Patterico's Pontifications

2/9/2007

Sadly, No! Publishes the Most Clueless Blog Post Ever Written (UPDATE: Make That Two!)

Filed under: General,Humor,Morons — Patterico @ 12:37 am



In his zeal to uncover alleged conservative hypocrisy, a blogger at a “humor” blog mistakes an old Allahpundit parody for a serious post. Hilarity ensues.

Next up: Gavin rakes Stephen Colbert over the coals for his crazy right-wing opinions.

P.S. I predict Gavin will try to recover by claiming that he knew Allah’s post was a parody. But this interpretation reveals Gavin’s post to be utterly incoherent — unless he were truly trying to sell the ludicrous notion that Amanda Marcotte’s ravings on religion were nothing but parody and satire, as she claimed in her weak, mealy-mouthed non-apology apology.

Is that what Gavin is saying? When Marcotte said Catholics oppose abortion because they hate women and want to punish them for having sex . . . did she not mean that? Was she merely satirizing feminists??

Is Gavin completely clueless as to the nature of Allah’s satire? Or is he trying to sell readers on a completely dishonest portrayal of Amanda Marcotte as a satirist extraordinaire?

Door #1? Or Door #2?

UPDATE: We have a winner, and it is cluelessness.

Sigh. I guess I’m going to have to explain all of this in detail to my slow-witted friend Gavin.

You see, Gavin, back in the day, my boy Allahpundit had a parody blog. It was a wickedly funny parody, not of Allah, but of the conception of Allah held by violent Islamic terrorists. Allah had a prominent disclaimer on his main page that took readers to a page that explained:

I want to make clear that I have nothing against Muslims–or the adherents of any other faith, for that matter–who practice their religion peacefully. This site is intended as a parody of the radical Islamist mindset with which Americans have become only too familiar in the past two years. . . . To those moderate Muslims who read this site, then, I’d ask you to bear in mind that there’s no malice directed here at you or your beliefs, and I apologize if any offense is given. To any radical Muslims who should read this site, I’d ask you to bear in mind that I hope you die soon, and painfully.

It’s hard to see how you could have missed this.

What I’m saying is this: your posts above are links to genuine satire. Not Marcotte-style “satire,” by which I mean non-satire that is dishonestly termed “satire” after the fact. No, Allah’s stuff you’re quoting is actual, honest-to-goodness satire — better than you could ever come up with, even if you had a dozen years, and all the hash brownies George Soros could buy.

It’s true that Allah’s parody blog might have been offensive to Islamist terrorist types, and perhaps also to some dull-witted lefty P.C. simpletons. But you know what? I’m guessing Allah doesn’t expect to be on a presidential candidate’s staff any time soon.

And Gavin? I hate to break this to you in the same post . . . but Stephen Colbert is not really a hateful right-winger. He’s actually a leftist. He just pretends to be a hateful right-winger.

I don’t mean to deliver all this shocking news all at once, but I saw you drafting up that anti-Colbert post, and I’m just trying to save you from further embarrassment. He’s on your side.

In the future, I’d be a little less apt to jump at tips from The Liberal Avenger.

Good luck reconstructing your reputation as an allegedly savvy, in-the-know type of fella.

P.S. I’m going to wait to tell you about the Jesus’ General guy. There’s only so much shock your system can take in one day.

178 Responses to “Sadly, No! Publishes the Most Clueless Blog Post Ever Written (UPDATE: Make That Two!)”

  1. Obviously he’s satirizing satire itself. Duh!

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  2. Pat:

    When Amanda said the following, do you really think it wasn’t satirical?

    Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

    A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

    Absurd.

    [Who was she “satirizing”? — P]

    Furthermore, how do you think Donohue of the Catholic League would respond to Allah’s satirical prose? What is his satire based on anyway? Hello? You’re aware that he’s writing his satire as “Allah,” right? The whole thing is a mess.

    [You guys really are *this* stupid. I just saw Gavin posted another one of these. All that work he put in to cultivate an image of sophistication, and he might as well be a sub-moron screaming at Colbert on the boob tube for being such a right-wing moron. This is truly amazing to watch. — P]

    The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2)

  3. When Amanda said the following, do you really think it wasn’t satirical?

    There’s a different between being sardonic and using satire.

    Using mockery, hypotheticals and anachronisms isn’t necessarily satire. Satire may use some of same tools, but if you don’t get the difference, there’s a depth issue that can’t be helped.

    jpm100 (851d24)

  4. Should I tell LA about who really leaves his presents under the Christmas tree, or does somebody else want to?

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  5. I like to think that Stephen Colbert is actually the greatest double-bluff in TV: a right-winger character played by a leftist who is really right-leaning but wants to work in Hollywood so has to create this whole facade.

    I have only one “fact” (beyond wishful thinking) for this theory. A few months ago, Colbert was talking about belief statements, and then he recited the Nicean Creed, an Affirmation of Faith in many Christian denominations. He’s recitation was sincere, not parody.

    goddessoftheclassroom (bbd607)

  6. Speaking of the line between parody and reality……

    …some lefties just can’t tell them apart. See Patterico for the details. PS I know when I visit “Landover Baptist Church”, which is not often because that schtick is old after the first time you visit, they’re not real Baptists…….

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  7. The lefties are desperate to find a right-wing blogger with the same level of nastiness as Amanda Marcotte and they just can’t do it. They’ve tried comparing radio show hosts to Amanda but the comparison doesn’t work. Now they are using obvious satire and trying to turn it into serious work. I feel sorry for them in a way, because they are truly desperate not to admit Amanda got bit on the butt by her own attitudes and opinions, not a right-wing hit squad.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  8. They really aren’t all that bright, are they?

    RW (8f8726)

  9. It’s pretty sad when someone puts a parody label on something, in advance, and still some people don’t realize it.

    Of course, we all missed the Parody Notice on Pandagon; maybe if we were registered users.

    Dana (3e4784)

  10. Kind of makes you wonder about why they appropriated the name “the reality-based community” for themselves. :)

    Dana (3e4784)

  11. I’ve done some more reading……they’re dumber than I thought when I posted my previous comment a few minutes ago. I thought they were rather dumb, hence their penchant for needing the gov’t to take care of them, but I was giving them too much credit.

    LA, I feel compelled to tell you that in other news, “it’s raining cats and dogs outside” really doesn’t mean that there are cats and dogs coming from the sky. It means it’s raining rather hard. Water rain.

    RW (8f8726)

  12. [Who was she “satirizing”? — P]

    It was a pun.

    Xrlq (79e3c2)

  13. Oh. I guess you missed the part where we discussed Bryan and Allah’s treatment of ‘satire’ as an excuse.

    …Say, this is getting funny!

    [So because they declared Marcotte’s non-satire to be non-satire, you can declare Allah’s *satire* to be non-satire.

    If your contention is Amanda Marcotte’s writings have always been nothing but a parody of radical feminism, then you’re right: we on the right have been had. It was a damn good parody, and Marcotte got us good.

    Otherwise, I’m compelled to conclude that you just don’t understand the difference between saying something you believe in a sardonic tone, like Marcotte does, and parody/satire, like Allahpundit’s site.

    This is rich. — P]

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  14. Satire as an excuse?

    An excuse for what? You mean like you’re trying to do with Amanda’s upfront hatred?

    Geez, talk about cognitive dissonance! Someone backed up a big truck full of it for the disappointed Leftists.

    Darleen (543cb7)

  15. […] News flash: As duly anticipated (see below), Patterico accuses us of not understanding satire. I predict Gavin will try to recover by claiming that he knew Allah’s post was a parody. But this interpretation reveals Gavin’s post to be utterly incoherent — unless he were truly trying to sell the ludicrous notion that Amanda Marcotte’s ravings on religion were nothing but parody and satire, as she claimed in her weak, mealy-mouthed non-apology apology. […]

    Sadly, No! » We Like The Part About The Jew (d83a19)

  16. “Golly. One imagines that the next notion down the pike is going to be that Allah was merely writing satire. And indeed, normally, wed be down with that. But when you read the Hot Air piece in all its switchbacks and updates, you find that Allah and Bryan have already carefully blocked that exit, doing a #2 woo-woo war dance of outrage over the notion that Amandas writing should be taken at anything but than face value.”

    It’s almost just like the S,N! folks anticipated your complaint.

    [Golly. It’s almost like I anticipated that defense in the post, and pointed out that it makes no sense unless you believe Pandagon is nothing but a giant parody of radical feminism.

    Is that what you believe, my confused friend? If not, then what, precisely. was Marcotte satirizing? — P]

    Jeff Fecke (6a764d)

  17. No, Patterico, they said ‘satire,’ and we said ‘satire.’ You alone are talking about ‘parody.’

    The two are distinct, you know.

    [Who wrote a post (two, actually) trying to compare Allah’s parody with Marcotte’s bitterly expressed but genuinely held beliefs? That would be you.

    Oh, and who has a crew of commenters treating your posts as unveiling Allah’s past anti-religious statements, which thus show his hypocrisy in denouncing Marcotte? Again: you.

    Hey, Gavin! I think I recognize your voice. You’re the guy who calls the Phil Hendrie show to denounce his guests for saying the most OUTRAGEOUS AND WINGNUTTY THINGS EVER! — P]

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  18. Teh stupid! It burns!

    Bat Guano (82dccc)

  19. By the way, your friend Mario Nitrini is over in our comments again looking for you.

    [Ah, good old Mario. Although batshit insane, he’s one of the brighter and more reasonable of the Sadly, No! regulars. Ask him how O.J. is for me. But leave Phil Hendrie’s guests alone, man. — P]

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  20. As a person who has actually been paid to rite funny, allow me: in order for satire or parody to be effective it must be clearly labeled directly on the top of the article/letter/web posting. If you fail to do that a ton of people, some of them very smart, will not “get it” and be either pissed off or concerned.

    It is total bullshit to say after the fact that so-and-so “should have known.” So and so didn’t know because the individual piece was not labeled.
    Period.

    As a personal observation: everyone has a different sense of what is funny and what is not, so when we write for a blog audience composed of every kind of person imaginable, offending people without meaning to do so is a cost of doing business.

    Now a comment on the blog entry itself.
    1. I hardly ever found Allah funny, just a heavy handed propagandist trying to tell jokes.
    2. The following part of this post:
    “I want to make clear that I have nothing against Muslims–or the adherents of any other faith, for that matter–who practice their religion peacefully. This site is intended as a parody of the radical Islamist mindset with which Americans have become only too familiar in the past two years. . . . To those moderate Muslims who read this site, then, I’d ask you to bear in mind that there’s no malice directed here at you or your beliefs, and I apologize if any offense is given. To any radical Muslims who should read this site, I’d ask you to bear in mind that I hope you die soon, and painfully.” If that is what you call informing a reader, I hope you never run afoul of somebody with an attorney who wants to kick ass. That statement is patronizing, deliberate categorizing all Muslims as less than the rest of humanity, and just plain bs to cover up bad taste and bigotry.

    Live view of comment is broken so some syntax and spelling may be incorrect.

    Duke (4ba8d4)

  21. That depends on what your definition of “satire” is.

    G (722480)

  22. Okay Duke, first off, you star off with “in order for satire or parody to be effective it must be clearly labeled directly on the top of the article/letter/web posting.”
    Which I gather you are attempting to defend Marcotte. Now this of course brings up irony. Because you then list Allah’s statement of his parody of a radical islamist.

    “…just plain bs to cover up bad taste and bigotry.”

    Sorry, the above is my favorite part.

    G (722480)

  23. Who wrote a post (two, actually) trying to compare Allah’s parody with Marcotte’s bitterly expressed but genuinely held beliefs? That would be you.

    I not only tried to compare them, I did compare them. You can go see the comparison.

    Allah has bitterly-expressed but genuinely-held beliefs which were, circa 2003, deployed via extremely thin satire.

    As to whether they might be offensive to people’s religious beliefs, I invite you once again to read them. Then we’ll talk about Amanda again.

    Oh, and who has a crew of commenters treating your posts as unveiling Allah’s past anti-religious statements, which thus show his hypocrisy in denouncing Marcotte? Again: you.

    They get it quite well. You continue to pretend not to.

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  24. “If that is what you call informing a reader, I hope you never run afoul of somebody with an attorney who wants to kick ass.”

    Which absolutely begs the question, why hasn’t an atttorney taken Allah to task over the last four years or so that he has been known in the blogosphere?

    If you are going to make a point, at least try to sound like you know what you are talking about.

    Chris (3f23b9)

  25. Why is Gavin trying so hard to prove that Marcotte is not being satirical? The et tu quoque fallacy does actually have some drawbacks. Maybe it’s only that the miserable just want some company, poor things.

    J. Peden (89867d)

  26. The lefties are desperate to find a right-wing blogger with the same level of nastiness as Amanda Marcotte and they just can’t do it.

    The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. LGF. IMAO. Ace of Spades. Seriously, you want me to go on? I honestly can’t believe anybody, even a right-winger, would leave a comment that obtuse — it has to be a joke.

    Doug (521a0c)

  27. “Allah has bitterly-expressed but genuinely-held beliefs which were, circa 2003, deployed via extremely thin satire.”

    Which, if one reads the opinions expressed by radical imams and assorted terrorist groups, wasn’t that far from the mark.

    Regardless, it wasn’t Marcotte’s anti-Catholic screeds that made her infamous after the hire; it was her stated belief that the Duke lacrosse players were racist rapists, and that anyone who supported them was enabling and abetting injustice in the case. She has persisted along this tack of argument despite the very clear misconduct of the prosecuting attorney, the constantly changing story of the stripper, and the lack of DNA evidence.

    Here’s a clue for the finches at Sadly,No—the negative attention Edwards has recieved for hiring Marcotte has very little to do with a few anti-Catholic screeds. It has to do with the fact that a man who is attempting to become the leader of our country, who will be responsible for choosing individuals that will interact with the military and with world leaders on a regular basis, hired a woman to run his blog who is obviously a petty, prejudicial, small-minded person. One who, I might add, has disparaged a large number of residents in his home state on her blog because they didn’t threaten to burn down the state capitol building if the Duke lacrosse players were found innocent. If Edwards can’t exercise the same care and attention to detail in his choice of relatively small things like who he hires to run his website, how can I expect him to competently make more important decisions like Secretary of State or Sec of Defense?

    Oh, and the “Bill Donohue and Allah did these” tu quoque arguments? SO weak–when these individuals are hired by a conservative candidate to run their blog, you might have a point. As it is, you can’t even foment charges of hypocrisy without tripping over your own feet. Please stop embarrassing yourselves.

    Chris (3f23b9)

  28. They honestly think we want to NUKE THE MOON?!?

    I can’t wait for that to become a topic of some Presidential debate.

    What kind of moron hires morons as his PR people?

    Al (2e2489)

  29. I am soooo confused.

    Fans of Marcotte, please help me out: is her oft-expressed loathing of Christians and non-feminists genuine (because she genuinely despises them) or satiric (meaning that perhaps she doesn’t despise them)?

    She finds Christians and non-feminists agreeable?
    She finds Christians and non-feminists despicable?
    Or it’s a mystery!–there’s just no darn way for a reader to tell?

    Regarding Duke’s earlier comment, I’ve written my Congressman in favor of HR 327, which mandates the revision of XHTML to include the [satire] and [/satire] markups. Failure-to-tag will be punishable with not more than 60 days in jail and a fine of not more than $1,000. Is The Onion‘s staff worried? Rightly, So!

    AMac (c822c9)

  30. Mark Steyn
    “Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography — except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out — as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia’s demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.”

    discuss.

    Following the original Times and AP reports on the Edwards controversy — in which Donohue was quoted describing the bloggers as “anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots” — Media Matters for America compiled a list of Donohue’s own “vulgar” and “bigot[ed]” comments: his statement that “[p]eople don’t trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty,” his reference to the “gay death style,” his demand that homosexuals “apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done,” his assertion that Hollywood “is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular,” and his claim that Hollywood “likes anal sex” and “abortions.”

    Furthermore, Media Matters pointed out that Donohue’s outrage over the bloggers’ previous writings on Catholicism appears highly selective. Indeed, Donohue previously chose to dismiss anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of a key GOP operative, Jerome Corsi, in 2004. And following actor Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic comments in 2006, Donohue said of Gibson, “There’s a lot of people who have made comments which are bigoted who are not necessarily bigots.”

    Remember Gibson’s the man married to an Episcopalian whom he loves “she’s a better christian than I am” but whom he thinks is going to hell! “That’s from the Chair [from Papal authority]”

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  31. Never mind what is/n’t parody. Marcotte sells out her encyclopedia of “anti-establishment” screeds the instant she gets a taste of the inside.

    I can’t imagine a more fitting message from a Democratic party candidate.

    Phil (6ae1bd)

  32. I have no clue as to why you think Mel Gibson’s religion is relevant. Though Gibson believes that you must be Catholic to go into heaven. Doesn’t he fail to recognize the past 20 or so Popes?

    G (722480)

  33. Nuke the Moon?

    OMG! Please don;t show them the link to Misha’s place. It might cause them to twist thir panties so tight they ca only be removed with surgery.

    But in a Public Service announcement, let inform the readers of Sadly, No! and Patterico of the following parody/satire sites. (That is, they don’t reflect the true ideas of the people writing them, just a humor filled look st the world.)

    Iowahawk
    Scrappleface
    Allahpundit (Now deceased) (PBUH)
    and thanks to your tireless work:
    Pandagon
    Shakespeare’s Sister

    We all cool with that now?

    MunDane (9babe9)

  34. Nice to see that Mati-pants made the effort to prove my point–that he(or she) can’t make a hypocracy argument without tripping over his (or her) own feet.

    I’m reminded of that video clip of Castro falling off the podium and doing a face-plant on the floor.

    Chris (3f23b9)

  35. Here’s a clue for the finches at Sadly,No—the negative attention Edwards has recieved for hiring Marcotte has very little to do with a few anti-Catholic screeds. It has to do with the fact that a man who is attempting to become the leader of our country, who will be responsible for choosing individuals that will interact with the military and with…

    It has to do with the usual right-wing screamers ginning up their usual outrages-of-the-week, in which they’ll say anything at all in order to get political traction — truth, lies, or the foggy in-between.

    We have very significant differences with Amanda, especially on the Duke case. We’ve had rancorous private disagreements.

    But as soon as you people come in waving your right-wing marching orders, we have no quarter.

    I’m reminded to add that our small list of contributors includes a social conservative and a libertarian. We’re simply tired of it before you are.

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  36. The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. LGF. IMAO. Ace of Spades.

    Out of that list, the Rott is the only one who is genuinely nasty. Even I don’t read him.
    If you think IMAO, LGF, or Ace rises to the level of Marcotte and any dozen other leftard bloggers, you have some seriously thin skin.

    marc (f4ecf6)

  37. I’m reminded to add that our small list of contributors includes a social conservative

    Define “social conservative”.

    marc (f4ecf6)

  38. My friend The Liberal Avenger wrote:

    When Amanda said the following, do you really think it wasn’t satirical?

    Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

    A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

    Absurd.

    Well, being the nice (not to mention obsessive) guy that I am, I decided to read all of Miss Marcotte’s article. And below the stuff above is:

    Remember, the purpose of going over this FAQ sheet point by point is that this is not fringe opinion, this is mainstream Catholic teaching. When we left off, the sheet was going over some tedious and ill-argued theological arguments against birth control. Now we’re at the part that really upset my friend—the part where the actual lies and misdirection come out. . . .

    Catholics aren’t supposed to use birth control except that they are, because not using birth control is fucking stupid. This contradiction is resolved by using a form of birth control that has a high failure rate and is a source of unnecessary tension in relationships.. . .

    And while we’re pulling numbers directly out of our ass, I’ll say that the divorce rate for couples who use NFP might be as high as 94.7%. Why not? Just remember, false witnessing is okay if done in the service of knocking women up against their will. Like it’s perfectly okay to say, “I had a vasectomy years ago, baby,” if you didn’t. God loves that sort of thing, since he’s a sadistic bastard. . . .

    Have to stay unmarried and reap the joys of blissful fornication. I’d feel bad, except for the part where I don’t.

    I guess that the satire part escaped me, too. But I did just check, and the original is still up on Pandagon.

    Dana (3e4784)

  39. Ahem, from my OED (the “New Shorter” edition):

    Satire:

    1.a. A work or composition in prose or verse which (usu. humorously) exposes prevailing vices or follies or ridicules an (esp. prominent) individual; a lampoon; a performance or broadcast of a similar nature…

    1.b. An object, fact, or circumstance that brings ridicule on some person or thing.

    2. A satirical person, a satirist.

    3.a. The branch of literature etc. constituted by satires…

    3.b. The use of sarcasm, irony, ridicule, etc., to expose vice or folly or to lampoon an individual.

    Parody: 1. A prose, verse, or other artistic composition in which the characteristic themes and the style of a particular work, author, etc., are exagerrated or applied to an inappropriate subject, esp. for the purpose of ridicule…

    Words mean things, Patterico.

    You have been saying “satire” when you clearly mean “parody.”

    That is all.

    [Ahem. Gavin M. is the one who compared Marcotte’s writings to a parody. Take your complaint to him. That is all. — P]

    Sean (f5a6ef)

  40. William Donohue:

    “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, and it won’t be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.
    We will launch a nationwide public relations blitz that will be conducted on the pages of the New York Times, as well as in Catholic newspapers and periodicals. It will be on-going, breaking like a wave, starting next week and continuing through 2007. It will be an education campaign, informing the public of what he did today. We will also reach out to our allies in the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities. They worked with us before on many issues, and are sure to do so again. What Edwards did today will not be forgotten.

    “Just imagine if a white guy is performing oral sex on a statue of Martin Luther King with an erection. Do you need to see it to know it’s ugly?”

    Here’s some fun with Donohue on Opie and Anthony on You Tube It makes Opie and Anthony look good!

    The Catholic League for Bigotry and Lies: Want to know a dirty little secret?
    Condoms don’t save lives”

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  41. Our esteemed host wrote:

    If your contention is Amanda Marcotte’s writings have always been nothing but a parody of radical feminism, then you’re right: we on the right have been had. It was a damn good parody, and Marcotte got us good.

    If such contention were true, then a lot more than just those of us on the right (as in correct) side of the political spectrum were had.

    Dana (3e4784)

  42. It would be interesting to see, in late March of 2008 when Senator Edwards withdraws from the nomination contest, whether Miss Marcotte disavows her currently active disavowal of her previous writing.

    Dana (3e4784)

  43. Silly Dana, remember, Pandagon is satire site. Because they said so. And if you don’t beleive them, well you are just a member of the PhalloIndustrial Complex (a Subsidary of KBR and BusHitlerHalliburton Co)

    MunDane (1b070b)

  44. > But as soon as you people come in waving your right-wing marching orders, we have no quarter.

    [sarcasm]
    It’s so nice to have a level-headed discussion with people of differing points of view. It’s a reminder of our shared humanity, and of the importance of working together–since all of us have important goals in common.
    [/sarcasm]

    AMac (c822c9)

  45. Sean,

    Allahpundit, being a satire of Allah, allegedly a person in history, is a satire.

    Pandagon, as she tells us now, is satirizing a radical feminist.

    SO the ‘satire’ tag is being used correctly

    MunDane (1b070b)

  46. Bill Donohue’s Morality

    During the 2004 presidential campaign, George Bush’s Catholic outreach coordinator, 54-year-old Deal Hudson, was outed as a sexual predator for taking advantage of a drunken 18-year old while he was a professor. The National Catholic Reporter reported:
    According to documents obtained by NCR, Hudson invited a vulnerable freshman undergraduate, Cara Poppas, to join a group of older students for a pre-Lenten “Fat Tuesday” night of partying at a Greenwich Village bar. The night concluded after midnight in Hudson’s Fordham office, where he and the drunken 18-year-old exchanged sexual favors. The fallout would force his resignation from a tenured position at the Jesuit school, cost him $30,000, and derail a promising academic career.

    Following the report, Hudson resigned from the Bush campaign, withdrew as a White House adviser, and was forced to step down as publisher of Crisis magazine, a D.C.-based conservative Catholic monthly.

    Yet at least one prominent right-wing figure came to Hudson’s defense: the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, who has spent the last several days calling for the heads of two John Edwards bloggers. Donohue ardently defended Hudson in a statement, even invoking the Virgin Mary in downplaying his sexual assault:

    In a press release, Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, minimized the charges against Hudson and attempted a joke at the Virgin Mary’s expense. “Effective today,” Donohue wrote, his organization had “a new requirement for all future employees: all candidates must show proof of being immaculately conceived, that is, they must demonstrate that they were conceived without sin.”

    The American Spectator reported later, “Responding to complaints, the Catholic League has removed the press release from its website.

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  47. Umm…can I ask which presidential blog this Donohue guys blogs for, because I really want to tell that candidate that he has hired someone with some serious explaining to do.

    What?

    Oh.

    Nevermind.

    MunDane (1b070b)

  48. “It has to do with the usual right-wing screamers ginning up their usual outrages-of-the-week, in which they’ll say anything at all in order to get political traction — truth, lies, or the foggy in-between.”

    If you didn’t think Marcotte’s writing wasn’t going to get attention when she got hired and that Edwards wasn’t going to be subsequently associated with it, you are hopelessly naive to politics in the US for the past 230 years. Please try not to pretend that the people a candidate chooses to hire does not subsequently reflect on the candidate himself–it makes you look silly. It was also naive to think that Marcotte’s writings weren’t going to come to light in this day and age.

    “We have very significant differences with Amanda, especially on the Duke case. We’ve had rancorous private disagreements.

    But as soon as you people come in waving your right-wing marching orders, we have no quarter.”

    In other words, your cynicism and paranoia overrode your principles. It still doesn’t refute my larger point that Edwards showed a lack of judgement in hiring Marcotte when her (non-satirical) writings were easily available, a line of argument you have notably avoided because you either can’t or won’t engage the substance of the problem.

    “I’m reminded to add that our small list of contributors includes a social conservative and a libertarian. We’re simply tired of it before you are.”

    A point which is, of course, completely irrelevant to the larger argument.

    I find it rather amusing that you won’t actually defend the substance of Marcotte’s arguments and their associative effect on the Edwards campaign. Instead, you and her defenders lamely attempt to deflect that central point by either trying to equate arguements of Marcotte’s critics with her own writings( a irrelevant point regardless because these people haven’t been hired by presidential candidates), or arguing that the extremism of her stated opinions didn’t matter once the “evil right-wingers” started criticizing her. Either way, you come across as either intellectually immature or cynically unprincipled.

    Chris (3f23b9)

  49. f you didn’t think Marcotte’s writing wasn’t going to get attention when she got hired and that Edwards wasn’t going to be subsequently associated with it, you are hopelessly naive to politics in the US for the past 230 years. Please try not to pretend that the people a candidate chooses to hire does not subsequently reflect on…

    Hi, I’m looking through a straw. Golly, this small thing actually looks big through this straw which I habitually look through.

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  50. My apologies, marc, I didn’t realize that “The lying criminal whore, Granny Rictus McCadaverImplants” (in reference to Nancy Pelosi) was Ace’s idea of a compliment.

    Seriously, you guys need to get over the idea that you’ve got any kind of superiority to exercise on this “blogosphere incivility” issue. It just makes you look silly.

    Doug (047eb4)

  51. MunDane,

    Read the definitions again. Go buy a dictionary — since you obviously don’t own your own! [HINT: That was satire.] — and try its definitions.

    Allahpundit’s post is a parody of a radical Islamist.

    Parody is one type of satire.

    Other types of satire include sarcasm, irony, and ridicule.

    Amanda was “satirizing” people like Bill Donahue, although she was generally using sarcasm, not parody, to do so.

    This is not complicated unless you’re trying desperately to misunderstand the English language.

    [What you’re missing is that Gavin MacLeod at Sadly, No! is the one who made the inept comparison between the non-parody form of satire and the parody form, causing me to suspect that he doesn’t understand that the parody form is a parody.

    Let’s scrap the semantics and make it simple. Allah did not mean what Gavin quotes him as saying. Marcotte did mean what she has been quoted as saying. There is no valid comparison and anyone who tries to make one looks foolish in the process, as Gavin has here. — P]

    Sean (f5a6ef)

  52. goddessoftheclassroom,
    Colbert is definitely a christian, he even teaches sunday school. I’m pretty sure though that he’s not a conservative (probably demonstrated best in this out-of-character interview).

    Polybius (7cd3c5)

  53. Colbert is Catholic

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  54. “Hi, I’m looking through a straw. Golly, this small thing actually looks big through this straw which I habitually look through.”

    Translation: “I’m completely incapable of establishing a substantive postion that logically supports my argument, so I’m going to pathetically try to disguise it with poorly constructed sarcasm and hope no one notices my intellectual obtuseness.”

    Your demonstrated lack of wit notwithstanding, you still haven’t addressed the larger point. Not surprising, really.

    Chris (3f23b9)

  55. Your demonstrated lack of wit notwithstanding, you still havent addressed the larger point. Not surprising, really.

    Ok, give us an example of a campaign hire that doomed a candidacy, in the last 230 years.

    [Jeopardy theme]

    [Oooooh, oooooh, let me buzz in! What is “unflattering stories about a candidate that appear in the New York Times, Washington Post, and L.A. Times for two days running?”

    I’ll take an albatross around Edwards’s neck for $1000, Alex! — P]

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  56. An easy question:

    Are liberals really that stupid? Or do they understand the difference here perfectly well, and they’re just hiding behind faux stupidity?

    Anyone know? I mean, they do know that Allahpundit isn’t really a radical Islamist … right?

    For God’s sake, nobody point them to that “BlameBush” site. They’ll start crowing about a conservative who hates Bush. Cuz, like, that’s what he wrote.

    Sigh. I don’t even know what’s worse – the stupidity, or the dishonesty?

    Professor Blather (c65bfa)

  57. Stupid Liberal question number two:

    Liberals *do* understand that, even if they can’t grasp parody, that Allahpundit doesn’t actually, like, work for a candidate … right?

    Holy crap. They be stupid.

    Professor Blather (c65bfa)

  58. Professor Blather wins today’s ding-ding-hooray! prize for not reading the linked posts OR the comments.

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  59. “Ok, give us an example of a campaign hire that doomed a candidacy, in the last 230 years.”

    Give me an example of where I said Edwards campaign was “doomed” as a result of this hire.

    You still fail to address the argument, which is that Marcotte’s hiring shows a lack of judgement on Edwards’ part. Go back and try again.

    Chris (3f23b9)

  60. Well, it is quite possible that Amanda Marcotte’s posts on sexual freedom and abortion are satire. Because, to say it kindly, it seems to me that she is in no danger of getting pregnant except through artificial insemination.

    nk (5a2f98)

  61. You still fail to address the argument, which is that Marcottes hiring shows a lack of judgement on Edwards part. Go back and try again.

    Yes, now we’re circling down to the tiny little bits.

    1) ZOMG! Amanda hatez teh Catholics and is Supercrazy1!1!! Malkin has vid! [hat tip: Allah]

    […]

    8) “Marcottes hiring shows a lack of judgement on Edwards part.”

    See, if you’d just said that before…

    [Look out! Gavin’s breaking out the Big Guns: leetspeak and mixing of the number “1” with exclamation points. It’s a “humor” technique used sparingly at S, N! (By sparingly I mean no more than four times per day.) — P]

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  62. I’m even more curious now: is that quirky combination of intellectual dishonesty and a complete lack of a sense of humor just a natural part of liberalism?

    Or do they have to practice?

    Or alternatively, is it just to amuse me personally?

    I do appreciate it, I have to admit. It is endlessly funny.

    I wonder how they’d answer the most basic questions, like:

    1) Yes or no – Marcotte isn’t a big fan of Catholics; versus

    2) Yes or no – Allahpundit isn’t a big fan of Americans.

    I wonder if they’re capable of grasping the actual answers to those questions, and the implications of the answers?

    Or would we just see lots more dancing?

    Ah, screw it. Dance, monkeys, dance. When you grow up, you’ll all be conservatives anyways, and what fun is that?

    [Professor Blather, I see that in the first linked thread, a commenter is responding to you by 1) seriously making the argument that Gavin claims everyone understands is not a serious argument, namely, that Allah means what he said as “Allah”; 2) quoting at length an absolutely riotous passage from Allah’s archives, while showing absolutely no clue that it’s a parody; and, 3) to round things out in classic Sadly, No! style, finishing the comment by saying “Fuck you.”

    If I had deliberately set out to write a parody of a clueless leftist idiot, I could not do any better. — P]

    Professor Blather (c65bfa)

  63. Ok, give us an example of a campaign hire that doomed a candidacy, in the last 230 years.

    Howard Dean.

    kl (15574e)

  64. But as soon as you people come in waving your right-wing marching orders, we have no quarter.

    We’ve been waving the orders for you bottom-feeders to get off your asses & get jobs so that you can take care of yourselves instead of relying on the gov’t for decades…..when you gonna give no quarter on self-reliance? Here, I’ll tweak my nose, as well…or, if that doesn’t work, I’ll say “I got a raise”, which generally pisses off the candy-ass left. Go ahead, ‘have no quarter’ (or dimes, or nickels) & leave me alone.

    BTW, that was satire. However, I hold the option of changing my mind on that should it become necessary & I can find enough idiots to swallow that notion.

    RW (8f8726)

  65. “Yes, now we’re circling down to the tiny little bits.

    1) ZOMG! Amanda hatez teh Catholics and is Supercrazy1!1!! Malkin has vid! [hat tip: Allah]

    […]

    8) “Marcotte’s hiring shows a lack of judgement on Edwards’ part.”

    See, if you’d just said that before…”

    Actually, I’ve been saying that since the beginning. The fact that you’ve repeatedly chosen to ignore it and craft this lame, inaccurate line of argument instead is telling.

    So far, you’ve managed to demonstrate that you are completely incapable of debating the substance of this issue, disguising your weak position with unserious rhetorical irrelevancies and intellectually vapid bumper-sticker sarcasm. Obviously, that isn’t a big deal in the larger scheme of things–no one is going to care tomorrow that we had this little exchange–but it does reveal that some of Marcotte’s defenders haven’t seem to have grown beyond the sandbox.

    If you can actually debate this issue, then by all means have at it, no one is holding you back. But if you are going to relentlessly cleave to the notion that you can continue to make nonsensical, irrelevant arguments and not have anyone laugh at them for their inherent ridiculousness and inconsistencies, we might as well just leave it be and let others determine for themselves who has made the more compelling argument.

    Chris (3f23b9)

  66. No, Patterico, as is frequently the case, you’re wrong.
    There’s a big difference between making racist jokes and saying you’re only joking, as Allahpundit did, and Amanda mocking the Pope. For one, as the right wing in general seems unwilling to accept, it’s not funny to pick on the oppressed. Amanda is mocking the powerful for using their power in stupid ways. Allahpundit was using the extremism of jihadis as an excuse to write racist jokes. It’s the same thing as tongue in cheek racist MLK day parties on southern college campuses. Allahpundit putting on brownface and trying to offend was not comedic, unless you serious mental issues.

    brad (50a72e)

  67. … unless you *have* serious mental issues.
    Amanda was expressing her own sense of outrage. Allahpundit was being a dick for attention. Not surprising many here can’t see the difference.

    [Put simply, Marcotte meant what she said. Allah didn’t. Which is why the Sadly, No! posts are s embarrassing to their author — because he doesn’t appear to appreciate that critical distinction. Which makes him look like a humorless, thick goon. Definitely not his preferred self-image, I guarantee you.

    Gavin, some weird part of me likes you. I implore you: cut your losses and declare these posts you have written a Miserable Failure. It’s okay. A wise man once said, sometimes blog posts just don’t work out. This, my friend, is one of those times. Admit it and move on. — P]

    brad (50a72e)

  68. Oh, according to Sadly, No!

    It is imperative that you read every link, and every single comment before replying to any thread on a blog. Otherwise, you’re just a stupid idiot.

    G (722480)

  69. Honestly, you guys are pathological. You’re suffering from BPD. Where in Chris’ well-articulated argument at #49 does he say anything about a campaign hire dooming a candidacy?

    It’s like your own version of Tourette’s. Or ADD. Let’s try an experiment: Try really hard to address the two points he made, and let’s see what comes out. I’m betting it will be another irrelevancy.

    CraigC (aa6a7c)

  70. Chris #66,

    The starting point for Marcotte and most of her supporters seems to be “We’ll never back down and we’ll never apologize for anything, no matter what!”

    Then they work backwards to the arguments.

    The arguments don’t have to be sensible, logical, or coherent. Who cares about such things in the midst of a ruckus, anyway?

    They just have to be loud. “See! Us moonbats fought those wingnuts to a draw!!”

    AMac (c822c9)

  71. Whoops. Haaaaa. I didn’t notice that the page had been sitting there unrefreshed for a while. “I AM THE KING OF NON-SEQUITURS!!”

    CraigC (aa6a7c)

  72. But as soon as you people come in

    So sayeth the Party of Tolerance and Diversity (as laughable as the Religion of Peace)

    Darleen (543cb7)

  73. Put simply, Marcotte meant what she said. Allah didnt. Which is why the Sadly, No! posts are s embarrassing to their author because he doesnt appear to appreciate that critical distinction. Which makes him look like a humorless, thick goon. Definitely not his preferred self-image, I guarantee you.

    Oh, I think Allah meant what he said in a measurable proportion to Allah and his project. I think it’s vain to argue otherwise.

    [Huh? I tried hard to understand that. If you’re trying to say that Allah really believes that jihadis are intolerant, evil people, I’ll spot you that. And that’s an embarrassing view . . . why? — P]

    Gavin, some weird part of me likes you.

    That’s because I’m great!

    I implore you: cut your losses and declare these posts you have written a Miserable Failure. Its okay. A wise man once said, sometimes blog posts just dont work out. This, my friend, is one of those times. Admit it and move on.

    Honestly, I don’t really dislike you either, because we have a very serious policy regarding public/private (which I think a lot of blogs don’t understand or honor).

    [Don’t say you don’t dislike me out loud, dude. A big chunk of your commentariat seriously despises me. When you call me “the enemy” in a post, I assume you’re being tongue in cheek, at least somewhat. But some of your more rabid followers take that view very much to heart. — P]

    That said, je regrette rien!

    [Not even the part where you look like a humorless boob? — P]

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  74. My apologies, marc, I didn’t realize that “The lying criminal whore, Granny Rictus McCadaverImplants” (in reference to Nancy Pelosi) was Ace’s idea of a compliment.

    As you may or may not know, Ace isn’t running a campaign blog. A presidential candidate who hired him would of course undergo the same scrutiny Edwards is undergoing now, but based on the precedent set this past week, Ace would deserve not to be thrown overboard as ballast no matter what he’d ever blogged, as long as he said, “Just kidding! Sorry if anybody was offended.”

    kl (15574e)

  75. Ok, give us an example of a campaign hire that doomed a candidacy, in the last 230 years.

    John Kerry and everyone else that hired Bob Shrum.

    DRJ (605076)

  76. “Ok, give us an example of a campaign hire that doomed a candidacy, in the last 230 years.”
    “John Kerry and everyone else that hired Bob Shrum.”

    Fucking brilliant!!

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  77. I’m brad, not gavin, Patterico. And not Bradrocket, a different brad. I just frequent SN!, not post there.

    [I know. It just seemed like the appropriate place to say that to Gavin. But I can see why you found it confusing. I’ll try to confine responses specifically to those who made the comment. — P]

    I still think you’re completely wrong. Amanda did not mean it. Read this, please. http://pandagon.net/2006/10/02/wasnt-trying-to-take-a-cheap-shot-though-i-can-see-how-it-came-across-that-way/

    [What does that link have to do with anything we’ve been talking about? Look, she has said many times that the Catholic opposition to abortion is rooted in misogyny — specifically, a desire to punish women for sex. Did she mean that? Of course she did, brad! Come on! Be honest!]

    [Speaking of which, it’s more honest to phrase your complaints here the same way you do on another site — like when you say that “fuckin racist” humor gets my seal of approval. Here, that gets weakened to this: — P]

    Now explain to me why I shouldn’t see Allahpundit’s work as revealing of his real attitudes. Even if it’s ok at a particular moment to say n—-r, if someone takes that license as excuse to shout it from the roof a thousand times, they’re racist, even if they say they’re joking. I don’t believe you can find Allahpundit funny without being biased yourself.

    [That’s because you don’t get the joke. He’s mocking the intolerance of radical terrorist-style Muslims, who stone and even hang people for “offenses” like being gay. He skewers that intolerance with true wit. If you understand it — and you clearly don’t — it’s quite funny at times. — P]

    brad (50a72e)

  78. And because no one will hunt for the relevant quote. Amanda said “And to make this excrutiatingly clear, I don’t think a godbag is just a believer. A godbag is someone who uses god as an excuse to oppress others.” And note the date. 10/06. As in well before Edwards came her way.
    And thanks to ilyka in SN!’s comments for finding the link.

    brad (50a72e)

  79. 1) Another example of a Bad Hire was Elizabeth Ray.

    2) FWIW, I never thought that Allahpundit was speaking for an Muslim, but rather as Allah himself. It is more sacreligious that way.

    3) Still waiting for Allahpundit to get his contract from the Romney campaign. (What a ticket! Muslim/Mormon: All the godbags think us cults!)

    MunDane (9babe9)

  80. My apologies, marc, I didn’t realize that “The lying criminal whore, Granny Rictus McCadaverImplants” (in reference to Nancy Pelosi) was Ace’s idea of a compliment.

    You’re absolutely right, Doug, and I call on the Brownback campaign to immediately dismiss Ace as website blogmaster.

    Oh, wait…

    marc (f4ecf6)

  81. “Oh, I think Allah meant what he said in a measurable proportion to Allah and his project. I think it’s vain to argue otherwise.”

    Oh, no, Gavin, Allah’s is satire about nothing in particular, written for no audience. That way no one can (or should, for purposes of argument) take offense.

    Dolf Fenster (b6d538)

  82. brad

    Who are you trying to convince? IMHO it is yourself, just like the newly converted Ilyka is spinning so hard she’s ramped up her incoherency to 11.

    What those of us that HAVE read St. Amanda on a fairly regular basis know, is that Amanda uses “oppress” to mean anyone that disagrees with her More.Feminist.Than.Thou and says so within her earshot.

    The only “believers” she accepts are those that fall into every other political dogma she emotes and keeps the icky godbothering stuff to themselves.

    Either Amanda never meant a thing of her Feminist schtick and the joke’s on you for believing it all along, or Amanda sold out for the rich southern white boy with the nice hair and the big …. house.

    Amanda is been pwned by The Patriarchy(tm) and y’all are doing what you can to avoid thinking about that little fact.

    Darleen (543cb7)

  83. I might actually be inclined to agree with you, kl, if the media hadn’t summarily ignored numerous intemperate and downside offensive statements made by John McCain’s campaign blogger (sometimes in reference to none other than McCain himself).

    [Except that they didn’t. Greenwald is over there bragging about that right now. — P]

    It also would’ve been nice if the media had bothered to ask why a guy who came right out and said Hollywood is controlled by anal-sex-loving Jews has any right to appoint himself Amanda Marcotte’s judge, jury, and executioner, but I guess that would’ve fudged up their story.

    Doug (521a0c)

  84. Your fans are touchy, Patterico, so I use gentler language here. I like a little back and forth. You realize you’re faulting me for, by your standards, behaving better at your place?
    And no, he’s not mocking intolerance. He’s using someone else’s intolerance as an excuse to vent his own. The things that man wrote are not funny, they’re hateful. It’s not funny to be a bigot and a racist. There’s no insight to be gained from pointing out jihadis are bigots. It goes nowhere. It’s like saying Hitler was bad, without being a comic genius like Mel Brooks to make an actual joke out of it.

    [“Stop chewing on Jesus, you ghoulish fucks”? (I’m quoting from memory so sorry if I got a word wrong.) That is comedy gold.

    I just want people here to clearly understand you essentially called me a racist on the other site, where people will back you up. Care to defend that implication here? — P]

    brad (50a72e)

  85. So, let me make sure I understand the argument at hand:

    1) Sadly, No! says that Allah is a bigot and that, conversely, Marcotte’s bigotry is acceptable.

    2) Patterico says that Allah’s post are satire, and Marcotte’s are not.

    3) Disagreement between the aforementioned parties ensues.

    4) Leviticus stabs himself in the face, exasperated with Sadly, No!’s hair-splitting.

    Marcotte’s bigotry WILL BE EXPOSED over the course of the election. Allah’s won’t, because nobody cares (because he’s not in a position to hurt anyone by proxy).

    Thus, politically, Marcotte’s bigotry matters, and Allah’s doesn’t.

    Is that right, pragmatically?

    [You overlooked one small matter: Allah is not a bigot. When the idiots at his site talk about nuking Mecca, he bans them and ridicules them. Capeesh? — P]

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  86. It also would’ve been nice if the media had bothered to ask why a guy who came right out and said Hollywood is controlled by anal-sex-loving Jews has any right to appoint himself Amanda Marcotte’s judge, jury, and executioner

    What? The First Amendment belongs only to St. Amanda and her acolytes?

    When did she acquire the moral authority that makes her body of past writings out-of-bounds to be quoted by anyone but her faithful devotees?

    The only thing the MSM loves more than carrying water for Dems and leftists is scandal. It brings the ratings and allows them to “tsk, tsk” and pretend to be above it all.

    Darleen (543cb7)

  87. Umm, Darleen? I don’t read pandagon. Nor do I agree with your view of what’s happened, but I expect we’re both shocked by that. I do agree that feminism is sometimes used as an excuse for self-righteousness, but nowhere near as often as superstition, meaning religious belief, or sexism, or racism or….

    brad (50a72e)

  88. “And to make this excrutiatingly clear, I don’t think a godbag is just a believer. A godbag is someone who uses god as an excuse to oppress others.”

    Hey brad, I wonder if she’s ever used “godbag” to describe Muslim terrorists?
    Probably not, even though they fit that description to a T. I guess that’s because Christians don’t have a habit of killing “infidels” and critics. Therefore, they are a “safe” target.

    marc (f4ecf6)

  89. There’s no insight to be gained from pointing out jihadis are bigots.

    Well, considering how many people STILL try downplay Islamists and their ideology, there’s a lot of insight to be gained.

    Darleen (543cb7)

  90. Don’t say you don’t dislike me out loud, dude. A big chunk of your commentariat seriously despises me. When you call me “the enemy” in a post, I assume you’re being tongue in cheek, at least somewhat. But some of your more rabid followers take that view very much to heart.

    I’m not really used to the notion of having ‘rabid followers’ — because teh folks spend the downtime not picking on others in picking on me, Brad, Retardo, and Travis…

    Sadly, No! Research Labs (504bfd)

  91. No, as I said clearly here, I think you’re biased, or rather I think the only explanation for anyone finding Allahpundit funny is bias. Racism, to me, implies hatred, and I’m not accusing you of hating your Other. Instead, you’re afraid and confused and touchy, and you gravitate towards juvenile, biased humor because it reduces that tension for you.

    brad (50a72e)

  92. Umm, Darleen? I don’t read pandagon.

    So I take it your support of Amanda then is based on nothing more than gut feelings?

    Did you ever think it just might be the chili verde didn’t agree with you?

    tool

    Darleen (543cb7)

  93. Retardo

    Don’t you mean “HTML Mencken”?

    *snicker*

    marc (f4ecf6)

  94. I might actually be inclined to agree with you, kl, if the media hadn’t summarily ignored numerous intemperate and downside offensive statements made by John McCain’s campaign blogger (sometimes in reference to none other than McCain himself).

    So why drag Ace into it? I’m not sure what the McCain blogger said (due, no doubt, to the aforementioned press blackout), but wouldn’t that be a better counterexample than combing through the archives of Ace, Allahblog, LGF, Mischa, and all the other right-wing bloggers who will never set foot in the campaign headquarters of any future president? Come on, people, let’s focus.

    kl (15574e)

  95. No, as I said clearly here, I think you’re biased, or rather I think the only explanation for anyone finding Allahpundit funny is bias. Racism, to me, implies hatred, and I’m not accusing you of hating your Other. Instead, you’re afraid and confused and touchy, and you gravitate towards juvenile, biased humor because it reduces that tension for you.

    So, writing a parody song about stoning people of other faiths, colors, creeds is not parody, even when written in the name of the prophet in whose name those people are actually being stoned? (The second “offensive” song posted at Sadly, No! was written when the Nigerian court upheld the stoning-for-adultery sentence on that poor woman)

    That doesn’t make any sense. If one laughts at the ideology of medieval goons who oppress women, one is a racist? Towards which race, exactly? Biased? Against whom? Those who would stone women in the name of allah? Well, ok then.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  96. Darleen, have you ever known a muslim? Genuine question, I’m curious as to how big a group you think “Islamists” are. As for Amanda, I’m defending her, not supporting her. Difference is I’m not arguing she’s right, I’m saying she’s been misunderstood. And that misunderstanding is worth challenging, to me, because it plays on memes which I find utterly wrong.

    brad (50a72e)

  97. Carlitos, what I’m saying is I think Allahpundit takes, took, too much joy in giving voice to the opinions he, probably mostly correctly, put in the mouths of jihadis. The gaybashing, etc, seemed to me to be the real point of the “poems”. Maybe he meant to be funny in the beginning, but something ugly took over and the end result was anything but comedic.
    And I’m not saying comedy has to be warm and fuzzy. But it should have some wit, and Allahpundit doesn’t.

    brad (50a72e)

  98. Brad,

    I like satire in real life but I don’t like satire on the internet because it’s so easily misunderstood. Plus, thanks to archives and caches, it lingers there so it can be misunderstood for eternity. However, you may be onto something with your Hitler-Mel Brooks comment. Parody, satire and wit only work if they are done well.

    Let’s assume that both Amanda Marcotte and Allah use humor, satire and wit to make their points. Many liberals view Pandagon as wit that reveals an underlying truth. Ditto for Allah and some conservatives. I doubt that liberals see the humor in Allah or that conservatives see the humor in Pandagon, in part because they don’t agree with the tone but also because they disagree with the other’s version of underlying truths. The bottom line is that, like a poor imitation of Mel Brooks, neither finds the other to be clever or humorous.

    DRJ (605076)

  99. brad wrote: There’s a big difference between making racist jokes and saying you’re only joking, as Allahpundit did, and Amanda mocking the Pope. For one, as the right wing in general seems unwilling to accept, it’s not funny to pick on the oppressed. Amanda is mocking the powerful for using their power in stupid ways.

    Holy grasping at straws, Batman!

    Yeah, brad, Amanda mocks “the powerful for using their power in stupid ways.” For example, the way she mocked those three powerful Duke students who had the audacity to stupidly use their power to be falsely accused of rape! The net worth of the families of those lacrosse players dwarfed the operating budget of the Durham County DA’s office! Mike Nifong HAD to pretend the evidence supported prosecution! He HAD to lie about his confidence in his witness! He HAD to slander those guys before the entire nation! Dontcha see — it was the only way the poor black stripper could get over on rich white guys who hadn’t done wronged her in any way whatsoever!

    (For the record: That wasn’t really “satire,” it was sarcasm.)

    Allahpundit was using the extremism of jihadis as an excuse to write racist jokes. It’s the same thing as tongue in cheek racist MLK day parties on southern college campuses. Allahpundit putting on brownface and trying to offend was not comedic, unless you [have] serious mental issues.

    I don’t find Allahpundit amusing on his own blog, but do admire his (and also LGF’s) nose for radical Islamism that gets mysteriously filtered out by the likes of Reuters, NYT and AP. And once again, I can say with confidence that no serious GOP candidate would be moronic enough to hire Allahpundit. I would have thought Edwards — one of those guys who chased ambulances in a chauffered limo — was smarter than that, but apparently he’s not. No wonder his constituency didn’t vote for him for Vice President. Think it’s possible they know something the rest of us should?

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  100. “And because no one will hunt for the relevant quote. Amanda said “And to make this excrutiatingly clear, I don’t think a godbag is just a believer. A godbag is someone who uses god as an excuse to oppress others.” And note the date. 10/06. As in well before Edwards came her way.
    And thanks to ilyka in SN!’s comments for finding the link.”

    Oh, okay Brad, thanks for giving me a solid quote to fully know that she isn’t using satire. So godbags = christians = oppressors. Oh, she said that in October? So Edwards’s staff just failed to give a crap about it then?

    G (722480)

  101. Darleen, I would say something like “When you can stop flying off the handle with plucked-out-of-thin-air straw men and act like an adult, you can come back and join the conversation,” but then I’d have to brace myself for the inevitable spittle-launching diatribe about how I’m a godless commie fascist Stalinist Marxist trying to suppress your free speech.

    Doug (521a0c)

  102. That, DRJ, is a fair point. Home crowd jokes and tribal feuds are the nature of blogs. And for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t tell Tom Tancredo or someone like that not to hire Allahpundit as their campaign blogger someday. I’m not big on pc because I think everyone should not just have the right to say what they think but be actively encouraged to, so that the extremists on both sides can be recognized and properly marginalized.

    brad (50a72e)

  103. Wow, G, how do you manage to post comments with that degree of illiteracy.
    It’s like reading a quote where someone says, “I don’t think all germans are nazis” and then yelping about that person calling all germans nazi rapists.
    I know I’m trying to be on better behavior, but go back to elementary school, G, and work on vocab lists. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “words mean things.”

    brad (50a72e)

  104. Yes, Amanda, just like everyone else in the United States, was wrong about the Duke case. And yes, her biases undeniably played into her reaction to its mistaken coverage. Since I don’t read pandagon, I can’t say whether she recognized that and did some appropriate soul-searching afterwards. But the facts seemed clear, and not in a everyone said Saddam had WMD way. Is a conservative really going to fault her for assuming the prosecutor wasn’t manufacturing a case almost out of thin air?

    brad (50a72e)

  105. Simple. Due to the fact that people seem to be defending Amanda for her comments, calling her posts “satire” whereas that is clearly not the case, I just figured I’d try to stupify their “satire” argument. Perhaps it sounded better in my head at the time, but seriously, we all know that godbags are a reference to religious er… Christian groups that she doesn’t like. Cheers man.

    G (722480)

  106. William Donohue:
    Want To Know a Dirty Little Secret?
    CONDOMS DON’T SAVE LIVES

    Actual doctors: Yes They DO

    Rosana Soares Ribeiro, the coordinator of a Catholic-run AIDS orphanage in São Paulo, says she feels that it’s more important to save lives than to obey church rules. So she tells the H.I.V.-positive teenagers in her care to use condoms when they have sexual relationships.

    “My life belongs to God, and God would not want me to allow somebody to be infected with the virus,” she said. “So God will forgive my violation of church rules.”

    The countries that have been most successful in controlling AIDS, such as Thailand, Brazil, Uganda and Cambodia, have all relied in part on condoms to reduce transmission.

    The Vatican has horribly undercut the war against AIDS in two ways. First, it has tried to prevent Catholic clinics, charities and churches from giving out condoms or encouraging their use. Second, it argues loudly that condoms don’t protect against H.I.V., thus discouraging their use.

    In El Salvador, the church helped push through a law requiring condom packages to carry a warning label that they do not protect against AIDS. Since fewer than 4 percent of Salvadoran couples use condoms the first time they have sex, the result will be more funerals.

    Fortunately, the Vatican’s policies are routinely breached by those charged with carrying them out. In rural Guatemala, I’ve met Maryknoll sisters who counsel prostitutes to use condoms. In El Salvador, I talked to doctors in a Catholic clinic who explain to patients how condoms can protect against AIDS. In Zimbabwe, I visited a Catholic charity that gave out condoms – until the bishop found out.

    Now I know Darleen that we’ve had a few fights, and that every time I bring up facts you scurry away, but let’s be clear since you spend most of your time in this shit-hole defending bigots and your own bigotry (beginning with Palestinians of course): I have nothing but respect for Rosana Soares Ribeiro, nd at the same time I feel perfectly willing to say Fuck the Pope.
    Am I a bigot for not liking Bull Connor, F.W. de Klerk, Strom Thurmond or Ratzinger, or their idea of religion? To you maybe. And maybe to enough people that I would never be hired to work in a position of any importance, even for a democratic candidate in this fucking country. But PLEASE no moralizing from the likes of you or Patterico or Ace or Blackfive. Please, god no.
    It’s pathetic.

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  107. Carlitos, what I’m saying is I think Allahpundit takes, took, too much joy in giving voice to the opinions he, probably mostly correctly, put in the mouths of jihadis. The gaybashing, etc, seemed to me to be the real point of the “poems”. Maybe he meant to be funny in the beginning, but something ugly took over and the end result was anything but comedic.

    Fair enough. At least we agree he was doing satire, as his prominent disclaimer indicated on the front page for the entire life of the site. In my opinion, if you read the site, there is no way you’d accuse this guy of racism or bias against any group outside of jihadi muslims, but that is moot now anyway.

    Amanda, not so much. It really reads like hate when you write the things she write, in the tone she wrote them. Equating parental notification with “legalized daughter rape and impregnation” is just not rational. Adding the vulgarity, blasphemy and spittle makes it clear that it’s just unchecked hate. Which seems to flow, unchecked against anyone who believes in God (mythology!) or the traditional family (patriarchy!) Too many years of navel-gazing and preaching to the choir have her mistaking bigotry with speaking “truth to power.”

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  108. “Yes, Amanda, just like everyone else in the United States, was wrong about the Duke case. And yes, her biases undeniably played into her reaction to its mistaken coverage.”

    Hmm… Amanda, like everyone else in the United States many liberals, forget that in the United States we are innocent until proven guilty.

    “Is a conservative really going to fault her for assuming the prosecutor wasn’t manufacturing a case almost out of thin air?”

    Again, innocent until proven guilty. I first was suspicious of that case when they had proof that one of the accused wasn’t even there, that should at least make someone sceptical of the accusers claims.

    G (722480)

  109. But PLEASE no moralizing from the likes of you or Patterico or Ace or Blackfive. Please, god no.
    It’s pathetic.

    Lessons on “pathetic” from someone who writes “F— the Pope.” Pot, meet kettle.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  110. Not that it matters, but to respond to Smithee, I’m not an Edwards supporter. Partially because the ticket in 04 should be lumped in with Dukakis as case studies in how to lose when you should win, partially because how Edwards fired them then didn’t , partially because I think Obama has the highest ceiling of potential achievement of any of the candidates.
    I didn’t pay attention to the Duke case, G. I saw headlines and didn’t read the articles. Unfortunate as the situation was for the jocks involved, it was one rape case in a state a couple hundred miles from me. I tend to ignore that type of story as a distraction from the real news.

    brad (50a72e)

  111. PS, Trippi was another bad hire :)

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  112. “Hmm… Amanda, like everyone else in the United States many liberals, forget that in the United States we are innocent until proven guilty.”

    There’s been an epidemic of such logic in this country recently, and on this site as well; but in this case and about Marcotte, you’re absolutely right,

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  113. “And because no one will hunt for the relevant quote. Amanda said “And to make this excrutiatingly clear, I don’t think a godbag is just a believer. A godbag is someone who uses god as an excuse to oppress others.”

    And what, pray tell, Brad, defines this “oppression”? I only ask because the lefty threshold for what constitutes “oppression” usually seems a smidge low.

    Moving on….what precisely does the sputterings of Bill Donohue have to do with anything in particular. Which campaign is Bill Donohue working for? Oh, right, he’s not. He’s the mouthpiece for an organization with a very specific politcal agenda to push. So take issue with his comments all you want. I don’t think anyone here has a stake in defending him. And had Marcotte remained an obscure (to me, anyway) blogger, I really wouldn’t waste a thought on her. But Edwards’s hiring of her thrusts into a level of scrutiny (and rightly so) that she apparently wasn’t quite ready for. Regardless of how much I enjoy reading reading Ace of Spades, were, say, Mitt Romney to hire him as a campaign blogger, I’d consider that to be terrible judgement on his part and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least at the firestorm that would surely follow.

    BTW, what was being satirized in her absurd comments about the Duke lax case?

    Greg (80b923)

  114. Brad,
    Honestly, I didn’t really pay much attention to the Duke rape case either, except that it was always covered everywhere, so I’d have to plug my ears and close my eyes to not be aware of it. Anyway, I like Obama, he seems like a great person, though I fail to see why he’s “such a great leader” (not your words, or anybody elses, just so much media hype) I personally feel, that Gore has the best chance at winning in 08.

    G (722480)

  115. I just wanted to say that I am now an L.N. Smithee fan.

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  116. Greg, Donohue has been all over the news speaking specifically about this fiasco. He’s been quoted as a moral authority. That he’s not much of one is only beginning to hit the MSM over the past day or so.

    As to oppression read my links above. And of course, in this country we could run down a list, but none so extreme as El Salvador and Guatemala

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  117. You’re asking rhetorical questions, Greg. Amanda is not a full-time satirist. She used words to express a sense of outrage. Debate the validity of the outrage, fine. To repeat myself, to defend her on this occasion is not to endorse everything she’s ever said, and in fact I don’t read her blog. The greater point is many on the right are trying to give her crap and call her unhinged for letting passion inflect her work, which is, pardon my french, utter bullshit. If she didn’t care about what she writes about she wouldn’t have a blog in the first place.

    brad (50a72e)

  118. “I just wanted to say that I am now an L.N. Smithee fan.
    Comment by Jim Treacher — 2/9/2007 @ 2:57 pm”

    So the two of you either think that condoms don’t save lives or you belive in the need to lie about the fact that they do.
    One is irrational, the other immoral.

    Your choice

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  119. “Greg, Donohue has been all over the news speaking specifically about this fiasco.”

    Right, I get that. As I said, he’s the mouthpiece for an advocacy group with an ax to grind. Like I said….so what? His comments are completely irrelevant to the core of this argument. In other words, what Donohue has to say has nothing to do with Marcotte’s “satire”

    See, let me provide an illustration. I *could* draw attention to the tiresome double standard leftists have for what they consider religious oppression as they rail against the Pope for not distributing condoms across the world, but consistently ignore, excuse, or applaud the demented ranting of Muslim “holy men”. Perhaps this has something to do with the curious lack of Catholic lunatics strapping plastic explosives to their bodies.

    Greg (80b923)

  120. So the two of you either think that condoms don’t save lives or you belive in the need to lie about the fact that they do.

    Please pass the ketchup, I think it’s going to rain!

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  121. Forgot to add ” ….but that would be off-topic in discussing this particular issue”

    Greg (80b923)

  122. All this on condoms saving lives…. lets see here… is sex with a condom safe sex???

    Anyway, my personal opinion on that subject, is that responsibility saves lives, not the tool. Perhaps I’m going back to elementary school by saying this, but a condom no more saves a life, then a gun kills a person.

    Its the responsibility of the person who utilizes the tool. Look, i’m not catholic, and I honestly don’t really care whatever this Donahue has to say. But as I see it, people shouldn’t be told that wearing a condom is total safety from all STDs, pregnancies, and HIV, because it isn’t.

    G (722480)

  123. Oh, and as for who’s an oppressor, if I have to answer for her I can only give my own understanding.
    Theocrats. People who believe the 10 Commandments are the basis of our legal system, as if symbols of other religions were illegal or murder weren’t recognized as bad until Moses came down the mountain, and want to use their own limited and arguably poor understanding of Christianity as the basis for pretty much everything. The folk who deny evolution and take over school boards. People who want to force others to obey the dictates of their own religious and moral beliefs. Perhaps Amanda and some others have overstated the role of these folk, some here will probably go so far as to argue I’m talking about a stereotype that doesn’t exist. To them I say, please visit Florida.
    The mainland, in the north, away from the touristy parts.

    brad (50a72e)

  124. Anyway, to sum up – what’s relevant here isn’t Marcotte’s rabidity, because rabid lefty (and righty) bloggers are a dime a dozen. The point here is that the Edwards campaign has chosen to hire such a person. As Patterico and others have said, fine. The man’s free to hire whoever he wants. But hey, don’t step into that kitchen as if you don’t know that it’s going to be mighty warm in there. And as I admitted, the same would be true of any Republican who hired someone like Ann Coulter, who would outrage whatever multitudes there are who she offends. Trying to sugarcoat her writings and shrug off the heat thus generated is either sadly naive or plainly dishonest.

    Greg (80b923)

  125. Oh wait, are you trying to say I’m totally in love with William Donohue and think he’s awesome? Then please don’t read this.

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  126. brad: …I think Obama has the highest ceiling of potential achievement of any of the candidates.

    Based on what, exactly? Personal charisma? Being a good memoirist?

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  127. but Stephen Colbert is not really a hateful right-winger. Hes actually a leftist. He just pretends to be a hateful right-winger.

    A hint: Stephen Colbert doesn’t pretend to be a hateful right-winger. He pretends to be an idiotic, ignorant, pompous and extremely good-natured right-winger. That’s actually the beauty of his act. You either never watched Colbert or didn’t put thought in these words.

    [Indeed, I have hardly watched him at all. I meant hateful in the sense that lefties would find hateful someone who actually holds his positions. — P]

    NN (f82c0b)

  128. “To them I say, please visit Florida.
    The mainland, in the north, away from the touristy parts. ”

    Ummm, I live 20 minutes from Pensacola. What’s your point? That there are a lot of (in my opinion) seriously overboard Christians around here? Duly noted. Does that have any appreciable impact on my daily life? No, not really. There are the occasional kids who run around the boardwark area at the beach on Saturday nights in pointless attempts to preach to drunk people exiting the bars, and there’s that nut dressed as Moses sometimes on the three mile bridge to Gulf Breeze. If that’s your definition of oppression, I trust then that you’re a real stalwart in seeking to root out and destroy radical Islam, because they tend to do a bit more than hang out on street corners with a “ABORTION IS MURDER” sign.

    Greg (80b923)

  129. “but consistently ignore, excuse, or applaud the demented ranting of Muslim “holy men”. ”
    Who’s doing that? Reference please.

    However, who’s doing this?

    “In El Salvador, the church helped push through a law requiring condom packages to carry a warning label that they do not protect against AIDS. Since fewer than 4 percent of Salvadoran couples use condoms the first time they have sex, the result will be more funerals.”

    If you want to make an argument you need to be logical. So far you’re not meeting that standard.

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  130. Greg at 125.
    I’ve made the same point elsewhere. No argument from me.
    But the heat, such as it is, is mostly hypocrisy.

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  131. ““but consistently ignore, excuse, or applaud the demented ranting of Muslim “holy men”. ”
    Who’s doing that? Reference please.”

    Hoooooo boy…..do you ever find that it gets hot down there, with your head packed so deeply into the sand? I don’t have time for a comprehensive list-but then, the list would be so long that who would? Does the name Khamenei sound familiar? Or perhaps someone less visible, like Sheik Taj din al-Hilali?

    You can deny reality all you want. It doesn’t mean that they’re not out there

    Greg (80b923)

  132. Hypocrisy? On whose part? Donohue? Fine, he’s a hypocrite. Is he the only person who thought Marcotte’s comments were out of line? Or is it that since he’s a hypocrite, and he was offended, therefore that invalidates the fact that many more people who are far less of a political hack than Donohue find Marcotte to be a repellant figure.

    Greg (80b923)

  133. Do I defend Khamenei? No. Why should I? He’s a smart corrupt cynic, like others. Are you trying to get me into an Iran vs Israel debate? I won’t do that here. I only do that with zionists on liberal blogs. They’re bad enough and you know less about Iran then they do. But al-Hilali sounds like a piece of work.

    Here’s all I’ll offer:
    Ilan Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
    and
    The Jews of Iran. They don’t want to leave. They’re Iranian and proud of it.

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  134. Hoooooo boy…..do you ever find that it gets hot down there, with your head packed so deeply into the sand? I don’t have time for a comprehensive list-but then, the list would be so long that who would? Does the name Khamenei sound familiar? Or perhaps someone less visible, like Sheik Taj din al-Hilali?

    The question was not about existence of Islam freaks out there, but about people defending them.
    So far, there’s not many clear examples of such behavior, with the significant exceptions of Dinesn D’Souza and George Bush Jr. with his friendship with Fatah and Saudis and Pakistan and with his respect to Al-Hakim the successor of Al-Hakim the crazy.

    NN (9c16c2)

  135. Yes, Amanda, just like everyone else in the United States, was wrong about the Duke case. And yes, her biases undeniably played into her reaction to its mistaken coverage. Since I don’t read pandagon, I can’t say whether she recognized that and did some appropriate soul-searching afterwards. But the facts seemed clear, and not in a everyone said Saddam had WMD way. Is a conservative really going to fault her for assuming the prosecutor wasn’t manufacturing a case almost out of thin air?

    Then you also admit that you didn’t really follow the Duke “rape” case.

    Come on, brad, at least think to yourself before you also disqualify yourself in print here from speaking to anyone else about these matters, even including your statement that Amanda is “biased”, and your own obviously biased speculation about conservatives.

    Otherwise, you will seem to speak from bias alone.

    J. Peden (3a32d9)

  136. brad

    Darleen, have you ever known a muslim? Genuine question

    Genuinely, yes. Many more than one. For example, I served on a PTA board with a lovely American convert who wore the hajib. And the high school my daughters attended has a Muslim student association… with a mixture of clothing styles but obviously fairly moderate since it’s coed.

    Islamists are, indeed, only a minority of worldwide members of Islam. But they are not being reigned in, or effectively criticized and stopped by moderate Muslims. To look at the actions of the terrorist frontgroup CAIR in the United States who advertise loudly that they are “moderate” is to see a group that spends its time trying to intimidate or sue anyone that says anything “offensive” about ANY Muslim under ANY circumstance.

    And can we get away the idea that being anti-jihadist is racist? Islamism is a hateful ideology, a death cult, and as insidious as fascism and communism was of the last century.

    Were anti-fascists racists against Germans and Italians?

    Darleen (543cb7)

  137. Let’s scrap the semantics and make it simple. Allah did not mean what Gavin quotes him as saying. Marcotte did mean what she has been quoted as saying.

    As far as I understand, the Marcotte’s post that is seen as the most offensive one about “Immaculate conception”. Now, let’s check if what you say is true:

    Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

    A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

    It’s obvious that she really thinks that the concept of the “Immaculate conception” is an ancient mythology. Do you really consider not taking “Immaculate conception” seriously offensive? What other religious dogma do you want everyone to take seriously? The story of Sodom and Gomorrah? The Deluge? The tree of Knowledge? The creation of Eve from the rib? The Seven Days? Jonah’s Whale?
    I’m sorry, but that’s all just it, ancient mythology, not much different from Greek, Roman, Hindu or African mythology. That’s the most reasonable way to consider those stories. You’re free to believe in those mythologies personally (although mane serious believers consider them as symbols), of course , but you can’t impose them on others.

    Now, the real Marcotte’s offense, unless you’re Young Earth crazy, was in her blasphemy about “hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit”. Does she believe that Mary was filled with “hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit”? No, of course, she doesn’t. Does she believe that Christians believe in this? No, of course she doesn’t. Her offense here is insulting language, the same thing that Allahpundit is partly guilty of. Case (this case) closed.

    NN (9c16c2)

  138. Here’s all I’ll offer:
    Ilan Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
    and
    The Jews of Iran. They don’t want to leave. They’re Iranian and proud of it.

    For a critique of revisionist historians such as Pappe see
    Anita Shapira’s article.

    In 1948 Iran’s Jewish community was an estimated 100,000 in 2004 it was 25,000.

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  139. In 1948 Iran’s Jewish community was an estimated 100,000 in 2004 it was 25,000

    So what? They moved to Israel, not because they were persecuted in Iran, but because they wanted to go to Israel. 25.000 is still a lot — more than in any other Middle East country, as far as I know.
    This is not to say that the propaganda about happy life of Jews in Iran is true, of course. But the propaganda comparing Jewish plight in Iran to Nazi Germany is not true, either.

    NN (d035f8)

  140. NN:

    Case (this case) closed.

    No, case back to ground zero all over again.

    J. Peden (3a32d9)

  141. It’s hard to disagree with NN. We’re granting Ms. Marcotte too much dignity by taking her seriously. Just a potty-mouth cuckoo, fantasizing about sexual escapades and pregnancies that she is unlikely to experience, mouthing off about beliefs and moral values way above her simian mentality’s ability to grasp.

    nk (41da82)

  142. I can’t believe brad tried to defend Amanda without ever reading her site. I’ve read her site nearly every day for months now (she’s such great fodder for my own blog) and I can tell you that there’s nothing satirical about her overheated rhetoric about Catholics, Christians, pro-lifers, Republicans, stay-at-home moms, or anything else. And she never repudiated her claims about the Duke lacrosse case. If anything, she wound up trying to say that they were still guilty because of “white patriarchy.” So, they were guilty of institutional rape as opposed to the personal kind.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  143. And can we get away the idea that being anti-jihadist is racist? Islamism is a hateful ideology, a death cult, and as insidious as fascism and communism was of the last century.

    Wrong. Islamism means merely political Islam. Some branches of it are really “deathcultish”, but not many. Even “Hezbollah” made a conscious choice not to engage in suicide bombings anymore. The ruling parties in Afghanistan that US supports are all Islamist. Most of the parties in Iraq are Islamist. Sure, mixing religion with politics is never good, and the dark side of Islamism is hard not to notice in the case of Iraq, but there’s nothing in the definition of Islamism that says “death cult”.
    In fact, the objective reality of many Middle East countries means that Islamism is the only tangible force for the progress there. The tyrant would have less reservations shutting down an opposition newspaper than closing a mosque with its regular meetings, which means that most of the dissent is naturally pushed into religion.

    NN (9c16c2)

  144. Please explain
    “Suddenly an argument raged over the true nature of what Israelis call the War of Independence, or what Palestinians call al-naqba or the Catastrophe, or what historians call, more neutrally[?], the 1948 war.”

    And while you’re at it please explain why I have a “right of return” to land that no member of my family has ever lived on and how that right supersedes the right of people to remain on thee land they and their family lived on for generations

    JERUSALEM, Feb. 7 — A group of prominent Israeli Arabs has called on Israel to stop defining itself as a Jewish state and become a “consensual democracy for both Arabs and Jews,” prompting consternation and debate across the country.
    Their contention is part of “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel,” a report published in December under the auspices of the Committee of Arab Mayors in Israel, which represents the country’s 1.3 million Arab citizens, about a fifth of the population. Some 40 well-known academics and activists took part.
    They call on the state to recognize Israeli Arab citizens as an indigenous group with collective rights, saying Israel inherently discriminates against non-Jewish citizens in its symbols of state, some core laws, and budget and land allocations.
    The authors propose a form of government, “consensual democracy,” akin to the Belgian model for Flemish- and French-speakers, involving proportional representation and power-sharing in a central government and autonomy for the Arab community in areas like education, culture and religious affairs.
    The document does not deal with the question of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where an additional three million Palestinians live under Israeli occupation without Israeli citizenship. The aim of the declaration is to reshape the future of Israel itself.
    The reaction of Jewish Israelis has ranged from some understanding to a more widespread response, indignation. Even among the center-left, where concern for civil rights is common, some have condemned the document as disturbing and harmful. On the right, Israeli Arabs have been accused of constituting a “fifth column,” a demographic and strategic threat to the survival of the state.

    Please explain why I should defend policies that in Germany, France, England and the rest of Europe would be the policies of the hard right and neo-fascists. The United States is a multiethnic democracy as are all modern countries after the last century of displacement and immigration. Should the German born man of Turkish descent not be a citizen of Germany and have all the rights of citizenship? Or should “race” supersede democracy? A white homeland in the desert? Maybe the white South Africans can come too.

    The review of Pappe is pathetic. Morris has not mellowed! What a fucking joke

    if he [Ben-Gurion] was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country – the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.

    The link is to Baruch Kimmerling. Read the whole thing. And I almost forgot Here’s Morris from two weeks ago!. Out of his fucking mind!

    And on Iran, since you won’t quote the article I linked to I’ll have to do it myself

    Mr Ahmedinejad has repeatedly used rabid anti-Israeli rhetoric – slogans like “wipe Israel off the map” – and most controversially he has questioned the number killed in the Holocaust during World War II.
    Mr Mohtamed has been outspoken in his condemnation of the president’s views – in itself a sign that there is some space for Jews in Iran to express themselves.
    “It’s very regrettable to see a horrible tragedy so far reaching as the Holocaust being denied … it was a very big insult to Jews all around the world,” says Mr Mohtamed, who has also strongly condemned the exhibition of cartoons about the Holocaust organized by an Iranian newspaper owned by the Tehran municipality.
    Despite the offense Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has caused to Jews around the world, his office recently donated money for Tehran’s Jewish hospital.
    It is one of only four Jewish charity hospitals worldwide and is funded with money from the Jewish diaspora – something remarkable in Iran where even local aid organizations have difficulty receiving funds from abroad for fear of being accused of being foreign agents.
    Most of the patients and staff are Muslim these days, but director Ciamak Morsathegh is Jewish.
    “Anti-Semitism is not an eastern phenomenon, it’s not an Islamic or Iranian phenomenon – anti-Semitism is a European phenomenon,” he says, arguing that Jews in Iran even in their worst days never suffered as much as they did in Europe.

    …Gone are the early days of the Iranian revolution when Jews – and many Muslims – found it hard to get passports to travel abroad.
    “In the last five years the government has allowed Iranian Jews to go to Israel freely, meet their families and when they come back they face no problems,” says Mr Mohtamed.
    He says there is also a way for Iranian Jews who emigrated to Israel decades ago to return to Iran and see their families.
    “They can now go to the Iranian consul general in Istanbul and get Iranian identity documents and freely come to Iran,” he says.
    The exodus of Jews from Iran seems to have slowed down – the first wave was in the 1950s and the second was in the wake of the Iranian Revolution.
    Those Jews who remain in Iran seem to have made a conscious decision to stay put.
    “We are Iranian and we have been living in Iran for more than 3,000 years,” says the Jewish hospital director Ciamak Morsathegh.
    “I am not going to leave – I will stay in Iran under any conditions,” he declares.

    No, it’s not easy being an Iranian Jew. But I’d rather be a Jew in Tehran than a Palestinian on the West Bank. You defend racism. When I’m in a bad mood I might almost claim that I have a right to return to my great grandfather’s home in Poznan, but someone else lives there now, and I have no right to kick him out. It wouldn’t be fair at this point. But you claim I have a right to kick a man out of the house he was born in, because my ancestors lived in the area 2000 years ago.
    And you call this justice.

    Ilan Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
    And read Baruch Kimmerling on Benny Morris

    I am done now. I said I wouldn’t do it but I did it anyway. Maybe somebody’s learned something.

    Mati Klarwein (0f1252)

  145. Regarding a hire on to a ticket that was seen as a liability, I think it was in Roosevelt’s fourth run that he dumped a known communist as his VP in favor of Harry Truman. The Dem party bosses were convinced that FDR wouldn’t survive his fourth term, and threatened him with a split ticket if he didn’t take Truman instead of Wilson.

    papertiger (778e22)

  146. That tangible force for the progress is being upheld by SFstateuniversity at the expense of freedom of speech. Insulting Allah Now a Crime at SFSU
    Too bad they weren’t calling Catholics godbags or something…

    papertiger (778e22)

  147. Right after Friday prayers, hundreds of Palestinians rioted at the site of the Temple Mount this morning:Clashes at Jewish-Muslim Holy Site in Jerusalem.
    Seems these progressives are upset about a archelogical dig.

    papertiger (778e22)

  148. [Indeed, I have hardly watched him at all. I meant hateful in the sense that lefties would find hateful someone who actually holds his positions. — P]

    this is embarassing, even for you P.

    [This comment is incoherent even for you K. — P]

    kathleen (2a913b)

  149. Hey, while we have you here, Kathleen, how do you feel about Gavin insinuating that Malkin & Co. get undisclosed money from a foundation — even though he has no evidence of it?

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  150. Actually, screw “insinuating.” He flat-out said it on Hot Air, using the thinly disguised pseudonym Sal Leno.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  151. I get the impression that Gavin was upset over the drubbing he took from this post, and was looking to get even with someone. So he went and told a few lies at Hot Air and his own blog, and that made him feel better.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  152. Maybe somebody’s learned something.

    Yep: Just scroll down.

    Jim Treacher (15574e)

  153. Please explain . . .

    I don’t intend to turn this into a discussion about Israel. Nor do intend to convince you of anything. I cited an article that critiques the revisionists. Let those who are interested read it and the one you have cited and make up their own minds.

    It’s noble of you living in the US to sneer at the right of return. Possibly if you lived in France, you might look on it differently.

    Those Jews who exercise that right can not displace citizens of Israel from their homes be those Israeli citizens Arab Christians, Arab Muslims or Jews.

    As to the “freedom” of Iranian Jews to travel to and from Israel, your article neglects to say that they can travel to Israel provided members of their family remain in Iran during the visit.

    “We are Iranian and we have been living in Iran for more than 3,000 years,” says the Jewish hospital director Ciamak Morsathegh.
    “I am not going to leave – I will stay in Iran under any conditions,” he declares.

    Suppose he had said he and his family wanted to leave what do you think would happen to him?

    No, it’s not easy being an Iranian Jew. But I’d rather be a Jew in Tehran than a Palestinian on the West Bank.

    I agree. That is due to the enlightened rule in the West Bank and Gaza of Hamas and Fatah.

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  154. “That is due to the enlightened rule in the West Bank and Gaza of Hamas and Fatah.”

    40 years of military occupation.

    AF (0f1252)

  155. I agree. That is due to the enlightened rule in the West Bank and Gaza of Hamas and Fatah.

    Nonsense. The military occupation lasted for some 40 years now. All the terrorist acts of Hamas and Fatah killed some 1.500 Israeli lives combined. Pretty benign, yeah? It’s like the number of innocent civilians that the “good guys” that George Bush invites to the White House kill in Iraq in a couple of months.
    What kind of enlightened rule do you expect in a place where most of the people never saw freedom in their lives? Of course, now there’s practically no one to to talk to in Palestine, but Israel kinda asked for it, didn’t it? The apartheid is not a slanderous speculation, but a correct description of the Palestine.
    Israel had 40 years to solve this situation, but it didn’t. The Oslo accords, which were an answer to the first violent uprising (20 years into the occupation!), were followed by increased rate of settling in the occupied territories. The Israeli policy before the first intifada was supporting Hamas in order to somehow solve PLO problem. Sure, the Palestine problem has now probably crossed the point of no return, and it will possibly lead to the end of the world as well, but Israelis have nobody but themselves to blame. Israel is good cop / bad cop country, and the bad cop is crazy enough to screw the good cop.
    To blame Hamas and Fatah for everything is the “present time” fallacy. “Don’t ask how we got into Iraq, think about what to do now”. “Never ask how they got there, just look at Hamas: they are pure evil”.
    “If only Palestinians had a courtesy of having someone like Gandhi to lead the resistance, we would gladly speak to them!” Nonsense! If there was Gandhi (who was a human scum to Churchill, BTW) in Palestine, he would be just squashed. A natural selection, you know. In 40 years of occupation you will have only bad guys to deal with, that’s just the way it goes.
    To blame everything on the evil Hamas is just the Bush logic: 1) Make everything as bad as possible, 2) Say: “sure, what I do is pretty delusional, but you don’t know what to do either”.
    Just like he did in Iran: refuse the peace talks, screw the moderates, let them be squashed by the hardliners domestically, wait until they have a genuine madman as a leader — now let’s play the doomsday game again.

    NN (f82c0b)

  156. So, first we had

    * surprise that a major presidential hopeful would hire as blogmaster someone that has a record they were trying to erase of years of ranting and raving in the most bigoted, racist and sexist manner.

    then we got

    * assertion that all that was actually a joke and she never really meant any of it

    and now we are getting

    * there are people on the right that actually have written (some of it lame) humor that could, to some, be compared.

    What seems missing is that whether you think anyone else’s writing is comparable to Marcotte’s or not, they haven’t been hired to publicly represent a major presidential candidate.

    Frankly I was shocked when I read some of the stuff Marcotte had written when this all started. It clearly was not satire. It was foul, racist, sexist and astonishingly prolific. Then to sit back and watch “liberal” folk defend that bigoted, racist nonsense…well that was just sad.

    Here’s a Clue: bigots, sexists and racists are not liberals.

    All you people that are defending Marcotte are not defending a liberal. There is nothing liberal about her hate for others.

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  157. Fascinating how “Marcotte offends Catholics” devolves into more tired blather about Palestinians Arabs. Talk about wasted breath……

    Greg (c612d6)

  158. 40 years of military occupation.

    The military occupation is the consequence of Jordan’s decision to attack Israel in 1967. After the war Jordan announced it would not take the west bank back.

    I got it, NN. It’s all Bush’s fault!

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  159. The military occupation is the consequence of Jordan’s decision to attack Israel in 1967. After the war Jordan announced it would not take the west bank back.

    So, Israel had options of:
    1) Forcing Jordan into taking West Bank back.
    2) Getting out of West Bank and saying “we don’t care what happens here”.
    3) Establishing military occupation without interfering into the life of the land.
    4) Annexing the land and giving its inhabitants full civil rights (the most natural option for any country that doesn’t have special ideas about its national identity).

    Israel, however, chose the worst option: military occupation & encouraging settlements & second-class citizenry.

    Of course, other options were not easy to implement, nevertheless, the fact that Israel got stuck on the worst for almost half a century will, I’m afraid, mean that the crazy nut Ahmadinejad will be proven prescient: there will not be Israel thirty years from now. It will be dissolved, just as the crazy nut Ahmadinejad predicted (not physically destructed — and he never said so!), and it will be very tough for Jews then, much tougher than it is for Palestinians now. Not as tough as in Nazi Germany, but very tough.

    NN (f82c0b)

  160. 3) Establishing military occupation without interfering into the life of the land.

    That is essentially what Israel did initially. (It is of course impossible to militarily occupy territory without any interference into life there.) However, the Arab states met at Khartoum after the 1967 war and announced their famous 3 Nos-No Peace, No Negotiations, No Recognition. Only then did Israel begin the policy of settlements.

    I am not a supporter of settlements. However, I believe that settlements are a red herring. What the Palestinians want is the destruction of Israel. Israel had settlements in Sinai but it gave them up in exchange for peace with Egypt. It gave up all settlements in Gaza. Once the Palestinians decide that Israel is there to stay, a way will be found to solve the settlment issue.

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  161. I am not a supporter of settlements. However, I believe that settlements are a red herring. What the Palestinians want is the destruction of Israel.

    Well, of course that’s what they want now. Or at least what most of their politicians want.
    And settlements are not red herring in any way. All those checkpoints, the roads which Palestinians are not allowed to take in their own land, lead to an immense level of daily grievances of regular people, which, in turn, leads to a very low probability of deradicalization. Given the demographical tendencies, there will, unfortunately, probably be no Israel 30 years from now.

    Once the Palestinians decide that Israel is there to stay, a way will be found to solve the settlment issue.

    Well, you probably saw these pictures. I personally don’t believe that the settlement issue could be solved.

    NN (f82c0b)

  162. Well, of course that’s what they want now. Or at least what most of their politicians want.

    That is what they have always wanted.

    And settlements are not red herring in any way.

    Israel did in fact give up settlements in the Sinai and did in fact forcibly remove settlers from Gaza.

    Given the demographical tendencies, there will, unfortunately, probably be no Israel 30 years from now.

    Israel was, is, and always will be the homeland of the Jewish people.

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  163. NN forgot the fifth, and best option: expelling all of the Palestinians from Judea and Samaria, and into Jordan, annexing the land, and setting up shortened, more defensible borders. That could have been done in 1967; unfortunately, that’s no longer an option.

    Everybody would have screamed about it (though not as loudly in 1967), and called Israel all sorts of nasty names — which is little different from the situation today. But, in the end, it would have been the best thing to do.

    Dana (556f76)

  164. In retrospect, Dana, I think you are right.

    When the British assumed the League of Nations mandate for Palestine following WWI, one of the first things they did was to sever 80% of “historic Palestine” that lay east of the Jordan and create Trans-Jordan (later Jordan).

    The very first act of the new kingdom was to ban Jews from their territory. Some Jewish communities that had been in existence for thousands of years were disbanded and the residents expelled so that the new kingdom could be judenrein.

    Stu707 (5b299c)

  165. Not Marcotte-style “satire,” by which I mean non-satire that is dishonestly termed “satire” after the fact.

    They loved her because she meant it.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  166. Dwilkers,

    All you people that are defending Marcotte are not defending a liberal. There is nothing liberal about her hate for others.

    Ah, but liberalism now means standing on your head and telling the world that it’s upside down. That’s progress, apparently, to progressives.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  167. Man, this is a great comment section. Unfortunately, it seemed to be set on “repeat” around comment 100.

    I do have an apology for Sadly No!.

    When they were in the weblog awards as a “humor site” I thought it was a mistake as I didn’t think they were very funny.

    I take that back, they’re absolutely hysterical.
    In more than one sense of the word.

    Veeshir (5f9b87)

  168. Oh, one question.
    Is Sadly No! a satire or a parody site? I’m all confused about that.

    Veeshir (5f9b87)

  169. “You overlooked one small matter: Allah is not a bigot”

    -Patterico

    *I* don’t think he’s a bigot, and I didn’t say that he is. I said that Sadly, No! is trying to label him as a bigot in order to justify Marcotte’s bigotry, which means they missed the stinkin’ point.

    I have to say, though, that had Edwards hired Allah to run his blog (bear with me on this one), Allah would be in the same position Marcotte is in right now. His brand of humor is too subtle to survive the mainstream.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  170. I have to say, though, that had Edwards hired Allah to run his blog (bear with me on this one), Allah would be in the same position Marcotte is in right now.

    I think it’s a pretty safe bet that if asked to serve in such a capacity, Allah would laugh his ass off. And on the miniscule chance that when he gathered himself he decided to take Silky Pony’s money, when asked to explain his old blog, he could say “See right there where I said it was a parody of the God of radical Islamists? And did you notice that I was pretending to be the Creator of Worlds? I’m not, really. Never have been.”

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  171. Hence the “bear with me on this one” disclaimer…

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  172. I get you, Leviticus. I’m driving more toward the ridiculousness of 1) Edwards offering and 2) Marcotte accepting.

    If it hadn’t actually happened, it would be implausible fiction. And yet, the truth is stranger…

    Pablo (cb50c5)

  173. Yeah… The unholy marriage between a hypocritical dumbass and a narcissistic feminist should produce some horrifying electoral offspring.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  174. You guys are aware of the pure comedy gold already found on Edwards’ blog, yes? It’s terrific.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  175. Carlitos, if I did’t know better, I’d think that was parody! I love how she responds to ‘Lefty DiaTribe!’

    JannyMae (05dcd9)

  176. After reviewing the thread, it strikes me that the lefties will defend ANY BEHAVIOR whatsoever by their own, by screaming, “Look! Your side does it too!”

    Smacks of desperation….

    JannyMae (05dcd9)

  177. S9phia…

    Thank you for the information. I will look forward to the next post….

    S9phia (f470d6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5847 secs.