“Beware lest clamor be taken for counsel†(Desiderius Erasmus )
“Are we nothing more than a pack of digital yellow journalists writing pixelated scab sheets vying to see who we can lay low next? If this be the way to fame and fortune in the blogosphere, I truly fear that, like television, the last great technological breakthrough that promised to change the world, we will degenerate into a mindless, bottomless pit of muck and mudslinging, dragging down the culture and trivializing even the most important issues.” (Me)
Learning came late in life in my case. For 25 years, I goofed off in school, barely squeaking by as I was ushered from grade to grade, from high school to college, graduating only because of the kindness of professors I was wise enough to suck up to.
After college, I persisted in my ignorance, wearing it like a badge of honor and mouthing the liberal platitudes and pablum of the times. But forced to finally confront my ignorance as I set out to make a living in the world, I realized how truly deficient my knowledge of the larger world of ideas was and I began a conscious effort to rectify the situation.
Not having read much philosophy, I began by reading the Greeks Socrates and Aristotle, moved on to Erasmus, devoured Kant, Hume, and Rousseau and ended my initial explorations with Hegel and Marx. To this day, it is hard to put into words the excitement I felt when the ideas of those giants slammed into me, so powerful was was the force of their logic and personalities. This started my journey as an auto-didact. And for the nearly 30 years since those heady days in the summer of 1979, I have experienced the joy of learning simply for the sake of knowing.
Knowledge for its own sake is a concept perhaps out of style at today’s educational assembly lines where we churn out lawyers, accountants, and B-school grads. I guess when you’re paying in excess of $100,000 a year to educate your child, you tend to demand that what they learn is “relevant” to the employment conditions they will find after graduation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of education – as long as it is augmented with a well rounded curriculum that includes the humanities, the sciences, and the arts. My understanding is that these opportunities are still available to the undergraduate – even if you are pre-law or pre-med. It would be my advice to anyone going off to college to take advantage of everything the school has to offer including the study of subjects that hold no promise to assist you in whatever field you have chosen to make your life’s work.
But the accumulation of knowledge is only part of the equation. As Confucius said “Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.” Knowledge does not automatically lead to wisdom or infallibility nor does it insulate us from making mistakes in judgement. And that, my friends, may be the most important idea you read today.
The reason for this personal digression is that I wanted you to understand not how smart I am but how truly ignorant we all are. If, as Erasmus said “Humility is Truth” then surely it follows that before one can glimpse the truth, we must recognize and admit to our own ignorance, our own mistakes. Anything less reveals a towering conceit born of ego – a hubristic mindset that brooks no opposition and where ideas are set in stone rather than existing as free agents capable of altering their shape, their texture, even the very foundations on which they exist.
Long time readers of this site know exactly what I’m talking about. You can trace the arc of my support for the Iraq War, for the President, for Republicans, even for conservatives from where I started to where I am now and see where my ideas have changed to reflect the knowledge I have gained as well as changes in perception that have colored my thinking on a host of issues. Does this make me wishy-washy? To some, perhaps. I prefer to think that it proves I am at least receptive to examining other ideas that may clash with some of my long held beliefs.
Specifically with regards to Marcotte and the left in this matter, it is obvious their desperation to shift debate on this issue from Marcotte’s hate filled spewings to what they consider to be similar sins committed by conservatives precludes their having to examine their own beliefs, their own complicity in her shockingly corrupt ideological rantings.
In truth, they see nothing wrong with her warped view of Christians, Catholics, conservatives, men, and any other enemy she targets with her vile invective. Nor do other liberal commenters who have hurled obscene racist epithets at Michelle Malkin or made wild accusations about me, about my brother, or any other individual who has questioned Marcotte’s fitness to serve in any capacity on the staff of a major Presidential candidate demonstrate the slightest ability to examine what Marcotte’s insults and hurtful diatribes mean in a wider context.
By maintaining their silence or even voicing approval for what those outside the left side of the blogosphere almost universally condemn as hate speech, the left proves once again that ignorance is bliss and that self examination, like a little knowledge, is a dangerous thing, something to be avoided at all costs lest one lose their place in the stratified pecking order of lefty blogs.
But I cannot leave this subject without examining the role of those of us on the right who flogged this story into the mainstream media and may have cost Marcotte her job. Certainly our motives lacked nobility. I will be the last to argue that anything more than “scalp hunting” animated this effort. And the questions I raised in the quote at the top of this page remains valid: Is this all we are? Is this what we have become?
In the heat of battle, it is easy to lose sight of those questions. This is not an excuse but rather an explanation. And whatever the outcome of this latest blogosphere dustup, it may be well to ask a third question: Is there anything we can do to change this dynamic? The constant back and forth of charge, counter-charge, revelation followed by the inevitable attempt to alter the discussion by pointing to the sins of the other side – all of this has become an all too familiar pattern of behavior that any rational person would have to say cheapens us all on both sides of the aisle and doesn’t solve anything. Instead, it actually breeds resentment so that the next rhubarb will follow exactly the same course with perhaps even more intensity in the use of language and invective.
I don’t have any answers. And the only thing I’m sure of is that I and everyone else will be guilty of the exact same sins the next time blogs swarm in and target someone for scalp lifting.
Nature of the beast? Or something that can consciously be changed? I don’t know. I just don’t know.
UPDATE: A LITTLE HONESTY WOULD BE A GOOD START
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
“...[I]ntended as satire, humor, or anything else…”? How about deliberately hurtful? And the idea that Marcotte’s intention was not to malign anyone’s faith is a baldfaced lie. “Reproductive issues” – including anti-abortion beliefs – that she denigrated in such a scurrilous and vile manner are the essence of some Catholic’s faith! That and her disrespecting the Pope show that it was fully her intention to malign the Catholic faith and any statement that says otherwise is meaningless drivel.
The left now has their champions ensconced in a campaign after the principal releases a statement full of what everyone with an ounce of decency recognizes as lies. I’m all for forgiveness but how about a little honesty? If Edwards had come out and said that while he recognized that Marcotte’s views were hurtful to some Americans, they didn’t reflect his beliefs or what he was trying to accomplish with the campaign. Instead, he pretends that Marcotte’s screeds were humor or satire and he further pretends to believe them when they say that they weren’t trying to be hateful or hurtful to anyone.
None of the players covered themselves in glory over this – least of all Edwards.
Also, check out the comments by The Anchoress below as well as her post here.
UPDATE II
James Joyner agrees with me:
These statements have all the believability of 5-year-olds being made to shake hands and apologize. Further, while I have no doubt both these women believe in the 1st Amendment, it’s utterly ridiculous to claim that they never intended to criticize people’s religious views. They did so routinely. The only way that religious people would not have been offended by any of dozens of statements on their blogs was by not reading them.
Of course, that was likely the case in most instances. Blogs that appeal to rabid partisans often devolve into ridicule and dripping condescension toward those who disagree. That’s great for building a fan base, as numerous bloggers (and talk hosts) on both sides of the aisle can attest. It’s not very effective for holding a national conversation, though, let alone a presidential campaign.
Malkin: “Meanwhile, the nutroots are waving their guns around in triumph.” Yep. Firing off their weapons in celebratory triumph like all the other primitive peoples of the earth.
But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots†to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments†they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.
Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.
See also some interesting thoughts somewhat similiar to my own about blogs and blogging from Sister Toldjah.
Allah is on fire. Keep scrolling.
9:23 am
Rick, I understand what you’re saying here. For me, this wasn’t a personal thing with Amanda. Not at all. It was far bigger than her.
In the course of all things politics, we have seen the left lower the standards time and time again. The direction this country is heading in scares me to no end. To know that potential leaders of my country would stoop to a level that Amanda represents, frankly, appalls me. Whether Edwards knew of her opinions or not doesn’t matter because he SHOULD have known…part of what he will have to do is try to get some people on the right to sway their vote to him. To bridge the gap…and if he is elected, he will need to work to bring the country together.
It’s a free country, I would NEVER take away her right to call the Pope any name she choses; to rant and rave and call me names and slam right wingers…but a candidate for President MUST rise above this. This person MUST show good judgment and ability to lead and manage. Hiring the likes of Amanda proved those traits to be lacking in Edwards.
I think we have a responsibility to uphold the standards that make this country so great…if that means writing posts about our shocked and awed and yes, hurt, feelings over Amanda’s extreme points of view, so be it. The shock came more from the fact Edwards hired her. It’s a tough world. Politics is even rougher. When one enters the fray, they have to be prepared to be vetted out. Everyone knows this.
10:08 am
Another thing too…It’s not like people broke into Amanda’s house and ripped apart her personal papers and diaries. It’s not like people LOOKED for trouble here.
Amanda and Pandagon in general are well known among bloggers on both sides of the political fence…the posts that have been highlighted in this affair were written about before on many right wing blogs…so when people heard Amanda had been hired by Edwards- no one needed to dig for any dirt. The dirt was readily known. I think people were just shocked that Edwards used such poor judgment (in many people’s minds).
When we blog, when we put forth our thoughts and opinions and ideas, and in my case for example, personal stories of past days, we do so knowing the WORLD has access to this.
We have to accept responsibility for what we write and be ready to defend our posts. Amanda took down her stuff, which just added to the fire here.
10:44 am
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 02/08/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
11:48 am
Those who publicly questioned Edwards’ choice to hire these bloggers may have done him a favor. Anyone seeking the highest office in the land can ill afford the liability that Marcotte and McEwan would have undoubtedly brought to bear on his campaign. After reading a bit of what gets posted at Pandagon, it’s clear Marcotte is possessed of a sociopathic hatred of men, Christians, et al. Had her insanity not been brought to Edwards’ attention now, certainly it would have been used against him later.
What remains a mystery, however, is that Marcotte apparently never considered that anything she’d written might reflect unfavorably on her new employer. Of course, that begs the question as to whether those her share her views are comfortable with dehumanizing other people the way she did at Pandagon. Perhaps she just hasn’t grown up enough yet.
For what it’s worth, Rightwing Nuthouse offers more depth and insight than most of the political blogs out there. So the answer is no.
12:04 pm
“What remains a mystery, however, is that Marcotte apparently never considered that anything she’d written might reflect unfavorably on her new employer”
Which makes my point about a lack of self examination – a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge. She’s just one more clueless lefty.
12:06 pm
You’re asking if the dynamic of the playground sandbox can be changed. I wish it could be, but in order for that to happen, the kids who would prefer that sand not be thrown have to work together to let the bullies on either side know they need to cut it out. That will take trust and maturity and a willingness to (for a time) become the target of the bullies. Look at your brother. He dared to wonder if Marcotte had written too rough, and for that they turned on him like sneering wolves. You and I have both had the experience of disagreeing with the right and having them dunk our heads into the toilets for it.
It is the day of the bullies. There seem to be more of them, because they’re the loudest, but really, they are the minority, I think. Or, I hope. How to make everyone play nice? I haven’t a clue. When my kids got into playground spats, I would let them battle it out, making sure no one got hurt. This particular playground is vicious, though. I don’t know if “battling it out” is a viable option. Someone is sure to have brass knuckles or a shank.
12:07 pm
I don’t think what Edwards does or who he hires matters because he has almost no chance of winning his party’s nomination. If he was trying to gain the support of far out bloggers by hiring a kookoo for cocoapuffs woman, he certainly blew that last week when he told Russert that he would still have voted to remove Saddam.
12:12 pm
But…afterthought..maybe one way for things to calm down between the bloggers is for a basic rule to be put into play for both sides – one little rule that – could people agree to it and hold to it, might begin to change things. The rule?
STOP TRYING TO GET OTHERS FIRED OR SILENCED.
I disagreed with bloggers who wanted William Atkins fired and I disagreed when they called for Marcotte’s firing, too. How can bloggers, who depend upon freedom of speech and the first amendment for their very existance, run around demanding that other bloggers be shut down, silenced or fired from campaign positions. Someone gets hired, let them do their work, let them WRITE. They’re either going to sink or swim on their own…they’re going to rise to the challenge and grow as writers and people, or they’re going to crash and burn and take their candidate along with them. Why this need to shut people down? And please, the left does it as much as the right, for no good reason other than malice and spite.
We increasingly, in this country and in this medium, refuse to let a thing play out. Before a story is even broken and understood, everyone is opining and taking sides, everyone is blabbering, everyone is finding a target, and it’s not serving us as bloggers, or the nation, well.
So, let’s cool our jets. Let’s stop the scalp-hunting. It has to be a voluntary thing. The Greenwalds have to agree to it, too, or it doesn’t work.
12:44 pm
It seems the Edwards is giving Amanda and the other blogger a second chance.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/8/113651/4503
I stand by my original thoughts. Poor judgment. And, a question…by “talking” with Amanda and the other will they feel they need to tone down their free speech now?
12:56 pm
Pajamas Media is reporting that Marcotte and McEwan will continue working for Edwards.
12:57 pm
Anchoress,
Right…I remember a time when Americans didn’t take themselves so seriously. The sad part is, I’m not even that old.
2:26 pm
[...] Rick Moran wonders how the blogosphere can develop some sense of respectability. I shared my ideas in his comments section. [...]
2:33 pm
[...] Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House today: But I cannot leave this subject without examining the role of those of us on the right who flogged this story into the mainstream media and may have cost Marcotte her job. Certainly our motives lacked nobility. I will be the last to argue that anything more than “scalp hunting†animated this effort. And the questions I raised in the quote at the top of this page remains valid: Is this all we are? Is this what we have become? [...]
3:02 pm
So, let’s cool our jets. Let’s stop the scalp-hunting. It has to be a voluntary thing. The Greenwalds have to agree to it, too, or it doesn’t work.
How about an online integrity pledge?
3:49 pm
“What remains a mystery, however, is that Marcotte apparently never considered that anything she’d written might reflect unfavorably on her new employerâ€
How the hell do any you know that? Did you sit in on the interview process?
3:52 pm
How about an online integrity pledge?
Why? That’s kind of like saying “let’s legislate niceness,” with everything written down – what one can and can’t say, blah, blah, blah.
How about just, you know…as I said before, GROWING UP? All of us?
4:17 pm
“Firing off their weapons in celebratory triumph like all the other primitive peoples of the earth.”
Well, that introspection about niceness and growing up certainly lasted a good long while, didn’t it? Not that I expected it to.
4:21 pm
And I fully expected some nitwit lefty to make a stupid statement like that.
Where do you see the word “niceness” in my post? And to make a small bon mot regarding the attitude of ones political opponents is perfectly acceptable under any and all circumstances on a blog – especially when I have no expectation of being hired by a Presidential candidate (nor would I accept such a position).
4:25 pm
I find it ironic that you are bemoaning the lack of civil discourse and, at the same time, letting loose with comments ilke this. You certainly may disapprove of this blogger’s posts and are right to freely criticize that person individually. But you hurt your own position about the need for civility and by extension, will never get any civil discourse when you paint “the other side” with a broad brush like this. The only people you will hear from under these circumstances are the ones who enjoy swimming in the mud.
Incidentally, cluelessness does not recognize a wing, right or left. There is an endless supply of people on both sides whose minds are made up and don’t like to be confused with facts. They also have blogs and prove their lack of reflective thought accordingly (and daily).
You might try taking your lead from another blogger who seems to strike a good balance. He is at vividair.blogspot.com
Not sure if you know much about him but check him out.
4:28 pm
Ah, yes, “nitwit.” You truly have matured, Rick. An example for all of us.
5:08 pm
I left a perfectly civil comment yesterday that didn’t get posted. Hoefully a glitch and not the censoring of a dissenting view.
I would like there to be some acknowledgement that William Donahue does not speak for the vast majority of Catholics in this country who overwhelmingly support (and use) contraception, accept divorce as a fact of life, and are pro-choice on abortion. Moreover, Mr. Donahue thinks we should all be sensitive to his views, but he is perfectly comfortable engaging in vicious anti-semitic, racist and homophobic diatribes on the airwaves.
I enjoy Amanda’s writing, although I was surprised that the Edwards camp hired her. She is a bit over the top for a mainstream campaign. But face it, she’s a pretty obscure blogger with a small audience of like-minded people for the most part.
On the other hand, people like Donahue, and other acolytes of the right, such as Limbaugh, Coulter, D’Souza, O’Reilly and Savage (to name a scant few) are routinely featured in mainstream media and nothing they say, however outrageous, untrue, and hurtful, ever seems to prevent the MSM from continuing to treat them as respectable people.
As a person on the secular left, I am supposed to accept being characterized by these people as immoral, traitorous, cowardly, and amazingly enough, both an unspeakable libertine and a supporter of fundamentalist Islam.
5:11 pm
Your comment ended up in my spam trap and was gone before I could catch it. I caught it today.
5:16 pm
oh please!
using polarizing half wits to support your diatribe.
of course they meant to castigate religion and whatever else they did not take a fancy to. so do you and your ilk.
at least they don’t plot ways to kill foriegn people for money.
it is too bad, for you made some sense in the first couple of paragraphs
5:29 pm
[...] Plus a final word until there is another one. [...]
5:41 pm
[...] Thursday, February 8th, 2007 in Uncategorized One of the big players in the recent faux-scandal, the “first blog scandal of the 2008 campaign” was Rick Moran of the conservative blog Right Wing Nut House. After him and other outrage artists practiced their craft, the mainstream media, including Rick’s brother at ABC News, catapulted the opus into mainstream consciousness. Today, awakening to find the news that the bloggers whose heads he so viciously hunted have been deemed to remain intact by John Edwards, Moran took a sobering look in the mirror, and what did he see: But I cannot leave this subject without examining the role of those of us on the right who flogged this story into the mainstream media and may have cost Marcotte her job. Certainly our motives lacked nobility. I will be the last to argue that anything more than “scalp hunting†animated this effort. And the questions I raised in the quote at the top of this page remains valid: Is this all we are? Is this what we have become? [...]
5:56 pm
But face it, she’s a pretty obscure blogger with a small audience of like-minded people for the most part.
On the other hand, people like Donahue, and other acolytes of the right, such as Limbaugh, Coulter, D’Souza, O’Reilly and Savage (to name a scant few) are routinely featured in mainstream media and nothing they say, however outrageous, untrue, and hurtful, ever seems to prevent the MSM from continuing to treat them as respectable people.
Well, here is one Catholic who has said several times on her blog that Donoghue makes her cringe. And I note that Nedra Pickler – mainstream media gal – had no problem quoting Donoghue’s excesses, but got all demure about the blogger’s over-the-top moments.
These bloggers may be “small and obscure” (as am I) but they are not exactly the only ones out there who write with the perpetual sneer and the anti-religion line and their writing does inspire like-writing and so on and so on. Donoghue may have the bigger microphone, but he and the others you cite are a handful. These bloggers are two of many, as well.
All bloggers blow it sometimes. There are bloggers who specialize in “ugly moronic diatribes – oops, satire” on both sides. But let’s not pretend that because Bill Donoghue exists, that justifies the sort of excesses we’ve seen here. The truth is, we are in control of the people we are, and we are what we write. I don’t like Hillary Clinton. That would not justify my making intemperate, bigoted remarks about Methodists.
And please. Don’t compare a vague generalization like “clueless lefty” to something like “Let’s face it: The right wing has made “liberal†into a synonym for “nigger lover.†They really do not equate, not really.
6:06 pm
Rick Moran’s FINAL THOUGHTS ON MARCOTTE is excellent. I won’t try to excerpt it lest you be tempted not to read the whole thing.
6:17 pm
Ranger:
I can understand why someone with such – shall we say – limited gifts might be intimidated. That’s alright. Some people like oysters, and some…
6:22 pm
Ummm, Rick? Small point, but you’ve never read the writings of Socrates. He didn’t leave any writings. Plato wrote Sokratoi Logoi, as did others, of which we have only Xenophon, but Socrates made a point of not producing writings.
Maybe you should have paid more attention in uni when you had the chance?
6:35 pm
[...] The Anchoress is far more charitable. More from: Rick Moran, Sister Toldjah. [...]
6:44 pm
[...] Better Bloggers Blogging….The ColossusSister ToldjahRight Wing Nuthouse [...]
6:46 pm
Brad:
You are right, of course. Please note I didn’t list the texts that I read. Plato’s Dialogues (Jowett translation)are a pretty faithful representation of Socrates thinking and method.
7:01 pm
Thank you for being a voice of reason, not that I agree with all of the sentiments of your post. For the record, I am socially progressive. Given the nature of the current Republican party, I am most aligned with the left. Your comment about “just one more clueless lefty” puts an ugly blemish on an otherwise cogent call for a change in behavior ON ALL SIDES. Hateful rhetoric is the domain of juveniles, and there are plenty running around the blogosphere spray-painting obscenities everywhere they go. How ‘bout we start being adult Americans who can engage in respectful discourse? Perhaps we can accomplish something positive instead of stomping around demanding “it’s my way, or f*ck off.”
7:33 pm
Oh, Rick. I happen to be in grad school for philosophy, and that’s a vast oversimplification. Plato was not trying to document Socrates’s thought, and Plato’s methods were his either own or from Pythagoras and Parmenides. Compare the Socratoi of Plato and Xenophon and you’ll see the philosophic content is almost entirely lacking in the latter. We plain don’t know much about Socrates the actual man, aside from anecdotes and biographical data P and X agree on. But it’s relatively clear, from textual clues, that Plato was not trying to document Socrates’s life, but rather to produce new works of art and philosophy. Note, for example, that Plato distinctly mentions his own absence in several of the most famous dialogues.
In short, I’d suggest you do more work in the area before suggesting anything more than a passing familiarity with it.
8:10 pm
“Not having read much philosophy, I began by reading the Greeks Socrates and Aristotle, moved on to Erasmus, devoured Kant, Hume, and Rousseau and ended my initial explorations with Hegel and Marx. To this day, it is hard to put into words the excitement I felt when the ideas of those giants slammed into me, so powerful was was the force of their logic and personalities.”
I find this quote hilarious. You “devoured” Kant? Um, ok, sure.
8:44 pm
“Plato’s Dialogues (Jowett translation)are a pretty faithful representation of Socrates thinking and method.”
Unclear. Many argue that it depends on the dialogue in question, or even the specific subject-matter within a dialogue. In general, it is safer to describe yourself as reading the works of Plato (or Xenophon).
Kind of ironic, actually, since you’re in the midst of a pseudo-apology for raking someone over the coals for challenging a number of different doxas of various audiences.
8:51 pm
Well, that was an interesting post.
I like Amanda a lot, though disagree with her all the time. I too use profanity on my blog (occasionally) and in real life much more frequently.
But I am just a blue-collar kid who grew up playing a lot of unsupervised sports. Profanity was art in the adolescent sense, and often very, very funny. Perhaps this is why it has never bothered me. Or could it be that it takes strong and sometimes harsh words to stimulate the discussion? That works for me, too. And as far as I know, no one was ever obligated to go visit Pandagon. As with politicians, we should keep people’s personal thoughts and belief system apart from their political skill, or effectiveness or lack thereof at the jobs they are hired to do.
I might not use the words Amanda did about the Catholic Church, but I don’t understand how the points she makes about the Church are not at least debatable. It isn’t like the Catholic Church is without sin. And that goes for all religions, though not being a historian I find it hard to recall any wars and massive death started by the Buddhists.
My personal God, for example, worries far more about overpopulation than abortion, since the former represents a far greater threat to His/Her children. It doesn’t take a scientist or even a moderately high IQ to see that. I mean, consider all the horrible things that happen to good people, every single day. God is CLEARLY no micromanager.
And reading both sides, right now the argument that the right-leaning blogs are grasping at strawmen a bit more than are the left blogs, possibly because the facts about Libby/Cheney, the mainstream media, and the nature of the Middle East are coming into clearer focus, is pretty hard to refute. I considered Edwardsgate one of these examples, and it was hard not to dismiss those who went for those scalps as morons in a larger sense, regardless of political beliefs.
And there’s something else I don’t quite ever understand: Isn’t God going to vindicate you in the end? Where is the actual faith? Where is the peace that comes from knowing?
Can one not “hate the religion, not the zealot?” Sound familiar? For homophobic people who have discovered someone they liked was gay it sure does.
I have friends and acquaintances of all major faiths. Sometimes I take ‘em on on religious grounds, often making them uncomfortable. So what? They know it isn’t personal. And I know how far I can go, because they’ll tell me.
I have faith that I will be vindicated in the end.
The internet age has made life very surreal.
But I think we should all stay out of each other’s personal deals, unless they become relevant to our lives. It was fairly clear to me the two bloggers were not going to convert Edwards into a profane Catholic-basher. But I’m nutty that way.
Just sayin’
8:58 pm
Words hurt no one but the insecure.
10:05 pm
The Anchoress’s response to my comment re: Donahue, Savage, Coulter, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh is a bit of sophistry. These people have access to huge nationwide audieces on both network and cable news and radio. They spew a great deal of hate and lies virtually without consequence. A couple of thousand “Pandagons” wouldn’t begin to rival their reach.
Many of us on the left feel the need to strike back hard aganst these kind of people—bullies of the worst kind who thrive on fear, ignorance, and hatred of the other. It is not necessarily the best thing in the world for the level of discourse in the country.
Despite Rick’s belated plea for civility, I remain skeptical about the prospects for constructive dialogue. All too often my experience of the ideological and religious right is reminiscent of dealing with Leninists. Everything is about advancing the party (and until recently George Bush), truth is conditional at best, the ends justify the means, and everything is fair game. Constant pressure is maintained on MSM entities to promote the right wing line, which they do to an astonishing degree. Thus, in the last couple of weks I’ve read nonsensical stories about Pelosi’s quest for a larger plane, Edwards’ house sale, Obama’s Madrassa education, Hilary’s alleged attack on Obama. None of these stories has been newsworthy and/or true. However, the right wing noise machine gets behind them and pushes them regardless of merit, because that’s how its done now.
Amanda is small potatoes compared to this beast.
10:18 pm
The left attacks the right, the right attacks the left,its oneupmanship gone astray. Like the other commenter Rick, I like your blog till you start that” the loony left thing”.Theres plenty of loons to go around on both sides.Everyone demonizes the other side, while Washington sinks further into the muck and no one notices because they”re battling each other. The only concensus I see between the warring factions is, Iraq’s a mess.
12:36 am
Don’t you understand that people who fall largely in the middle, or lean left, or lean right, are sick of these senseless tirades? Didn’t the November elections teach you anything? We don’t want Bush, or the Bushies. Idealogues selling us morals. We want change, and accountability. It’s simple. Read Mill, or better yet, read Camus. The President supposedly did last summer.
3:03 am
From Edwards Supporter:
“I left a perfectly civil comment yesterday that didn’t get posted. Hoefully a glitch and not the censoring of a dissenting view.
I would like there to be some acknowledgement that William Donahue does not speak for the vast majority of Catholics in this country who overwhelmingly support (and use) contraception, accept divorce as a fact of life, and are pro-choice on abortion. Moreover, Mr. Donahue thinks we should all be sensitive to his views, but he is perfectly comfortable engaging in vicious anti-semitic, racist and homophobic diatribes on the airwaves.”
I will readily acknowledge that Mr. Donahue does not speak for all of the Catholics in this country. As a matter of fact, I am a lapsed Catholic, and have no idea who Mr. Donohue is, so it is impossible for him to speak for me. While I will readily admit that I believe in contraception and divorce (having been through two myself), I can’t say that I know many Catholics – even lapsed ones – that beieve in abortion on demand at any time.
Having said that, I must also mention that I maintain a strong relationship with my God, though I don’t necessarily follow the preachings of the Catholic Church any more. Vatican II ruined the Chirch for me, and it will take a lot to guide me back into their fold.
However, the vile bigotry demonstrated by Marcotte and McEwan in their previous writings should have given Mr. Edwards pause prior to hiring them, and should at least cause some serious second thoughts about maintaining their employment in his candidacy. Their prior remarks have insulted me, in many different ways, though I truly believe they have the right to express their opinions in any way they see fit. While I may have an extremely low opinion of them, it is nothing compared to the disrespect I feel for Mr. Edwards. Any presidential candidate who cannot properly vet their potential employees who may eventually have some position within their staff, and cannot acknowledge that his/her choice was mistaken will never have my confidence. This only demonstrates the lack of leadership abilities that Mr. Edwards has and his willingness to undergo willful ignorance regarding the actions of his staff. With a record like this, so early in the campaign, you can bet that Mr. Edwards will demonstrate further acts of poor decision-making in the future. Unfortunately, those may not show up until after he is potentially voted in as President, in which case the entire country will be required to pay for his mistakes.
No, I think I’ll pass on Mr. Edwards simply because of the poor decision-making ability he has demonstrated, independently of the bloggers in question.
3:58 am
Exclusive interview!
Following his “big victory” Thursday in the battle over campaign bloggers Melissa McEwan and Amanda F***ing Marcotte, John Edwards took the advice of Chris Bowers and decided to keep piling on the pressure by hiring a new Netroots-approved spokesman:...
7:43 am
Anti-abortion issues are the “essence” of some Catholic’s (sic) faith?
I’m always amazed with the right wing Catholics who are completely comfortable with torture, the death penalty, widespread poverty, and wars of aggression, but base their religious understanding on the one issue of abortion.
Seems more like these people are looking for a reason to be aggrieved than actually being serious about their religion.
8:56 am
Rick,
I know you don’t suffer fools graciously, but bear with me…
Based on Edwards’ decision to keep the errant bloggers on his staff, can we assume that 1) Edwards simply doesn’t give a damn what kind of message this sends to Christians in general and Catholics in particular and 2) in the event he receives his party’s nomination and is elected President, Marcotte and McEwan will occupy powerful positions on his communications staff?
1:34 pm
Just surfed over from Left Blogistan. There’s a key point being missed here. Whatever you may think about Amanda Marcotte, the other woman in question, Melissa McEwan has been severely libeled by those who lumped her in as an “Anti-Catholic bigot.” There are no legitimate grounds whatsoever to make that assessment of her. Scalp-hunting is, unfortunately, a bipartisan pastime, but carelessly dishonest smearing is inexcusable.
Furthermore, abortion is a political issue, and to refer to any criticism of Catholic doctrine on the issue as “bigotry” is akin to calling criticism of Jesse Jackson’s political agenda “racist.” It’s absurd. Marcotte went over the line with her vulgar mischaracterizations of Catholic dogma, not with the substance of her political criticism. Let’s get that straight.
There’s more I would love to say, but for the sake of civil argument I’ll leave it at that.
2:30 pm
I want to support what AJL said. I don’t know Amanda and haven’t read much of her writing so have no basis to speak about her, but Melissa has done nothing to deserve being dragged through the mud in your scalp-hunting campaign.
Some of you owe her an apology.
3:45 pm
“So, let’s cool our jets. Let’s stop the scalp-hunting. It has to be a voluntary thing. The Greenwalds have to agree to it, too, or it doesn’t work.”
Glenn’s done this to no one. He’s merely pointed out the hypocrisy involved here. Or do you want to defend Domenech, plagarist and liar, some more?
3:50 pm
Max:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/03/24/ben-domenech-must-resign/
1. Screw you.
2. There may have been about 2 conservative bloggers who supported Domenech after the plagiarism charges were shown to be true.
Can’t say the same about the lefties who are cheering on the hatefilled bigots who are blogging for Edwards now, can you?
7:06 pm
Rick, I must ask again for your apology to Melissa, as you seem to be calling her a hatefilled bigot again, without basis.
12:33 am
Isn’t it fun reading the silliness of the christofascists?
1:50 am
[...] 11 Feb 2007 More Funny Video Posted by John O under Political This one courtesy poor Amanda, the center of the rightwing’s faux (or even more moronically, serious) outrage at the Edwards campaign, for hiring her. [...]