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.

Amanda is absolutely adorable. That's all i really have to say.

I've not read one word from these self-righteous critics addressing the content of the post that contained the offensive caption of a picture. (Did any of you know that the language was completely tangential to the thrust of her post? Or are you just dittoheads at the beck and call of William Donohue?)

To wit: it seems utterly inane to accuse Amanda of not doing research and only talking about herself when the very post that caused the uproar was not about herself at all, but was about the fact that the Catholic Church spreads misinformation when advising young couples about sexual matters.

Shouldn't that be a focus of concern? From my standpoint, if the Catholic Church is going to take up an anti-science and anti-truth position, then the only pro-science, pro-truth position is going to be interpreted as anti-Catholic.

Why did Bill Donohue criticize Amanda Marcotte and not, say, Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist theological seminary? Mohler is on record as saying "As an evangelical, I believe the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel. I believe the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."

Donohue is indeed happy to ally himself with Mohler, who is publically and unapologetically anti-Catholic, because they both support the Republican agenda. So critics who say that this noise has nothing to do with Marcotte's politics and is only because her language is over-the-top are deluding themselves.

And as for the "Catholicism" of Donohue and his ilk: any "Catholic" who can stand by a President who practices kidnapping, preventive war and torture has wandering so far from the teachings of Jesus to an area that has almost nothing to do with the original theology. Where Jesus said "He who is without sin cast the first stone", Donohue says "Give me a rock, I wanna kick some ass!" Where Jesus says "Turn the other cheek!" Donohue says "I'm looking for payback - big time!"

I read Amanda's piece up until page 3, then skimmed through the dozens of references to "feminism" and "misogyny" and so on.

While the article starts off seeming very frank and revealing, I got snagged on this line:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

The joke was typical of Pandagon's satirical tone and was intended to mock a common rhetorical ploy of abortion opponents -- a hypothetical question and answer -- not to mock anyone's personal faith.

It's clear to me that Amanda is in denial about what she wrote. I am an atheist so I don't find it personally offensive. But to any Christian it certainly would be. Amanda, you're discussing the most sacred figures in their faith in an off-handed sexual manner: Jesus' body fluids, Mary taking birth-control drugs, etc. Furthermore, Amanda, you have labeled Christians or Christianity as inherently misogynist and reduced it to an "ancient mythology" (which it is, to be sure, but Christians think of it as relevant and true).

Look, Amanda, I was young and full of piss and vinegar just like you once. I did the same thing you did -- pushed things too far, typed out my anger, provoked reactions. The thing is, when people tell you you've gone too far, it works better if you actually consider whether they're right. Whatever their motive might be, and however much abuse you might be getting from various people, the question still remains -- did you say something offensive? I think you did. I think you know you did. I don't blame you for being defensive about all this, but please, be an adult, too. Instead of trying to absolve yourself of all responsibility, at least own up to the fact that what you wrote was offensive.

Now, on to a few other things:

-- Blogging is not that big a deal. Bloggers are only as important as the value and insights in the writing. The community that builds up around a blogger can evaporate overnight, and it doesn't really amount to anything unless people are organized to take action somehow. But blogging doesn't make anybody important or special. Any schmo can be a blogger.

-- The people who sent you death threats and sexual comments are jerks. Period. No matter what you wrote, you didn't "deserve" the crappy things people wrote to you. So by saying you should own up to what you wrote, I am not saying that people's rudeness is acceptable.

-- I think you've gone overboard with the whole feminist, mysogynist, victimization, silencing-women, they-wouldn't-have-treated-a-man-this-way thing. Believe me, if you were a man, your blog writitng would have offended people just as much. The only difference is in how people react. If you're a woman, they'll bully you one way. If you're a man, they'll bully you a different way. The standard tactic of a bully is to get personal, which means whatever might push your buttons, hurt you, scare you. So you might want to re-think exactly how much this has to do with your sex/gender.

-- Working for John Edwards is a good gig. Whenever you have a job, you do have to be careful how you represent yourself elsewhere. It goes with the public-figure territory and it's part of maintaining professionalism. Perhaps the Edwards campaign is partly to blame for not being more careful who they hired and how they set guidelines. But if somebody working for Guiliani's or McCain's campaign had a blog where they wrote nasty stuff about evolutionists or whatever, certainly it would not be ignored.

-- The Donohue right-wing guy you speak of sounds like a dolt. I don't know much about him, but there are a thousand other dolts ready to take his place, so this isn't really about him and his negative influence. It's about not giving such people scandal-fodder when you're working for a political campaign. It's about being on-message and presenting yourself in a positive light, etc. Little dumb scandals can mess up campaigns (look at Joe Biden).

-- If Democrats, leftists, liberals etc. want to win the next election, we will all have to rise above this sort of inane in-fighting and maintain our wits and class. Take your religious comments, for example. Even if you're against organized religion for all the right reasons, you have to remember that many Democrats (and potential Democratic voters) are religious people whose faith gives them hope and inner peace and all that. It does no good to alienate them, and it helps right-wingers make the case that liberals are elitists.

I hope that helps... Good luck with your career and future writing.