Prejean is now acting as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is led by Maggie Gallagher, who has been defending Prejean from "tolerant types" since Boobiegate broke. Gallagher and I exchanged words in the lead-up to November's gay marriage referendums after I wrote something obnoxious about her at reason.com's Hit & Run blog. The exchange ended with Gallagher writing in an email, "It's nice to know you are just as intensely offensive to a person's face as as you are in print.  The voices of tolerance tend to be like that."

Which got me wondering: Since when did tolerance become ammunition for the right?

After all, tolerance in the public sphere was conceived as a way to prevent persecution of religious minorities (one recent example: anti-Semitism in the modern Muslim world). Christians are not a religious minority in the United States, and calling Prejean, Gallagher, and others nasty names isn't persecution--especially not on the grand scale of physical violence and economic duress that religious minorities continue to experience in nearly every country but the U.S.

Perhaps after watching academic leftists misuse "tolerance" to enact campus speech codes and pathologize conservative thought in the humanities and the social sciences, social conservatives felt justified turning the concept on its head to quiet those same leftists when they attacked Christians for arguing against gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. As a result, Prejean's original pronouncement (whether because it was solicited or simply by the magic of conservative thinking) was neither tolerant nor intolerant--essentially a pure, value-free expression of belief--but anyone who criticized her beliefs was labeled both tolerant (pro-gay) and intolerant (derisive toward dissenters)--i.e., a hypocrite. (I tip my hat to the social conservatives on this one. Gallagher and NOM are infuriatingly calm, if a little melodramatic. They seldom stray from their core message, except to chide tolerant liberals for being intolerant, and they picked a fantastic acronym for their organization.)

And yet, nobody has fire-bombed Carrie Prejean's house or NOM's headquarters. There has been no coordinated pogrom against members of the GLBT community in the wake of gay-marriage victories in Maine, Iowa, D.C., and other states. Even our accusations of intolerance are incredibly tolerant--we're making them in social forums.

Both sides, then, should forget about tolerating the other if it means diluting public discourse with hollow niceties. Social engineering, by its very nature, is an ugly business. Liberals shouldn't be reasonable, sensible, or amicable, because homophobia and theocracy are not reasonable, sensible, or amicable concepts. Nor should social conservatives stand by while apostates, heretics, and nonbelievers adulterate God's Happy Family formula.

Tolerance leads to obfuscation, double-talk, statistical manipulation, and outright omission--so let's keep this discussion hostile.

• Dave McKenna incited a quiet riot on Monday by asking, "Did Anybody Go to the Phish Reunion?" Phish fans, many endowed with a LSD-inspired sixth sense, flocked to the comments board. The exchange was nowhere near as trippy as the culture war going on over at the Sexist, or as revolting as the average Twilight attack, still, I was mucho impressed to see the school of stone-washed stoners band together in defense of Trey "Is this thing on?" Anastasio.
• Speaking of getting stoned: "Police said Monday they confiscated about $1.2 million in illegal drugs and more than $68,000 in cash...Authorities also arrested 194 Phish fans during the three-night celebration of the band's return to the stage after a nearly five-year absence." That's the gut of an AP article about the Phish reunion concert. Let me sum it up in a different way: Laid back folk got together to listen to some laid back tunes, and the cops ROBBED THE SHIT OUT OF THEM. For those of you who are thinking (or typing) "serves those scofflaws right," I want you to look around your home or office for a consumable that some other person might perceive as unhealthy--a bottle of Jager, maybe, or the April 2004 issue of Genesis magazine, or a package of Ramen noodles. Now, I want you to imagine some sweaty prick with a Taser taking that thing away from you, bending your arms behind your back, snapping a picture of you after you've been crying (this picture will end up online), demanding thousands of dollars in exchange for your freedom, and then releasing you in your dirty laundry with that taboo attached to your personal record. Ugh.
• The National Review Online's Media Blog tips its hat to the Washington Times for totally nailing the Chas Freeman story. Kevin D. Williamson writes: "The other Times — the Washington Times — was very much on the case, with Eli Lake providing the most substantive reporting on Freeman, his history, and his connections to the Chinese and Saudi regimes. National Review, The New Republic, and other opinion journals covered the story, but the newspapers were largely absent. The Washington Post covered the story sparingly, and the Wall Street Journal touched on it, too, but considering the issues at play, it was remarkable that so much of the daily press took a back seat." It would seem that this is one of those stories only Washington folk give a shit about: Jamie "Am I bigger than Jesus, yet?" Kirchick dug his heels into the Freeman story over at The New Republic and the Washington Independent's Dave Weigel suggested that the now office-less Freeman will one day form an unholy alliance with Michael Steele.
• Michael Perkins did some WMATA math and found "Metrorail fares have stayed flat relative to inflation for trips of equal length." He goes on to suggest that WMATA could stand to raise them: "Would it be better if fares kept up with inflation, and there was less pressure for service cuts?  Maybe with fare increases, there would be money for increased service after the recession is over." Perkins' post is deep, folks. I suggest those of you who can handle more than a graf or two of uninterrupted transportation talk dive the hell in. Though for my money, I think WMATA would invest in a chain of children's haircutteries before it raised fares as much as they need raising--an amount that would further marginalize the people who need WMATA the most. (Also a good transportation read: "Nobody Rides for Free," by Sarah Godfrey.)
• Last but not least, there's a party: My some-time bosses at Reason magazine and reason.com are hosting a Reason.tv (so many domains!) viewing party this Friday in celebration of John Stossel's 20/20 special, "Bailouts, Big Spending, and Bull." I have reason to believe that "[s]oft and hard drinks and light fare will be served," and I'm certain that admission is free, and that most of the attendees will be the sweetest, most disarmingly-sincere capitalist pigz most of you have never met. Just make sure and RSVP. (Ruth Samuelson wrote a great piece about think tank food awhile back, now's as good a time as any to read it.)

OK, folks, let's seize this thing.

Flickr photo courtesy of David Drexler. Thanks David!

[A]t the start of December I am leaving reason magazine, my journalistic home since April 2006. You could not concoct a better 30 months to be the political reporter for America’s flagship libertarian journal. I was there when the Republican party hit the rocks in 2006 (and I’m afraid I helped cost Jeff Flake his committee seat). I covered the Ron Paul r3VOLution from start to… well, is it finished yet? I was there when Bob Barr joined the Libertarian Party, there when he became its presidential candidate, and there when he ended his campaign by blowing out the candles on a birthday cake.

It’s an amicable parting. Starting last week, I’ve been writing at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog. There are three Word files with freelance stories open in front of me, and there are e-mails about additional reporting gigs in my mailbox. And I get to keep living in and covering D.C.

Wiegel is not only a great political journalist, but also a breathing, fidgeting, iPhone-checking encyclopedia of political trivia. Other people can do strange things with ping-pong balls, but Weigel rocks the party by reciting electoral-vote margins from the last eight presidential elections. A great example of the two skills meeting was his no-nonsense debunking of the Bradley Effect, which preceded less-colorful pronouncements by mainstream pundits. As a regular reader of his, I'm a little disappointed that he'll be writing sans byline, but you can't fault a guy for answering the door when opportunity called.

[Huge disclaimer: Dave Weigel and I worked together at Reason, where I am still a contributor. Weigel has also written for Washington City Paper. He once bought me a sandwich.]

Quote of the week: "That's as succinct as they've been in ten years!" Scary part is, that's probably true.

Meanwhile, the good folks at Reason front a totally unreasonable headline. Erik's flip-out, and Riggs' response, below the jump.

Trouble viewing? Try the YouTube version.