Why do men never get tired of this process?

First, there was the "you're too angry" and "you're all wrong" post from Pennywit. I dared contradict it, so now we are at stage 2, where he tries to assert his authority in his most dispassionately reasonable yet condescending tone. Now It's up to me how to respond, though we all know, don't we ladies, that he's going to eventually declared me a bitch/brat/hysteric and therefore not worth his time. Would that they would just ignore my posts to begin with, since they won't open their wonk minds to consider the depth and the effect of our anger. I'm not going to change my behavior, and he's not going to consider what I have to say, so I'd prefer he just go his way and let me do my work. He won't do that, though. He thinks it's his place to stand in my way. So here we go:

Morgaine:

Nice to see I got your attention. It's interesting that each of us thinks the other is symptomatic of what's wrong with politics today. You see me as an obstacle of some sort; I see today's over use of faux-grassroots campaigns as a tool that dilutes effective political advocacy.

No, I consider your attitude an obstacle. I consider you an impotent cog in a machine I'd prefer to take apart than fit into. You're like the Clinton Democrats, far too eager to play Republican-lite for the white folks. I have no use for that.



Now, to your criticisms of my comments:



Links omitted because somebody might actually agree with me?



No. Links omitted because I have limited time in which to write and I would prefer not to cite check all of the links before quoting them to my blog. When I omit links, I note that I have omitted them, which gives my readers the opportunity to analyze your sources if they choose to read the material I quote.

Yes, Pennywit, I'm sure you're very busy and important. You just want to throw out some insults and go about your business. Would that you had minded your own business instead of ripping me apart on your blog. I'd prefer to go back to not knowing you exist. I've known way too many 'white shirts and ties' in my career.

How much evidence do you need? Have you read the latest info from BlackBox.org? We have proof of payments to Kenneth Blackwell's associates, among others. Or did you make this statement without checking your facts?



I'm afraid I have a higher standard of proof. Generally, before I assay an accusation of criminal conduct, I like to see at least an indictment or an ongoing investigation. I perused Black Box Voting. While some of the allegations may have merit, I do not believe it wise to insert my own (or other people's suppositions) into the mixture, then leap to a conclusion of widespread wrongdoing.

I, on the other hand, have no respect for the authority you are waiting for to make the case for you. I used to be a Union Rep. and negotiated at the government agency I worked for. They can't be trusted on even the smallest issues. We all know Rove committed treason. A person would have to be blind or brainwashed not to look at the documentary evidence and see that this is the case. It is illegal to reveal the identity of a covert operative. Cooper's notes show that he did just that, at least once. Representative Waxman has documented 11 breaches of security, so I don't think I'm making any kind of leap here. I also know that if we hadn't hammered this story, the Republicans would have buried it, and that there still may never be an indictment in the case. That doesn't make Rove any less guilty, and it doesn't make me think he did nothing wrong. I don't need a prosecutor to do my thinking for me, any more than I need a weather man to tell me it's raining.



As for my statement regarding investigations -- I stand by this as a general statement of individuals' thought processes and how biases can color results.

I don't disagree with this statement, but as I said, I can look at evidence and make my own conclusions. I don't wait for someone else to tell me what's up.


I vehemently disagree with this. As you'll see in a later post tonight, even if Valerie Plame's identity had already been exposed, if it hadn't been declassified -- and it wasn't -- anyone who repeated it committed a crime.
I also think that what flies around too freely is apologies for stating the facts. If I call someone a Nazi, or a Fascist, or a traitor, I can back it up. Show me a liberal who commits treason and I'll stand right there with you if you have proof. The difference is in being able to discern between political rhetoric and a simple, accurate comparison. Pennywit apparently lacks this ability.



Thank you, again, for the gratuitous insult, though I should hardly complain, as such insults appear to be the currency of choice in Our Thing. But that is neither here nor there. If you might note, I have a singular distaste for inflammatory partisan rhetoric. In the case of your accusation that Karl Rove et. al. are "traitors," I note that this particular conclusion requires one to jump from a mere allegation that a technical crime may have been committed to a supposition of guilt and on to a conclusion that the gravity of the offense is so great that it constitutes a nigh-capital crime.

"Our Thing?" You lost me there. I don't like inflammatory partisan rhetoric, either. Again, I've stated that I reached my conclusion based on evidence. Cooper's notes are evidence, and I have read the law in the matter. It is not speculation, as if I were to say Judith Miller is in jail because she's protecting Cheney. I believe that to be the case, but I have no proof of it. See the difference. Again, I don't trust the authorities in charge of the investigation, and I wouldn't need their input to reach my conclusion, anyway.

I don't believe it constitutes a "nigh-capital crime." I think he committed a capital crime, period. Anything less than conviction for treason is too little for destroying the career of a covert operative for revenge against her husband and/or to cover-up lying to the American people and initiating an illegal war in which we persist in committing war crimes. Those are not exaggerations. This is not rhetoric. I am stating the facts as the evidence has shown them. Truth is not rhetoric.

The most obvious objection to the man is that Bush wants him. The argument that he was "just doing his job" -- you know, like a good Nazi -- doesn't wash. As an attorney, the man had a choice in how he chose to earn a living. He chose to earn a living trying to strike down Roe v. Wade and opposing Affirmative Action.



Roe v. Wade, I'm afraid, is an entirely separate topic, which I hope to address on my on blog, on my own terms, and with an eye toward good law as well as good outcomes. But the objection to Roberts, again, seems premature. Moreover such reflexive opposition to a candidate merely because "Bush wants him" is counterproductive. President Bush, I am afraid, holds a full house, and our side has, at best, a pair of deuces.

When your uterus is at risk, I will care what you think about abortion. As far as I'm concerned, no man of any kind has any authority to negotiate the disposition of mine. Bush does, indeed, have an advantage and that means that he is a literal threat to my life. When your life is at stake, we might have something to talk about. Until then,

No Uterus. No Opinion.



Given that power imbalance, it is probably better to let through a nominee who, from all appearances, is a "reasonable" conservative.

The words "reasonable" and "conservative" cannot be used together in this context. We aren't dealing with reasonable people. We are dealing with greedy men who fear-monger for profit, and religious fanatics. I'm sure the party still has a few actual conservatives, but when a group gets too extreme for Christine Todd Whitman, "reason" has ceased to be a factor.




So to Pennywit, Activism = Extremism? What utter bullshit. It won't hurt anyone to send an email every day. I'm not advocating violence, or even a picket line. I'm asking people to let the media know what we think. When did having an opinion and expressing it become a threat to the balance of a person's life? I think we can all manage an email a day without forgetting to feed our kids and get our work done.

Please, Morgaine, I did not say that Activism == extremism. Rather, I'm saying that a person has an entire array of personal obligations, whether these be to oneself, to one's family, or to one's immediate community. Given that set of obligations, a person needs to focus his activism carefully. "Having an opinion and expressing it" doesn't threaten the balance of a person's life. But, for example, if the person spends hours a day "doing something," his balance of life may be affected. On the other hand, a "singel email" each day is not likely to be effective. While it might give the individual the satisfaction of "doing something," it is a false satisfaction, as the action you propose (sending an e-mail a day) is unlikely to be effective, either at the individual or the aggregate level.

Focusing activism carefully, is what I was talking about. I'm trying to get people to focus our efforts. Instead of trying to be a constructive part of the process, all you can do is yell "No,no,no,no." Come up with a better idea, and I'll use it. All that bullshit about personal obligations is just that - bullshit. It's you listening to yourself pontificate instead of doing anything to improve the situation. If you really thought I was wrong, you had the opportunity to engage me in a civil manner and perhaps we could have met in the middle somewhere. You didn't do that. You started this fight, dear. It's easier to criticize than organize, I suppose.


Duh, yeah, who wouldn't recognize those emails. Is Pennywit trying to claim some special insider knowledge for knowing who Paula Zahn is? I don't know this person, but they don't know me either. They presume to know quite a bit about me, all of it incorrect.



I need to forward people my resume before they start commenting. I know some of these e-mail addresses because I have worked at at least one of the publications you listed among the addresses. While I have left behind journalism for greener pastures, I also have nearly a decade of professional background in smaller-market and specialty-market print media. It's not that I claim to know Paula Zahn. It's that I have been in the position of receiving fifty-100 e-mails a day (usually press releases) and I've had to sort through them to determine what's newsworthy and what's not. I have received handwritten e-mail on hotel stationery. I have been cornered at public events with demands that I explain my views expressed in op-eds. I have received harangues from people who discern "bias" in my reporting because they had so much time on their hands that they sat down and counted words. I have harangued reporters for letting bias into their writing. I been hounded for the identity of an anonymous source. I have placed wire stories because they can make a community think. On one memorable occasion, a neighbor expressed frustration because my employer devoted more space to Roy Rogers' obituary than to Gene Autry's. And on one even more memorable occasion, an unidentified individual called the paper at which I worked and said he knew where the Confederacy buried its gold.

So, yes, Morgaine, I do have some authority on this topic. Call it professional experience.

I sort through hundreds of emails a day - it "ain't no big thang." I've worked with everything from rock bands to defense contracts, and Dick Cheney used to sign my paycheck, so stop talking down to me, you pretentious ass. We've all got history, dig?


Annoy a reporter relentlessly? When did I say that? I'm not suggesting we write to all of these people about everything every day. I said I'd post an action a day. I suppose I should have specified that I'd suggest who to direct it to? Again, a bit of discernment would help Pennywit understand the difference in blindly blanketing the media, and targeted, well-documented advocacy. True, I said "hound the media" - forgive my use of slang. I didn't mean to scare anybody



Morgaine, I took your statements at face value. You suggested:

1) E-mail the media.
2) Here are the addresses.
3) Hound them.

A rather untargeted course from what I could see.

You forgot step 4, dearest, where I said I'd post an action a day. Didn't I make it simple enough for you? No one else expressed such confusion.



And ... you object to my "pitchfork-wielding peasants" line? It has little to nothing to do with your religion, and everything to do with unfocused, misdirected anger being sent toward the nearest convenient target. I'm not trying to insult your beliefs ... and I'm afraid the connection between peasants, pitchforks, and Wiccans is a bit too attenuated to infer any sort of ill intent on my part.

The connection is perfectly obvious to the average person. I originally had given you the benefit of the doubt that you might not realize I was Wiccan, but after seeing your reference on MediaGirl -- "do as thou wilt" -- I know that you knew better when you said it. I was advocating focused, properly directed anger directed at an effective target, so your use was still inappropriate. It was a religious slur, and quite a deliberate one.


Finally, let's talk about this:

It may already be too late to keep us from plunging into a bastardized monarchy/theocracy. As long as there is breath in my body, I will defend my Constitution and the Religious Right is the sworn enemy of the Bill of Rights. I don't advocate thoughtless action. I advocate well-thought out and energetic advocacy. Pennywit is welcome to stay out of my way while I do the work we ought to be doing together. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

No. Don't expect me to step out of the way. While I might agree with you on a few issues, I have a greater loyalty to political institutions, to the law, and to the American body politic. If I believe that a person's assayed actions are inconsistent with what I believe best for American polity, then I will say so ... regardless of what side the other person is on.

--|PW|--

There you go yelling "no" again. Who the fuck do you think you are? I have no loyalty to political institutions that have demonstrated no respect for the laws of this country. Everything Hitler did was legal in his country. I'm a Jeffersonian matriot who believes in revolution when necessary to defend the Constitution. You have no more authority or care in speaking for the American people than I do. I'll decide what is best for me, thanks. I , for one, can do without your patronizing attitude and your presumptive "care". You have every right to express an opinion if you can back it up, but you haven't. You've only reinforced the opinion that you're a tool of the patriarchy who has nothing to offer the oppressed but more oppression. Maybe you should read my resume,