Is it my imagination, or is bigotry, real and imagined, genuine and drummed up for political purposes, the theme for the week? Let's run down the list.

Of course, there's the very real anti-jew bigotry of Hezbollah, in the form of an unprovoked military attack on a sovereign nation. But at least it's open, and unapologetic. Along with the ongoing genocidal rhetoric coming out of Iran (rhetoric which, by the way, is, in and of itself, a U.N. violation) I admit that such undisguised bigotry is perversely bracing in its honesty. They at least avoid the deadly progressive sin of hypocrisy.

Then there's anti-jew bigotry that if bubbling up in Europe. This is one of those "far ends of the ideological spectrum bend around and meet each other" situations that happens more often in Europe than it does here in the U.S. There's a hard left and a hard right in this country, and they both mistrust jews, and suspect that American jews work concert with one another to accomplish an agreed-upon agenda. But this suspicion largely centers on controlling the entertainment world/the popular culture/the news media. A few even more extreme types imagine a jewish hegemony on the world economic system. But all this is more of a paranoid suspicion, and even among the most vile bigots there is a sort of "ya gotta give 'em credit for being so industrious" undertone to it all.
In Europe, which has had longer to develop hardcore strains of virulent anti-semitic radicalism,  jew-hating hard-left anarchists and jew-hating hard-right neo-fascists have no kind illusions, and if pressed, will grudgingly admit that Hitler had his reasons. All this gets a further boost by the presence of millions of openly and unapologetically anti-semitic muslim immigrants. When push comes to shove, in what I believe is a fast-approaching World War, it will be interesting to see how long the EU can hold together as openly anti-semitic voting blocs make their presence known to politicians eager to hang on to power.

Then there's appalling bigotry of the mainstream media, which now treats wars like football games: Both sides have their equally justifiable motivations so coverage must be "even-handed," and is largely limited to "who's winning, "personal stories," and process. The notion that one side might be more "justified" in its aggression than the other is unthinkable...but at the same time, any side that allies itself with the hated Americans must be immediately suspect. 
The root of the press coverage issue goes back to my post about pacifism. The plague of pacifism has so deeply infected the press that, as Dennis Prager put it this week, it is now virtually impossible for a civilized nation to wage war. Some might respond with "good." That is suicide-pact talk. Believe me, those who wish to place us under Sharia law and abolish the Constitution have no qualms about inflicting casualties on "innocent civilians." If the Western press cannot perceive a greater good in western democracies prevailing over Islamofascism, if it cannot let go of its desire to hold western forces to a higher standard than our enemies, when push comes to shove in what I believe is a fast-approaching World War, they will soon find themselves irrelevant and unheeded.

Then there is the explicit bigotry of walking into the office of a charity organization, saying "I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel," and firing your weapon at anything that moves. In the days since the incident, it has become quite clear that the assailant was mentally disturbed. Nonetheless, I believe it's fair to ask to what extent has the relentlessly anti-Israeli news coverage contributed to the tragedy.

Of a far less serious nature (though the media and progressives have been playing it up like a major crime) is the recent Mel Gibson affair. I frankly found "The Passion" excessive, weird and off-putting, so don't mistake me for the Gibson fan-boys and fan-girls who can see no evil when it comes to Mel. If his comments at the scene of his arrest are accurately reported (and while I have heard no attempt to refute them, I would not at all be surprised to learn otherwise) he sounds like he has absorbed much more of his father's kooky talk than is good for him. But anti-religious bigots are having far too much fun with his comeuppance and would do well to inject a little human compassion into their comments on the issue.
This morning I heard a marvelous rant by comedian Jackie Mason who essentially dismissed Gibson's actions with "He was drunk." That's about right. He's apologized, he's getting treatment, major Jewish organizations have accepted his apology. Barring new news, it's over.

Balancing that right-wing bigotry is the sort of left-wing bigotry that bubbles up when "progressives" think they're being funny, when they think nobody else is watching.
"This is how they talk to each other," blogger Betsy Newmark noted a year ago, when a noted Democrat was caught saying foolish things. It's a phrase that has stuck with me.
It IS how they talk to each other: the hate, the bile, the venom...the misinformed fantasy accepted as obvious truth. Howard Dean says ridiculous things like "Republicans are rich white Christians" because he thinks he's safely ensconced in the echo-chamber, preaching to the choir. Comments like this. Here's a more recent example. Of course he apologized, but of course you know he meant it.
It's also another sign of the creeping "Daily Show"/"Colbert Report"-ization of Democratic rhetoric. All too often of late, progressives have gotten themselves in trouble trying to be "funny." I suspect that graphic in question was a similar ill-considered attempt at humor. The desire to get that laugh has overwhelmed any notion of being responsible. And candidates with irresponsible supporters lose elections.
This story also underlines the difficulties faced by a candidate who finds himself suddenly embraced by the lefty blogosphere. The "netroots" crowd has a history of keying each other up, like a gang of seven-year-olds who got into the candy bars, until one of them giddily steps over the line and the candidate is forced to repudiate the whole mess. Which can lead to many in the hard-core faction to walk away, feeling betrayed by the candidate. Which can lead to the beginning of the end for a candidacy. Only time will tell if that's what's happening here.

Last AND least are examples of pretend bigotry, drummed up for partisan purposes. One is this week's tempest in a teapot about Massachusetts Gov. Mit Romney. In comments about the latest headache involving "The Big Dig" in Boston, Romney made the mistake of making a literary reference that has been disapproved by the arbiters of acceptable speech. Speaking in Iowa Saturday, the would-be presidential candidate said he was taking a risk by assuming responsibility for the troubled tunnel project. "The best thing politically would be to stay as far away from that tar baby as I can," Romney said.  Condemnation followed. "He thinks he's presidential timber," Larry Jones, a black Republican and civil rights activist, told the Associated Press. "But all he's shown us is arrogance."
I was sorry to see Romney apologize the next day. He has NOTHING to apologize for. He did not use the phrase in a racial context, he used it to describe an intractible situation. It was an entirely innocent comment, and the condemnation is clearly being lodged for partisan purposes. It reminds me of the incident in 2002 when Stephanie Bell, a fourth-grade teacher in Wilmington, North Carolina, has been reprimanded for using a word which means "stingy" or "miserly" and has zero racial connotations, except that is sounds like another word that does. After a parent complained, Bell was sentenced to “sensitivity training,” and the child of the complaining parent transferred to another class.
And then there was the sad fate of David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate in Washington D.C., who also used that word and lost his job.
And, speaking of blackface, it also reminds me of the attempted controversy last year when activists were appalled that Laura Bush invoked the memory of singer/actor Eddie Cantor. Horrors!
One of the reasons that the civil rights community is no longer taken as seriously as it once was is that they have cried wolf too many times.

And speaking of crying wolf, there's also the mini-controversy, currently obsessing Mickey Kaus, about Ann Coulter's odd observation that Bill Clinton might be gay. On some cable show, she declaimed: "I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality." Prodded further, she suggested "I think anyone with that level of promiscuity where, you know, you -- I mean, he didn’t know Monica’s name until their sixth sexual encounter. There is something that is -- that is of the bathhouse about that..." and "... there is something narcissistic about homosexuality. Right? Because you’re in love with someone who looks like you."
The exciteable Andrew Sullivan immediately branded her a "deranged bigot," but when Mickey began to suggest there was something to what she said, Andrew relaxed, got more thoughtful and stumbled on what I think is probably true: "The phenomenon Kaus and Coulter are pretending to deal with is called testosterone. It's called men -- gay or straight. ... Her point about Bill Clinton -- that because he is promiscuous he is somehow gay - is a revealing inversion of the truth. The truth is that many gay men are acting like Bill Clinton, because, like Bill Clinton, they are full of testosterone, and, like Bill Clinton, they can get sex when they want. Clinton gets it and has gotten it because of his charm and his power ... Gay men get it because their emotional and sexual universe is all-male ... There are no straight women to direct and restrain their sexual drives... Coulter's real issue is with men, not gays. ... Every discomforting aspect about human nature, in the bigot's mind, becomes associated with a minority they already despise. For Gibson, war is about the Jews. For Kaus and Coulter, promiscuity is about the gays."
Mickey's not so sure and suggests Andrew might be guilty of the very same bigotry he claims to condemn... And the bigotry rolls on...