I like vulgar. Just sayin.

Off topic, but a humble suggestion for this week: please keep the accusations of who's a troll and who's not down to a minimum, if not down to zero. I've taken a look at your blog recently, and I see lots of comments about trolls.

It just takes away from the more important discussion that needs to take place re: the role of the blogger in today's politics. As well as the issues you raise about attitudes towards women, etc.

You know user "jerry" already is going to be swarming these posts with accusations, ones he's already stated he was too lazy to back up with links. I suggest just responding, without calling him a troll. Or just ignore him, if you really think he's a troll. But it's not worth the meta that will necessarily ensue.

(Consider this comment a preemptive effort to keep us on the issues, and not a week-long discussion about trolling.)

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Amanda,

You owe me, Josh, and the rest of the Cafe an apology for your purposeful and intellectually dishonest distortion of my words yesterday, and your use of the technique of "naming the troll" in an attempt to discredit me and avoid having to answer the questions I raised.

My response then.

Will you apologize to me, Josh, and the rest of the Cafe?

Is it true, as Salon has claimed twice now, and as Steve Gilliard has confirmed, that you were fired by the campaign and then rehired?

Christofacist means the same thing as Christianist. It's a more pejorative way of describing someone who believes that the laws of the state should be dictated by Christian belief, as described by a minority of Christian believers.

This is in parallel to "Islamist" or "Islamofascist." Islamists believe the government should enforce their interpretation of Islamic rules of conduct, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban or Saudi Arabia today. The use of Islamofascist is inflammatory, intended to tie the threat Hitler presented to Europe and the US to the threat the wahabbists represent.

Islamofascist is word used repeatedly by the President and other prominent republicans.

It's especially ironic that people who are wont to use the word, like Brownback on This Week the sunday before last, will without thinking twice express deep concern about the threat Islamofascism represents to the American way of life, and then will segue immediately into the need to impose his sect's beliefs on women's reproductive rights on all Americans.

This is very clearly, well defined term. One could coin Jewist, which would be an Orthodox Jew who wants to make the Sabbath and dietary rules the law of the land.

This is not hard, at all, to get. The reason people react to it is not because it is bigoted or offensive (if they thought this were true, they wouldn't say "islamofascist") but because it highlights the extraordinary hypocrisy, at best, that lies in the expression of their views. (At worst, they represent the ultimate version of XYZoFascism--of wanting not merely to make people in their own countries be force by the state to follow their beliefs, but they also want to impose their belief system, by law, on people who live in other countries.)

Dour, bloated hypocrites like Donohue and his supporters deserve to be lanced by mordant satire. There is something profoundly anti-Enlightenment about the whole sanctimonious Bushist Religious Right, with its rejection of a government based on law, its abhorrence of science, its promotion of religion at every turn, its fear of freedom, its relentless efforts to concentrate more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands, its mindless cheerleading for insane wars of aggression. The biting wit of a Voltaire helped usher in the Englightenment. He of course was viewed as vulgar and worse by those on whom he heaped his scorn. Thankfully we now have the web, and brave bloggers willing to take on the pompous fools who would lead us all back into darkness.

~

Apology? ... the Admiral would like to talk at ya . . .

~OGD~

Amanda-

the real question that's flying around the blogosphere is "How could this happen?" Did you really think that you'd be able to continue your blog and also work for a candidate?

Did the Edwards folks not make clear that if you're joining the campaign, then your own voice would be silenced?

Matt Stoller poses the salient points more clearly than I could.

Yeah, I guess it's not always satire.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Jay, I'm not interested in Monday morning quarterbacking my inability to play sufficient defense against the right wing shills. Yes, I failed in many regards. I don't think I'm cut out for this political environment, where any sign of thoughtfulness is stomped out in a swarm of soundbite-driven faux outrage. I'm sorry that I was naive.

I'm really not going to comment on the Edwards' campaign and their decisions. I don't think that's right, really.

Now that you've gotten that out of me, I'm interested in the real-Real question, which is how has the national discourse degraded to this level?

It hasn't degraded. This is how it's been for a long time--at least the past 20 years. And we're probably kidding ourselves if we think it was different before that.

I will say that it was really shocking watching it go down first hand. Until I saw it, I never really got how the combination of me-firstness, laziness, and boredom really drives the mainstream media. From talking to MSM types, it became quickly clear they weren't interested in researching the allegations of bigotry against me nor investigating whether or not they were being made for cynical partisan reasons. It would have taken like five minutes of research to find out that a) I wasn't a bigot and b) Donohue is a Republican operative. I think it's really difficult to really grasp how the right wing exploits MSM laziness to get these manufactured controversies into the mainstream.

Degradation of discourse?

Blame it on the Beatles!

~OGD~

Okay, first of all, I think John Edwards and his campaign have a lot more to explaining to do than the wingnut hoardes that wallowed in predictable "outrage".

What Donohue and his nutroot monkey-allies did was not unexpected. The media follow-up was not exactly unexpected either - when you have been bitchslapped for decades into meeting the FCC's stupidly-applied obscenity rules, the sight of a blogger who uses four-letter words elicits a knee-jerk, hostile response from those who word get fined or fired for doing the same.

So here's the thing - Nothing that happened on the right, or in the media establishment, was a shock. I've read Pandagon a bit, and it's edgy stuff sometimes, and not exactly friendly to Christian fundamentalists. For varying reasons, some people really won't like what you've written. I'm sorry that the venom of the response surprised you, but that's the way these people operate. They are scum, but they are determined scum with a singular agenda.

Which brings me to question why, when this was really very predictable, the Edwards campaign's defense of the two of you was, at best, tepid. I don't know how you feel in hindsight, but at the time, my clear impression was that the Edwards campaign was not exactly strongly defending their decision to hire you two. And to be honest, I thought that was quite poor.

The second, and more fundamental question I think, it whether bloggers of your sort are in fact compatible with political campaigning. (Let me make clear that this is quite separate from the question of what you can contribute to the political discourse.) But I think in way you answer this question yourself - your second to last paragraph reads as follows:

"Blogs also provide space for biting political satire. [...] Humor is an important rhetorical device that the vulgar, common people can use to level devastating criticisms at the elite and the powerful."

I'd suggest it would be fair to put your blog, reasonably frequently, into this category. And I would also suggest it is fair to say satirists don't fit easily with campaigns intended to put people into positions of power... as your statement evidently implies. I could not for a second imagine a Hunter S Thompson, Art Buchwald or Steven Colbert as a campaign official. Their brand of art simply would not allow them to get too close to their high and mighty subjects.

So, you know, I am sorry for what you went through in those fateful few days as part of the Edwards campaign. The level of opprobrium was typically excessive. The Edwards campaign didn't do itself too many favors, but I really think that ultimately, your standing has been enhanced. You are cut out for the role of the humorist, poking a stick in the eye of the establishment. I'd worry you'd lose your edge if you got too close to those you need to hold a mirror to.

Running for office is all about "image". Studies have shown that the dedicated voters who identify as Republican or Democrat will vote the party pretty much all the time.

So the effort has to be focused on the "swing" voters. This is usually about 5% of those who vote. These are the people who don't really pay attention to politics or current events. So reaching them has to be done via TV image ads and sound bites. Since they really have no interest they vote based upon emotion and anything which blurs the theme the candidate is trying to get across must be eliminated from the campaign. This was Rove's genius. Not only did he get Bush to project a consistent image he lined up everybody else running as a Republican and had them use exactly the same themes and catch phrases.

This is what running for office has fallen to in the days of TV advertising. It may mean that candidates disguise their true positions or are hypocrites or even liars, but that's how the game is being played. The blogosphere can play a role outside this image contest, but if you join a campaign expect to have to toe the line.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Short answer: Hynes still has a job, and is still posting at AnkleBitingPundits.

Longer answer: the republicans have no argument they can make from a policy perspective--all of their positions are so unpopular that they have to disguise them as either their opposite or something else entirely.

This has left them with only one strategy. They personalize races, and then smear their opponents personally. They've gotten very good at this.

At the same time, for reasons that are not at all clear to me, the media is very quick to run uncritically with a Donohue press release, but ignores press releases from the other side of the discourse. I don't find any of the explanations for this particularly satisfying--that they're afraid of conservatives saying mean things about them, that evil corporate interests dominate the media and so forth.

What may be at the heart of it is that Democrats are not willing to set up the countervailing infrastructure. The Republicans are eminently attackable on issues related to "family values." The top three republican presidential candidates are serial adulterers.

If Clinton were a republican, the story would be about her perseverance in a difficult marriage led to a couple that had stayed together through thick and thin. And if Giuliani were a democrat from Arkansas, the story would start with the second cousin and degrade from there.

I guess the blogosphere is the source of a counterpoint to this nonsense, which is one reason everyone rose to the defense of you and Melissa. This was not just an attempt to smear Edwards. It was also an attempt to marginalize the left blogosphere, which does represent a real threat to the VRWC.

By "me-firstness," you mean "scoop"? That's one thing that puzzled me about this story. There was no reason to run with the press release without doing some confirmation. It couldn't be called a scoop to be first out with a retyped press release.

Amanda,

You raise in this comment an important issue that has (amazingly given the number of bits spilt on this "controversy") been underdiscussed, namely that so much attention was given to the comments of a "lowly staffer."

While the public (and even private) statements of high ranking campaign advisers have always been fair game, by and large low-level staffers simply are not vetted this way (I know...I was a staffer for a year on the Dukakis campaign).

Working as a low-level staffer on a political campaign is a pretty one-way relationship. The candidate is not saying "I agree with everything my staff stands for." The staff is (implicitly) saying, "We agree to subordinate any disagreements we might have with the candidate in order to prioritize her election."

There's something faintly (or perhaps not so faintly) McCarthyite in the notion that the beliefs and statements of low-level staffer have to be combed over, lest the candidate somehow be tarred with them.

Excellent point. I'm currently teaching a course on the U.S. in the Gilded Age (that's late 19C for you non-historians). And believe me, politics was as bad if not worse then.

First it was the arrival of the Beatles, but then Bob Dylan went over to the darkside of rock music from the gorgeous ballads of folk music!

The degradation of discourse can be dated from the day Bob Dylan picked up an electric guitar!!

[This whine brought to you by a long-time fan of Joan Baez, a folk music fan who still considers the Kingston Trio the greatest popular group ever -- and who listens to "Dark Side of the Moon" only in secret.]

Amanda, you can't get away with attempting to insult our intelligence with such a cheap excuses.

Also, the term vulgar is used more commonly to describe crude behavior, it is not commonly associated these days with the "common people". The context is completely wrong. Also, anyone who believes that the blogosphere is comprised of the "common people" is in serious denial. It's an elitist statement that infers that they are the only ones who count. The grasstops do not a grassroots make. Also, slandering and censoring those who disagree with you is not a sign of free and open discourse. Any more than the corporate owned media is an example of a free press.

Your excuses that you weren't bigoted aren't any more palatable than those made by Klansmen like David Duke or any racist or bigot.

You certainly know how to frame an arguement when it's yourself on the line.. but you obviously have as little respect for us as you do for christians as a whole.

As an english major you are schooled in how to frame your arguements in writing. You are also taught the importance of the usage of citing effectivly to underscore the case you make.

Your postings in question weren't attempts to take on the hypocrisies and wrongs of morally corrupt christian leaders and the organized church. You might have made a vague statement or two to start each piece off, but then they disintegrated into rants that were intended to be attempts to impune and stereotype christians by association.

It was no different than the shoddy attacks by many on the left against Barack Obama last year when he attended a progressive christian  conference.

You demeaned much loved and respected christian figures like Mary, something you well knew is something that would be taken as extremely disrespectful. Substitute Buddha, Mohammed or any other religious figure and the effect would be the same. Using bigoted characterizations as christofascist is as offensive as the term feminazi, or perhaps you're saying that feminists were being disingenuous when they took on Rush Limbaugh's bigotry for his stereotyping feminists with that term?

Merely because Donahue attacked you doesn't earn you sympathy from me.. personally, I believe your intent was to draw the fire from he and his organization, that's why you associated yourself with the Edwards campaign. I wonder who suggested his campaign hire you?

What I see is an excellent candidate like Edwards, who has a sound and all encompassing plan being purposely smeared because of your statements made, and you seeking to frame yourself as the victim.

The director Kevin Smith was attacked by Donahue after the release of his film, Dogma. Smith addressed the hypocrisy in the organized catholic church in the film, and he did so without disrespecting catholics or christians as a whole. He also took on Donahue's attack effectively and made Donahue look the fool that he is.

Sam Brownback goes on TV and calls a group of people he doesn't like "Islamofascists." Amanda Marcotte goes on a blog and calls a group of people she doesn't like "Christofascists." And her discourse is morally superior to his -- why?

No, her use of the term is identical to his. He says that people who would impose their religion on their fellow citizens are bad people. So does she. But she doesn't go on to say that she would make an exception for her religion. I don't know what is hard about this. The point is not that Amanda or Sam like or dislike people. The point is that Brownback derides radical muslims for engaging in precisely the same behavior that he advocates on behalf of radical "Christians." (I use the scare quotes because I agree with Amanda's larger point on her blog--that these self-styled Christians seem to be completely unaware of the Sermon on the Mount, and the general thrust of Christ's message in the Gospels.)

Moreover, in both cases the views that the XYZFascist would impose are not widely held XYZ views. Catholics practice birth control. Afghan Muslims fly kites and play music. The ones who would stop them are in the minority of their own faiths.

It would be more accurate to say that Brownback is all about "motivating his base" by appealing to innate religious bigotry

Really? And is that the president's motivation as well? I agree there is some brown people bigotry in play here, but I think rather this term is meant to scare americans into supporting further military activity. That was the context Brownback's comments were in, as have the President's comments been.

hers are pseudoprogressive leftwing atheists who detest Christians.

This is simply false. The point of her posts have been not in the least bit "anti-Christian." They express opposition and anger at official Catholic teachings regarding contraception and abortion, teachings that the majority of American Catholics also disagree with. I challenge you to put up, and link to, any quotation of Amanda's that is "anti-Christian."

In fact, in the posts I've read, she spends a fair amount of time calling out self-styled Christians who would neither turn the other cheek, nor give their coat to someone who needed it. That's hardly anti-Christian.

These battles are fought -- and won -- without once uttering pejorative terms like "Christofascist."

I prefer "Christianist" myself. But why are you not denouncing the president, and any number of elected officials who routinely use the Islamofacist designation. They are far more important, far more influential than is one lonely blogger. Why is Amanda your target and not the president?

I must say that I find your excuses unconvincing. The vulgar masses don't routinely use the word cunt and I don't see how using such distasteful language advances discussion. If one genuinely wants to have a discussion about race it's not helpful to start dropping N-bombs all over the place. It seems to me that you were given a wonderful opportunity to participate in and shape the political discussion in this country and you blew it. You were given that opportunity precisely because of the great potential of blogs to allow common people to participate in those discussions, however your failure to recognize the need to restrain yourself when talking to millions of people on a candidate's behalf shouldn't be blamed on the fact that you are a low level staffer unfamiliar with and removed from the DC scene. It's seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that the vulgar masses wish to communicate.

Re: "the news media falls for it every time" -- for the most part the news media and the Republican party are one ant the same thing, so it is less a matter of 'falling for it' than one of actively participating it it. If Democrats got as nasty maybe they would get a little more attention for a time (other that from FOX or Rush, etc.), but it wouldn't be as much or as enduring, and it would drag all U.S. political discourse into the sewer.

To get people's attention in this climate, I can live with terms like 'christofascist' -- there I have said it and am presumably now unemployable. Fine by me, I have a pension. Christofascist is a bit off the mark for many theocons, but not much. It is a useful term in a context where the equally off the mark term islamofascist is used day in and day out by Republicans. Christofascist is a little more tongue in cheek in intent and context than the parallel term.

global citizen

This whole debate erroneously conflates two separate and distinct issues: (1) the undisputed need to protect and ensure the right to free speech; and (2) the right of a candidate exercising his or her constitutional right to run for president to choose the content of the message he or she wants to deliver to the voters.

Hi Amanda!

On behalf of myself and millions of very frustrated Democrats I want to thank you for being a street fighter. If it weren't for the bloggers on the left, most Democratic politicians in Washington would still be cowering in a corner somewhere worrying about whether they would look weak if they say anything against the corrupt and criminal Bush administration and it's illegal, immoral war.

As for the anti-Catholic stuff you are certainly correct that Donohue simply attacks those he doesn't like and then claims they are anti-Catholic. Please note, however, that the hallmark of his complaints is not really anti-Catholic bigotry (he doesn't care about the vulgar masses) but any criticism whatsoever of the the Roman Catholic hierarchy and its dogma from the middle ages. He hates and despises more American Catholics than anyone I imagine because most Catholics think for themselves, refuse to tow the line on either birth control or abortion because the churches rules on those subjects are simply absurd and generally don't share the antiquated and reactionary views of their isolated and out of touch leadership in Rome and here at home. Given the widespread pedophelia and other sexual scandals among the Roman Catholic clergy, a man like Donohue has to spew his anger on some target because he cannot criticize his leaders. He loves the conformity and authority of the church and deeply fears any challenge to it. Thus he howls into the night about anti-Catholic bigotry because he knows that will get the attention of the corporate media. They do not scrutinize his wild accusations and they don't look into his background. They are just interested in reporting a conflict and so they dutifully assist him in smearing good people like you who refuse to respect the ancient foolishness of some isolated, frustrated old men who protect their dogma regardless of the human consequences.

Sorry you got bushwhacked, but hang in there and keep street fighting. We need you!

Amanda, thanks for defending yourself here. I'd hate for the blogosphere to become boring just because people will be worried about how what they blog will affect their future employment prospects. There's more than enough "holding back," in our society already.

Your post got me thinking, is there really any such thing as bigotry against any religion? A religion isn't like a race. A religion is a set of ideas and codes of behavior. Seems to me that anyone can have negative feelings about any set of ideas or code of behavior without being a bigot. Bigotry really only applies to issues of race -- when you hate some one for genetic/eugenic type reasons.

All religions and indeed all cultures are fair game for criticism, satire and commentary. It's not bigoted to say that Catholic mythology is silly, the church is corrupt, and there's no god anyway.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Good point Azdak!

It's true that the mainstream has a very difficult time with the very thought of a fearless and unapolgetic left whether in the form of blogs or Democratic candidates who don't apologize for the positions they take. When our side uses language that everyone understands and is strong they freak out. No matter what the right says or how they say it, they give them a pass because the corporate media is much more comfortable with the right's support of entrenched power than they will ever be for the left's call's for change and a more equitable and sensible distribution of resources in society.

What surprises me is that you're surprised at the reaction. This is what the press lives for, works for and prays for - a story about nothing, to whit -

BREAKING NEWS - Anna Nicole Smith's body embalmed - did her breasts explode? The hidden danger to mortuary workers of pumping embalming fluid into women who had breast implants. Later in this hour a former employee of a mortuary will tell us how this issue can affect the health and safety of embalming professionals and how these workers can protect themselves.

I think schools need to start de-emphasizing the "democracy" part of the US Government. It's easy to let poop flow downhill and blame the voter, and in a pure democracy that may be a legitimate criticism. However, in terms of the Electoral College and seeing the day-to-day workings of the government as those of a Republic serve as a more accurate lens through which to view current events. There are many many disconnections between Joe Voter and the Administration (whether you voted for them or not) that can cause the "democracy" minded citizen to feel frustrated. Merely knowing that there is very little influence I actually have outside of some of my votes has enabled me to take a step back and also to be a little more critical, knowing that I couldn't have done anything about it.

This is all somewhat vague and doesn't touch on the majority of your points, but I think that the republic/democracy split is crucial for understanding the late capitalist administration in the US.

My this is a self absorbed self indulgent thread. Maybe we should get back to the topic at hand.

I learned a long time ago that when trying to communicate it is best to use words that are effective. If a writer takes a position in disagreement with another, it is best to use words that demonstrate disagreement without being disagreeable.

Once a writer descends into name calling, it is just too easy for the other side to turn the argument back on to the name caller.

The problem with blogs is that they have the feel of a local bar. People say things among friends down at the local pub they would never say to their mothers. That's fine. Unfortunately blogs have more in common with newspapers than with the local pub. It is easy to forget that anything you write on a blog, including behind the false anonymity of a pseudonym in a comments section, is permanent. It will follow you around. It becomes part of your life's work. Part of how you are judged. Donahue and Maklin in their own hypocritical way have taught us all a lesson about the new media. It is important that we all remember it.

All of that said I still think we need to make sure the hate speakers like Donahue, and Maklin are held to the same standard they would impose on the left.

Ron Byers

"...lies and misinformation have so much traction." How about no information.

Harpers March, '07. Ken Silverstein, a staff reporter for the LATimes wrote, "To write with any nuance about Islamists for an American audience is to invite controversy." Silverstein visited Lebanon, interviewed Hezbollah members, wrote an article for the Times, submitted it and met "with insurmountable editorial obstacles. It was clear that I was deemed to have written a story that was too favorable to Hezbollah..."

The upshot was by the time the "editors" at the Times got through with his story it was so gutted that he decided to pull the piece "rather than 'inoculate' it to the point of dishonesty." The "gutting", according to Silverstein was because the paper feared offending surpporters of Israel. (One has to wonder how many stories never make it to print, not to mention how many make it but are so bastardized that they're unrecognizable from the original.)

I read your lies and misinformation (and my no information) and their obvious traction in the media as why it's vital that the blog world exist. (It's a good bet that a lot of people out there wish it didn't.)

The right wing noise machine that drove Melissa McEwan and me to resign from the Edwards campaign flung a bunch of pointless and unsubstantiated claims to create the illusion there was anything going on besides outrage that we were "vulgar".

That you vacillated and quit in the face of right wing attacks
(ala Dan Rather, etc.) simply reinforces the right wing's ability to control certain media. Democrats need to grow some spine and take the right wing fanatics on, Christ knows, you have more ammunition than was used in WWll. Now they go on to their next victim. Shame on you.

Name achieves nothing other than a waste of time and energy. It achieves nothing, is intended to achieve nothing other than hatred and divisiveness..

It's why people who resort to name calling are little more than bags of hot air.. and are about as productive as the same.

The people want positive change, you want to create a divesion to hype a career that is going nowhere fast.. so you jumped onto the noise machine bandwagon.. not so different than Rush Limbaugh.. thing is you're alot less intelligent... and considering how low Limbaugh is intelligence-wise, that's saying something. You clutch of an amen choir aren't going to buoy you into anything other than a more laughed at obscurity.

I made that point in a long note to Deborah Howell. The point of the note was that this is going to keep happening--fake news stories created by distorted press releases from partisan sources--until the MSM starts fact-checking everything. I think part of what happened here is that an organization with a religion in its name is lent more credence than say, the ethical culture society or the secular humanists. Donohue cynically exploits this bias.

The Post did, in the end, treat this story with more balance and accuracy than the Times.

No, her use of the term is identical to his. He says that people who would impose their religion on their fellow citizens are bad people. So does she.

IOW, she behaves exactly like he does. Whee, what a concept.

Right off the top of my head, I can think of at least two people that have repudiated Brownback, et al, without once resorting to namecalling. Jim Wallis and Robin Meyers. They know something that Ms. Marcotte doesn't know -- "you can't make yourself look good by making someone else look bad."

Of course, I have repudiated the Republican party, the President and associated rightwing Christians at the ballotbox, in my Church, and in the locker room of my local gym. I contributed substantial monies to the Ned Lamont campaign, Act Blue, MoveOn and the DNC. I even got the obligatory banning from redstate.com.

The plain fact is, I do not believe in the old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Ms. Marcotte is not my friend. Were she to gain the power to do so, she would behave in a manner as inimical to my faith as the Donohues, Coulters or O'Reallys.

Sure, namecalling can be fun. In the sauna, somebody sees me reading The Nation and asks, "So what do you think of President Bush." I pretend to think a moment, and then reply, "I think he's a lying, draftdodging coward." But then, if some 235 lb slab of beef starts making threatening implications about my patriotism or physical wellbeing, I don't run out to front desk and whine about it.

Perhaps, Ms. Marcotte (and, by extension, many other bloggers) simply lack the sense that their actions may have real, negative consenquences. She seems all ready to embrace "vulgarity" as a connection to "the people," but not so ready to embrace it when it appears in the form of a fist to the snoot. Out here in the "reality-based community," someone might track her down and put a rock through her window. Or, follow her and video tape her while she drops her kid off at school. Or, denigrate her on national TV. If she is so disconnected from "the people" that none of these outcomes occurred to her, well, it's coffee-smellin' time.

Thanks.

mp

If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
-- Louis Armstrong

I have two questions:

1. How is Donahue's quoting Amanda's own writings "smearing" her? Donahue didn't invent the stuff about the Holy Spirit; he just quoted her. I just don't see it's anything other than a self-inflicted wound.

2. How is Sam Brownback a fascist? Calling the Taliban or Al Qaeda fascist organizations seems to fit. But Sam Brownback? It reminds me of leftists back in the 1960s calling anyone they didn't agree with a fascist. It was tired in the 60s, and it'a shame someone as young as Amanda has decided to pick up the habit.

Beyond that, Amanda is well suited as a netroots blogger, but horribly suited for a presidential blogger. I wonder if Donahue has responded to all the attacks against him over all of this mess, or if he's just sitting back laughing that Amanda and Melissa quit on their own accord. It's also interesting that I've never read a comment on any blog that has defended or praised Donahue.

I too am upset that you resigned. What's to come from that? They won. That's horrible. When will a stand be made? If one can't be made against these people, when can it? Sad.

As to the "anti-Catholic" nature on a satire of the Virgin Birth, this is not really too surprising. Though it is a "Christian" belief, the Virgin Mary overall was traditionally an important Catholic figure.

Finally, in some fashion, criticism of basic beliefs and practices of a movement is "anti" said movement. This is fine. I guess the concern is disrespect. But, opposing, with force, trouble filled religious beliefs is not wrong. See Atrios' recent discussion.

It's the reason why we have seperation of church and state eightballo. The thing of it is, you don't have to tolerate anyone's religious views being imposed upon you, just as a religious person doesn't have to allow you to impose your ideological views on them.

That's not to say that efforts aren't made. There will at times be the Falwell's and Bush's out there, just as there will be their equivalent in what you espouse...

In societies that forbid religion, women's lives and bodies, the minds and actions of all people are controlled.. how can you be so short sighted? But again, you are an example of a dogmtist looking to impose your belief system over the lives of others. In your brave new world, what might cause a parting of the ways between you and and the PTB, making you a candidate on their hit list?

I'm not talking about what you infer as "polite conversation", what I was refering to was effective, intelligent and rationale discourse on the issues.. it's about building consensus and bringing about positive change.

What you want to ignore is that it's not religion, but unethical, hypocritical human behavior.. attacking religion, even eradicating religion wouldn't end it. You have to be an idiot to believe she is intereted in anything other than attacking religion.

Marcotte in one of her pieces inferred that pedeophelia was primarily a problem because of the catholic church, which not only is false, it undermines the efforts dealing with the issue as a whole.

In another blog post, Marcotte inferred that any discussion of cancer risks from the pill were nothing more than part of a church campaign of disinformation.

On Berube's blog, Marcotte wrote a long rant about Nabokov's Lolita and right wing reaction to it. One respondent accurately recognized how both her response and the right wing response actually were mirrors of each other.

If you're content to have yourself mired in reactionary stasis with the right wing instead of actually taking them on, on the issues.. then do it to yourself, you aren't dragging the rest of us down with you.

I think there is religious bigotry that is real, and I oppose it in all its forms. It's confusing, because it gets intermingled with ethnic bigotry, but I think there's a reasonably straightforward problem of people being discriminated against because of their privately held beliefs. Catholics used to be barred from schools and jobs in the past. Jews and Muslims still get mistreated. Religious bigotry extends to non-religious people. For instance, I don't consider a person's private beliefs when deciding whether or not to vote for him, but if I ran for office, that I'm an atheist would mean a lot of voters wouldn't vote for me even if I was the ideal candidate in other ways. So yes, I think it's real. I just don't think my criticisms of church policy count as bigotry and to say so waters down the meaning of the word.

People have a right to say just about anything they want, Mary. That doesn't mean others have a duty to pay attention to it or show respect for it. Amanda is free to write what she wants on her blog, and others are free to despise her opinions and denounce her for what she writes. And she can fight back - that's the American Way. Until such time as some authority shows up at Amanda's door with anorder to shut her blog down, I don't see what the fuss is about. Similarly, unless someone can show me that Catholics are being prohibited somehow from believing what they want, professing what they want, and practicing their religion because of something Amanda has written, then I don't see a problem. Nobody is organizing a "thought police". But neither Catholics as a class, Amanda personally nor or anyone else is entitled to have their views respected.

The same goes for you and me. If someone wants to write something stereotyping people like me, objecting to my beliefs, ridiculing me, mocking me, calling me names, I say go for it. As long as I am free to believe and say what I want, they can't touch me. Nobody is under any onbligation to respect me and my beliefs.

I'm sorry to everyone hurt that I resigned. I wish I could have withstood more abuse, but I'm sure that if I put up with more, it would just escalate. I feel more safe, though. Melissa has had to put up with people showing up at her house.

There is an awful lot of cant and double-talk in this discussion, from all corners.

If it is a central Catholic doctrine that P, and someone criticizes P and expresses their opposition to P, then to that extent they are anti-Catholic I suppose. They might even believe that P is not just false, but an odious and malevolent doctrine, and carry out writing and propaganda campaigns aimed at persuading people not to be Catholics. Similarly, if someone believes that atheism is the root of all evil, and they write pamphlets saying "atheism is the root of all evil" and attempt through argument or ridicule to persuade people not to be atheists, that is their right. Nothing in the constitution circumscribes certain beliefs and declares them "immune from criticism". The constitution just forbids the government from hampering the "free exercise" of religion.

I would like to respect the beliefs of all other people. But frankly, I don't respect everyone's beliefs. And of the beliefs I respect, I don't respect them all equally. Some beliefs, though I disagree with them, seems reasonable enough. Other beliefs I find so idiotic that there is no way I can bring myself to respect them.

Tell me then why Donohue didn't actually quote the "anti-Catholic" parts.

Kidding! I know why he didn't. Because the specific mentions of the church were a) about actual church policy that hurts Catholics and b) pretty indefensible---the church was handing out information sheets that had lies and misinformation in order to "trick" young couples out of using contraception.

I find it repugnant the very idea that I am against Catholics when I wrote the story supporting Catholic friends who were concerned that the church was using devious methods to push dogma, because they (rightfully) know a lot of Catholics ignore the church rules against contraception.

Anyway, I know you mean well, but some more background is necessary. Criticizing public policy and coercive actions is not the same as bigotry.

I think part of what happened here is that an organization with a religion in its name is lent more credence than say, the ethical culture society or the secular humanists.

One would have also hoped for some pushback against the sheer laziness of media bookers and journalists, particularly those who put the Catholic League on speed-dial while working out of studios opposite St Patrick's Cathedral.

There was a window of opportunity to force dioceses on the record over Donohue, and thus limit his capacity to bloviate in future. I fear that's passed.

By that account then even Donahoe and Archie Bunker aren't bigots. Both are only intolerant of only some of the creeds that are not their own, not all of them.

The most objective way to get at offensiveness, I think, is to change the players.

This was how some 20 years ago I was able to see just how bad it was for people to laugh at "women drivers." I only had to imagine people laughing at "black drivers" to see how very wrong the laughter was.

The Mary quote is harder to work with, and as an atheist I've got no natural feel for it, but this is what I came up with:

What if Martin Luther King, Jr. had become a male stripper instead of leading the civil rights movement?

And you know, I think that's the kind of thing that would get African-American leaders upset.

Mind you, this kind of thing from a staff member before they were staff merits only minor discussion, and those who send hate mail, and incite it, should be persecuted, in my view.

Of course there are. They tend to focus on policy rather than personalities, though.

And, until very recently, they've tended to be single-issue organizations, which have made them less adaptable and effective than the big, conservative think tanks like Heritage and AEI, who can adjust to the times and coordinate their focus on, say, escalating the Iraq War this week, or destroying social security next week.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to question what I think you are saying and that is that the Edwards campaign did a rotten job from a personnel management perspective, and that Amanda and Melissa have been unfairly targeted by hypocrites and filthy varmints. And I have no problem with a focus on that.

But, even in the Dukakis days, I would bet that the campaign would not have held on to a low level staffer with a national audience who wrote things that were plainly offensive to this or that valued constituency.

Sorry WRB, now I get it. But then a person who is intolerant of any belief at all, no matter how weird or extreme, is a bigot? Aren't their some beliefs of which we should be intolerant, and should try to eradicate?

One, what's going on at Salon is a political operation. Most of the most active people there are trolls, sent over from other sites to bray the Donohue-style line. If there are any well-intentioned Democratic Catholics led astray among them, grow up. You're being used. And the "I'm a Democrat, but--" line is something they teach in troll school. Fox has four or five of those "Democrats" on their payroll. They never actually use the word except in the phrase, "I'm a Democrat, but--"

Two, nobody says you can't participate in politics because you're Catholic. But just because you're Catholic, you can't expect everybody on the left (or on the right) to be Catholic, or genuflect to Holy Mother Church. The 14th Amendment applies to you, too; but that doesn't mean that we have to take every word out of your mouths as gospel. The majority of Ameican Catholics ignore the Church's position on birth control, why should the general population believe it?

Bring back the good people of Catholic Charities. Bring back the Berrigan brothers, I loved them. The Donohue Catholics are a new face on Franco-style fascism.

There is an odd confusion about what a campaign is about. On the one hand it is about attracting as many people to your standard as possible. Thus offending people with the juvenile use of vulgar words and seems rather silly. However, there is another part of a campaign and that is putting forth ones own ideas. Presumably those ideas will attract more people than they will repel but hey are partly about being divisive. Great leaders are ultimately the most offensive to the minority that oppose them.

What is not clear is what the Edwards' campaign wanted. Did they think they could expand their base among bloggers without alienating others? Is their goal like television, offend as few as possible? If it is is there any faster way to lose and election? Or did they just have no idea what to expect?

Donohue does not seem to distinguish opposing the powerful Catholic Church and the positions that the Church espouses that impact non-Catholics and attacking Catholic's. Donohue seems to be oblivious to the power of the Church. The result is to attempt to end all debate on issue of abortion, stem cell research and the treatment of Gays. Was Edwards unwilling to wade into this distinction? If he was not willing what was he doing with bloggers on his staff?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Dan K:

It's perfectly understandable that you might have an objection to this or that component of a belief system, and it is perfectly appropriate for you to express your views without prior restraint. Indeed, it is critical to protect everyone's right to express their beliefs or lack thereof.

It is equally true that a presidential political campaign has the right to make decisions about the message it is sending to important and often conflicting constituencies. And you are always free to evaluate Edwards based on how you believe he acted in this situation and opt to vote accordingly. Thus, if you think Edwards' actions suggest a lack of commitment on his part to defend people who don't have this or that feeling about Catholicism, or if you are just upset that Edwards failed to defend free speech rights, there are plenty of other good and decent Democrats to consider.

This raises a very important point about Donohue and his cohorts. What they call "Catholocism" is one strain of it, which happens to be very unpopular with most American Catholics. And it is supposedly "anti-Catholic bigotry" to criticize that particular strain of it.

You can see this in the Supreme Court debates. It was argued to be anti-Catholic to go after Alito and Roberts for their perceived positions on abortion, because they were practicing Catholics, as if all Catholics are pro-lifers! And nobody seems to ever point this out-- the positions held by Mr. Donohue on social issues like abortion, contraception, gay rights, and stem cell research are rejected by most American Catholics. If anything, that makes it more plausible to claim, by his own definitions, that Mr. Donohue is an "anti-Catholic bigot" because he is critical of positions held by the majority of American Catholics.

This has real impacts for public policy. The Catholic Church has a certain amount of political power. This is based on the fact that it is a large organization and receives all the deference that mainstream religious organizations receive in American politics. But there's no reason to credit them with strength in numbers; in fact, it is better to speak of American Catholics as pro-contraception, pro-choice, and in favor of social justice issues such as anti-poverty programs. If we could turn the media spin around as to what counts as "Catholic", the Bill Donohues of the world would lose a lot of their clout.

Amanda,

In your "statement" released by the Edward's campaign, you categorically state: "My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs".

And yet in your rambling post above, you categorically state: "...I was mocking the 'Every Sperm Is Sacred' mentality".

I hate to burst your bubble, but as "vulgar" as you consider it to be, "Every Sperm is Sacred" is a personal belief shared by Catholics. Whether few or many Catholics share that belief is as irrelevant as the "context" in which you were writing.

For all of your circular reasoning about bloggers needing to grab some populist brass ring, when you mock someone's, anyone's, personal beliefs, your intent is to offend them for sharing that belief.

So, in my opinion, the statement you released through the Edward's campaign was more offensive than the anti-Catholic [doctrine, dogma, policy, personal belief] that you did write. Because the apology was, at best, disingenuous, and, at worst, a lie.

Furthermore, it boggles this liberal's mind that you would state the following to justify your position: "Right now, the American left has ceded the populist ground that should be ours for the taking. In part, it's because we respect the moral obligation not to pander on sexist, racist, or religious grounds."

Did you express this sentiment to the Edward's campaign before they hired you? Because I read that and I picture Anne Coulter saying the same damned thing from the other side.

So, please stop patronizing us that you fell victim to some right wing hit job. Donahue urged Edward's to fire you, which was kind considering Edward's should have never hired you in the first place. But Edward's should have never been placed in a position of having to fire you OR asking you to resign. You should have done it on your own. Quietly.

Instead, you prolong this story by remaining defiant for some bizarre need for attention. I don't know if it's because you want to get even with Donahue or Malkin or if you just have an exaggerated opinion of yourself.

But the media isn't afraid of bloggers, Amanda. You only serve to prove them right about the worse aspects of us.

Deleted and Moved

But again, you are an example of a dogmtist looking to impose your belief system over the lives of others. 

Add "dogmatist" to leftist, fascist, racist, and the rest of the lexicon describing "Anyone With Whom Mary Disagrees."

It's a big tent -- welcome to it, eightballo.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

You know, it's funny how much more upset theofascists get over obscenity than over profanity. In fact, some theofascists actually use profanities such as damn, hell and Jesus H. Christ. If they were so-so-religious, shouldn't the religious-based profanities that are common everywhere bother them much more than the merely vulgar, but not profane words like funk, shit and cunt?

Personally, I like obscenities. I like the word fuck. When overused, though, it loses its punch. I don't like profanitites - even though I am atheist - since it seems more offensive to me to use words that profane people's beliefs than words that are merely vulgar.

As to the controversy, I like your blog. I like what you have to say, but I do think hiring you was a mistake on the part of the campaign and it was a mistake for you to take the job. Campaigns have a very restrictive style of communication and are too limited for someone whose expressive style is so colorful.

Although I hoped the campaign would retain you at the beginning, you lost my support when you posted on your personal blog AFTER the media frenzy had begun. That was a serious midjudgment and they were right to fire you then.

It was seriously unprofessional and self-indulgent to continute to post to your personal blog after being hired. Doing so after the brouhaha of your firing-rehiring was downright inane - or self-destructive. Come on, you knew you were under scrutiny and criticism and still posted that movie review. You had to know that would cause a shitstorm - and it did. That was completely self-indulgent and showed none of the professional care that a real campaign staffer would have toward protecting the campaign and candidate's reputation. For some reason, it was more important to you to indulge your personal blogging impulse than it was to do what was best for the campaign. After that, they had no choice but to fire you.

I do think the theofascists mischaracterized your writing. It's not bigoted, but it is filled with obscenities. Complaining about that would be fair since some folks really object to obscenities. I also think there is nothing bigoted about criticizing theocratic public policy agendas - such as the Catholic League's misogynistic agenda. It's pathetic that people cannot understand the difference.

In a somewhat related matter, I find it infuriating that homophobic theocrats argue that homosexuality cannot be a protected class because, as they erroneously believe, it's a matter of choice. Religous belief is a protected class and that is solely a matter of choice. If these theofascists want to insist that choice invalidates protection, then they shouldn't run to the first amendment everytime they feel insulted.

I listened to your segment on Heading Left. I wish they allowed you two to talk more, but overall it brought out some points I hadn't heard elsewhere. Let's just say there was no war-room atmosphere surrounding your hire: where you fit into camp strategy, marching orders, etc., and how to cope with attacks.

I love what all this tech does for us, but I'd want a face-to-face meeting when it's time to circle the wagons, unless the team is so tight that you can act as one unconsciously. So I feel for you. I tend to think almost every failure is a management failure, and in that respect I think you got a raw deal. I do think that JRE realized that and I was in favor of his response.

I do buy into 'bigot' being the trojan for 'vulgar', but I can't buy into the fine-tuning of how offensive that copy is, or how much work you expect the reader to do in order to arrive at just the right level of offensiveness. There is no context that makes your comment inoffensive or 'thoughtful'.

I learned a bunch from the information you placed below that joke. I'd read your blog again for access to that kind of info. But I felt like I had to pass some kind of wee hazing before I got there. Not all that problematic, but that was how the copy flowed for me.

I'm not sure where you are going with the class argument, and how vulgarity and/or blogs rescue us from soundbites and elitism. I hope you can revisit that in this series to mesh that together somewhat.

Once Amanda Marcotte was hired and Bill Donohue found out about her, the die was cast and things came out as expected. I am still somewhat amazed that anyone is surprised -- a cabal that has been repeatedly accused of doing ANYTHING to stay in power proves its detractors correct by doing ANYTHING to stay in power. Okay, and water is wet.

Re vulgarity: I'm for it, if it makes writing more effective, and I'm against it if it doesn't. Whether it's effective depends on the context, the audience and what one hopes to accomplish. In general left wing vulgarity on matters pertaining to religion is not very effective because, like it or not, it plays into the hands of those who have been warning America that progressive politics are godless. It confirms stereotypes and therefore tends to reinforce rather than change pre-exising opinions.

And then there is the issue of strategic use of one's platform: No one is ever going to outmaneuver Donohue when it comes to the Catholic Church by engaging in the same kind of ear splitting invective that he does. No can do, not Amanda Marcotte, not anybody, I mean not unless you have the capacity to play very, very rough. It takes a seriously strong person to be able to withstand threats to one's personal safety. But while we're in this vein, do not delude yourself that no one would accept such risks -- federal judges who enforced the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, for instance, and the men and women of color who tried to register to vote in the Jim Crow South, and those who helped them. I wouldn't expect either of these bloggers to do that unless they had access to the resources of someone like George Soros because nothing much is at stake through their continued employment with Edwards.

But thinking about how predictable this all was, I think that most of us realize that raising the decibel level by using vulgarity IN THIS INSTANCE is not strategically smart, that is, if you are seriously interested in change. Amanda, your audience should be those couples who choose to marry within the church even though they know and are quite annoyed by the fact that they are receiving duplicitous information from their own church. Why do they do that? Where is their personal integrity? (I'm a marginal Catholic, I'm only insulting myself and those like me when I say this.) These people are the ones who might change their own ways, and by extension, might even have some influence on the church, if only by leaving or refusing to donate time, talent and money. Ask yourself: What do you gain by insulting the beliefs of those people on whose behalf you were presumably offended?

I do find some of the language and the tone used here hard to take.  I don't major on being offended, though.  I do have the choice and the responsibility to not read beyond the point of my own spiritual discomfort.

Sometimes, I may leave myself out of valuable exchanges, but most of the time, I can take the language. At other times, I am too saddened to read on.

I can ask others, in a kind way, to be courteous towards those of us who are progressives and who love Jesus and consider his heart sacred.

Best wishes on your blog, and prayers for common ground,

Ticia 

And part of a healthy, well rounded breakfast.

Actually, we seem to agree fairly completely bslev. This whole event seems like a tempset in a teapot to me. Nothing that happened will have any bearing on my decision about whether or not to support Edward.

Do you deny that the church teaches its parishioners not to use contraception? Are points of dogma ineligible for criticism? I also criticize it when Muslim clerics promote the idea that women should wear burquas. Is that hating Muslims? What if I pointed out that I don't hate Muslims, because I don't want Muslim women to suffer the burqua?

How far do you hold the mic from your butt when speaking in public?

~OGD~

The best reason not to make fun of christians is that it's too easy. There are so many howling contradictions, requiring centuries of convoluted theology to defend, that it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Do you hear the crickets chirping???

~OGD~

ps: Monologues are Mary's specialty.

~

Does anyone have a clue what the difference is between democracy and liberty?

~OGD~

That the Church considers the use of contraception to be sinful is right there in the Catechism. No Catholic is unaware of it. Of course you can criticize dogma, though I'm not sure why you would want to criticize it as dogma if you are not Catholic yourself (rather than as the basis for civil law on reproductive freedom, which is clearly relevant and important to all people, believers or not). The acceptance of this dogma by adherents is totally voluntary (most don't observe it very closely), but in any event, criticizing dogma is likely to be most effective if it proceeds from a theological perspective that actually speaks to those who might consider themselves bound by it. This is where you failed.

Reason for zero rating of the above: Content-free except for its intent to start a flame war.

Her writings, however, don't just express disagreement with Catholics and Christians, but contempt.

And you know what? Those beliefs deserve contempt.

Now, I don't know why any Christian who doesn't actually endorse the imposition of hardline religious right doctrine on secular society would be in any way offended at what Amanda says, because she's not talking about you. If you're offended, that's too bad, but your offense is entirely your own invention (and you are entirely to blame for it) because there is no external basis about it.

Again: unless you support second-class status for gay people and forced pregnancy for women, you have nothing to be offended about. Get the hell over it.

OK, let's put the Edwards debacle behind us. What's next?

This is a really excellent point, and it's one reason I wanted to see Edwards come out fighting on this. He should have said something to the effect of 'I don't have to agree with every single opinion held by every single person on my staff'; instead, he allowed a precedent to be set that expands scrutiny to everyone who works on a campaign in any capacity.

And of course we know for a dead certain fact that this scrutiny will be applied only to Democrats. IOKIYAR. That's what makes it so damaging.

This is nothing but whining. The right wingers aren't the only ones who launch these types of attacks or protests against the other side.

Do you seriously expect us to believe Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, etc, etc, etc have never received hate mail and death threats from folks on the left?

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children recently yanked Bill O'Reilly from a speaking engagement for what they could call "pressure". And for what O'Reilly could call a left wing hit job.

If we're going to excuse Amanda for her rhetoric and tactics, then we can no longer whine about the rhetoric and tactics of the right wing.

"Amanda Marcotte can't say that, can she?" Molly Ivins made a career of blunt speech, but it brought her trouble sometimes, like the famous billboard (and her book title).

I bet Molly wouldn't have lasted long with Edwards.

There is a tremendous difference between that sort of abuse as a side effect of political passions and using it as a deliberate tactic. Donohue clearly does the latter.

At the same time, there is also no moral equivalence between someone who (say) demonizes immigrants and uses revisionist history to defend the Japanese internment camps, on the one hand, and someone who uses strong language to condemn the person who is peddling that sort of bigotry.

In O'Reilly's case, there is a history of exterminationist, pseudo-fascist, and generally bigoted remarks that has no parallel on the left.

Similarly, there is no liberal equivalent of Donohue, who plays the bigotry card as a way of silencing anyone who publicly disagrees with the most conservative interpretation of Catholic doctrine. As a general proposition, liberals will agitate to get some public spokesperson fired only when he or she has crossed the line into true hate speech or incitement to violence.

I think Edwards made a mistake in dropping Amanda, but he was under a lot of pressure from his political enemies. The purpose of that pressure was not to make Edwards do the right thing -- that is what liberals do. The purpose was to hit him with so many accusations that he would be likely to make a mistake reacting to them. Now he is going to have to put up with twice as much unfair criticism. They will keep going after him for having Amanda on his campaign in the first place, even though he dropped her. They will also go after him for changing his mind and dropping her -- for not having the strength to ignore their bogus "we are so offended" hyperventilating in the first place. It's totally inconsistent, but it works, and the right wingers are going to keep doing it as long as it works. So, even though I completely sympathize and agree with Amanda's position, I forgive Edwards. I can't blame him. Keep in mind why Amanda wanted to work for him in the first place, and who the real enemy are.

Well, you're not doing yourself any favors by comparing Amanda to one of the Salem witches.

Does she float?

Happily, I am not a politician, nor was meant to be. I am more concerned with truth than with political posturing. As such, I pointed out a statement you made that was factually untrue (that Amanda expressed contempt for Christians).

Now, obviously it is impolitic to point out to people who choose to take offense that there is in fact no basis for the offense they choose to take. So be it; see the first sentence above.

This don't-have-contempt-for-Christians-just-their-beliefs meme is a little old, don't you think? You don't hate the sinner, just the sin. Where have I heard that before?

Thing one: again, nobody was criticizing Christian beliefs in general. Both of my parents are ministers, and I have a lot of respect for the positive impact of their faith, even if I don't share it. The criticism--Amanda's, mine, criticism all over the blogosphere--was directed at particular beliefs that certain people are seeking to impose on the political order.

Thing two: try substituting 'conservatives' or 'liberals' or 'militant vegetarians' for 'Christians' in that rhetorical question and you'll see just how ridiculous it is. Criticizing a belief that someone happens to hold is not condemning that person, and is not insulting everything they believe, and is not an expression of bigotry toward some class of co-believers.

(I'll just point out in passing that while I'm condemning a particular limited set of beliefs (and that because those believers have chosen to put these beliefs in the political sphere), your basic hardshell fundamentalist evangelical (for example) condemns entire religious traditions--basically, any doctrinal configuration other than his or her own--which, if it's wrong to criticize even one aspect of a church's doctrine, has to be far worse. For that matter, the official position of the Roman Catholic church is that every religious doctrine other than that espoused by the church hierarchy is heretical. If you're looking to take offense, I'd seriously consider taking offense at the believers who believe as a matter of doctrine that everything you believe is wrong and worthless.)

But what I don't understand is why, if you don't share the beliefs I'm criticizing, you would choose to be offended by my criticism. I find that extremely odd.

Help me out on this one. There are certain beliefs that I personally think are just plain stupid and vicious, not just wrong or misguided or somewhat poorly justified - but stupid and vicious. Now I suppose I could say of someone who has a bunch of these stupid and vicious beliefs that I really only think their beliefs are stupid and vicious, not the person. This strikes me as a bit of a lame rationalization. At some point, in all honesty, it is hard for me to see how one can have genuine respect for a person without respecting their beliefs, since beliefs are one of the things that make up a person's identity. If I think a substantial portion of somebody's belief system is stupid and vicious, then by virtue of that I think the person is stupid and vicious. Saying "I think that person's beliefs are thoroughly idiotic, but I don't think the person is idiotic" makes about as much sense to me as saying "that person is quite coordinated; it's just his muscles that are uncoordinated - he can dance, but his feet can't dance."

Now thinking a person is stupid and vicious is one way of having contempt for a person. Having contempt for a person may not be quite the same thing as hating a person, and one can have a certain amount of contempt for people and still acknowledge their rights and recognize a certain baseline level of human dignity to which all human beings are entitled. But it simply isn't the case that if you think someone is an oafish goon or an idiot or a purveyor of oppression and ignorance you can be said to respect them in any serious way.

If you characterize people's beliefs and moral attitudes in such a way that it is clear you find those beliefs and attitudes ridiculous, absurd, comical, buffoonish or revolting, then how much can you really be said to respect the people who hold them?

Can we get back to the question Amanda was addressing that so infuriated Bill Donohue?

Is it mere anti-Catholic bigotry for a woman to point out that the Catholic Church openly treats women as inferior as a matter of doctrine?

Do references to God or tradition absolve the Church of this injustice?

(If there were no black Cardinals in the Church at the beginning of the 21st century, I don't think objecting to that would elicit cries of bigotry.)

Why can't a woman be furious at an organization that actively campaigns to restrict her rights with the slander that abortion is murder?

As for Amanda's vulgarity: When the Vice President of the United States tells a Senator to go fuck himself on the Senate floor, I think any discussion about what a candidate's blogmistress (ouch, Amanda) may have said on her private blog has been mooted.

I'm not sure I want to live in a world where people would rather hear Dick Cheney say fuck than Amanda Marcotte say cunt.

Now pardon me (as Scooter will soon be singing), I must go and read my Vulgate.

Can we get back to the question Amanda was addressing that so infuriated Bill Donohue?

Is it mere anti-Catholic bigotry for a woman to point out that the Catholic Church openly treats women as inferior as a matter of doctrine?

Do references to God or tradition absolve the Church of this injustice?

(If there were no black Cardinals in the Church at the beginning of the 21st century, I don't think objecting to that would elicit cries of bigotry.)

Why can't a woman be furious at an organization that actively campaigns to restrict her rights with the slander that abortion is murder?

As for Amanda's vulgarity: When the Vice President of the United States tells a Senator to go fuck himself on the Senate floor, I think any discussion about what a candidate's blogmistress (ouch, Amanda) may have said on her private blog has been mooted.

I'm not sure I want to live in a world where people would rather hear Dick Cheney say fuck than Amanda Marcotte say cunt.

Now pardon me (as Scooter will soon be singing), I must go and read my Vulgate.

Why can't a woman be furious at an organization that actively campaigns to restrict her rights with the slander that abortion is murder?

She can be, and she should be. In fact, she and others should say "Catholic doctrine, teachings and practice are profoundly mistaken and harmful in several very important areas." Let's go for it.

But no presidential candidate in 2007 America can say that - nor can they have their acknowledged operatives saying it. It's just a fact of life. They can say various things that seem to imply it for anyone with the rudimentary cognitive capacities needed to put two and two together. They can say other Americans have the right to say these things. But they have to dance around this issue and address it with a great deal of delicacy, and a not insignificant amount of hypocrisy. It might be a depressing and maddening to have to confront these political facts. But those are the ground rules of American politics as it is currently played by anyone with a chance to win.

Here are some other things politicians can't say about religion, even if they happen to believe them:

1, Bible the word of God? I have my doubts.

2. Transubstantiation? Utter rubbish.

3. Revelation prophesies? 99.9% pure horseshit.

4. Jews: chosen people? Wrong.

5. Second coming? Was there a first coming?

6. Biblical teachings on sexuality? Some peaks of wisdom interspersed with long valleys of ignorance.

7. The resurrection? Probably a story made up by an early Christian propagandist.

8. Conservative, reform or orthodox Judaism? Reform is clearly the way to go.

9. The nativity story? Clearly a a later scriptural embellishment to connect Christianity with the propesies of other Near Eastern and mediterranean religious sects?

10. Satanism? It has its flaws, but then again there are elements of truth in it as well.

There are other more secular orthodoxies as well. Politicians in 2007 can't say, for example, that the conquest of the American west was a long parade of broken treaties, accompanied by genocidal massacres and ethnic cleansing.

You insult the late, great Molly Ivins with such a comparison. Molly didn't seek to spread hatred and bigotry, she stood tall and brave against it. Made cojent, intelligent arguements and actually achieved... Ms Ivins would have called Marcotte on her bigotry and wasteful excess.

Molly Ivins didn't mince words, she spoke plainly, but didn't need to insult and demean and she refused to stereotype.. she wanted to raise standards, not lower them.

She used humor and would even use a touch of the ribald, but never crawled in the gutter. Sorry, but she was better than that, and she made a difference.

“and the result is that everyone who wants to be in politics is scared to ever say anything interesting or thoughtful for fear that it will be taken out of context and used relentlessly to discredit them.”

That might be part of the reason politicians might shy away from saying useful or thoughtful things. But a bigger part of the reason is that even if their statements are taken in context, the people they are trying to induce to vote for them don't believe - or even strenuously reject - some of those useful and thoughtful things. Thus the politician might have to forbear saying those useful or thoughtful things if they want to get elected.

In this case, someone at the Edwards campaign clearly didn't do enough homework. If the Saint Donahue the Asshole hadn't been the one to sieze this opportunity, eventually someone else soon would have - perhaps even someone more respectable and temperate. Eventually, though, the campaign would have benn called to account for hiring someone whose writings contain criticisms of Catholic doctrine fashioned out of juxtapositions of pornographic imagery with references to the incarnation.

Yes, democracy is government by the people or by their elected representatives. Liberty is freedom.

Your failure to realize that your road-hogging choices to say what you did, in the way you did, would spell trouble for Edwards is me-firstness of a peculiarly blind variety.

Why was my earlier comment, part of which is still viewable as an entry under "comments" in my personal page, gone from this thread?

It read, more or less, "OK, let's put the Edwards debacle behind us. What's next?"

It was posted at 7:47 PM.

Who the fuck is removing non-offensive posts?

Right, and now that I have seen the tiny green letters at the bottom of the first page of comments, pointing us to a second page, so do I.

But apparently the system can't take you to a comment that is on the second page of comments when you click on that comment from your personal page. When I do that, it just takes me to the top of the first page of comments, where there is no indication that a second page of comments even exists. That does seem kinda dumb.

Close, but no cigar...

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.~Ben~

Welcome aboard Chris40....

Instead of referring to the Honorable Sam Brownback as a fascist, seeing that he isn't, would fundamental patriarchal authoritarian be more suitable? Or does that still sound too 60s leftist for ya'?

~OGD~

ps: I sense that someone seriously needs to ed-u-mi-cate themselves to what fascism is all about...

Amanda...

It appears that you have been played as the peanut butter in the comment sandwich here ... Hmmm... ;^/

~OGD~

"Now I suppose I could say of someone who has a bunch of these stupid and vicious beliefs that I really only think their beliefs are stupid and vicious, not the person."

"Help me out on this one. "

Glad to. Look up the concept of cathechism and godparents who promise before God to teach it to you when you are just days old.

What you are suggesting is blaming Catholic kids for listening to their parents and godparents. Which is pretty stupid and equivalent to blaming the Hitlerjugend for the Holocaust or Soviet Young Pioneers for the Gulag. And boy howdy you don't want to dig too deep into Baden-Powell's links to fascim before you start viewing that Cub Scout with alarm.

Kids are impressionable. Who knew? Well Hitler and Gregory VII for starters.

When I was a kid we called Brazil Nuts "nigger toes". Why? Because our parents did and we didn't know any better. And blaming Catholic kids for the sins of Pius IX doesn't make much more sense than blaming me for using the nut vocabulary of my parents.

"Now maybe its just me, but it has been my experience that associating some holy or venerated object with images of blood, urine, feces, snot or semen is one of the things that tends to offend and gross out religious people to an extreme degree."

No it is not just you. It is just you and people who go out of their way to get offended to make points.

Nobody would have given a shit about Jose Serrano, that crucifix, and that piss. It was a crappy piece of art meant to make a shallow point but now it is a goddamn icon. Because Giuliani went out of his way to get offended.

Nobody would have noticed or cared if Giuliani had not dialed up the outrage dial. A whole lot more people were exposed to 'Piss Christ' after Giuliani got his panties into a twist then ever would have been before. It is kind of a signature of the Right: "Look, Look LOOK. Aren't you offended now? Well yeah now, once you pointed it out and rubbed my face in it over and over.

As if my being confused would have any bearing on the conversation whatsoever.

Rationally and civilly criticizing a church doctrine or belief is radically different than using rash sarcasm, vulgarity, and insults to make a point.

When you mock a person's beliefs, you're not trying to make them see the larger context, you're trying to piss them off.

I don't begrudge Amanda's right to piss people off. But she shouldn't act surprised when she succeeds.

And we shouldn't be pretending she was the poor victim of some right wing smear job.

LOL...well I don't think I was making that comparison since it is my belief that none of the accused were actually witches. But if she is pissed at me about the analogy I guess I will have to deal with it... ;-)

Can she float? I'm not sure but I hear Donohue wanted to make a bridge out of her (obscure Monty Python reference, lol).

Amanda,

Feel free to omit me from any apology list. :)

And for people wondering, there were a lot of true trolls at Pandagon last week. Of the death-threat and rape-threat variety.

Hey Amanda

You rock my world. Never read your stuff before. Keep telling like it is to the christofascists and their liberal apologists. IMO, its time for all religion to go to its ugly grave where it should have been relegated hundreds of years ago.

Name achieves nothing other than a waste of time and energy. It achieves nothing, is intended to achieve nothing other than hatred and divisiveness..

On Feb 14., Mary from RI said to me:

Again, ignorance and cruelty are human flaws, but Marcotte wasn't taking a stand against ignorance and cruelty.. neither are you Rick, you are in actuallity seeking to promote more of the same.

(Her post, BTW, was in response to a post of mine nitpicking her for mischaracterizing a post of Amanda's. Mary still hasn't responded to my correction, preferring to switch gears into an ad hominem attack.)

The problem isn't the lack of talking points from the Left, it's the identity of the people representing the consolidated corporate media at its highest level. All of the people in charge of the major media corporations are biased to favor the economic policies of the Republicans. To change that problem, we may need to
a) flatten the wealth distribution a bit
b) radically reform corporate practices
c) especially in the media industries, so
d) media outlets that don't reflexively pass on right-wing talking points can have access to the marketplace.

A lot of people realize network news and corporate newspapers are producing a lot of crap. But the market as it currently exists doesn't allow for a lot of variation in product.

Also, anyone who believes that the blogosphere is comprised of the "common people" is in serious denial. It's an elitist statement that infers that they are the only ones who count.

Yes, identifying oneself with the "common people" is elitist.

(bangs head on desk)

"imply", "infer"

Learn the difference. It's jarring to see "infer" used when "imply" is meant.

Let's say "P" is "married couples should never divorce".

Is it really "anti-Catholic" to express opposition to P?

(Here's my perspective: my parents were practicing Catholics when they divorced. The marriage was annulled so apparently it never happened.)

What if "P" is "priests should not be punished by the state for acts of pederasty"? That is the de facto position of the Catholic Church. Is it "anti-Catholic" to oppose this position?

Even if a statement is counter to a belief held by the Church, does that make it "bigotry"? All of the Catholic Supreme Court Justices (Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts) support the public implementation of the death penalty, a practice that was in line with Church dogma when they were children, but that particular dogma changed in the 1960s under Pope John XXIII. Are these Justices "anti-Catholic"?

One problem that the knee-jerk bigotry accusers face is that they know that the dogma of the Catholic Church is malleable. They hate this fact (and pointing it out undermines their church's intellectual foundation) so they feel compelled to violently defend the dogma du jour. But, given that the history of the Church shows any number of occasions when the dogma has chanegd in response to reformists, isn't it a bit inappropriate to use the language of "bigotry" to somebody who merely opposes the current state of dogma?

The fact that Ms. Marcotte thinks Catholic parishes are liberal or conservative based on the city they are located in should alert the reader that she doesn't know much about the diversity of Catholic parishes.

When I was a kid, my father took me to Catholic masses at the Paulist center in Boston, a church that has recently come under fire in the context that it has been John Kerry's parish. You can read about it at the Weekly Standard in an article with the sub-headline "A look inside John Kerry's preferred place of worship, the Paulist Center. It's where people who hate the Church go to church."

Of course this is a smear job on the Paulist Center - no hate is taught there. The Church is, however, tolerant of divorce and endorses a number of left-wing causes.

How do you think the Paulist Center would fare in, say, Houston? What about Salt Lake City?

Oops. Sorry about the multiple posting. Am I a newbie?

IOW, she behaves exactly like he does. Whee, what a concept.

No she doesn't. That's the freakin' point she is making. People who want to impose their religious beliefs on other people are people who hate America. You don't get to say that Islamic people who want to impose their religious beliefs on others by law hate America, but then follow up by saying that Christian people who want to impose their religious beliefs on others by law are the only real Americans.

Amanda's point is that if you're going to cite principles, then they should apply in all instances. Brownback, and the president, say that the principle only applies to Muslims.

The plain fact is, I do not believe in the old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Ms. Marcotte is not my friend. Were she to gain the power to do so, she would behave in a manner as inimical to my faith as the Donohues, Coulters or O'Reallys.

What are you talking about? Were she to gain power, she would leave you alone. She wouldn't tell you how to run your intimate life. She wouldn't make your children recite a loyalty oath that includes a reference to a Christian God, every single school day. She wouldn't even consider requiring prayers in school or teaching children lies about biology. Nor would she try to do anything to interfere with how you wanted to raise your own children, your use of the rhythm method or whether you pray five times a day facing Mecca.

Amanda asks "How did it get to this?"

Partial answer:

Because the news media falls for it every time.

Do they really? Are they or anybody at that high a functioning human level THAT STUPID ALL THE TIME? Don't believe it for a minute. We may still have a semblance of a free society, but in terms of mainstream press it's all bought and paid for. The hardest part of watching the news today (Olberman excepted) is watching them and wondering who they think they're fooling. Faux is the tour de force, but others are just as bad.

I'll bet that more people already know Brittany is bald than know we didn't find WMD's in Iraq even after all these years.

Enjoy.

The thing about the term “Islamofascist” is that it paints all Muslims with the broad-brush of religious fascism, as it was intended to do. I like the “o” used to tie the concepts together. Hyphenation (Islamic-fascist) wasn’t catchy enough. It reminds me of the “of” abbreviation as in “Top o’ the mornin’ to ya” or that cuddly old Christmas toy from SNL, Bag o’ Glass. Islam out of fascism translates into Islam = Fascism. I haven’t seen the word “godbag” before, but it’s funny and I think I get it (as in Pat Robertson is a godbag?).

Bloggers want to have an audience which you don't get by being vanilla.

One way to grab and audience is to use lots of profanity, it marks you as "edgy" and tough, especially if the blogger is a woman (not as effective if the blogger is a man, on account of people are more used to profanity from men).

Another important tactic is to be really ANGRY. You can't be too angry ... your anger has to be white hot and unrelenting.

That is a fairly obtuse and uninspired take on my post, the clear meaning of which was that she should have known that certain features of her previous work would be raised (yes, by scum, but that's not the end of the matter except for true-believers), and, that it would be unwise for Edwards to hire her for that reason.

BTW, I like how you reverse the flow of my post and then complain about some of us getting the "order of events" wrong. I have always addressed what should have been Edwards' and AM's mental state, looking backward onto the actual landscape of events, not forward onto a conjectural one. And you know that.

The "order of events" was: (1) Her blogging, with all its virtues and much-ballyhooed vices; (2) Edwards hires her; (3) People object to someone who posts what she had posted, and who expresses herself as she did, working for a mainstream Democratic campaign, on the stone-obvious grounds that it would make the putative nominee look bad by association; (4) she quits or gets fired for that reason.

It was stupid of Edwards not to foresee this, but it was stupid, purblind, and selfish of the bloggers not to foresee this.

Finally, whining about the motivations of the people who capitalized on this dumb move for political gain is like complaining about having shit thrown at you by chimps when you get too close to their cage.

So you think that non-Catholics don't have a right to point out the facts about Catholicism? Even though I was asked very nicely by Catholics to do so?

Do I have a right to say I think stoning women is wrong if people not of my faith say god told them to do it?

Amanda, pez brains like yourself don't frighten the mainstream media, you are an example of the cheap fodder they love. You certainly don't threaten them, you doh't challenge them in anyway. You are a joke, a really bad one at that.

Sorry, but I have to laugh.. you know all those stereotypes that the right wing has always used against the left.. the ones many of us have refuted over the years.. well, Amanda Marcotte, her bigotry, hatred and intolerance, and those like her.. they have actually confirmed the stereotype.

So when the right wing makes their case and it's believed by people, don't wonder why.

BTW, from what I've heard from an old online aquaintance this afternoon, Zach Exley was behind the idea to suggest Marcotte as a blogger, the rationale given was that she would make the atmosphere toxic for the Edwards campaign.

This one doesn't surprise me in the least.

(.... Mary still hasn't responded to my correction, preferring to switch gears into an ad hominem attack.)

You mean Merry-Mary hasn't come forth for a dialog?

She's running her normal MO of conducting monologue?

I even get rated unproductive for telling the truth around here, on this very point.

And from the very words of Merry-Mary, she proves to be a frickin' hypocrite of the first order when it comes to accusing others of name calling...

"Amanda, pez brains like yourself ..."

Will wonders never cease? Now isn't that just as quaint, as quaint can be?

But this one is a real beaut!

BTW, from what I've heard from an old online aquaintance this afternoon, Zach Exley was behind the idea to suggest Marcotte as a blogger, the rationale given was that she would make the atmosphere toxic for the Edwards campaign.

Now that one there is reminiscent of one of the most famous things that never happened in politics: LBJ's mythological "pig-fucker" story that actually came in '67 from the satire of Paul Krassner in his periodical The Realist (see para: 12) ...

Is that radical leftist enough for ya' all?

Oink! Oink! Mary

~OGD~

There it is again...

Using a vague anecdotal incident to convey an unsupportable charge...

One even told her that they wondered if Amanda might not be a republican troll planted deliberately to make the Edwards campaign look bad.

BTW, from what I've heard from an old online aquaintance this afternoon, Zach Exley was behind the idea to suggest Marcotte as a blogger, the rationale given was that she would make the atmosphere toxic for the Edwards campaign.

Yeah .. about as toxic as the horse-hash you're slinging...

Oink! Oink! Mary...

~OGD~

What are you talking about? Were she to gain power, she would leave you alone. She wouldn't tell you how to run your intimate life. She wouldn't make your children recite a loyalty oath that includes a reference to a Christian God, every single school day.

Well, this is a late response but ... I don't believe it. I believe, in fact, that she is in that category of anti-christian who would punish the believers in the same way that some believers now seek to punish the nonbelievers.

Religious freedom is a notion subsumed by the idea that all believers are created equal, including those who believe their lives are meaningless interactions of chemicals with those who believe in the Lord God of Abraham. I think Ms. Marcotte has pretty definitively expressed her contempt for the latter group of "deluded" individuals.

Thanks.

mp

If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
-- Louis Armstrong

I've come to the opinion that contradictions are the source of fruitful creativity. In that religions excel, and it is why they can satisfy so many people. But it makes them the same as opera or epics, epistemologically.

While I feel one can find Truth in a novel, or at least personal truths, it is at the level of policy, or philosphical discussion of ethics, that religion (or stories) can not logically continue to be foundational. Since there are logically consistent arguments that establish morality, absent God, it should be possible to find agreement on those issues by setting dogma aside. 

I'd say the Mysteries reflect Life's competing drives, not the other way around.

I doubt anyone's still following this thread, frankly I was amazed (and dismayed) to see TPMCafe extend Ms. Marcotte's 15 seconds of fame, but if you want some good laughs, a site called Iowahawk (I know, I know, try to have an open mind) has been abso-godbag-lutely hilarious on this story:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/the_pandagon_pa.html
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/my_fair_blogger.html
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/vita.html

Pointing out facts about Catholicism? Is that what you think you did? Who was supposed to benefit from this earth shattering news? The people whose beliefs you insulted -- no one else gets their information on contraception from the Catholic Church. And ask yourself why those Catholics had to ask you to do it. As a sometime Catholic, let me tell you a secret: one of the very real impediments to change within the Church is the timidity of parishioners who know that various practices (like disinformation on contraception) is wrong but who nonetheless feel compelled to keep silent, get married in the church, baptise their children and give money. By asking you to do what they should ahve done themselves as a matter of personal integrity (stood up and told those educators point blank that their information was incorrect) they are perpetuating the enforcement of orthodoxy just as much as Donohue is. They are truly useful idiots and next time, if I might be so bold, get one of them to write the post in their own name.

A further P.S. re your premise. Here is exactly what I said: "Of course you can criticize dogma, though I'm not sure why you would want to criticize it as dogma if you are not Catholic yourself." You aren't winning any goldstars for rational debate by so blatantly mischaracterizing what I said. My issue with you doesn't have anything to do with your your right to speak, that's bedrock principle as far as I am concerned.

"Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?"

Yes, the crickets are deafening.

- mere mortal

~

Meanwhile... waiting patiently for substantiation...

And nothing but... chirp!

~OGD~

Not quite, while it is true that the original conception of democracy, like that used in ancient Greece did allow for the wealthy and powerful to control and oppress the less powerful, and this is what Ben Franklin referenced... that is why I made my points earlier regarding the myths promoted by mydd.com and others, the myths that are the Marxist and related ideologies.. they like to talk about their efforts being in favor of democracy. When in reality they are advocating is parasytical and exploitative.

Franklin and his fellows weren't attempting to recreate the tyanny and corruption of the European models of the rule by an elite. They created a representative democracy that did insure the people's right to take back authority, but removing someone from office. Those rights, freedoms and powers, in the documents the founders crafted are the liberty that puts the lamb on a level footing.. that is unless the lambs allow themselves to be herded by someone whose intentions are to drive them to the slaughterhouse. I'm taking a stand because that is what I believe the Amandas, the Markos of Daily Kos and the rest like them are attempting to do, just as Bush is attempting to do.

You really ought to read more of Ben Franklin's words rather than just copy and pasting a quote that you feel serves your purpose.

Now that you've gotten that out of me, I'm interested in the real-Real question, which is how has the national discourse degraded to this level?

Am I missing something? Is this a different Marcotte than the one that authors all those posts at Pandagon? Making money with ads? How has your traffic been?

You still cannot take responsibility for anything. Jebus.

Your article was very well written response to many problems, that is what I do not know, thank you.This
is my website!I hope you like it!Christian
louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch