Oh, right, like half the population. Here's right-wing panic site World Net Daily's aghast summary of the game, via Wonkette:

The elf reveals he specializes in assassination, and the other character replies, "I bet you're good at a lot of things."


The elf responds, "Mmmm, that's quite an offer, especially coming from another man – if we are both speaking of the same thing."


If the player selects the response, "I suspect we are," the elf agrees to have homosexual sex with the character.

WND then quotes selectively from gay blogs ("Gay geeks rejoice, all your gaming fantasies have come true") and YouTube comments ("We're a bisexual nation living in denial") and provides a list of retailers (like Wal Mart!) presumably for boycotting. Because, you know, if there's one way to make gay sex look hot and appealing, it's by showcasing it with stilted dialog, jerky body movements and elf ears, in a role playing videogame like Dragon Age. Hottt.

That [porn star Sasha] Grey is not a fan of Mrs. Sanford, of course, is not shocking. What's shocking is that I even know her opinion on the woman, on the situation, on politicians and their wives, and that she thinks we should all openly have something extra on the side.

Why is that shocking, exactly, Kathryn? Ms. Grey is a famous person, and a wealthy entrepreneur who owns her own business. (Republicans should be proud!) She recently starred in a film by one of America's most critically acclaimed directors. And she is commenting not on politics but on sex, which is, arguably, her area of expertise.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, on the other hand—why the fuck do we know her opinion on anything?

The lawsuit centers on a story Jared Diamond wrote last year about tribal wars in New Guinea. Forbes reports that the plaintiffs in this suit include Daniel Wemp—Diamond's "chief source" for the story. Wemp says he's not as murderous as the world's most famous anthropologist would have you believe.

Diamond's account says 30 people lost their lives during a three-year clan war that began after a pig ransacked someone's garden. Mandingo and Wemp, who served as Diamond's driver on a trip to Papua New Guinea, say only four people died, the war lasted three months and the conflict didn't start over a pig in a garden, but an argument over a card game.

And he's still upset about being called a pig thief! The New Yorker's sticking by its story. If anything good comes of this, it'll be to make reporters stop using their drivers as their main sources. You listening, Tom Friedman? Stop it.
[Stinky Journalism also has numerous debunker pieces on Diamond's story. Pic of random New Guinea resident via Flickr.]

However, the Times still hates your kids and your mom.

Researchers at the Oregon National Primate Research Center have developed a process in which the DNA from a mother with a disease — like the muscle disease myopathy — is placed within a donor egg. That egg is then fertilized with the father's sperm and presto! You have a baby who lacks the disease. It's all very scientific!

The studies' coordinators say that little Spindler, who has three equally adorable siblings, represents the next step in the fight against genetic defects. Foes, however, say otherwise, like Stephen Green, the director of Britain's Christian Voice. He thinks this study will only bring disaster and a bevy of awkward moments:

These things are always done with the best of intentions but we have to think whether this will lead to any unintended consequences. When the child finds out they have two mummies, how will they feel?

Um, probably pretty good knowing they didn't inherit some life-threatening or disfiguring disease. But what do they know? They're just children.

Yes, the new, improved children do inherit a teeny, tiny bit of DNA from the donor "mummy," but are essentially the offspring from the parents in question. So, Mr. Green, quit your griping and save your "two mummies" argument for the gays. At least then you'll have a case. (Well, not really, but we'll let him have his sick, exclusionary fun.)

See, a blogger took a picture of anti-health care protesters outside a town hall. Their signs were hand-made, with markers and stuff! Then, to drive the point home, they show another picture of people advocating for health care reform. Their signs were printed professionally!

Thus something or other is proven beyond any possible doubt. If this group of people wrote things on signs by themselves, the Town Hall disruption campaign can't possibly be a coordinated media effort by Dick Armey's FreedomWorks.

No. Of course not. Those are elitist, John Kerry-esque "foreign" foods that the common man cannot pronounce, let alone ingest. And yet we can exclusively report that this weekend, Todd Palin, Greta Van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace will eat all of those things and more, while wearing tuxedos.

Will they be at some sort of black-tie limosine liberal America Hate-a-Thon Charity Fundraiser for Madrassas? Yes, they will be, pretty much. Only it's called "The Fox Table" at "The White House Correspondents Dinner."

Now of course we don't care what these people eat in their free time, these would-be champions of the working man, these so-called regular guys. No, we are just shocked and outraged that no one else saw fit to report this fact! It is the image-manipulation, you see, and the craven attempt by the Fox News Channel to suppress the story of their supposed "real guy" on-air personalities eating these exotic delicacies.

If Sean Hannity doesn't call out his fellow "truth-tellers" on Monday, we'll know exactly how deep this conspiracy of silence goes. Enjoy your fancy dinner, guys.

Obama didn't want good-old-fashioned American ketchup. No, Mr. "Common Man" over here wanted his hamburger with "spicy mustard"—or, horror of horrors, "dijon." Dijon! Real Americans don't like things that actually make things taste like things, Princess OBambi!

Then Sean Hannity plays the old "Grey Poupon" commercial, as if having seen that commercial 20 years ago is the only reason an adult man who lives in Chicago (where ketchup is not considered an acceptable condiment for a hot dog, btw, Mr. Hannity) would want "spicy mustard." Then he literally says this: "I hope you enjoyed that fancy burger, Mr. President."

If Barack Obama had actually said "Grey Poupon" instead of just asking for any mustard with a bit of kick to it we would admit that that would be kind of tone-deaf and funny, but no. The man just wanted some spicy mustard for his goddamn burnt hamburger, Sean. AT LONG LAST, SIR, HAVE YOU NO DECENCY?

Actually, at this point, doesn't Hannity's grasping populism just seem kinda quaint? He's doing his best to fear-monger and rabble-rouse, but this is just pathetic. Hell, on the same network you've got Glenn Beck weeping about how the Illuminati controls the Federal Reserve or whatever the fuck he's on about these days.

Anyway after this commercial happened, in like 1993 or something, it is no longer appropriate to consider "dijon" a high-faluntin' condiment.

If it was true that gay marriage would hurt the people who made this ad, actually literally hurt them, physically, we would book the next flight to Des Moines, hire a priest, and marry the first dude who answered a Craigslist ad.

Coincidentally Craigslist must be how they found the actors willing to blatantly lie in high-profile tv ads, because if the leaked audition reels (!!!) are any indication, they didn't go the traditional route of "hiring people who can read."

(Audition 3: THE BEST.)

So yeah we were ENRAGED all morning, thinking about this, but between seeing these hilarious audition reels and then stopping to remember that the organization behind the ads is called NOM (NOM NOM) we are beginning to find it all a bit funnier.

Vermont was the first state to offer civil unions to gay couples as an alternative to marriage. Now Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont let gay people marry, and Maine and New Hampshire are considering gay marriage bills, which means even more gay people will be buying B&Bs in cute little New England towns. And Iowa's Supreme Court ruled last week that a law defining marriage as a union between and man and a woman was unconstitutional. New York and California are still not ready to go there.

Well, you know, it has gay stuff in it. Like references to committed same sex-couples, but also to AIDS and bad words. Even though there's something called a "School Edition" of the 1995 rock musical extravaganza about AIDS-riddled bohemes (gay, straight, trans, whatevs) living and dying in the East Village, which cuts out some language and the sex song "Contact," people in places as diverse as Orange County, Texas, and West Virginia are objecting. Principals have canceled productions, incorrectly citing things like "prostitution" as their reasons. (There is no prostitution in the show).

Theater teachers and supporters of the show are upset with what they feel is a bias against homosexuals. The director at Corona del Mar High School, in Newport Beach, said that he undertook the show because he'd seen a rise in homophobic language on the school's campus. But the principal shut him down and remains tight lipped about the whole gay thing.

So where should we fall down on this? Outrage over gay suppression and backwards thinking and all that ("We're a bit back in the woods here," said a West Virginia principal who stopped her school's version)? Or should we just sigh and resign ourselves to the fact that even shows as relatively tame as Rent will still rankle in big, lopsided America? Well, as I said to a friend earlier, high schools wouldn't do Buried Child or Oleanna or even Angels in America. Nor should they. It's just an age and experience thing. But, as she argued back, kids should see Rent if it'll pry open their eyes a bit. So when do they get that opportunity, if not at their school?

Ultimately I think it's a case by case basis. Some poor decisions will be made, some brave and convicted ones will be too. It's the good/bad nature of theatre that, unlike movies, everyone can tackle a piece, and make it their own issuey, bad production if they want to. While the she show's composer Jonathan Larson and his producers and cast may not have found the show scandalous fourteen long years ago, some sweater-vested principal might find his own school's version to be Last Tango in Paris: For Kids. We have to take that good and take that bad and just be glad, I guess, that the debate and controversy and silliness can exist at all. I mean, at least they're fighting over a show that was once seen as something of a polemic, right? It's not like we get arguments about really tame shows anymore!

Oh, wait.

For days, until a CIA officer raped some women, Drudge headlines were all about how the stimulus bill will fund STD prevention and, uh, birth control. (Well, not anymore!) Looks like it's all about stimulating something other than the economy, right?

What it's actually about stimulating, of course, is THE CULTURE WARS. Rush Limbaugh is relevant again, yay! The "spending too much money we don't have" argument against economic stimulus doesn't work because a) the GOP just spent 8 years doing that and b) no one besides the ideological Republicans care? This isn't a trillion dollars going to CORPORATE FATCATS, it's going to, like, everyone! And everyone would like this money, please! So the only way to galvanize support for obstructionism is to fan those dying flames of sexual puritanism. Obama will teach your little girl how condoms work and then she'll... not get pregnant? Which will save you money, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out, which got her in trouble.

And now liberals are starting in on the ol' "like it or lump it" argument. We won the election, so what we say goes! There's something so... uncouth about that sort of thing. Oh, sure, we all say we wish our liberal leaders were hard-nosed political hatchet-men who got things done like we used to think the Republicans were, but it's so unliberal, isn't it? So Barack Obama is working very hard to make his bill palatable to Senate Republicans. (House Republicans are basically shit out of luck, which is why they're being the most annoying, at the moment.)

And, oh god, it's all feeling like Clinton again, except with someone way better at managing Congress in charge.

Anyway Barack Obama is going to TAX AND SPEND our way out of this, and he will TAX you to SPEND on ABORTION and FLAG-BURNING.

The plan is for Big Hollywood to be kind of like a conservative version of the early plan of Huffington Post, where Hollywood Republicans—whose voices have been squelched for so long, by Alec Baldwin—can finally have their say.

Big Hollywood is not a “celebrity” gabfest or a gossip outpost - it is a continuous politics and culture posting board for those who think something has gone drastically wrong and that Hollywood should return to its patriotic roots.

Big Hollywood’s modest objective: to change the entertainment industry. To make Hollywood something we can believe in - again. In order to give millions of Americans hope.

Ambitious! But we'll get back to the McCarthy era yet, just you watch. So far the top stories on the site are mostly about Big Hollywood itself, and how it will, you know, change the entertainment industry and give millions of Americans hope. Among the "big minds from the fields of politics, journalism, entertainment and culture" who already have posts up: veteran actor and Calvin Coolidge's second cousin Orson Bean, US Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter, and others.

Breitbart is a savvy guy, so we expect this site to be just professional and snappy enough to give us lots of good scoffing material. Of course, launching this on the eve of Obama guarantees it will become a cult site for a small minority with delusions of persecution and when the nation inevitably swings Republican again it will be looked back upon wistfully as the germinator of a flowering conservative Hollywood revival, just watch. [Big Hollywood]

It began with the news of the commutation of producer and rapper John Forte's sentence for intent to distribute cocaine, a trumped-up charge with a long mandatory sentence. Bush commuted Forte's sentence after lobbying by Carly Simon! Forte will be released from prison today! Christmas miracle! Thanks also, iit turns out, to lobbying from Orrin Hatch!

This is how how Hatch's hometown paper headlined that news: "Hatch: Convicted cocaine dealer a 'genius'" Hah. Ha ha ha.

Here are what his constituents say, writing into the Salt Lake Tribune.

Orrin Hatch has absolutely no moral compass. To all the drug dealers doing business across the street from the local elementary school playground or in the high school parking lot, sleep well at night because Sen. Hatch believes you pose no risk to society if you don't actually use the methamphetamine or crack cocaine you're selling to our children.

What is it with Sen. Orrin Hatch and drug dealers?

Hatch is currently urging a presidential pardon for rapper John Forte's prison sentence for drug dealing ("Hatch: Convicted dealer a 'genius,' " Tribune, Dec. 3). That reminded me of an earlier intervention Hatch sought. In 2006, he helped spring hit-record producer Dallas Austin after he was arrested and sentenced in Dubai for transporting cocaine.

Write some music, perhaps sing one of Hatch's songs, and you get a get-out-of-jail-free card. Now that is Utah values!

Honestly, it's hard to feel too bad for Hatch, because when he got his start in politics he'd have framed it the same way:

Hatch was a more one-dimensional figure when he arrived in the senate almost 30 years ago. A fire-and-brimstone values crusader, he introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade and was prone to saying things like, "Democrats are the party of homosexuals." In his early career, he routinely tallied one of the most conservative Senate voting records. His intensity rankled even his GOP colleagues, one of whom later admitted he thought Hatch was an egomaniac with an irritating "save-the-world complex."

But that helped him score points in the GOP as a reliable attack dog. During the Iran-Contra hearings, no one defended Oliver North and the Reagan White House more stubbornly. And during Clarence Thomas's 1991 confirmation battle, no one trashed Anita Hill with more zest. (Among other things, Hatch bizarrely suggested Hill might have lifted her famous tale about pubic hair and Coke from The Exorcist.)

But now he's been in the Senate so long, hanging out with Ted Kennedy, that even this dull old Mormon is befriending blakc drug dealers as long as they're Exeter-educated musicians. Washington changes people, man. Orrin Hatch used to not be about the music.

Try "blog" and "broadband" and "celebrity." "Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled," the Telegraph reports.

"We have a certain Christian narrative which has given meaning to us over the last 2,000 years. To say it is all relative and replaceable is questionable," said Professor Alan Smithers, the director of the centre for education and employment at Buckingham University. "The word selections are a very interesting reflection of the way childhood is going, moving away from our spiritual background and the natural world and towards the world that information technology creates for us."

An analysis of the word choices made by the dictionary lexicographers has revealed that entries from "abbey" to "willow" have been axed. Instead, words such as "MP3 player", "voicemail" and "attachment" have taken their place.

For the best minds in conservatism today crowing about how THIS IS HOW NAZI GERMANY STARTED, please see Roger Kimball and noted lunatic Vox Day.

When reached for comment, Laura Bush's spokeswoman, Sally McDonough, said the White House usually prints separate cards, but in the waning days of the presidency, there had been an oversight.

As an added bonus, the wagon says "White House Christmas Tree 2008." Happy Holiday, everyone!!!

In Claremont, California, a liberal professor who specializes in "Native American literature" wrote a letter to her daughter's elementary school claiming the tradition of dressing children as "Pilgrims and Indians" was demeaning and racist. Now the school is going to cancel Thanksgiving, or at least the part where children dress in amusing stereotypes of traditional aboriginal American garb. Parents are furious!!!!

Among the costume supporters, there is a vein of suspicion that casts Raheja and others opposed to the costumes as agenda-driven elitists. Of the handful of others who spoke with Raheja against the costumes at the board meeting, one teaches at the University of Redlands, one is an instructor at Riverside Community College, and one is a former Pitzer College professor.

Raheja is "using those children as a political platform for herself and her ideas," Constance Garabedian said as her 5-year-old Mountain View kindergartner happily practiced a song about Native Americans in the background. "I'm not a professor and I'm not a historian, but I can put the dots together."

Now some parents say they'll send their kids to school in costume anyway, in order to take a stand against this grandstanding woman using her child as a political prop. And some will just keep their children home, where they're free to dress as Indians any time they please. It's important that an opportunity to teach our children about the ambiguities of our history be turned instead into a meaningless argument about the elitism of taking offense at something someone else doesn't find offensive.

(Spoiler alert: the Pilgrims won!)

It's just like being gay in rural Wyoming, right? Ha ha, just kidding. It's more like being the one Yankee fan in a Boston bar, and you also felt the need to wear your Jeter jersey. Dude, you went to Boston and put on your Jeter jersey, of course you got shit for it!

Here's prominent famous successful Hollywood Republican Kelsey Grammer talking about how dangerous and hard it is being a Hollywood Republican:

He even said that, earlier in his career, his job was threatened by a prominent sitcom director who demanded he donate money to Barbara Boxer's U.S. Senate campaign. To keep his job, he gave $10,000 to Boxer and the Democrats.

Dear Kelsey Grammer: Barbara Boxer's Senate campaign was in 1992. Cheers had been on the air for years, you'd been on since 1984, and you'd received Emmy nominations for your portrayal of Dr. Frasier Crane. Your spinoff launched the next year! This sitcom director did not threaten your job. You were rich and famous and in no danger of career damage from anything but your drug use.

And basically every charge of terrible oppression faced by conservatives out there is similarly anecdotal. As (liberal) screenwriter John Rogers puts it:

For example, the article somehow moves from a general discussion of the social plight of conservatives in Hollwyood to Andrew Klavan's argument that liberals (apparently all of us) think all conservatives are "evil", persecute them as if they were indeed evil, and then neatly moves on to Klavan's claim of how movies made by "people who sit around at Skybar discussing their pacifist world view" have seeped into culture excessively and been subsequently rejected.

In other words, if people in Show Biz are largely liberal then yes, being openly conservative will be unusual. You may be mocked and called names! Just like if you were openly liberal in a traditionally conservative field! Or much like how everyone in Hollywood is constantly demonized and attacked by conservatives across the country for being godless and amoral and evil! It is called "how the world works" and also it's called "don't be a pussy."