i am about as liberal as they come, but I think we have to be realistic about acknowledging that choices in our private lives do have an impact on our professional reputation. I, lowly me, can not have a public blog where I say whatever I want and still have the professional reputation I want in order to keep this particular job. That isn't censorship, but just the realities of an open job market.

I make lots of personal choices in hairstyle, dress, behavior so I can be respected and be perceived for my job, not my personal life.

We all keep our personal life priveate and seperate from our job. wanting to maintain a volitile personal blog while having a very public respected political job is not realistic. It is no way new to expect employees in the public to maintian respectible images.

Grow up and learn the realities of the job market.

She is up front and out in the open. We know exactly who she is. And you're overbroadening the definitions of "threat" and "bully" if you claim her comments about the holy ghost equate to an physical threats against individuals who are Christians. Sure, she bans people from her website, but after all, it is her own private weblog.

I agree that her writings about the Duke university rape case may show a disregard for justice that make me uncomfortable, but wouldn't it be an argument for moral relativism if you then leap to conclude that that in any way excuses or justifies the out-of-bounds behavior of her rightwing threateners?

I thought conservatives were defined by their opposition to moral relativism?

They aren't attacking you, Amanda Marcotte, they are attacking John Edwards and using you to get to him. It's an incredibly damaging and effective tactic. You defended yourself, which is natural but wrong. The correct tactic is counterattack. Counter the "Catholic League", whatever that is, with a democratic equivalent assocation of Catholics, and have someone vouch for your deep understanding and respect for the Catholic religion and theology. You don't apologize, you express desire for harmony and reaching out across party lines to help the US. Bill Clinton was a master of this, and it drove Republicans crazy. Another, more aggressive tactic is to announce an investigation into allegations that Republican candidates are targeting young, female democratic staffers for harassment. Just announce the investigation, you don't actually have to do it. When two sides are trading insults, the side that gets offended is the side that loses, and you lost.

Alpine's a lovely place.

Let's face it, the only reason she has her own blog is so she can practice the same authoritarian, bully techniques she claims to have been oppressed by all these years.

Uh, sure. In fact, I too practice the same "authoritarian, bully techniques" on my own blogs because they are MINE. In fact, I'm sure my observations are oppressing you RIGHT NOW. What's your point exactly?

I'm looking at Pandagon right now, and in fact I see lots of "offensive" material on Army hospital conditions, a backwoods response to gay partner benefits in one state, Tim Hardaway's charming comments (where's the outrage for this cretin anyway?), and a beautiful essay on spirituality in childhood.

The fact remains that a lot of you are exhibiting very unchristian behavior. It may not be fair, but someone who isn't a christian technically doesn't have to behave like one; if you claim to be one and still spew some of the sentiments I've seen here, then I call "bullshit" on your personal doctrine.

On a somewhat related note: when I (a post-Vatican generation bad-ass-in-training) was all of 10 years old, I gathered some female friends in our tiny town and convinced our Parish council to allow female altar servers (oh, the scandal!). The girls went through training, and were of course excellent (many other girls followed, as it was a natural extension of participation when a chunk of your life revolved around the church). Later I'd found out that some parents had been so upset that they took their sons out of the program! I couldn't understand why at first, but when I realized they were just crazy, irrational people I grinned; it was my first taste of social change...I'd managed to upset a group of GROWN-UPS with childhood logic.

Yes, logic. See, many little girls don't realize they are "inferior" to boys until adults start telling them so. I had the audacity to think girls could do anything they pleased, because that's what my family told me. On the one hand, your Grandpa is taking you fishing with the boys. Later, you learn the sad reality when you see a photo of the Pope and your father reluctantly breaks the news that some people (like the Pope) don't believe that women should be priests, or even altar servers. You feel betrayed, wondering why someone who looks so much like a loving grandfather would think so little of women, and you.

Catholic bullying is nothing new. When I was about 13, my father (still working for the church, different town) actually received an anonymous death from a parishioner who didn't agree with my father's liberal views. In light of this, the threats received by Ms. Marcotte don't surprise me at all.

Also, everyone knows that parochial school kids were more abusive than their public school counterparts!

Most of us criticizing the Catholic church do have some experience. Perhaps it's worth considering our backgrounds...but then again I wouldn't want to interrupt your regularly scheduled troll fest.

Grow up and learn the realities of the job market.

Why are you addressing this to Marcotte? What if, one day, you were just doing your own thing as you always did, and someone offered you a job based on your current body of work? You accept and relocate, and someone else from a competing company purposefully attempts to sabotage your company with parts of the very work that got you hired?

She didn't misrepresent herself, so telling her to "grow up" makes no sense. They were the ones who hired her, so why don't you tell them to "grow up" and learn to be more thorough?

I also notice no one telling Donohue to "grow up." Fine then..."stop acting like a bratty, spoiled child, Donohue!"

It's easy to call her a "quitter" for quitting (even with the physical threats), a "brat," for having personal opinions that were overlooked by her employers the first time around, a "bully" for who knows what reason, and many of the other colorful terms I've seen here.

I'm sure you all feel you know best what she "should" have done in this situation.