- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I used to read Pandagon enthusiastically when Jesse was around. I've long given up on it as not worth my time. There are too many bloggers out there who take the trouble to inform themselves before they post. A blog is worth reading if it tells you something you don't know and if the blogger deserves your trust.
Amanda reverses these principles. She evidently knows little about the issues she posts on, and makes up for her lack of knowledge by lifting the level of venom. That's pretty much the way the might Republican Wurlitzer works and we don't need it on the left.
The original Duke post is a pretty damning example. Not only is there nothing in it that most of us don't already know, there are claims there that are clearly contrary to the facts. There's no DNA evidence from anyone at the party that night, not even one molecule. There is DNA evidence from several other male sources. There's no medical evidence. The outcry witness flatly contradicts the accuser's claims. The accuser has radically changed her story, each time to try and strengthen her case. Not even the accuser, note, has ever claimed, as Amanda did, that she was held face-down on the floor.
Yes, real victims do alter their stories and they do get confused. They do not tell radically different stories each time they're interviewed. As a male rape victim I've been through this and I know it's hard past words to retell the events. That does not mean I changed the number of rapists from 20 to 5 to 4 to 3. That does not mean I described someone who's well over 6' as being short and stocky.
The Duke defence supporters certainly include a majority of conservatives, but describing them as part of the right-wing noise machine is just self-indulgence. The Duke people also include SANE nurses, victims advocates, real victims.
'Only joking' is the kind of excuse we're used to hearing from Bush and Rove. 'Yes, how dare a rape victim act confused and bewildered like she was raped or something.' That's not satire and not funny. It's an allegation of rape. Moreover it's an allegation Amanda chose to support by fabricating evidence - 'held face down on the floor' - the accuser has never claimed. Amanda made it up because it sounded good, and that's the problem with the way she blogs.
I can't imagine what the Edwards people thought they were doing with this hire. I also can't imagine what Amanda thought she was offering the campaign.
