Posted by Helen H February 12, 2007 in Legal Issues, Taxes, Censure The Fucker, Assholes
Click to enlarge
One thing I would certainly NOT expect is that anyone would go here[PDF], using the above as a template (or not), and stick that fucker in the mail. I certainly would be shocked if anyone were to alert all their friends and loved ones to behave similarly.
130 Responses to “Don Qui-who?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Sounds like political campaign intervention to me.
Uh oh.
the plot thickens
I don’t understand why you didn’t check the box “Do you consider the taxpayer dangerous?”
From the IRS fact sheet on political campaign intervention, FS-2006-17:
“The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy.”
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html
Unless you can show that Mr. Donohue: a) asked his supporters to vote against John Edwards; and b) made his request in an official capacity — at an organization meeting or in an organization publication . . . then there’s nothing to see here. Mr. Donohue was within his rights to say what he did. With respect, all of you should move on.
With respect, all of you should move on.
Fuck that. Make him expend the energy - and hopefully money - to defend himself.
KingTubby,
Is a press release not an official publication of an organization?
Is campaign employment a matter of important public policy?
Hey, KingTubby, keep readin’ that there paragraph from that there FS-2006-17 form:
Now let’s try to figure out whether Donohue was clearly speaking in an individual capacity, or whether he was speaking as the president of the Catholic League, on behalf of the Catholic League, in Catholic League press releases that have “Catholic League” written right on the top of ‘em.
I don’t mean to get picky about this, but some of us around here have worked in 501c3 nonprofit organizations before. Why, I’ve even had a fiduciary responsibility to one of ‘em! And if we’d launched a national media campaign to demand that some Republican staffers should be fired, we’d have been handed our asses in a sling, legally speakin.’
Then again, I realize that the law might not apply to right-wing operatives. See FS-IOKIYAR-1994-NG.
What a FUCKHEAD. I looked at their website and these motherfuckers really weren’t going to stop. Oh my god how could they do this to Amanda?
Just a hunch. Tubby=pantload, since there’s a direct connect from NRO to CL’s board of advisors?
Amanda, file a complaint with the State AG of New York. The IRS can take away Anti-Semitic Billy’s tax-exempt status, but the State AG can shut him down on the spot: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/9/14192/28215
Amanda, file a complaint with the State AG of New York. The IRS can take away Anti-Semitic Billy’s tax-exempt status, but the State AG can shut him down on the spot:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/9/14192/28215
This? Fun! You know what would be really great? If Donahue became such a liability to The Catholic League that they had to let him go.
[…] And here’s what you can do about it. […]
Susan, that’s the best thing I’ve heard all day.
Michael B….
“….potential* attribution of their comments outside of organization functions and publications, organization leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged* to clearly indicate that their comments…
Two big qualifiers* in there…’get outta jail free’ stuff.
Me…I’m kinda simple …think I’m just wanna go back there in me
Brown Shirt and jus’ go beat ‘em up.
Tha’ts! Demmocruzy.
[”Yeah, yeah Mom, I know it’s bedtime.”]
Been a long day…just happy to have her back.
Really kicked with all the back-up she got here.
Proud to be around Pandagon…thing.
and that ‘other’-type guy who said she’da just been stifled back there
might justa had a point.
Nite.
Partisan, Michael? I don’t recall Donohue’s comments as being partisan. I remember them being vociferously against the anti-Catholic bigotry spouted by Marcotte, but not partisan in the least.
[…] I’m sure no liberals will be looking into doing something like what this post doesn’t officially suggest they do… Add to: Bloglines | document.write(”Del.icio.us”) | Digg it | +Google | Y! MyWeb […]
Or you could just post his own published words, accurately, or would they be considered “satirical” as well? I guess going after someone whose words or actions offends you isn’t part of the unemployed, vast left-wing noise machine, but a just & honest voice of dissent? I guess we can also go after all of those who attempted to separate Karl Rove, chosen for his skills & talents, from the Elect Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign for violation of “the tax lawsâ€? right Amanda?
The Guidestar database has the CL’s Form 990 from 2005 showing the money in the CL’s purse, and the people getting it. It also gives a sense of how much of a wingnut welfare operation it is.
It’s basically a four-person shop. Pandagon has more active participants The IRS could take a nice chunk of that $3m or so in revenues. But the way to shut Donohue’s megaphone down isn’t really through the tax system: it’s by calling up every bishop and archbishop’s press office and requesting an on-the-record endorsement or disavowal of his notable quotables.
1) What’s a pantload? And I don’t know what Roxanne’s asking me about NRO . . . Tubby is the name of my stuffed hippo, from Ty, $5.95 retail.
2) It’s easy to figure out whether or not Donohue was speaking in his capacity as President of the Catholic League. Did his organization pay any media outlet for airtime to discuss the matter? Did he speak in an organization publication, or at an organization-arranged event? If the answer is no, he spoke as a private citizen.
3) Arguendo, let’s say he did slip Roger Ailes a gratuity to get on television and speak his mind. Did he openly state that Catholics should not vote for Edwards? If you think he used “code words” to skirt the law, can you prove — not infer, but PROVE– his intent to thwart the regulation? If the answer is no, you can’t substantiate a charge of political campaign interference.
Mr. Berube, if the Catholic League launched a campaign to discredit the staffers of a political campaign, its officers violated the law; at the least, they should be fired. On the other hand, if there are a lot of TV producers who think Mr. Donohue’s florid, table-pounding rhetoric makes good TV, and they gave him airtime because it helped their ratings . . . well, that’s just the system in action. If the producers of those shows chose to identify Mr. Donohue as “President of the Catholic League,” that’s because it’s a matter of public interest; it doesn’t implicate the organization in any way.
4) I admit to being confused about this whole debate. John Edwards is running for President; the public statements of his associates (and, more to the point, his employees) are OBVIOUSLY a matter of public interest. We have no direct means of assessing Mr. Edwards’ character; we have to draw inferences about it from the decisions he makes on the campaign trail. One of the things we’re interested to know is how temperate Mr. Edwards is. When he has to address the nation in a time of crisis, will he say something statesman-like and inspiring, or will he say something outrageous? And what about those who speak on his behalf — how will they react to tough criticism?
Ms. Marcotte has an issue with some of the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, and some of the people who claim to defend it. As a private citizen, she chose to address those issues in some very colorful language. Well, God bless her! She’s entitled to speak her mind, and while I was offended by some of that language, I wouldn’t dream of silencing her. Having said that, I think she’s shown poor judgment — not in what she said, but how she said it. I would have to look twice at any candidate who wanted her in his campaign so badly that he was willing to pay her.
I’ve never met Ms. Marcotte, but many of you seem to like her; she must be a lovely person to know. Maybe that’s why so many of you seem to have hurt feelings. But this is an INTERNET BLOG. What she said was public — available for EVERYONE to read. When she characterizes her views so strongly, people who don’t know her are going to get pretty upset. I notice that some of you are talking about taking action against William Donohue . . . punishing him, stripping him of his public position because of things he said. So maybe you can understand the anger, the sense of outrage that some Catholics feel because Ms. Marcotte said things that weren’t entirely fair. Maybe you don’t care what Catholics like me think; if you do, you might try to speak a little more gently.
wonder if anyone has dropped a copy to Lloyd Doggett (TX-25), who I’m hoping is still Amanda’s Rep in Congress (no telling after the way this place got Perrymandered)
Tubby,
As for one aspect of your argument - what the Catholic League’s role in all this is - one illustration would be the title of today’s (Monday’s) press release:
anti-Catholic bigotry
Man, you folks’ definition of bigotry has really expanded over the last two weeks. I remember when you couldn’t even convince righties that actual bigotry was bigotry.
Game On.
Is campaign employment a matter of important public policy?
It’s an indication of your thought processes…or lack thereof.
It is all right there on their website, so it is pretty hard to see how they are not breaking the law.
Amanda, I see that the apology you offered up a few days ago was, as I suspected, a pantload. Enjoy your inevitable irrelevance.
Did his organization pay any media outlet for airtime to discuss the matter? Did he speak in an organization publication, or at an organization-arranged event? If the answer is no, he spoke as a private citizen.
I was under the impression that Donohue was acting as the spokesperson for the Catholic League. That’s why it said “William Donohue, Catholic League” while he spoke.
If he was not there as the spokesperson for the Catholic League, why did they label him that way? Why not just his name, since he was there purely as a private citizen?
I don’t recall Donohue’s comments as being partisan. I remember them being vociferously against the anti-Catholic bigotry spouted by Marcotte, but not partisan in the least.
This is very funny. OK, so maybe you missed the part about firing staffers. Which brings me to:
I guess we can also go after all of those who attempted to separate Karl Rove, chosen for his skills & talents, from the Elect Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign for violation of “the tax laws� right Amanda?
Unfortunately, PMain’s syntax does not make for easy reading, but I think he’s suggesting that everyone who “attempted to separate Karl Rove” from the Bush / Cheney campaign should be charged with violation of the tax laws. Well, first we’d have to identify these people who did this, and then we’d have to see if they were acting on behalf of a 501c3 entity. But first, PMain would have to read section 501c3 of the U.S. tax code, so that he could find out what he’s talking about.
Mr. Berube, if the Catholic League launched a campaign to discredit the staffers of a political campaign, its officers violated the law; at the least, they should be fired. On the other hand, if there are a lot of TV producers who think Mr. Donohue’s florid, table-pounding rhetoric makes good TV, and they gave him airtime because it helped their ratings . . . well, that’s just the system in action. If the producers of those shows chose to identify Mr. Donohue as “President of the Catholic League,� that’s because it’s a matter of public interest; it doesn’t implicate the organization in any way.
OK, KingTubby’s clearly an attorney. The “arguendo” is the giveaway. The willingness to pretend that TV producers just happened by the Catholic League one day and decided to give Donohue a platform and just happened to identify him as the president of the Catholic League because it’s a matter of public interest . . . well, that suggests that KT is a Republican attorney. Because if the heads of my 501c3s were in Donohue’s position, they’d be audited by now.
And lastly:
One of the things we’re interested to know is how temperate Mr. Edwards is. When he has to address the nation in a time of crisis, will he say something statesman-like and inspiring, or will he say something outrageous?
My guess is that in a time of crisis, Mr. Edwards will not choose to be ventriloquized in public by his campaign blogger, so his choice of Amanda is kinda irrelevant to the question. But that’s just a guess. I will note, though, that I do not see anyone asking this question of John McCain and Patrick Hynes. Odd, that.
‘…maybe you can understand the anger, the sense of outrage that some Catholics feel because Ms. Marcotte said things that weren’t entirely fair. Maybe you don’t care what Catholics like me think; if you do, you might try to speak a little more gently.’
I’m just passing through so I DON”T speak for Amanda. But…
I have a question for ya King Tubby: ‘What entitles you to being treated gently?’
The fact that you are a Catholic?
The fact that you are religious?
That is, you believe in a delusion so we need to ‘respect’ your tender sensibilities. Is that it?
Gotta tell ya you are totally full of shit. Bill Donahue is a fat hate filled man who pursues his ‘victimhood’ for financial gain. Don’t agree?
Google him and see what you come up with.
And if what I’ve said pisses you off. Too damn bad.
I’m with the guy who said: ‘Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren you do it to me.’
And that guy didn’t say we all have to believe. He just said we all have to love.
Something Donohue never did in his life. Something you don’t seem familiar with.
Oh, for the love, Tubby:
Imply. The word you’re looking for is imply. Auguste would imply that Donohue has violated the conditions of his nonprofit status, and you would infer from his comments that that is the case, except that implication is unnecessary because it can be safely said explicitly that Donohue tried to, in his capacity with the Catholic League, directly influence a political campaign because it’s in press releases all over the CL’s Web site.
Ooh, sharon, that would sting if it weren’t a weird-ass non sequitur.
if the Catholic League launched a campaign to discredit the staffers of a political campaign,
Umm, are you kidding me?
Don’t take my word for it — why don’t you take a look yourself at the Catholic League’s website:
http://www.catholicleague.org/
Hey, I’ll even cut and paste from the Feb 12 news release:
“EDWARDS BLOGGER STRIKES AGAIN:
THEY MUST BE FIRED NOW!”
That’s the title of the news release, put out by the Catholic League, btw.
If the producers of those shows chose to identify Mr. Donohue as “President of the Catholic League,� that’s because it’s a matter of public interest; it doesn’t implicate the organization in any way.
Let me guess: you’re one of those lawyers who advertises on bar urinals? Or perhaps not.
OK, KingTubby’s clearly an attorney.
I think he’s more likely to be one of those Michael B. has noted, who send two cereal box tops and $50,000 to General Diploma Mills for a law degree. I have marginally enough faith to hope that no state bar association has such low standards.
Then again, perhaps KingTubby is one of the LA lawyers that Donohue’s outfit pays a neat quarter-mill each year.
Ms. Marcotte has an issue with some of the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, and some of the people who claim to defend it.
“Claim” is correct. Mr. Donohue has no position to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. He is not a priest or a nun. He is not employed by the Church. He works for no archdiocese.
What he runs is a fan club, and it’s a fan club of a very different church than the one I was raised in. Mr. Donohue has either (a) missed out on all of Vatican II, in which case he needs to educate himself or (b) has rejected Vatican II, which means that he is not a Roman Catholic, but an apostate.
That’s right, Tubby. If you are still resisting Vatican II the way Donohue is, you are an apostate. Better get down to confession right away. At least Mel Gibson tipped his hand to the fact that he is no longer a Roman Catholic by building his own church in Malibu, a church which is not recognized by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Sharon, are you trying, in your nearly incomprehensible way, to argue that Edwards’s hiring of Amanda Marcotte is relevant to his fitness as a candidate? If so, read the thread up to your comment. Seriously. If you do, you’ll realize that what you just managed to do is concede that Donahue was indeed making a political point–about John Edwards fitness as a candidate–and therefore has indeed broken 501c3 rules.
In other words, you appear to be attempting to add snark to an argument that’s the rhetorical equivalent of Daffy Duck yelling “Duck Season! Fire!”
I have to admit that that’s an accomplishment, of a sort. Not the sort you brag about afterwards, mind you, but still, an accomplishment.
Actually, ACG, the phrase “can you infer his intent” is legit. The question is whether we can infer Donohue’s intent from his remarks. And it’s a classic “misdirection” kind of question, the kind a good pettifogging attorney asks. Note, e.g., that Auguste said nothing about “code words.” KT merely implied that Auguste did. And note, more importantly, that Donohue’s intent is irrelevant under 501c3: it’s no defense to say, “but I didn’t mean to engage in political campaign intervention — it just kinda happened, your honor. Can I go now?”
Last but not least, note that KT opens this misdirection with yet another pair of misdirections:
The “arguendo” is irrelevant; it’s an attempt to make the men and women of the jury think that Donohue is in the clear if he didn’t pay for his appearance on the teevee. Likewise the claim that only an explicit statement about voting for Edwards would count as an actionable political campaign intervention.
I used to work for attorneys like KT. I’m guessing he gets about $500 per billable hour for this kind of thing — he’s pretty good at it.
Somebody begged: you might try to speak a little more gently.
I don’t think so. Welcome to politics on the intrawebs, buddy!
Sharon accuses others of having misfiring thought processes after she posts on her blog accusing Pandagon of going offline just so that she can’t post comments here.
Who was it that bemoaned the painlessness of stupidity? Was that Bill Hicks?
Chris: Who was it that bemoaned the painlessness of stupidity? Was that Bill Hicks?
Could be, but I’ve always preferred my husband’s saying: A stupid person’s hell is living. It’s more satisfying somehow.
I’m guessing he gets about $500 per billable hour for this kind of thing — he’s pretty good at it.
Next thing we English Lit types do is quote 2 Henry VI.
I used to work for attorneys like KT. I’m guessing he gets about $500 per billable hour for this kind of thing — he’s pretty good at it.
Indeed. And when you see this sort of guff being passed out for free in a blog comments section, the proper response is, “see you in court.”
I’m enough of a sappy-assed liberal to be sorry for Donahue’s lawyer, though. He’s the perfect nightmare of a client, I’m guessing.
Michael,
I apologize for my syntax & its lack of clarity. My point was & is that this all is nothing more than sour grapes. It wasn’t just Donahue that pointing out the “insensitivity� of Amanda’s writings. There were also liberal based Catholic organizations & bloggers, & as reported by several KOS diarists, the final straw may have been the fact that a “top adviser to a rival campaign� were using her words to “take a shot� at the Edwards campaign.
Nevermind the fact that Amanda has said tonight that this was “a targeted hit on atheists� or that her apology was never about what she said, but “felt bad if people read my comments out of context and are hurt.� Though to be honest I’m not sure how this quote could be taken out of context, since it is the first 2 paragraphs of her post
Her intent was to belittle, in her own words “mainstream Catholic teaching.”
The “arguendo� is irrelevant
That’s too harsh!
“Arguendo” is my favorite Abba song.
I’m enough of a sappy-assed liberal to be sorry for Donahue’s lawyer, though.
Does Sheppard Mullin have a tax division?
Fred at Slactivist had a few things to say about this. I think it is relevant.
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/
“Can you hear the drums arguendo?
I remember long ago another starry night like this
In the firelight arguendo
You were humming to yourself and softly strumming your guitar
I could hear the distant drums
And sounds of bugle calls were coming from afar
They were closer now arguendo
Every hour every minute seemed to last eternally
I was so afraid arguendo
We were young and full of life and none of us prepared to die
And I’m not ashamed to say
The roar of guns and cannons almost made me cry
There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, arguendo
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, arguendo
Though I never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, arguendo
Now we’re old and grey arguendo
And since many years I haven’t seen a rifle in your hand
Can you hear the drums arguendo?
Do you still recall the frightful night we crossed the rio grande?
I can see it in your eyes
How proud you were to fight for freedom in this land
There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, arguendo
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, arguendo
Though I never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, arguendo
There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, arguendo
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, arguendo
Though I never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, arguendo
Yes, if I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, arguendo…”
1) Umm, sorry, not an attorney. Registered Republican, but often a Libertarian voter. Also, while I have advertised in bar urinals, it was never for business purposes.
2) Sorry, hadn’t heard about the new press release. I don’t know if the CL was involved last week, but they certainly are now. That leaves the question: did they advocate against the candidate? Did they try to sabotage his campaign? I don’t think they did.
A non-profit group is allowed to remark that a candidate — or his operatives — have made some troubling statements, and urge him to disavow either the statements or the operatives. What they aren’t allowed to do is tell their members to vote for one candidate, or against another. If you have a quote from Mr. Donohue to that effect, then please: file a complaint. If you don’t, your situation is trickier. You can argue that he was sending hidden messages to some cadre of influence peddlers . . . but you’ll have to have evidence. (ACG — while I have no interest in what Auguste might be implying in his posts, I would be interested to know if he has drawn any inferences from the facts as he knows them.) If you haven’t developed the evidence, there isn’t a case.
3) Mr. Citizen: oh, you’ve misunderstood me. NOTHING entitles me to gentle treatment. This is America; say what you like! People have been making political arguments based on suspicion, resentment and prejudice for as long as there has been politics. If you feel that matters in the republic have deteriorated to the point where it’s time to pick teams and have a free-for-all, by all means, have at it. Personally, I got tired of scandalmongering back in ‘97 . . . but I’m just one person.
There are, however, consequences to that decision. When you choose to express yourself so pungently, I might get pissed off. I might get alienated, and pay less attention to what you have to say. I might have a few drinks, and tell my friends, “It’s godless liberal pricks like that who are screwing up this country!” I might decide that any candidate who would put that clown on the payroll didn’t speak for me. If you advocated a complex policy proposal that i just didn’t have the expertise to evaluate, I might decide how I felt about it based on whether I trusted you; I might decide that your comments were reasons to mistrust you. Hell, I don’t know you from Adam — maybe I can’t even trust your motives! After all, y’all are the cats that likened the Holy Spirit to God’s jizz (which, among other thngs, is the Sabellian heresy) . . . who knows what other crazy ideas you might have?
I think that bloggers, like everybody who thinks out loud where the public can hear them, have to decide what they want to accomplish. They can throw bombs, rally the team, and stand around patting each other on the back; or, they can try to persuade people who disagree with them thay they’re correct about the issue at hand. The goals are mutually exclusive — it’s one or the other. If you want to throw bombs, that’s your right. BUT when you look out and see that the ideals of the nation have been reduced to piles of rubble . . . when there isn’t a community anymore, just a bunch of factions, because nobody’s listening anymore . . . you’ll bear some responsibility for that. Just be sure you’re prepared to live with it.
Incidentally, I’m sorry if I’m coming across as hostile here. Perhaps Mr. Citizen is right, and I’m not as familiar with love as I ought to be. And perhaps Mr. Donohue isn’t worthy of a defense; again, Citizen seems to have an intimate knowledge that I can’t claim to share. But I am willing to accept fraternal correction from another Christian, and I will try to do better in the future.
1) Umm, sorry, not an attorney. Registered Republican, but often a Libertarian voter. Also, while I have advertised in bar urinals, it was never for business purposes.
2) Sorry, hadn’t heard about the new press release. I don’t know if the CL was involved last week, but they certainly are now. That leaves the question: did they advocate against the candidate? Did they try to sabotage his campaign? I don’t think they did.
A non-profit group is allowed to remark that a candidate — or his operatives — have made some troubling statements, and urge him to disavow either the statements or the operatives. What they aren’t allowed to do is tell their members to vote for one candidate, or against another. If you have a quote from Mr. Donohue to that effect, then please: file a complaint. If you don’t, your situation is trickier. You can argue that he was sending hidden messages to some cadre of influence peddlers . . . but you’ll have to have evidence. (ACG — while I have no interest in what Auguste might be implying in his posts, I would be interested to know if he has drawn any inferences from the facts as he knows them.) If you haven’t developed the evidence, there isn’t a case.
3) Mr. Citizen: oh, you’ve misunderstood me. NOTHING entitles me to gentle treatment. This is America; say what you like! People have been making political arguments based on suspicion, resentment and prejudice for as long as there has been politics. If you feel that matters in the republic have deteriorated to the point where it’s time to pick teams and have a free-for-all, by all means, have at it. Personally, I got tired of scandalmongering back in ‘97 . . . but I’m just one person.
There are, however, consequences to that decision. When you choose to express yourself so pungently, I might get pissed off. I might get alienated, and pay less attention to what you have to say. I might have a few drinks, and tell my friends, “It’s godless liberal pricks like that who are screwing up this country!” I might decide that any candidate who would put that clown on the payroll didn’t speak for me. If you advocated a complex policy proposal that i just didn’t have the expertise to evaluate, I might decide how I felt about it based on whether I trusted you; I might decide that your comments were reasons to mistrust you. Hell, I don’t know you from Adam — maybe I can’t even trust your motives! After all, y’all are the cats that likened the Holy Spirit to God’s jizz (which, among other thngs, is the Sabellian heresy) . . . who knows what other crazy ideas you might have?
I think that bloggers, like everybody who thinks out loud where the public can hear them, have to decide what they want to accomplish. They can throw bombs, rally the team, and stand around patting each other on the back; or, they can try to persuade people who disagree with them thay they’re correct about the issue at hand. The goals are mutually exclusive — it’s one or the other. If you want to throw bombs, that’s your right. BUT when you look out and see that the ideals of the nation have been reduced to piles of rubble . . . when there isn’t a community anymore, just a bunch of factions, because nobody’s listening anymore . . . you’ll bear some responsibility for that. Just be sure you’re prepared to live with it.
Incidentally, I’m sorry if I’m coming across as hostile here. Perhaps Mr. Citizen is right, and I’m not as familiar with love as I ought to be. And perhaps Mr. Donohue isn’t worthy of a defense; again, Citizen seems to have an intimate knowledge that I can’t claim to share. But I am willing to accept fraternal correction from another Christian, and I will try to do better in the future.
For the sake of argument, I think that song kind of is appropriate.
First of all, enacting the Henry IV doctrine would definitely interfere with the Edwards campaign.
Second, I just read the press releases and they seem to very consciously attempt to tiptoe around this very restriction. I’m not sure whether or not they’re successful. The most recent two both go out of their way to say these are attacks on Marcotte, not Edwards, that Edwards can’t be held responsible. And the one before that, that does directly attack Edwards, is fully framed by “Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, issued the following statement today…”
My theory is he thinks that if the Catholic League reports that some individual, who happens to be their president, made some remarks in the first person plural, that does not amount to THEM making those remarks. Clearly nonsensical, but possibly a viable legal defense.
I’d love to see Amanda come out on top here. I and other people I know have upgraded our evaluations of John Edwards based solely on his brief association with her.
so let me get this right.
Liberal (or progessive) = Compassion
Liberal = enlightened
Liberal = tolerance
Liberal = peace & love
Liberal = open, reasoned, rational debate
or
Liberal = mad, angry teenagers
eg-
“What a FUCKHEAD.”
“The IRS can take away Anti-Semitic Billy’s tax-exempt status, but the State AG can shut him down on the spot:”
“Me…I’m kinda simple …think I’m just wanna go back there in me
Brown Shirt and jus’ go beat ‘em up.”
“I have a question for ya King Tubby: ‘What entitles you to being treated gently?’”
I get it I think. You get to say what ever the heck you want and we all have to sing songs and hold hands and not say a word about it or you’ll get real mad and SHUT US ALL DOWN.
So much for freedom in your world.
Can you ever be wrong? ever? Can you ever do anyting stupid? Ever?
I thought only God was perfect but I just never visited the Immaculate Marcotte and her disciples.
Good luck with that.
The most recent two both go out of their way to say these are attacks on Marcotte, not Edwards, that Edwards can’t be held responsible.
I’m sure that’s what they think they’re doing, but it’s belied by the clear call for action by the Edwards Campaign. That seems like the very definition of interference.
Unless it’s supposed to be in the sense of “no blocking the campaign in the back” or “don’t touch the campaign until the football hits the campaign’s hands.”
If you advocated a complex policy proposal that i just didn’t have the expertise to evaluate, I might decide how I felt about it based on whether I trusted you; I might decide that your comments were reasons to mistrust you.
If you decide who to vote for based on the opinions of a blogger hired by a candidate on that blogger’s previous blog, well, good luck to you, and for your sake I hope they keep making sneakers you can put on with velcro instead of those frustrating shoelaces.
Now, stop harshing my buzz.
(Pulls out lighter, holds it aloft, sings along to Pinko’s last post)
What Donahue said: “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�
He has thus indicated that (a) he’s speaking as a representative of the CL and not as a private citizen, and (b) the CL will define the issues that matter, and the presidential candidate’s opinions are irrelevant.
That’s a pretty clear statement that Edwards is not someone the CL supports and is actively opposing. Perhaps he has skated to the edge of saying overtly “don’t vote for Edwards” without crossing over. But that judgment is best left to judges.
And the only way judges can exercise their powers is if the argument is placed before them officially.
I wholly support the effort to do so. If Donahue proves adept as a skater, the ruling will show that. But it will not prove that he’s ethical, that he represents the best interests of Catholics, or people or the nation.
Indeed, in his comments about numerous issues (Foley, Hollywood, Jews, etc), it’s already a proven fact that he’s a bigot, a politically motivated hack, and a worthless POS, who gleefully ignores the national interest to promote a value system that has damaged more lives than the value system promoted by Osama Bin Laden.
lame.
I guess I should go ahead and fill one of these things out. After all $cientology has me as an “anti-religious extremist.” I guess I could add the Catholic League to those I’ve managed to piss off, but it’d just confirm to my mom that I hate religion. (No, mom, I don’t hate religion, I hate the sh*theels who use Jesus as their personal ATM.)
“I remember when you couldn’t even convince righties that actual bigotry was bigotry.”
You’re kidding, right? They know that bigotry is rampant and is directed exclusively against white people, men, and billionaires. Catholics are a more recent addition, but very welcome.
“Sharon accuses others of having misfiring thought processes after she posts on her blog accusing Pandagon of going offline just so that she can’t post comments here.”
Go ahead and mock, you’re going to look really silly when she comes back and explains with devastating logic that you shouldn’t have sex if you don’t want kids. Try and come up with an answer to that one, Smart Guy! HA!
Auguste, filled out, printed, and ready to send.
Now, please forgive my ignorance, but this form goes to the IRS main offices, yes? If I am incorrect, please redirect me. It’s my first time doing something like this!
Thank you very much for posting it initially, by the way.
If you car about Amanda’s apparent need for public recognition, then Edwards did the wrong thing. If you care about the Edwards campaign, then Amanda has been a tad on the selfish, narcissistic side, don’t you think?
King Tubby may not be a lawyer, but I, alas, am. And he may be a Republican but I, alas, am not. But I’ve seen Amanda’s comments off and on and frankly am shocked that she didn’t have enough respect for Edwards to alert him that she makes, well…petulant, insulting, abusive and often ill-informed comments about a number of things.
Which leads to Professor Berube. One of the interesting issues he raises, his blog having clearly identified him as a professor at Penn State, is whether professors who blog and identify themselves in their university capacity are not jeopardizing the tax exempt status of their universities, as do the endless array of professors who appear in a partisan capacity and who cite, without fail, that they are, inter alia, the Robrt and Mary Johnson Sex Toy Fortunate Professor of Gender and Questioning Studies at the University of Mediocrity, etc. Or even Harvard for that matter (is Larry Tribe listening?).
So Amanda, live by the sword, die by the sword. If you insult people, life teaches that they sometimes may wish to impose the same upon you.
Or, as a famous philosopher one wrote: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
A listing of those priests belonging to the US Conference of Bishops may be found here:
http://www.usccb.org/bishops.shtml
Can you ever be wrong? ever? Can you ever do anyting stupid? Ever?
Compared to you?
This site is hilarious. Hardly a post w/o an F-bomb. Now that’s mature, rational conversation.
Are all of CL’s tax records public? Are its books open to the public? If so, hiring a forensic accountant to take a look at both might prove interesting. I would contribute money to such an effort, should you decide to take such a path.
MarcoB - So what is the proper response to someone telling you that you’re going to burn in hell forever with Satan and his angels if you don’t buy the religion of the month that’s being preached at you? A couple of F-bombs isn’t appropriate?
If someone is going to tell you that you’re going to hell unless you become like them, and you don’t like what this person’s preaching/saying…hell, I think a couple of F-bombs is more than appropriate in a situation like that.
We’ve got to get past the point where hateful language couched in religio-speak is acceptable. A few choice cuss words would lend the proper gravity and dignitas to the eternal terrorism practiced by certain religious types.
/M/
Well…when Bill Donohue attempts to strip Catholic organizations of tax-exempt status, he writes to the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS.
Amanda hasn’t said anything worse that Karl Rove has, then Dick Cheney has or George W. Bush, for that matter. In fact, compared to them, she’s a sweetheart. Mr. TeleTubbyBear is trying to legitimize the attacks of some vile Romanist for sectarian purposes. He gives himself away when he declares he’ll only listen to responses from good Christians, and of course, he’s the arbitor. I think the proper response to him is to tell him to piss off. Its a whole lot more polite than Rove, Cheney and Bush and it might keep the type of sectarian competition they’re inciting in Iraq down to a minimum around here.
Mirelle,
She can drop all of the literate f-bombs she wishes. No problemo. She just can’t be involved in political campaigns if she is abusive towards people to whom the campaign wishes to appeal.
If Edwards wishes to drop the Catholic vote - go to it Amanda! But if he suspects that he might want to have a shot at 35% of the voting public, then Amanda is not the babe you want on you side.
One of the problems with blogs is that what used to be private is now public — and perpetual. So if you want to indulge nasty insults about others, it may jeopardize your day job.
I suspect one of these days professors will start losing tenure over blog comments, the way everyone else loses jobs over public comments that cause problems for their employers.
Yeah, they say naughty words a lot. And they have cooties.
At least we can fucking spell.
What really gets me is that the main comment these people were whining about in their faux-persecution had to do with a personal opinion about Catholic groups trying to outlaw contraception, you know, so NON CATHOLICS could not use it. Yea. How dare non-Catholics stand up for themselves against what is straight up persecution directed at those outside their church.
I will be firing off one of these to the IRS today. Having the IRS dismantle Donohue’s hate machine could prove that the net and the people really can be a power for change and that the nasty Republican hacks won’t have a free ticket to do whatever they want anymore.
Wait a minute. Let me see if I get this right, you are crying foul that a 501(c)(3) is calling “specific issue advocacy”. Yet, you, an employee of a non-profit, who is engaged in similar issue advocacy, is not violating the rules. You cannot have it both ways.
I know you are mad, but this just make you look stupid.
I hope that a suit is succesfully brought against Bill Donahue to revoke his tax-exempt status. It would set a precedent to remove the status from similar people such as Calvin Butts, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. I would love to see all of these guys, including Donahue, lose this privilege.
Oh fuck all y’all. Amanda was an albatross around Edward’s neck. She did the honorable thing–resigned so Edwards wouldn’t have to fire her and appear to be bowing before Donohue. I don’t think very highly of Amanda, but in the matter of right v. wrong, I take her side against the likes of Donohue. Reluctantly. But no less resolutely.
The best one could hope for is that Amanda grows up a little. Okay, a lot. One can speak one’s mind and still be interesting AND professionally mature about it. I point to Ezra, the former proprietor of this blog as an example. Poo flinging is very “punk,” Amanda. But ultimately, it gives your detractors the upper hand.
Now let’s all go fuck Donahue. Hard.
Her intent was to belittle, in her own words “mainstream Catholic teaching.�
Oh no! You mean she dared to express the concept that perhaps the story, as written, is a piece of misogynist trash that has been used to enslave girls in sexual bondage for two thousand years? Not THAT!
The Roman Catholic church squandered ALL its remaining moral authority when it looked the other way at the hundreds of priests diddling the thousands of boys over decades — and then promoted Cardinal Bernard Law and the other criminals who protected them when their misdeeds were belatedly exposed. Has it ever been legal, acceptable, or moral for a priest to have sex with a parishioner, of EITHER gender? Why, then, the self-serving platitudes about “growth” and “changing society” and all the other lies? And these now have the audacity to say anything about behavior between consenting adults who have and want nothing whatsoever to do with their private men’s club?
This institution threatens to withhold communion from members (presumably including legislators) who support abortion rights, and then claims to be “non-political”? They sit in silence while the criminals they helped elect murder hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq, and then dare to speak about the “sanctity of life”? Why is the Catholic League so vocal about abortion, and so silent about capital punishment? And, after taking one clearly partisan stand after another, always in lock-step with the Cheney/Bush brown-shirts, why on earth do they think they should retain their tax-exempt status?
The unholy alliance between the criminals of the Cheney/Bush White House and the Roman Catholic church exposes the moral bankruptcy of all parties involved. The bullying and boorish behavior of thugs like Donahue and the Catholic League only strengthen the case.
I will submit this complaint (not that anything will come of it). I would like to see the entire institution prosecuted under the RICO laws, but that will have to come later as well. Being from Brookline, my representative (Barney Frank) may have something to say about these matters. Perhaps my senators Kennedy and Kerry may also find a voice (though I won’t hold my breath waiting for Kerry).
In the meantime, I joined up here this morning in order to offer my full and unqualified support for Amanda.
Politics is a lagging indicator. Blogging is a leading indicator. Amanda, and the thousands of bloggers like her, are our best hope for ending the corruption that permeates both the political and also the media establishments. Miscreants like Donahue attack her because she is a threat — a MORTAL threat — to their power.
I’m in my fifties, and my generation stopped one war. We also brought down one corrupt administration, and cut some new orifices for the corrupt right-wingers of that era. It is clearly time for my generation to do all this again, with help from new blood like Amanda.
Amanda, you are doing a fabulous job, and THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING.
I encourage you to maintain your leadership, speak clearly and with authority as you already do. When bullies like Donahue take a swipe at you, knock them down and move on.
The rest of us have your back — you KEEP LEADING.
Amanda,
From a long time Democrat and supporter of John Edwards:
Please STOP.
Or, to put things in the vernacular you’re used to: SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.
You went to work for Edwards because you support his candidacy.
Now you’re continuing to give oxygen to this story. You’ve just fed a dozen RW bloggers’ stories about how your apology was false and, thus, John Edwards was a dupe to believe you. Americans are fair minded, but they don’t want to vote for someone who gets the wool pulled over their eyes by a blogger. Especially since we’re trying to get away from bombs and guns and into diplomacy.
You’re HURTING my candidate. Stop. Now.
I know you’re angry. And justifiably so. But the more vitriol you let loose here, the more will filter into a pin the blogger on the candidate farce in the press.
John Edwards should get to spend his time telling Americans about his vision and what he’s going to do for America. Give him that chance. Figure out that your 15 minutes is damaging the very cause you claim to support.
Consider falling on your sword: “Yes, I dislike catholics and other religious zealots. I mislead the Edwards campaign as to my true views. For the good of America, I’m stepping out of this discussion and will let the words and policies of this good man get the fair hearing they deserve.”
Simple, eh.
Donohue has pulled this shit with Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and countless others. Don’t confuse the Catholic vote with the McCarthyist vote.
Now if we can only have Bill’s meth-amphetamine dealer, and Boy Toy.
Tony
I think a lot of back-up for the idea that Donohue was trying to influence the campaign comes from the transcript of his appearance on Tucker Calson’s show (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17049495/)
TUCKER: Heading up the campaign to get the women fired from the Edwards campaign is Bill Donohue. He‘s president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, and he joins us now.
…..
DONOHUE: I‘m getting reports all day that the Edwards campaign is in a state of disarray. There‘s an unconfirmed report that they were fired. I can tell you this much, it doesn‘t surprise me Tucker. If these were veteran people, they would have taken the fall for the big guy. They would have done the right thing, but these are two little brats, who obviously have been getting away with this for a long time.
…..
DONOHUE: Well, (INAUDIBLE{actually it was Mara Vanderslice}) in 2004 worked for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. I found about her background and they had to silence her. Then they got Brenda Bartel Peterson (ph) to quit or be fired because of her background.
Just a little more ammo for those who are interested.
Thank you for the topic, Augeste. Now I’m calling to Sancho for my lance, saddling up Rosinante, and wondering where the hell I put that Golden Helmet of Mambrino. Hell, Don Q in _Man of La Mancha_ is one of my personal heroes… well, sorta…
Allan: lose tenure over blog comments? You must be kidding. People might not get tenure because of blog comments. Unlikely, but at least it’s possible. Perhaps you’re thinking of adjuncts. As for this: in their university capacity are not jeopardizing the tax exempt status of their universities, Wait: what law are you thinking of here? I realize you’re trying to spin the guns on Donahue around to Berube et al, but you’re failing, badly. Try another tactic.
Among the annoying things about this kerfuffle is the dramatic increase in lame trolls. Mostly concern trolls…
“Next thing we English Lit types do is quote Henry VI.”
Or watch as the non-English Lit types quote Henry VI, then snicker because they don’t realize that not only is said quote not serious, it’s used to make the speaker look like an idiot, and thus, they are making themselves look a bit stupid by citing it.
/Not an English Lit major
Can I make a suggestion? Stop feeding the trolls.
Yes, there are some points to be made here and there, but overall the trolls are speaking from fixed positions. They will not be persuaded. If someone decides a curseword invalidates everything one writes, it’s not a negotiable position.
Also, if a blog which is about opinions and personal political stands contains a discussion of like minds so what? This is a group conversation and group dynamics will come into play: meaning people tend to discuss what they agree on and debate is governed by an amorphous group ethic. Someone who is loud and rude and not considered a friend may get booted or ignored. This isn’t censorship, it’s a human being exercising control over a conversation in their domain.
It may affects your opinion about their opinions, but they aren’t forcing you to agree or read their blog or anything.
When Pandagon does ban a troll, which is apparently rare, they aren’t then going to that troll’s workplace and insisting they be fired.
Bill Donahue is not a troll, he took action to get someone fired and he’s the head of a non-profit who may be violating the rules.
Also, there’s a difference between an informed honest opinion (swearing or not) and lying and dishonesty. Right wing blogs regularly do the latter to excess, without apology.
King Tubby,
It’s Donohue’s “freedom for me but not thee” that makes him a serious problem.
Well well well…. I guess the great white patriarchy is still alive and well, eh Mzzzzz Magot…er Marcotte? I mean, what ELSE could it have been? Not that YOU had done anything wrong what so ever right? Not that you have dug yourself into such a huge fucking hole that you’ll see daylight only if you remove those rose color glasses and lick a few asses on the way out!
Consider the piper partially paid.
Oh, and one more thing…. In the true poinient and aptly timed Nelson of the Sompsons comeback, “HA HA!”.
TMOTS
MarcoB: Fuck you. Fuckity fuck.
You are wasting your time with this silly attempt at the Catholic League. They will really laugh about it. They have tons of money and do not care about your complaint.
Allan Conrad: “If Edwards wishes to drop the Catholic vote - go to it Amanda! But if he suspects that he might want to have a shot at 35% of the voting public, then Amanda is not the babe you want on you side.”
Though this could be a good point, if clarified more, I wish that honest dissent and argument can be had without patronizing language (i.e., the use of “babe” in describing Amanda). However, if John Edwards really is coming out left of Obama and Clinton. then he probably didn’t have much hope of appealing to conservative, or even Democratic, Catholics, with or without Amanda and Melissa. After this whole debacle, in my mind, Edwards is just an average politician who doesn’t really care about the people or even the ideas he supposedly espouses, he’s just trying to get elected on whichever platform will work . At some point, I really am going to stop hoping that politicians are more than used car salespeople.
Poor Amanda….That free speech thing cuts both ways. Really a bummer aint it ? Come back when you’ve grown up and can string two sentences together without any crude or profane references.
Buh bye….!
Karl Steel,
Fair and constructive observation. Had I written a bit more precisely, I WOULD have said:
1. Untenured/adjunct professors blog at their peril, particularly when they get political or social and beyond the realm of their academic expertise.
2. Tenured professors — I agree, few schools CURRENTLY would dare challenge the security of a tenured prof, but as blogging becomes more frequent, and professors speaking outside of their academic areas continue to spew emotional, unprofessional comments hither and yon, I think they will face pressure.
Amanda got her just desserts. The above commenter who supports Edwards expressed it well. She is immature, has zero policy expertise, and harmed his cause, possibly fatally.
As for whether one should pay a price for their “freedom of speech” in blogs — of course they should. Very, very few people have freedom to say things that anger their employers - whether we like it or not, that is a fact.
Profespsors enter into an interesting danger zone because the LAW of academic freedom, as distinguished from the incorrect popular idea of it, protects speech in the classroom only in areas of the classroom subject matter, and protects academic research and publishing, only in the area of one’s expertise.
But when professors spew on every this and that and demonstrate prejudice, bigotry or mere stupidity in blogs, they do so at their peril. And that should be the case. Rules of conduct relate to behavior in general - outside of the academic freedom context, and if a faculty member were to come into question for saying at a dinner party in front of students or alumni what they say in blogs, of course they are at risk.
Berube was an excellent example of that. No one can question his right to speak as he likes on anything within his subject areas, but when he went emotional/ballistic/off the wall on so many other subjects, he cast Penn State in a negative light. No student of his could ever be blind to his prejudices, and hence he created a chilling effect on students by forewarning him — in 50,000 words or less - that he had strong, non-intellectual emotional feelings on an array of subjects. If they were to write a paper on a novel touching on those subjects, Berube made it pretty clear that they were seculating on his response at their peril.
Same for Juan Cole, Althouse, Serat and the hundreds of other ideologues.
So it will be interesting to see the increasing cases where blogs hoist people on their you-know-whats, as was Amanda.
Allan
DDay at 9:23 am — GOOD CATCH!
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/12/don-qui-who/#comment-359387
Amanda steps down, Donohue still a bigot…
Amanda felt she had to step down from the John Edwards campaign, since Bigot Bill Donohue jumped up and down in a snit over the fact that John Edwards didn’t fire her immediately for not praising the Catholic Church to…
Hi Allan, if you were referencing me in this comment–”Amanda got her just desserts. The above commenter who supports Edwards expressed it well. She is immature, has zero policy expertise, and harmed his cause, possibly fatally.”–then you’re misreading my comment. If you were not referencing me, then I’m apologize for my presumption.
I think Edwards made a bold and exciting choice by including two liberal feminists (a traditionally marginalized group) as voices for his campaign. In the end, I’m disappointed that he allowed himself to be bullied by the Establishment that has been seeking to silence strong women since forever. I wish he had been stronger, but he wasn’t, and it’s his loss. As a strong, liberal feminist myself, I’m glad to be in such company as Amanda. Being a strong woman is hard and lonely most days, and it’s nice to see other women keep trudging on despite setbacks.
Berube was an excellent example of that. No one can question his right to speak as he likes on anything within his subject areas, but when he went emotional/ballistic/off the wall on so many other subjects, he cast Penn State in a negative light. No student of his could ever be blind to his prejudices, and hence he created a chilling effect on students by forewarning him — in 50,000 words or less - that he had strong, non-intellectual emotional feelings on an array of subjects. If they were to write a paper on a novel touching on those subjects, Berube made it pretty clear that they were seculating on his response at their peril.
Don’t forget to show your work, Allan. Point out those specific emotional/ballistic/off the wall remarks I’ve made that have harmed Penn State and have “created a chilling effect” on students. Then show where and when I have uttered anything, on my blog or in print media, on behalf of Penn State as an institution. Demonstrate that I have done so in such a way as to compromise its tax-exempt status. And don’t forget to read my posts on academic freedom, too!
As for your claim that I am an unprofessional teacher, incapable of grading students’ papers fairly: I will say only that I am seculating on your response.
Jeffersonian Feb 13th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Partisan, Michael? I don’t recall Donohue’s comments as being partisan. I remember them being vociferously against the anti-Catholic bigotry spouted by Marcotte, but not partisan in the least.
If you want to talk about anti-religious bigotry, maybe you should read up on what your hero, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about various Christian beliefs before you attack dear Marcotte. No doubt he was prophetic when he said priests are hostile to liberty. If Jefferson was alive today, he would get eaten alive by Donohue and the rest of his bully brigade.
But of course, you give a pass to the anti-Semitic bigotry Donohue spews out on a daily basis?
Of course, because most conservatives have proven to be hypocrites on this issue. Hateful words are perfectly fine when it comes from the Right side of the aisle, eh?
Dear Mr. Bérubé: would that make you a “secular liberal”?
Oh, but wait—
I guess that in that case these hypothetical students of yours would have proven themselves to be “secular conservatives”.
It’s so much fun to try out new words…
(P.S.: To whom it may concern—please feel free to consign this post to Moderation Niflheim if you think it’s just too silly.)
Allan Conrad —
Quite a very stirring post on the dangers of professors at universities who — how did you put it? — “…spew on every this and that and demonstrate prejudice, bigotry or mere stupidity in blogs . . . ”
I’d be interested in your take on this particular spew:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2501.php
Ham Jackal Ton: They have tons of money and do not care about your complaint
It really doesn’t matter what the Catholic Leak thinks about these complaints.
The target audience in this matter is THE IRS, which is all the more likely to be INTERESTED in these complaints because the Catholic League has tons of money and their benefactors are not paying a cent in taxes on it while failing to follow the rules for not paying a cent in taxes on it.
If they gave a shit about a small city historical society aborting election practice and having it’s president living at reduced rent in a historic property (claiming it as an in-city residence for the sake of his daughter attending school in the city, while officially deducting things on a principal residence elsewhere), I think “tons of money” will NOT work in their favor AT ALL.
Give me a Donahue perp walk please oh please I’ll never ask for anything else again I promise
1) Revisiting this debate, I wonder if the “home team” isn’t confusing the issue. A presidential campaign exists as part of a national debate about issues. John Edwards doesn’t get to tell Americans what the subject of that debate is going to be. He can participate in that debate, by offering his thoughts on the issues, and earning our trust as a man who would use the powers of the Presidency to resolve some of our problems. But in order to be effective, he also has to listen to other people’s views, and tailor his remarks to the tone of the moment. If his campaign is to have a hope of success, it must be part of that debate, and hence open to influence from it.
William Donohue, learning of Ms. marcotte’s remarks, sought to change the terms of the public discourse in a manner that would hurt Mr. edwards. How is that aginst the law? It’s his JOB to enter into public debates, and change the way people think and talk about the issues; that’s what his organization IS FOR. Just like FAIR, PAW, MoveOn.org, and many other groups, the Catholic League is going to try to change the way we think about the issues by challenging public figures when they don’t like what they say. In this case, Mr. Donohue succeeded in changing the way we looked at Ms. marcotte’s blog; in order to stay relevant to the political debate, the edwards campaign had to adapt to the change. Maybe it was unfair to pick on Amanda; maybe it’s scary that an old windbag like Bill Donohue has so much influence on national politics. Neither of those points are relevant to the legality of the CL’s actions.
What the CL cannot do is directly influence elections: no endorsements, no disavowals. Presumably, if they sabotaged a candidate’s campaign, that would be electioneering, and actionable. But “sabotage” is a loaded word; it conveys a sense of furtiveness, and of illicitness. I know none of you are fans of Mr. Donohue . . . but would any of you describe him as furtive? (Dishonest, maybe . . . but furtive?) I think his thoughts have been right out in the open ever since this issue came to light. And as to illicitness: if it is the FUNCTION of his organization to make statements to the media about public affairs, what forbidden activity did he undertake? He gave a couple of interviews, and faxed out a press release. Isn’t that what he does for a living, with the full knowledge of the federal government?
Remember, Mr. Donohue didn’t propose a standard that would only penalize Mr. edwards, or Ms. marcotte. I think he proposes a rule-of-thumb: no candidate who thinks that another person’s faith is a fit subject for dirty jokes should be elected president. If that rule somehow singles out the edwards campaign — and I can’t see how it does — maybe it’s electioneering. Otherwise, it’s just enaging in the public debate, which it is the PURPOSE of his organization to do. The IRS knew the CL’s purpose when they granted the tax exemption; I can’t see taking the exemption away, just because they’re having success.
2) I think it’s interesting that Ms. marcotte’s defenders on this thread want to evaluate the justice of her separation from the edwards campaign, WITHOUT discussing the words she actually wrote. Those of us to whom she is a stranger are supposed to ignore her language, and understand that this is REALLY about contraception and the oppression of women. We’re supposed to care an awful lot about who Bill Donohue is (a bastard, a fuckhead, a POS), and not at all about what he says. I think that’s wrong-headed. No one at the CL attacked her for being pro-contraception. Nobody attacked her for being a strong woman. They attacked her because she made specific statements that offend a number of Catholics. What she said is at the heart of this matter, and if marcotte were the strong women she pretends to be, she would be honest with herself about the possibility that unconscious prejudice has colored her speech.
There are plenty of arguments that access to contraception is a moral right. There are plenty of arguments that right or wrong, access to contraception should be guaranteed in a free society. I can’t think of any that depend on comparing the Holy Spirit to God’s hot, sticky jizz. I can’t think of any coherent defense of abortion rights that requires us to believe that Limbo is a conspiracy of the Church foisted off on innocent believers to make women feel bad about themselves. (Incidentally, Ms. marcotte has confused Limbo with Purgatory — showing that she feels free to comment on subtleties of theology in a faith of which she is ENTIRELY IGNORANT.)
Look — either making fun of the dogmas of the Church is central to her purpose in making those comments, or it’s irrelevant. If it’s irrelevant, she muddied the waters for herself; she can’t fault us if we can’t see clear to the bottom. If it’s at the center of her thinking, then Mr. Donohue’s comments are substantially true: she is, by definition, anti-Catholic. If that’s so, she ought to have the guts to say so. She ought also to have the maturity to accept that a liberal society is going to question her divisive tone and exclusive language.
3) Mirele — the proper response to a perfect stranger telling you that you’re going to burn in hell:
“How kind of you to take an interest.”
If that doesn’t dissuade them:
“I assure you, I will give the matter due consideration. If I think of a way you can be helpful, I’ll be sure to let you know.”
I’m sure you’ve thought of hundreds of ways to drop an F-bomb; can’t you think about using good manners? You might actually find them to be a more effective deterrent to unwelcome proselytizers.
4) “Vile Romanist,” huh? No, anti-Catholic prejudice is just a right-wing fantasy . . .
Jeez, KingTubby…
Big letters for the people you like and
small case for those you don’t?
Pretty juvenile…
and in those unending screeds a LOT of caps and not caps and caps and not caps…
He doth fuc*king mightily toil, our Troll.
[capital T, you see…just for you, Sweetie.]
Somebody enable ITALICS, and I won’t have to capitalize anymore. Or can you recommend a more polite way than caps to add emphasis to my posts? My thanks in advance for your ideas.
Mr. Bérubé: I will say only that I am seculating on your response.
:-) They spew so much on the interwebs that you’d think they’d get good at it.
The site was down a bunch today, and I don’t know if this was covered elsewhere, but there are also instructions on where to fax (or email) the form (to the closest fraud detection unit), here:
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=106773,00.html
Perhaps these complaints will all end up in NYC anyway, although it might also be fun if IRS fraud detection units all over the country got to take part. I love auditors! It would be exceptionally great if the Inspector General could get involved in some way; those folks are really scary.
KingTubby,
What the hell are you talking about?
God, do I wish I could do that, Auguste. I’ve just got a blank box to type in.
God, do I wish I could do that, Auguste. I’ve just got a blank box to type in.
We can’t win this debate in the court of public opinion, so let’s sic the IRS on anybody who dares to speak out against us.
King Tubby,
simple-html-for-formatting-blogger-comments
Enjoy
4) “Vile Romanist,� huh? No, anti-Catholic prejudice is just a right-wing fantasy . . .
Oh, feck off: wait until Rudy makes the contractual-obligation trip to Bob Jones, and we’ll talk.
It’s his JOB to enter into public debates, and change the way people think and talk about the issues; that’s what his organization IS FOR. Just like FAIR, PAW, MoveOn.org, and many other groups, the Catholic League is going to try to change the way we think about the issues by challenging public figures when they don’t like what they say.
Here’s the deal, Tubs: there’s already a pretty decent-sized hierarchy within the RC Church to enter into public debates. It’s comprised of the clergy and church-sanctioned societies. Donohue’s wingnut welfare shop isn’t part of that. It’s part of something quite different: a set of small-scale political operations that manufacture outrage and publicity in a neat, self-funding and self-promoting circlejerk. Had it not been Donohue, it would have been Concerned Insufferable Music Snobs of America or some other astroturf brigade.
So, your comparison is quite false: the CL and Veritas are false fronts for an organisation that’s not particularly deficient in public outlets.
Had I written a bit more precisely, I WOULD have said:
Sagesse d’escalier, mon frere. The problem isn’t that you were imprecise. There’s a difference between being sloppy and being wrong. The problem is that you were talking out your ass. You were more interested in ’spewing’ than in developing a legitimate argument or having a conversation. Ipso facto, you’re an ideologue who’s not worth my time. In other words, a troll. Talk among yourself, Legion.
Amanda change utterly.It may not be too late.
bad: We can’t win this debate in the court of public opinion, so let’s sic the IRS on anybody who dares to speak out against us.
Get used to it!
Just because you can do it does not make it right…
Gerard Van der Leun offers some words of wisdom over the John Edwards campaign blogger controversy: Without referencing the Edwards bloggers, I would note that over time people change and at certain moments people online write things they later regret….
King Tubby: You are a breath of fresh air. You will note, however, that in this swamp, fresh air is unwelcome and, probably, unhealthy for the denizens.
HA! Awesome. Good luck.
[…] The only flickering light in this dark, dismal time is the fact that Melissa and Amanda are now free to fight back. And you can fight back, too. […]
Printed, filled out, and (soon to be) mailed.
Shouted.
And (William Donohue) googlebombed.
CatStaff,
I tried your link to Instapundit but it just got me an article on a bomb in Iran. To which story was the post appended, and the date please?
As for Prof. Berube: interestingly, it was a link to one of your endless postings on academic freedom that led me to your blog. I read the whole thing and actually thought you had some good points, and it kept me visiting your blog every week or so. To ask me to cite the specifics would be cruel and unusual punishment however: youre an apparently bright man, but your writing is torturous to rad and life is too short to venture back into your archives.
I did read your postings a number of time though, and found that if you worked in any other organization you’d have been fired long ago. So the question is whether you have protection by having your own domain etc., and the legal answer is no. Whether you - personally - would be at risk would be rank speculation on my part. But the trend to legal liability for blog comments is a sure one, and what happened to Marcotte is an example of thigs to come, though her case of course is unrelated to academics. But Cole likely lost his future at Yale over his blog, and that will surely increase. As for challenges to tenure over blogs that bring embarrassment to an institution or that intimidate students, as Blogs such as Brubes, Cole’s and others do, that is likely, though where/when it will happen is a just a guess.
And by the way Pro. Berube, I learned of Marcotte when she guested on your blog and thought she was immature, a poor writer and not very smart, so when she got into troubl with Edwards I remembered her, which is what led me back here.
In the “real” ie. not-academic world, everyone knows the boundaries of behavior, and saying things on a blog that harm your employer, or its customers or clients, is cause for dismissal.
The fact that Marcotte needs to spend so much energy to defend herself makes the case for firing her. She is a reckless person and no campaign can afford having someone with her vast archive of careless, insensitive, arrogant comments on their payroll.
Allen
[…] Good suggestions, all. Here’s some information about implementing action number 2. […]
[…] Also be sure to check out Don Qui-who? on Pandagon. […]
I did read your postings a number of time though, and found that if you worked in any other organization you’d have been fired long ago.
Thanks for providing this compelling evidence of your claims about my unprofessional behavior, Allan. You’re a fraud.
St. Hatemanda is gay. She hates men because she is ugly.
Mr. Berube,
You pretty much made my point. I think it is totally appropriate for a drunk in a bar, or at a football game, or anywhere really, to become frustrated when someone shows inadequate admiration for him and yell “fraud.”
But college professors supported by taxpayers, parental savings and student loans are held to a different standard. If you disagreed with some element of my comments, I’d expect a professor to explain why. To the extent that I commented on you, a professional man accountable for his conduct might invite, as you did, a more specific example. And if the other person, as I did, suggested that your literally overwhelming and frankly tedious writing is too voluminous for for a full time, non-academic professional, you might say that well, the comment was unfair, or you might ask him some followup question to narrow the issue, or you might ask an array of other things.
But by choosing the f-word, you aligned yourself with the uneducated.
You do not need me, or anyone, to realize that your blog was filled with hate speech, angry, condescending, sarcastic, denigrating treatment of those with whom you disagree on politics, music, social issues, etc. You must know that.
Rule for the conduct of academics include respect for the conflicting opinions of others. I have no interest in the literature that interests you, so I didn’t read many of your postings on it. I found the language incomprehensible anyway (and I have three Ivy degrees).
But the academic freedom subject was of interest and, as I said earlier, you made some good points, though your absession with that Horowitz guy struck me as a bit bizarre, but that too is your privilege.
What is not your privilege is to set an example for students that when you disagree with someone, you insult them, particularly since the less you knew about a subject, the more denigrating you became. For $125,000 pretax dollars, students are entitled to be taught to become adults, with powers of reason, courtesy, respect for the views of others. I’m sure you teach literature well, but as for the former, you aren’t much of an example.
If I teach somewhere and I have a blog in which I consistently denigrate women, a woman in my literature class might feel anxious, apart from wondering what sort of person can be an adult professor and write such intemperate, ill-informed and intolerant things.
By writing as you do, with the disrespect you show to anyone with whom you disagree (other than in literature where, to the extent I could decipher, you seemed fine), you bring disrespect to your school and your profession. So I stand by my point — that professors will eventually begin to face consequences for their blogs.
You might have done better avoiding reference to your profession or your school. I doubt much will happen from it, but if it does you should not be surprised. The 99.9% of the world that lacks job security faces those constraints, so if you eventually do, welcome to our world!
Allan Conrad
PS — you might also consider, as untenured folks do, that the person whom you addressed as a “fraud” might be a prominent contributing alumnus of Penn State, or related to a legislator sitting on the appropriations committee handling state university expenditure,s, or that they may be a friend or relative of someone of that sort. One never knows. That alone is a reason to think a bit more carefully before insulting someone. Tenure is power and, as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yes, I thought I’d hear something like this from you in response, Allan. The simple facts are these: you made a number of serious and unsupported allegations about my blog and my teaching. You suggested that I have somehow harmed my employer and my students, and that I should be fired for something I’ve written. When I invited you to back up these claims, or to cite a single blog post or comment that you find objectionable, you said that “life is too short to venture back into [my] archives” and find anything in my blog that would support you — though clearly life’s not too short for you to throw around baseless accusations. And then you blamed your laziness and/or dishonesty on my “frankly tedious” writing. Frankly tedious — and filled with hate speech, too. I have yet to get a single example of my “hate speech” from you. And no, calling someone on fraudulent behavior isn’t hate speech.
Now you claim that I called you a fraud because you didn’t admire me sufficiently. To this you add yet another accusation, that “the less [I] knew about a subject, the more denigrating [I] became.” My blog archives will be up for the foreseeable future, Allan. Once again, I invite you to provide an example of a case in which I denigrated someone with regard to a subject I did not know about.
I’m sorry that you have disgraced yourself in this way, because, as always, I’m perfectly willing to entertain reasonable and substantial objections to anything I’ve written.
Last but not least: I worked at about a dozen different places before I got my first academic job. At every one of them, hurling serious and baseless charges at someone was grounds for termination. That alone is a reason to think more carefully before lobbing any more threats in my direction.
Allan: You are a breath of fresh air. You write beautifully and what you have said needs to be heard. However, the good professor will neither listen nor benefit from what you have taken the time to write.
I think I can offer some possible reasons for that. I am, myself, a faculty member. However, I like to think that I possess serious common sense and a sense of humor. If I am right, I attribute that to being the granddaughter of working class immigrants and the first in my family to go to college.
Academics are, by and large, arrested adolescents. If you doubt it, I invite you to sit in on any department meeting. The clash of egos and the gnashing of teeth over insignificant matters is as amusing as it is appalling. Many of us go straight to grad school and then into academia and have never held a real job. Thus, we don’t know what it is like to take crap from an abusive boss or client, while smiling politely. We have never sweated closing an important deal or worried about being able to meet a payroll. These are the kinds of things that make adults out of adolescents.
We are priviliged beyond any belief and yet we moan and bitch like teenaged girls who have been told we can’t go to the mall until we clean our rooms. When I worked at one (quite prestigious and wealthy) private university, we had no sick leave. That is, if we were sick we stayed home. Nobody counted up the days– you never had to use vacation time (I was not in a classroom position but in a professional position) or go off the payroll. Imagine trying to explain how overworked you are to your sister, who has 5 days of sick leave and has to find a way to afford to have needed back surgery.
You may be sure that the Michael B’s of this world make me sick.
You would think that after 1700 years of wrestling with the wide variations of Greek, Irish, Coptic, and Protestant “heresies,” not to mention intimate political and economic contact with Judaism and Islam, that Roman Catholics would have grown a thicker skin about the fact that people disagree with their doctrines. Those of us with little or no faith don’t always feel obligated to sugar-coat our opinions about the political Goliath that is the RCC and it’s professed doctrines.
As it is, there is a clear double-standard at work here. Much, much, worse invective is preached from the pulpit and in print at those of us who do not hold ourselves to Christian creeds, with nary a murmur of censure.
Mr. Berube,
I am not a blog habitue and, as explained above, visited this one only because I recalled Ms. Marcotte’s name from having seen her on yours, and having had a negative impression of her maturity, intelligence, carelessness, etc. So when she was de facto fired (or, as she says, resigned) I was curious about what she had written on her own blog. As I also pointed out in my comment, when I read some of her comments on anything - not merely Christianity or Catholicism - the hullabaloo made sense. She clearly embarrassed Edwards, and he clearly was negligent enough to be embarrassed.
So I would have stopped there. I run a large business and work 65+ hour weeks, so this isn’t my idea of recreation.
One of the amusing things about Bill O’Reilly is that he is so narcissistic that when some obscure journal in, say, Pocatello or Casper mentions his name, it becomes the opening of his next show. When I mentioned you in the larger context of people facing risk because of their blogs, your tenacious, instant reply reminded me of O’Reilly. I suspect you perceive that as the cruelest of insults but that is my perception. True though, your words contain vastly more syllables and equally true, it takes you many more words to get where you want to go.
You seem to enjoy baiting people, and I don’t have much time or interest in being baited (regrettably, my salary isn’t paid by parents or taxpayers), but I did think that the courtesy of specific evidence was worthwhile. Unfortunately your search facility on your website doesn’t allow direct links to articles/entries, and I don’t have the time to wade through indices or what might be euphemistically characterized as your opaque writing style, etc.
So I thought a word search might be useful, concentrating on strong, insulting words (often libelous) that are found in your blog - the type of words that professors should not be using or sponsoring (when used by others).
Here are the numbers of separate blog entries containing words that are often the subject of libel or considered to be inappropriate unless based on good evidence (and had I the time, I could of course have found more):
“Liar”: 252
“Lying”: 293
“idiot” 114
“fraud”: 86
“jerk”: 77
“asshole”: 53
“fag”: 26
“sociopath”: 12
“psychopath”: 11
“imbecile”: 6, and trailing in last place…
“cunt”: 5
You will understand that I am not interested in you, personally. I mentioned your name in a context, that of professors who may, in the future, find their tenure under question because of their desire to venture beyond their academic expertise in their blogs, into subject areas in which they do not enjoy legal protection based on academic freedom principles.
I truly don’t have time for this sort of word play, but I did check a couple of samples of use of these words in actual entries, just out of curiosity:
“So Bush is going to appoint small-time liar and death-squad enabler John Negroponte as U.S. ambassador to Iraq.” 4/13/04
“I think Dick Cheney is (a) running this country and (b) a psychopath. My wife thinks Dick Cheney is (a) running this country and (b) a sociopath.” 10/7/04
Perhaps Ambassador Negroponte - a universally respected professional - may in fact be a death-quad-enabler and a “small time liar.” Perhaps vie president Cheney is a “psychopath.” But as public figures, these men cannot effectively sue for libel, nor would they (I might add, in making yourself a public figure in the NY Times v. Sullivan sense, neither can you). But that wasn’t the point of my postings.
My point was that professors who venture outside of their domains of expertise and who are reckless or immature or unprofessional when they do so are, as did Marcotte as an amateur, (1) setting a terrible example for students about how to think through issues and express their views effectively and (2) likely to face tenure challenges in the future. Sample of a current one: Ward Churchill. Sure, they will get him for misrepresentations, etc. the way they got Capone for tax evasion, but the point is the same.
As I also said, I was drawn to your blog out of an interest in academic freedom issues and a general ongoing interest in the life of the mind. I found your writing and thought processes to be problematic (another euphemism) but was deeply moved by your dedication to the disabled and got the impression that you must be a nice man, and I’d enjoy being in one of your courses.
But I am older than you are, well established in my former profession and current business, and have the life experience to form my own opinions. Your students don’t. And that is why I thought that many of your comments were irresponsible, self-indulgent and unprofessional.
With all due respect, I am not further interested in you so won’t reply further, but I did want to make a good faith effort at providing examples at what I meant.
Regards,
Allan Conrad
PS — I don’t have time to edit so apologize for misspellings, etc.
PPS — and I repeat, I would think twice about calling people “frauds” when you don’t know who they are, or whom they know. In fact, for other good reasons, I think that a reduction of your use of the word “fraud” might be good as a general principle. As I said, one expects professors to express themselves differently than bar room customers.
Lily,
Thank you for your kind words. Though I don’t live in the academic world I have a number of former classmates who do, and have retained an ongoing interest in goings on at the two schools I attended.
Academic life is a great privilege and, when not abused, can make a real contribution to students. My point about the professors was that I felt that they exploited and often misused their positions of authority and that the trend of the law was not in their favor in the relatively new world of blogs. What can be said in the faculty club is different when said in the public domain. I sometimes wonder why the ACLU is so obsessed with anonymous, nameless NSA word/pattern searches when Google has stripped us all of privacy, forever.
But the cliche is often true: academic fights are so mean and angry because there is so little at stake.
My best wishes to you in the trenches,
Allan
Oh, Mr. Conrad, you are a newbie when it comes to blogs and Internets. Let me explain a few things about all those bad words you found on my blog. First, the fact that they appear on my blog does not mean that I used them. For example: I ran the same searches you did, just out of curiosity, and found that “liar” appears in my very last post. This struck me as strange, because my last post was nothing but a film clip. Ah, but in the comments section, one commenter used the word “familiar,” and another called someone a “liar” — in jest, as it happens. As for the word “cunt,” which I have never used on my blog: it appears in one comment in which someone is quoting a poem that includes the word, and in another comment in which someone has misspelled the word “accountant.” Most interestingly, a number of commenters debated the use of the word on October 24, 2005 — in response to a post in which I asked people to refrain from using words like “imbecile” and “moron.” But, once again, I didn’t use the word “cunt” myself. Or “imbecile,” either.
With regard to the words I actually did write: I’m afraid you are mistaken if you think that calling John Negroponte a liar is grounds for revocation of tenure. But thank you for making me laugh at the idea that he is a “universally respected professional!” That was a most pleasant surprise. You will, however, want to consult the meaning of “universally” and the meaning of “respected.”
And you’re right, I do respond when people make wild accusations about me. On that count, guilty as charged. You may be older than I am, and more established, but with all due respect, sir, you need to learn responsibility.
As for Lily, well, you clearly had some very immature co-workers at your very cushy job. If you would kindly stop projecting your petty little antagonisms onto me, though, I’d appreciate it.