« A Question About Obama | Main | Moan »
February 05, 2007
Danny Glover Could Learn Something From A Blogger Ethics Panel
The National Journal's Danny Glover has one of the most inventive excuses for avoiding actual reporting work that I've ever seen:
One other footnote: Marcotte's behavior the past couple of days reminded me of something I discovered at Pandagon late last year when researching my New York Times article on bloggers who had gone to work for campaigns. One of those bloggers, Jesse Taylor, got his start at Pandagon before joining the campaign of now-Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat.
I reported Taylor's move when it happened in October 2005 and linked to his announcement at Pandagon. When I clicked back to Taylor's post in November 2006, it was gone and there was no sign of it in Pandagon's archives. I had to search the Wayback Machine to find Taylor's post again.
Did Marcotte, who claimed ownership of Pandagon upon Taylor's departure, scrub the site of his disclosure, and if so, why? Those questions came to my mind last fall but didn't seem worth asking then. They were just a curiousity.
Now that Marcotte has shown a penchant for deleting Pandagon content that causes her grief, maybe the questions are worth asking -- though I gather that my "whiff of accusatory tone" would just land any query I sent to her in the electronic trash.
Got that? Glover thinks Amanda won't answer him, so he won't even ask. Pretty nifty. Had he asked her -- or, say, another former Pandagon writer, like me -- he'd have been told that Pandagon has endured various server and archive problems over the years, which have led to a fair amount of irrevocable archive deletion. This would have been easy enough to check even without calling Amanda: Just surf forward a day from the absent post and see if its successors are also missing. Or just look at the archives for that month: Everything after October 8th, 2005, is missing. So is everything, incidentally, from my years on the site: A much-missed casualty of server crashes and then a Wordpress overwrite.
So to recap: Glover is insinuating that Amanda deleted the final post of Pandagon's founder in order to, well, it's not really clear, but to do something nefarious. Then Glover decided he wouldn't actually ask her because he didn't expect a response. To make matters worse, he also refrained from looking into the archives to see if there was any pattern or alternative explanation. And he gets paid a salary by an established media outlet to report and intelligently analyze the political blogging scene. As I said: Pretty nifty. Slackers everywhere salute you, Mr. Glover. Your misinformed readership and your bosses, however, may prove somewhat less enthusiastic.
Update: Glover apologizes.
February 5, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Maybe it's that Amanda is a man-hater who wanted to rewrite Pandagon's history to silently imply that Pandagon had always been her domain, and to hide the origins of the blog in male writers?
Or maybe it's that Amanda hid Jesse's departure post to hide the fact that Jesse was among the elect to be poached by professional politicians like Strickland whereas she was not (until recently), since she was bitter about Jesse's success as she was left running Pandagon?
I'd come up with more motives for Amanda, but I'm tired. I'm sure some other commentators can also come up with reasons Amanda might have deleted the Jesse's-leaving post. All are invited to speculate on her motives (except, of course, for Amanda herself).
Posted by: Julian Elson | Feb 5, 2007 2:48:19 AM
But, but ... she swears! And talks about ... girl things! Ew!
Crikey.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Feb 5, 2007 2:53:05 AM
its certainly not his job to find answers to these questions... that would be participating. He is simply here to raise important questions, Zen-style, which improves society...somehow.
Posted by: Sandals | Feb 5, 2007 5:33:19 AM
And he gets paid a salary by an established media outlet to report and intelligently analyze the political blogging scene. As I said: Pretty nifty. Slackers everywhere salute you, Mr. Glover. Your misinformed readership and your bosses, however, may prove somewhat less enthusiastic.
I'd say that you're pretty much mistaken both about what Mr. Glover is paid to do and the likely reaction of his masters.
Posted by: NBarnes | Feb 5, 2007 6:10:01 AM
I agree that it isn't fair for Glover to insinuate without asking Amanda. However, the context for his argument that she wouldn't respond is worth pointing out. He quotes this from Amanda:
"[I]f I see the words 'Duke' or 'lacrosse' in an e-mail that has the whiff of accusatory tone, I'm deleting it and simply not going to reply to it," she wrote at Pandagon. "I have never, ever stated that I think that anyone should go to jail without a proper trial. Those comments will also be deleted from this thread."
She does seem to be saying she won't answer accusatory questions on this topic. That may or may not actually be true. And I don't know if she actually deleted the offending posts. Probably she needs to figure out a better way of dealing with this kind of thing.
I don't think hiring Amanda means Edwards has to endorse Amanda's past opinions. It does seem to mean that she'll have to be more careful than she has been when just speaking independently.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 5, 2007 6:40:25 AM
Dude. In no way is this meant to support Mr. Glover's charges, but you lost all your writings in a migration? Are you kidding? You didn't back it up and copy it to another machine beforehand?
Posted by: chiggins | Feb 5, 2007 6:52:55 AM
I think the sort of general emasculation desires is the motivation he assumes I have.
For what it's worth, of course, the losses of the archives is one of my biggest "regrets", in the sense that it bugs the tar out of me, but I'm not entirely sure it was unavoidable.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Feb 5, 2007 8:05:43 AM
Dude. In no way is this meant to support Mr. Glover's charges, but you lost all your writings in a migration? Are you kidding? You didn't back it up and copy it to another machine beforehand?
Moveable Type downloads the archives in this screwed up way that makes them fairly impossible to actually get. Believe me, we tried. A lot. Every time we tried to back up the archives, it would slow down to a creak and then die.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Feb 5, 2007 8:07:51 AM
I think that it's impossible to underestimate the print media's fear and hatred of the new internet media. A lot of them spend ten or more non-fun years before they get to a cushy position, and they have a feeling of entitlement once they've made the cut. And then they see their position disintegrating. (They're also being asked to learn new skills).
This is a factor independent of ideology. Established left-liberal media, however they deal with it, are more or less equally susceptible.
There's another factor, too. For whatever reason, conservative lowlifes like Malkin and Coulter are good for frequent TV appearances, whereas most of the sharp liberal internet people aren't, but when the time comes to slag on "The Internet", liberals are treated as though they are all Malkins and Coulters.
And when a liberal does get promoted to the major media, it's an expert in ass-fucking specialist who isn't very liberal. Go figure.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 5, 2007 8:56:54 AM
For whatever reason, the IT market has little effective demand stability and security. At every level from the PC on up enormous data losses are possible. I propose the idea of a reliable "Toyota computer" to every tech guy I ever run into, and they all laugh at me.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 5, 2007 9:01:01 AM
So I guess all this shit about Amanda means that they are done Jamil Hussein. Oh crap - I said a naughty word. There goes all my credibility.
Posted by: mrstrailerco | Feb 5, 2007 9:03:58 AM
Sanpete,
Amanda didn't say that she would delete all emails with a "whiff of accusatory tone," as you point out. She wrote that she was going to delete emails about a particular subject.
To infer that Amanda is likely to then delete any email about any subject that she doesn't like is unsupported by her statements and her past practice. Glover's accusations are unfounded.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 5, 2007 9:11:31 AM
Ezra,
You were right to criticize me for my footnote about the Jesse Taylor post. For what it's worth, I've posted a mea culpa update to my entry here.
My apologies to you, Amanda, for not taking the time to ask about the missing post.
Danny
Posted by: Danny Glover | Feb 5, 2007 9:17:53 AM
fair enough...
Posted by: Sandals | Feb 5, 2007 9:21:00 AM
For whatever reason, the IT market has little effective demand stability and security. At every level from the PC on up enormous data losses are possible. I propose the idea of a reliable "Toyota computer" to every tech guy I ever run into, and they all laugh at me.
All part and parcel of there being essentially no standards in the IT/software world at all. But keep tilting at that windmill, by all means, and I will too.
Posted by: Hellfire and Damnation | Feb 5, 2007 9:21:03 AM
Simple fact is that Amanda wrote an incredibly careless stupid racist inaccurate and convict-with-no-evidence post and then when called on it she deleted it and left a smarmy its-all-your-fault post in its place. If Malkin or anyone on the right did that you would be all over their ass, their credibility shot for all time, blah blah blah. Hell Andrew Sullivan still gets called out about that sin.
Now this is no excuse for the excrable Glover who is wrong on his points here BUT Amanda does in fact have a history of doing just what Glover accuses her of and suggests that she might respond as she has in the past. Doesn't make him right but Amanda has given him some real cover. Ah! the blogosphere where Words Have Consequences...
Posted by: jaimie t | Feb 5, 2007 9:22:29 AM
Amamda how are you liking your new spot with John Edwards?
I like the MSM vs online theory? They are really starting to understand that press as we knew it for the past is no longer the driving force and the main source for the public to get the news.
Posted by: dk2 | Feb 5, 2007 9:23:49 AM
This is my favorite part: "Marcotte's attempts to airbrush her past are fast becoming a black-eye for Edwards." Says who? Says Glover, and if enough wingnutterbutters keep saying it then maybe, just maybe, his scandal-dream will come true.
Amanda is now under word-choice scrutiny, so please allow me to call him a fucking asshole.
Posted by: davidmizner | Feb 5, 2007 9:24:31 AM
Quickly, someone get me some gasoline to fuel my next "apology" with...
Posted by: ice weasel | Feb 5, 2007 9:27:29 AM
And now in his supposted mea cupla Glover refers to "the brewing Marcotte controversy." There should be a rule: a "controversy" isn't a controversy if only Michelle Malkin and her friends are talking about it.
I have to confess: I don't really know what the National Jounal is. It's where Murray Waas writes, correct? And they do rankings of Congresspeople. Isn't it supposed to be a down-the-middle, just the facts kind of outfit? If so, what's this scandal-dream doing there?
Posted by: davidmizner | Feb 5, 2007 9:31:57 AM
jaimie t,
huh? Amanda wrote a post and deleted it. Maybe she shouldn't have, but it doesn't show a "history" of anything.
What's it like to not have an opinion until someone hands a fully formed point of view to you?
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 5, 2007 9:36:32 AM
It said post a comment, so I am posting one.
Impeach w, exile w and his band of mandarins.
Posted by: vox clamantis in red state | Feb 5, 2007 9:36:48 AM
What do you have against oranges?
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 5, 2007 9:43:05 AM
Thank you Stephen and since you seem to think (I may be wrong here) "... history of..." must mean multiple occurrences may I retract (without deletion) that and substitute "... has in fact done just what Glover accuses her of"?
How's that work for you?
It does not alter Amanda's herstory of trying to rewrite her history now does it?
My point is not that hers was a capital crime, merely a misdemeanor. But if Malkin had done the same thing then the villagers would be out with pitchforks and torches.
Posted by: jaimie t | Feb 5, 2007 10:00:54 AM
Wingnuts need little stickers on their monitors that say, "Remember Occam's Razor."
Posted by: The Liberal Avenger | Feb 5, 2007 10:11:33 AM
Simple fact is th--
BZZZZZZZZZT! Ooooooh, no, wrong, sorry.
Johnny, get him the fuck out of here...
Posted by: dave | Feb 5, 2007 10:13:02 AM
If Edwards' two biggest problems are his Blogatrix and his really big expensive house, dude's going to waltz right into the White House.
Posted by: Roxanne | Feb 5, 2007 10:15:49 AM
Wingnuts need little stickers on their monitors that say, "Remember Occam's Razor."
If wingnut readers knew about Occam's Razor, they wouldn't be reading wingnuts.
And as for journos looking to take down lefties where ever they see them, even when they have to act dumb as dirt to do so: Just remember the words of Upton Sinclair -- "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Feb 5, 2007 10:18:32 AM
Speaking of someone who keeps cutting himself to pieces with Occam's Razor, I see Jaimie t is back and showing off his ignorance for all to see.
Please, Jaimie, keep it up! I love showing fence-sitting folks posts such as yours. People like you help me in my goal of making more lefty recruits.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Feb 5, 2007 10:21:30 AM
Hellfire and Damnation wrote, All part and parcel of there being essentially no standards in the IT/software world at all.
Sure there are. Re "IT" generally, the hardware world is essentially built on them; while there are obviously big interoperability issues between hardware gadgets manufactured by different vendors, it wouldn't work at all without standards.
As for software, it's true that standards are often, perhaps usually, lacking. OTOH, it sounds like this is a big problem with MT. Bottom line is that no one is forcing anyone to use MT, and I would never use a software product that made it difficult to do a backup. (Cf "Moveable Type downloads the archives in this screwed up way that makes them fairly impossible to actually get.")
Posted by: liberal | Feb 5, 2007 10:25:37 AM
And now in his supposted mea cupla Glover refers to "the brewing Marcotte controversy." There should be a rule: a "controversy" isn't a controversy if only Michelle Malkin and her friends are talking about it.
Ah, but you forget the #1 rule of post-Fairness-Doctrine media in America, David: Conservatives are always more credible than liberals. The more wrong they are, the more credible they are. (Compare the amount of TV and radio time over the past twenty years that's been given to Ann Coulter and Molly Ivins. I rest my case.)
This leads us to Rule #2, as often voiced by Atrios: There is nothing a conservative can say or do that will get him or her exiled permanently from the public discourse. (Look at Michelle "Internment was PEACHY!" Malkin, Ann "Women shouldn't be able to vote" Coulter, or Pat "Nazis weren't all bad" Buchanan. Again, I rest my case.)
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Feb 5, 2007 10:28:07 AM
Well, then, liberal, got any suggestions for an alternate software for Amanda to use? One that looks as good and does graphics that well?
Come on -- I'm sure she'd love to hear it.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Feb 5, 2007 10:30:48 AM
It is true, however, that Marcotte is and will become ever more so, a liability to Edwards. While Edwards struggles to appear mainstream, he will at the same time have to defend Marcotte's writings.....anything but mainstream. As politics go, nothing about his campaign will escape scrutiny, including the background of those who represent him.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 5, 2007 10:33:17 AM
Roxanne nailed it. Now, I'm uninformed about this from a couple angles: I haven't been a regular reader of Pandagon.net for months, and I didn't follow the Duke rape case too closely either. And I was pleasantly surprised to see Glover's comment here and update there.
But even so, a PR person (one of several) on the Edwards campaign was apparently prejudiced, or too angry, or something like that. And somebody thought it was worth a 5,000-character article? Boo fricking hoo.
Posted by: Cyrus | Feb 5, 2007 10:43:03 AM
The Duke LaCrosse case was a political minefield of race, class and gender. It would have been better if Ms. Marcotte tread more cautiously there but to suggest that "Marcotte's writings" are "...anything but mainstream" is a bit disingenous. She is a woman and a feminist. If I'm not mistaken, a person of similar description is running for the presidency, and has a very good chance of being elected. Thanks for playing, Fred.
Posted by: Bob Jones | Feb 5, 2007 10:47:44 AM
My comment to Danny Glover:
Mr. Glover's revision would work better if it it were at the top of the article. As it is, few readers are likely to read down to see it.
It would also be appropriate if Mr. Glover were to state that he committed precisely the sin he accused Ms. Marcotte of: making allegations without looking at the facts. In the case of Ms. Marcotte, she was at least relying on the statements of a District Attorney. Mr. Glover was relying on his imagination.
As for Amanda: when one works for a candidate, one must be even more chaste than Calpurnia. Achieving retroactive virginity is beyond most human beings, but posting as if you were writing for Disney is not.
Posted by: Charles | Feb 5, 2007 10:48:31 AM
John Emerson, why don't you think Amanda Marcotte's much of a liberal? I mean, I know that I'm a bit DLC-ish for your tastes (Free trader, came rather close to supporting the Iraq War (although I never quite joined the "I-can't-believe-I'm-a-hawk" club, Ken Pollack about 1/4th convinced me), etc.), along with some other bloggers who have gotten into the professional media (Kevin Drum, Matthew Yglesias, maybe Ezra here). Where, though, do you find Amanda being not-very-liberal? Admittedly, Pandagon's focus is primarily on feminism and cultural issues more than economics, but when Amanda has discussed economic matters, she's seemed to be fairly clearly liberal.
I say this not in Amanda's defense, but in genuine curiousity about what you think disqualifies her from being a real liberal.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Feb 5, 2007 11:03:46 AM
John Emerson, why don't you think Amanda Marcotte's much of a liberal? I mean, I know that I'm a bit DLC-ish for your tastes (Free trader, came rather close to supporting the Iraq War (although I never quite joined the "I-can't-believe-I'm-a-hawk" club, Ken Pollack about 1/4th convinced me), etc.), along with some other bloggers who have gotten into the professional media (Kevin Drum, Matthew Yglesias, maybe Ezra here). Where, though, do you find Amanda being not-very-liberal? Admittedly, Pandagon's focus is primarily on feminism and cultural issues more than economics, but when Amanda has discussed economic matters, she's seemed to be fairly clearly liberal.
I say this not in Amanda's defense, but in genuine curiousity about what you think disqualifies her from being a real liberal.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Feb 5, 2007 11:05:00 AM
Achieving retroactive virginity is beyond most human beings...
Nonsense.
Posted by: John Lennon | Feb 5, 2007 11:05:58 AM
Wow, The dog hat my homework defense :)
Just goes to those show, don't play with fire near bridges :)
Posted by: jack d | Feb 5, 2007 11:13:32 AM
She is a woman and a feminist. If I'm not mistaken, a person of similar description is running for the presidency, and has a very good chance of being elected.
Well, Bob, one of the stark differences besides their differences on feminism itself is Marcotte's writings are often crass, crude use a lot of words like "pussy", "God dammit", "Cocksuckers" and "Shitstorm" and every bad actor is a man. As one commenter from another blog put it, "She's a hayseed from West Texas and has only one string on her banjo, and that's feminism".
Good luck to Edwards. Marcotte is no Jesse Taylor. She's more like the
Alex Jones of feminism.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 5, 2007 11:18:07 AM
God dammit
God dammit?
GOD DAMMIT!
Fred, I did not know that!
Shitstorm? SHITSTORM! Fred, if you weren't my dumb, hayseed brother from west Texas, I'd tell everyone what a cocksucker you really are.
Julian,
And when a liberal does get promoted to the major media, it's an expert in ass-fucking specialist who isn't very liberal. Go figure.
Jonh Emerson was probably referring to Ana Marie Cox, (Wonkette), who used to obsessively write about.... covers Fred's eyes... ass-fucking before she was hired by Time to work with Joke Line, whom I believe invented it. Ass-fucking.
Posted by: Bob Jones | Feb 5, 2007 11:27:39 AM
With all due credit to Marcotte, and in defense of Emerson, I do not consider her position with Edwards as being part of the "major media" Quite yet. Blogs, even official campaign blogs, are not Newsweek or Chris Matthews.
Although with the Swampland, and Klein quoting Yglesias's commenters for godssake, we are getting very close.
IIRC, Marcotte has mentioned deliberately prioritizing gender issues over economic issues on her blog, but by a narrow margin. She has also attacked libertarians with her usual enthusiasm. So I am guessing she is not an economic moderate. Whatever that means.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 5, 2007 12:15:46 PM
Ah, whoops. Wonkette didn't occur to me.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Feb 5, 2007 12:19:52 PM
Glover's accusations are unfounded.
I agree that his wider insinuations are unfounded. I just wanted to point out the basis from which he was speaking, which isn't out of the blue. Glover took a legitimate point way too far.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 5, 2007 12:40:11 PM
Glover's original accusation about the Jesse Taylor announcement doesn't even make logical sense without the whole archiving mess. Why would Amanda want to delete this post? Jesse got a job with Strickland, announced he had gotten the job and was leaving Pandagon and then departed never to be heard again on that site. Somehow Mr. Glover decided this was an example of bloggers hiding their affiliations when in fact it was exactly the opposite and then pounced on the disappeared post as an example of her perfidity. The man is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Feb 5, 2007 12:55:55 PM
Julian, I meant Wonkette at Time magazine. She's funny but of all of the people to bring up, why her? Amanda is not an expert on ass-fucking, to my knowledge, not that there would be anything wrong with that.
"OTOH, it sounds like this is a big problem with MT. Bottom line is that no one is forcing anyone to use MT, and I would never use a software product that made it difficult to do a backup."
Dataloss crashes are all over the place in IT. I have no idea why people tolerate it.
Posted by: John Emerson | Feb 5, 2007 1:03:29 PM
Moveable Type downloads the archives in this screwed up way that makes them fairly impossible to actually get. Believe me, we tried. A lot.
I wouldn't feel at all safe with anything less than a raw MySQL dump, copied off to another machine. If you don't have access to the DB host, y'oughta get another provider (and some help from someone who knows enough MySQL to do a raw dump).
Migrations that are supposed to be easy and safe frequently go wrong. If you've got the MySQL dump, then someone with the skills can rebuild the archives by hand.
Ouch, that sucks, sorry about the loss :(
Posted by: chiggins | Feb 5, 2007 1:29:39 PM
FYI, the archives are here:
The relevant post is here.
...And Aloha Means Goodbye
Posted by Jesse Taylor at 05:39 PM on October 15, 2005
Sometimes the best things are also the most unexpected.
Effective Monday, I'll be ending my time at Pandagon. Amanda now owns the site, the domain, the webhosting, the ads, and all other relevant facets of the site. The reason?
I will be accepting the position of Director of Online Communications with Ted Strickland's gubernatorial campaign. Why? The major reason is that I decided I wanted to stop opining and start doing. It's easy enough for me to write about the issues of the day and tell other people what they should be doing to win, it's another thing to help someone win. I'm tired of being angry - I want to start being productive.
I'm not going to the Strickland campaign to do Pandagon for them. I've enjoyed the past three-plus years here, but it's time for a new challenge, and it's also time for me to take on a more serious challenge than daily ranting. I can't thank you all enough for reading and supporting Pandagon through the good times and the bad (long term readers will remember way back in the day when the site was down, oh, every few hours or so). Amanda and Jedmunds will take good care of you.
Goodbye, everybody.
(...This is where you're supposed to say, "Goodbye, Dr. Nick!" Jeez.)
Posted by: anon | Feb 5, 2007 1:37:30 PM
I see that 'Pablo', Godlst*in's little Ganymede, chips in on the NatJournal thread. What a sad fucker. And knowing that he's a bitter MRA now explains some of his filth.
It's also evident that the grand poobahs of wingnut-welfare blogosphere want to destroy Amanda and hurt Edwards through her. Phoenix Woman's point holds true: nothing La Maglalang does will ever deprive her of an income or invitation to O'Reilly's show, while Marcotte is 'controversial' because she discusses feminist issues without shame.
I hope Edwards and his team have the guts to ride the waves, and I hope Amanda got those assurances before taking the job.
Especially when you have an asshole like 'Fred Jones' aka 'Robert Zimmerman' aka 'The Frog' aka Jim Matthews -- a haughty multiple-identity homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist who has been stalking her since the days when Ezra was posting at Pandagon, apparently without sanction or fear of accountability.
As one commenter from another blog put it,
And I bet that was you as well, 'Fred'.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 5, 2007 1:52:43 PM
Amanda's not so much controversial because she discusses feminist issues without shame, but because she refuses to retract the smears she's published against the Duke "rapists," because she's without shame.
Posted by: Dan Collins | Feb 5, 2007 2:41:57 PM
Yes, mate. Thanks for proving my point. Now try again. You'll find a better audience for that line at Godlst*in's shameless cesspit.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 5, 2007 2:57:44 PM
Amanda can "cuss like a sailor" if she wants to. It is part of "free speech". She doesn't have to be intelligent! She can ridicule people for no reason. She can say someone is guilty and claim to have absolute proof. She cann accuse all men of wanting to subjugate women or wanting to rape them. She can even call for the impeachment of Bush for war crimes.
She can do all of those things! She is a "progressive", and [progressives (like their liberal forefathers) can do and say anything about anyone at any time! No one should criticize her either, because she has sworn to get even if they do! She refuses to allow people to point out any bias in what she has said or will say in the future (they will be deleted).
Going back and editing her previous blogs is merely good editing practice by someone who is willing to recognize that her views have changed. The fact that she doesn't announce that she has done this, and denies it when challenged, is merely editorial license. She does not need to follow the ethical guidelines that would prohibit such activity if done by a journalist, because she is not a journalist, she is only a blogger!
As a liberal blogger, her written speech, attitudes, and attention to facts is highly repre3sentative of other progressives. If you don't like that, then "Go F*** yourself"!
/sarcasm
Posted by: laughingalltheway | Feb 5, 2007 3:08:36 PM
It is true, however, that Marcotte is and will become ever more so, a liability to Edwards.
Hey, Fred - I haven't seen any candidate asking for *your* services...
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Feb 5, 2007 3:12:19 PM
Pseuso, do you have a real response to Dan's point? Your name-calling and personal slurs aren't really showing anything about the arguments.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 5, 2007 3:12:28 PM
Going back and editing her previous blogs is merely good editing practice by someone who is willing to recognize that her views have changed. The fact that she doesn't announce that she has done this, and denies it when challenged, is merely editorial license.
Evidence?
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 5, 2007 3:15:34 PM
without fear of . . . accountability
That's the issue here, isn't it? Amanda would like to erase the traces of her vile rhetoric over this case, just as Nifong wanted to suppress evidence exculpating the accused. Apparently, Danny Glover knows when to apologize for an error. Suppose Amanda is capable?
I don't care about Edwards, and I don't really care whether or not he keeps Marcotte on his staff. But it's pretty sad that you think it's so terrible that people are trying to hold Amanda to task for gross libels, and for supporting those who would have liked to put these young idiots away for a crime that they didn't commit. Amanda might lose her job? Boo-fucking-hoo. She and those who rushed to judgment would have liked to have seen these guys put away for 30 years, regardless of the evidence. There's a very disturbing lack of proportionality in your view, pseudopod.
All she has to do, as far as I'm concerned, is to apologize for that stuff.
Posted by: Dan Collins | Feb 5, 2007 3:16:06 PM
Glover is a tool but Edwards could have done a great deal better than Marcotte. Is she even a Blist progressive blogger?
Posted by: I hate U | Feb 5, 2007 3:23:58 PM
Valentine's Guy,
According to her pals, she's almost-A list. I took that to mean, y'know, B-plussy.
Posted by: Dan Collins | Feb 5, 2007 3:27:57 PM
Well, Bob, one of the stark differences besides their differences on feminism itself is Marcotte's writings are often crass, crude use a lot of words like "pussy", "God dammit", "Cocksuckers" and "Shitstorm" and every bad actor is a man.
Fred, Fred, Fred. Can't you lie a little more convincingly than that?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Feb 5, 2007 3:44:14 PM
Well, Bob, one of the stark differences besides their differences on feminism itself is Marcotte's writings are often crass, crude use a lot of words like "pussy", "God dammit", "Cocksuckers" and "Shitstorm" and every bad actor is a man.
Fred, Fred, Fred. Can't you lie a little more convincingly than that?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Feb 5, 2007 3:58:08 PM
Pseuso, do you have a real response to Dan's point? Your name-calling and personal slurs aren't really showing anything about the arguments.
It's his way....
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 5, 2007 5:10:33 PM
Your name-calling and personal slurs aren't really showing anything about the arguments.
And Dan is being a little disingenuous with regard to his personal animus towards Amanda. 'sfunny how that happens.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 5, 2007 5:15:27 PM
It's his way....
Yes, Jim. Or 'Fred'. Or 'Robert'. You're a regular grab-bag of Marcotte-obsessed personalities, aren't you?
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 5, 2007 5:18:30 PM
Glover needs to apologize quite a bit more fully than he has so far. Especially if Amanda actually does not retain her position with Edwards over this, a defamation action might be in order . . .
Posted by: Max Renn | Feb 5, 2007 5:28:11 PM
It's only defamation if it's not true.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 5, 2007 5:29:31 PM
It's only defamation if it's not true.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 5, 2007 2:29:31 PM
Is Amanda a serial, lying plagarist a la Ben Domenech? That's what Glover implies.
You, Freddy, need some lithium. And Amanda probably needs a restraining order.
Posted by: Max Renn | Feb 5, 2007 5:32:32 PM
Max,
"Is Amanda a serial, lying plagarist a la Ben Domenech? That's what Glover implies."
Actually he implies no such thing. He compares the uproar, he does not say they are the same offense. If Amanda loses her job it will be because of the content of her posts. Outside of that one issue he is right about the rest. She did delete the post in question about the Duke players and her long string of commentary on the Duke case is indefensible. Of course a large part of what she writes is indefensible and it has nothing to do with her choice of curse words.
Posted by: Lance | Feb 5, 2007 5:45:13 PM
And Dan is being a little disingenuous with regard to his personal animus towards Amanda. 'sfunny how that happens.
There's really nothing personal about my animus toward her. She's entitled to her opinion regarding my paranoid disregard for the standards evinced by the AP, because I think that they might sometimes rely on lying stringers whom they can't locate. It's not as though Nifong just charged some random guys; they were members of a lacrosse team, for crying out loud.
Why should Amanda NOT apologize?
Posted by: Dan Collins | Feb 5, 2007 5:46:54 PM
If Amanda loses her job it will be because of the content of her posts. Outside of that one issue he is right about the rest. She did delete the post in question about the Duke players and her long string of commentary on the Duke case is indefensible.
Of course it's indefensible. She was wrong, was looking for yet another rail against men and the system et al, and then when her bias was exposed, the posts disappeared. AMAZING!!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 5, 2007 6:01:18 PM
This kinds says it all!
http://tinyurl.com/2e39wk
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 5, 2007 6:06:04 PM
OK, where's the Goooooo Planet thread? Surely Amanda has done this!
I'd guess whether Amanda will lose her job is still up to her. Just a rough start, probably.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 5, 2007 7:05:28 PM
a piss fight about nothing
Posted by: akaison | Feb 5, 2007 7:05:57 PM
Piss fight about nothing?
If you're one of Marcotte's friends it's about helping her to keep her job.
If you are a supporter of the Duke Lax 3 it's all about holding this horrid woman responsible for her slanders and lies over a period of time during which most people long since gave up on this case.
The Duke case is in NC.
Edward's state is NC.
You're a fool if you think this is about nothing.
Posted by: cdw | Feb 5, 2007 7:53:55 PM
Dude, Ezra, are you like, good freinds with Amanda Marcotte? Cuz it seems like something like loylaty is motivating you to stick up for a friend or something.
I've actually taken the leap that Danny Glover didn't make. I emailed Amanda Marcotte about one of her entries trying to perhaps go from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. Let's just say that she can be quite prickly.
So OK, Glvoer should have asked, and he has apologized, but if you really keep up with all the stuff she says, what Glover did isn't really the biggest story.
BTW, Ms. Marcotte says she's looking forward to moving to North carolina, which she recently described as a place where women and black people are seen as objects to be used and abused. Wow, how nuanced.
At least now we (the left) have an answer to Ann COulter and Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by: Jay J. | Feb 5, 2007 9:48:39 PM
BTW, Ms. Marcotte says she's looking forward to moving to North carolina, which she recently described as a place where women and black people are seen as objects to be used and abused. Wow, how nuanced.
Texas is, too. But we still have good people and I love it.
How nuanced.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Feb 5, 2007 10:14:50 PM
Amanda, Ms. Marcotte, whaever I should call you.
You go me sweetie.
This was how you behaved the last time we exchagned as well. Quick, prickly, etc. You're witty, but You seem to generate more heat than light.
I suppose I was just wondering if you would repsond as openly as you just did with me when and if the North Carolina media asks you about it. Or God forbid, the Senator himself asks. If your answer is that you meant what you said and that's that, which is the essence of what you just said to me, then I guess the Senator is committed to getting behind ideas he wouldn't have touched with a 10-foot pole while he campaigned for their (the people of North Carolina) votes in 98.
I find it intersting that you love places where women and black people are seen as objects to be used and abused. I guess maybe that's a love-hate relationship, like Faulkner had with his home. Of course, Faulkner was a white male, so you now he must have been deeply flawed, moreso than most humans that is.
BTW, the young men accused in the Duke case are Yankees. Of course your comment could still be made coherent, since maybe you would say that its the North Carolina environment that facilitated the event, (you know, since Duke is like, so Soutern). But it still is misleading, since it's largely an event that took place because a bunch of Duke guys planned a party. That could have happened anywhere, like New Jersey.
Of course, you don't seem to be afflicted with the disorder of having to get things straight before you throw them out. You can just throw them out, and if there's a problem, you'll just use your wit and wiggle out on a technicality. Like the LaCrosse players for example. You seem supremly confident that they're guilty. Me, I really don't know. So you see, you have all that confidence, and I'm stuck in my epistemelogical humiliation.
Realy I don't see why whiteness seems to be so causal. If race is illusury, which I think you believe, then why is "whiteness" so predominant in your thoughts? And why do you presume (as you seem to) that every white person is in a position of dominance over a black person? I know that you probably don't technically think this, but you behave as if you do.
What about white women who are raped by black men? Is race a factor here? As for me, I really don't know. But I would think that all rape would be equally descicable. I can't, (like you seem to be able to), see a situation from the outside and know all the facts. Did they rape her? Was it racially motivated?
The last time we communicated, you told me that there is absolutely zero evidence that the ideal is anything other than white. Which makes me wonder, have you ever seen Lisa lampenelli's stand-up routine? Ever seen White Men Can't Jump? Ever heard of any positive sterotypes about Asians, blacks, Jews, etc? I'm not going to sit here and act like white men are on balance disadvataged, because that would be silly. But I will say that there are white people (who may even happen upon your blog) who are in situations with minorities who aren't considered ideal. What about them? What about the white kid in the innner city whose whiteness is seen as a weakness and something to be suspisious of? Then they happen upon your blog. What about the white person who has been victimized by a black person who happens upon your blog? I guess you feel confident that there aren't such people or that they should just get over it or something.
Once again, I don't think it reasonable to say that whites have it hard on balance, I just don't see it as cut and dry as you do, and I think you hurt innocent people in the process. You seem a little like a shotgun: You usually hit your target, but you hit alot of stuff around your target to. It doesn't seem to bother you, as long as you hit what you were aiming at, you can live with the collateral damage. You seem to think that since women and minorties have suffered historically, then anyone who isn't in this group should just grin and bear all the ways traditionally subjected groups choose to respond, even if it includes bashing "whiteness" or particularly white maleness. Just because the history is what it is, that doesn't mean that you know that everyone's situation fits this mold. As a matter of fact, I think there are countless exceptions to what has happened historically, and they're happening every day. Maybe not in West Texas, but somewhere. I for one have as much sympathy for a rich white kid who is victimized than a poor black one. The way the GOP has played on the emotions of the poor whites has lead me to be a democrat. But the way many liberals seem to act as if rich white kids don't have problems drives me away.
Aside from all this, I really do think that comments like yours serve to further stratify our politics and lead to the kinds of populist backlash that has landed people like George W. Bush in office.
I know some of the posts on this topic have been too personal towards you in terms of your personal life, and I don't think that's appropriate. And I don't mind irrevrence. I love the Daily Show, can't stand the Cheney's, love the Kings of Comedy, etc. So please don't think it cursing or something that I'm talking about, like some posters have.
I hope I've been clear and fair enough. I guess now you can be as sharp and witty as you like.
Jay Jeffers
Posted by: Jay J. | Feb 5, 2007 10:56:21 PM
Wait, Fred Jones is the Robert Zimmerman?!?! And here I thought he had crawled into his backwoods cabin hoping for the apocalypse.
And Jay J. What about white women who are raped by black men? is right out of the Klan playbook.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | Feb 5, 2007 11:27:35 PM
It's hard to tell on this type of forum whehter you're being sarcastic or not Col Bat Guano.
If you're kidding, I guess I agree that it's crazy that sometimes you can't get an answer to a question since it is like unorthodox or something.
It you're serious, I guess I have to say that because something is used by a descipable group doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean it is out of bounds. That's like saying that we have to go against what Saddam Hussein does because what Saddam Huessein does is by definition bad. For example, if Saddam makes a correct claim, we must disagree with it in order to avoid being unpatriotic. I generally don't buy that kind of reasoning, whether someone on the right tells me that I sound like Jane Fonda, or someone on the left calls me a facist. I guess I expect people to just be reasonable, which is the cause of much pain and frustration.
Posted by: Jay J | Feb 5, 2007 11:43:05 PM
Jay, the things that concern you are likely to take care of themselves, as long as Amanda's working for Edwards. That is, she'll probably have to learn not to needlessly and wrongly offend people to keep the job, and certainly to do it well. At pandagon there isn't much downside, as far as attracting an audience goes, to being offensive. Many people really like that. Makes for lousy discussions and polarizes people, but it attracts other angry people. Maybe having talented bloggers working in an environment where not needlessly offending people is a good thing will be good experience and will improve their blogging. Can't hurt.
Colonel, I think you missed Jay's point.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 5, 2007 11:43:18 PM
Jay, the things that concern you are likely to take care of themselves, as long as Amanda's working for Edwards. That is, she'll probably have to learn not to needlessly and wrongly offend people to keep the job, and certainly to do it well. At pandagon there isn't much downside, as far as attracting an audience goes, to being offensive. Many people really like that. Makes for lousy discussions and polarizes people, but it attracts other angry people. Maybe having talented bloggers working in an environment where not needlessly offending people is a good thing will be good experience and will improve their blogging. Can't hurt.
Colonel, I think you missed Jay's point.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 5, 2007 11:43:56 PM
I read Pandagon all the time, and I consider Amanda Marcotte to have an extremely sharp and intuitive political mind. What I like about her writing is that she doesn't go out of her way to avoid offending people who might not see things exactly as she does. Ms. Marcotte seems to approach things from what might be called a "feminist" perspective, yes, and she often does sculpt a bit of vitriol into her discourse.
I don't see why the latter thingie should be an issue, especially with conservative (and centrist) white males. Remember all that uproar about political correctness in the previous decade? Remember how white men were complaining that their being asked to treat women, blacks, the disabled, etc., with respect was being taken too far? Back then, I thought all that complaining over P.C. was reactionary bullshit, but, hell, I was raised as a Christian (you know, 'do unto other as you would have them do unto you'). Why wouldn't you want to be polite to people? Why wouldn't you want to show them the same respect that you would want given to you?
I guess some white men can't handle being criticized (even as part of a generalized group), especially when that criticism comes from an uppity, left-wing skirt.
Do I always agree with Amanda Marcotte? Of course not. I don't always agree with myself. I do value her insights and her analysis, and I believe her point of view is unique and irreplaceable (and with the recent loss of Molly Ivins, we'll need all the witty Texas leftists we can get our hands on; no pressure, Amanda). If John Edwards is truly looking to appeal to progressives-- and isn't worried about offending white men who scour the internets looking for uppity, left-wing skirts who use harsh words that make them feel bad-- then Edwards couldn't hope to find a better blogger than Ms. Marcotte. You guys keep nitpicking over her trumped-up and magnified transgressions-- I'm going to wait and see if Edwards' decision to hire her is indicative of a trend that might even lead me to forgive his role in the Craven Capitulation of '04.
Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 6, 2007 11:49:52 AM
Church Secretary, you seem to be saying that Amanda is the liberal feminist counterpart to the angry conservative white male. I think that's true. You seem to think that's a good thing, or at least not a problem. I think it's a bad thing, that it inhibits clear thinking, promotes pointless arguments, bad feelings and polarization (of which things this thread is but a mild example), and that each group reinforces the other--they actually depend on each other to a great extent in their dialogue of the deaf (maybe that isn't a PC term anymore?). I'd be happy to see them both become something more useful.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 6, 2007 12:36:10 PM
Sanpete, you seem to be making a Straw Man argument. I said no such thing as this:
...Amanda is the liberal feminist counterpart to the angry conservative white male.
Conservatives in general have enough problems on their own with turbid thinking, pointless arguments, bad feelings, and polarization. Setting up Amanda Marcotte, or any of the Straw liberals you implied, as a counterbalance to that is your doing, not mine.
The corporate media (which, unfortunately, dominate our public political discourse) are flooded with "useful" commentary; the most widely consumed outlets (network and cable TV; newspapers) employ lots of usually polite people who spout conservative and reactionary talking points for a living. Talk radio and a huge portion of the internet are the realms of dishonest, not-so-polite cretins like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and the knuckledraggers at FreeRepublic and Little Green Footballs.
To place honest (if not always perfectly accurate), intelligent commentators like Amanda Marcotte on the same level as the aforementioned jackals-- perhaps because she uses a few choice words, or makes some people with persecution complexes feel uncomfortable-- is only "useful" to the jackals. It sets the tone for the kind of "useful" politics that has our military bogged down in an illegal quagmire in Iraq and our national debt skyrocketing to crisis levels.
Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 6, 2007 1:55:47 PM
Church Secretary,
I can't speak for all the white males who were complaining about all the PC stuff in the 90's, I can only speak for myself...I wasn't one of them. The fact that the ones you refer to were white males has nothing to do with me. I find it ironic that you ask "why wouldn't you want to show them the same respect that you would want given to you" because that's the same thing I was thinking. If I were Rush Limbaugh, you would have a great point, but I'm not.
As far as not being able to be criticized as a general group, you're exactly right that I don't like it. But you see what seems to separates us is that you think, (strangely, in my view), that I should like it, or that my membership in some "white male group" should cause me to bear it. But see, that's stupid. Not only is it wrong in principle, its a political recipe for disaster. And since, as a citizen, I have an interest in the Democratic Party's success, I will speak about it.
As far as whether an "uppity left-wing skirt" has anything to do with it, well I get just as indignant when Limbaugh and O'Reilly go off on their silly tirades. Accusing someone of having a bigger problem because a woman is criticizing them may or may not be right, (in my case, you must know more about me than I do about myself, since consciously, I have no problem with the fact that Ms. Marcotte is a woman), but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue...it's Ad hominem.
But I won't pretend that my motives are only for the Dems, they're for me. And I see nothing wrong with that. I agree that Ms. Marcotte is sharp, but her intuitive side hasn't been displayed to me. Of course she may be intuitive, but her "vitriol" as you put it, doesn't display any keen insights to me.
As far as white males scouring the internet looking for "skirts" to offend them or people with persecution complexes, well I must say wow, you know allot. I guess I didn't know that I had a persecution complex, especially since 99.9% of the people I interact with on a daily basis don't bother me. Once again, Ad hominem.
As far as comparing Ms. Marcotte with Molly Ivins, well I don't see the comparison. I thought Molly Ivins was much more targeted and precise in her critiques. She didn't seem to be a shotgun, but instead an accurate sniper. Someone else compared Ms. Marcotte to Hillary Clinton. Hopefully you realize how silly that is. But these comparisons to Hillary, Molly Ivins, and implying that white males should just grin and bear being lumped into some group to be criticized, well I just don't think I have as many pre-conceived blueprints in my mind as you do.
Finally, I take you're point that you don't think Ms. Marcotte is the left-wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. But you're the one who implied that what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander when you brought up all the complaining about being PC in the 90's. So what do you do if I wasn't one of those white males? I suppose more Ad hominem attacks will follow.
Posted by: Jay J. | Feb 6, 2007 3:56:52 PM
I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning, Church Secretary. I can no longer make sense of what you were saying in your earlier post relating to this; maybe you can explain it. In any case, I still stand by what I said about Amanda and her conservative counterparts, which was about tone, as I made clear. I don't know how accurate or honest Amanda is in comparison to her counterparts; that's a further matter. There is plenty of bad faith and bad will that compromise the intellectual honesty of angry liberals, so if there is a difference between the conservatives and liberals in that regard, it's only a matter of degree.
I don't know what you mean by "useful" commentary and politics, but it apparently isn't what I referred to. Fair-minded thinking based in good will is more conducive to getting at the truth than angry bad will.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 6, 2007 4:24:55 PM
Well, after being implicitly accused of using Klan tactics and having a persecution complex, (ironic huh?), it's kind of anti-climactic to have everything fizzle out.
I just want to clarify a couple of things for any pedantic posters who come along later...
I realize that Ms Marcotte would say that ANY rape was bad, but when a white man rapes someone, the term "white men" is sometiems a sufficient summary. When a black man rapes someone, it may be that its a horrible thing, but it wouldn't be chalked up to some "black male" phemonena. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it should be. Rape is obviously a horrible thing, but when a black man rapes someone, poverty, racial discrimination, etc may be factored in. On the other hand, it seems like what the white majority (white males) has does wrong is like some sort of original sin, and everything everyone else does wrong somehow springs from that original sin. The problem is, we don't have the omniscience to be able to tell who is psycholgically unbalanced and who may be just plain evil. We don't know whether or not someone would still be a rapist if they went swapped social/racial classes with sopmeone. Because of this, it seems like the most reasonable method would be to comdemn equivalent acts equally, and if there's an afterlife, let karma or God or whatever sort out their fate.
The KKK, for example, is obviously a horrible organization, but does anyone imagine that people who participate in it are like emotionally healthy? Nothing excuses the KKK's behavior, Nothing. But there would be explanations if we had the omniscience to see all the factors. But an explanation is not the same thing as a justification. Similarly, the historic suffering of African Americans and women is the explanation for why Ms Marcotte and those like her apply different standards when speaking about different ethnic (however sound/unsound that concept is) groups. But that, to me, is not a justification.
I know there are probably some who want to say that Ms Marcotte is throwing hyperbole out there and that only a racist would get bent out of shape about it. The problem with that is, Ms Marcotte is not an equal oppurtunity offender, is she were, then her reputation in some circles as a straight shooter would be well-deserved.
I think where the rubber meets the road is that some believe (either implicitly or explicitly) that history is a justification for treating people differently today. I don't. I can see that certain common sense things like a morotorium of the "N-word" as responsible, while craker isn't nearly as offensive because it doesn't have the same history. But if Ms Marcotte would hesitate to write something about Black men or Asian men or whatever because she thought it may be offensive, then she ought to do the same with white men.
If race is illusury, which is what almost all on the left believe, (this more or less includes me), then why hammer incessantly on whiteness? Is whiteness like, a form of causation or something? I understand that since race exists provisionally, then many people's actions will be racially motivated. But wouldn't it be more just (when we have good reason to think that racism has occured) to hold people individually accountable instead of uncritically resorting back to lumping people into groups and implicitly explaining their behavior on the basis of their membership in that group? If anyone wants to quibble on whether Ms Marcotte actually does this, than just replace "white men" with "black men," then read the sentences. Do you still think they're appropriate statements? If you think one is appropriate but the opther isn't (now matter which side you choose) then its probably an excersize in futily for me to talk to you, as I'm learning more and more.
And what about the fact that most white men are not Duke LaCroose players? Most white men are a part of "the masses" or a part of the "other America" that John Edwards wants to speak to...Oh well, anyway I guess Ms. Marcotte is now a full-fledged member of Team Edwards. I was just tyring to imagine Mellencamp's "This is our COuntry" song that is now Edwards sort of de facto campaign song and wondering how that image fits with Ms Marcotte's temperment, views, and statements...it gave me a headache.
I may actually be motivated to go Untity 08.com, unless they nominate Leiberman, in case I'll run the other direction as fast as possible.
The funny thing is, Ann Althouse is the only other femlae blogger that I've had this type of reaction to, for obviously different reasons.
Anyone can sound off now, call me a Klan member, whatever, I won't be back.
Posted by: Jay J. | Feb 7, 2007 12:26:03 AM
But if Ms Marcotte would hesitate to write something about Black men or Asian men or whatever because she thought it may be offensive, then she ought to do the same with white men.
That's sensible.
I won't be back.
Why not?
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 12:41:04 AM
No, he didn't apologize. He says he might have been wrong, but he never says, "I apologize to Amanda Marcotte for slandering her good name." It's pretty clear what's happened. Ezra Klein, a male writer with a byline at TAP, got into the fight and Glover got scared. He's a shitty little coward who thinks picking on girl blogger is good fun but won't fight a boy with a print contract.
Posted by: JR | Feb 7, 2007 4:46:59 AM
The problem with that is, Ms Marcotte is not an equal oppurtunity offender, is she were, then her reputation in some circles as a straight shooter would be well-deserved.
This is true and why the flap is going on. If Marcotte were not so biased, there would be no problem. She appears racist in much of her writings.
But the truth is Marcotte *IS* biased and it shows so much that no one can believe that Edwards chose her. More likely, he delegated this choice and those who made it are now having to 'splain themselves. Edwards is trying to appear mainstream and with Marcotte and her past wild-eyed, biased and accusatory posts, it makes his job just that much harder.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 7, 2007 7:34:27 AM
JR, you provide an excellent example of what you claim to be upset about.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 12:07:58 PM
This is true and why the flap is going on.
Oh, please: this from the stalker who has been harrassing Amanda online under the fake names 'Robert Zimmerman' and 'Fred Jones' since at least 2005. Have a big old cup of Shut The Fuck Up with an extra spoonful of Hypocrite.
But the truth is
--you're a sociopath? Yes.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 7, 2007 9:45:19 PM
eftg doyzbpjnk lmcuoir opilv caxbkwoy qhbplje nisblvgxz
Posted by: xhzreovp ckwf | Feb 28, 2007 8:31:21 AM
My name is Arogeanae Brown. I live on the west coast in Fresno, California. I’ve been studying some African American History since the 5th grade. I’m writing to you ( Danny Glover) because, I need a strong advocate like yourself. My family and I read books and toured the east coast to study and research on Harriet Tubman whereabouts. The reason being is because Fresno Unified School District has very little black history study classes. I’m in the middle process, of writing to our governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger to request that African American courses be placed in our middle and high schools in California. I would appreciate it, if I can hear from you so, to get some great support. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and if you have more time can you contact me at these numbers (home) 559/275/0975 0r (cell) 550/930/3742. 0r (e-mail) supa_nae@yahoo.com or (other email) rntbrown5470@sbcglobal.net .
Posted by: Arogeanae Brown | Mar 25, 2007 8:31:47 PM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 11:03:45 PM
As the de facto administrator of the Security Fix blog, I've spent many an hour deleting spammy links left in the comments section -
- comments that usually lead back to the same kinds of Web sites you most commonly see advertised in junk e-mail.
Posted by: Garri Azz | Feb 16, 2008 2:31:13 AM
