It's an opinion. That's the fundamental dishonesty here. Catholicism has a right to be respected as an institution. But lots and lots of sane people don't agree with the Catholic position on many things, and it's not bigotry. It's another opinion. Donohue's "Catholicism" and Falwell's "Christianity" are peas in a pod, and I'll find them ugly and distateful all I want. I will, however, allow Catholics on public transportation, I am against discriminating against them, and if it was 1960, I would have voted for JFK. That has nothing to do with having reverence for this fat, hysterical bully.

The Molly Ivins quote, as usual, goes straight to the bone.

When she's not ineffably stuffy and boring, she's just a fashion-bound academic. A dime a dozen. Earwax for the pseudo-intellectual. When I see so many Salon readers who actually like her, I'm less and less attached to the Salon community.

The final revelation that does her in? That she wrote for the New Republic, for Andrew Sullivan. Oh, I know. There's a lot of mouth-breathing fashionistas who will condemn me for being "partisan." Damn right I am.

I don't care what she thinks of Edwards' haircut! What about his healthcare plan? I don't care about her lesbian love-hate of Hillary! What will she do about Iraq?

And timid old Joan and Salon and her backstabbing editors are dead wrong.

You're a pampleteer. They're the kind of people who sat on their hands when Paine went to jail. I'm sure they grabbed their hankies during the Boston Massacre, and got all scared and accomodationist when Washington retreated from New York.

There's got to be a reason why the typical panel on TV has two right-wing nutjobs versus a mainstream journo, and they call that a truthful debate, but I can't figure out what that is.

There is a difference between pampleteering and journalism. Pampleteering will help us win. Salon? Irrelevant. On the road to becoming Slate.

One of Amanda's tasteless and offensive comments was about the Duke Lacrosse case. It was very interesting to me because there were, all of a sudden, millions of activists against railroading white boys, and thoroughly dismissive and of one accord about that the Duke boys were upstanding Christians who had just had a little fun with a black whore, so why get all in a snit about it, because black whores are liars, all right? It seemed to her, and to me at that point, that we should let the evidence collect. The assumption of this cause celebre seemed to be, the black whore did it, and these are rich white boys, so they must be innocent.

It seemed to me like the Free Mumia crowd for whites; no gossipy piece that dissed the presumed victim was out of bounds; no questioning of our unjustly accused heroes was permitted. Any community closes around defending its own, sometimes even to the expense of the facts. As it turns out, the legal system has decided the boys should be let off. Fair enough. But there definitely was something tribal and male chauvinist about the response of our media, including a complete and stark refusal to believe that the black whore might be telling the truth. I take it that that's the larger point Amanda was making. Sorry to offend you, but I suggest you also be offended by the predominance of black men on Death Row, and the obvious fact that a high percentage of the people exonerated by the Innocence Project are in fact, more darkly-hued than the Duke lacrosse team. A lot of black men sit in prison to this day on less evidence than there was about the Dukesters.

As for the Holy Ghost, aside from the obviously yucky picture it describes, there is a serious religious point being made there.

But the main thing about the Donohue scam is this: it pretends to be a civil-rights organization for Catholics. Bull. It's just a repackaging of the Legion of Decency, and of the various ways the Church used to exert undue control on what all of us could see and read and say. People have a right to offend the Catholics, and the Jews, and the Muslims if they want to. If I call for an end to burkas, I'd offend some Muslims; if I call for justice for the Palestinians, I've offended some Jews; if I say that the Church's opinions on birth control and abortion are offensive to me, does that carry any weight with you? I'd guess not. There's an argument going on about whether abortion should remain free, legal and safe in a country that has freedom of religion, if you haven't noticed. I have the right to offend you, and you have the right to offend me. Discrimination means, do I have the right to deprive you of a job based on your beliefs? I don't, and neither do you of Amanda.

Oh, and obviously this post has triggered the right-wing brigades to continue harassing Amanda. It's exceptionally ugly to watch. What do you bet, none of you read Salon regularly?

is that they have such gonzo, egotistical and timid personalities who supposedly back them. Joan? Who cares what this overfed, sometimes funny, sometimes just bizarre guy says? Did he promise to put you on TV?

First, the cliche-ridden hasbeen Camille is back, and now it's come to Jesus time.

What's up, Salon? Lost your way, you old, lazy Sunday morning half-naked reading the Times and listening to music before you fool around girl? You go nuts or something?