Iran Elections: Quit Turning Your Twitter Avatars Green And Do Something

Iran Elections: Quit Turning Your Twitter Avatars Green And Do Something - Air America Media - Kase Wickman

(The whole article is damned good and well worth reading, but I'm only reposting the "here's what you can do" paragraphs (the meat) below. I'm also leaving my twitter avatar green because, while it's usefulness pales in comparison to the suggestions in the post, I do think that little green tag makes a psychological difference. YMMV...)

So instead of empty gestures and hashtags, why don't we actually engage in some activism and help, instead of whispering about this like some kind of neighborhood scandal that will never catch up to us because it's an ocean away?

There's always the option of an online donation to a relief agency like Red Crescent, for something immediate and helpful. The world runs on money and blood (as the events in Iran over the last week and a half have so morosely reminded us), and America is too far away to donate the blood that the wounded in Iran so desperately need.

You can also make donations to those covering the ongoing protests and violence, like Tehran Bureau, which is run by an Iranian-emigre out of a house in Newton, Massachusetts and is in need of financial support to keep the site live and bandwidth plentiful. Reliable information is harder and harder to come by, already 24 journalists have been arrested in Iran, and the majority of the rest have been forced out of the country by expired visas and government intimidation.

Don't have cash? There are ways you can help for free without ever leaving your computer. You can create a proxy or Twitter relay to help keep those ever-important Iranian Twitterers connected and informing the world about the situation in Iran. Or change your location and time zone to match Iran, in hopes of tripping up government censors looking for active sources.

If you're more diplomatically-inclined, and looking toward the long term, write a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council and urge them to take action on international election standards and protection for citizens.

Above all, the thing you must do before any difference can be made is to inform yourself. The term "knowledge is power" wouldn't be repeated so much if it wasn't true. So spend some time reading the news, know what the hell you're talking about, and go out and tell someone else about it, and how they can help.

If anyone has any further suggestions or links to sites & or other things worth doing, please add them in the comments. I'd prefer that this post stay as non-partisan as possible. We all know that "that" side sucks, but wingnuts, moonbats, partisans of all other stripes... ...this isn't about us here in the US.

h/t Twitter / @DivadNhoj1981

The Palin Faux Outrage of the Weak

In reply to: Yet another sterling example of liberal “compassion” - Sister Toldjah
---

The Republic party shouldn’t get anything in a bunch over this story… It’s just the Palin faux outrage of the week (or “weak”).

Nothing to get excited about…

---
Submitted for approval 6/25/09, 1:45 (IM blog time) future comment link?

Future Perfect

In reply to:Le.gal In.sur.rec.tion: Negotiations Preconditioned On Mullah Rule & in particular: "You obviously do not understand the the key point of the Grand Bargain approach is U.S. guarantees to the Iranian regime. There were no such guarantees as part of the Soviet-US arms negotiations. In fact, the Soviet-US model makes more sense. Negotiate, if there is no viable alternative, over weapons, but do not compromise over opposition to the regime."

I guess the problem is, you forgot to show any evidence of the US guarantees to the Iranian regime, then.

I'm sure you'll get right on that, though...

(Alternatively, you might consider explaining how President Obama was to go about sending any letter at all to the Iranian regime yet to come... ...or why it is that he--or the leader of any other rights-respecting nation--wouldn't prefer dealing with the more democratic Iran to come, if only they could get in touch with that future leadership.)

Why do you conservatives hate America?
---
Submitted for approval June 24, 2009 3:45 PM, (LI blog time)

Ratings & "the demo," Tex Antoine, Olive Garden doesn't want my business

In reply to: Don Surber: Conan thumps Letterman
---

"Oh and Jimmy Kimmel topped Letterman in the demo (as they say) on Thursday"

I'm pretty sure "the demo" was the metric in the Olberman / Oreilly ratings war, too.

@ JKB: I remember Tex Antoine (& his firing, vaguely... I was 11 or 12.) What he did was just stupid, but the sad thing is--(contrary to your claims)--had the rape victim been above the age of consent, he might've gotten away with it.

Not with the commentors on this Letterman thing... Maybe it made sense once, but now that the aggrieved parties accepted his apology, it's just lookin' vindictive. I never did eat at an Olive Garden, but I never had a reason not to, before. Allowing one's company to be bullied into submission to the point that they do something vindictive is reason enough for me...
---

Submitted for approval June 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Too much fame, too many people pulling...

Reply to: Pajamas Media - Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty
----

Support gay marriage, had no problem with the question or the answer--though I disagreed with the answer--and thought Perez was awful the day after. Beyond that, I think that being held up as some kinda cause celeb by the right was the worst thing that could've happened to Carrie. Yes, she was a victim of some serious bigotry (Perez, and a few others) but victimhood isn't pretty, and will only take you so far.

I just have the feeling that, were it not for her being celebrated on every right wing blog in the country, she might've gotten on with doing the job of Miss CA.

My reading of events up to the time of the big Trump news conference was, she had broken some pageant rules. I don't believe that she was victimized by the CA pageant people--though perhaps they might've not noticed the infractions, or not cared as much about them, if she wasn't getting so much attention & scrutiny. (The photos from her past and the enhancement surgery would've come out no matter how she gained notoriety, like if, for instance, she'd gotten one of the other questions, but also somehow won the pageant. The "appearance" problems were likely the result of the marriage issue, but those things were the result of her fame, and it wouldn't've mattered how she got that fame.)

After she dropped out of sight (at least here in NY... I'd assume--& hope--folks in CA still saw her, occasionally), I didn't give Carrie another thought (& don't know much of anyone who did), and I was very surprised to hear she was fired, but less surprised to hear the reason for it.

All that to say, I reject the whole "leftwing plot" angle. She got mistreated, some, became a spokesperson for a cause that wasn't really her own, and may turn out to be the only one hurt by the whole episode. (Though I also won't be surprised to find her as a FoxNews reader, or hosting her own infomercial, or something. She may be down, but she ain't out.)
---------
Comment # 23, submitted for approval Jun 16, 2009 - 12:33 pm (PJMedia blog time)

MsPlaceDemocrat, Misplaced name

Reply to: Ms Placed Democrat - Wichitan Appears On The Glenn Beck Show (after reading about her on the Media Matters site: Beck hosts "disenfranchised Democrat" ... who's also apparently an anti-Obama conspiracy theorist)
----------

I'm sorry you feel as you do about Obama and the Democratic party, and that you have essentially gone over to the other side. (You can call yourself a Patriot, rather than a Republican or a Democrat, but the widgets, gadgets, & gizmos you support here on your blog, and more importantly, the people who support you, tell the true story.)

One does not change one's core views this quickly. If you were on the same side as Hillary was issue-wise a little over a year ago, chances are good you still would be today, even as an independent "Patriot" outside of the party system. Looking around, I see very few areas where you are calling for the same things Hillary is, and many where you are actively opposing her views.

The only conclusion I can come to, is that by staying with the party that so mistreated her (& you, and the rest of the PUMAs), Hillary became a traitor to her own cause, and thus must be repudiated as just another sexist misogynistic Democrat who didn't support Hillary Clinton when the going got tough. And even that doesn't explain why you no longer support the causes for which Hillary fought, if not the fighter, herself…
---

Submitted for approval as comment 1635, on 16 June 2009 at 8:43 am (Ms Placed Democrat blog time)

If it's hate at all, it's hate when any of us do it.

In reply to: Valley of the Shadow: Advancing Towards Fort Sumter - 10:08 AM comment (#4)
------------------

Visited (& commented on) the Two Minute Hate post from last January. As you will see when you read my thoughts, I had issues.

"If it worked for 06 and 08, why shouldn't I indulge in it too?"

I suppose that depends on which part of your thinkin' is stronger; your belief that it's wrong, or your desire to win.

One thing's for certain; you can't simultaneously call it The Two Minute Hate when (certain) Democrats do it AND justify doing it yourself, without looking like a hypocrite (& perhaps a little foolish, as well).

If I might suggest something else, I think that you're falling into the news trap (or "No Good News from Iraq" syndrome), a little...

When one reads the paper/internet news sites (or listens to, watches the news), one might get the impression that the world sucks. Virtually nothing but murder, war, & other examples of people mistreating each other in ways large & small. Of course that isn't true in real life. On any given day, most people out there are neither the victims or the perpetrators of any crime.

The problem is, not being a victim or a perp isn't newsworthy. The headline is always "2 People Die in Late Night Building Fire" not "98 People Survive Late Night Building Fire" or "Millions of People Sleep Peacefully; No Late Night Fire." The one soldier who is killed in Iraq on a Monday will always get more press than all the soldiers who didn't die that same day.

This relates as follows... It'll always be the outlandish statements (made by Democrats --or Republicans) that gets the column inches, rather than the average statements, where folks are trying to work together and play nice.

I think that you're doing what news folks do, & only focusing on the bad (& if I may, the bad of only one party, when individuals of both do bad) and ignoring the good, not to mention the average.

There are magnanimous Democrats, who don't engage in such tactics and, even if they don't go out of their way to be extra-super-sweet, treat those with whom they disagree politically with common decency--even if that means just saying nothing. Those Democrats are just less newsworthy...

["Define the verification word" meme]:
dulphteg - A children's game played in Humstai, a small town in Liechtenstein.
---
Submitted for approval on 6/16/09, 5:48 AM (Valley of the Shadow blog time)

Hate? We libs hate? Really?!?

In reply to: Valley of the Shadow: The Two Minute Hate as perfected by Democrats Since I didn't interthread my comments with quotes from the original, you'll have to follow that link to understand what this post is about.) ((In fact, by the time you read this here, there's a good chance it'll be approved & posted there, which'll make the whole thing easier)) (((Speaking of hate--& blowing my whole point--Have I mentioned recently how much I loathe moderated blogs?!?)))
---

Obviously, I found the post in question. So let's talk about it.

The first thing I notice (after the obligatory references to Orwell, of course) is that some of your examples seem a little "off."

Heathlander (who you claim supports Hamas) not only isn't one of "Today's Democrats," he isn't even an American.

As late at 2008--a year AFTER going to see Hugo Chavez--Sean Penn was doing appearances in support of Ralph Nader who, as almost any Democrat will tell you, is at least as much of a rival for Democrats as Republican candidates. (I understand however, that he reluctantly voted for Obama, in the end...)

As for Sally, the jewish lesbian at Kos with the crush on that "dinner jacket" guy, somehow, I don't think she represents the whole party. (I'd say it was satire, and that she really isn't hot for the guy, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't buy that, given some of what you wrote later in the post.) The fact is, she agreed with some of the things "I'mADinnerJacket" said about "Dubya" in a speech, which isn't the same thing as supporting "IADJ" himself. (In fact she makes it pretty clear that she abhors a lot of the things IADJ and those like him have said and done in Iran.) If we're to believe that agreement with any aspect of a person is tantamount to supporing that person in toto, than Obama is apparently a supporter of Ronald Reagan. Who knew?

The lonely professor with the two cats *IS* satire, of the best kind. To the extent that what s/he says about American topography is true, anyway--there are vast exceptions, and things s/he's obviously not taking into account--it is ironic that global warming will suck up alot of land that is home to "red" states, and leave a good bit of the land belonging to "blue" ones. And she doesn't dream of killing Republicans, but of keeping them out of power when they move inland to those blue states, given their screw up in not doing more to prevent climate change when they had the chance.

It wasn't a military Coup D'etat, as the directions for it were clearly laid out in the UCMJ. And of course, it was a blog post, rather than a real letter to Peter Pace.

(It's at this point that I'm tempted to dig up some of the obviously phony "open letters" and other such materials various folks on the right have written as satirical pieces, for comparison.) The fact is, such exaggerations for effect as a jewish lesbian with a crush on I'mADinnerJacket," or a letter suggesting that Peter Pace remove Bush from his role as Commander-in-Chief, following UCMJ guidelines are pretty obviously not meant to be taken literally, though yes, they do also express a decidedly liberal point of view, underneath the (funny, to some of us, anyway) exaggerations. That's what satire is about, for gosh sakes.

Already discussed the movie (creative license, free speech), but I'm given to understand that for the most part, it's a murder mystery about solving the crime, afterwards. And yes, as I thought... It's not an American film, making the connection with Democrats kinda tenuous, at best.

Books: I'll see yours, and raise you:

888 Reasons to Hate Democrats: An A to Z Guide to Everything Loathsome About the Party of Big Government
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military: Michael Savage
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism: Sean Hannity
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change: Jonah Goldberg

(Please don't tell me that these are different just because they don't use the word "hate" in the title --especially if you don't know what's in any of those "hate" books you list, and can't be specific about what it is that makes them so bad.) ((Yes, I have at least one of the books on your list, which I received as a gift, so I am in a position to discuss it with you.))

Hate speech is very different from political satire, or anything we'll find in any of the books either of us listed... I find it difficult to believe you cannot tell the difference.

Which "joke" calls for the death of your political compatriots, exactly? As I said, the global warming piece (the only one that might result in death) has the author helping you folks in your hour of need... ...as long as you don't try to take political power in the one region spared, which should evermore remain "blue."...

As far as your joke... You need to work on the delivery... And if you want it to be satire, it'll need an ironic point, too...

Pronoun troubles

In reply to: American Power: Understanding Ideology: June 15, 2009 12:34 PM

@ Paul:

"Similarly, you may have noticed that neocons and paleocons hate each other as well and spend more time belittling each other than they do the left. Now, unless you think they represent opposite ends of the political spectrum (and some paleocons do), what do you account for such radical hatred between two groups that are clawing for the same turf?"

Wait... Are you saying that *you* believe some paleocons represent the opposite end of the political spectrum from neocons, or are you saying that *some paleocons* think so?

(Too many pronouns, not enough clarity... --and if you ask me, anyway, not a truthful statement/opinion either way...)
---
submitted for approval on June 15, 2009 2:06 PM (AmPow blog time)

Let go of the "group" mindset...

In reply to: Valley of the Shadow: Advancing Towards Fort Sumter
---

I always am willing to debate on a higher plane, but it is hard after seeing feces flung at us for 8 years (and still today, as the examples I cited).

The trick, my friend, is to let go of the "group" mindset--the one that says, because some on the left flung feces, you should be on your guard against all on the left, responding to Peter (or to Bob, or James-->me... Nice to meet you both, btw)--for the sins of Paul--and to instead treat each person, left, right, or otherwise, as individuals. There's always time to react to poor behavior AFTER it's happened, but silly & a waste of time to do so beforehand, because it just might not happen at all...

Bob's right... Pretty much everything that happens among some on the left, happens among some on the right, as well. Either we can endlessly point fingers at each other's political side as a whole, or we can condemn (or at least argue about) the *individuals* who misbehave, whichever party they're from, and not hold the whole (liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican--take your pick) gang responsible for their worst behaving individual members.

As far as "assassination porn," it's not treason, it's free speech, in all it's ugliness. If everyone was making pretty and universally accepted statements, there'd be no need for the first amendment. I'm not saying that it's not disgusting or offensive, but only that it probably isn't treason, legally or even morally.

(To be fair, I couldn't find your previous mentions of assassination porn on this blog. I searched the phrase, as well as each word separately, and then tried the phrase "kill Bush." Nothin'. I do recall hearing about one movie somewhere several years ago that showed an assassination of a guy some claim was supposed to be Bush, but thought that was a foreign film... Which is to say, I'm only reacting to what I know, and to what I believe, in general... Maybe you do have an example so bad it goes beyond free speech and creative license, but if so, I'd have to see it to judge for myself.))

you showed neither the magnaminity or post-partisanship you folks campaigned on.

Again... Can you really hold some anonymous (or indeed ANY) person on the internet responsible for the promises made by a campaign that most of us weren't even a part of? I mean, it's one thing if s/he SAID s/he was a magnanimous post-partisan, or chided you for not being one, but otherwise, it's quite possible that s/he's one of those poor behaving idiots I mentioned earlier, who don't represent the campaign, the party, or liberalism in general, any more than some rude anonymous righ twing--(yeah, I left it that way intentionally... The phrase appealed to my strange sense o' humor, almost the same way "cow orker" does.)--moron found on the internet would represent your whole party or political belief system,

Just my two bits.
(& by the by, I just gave you credit for your well-mannered way of treating those with whom you disagree, over at Donald's place. Please don't make me out to be a liar anytime soon... My poor heart wouldn't be able to take it... 8>)

[Define the verification word meme}:

humstai - a small town in Liechtenstein, famous for their bratwurst.
--
submitted for approval at 9:41 AM, (Valley of the Shadow blog time)

Absolutists, breaking the cycle, bi/post partisanship, golden rule, ...

"Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters"

Moderated by blogger, for length... (Not having a comment character limit was one of blogger/blogspot's best features. Might as well be using Haloscan, now... Well, not really...)

Reply to JSF, posting at American Power on June 13, 2009 12:22 AM
-----

heck, I voted No on 8 for Conservative reasons, yet i still hear how I am a homophobe, rascist, bigot because i don't support President Obama.

There are absolutists over here on the left, no doubt. Some do legitimately believe that any vote to deny gay folks the same marriage rights straight people have is bigotry, so yes, if you're saying you voted against it because it had fiscal costs that you as a conservative found unacceptable, there are going to be people who will not accept that argument, and will think you a homophobe or a bigot, whether or not you actually are.

(I confess that I'm not sure where your mention of support for Obama comes into the story... From where I'm sittin', it looks like he's in a similar "homophobic" boat as your fiscal con who didn't support prop 8. BO has political reasons for not moving too fast on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, &/or repealing DOMA, but the same folks calling you a bigot for your fiscal con "no on 8" vote ain't real happy with President Obama's foot-dragging on those issues, either...)

The Anti-semite/heathlander posts were about geese and gander. You paint us with a broad brush, I return the favor.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Break the cycle, if only because in every encounter with a broad-brushing, name-calling, mean-spirited (or perfectly pleasant) leftie, you're the only one whose behavior you actually have control over... S/He's going to do what s/he's going to do, and you can't really stop it...
And, when you react to what they do, you're letting the other person control you. When you set the tone, you potentially control the other person.
And besides... If you do the right thing, it make the guy who's mistreating you look all the worse, giving you the upper hand, morally speaking.

Look at the Churchill quote in my latest post -- where is the democrats (and their allies) post-partisanship?

I can only speak for me of course, but I don't buy into all the post partisanship talk. Personally, I'm not even such a big fan of bipartisanship, though I guess somebody's gotta do it.

In every political group, there need to be ideologues who are loathe to leave their principles behind, ever... Without them, the party doesn't stand for anything.

There also need to be practical folks who are willing to horse trade & compromise, and eventually reach bipartisan consensus. Without them, we wouldn't get anything done.

Needless to say, I'm one of those whose heart is in the former group. All that's to say, I like a good fight, both within my party (Green, btw), and outside it. I just think we can disagree without being disagreeable... ...most of the time, anyway. (I am human; I do falter & fail, sometimes, and expect that pretty much everyone else does, too.)

I always believed in treating people how you want to be treated, but the past 8 years burned me. I don't believe the democrats belive that saying anymore.

As with everything else--& everyone else, including those on your side of the aisle, too--some do, and some don't. Some Dems feel as burned as you do, whether or not you believe they should or have a right to feel that way. Some of 'em are waiting for your side to be nice first. But as I said above, the only person you can change is yourself. It isn't about whether "they" believe in that saying, but whether you believe in that saying, and are willing to model the change you seek in others, essentially treating others the way you want them to treat you, and showing them the treatment you find acceptable.

(That saying, btw, is an opportunistic bastardization of The Golden Rule -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." -- (DUO... puts the onus on you to do right for the benefit of others, while the bastardized version is all about demanding that others treat you pleasantly because they should want you to treat them pleasantly, too. That's the way it looks to me, anyway...)

I would love to agree to disagree, but when the next shooting occurs, will all Conservatives and republicans get blamed or will they blame the individual?

The next shooting? God I hope not...
Besides, I submit that we ain't even done deciding how to view these last few, yet.

In this world, there will always be fools who will generalize about "all Conservatives" or "all Liberals," so yes JSF, your side (or perhaps mine, & more than likely both) will get blamed (by some) no matter the tragedy, past, present or future.

I think the first thing to understand about that is to realize what mental midgets the people who generalize that way are, and to trust that the American people are not stupid enough to fall for such lies and self-serving distortions.

Yes, there will be fools, but fools will never have much influence over how the rest of us view the societal tragedies in our lives... They can only spout their lies & broad brush generalizations from the sidelines, while reasonable men & women see them for who & what they really are. I think you're assigning them far more power than they actually have...

Not only are all conservatives/republicans not responsible for von Brunn's thoughts or actions, no conservatives/republicans are responsible for von Brunn's thoughts or actions. And no liberals/democrats are, either.

But by the same token, one can't singlehandedly change the definitions of words and phrases. James von Brunn is a right wing extremist, just as all other violent, hateful neo-Nazi, white pride folks before him have been. To say otherwise is to indulge in the No true Scotsman fallacy, essentially saying that since you're on the right wing, and you're a perfectly reasonable fellow who loves people of all races & religions and would never think or act as von Brunn did, he can't be a right winger of any sort...

"Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)"

For those who still refuse it, I (really, Jonathan Chait) ask(s) you... "Is there such a thing as a right-wing extremist? When you go past the right wing of the Republican Party, through Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan, what comes next? Is there anything there or just a gaping void?"

von Brunn and Domestic Terrorism, Security Procedures

In reply to: Alleged Holocaust Museum Shooter Had Given Up Hate Site, Planned Other Attacks | Hatewatch | Southern Poverty Law Center, and the comments of C. Levy in particular. (There's no permalink to individual comments on the site.)
---

C. Levy, re: your first comment, questioning why a SPLC spokesperson called von Brunn a "domestic terrorist":

'We know what Mr. von Brunn did yesterday at the Holocaust museum. Now it's our responsibility to determine why he did it,' said Joseph Persichini, assistant director of the Washington FBI field office.

The Homeland Security Department said the shooting does not appear to have a connection to terrorism, according to a joint Homeland Security and FBI assessment, though Persichini characterized it as 'domestic terrorism.'"

Source: Von Brunn Charged In Holocaust Museum Slay - CBS News

Regarding your second comment, I believe that fed, state, & local law enforcement and security forces can monitor terrorist/extremist internet & other "chatter", AND help to improve the security defending the people and structures that are more likely to be targeted.

Not being a security expert myself, I don't know whether it'd be more effective to focus more on one or the other, though I can say that I'd prefer that we stop acts while they're in the planning stages, rather than on site, at the last possible minute. And, it seems to me that many of the attacks cited as having been prevented in the last few years never made it to the place and time the act was going to occur, so there is something to be said for monitoring & other preventive measures done before the fact, offsite.
---

Submitted to HateWatch blog for approval 6/12/09, approx 7:20 am, IM blog time

Blogger anonymity, pseudonyms, and Donald Douglas

In reply to: American Power: Blogging Anonymity and Blogging Ethics, and in particular, the following:

Now, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't out someone who writes anonymously (or "pseudonymously," as the case may be). repsac3 got mad at me once for using his real name in a comment thread. But he had posted his real name at his Twitter link, at he linked to it at the sidebar. So, it's kind of hard to get mad at being "outed" if you "outed" yourself.

Frankly, if a blogger writes under complete anonymity (or pseudonymity), that's his prerogative. And it's not up to me or anyone else, in pure spite, to reveal their identity. It's kind of cowardly, in my opinion, to use a pseudonym, but I can understand it. After the Repsac3 exchange, PrivatePigg, a conservative blogger and friend of mine, said he blogs anonymously simply to protect his privacy from the radical leftists he knows will stalk him and his family.

It happens. As reader know, I routinely wade into the comment threads at leftist blogs to debate and ridicule. I don't claim to be nice about it. I've even used profanity in a comment thread at "Dr. Hussein Biobrain's" blog. But I don't threaten people; I skewer. And some folks can't handle being revealed as nihilist America bashers. After commenting a few times at THE SWASH ZONE, I received this e-mail from "(O)CT(O)PUS," the blog's publisher:

DO NOT HARASS ANY OF MY WRITERS AT "THE SWASH ZONE" AGAIN. IF YOU HARASS ME OR ANY OF MY WRITERS ONE MORE TIME, I WILL NOTIFY ELOY OAKLEY AND DONALD BERZ AT YOUR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKE IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST BOTH YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER. THIS GAME OF YOURS ENDS HERE.

I don't harrass. If folks can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or go to comment moderation at least!

But if there was ever good reason to blog anonymously, real harrassment such as this is it. "(O)CT(O)PUS" made the rounds at leftist blogs to brag about how he'd "kicked my ass." And he PUBLISHED MY WORK CONTACT INFORMATION so that his co-bloggers could call my college president. I wrote about it here, "American Power: (O)CT(O)PUS = CYBER-BULLY"

---

Donald... You neglect to mention that your work contact information is as available on the web as is my name... I agree that I outed myself... But it's disingenuous to claim that Oct() did anything you didn't, as your work info is just as readily available to anyone with the ability to google Donald Kent Douglas (with or without) "long beach city college," both of which display the same info Oct() offered.

I think Oct() was wrong for pointing it out. But then, I think you were, as well.

But the fact remains, the same rules apply to friend & foe alike.

If you believe Oct() committed some kinda personal or blogger faux pas by pointing out that your work info is posted online, than you did the same by pointing out that my name is, too.

If, on the other hand, you believe that anything already posted online is fair game, than you should have no complaint with Oct() offering up your publicly posted info.

As I said, I think Oct() did a bad thing, and it isn't something I would ever do... (And having read the rest of the posts on the subject, even Whelan is sorry for what he did...) It's wrong not to respect the privacy choices people make for themselves and their families... ...even if you disagree with them politically.

---
Submitted for approval June 10, 2009 4:30 AM (AmPow Blog Time)

While preparing this post, I noted that Donald uses the "cowardly" link to take the reader to an "Outside The Beltway" piece critical of the outing, which never suggests pseudononymous bloggers are cowardly... Typical Donald Douglas...

"nihilist America bashers" The person at the other end of that link has nothing to do with the argument. It's just attack for the sake of namecalling... Also typical Donald Douglas...

If you read my comments at the "cyberbully" link, I made the same argument at the time that I do now... And Donald Kent Douglas has yet to respond to it in any meaningful way.