Thursday, December 24, 2009

Cats and Dogs, and a Merry Christmas

In reply to Le�gal In�sur�rec�tion: Uh Oh, Cats and Dogs Getting Along

In the spirit of cats and dogs, I want to wish everyone who reads this a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Whatever our political differences, that's something we ought to be able to agree on. I'm just sayin...

Submitted for approval December 24, 2009 8:57 AM, (Legal Insurrection blog time)

(Yeah, I kinda used ol' LI to say Merry Christmas to the readers here, while still maintaining the purposes of IM... ...though the sentiment I posted there was sincere.)

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

"Death be not proud ... in 140 characters or less"

In reply to: Death be not proud ... in 140 characters -

I don't believe that online legacy posts and tweeted condolences have taken the place of sympathy cards, wakes and graveside services--I expect that many of the people who knew Brittany Murphy / Bryson Ross personally will follow up with handwritten cards, "just a little something, so you don't have to cook," their appearance and compassionate words at the funeral gatherings, and all the other appropriate trappings. Rather, I think that the ability to post about one's memories of the deceased, or send a kind word immediately is just adding to the ways one can reach out to the families in their time of need.

Submitted 12/22/09, 10:20 AM, IM blog time.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Geeze, look at Madison McGraw's tweet stream...

...Was she neglecting her kids while making all those nasty posts about Shellie Ross? (Not here... See KillTruck's link, below.)


Great post. I gave it a kudo-filled mention at my own blogger post on the subject, What'd I Say?: Shellie Ross, Twitter, and The "Right" Way to Grieve (and this is the closest I could come to approximating a trackback).

In retrospect, it wasn't especially kudo-filled, though I did pretty much imply that I wish I'd written it. (I intended to write a post on this aspect of the story, but MM's twitter feed was protected from prying eyes, at the time.) I expect that KT's was better than the one I never wrote, anyway... (Just assume it was.)

Submitted for approval 12/21/09, (06:30:30) KillTruck blog time, (which as I recall from my perch here at 11:04 AM Immoderate Monk blog time, was about 2:00 AM, IM blog time. (Because it was essentially just a trackback, I wasn't going to do a post for it here, but because it still hasn't been approved, and I want to include it in my Roundup & Commentary post for 12/21/09, and need a working link, I changed my mind.)

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Please don't kick the grieving mother when she's down

In reply to shellie ross tweets her sons death 30 mins after he drowns - Grateful Always

It’s like if you are going to DO that be prepared for the GOOD and the BAD… b/c the internet is a melting pot of both.

But that doesn’t give holier-than-thou judges the moral right to be the bad. There is nothing to gain by kicking a grieving mother when she’s down, and folks like you & Ms. McGraw ought to consider showing a her little compassion, because just as with Ms. Ross, people are reading your very public and unprotected words and judging your humanity and heart by them.

As others have said, would it really have made a difference if she was baking cupcakes for her 11 year old son’s class, or going to the bathroom, or doing any one of a hundred other common ordinary things that ordinary parents do while “watching” their kids, when her 2 year old s son–who she thought was safely playing with his 11 year old sibling in a part of the yard where he could not get to the pool–did get there and unfortunately did fall in?

Do you know of any parent who has not had a child get injured in any way while they were the adult in charge? Because I sure don’t… …but even so, I don’t think that all parents should be judged as wanting for having failed their children, either.

Yes, in retrospect, I’m sure there are a hundred things that Ms Ross or some other member of her family could’ve done to prevent this tragedy, and I’m sure they would’ve done them all, if they only had the benefit of hindsight that her critics now have.

I understand that you folks think you’re doing some kinda good by lashing out at this poor woman–though for the life of me, I do not know what that good is supposed to be–but I cannot help but think that there are some cold, cold people in the world…
Submitted for moderator approval December 19, 2009 at 7:45 pm (Grateful Always blog time)

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Donald Douglas' Wingnut Echo Chamber

In reply to The Alinsky Rules in Action | NewsReal Blog

Maybe I'm not understanding how this place works (or maybe I AM, all too well) but it looks to me like Michael van der Galien wrote nothing but the header on this post (and surprise, surprise, the actual author, Donald Douglas, is now referencing this cut & pasted post as "proof" that his claims about E.D. Kain are factual... Is anyone really shocked that Donald Douglas here on Newsreal thinks the claims of Donald Douglas @ American Power offer readers the Gospel Truth?)

Smoke & mirrors, and an echo chamber the size of the Grand Canyon... ...and as obvious.

Submitted for approval 12/17/09 3:40 AM (IM blog time)

Related links:
American Power: E.D. Kain's Double-Standards: Claims of Libel Continue Amid Bleatings to Christian Ethics - Wallowing in Denial, Little Bully Refuses to Apologize!

American Power: E.D. Kain's Alinsky Rules in Action!

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Donald Douglas, E.D. Kain, & Blogger Ethics

In reply to: Le�gal In�sur�rec�tion: Blogging While Employed

E.D. Kain acknowledges he made a mistake in reaching out to someone he thought might have some insight into (& perhaps influence over) Donald's strange behavior toward him. As our host quoted, Kain has already apologized for the mistake.

Unless one's blog content impacts how a writer does his/her job or affects the company or institution for which s/he works, it's bad form to involve one's boss in a blogesphere conflict.

If Donald were admitting to grading his liberal students lower because of their political views, or trashing his fellow professors or college, I might be inclined to suggest that his Department head read what he writes. Were I a prospective student (or at my age, the parent of one), I wouldn't have any issue telling the admissions office that based on the blog posts I read, I was far less inclined to have anything to do with Long Beach City College, or why.

But barring that kinda thing, Donald's blog is between he & those who choose to read his words. I believe that those on the faculty who have oversight over him or deal with him on a regular basis ought to read what he writes--and any prospective or current student of his who doesn't is a fool--but that's up to them.

But as Cynthia says, there's more to Donald than meets the eye at first glance, and our "victim" doesn't play by the same rules he demands that others follow, including as concerns some of the same blogger ethics raised in this conversation. I would urge those interested to read the attacks on E.D. Kain that led up to this incident (as well as the incident that Ms. Yockey references) before deciding that Donald Douglas is nothing more than a poor, innocent doe-eyed deer who's been done wrong here.

Submitted for approval 12-16-09, 2:18 AM (IM blog time)

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Re: American Power: E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!

In reply to American Power: E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!, and in particular the following:
I've been previously threatened with workplace intimidation by (O)CT(O)PUS and Repsac3 (see "American Nihilist: DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE"). They posted my college vice-president's information online and encouraged readers to file complaints against American Power with LBCC's administration!

So, E.D. Kain's in good company. None of these freaks can't handle the truth. In fact, they're totalitarian libel bloggers, classic leftists, and I won't stand for it.


Repsac3 never posted any information about Donald that he did not post online himself, and Professor Douglas knows it... (So much for all that truth he professes to offer...)

(Nice how he goes on the attack, and then initiates moderation... That's some kinda courage there, Don...)

Sent for moderator approval 12/15/09, 3:43 AM (IM blog time), but knowing Don, chances are slim...

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Comparing Bush/Obama: audience vetting and the press

In reply to: Villainous Company: What A Difference an Election Makes... in Press Coverage

Hmmm... Weird... I posted there without moderation yesterday... (I wonder if it's the links?)
((To be clear, I don't suspect that Cassandra blocked me... Not so far, anyway...))

I see a huge difference between the carefully scripted and vetted-for-political opinion crowds at the average Bush speech, vs preferring to avoid something on the order of a boisterous transvestite or code pinker contingent disrupting an event. The biggest difference of course, is that a Code Pink member did attend the event, and did hand the President the petition. People opposed to Mr Bush's policies were removed from the audience for wearing t-shirts or having a bupersticker on one's car that didn't tow the "right" line.

As for appearing on FoxNews, that the administration--including the president--oughta do (as long as he sticks with the one's who claim to be journalists, rather than the avowed opinioneers.) I'm with John Nichols as to where FoxNews stands, but opposition questioning (and intelligent responses, of course) make for a better, more responsive government.

Submitted for VC approval 10/17/09, 10:10 AM (or so), IM blog time.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Re: Racism on the menu (At-Largely)

In reply to: at-Largely: Racism on the menu...

Dr. Don cannot be a racist because he's half black. (Really...... This was his answer to a charge of racism; his photo, as though that clears the matter up, and no further rebuttal is necessary.)

You have him pegged, Larisa. Donald is either ignorant as all get out, or willfully chooses not to see that which goes against his viewpoints. He is a partisan first and a human being second. And one only has to read through the archives of his blogs to see that he's growing more and more reactionary as time goes by. (Rumor has it he was once a liberal, which makes sense to anyone who's seen the vehemence of the convert; the former smoker who won't let anyone smoke on their property, the born-again Christian's desire to "save" the soul of everyone they know, ...)

First he'll claim there are no racists on the right. Then when confronted with the proof, he'll claim there's no racists on the "real" right. Every example is an aberration; that guy may be a racist, but he's not a real conservative; or he's a real conservative, but what he said isn't bigoted.

The game is played exactly the opposite when Donald is attacking someone (or everyone) on the left, of course. If one person makes a bigoted comment at a Daily Kos post, it "proves" that Markos Moulitsas and every liberal who ever read a post or commented there is a racist. Strangely, the same doesn't hold true if the bigoted comments appear on a site Donald Douglas approves of, like Althouse. (I commented on the whole thing here.)

It's a sad little world Dr. Douglas lives in.

Congratulations on getting his ire, because the more wrong he claims you are in AmPow land, the more correct you likely are out here in the real world. There's a link for you at American Nihilist, because I'm sure you must be one... (Everyone who disagrees with Professor Douglas is, after all.)

I hit the "post" button, and my comment disappeared... When I went back to the post, there is no comment... ...and when I tried to repost my comment, the "post" button is grayed out... Does Larisa moderate, or did something fuck up? I cannot say, but that's why this blog exists... I'll check her site in 24 hours to see what may/may not be posted there, then.

Bigoted offensive commenters do not mean one writes (or reads) a bigoted, offensive blog.

In reply to: Althouse: After I note Andrew Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's womb, he responds... by quoting the nastiest stuff in the comments., not because it was moderated, but because, being comment #296, it is very hard to get to & read, and impossible to permalink. (I wanted to refer to it in a comment at another blog, and reposting it here seemed the only way to do so. I "linked" to it at Althouse as best I could, below.)

It's pretty moronic to blame the blog owner of a popular blog for the bigots and other assorted morons that comment on it, whether the blog in question is Althouse, Daily Kos, or Gateway Pundit.

People (whether owners or commenters) are responsible for the words that they themselves post, and I believe free speech includes the right (& perhaps obligation, even) to let bigots/morons expose themselves for all to see.

If Ann (or Markos, or the GP guy) READS a comment they find offensive, perhaps they should act--either by commenting on it or deleting it if they believe it has no place on their blog, exposure-value notwithstanding--but it isn't their job to police every comment they receive, or--God forbid, moderate for content. (Either allow comments or don't... Vetting each one before allowing them to appear is indicative of someone afraid of confrontation.)

After that, it's up to the readership to blast the offensive and the stupid.

Blaming the blogger, or worse. everyone who reads the blog, for the words of the most bigoted, stupid, or otherwise offensive commenter(s) at a given blog is straight-up moronic. (I've been saying the same to one dang fool (who shall remain nameless, but who, coincidently, tweeted the link here, oblivious to the irony of praising this post for decrying what he himself so often does to the whole DailyKos owner & readership--along with other liberal blogs)--for the last several years.)

And yes, it's even worse to be criticized for one's blog commentary by someone who doesn't allow comments on his own blog. While I agree with Sully more often than not--Palin pregnancy obsession aside--he's barkin' up the wrong tree here...

Althouse: "After I note Andrew Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's womb, he responds... by quoting the nastiest stuff in the comments." 10/10/09 10:23 AM Comment

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Bush v Gore, Birther/Truther statistics

In reply to: Divided We Stand United We Fall: Racism increases 67% since January
I don't know, mw...

As far as the birthers=truthers theory, I have problems with both the question--There's a difference between believing that the Bush administration had prior warning about the fact that AQ was likely to try something sometime soon that they should've paid more attention to, and believing that Bush left DC on 9/11/01 because he knew the planes were coming. I have a feeling that there's a whole lot more of the former than the latter, although both qualify as "Bush knew...".--and the fact that Rassmussen tends to skew conservative (almost as bad as Luntz, these days.) All one need do is compare Rassmussen results with the results of other polls on the same subject to see that Rassmussen tends to lean right a bit more than the others. ((Yeah, I know you didn't cite the rassmussen poll, but there aren't that many selling that 1/3 of democrats = truthers result.)

Second, even accepting that one third of each party is extreme enough to accept one or the other of these theories, there is also the amount of positive attention that the elected officials of each party are willing to bestow on each theory. How many elected "truther" Democrats can one name? (The only elected "truther" I can find is Ron Paul, and he never said/suggested they were right, just that investigations in the name of truth were a good thing. And of course, he's a registered Republican.) How about elected "birther" Republicans? (How many Republicans signed onto that unnecessary bill saying that candidates must show their birth certificates--like the one Obama released, one assumes? 12, is it? How many more have made statements questioning Obama's birth?)

As for Bush 2000, all one need do is read the consortium report, and skip all the scenarios--(Bush wanted only these counties recounted, Gore wanted only those counties recounted, only over-votes, only two or fewer-corner chads)--except the most important one; when all the votes in which voter intent could be discerned were counted (the standard under law, at the time) in each precinct, who won?
Gore won, but shit happens... At this point, it's old news.

Anyway... Carter & whoever else is making the argument--(Is there much of anyone else?)--is wrong. There's some racism out there among those who don't like/agree with Obama, but most of it is about policy (or partisan political, at least) disagreement. (Personally, I'm more worried about those who echo their political "teammates" rather than thinkin' for themselves... ...and yes, that happens left and right, & probably in about the same proportion...)
Submitted for approal 9/19/09, 11:23 AM (DWS blog time)

Friday, September 18, 2009

Wingnut Racism: it isn't an all or nothing proposition

(And yeah, the same goes for "moonbat racism," "black racism," "white racism," "racism among the young," "the old," "christians," "muslims," "straight folks," "gay folks," "men," "women," "???" ...)

In reply to: Divided We Stand United We Fall: Racism increases 67% since January (post and comments)

There's a certain all or nothing mentality to much of this "the right are/are not racists" argument around the internet.

As far as I can tell, most of the criticism isn't racially motivated (or is racially motivated, but cleverly disguised behind an arguably valid point). On the other hand, some of the criticism of Obama clearly is racially motivated (or isn't really racially motivated, but is stupidly (or ignorantly) expressed as though it is.)

Joe "the scream" Wilson - xenophobia maybe, and the manners of a barn animal, but not racism.

Obama as witchdoctor, watermelon farm on the White House lawn, - Yeah, there's some racism, there.

The NY Post cartoon with the cop shooting the monkey - That was one of those "stupid or ignorant" situations. The guy didn't mean to refer to Obama as a monkey (and an assassinated monkey, taboot). He just didn't think it through. (The ObamaJoka pic falls into this category, too... While it's more'n'likely not intended that way, there is something vaguely racially insensitive about putting a black man in whiteface and accentuating his lips.)

The Obama birther thing has a "fear of other" aspect to it that I just don't think would be as strong if his black father was from (& Obama himself spent a few years in) England or Portugal. To reach this level, Obama has to be African, (or Arab) Muslim (or both, according to the birthers), or South American hispanic (&/or socialist... I mean REALLY socialist), or maybe Russian/eastern bloc communist. It's not racist, exactly, but the same kinda fear that underlies racism is there...

The bottom line is, it's neither "ALL rightwing attacks on Obama are racist." or "NO rightwing attacks on Obama are racist."

Some (most, if ya ask me) ain't, and some (a few) are.

Submitted for approval 9/18/09, 5:32 PM (IM blog time)

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Sometimes a banana is just a banana...

In reply to: theblogprof: Video: White Student Beaten On School Bus To Cheering Crowd

Sebastian wins the prize.

According to the latest news reports, a 16 year old witness on the bus, as well as the police--including the officer who initially said it looked like it was a racially motivated incident, to him--are telling folks that it was an incident of bullying over seating on the bus, and not a racial incident.

Submitted September 15, 2009 7:49 PM (blogprof time)

Monday, September 14, 2009

Rules matter, except when they don't, I guess...

In reply to: Emily's September 14, 2009 11:09 AM comment to American Power: Democrats Interrupt 2006 Bush Speech, Cheer Obstructionism on Entitlement Reform


As you're not a member of the House, speaking in the chamber, you can say such things without breaking REPUBLICAN House rules.

Representative Wilson, on the other hand, did not have that luxury when he heckled the President.

The fact that you share his sentiments--or that I do not--doesn't change that rule or the fact that Mr. Wilson broke it.

Booing (or applauding) the President is not covered by these rules.
Submitted for approval 9/14/09, 7:17pm (AmPow Blog Time)

Friday, September 11, 2009

Undaunted by facts, theblogprof keeps spinnin'

In reply to: theblogprof: 6 Hours After Tiller Murder, Obama Released A Statement Condemning The Act, 24 Hours After Anti-Abort Activist Gunned Down, Crickets Chirping

Explain again why this run of the mill anti-abortion protester *deserves* a mention by the President of the US...

Tiller survived a previous attempt on his life, was a nationally known figure for several years before his murder (thanks, in part, to anti-abortion outfits and media figures), and risked his life to help the women who needed his legal abortion services.

While Pouillon was passionate about his cause, few people even knew his name before today. (Even many in his hometown called him "the sign guy.") I know you believe he deserves the same (or more) recognition as Tiller, the facts are not on your side.

(And, as an aside... considering the fact that the motive was reported at about 7:30 pm eastern, shouldn't your countdown start as of then, or did you expect the president to jump up and denounce this as a hate crime before it even *was* a hate crime, like you and a few of your fellow rightwing bloggers did?)

Just somethin' to consider...
Submitted for approval September 11, 2009 9:52 PM

"The ends don't justify the means" post #1002

In reply to theblogprof: CONFIRMED! Anti-Abortion Activist James Pouillon Murdered In Owosso Because Killer Was "was 'offended' by Pouillon’s anti-abortion messages"

The fact that the motive is confirmed as of 7:30 PM does not justify those blog posts (including your own) who claimed that Pouillon was "martyred" for the anti-abortion cause hours earlier. Up to now, you were speculating & spinning based on your political views, and those in the media who refused to run with your spin, as well as those who actively called you & yours on your lack of facts in blog posts & comments up to now, were right to do so.

As for whether he'll get the heroes welcome that Tiller got, more'n'likely not. While I'm sure you'll see it as political & nothing more, the facts concerning the two men is very different...

Tiller risked his life for his beliefs and his legal practices as an abortion provider, having survived a previous shooting and many many threats at his home & place of employment.

Aside having a piece of fruit hurled at him and a barrage of "free speech" verbal assaults, I see no evidence that Pouillon risked his life in support of his views. (In fact, he's accused of a few minor infractions against law or good taste, such as interrupting a high school graduation with his signage.)

Chances are slim the president (or much of anyone else outside of the pro-life community) is going to give this man the same degree of coverage they gave Tiller, who was nationally known for coming in to help the women who chose legal abortion services that other doctors refused to provide. Which isn't to say that those of you who believe he deserves such honors cannot provide him the recognition that you believe he deserves, yourselves. For the rest of us, though, his death is no more or less tragic than is the owner of the gravel pit, who was murdered by the same man.

Submitted for approval September 11, 2009 8:05 PM

Anti-Pavement Wholesaler Shot And Killed In Owosso, MI.

(Anti-abortion protester killed, also.)

Reply to: theblogprof: BREAKING: Anti-Abortion Activist Shot And Killed In Owosso, MI. Will He Get The Air Time That Tiller Got? UPDATED with Video

Yep... So far, it makes just about as much sense to say the killer preferred paved driveways to gravel ones, and killed the Fuoss brothers in the name of *those* beliefs.

I'm not sayin' the murderer wasn't opposed to the anti-abortion guy's views or tactics or something, but given the other killings, there's nothing to substantiate the spin this post (& the ones linking to/from it, offering the exact same unsubstantiated spin) are putting on the story.

It's terrible when anyone is murdered, regardless of what the victim's political views are, or whether or not you agree with 'em. But it's also kinda cold to create a particular spin about the death that supports your side, particularly before the facts of the case are reported or confirmed from an unbiased source.

Submitted for approval 9/11/09, 7:30 pm (or so, IM blog time)

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Sorry Donald, but that's not an emoticon...

Comment submitted and posted to American Power, and subsequently deleted by Donald Douglas, for reasons that remain unclear:

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post : "Adolf Hitler AIDS Awareness Advert: Latest in Glob...":

Um, no...

This ---> 8>) is an emoticon. (Look it up, if you don't believe me.)

That green thing in your sidebar is a picture, and because it's "selling" a point of view, whether via satire or any other literary device, it is kind of an advertisement. And because it's Hitler you're employing to do the selling (just like the Hitler "selling" AIDS awareness that you're complaining about)... well, you already know...

As for which Hitler is more "real," well, one of 'em is a picture of the actual guy. The other is portrayed by an actor... So tell me again which is "the real thing."

I won't call you names, because, as usual, I prefer to let the readers decide for themselves who/what you're showing yourself to be, based on your last comment.

- repsac3 (who is using someone else's computer, and doesn't want to sign out of her blogger account, just in case.)

Posted by Anonymous to American Power at September 5, 2009 1:09 PM (Eastern Time)

Friday, September 4, 2009

Donald's dirty tricks: One person screws up, blame everyone who shares his politics... if he's a lib, anyway

In reply to this comment: American Power: DDB Brasil Submitted WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Video to Cannes:

No, no sock puppets here, Dr Douglas...

And you know, you can stop anonymous comments anytime you want, just by changing a blogger setting... (Unfortunately, you'd also lose the anons who support you, and judging by one recent post anyway, they make up the majority of your commentership.)

Funny how you quote that line about smearing everyone with a given viewpoint if anyone misbehaves (from another post) and then proceed to prove my point by doing that very thing.

I have no link to WWF, the ad agency, or the ad. I thought it was in poor taste, just like pretty much everyone else here in America, including the Americans at the WWF. You're barkin' up a tree that just isn't there, mon frere.

Like I said though, good job on correcting the posts... even if you did so by erasing the evidence...
Submitted for approval 9/4/09, 1:55 AM (IM blog time)

Donald makes & then corrects an error... right down the memory hole.

In reply to this: American Power: DDB Brasil Submitted WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Video to Cannes, and in particular, Donald's correction to the post (& two others):

If you "correct" the sentence by taking out the acronym "BBC," you might as well take out the whole sentence.

I didn't ask for evidence about anyone's pulling the Merit award from the ad; I asked for evidence that the British Broadcasting Company was involved with the One Show advertising awards.

(Updated to remove snarky comment about Dr. Douglas' history of admitting/correcting errors. While I still think this one was a little shabby, his correction at the other two posts that mentioned the BBC made it clear that his original reporting was in error, and he even acknowledged my help in pointing out the truth of the matter.)

-- Of course, he MADE his corrections by dumping the original text down the memory hole, making it appear as though he never made the error(s) at all, rather than leaving the original text and appending an update with the correct info, or changing the original erroneous language to strike through text, which seem to be the preferred methods for changing the text of a post if more than 5 minutes or so have passed from the original publishing date/time--but still, Donald did far more than I expected he would, and I probably shouldn't push my luck by asking too much of him.)
Submitted for approval 1:50 (Immoderate Monk blog time)

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

9/11: A National Day of Service--A(nother) Commie Plot?

In reply to: Pajamas Media - A ‘National Day of Service’? Or a Political Hijacking of 9/11?, and the commentary that ensued:

Be patriotic. Go Shopping.

Really, you folks need to quit bitching and moaning about every little thing. Commemorate the anniversary of 9/11 in any way you see fit, and permit others (yes, even those who disagree with you politically) to do the same. Serving your country is fine. Helping your fellow citizens in your own little piece of it is fine, too. So is spending the day praying, mourning, observing 3000 minutes of silence, or even learning/teaching others to defend it.

Thinking your way of commemorating 9/11 is better than everyone else's way of doing so though, is just selfish and stupid. Thinking it's all a commie plot to take over just makes you look paranoid (& Glenn Beck is doing a good enough job of that without your help.)
Comment submitted for approval #85 - Aug 26, 2009 - 11:55 am (PJ media blog time)

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Arlo may be a republican, but he's not a Republican, y'know...

In reply to: Ron Radosh - Hey Arlo! The Times They Are A-Changin’, which proudly explains that Arlo Guthrie is a registered Republican:

I wouldn't get too excited. Arlo can obviously speak for himself--& I hope he does so again here, since I've had two conservatives contact me pointing to this page, gloating, already--but after reading the commentary at ArloNet, a few comments from Arlo himself, in particular, (and particularly particular, his 7/23/09, 11:35am message in the "2 cups" thread:, I'm pretty sure it's a rescue mission, rather than a statement of approval of the Republican party as is, (or has recently been, either.) I highly doubt he was a big supporter of the actions Bush was taking, and suspect that his joining the party at that time was to move his fellow Americans (Republican Americans) AWAY from the Bush model, through his one vote, at least. (While he did this years ago, this is the first many of us have heard about it. If he intended to use his fame to help any part of the Republican cause, he's done a poor job of it thus far.)

In short, he comes not to praise the party, but to help coax it back from the brink.

Arlo says he's looking to pull Republicans out of the weeds and help them be a viable and sane opposition party. While I think it's a fool's errand (I liken it to the "Monday gas boycotts, to show the oil companies," or having all the libertarians move to & take over NH, neither (none) of which will work until everyone involved does the same, which'll never happen), I wish him well. One party rule for too long is a bad idea, and these tea parties 'n' town halls notwithstanding, I wonder whether the Republican party does have the stuff to regain control of any part of gov't for the foreseeable future...
Submitted for approval Aug 13, 2009 - 8:56 am (PJMedia blog time)

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Whose Death Panels are these, anyway?

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel" (See links below)

@ William (August 10, 2009 10:15 PM):

I think the point of that "talking point" is, what Dr. Emanuel wrote in the embedded article isn't what's in the health care bill. What Rep. Isaakson wrote, is. What Sarah Palin said about "death panels," was in reference to Isaakson's addition to the bill. The whole question of Dr. Emanuel's article or judging anyone by their "level of productivity in society" is kinda moot--except as an intellectual exercise--because nothing in the embedded article is actually in the health care bills being proposed.

@ alwaysfiredup (August 10, 2009 11:56 AM):

As regards your definition of death panels - What you describe exists in every health insurance company and most hospitals already. It's not just a part of every single-payer system; it's a part of EVERY system. Decisions are made by the providers of the actual health care (doctors & administrators), and providers of the money to pay for it (insurance company bean-counters and bureaucrats). To whatever extent the government (us) is paying for the health care, we have a right to decide under what circumstances the money starts and stops. (Personally, I trust we, the people, more than folks who're beholden to profits and shareholders.)

And again, Dr Emanuel isn't talking about every aspirin and band-aid. His article is about acute, life or death situations where "who's paying for it?" isn't the issue. There's only one heart, and more than one person who will die in the next 24 hours without one. (Except black market, I guess), one can't just run down to "hearts-r-us" and pick one up, regardless of whether they can pay for it out of their own pocket, have private health insurance, or the government is picking up the whole tab.

The way I see it, this is about creating a floor, not a ceiling. Those who can pay for it can and will always be able to get the "best" health care. These reforms are about getting adequate care for everyone else. Yeah, I suppose there will be procedures and drugs that the government won't pay for, but as someone who's had insurance companies disallow drugs that my doctor prescribed, I don't see this as a big change. Some pencil-pusher is already getting between me & my doctor and determining my care.

As for suing your insurance company, the unfortunate fact is it'll likely be your next of kin brining the lawsuit, and unless s/he's well-heeled enough to afford a team of lawyers, probably losing the case, besides. I don't know the facts about not being able to sue the government (but your claim sounds "fishy" to me--I'll read up), but I'd imagine the public outcry over denials that cause folks to die would bring about changes in a government plan quicker than in a private plan. (No non-disclosure settlements.)

Now as far as those "end-of-life" chats, I'm against any language making the chats themselves or their content mandatory. I wouldn't (at this stage, anyway) be opposed to signage and a document stating the facts about living wills and whatnot, specifying that the patient can discuss this such things with their doctor, and that if cost is an issue, the government will pay for that discussion. A take home hand out for everyone over 18--because anyone can be hit by a bus & left in a coma--and a yearly signed receipt of having received it would be fine. I wouldn't be opposed to a doctor choosing to bring it up, either. But I don't believe the government needs to be in the room mandating the conversation. (Of course, I feel the same way about abortion providers and those mandatory "counseling sessions" some states propose or have written into law.)

"Here are the facts about your options, and we'll be glad to discuss them with you ("at gov't expense," in the case of living wills & end of life care), if you so desire. Please sign & return this page stating that you received this pamphlet."

Submitted for approval August 11, 2009, 11:22 AM

Monday, August 10, 2009

Hey, have you read that post about Dr Emanuel and transplant ethics?

in reply to: Thingumbobesquire: Obfuscations abound (They sure do, Thingumbobesquire... They sure do...)

((The same blog post was submitted as a comment @ at least one of Jacobson's blog posts, and at least two of America's power posts, all unrelated to healthcare. (And that's just what I've seen, so far...)))

@Thingumbobsquire: There's a pretty good discussion about Dr. Emanuel at William Jacobson's blog, titled "An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"" (Short answer: I'm pretty sure the writing you're referring to is actually about the medical ethics involved when you have one donor heart or liver, two or more patients who might not last another 24 hours without receiving one, and a decision has to be made as to who gets the organ. Opinions differ, but from what I've read, Dr. Emanuel (& company; there were 2 other authors to the journal article) is offering a system of ethics that is more compassionate & fair than the one UNOS is using currently, in my opinion.) I'd read the whole threat... someone even mentioned the Nazi angle.

Submitted for moderator approval 8/10/09, 10: 10 AM ( Thingumbobesquire blog time)

In a lot of places here in America, speaking in turn is patriotic, too.

In response to Legal Insurrection: Our Leaders Versus the Un-Americans:

@Thingumbobsquire: There's a pretty good discussion about Dr. Emanuel a few posts back, titled "An inconvenient truth about the Death Panels." (Short answer: I'm pretty sure the writing you're referring to is actually about the medical ethics involved when you have one donor heart or liver, two or more patients who might not last another 24 hours without receiving one, and a decision has to be made as to who gets the organ. Opinions differ, but from what I've read, Dr. Emanuel (& company; there were 2 other authors to the journal article) is offering a system of ethics that is more compassionate & fair than the one UNOS is using currently, in my opinion.) I'd read the whole threat... someone even mentioned the Nazi angle.

I'm pretty sure that the author and every other person whining about this understands the difference between protest and drowning out opposing voices, no matter the feigned outrage. Marching in the streets to express your point is one thing; smashing windows to get your point across is another. Even though both activities fall under the heading of "protest," those who speak out against window smashing--perhaps by calling it "Un-American," even--are not maligning all protest.

Same goes here. Speaking out is very American. Shouting down your fellow Americans --both those who're elected, and your neighbors--in public meetings designed to express various points of view, and thereby not allowing those who oppose your point of view to be heard... Yeah, that's kind of un-American.

I'm not saying there isn't a time and place for being rowdy in response to what you see going on around you... ...but that doesn't absolve you of being criticized for it, especially if others think you're jumping the gun and acting like hooligans for your beliefs, prematurely.

In a lot of places here in America, speaking in turn is patriotic, too.
Submitted for approval August 10, 2009 10:15 AM

Sunday, August 9, 2009

He's like... A NAZI!!!

In reply to commenter Lew Waters, at the post Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel", who said:

What should be scary to all about Dr. Emanuel's words is that they sound eerily familiar,

"The underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves and were thus prolonging their lives in torment. ... To quote Hippocrates today is to proclaim that invalids and persons in great pain should never be given poison. But any modern doctor who makes so rhetorical a declaration without qualification is either a liar or a hypocrite. ... I never intended anything more than or believed I was doing anything but abbreviating the tortured existence of such unhappy creatures…… I am convinced that today they have overcome their distress and personally believe that the dead members of their families were given a happy release from their sufferings."

Testimony of Dr. Karl Brandt, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, Adolf Hitler’s personal physician. Sentenced to death and executed June 2, 1948 at Landsberg prison in Bavaria.


Really, Lew? A Nazi doctor?

Where does Dr. Emanuel suggest ending anyone's suffering by taking any active step to kill them? Please quote and cite it.

At best (or worst, depending) this is about the allocation of limited resources in the face of multiple patients who all need the same resource to improve their health or (most often) save their life.

It's not about deciding whether or not a patient will likely die; there's one heart, and two or more patients who need one to survive the next 24-48 hours. Somebody will live, and somebody will likely die. Dr. Emanuel's article discusses four different systems of medical ethics for fairly determining who gets the heart.

Perhaps it would be instructive if all the people upset about Dr. Emanuel's suggested method for making this decision were to choose which of the other three ethical systems (or one they create themselves) they support for doing so, and whether the rest of us wouldn't find elements of it (the parts about "...who should therefore not get the heart," especially) equally distasteful.
Submitted for approval 8/9/09, 3:35 PM

Death Panels? Withholding Treatment? Really?!?

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

@ William: But if Zeke's not writing the bill, the argument is a specious one. (Do we even know for certain that Dr. Emanuel is a Democrat? And would it say anything about Republicans and health care, if it were to turn out he's one of them? -- The answer you're looking for, is no.)

I disagree that Dr. Emanuel is talking about withholding treatment from anyone, but is instead talking about allocating treatment in acute situations where there's only so much of it to go around, such as transplants (1 liver, 10-15 patients in the area who need one) or overcrowded emergency rooms (How many patients can one ER treat at a time, and how does s/he decide who goes first (a decision that may also determine who "goes" first.)?) I'm not saying that Trig couldn't become enmeshed in a situation like that, but I'd think that his age would be a plus under Dr. Emanuel's guidelines, and I see nothing in his paper that suggests his Down's Syndrome would work against him. (Perhaps that's because I read "prognosis" as referring to the acute condition that brought Trig into the hospital--will the expensive treatment bring him back to where he was before he was shot/his liver failed, or will he still suffer & possibly die because of it, regardless of our efforts?), rather than as judging the worth of his whole life, mental acuity included.

Assuming you state his view accurately (I haven't the time to read the whole paper now, but I intend to), I agree with the Doc, by the way... When resources (doctors, equipment, organs for transplant) are scarce, choices are made. Happens in hospitals right now, and it will continue to no matter what happens with this health care reform. In a finite system, the patient you have a good shot of saving gets more of those scarce resources than the patient that just isn't going to make it, especially in acute, emergency care situations.

The less immediately dire the health threat, the more that can be offset by patient/family money--and I don't think that'll change under the proposed reforms, btw--but when you're freshly shot or suffering a heart attack, your recovery (or survival) has alot to do with which hospital is closest to you, and what other patients happen to be there at the time. On a good night, you'll get the head of the department; on a busy night, you may get the newest intern. It's all supply and demand, and the luck of the draw.

From what I did read of the paper though, it's apparent that it is
a mostly theoretical exercise that assumes scarcity of resources as a given. It's the equivalent of discussing who you would keep and who you would toss off the overcrowded, sinking lifeboat, or whether you would rescue the doctor on the verge of finding a cure for cancer or the toddler, assuming you could only rescue one of 'em, and knowing the other would surely die.

ALL of the systems discussed in the paper (the one used by UNOS, the one endorsed by the World Health Organization) evaluate patients to determine who should get the treatment and who shouldn't. All of 'em have "winners" -- those who will get the liver or heart and will live, and "losers"-- who will not get the transplant and will likely die, and all of 'em propose some method of judging who the "winners" and "losers" should be. (If need be, I can seek out & post the equally disturbing choices the other medical ethics systems--systems in place as we speak, I might add--suggest for judging who should live and who should die.)

You & Sarah are welcome to your opinions and your fears, of course, but I don't agree with your thoughts on this.

Submitted for approval August 9, 2009 11:56 AM

Protest is still patriotic, but rude is still rude, too

In reply to: So, Were These Instances Of “Political Terrorism?” | QandO

Pearlstein's "Political Terrorism" line was over the top (referring to the current crop of bad actors, or Henke's examples of the same kinda behavior, then), but thuggish and rude? Absolutely.

Anytime any person or group interrupts a person speaking at a town hall meeting by yelling or chanting slogans--whether the person is the elected official, or a fellow district resident--it's rude behavior. Anytime anyone bangs on the doors and windows because they didn't get a seat in the room, it's thuggish behavior. Anytime anyone strikes another person--yeah, even if you're on "my" side, and hit someone I probably wouldn't agree with, politically--that's thuggish behavior.

I'll give a pass to folks on either side who don't condemn their own. There's no rule against keeping your mouth shut, and in my opinion (& speaking from experience), it's a jump to state that just because a (lib/con) doesn't come out and say that his/her fellow (lib/con) behaved poorly, that that means he's not thinkin' it.

But that "lookit then, lookit now" line of thinkin' goes both ways. Anyone who applauded those thuggish and rude actions then and condemns them now -- or condemned those patriotic acts then, but applauds them now -- is a damned hypocrite. (Same goes for "nazi" references & other partisan "bad" behaviors.) Left or right, situational ethics and moral relativism will get you nowhere. Protest is still patriotic, but by the same token, rude is still rude.

Submitted for approval August 9, 2009 at 06:04 AM (QandO blog time)

Thursday, August 6, 2009

JokObama (ObamaJoka?): Not racist, not meaningful; Just mean.

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: Joker-ology

Here I thought the pic was kinda mean-spirited (yes, :::sigh::: just like the one of Bush), but otherwise pretty stupid and meaningless. (At least the author--&/or I--got that meaningless part right. (The Joker, a socialist? Anybody who read or watched ANY Batman--even the silly TV show--knows THAT's not right...)

Submitted for approval August 6, 2009 5:43 PM Legal Insurrection blog time

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

ObamaJoka & BushHitler: Another post on the posters

In reply to: Below The Beltway - If Obama As The Joker Is Wrong, What About Bush As Hitler?

I go the other way than most... I find both of 'em to be kind of offensive, each in their own way.

Sure, it's free speech... ...but so is my (or anyone's) saying they're nasty in reply to seeing 'em. There's a difference between the government (& ONLY the government) saying you CAN'T say something, and anyone (including the government, but not limited to 'em) saying you SHOULDN'T say it, and I wonder why so many folks bring up the issue of free speech at all when stuff like this is discussed... I can think of very few examples of the government stepping in & prohibiting posters of either (any) political stripe in the last 25 years, and certainly not either of these.

As far as I'm concerned, demonization like this reduces us all. I disagreed with Bush. I didn't hate him. I know there are many on the right who feel the same about Obama. He's wrong, not Eeeeeevil...

It is a partisan world, especially here on the internet. (I'm of the opinion that most Americans believe partisan bloggers & protesters--right and left--are nutcases who ought to go out and get a life in the first place, and that seeing posters like these (and the chants and other theatrics that often go with 'em, especially at protests--& lately, town halls) only further cements that nutcase part).

True, anybody who disparages one picture & defends the other is a hypocrite, but with all respect due James Young, that's true whether they're fans of (or disgusted by) BushHitler or ObamaJoka.

And no, neither of 'em really makes sense, either... Like the rumors folks are spreading about the Palin & Obama families, of late, (& not just them, of course) it's lowest common denominator stuff that is more about hurting people personally than it is about any kinda issue advocacy.
Submitted for approval August 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm (Below the Beltway blog time)

Yeah, Bush posters bad, too. But that hypocrisy thing goes both ways, y'know...

In reply to this: In.sur.rec.tion: Because Only The Far Right Incites Violence (& indirectly, this: In.sur.rec.tion: Obligatorily Snarky Obama Joker Poster Post):

What 2470144 said.

Demonization like this reduces us all. I disagreed with Bush. I didn't hate him. (But to be fair, I also didn't speak up often enough when people on the left did these kinda things, just like not enough people on the right speak up now.) It is a partisan world, at least here on the internet. (I'm of the opinion that most Americans believe partisan bloggers & protesters right and left are nutcases who ought to get a life, in the first place, and that things like this only further cement that nutcase part).

Like the rumors folks are spreading about the Palin & Obama families, (& others, of course) it's lowest common denominator stuff that is more about hurting people personally than it is about issue advocacy.

Anyone who supports these pix while disparaging those (or vise versa) is a hypocrite. Wrong is wrong, period.
Submitted for approval, 8/4/09, 1:38 PM (IM blog time)

Oh, btw... This is what 2470144 said:

Regardless of which side puts forth the propaganda that demonizes the opposing side, the profitable exercise succeeds because it relies upon the vast zombie-wing condition of the nation.

The typical member of the zombie-wing has no real 'news & information' cognizance and thus, like some barnacle, must firmly attach him or herself to whatever political and informational vehicle is at hand – including family, social peer group and cultural environment.

Most people do not invest any time or interest in discerning the nature of their moral or political belief system. If the Reformed Lutheran Church tells them that late-term abortion is okay, then it simply is. If the Church tells them that God hates homosexuality, then gays are bad. If a media outlet proclaims so-and-so a racist, then he is. If one political party declares the other ‘evil,’ then it’s so.

The zombie nation watches sports; it doesn’t comprehend political viewpoints unless there is a feel good angle. A moral zombie doesn’t know right from wrong or up from down.

Hate Bush. Dems are Socialist. Conservatives are racists. Liberals are weak. America is to blame.

June 3, 2009 1:33 PM

UPDATE: Same answer to this wingnut blog that, predictably, has no comment area of it's own:
Liberal Hypocrisy of the day | Political Byline
I wouldn't even bother responding to the following ass (assuming he had comments, of course), but he does provide a nice listing of those on the wingnut right typing away about this brilliant picture with just one hand, until the donkey can't cum anymore. (points): Jokebama � docweaselblog

ObamaJoka, the "socialist," free speech, and hypocrisy

Tried to post this comment here: [Spoof poster of Obama's face painted as The Joker branded 'dangerous and mean-spirited' - Mail Online] about 45 minutes ago... They promised me an e-mail confirmation of registration so it would post, but I've not received it so far... So, I'm posting it here, so I don't lose the comment. (With all the right wing blogs I've been visiting of late, "copying before submitting" is becoming an automatic habit. I'm surprised how many of 'em moderate for content prior to allowing the comment to show up--though I must say, Sister Toldjah (& Donald, once or twice) are still the only places I can recall that've rejected any of my comments, at least since I started this site. {Of course prior to this place, there was that odd Libertarian woman from South Africa who posted in support of Billo's appalling treatment of Shawn Hornbeck, who blocked (& also edited, on one occasion) my comments on her blog... What the hell was her name? It'll come to me, eventually, and when it does, I'll add it to the post...})

Anyway, the point:

Whether or not you CAN say it (free speech) is a whole different thing than being ACCOUNTABLE for saying it. Aside from being factually incorrect (anybody who thinks Obama's promoting socialism clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word), it is kinda mean. (And yes, the posters of Bush as Joker, Drac, Hitler, et al. were mean, too. In the name of the same "fair play" & "intellectual honesty" some here are demanding from the left, I hope everyone who condemned the Bush posters then is condemning these now. Any who aren't, are the same kinda hypocrites as folks on the left complaining now, & diggin' the Bush pix, then.) I will say this. I think posting these anonymously and running away is a little cowardly... The artist of the "Bush as Joker" pic signed his work, and stood behind it, as did the majority of the "...but... look at these lib protester signs, that are just as mean..." postings I've seen. Just somethin' to consider...

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Rumors, Hypocrisy, and Rightwing Fringe Gossip In.sur.rec.tion: Don't Link To Nude Photos of Obama's Mother, and in particular, a comment by Cynthia Yockey, justifying the posting of nude photos, rumored by a few on the right to be Obama's mother:
Prof. Jacobson,

With respect, pay attention to the fact that it is conservative women linking these photos. They are NOT being linked for the porn value. We are linking them because they say something voters need to know about the people who raised Obama to help them make sense of how a man with such a sweet smile can do terrible things he is doing and that he will do even more terrible things if people do not get a really good grip on who and what he is. These photos are for the Doubting Thomases who must touch the wounds, so to speak, before they can believe.

Really, professor. Please change your mind about this. It is conservative women who are leading this charge. It is not about porn. It is about showing people how and why Obama is the troubled and duplicitous man he is, raised to hate democracy and capitalism and now in command of the perfect circumstances to destroy them.


August 2, 2009 2:57 PM


Last time I backed Cynthia... This time you're correct, William. And of course, some got it wrong, both times... (Sometimes I wonder whether conservatives take turns with the few consistently moral brains in the room.)

It isn't just the "porn" angle, Cynthia... It's spreading what amounts to unsubstantiated gossip about people, for partisan gain. Sure it's titillating to imagine that Sarah and the Dude are splitting up, or to spread rumors about Obama's dead mother, but whether or not they are, and whether or not she did, it's hurtful to the people involved and to their families, and true or not, it didn't, doesn't, and likely never will have any impact on them politically, or on the American people in any way.

It's just netyard gossip, and it isn't even particularly good netyard gossip.

The way Ms Geller & Dr. Douglas went about this is particularly unpleasant, because they simultaneously decried the rumor mill on the left, and ginned up the rumor mill on the right, in the very same posts, obviously and admittedly for payback.

Either one believes that spreading unsubstantiated rumors and gossip for partisan purposes is wrong, or one does not. It's hard to take people seriously when they decry something done to them, and praise the same thing done by them. YMMV...
Submitted for approval 8/2/09, 5:54 PM (Immoderate Monk blog time, since I missed checking Legal Insurrection time before submitting)

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Rightwing "American Thinkers" Confuse Secret Service CAT Force With Political Partisans, Out To Threaten Or Do Them Harm

In reply to American Thinker: Honing those pitchforks, and in particular, their repetition of the Gateway Pundit "OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol" meme, which was debunked by the second person to comment on that post.

Just wondering whether anyone (else) went to Gateway Pundit and read the early commentary, which debunks Jim Hoft's claim that such security is uncommon, post 9/11. The commentary in question is written by two fellow conservatives, one of whom worked with them, so it's likely you can trust what they say:

Actually, that's the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. They always ride around with the rear window open and their weapons at the ready. Here's one photo:

U.S. Secret Service Counter Assault Team member has his assault weapon at the ready while sitting in the rear of a motorcade SUV as Barack Obama arrives at meeting in the Chicago FBI building.

Here's another:

Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:28 am"

"The duty of the Secret Service Counter Assault Team (CAT) is to fight off an assault on the presidential motorcade, delaying the attack while the president's personal protection team whisks him off to safety.

In other words, these men and women are hired specifically to give their lives so that others can save the president. They're amazing people."

Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:44 am

"These "hired guns" are the same people who protected Bush. They're total professionals and patriots. To think they're going to open fire on civilians because Obama is angry is an absolute smear and an insult."
Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 1:01 am

"Everyone calm down a little. I work with some of these folks and this is no different than any other event Ihave been at. People are trying to see something that isnt there. We have enough issues to be concerned about without inventing things like this to get spun up about."
Chuk | 07.31.09 - 1:14 am

Google Secret Service Counter Assault Team for more info.

They're not "Obama's personal security," and they're not a threat to anyone, right or left, who doesn't intend their protectees harm. Suggesting that there is a political message of any kind in their presence, is an insult to these brave and decent men & women who make up the CAT force. I urge those folks who're distributing incorrect or politically biased information about them to think it through...
Submitted for approval 08/01/2009 12:06PM (American Thinker blog time)
Previous commentary:
1) American Power: Did Obama's Secret Service Draw Guns on Conservative Protesters?
2) With All Due Respect: Re: OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol

The Government Already Knows About That Porn Site, Buddy...

In reply to: -- ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Rebate Program Allows Government to Take Control of Your Computer, and the comments posted there.

It's not ten times worse... It's ten times just the same.

I'm glad someone brought up AT&T under The Patriot Act. Same potential for government to "legally" read & listen in, only no warning page ahead of time. That had to be exposed, and when it was, it was retroactively made legal by Republicans & Dems alike.

This is very bad, and I agree that folks should not grant the government that much unfettered access in exchange for using their site. But, just like the Cons here hope that Dems who were so worried about Bush era loss of privacy speak out about bad acts under Obama, I really hope that the Cons who're so worried about personal privacy now, didn't shrug off these same privacy concerns under Bush. NO government deserves this kinda access into the lives of it's citizens, no matter which party controls the White House &/or Congress. (I"ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume y'all did speak out against the Bush era ATT (etc.) wiretaps, security letters checking out your reading/computer use habits at libraries and bookstores, "sneak & peek" warrants, ...)

I think Beck is an unmitigated nutball (It's my humble opinion, and I pray God blesses those who believe otherwise, with all good things), but he is right about this.
Submitted for approval August 1st, 2009 - 10:23 am, time (It's Howdy Beckky Time... It's Howdy Beckky Time...)

Bomb In The Building? Let's Not Evacuate, Because We Could Be Killed Out There

In reply to: Pat Dollard - Young Americans - Breaking: La Guardia Evacuated Over Potential Terrorist With Bomb, and in particular:
"I am always amused how the threat is isolated inside, meanwhile, a very large cluster of soft targets is formed outside. Can you say much easier target.

Most times government actions lack one simple ingredient — Common sense.

As if being outside the building unprotected is better than being inside the building."


You’ll have to be more specific, bill-tb…

Because, whether the “suspicious package” is an explosive device or a noxious gas, outside & away from it is better than inside the building…

Further, I know of no situation where the evacuation from the building holding the suspicious package has lead to significant casualties of these soft targets.

(I mean sure, if you’re in the free fire zone of a hot conflict, maybe… But in NYC (or anywhere in America, in the last hundred or so years)? I’m not sure you’re take on common sense is either common or sense.)

What would you have security personnel do with an airport or skyscraper full of people, after finding a potential explosive device or poison gas canister? With all due respect, I’m pretty sure that evacuating the innocent civilians is the correct way to go, at least until we see a rash of terrorist/madman sharpshooters, pickin’ off the evacuees as they hit the streets. (Now, if you’re suggesting we move them to a sheltered area, (a different building, a barricaded area outside) away from the potential zone of impact, maybe… But staying in the likely danger zone? I don’t think that idea holds water…)
Submitted for approval August 1, 2009 at 4:44 am (patdollard blog time)
Photo credit: Jim's Big Ego : UnPop for the Unpopulous!. You can hear the song here (last song on the list, as of this posting) NSFW! Warning!! NSFW!!!: My Playlist by Jim’s Big Ego on MySpace Music - listen to songs & purchase MP3s

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Hello? Are you feelin' ok?

"Day after day, love turns gray like the skin of a dying man..."

In reply to: American Power: The Erin Andrews Flame War

I suspect you're not going to listen to me, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't try. I don't expect you to allow this through the moderation filter either, but you're welcome to post it, if you wish.

Stogie (in the last minute comment you added to the top of this post) was right, and you should've listened to him. Sheeples, in her comment to this post, is correct as well. Perhaps you'll listen to her.

Granted, I'm loving every minute of this ass-whipping you're getting--& will probably continue to get, after this post-- (which itself ought to tell you something), but... well, it's bad enough when you treat political "enemies" like me as badly as you do... But when you start treating your "friends" this badly, it's a sign that something's actually wrong...

You really ought to listen to what Stogie, and Cassandra, and Miss Atilla, and the twin Daves, and... well just about everyone who's commented, here or anywhere else... is telling you, and take it easier, and slower, and turn down the dang heat...

It's ok to have folks disagree with you, Donald. And initially anyway, that's all that happened. It isn't the story that's an issue--though I personally think you pounded it WAY too hard. You've done what, 10 posts on miss Andrews, all with essentially the same info?--but that you posted a link to the illegally obtained & posted video, which many people believe further victimizes her. You seem to believe that it was newsworthy, and that that justified posting the link. Nothing more, and nothing less.

But rather than just disagree, you've called those who saw it differently than you, Victorian, radical feminists, hypocrites (for posting anything from Vargas-style pinups to male calendar models, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the issue was the consent of the model, not rule five in toto), and even, poor writers.

Look... I'd never be so foolish as to think you'd ever find accord with the likes of me, but you really ought to cut your friends (political, personal) some slack. If you really can't, you ought to figure out whether you need a good vacation away from partisan blogging, or something in the way of professional help.

Don't take my word for it... Ask the bloggers and commenters you trust to contact you (privately, so that they can tell you the God's honest, without embarrassing anyone involved) with their thoughts on how a few of your recent posts on the subject (& especially this one) reads. It ain't good, Donald. When Stogie & Sheeple (& I predict others, before long) are trying to wave you off, it ain't good.

That's all I'm gonna say...

(I have been working on my own post about this, for AmNi... ...but at the moment anyway, I almost feel too sorry for you (because I really do think there's something wrong... Stress?, depression?, ???) to finish & post it... We'll see how it goes... Hopefully, I'll get over it, and be the nihilist bastard you already seem to think I am.)
Submitted for approval 7/30/09, 9:31 AM (AmPow blog time, or 12:31 PM here in IMonk-land) ((& may've been held from posting here at IM for awhile too, because it was written as a personal note (sorta), and right this second, I'm not sure I want to post it, at all.))

Predictably, it didn't take long for Donald Douglas to engage in the very unmitigated douchebaggery for which he is making himself famous throughout the blogesphere. I no longer feel sorry for him, and will now hit the post button, a scant 2 hours after writing all that appears above. The AmNi post I referenced above may follow eventually, as well.

For a kick, also read Stogie's comment to the same post, submitted ten minutes after mine:
Donald, the best thing to do now is (1) Stop calling other bloggers names like "liar" (a difference of opinion does not necessarily make one a liar and it just inflames them more with no benefit whatsoever).

(2) Drop this ugly mud-wrestle and let it die; just STOP. Take time to COOL OFF.

(3) Take a vacation. You are stressed out and not thinking clearly. Suspend blogging for a week or two with a post titled "On Vacation." Go fishing. When you get back things will look better.

I bet that ain't the only one, either... Folks have to be writing him privately with their opinions, and lord knows what he isn't letting through the moderation filter... (Damned self-serving critic, that Stogie. Prolly a feminist, too. They all just suck.)

Those Damned White People!

In reply to: Riehl World View: Those Damned Brown People!

This time the issue isn't moderation, but the fact that I cannot add the comment to the post to which it belongs, for reasons I do not understand. (The post is only two days old, and the comment block is there to write in, but the "post" button is grayed out... Old posts at this blog say the comments are closed, and new ones have functioning "preview" & "post" buttons... This one appears to be in some kinda limbo between the two. Go figure.)

I'm willing to give Dan the benefit of the doubt, and assume he just worded his post poorly as concerns being "the only American there in a DC suburb." (But then, I read somewhere that he's prone to Lunkhead Prose Reporting.) Contrary to his claims, the anecdote doesn't prove Dan does or doesn't have racist tendencies generally but, as anyone who's been in a similar multicultural multilingual situation will attest, it is a heartwarming story about human nature, and it made me smile. Perhaps once I read more of Dan's posts, I'll have a better idea of how racist he is or ain't, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt unless/until he proves that wrong. (I've only visited occasionally, thus far... but loved his recent smackdown of some bloggers that richly deserved it. 'nuff said.)

Not a bad back in forth in general, but North Dallas Thirty is pretty out there with his assertion that if any liberal anywhere does something, all libs everywhere are responsible for it. The topic isn't comments made by some disgraced Dem mayor on his porch, or accusations made & recanted by black kids in TX, and even if it was, you got nothin' unless you have the lib you're accusing (which appears to be all of us, one by one) agreeing with the comments you believe to be racist.
Apparently, ND30 is one of those who believes that one cannot comment on any potentially bad act (racial, or otherwise) unless one also comments on EVERY potentially bad act that resembles it in any way... ...which for the record, is friggin' stupid, just on the time it'd take to comply with those kinda demands, alone... You start where you start, and you say what you can about those people/situations that're most recent, or most disturb you. Anyone who's shocked to find that partisan bloggers might have a partisan bent when doing that, just ain't paying enough attention to the world around them, and ought not to be taken very seriously as a result. I invite those interested enough (anyone? anyone? Buller??) to search ND30's blog for all of his condemnation of fellow cons for bad behavior. I'm sure he's posted oodles... ...y'know, in the name of fairness, and intellectual honesty'n'all... Happy hunting.
Comment written (& posting attempted) around 8:45 AM, IMonk blog time

Monday, July 27, 2009

Reporting about crime is fine; becoming an accomplice after the fact, isn't

In reply to: Video of ESPN’s Erin Andrews nude? - The Daley Gator

I'm pretty sure the issue wasn't Dr. Douglas' posting about the story, but his posting a link to the illegal video (so more people could "enjoy" Erin Andrews victimization, and the hits by the pervs looking for it could skyrocket), and his repeated defenses of same... especially his calling legit conservative female bloggers like Little Miss Attila and Cassandra of Villainous Company hypocrites and :::GASP::: feminists, because they don't think he should've posted the link.

Submitted for moderator approval July 27, 2009 at 1:07 PM, (Daily Gator blog time)

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The squeaky wheel...

In reply to: The Real Blogger Status: The Girl In Short Shorts
The sad part is, as per your update, she did get an answer quicker than many of us do... (Potentially, anyway... Given the fact that she abandoned her blogger blog over the warning, there's no indication that she actually stuck around long enough to read it.)

Makes me wonder whether I (& as many of my blogger friends as possible) should raise more of a stink over my non-spam "spam" blog [Immoderate Monk] that's been marked--first by the CAPTCHA & question mark, & now removed/disabled--since late May... (j/k... Tempted as I am, I more or less get the situation... ...and I don't have nearly enough blogger friends to be effective, anyway...)

For the record, I'm following your 3 step plan as laid out here [The Real Blogger Status: Blogs Are Being Removed For Just Cause] -- though

1) so far, no one's responded to any of the three actions I've taken, and

2) Mishka, another all-star BHF person, called into question whether one should wait 10-14 days after clicking the links for a review before submitting one's blog to the appeals database & posting in BHF "Something's Wrong." (In case you and Mishka want to get on the same page, that conversation took place here, yesterday: My Blog Is Labeled As SPAM, What Do I Do? - Blogger Help)

Anyway, thanks... I'll keep watching for positive results...
Submitted for approval 22/7/09 13:48 (Real Blogger Status blog time)

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Exploitation For Blog Hits

"Immoderate Monk" post, in reply to Men Being Assholes. - Little Miss Attila:

As some folks here know, I'm not on your side politically, but I've been following this thing (and a related story about bigoted "jokes" and other commentary) on a whole bunch of blogs for the last several days...

Right or left, Cassandra's 4:01 AM post is right on target. One has to have standards of behavior, and one has to uphold them, whether the target (or the perpetrator) is a political/social friend or a foe.

While I like pretty women as much as the next guy, I find the whole "Rule 5" thing to be kinda distasteful because I see it as kind of a bait & switch. They come, they oogle, and the hit counters ding! as though they came for the politics. To me it's as though the blog authors in question are saying their writing isn't good enough on it's own...

But whatever one thinks of Rule 5, at least the women in question willingly posed for the snapshots that get posted (all the ones I've seen, anyway)... There's a vast difference between exploiting oneself and being exploited by others without consent, as the result of an illegal and sleazy act. The people responsible for getting & posting the video are criminals. But everyone who helped it get passed around, whether by posting the video itself or a link to it elsewhere are far from blameless, no matter how they justify it. And those who heard the story and then searched for the video really ought to take a good look at what that says about their own standards and values, as well.

The best post I've seen on this, Male category: You call yourself a man? Not while Erin out your fantasies online - News, Fantasy, Video
Submitted for approval July 21st, 2009 at 12:30 pm (Little Miss Attila blog time)

Monday, July 20, 2009

Permitting bigotry and offensiveness to pass unchallenged silently condones those behaviors

Immoderate Monk post, in reply to "whatever," @ American Power: Atwater Councilman Frago Sorry for "Stupid" E-Mails: Leftists Outraged, Blacks Reject Apology; Media Ignore Outburst of Democratic Race Insensitivity!
Repsac3: "Permitting bigotry and offensiveness to pass unchallenged silently condones those behaviors."

whatever: "Alas, most seem only to find their voice when they know people like you will approve of what they have to say...which I believe is the point of this article that your liberal intolerance made you miss."

I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that, whatever... Few are looking for the approval of "people like me" (whatever that means), but they are seeking the approval of their friends. When confronted by people in one's own circle "innocently" telling bigoted or insensitive "jokes," too many of us (myself included, sometimes) don't want to appear to come off as "better than..." by coming down on the person telling 'em. (Even though more than likely, almost everyone is uncomfortable when faced with off-color remarks--perhaps including the person making them, even.)

Unless you're traveling in a far different world than I, I'm pretty sure MOST people would approve of anyone who stands up for people against insensitive or bigoted comments... even people far different from me politically, religiously, or socially.

Individuals are bigots; most political or social groups are not (and the groups who are bigoted are pretty obvious about it.) In light of that, your "liberal intolerance" line makes no sense whatsoever, whatever...
Submitted for moderation July 20, 2009 12:51 PM (AmPow Blog Time)

Friday, July 3, 2009

Open Message to American Power Anonymous Reader #126

Moderated blog post in question: American Power: James B. Webb Apologizes

In reply to American Power anonymous reader #126, who, like several others, so fears that I might comment on her blog, that she routed her question through Dr Don via e-mail, but was kind enough to allow him to post it for all to see.


I can't believe that Repsac3 is still sticking his nose into this thing. It looks like the others could just stay out of it, and allow you and JBW settle things between yourselves. That's the way they operate, though ... like members of a gang, ganging up on a single individual. I guess they believe in power in numbers ... several of them against you. They are the most disgusting group of men that I have ever had the displeasure of learning about ... if, indeed, they can be called 'men.' They are more like a bunch of bullying, juvenile delinquents. I've a good mind to go to another of my screen names and comment, I'm so disgusted. If I did that, I wouldn't be posting as anonymous, and they wouldn't be able to come to my blog, via yours. I'll have to give that some thought."

I "stuck my nose into this thing" because the thing in question was posted on a public blog, where comments and debate are welcomed, and positions are vigorously defended.

Had Donald & James been working things out in private, (perhaps via private e-mail), I certainly never would've commented about it on anyone's blog. But I believed (and still do) that the fact that both men chose to air their differences on their blogs--where, as I mentioned, comments are accepted and encouraged--allowed me (along with several other people on both blogs, not to mention other writers on their own blogs), to comment on the situation.

In fact, I'll note that in writing your e-mail to Donald and allowing him to publish it, you yourself chose to "stick your nose into this thing," as well. Perhaps Donald and I would do better if we could just settle things between ourselves without outside comment as well, but as long as we continue to vent our spleens on public blogs, where commentary is welcomed and encouraged, I trust that folks like you will continue doing the same thing with your noses that I did with mine, and for very much the same reason.

As for whether we who disagree with Dr Douglas constitute a gang, I'd say no more or less so that those folks who regularly comment in favor of Don's many posts. I trust you'll be fitting them with leather "YesMen" gang jackets any time now...

Personally, I would very much enjoy your taking the time to reply to any/all of my commentary in your own voice. You wouldn't even have to "out" yourself and risk having me follow you back to where you make your internet home and, golly forbid, comment on your blog, since Donald allows anonymous comments here. Just don't sign in (or sign out, if you get automatically signed in) and choose either "Name/URL" -- where you can put in any old thing you wish, or "anonymous" -- which is, well, anonymous, and let me have it. I would be most curious how you (or anyone) would intelligently answer my comment on that "Blacks as Monkeys?" post, because Ms Anon, I really don't see how Donald could ever think he was the "monkey" in question, given how clearly both the words and picture told a different story...

(Assuming this comment gets approved, anyway...) I thank you for your time, and look forward to reading your reply.

Submitted for approval July 2, 2009 11:47 PM (American Power blog time)

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

The Golden Rule compels you

In reply to this post comment: Valley of the Shadow: The Post Plague Year Rules for Commenting, both for moderation and length. (I intend to post brief summary of this reply, and a pointer back to this full length one. So as to avoid a "mirror reflecting a mirror" situation, I will not post that summary here as well, even though that post will be moderated, too.)

"Lead by example."

I could certainly live in a world where everyone treated others as well as I believe I do, but I'm pretty sure that we all should lead by example, or at the very least, follow the Golden Rule, and treat others with at least as much respect and consideration as we would like to receive from them in return. I'm pretty sure I can't change the world all by my lonesome, and I'm not so sure that I represent anyone aside myself, anyway... (Surely not any group so vast as "Liberals," and certainly not "Democrats," either, particularly since, unlike you, I've never even been a member of that club, and only vote for them when there is no better 3rd party choice, which is seldom.)

My "stalking Blog"

Let me approach this from a different angle... The gentleman in question has posted screeds--in some cases, MANY screeds--about every author on American Nihilist, as well as every person / blog listed in the AmNi blogroll. So I wonder why it is that his blog is not also designated a "stalking blog"? Is it simply that he doesn't concentrate on one target, and spreads his disapproval of others around more than we choose to?

As I said in my last comment, AmNi is kind of an "eye for an eye" endeavour, but the posts are generally in response to attacks, not attacks themselves. There are some exceptions, of course, but generally, the eye we take is in response to the eye we lose. My posts in particular tend to be comments in reply to posts of his, that I would likely write on Don's blog itself, if they weren't so dang long. Some of his posting deserves a full fisking & wider exposure than would come from a simple comment or two on his blog.

People, including the "stalking victim" himself, write blog posts in response to other folk's blog posts all the time. We do nothing different, so far. And if a person treats others as egregiously as does our fair "stalking victim," I see nothing wrong with allowing those bloggers who he has attacked and who wish to respond, to all post their replies at the same blog. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

And just as a final bit worth considering: Altogether, my AmNi blog has posted fewer screeds about Dr Douglas than he has about Andrew Sullivan, alone, in the same period of time. (And there have been screeds about others too, of course) So again, what is it that designates one a "stalker blog," and the other not, and are you sure the labels ought not be switched?

"I cannot be "above the fray,..."

I don't know that anyone is suggesting you be above the fray... *I'm* suggesting that you not attack children or offer excuses for assassinating a politician in return, which seems to be what you're advocating. *I'm* saying that one can condemn the individuals who do such things without doing them in return, and without blaming everyone in a given party or on a particular side for the acts of individuals in that party or on that side.

"Where are the people standing up for better rules of engagement to Keith Olbermann? Chris Matthews? Rhandi Rhodes?"

Many of them are pointing at Bill O'Reilley, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh and claiming they did it first, and we won't clean up our act until they do, which is a sentiment that may sound vaguely familiar. (And I'm sure that the defenders of Bill, Ann & Rush can point to those liberals that preceded them as having started it, and that those who defend those early libs have still earlier conservatives to whom they point, and so on, and so on, and so on...)

Change begins with oneself, not with anyone else. The only person one can control is oneself, and to point at anyone else and make demands of them that they must meet, before one will consider changing one's own behavior, is just no way to go, in my opinion.

"All I want (and have been wanting since December 12, 2000) is for my former party to clean up their own act before judging any of the Right."

As you so eloquently put it at the beginning of your comment, it is possible to criticize behavior and still maintain the ability to carry on further dialogue with the offending person. Person A's bad behavior is no more or less bad if person B also engages in bad behavior. It is possible that individuals in your former party are correct in their criticisms and judgments about individuals on the right, whatever their own sins may be. I don't think one should use Democratic party sins to excuse or ignore Republican party sins, or vice versa.

"I've already ofered the "how" to stop Coulter and Limbaugh -- no one on the Left understands, to stop them, they have to stop proving them right."

The issue I take with any notion that Coulter and Limbaugh are proved right by "the Left" (a monolith that doesn't exist), could be a whole comment in itself. Suffice to say, I think your theory is wrong, and that only the people for whom the bomb throwers claim to speak can shut them up, by refusing to give them any attention or status within the party / ideological ranks. And that goes for bomb throwers on the left, as well as the right. We, not the other party, are responsible for the demons on our own side.

"I believe we are all Americans, some with different opinions on how to make this nation great, but how much "dissing," am I supposed to take?"

As little as you give, I'd say... Sometimes one needs to reply in kind to individual "disses," but often it is possible and right to be the better man, and turn that other "other cheek" (by which I mean an ass cheek,) and walk away, to confront another day...

Of turned cheeks and blind eyes

In reply to: Valley of the Shadow: The Post Plague Year Rules for Commenting

It's a shame, sir, that you criticize the behavior of others, and then justify acting in that same way because "they did it first." As I've said to you before on this blog and elsewhere, change begins with you and with me, one by one and conversation by conversation. If you believe something is wrong when done by that side, it is equally wrong when done by this side. I'm not quite sure whether your argument is that bad behavior is justified as retribution, or justified because it works, but either way, I take issue with your saying that bad behavior is justified.

And honestly, Joe, I think you're better than that, anyway. Perhaps I haven't been around long enough, but I haven't even seen you engaging in the kind of rhetorical behavior you're justifying. So far, you've been every bit the gentleman, treating me and my "liberal" ideas with respect and consideration. (And if I may be so bold as to say,) I believe I've been respectful to you and to your ideas, as well. If you ask me, I'd like to see "do as I do, not as I say" be your motto and advice to others, because in spite of your words, you are not exhibiting the boorish behavior you're nevertheless advocating.

I'm sorry you don't approve of my "stalking" blog (stalking blog?), but American Nihilist is the result of several bloggers who were being attacked by a single blogger, banding together to offer a more unified response. (Sadly, it hasn't worked out that way, but the theory was there.)

Ironically, AmNi is the closest I come to behaving vengefully and successfully, as you suggest. While I'm preaching "turn the other cheek" and you're preaching "an eye for an eye," AmNi most certainly has "eye for an eye" aspects to it, and yet you're listing it as something not to do--which is either a purely partisan statement, since the person who gets much of the attention there is from your side of the aisle, or is your exhortation in contravention to everything else you say, to "turn the other cheek."

I'm fine with people judging my words and deeds everywhere I post them, but I would appreciate it if folks would consider all that they see of me, rather than just those parts that paint me in a particular light. Ask yourself whether I've initiated bad behavior, or whether I have instead responded to it. Ask yourself how I treated you in our first encounter, and whether I treat anyone as an "enemy," or one of "them." How closely do I live up to the rules and standards I set for others? I'm willing to accept that I'm not perfect, but I don't believe that my AmNi blog is anything more than a response to a man who treats others poorly. Yes, it does occasionally cross the line, even as far as I'm concerned (though not generally by my own hand, I'm happy to say...), but mostly, it is just another opinionated blog.

I hope you're not saying that I risk my ability to comment here or my chance to be your internet friend by continuing to maintain a blog to which you do not approve. I find our conversations interesting and enlightening, but would give them up in a heartbeat rather than gaining/keeping my ability to comment here by giving up my ability to post there. I trust you understand, and would do the same...

Submitted for approval 7/1/09, 2:45 AM (IM Blog time.)