Friday, February 27, 2009

American Power, Moderation, and me

Reply to American Power: Moderating Comments

The thing of it is, having you moderate, shut down, shut up, or in any way change what you've been doing, has never been my intent.

I mean, I'm not perfectly behaved by a long-shot, but neither am I particularly abusive, either in language or in tone. When you post something, I reply to what you and/or your readership says, pretty much like any other person who comments here. The only difference I can see is, I don't stroke your ego, and don't expect a Donnie-treat ("You're so right (to agree with my every word). Thanks for posting!!") and a pat on the head in reply.

I don't wish to keep you quiet; I just wish to respond to that neocon/con/"traditionalist" vision of the world with a different perspective, and that's pretty much all I do when I comment here. While I haven't ever done a count, I'd guess that my comment frequency is not all that different from that of some of your other regulars, though I will admit that there have been particular posts where I've ended up in discussions with three or four people simultaneously, and am answering each of their comments with one of my own. On the other hand, there have also been posts where I haven't commented at all, so it all evens out...

While you claim to get e-mails from secret admirers expressing disgust for my wanton ways, one or two of your fellow conservatives have said publicly (some on this blog even, though I'll be damned if I can find any of them now) that they don't understand why you so dislike me. They think I'm as wrong as you do, but they don't see where I'm particularly mean or abusive like you claim I am. With a few exceptions (mostly return blows, rather than first strikes), I can agree with that assessment (except about that "being wrong" part, of course... 8>)

I understand that you prefer to see me as "one fruity yet obssessed, generally abusive moral relativist with an unhealthy addiction to trolling for 'gotchas' who has been commenting here", but I don't see what I do to you as being all that different from what you do yourself to other bloggers. The only difference between us is, I'm more apt to do it right here on your own blog, rather than cutting the lines to which I wish to reply from this "offending" blog, then scurrying back to my own & pasting it in, sharing my observations with my ideological peers, rather than you, the person who said the thing with which I so disagree. I have little interest in pats on the back or "a million hits" (Rule 3, is it?); I'm looking for a conversation and an exchange of ideas, and I've no problem walking into the lion's den to find it.

My American Nihilist blog is closer to what you do yourself, dealing with you & other bloggers and certain socio-political celebs with whom we disagree from afar, by link and quote. That place is built around your penchant for a particular word--rendered almost meaningless through misuse and inane repetition--that you fire off at commenter and far-off blogger or politico alike. Our blogroll is nothing more than a list of folks with blogs that you've called a "nihilist," for any reason or none, in the last 6-8 months. And like Doctor Biobrain commented at an AmNi post, I'm starting to wonder too, whether "it won't turn out that EVERYONE is a nihilist; excepting, of course, Associate Professor Donald Douglas, who is the one man of true principle in this world.", at least, if one were to ask you, anyway.

In any case, my point is, I bear you little ill will, and I certainly don't want to stop you from blogging. I would prefer that you take off the blinders and try to see the world (or at least one little tiny part of it) from another perspective, but I really don't expect you ever will. If you do, great. If not, you continue to serve as a bad example. Either way, I'm not attacking you, at least most of the time... I'm just commenting on your blog (and now, given your moderation & threats of mass deletions once you turn the moderation off, here, as well.) I'm sorry that my doing so so offends you, but I'd imagine that those you "hammer" and attempt to "take down" (assuming that they notice, given that you tend to do these things somewhat out of their sight) feel pretty much the same way about you...

The real problem is, you got caught with your proverbial pants down with that comment about gay marriage, bestiality, and the conservative penchant for linking the two, and alot of people saw your Superman underoos, and wanted to compliment you on how well you wear them. (Pam's blog is fairly large itself, and even from there, the story was caught by one or two liberal blog aggregators, spreading it yet wider.) I wouldn't like it if it happened to me, either... ...but then, I didn't make the foolish comment; I only replied to it.

Sent for approval February 27, 2009 12:54 AM (AmPow Blog Time)

Thursday, February 26, 2009

American Power, and lies

Reply to: American Power: Amanda Marcotte: "The Actual Values of the Country"

Donald said: "...since Pam Spaulding lied about American Power..."

To be taken seriously outside of your own little circle, you're going to have to explain the lie more clearly, Donald. Anyone who reads the original post (or the responses to it, either on my blog or Pam Spaulding's) sees that you were quoted fairly, and in context, saying the following:

"Actually, Pam Spaulding imputes things to the traditionalist side that are virtually unheard of outside of the radical left's fever swamps? Bestiality? I've been blogging about this issue for months, and I can't recall the word ever being used by conservatives, or anything close to it."

I can appreciate that maybe you were thinking only of conservatives making such "bestial" "attacks in the CURRENT DEBATE post-Proposition 8" in your mind, but that isn't what you said when you put your thoughts into words on your blog.

We couldn't read your mind. We could only read what you said, and what you said was "Bestiality? I've been blogging about this issue for months, and I can't recall the word ever being used by conservatives, or anything close to it."

No one lied about you or your blog, Donald.

While there's no proof of it, I'm willing to accept that you may've had something different in your mind than you put into words on your blog, but all anyone (except perhaps any neocon psychics in your readership) can go by is the words actually posted on your blog, and quoted elsewhere. Any/all posts & commentary since is in reaction & reply to those words...

Unless you can show something different, the only lie is the one you're trying to tell in response.

Comment sent: February 25, 2009 11:34 PM (AmPow blog time)

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Dem agent, Jason isn't

Reply to: American Power: Jindal Torpedoes Presidential Aspirations

Stogie said...
Jason, you are full of it. I watched the Jindal response and found it articulate and gentlemanly. Furthermore, he underscored primary Republican philosophical points - individual intitiative over government intervention, etc. 

I'm sure Democrats and their propagandistst will diss Jindal's response with all kinds of insults and misrepresentation. They always do that to effective GOP candidates in an attempt to smear them or taint them with an undeserved stink so they won't pose problems for Dems in the future (i.e. as winning candidates).

So Jason, I have to ask you: are you really a Jindal supporter, or a Dem agent provacateur who is only posing as one?
February 25, 2009 9:33 AM


So Jason, I have to ask you: are you really a Jindal supporter, or a Dem agent provacateur who is only posing as one?

Follow Jason's link back to his blog, Stogie... He's no Democrat, and speaking as one of the token Libs here, we wouldn't want him.

It's a shame that no one can comment quickly to clear his name immediately, leaving your unfounded accusation just a-hangin' out there... I hope there are many comments in his defense already queued up & waiting to be approved.

Comment sent for approval February 25, 2009 10:46 AM (AmPow blog time)

Definition of Marriage

Reply to:
American Power: Pam Spaulding: A Black Lesbian Who is Wickedly Dishonest
Norm said...
Donna B:
The issue of gay and lesbian marriage has nothing to do with equality before the law. Civil unions are equal before the law. What is at issue is the definition of a word: marriage.

February 25, 2009 8:48 AM

@ Norm:

As long as the word "marriage" straddles the gap between religious rite and legal right, questioning whether it's definition can cover both in a secular society will continue.

Civil unions will be equal to marriage before the law when there is no differentiation of any kind between the two in the specific wording of laws.

The two terms never will or should be equal before one's God or religious institution.

As I've said before, I'd prefer to see "civil union" take the place of "marriage" in all US, state, and local law, and leave "marriage," definition and all, to the churches, synagogues, fellowships and mosques.

Comment sent for approval: February 25, 2009 10:10 AM (or so)