Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Campaign to Sham America
John Edwards has a new blogger-in-chief. First order of business? Covering her tracks.
Amanda Marcotte joins Edwards' crew from Pandagon. A couple weeks ago Marcotte uncorked the following post there, on the occasion of getting stuck at the Atlanta airport:
In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will — not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
Not exactly the best defense disgraced Durham DA Mike Nifong has received, but interesting in the same way that ramblings about CIA radio transmitters in your teeth are interesting -- as a marker for raving moon-bats.
So you might be thinking, at last and at least, a presidential candidate has had the balls to hire on a full-fledged, out-front propagandist, someone boldly willing to not just fudge facts, but fuck them in the ass. A Marcotte-led Net communications op may actually give the jaded among us some reason to pay attention to this 08 election-thing -- there'd be no telling what she'd say.
Alas no. Marcotte chickened out. She went back and deleted the post, presumably after it was linked to today by a conservative North Carolina blog. Marcotte left this justification:
Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I’m deleting it and here’s my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.
Let's see if there is a final word from the Edwards campaign as well. And when will people learn that Google cache means, "Forever."
|2.2.07 @ 4:29PM|#
So, is Amanda a member of the "using forensics to fact-check a
rape accusation is oppression" branch of feminism, or just a
regular stupid person with her own Jump To Conclusions
Mat(TM)?
Sadly, it's probably the former. The existence of those people
seriously frightens me.
|2.2.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Well, at least for me, I think this is case enough to justify me
not even considering checking the box next to Edwards name, if he
by some chance of luck gets far enough to become a presidential
candidate. If he feels confident enough to hire someone so
obviously out of touch with reality, and cannot bother to research
anything enough to come up with an informed opinion..well I guess
that speaks volumes for Edwards....
I mean seriously, does the fact that numerous swabings of the
'victim' yielded sperm samples from no less then 4 other men, NONE
of them being the accused, or anyone from the Duke Lacross team, or
any physical evidence to support having any sort of sexual contact
with any of the Duke players not cast at least some resonable doubt
that she might be lying?
Seriously....
|2.2.07 @ 4:29PM|#
The original post was flippant, biased and completely wrong... but that's not unusual for a blog. What I find far more unpleasant is the chicken-shit deletion. She's trying to cover her tracks now... with a trail of blood. Yeah... she's just smart enough to work for Edwards.
Warren|2.2.07 @ 4:31PM|#
So you might be thinking, at last and at least, a
presidential candidate has had the balls to hire on a full-fledged,
out-front propagandist, someone boldly willing to not just fudge
facts, but fuck them in the ass.
Holy shit Jeff. Don't sugar coat it, tell us what you really think.
Are you a Duke alum? Lacrosse booster? Or did you get a head-start
on the weekend?
Gimme Back My Dog|2.2.07 @ 4:38PM|#
I have read Amanda on Pandagon for a while now and usually enjoy her writing. But this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comments that the Edwards campaign is going to have to distance themselves from. She has referred to herself as a socialist. She uses (and perhaps coined?) the term "becunted" when referring to women. Keeping her around would require bigger balls than Edwards has.
Sandy|2.2.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Google cache doesn't mean "forever," but it does make things a bit embarrassing for a while. If you're lucky, the Wayback machine makes things forever if they happen to take a snapshot during the embarrassing period.
Z. M. Davis|2.2.07 @ 4:40PM|#
I don't think you're being fair to Marcotte. It's not as if she's pretending the post never existed. She removed what she wrote and in its place left a note clarifying her position and explaining why she removed the original post. That's called a retraction, not "covering her tracks."
|2.2.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Fotunately for the Democrats political prospects, Edwards will
probably remain a bit of a fringe candidate. If people like
Marcotte (and many of the follow-up posters on her blog) become a
more public face for the Democratic party, people will rapidly
forget about their disgust with the Republicans and we'll see one
of the shortest swings of the pendulum of power ever.
-K
|2.2.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Z.M.,
To me, it read as a clarification, not a retraction. She said that
the lacrosse players got away with it because the prosecution was
too eager to proceed before they dotted all their i's. That's
chicken shit because she is essentially standing by her first
statement, only she isn't willing to let it be seen anymore.
|2.2.07 @ 4:50PM|#
I don't think you're being fair to Marcotte. It's not as if
she's pretending the post never existed. She removed what she wrote
and in its place left a note clarifying her position and explaining
why she removed the original post. That's called a retraction, not
"covering her tracks.
She didn't retract her statements... she just said she was sorry
that the prosecution "fubled". She still thinks that people who
100% prove their innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt, even despite
the prosecutor hiding evidence, should be thrown in prison.
|2.2.07 @ 4:51PM|#
She's an unattractive, left wing american woman who is a
virulent misandrist - quelle surprise. So, so glad I no
longer live in Berkeley.
Yes I have made reference to trite stereotypes. They are accurate
though.
|2.2.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Clarifying a position? Is this a contest for the chicken-shit Hall of Fame? Amanda kicked the whole "innocent until proven guilty" gig squarely in the balls... which is apparently a frequent target for her. Hey, I don't care that she may be a left-wing, feminist nutjob. What makes me queasy is that she looks like a left-wing, feminist nutjob who willing to "clarify" her rhetoric if it means a job.
|2.2.07 @ 4:58PM|#
More on that over at Durham-In-Wonderland
KC Johnson is calling for Amanda's resignation.
|2.2.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Wow. I didn't think there was any person in the world who still believed the Duke lacrosse players were guilty.
Z. M. Davis|2.2.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Rimfax,
Come to think of it, you're right that "clarification" is a better
overall characterization of the update than "retraction." But does
that really make the update "chicken shit"?
I do think it would have been better if Marcotte had stricken
through the original post rather than deleting it outright, but
she's not hiding the fact that she deleted what she wrote because
she thought it was being construed in the wrong way. No one is
being decieved.
|2.2.07 @ 5:11PM|#
James, to a certain segment of the American intelligentsia,
(white) male=guilty.
Regardless of whether they laid a finger on that dancer, if Amanda
was being honest she would simply fess up that she thinks they
deserve to go to jail because of who they are.
barneca|2.2.07 @ 5:16PM|#
if you wade thru the eye-opening comment section in both the
original and the sanitized versions, you see that ms. marcotte also
deleted many of her comments as well. didn't "clarify" them, but
deleted them as if they never existed. she left in one or two
harmless ones, but the moonbat ones are history.
-cab
|2.2.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I checked out her myspace page. It looks like we share some mutual friends (the real kind). Small world.
|2.2.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Her belief that the Lacrosse players are guilty-guilty-guilty
despite all the contrary evidence is one thing. But what I find
even loonier is her calling CNN 'pure evil' for reporting the
developments.
C'mon. C-N-friggin'-N. You know, the one owned by Jane Fonda's
husband? Really? Part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, no
doubt?
She's either genuinely batshit crazy, or completely machiavellian
and willing to say anything, anything if she thinks it'll help
her.
Z. M. Davis|2.2.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote: "Amanda kicked the whole
"innocent until proven guilty" gig squarely in the
balls..."
R C Dean wrote: "Regardless of whether they laid a finger on
that dancer, if Amanda was being honest she would simply fess up
that she thinks they deserve to go to jail because of who they
are."
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a courtroom standard: it
means the State cannot punish someone until she or he has
been given a fair trial. When Marcotte implies that she personally
thinks the Duke players are guilty, she's not advocating
that they be thrown in jail without a trial. She's just saying that
she, personally, believes that they're guilty. Much like, as Marcotte
points out, how many people think that O.J. Simpson was guilty,
even though he was aquitted in the criminal trial.
Shouldn't libertarians, of all people, be able to distinguish
between State action, and the personal opinions of bloggers?
Paul|2.2.07 @ 5:30PM|#
We've been through this on another thread. This is the way for
certain members of the chattering classes to establish their
anti-racism bona-fides.
many people think that O.J. Simpson was guilty, even though he
was aquitted in the criminal trial.
The two aren't comparable. Nicole Brown's severed head wasn't
changing her story every fifteen minutes...
Shouldn't libertarians, of all people, be able to distinguish
between State action, and the personal opinions of
bloggers?
For chrissakes, of course we know it's the opinion of a blogger,
and we have the absolute right to hold it up to ridicule-- even
publicly so.
|2.2.07 @ 5:31PM|#
That's an awfully tangential point Z. M. Davis. What basis for
her belief in their guilt does she, despite all the contradictory
evidence, have?
I suspect that R C Dean is pointing out that she probably has none
except her own bias against sports playing white males who attend
good universities. And I would bet "dollars to donuts" that they
are statistically less likely to be guilty than many other
populations.
|2.2.07 @ 5:38PM|#
On the "white male=guilty" thing:
Marcotte's rhetoric is very similar to people I've heard and read
advocate, in public forums (fora, whatever), that accusation of
rape should be considered proof of rape. Period. Investigation of
the claim is doubting, casting aspersions on, and thereby blaming,
the victim. I wish I were exaggerating that.
|2.2.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Sorry, all. I'm giving her a pass on this one. She herself was
raped and is projecting it all the hell over this one. I am not
going to expect her to be rational about this on her blog. I can
now respect her covering up her loss of fudge on the subject.
I'm also not going to be taking her seriously, though.
|2.2.07 @ 5:41PM|#
When Marcotte implies that she personally thinks the Duke
players are guilty, she's not advocating that they be thrown in
jail without a trial. She's just saying that she, personally,
believes that they're guilty. Much like, as Marcotte points out,
how many people think that O.J. Simpson was guilty, even though he
was aquitted in the criminal trial.
She did not imply that she personally thinks they are guilty. She
said that they are unquestionably guilty, and that CNN is EVIL for
reporting anything different. She feels that things like DNA
evidence should not have been allowed to the defendant to prove
their innocence.
She is allowed to express her opinion, the same way even the KKK
are allowed to express their opinion. But that doesn't mean that
John Edwards and the Democratic party are going to lose votes big
time by being associated with such people. And it certainly doesn't
mean she is not a facist!
|2.2.07 @ 5:42PM|#
but she's not hiding the fact that she deleted what she
wrote because she thought it was being construed in the wrong
way.
She deleted it because is was being taken at face value, and it was
ugly and very creepy. Clearly a reactionary loudmouth feeling a bit
contrite for being too widely outed as a reactionary
loudmouth. This probably wont end well for her. Good. Misandronist
bigot.
Justin Slotman|2.2.07 @ 5:49PM|#
I've read Amanda for years and I'm not even surprised that something like this happened this quickly. I certainly don't read her because she's particularly diplomatic or even-handed--but what makes her great as a writer is always going to make her a strange choice for a political campaign. This is barely scratching the surface of things you could take out of context and use against her and, by extension, Edwards (who--let's face it--almost certainly never has and never had a shot at the nomination. If his campaign is more about getting his issues out in public then ruling the world, as I suspect it is sometimes, then there's nothing wrong with hiring an opinionated blogger.)
|2.2.07 @ 5:58PM|#
Judging simply the writing style of that blog posting, I like
it. Sounds like she might be fun to read.
Then again, reading a very short burst of Ann Coulter could make
her seem interesting as well.
|2.2.07 @ 6:21PM|#
"This is barely scratching the surface of things you could take
out of context"
Out of context? Are you kidding?
Z. M. Davis|2.2.07 @ 6:21PM|#
Paul wrote: "For chrissakes, of course we know it's the
opinion of a blogger, and we have the absolute right to hold it up
to ridicule-- even publicly so."
Well, yes, I agree. You do have the absolute legal right
to ridicule it. My question was rhetorical in nature.
dbcooper wrote: "That's an awfully tangential point Z. M.
Davis. What basis for her belief in their guilt does she, despite
all the contradictory evidence, have?"
Well, I haven't been following the case, and I can't speak for
Marcotte, so I must admit that I'm not exactly sure how she arrived
at her opinion. But I suppose it's worth mentioning that while the
rape charges have been dropped, the players are still charged with
sexual offense and kidnapping.
You say Marcotte probably has no reason to believe in the players'
guilt other than "her own bias against sports[-]playing white males
who attend good universities." But I wonder why one should think
she has such a bias. It seems to me that it would be begging the
question to suppose that she thinks the Duke players are guilty
because she hates men, and that one can know she hates men because
she thinks the players are guilty.
...
Again, I haven't been following the Duke case, so I have no opinion
on the players' guilt or innocence. It is of course entirely proper
to criticize Marcotte for being wrong if one has reason to believe
that she is wrong.
But various comments by various posters in this thread have accused
Marcotte not simply of being mistaken, but of hating men, of
covering her tracks, and of being unattractive. I disagree with
those comments. I'm not quite convinced that replacing the text of
the "Stuck at the airport" post constitutes a deception; Marcotte
certainly does not hate men; and her attractiveness is
completely irrelevant.
Jim Treacher|2.2.07 @ 6:22PM|#
"This is barely scratching the surface of things you could take
out of context and use against her and, by extension,
Edwards"
"Out of context?" What, was it part of a creative writing exercise?
A dream sequence? Wait, I know, she typed it with her fingers
crossed.
|2.2.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Sorry, all. I'm giving her a pass on this one. She herself
was raped and is projecting it all the hell over this one. I am not
going to expect her to be rational about this on her blog. I can
now respect her covering up her loss of fudge on the
subject.
It's this kind of BS that leads to racist and sexist beliefs.
You're saying that because she was raped, she's excused for being a
racist and a sexist. So, because I was mugged at gunpoint by a
young, black man, it would be fine for me to assume that all young,
black men are muggers? I don't think that, and I'd be a racist if I
did. I suppose that you'd give a child molester who was molested as
a child a break, too?
Your thinking is not rational; it's emotional and primitive.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.2.07 @ 6:28PM|#
....willing to not just fudge facts, but fuck them in the
ass.
Is that why it's called a fudge locker?
|2.2.07 @ 6:45PM|#
Like several other posters, I'm not surprised by this.
I went to went to her blog from a link at Matthew Yglesias, and it
didn't take me long to find her spewing out stuff that I considered
to be completely over the top.
In responding to some right-wing stuff about how Arab Muslims are
having babies at a much higher rate than White Christians, she
posted that she really doesn't care if the white race dies out or
not. She asked if it was the roseasea, the imperialist bent, and
several other apparently "white" (and negative) physical and
political characteristics that needed saving. I asked if the sickle
cell and other apparently "black" characteristics needed saving.
Almost needless to say, my post was not allowed on. And I only
posted it to see if an equivalent statement about a non-white race
could pass...it couldn't. I then e-mailed her to find out what the
deal was. She told me that she was pissing on the white
ideal.
I asked her very specifically several times if it was race in
general that she thought wasn't worth saving, or just "whiteness."
She did what every other hard left, postmodern types that I've
interacted with do: After bashing what they consider to be the
dominant group, they utterly refuse to do the same to any other
group and refuse to hold people accountable across the spectrum. It
seems that when someone white says something bigoted it is proof of
deep and abiding racism, but when someone like a rap artist or
black leader says something racist its only a natural and justified
reaction against "the man.' I'm really not committed to either
position, I would just like a little consistency.
I also specifically asked her if she thought Bill Clinton was
justified in his "Sista Soldia" moment. She decided not to answer
that one too.
I thought about e-mailing her back and explaining to her that not
all white people are in situations where they dominate black
people. There are, for example, white kids in the inner-city who
are mocked for their whiteness and are expected to overcome this
weakness. And her diatribe against whiteness would not be
particularly comforting to someone in that type of situation. But I
figured she would be about as inflexible as she was in our first
exchange, which is the only way people like her have ever been with
me. For the record, I think if people could avoid making
"blackness" or "whiteness" or any other racial-ness be some
inherently good or bad thing, it would be much better. Ironically,
postmodern lefties usually see race as completely illusory, but
they go about saying things that only solidifies racial
thinking.
I consider myself a Democrat and the GOP's pandering to racial
animus has infuriated me over the years, but with Clinton, I had
the feeling that he wanted to take the Martin Luther King approach,
rather than the Malcolm X one. Racism is bad, obviously, but
dragging white people across the coals isn't the way to go.
I had hoped back in 04 that Edwards would be a moderate Clintonion
type, but he isn't. And his hiring of this woman has made it
official, I won't be voting for John Edwards.
I don't buy the bitter, anti-"the man" tack that Amanda and her
type take, but I would still love to vote for a woman (Hillary) or
a black man (Obama), imagine that.
BTW, someone said that rape was a particularly difficult subject
for Amanda. I am trying to sympathise with that but I have to say
that it's not only rape that seems to set her off. It's the WHITE
MALE type. It wouldn't surprise me if she thinks that the reason
white males rape is because they are hellbent on having power, but
when black men rape, its because they've been oppressed. In either
case, white male patriarchy would be behind it.
Don't get me wrong, once again, I hate the GOP's tactics on race,
but Clinton showed the way forward in race relations, and it was by
following MLK's lead, by trying to make the world better for
everyone, not by striking out in a vociferous manner at the
majority, most of whom are relatively innocent.
Roger Ebert|2.2.07 @ 6:48PM|#
She wants a DVD of Dario Argento's "Bird With The Crystal
Plumage" according to her Amazon wishlist
interesting choice considering her politics. I would get her a copy
of "I Spit On Your Grave" but she probably already has it.
|2.2.07 @ 6:56PM|#
Real Bill,
"You're saying that because she was raped, she's excused for being
a racist and a sexist."
Come on, you surely can do better. Rimfax is saying nothing of the
sort. He's being civilised by recognising that the lady can likely
not be objective and that it would be very rude to beat on her
now.
Perhaps you should read on to his last sentence, it's kind of
important.
Roger Ebert|2.2.07 @ 6:57PM|#
Jay J,
".....I consider myself a Democrat......."
As you are posting comment on the most interesting left wing blog,
Reason: Hit and Run,
that goes w/o saying............
The Wine Commonsewer|2.2.07 @ 7:18PM|#
I think it's okay to cut somebody slack based on a twist in their past, but, this goes a little beyond not taking her seriously. She's not babbling at a mailbox downtown or giving the finger to random motorists at a stoplight.
Paul|2.2.07 @ 7:39PM|#
and of being unattractive.
Nothing for nothing, but I'd rather be accused of being
unattractive than be accused of a racially motivated violent rape--
and what's more, having "gotten away" with it.
She got busted dead to rights. She's no victim in this.
|2.2.07 @ 7:41PM|#
As you are posting comment on the most interesting left wing
blog, Reason: Hit and Run,
that goes w/o saying...[...]
Don't forget that H&R is not only the most interesting
left-wing blog, but is also - and simultaneously - the
most interesting right-wing blog.
To non-libertarians, it's like Schroedinger's Blog - it's both
left-wing and right-wing until you look, and the very act of
observing it fixes it into one state.
Obviously, some sort of quantum thing is going on here.
|2.2.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Sorry, all. I'm giving her a pass on this one. She herself
was raped and is projecting it all the hell over this one. I am not
going to expect her to be rational about this on her blog. I can
now respect her covering up her loss of fudge on the
subject.
Pathetic. And she gets a pass on that if it is even true? You would
be a real idiot on a jury. What a shoddy and juvenile response to a
subject that requires logical and moral principles.
My AmandaMarcotte post!|2.2.07 @ 8:19PM|#
I've been familiar with her "work" for a while, and at the link
- dated 1/31 - you can read my mostly ad hominem take on her. So,
this is now big surprise.
Note also that google's cache isn't "forever", and things can be
kept out of archive.org, Deja - I mean google - news, and similar
sites.
|2.2.07 @ 8:34PM|#
There's a hilarious post over at her now where she makes some
indecipherable point about the OJ trial. Then in the comments she
chews out everyone who points out that this is obiously all about
Duke, even her regular posters. Since there is no point in actually
discussing the OJ trial some 13 years on, none of the comments are
about OJ and so she finally closed comments.
The comment "I'm giving her a pass on this one." is reasonable, not
because she was raped, but because she is obviously mentally
incapacitated, whether because of PTSD or something else. To think
that Edwards nearly became VP and he chooses this loon for his
blogger.
|2.2.07 @ 8:58PM|#
I've been wasting some time on her blog, and while it's mostly
predictable stuff, I found a tiny gem. In the middle of a post
defending high taxes on the rich, she cast off this throwaway
line:
"The question is whether or not the enforcement costs outweigh the
costs of not having the law to society. The War on Drugs is a good
example of how enforcement hurts society way more than the
crime."
Check it out before it gets deleted:
http://pandagon.net/2007/01/10/the-maudlin-concern-for-the-ever-suffering-pampered-wealthy/
Brad Warbiany|2.2.07 @ 10:23PM|#
LOL... I got into it with her two years ago, before she had even been picked up at Pandagon. Check out her old blog,
Brad Warbiany|2.2.07 @ 10:25PM|#
Hmm... No HTML, huh? Okay, her old blog is:
http://mousewords.blogspot.com/
Guy Montag|2.2.07 @ 11:16PM|#
I am waiting to see how she is going to delete Edward's new house from the interweb. Is she goign to brush up on her photoshopping techniques?
|2.2.07 @ 11:47PM|#
Ok, who's taking bets on how long it takes for Edwards to kick
her to the curb? A candidate that's running a distant fourth
(behind Obama, Clinton, and anybody else at all) in a bid for a
nomination can't afford this.
-jcr
|2.3.07 @ 1:05AM|#
You're wrong, Kwix.
Sorry, TWC.
Ladies & Gents, we have a new winner!
May I introduce the owner of this thread, Jake
Boone!
|2.3.07 @ 1:25AM|#
I've been familiar with her "work" for a while, and at the
link - dated 1/31 - you can read my mostly ad hominem take on
her.
I learned my lesson a while ago - I do not click on the
lone-whacker links. I have to ask though, is he bragging about an
ad hominem attack on her?
|2.3.07 @ 1:37AM|#
What I'm saying is, if someone else has yet to learn their
lesson the hard way, would you please click on his link (you'd
think the nutjob would learn to put html links in his comments
already - dense and a nutjob, what a great combination) and let me
know if he is bragging that he posted a logically weak
rebuttal.
Thanks.
Guy Montag|2.3.07 @ 2:56AM|#
Some of her work reads like a David Weigel clone. In her old blog (linked to above) she sounds like some sort of Christian hating freak who assigns any activity she does not like to being the evil work of Jesus worshipers, or something.
Matt Moore|2.3.07 @ 2:56AM|#
I'm confused about how a rushed prosecution made the DNA test
come back incorrectly. Is she saying that it's not these players
that are guilty, but some other players (or just random men), so
these guys might as well be the ones to go to jail? Or is she
arguing (more reasonably) that the prosecutor charged the wrong
people in his rush to a speedy trial and that she just wishes he's
gotten the guilty ones?
I think it might be the latter... and that would make this an
actual clarification/retraction (well, without any clarity) and not
just an attempt to erase her tracks.
I didn't start this comment in an attempt to defend her, I think
Amanda has proven to be batshit insane many times during her tenure
at Pandagon. But that's not the only reason to think Edwards is
crazy to hire her... the fact that she can't write well enough to
clearly make a point is damning, too.
|2.3.07 @ 8:34AM|#
Innocent until proven guilty is not merely a legal concept. It
is a broad and useful social notion. Criminal charges are direct
challenge to individual liberty. "Innocent until proven guilty"
reminds us that we are a nation of laws where the accused have
rights including the presumption of innocence. It also informs us
that we may not have all the relevant information to pass judgment
so before we knock back the rest of that Jack Daniels and ask one
of the boys to find a rope, we might want to just sit our asses
down and let the legal system do its job.
Yes, I recognize Amanda's right to say silly things... and then
delete them because she may have a shot at a decent paycheck. As
noted on this thread, I have an equal right to mock her post and
its deletion. So it goes.
|2.3.07 @ 9:17AM|#
Rimfax,
"Sorry, all. I'm giving her a pass on this one. She herself was
raped and is projecting it all the hell over this one. I am not
going to expect her to be rational about this on her
blog."
If she's incapable of rationality, she needs psychological help,
not a prominent position on the communications team of a
Presidential campaign.
Forgive all you like, but consider the appropriateness of a rich
white southern man hiring a disturbed individual who despises rich
white southern men to speak on his behalf.
She is what she is and she does what she does, that's clear enough.
But if you're Edwards, do you make that hire? Edwards' judgement is
what's really in question here.
|2.3.07 @ 9:22AM|#
BTW, try a search of Pandagon for "Juanita Broderick"
She is apparently an unworthy victim, as her allegations are not
only non-outrage producing, but completely ignored.
Yep, she's irrational, all right.
|2.3.07 @ 9:35AM|#
Guy,
Even worse, she is apparently the sort of person who likes to brag
about not owning a TV.
edna|2.3.07 @ 11:31AM|#
In her old blog (linked to above) she sounds like some sort
of Christian hating freak who assigns any activity she does not
like to being the evil work of Jesus worshipers, or
something.
i'm thinking that she would be the perfect fix-up for poor akira,
who badly, badly needs to get laid. whatcha say, buddy, should we
start the wheels in motion?
i haven't checked out her myspace or amazon or whatever reading
lists, but can i assume that sandra harding is featured
prominently?
Jeff G|2.3.07 @ 11:53AM|#
I own several teevees, which I guess keeps me distracted enough
that I don't haven't started seing in the shape of laundry baskets
some sinister reinforcement of the patriarchy.
Or in other words, "Scrubs" is keeping me from encountering the
blinding light of Truth.
Zach Braff: digitally delivered Soma.
|2.3.07 @ 12:35PM|#
It seems that many of the commenters above are quick to convict Ms. Marcotte, and by proxy her new employer, of thoughtcrime. How doubleplusungood!
|2.3.07 @ 12:49PM|#
Or in other words, "Scrubs" is keeping me from encountering
the blinding light of Truth.
Maybe you should try to get a restraining order.
Achieve enlightenment now, ask|2.3.07 @ 2:53PM|#
highnumber: Thanks for the kind words! I've always liked you
too, and I think all your comments are extra special!
As alluded to above, I didn't put much effort into my post about
good ol' Amanda. Unlike others, I didn't try to research her "best"
quotes. I just pointed out that she had issues, and that didn't
reflect too well on John Edwards' campaign's judgment.
And I did that three days before this post. What else am I "ahead
of the Reason curve on"? Find out!
TLB|2.3.07 @ 5:12PM|#
As a special gift to Reasonites, go to Amazon.com and enter
0976616009 into the search box:
An Island Called Liberty
"This book is a cross between Dr. Seuss and Ayn Rand's Atlas
Shrugged," writes the publisher. Younger children will enjoy the
rhyming verse and beautiful, full-color illustrations on every
page, while older children and adults will enjoy the strong message
that speaks in favor of free markets and against excessive
government regulation, bureaucracy, and taxation.
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #216,839 in Books
|2.3.07 @ 6:19PM|#
It seems that many of the commenters above are quick to
convict Ms. Marcotte, and by proxy her new employer, of
thoughtcrime. How doubleplusungood!
There is a big difference between:
"This person is an obvious idiot/bigot, and I am skeptical of the
judgement of someone who would hire her to represent him."
and:
"This person should not be allowed to speak her opinion, and ought
to be sanctioned by government authority for doing so."
So far in this thread I see only the former happening. You can
debate whether or not that is appropriate for the case at hand, but
dropping the Orwell card is disengenous at the very least.
the15th|2.3.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Not the best-thought-out post on Amanda's part, but someone on
CNN really could have said more or less what she characterized them
as saying.
I agree that she's a pretty strange choice for the Edwards
campaign, or any campaign, because she's at her best when edgy and
sarcastic. Of course, she's also an extremely outspoken feminist,
and a lot of otherwise liberal people have a real problem with
women's equality. At least the people in this thread commenting on
her appearance, rather than focusing disingenuously on possible
interpretations of a tossed-off post she made, are being upfront
about their views.
Mao|2.3.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Only feminists are "focusing disingenuously on possible
interpretations of a tossed-off post she made."
Everyone else if focusing on her rabid hate speech and criminal
libel.
"I agree that she's a pretty strange choice for the Edwards
campaign, or any campaign."
Well if they had elections in North Korea she would fit in just
fine.
Jim Treacher|2.4.07 @ 2:10AM|#
"It seems that many of the commenters above are quick to convict
Ms. Marcotte, and by proxy her new employer, of thoughtcrime. How
doubleplusungood!"
Just like in that one book! And how about that, you know the main
character's name too.
|2.4.07 @ 3:00AM|#
I think she will be let go quietly before the primaries start. John Edwards is a human weathervane.
|2.5.07 @ 8:43AM|#
Just like in that one book! And how about that, you know the
main character's name too.
Apparently he doesn't know the newspeak word for thoughtcrime,
though, and I'm not about to give any hints.
Gilbert Martin|2.5.07 @ 12:21PM|#
"John Edwards is a human weathervane."
Yeah.
He learned the technique from Al Gore.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245