Thursday, February 15, 2007

Another One Bites the Dust

So now Melissa McEwan has followed Amanda Marcotte into the ranks of Former Employees of John Edwards. If you've been living in a bubble (or perhaps more accurately, if you've been living outside of the bubble that is the blogosphere), you may not have heard that McEwan and Marcotte have been known to say some, well, some unkind things about Catholics. Actually, that's not really quite accurate. Marcotte has said some really hugely nasty things about Catholics that, while sometimes funny, were pretty much certain to offend the type of Christian who thinks that religion is Really Serious Business and Not An Institution For Fun Or Jokes. You know, your ordinary Christian. (Lighten up people. It's a joke. Some of my best friends are Christians. Really.) Amanda, as Jonathan Wilde points out, really does have no one to blame but herself.

McEwan, on the other hand, hasn't really said anything that's all that bad. Yes, she's taken some cheap shots at Christians. She talked about Bush's "wingnut Christofascist base," for example. Now I don't want to get all Dennis Miller on you here, but frankly this whole whatever-fascist thing really just bugs the crap out of me. "Fascist" has an actual meaning, people. Okay, so there's lots of dispute about what the term actually means. But there are a finite number of possibilities. It doesn't just mean whatever you happen to want it to mean, Humpty Dumpty. And you know what? Even with all those possible meanings of "fascist," wingnut Christians just ain't gonna count. It bugs the crap out of me when people on the left just stick "fascist" onto everyone to the political right of John Kerry. It's nearly as annoying as when rightwingers decide that Hillary Clinton is best described as a commie. Hillary Clinton, fercryinoutloud. The Queen of Triangulation. A commie. Sheesh. Look, when you turn "fascist" into a freakin' epithet, you people rob it of any real usefulness. So let's just stop calling people fascists now, okay? It doesn't advance the conversation at all. It's like writing "Christobastard." Or inserting "Nazi" into a comment thread. It ends any chance at rational debate. And it pisses people off. So stop it.

Wait, so where was I? Oh, yeah, aside from calling the fringy Christian right fascists (did I mention that I find that habit annoying?), McEwan really hasn't been all that terribly offensive. Almost every blogger has said something at least that bad at some point. Marcotte is a loose cannon. McEwan is a blogger. Blogging is all about saying things off the cuff in a spur-of-the-moment kind of way. It's what sets this medium apart from traditional journalism. If McEwan is out, then pretty much any (interesting) blogger will be out, too.

I think that, in fact, McEwan mostly just got caught up in the Marcotte thing. I mean, from the perspective of Donohue, who really is something of a misogynist jerk, Marcotte and McEwan are the same critter anyway. They both blog. They both are liberal. They both went to work for John Edwards, who IMHO, poses the most serious challenge to any Republican candidate in '08. They're both atheists. And, even more damningly, they both lack a penis. On Donohue's...um, somewhat extreme...interpretation of Catholicism, it's that last one that's really their most serious flaw.

My two cents is that Marcotte should probably remain a blogger. She's way good at it. But I read some of her posts at Edwards' blog. They're good, but not really great. Amanda Marcotte without the venom is, well, frankly it's a little boring. McEwan, OTOH, probably shouldn't have been hounded from her job. But she's a good blogger, too, so I'm at least glad that I can hang out at Shakespeare's Sister again.

2 Comments:

Blogger Brian said...

Yeah, McEwan seems to be more, as Sanchez says, anodyne than Marcotte. Can't say that I share your opinion about her blogging, as her venom seems pretty cheap and sleazy vs. incisive. Really poor decision making on the part of the Edwards campaign, though.

12:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why I will not vote for Obama:

1. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Energy policy from an Obama administration?

Answer: NO. Why Not?

Because: Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R. 6) in 2005.

(which enabled the nuke industry to begin planning to build 29 new nukes (one of them in Pennsylvania)
- after 30 years of no new nukes being built because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for the nuke industry by guaranteeing taxpayer payback of any of the nuke loans that default ... (with the risk of default rated by the Congressional Budget Office at 50% or greater).

Because: Obama has been IN with the nuke industry for decades. Excelon Corp. of Illinois is the largest nuke operator on earth - ( they own the nuclear power plants in Illinois and they own Con-Ed in NY state). Excelon has been one of Obama's largest contributors since his earliest days in politics.

Because: Obama would not even be IN the race for president IF he was not HEAVILY SUPPORTED by the nuke industry. GE (2nd largest corporation on the planet) & Westinghouse are planning to build many of those nukes.

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. That's the reason "the Mainstreams Media" are PUSHING Obama for President/ slamming & smearing the Clintons. ABSENT BILLIONS of dollars worth of FREE Pro-Obama Advertising/Propaganda provided by NBC/MSNBC/and CBS Obama would not have gotten past the New Hampshire primary.

2. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in the ECONOMY?

Answer: It doesn't look good. Obama's financial advisors include the followng people:

JEFFREY LIEBMAN: SOCIAL SECURITY: In a 2005 policy paper Liebman advocated a mix of benefit cuts, tax increases and mandatory personal accounts.
DAVID CUTLER: HEALTHCARE: He Says High Health Care Costs are Good.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: RICH GETTING RICHER, EVERYBODY ELSE GETTING POORER:
The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety this has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill." ( i.e. College degrees are paying off more & more --- which is true, BUT Certainly DOES NOT account for the rise of the super rich, nor the increasing poverty of everyone else.)

(Evidently, Goolsbee's not old enough to remember the beginning of that Income Inequality, or to recognize THE CAUSE. It began in 1981. THE CAUSE of it was and is that Reagan cut the top tax rate DOWN from 70% to the low 30% s, AND Corporations all over America BEGAN instituting "THE TWO-TIER WAGE STRUCTURE'. i.e. Pay the people at the top a LOT MORE, Pay Everybody Else a LOT LESS. (If you searched old newspaper archives from the early 1980s you would find newspaper articles about the sudden appearance of the Two-Tier Wage Structure.)

3. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Foreign Policy?

Answer: Not Likely.

Among a dozen or so Foreign Policy Advisors the most "senior" advisor is:

Zbigniew Brzezinski. Former National Security Advisor to President Carter. Using the CIA & Billions of dollars, he ginned up a War in Afghanistan .... seeking as he said to "give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam.".

He Created the Taliban and Al Queda/ JIHAD/madrassa brainwashing schools for that purpose. Supported the dictator Pol Pol who massacred millions of Cambodian villagers. When asked, if in hindsight, considering that Al Queda eventually attacked America, and Pol Pot slaughtered millions - IF he would change anything he had done .... Zbig answered NO, he was satisfied with the results.

Electing Obama President is not likely to reassure the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to cease having an insane foreign policy; is likely to put Russia on an even more nervous hair trigger than they are now.

The major problem with Obama and his advisiors is they are ACADEMICS who have lived the life of privilege out of touch with the real world --- Better educated and smarter than Bush's gang --- they are still likely to do just as badly at running the government --- for the same reason: OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY ... i.e. insane....people doing insane things.

4. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in: appointing competent qualified people to run the government; instead of cronyism, or good changes that get rid of fraud, payoffs, and corruption in government?
Answer: No.

Because: Obama's friend Rezko was part and parcel of the mafia connected, corrupt, Daley Chicago political machine. Rezko was Obama's chief fundraiser from the beginning of his career in Illinois politics to his election to the U.S. Senate. There is very little coverage of the Obama Rezko/Daley corruption connections on National TV, but the local Chicago papers have a lot of info going back several years ... & it don't look good for Obama. He got IN with the Daley machine when his wife worked as an assistant to one of Daley's higher ups; Obama looks to be part and parcel of the same corrupt Daley political machine as his friend Rezko.

Some of the above is speculation based on facts.. What I KNOW Obama HAS ALREADY DONE makes all the above doubts and questions irrelevant in answering the question:

Is Obama qualified to be, or likely to be, a GOOD President?

Answer: NO. He has already done something so unconscionable, so dirty, so dangerous that no sane American would even consider voting for him. HE played the race card.

Those accusations of racism against the Clintons did not come from any public "Outcry" on the part of black people all over the country - those accusations of racism came solely and directly from the Obama Campaign. Obama was caught red-handed pushing those accusations to the press - in a 4-page Internal Campaign Memo - Listing those accusations & directing them to the press. The Huffington Post obtained a copy & published it on the web.

Shortly thereafter, during one of the debates, Tim Russert (MSNBC) ..... while rustling a copy of the 4-page Memo in his hand .... asked Obama .... your campaign has been pushing accusations of racism to the press (rustles pages) .... in a 4-page campaign memo .... what do you have to say about that?

Obama mumbled a few sentences ....( people in both campaigns get carried away and say things they shouldn't have said ... blah..blah) .... and .... then MSNBC/ the mainstream media .... NEVER MENTIONED IT AGAIN!.

Instead, MSNBC/NBC/CBS and all the rest of the mainstream CORPORATE-CONTROLLED media just went right on endlessly PUSHING the SAME totally ridiculous false accusations of "racism".

Obama made those accusations of racism .... in order to win the South Carolina primary. Obama has continued to make accusations of racism ... every time .... he falls behind in the polls. The question is: What USE of RACISM / inter-racial strife would he NOT stoop to IF elected President.

Which brings us to the Question: Is it likely Obama will TRANSCEND race... .Get Past the Politics of DIVISION;.. .....Unite this Country?

Given the DIVISION he has already created by making false accusations of racism - the answer is a resounding:
HELL NO!

Obama is the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED candidate being PUSHED by the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED Media.

Same Media that sold TOO MANY AMERICANS on Bush/Cheney. Same Media that SOLD U.S. a War.

4:42 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home