This is just ridiculous:

DENVER — A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

“Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up,” he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

Lisa Jensen said she wasn’t thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, “Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing.”

Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she’s not going to take it down until after Christmas.

“Now that it has come to this I feel I can’t get bullied,” she said. “What if they don’t like my Santa Claus.”

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board “will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive.”

The subdivision’s rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.

Now here’s the kicker, from the same AP article:

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn’t say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

UPDATE: The homeowners association backs down:

The directors of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association apologized Monday to Lisa Jensen and Bill Trimarco for threatening to fine the couple $25 a day if they didn’t remove their lighted wreath.

[..]

Jensen and Trimarco said they have had hundreds of e-mails and phone calls since the wreath flap garnered headlines around the world.

Most have been supportive of their simple message of peace, they said – a message they did not intend to be a statement against the war in Iraq.

Old CW: First woman Speaker will be Rayburn redux.
New CW: Botox bumbler blows first play.

Digby has more on the "Botox" attack line being directed against Democratic women representatives:

This particular Mean Girlz theme didn’t spring from nowhere. It’s coming directly from Frank Luntz:

LUNTZ: I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, "You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn’t work the first time, let it go."

This must have focused grouped well among their target wingnut pigs because, as I previously noted, Queenbee Dowd generously shared this one with the whole world today (before she went off on a sexist rant of her own):

Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and eloquent Republican lawyer who argued the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court, was warming up the rabidly conservative Federalist Society crowd for John McCain with a few sexist cracks about Botox.

The new Congress could amuse itself, he said, by “searching for any sign of movement in Speaker Pelosi’s forehead.” The Senate, he added, would be entertained by “the expressionless, Pelosi-like forehead of Senator Clinton.”

Thank god for commentators like Arinna Huffington, who chimes in on the sexist conservative attack lines being parroted by our so-called liberal media:

The only thing surprising about the current mainstream media narrative regarding Nancy Pelosi is its relentless predictability. Practically since the day the Iraq war started to go bad, Democrats have been derided in the press for not having a plan, and choosing pragmatism over principle.

Cut to ’06. Hot on the heels of an electoral triumph, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi endorses as Majority Leader the member of the House most identified with speaking out against the war — the man whose courage in doing so fueled the nationalized campaign that gave Democrats the majority in the first place. I’m speaking, of course, about Jack Murtha.

Murtha then loses the Leadership race to Steny Hoyer. As Pelosi no doubt knew, it was an uphill battle from the beginning — Hoyer had been tirelessly campaigning for the job among Democratic caucus members for months. But Pelosi gave her support to Murtha because, as she put it in title of her blog this week on HuffPost: "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker."

It doesn’t get much clearer or more principled than that.

So what’s been the reaction in the media?

According to the Los Angeles Times, Pelosi is off to a "rocky start," while the New York Times says she’s "tempting disaster."

Disaster? If wanting to give a high-profile platform to the man most responsible for his party finally locating its spine regarding Iraq (and who, for his troubles, received the full brunt of the Bush/Rove/Mehlman slime machine) is a "disaster," what word do you use to describe the war itself? Disast-orrfic? Catastro-bacle-aster? Disaster-to-the-10th-power?

Maureen Dowd joined the bash-Pelosi-bash with a column entitled "Squeaker of the House," writing:

"Nancy Pelosi’s first move, after the Democratic triumph, was to throw like a girl. Women get criticized in the office for acting on relationships and past slights rather than strategy, so Madame Speaker wasted no time making her first move based on relationships and past slights rather than strategy… Ms. Pelosi offered an argument along the lines of: John Murtha’s my friend. He’s been nice to me. I don’t like Steny. He did something a long time ago that was really, really bad that I’m never, ever going to tell you. And I’m the boss of you. So vote for John."

Really? I don’t recall Pelosi ever saying — or even implying — anything of the kind. Again, how much clearer could Pelosi be than "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker"? If ending this disastrous war (and I’m using the term in its true sense and not its New-York-Times-editorial sense) doesn’t qualify as "strategy" then what does?

In their editorials this week, both the LA Times and the New York Times chided Pelosi for even considering not installing California Congresswoman Jane Harman as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, a point also raised by Dowd:

"Everyone in Washington was perplexed at Ms. Pelosi’s ham-handed effort to sabotage not only Mr. Hoyer but her former friend and fellow Californian, Jane Harman."

Wait, so first Pelosi is criticized for "making her first move based on relationships," and then she’s criticized for not giving a chairmanship to a "former friend and fellow Californian?"

So damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

As for the wisdom of "everyone in Washington," well, a walk around Baghdad should suffice as rebuttal.

I’m surprised that seniority as the be-all qualification for leadership still has so many ardent backers in Washington. Pelosi has made it clear that the highest priorities of the new Congress will be changing course in Iraq and the restoration of oversight. It is by these two yardsticks that she needs to decide who the Chair of the Intelligence Committee should be. And by nothing else.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have a Democratic leader who would rather listen to the American people than to "everyone in Washington"?

Over the past couple of days some in the progressive blogsphere have wade in astonishment as the Right goes on about defaming Jill Carroll, the survivor of what must’ve been a traumatic experience:

First I’d like to call out a big fuck you to all the bloggers and wingut radio blowhards who assumed that since Jill Carroll isn’t a screeching, GOP operative harpy like Laura Ingraham that she is sympathetic to terrorists. She had the guts to get out there and try to report from the belly of the beast and got kidnapped and terrorized while doing it. And these pathetic little chickenhawks had the unmitigated gall to attack her — apparently because she managed to survive and because she was a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor. — Hullabaloo.

On the same topic, Joe at The Moderate Voice is being way too moderate in calling the Jill Carroll affair a black eye to blogging. No, Joe, this is a black eye to the crazy, racist, right wing, hating blogosphere. Don’t lump all of us in together on that one. Yes, we’re partisan, yes we’re on occasion shrill. We’re not liars. We’re not racist. And we won’t be dragged down into the mud pit occupied by the likes of Little Green Footballs and Free Republic just because we occupy the same cyberspace. — mcjoan, DailyKos.com.

Look, I know I don’t have to go into a lengthy sermon about the bravery of the journalists – men and women – who risk their necks to try to get us a true picture of what’s going on in Iraq, or any other war zone for that matter. It goes without saying that Jill Carroll and everyone else over there is extremely courageous and should be commended for what they’re doing. I’m also not going to try to psychoanalyze what would drive someone to want to go over there and do it in the first place.

I’ll just say that I don’t have the balls to do anything remotely that dangerous – and neither does Howard Kurtz. For journalists to not give this woman some room to breathe while she gets her bearings after spending 82 days as a hostage is simply unconscionable.

[...]

Here’s the bottom-line: Whatever you think of Jill Carroll, Howard Kurtz owes the woman a big time public apology. And the Post really ought to stop the guy before he opines again. — Eric J. Weiner, HuffingtonPost.com.

Here you have these middle aged, soft bellied men in the comfort of their air conditioned radio studio in some American metropolis — thousands of miles away from any danger — casting the first stone against journalist Jill Carroll, after she was released from her 82 day captivity by terrorists in Iraq. Here you have a young woman that spent the last 82 days believing that every day would be her last, fully aware of the fate that many other kidnap victims met — from a quick bullet to the head, to decapitation. However, according to these three poor examples of manhood and Americanism, she was not traumatized enough nor did she damn her kidnappers enough to meet their satisfaction. So, of course, as conservatives do, they resorted to destroying her character and questioning her patriotism, and allegiance. These bastards never took even one second to empathize with Jill, a woman that saw her companion and translator be murdered at the start of her ordeal and, too, a woman that must have wondered whether she would live to see her family again. Am truly pissed that these motherfuckers even think that it’s okay to say all that they said about a person that’s just spent 82 days being held by murderers and thugs:

There was a shocking segment earlier today on the popular radio/television show “Imus In The Morning.” Watch this exchange between Executive Producer Bernard McGuirk and Don Imus’ sidekick Charles McCord.

[...]

Some lowlights:

MCGUIRK: She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone.

IMUS: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.

MCCORD: Just because she always appears in traditional Arab garb and wearing a burka.

MCGUIRK: Yeah, what’s with the head gear? Take it off. Let’s see.

…

MCCORD: Exactly. She cooked with them, lived with them.

IMUS: This is not helping.

MCGUIRK: She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point.

…

IMUS: She could. It’s not like she was representing the insurgents or the terrorists or those people.

MCCORD: Well, there’s no evidence directly of that –

IMUS: Oh, gosh, you better shut up!

…

MCGUIRK: She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something.

[...]

Some lowlights:

MCGUIRK: She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone.

IMUS: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.

MCCORD: Just because she always appears in traditional Arab garb and wearing a burka.

MCGUIRK: Yeah, what’s with the head gear? Take it off. Let’s see.

…

MCCORD: Exactly. She cooked with them, lived with them.

IMUS: This is not helping.

MCGUIRK: She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point.

…

IMUS: She could. It’s not like she was representing the insurgents or the terrorists or those people.

MCCORD: Well, there’s no evidence directly of that –

IMUS: Oh, gosh, you better shut up!

…

MCGUIRK: She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something.

Thanks to ThinkProgress.org for bringing these asses to our attention — you can read the full transcripts and view the video clips from ThinkProgress.org here and here.

Now, a day after obtaining her freedom, Jill has released a personal statement that more accurately describes her experience — now, will these asses have big enough balls to apologize… will these poor excuses for men be, in fact, men and own up to their mistakes, or will they cower like the pampered soft bellied limp dicks that they are?

Here’s Jill in her own voice:

I’m so happy to be free and am looking forward to spending a lot of time with my family. I want to express my deep appreciation to all the people who worked so long and hard for my release. I am humbled by the sympathy and support expressed by so many people during my kidnapping.

In the past few days, the U.S. military and officials have been extremely generous, and I am grateful for their help. Throughout this ordeal, many U.S. agencies have committed themselves to bringing me safely home.

[...]

So many people around the world spoke out on my behalf.
Thank you, all of you.

During my last night of captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and I wanted to go home alive. So I agreed.

Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends – all those around the world – who have prayed so fervently for my release through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.

I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be broadcast or aired on television, and they broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn’t threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.

Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One, that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military and two, that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true.

I want to be judged as a journalist, not as a hostage. I remain as committed as ever to fairness and accuracy – to discovering the truth – and so I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes.

Now, I ask for the time to heal. This has been a taxing 12 weeks for me and for my family. Please allow us some quiet time alone, together.

To Imus and his locker room bitches (I include Imus in this condemnation because he did not speak up when he could have), first, apologize to Jill and to your listeners for distorting the record; and, then, when you have the balls to go to Iraq and bring your radio program from outside the green zone, get kidnapped and are later released 82 days after being adducted, only then will you all deserve and have the legitimacy to stand in the same room as Jill Carroll.

And now, Ms Coulter — the product of an “Elite” education herself –, the poster girl for wingnuts everywhere, and one of the loudest mouth pieces in today’s conservative movement, strays from the script and let’s her true roots show:

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that’s a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, such a revelation about Ms Coulter’s true allegiance and character is not enough to bring her down from the pedestal that conservatives have sat her on. Because, as Ms Coulter alludes to, and as Mr Frank wrote, grassroots movement conservatives are true believers, and there’s just no way in hell that their prophets and messiahs can be shown to be infallible — Ms Coulter writes:

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney’s many virtues � loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture …

Clearly, Ms Coulter is not a grassroots movement conservative, she’s a political opportunist, a true elite and a fascist, fully aware that her vile rhetoric against Liberals, Democrats and Progressives is merely means to power — which she’s willing to deploy in the aid of her class and her ideological peers.

Like Mr Bush, with his most recent Supreme nomination, whose shown himself to be more interested in advancing cronyism and corporatism — with some imperialism thrown in for good measure –, I wonder if Ms Coulter and Mr Bush have gone too far this time in letting everyone see what their true colors are? Here’s Ms Coulter, again, thumbing her nose at those silly salt-of-earth types, which should let the business of ruling and of deciphering the law to their betters:

One Web site defending Bush’s choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers’ critics “are playing the Democrats’ game,” claiming that the “GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness.” (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound “Ivy League” rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect “which” instead of “that.” Web sites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)

[...]

To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we’re looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 � I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.

Now, grassroots conservatives are truly upset over the Miers nomination; because, as we’ve seen, movement conservatives expect their loyalty over past decades, but specially to the current occupier of the White House, to be reciprocated — and they’re simply tired of waiting. If the nomination proceeds all the way to Senate hearings, and if Ms Miers conservative bona fides are not made clear at that point, the gig may be up for the elite in Republican circles — and, yes, this is a big “MAY BE UP,” as I think that conditioning is not easily over come… besides, where would grassroots conservatives turn to… Roy Moore and a third party?

Of course, if grassroots movement conservatives are not interested in the third party route, they can do what Ms Coulter would have Ms Miers do — just go away and stop presuming that such a salt-of-the-earth type could ever hope to sit where only ivy grows:

[S]ome jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.

Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven’t blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer.

[...]

However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on “The West Wing,” let alone to be a real one.

[emphasis added]

You can find Ms Coulter’s column here.