Not quite as you represent:

What shall I say of these judgments which men pronounce on men, and which are necessary in communities, whatever outward peace they enjoy? Melancholy and lamentable judgments they are, since the judges are men who cannot discern the consciences of those at their bar, and are therefore frequently compelled to put innocent witnesses to the torture to ascertain the truth regarding the crimes of other men. What shall I say of torture applied to the accused himself? He is tortured to discover whether he is guilty, so that, though innocent, he suffers most undoubted punishment for crime that is still doubtful, not because it is proved that he committed it, but because it is not ascertained that he did not commit it. Thus the ignorance of the judge frequently involves an innocent person in suffering. And what is still more unendurable—a thing, indeed, to be bewailed, and, if that were possible, watered with fountains of tears—is this, that when the judge puts the accused to the question, that he may not unwittingly put an innocent man to death, the result of this lamentable ignorance is that this very person, whom he tortured that he might not condemn him if innocent, is condemned to death both tortured and innocent. For if he has chosen, in obedience to the philosophical instructions to the wise man, to quit this life rather than endure any longer such tortures, he declares that he has committed the crime which in fact he has not committed. And when he has been condemned and put to death, the judge is still in ignorance whether he has put to death an innocent or a guilty person, though he put the accused to the torture for the very purpose of saving himself from condemning the innocent; and consequently he has both tortured an innocent man to discover his innocence, and has put him to death without discovering it. If such darkness shrouds social life, will a wise judge take his seat on the bench or no? Beyond question he will. For human society, which he thinks it a wickedness to abandon, constrains him and compels him to this duty. And he thinks it no wickedness that innocent witnesses are tortured regarding the crimes of which other men are accused; or that the accused are put to the torture, so that they are often overcome with anguish, and, though innocent, make false confessions regarding themselves, and are punished; or that, though they be not condemned to die, they often die during, or in consequence of, the torture; or that sometimes the accusers, who perhaps have been prompted by a desire to benefit society by bringing criminals to justice, are themselves condemned through the ignorance of the judge, because they are unable to prove the truth of their accusations though they are true, and because the witnesses lie, and the accused endures the torture without being moved to confession. These numerous and important evils he does not consider sins; for the wise judge does these things, not with any intention of doing harm, but because his ignorance compels him, and because human society claims him as a judge. But though we therefore acquit the judge of malice, we must none the less condemn human life as miserable. And if he is compelled to torture and punish the innocent because his office and his ignorance constrain him, is he a happy as well as a guiltless man? Surely it were proof of more profound considerateness and finer feeling were he to recognize the misery of these necessities, and shrink from his own implication in that misery; and had he any piety about him, he would cry to God "From my necessities deliver Thou me."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120119.htm

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

here

Also see the FP

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/02/announcement.html

The link in the update goes to Melissa's statement, the link at the bottom goes to the threats.

I apparently am blind!

Nope, apparently Tina fixed it, and I just thought I had put it in. :)

Guilt by association, eh?

He's shown weakness and by allowing the resignations has told every Catholic that he was in the wrong.

People never learn - when McCain is attacked for his bloggers past he attacks the media for attacking him.

Democrats cave and by caving they validate what was said about them.

As do people like you, by agreeing with things like "guilt by association". You get the Presidents and the Presidential campaigns you deserve by constantly screaming at candidates to buckle, cave and act weak in every possible way whenever attacked.

The response to being attacked, is to attack. Not to cower in fear. There are exceptions, but they are few and this was not one of them.

...if you don't like it, stay away from politics.

The trick in getting elected is convincing voters you're on their side, and understand their angst. Attacking the religion of 80% of this country 'aint the way to do it.

You wonder why we have an asshole in the White House? Simple. American's didn't see the son of a president, grandson of a senator, named after a legendary robber baron, educated at the Andover Academy then on to a legacy appointment at Yale, got into and out of the National Guard through family connections, started an oil company with daddy's money and promptly led it into bankruptcy then somehow got to be CEO of another which also went bankrupt, coke snorting, alcoholic, frat boy Bush, but the Rootin'-tootin', plain speaking, ass-whippin', bible beleivin', ranch living, brush clearing, straight shooting, upright standing, simple life following, family values,swaggering, red-white-and blue, ten gallon, apple pie "Dubya."
In this regard, McCain and Guiliani are well ahead of any of our candidates. We really didn't need this.

It's gone past that now.

Since I AM a liberal Catholic, I can say that I found Marcotte's comments offensive, and felt her resignation was appropriate after the second incident--it was stupid of her to keep making those sort of comments after coming on board the campaign and especially after the initial uproar. McEwan's statements bothered me less, and none of them were made after she accepted the position, so in her case I don't feel that a resignation was appropriate.

Even with Marcotte, though, she did something unprofessional and stepped down. So that's where it should have ended. It didn't.

Threats of rape and murder are simply unacceptable. Period. Nothing Marcotte wrote justifies spamming her web site into oblivion, let alone the rest of what these people are doing. No matter how much I dislike her opinions or (more to the point) her tendency to express them in ways calculated to piss me off, I don't want to live in a world where she has to fear for her safety because of what she said. It no longer matters what she said--what matters is that these kind of attacks have to be stopped, and the people who enable them have to be exposed for what they are.

You don't understand how your first paragraph is directly contradicted by your second. You may wish to take your own advice and stay out of politics.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

Sean-Paul:

Yes, we (and by we i mean all Americans--heck, all mean all the people of the world), deserve George W. Bush because we can be counted on to get our dander up over trivial, rather than substantive issues, because we place more credence in image than facts, and because we prefer "regular guys" to capable leaders (and no, in my mind, Al Gore and John Kerry are not of the latter, but are a sure as shit improvement over Gee Dumb.) Yeah, we deserve him and all the havoc he has wrought, if we can't make decisions the way any mature gibbon would.

Ian: Are you flaming me now? Your want to call me an idiot and some other shit you're thinking? Go ahead, but it don't change the fact that you've selected a screwed up hill to die on. As my maligned second paragraph says: perception is reality. Lyndon Johnson was wrong: it is absolutely better that Amanda Marcotte is out pissing on the tent from the outside than in it from the inside. It's Edwards, not her, that has to wake up in a stinky puddle every morning.

You've gotta give respect to gain respect. Stop making it personal.

I see merit at times in the notion that the appropriate response to being attacked is to attack, but Ian could you please explain what it is you think we should be attacking here? I'm all for giving it back to the likes of Malkin and throwing the book at anyone who makes a death threat. Literally, I'd lock up anyone who made a death threat against these bloggers and sue the shit out of and/or prosecute Malkin et al if they encouraged this. Is that what you're talking about?

If you believe that the fight is against those who have no use for persistent attacks on Catholicism with vile language, I remain unconvinced, even if the ranks of those offended include maggots like Bill Donohue. There are good and decent folks out there, regular working people without money to burn, who have no interest in fighting on behalf of anyone who doesn't have the decency to respect religious belief. You can call these people ignorant, you could call them short-sighted, and maybe some of them don't even write all that well. But they know bullshit when they smell it.

The only thing McEwan has ever said that could be considered anti-religion is using the term Christofascists. You think she deserved to lose her job for that?

As for Marcotte there are a few issues. One - should low ranking staffers be subject to these sorts of inquisitions? Think carefully, you've got a lot of comments on line. What if someone dug through them and found you'd said things that are offensive to someone, and then went to your employer and said "I'll smear you with what Bruce said unless you get rid of him."

Two: pure power politics. Which I explained in my post above. When a bully comes after you, you rip his face off. If you don't, he'll be back.

Donohue will be back and so will Malkin. They got their scalps and they'll get more.

Three: double standards. Donohue has said things worse than anything Amanda said. And if you actually look at what she said, rather than how she said it, frankly she didn't say anything tall that objectionable - which is that Catholicism is used as an excuse for misogyny by many people and if it didn't exist, misogynists would find some other excuse for their misogyny.

I suspect the Pope would agree.

None of this is to say I'm pleased by either Marcotte's behaviour or Edwards.

Soemone didn't do their due diligence.

Marcotte should not have posted that movie review.

The story was being pushed into the margins before the review came out - the media was dropping it. I know people who track this sort of stuff, and that is what they were reporting Monday morning. At that point you give the story NO AIR. None. And if Marcotte has to go, you turn to her and say "we'll pay your salary for another two months. We're real sorry (soothing sounds) but in a couple months you'll resign to pursue other opportunities when the story is no longer hot."

It'll be a much better world if law enforcement was to treat it like that as well.