Of bloggers and bigots

I have managed to not comment on the entire Edwards blogger controversy because I wanted to see how it was going to play out.

Let start by saying that I am happy that Edward chose to do the right thing and stick by his choices to handle his blog, though he did make a point of saying he was personally offended by the messages that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan wrote on their blogs.

I submit that if Mr. Edward is offended by this type of thing, he is probably in the wrong business. It is really time that politicians and reporters stopped pretending that politics in a genteel business were everyone uses polite language and abides by the Queensbury rules during campaigns. The rules changed years ago, and civility was tossed out the window by the Right during the Reagan years. There are no longer any rules, and it is high time for the press to stop pretending there are, especially when they only apply them to the Left, while giving a free ride to the Right.

And while we are talking about what is, or isn't offensive, why does John Edwards care that a sanctimonious prick like Bill Donohue is offended? Given Donohue's bigoted and slimy remarks, I would think Edwards would be PROUD of offending him. Donohue is an anti-semite and a defender of sexual predators. He is a vile man who blames molested children for being molested. (Oh, and by the way, I was raised Catholic, was a Catholic for most of my life until I had too many run ins with sick, sick people like Bill Donohue. When he and most of the church leadership were exposed as apologists, enablers, and co-conspirators of child molesters, that was the last straw for me. I left and will NEVER return).

The other person offended by these two blogger's remarks was Michelle Malkin, a women who proudly supports concentration camps and wishes we would start using them again. Is this really the kind of person whose feelings John Edwards should concern himself with?

Still, I am happy that John Edward has overcome his offended sensibilities and has forgiven Marcotte and MacEwen. Perhaps one day, the families of 3,118 dead American soldiers will forgive him for colluding with George Bush to launch an illegal invasion based on lies, that has deprived them of their own flesh and blood. If we are going to talk about offending people and forgiving them, I think a little perspective is called for, don't you?

Still, I can't get over why Edwards cared what these societal parasites and members of the right-wing blogsphere thought. After all, these are people, that if they saw him crossing a road, would stamp on the accelerator and try to run him down. These are people who are NEVER going to vote for him in ANY context.

Isn't the reason that Edwards and his staff hired these two bloggers is because they were EFFECTIVE? And isn't it obvious that the reason the forces of darkness wanted to drive them off is because they WERE EFFECTIVE?

Yet, instead of immediately coming to these people's defense, they were initially fired, then after much back and forth (in which it became very apparent that the liberal blogsphere would blackball his ass), he magnanimously hired them back.

Lord, give me a politician with a fucking spine!

What did these women do that was so offensive? They spoke the truth about some of the most vile individuals on the Right. Then those very same individuals clutched their pearls and got the vapors because these women used "vulgar" language and expressed themselves in a blunt fashion that these self-anointed guardians of civility deemed "uncivil".

As my friend Lex said, "Civility is the last refuge for the bully whose victim has started to fight back."

Civility is fine if everyone is going to play by the rules. But the rules were tossed out years ago. And there is a word for politicians who insist on being civil while their opponent uses every filthy, scummy trick in the book to win; and that word is LOSER.

Civility must NEVER take a back seat to the truth, especially when your opponent is barraging the public with lies. It is up to you to call your opponent a LIAR, because if you don't, no one else will, CERTAINLY not the press.

Civility is DEAD! Either you fight fiercely, or you LOSE. Fighting fiercely does NOT mean using the same tactics as your opponent. But as long as the Left keeps playing the little games where we try to be civil while our opponents are using racism, homophobia, religious extremism, xenophobia and all out thuggery, we are going to LOSE.

Our opponents on the Right are bullies. The only way to confront a bully is to square off and fight back. Now that some of our tribe are doing this, the little bully has run to teacher to whine that we are picking on them. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO APOLOGIZE FOR STANDING UP TO BULLIES!

If you want people who've got your back, and will fight tooth and nail for the truth, and will NEVER back down, we're your guard dogs. If you don't have the spine to stand up to bullies with us, go away, you are wasting our time.

Update: Another thing that concerns me is that both women have "apologized" for their remarks.

Shakespeare's Sister writes:

Shakespeare's Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don't expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I've posted. We do, however, share many views - including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way.

While Amanda Marcotte writes:

My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.

Both of these apologies were apparently required for the two women to keep their jobs. And THAT is something I have a problem with.

Let us examine some of these statements, shall we?

My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics.

To make a statement about any political or religious issue in our society is to offend someone. This is unavoidable. To be a political blogger and claim you never intended to offend anyone is disingenuous in the extreme. The reason many of us took this up is that we got tired of the venom and lies being spewed by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reily et al, and we decided to fight back and counter lies with truth. One thing that you learn very early on about the religiously insane, neo-cons, and other barely sane members of the Right, is that the truth OFFENDS them. To speak the truth, is to give offense to these people. It is unavoidable. Why should anyone apologies for speaking the truth?

People seem to believe that their religion and their religious leaders are somehow "off limits" to criticism. This is simply not so. To say that the Pope protects child-molesters, is homophobic, misogynistic and a former member of the Hitler Youth is the absolute truth. If Ratzinger wishes it not to be true, he should stop hating women and gays, defrock Cardinal Bernard Law, and renounce his Nazi past. It is THAT simple.

We do, however, share many views - including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs.

Here, we really need to clarify a point. This statement is a variation of one I hear all the time:

"We must respect other people's opinion."

This is one of the most moronic claims I have ever heard.

No one -- and let me repeat this -- NO ONE has the right to have their opinion respected. And by "opinion" I also mean "belief", "faith", and/or "religious conviction". I, and everybody else have a civil duty to respect your RIGHT to an opinion, or belief, faith, and/or religious conviction, but NOT the opinion, belief, faith, and/or religious conviction itself.

There are people on this planet who think that the U.S. moon landing was "faked" and that we have never set foot on the moon. This is, at best, a completely delusional view point, and at worst, utterly retarded.

People have a RIGHT to hold that view. I MUST respect their right to that view, but there is nothing -- no law, no moral obligation -- that requires me to respect the actual view point.

Want to believe Earth is only 10,000 years old? You have every right to hold that belief. I respect YOUR RIGHT to hold that believe. Your belief, however, is utter nonsense, and anyone who agrees with it is ignorant, deluded, insane, or a moron.

You have every right to be offended by my expression of the above view point. You have the right to THINK you deserve an apology. You have no right TO an apology. I have no obligation to offer you an apology because you were offended. And while I may actually be sorry you were offended, I am not sorry in the fashion you want.

I have a right to express my views on this blog. You have a right to read, or not read them. You have been granted permission to post comments and respond to my posts on this site. I reserve the right to delete said posts if they break my rules (For the record I have, so far, only deleted spam). I don't have to read, nor respond to your remarks, unless I choose to do so.

No one has a RIGHT to not be offended. If you actually read what is written here, and are offended, that is your problem, not mine. If I determine that something I have written is incorrect, or has offended someone I did not intend to offend, I will apologize to that person or group.

These are the realities of public discourse. Civility is only an issue when all parties agree to the rules of civility.

By apologizing under compulsion, I feel both women have lost the moral high ground and agreed to compromise what they do best: Speak the Truth.

This is certainly their right, but I am not required to approve.