Historian Robert Darton wrote an essay a long time ago about a joke with a punchline about the massacre of hundreds of cats told in 16th century France. He explained that if we can figure out why the group (15th century French laborers or 21st century right wingers) found the joke funny then we can unpack the ideology of the group. The joke and its laughter are a widow into the group mind.

So, why did they laugh at Coulter’s comment? I still don’t get it. The fact that they’re a hateful movement and it was a hateful comment explains some of it. Was there some deeper back story? What was with the rehab comment? In other words, how did the comment make sense to its intended listeners?

[Jojo – I totally agree that Coulter’s comment was about gender roles. A man can sleep with women exclusively, but he’s still a “fag” if he’s insufficiently masculine. I think it’s appropriate to talk about a person’s ideas about masculinity and femininity as an “ideology,” especially if you believe (like I do) that there are no natural gender roles.]

She also said this at the same event:

“I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way -- no, they are.”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703030002

Does anyone know what she was responding to with “-- no, they are.” More uproarious laughter, I imagine. Gays are physically attacked for being gay. What could be more hilarious?

Glenn,

I'm wondering if you have any comments on the attack ad airing on New Mexico radio that smears Iglesias. Just when I think they've reached a new low . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/new-mexico-swift-boats-by-digby-well-it.html

In many ways, it doesn’t matter if they ever produce the source for this information or follow up on the original story. The story works in the same way that last year’s “Iran is making the Jews wear yellow stars” story worked. It didn’t matter that it was quickly debunked – it temporarily fueled hate just fine, and it got into circulation. Now we have a doomsday date – 2009 – which is going to be the new shorthand for the supposed Iranian threat. 2009 2009 2009 2009

Joan – Great post. I haven’t seen this discussed yet, but I think it’s worthwhile to ponder the precise type of racism that we’re now seeing in the “VT students are wimps” rhetoric. I think it’s a perfect illustration of how racism and sexism often work together & reinforce one another. Anyway, I think what's motivating the macho (and sickening) posturing of Malkin, Derbyshire, Steyn et. al. is a form of racism that see all Asian men as versions of Long Duck Dong – the nerdy Asian stereotype from the movie “Sixteen Candles.” I think what they’re *really* saying is "I can't believe they let a wimpy Asian cause so much trouble! Real men [i.e. white men] would never be bested by a weak & subservient Asian!" Would the rhetoric be different if the shooter were a white frat boy? I don’t know, but I have a strong sense that we’d see less of this *form* of victim blaming.

Yes, he's making that phrase do a lot of heavy lifting today.

Is anyone else frustrated by C-SPAN cutting to House votes? Like, I'm really not interested in HR1905 right now. It's like I'm watching March Madness basketball and they're cutting away from my favorite team to show me footage of a game I could care less about.

It was especially good to see Feingold called him out on his self-serving & dishonest USA Today op-ed. From what I saw, many of the senators were rightly hammering him on the double bind of “1) you either knew what was going on in your department or 2) you are completely incompetent.” Feingold addressed this particularly well, and did so in a way that forced Gonzales, in the space of a few seconds, to take complete credit for the decision and to disavow it completely:

FEINGOLD: How about when the final decisions were made at any time prior to November 27th, 2006, when you approved the firings? Were you given or did you request a written memo or report giving the justifications for each of the decisions?

GONZALES: Senator, I don't recall that occurring. Again, what I recall is Mr. Sampson presenting to me a recommendation which I understood to be the consensus recommendation of senior officials of the department.

FEINGOLD: In light of the fact that you had so little to do with the decisions, and made so little effort to understand...

GONZALES: I had everything to do with the decision. It was my decision.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/04/20070419.htm

Shooter: None of whose business? Georgia Thompson? It’s “the business” of citizens to ensure that the Justice Department’s principles of justice and fairness are not compromised by naked political considerations. To quote Feingold: “Can you understand why many citizens of my state, as they see this U.S. attorney scandal widen, are now questioning whether the U.S. attorney in Milwaukee could have possibly brought the Thompson case for political reasons?”

Your comparison to a Senator submitting legislation doesn’t work. It's not responsive to the fundamental contradiction between Gonzales’ story and Sampson’s. To use your comparison, it would be like a Senator saying “I have no idea who *came up with* the legislation I have just submitted” and the aide saying “the Senator had meetings about the bill and discussed the bill.” Also, this isn’t like “HR1099 Amendment 3A to the Forest Improvement Act” – this was an unprecedented purge, a major set of decisions, and he should have been deeply involved (or at least deeply *aware*). And if he wasn’t, then that’s a massive failure of leadership.