Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Historically, this episode is similiar to what the Nazis did to Jews before commencing the Halocaust."
Um... dude? You realize that's batshit crazy, don't you?
I applaud Salon for giving Amanda a chance to tell her side of the story. It won't be a match for the well-funded propaganda machine that people like Donohue and Malkin are part of, but it's something.
Let's get real here... Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan were hounded from their jobs not because of what they wrote, but because their critics have access to the mainstream media. Had that not been the case, this whole affair would have been a "blogstorm" that would have passed in a week or two, and the general public would not have even been aware of it.
I am so sick of people equating blasphemy (including Christianity, Islam, New Age, Objectivism, what have you)with racism and homophobia. They are not the same.
Blasphemy rebels against a dogmatic, moribund set of mystical nonsense that has way too much unearned power and influence in human affairs. And it's damned funny.
Racism, sexism, and homophobia are tools used to enforce the religious social hierarchy, and keep pesky blasphemers in their place.
See? Different. Satan Rulez.
John Edwards speaks of the Two Americas and ending poverty in 30 years.
While living in a multi-million dollar mansion built from money he made by lying to and bamboozling stupid jurors from the "other America" that Edwards only pretends to care about so he can be elected.
Remember, this is the guy who was the running mate of a guy who became a multi-millionaire by marrying rich widows-- twice!
And anyone who says he can end poverty in 30 years doesn't understand basic economics or human nature.
You people are just too funny.
the rightwing smear machine wasn't invented yesterday. anyone who lived through the Clinton presidency would know how formidable and morally bankrupt the right is. And should be ready for anything. Including you.
Marcotte, you just blew it. You gave them the goods. And you should have known better. You were workign for a man who has to get ELECTED and you should have STFU on your personal gripes and prejudices against religion and not given Donhahue an opening.
So you don't get to play victim here. The only victim is John Edwards. Your sin was stupidity. Sorry to be harsh, but it's the truth.
Chloe, it's not necessary to believe in God or the Biblical God or any God to read the Bible, to study it, to study the attendant doctrines and edicts, and to know the stuff inside out. A secular person could very well earn a PhD in world religions, or History, writing their thesis on the bible. I don't see why you assume that being secular necessarily precludes someone from being knowledgable about Christianity.
One of the reasons I, as a Christian, have always voted Democratic is because I naively assumed that liberals are morally superior to conservatives. Now, the only reason I vote for them is because they are truly the lesser of two great evils.
And yet, they really are the less religious ones, and the ones less focused on promoting religious values. Isn't that weird? You'd think that you, as a christian, would find the more Christian party to be the lesser of two evils. What is it about secular values that makes them the lesser of two evils?
"You ask this after it's been quoted on her site and here. Congrats Todd - you win the "Biggest Twit in the Room" award."
Again, care to point out where I threatened violence, rape or death? I've never posted on her "site", so it obviously can't be quoted there. Please, enlighten us and show me, again, where I ever did any such thing?
Let me ask you this: Do you even know how to read? Because it seems to me you can't comprehend the question I'm asking.
Idiot.
Amanda posted vile, nasty criticism of Christianity and Catholics. Words were not "put in her mouth." Nor did she suffer from "vile attacks" in public. Her own words were held up the to public eye. She attacked a belief system that has been around more than 2000 years and will far outlive her.
Amanda's hatred of Christians and her writings are her First Amendment Right. However, it is the First Amendment right of anyone else to hold her accountable for her words.
Grow up Amanda. You speak in a public forum on controversial topics you should be prepared for others to attack your views. This is not "the big media revenge" or "picking on young girls" or "being mean to young liberal feminists." This is your words being circulated. Grow up. Take responsibility for your writing.
John Edwards is responsible because he made you a paid staffer. Your writing would be wrapped around his neck as an insult to 20% of the electorate (Catholics) or 89% of the electorate (Christians).
Although people should not send nasty threatening emails, people like Amanda should not whine when others who dislike their point of view use their words against them. Its called the First Amendment and it applies to people who disagree with you.
Grow up and get over yourself.
Signed,
Not A Loser Liberal
``This time they were only attacking a lowly rookie staffer on a Democratic campaign."
Hum, a lowly rookie staffer—is that neofeminist speak for ``a trembling flower of a girl?”
``I held out the hope that with my scalp tacked to his wall, Donohue would leave McEwan alone."
That’s not quite as impressive as throwing oneself on a grenade but I guess we all do what we are capable of.
The bottom line—your essay is nothing more than incessant whining and claims of victimhood. It doesn’t sound to me like you were actually qualified to run a blog for a political campaign.
Amanda:
Speaking as a woman who also works in a culturally male business, and as a Catholic, I must say that I think you are missing the point.
I have not exhaustively reviewed the comments that have been thrown at you, so I cannot and do not validate them in any way. However, your Salon article has a very shrill and bitter tone of victimization, and I think you would do well to step back a bit and consider the following:
1) Any person who works on a political campaign is subject to scrutiny in the forum of public opinion for their published views or actions. The candidate will invariably be associated with such views or actions unless/until they endorse or condemn them. Period. Reality. When you accepted your job, you placed all of your hobbies and your personal life made public (which you had always done willingly) under the microscope.
2) What you wrote was patently offensive to Catholics. I have a doctorate degree, and I think I'm clever enough to identify the satire and play on the Socratic method, etc, etc. It's rather grating that you seem to think that if someone were smart enough to "get" it, they wouldn't be offended. I am both. You, conversely, are also clever enough to know that your words were offensive, notwithstanding your subsequent hollow disclaimer. You took one of the most sacred tenets of Catholicism (more than one, actually) and lowered it to the pornographic. No amount of cleverness or satire affects that in the least.
The issue is really that simple. Wouldn't it be useful to you to view it in that light, rather than to blame it on the misogynist hit machine?
Look - I would fight to the death for your right to say whatever the hell you want on your blog. However, in the business of politics, everyone has baggage. Yours, dear, is considerable.
A Friend
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
