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

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)

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)

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 - CBSSports.com News, Fantasy, Video
------------
Submitted for approval July 21st, 2009 at 12:30 pm (Little Miss Attila blog time)

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)

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.

"Donald:

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)

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.)