lawyer’s Twitter profile mentions his law practice.

The one that really got Huckabee's goat:

In his bar complaint, Huckabee accuses Uhlfelder, who has a mere 422 Twitter followers, of disparagement. The complaint points to a tweet in which Uhlfelder joked that Huckabee’s Secret Service code name should be “beach thief.” “He accused me of theft, a crime of moral turpitude,” Huckabee’s complaint reads.

Well, if anyone should know "moral turpitude," it's Mike Huckabee, whose son tortures animals for fun and whose daughter is a professional liar.

This is just another variation on a relatively new tactic of "convervatives": use the courts (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) to harass people you disagree with. And interestingly enough, although the "offensive" tweets happened months ago, Huckabee filed his complaint shortly after Uhlfelder retweeted photographs showing him in the company of two of Rudy Giuliani's pals, currently under indictment, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Of course, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the timing of the complaint. Yeah, right.

And here's the capper (turn off your irony meter):

As for Huckabee, he’s on Twitter promoting a new documentary entitled No Safe Spaces, which features two conservative radio talk show personalities in an examination of restrictions on free speech on college campuses. Without a hint of irony, Huckabee tweeted: “The 1st Amendment right of Free Speech is precious, but it hangs by a thread.”

Via Joe.My.God., who has these articles and more, including some very pointed editorial cartoons and a link to a delightfully snarky opinion piece. I do recommend reading the whole thing and following the links. If nothing else, it will give you a good take on just how petty and vindictive "conservatives" are these days.

Today's Must-Read: Snowflake Edition

Digby has an interesting post on politicians being accosted in public places by -- well, the public -- and the reactions from, of all people, journalists:

This past weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was yelled at in a Louisville restaurant while sitting with his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. A man approached their table and angrily told they should leave the country. When other patrons spoke up and told him to leave them alone he shouted, "They're coming for Social Security!" (This happens to be true. McConnell told CNBC just last week that the only solution for the massive deficit caused by his massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy is to cut "entitlements.")

There have been several similar incidents. Protesters and constituents have approached Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen in public places, giving them hell over policies and practices.

Of all the people in our public life to get angry about this, the last you'd expect would be members of the media, who are being demonized by the president and these very same politicians. But some of them are quite upset and have taken to social media to scold citizens for addressing their leaders in this way[.] . . .

These are all fine reporters but they are on the wrong track. The same First Amendment that protects them from the authoritarian impulses of a politician like Donald Trump also protects these citizens' free speech and right to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I find it absolutely astonishing that reporters, the media, would come out defending politicians who support a president who, among other things, has praised a congressman for physically attacking a reporter. And hacks like McConnell, Cruz, and Sanders are themselves part of the rot that's infested our government -- they certainly don't deserve much in the way of deference.

I guess it's true, what they say about the Villagers -- they're not even sure anything exists outside of Washington cocktail parties. I have news for them: democracy is not always well-behaved.

Snowflake du Jour: Tomi Lahren

She really is one of the stupidest people using up air time:

“Because it’s going to get worse,” Lahren warned. “The final stages of Trump derangement syndrome are not just heckling and harassment. There are going to be physical confrontations. And I truly don’t believe that’s what the Democratic Party wants for conservatives, for us to be attacked. But they need to make that very clear.”

“Because until then, there are many of their followers and supporters who do think it’s okay to do these things,” she insisted. “They think it’s their right and their duty. And that’s dangerous.”

It is their right.

Snowflake du Jour

But of course:

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders is expected to receive Secret Service protection as soon as Wednesday, two sources familiar with the decision tell CNN, but they did not specify how long it will last.

The Secret Service declined to comment, telling CNN: "For operational security purposes the Secret Service does not comment on its protective operations."

The news comes days after Sanders was asked to leave a small Lexington, Virginia, restaurant because of her role with the Trump administration, a move that has since sparked a national conversation on civility and public service in the age of Trump.

Here's the best part:

"I was asked to leave because I worked for President Trump," she said, adding, "We are allowed to disagree but we should be able to do so freely and without fear of harm, and this goes for all people regardless of politics."

From a woman whose boss has called for journalists (among others) to be physically attacked, and who has herself called reporters stupid. Hypocrisy, thy name is Legion.

Via Joe.My.God.

And from commenter Doug105 at that post:

 

A reply to that from commenter Paul in Leesburg says that rather than "campaign rallies" they should be called "Nuremberg-style rallies." Works for me.

But Ya Are, Blanche!

You are a bunch of bigots:

The Catholic Church has demanded an apology from the BBC over a video that referenced the impact of religious homophobia from a “Bible basher.”

BBC Scotland’s The Social project released a powerful spoken word video earlier this month exploring what homophobia feels like in 2018.

The video, which has attracted millions of views on social media, is a first-person account of a man grappling the fear of casual homophobia from strangers while walking with his boyfriend. . . .

Addressing the anti-gay preacher he adds: “See him? He thinks it’s faith but under all that din it tastes like cardboard and it smells like hate.”

So of course, it's an attack on the Catholic Church:

Bishop John Keenan of Paisley has written to the Director of BBC Scotland to demand an apology for the video, which he claims “sanctions the idea that Catholics engender public hated of homosexuals.”

Well, the hierarchy do. The laity, at least in America, not so much. I don't know if Catholics in the UK have the same tendency to ignore the pronouncements of the bishops that American Catholics do, but I wouldn't be surprised.

As for that "public hatred" bit, a spot check on the Church's teaching:

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the Church's teaching on homosexuality as follows:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

(Emphasis added.)

That doesn't sound much like acceptance to me.

Keenan goes on:

Keenan added: “In the current climate of growing hostility to Catholics I would appeal that the BBC guard against adding fuel to the fire. In that regard I would ask that the Corporation now reach out to Catholics to understand their concerns, that they are being portrayed in a prejudicial way.

“When it comes to important public debates about the wellbeing of the human person and the truth and meaning of human sexuality Catholics feel their views are becoming increasingly marginalised, almost criminalised’ by a narrative in BBC news, comment, arts and elsewhere that amounts to ‘LGBT views good, Catholic views bad,’ an assumption which you must know is simplistic and imposed, and which is not strengthened by longitudinal research.

If the views of the Church on human sexuality are becoming marginalized, perhaps it's because they are totally out of line with reality. And the "longitudinal research" comment is nonsense -- seriously, what does that even mean? "Longitudinal research" on what? Every bit of research that's been done on homosexuality has confirmed that a) it's a perfectly normal variation in sexuality, and b) the overwhelming majority of the difficulties that gay men and lesbians experience comes from things such as the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If the Church wants apologies, how about it start by apologizing to all the gay people whose lives it has ruined?

Here's the video. If you haven't seen it, it's worth watching. And for those who have trouble with heavy Scottish accents, it's subtitled:

Today in Projection, Snowflake Edition

This jerk, who thinks his sincerely held religious beliefs allow him to demonize minorities without consequences:

Last week I reported that Oklahoma Wesleyan president Everett Piper had penned a column in which he compares gays to ISIS. Today Piper is very unhappy about people calling him out on that.

So much for inclusion. So much for acceptance. So much for pluralism. So much for claiming that “it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it works for you!” So much for love. So much for respecting those from different cultures who have different views and different values.

I wonder if he would have dared to make the same comparison with, say, the NAACP.

I Don't Think That Means What You Think It Means

In this case, I'm talking about the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Now, those of us who did not sleep through civics class in high school all understand that the First Amendment specifically bars the government from infringing on freedom of speech -- i.e., no government censorship allowed (within certain limits). However, the right wing is more than happy to cite "freedom of speech" in any and all circumstances, as witness this little tirade from Monica Cole of One Million Moms:

The NFL has told the nation’s largest veterans service organization, American Vets, its patriotic ad that encourages people to stand for the American flag and national anthem will not be tolerated. AMVETS had been solicited by the NFL to place an ad in the Super Bowl LII program. When the submitted advertisement included a two-word message, “#PleaseStand”, the NFL suddenly threw the penalty flag at veterans and gave the game ball to Team Censorship.

“It’s a simple, polite request that represents the sentiment of our membership, particularly those whose missing or paralyzed limbs preclude standing,” National Commander Marion Polk wrote in a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. “Freedom of speech works both ways. We respect the rights of those who choose to protest, as these rights are precisely what our members have fought – and in many cases died – for,” Polk added in the letter. “But imposing corporate censorship to deny that same right to those veterans who have secured it for us all is reprehensible and totally beyond the pale.”

I don't quite how to break it to National Commander Polk, but the NFL is not the government. It's a private organization -- you know, like the Boy Scouts, who were allowed to discriminate against gay scouts because they were a private organization.

As it happens, the NFL has a good, rational reason for not accepting the ad:

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told the Army Times that the advertisement program “is designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, teams, and the Super Bowl.” McCarthy added, “It’s never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement.”

Of course, there's the requisite whining from AmVets:

The AMVETS chief noted the irony that the NFL continues to claim that the anti-American protests by millionaire players on the field represent “free speech” even as the league denies free speech to AMVETS.

One, that's entirely up to the NFL. Two, if you want to demonstrate your "patriotism" at a football game, stand up for the national anthem.

There -- wasn't that easy?