All of a sudden someone you love to hate deserves what they get because of her beliefs and not your own warped interpretation of the law as the Nanny State sees it?

If you insist on a particularly high level of morality and law - and severe punishments for transgression of those codes - that must apply toward others, then others expect you to abide by that code once you or your compatriots are also caught transgressing. If you insist that a 17-year-old sending nude images of herself to others is a crime, then it is a crime when your favored 17-year-olds do it as well. We would be hypocrites if we were any different.

For example: downloading and viewing the aforementioned Prejean tape is a federal sex crime and likely violates your state laws as well. If you are caught, you will likely have to register for life as a sex offender. While I oppose such egregious laws, as long as it is on the books at the insistence of frantic moralists, then I will insist it be applied equally to all offenders. Does this make me a hypocrite? Not at all: it makes me a law-abiding citizen. I'm not a hypocrite for insisting that all people be treated equally.

Y'see, a *liberal* moral code allows for simple failings of character (especially with regard to "youthful indiscretions") like this. Everyone makes mistakes, according to liberal moral codes, and so any punishment for mistakes must be decided in proportion to those mistakes. A liberal moral code frees society from the confinement of moral hypocrisy; when the punishment fits the crime, there is far less room for unfairness and inequity to permeate the judicial process. Rigid sentencing inevitably means that some relatively innocent idiot like Prejean will receive the same punishment accorded to a violent serial rapist. There is little room for subjective considerations in the judicial processes of high moralists.

It is something you high moralists never seem to understand: that the high morality you insist apply to all others must by necessity apply also to you and yours. It often amazes me that, knowing what skeletons they have in their own closets, these high-dudgeon moralists still call for egregious punishments for what amount to minor transgressions. Even just a cursory study of history would provide enough examples of this incongruity to give any sensible moralist pause. (Of course, maybe there are no sensible moralists...)

Prejean made one intelligent observation from this incident: "Nothing is private." Whatever you did or do, you can get caught, and if you make a big stink about your own righteousness, in this vindictive society, you WILL be caught and you WILL be punished. Prejean's entire miserable career as a pageant princess evinces this clearly.

Maybe this lesson will sink into her goddam thick self-righteous skull now. Maybe now she will understand that to be a moral crusader, you either need to be impeccable or honest. She is clearly neither, and odds are, given her current behavior (as well as the enabling of her mendacity by hordes of paranoid moralists), she will continue to blame others for her failings, and will fail to engage in the sort of self-examination that any truly good and moral person would do at this point.

What's the difference between this lone Muslim nut allegedly murdering for religious and political reasons and the lone Christian nut murdering people for religious and political reasons?

There is no difference. America breeds murderers and terrorists just like any other nation whose citizenry is wracked by poverty and economic uncertainty, and dominated by a ruling class whose indifference to their suffering.

'Nuff said.

It's politics as theater. Everyone is invited to watch, but only the Chosen Few are allowed to play.

Is everyone in America becoming a jingoistic, reactionary, ignorance-fueled, opinionated but ignorant jerk?

"We all have spouses; we all have kids. So what?" Well, no: we don't ALL have spouses or kids. But those who are engaged in this allegedly most-important-of-life's-activities might be better served by introspective parents who pass along their observations and thoughts in an attempt to stimulate other parents toward thinking and observing. I mean, most of you endlessly-bitching breeders complain about having so little time, one would think you'd invite someone with more tie to ponder these things.

Jack London? Are you fucking kidding me? Hilariously, I encounter a lot of blowhards who point to Jack London's greatness, usually while insulting an author they have not read. Listen, dipshit: all that does is show me you haven't read a goddam thing since you were 14. Those of us who were enamored of London in our youth grew up to read Vollmann, among others.

But best of all, mostly for the delicious irony: a bunch of opining anonymous letter writers, suggesting that "no one cares" about what a best-selling, prize-winning author thinks. Whoo! That's rich.

The best thing Michael says, and something all of you should note (and likely the very think that pricked your childish ires): "I seem every day to give a little less of a fuck what people think or say about me," he confides.

He carries a "purse." He writes about his family. He puts his thoughts on paper. Clearly, this makes him an enemy of those who wish to wallow in defiant ignorance, or an annoyance to those who don't want their own pointless navel-gazing to be interrupted.

AND: he doesn't give a shit what you (or I) think about him.

Yes, my friends: that is a Man, a Human Being, a Person of Character and Strong Will (not to mention a ton of talent), someone who is certain of himself and not afraid to demonstrate. Most of you weak-minded parroting fools seem to have forgotten what that looks like.

Good for you! A victory for hysterical outrage, a setback for reasonable debate! Sure you must be quite proud of yourself. Unlike Polanski, you've been able to exploit the misery of another woman for your own personal profit! Commendable! Good American!