February 8, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:So I gather that we now all have to weigh in on The Marcotte Affair. Ross Douthat thinks this stuff really does matter, a point he makes with rather terrifying eloquence:
. . . in the bureaucratic details of what gets funded and how, which regulations get written and which ones don't, and so forth, each side's extremists get to have their day in the sun. So while Amanda Marcotte isn't going to be running the Department of Health and Human Services, there's still a real sense in which every Presidential election offer a choice between empowering the Marcottes of the world and empowering, say, people who think that Michelle Malkin is the voice of sweet reason on detainee policy. It's a choice between Joycelyn Elders and David Hager, if you will. Liberals have become very good at calling attention to this reality, and turnabout is only fair play.
Nonetheless, I'm afraid that I, like Julian, will be much happier not living in a world in which every stupid thing one ever said on one's blog generates pseudooutrage from political opponents trying to cleanse the marketplace of ideas, preferably by getting one fired and evicted. And I have been mulling Ampersand's thoughts on the matter:
What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window” is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?
I think this captures the essence of the argument, although I'm not sure that Amp is right about this being an attempt to shift it; my admittedly limited knowlege of Non-Coastal-Elite-America indicates that in most of the country, slagging off the Pope, or indeed making fun of religion qua religion, is mostly verboten.
This collided with Ross's followup post in my mind to open up the question: to what extent is it reasonable to object to peoples' beliefs simply because they have some component of religious motivation?
In practice, of course, almost everyone only actually objects to religiously motivated beliefs they disagree with; the civil rights movement, and the abolitionists, are well regarded by everyone even though they were sustained by religious beliefs that most modern liberals and libertarians would find frankly nuts (and no, my little chickadees, I do not buy the argument that they were involved with churches simply as a matter of convenience. Listen to Martin Luther King's speeches and then come back and tell me he was not a religious nut on a crusade. Or just savour the Battle Hymn of the Republic, showcasing the abolitionist revenge fantasies of radical reformer Julia Ward Howe.)
But accepting that a little bit of hypocrisy is the price of building a political system out of human beings, is it reasonable for atheist/agnostic types to add an extra special layer of dislike to ideas that are held for religious reasons? People hold ideas for all sorts of reasons that are not, to me, obviously more attractive than plucking them out of the sacred book that has guided your culture for several thousand years. The basic theorems of your religion have at least stood the test of time, unlike Angelina Jolie's oeuvre. Sure, maybe God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean His pronouncements must be stupider than Alec Baldwin's, or your college roommate with delusions of Derrida.
Given how weirdly secular peoples' beliefs cluster, it's hard to reject the beliefs of, say, southern evangelicals just because they come wrapped up in a package along with belief in burning bushes, virgin births and resurrection of the dead. You could say that the beliefs of devout Christians are some sort of uniquely bad cluster, but that just begs the question, bringing us back to the fact that you disagree with them, rather than the fact that they are religious.
More convincing would be an argument that religious ideas are somehow uniquely impervious to reason. Is this true? From the fact that I almost never change anyone's mind (and nor does any other pundit I can identify) on any contentious issue, I infer that almost all beliefs are impervious to reason, religious or not. How much less rational could religious people be than my average neighbour on the Upper West Side?
Posted by Jane Galt at February 8, 2007 11:24 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>The problem with "rational" thought is in many cases its only rational from a certain point of view.
Aristotle the person who typifies rational thought held the wonderful notion that women were unable to participate in debate because they were so irrational. Huh...could it be that his views of what was and was not rational was blinded by his culture. Just like how many religious people are raised in their faiths and sometimes are a little sheltered. And also just like how many so-called enlightened people believe they hold the Truth, with a capital T even though on closer inspection they don't believe hardly anything is True.
At the end of the day you have to cling to something, and unfortunately the standards of the world have a way of changing on you...plus "if it feels good, do it" isn't exacly a great motto for life and won't bring you much happiness at the end of the day.
Posted by: rational on February 8, 2007 11:20 PMWith all due respect, I believe that our good hostess and the worthies she quotes have rather missed the point.
Read Marcotte's writings. In their content, tenor, and style alike, I think you will agree they bespeak someone with serious psychological issues. Mein Kampf reads like a dispassionate and thoughtful analysis by comparison. Someone who evinced one percent of her vitriol toward, say, blacks, women, homosexuals, Muslims, or other favored group, would be ostracized as a pariah.
Perform the exchange of variables experiment. Replace, e.g., "men" or "Christians" with "blacks" or "homosexuals" or "Muslims" in one of her screeds to appreciate her pathology.
Should she be free to speak her mind? Of course.
But her gratuitous offensiveness should disqualify her from participation in any serious campaign for local city council, never mind the Presidency. The President represents all of the people, not just some. In this context, Marcotte is a walking argument against proportional representation, which fails to knock the rough edges off of extremist viewpoints.
That is the point.
Posted by: Occam's Beard on February 8, 2007 11:44 PMYou can deride any or all religion. Doing it in the way taht Marcotte did is beyond the pale.
I want her held up as an example of why one should be civil if one wants to be employable. Her keeping her job is a HORRIBLE thing.
"Godbags"
"Hot white Holy Spirit"
If that's not beyond the pale I don't know what is. This is literally the equivalent of pulling a Michael Richards day in and day out for YEARS. That's whats wrong and that's why she shoudln't be employable anywhere in an editorial capacity.
David Duke isn't respectable, and neither is Marcotte. I say this as an agnothesit like our host, but someone who appreciates rather more civility in public life. Given the moral record of atheists as compared to the religious in the past 100 years, I think that those of minimal to no religion need to be rather more humble in their approach to the religious. We are now rewarding someone who has nothing but hate for any and all religion. Not disrespect, dismissiveness, or disgust, but full on hate.
Posted by: Hey on February 9, 2007 12:22 AMEveryone holds political views that are beneficial to himself (or herself). The goal of politics in a democratic society is to convince others by voting for your guy they'll get what they want too. The side that can attract the most votes wins.
Posted by: Zhong Lu on February 9, 2007 12:32 AMWe are now rewarding someone who has nothing but hate for any and all religion. Not disrespect, dismissiveness, or disgust, but full on hate.
Yes, Hey, but you have to remember that "[m]ost of [Jane's] New York friends find nothing odd or prejudiced about hating people...."
Posted by: bgates on February 9, 2007 2:12 AMOccam's Beard and Hey have the right of it: it's not Marcotte's opinions that are so egregious, it's her mode of expression.
And why is everyone focusing so exclusively on the Catholic bashing when, in very recent days, she has blogged viciously about the accused rapists in the Duke non-rape case? Shouldn't a presidential campaign's spokeperson be on board with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, especially in a case as muddled as that one has been?
You didn't phrase it like this, but do you really think that religious ideas are impervious to reason? I know there's a class that does, and it mystifies me. What do these people think all those theologians have been writing about, all these centuries? There's a reason for every article of faith and doctrine. Whether or not you find those reasons persuasive, it's ridiculous to posit that there are no reasons at all -- especially when millions of people, over generation upon generation, have found them compelling. Our faith -- my faith -- doesn't rest on the kind of fairy story that Marcotte alludes to. She's wilfully ignorant of everything she criticizes... and this is the person the Edwards' campaign chooses as a front. WTG!
Posted by: Joan on February 9, 2007 2:59 AMFor my part, I figure that rationalism is simply one logical system among many others. Religious systems have their own logical structures (I make a distinction between rationalism and logic) and once you understand them, people's behaviors within these systems make sense.
Religious ideas are "impervious to reason" because many religious people now regard the more precise stuff (burning bush, etc) as metaphors, and other elements are postulates of the logical system of the faith. You don't question the fact that the sum of the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees any more than you question the immaculate conception to a serious Catholic.
One other thing: many atheists refuse to accept that their own belief system has many religious qualities, and "can't explain everything" any more than most religions can.
(Personally, I'm an agnostic, although getting more "deist" as I get older.)
Posted by: Foobarista on February 9, 2007 5:12 AMI click through Crooked Timber almost everyday to remind myself of this.
Posted by: aaron on February 9, 2007 6:46 AMI think Marcotte should never have been hired. A political campaign should be careful of who it chooses to represent them. And she isn't being singled out because of a couple things she rashly said and her policy views, she's being single out because of the many, many insane things she wrote. However, the mistake was already made, and Marcotte isn't being hired for her views, but for her skills. If she is professional, her previous crazy rants shouldn't affect the campaign.
And hopefully she learned a lesson from this. Her positions may be valid, and venting her frustrations may be healthy for her [maybe writing helped her focus on more constructive activity in her real life]. But, given the large audience and the intensity her writing, maybe it wasn't the best idea to post much of what she wrote. People often feel it's good and necessary to excite supporters of their positions, but inflaming passions and hostile emotions without constructive focus is dangerous and usually destructive. It likely has led to some people empathetic to her views to marginalize themselves by moving them outside the realm of objectivity.
Posted by: aaron on February 9, 2007 7:10 AMEdwards aspires to be president of all of the U.S., not just the coastal self-anointed elites. Ergo, some thought ought to be given as to how his message will be received in all of the country.
For a lawyer, one who is trained in the arts of communication and persuasion, this was a poor start.
Posted by: MarkD on February 9, 2007 7:59 AM"And why is everyone focusing so exclusively on the Catholic bashing when, in very recent days, she has blogged viciously about the accused rapists in the Duke non-rape case?" I hadn't heard anything about Catholic bashing. I saw her comments about the Duke case quoted on Crime and Federalism, and that was more than enough for me. She apparently thinks the only thing wrong in the way the Scottsboro "boys" were railroaded was that they did it to blacks instead of whites - and she expresses it with intense hate and in remarkably foul language.
Posted by: markm on February 9, 2007 8:04 AMGiving her a position on Edwards's campaign changes my opinion of him only slightly - from self-serving opportunist who doesn't care who he hurts, a poor Senator with no management experience, and a disaster if elected President whether or not he could handle the management side of it, to all that + proven thoroughly incompetent manager.
Posted by: markm on February 9, 2007 8:08 AMI concur with Occam's Beard and Hey as well -- our gracious host has missed the relevant point, which is the contempt. It's not just being gratutiously offense -- it's the severe case of contempt for others that puts them outside Overton's window. A certain degree of civility is required to be accepted into decent company. Amanda Marcotte and the other one have failed this test.
Yada, yada, yada. No one said these bloggers couldn't write whatever they pleased on their blogs. But there ARE consequences, and that's exactly what 'liberals' (really, leftists) hate the most: Being held to account.
Sure, go write anything you want, be as hateful as you please, and use every foul word you've ever heard. Then complain that you can't get mainstream respect, as if it were everyone else's fault but yours.
Posted by: Mister Snitch! on February 9, 2007 9:14 AMOh please.
is it reasonable for atheist/agnostic types to add an extra special layer of dislike to ideas that are held for religious reasons?
Your argument would make infinite sense, in its spirit of everyone gets to eat at the buffet, except for this observation:
Where are the writings in which these leftist atheists bash Islam?
Non-existent. In fact, these folks have been caught repeatedly aligning with muslim extremists, just because these leftists and the muslims hate America.
I'm sorry, it's not a "little bit of hypocrisy." It's a huge, gaping maw of hypocrisy, and if you were being honest, you'd be calling it as such.
I do not recall anything "stupid" written by our pseudonomous hostess or her co-bloggers appearing in this blog. If it has happened, it was definitely not written "stupidly"; and, certainly not visciously, or even intemperately or thoughtlessly. That does not happen here, with the occasional exception of certain commenters. For that, we can all be very grateful.
Posted by: Ed Reid on February 9, 2007 9:35 AMMarxists have taught many people to attack the motives for prevailing views. More than that, they have taught them that this is all one needs to do to refute those views. After a recitation of Locke's argument for private property rights, the Marxist feels it sufficient to reply merely, "You maintain private property rights because it serves your interests," and he congratulates himself for a successful refutation.
It's rubbish. Except in unusual cases, the motives for holding a position are utterly irrelevant to the evidential basis for the position.
The unusual cases are of this sort. After one has demonstrated that the evidential basis of one's opponent's view is unsound, only then may one answer lingering doubts, "Well, why did he believe it if, as your argument seems to show, he had no reason? He must have had some rational basis." Then you may resort to raising the non-rational basis (religious, monetary, power-hungry motives being common examples) for your opponent's views.
But that's all frosting on the cake. The substance of a refutation has nothing to do with one's opponent's motives. If you look around, you'll notice that Marx has managed to obscure this important truth to a considerable extent.
Posted by: Jim on February 9, 2007 9:37 AMDon't forget that most non-political folks only saw the sanitized version of her "insults" that ran in the MSM.
I work for a company that has nothing to do with politics, but that does depend on a public perception that its employees are respectful and professional.
Edwards' campaign however IS a political enterprise and one that is ostensibly (and vocally) devoted to values like respect and tolerance. That her public words would not preclude their author being employed by the campaign tells me all I need to know about Edwards.
The company I work for is one of those huge soulless enterprises that care nothing for people, according to Edwards. Strangely enough though, if I wrote the things Marcotte did and put my name to them, I would be out the door in nothing flat.
Funny how some talk endlessly about respect and professional ethics, but ignore them when they are inconvenient, while others say little and suffer criticism for being less virtuous, but actually do behave according to them.
There's a word for that, Mr. Edwards, and it becomes more associated with you every day.
Posted by: sherlock on February 9, 2007 9:39 AMEvery one knows what the limits of discourse are.
Lamont on the Left. Alan Keyes on the Right.
Posted by: M. Simon on February 9, 2007 9:39 AMAs I said on an earlier thread here, "God wants it" is not an obviously inferior argument to "I want it."
Neither is particularly convincing, of course, but only one gets the kind of amazing hatred pointed out here.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on February 9, 2007 9:42 AMrational on February 8, 2007 11:20 PM,
It felt good when I did it. It still feels good.
Where did I go wrong?
Posted by: M. Simon on February 9, 2007 9:47 AMWith respect to our sane host who lets strangers leave comments on her blog, this is not about "criticizing and even making fun of political positions." The bitter, raging and vile bigotry of what Marcotte has been writing is in a different category. And the true cliche here is that if she'd written that about blacks or hispanics or women or gays, she would have been fired immediately if anyone had been so clueless as to hire her in the first place--and should be.
By the way, the fact that this came to a head because of the Catholic/Christian angle doesn't mean what she wrote about whites, males, southerners, and the dreaded white male southerner is any less disgusting. There just isn't a white male southerner bloc as clearly organized as outfits like William Donohue's Catholic League, or for that matter the Catholic Church itself. But if the Christian angle bores anybody by all means dive in to Pandagon and you'll find plenty of equal opportunity lunacy.
Which brings me to the last point--I do not fully grasp how the reaction to this can be described as pseudo-outrage or "trying to cleanse the marketplace of ideas." There is such a thing as genuine outrage, and I don't know if I would elevate what Marcotte has written as "ideas." And I think it is easier to get away with describing Marcotte's intellectual vandalism and thuggery in such mild detached terms if you don't quote her.
Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?
That is so unconnected from the quality of what has actually happened that I don't even know how to start criticizing it.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos on February 9, 2007 9:53 AMCouple notes: first, religious thinkers are certainly not impervious to reason. Indeed, they have a long history of dealing seriously with the very issues that non-religious types may sometimes accept as prima facie evidence that there can't be a God. (The recent exchanges between Heather MacDonald and Michael Novak come to mind.) What they are more resistant to are arguments that demand they change their worldview in order to be thought "reasonable."
You mention burning bushes, virgin births, and resurrection of the dead, for example. "Reason" as such has nothing to say against these phenomena. Only "reason" coupled with some form of naturalism (or anti-supernaturalism, if you will) dictates these positions to be absurd. But now you're dealing with the truth conditions of the premises of naturalism, and religious thinkers simply reject those premises while still embracing the tools that get one from premises to conclusions.
So I think it is NOT reasonable in the slightest to object "simply" because of religious content. The mere presence is insufficient. If you want to object, you have to do the legwork and identify the premises, your evaluation of their truth, and see if the reasoning chain from start to finish works out.
(FWIW, I'm a socially conservative, Church of Christ member from around Branson, MO. I also have a philosophy degree and a Phi Beta Kappa key. If that combination makes your head explode, then it'll be a while before we can really have the conversation I've outlined above.)
Oh, and about Marcotte: her trademark is viciousness, and it's always discouraging to see viciousness rewarded, especially in the world of public communication.
Posted by: slarrow on February 9, 2007 9:55 AMFoobarista on February 9, 2007 5:12 AM,
You know, if you have access to useful alternate logical systems there is a Nobel awaiting you.
Our current system is built on the following:
True
False
And
Or
Not
Pretty simple. Very elegant.
We have expanded on this with fuzzy logic. Which is a weighted version of regular logic.
There may be different kinds of reasoning when the problems get difficult, such as reasoning by analogy. We are stuck with our logic.
What Marcotte wrote on her blog was not opinion, not reasoned, not explicated in any real sense, and not even merely beyond the bounds of civilized discourse (I am reminded of the withering insult of Wolfgang Pauli: He said someone's idea was so bad it was not even WRONG). No, what she wrote on her blog was vomit. Vomit about Catholicism, vomit about the Duke LaCrosse players, vomit about religion and the religious in general. Vomit. It wasn't just occasional, it was her favored and predominant--nay, her ONLY--mode of expression. That John Edwards should dignify her with a hire followed by a calculated retention is despicable.
Posted by: betsybounds on February 9, 2007 10:05 AMThat is so unconnected from the quality of what has actually happened that I don't even know how to start criticizing it.
That sums up the reaction I've had to pretty much every defense of Edwards and the two lunatics he hired: either the people making them have no sincere interest in anything beyond pure partisanship, or they simply don't share any common thought with which I could begin to communicate with them.
The lack of criticism of Edwards for his denunciation of what they claim to consider perfectly thoughtful, reasonable, appropriate writings (i.e. "criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies") makes me lean towards complete dishonesty as the explanation.
Posted by: JSinger on February 9, 2007 10:16 AMAfter a while his lies got so bad that you couldn't even believe the opposite of what he said.
Posted by: M. Simon on February 9, 2007 10:17 AMMarcotte's writings have been alarming, in the sense that you wonder what the hell is wrong with her.
She is not, however, unique. Some other feminist blogs do the same, with spluttering profanity, misrepresenting what people said, ridiculing others whose views are unexceptionable.
I was once involved in a long series of comments on a feminist blog wherein most of what I wrote was correcting deliberate misrepresentations of what I said. This is an interesting issue. It is one thing to misrepresent what somebody says to a third party who would have no reason to know what was actually said. To misrepresent what a person said to that person, when it's written down and easily reviewable, is curious. After a long series of insults, my patience eventually wore them out and I was banned.
Whatever Marcotte's positions are, they are hers and protected by the First Amendment. However, to take her on as a communications person means you take on her baggage, whether you think that is just or not.
And deciding that her baggage is a net loss in a political campaign is neither restrictive of her speech nor particularly underhanded. So I would have expected Edwards to cut her loose permanently.
That he didn't means he either has no guts or thinks she'll be a net gain, even considering her baggage. Neither possibility is reassuring.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey on February 9, 2007 10:21 AMIs it anti-Catholic bigotry to criticize the pope, the Church, and Catholicism? No.
Is it anti-Semitism to criticize Israel or Jewish organizations such as the ADL? No.
Is it racism to criticize the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, Afro-American studies depts.? No.
Is it bigotry if you consider homosexual conduct unnatural and immoral? No.
Are you a sexist if you criticize feminism or disagree with some feminist ideas such as rape has nothing to do with sex but power?
But there are lines between disagreement/legitimate criticism on side and actual bigotry/hatred on the other.
If a white person were to "criticize" Jesse Jackson by calling him the N-word, then that person would be a racist.
What I find annoying is the double standard. If you all remember, liberals criticized Bush for speaking at anti-Catholic Bob Jones University in 2000. Congressional Democrats pushed for a resolution that censured the university.
If it's wrong for Bush to associate with anti-Catholics, then it should be equally wrong for Edwards (and other Democrats) to do so.
Of course, people on the right, left, center, and whatever usually recognize bigotry when viewed only through their ideological/political lense. A Catholic liberal who votes Democratic will be outraged by Bush's appearence at Bob Jones, but will be amused by pro-choice activists who shout such clever things as "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" during a protest in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral.
Posted by: D------ on February 9, 2007 10:23 AMThis discussion should not be about the limits of free speech, or censorship, don't think I've seen a single person saying she should be thrown in a gulag or criminally charged for writing what she writes.
What's really at issue here is election politics. The simple equation of getting the most votes for your candidate so that he/she can win. When you hire people for your staff that will repel and appall vast swaths of the American People, it's not a good political move. To say that candidates aren't judged by the company they keep is being naive. Why do you think Kerry dumped Sandy Berger from his staff when he got caught stuffing documents down his pants? As someone who is going to be voting Republican in 2008, I'm delighted that Edwards kept these two albatrosses on his staff. I'm sure Hillary! and Obama supporters are as well. Of course, Edwards will almost assuredly ditch them both once all this dies down and before the primaries, so as to minimize the outcry of the netroots.
Posted by: Dudley Smith on February 9, 2007 10:25 AMNo, no, no, no. It was not the objection to religious beliefs that outraged people (not just Catholics mind you). There are such objections even within denominations of Christianity.
It was the underlying (and palpable) contempt, anger and hatred. You don't need to be a repressed Catholic to be offended by pornographic descriptions of the immaculate conception.
That is not the kind of person most people want in circles of power. This is why no serious conservative candidate would hire Anne Coulter to do PR.
Posted by: Ron C on February 9, 2007 10:26 AMWhat I think will be interesting, as the primary season really kicks into gear, is how much of a liability having Marcotte on payroll will be for Edwards. He and his staff have obviously made the calculation that, short term, either Marcotte's positions aren't a major liability within the Democratic electorate, compared with the liability of removing her from her blog supervisory job, or Edwards is self-confident enough in his own trial lawyer abilities to be able to spin out enough damage control to make the problem go away. My guess is it's a little of both.
Without anything close to a Joe Liebermann type in the race, the Edwards campaign has to be thinking that no challenger on the Democratic side is going to do anything to criticize him for retaining Marcotte, for the same reason he refused to get rid of her -- for the next 10-11 months or so, when only the real political activists are paying close attention to the election, all of the Democratic hopefuls need, if not the outright support of the angry left, at least non-hostility to their campaign. So if Marcotte resurfaces as an issue, it wouldn't be until the late Spring of 2008 at the earliest, when both parties' nominees are decided. Meanwhile, coming on the heels of his Wal-Mart/Nintendo Wii gaffe and the revelation that he is building a home that roughly covers the entire state of North Carolina, Edwards is one of those pols who truly believes he's capable of telling people something that goes completely against what they're seeing and hearing about the candidate's actions, and make those people believe the former senator over their lyin' eyes. As someone who was able to convince a jury to give him a major malpractice award by channeling the voice of a fetus, thinking you can hoodwink voters about the seriousness of a mere handful of borderline psychotic blog posts shouldn't be that surprising.
Posted by: John on February 9, 2007 10:31 AMMuch as I agree with all of you that Marcotte 'stinks', I am profoundly happy that Edwards chose her, as I am extremely hopeful that it will terminate (in conjunction with his other flaws) any presidential aspirations he may have. If a malpractice lawyer can become president in this great nation, then there is a lot wrong with our system...
Posted by: hst on February 9, 2007 10:31 AMI'm with those who commented above: It wasn't that Marcotte criticized religion and the Catholic Church that put her beyond the pale, it was the sheer raving irrational hatred of what she said. (And this comes from someone who is also an athiest/agnostic.) Her comments about the Duke boys were made in the same vein--dripping with hatred, raving, disconnected from reality. She's a hater, pure and simple, and I was really surprised that Edwards hired her in the first place--it made me wonder what, if any, sort of screening process was conducted.
Posted by: colagirl on February 9, 2007 11:15 AMI agree with many posters above...you totally missed the point with this piece, and with your analysis. And not by just a little bit.
Posted by: Thomas on February 9, 2007 11:22 AMMarcotte: "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"
Edwards' website announcement: "I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith."
This was a calculated move by Edwards to curry favor with the more vocal elements of the left.
Posted by: BerthaMinerva on February 9, 2007 11:28 AMWhile I concur that Marcotte was poorly vetted and that the excerpts from her postings make her appear psychopathic, I would note the following:
- I have not seen (and lack the bandwidth to perform) an analysis of the body of her material that would indicate how characteristic the more lurid passages are of her overall worldview;
- Make no mistake, the Michelle Malkins of the world are elated that Marcotte has been hired, and retained, by the Edwards campaign;
- Interesting things happen at verges. The Edwards campaign may (unwittingly, to be sure) become a constructive verge between echo-chamber blogging and the real world. As unlikely as a constructive synthesis appears, I do not rule out the possibility.
Where'd this furore over Marcotte's Catholic-bashing come from? What I'd seen that was utterly unacceptable was her remarks about the Duke (not a) rape case, which established her as out of touch with reality, sexist, racist, and hateful. Then Edwards comes out with a public statement...about her bashing religion???
I smell a deliberate attempt at misdirection here - it's like responding to charges of child molesting by saying, "I only jaywalked a few times."
And apparently she's still on Edwards' staff, and he's still utterly oblivious to gross misjustice practically in his backyard - and perfectly OK with having the cheering section for that injustice on his PR staff.
Posted by: markm on February 9, 2007 12:25 PM"...there's still a real sense in which every Presidential election offer a choice between empowering the Marcottes of the world and empowering, say, people who think that Michelle Malkin is the voice of sweet reason on detainee policy."
Regardless of what you think of Marcotte's wrting, hiring her to work in his campaign showed stunningly bad judgement on Edward's part.
I happen to agree with much of what Michelle Malkin writes, but if, say, John McCain were to hire her to work on his campaign, that would also show very poor judgement.
Marcotte's writings are not the issue, John Edward's abilities are, and this does not reflect well on his ability to make good decisions.
Posted by: W. Henstock on February 9, 2007 12:30 PM"How much less rational could religious people be than my average neighbour on the Upper West Side?"
Well, I've heard many devout Christians argue to me that for beliefs on morality, reason was inferior to faith. So yes, as much as I would probably disagree with both the religious person and your neighbor, I can see how you could claim that one opinion was objectively more rational, since one person rejected the validity of reason in determining that belief.
Posted by: Brian Moore on February 9, 2007 1:03 PMM. Simon: I suppose using the word "system" was wrong: I mean logical frameworks. Religions and other moral systems are logical frameworks, that have certain postulates and results that can be found in those logical spaces. They don't vary in procedural logic, but have different "initial conditions", which are the parameters of the religion. They also permit mysticism and experiential "inputs", which are typically forbidden by atheists and those who argue that everything in the universe boils down to pure physics and randomness.
Anyway, my point is that rationalism != logic, and isn't the only "sane" system in the world.
Posted by: Foobarista on February 9, 2007 2:02 PMThis post is entirely dishonest. This isn't about abstractions, or about which views are tolerable and which aren't, it is about the actual words Marcotte wrote. I dare you to edit your post, including the actual verbatim text that people find "outside the window."
I double dog dare you.
Posted by: Harkonnendog on February 9, 2007 2:15 PM"I'm with those who commented above:...She's a hater, pure and simple, and I was really surprised that Edwards hired her"
Don't be surprised. Edwards has his divisive message: there are two Americas. He will need bigots like Marcotte to spread it - blame the rich, scapegoat the Catholics, bash southerners.
This will all come back to bite him. At a critical moment in the primaries, someone on his staff will make a bigoted gaffe [it just an extension of his message after all] and all this will be dug up again.
And it will be seen as a pattern.
Posted by: Fen on February 9, 2007 2:39 PMWhere are the writings in which these leftist atheists bash Islam?
Non-existent. In fact, these folks have been caught repeatedly aligning with muslim extremists, just because these leftists and the muslims hate America.
It's sad that anyone thinks of this as a "gotcha," although I'm confident the author of the comment is not the only one.
The truth is that whether you think Amanda Marcotte is a wise truth-teller or whether, like one of the commentors above, you think she's crazier than Hitler, what motivates her is clearly not the ordinary religious beliefs of her neighbor but rather the notion that right-wing Christian groups are trying to impose their beliefs on her through force of law.
What bothers her - and a lot of "secular, godless liberals," for that matter - is not that people exist who won't use Plan B for religious reasons, but the fact that regulatory approval of Plan B gets held up for everyone in order to appease adherents of a particular religious view. I will stipulate, mind you, that she often uses absurdly offensive language in addressing this sort of issue.
The reason why liberals so rarely express disdain for the more whacked-out tenets of Islam is not that we believe suicide bombers actually do get 72 virgins in heaven, but because no one is threatening to impose Islamic theology on all of us through political power. I'm confident that if Amanda Marcotte were an Iranian blogger, she would spend much of her time cursing out the mullahs and their fundamentalist views, and very little time lamenting the supposed evils of Christianity. At least until they came to take her away, mind you.
If you really don't understand the secret of why liberals rarely ridicule Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hindu or any of the other religions which have no hope of achieving political power in this country, now I've shared the secret.
Posted by: Steve on February 9, 2007 2:49 PMLittle Missy's unconstructive contributions do nothing to heal our polarization. But she's pretty far down the food chain on the left.
Do you guys have any comments about the hateful thoughts and language of some of your first string players? There are a lot of them and they are all over the teevee. I don't think they even need to be named. The conservatives made hatred an acceptable part of the debate and unfortunately, many liberals (or pinko's or terrorist lovers or baby killers...whatever the idiotic slur of the day is) have sunk to the same level. Outrage at the gutter debate is fine by me but let's be outraged by all of it.
Steve, if you think radical Islamists aren't trying to impose their views on people in the West, why don't you talk to Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? However, you will not be able to talk to many liberals who defend Rushdie or Ali, because there aren't many.
Posted by: y81 on February 9, 2007 3:07 PMscoutt,
Here is what the conservatives have going for them. There is not a single enemy, that I am aware of, seizing on statements consistently made by conservatives to embolden their follows to attack US interests.
When conservatives start bashing the US and our soldiers and the leaders of our soldiers in order to "get back" at the democrats then I'll be the first to stand up and demand those people step down.
But it seems like I frequently read or hear statements that tear the nation down while building "the enemy" up, all in the name of some kind of misguided open dialogue.
Some liberals have gotten too used to the ridiculous notion of "intellectual honesty" where all arguments have to be presented on the table equally, which leaves plenty of room for the likes of Osamas to claim that our sanctions have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids...just one point of many.
Liberals are sometimes like the reverse of the classic example from the Bible. They look for the tiny mote in our nation's eye instead of pointing out the huge beam in the eye of many other nations in the world.
Posted by: well on February 9, 2007 3:08 PMI agree with colagirl and many others above: "It wasn't that Marcotte criticized religion and the Catholic Church that put her beyond the pale, it was the sheer raving irrational hatred of what she said.... Her comments about the Duke boys were made in the same vein--dripping with hatred, raving, disconnected from reality."
One fact that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that, when Marcotte announced that she'd be working for the Edwards campaign, she discussed "why me?" - why was she chosen for this job? She herself said that her one big qualification was her blogging (current and past). The only other qualification she named was that she had many liberal obsessions.
If Edwards chose her for one and only one reason, as Marcotte herself claims, is it unreasonable for us to consider and discuss her one and only qualification?
Much of the discourse of a certain segment of the American left takes profanity for passion. As is their right.
However, once you move to the Presidential level there is a necessary and useful degree of scrutiny applied to the people who surround a would be President. Part of that scrutiny is about what a person has said, part about how they have said it.
There is no shortage of left wing bloggers in the US. That Edwards - or Edwards' "people" - chose Marcotte suggests a truly stunning lack of judgment. Her remarks about the Roman Catholic Church are out and out bigotry (and her disowning of them as "sarcasm" either total cowardice or the sheerest hypocrisy); but, as other commentors have remarked, her deranged remarks about the Duke students reveal her to be a hater. Worse, a hater unaware or unsupportive of the presumption of innocence and utterly ignorant of the facts of this disgraceful case of prosecutorial malfeasance.
Usually political candidates avoid hiring the ignorant, the malicious, the hypocritical, the bigoted and the deranged. Mr. Edwards, now in full possession of all of the facts and writings of Ms. Marcotte, has decided to keep her on. Which says a great deal about his principles and his judgment.
Posted by: Jay Currie on February 9, 2007 3:22 PMwell,
Please stop with the Fox news framing.
Liberals are not bashing soldiers.
Yes, liberals are opposed to torture and question some of the circumstances of the deaths of Iraqi civilians. America's adherence to higher standards of humanity and decency are what make us better.
Liberals are screaming for better equipment for the soldiers while Conservatives are cutting the veterans' budget...how do you twist that into your frame?
No, liberals are not making moral equivalences between U.S. policies and Sadaam or Osama etc.
We want to protect the moral highground of America. It seems to be enough for people like you to say, "But we're not as bad as them!" Is that the bar you're content to reach?
You think we should ignore our own high moral standards because if we debate our own behavior it gives Osama rhetorical ammunition? This is exactly how we DON'T win the war of ideas.
As for your Bible reference you are once again diminishing America's greatness. According to your perspective, we don't have to question our own behavior because we're not as bad as them. This is exactly the kind of thinking that has justified all of the horrible decisions made by our conservative leadership.
Yes. We should be hard on ourselves. We should seek moral clarity. We should adhere to our fundamental principles and values as strongly as possible. Anything less IS a victory for our enemies.
Posted by: scoutt on February 9, 2007 3:38 PMscoutt,
You've jumped completely overboard, like many who share your views do. Just like many who share Osama's view are keen to do when people like yourself make statements in the manner you have.
I have no doubt your goal is to make things better. There are some on your side and some on the side of our enemy who seem to read far more into your criticism than just constructive self crticism. Which is why have people saying the US is a worse humans rights violater than Cuba or Iran. They've bought so much into the line that they can't even seen straight.
Mistakes happen and we are not perfect. The fact that you know about torture circumstances and that people were punished for it shows how great our nation is. But when people use the actions by the least of us, in an attempt to score some politcal points, that hurts the nation. I think the military would have punished those who committed these problems with or without your outtrage. But what your outtrage did do is take some actions by the least of us and use them to bring down all of us.
Do you deny every mistep, every miscalculation that is hyped up in an attempt to bring down bush or the conservatives is also used against us by our enemies? There is a saying about airing dirty laundry for a reason. If in the process of trying to make things better internally for us, you make the world more hostile to us, does that help?
I get tired of ww2 analogies, but it seems like people weren't as petty about politics when it came to winning back them. Perhaps it is because now the spirit and drive to win isn't a part of our national identity. I can't imagine national outtrage at FDR in a time of war over every little mistake or action that you would personally disagree with.
Is it too much to ask when it comes to winning and victory that you step in line, vanquish our foe, and then get back to pointing out the areas where you disagree and think we went wrong? Apparently so...
Posted by: well on February 9, 2007 3:50 PM"This is exactly how we DON'T win the war of ideas. "
Winning the war of ideas means not driving a wedge in between our nation's leadership in a time of war. There is always a fine line with dissent and when and how it is appropriate. But the best way to defeat your enemy is to divide them. I think the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have figured that out, as we are completely divided at home and talking about ways to get out of Iraq, which is exactly what those terrorists want and will interpret and spread around the Middle East as a victory for them. And yes, it does matter if they claim Iraq as a victory. Don't forget Osama was emboldened in his planning for 9/11 based on our weakness shown by pulling out of Somalia at the first sign of casualties. This kind of weakness / political discord / internal strife can defeat our nation far easier than the terrorists ever could on the battle field.
It's sad that you and your like will never see nor acknowledge that and continue to claim that people like me just want to stiffle your precious freedom of experession. Freedom of expression comes with knowing how to use it and keep your mouth shut. Just because you can wave your family's dirty underwear around outside for the world to see, in the hopes of encouraging that family member to clean up their act, doesn't mean that you should.
Posted by: well on February 9, 2007 3:56 PM"Do you guys have any comments about the hateful thoughts and language of some of your first string players? There are a lot of them and they are all over the teevee. The conservatives made hatred an acceptable part of the debate and - "
Do you guys on the Left adhere to any principles independent of what you "think" the other side does? Your morality appears to consist of falsely accusing your opponents of facism to justify your own foray into that realm.
Do you do anything right for its own sake, regardless of what you "beleive" the other side does?
Posted by: Fen on February 9, 2007 3:57 PMIt does well to remember the ultiamte goal of the true believers like Osama and his cohorts. It's not just to get us out of Iraq and destroy Isreal. It's to convert the entire world to Islam by force of necessary. That's the only way to "peace" for them is when we all are muslims.
As long as we require oil, and we do, no matter how much you or I wish it were not so, we will always be involved in the middle east, and as long as that is the case it is all too easy for these guys to find reasons to hate us and attack our interests. And as we've seen on 9/11 it's all too easy for them to attack us at home.
It's fortunate most of the men and women protecting this nation are made of tougher stock than many around here.
Posted by: well on February 9, 2007 4:00 PMWell, I've heard many devout Christians argue to me that for beliefs on morality, reason was inferior to faith. So yes, as much as I would probably disagree with both the religious person and your neighbor, I can see how you could claim that one opinion was objectively more rational, since one person rejected the validity of reason in determining that belief.
It's quite possible the devout Christians you refer to, didn't understand the reasons themselves. Might not make them unreasonable, however. Consider:
One of the basic tenants of Christian faith is that once you accept Christ as the basis of all access to God, you no longer know God strictly as your judge, but as your loving and caring Father. Loving fathers may judge in the extreme case, but generally, they give instruction and then discipline, with the object of instilling responsibility and improving the child's character. (The child, of course, can still choose to wander away and act otherwise.)
The relationship is providential, therefore one can act by His moral standards without knowing all of the reasons or answers in advance. The relationship is one of trust; reason can have some use in evaluating whether the trust is being placed in a reliable entity, but once that analysis is made and the trust is placed, reason has nothing more to say against it.
Contrawise, reason can act to ends of extraordinary foolishness by ignoring the long-term picture, or refusing to accept that someone else might know better how something ought to be ordered and structured.
Posted by: anony-mouse on February 9, 2007 4:06 PM"Liberals are screaming for better equipment for the soldiers"
What is the best way to get better equipment for the soliders if you are a higher power senator. Go on TV and blame Rumsfeld and the leadership for not knowning 5-10 years ago they would need heavy armor for their Humvees?
Or work with the Republicans on your committee who would be all too willing I'm sure to get more funds to make sure the armor is procured as quickly as possible.
"Hey Senator Joe I heard the troops in Iraq need better armor for their trucks, let's work together to get this accomplished asap."
"No, I'm an evil Repub and I don't speak with Democrats and I think the troops don't need armor even though you told me they are just buying it on their own and welding it on"
I can't imagine that conversation happening.
It all comes back to scoring a few quick and cheap political points while costing our nation much more in the long run. Goal - bring down Rumsfeld, Bring down Bush, Get Republicans out of power. The implementation of their strategy clearly shows this is their ultiamte goal.
If their goal was to get rid of terrorism and kill the people who want to kill us I imagine their energies and vitrol would be better produce in a different direction than the one I am seeing it aimed at.
Posted by: well on February 9, 2007 4:08 PM"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." Jonathan Swift
This is one of my favorite quotations, especially when applied to strong religious or political beliefs, whether on the right or the left.
The best we can do is use civil discourse when expressing our positions based on belief with the hope that those who respond will do likewise. Unfortunately, when we are unable to respond with reason based on facts to positions that attack our dearly held beliefs, we commonly resort to an invective. Why do you suppose we do that? Fear that the certainty of our belief can or will be shaken?
Posted by: Tom on February 9, 2007 4:11 PMWhat I fucking want to fucking know is why the fuck Megan McGargling-cum didn't fucking post the unfucking edited fucking postings that great fucking feminist thinker Marcotte fucking wrote! I mean, like, it's totally fucked to fucking talk about what Marcotte wrote without fucking being able to fucking read the fucking text in the fucking original fucking form, right? Right?? RIGHT!!!!
It's like SO fucking rightwingfucktardelitist to fucking not show all you fucked up NeoKKKons what a truly fucking passionate person thinks!!!! And how many fucking exclamation points she can fucking use!!!!! In just one fucking paragraph!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The netroots are here to stay!!!!! As part of Jon Fucking Edwards campain or not!!!! So fucking deal with it, fuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fuck!!!!! on February 9, 2007 4:13 PMWhat I fucking want to fucking know is why the fuck Megan McGargling-cum didn't fucking post the unfucking edited fucking postings that great fucking feminist thinker Marcotte fucking wrote! I mean, like, it's totally fucked to fucking talk about what Marcotte wrote without fucking being able to fucking read the fucking text in the fucking original fucking form, right? Right?? RIGHT!!!!
It's like SO fucking rightwingfucktardelitist to fucking not show all you fucked up NeoKKKons what a truly fucking passionate person thinks!!!! And how many fucking exclamation points she can fucking use!!!!! In just one fucking paragraph!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The netroots are here to stay!!!!! As part of Jon Fucking Edwards campain or not!!!! So fucking deal with it, fuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fuck!!!!! on February 9, 2007 4:13 PMWhat I fucking want to fucking know is why the fuck Megan McGargling-cum didn't fucking post the unfucking edited fucking postings that great fucking feminist thinker Marcotte fucking wrote! I mean, like, it's totally fucked to fucking talk about what Marcotte wrote without fucking being able to fucking read the fucking text in the fucking original fucking form, right? Right?? RIGHT!!!!
It's like SO fucking rightwingfucktardelitist to fucking not show all you fucked up NeoKKKons what a truly fucking passionate person thinks!!!! And how many fucking exclamation points she can fucking use!!!!! In just one fucking paragraph!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The netroots are here to stay!!!!! As part of Jon Fucking Edwards campain or not!!!! So fucking deal with it, fuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Fuck!!!!! on February 9, 2007 4:16 PMAs they so often do, those on the right are objecting to the wrong things about those on the left. Forget the profanity-laced rantings of Edward's chosen bloggers. Focus, instead, on what Edwards proposes to do.
In the name of "universal healthcare", he proposes to FORCE you to buy health insurance, whether you want it or not. It is stated quite plainly and quite boldly on his web site.
Oh sure, he prattles on about how he is going to make such insurance "affordable", but the bottom line is that at the end of the day, he will make it illegal for you to pay your doctor bills out of your own pocket.
Where are those alleged lovers of liberty -- the liberals -- on this issue? I'm calling all of you who are so up in arms about the alleged loss of civil rights under the Bush administration -- you scream in protest because the government might learn what books you checked out of the library, but you are indifferent to the prospect of the government forbidding you to spend your own money on your own healthcare?
That is exactly how the leftists worked it in Canada. Want to force everyone to carry health insurance? Just make it illegal for any doctor, or hospital or pharmacy to accept any form of payment except a government-approved insurance -- and presto! You will get universal "compliance".
Until and unless I hear liberals protesting this extension of government control over their lives, OVER EVERY SINGLE LIFE IN AMERICA, I will view with the greatest skepticism all of their professed moral outrage over Bush's terrorist surveillance program, the Patriot act, etc.
John Edwards is proposing to reach into your life and use the force of the law to make you pay your doctor bills by HIS method alone – with you having no say over the matter at all. Now where is the outrage over that?
The substitution of passion for reason is certainly not new, nor is it unique to any political position. It appears that someone in the Edwards campaign has made a poor choice, and is determined to stick with it in order to avoid antagonizing the radical left web logs and those that follow them. Whether that choice was made in a calculating fashion, by estimating how many liberal Catholics and other Christians are likely to be offended vs. how many lefties will be elated, or made in an emotive fashion, it's going to be a decision that in the long run will hurt. I surely would not want to be the Edwards campaign person in charge of "Catholic outreach" any time this year, for example. Beyond that, the next fundraiser Edwards holds in North Carolina may be interesting, as there's more than a few Democrats there who also take their churchgoing a bit more seriously than many in the northeast do. And further beyond that, Edwards has now forfeited any ability to credibly call for "civility" in a campaign, for a long time to come.
Returning to the theme of passion vs. reason, this would be a good time to pontificate about the flaws of direct democracy, and the virtues of representative government containing checks upon impulses & passions. However, I need to get back to some work, so all that is for another day.
Posted by: ellipsis on February 9, 2007 4:27 PMAre you people kidding me? If anything, this girl was way too diplomatic. She used words to express herself. The Catholic Church uses knives, guns, money, bombs, and all sorts of ill shit to express itself. Lets look at the Crusades: Catholic Church kills a few million "infidels". Spanish Inquisition: Catholic Church kills a few hundred thousand "infidels" and expels millions from their homelands. Latin America: Catholic Church kills millions who won't convert. SE Asia: Catholic Church kills millions more who won't convert. Africa today: thousands die everyday from AIDS and Pope tells them they will go to hell if they use condoms
THEY ARE RUN BY A NAZI WHO ADMITTED TO FIRING UPON AMERICAN AIRCRAFT WITH AN ANTI AIRCRAFT GUN.
While we'll never know how many children have been molested by Catholic priests,just since WWII, its estimated that tens of thousands of children were raped by the Catholic Church's priests here in America alone (can you even imagine what they're doing to brown children in the third world?). What did the Church do? It moved the priests to other parishes where they could continue molesting children for decades and actively paid off the victims' families with money that people gave to the church to help poor people, forcing them to sign confidentiallity agreements so they can't even warn the poor families the next town over whose kids are gonna get cornholed by these fuckers (all while maintaining that they have some sort of moral authority -what a cosmicjoke)
The Catholic Church is nothing less than a genocidal organization currently run by an admitted Nazi, employing and enabling thousands of pedophiles, not punishing or even censoring them when they're caught.
This girl wrote some words. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but genocide and cocks in thousands of childrens asses are a lot worse.
Posted by: AGGGGGGGGGHHHHH on February 9, 2007 4:27 PMNot everyone holds political views that help themselves, but we all should hold views that help America, and legal Americans. Being unemployed for a few months, I have had the time to really research whether my beliefs are of value to America, and without question the conservatives have the correct stance. I have noticed that when conservatives make sense, most liberals use other methods than sense to try to destroy the point of the debate. Calling people names, calling them rascist, or whatever ism they choose, anything but debate the merits of the content. Some liberal writers are very good at making their point. We may not agree, but I can certainly understand a well researched, and well presented point of view. To use lies, or falsehoods, or just ignore facts, is not helpful. I find it amazing that Americans would rather lose a war than lose an election. If we united as one America, does anyone really believe the enemy would stand a chance? If we pull out the troops, does anyone think this war will end? I can understand someone that hates war so much they would rather be a slave than fight. I can not understand why our troops are so vilified by so many. It has to be ignorance, there is no other excuse. I certainly can not figure out how so many have so much to say, and so little actual experience. Just a note: the ability to cuss, or copulate, is not experience helpful to any cause.
Posted by: Robert on February 9, 2007 4:30 PM"Catholic Church kills a few million "infidels""
Interesting that the muslims like to point to this also as an instance of West/Christian agression.
Interesting that if you read the Bible, it would seem that the Romans were running the show in Jerusalem. The Christians pretty much inherited Rome and consequently Judea. It was the muslims that invaded and took those lands and was the muslims that invaded and also took lands from the Christians in Turkey. Not many Christians in Turkey compared to Muslims...wonder why that is considering they are so tolerant like many would have us believe.
It was the Christians and Catholics who rallied to the defense and fought against the muslims. That anyone of western civilization would buy unquestioningly into the muslim proganda while taking that from their own side with a grain of salt is amazing. Well, it's almost as if siding with the Japanese and asking if we really should have dropped the bomb(s) on them...oops...these sample people do that too.
Posted by: a on February 9, 2007 4:38 PMWow.
We can't even get this kind of unanimity on wishing that Meg's dog get better, but we all (-1) agree that Jane got this wrong, and what the real problem was. That so many of us are agnotheist also shows quite how crude Marcotte is.
"Hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"
"Godbags"
"Can't a bunch of white boys fuck a black girl against her will anymore?"
As to the predominance... Pandagon should be called FuckingPfuckingandafuckinggon to represent the popularity of her word of choice. She uses fuck more than she uses the letter "e".
Another choice element was her tirade about how she would not be punished with babies, that she was a fuckslut who would fuck with wild abandon of unreproductive fucking.
The absolute best was a post bewailing the death of Rehnquist because Bush could now appoint someone who would overturn Roe and Griswold. She isn't just a vulgar, profane, psycopathic, hateful bitch. She's an ignorant, vulgar, profane, psycopathic hateful bitch who thinks that she is superior to everyone thanks to her pure Liberal credentials, while she works in the financial aid office of the University of Texas at Austin, several light years better than the one that she attended and a school that is notorious as a hard charging party school that isn't all that selective. She went to an 800 SAT level school and acts like she pulled 1600, thanks to her oh so enlightened views.
She does fit the level of intellectual seriousness of the Edwards campaign, its sincerity, respect for truth, and adherence to civility. Good riddance to disgustingly vile rubbish.
Posted by: Hey on February 9, 2007 4:44 PMDear Hey at 4:44pm:
That's quite a civil post you got there. It's not, umm, hateful or vulgar at all. (You only called her the b-word!)
However, you might want to ponder the current administration's intellectual seriousness, sincerity, respect for truth, and adherence to civility. (On that last point, do remember comments by Rove and Cheney impugning the patriotism of Democrats and Cheney's using the f-word on the floor of the Senate.)
I respectfully submit that Edwards would be quite an improvement, although unlike Shotgun Dick, I won't call you a traitor if you disagree with me ;)
Also, you should take your meds before you turn on your computer.
Kind regards,
Sean
"This girl wrote some words. Sticks and stones may break my bones"
"No one ever died from reading Der Sturner, but the culture it served caused six million Jews to drop dead". - George Will
Jane,
I'll just pile on with this: If you think the distaste for Marcotte stems from her criticism of religion, and Catholicism or Christianity per se, sit down and read her posts, then read yours or Steven Den Beste's. You're smart enough to recognize the difference.
Posted by: Bill Dalasio on February 9, 2007 10:59 PMdo remember comments by Rove and Cheney impugning the patriotism of Democrats,
I don't remember them, although I do remember a lot of whining about them. Links?
Posted by: Rob Lyman on February 9, 2007 11:36 PMslarrow - You mention burning bushes, virgin births, and resurrection of the dead, for example. "Reason" as such has nothing to say against these phenomena.
What about the theory that disease is caused by demons?
hst - If a malpractice lawyer can become president in this great nation, then there is a lot wrong with our system...
I don't follow.
Here is what the conservatives have going for them. There is not a single enemy, that I am aware of, seizing on statements consistently made by conservatives to embolden their follows to attack US interests.
"Bring it on? "
You've had Rrepublicans doing some pretty stupid junk, like bragging about how we're intercepting Bin Ladin's cell phone calls (and then he stops using his phone, surprise surprise)
Steve, if you think radical Islamists aren't trying to impose their views on people in the West, why don't you talk to Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? However, you will not be able to talk to many liberals who defend Rushdie or Ali, because there aren't many.
Are there many who attack Rushdie or Ali? Or is the response simply dismissive. The difference is important. You can certainly find liberals who protest things like muslim treatment of women, genital mutilation, etc. But that leaves open the question of how Americans are supposed to influence these activities. Are you surprised people are most concerned about their own backyards? I don't think that most liberals see Islam as as imminent a threat as many conservatives do.
well - I think the military would have punished those who committed these problems with or without your outtrage.
Why do you think that the millitary wouldn't have just covered things up, as best they could? The millitary didn't bring the issue to light voluntarily.
well - I get tired of ww2 analogies, but it seems like people weren't as petty about politics when it came to winning back them. Perhaps it is because now the spirit and drive to win isn't a part of our national identity.
So we're on the same page, what do you envision 'winning' to look like? If you're worried about other people not committing to your goals, lets at least be explicit about what your goals are and how you plan to acheive them.
I can't imagine national outtrage at FDR in a time of war over every little mistake or action that you would personally disagree with.
WWII was seen by a greater portion of the population as a war of self defence.
Also, I don't think that support of Chalibi or torture are little mistakes.
Michael Smith - Until and unless I hear liberals protesting this extension of government control over their lives, OVER EVERY SINGLE LIFE IN AMERICA, I will view with the greatest skepticism all of their professed moral outrage over Bush's terrorist surveillance program, the Patriot act, etc.
I loathe the notion of "universal health care". The exception is emergency care. If we're going to compell hospitals to admit emergency patients, then we should fund that. Or else release hospitals from their existant obligations.
As for the patriot act - I don't care if the gov't listens in to my phone conversations. I just want
judicial oversight, even if it has to be classified for two years or so.
I'm more concerned about the information being used to someone's political advantage or detriment than I am with having my own phone tapped.
Posted by: Ryan on February 9, 2007 11:43 PMThe millitary didn't bring the issue to light voluntarily.
They didn't publicize it, but they certainly did investigate it and were planning on prosecutions before the media got ahold of it, at least in the case of Abu Ghraib.
Point?
Posted by: Rob Lyman on February 9, 2007 11:49 PMI wrote: "Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?"
JSinger responded: "That is so unconnected from the quality of what has actually happened that I don't even know how to start criticizing it."
Keep in mind, the post of mine Jane quoted (and linked to) was the second part of a two-part post. Part one, in which I responded line-by-line to the Catholic League's press release criticizing Amanda and Melissa, can be read here.
The Catholic League is a fairly major player in the Conservative Right, and their press release is what made this controversy notable enough for the NYTimes and the AP to write about it; I don't think you can fairly claim that their critique is not part of "what has actually happened." But if you read what they wrote, they do indeed object not just to meanness and to obscene language, but also to mere criticism of the Pope's political positions. For example, their press release contained this sentence:
On November 21, 2006, Melissa McEwan said on AlterNet that 'some of Christianity's most prominent leaders—including the Pope—regularly speak out against gay tolerance.'
No other criticism was made of Melissa's November 21st post; clearly, the only thing they criticized this post for was that it criticized the Pope's politics. Yet this criticism was included on a list of reasons they wanted Melissa fired.
I stand by my post. Yes, Amanda and Melissa were criticized for being mean and for using nasty language; but they were also criticized for making statements critical of the Pope's politics and of the conservative Christian right's politics.
Posted by: Ampersand on February 10, 2007 2:47 AMIt's not the sentiment being expressed, it's the tone. Go ahead and disagree with Catholics and/or Christians. Hate them, even. But if you want to be an electable American politician, recognize that you need at least some of their votes; and, that if elected, you will eventually have to work with them. If you have alienated them through the use of gratuitous, profane insults, this could present a major challenge.
It's not necessary to agree with your opponents' beliefs, but one should at least start with the premise that those beliefs are sincerely held. Obviously, it is better to not alienate large groups of voters whose support you need, and to not employ people that exhibit a deranged hatred toward those groups. You and your associates are free to say anything you want, but in this day and age, it should come as no surprise when you are defined by the worst thing you, or they, ever said.
A good example of a practical mover and shaker is Bono of U2. He probably opposes many policies of the Bush administration. However, he recognizes that Bush currently has a great deal of influence over the federal budget, so he is willing to put some issues on the back burner, in the service of the greater good of increased aid to Africa. Would Bono have had the same reception if he had been ranting about the "illegal war for oil" at his concerts? In the immortal words of Mick Jagger, "you can't always get what you want...but sometimes, you get what you need." You're not going to get what you need, if you demand everything you want, in the most angry, childish way.
...on a humorous note...will the bloggers now go into rehab, ala Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson, et al?
Posted by: Omaha1 on February 10, 2007 8:46 AMm.simon -
I believe foobarista was referring to systems of logic the way mathematicians refer to geometries - if you start with different premises, you get different results by combining the postulates, axioms and rules of inference.
For instance, someone talked about the sum of angles of a triangle equalling the constant 180 degrees (pi radians). In our particular universe, that does not happen to be true. It is a close enough approximation for engineering on the scale of a building, but we have known since Einstein that space is curved, so the sum of the angles varies according to the size of the triangle and the curvature of space.
Modern science has many postulates and axioms that are not, have not, and cannot be proven. One big one is that what we think of as universal constants are constant over time, rather than having been implemented in, say, 27 Million BC or 27 BC or 1056 AD. (Okay, there are recent theories that the constants may change slightly over time also.)
One of these unexamined postulates is that, (A)if a theory requires a God, then it must be wrong,(B) if it allows (but does not require) a God, then the God is unnecessary. In other words, the postulate itself is that there must be no God, and it is self-proving and unfalisfiable. Kind of like the current scientoreligion: whether it gets hotter or colder, wetter or dryer, milder or more extreme, Global Warming is at fault.
Whatever your postulates are, by logic they combine and then take you to wherever it goes. And if you find that you reach a place that is anathema, you will balk if you are rational. Because everyone rational is aware that not all their postulates and axioms have been properly examined. By finding these places where the inferences fail, science slowly corrects (or at least flags for correction) incorrect conclusions and axioms.
So do other logics.
Posted by: Twill00 on February 10, 2007 11:29 AMSteve,
"no one is threatening to impose Islamic theology on all of us through political power"
If you're right about the motivations of extremists such as Marcotte, then their hatred and selfishness far exceeds anything I had imagined. After all, there's no doubt that many, many people around the world are being threatened by Islamic theology to an extent that makes Marcotte's fears and complaints in the US look trivial. For women living under the Taliban, not being able to get Plan B was hardly their biggest concern.
So, according to you, such people will team up with, or at least tacitly support, those attempting to do unspeakable things to dark-skinned foreigners, simply in order to further their own much more minor agenda here in the US.
Read Marcotte's writings. In their content, tenor, and style alike, I think you will agree they bespeak someone with serious psychological issues.
How are you the slightest bit better? You're trying create a standard of unacceptability of speech of exactly the same kind as yours, except on the other political side. If you really believe what you wrote, you'd better see a psychologist.
The Christians pretty much inherited Rome and consequently Judea. It was the muslims that invaded and took those lands ..
You know why the Muslims were so incredibly successful at quickly converting such a huge empire? Because they were more tolerant. They offered far more choices than the Talibanesque form of Christianity extant at that time in the Byzantine Empire. Few were forced to convert at swordpoint, and the simple fact of being given a choice must've drawn some consideration. But the real winner was probably that Byzantine Christianity was more and more into micromanagement and banning fun, whereas fun was largely OK with the Muslims, and micromanagement a non-issue.
Posted by: j-boy on February 10, 2007 3:30 PMI think this captures the essence of the argument, although I'm not sure that Amp is right about this being an attempt to shift it; my admittedly limited knowlege of Non-Coastal-Elite-America indicates that in most of the country, slagging off the Pope, or indeed making fun of religion qua religion, is mostly verboten.
Really? Gee, that's too bad, if so.
But you could be right. I have to admit, other than a brief stint at Oberlin (which doesn't count as part of Real America, does it?), I've never lived away from one coast or another. What a stereotype I am! :p
More broadly, a lot of people - even on the coasts - seem to feel that religious beliefs should be beyond satire or criticism. But why? In the US, adults can choose what religion to align themselves with; that choice, and any consequential beliefs that come about because of that choice, should be fair game for criticism.
Posted by: Ampersand on February 10, 2007 4:32 PMCatholics were the swing vote in the 2004 presidential election.
Anyone who wants to score the smallest point against Edwards need only point to his (wavering) decision to retain the contrived Marcotte when there were hundreds of other qualified candidates without such ugly baggage.
Posted by: Munge on February 10, 2007 5:02 PMMore broadly, a lot of people - even on the coasts - seem to feel that religious beliefs should be beyond satire or criticism. But why?
Lingering remnants of conscience?
More than a passing knowledge of how cooperative diplomacy operates?
Fact of the matter is, I don't think you'll find that the American mainstream is completely put off by charicatures of religion. There are plenty of them to go around in mainstream art, books, television, and radio. But if there is a general sense that religious views should not be abrasively and obscenely mocked, especially by persons close to the seats of governmental power, it may just be that the American mainstream (1) tends to be nominally religious to some degree and/or (2) does recognize that we are all involved in a semi-cooperative enterprise known as a civilization.
It may well be a free society, but you just won't get much peace in it by becoming odious even to your next door neighbors. As things should be.
Posted by: anony-mouse on February 10, 2007 6:53 PMHow are you the slightest bit better? You're trying create a standard of unacceptability of speech of exactly the same kind as yours, except on the other political side. If you really believe what you wrote, you'd better see a psychologist.
Excuse me, but I don’t see this at all. My point was temperate and made in a civil manner, in contradistinction to the posts that are the topic of this thread. Please elucidate.
And I do really believe what I wrote.
Excellent comment by Steve (2/9, 2:49). Bravo.
Ann's, on the other hand . .
After all, there's no doubt that many, many people around the world are being threatened by Islamic theology to an extent that makes Marcotte's fears and complaints in the US look trivial.
Yes, that's unquestionable. And? The flipside version might be - say, capitalism/Christians are being far more threatened in Venezuela/China than here, so anyone who complains at all about U.S. conditions either has their priorities messed up or is helping *them*. (But that would be silly, right?) 'Things are worse elsewhere so hush up' is - whatever the intention - in effect 'stop complaining about domestic conditions for the foreseeable future'. Also
For women living under the Taliban, not being able to get Plan B was hardly their biggest concern. So, according to you, such people will team up with, or at least tacitly support, those attempting to do unspeakable things to dark-skinned foreigners, simply in order to further their own much more minor agenda here in the US.
Well, that's not *at all* what Steve said, but you're much more wrong than that. Amanda herself addressed this point last March in a post about Strawfeminists and their adoration of misogynists of the Muslim stripe. She quotes an article - an entirely representative one - mentioning an organization's campaign aimed at
"exposing U.S. corporate business relations with the Taliban, urging consumers to demand a moratorium on corporate business investment until women’s human rights have been restored; and organizing internationally with women’s and human rights groups to bring more pressure on the Taliban to restore women’s human rights."
The organization? The Feminist Majority Foundation. The year? 1998. As Amanda said (astericked to protect tender sensibilities):
"So, for those of you who never even knew what the word “Taliban” was before 9/11, quit showing up at blogs of people who earnestly tried to educate friends and neighbors about what was going on in Afghanistan well before that date and tell us that we don’t care about the rights of Muslim women. If you couldn’t cough up what “FGM” stands for if asked on a game show for $10,000, don’t f***ing tell me that American feminists don’t know s*** about the outside world. If you keep voting for f***tards like Bush who appoint people like Ellen Sauerbrey to U.N. ambassador positions who actively oppose any kind of action that would help improve women’s lives around the globe, don’t you f***ing dare pretend that you care about women unless their suffering can be used as excuse to bomb them out of existence."
Yes, our Amanda has a potty-mouth. But what's more obscene - the words, or the facts? (And yes, she goes overboard at the very end; she should have ended it at 'about women.' - still not quite right, but closer.)
Personally I found out about what the Taliban were doing quite a while before 9/11, because I read The Nation, and because feminist and humanitarian organizations (if you *had* to pick, is Amnesty International more a left or right wing org?) were frantically trying to get people's attention, frantically trying to do something. I was never aware of any real corresponding effort on the right - perhaps I didn't hear about it?
In my last comment, the paragraph following "Also", that starts "For women living under the Taliban . . ." and ends " . . .much more minor agenda here in the US." - that's a quote from Ann. Sorry for any confusion.
Posted by: Dan S. on February 10, 2007 10:16 PMYes, our Amanda has a potty-mouth. But what's more obscene - the words, or the facts?
I can't tell. The snippit you pulled is very lean on facts. Quoting a couple generalized facts, and then making broad slurs against people you don't like on the basis that they "somehow" oppose those facts and all else that you stand for, is not the normal form of a plausible argument.
Posted by: anony-mouse on February 11, 2007 1:39 AM"no one is threatening to impose Islamic theology on all of us through political power"
Technically thats correct. The radicals threaten to impose Islamic theology on all of us through violence. All it took to silence the NYTs and WaPo was a few molotov cocktails. But for Marcotte and her ilk, its those pesky Evangelical Christians that are the real threat, not Radical Islam.
Best way to get them equipment? Give them money to buy what they want.
Posted by: aaron on February 11, 2007 2:18 PMJSinger responded: "That is so unconnected from the quality of what has actually happened that I don't even know how to start criticizing it."
First, I quoted that; someone else said it.
Second, your point is apparently that in denouncing an endless stream of deranged, vile, seething bigotry from the two women (none of which seems to bother you, much of which you actively defend), the Catholic League made some criticisms, which if interpreted broadly enough, might extend to what's normally considered reasonable political comment?
Sorry, I'm unimpressed. The day someone makes the sort of reasonable criticism of the Catholic Church you're wishing into those posts and receives a similar condemnation from the Catholic League, I'll 100% agree with you. But right now you're grasping at straws to defend a pair of loathsome morons who aren't even defending their own words any more.
Posted by: JSinger on February 11, 2007 4:11 PMThey didn't publicize it, but they certainly did investigate it and were planning on prosecutions before the media got ahold of it, at least in the case of Abu Ghraib.
Point?
Interesting. I concede the point.
Posted by: Ryan on February 13, 2007 2:56 AM