Hooray! Wheee!
Meanwhile, I couldn't resist a foray into immaturity. I hope the link works.
I do like reading good news.
We love you Shakes!!
I'm not too swift picking up on the nuances, here, but reading between the lines, does this mean that you and Amanda are staying with the Edwards campaign?
Please say yes.
I think that's a yes, MB. Which is great news.
I'll try this just once more. There should be a link below. If there isn't, my apologies.
http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dia...lemalkin.com%
2F
I'm very happy about this outcome.
Good job by the Senator! Gratz to you and Amanda.
So - if "Christofascists" is out, can we use the word "Christianists" a la Andrew Sullivan? Also, if "Christofascists" is out, what about the future of the word "Islamofascists"?
WOO-HOOOOO!!!!
I'm still annoyed that the fundies were allowed to frame the terms of the debate, but I'm proud of JE for standing up for his people.
Way to go, Shakes.
I'm just glad you didn't have to sign oaths or anything, giving up your First Amendment rights in order to work for Mr. Edwards. I must say I'm glad that he didn't just cave to pressure. I hope this is the beginning of a very good thing for you and Amanda. Rocky start, but at least that's out of the way.
Maybe it's just me, but I thought his defense of you could have been a LOT stronger. Had he never read anything you'd written before? I'm glad he didn't cave, but he also didn't do much to refute the attack dogs.
I admire Senator Edwards for his decision to keep the both of you on. Let this, then, be the end of it.
Carry on, Shakes Sis!
Mixter
I'm with DWF. While I appreciate the ultimate outcome, I'm very dismayed by the Senator's decision to label Amanda's and Melissa's language as "intolerant." That's not fair, and a not particularly courageous defense to this right-wing nonsense.
Well, I am definitely pleased he didn't fire you two, and not just for the having a spine thing, but also for the simple fact of you retaining a job that you care about and want!
I do wish his defense was a little stronger, but that said, I can understand (though not like, really) his necessary political positioning in such.
Congrats sis, this is great news, and lets all of us move on from this, as just continuing to focus on it just gives the trolls/wingnuts more of the attention they crave.
Senator Edwards, I am now officially behind you 100%. You faced down your first Swiftboating and passed with flying colors.
Woo Hoo!
I'm one happy camper!
I'm happy that a candidate that I was growing to admire did the right thing.
I'm happy that two Wingnuts were foiled in their attack.
And, I'm most happy for my favorite blogger.
Just for clarity's sake, the other Deborah who said she was pleased by this outcome isn't me.
But I'm pleased too.
Deborah Lipp of Property of a Lady
I'm glad he didn't cave to the bigot. Who might have broken some campaign finance laws.
I am underwelmed by Edwards response.
Edwards and campaign either knew the content of your respective blogs or they didn't. If the first senario is the case, it shouldn't have taken a day to come up with such a response. If the latter senario is the case, then they're fools.
Either case has me less than enthusiastic to support him.
Altough, I am glad that you and Amanda weren't made scapegoats for the failings of those that hired both of you.
Where was the love? Just an admonition and no praise for the high level of consistently thoughtful analysis you and Amanda produce? Why did he not denounce the real bigots like Malkin, Donohue and such?
I'm sorry that you had to apologize for your superior writing, Melissa.
I hope this is enough for the howling banshees. I worry that it won't be. I'm afraid they're going to demand your heads unceasingly until he either capitualates or tells them in no uncertain terms to take a flying leap.
By the way, do you think we're going to get a retraction from Salon.com for their Dewey Defeats Truman moment yesterday?
...your site!
...your guests!
Give 'em hell, Shakes. Oh, and I blame it all on Wm the Conqueror in 1066, who had he not invaded England we could still use fuck, shit and cunt in polite courtly society.
I'm glad he kept you both, and look forward to reading more of your brilliant analyses soon.
While I'm glad he didn't cave, I don't understand why he/they didn't realize this particular kind of assault was pretty much a guarantee. Shakes has never been shy about her use of profanity (& a couple years back wrote a post specifically defending her choice of language), so why didn't the hiring include a vetting of prior blogwork???
Just wondering....
It's fantastic to see that no one lost their jobs. But Edwards' statement is a huge disappointment to me. While I like much of what he envisions for government and I'm not so silly as to let one thing like this turn me off or on to a politician, it will stick with me how poorly handled this was. The thrust of Edwards' response is to scold Amanda and Melissa and not really tackle the silliness behind this "scandal".
Count me in with those who found Edwards' response and defense of you two totally lame. Glad that he kept both of you on, though--it should be a great experience for you, not to mention a trial by fire.
Delurking to agree that the Edwards response is underwhelming. Your work needs NO apology. I'm glad Edwards did the right thing, but I hope in the future he will pay less attention to the delicate feelings of conservatives.
Shakes, I got your panties right here. xoxoxoxoxoxoxo times infinity!
My only regret is that John didn't go after Donohue.
Perhaps the one he should've fired is his PR person. Just sayin...
I must admit to being similarly underwhelmed by Sen. Edward's response to this non-issue. It seems to me that it was the perfect opportunity to highlight the MSM pandering to right wing fringe elements and the inherent hypocrisy which lay at the core of said behavior. Democrats must take the lead and frame the real issues facing this country, not the fake crap that the echo chamber pushes under our noses as the latest "scandale du jour".
I am thrilled Edwards didn't cave, and while I do understand the politics of it all, I am too extremely disappointed with his statement.
grammar check:
I too am
/grammar check
Senator Edwards, I am now officially behind you 100%. You faced down your first Swiftboating and passed with flying colors.
No, not so much. He blinked, and allowed the wingnuts to establish the rules of his campaign.
Shakes, I am beyond thrilled for you. Your canidate has much, much, much convincing to do.
I'm dreadful--my friend at NPR sent me the AP wire and after wrestling with myself for a while, I sent it to the other contributors so they could be relived, too, but of course, you'd already let everyone know.
HOORAY! I'm very happy for you, you brat 
.
Champagne all around.
Onward...
This is good. But count me in as underwhelmed by JE's comment.
You personally, and we as a community, are only intolerant of intolerance.
I think we need to send him a list of posts and make damned sure he reads them.
Whoops, I keep screwing up the italics
Stand your ground, Shakes and Amanda. Who gives a crap if the wingnuts are pissed? Truth to power, ladies, truth to power. The only thing that hurts them is that you two spoke the truth. I only wish EDWARDS HAD SHOWN MORE SPINE!!
You know, like calling out Malkin and Donohue on *their* intolerance and hate speech.
Even if he does keep you (and he should), I'm still questioning my earlier support of him.
Bobby, I had the same reaction as you! Okay .... does this mean Edwards DIDN'T fire them?
I am SO SO glad it does indeed mean that. I agree with everyone who said that Edwards' defense of Melissa and Amanda could have been a lot stronger, and he misses the point that the whole point of blogs is that they are the strong personal opinions of the individuals writing them.
Still, I can see the other side, too. If Edwards had publicly back Melissa's and Amanda's right to free expression *on their own blogs,* and stated unequivocally that he would never fire a staffer because of pressure from people who were intolerant bigots themselves, the uproar would have continued, and never stopped until he did fire them.
This way he gets to sound stern and still keep Melissa and Amanda on staff.
I feel very bad, though, for Melissa and Amanda, that they had to apologize for their language, although at least they were not asked to disavow their beliefs or sign a loyalty oath.
I also want to say to Melissa, on her blog, that I really respect you, Melissa, for being able to set aside what must be some very bruised feelings in favor of getting on with the larger issue, which is supporting a presidential candidate you believe in.
Sorry this is so long, but all these things are things I felt I needed to say.
Color me very much underwhelmed by Edwards' response all around. Wev.
I am glad, however, that it worked out for you and Amanda in terms of employment.
Still, I can see the other side, too. If Edwards had publicly back Melissa's and Amanda's right to free expression *on their own blogs,* and stated unequivocally that he would never fire a staffer because of pressure from people who were intolerant bigots themselves, the uproar would have continued, and never stopped until he did fire them.
does anyone seriously think there is anything we could do to get those motherfuckers to shut up?
I'm glad he kept you guys on, but he should have stood up immediately for what is right, and there is absolutely no reason for any condemnation of you two.
I think it's great Edwards is keeping you on the campaign. This all but guarantees he will not win. Keep up the great work!!
Senator Edwards is a lawyer. And probably a Libra, too.
It's called diplomacy, people. His statement didn't hit the fight back notes we'd have liked, were we the ones in the line of fire, but he's the one running for president. Hopefully this will be the end of it.
Onward!
Shakes -
First off, I'm happy that you're still working for the campaign of the candidate of your choice. Politics, for better or worse, involves the art of compromise, and no true ideologue will survive long in that arena.
That said, throw me in with the "underwhelmed" camp. Not only would I have liked to see stronger words for Donohue & his ilk, but I don't dig on the "intolerant" word choice.
And, most importantly, what exactly does this mean: that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else
I take that to read that "both you & Amanda better stop using nasty swear words & criticizing religious fundy types if you wanna keep your job."
Is this how others read it? Is this your understanding, Shakes? I'll support whatever decision you make, but it'd be a shame to see you water down your content for two years over this.
Whether he becomes Prez or not, Edwards will come-and-go over the years ahead. But you have a career as a writer (and a damn good one) for at least 40 or 50 years as I see it. Keep it all in perspective.
*sssssssppprrrritz*
*sssssssppprrrritz*
*sssssssppprrrritz*
(That's litbrit's Extra-strength Troll-B-Gone™ repellent spray. Works on concern trolls, too!)
And probably a Libra, too.
ROTFLMBGAO!
BG
long tough campaign ahead... get to work
Litbrit,
While I understand your sentiment, I believe that politically this is a misstep for his campaign. American's have always been enamored with the gunslinging cowboy who was good and kind but knew when and how to draw and fire for the kill. Frankly, Edwards missed a chance to really show that he has guts to draw and fire.
PS... `Walk softly and carry a big stick.' --T. Roosevelt
It's called diplomacy, people.
After 6 years of GWB, I forget what diplomacy is.
Melissa - you personally will always have my unqualified support. I was reading your work long before I thought of blogging myself. You are a brilliant, articulate woman whom I respect and admire. Senator Edwards is very lucky to have you working on his campaign. I know these last hours must have been quite a roller-coaster. I hope things are better now. Good luck, my dear.
There's nothing I could add that hasn't already been said. However, I'd still like to express my happiness at both of you remaining on board.
Onward.
Oh Litbrit, you hadda make me go look that up.
Edwards is a Gemini. June 10, 1953.
And we're so issues-oriented here in the blogosphere, it hurts.
And probably a Libra, too.
You were close, but he's a Gemini.
tsg, noted, but if he had come out with guns slinging, the lunatic fringe would do likewise, and the frickin' tempest would keep swirling away, diverting time, energy, column inches, bandwidth, and airtime from the things winguts cannot answer for, like Iraq, homelessness, gazillions of Americans without health care, war profiteering, ah, impeachment...and so on.
I"m still disgusted at the milktoast response Edwards gave to the so-called controversy. Had he called out the wingnut bigots in his response, he would have had my firm support. Now, I doubt I'll continue to support him. Time will tell.
Shakes and Amanda: be strong. I have enormous respect for your strength and bravery in standing up to the right-wing nut jobs.
(That should've been with guns blazing.)
Good for John. He showed some leadership here. He may not have earned a vote, but he did earn some respect.
I was "personally offended" by the fatherly tone taken by Edwards. Did he not read your blog before hiring you?
I'm glad for you, if this is where you want to be, but please, don't ever hold back your lightning wit for his sake. Promise?
I hear ya, Freedomgirl. I keep reading the banner at the top of this blog. Someone should be making martinis. Both to celebrate AND to take the edge off.
There's going to be quite the virtual bar this Friday night, me thinks.
Litbrit, I totally agree that would happen. I think that's a good thing at this point, even though it would detract from his talking points. What's the point of having great ideas if people don't take person seriously?
Having announced yesterday that I’d posted my last on the whole fiasco, I’ll be back when all this Marcotte stuff is officially over and done with. Until then, keep on keeping on.
Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
on 02/08 at 10:20 AM
Translation: 'Beat by a girl ... ' (again)
marc page | 02.08.07 - 12:04 pm | #
Did John Edwards really stand up to his people? Looks like his girls got chastized and forced to apologize. You girls rock. I'm not criticizing you--I'm criticizing him. This turns my stomach.
i can see John Edwards not being down with certain language. he comes across as really being that type of guy, southern courtliness and all that. as an employer in the political arena he has the right to stipulate on things like that. he's treading carefully, he doesn't want to do a biden implosion this early in the game. i'm impressed that he didn't cave. i'm also impressed with his decency again.
shakes, that was a perfect republican style apology. no doubt there will be many more to come. get used to it, that's how this ball bounces.
glad you an 'manda are still on board.
Sister Shakes, you have my support. I am a Catholic, and I think Donohue is a right wing nut case. He does not speak for me.
he doesn't want to do a biden implosion this early in the game.
unlike biden, nobody involved in this fiasco other than the rightwingers has anything to apologize for.
I love how you people can say hateful and bigoted things, but it's the other side who is "bigoted". Typical whiny libs.
I was reading a Catholic blog called The Commonweal this morning. Very thoughtful, intelligent commenters (even if I disagreed with some of them). The discourse about this issue was civilized and troll-free. And guess what? Many, many Catholics completely disagree with Donohue on all manner of things, and, what's more, some of the commenters even praised M and A for saying out loud, however bawdily, exactly what many Catholics themselves have long been thinking.
The AP quotes Shakes fairly here.
Did he not read your blog before hiring you?
probably not. but his campaign was made fully aware of melissa's content before she signed on to work for them.
edwards' half-assed statement was pretty lame. but i'm glad for you, melissa.
I can accept the resolution. I'm cool with anyone's faith as long they keep their policies within the domain of their volunteer congregation and do not go off into a dictatorial take over the nation and world. As some we know oh so well.
future:
*sssssssppprrrritz*
*sssssssppprrrritz*
*sssssssppprrrritz*
(Damn, must open some more cans.)
I found Edwards's statement of support rather tepid, but I am glad that he is keeping you on the staff.
The AP quotes Shakes fairly here.
And yet still manages to spell my name wrong. 
While I know that I'll never get it, I'd really love to know what's going on in that wonderful head of yours, Shakes.
Initially I was very high on John Edwards. However, the fact that he almost succumbed to a bunch of white wing--I mean right wing--wackos and fired the two bloggers in question really makes me rethink my support of his candidacy. That he would even dignify those crazy people's ravings with a response, let alone state that he found the blog posts in question "distasteful" indicates to me that he's got about as much spine and conviction as, oh--John Kerry. I'm really disappointed.
I'm glad that you survived this controversy, Shakes (and Amanda, too). I do have to agree with many other comments about Edward's tepid statement. Also that I wish you and Amanda did not feel obligated to issue "I'm sorry if I offended anyone..." statements.
Hang in there, and don't pull your punches!
Don't know about everyone else, but I could use a break. Taj Mahal & Jesse Ed Davis on the subject of "two hearts" ought to do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W...h?
v=Wx60ADnaQIc
To Miss McEwen and Miss Marcotte: Box clever, and don't let the swine get you down.
Well, I couldn't be more disappointed - the 3 of you should have come out swinging in defense of free speech against a nutjob manic like Donoghue. Edward's comment is exactly what I expected of him - weak, political, and way too fawning toward a baseless attack. I have to say I've always been suspect of him, and this debacle seals it - there is no way I would ever vote for him for President.
(Damn, must open some more cans.)
Litbrit, it's gonna be a long day.
So are all the people who posted the comments yesterday about how they were "finished" with the Edwards campaign back on board now?
I was really surprised yesterday at how many people were outraged at Edwards over nothing more than a rumor, and one that he hadn't responded to yet at that. Maybe people have calmed down a bit today; I certainly hope so at any rate.
Oh, and on a personal note, Shakes, it's great to see that you're keeping the job and that the Edwards campaign knows what a valuable asset they hired, profane as it may be. Congratulations, and keep it up.
In Defensio Remissio: Edwards' Bloggers
The brouhaha ignited by the post-comments written by two aides of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards with regard to the Catholic Church may have been phrased differently. However, while the phraseology was too strong their sentiments are correct and believed by many Catholics.
This month in my e-zine I published an essay entitled “Deserted Catholic” in it I attempt to explain why I am not a “lapse” or “recovering" Catholic. I am a "Deserted Catholic" because the Church has not been true to the tenets of Vatican II or the papacy of John XXIII. Under John Paul II and Paul VI the Church has careened backward to the 1950’s.
The Catholic Defense League and Opus Dei are two forces within the Church which are primarily responsible for this reversion. Both groups want to see an Index, a list of books and movies which would be a mortal sin if read or seen by Catholics, such a doctrine is not only anti-intellectual but fascist.
Opus Dei, for example, has a member who thinks the Holocaust is a lie. These groups believe Masses should be celebrated in the arcane Latin Vulgate. They believe the celebrant should face the altar rather than the celebrants. Their doctrine of sin is in keeping with the views that instigated the Reformation.
There was a time in the Church where abortion, homosexuality, living out of wedlock was akin to gays in the military—don’t ask don’t tell. After Vatican II many priests granted absolution during Mass and confession was, in a sense spiritual psychology, rather than a laundry list of “sins”. Progressive theology took the position that there was one “sin”. It was the Fall of Adam and “forgive us our sins” became singular.
If one discovers the depth of Christ, the message he spread with regard to social justice whether he was conceived as the rest of humanity or immaculately is akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In the Third World, liberation theology is now very close to the line of heresy; however the Pentecostal movement is encouraged. Why? People who speak in tongues will not challenge dictators or oligarchs.
When I was a seminarian we would go on vacation for the month of August. One weekend I was on a speedboat with several of my classmates and our novice master, after a time he removed his pipe from his mouth and quipped: “I wonder what the poor are during this afternoon?" A month later my days as a seminarian ended.
A different phraseology yes, the sentiment correct, the reaction of the Catholic Defense League is part of a strategy to align Catholics to the Christian Right. Since they have deserted people like me this tactic is the reality. Both these groups put theological and psychological repression ahead of Christ’s message of social justice, compassion and forgiveness, part of the latter is to absolve the rashness and exuberance of youth.
(An aside, not a Noel Coward play but a cartoon.)
How on earth could you consider Edward's comments as anything but a capitulation to Donaghue's ravings? The fact that his campaign allowed this story to grow, upbraided his bloggers in public, and then essentially agreed with that nutjob in no way shows support of his bloggers. The man is a fraud.
And I did it too. My apologies, Miss McEwAn ...
Oh bloody hell. Let's open the bar a day early and kona can entertain us with his naughty pizzas. That should get Malkin all a-twitter.
Big time congratulations. I'm kind of in the underwhelmed camp too. But, bottom line, he did support you, even if it was not in the rousing way we all would have. I appreciate and respect him for that. Sorry you had to go through all this rubbish though.
If I had to answer for all my opinions every time I was hired to do a job, I'd be out on the street selling apples.
Very glad to see that Edwards did the right thing here twice - first by hiring you, then by refusing to cave to this odiferous windbag.
Please continue to be outrageous.
From the AP article:
Donohue also doesn't shy away from blunt language sometimes in his criticism of gays, Hollywood's control by "secular Jews who hate Christianity" and even the Edwards bloggers, who he referred to as "brats" in an interview Wednesday on MSNBC.
Um, once you hit age 30, I don't think 'brat' applies...
Edwards could have come out more strongly, but I'm weakly satisfied with the outcome.
On the positive side, this Donohue character has been outed as a cretinous self-important religious extremist, Malkin gets caught in yet another falsehood, Shakes' hit count spikes, and I get to smack around a few trolls on various blogs.
It's gonna be interesting over the next 22-odd months...
...guess what? Many, many Catholics completely disagree with Donohue on all manner of things...
You could take that revelation a lot further, lb. I think you'd be genuinely amazed at how little most of us peon centrist/conservatives agree with cartoon characters like Donohue. They're paraded before the masses by the exempt media and portrayed as "The Right Wing" for the purpose of generating ratings (read: ad $$) from conflict. They don't speak for people like me, or anyone I know for that matter.
However, the fact that he almost succumbed to a bunch of white wing--I mean right wing--wackos and fired the two bloggers in question really makes me rethink my support of his candidacy.
But do you really know that he did that? What about if the delay was simply a long and careful thinking process about how to handle a minor incident mixed in amongst a jillion other more pressing items on his (or the campaign's) agenda?
I'm very glad to see the situation has been resolved in a positive manner. Now get back to work, Shakes!
I'm sure their "obligation" to issue apology statements was contingent on their continued employmeny with the Edwards campaign. If they truly stood by their convictions, they'd have told Goldilocks to get "fucked".
But some of you guys were right, I believe; Amanda was the millstone around your Sister's neck. She should have been canned. It wasn't just a matter of her criticism of the Catholic religion...and all that is still to be revealed.
I don't believe Melissa has the same baggage.
I think you'd be genuinely amazed at how little most of us peon centrist/conservatives agree with cartoon characters like Donohue.
goy, I'm married to a centrist Republican and my Mum's Republican, too (both voted Democrat in 2000 and 2004, however). Trust me, I am well aware that centrists don't think like Donohue and Malkin, et. al., and furthermore, that they aren't peons either.
How on earth could you consider Edward's comments as anything but a capitulation to Donaghue's ravings?
Because they clearly don't include a firing of Amanda & Melissa, and they then go back to the topics he wishes to discuss instead of the one Donohue wants to beat to death and beyond.
oddjob, i'm in agreement. so many times i've seen people react immediately, make decisions in the heat of battle (when they're feeling the most vulnerable) and regret it later.
edwards was patronizing, yes, but it seemed to me that it was also directed at the gleeful right-wingers who were using Melissa and Amanda's posts as fodder for an early smear campaign.
i think i might actually like edwards more after this. i'm sure he was personally offended by the blog postings in question - at every appearance, he seems to be unfailingly polite. he's also personally uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage and homosexuality in general - but he's willing to admit freely that he's totally old-fashioned in his upbringing, and that his daughter thinks he's a total caveman when it comes to gay rights. (no offense to cavemen intended.)
so maybe his response was simply honest and understated - refusing to take the bait, as it were. it'll be more important for me to see how Melissa feels about working on his campaign, and how much she feels censored. time will tell.
Melissa: It will most likely be demonstrated that you and Amanda have emerged from this with greater stature and credibility among the progressive/liberal netroots - the very demographic that Edwards wants to tap for support - than you had going in. Thus, you will be that much more effective for Edwards '08.
Somewhow, I don't think that Bill Donohue counted on that.
Congrats.
as a devoted lurker & having written edwards three times prior to iraq invasion, i'm semi-pleased with the results and hope to hear more from edwards in response to dipshit donahue and miasma malkin ... unless he just states they are not worthy of argument... and so still not sure about him...
but i suddenly broke the code on his statement:
he likes to give people a "FAIR SHAKE" ...
and its obvious he likes to give people a FAIR PENDAGON, too. i'll hafta say, that is helpful and smart.
My oh my how the mighty (Pretend. Self appointed) have fallen. Where is that loud mouthed asshole from yesterday who calls himself goy? Surely not the same one that has shown up today.
John Kerry is not a good Catholic. Good Catholics condemn abortion. He called himself a Catholic to receive votes from Catholics. Abortion is a mortal sin. A Catholic that supports abortion or the killing of an adult human is the worst kind of Catholic. I don't remember a beatitude that says, "blessed are the deceitful, for they shall inherit the office of the President of the United States!"
Edwards was...how he is. Or at least how he's seemed to be to me. He's a conservatively raised (and I don't mean politically) Southern boy. And he also has stood behind Melissa and Amanda. Good for him.
He's yet to win me over, but we'll see.
The whole Edwards blog debacle has driven this avid lurker out of the shadows to throw in my two cents.
First, I was so glad when Melissa got this blogging position with Edwards. It is a recognition of her great talent and hard work. A regular paycheck for doing what you're good at sounded terrific!
Second, of the comments from Edwards, Maricote & McEwan, Edwards' and Maricote's responses read like a lawyer checked them over. Melissa's comments shine with the most heat & light by reminding us of the whole point of free speech and our shared values. Melissa always gets to the heart of any matter with wit and clarity, which is why I read her blog avidly.
Finally, I think Melissa's too good for this Edwards campaign blog job. I'd have liked to see Edwards defend free speech more vigourously. As much as Melissa supports any one candidate, I hate to see her independent voice getting tamped down into voter-tested sound bites. Too bad Salon didn't scoop her up when they picked up Glenn Greenwald.
Fire those whose free speech lambasts those whose free religion feels a need to shove their morals into my queer life? Not a chance Bozo. The GOP's fascist days are numbered. Hopefully along with radical Catholics - who by the way are no different than radical Muslims.
I applaud these two for stating their beliefs. It is not my government's job to determine my morality when it hurts no one involved. What I do in my bedroom with another consenting adult (which by the way we did this morning much to our delight) is none of the government's business.
Catholics need to get over it. There is a lot more hate in the Catholic religion toward others than there is of others toward Catholics. Truly I wish there were more who had the courage to stand up and call the shameless bigots exactly what they are.
Great job, ladies! Keep up the good work! Dirty words and all! We're all old enough to not read them if they offend us.
Waveflux,
In my opinion Bill Donohue probably expected that Amanda and Melissa would get soundly spanked and sent to their rooms. Then he would gleefully, probably with spittle on his lips, dance in a very childish way.
His whole "He has no choice but to fire them immediately." was ridiculous. As if he has the power to deny anyone a choice. What a pompous overreaching arse he is.
Where is that loud mouthed asshole from yesterday who calls himself goy?
Right here. I guess you missed my earlier post. It might have saved you some embarrassment.
it'll be more important for me to see how Melissa feels about working on his campaign, and how much she feels censored. time will tell.
Well put.
FWIW, put me in the underwhelmed category, as I have been with Edwards generally. I'm not a liberal, but a moderate. I think we've leaned right long enough and think the time has come to tilt back the other way, but while I'm delighted Melissa's working for someone she honestly wants to support, I'm not myself convinced I desire to have this man as my president.
I've avoided offering an opinion on Edwards himself one way or the other. I'm evaluating him as things develop, like most Americans do (except that since I'm a bit of a news addict, I'm doing it far earlier than most Americans do).
There's a huge, huge streak of "Can't we all just get along?" in Edwards' approach. This is a basic part of how he approaches running for president, so I'm not surprised he opted not to directly confront Donohue et al. I only hope that he has the sense to realize when you have to drop the gloves, you have to drop the gloves.
Finally, I think Melissa's too good for this Edwards campaign blog job.
seconded.
I think Edwards comments were effective at diffusing the issue. Sure, I'd have liked it if he came off stronger ... and sounded less like a scolding parent ... BUT ... from the context of speaking to the general public (including people who agree with nutjobs like Donahue) he rather capably took the heat off Shakes and got in a positive message.
I'm also proud of Amanda and Shakes for the guts to apologize. Its common to use language and imagery when making a point, that will offend some people. What is uncommon, is to recognize that people, no matter how much you disagree with them, have feelings that can be hurt.
I'm happy for you Sis. It looks like Edwards learned a lot from Kerry though, which is sad.
Anyway, cheers.
I like Edwards, was a bit underwhelmed by his statement, but hey, that's how the game is played. What's really important is that you're both still there and he didn't cave to the pressure of a far right figure like Donohue or the rightwing echo chamber. I also liked that all three of you kept the comments very short and on point. Charging any of you as being religiously intolerant is ridiculous. The BS will rage for a while more, but here's hoping it will die out (in the MSM, anyway) sooner rather than later. Keep up the great work!
John Kerry is not a good Catholic.
David, by the standards you are holding to probably over 90% of America's Roman Catholics are also not good Catholics. You are welcome to your tiny minority status, but don't be surprised when the rest of the country ignores you.
Way to weather the storm, Shakes. 
There is much hatred and fear here.
I predict an embarrassing defeat for Edwards in the primaries.
David are you saying that catholics are not qualified to hold political offices in America or that any catholic that holds a political office must enforce and attempt to legislate Church doctrine against all those who are not volunteer members of the Cathloic Church?
This country does not surprise me. We get what we deserve.
"Fire those whose free speech lambasts those whose free religion feels a need to shove their morals into my queer life? Not a chance Bozo. The GOP's fascist days are numbered. Hopefully along with radical Catholics - who by the way are no different than radical Muslims."
-- Let me get this straight. Are you hoping that "radical Catholic's" (and, by implication, "radical Muslim's") days are numbered?
"Radical Catholics" are no different than "radical Muslims"? Wow. Tell that to the Pope. Seems to me he just had a little trouble with "radical Muslims." Only one of the two groups -- that I recall, but maybe you can refresh my memory -- were rioting violently and killing nuns.
It's going to be fun seeing how Melissa chooses to distance herself (or not) from this kind of rhetoric during her work for Edwards.
Congratulations, again.
I had a feeling this would work out.
Really, the alternative would have been that Edwards would have made Donohue his de-facto campaign manager, and that's not how this universe works...
This reinforces my opinion of Edwards as a thoughtful and good man who defends others at some measure of risk to himself. Most politicians would have thrown these two fine women under the bus at the first inkling of discomfort.
Everyone wants a politico with some convictions and guts, I think one has been found.
Splendid outcome! Edwards will have to continue defending his decision for a while, and I HOPE he does address the bullies directly.
My mouth is open in astonishment, having read the Fox News online story on this, and they actually close out by acknowledging Donohue's bombastic style:
"Donohue also doesn't shy away from blunt language sometimes in his criticism of gays, Hollywood's control by "secular Jews who hate Christianity" and even the Edwards bloggers, who he referred to as "brats" in an interview Wednesday on MSNBC."
I won't link to Fox. Y'all know where it is.
I've always wondered what freedom of speech REALLY is, and who is allowed to have it. Should William Donahue be allowed to speak, as a Catholic, about politics?
Should politically involved people be allowed to speak their opinions about religion? How political? If Edards said it, the clamor would be as loud as can be. But a low-level staffer being shutdown?
It reminds me of the whole Muslim cartoon issue. The freedom exists, but when is it wise?
I left the following on your thread on the Edwards blog. I was pretty underwhelmed by the way he handled it.
-----
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as Donohue apologizes for this and other tripe:
Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions.
Then, he can make noise about bigots. It's wrong that he can disparage people who practice the Jewish faith, and then somehow be held as a shining example of Christianity. This boiled down to a bully, and it's unfornutate John Edwards blinked first. As long as this sort of garbage works for the right, it will continue to be a weapon of choice. Somebody needs to pull off the party gloves and give it right back to them. 15 minutes on the internet could have discredited Donohue as a reasonable source. These forced apologies just lent creedence to his authority.
David, I'm sure if you look carefully enough you'll find a monastery somewhere willing to take you in.
Good work! Now hopefully the Catholic religion will start realizing that they are not voting for the party that truly represents their values. Keep pushing and maybe we'll have more of them voting the Republican party next election. Both of you should have been canned. Too bad there was so much press over the incident, all it has done is make two unknown losers into overnight celebrities.
razor, you'll get over it. Really you will. lol
"Should William Donahue be allowed to speak, as a Catholic, about politics?
Should politically involved people be allowed to speak their opinions about religion?"
Um, I think the answer, according to our constitution, is yes and yes. Neither of these free speakers is entitled not to be criticized or to be kept on by private employers who may consider them a liability.
Awesome!!! he who was evil yesterday is a free speech upholding saint today! What a Redemption Song! My guess is that he may just have room for a couple more bloggers in that modest home of his.
God Bless and Blog on ladies. Your audience is growing. Guard thy keyboard!
Good work! Now hopefully the Catholic religion will start realizing that they are not voting for the party that truly represents their values.
Given how much of Catholic doctrine condemns the refusal to help the poor and needy by taxing the wealthy to create a state that alleviates their suffering, and given how intensely the Vatican condemns the death penalty, I daresay you don't really understand Catholicism very well.
If you did you would know that neither party represents their values well at all.
If you did you would know that neither party represents their values well at all.
according to the mainstream media catholic views are represented by an anti-semitic, homophobic, child molestation defending asshole, so i guess that's pretty republican.
All those catholics who don't feel that donohue represents your faith or beliefs are welcome in the democratic party.
Good one...always has been strange to me why catholics are against abortion and homosexuality, while keeping pretty traditional family values, yet vote for the most left-wing liberals every time. What the heck? When will they learn...
I would have voted for Edwards last time, but now he has no chance. Catholics are a large voting bloc, and he is now history because of the people he has hired. Good work!
The First Amendment asserts that one can criticize anyone or anything, and one can stomp one's feet, rant and rave, and demand that a person fire his employee or employees for any reason that bubbles up in one's brain that morning. Indeed, the Founding Fathers recognized that a wide-open marketplace of ideas was essential to the health and vigor of democracy.
But one cannot expect that said person will obey one's demands.
Or that one won't be called out on one's assertions.
Or sprayed down with Troll-B-Gone™.
Um, for the logically-challenged, one doesn't have to feel that Donohue represents their faith in order to agree with him that some posts by Amanda and Melissa may be construed as anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.
Um, for the logically-challenged, one doesn't have to feel that Donohue represents their faith in order to agree with him that some posts by Amanda and Melissa may be construed as anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.
no, one just has to be an intellectually dishonest bigot.
razor, maybe it's because the teaching is so strong on one's obligation before God to help those worse off than you are, something Republican values scoff at?
You guys better hear this because I speak for a lot of voters. We are sick to death of the meaness in politics. There are many of us demanding a stong third party. We have given up on both the Democrats and the Republicans! They have become the equivalent of two major sports teams each with their own set of die-hard fans who jeer at each other like a couple of boxers before a match. We work hard and pay our taxes and want a decent future for our children and grandchildren. We don't think the political winner should be the one who gets the most points for clever rhetoric or sharpest jabs. If you want to help a candidate you need to discuss the issues respectfully and in a way that shows you have done a lot of research on both sides of the issue. Stay clear of "mean girl" banter and then we might take you seriously!
Stay clear of "mean girl" banter and then we might take you seriously!
so torturing civilians is just fine so long as you don't curse?
You know, the more I think about it, that goober Donohue actually did Amanda & Melissa a huge favor. By limiting the criticism, (particularly of Amanda), to the realm of Catholicism, he really diverted the criticism away from some of the more egregious of Amanda's rants, IMO. I wonder when someone will ask Edwards publicly what he thought of Amanda's statement, "In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men", in regards to the stripper in the lacrosse "case". I wonder what Edward's Carolinian constituents think about that?
As I said, I don't think this is over yet. Melissa will pobably be fine...but Amanda just has too much garbage left on the trail behind her. It will, eventually, be brought to the light of day. In fact, criticism of Catholics would probably have been the last critique of Amanda's views I would have come up with, had I been asked.
Shakes, I am indeed pleased that you have not been fired, but I am also quite disappointed that Edwards felt obligated to tsk-tsk like a schoolmarm even as he 'defended' you.
Why hire outspoken liberal spitfires to do outreach to the left blogosphere, then immediately turn around, rein them in, and put restrictions on what they can say? Makes absolutely no sense to me.
(Then again, I'm not a presidential candidate, and I don't write the checks.)
This should have been a great opportunity for Edwards to comment on Donohue's own considerable set of biases and offensive remarks. Again, seems obvious, but not my call to make.
Rock on, Shakes. We're behind ya!
that some posts by Amanda and Melissa may be construed as anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.
Oh? Find a post of Melissa's (not Amanda, as you are currently at Melissa's place) that is anti-Catholic/Christian.
Not one that is against the beliefs of said religion being pushed upon the public via policy/politics. But a post--a whole post--that is completely anti-Christian/Catholic.
""In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men", in regards to the stripper in the lacrosse 'case.'"
-- Wow. More fodder for the anti-Edwards campaign adds if he wins the nomination.
Still, in 2004:
Cheney said he "probably" used an obscenity in an argument Tuesday on the Senate floor with Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and added that he had no regrets. "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it," Cheney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. The vice president said, "I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue."
Either he's an idiot or a wimp. Either way, go Hillary! Cuz John just lost any chance of getting my vote.
I agree with the many comments here and I am also very glad that this ridiculous flap did not cost you a job. That said, I think Edwards miserable way of handling has cost him my vote. The last thing I am supporting in the primaries is another jellyfish who contorts to try to keep attack dogsd such as malkin and donohue happy. Bad decision senator, very bad.
Too bad there was so much press over the incident, all it has done is make two unknown losers into overnight celebrities.
Malkin and Donohue?
Nah. I think they were 'known' losers, even prior to this incident.
Predicable as sunrise that the same people who yesterday claimed they wanted Melissa and Amanda to be kept so they'd be 'lightning rods' are today grumping that they should have been fired.
I'm thrilled they both kept their jobs. I'd give Edwards' decision to keep them an "A", but a "D" to his rather squishy comment on it. His desire to appease those who hate him reminds me too much of Bill Clinton, frankly. He lost some points with me over his handling of this matter, but remains (at this time) the candidate for whom I would vote if the primary were today.
Predicable as sunrise that the same people who yesterday claimed they wanted Melissa and Amanda to be kept so they'd be 'lightning rods' are today grumping that they should have been fired.
I'm thrilled they both kept their jobs. I'd give Edwards' decision to keep them an "A", but a "D" to his rather squishy comment on it. His desire to appease those who hate him reminds me too much of Bill Clinton, frankly. He lost some points with me over his handling of this matter, but remains (at this time) the candidate for whom I would vote if the primary were today.
"Not one that is against the beliefs of said religion being pushed upon the public via policy/politics . . ."
-- But it's precisely the assumption that one's religious beliefs ought not be allowed to influence one's position on public policy that borders on anti-religious -- and the assumption that a pro-life position, for instance, could only be arise from some insular, cultish ideology that one has no business foisting on the rest of the world. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Darryl Pearce,
Are you accusing Dick Cheney of being an anti-Leahy bigot?
Again, whole post example of Melissa's to back up your statements please.
You said: some posts by Amanda and Melissa may be construed as anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.
Still waiting. Backpeddeling by trying to parse out what you mean by what might be kinda, sorta, maybe "anti-religion" is bullshit. Prove your former statement or else admit you talk in assumptions.
The “apology" you were forced to write is the most humiliating, demeaning thing I have witnessed in a very long time.
Just think of all the time and effort it took to develop the skills, the credibility, the readership ... all so you could more effectively lash out at Christians, white male patriarchies, and the entire phallocentric system.
But then to have to disavow it all. To have to take it all back. To have to pretend you didn’t mean any of it. To be forced to say that you didn’t mean to give offense (when giving offense was the whole point all along).
All so another white man could get elected.
The feelings of worthlessness you are feeling right now must be overwhelming. You don’t eviscerate yourself like that in the public arena and just walk away like nothing happened.
The “apology" you were forced to write is the most humiliating, demeaning thing I have witnessed in a very long time.
Just think of all the time and effort it took to develop the skills, the credibility, the readership ... all so you could more effectively lash out at Christians, white male patriarchies, and the entire phallocentric system.
But then to have to disavow it all. To have to take it all back. To have to pretend you didn’t mean any of it. To be forced to say that you didn’t mean to give offense (when giving offense was the whole point all along).
All so another white man could get elected.
The feelings of worthlessness you are feeling right now must be overwhelming. You don’t eviscerate yourself like that in the public arena and just walk away like nothing happened.
"Just think of all the time and effort it took to develop the skills, the credibility, the readership ... all so you could more effectively lash out at Christians, white male patriarchies, and the entire phallocentric system.
But then to have to disavow it all. To have to take it all back. To have to pretend you didn’t mean any of it. To be forced to say that you didn’t mean to give offense (when giving offense was the whole point all along).
All so another white man could get elected."
-- *ANOTHER* anti-Edwards campaign ad:
John Edwards: Just Another White Man
-- But it's precisely the assumption that one's religious beliefs ought not be allowed to influence one's position on public policy that borders on anti-religious -- and the assumption that a pro-life position, for instance, could only be arise from some insular, cultish ideology that one has no business foisting on the rest of the world. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
And in that guise you are justifying replacing our republic with a theocracy. If that's what you think religion ought to be about, I suggest you move to one, because this country is not Christian, but secular, as unanimously ratified by one of our first senates.
Stay clear of "mean girl" banter and then we might take you seriously!
so torturing civilians is just fine so long as you don't curse?
Grendel72 | 02.08.07 - 1:30 pm | #
This is what I was talking about. You were so anxious to say something clever that you willingly slandered me in the process. You could not really assume that because I don't respect "mean-girl" banter, I must approve of torture! But, thank you for demonstating my point.
Religious policy enacted via our political system on and against the will of those who are not volunteer members of that religion and sect is primitve and dictatorial. It should be critized and rejected those who do not wish to be subverted and oppressed.
Religious policy enacted on and with the permission of those who voluntarily accept it is totally acceptable to me. They can even brag about it all they want.
I am absolutely not interested in getting anyone's spirit into heaven or hell. That's their responsibility and that of their chosen religious leaders. I'm not interested in lying to or for anyone in their personal goal of where their spirit goes after they are dead.
LOL! Think about the list of lies that have to be performed, told and supported for each and every religious sect in order to get them all into their respecitive afterlives.
But then to have to disavow it all. To have to take it all back. To have to pretend you didn’t mean any of it.
You must have read a different statement from Melissa than I did.
The only reason John Edwards did not fire these two chicks was because he values the votes of the sleasy bloggers present. Catholics mean nothing to him.
Catholics mean nothing to him.
I very much doubt that's even remotely true since most Catholics are Democrats.
(Unless of course, by "Catholic" you were confining yourself to folks like Donohue, Mel Gibson, and Opus Dei.)
Edwards 1. Wingnuts 0.
I'm happy for the outcome, Sis!!!
Nitz you're not living in poultry farm world. Unless you're trying to tell us you're sporting some feathers and beak yourself and have some serious genetic weirdness.
Oh excuse me. John Edwards likes Catholics that are stupid enough to vote for him.
"And in that guise you are justifying replacing our republic with a theocracy. If that's what you think religion ought to be about, I suggest you move to one, because this country is not Christian, but secular, as unanimously ratified by one of our first senates."
-- Ever heard of Martin Luther King, oddjob? Are you really arguing that an individual's religious beliefs (especially ones that may be reasonably defended on secular moral grounds, like pro-life beliefs) are "theocratic" and not deserving of a place in the public square?
I am happy with what Edwards did.
I am NOT happy with what Edwards said. I do wish he had come out with a much stronger defense of our Shakes and Amanda.
However..Litbrit, speaking as usual with a voice of reason, has persuaded me to tone my temper.
Smoldering. Smoldering. Smoldering.
Doused.
Ok, I'm good now.
Nitz it seems you believe catholics are not capable of making their decisions as sentient human beings. What's up with your disrespect?
...this country is not Christian, but secular, as unanimously ratified by one of our first senates.
Hmmm... countries are ratified now? I don't think that's what you meant to write, is it oj?
The form of government may be secular (as it must), but the country it governs is pretty much overwhelmingly (still) Christian.
Stay clear of "mean girl" banter and then we might take you seriously!
Enough with the pearl-clutching. It sounds very much as though you are taking things *too* seriously already.
Nice use of the imperial 'we', though.
" Religious policy enacted via our political system on and against the will of those who are not volunteer members of that religion and sect is primitve and dictatorial. It should be critized and rejected those who do not wish to be subverted and oppressed. "
-- Um, I belong to a religion which permits human sacrifice. How dare you try to oppress and "subvert" me!!!
There is much to be said about Edwards reply. What I take strong exception to is the following:
"...whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else."
Satire is often INTENDED to be offensive. Take Swift's famous essay on eating children as a solution to the Irish famine, for example. Of course it is offensive -- that's the point.
If satire and humor can no longer contain offensive language, we've taken a giant step backward in political discourse.
Molly you're being foolish on purpose delving into the murder scenario.
Are you really arguing that an individual's religious beliefs (especially ones that may be reasonably defended on secular moral grounds, like pro-life beliefs) are "theocratic" and not deserving of a place in the public square?
Religious individuals are equally entitled to their opinions as are non-religious individuals, and all are equally welcome to participate in the political process.
What some of us object is the notion that majoritarian dominance should allow the religious beliefs of some to be pushed onto others unwillingly, either explicitly or implicitly.
If there is a case can be made on secular moral grounds, than that is indeed the way in which the case should be made, so that the secular rationale can be made clear to all and that the topic can be discussed on its merits.
Conversely, if a case cannot be made *without* appeal to religious belief - in other words, if there is *no* secular case for making the policy...
...one may certainly speak one's mind and include a reference to one's religion as the rationale behind the proposed policy. But anyone resorting to religious speech in shaping public policy should not be at all surprised if others perceive this as an attempt to require others to obey the speaker's religion. Because, by admitting that the religious rationale is the primary concern, they have demonstrated precisely that intent.
Dear Melissa,
I pray that Almighty God may open your heart and mind to his Truth and quench the hate you feel toward Catholics. I suspect that your animus toward us is based on ignorance brought about by a hyper-skewed study of Church history. I went through much the same course of study in an ostensibly Catholic college only to find out later, as I matured and gained the expertise necessary to do my own in-depth research, that I had been lied to.
Have Catholics done wicked, evil things in the name of Christ? Yes, of course. The Church, like every human institution, is made up of incredibly fallible men and women. But the good done by fallible Catholic men and women in the name of Christ outweighs the bad to such a massive extent that the bad becomes trivia by comparison. Of course, you would not have learned about this at the university--even at a Catholic university where, for most of them, marxist/relativism is the religion that's preached with evangelical zeal.
But I don't expect my mere words to change your opinion. When bigotry toward a 2,000-year-old institution that's over 1 billion people strong is planted so deeply and firmly in a young woman's heart, it is only through the Grace of Almighty God that the cancer may be removed.
In the name of Christ Jesus and through the intercession of the Theotokos, St. Katherine Drexel, and Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, I pray that you will come to know, love, and understand Catholics and our true beliefs and leave off attacking them so scurrilously.
AMDG,
St. Charles
-- Ever heard of Martin Luther King, oddjob? Are you really arguing that an individual's religious beliefs (especially ones that may be reasonably defended on secular moral grounds, like pro-life beliefs) are "theocratic" and not deserving of a place in the public square?
Legitimate obesrvation, and I concede that (at least to a point). It depends on what the beliefs are and how they interact with a secular government destined to remain so if its founding documents are left intact.
Oh excuse me. John Edwards likes Catholics that are stupid enough to vote for him.
Welcome to America.
What some of us object is the notion that majoritarian dominance should allow the religious beliefs of some to be pushed onto others unwillingly, either explicitly or implicitly.
Now you know how some folks feel about the way anthropogenic global warming theories are treated as fact and used to justify public policy.
Oddjob,
Fair enough. But too often, on this blog and elsewhere, a position which is informed by religious beliefs gets painted as intrinsically illegitimate and theocratic. This happens most often in the abortion debate, and it gets a bit tiresome. The "religious" argument against abortion is based on principles (the sanctity and dignity of human life, the immorality of murder) that *most* people -- including, probably, John Edwards --agree on. The Catholic position of when personhood begins doesn't relies as much on logic and reason as the pro-choice position. So let's stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on logic in that debate, and the other is just a bunch of raving,woman-hating religious fanatics.
Oops
Excise that "doesn't" in front of that "relies"
St. Charles, here's a little something the nuns taught me...
Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
There is only one side Molly. Life begins at conception. You must kill it to stop it.
Edwards really needs to address this unhinged bigot instead of asking his staffers to apologize. Here we go again:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonl...2/8/152144/
6359
I would really, really love to see one example of Melissa attacking Catholics. One.
They never mentioned it anywhere yesterday, did they? Just Amanda... nothing from Shakes. Could it be... that nothing exists?
This "guilt by association" is ridiculous.
The form of government may be secular (as it must), but the country it governs is pretty much overwhelmingly (still) Christian.
There are those (and more than you might think) who take issue with the first part of your sentence, although I do not and agree that I misstated the facts. I was (in terrible wording) referring to this, especially Article 11.
While culturally mostly Christian, that Christianity expresses itself in a huge variety of poltical persuasions, some of which have no problem whatsoever with the other religions or lack thereof, but others of which openly pine for a theocratic world in which the preachers would de facto be running the country.
There is only one side Molly. Life begins at conception.
I love this one. I'm an identical twin. The fertilized egg that you believe has an immortal soul split into two halves that each developed into a baby. Does that mean I have half a soul? Or, was another soul created when the zygote split? What about identical triplets? Do two of them have a half of a half of a soul?
That's some powerful voodoo you believe in. All of those souls splitting in half.
Now you know how some folks feel about the way anthropogenic global warming theories are treated as fact and used to justify public policy.
Sorry, goy. If you want to live in Fantasyland that's your business, but data are data.
That's the way science works.
That's the way science works.
Shame on you, oddjob! You used the s-word!
There is only one side Molly. Life begins at conception. You must kill it to stop it.
And here, Molly, is why those who on this blog oppose nitz's opinion feel that the position is extremist and theocratic. It tolerates no position but its own, and stirs others to the opposite point of view.
For myself, I almost never comment on the abortion posts. I prefer Clinton's position. It ought to be safe, legal, and rare. That's the way it is in most of Europe, where despite the freedom to have abortions there are far, far fewer (per capita) than there are here.
There are those (and more than you might think) who take issue with the first part of your sentence...
I'm tempted to say, "ok, who, for instance?" I have to disagree. Never in my personal or professional life have I ever met a person who seriously believes the Constitution is a Christian construct, per se.
Some folks make the mistake of believing that Judeo-Christian ideals of morality should automatically be reflected in our law - irrespective of rational justification - simply because Western Civilization (and America, in particular) is largely a creation of those ideals.
Reasonable people usually see the flaw in that thinking, however. That's what political discourse is really supposed to be about, after all. The rest, well... IMHO they're in the minority. But, again, they're the ones you see paid to write controversial columns and trotted out by a media which only has its own best interests in mind: fomenting conflict to garner an audience that justifies advertising dollars.
Fritz-Begins at conception.
oddball-Opposite point of view...kill it before it is born.
Dear John Edwards,
if it's all about that four letter word, you've not only said it you've done it as well, so spare us the sanctimonious faux-statesman bullshit. By all means, blast off at Amanda Marcotte in private, she may actually deserve a little warning about her "tude" while helping a presidential campaign - even though everything before was on her own time and her own dime. But Melissa? No. Nothing she's said has been problemmatic enough for the Right to do anything more than try to attack her with the broad tar-brush they were using on Amanda without ever actually managing to get down to specifics about her supposed crimes.
Those last two lines of your statement are pure polispeak, you spineless worm. By delaying telling the odious Donahue and Malkin to go stick it where the sun don't shine by even a minute, you allowed them to hijack the debate. That Amanda and Melissa should have to put their names to apologies to the bigots and attack-dogs of the uber-right in order to keep their jobs is even more sickening. The bigots appear to have hijacked your "discipline, focus and courage" too.
Various important progressive bloggers like Greenwald and Bowers, inflated with a sense of their own importance and ever mindful that they hope to feed at the same trough as you and other corporatist Demlicans, are falling over themselves to say you "didn't cave". Bullshit. So you didn't sack the girls. You didn't tell Donahue to take a flying f**k at himself either. Triangulation....
'Scuse me while I use Lysol to get the gooey double-talk facial you just gave us all out of my eyes.
You're not worth working for and definitely not worth voting for. I've seen it all before in one single man - Tony Blair. Like him, you're a conservative in progressive clothing with a glib smile and a finely tuned sense of how to walk the fence and please most of the people most of the time...until elected. Just another corporate Demlican trying hard to pretend you're a progressive so you get all those free volunteers and some nice contributions. I'm not fooled, John. You suck!
Regards, Cernig
data are data
Of course they are. And theories are theories... until proven. That's the way science works.
In the meantime it takes no less blind faith in computer models, computers, programmers, climatology theories and all of the associated methodology to believe in AGW than it does to believe that your conscious awareness (spirit) is a divine creation. For my money, it's a LOT easier to believe the latter, actually. But then I've been making a living using computers for decades now, so I guess you could say I'm biased.
Nitz, you just completely & utterly failed to answer Fritz's question. Your just repeated what you already said and completely ignored that which cannot be ignored. Identical twins' lives necessarily do not begin at conception, not if you believe their souls are seperate and unique.
Of course they are. And theories are theories... until proven. That's the way science works.
Actually that's not the way science works.
For one thing, you don't understand the scientific use of the word "theory", for you are confusing it with "hypothesis", as too many Americans do. For a second thing, you fail to understand the difference between deduction (which proves things, as in mathematics), and induction, which cannot definitively prove anything (and is the way in which science operates).
Then when did it start? The comment was about ending the life anyway. Something you continue to ignore in your twisted brain.
...not if you believe their souls are seperate and unique.
What? Separate and unique souls can't cohabitate in/on a single cell if they want? Is this another one of those theory things??
Fritz-Begins at conception
And in my case, did the soul spilt into two halves? If life begins at conception, what happens when the zygote splits and what was one living organism becomes two? Or three? Or four? Or in the rarest case five?
If you believe that the moment a sperm penetrates an egg that a life is created -- with an immortal soul, what happens when that egg splits?
Do I have half a soul? Answer that, please.
It's quite apparent, Constant Comment; one man's "unhinged bigot" is another man's "satirist".
Have you not learned anything from this ordeal?
Fitz, a soul is not a physical entity. It can't be "split". Even you should realize that, whether you believe you personally have a soul or not.
If you believe abortion is acceptable, yes you have half a soul, Fritz.
Do I have half a soul? Answer that, please.
Oh, that's obvious Fritz. You post on here, you have no soul!
Way to not answer his question, Nitz!
Donohue belched today:
"Edwards said today that ‘We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked.’ I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about"
That says it all, really. The Catholic League dictates terms for everything. If you don't like it, he will get his handful of dotty old ladies to vote against you. Not that they would have voted FOR you anyway, but never mind that.
And Donohue, consider this: Washington made his anti-gay remarks, Gibson made his anti-Semitic remarks, you made remarks against, well, anyone who doesn't think like you. Edwards did NOT make negative comments toward Catholics. The only people who made anything that comes close to being negative toward Catholics were a pair of bloggers on their own time, and even that supposed "bigotry" is a far cry from the garbage you spout off into the airwaves.
So go ahead: spout your hatredd to your willing audience of Liver-spotted Ladies against Licensciousness or whatever cause you have. Either way, with every passing day, more of them succumb to the icy grip of the Reaper and find their way into Jeeee-sus's arms. God speed, ladies. The more of you who pass on, the stronger we become.
I think the Senator displayed prudence in his response. The non-activist voters don't know the details and he's demonstrated fairness to employees and his intolerance of intolerance.
Certainly, when the same critics return repeatedly to demonstrate their bigotry, there will come a time when a proper spanking will be his best choice.
Patience and good timing matter. The first endeavor has to be to shut down the war and to uphold America's working families, not to satisfy the inner pull to go for one-upsmanship.
Smart fighters pick their own fights for maximum impact instead of responding to every rotten egg thrown on someone else's schedule.
There's nothing surprising that the Forces of Darkness acted predictably, and nothing disheartening in the Senator's measured response.
I'm quite confident in the team Edwards is assembling. There's 23 months ahead and most folks are looking for answers to bigger issues like the war, not insider stuff that bears no relevance to their lives.
It'll be in the primary muddle and the post-convention campaign when the gloves will come off.
And with Sis aboard, I'll relish that fight.
Well, I may have left the "r" out of your name, But I certainly didn't say you were soul-less.
you don't understand the scientific use of the word "theory"
I don't? Interesting. All this time...
OK, we'll play your game. The inductive process, to date, hasn't provided enough evidence to justify the public policies suggested by those who buy into the AGW theories. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
I'm glad that you two aren't fired, but I'm underwhelmed by his response, particularly labeling you as intolerant. It reads like Edwards is blaming you two for the level of discourse, and that's way, way off base.
You all know that Edwards has NO CHANCE IN HELL to win a Demo nomination, let alone the presidency.
But he does have nice hair...
Fritz- And, that half a soul can become one again. God forgives. I will pray for you. Not kidding.
Man...I was hoping you two would get fired...that would have been awesome...just so that I could see you two try to find a job and have to rely on the social system the Demotards have created...man, I hope Edwards reconsiders.
When will politicians, particularly demoncrats begin to stand up to religious conservatives for their bullying? The pope can refer to gay relationships as beneath humanity, but a blogger for Edwards uses a profanity in her arguments about the Catholic Church's policies (and interference in politics) and SHE has to apologize? So I guess Edwards is saying that we can say intolerable things about each other...as long as we don't cuss.
I will pray for you. Not kidding.
Well, I hope you're not one of those people who don't know the difference between prayer and magic.
You can't pray to God and emplore Him to do your bidding. The God I believe in doesn't do magic tricks. He doesn't roll over and create tornadoes at the request of Pat Robertson.
Please put your sanctimony aside and pray for world peace. Pray for the children of Iraq. Pray for those who are hungry, cold, sick, and poor.
That's something worth praying for. I'm doing okay. Really.
just so that I could see you two try to find a job and have to rely on the social system the Demotards have created...man, I hope Edwards reconsiders.
I really love it when the morons come in with no prior knowledge about other people and then make completely irrelevant and asinine comments desiring further harm to come to other people.
Then they say they'll pray for us. No thanks bucko, you can go talk to yourself without mentioning me, thanks.
You are not OK Fritz.
Jack- I know you are, but what am I?
Someone knows not Matthew 7...
damn you haloscan
Fritz, maybe I should pray for all the babies that are going to die because you think you are okay!
lol Nitz I thought you had some praying to do.
you don't understand the scientific use of the word "theory"
I don't? Interesting. All this time...
OK, we'll play your game. The inductive process, to date, hasn't provided enough evidence to justify the public policies suggested by those who buy into the AGW theories. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
You still aren't using theory correctly.
All this time......
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward."
Matthew 6:4-6
Actually, according to the most reputable published info. to date, the odds that the warming climate is due to human influence are greater than 90%.
You can't go into the published climatological research and find papers that question the existence of the paradigm shift.
Go ahead and see for yourself.
And needless to say, no scientist "believes" in a theory. It isn't even close you goy's analogy. There is no way to falsify that the soul exists, thus talking about it in the same league as science is just ludicrous.
Little Green Footballs is slammin on ya, Shakes.
Thought it would amuse those who haven't already seen it.
Johnson spews: "Edwards has clearly decided that pandering to the Nutroots is more important than any negative fallout accruing from hiring two of the sickest ranting moonbats on the web."
Verily I say to you, John Edwards is a coward for not firing these two chicks!
I read Edward's comment. Doesn't cut it. Sorry Sis, but if you're still working for him you've got a way to go to convince me he's not a ribbon in the wind. I'm looking for leadership to reject these fascist neocon fucks outright, not apologize to them.
Wow. This means conservatives have to talk about what a great job Republicans have done with national security and the economy.
This was a noncontroversy from the start. I watched those Michelle Malkin videos and seriosly worried about her mental health. That woman needs someone in her life to sit her down and tell her to get a grip.
I bet you drive a pick-up truck and drink lots of beer and screw babes all night long Ron. What a tuff mo fo!
I admit I was one of the people who posted yesterday that if the rumor was true that Edwards would lose my support. I am glad to say that the rumor was wrong and while his statement was fairly tepid it's great to know he's keeping Amanda and Melissa on board.
The main point is that you two weren't fired and that you can get back to doing the jobs you were hired to do.
If only we could get Giuliani and Liberman to team up on and Independent ticket!
Johnson spews: "Edwards has clearly decided that pandering to the Nutroots is more important than any negative fallout accruing from hiring two of the sickest ranting moonbats on the web."
Oh, rats. I thought I was one of the sickest ranting moonbats on the web.
Consider me among the underwhelmed, but then I'm rarely fully "whelmed" by political candidates.
One perhaps useful thing about this hoo-hah is what it reveals about our opponents' fears about Edwards. That they pushed so hard on the anti-Catholic thing, going so far as to include Melissa in the hissy fit when it is in fact irrelevant in her case, suggests that they are afraid of Catholics supporting Edwards in significant numbers.
I mean, there are a lot of things that one could disagree with both Melissa and Marcotte - the salty language, their willingness to call a spade a spade, an obvious loathing of Bush and Republican hypocrisy, their strong defense of feminism and GLTB rights... but most of these are things that the average progressive voter finds unobjectionable at worst, and cheers on at best.
So, apparently Catholics and people who faint at the sound of a four-letter word are the ones Edwards' opponents think can be most easily prised away. As I say, useful to know.
You are not OK Fritz.
Wow! You certainly are being judgemental. That's not very Christian.
Those who know me here are laughing at you because they know that I'm a Catholic. Personally, I don't believe in abortion. However, I support a woman's right to choose. I would not force my personal morality on anyone else -- not through force and threats of punishment. I pray for a better world in which no one would have to consider abortion due to poverty, stigma, medical condition, rape, incest, abuse, or any of life's other harsh realities.
When I pray, I pray for a better world. I pray for an end to poverty and disease. I pray for the strength to stand by my convictions and for tolerance of others.
I would not dare to presume that someone else is "not OK" and judge them as if I myself am God. That'd surely get me a one way ticket to Hell.
Rana said hoo-hah! DIRTY DIRTY!!!*
*See the post above this :P
Hey, does anyone remember the days when this was a nice little blog with only a handful of trolls every great once in a while?
Those were the days.
Sure, SAP, it seems like only yesterday....
Oh, wait. It WAS only yesterday.
Things change quickly these days, I suppose.
Right here. I guess you missed my earlier post. It might have saved you some embarrassment.
Dude it would take one hell of a lot more than what you've got to embarrass me.
Like what the fuck do you think I was referring to? Reading skills do help around here.
Now if I was to wake up on the morning on the midtown bus with my dick hanging out that might do the job but some freeber with less brains than the North end of a mule goin South, no wayyyyyyyyyy.
Could we please just ignore the trolls? Why even bother engaging them? It's not like it would make a difference...
Rock On, Shakes!
Glad to hear things turned out right, and Edwards is standing by you.
'Tis a pity he didn't find it in him to tell Malkin and Donahue to clean up the smelly crap in their own front yards before attacking the two of you, but, three cheers for little victories.
I must say, though, that this is a HUGE black mark against my support for Edwards. The fact that he even bothered to listen to the likes of Donahue and Malkin, instead of jumping immediately to your support is troubling to me.
Hillary and Obama are already off my list.
I simply will not support a weak-kneed
or corporate-owned candidate. There are two others worth supporting, but, it's still early. When/if Gore jumps into the race, the other candidates will be also-rans.
More power to you and Amanda, however!
--mf
Could we please just ignore the trolls? Why even bother engaging them?
Oh, okay. I was having fun with them. But, you're right. They're like animals. If you feed them, they make themselves at home.
Congratulations Shakes, this is truly good news.
While I don't particularly agree with his choice of words, I applaud him for standing up to Donahue
To: Senator John Edwards
From: Amanda Marcotte
Re: Campaign Ideas
Dear Senator Edwards:
I had a couple of ideas for getting the campaign off to a fucking roaring start. I ran some numbers and discovered that (1) Orange County North Carolina has a shocking lack of women’s reproductive health centers, and (2) your new home there has 28,000 square feet of space. What better way to address community health needs — and appeal to the women’s vote — than by installing an abortion clinic inside your own house? It would only take up about 500 square feet total (not counting the exterior biohazard dumpster), and you appear to have a fucking awesome space between the indoor basketball court and reflective koi pond.
I also discovered that North Carolina is home to NASCAR, which as you know is the official sport of toothless Southern white supremecist racists. I think would make fucking great campaign street theater to drive over to one of the local fucking dickwad reich wing repugnican NASCAR garages and piss all over their goddamn earth-destroying Klan-mobiles. On the way there, it probably wouldn’t fucking kill you to drop in at the Durham courthouse to support District Attorney Nifong in his brave battle to bring the white rapist Duke lacrosse team to justice.
To help organize the local campaign swing, I’ve lined up a couple of camera crews and programmed directions into the GPS of your Benz (the silver one).
On To The White House!
Amanda
PS - I cross-posted my thoughts at the official campaign site, I will let you know about voter feedback.
****************************************
To: Senator John Edwards
From: Amanda Marcotte
Re: Focus Group
Dear Senator Edwards:
To help you hone your campaign message for the online community, I organized an impromptu focus group of top progressive bloggers for tomorrow night at the Raleigh Airport Hilton. This group will include political analyst Jeremy Lacewell of Die Motherfucking ZioNazi NeoCon Motherfuckers Die, feminist Kiersten Lomax of Hands Off My Cunt, and recent immigrant blogger Mohammed al-Aziz of I Intend To Detonate a Nuclear Weapon in St. Louis.
This event will help you get acquainted with online mainstream progressives, discuss the issues important to them, and come up with a strategy for countering the insane Xtian Jesusist lynchmobs. We will be serving lacto-vegetarian snacks and Ecstasy to help facilitate a free-wheeling discussion.
Hope you can make it!!!
Amanda
****************************************
Shakes:
I will admit that I've been rather critical of the Edwards campaign on this mess over at my own blog Oh Well, but I will say that John Edwards did the right thing in keeping both you and Amanda Marcotte on the staff. This is the conclusion that I wrote on one of my posts:
Politics is total war--destroy your opponent completely before he/she destroys you. This lesson should be especially recognized and understood in a presidential campaign. The right wing saw an opportunity here to not only take out John Edwards before the presidential primaries, but perhaps to also cripple the Democratic Party at the same time. That is what this crisis was all about--a political baptism of fire for both Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, courtesy of the right wing establishment. So far, they have survived. Now it is time for them to start fighting.
Fight them hard Shakes!
From: The Clue Train
To: quido
Subject: URGENT WIRE!
Those little bits of..."humor"...have already been linked to and derided elsewhere [stop] Try pulling something original out of your ass next time [stop] The usual shit is starting to molder [stop]
How about going to Pandagon to bitch about Amanda.
She's not here, you know.
Jeez, the trolls are thick. Anyway Sis, don't want no apology 'cause no offense taken.
Shakes, it is your authenticity and brilliance with the English language that make you a top notch blogger. We've all said or written things that with introspection, we might have chosen to rephrase. It is to your credit, and to John Edwards' credit, that you both acknowledge this and yet can continue working together. I completely support your efforts and those of Sen Edwards. Carry on and don't let this tempest in a teapot affect your writing!
Sincerely,
Kathy
I could only imagine what this Donohue person thinks about my blog, link missing so as not to leave no stains, dear.
I want John to keep the both of you.
Framing the issue is what John fell into, it is discouraging. I thought him a seasoned political guy after all that in o4. Your wiser, I see that, you left less words, you gave it not a nary personal time other than of course your short statement. Stand up kind of way, that is good. Lesser words could have came from Edwards, or a further in depth discussion on where this faith based social security blanket should be, and whom should be warmed by it. And how religion hurts or helps a government body govern the popular people who attend a church, and where it hurts or helps these that are not so popular, the weird, sick, poor, needy will seek warmth from a government of such a nation other than beg.
So I leave only words and I hope no stains or feathers as if we flock together. I agree with your humor, your opine rhymes well with mine, everyone here seems to read from the same places as I do most the time.
Hang in there, stick to your truth as you see it, not as they wish you would.
Not sure yet but I am leaning towards Edwards if he can muster (taking care and skilfully) the discussion, it will educate those whom feel that intolerance, of us.
You reckon they might one day put us in jail, for speaking up against religious abuses?
Shakes Sis,
I'm really glad to hear that you're still on the campaign team, but I'm not in love w/ Edwards' remarks. For now though, I'll be glad he had the smarts not to back down to the right wing noise machine.
Jail? The whole progressive community will wind up in extermination camps.
Those remarks are flat out discriminatory and John Edwards should be ashamed of himself for having such people on his campaign team!
"Those remarks" is a wee bit...vague, Anonymous. Care to elaborate on what Melissa (as we are on M's blog) has said that is "flat out discriminatory"?
On November 1, 2006, on her blogspot Shakespeare’s Sister, she referred to President Bush’s ‘wingnut Christofascist base’ when lashing out against religious conservatives. On February 21, 2006, she attacked religious conservatives again, this time saying, ‘What don’t you lousy motherf---ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?
That's bigotry?
Against people who want to replace the Constitution with the Bible (as they understand it)?
!
what do amanda and melissa expect?
I mean, really? this is a presidental campaign, not a popularity contest. everything is fair game. i have never read amanda's site, but i have enjoyed melissa's stuff over at shakespeare's sister. fact is, she's made a name for herself with her sharp-tongued prose and that's what many readers find so appealing. but again, she's working for a candidate. this is not about melissa anymore, or melissa's blog, or melissa's ego. or the first ammendment.
the rush to defend her in the liberal blogosphere has been swift. many point to bill donahue and his wacky hypocracy. fair point. but this isn't about him, either. it's about John Edward's candidacy to become the next president.
amanda and melissa (standard non-) apoplogy is lame and disappointing. when we look back and plot the demise of the Edwards campaign, we can regard this as the beginning.
Great news!
The insidious Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, should be more concerned about clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church than two very charming young women exercising their First Amendment right.
My people, Scots-Irish came to the Colonies in the 1600s to avoid brutal conflicts with Irish Catholics. We founded America, a protestant country. We fought, sacrificed and died for our cherished First Amendment freedoms. There was not a Catholic Church in our country when we founded it.
If Catholics are too fragile for our cherished First Amendment, I’m sure a Catholic country will accommodate them -- Mexico, Haiti, Italy, Ireland. Bon Voyage!
During Ireland’s potato famine, England asserted, “these potato people have no morals, we don’t know what to do with them. Much to my chagrin, they followed us to America!
On May 18, 2005, thousands of pages of confidential church documents detailing sexual abuses by priests in Orange County, Ca., were released. Orange County Diocese paid one hundred million dollars to victims of clergy sex abuse; bankruptcy was declared by the Catholic Dioceses in Portland, Org., Tucson, Ariz., Spokane, Wash. and many more.
Cardinal Law was forced to resign as Archbishop of Boston because he covered up clergy sex abuse for years and was rewarded with a position in a Catholic Church in Rome.
After a three-year investigation, a grand jury in Philadelphia reported that two leading figures in the U.S. Roman Catholic hierarchy, Cardinals John Krol and Anthony Bevilacqua, deliberately concealed the sexual abuse of hundreds of children by at least 63 priests in that city from 1967 to 2002.
Former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, the head of the Roman Catholic Church’s sexual abuse oversight panel in the U.S., resigned in 2003 after he compared Catholic bishops to organized crime.
The Catholic Church kept the birth control pill of the market for almost ten years. How many abortions occurred during this time because women did not have access to birth control.
The Catholic Church is not the arbiter of our reproductive rights nor our First Amendment
Melisa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte are my Sheroes! If John Edwards had fired them, we would no longer support him!
I applaud these young women who will be great assets to the John Edward campaign!
First off, I'm glad Shakes and Amanda still have their jobs with the Edwards Campaign. However, had it been me, despite how much I'm struggling financially myself, I'd have quit within the first 4-6 hours of this story growing legs without an announcement from the Edwards Campaign defending me and his decision to hire me.
A true, honest to goodness, serious political campaign by a serious politician expecting to win the White House in 2008 should have been prepared and even drafted responses to potential liabilities such as these long before the entire hiring process of you two gals, and those responses need to be ready for revision and release to the public within hours.
Not days.
A politician that does not develop contingency plans ahead of time is a politician that's simply unprepared, and therefore is undeserving to adorn the highest office of this country. Edwards not coming to your and Amanda's defense within hours of this Donahue flap has not only shown that he's grossly unprepared and undeserving of the White House, but it also had made your jobs that much more difficult than it needs to be.
I'd have to step down because there'd just no way I could've help deliver the White House to Edwards via the netroots when he's so quick to hamstring himself through hemming and hawing at the first hint of adversity this early in the game.
I'd be useless to him.
As he is now to me. 
For that reason, he should definitely give you two ladies a raise. You two deserve it and, for how much more ass busting you both have to do now, you'd certainly earn it.
I am glad Edwards kept you on his campaingn, its just one more reason not to vote for the fraud!
But Jay, if Edwards wasn't/isn't able to tolerate sharply worded prose, why didn't the campaign realize that in the first place???
Doesn't that suggest a lack of proper vetting (implying a lack of competence)?
I mean, it's not as if it's any secret to those reading this blog that Melissa's choice of language doesn't appeal to all Americans, particularly older ones. It also doesn't take long to figure that out.
Why didn't someone notice this in the first place? Surely if you are going to take on a blogger it would make sense to check out the blog for possible pitfalls?
There was not a Catholic Church in our country when we founded it.
Not so.
Maryland was founded by English Roman Catholics.
There was not a Catholic Church in our country when we founded it.
I don't think Christopher Columbus was running from his Catholic Faith when he came to America. Same is true for most of the other explorers who are responsible for the establishment of our country and happened to be Catholic. And, the Catholic Church is not a building or series of buildings-it is a relationship with the Blessed Trinity whose formation is structured by the instructions of Jesus Christ. I think you were trying to say there were no Catholic Church buildings in the Country at the time of the Declaration of Independence. I need to research but I don't think that is true.
OY
Perhaps someday we will hear the fly on the wall version of the conversation 'tween Sis, Amanda and Edwards ....for now I am very happy to know that he did not cave to the first attempt at rendition.
Intelligence always knows when to speak and to whom they are speaking. I would trust Sis to attempt to convert my 86 year-old, right-leaning Mother to the Edwards Ideal. I am certain Sis would speak with passion and fire toward that conversion and that her language would never offend, nor would her manner.
I am weary of the right attempting to dictate and define what Liberals believe and who we are (and where we may live, re: the flap about Edward's home) and some Liberals unerring reflex to turn the other cheek: I believe it is past time for the left to begin to "do what Rove would do" ....and for the left to DEMAND fair coverage from the alleged liberal press ....
great job - glad to see you and your buddy are doing such a good job. you awoke a sleeping giant. maybe should should come out against minorities next - IDIOTS!!!!
you awoke a sleeping giant.
And in what teapot was that giant sleeping?
Ultimately this is a non-story, really only of interest to politics junkies.
Sleeping giant?
Not over this.
Voting for John Kerry and attending Loyola does not automatically make one sensitive to or even merely aware of true Catholicism. John Kerry professes to be “pro-choice.” Respecting the sanctity of life is at the heart of Christianity; you can not be in favor of abortion and Catholic!
My very Catholic extended family would disagree with you.
you can not be in favor of abortion and Catholic!
There are a few million Massachusetts Roman Catholics you would have a very difficult time arguing your point with, and then you would have to take on the Rhode Island contigent who would be just as dismissive of your opinion.
Cardinal Law tried to lay down the line on that one when he arrived here, and rapidly learned to keep his opinions to himself once he had a few discussions with Tip O'Neill.
Oh, and perhaps you can explain why the Vatican didn't automatically dismiss Fr. Drinan from his calling after regularly voting in favor of abortion rights & funding.
Catholic league is coming after Edwards with a vengence.
Beware you bigots.....
http://www.catholicleague.org/
07...ook_Edwards.htm
Beware you bigots
Why would Donahue want to beware us?
I don't know why JE didn't just tell the Catholic League - and the Catholics for that matter - to just F*** off. Organised religion is the problem. S's Sis knows and speaks the truth.
The Soviets adn the Chinese are right. No Religion but state religion.
Sorry - forgot all about you here, oddjob...
"Actually, according to the most reputable published info. to date, the odds that the warming climate is due to human influence are greater than 90%."
And what makes it "reputable"? Opinion combined with so-called "consensus". So we're back to my original point regarding majoritarian dominance allowing religious beliefs (see below) of some to be pushed onto others unwillingly.
I pulled out the IPCC's summary report. I had a wonderful time ripping it apart. It does not say what you claim above. It asserts that:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Yes - it does say "Most" - you can go read it for yourself. "Most" is not a scientific term, it is a garbage term. And as such, you know as well as I do that - in science - garbage terms render such an assertion meaningless.
The report is also self-contradicting. It asserts that AGW is "very likely", yet the final conclusion is:
"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized."
Well, which is it? Either humans can affect the system or they can't. As usual, the left-o-sphere wants to have cake and eat it too.
In any case, the "experts" can't even predict a hurricane season accurately when it's only three months away. It takes a very special kind of religious belief (aka blind faith) to demand that others accept policy based on an assumption that these same "experts" can accurately predict effects that span millenia.
How sad that JE hires and retains hate-mongers, even when he knows they are hate-mongers.
Commenting by HaloScan
