« Blue Friday | Main | Maybe Pay-Per-Signature is a Bad Idea After All »
February 08, 2007
pro·fane: what does it really mean?
For those of you who don't pay attention to the blogosphere with wonk-like detail, you may have missed the faux dustup created by the likes of Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review and Our Lady of Internment Camps (aka Michelle Malkin) over the Edwards Campaign hiring of Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister.
First, Lopez and Malkin tried to accuse Marcotte of scrubbing posts from Pandagon so as not to embarass Edwards. When that proved false, they decided that McEwan and Marcotte were simply too profane and shouldn't be allowed to work for Edwards.
By profane, they mean that Marcotte and McEwan have an affinity for using swear words.
I have never paid a whit of attention to Kathryn Jean Lopez before this episode and so far I see no reason to ever pay attention to her again. She's apparently a National Review cypher who used this to get her 15 minutes. Whatever.
Malkin however is on a constant 15 minute cycle. The rightwing trots out this wretched excuse of human refuse whenever Ann Coulter is too busy whoring her latest tome or taking down time in her reeducation camp.
Malkin's own profane writings don't meet the same definition as that of McEwan and Marcotte. I doubt Malkin would hold her puritannical audience very long with a "fuck"-laced tirade. Malkin's brand of profane is of the much more insidious brand: the dehumanization of individuals who disagree with those who grease Malkin's skids. Or sign her paycheck..same, same.
Media Matters has compiled a short list of Malkin's Heinous Hits so there's no reason for me to reiterate.
It is curious how Malkin and Lopez can find such fault in the use of profanity, yet find nothing profane about their own willingness to scuttle discourse by making demons of all who disagree.
Is the usage of profane words really worse than attempts to validate profane ideas?
Posted by Carla at February 8, 2007 03:35 PM