Friday, December 24, 2010

Merry Christmas, Happy Winter Holiday

All my best to all who pass this way, and all who love them... May Christmas be as sacred as your faith and reason allow. Whether you find yourselves at midnight mass or going out for Chinese, may you celebrate with friends, family, food, and fun.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm letting those I disagree with be just as wrong as they want to be for the next 24 hours or so... Life's too short, and my faith calls for peace, love, and joy 'round now... May everyone reading these words get all of 'em, to overflowing...

Merry Christmas, and God bless...

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Deleted: Liberty Pundits Blog - Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com

The following comment, posted to the Liberty Pundits Blog post American academia: Condemn Israel, love Muslims on Saturday, 09/25/2010 at 04:14 PM (LP blog time) was subsequently deleted (technically "flagged for review") within 12 hours or so of my posting it:
Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Obviously, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.
Here's how I made note of it at the blog post where I'm tracking these "invitations to stand up against human rights abuses in the Middle East" at the various blogs to which I've posted or submitted them:
*** 9/26 *** - It seems that Liberty Pundits here flagged my previously posted comment for review. Y'all see what I posted at all these sites... Is a comment asking folks to sign s Statement of Concern about human rights in the Middle East, at a post about that very same Statement, critical of the fact that a whole lotta previous folks didn't sign onto it, somehow off topic or offensive? Or is it that Liberty Pundits hates liberals (and/or muslims) more than they love supporting God given natural rights for all mankind? Hypocrisy? You decide. ***
This is the fourth rightwing blog to either remove my posted request to sign the petition, or obviously fail to approve it's appearance (at blogs pre-moderated for content, a practice I find questionable, to begin with.)

All I can say is, I'm pretty disappointed in these rightwing bloggers. They claim to stand for human rights, and be so indignant when others--folks they disagree with politically, natch--fail to heed the call. And then they fail to heed the same call, themselves. It's pretty sad to see...

Moderated: Thoughts From A Conservative Mom (blog): Dr. Gottheil's 'Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com...

Though I submitted the following comment to the "Thoughts From A Conservative Mom" blog post
Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ on 9/25/2010, the fact that other posts and comments were posted there, but my comment never showed up, lead me to believe that my comment was moderated away. A visit to my blog from an administrator at this blog (thanks web traffic counter) later that day pretty much confirmed it. My comment:
Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Obviously, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.
Here's how I made note of it at the blog post where I'm tracking these "invites to sign the Statement" that I'm posting on rightwing blogs:
9/25 - *** Rachel at 'Thoughts From A Conservative Mom' here, obviously doesn't really care much about the rights of muslim women or gay folks, because she chose not to allow my comment about signing Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern to appear. Not only didn't she reply to Dr Gottheil's plea (very much like those "sanctimonious, bigoted" academics failed to do), she doesn't want her readers to reply, either. Let human rights be someone else's problem, I guess... Sanctimony and hypocrisy walk hand in hand, sometimes... ***
Needless to say, I'm disappointed in her...

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Moderated: American Power (blog): Dr. Gottheil's 'Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com...

Sometime on Friday, 9/24/2010, I submitted the following comment to the American Power blog post 'Sanctimonious Bigots' – Leftist Professors and Double Standards. (I can't recall the actual time, except to say it was before 9:30 PM.):
Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Obviously, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.
After waiting about 12 hours, I noted the following at the blog post where I've been tracking responses to my "sign the Statement against human rights abuses in the Middle East" commentary on rightwing blogs:
9/25 - *** Dr. Douglas has added several posts to his blog since I submitted my comment, so I reluctantly have to assume that he has rejected my comment asking he and his readers to step up and sign Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern. As he is both a conservative and an academic in the field of political science, I'm most disappointed in his obvious lack of concern for the human rights of women, gays, and lesbians in the Middle East. Given the chance to reply (figuratively, anyway) to Dr Gottheil's e-mail plea--a plea we can be almost certain Dr Douglas received and read--he chose not to step up, just like those "leftist" (and likely "nihilist" or "demonic," too) professors that he posted about failed to do. Double standard? You decide. ***
One has to wonder why Dr Douglas did not allow that comment to post, effectively refusing to reply to the Statement of Concern (or for that matter, allow his readers to do so), just like the professors he criticizes. Could it be that he is exhibiting the same kinda double standards that he's railing about in his post? One has to wonder...

Deleted: DUFF & NONSENSE! (blog) - Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com

The following comment was posted on 9/24/10, at 9:00 PM (or thereabouts), to the blog DUFF & NONSENSE!, at the post Humbug and humbuggers!, which was harshly critical of liberal academics who had signed a petition critical of the Israeli government, but subsequently failed to reply to a single unsolicited e-mail request from Dr. Fred Gottheil, a fellow professor they had likely never heard of, asking them to sign a statement against human rights abuses in other countries in the Middle East.:
Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Obviously, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.
Disappointingly, as of 9:20 AM on 9/25/10 (less than 24 hours later), this blogger seems to've deleted my comment, as well as the backlink to a post I'd made at another blog describing my attempts to get folks to sign onto the petition. How should we judge this behavior, when evaluating this conservative's commitment to human rights? Duff sure seemed to care when it was liberal academics who weren't stepping up, but when it's his turn to speak out, he chooses not to do so himself, or to allow any of his readers the opportunity to do so, either. Hypocrisy? You decide.

All I know is that I'm damned disappointed in him... Humbug and piles of brown, indeed.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Moderated: In Reply: Donald Douglas tears up and runs for the cover of his moderator "Delete" button.

Submitted for approval 9/20/10, 5:52 PM
...and rejected for publication, of course. (As I said below, it's the only way he can legitimately feel like he's "won.")
---

Rather than post my previous comment in full, Dr. Douglas rejects it as unworthy of publication, but then quotes a piece of it for his attempt at rebuttal, safe in the knowledge that I cannot reply where his readers will likely see it...

Repsac3:

You're banned, as always.

That said, this is fail:

"...you pick a definition out of a lexicographer's hat. And again you fail to show with real-world examples..."

First you claim no definitions. Then when supplied you reject them. And who's doing the twisting? I've got you guys pinned down. You're done. You got your moment in my comment section. You DON'T get your own milk crate to make a speech. Go back to your shithole of a blog and do what you do best: nihilist hate and demonology with all the other idiots fucks who drag their knuckles over there.
Classic.

Just classic...

I replied, anyway...
---

Quoting a part of my reply without posting the comment is cowardly. (But you already knew that, didn't you?)

I'm guessing it's the only way you can feel as though you've "won," however...

Whatever, Dr. Douglas... Enjoy your "victory..." And come on by, should you ever wish to have a complete (and unfortunate for you, unmoderated) discussion... Your many detractors welcome you to visit their blogs, anytime you wish... ...though we doubt you have the courage to take any of us on without your handy delete button, anymore... It's the only "american power," you have left.

Moderated: In Reply: The Douglas Strikes Back

Submitted for American Power blog moderator approval Monday, 9/20/10, 4:01 PM (WIS blog time)...
...and (except for one sentence fragment that Donald chose to quote in a comment *he* made) rejected for publication, for reasons I leave for the reader to judge for himself. (I know what *I* think, but each can judge Donald's level of cowardice without my having to tell you what I think...)
---

After actually approving one of my comments to his blog earlier today, Dr. Douglas replied. This is my next rejoinder... Let's see whether he's brave enough to continue the conversation...
---

Well, no, actually, Repsac3.

Denial will get you nowhere.

And why you keep alleging victim status is beyond me.

Some of your posts of late read as though you're whining about how those bad liberal bloggers are being mean to you... Of course, you're free to deny that, as well...

I'm not supposed to fight back when folks like you launch campaigns of workplace harassment?

Are you alleging workplace harassment, again? Where? (Or are you still whining about those incidents that two other bloggers allegedly did to you over a year ago? And what is this about you writing to SEK's place of employment to harass him, btw...?)

Yeah, by all means fight back... The more you do, the more you expose yourself for who you really are and what values you do and do not represent.

When I'm slurred for all kinds of shit, old, fat, stupid -- you name it?. Is that what you call "getting his ass kicked"?

No, much of that stuff is as foolish and as ultimately meaningless as your own calls of "butt-freaks" "nihilists" or your penchant for creating grade-school style fake names for those you oppose ("hatemaster," "bonejobkeefe").

Getting your ass kicked is the more subjective stuff that makes up the bulk of the replies to you on those blogs you attack... You know, the stuff you dismiss with a quoted line or two from a friendly source, if you bother to address it at all... (But of course, you already know all that, which is why you're stepping up the attacks on the ephemera, instead...)

You showing up here again proves there are no rules, norms, or standards you will abide, because you're nihilist.

We've been over this, and I've expressed what my rules, norms, and standards are on this subject many times over. It's a public blog that accepts comments (albeit moderated). You don't have to print those comments with which you disagree (or cannot argue), but you cannot stop me or anyone else from offering them. (And if this is an example of your practical, real-world definition of nihilism, I really do feel sorry for those students who end up in your classes...)

For what? Misreading? Kinda hypocritical, no?

No. I specifically said that misreading the sign (at least initially) isn't much of an offense. What you did is make up a pretty vicious lie based on your misreading, and then attribute that lie to a whole group of people in an effort to smear them.

I stand by it.

You stand by what? The mistake? The vicious lie?

Unlike you.

No idea what you mean by that. Doubt you do, either, though perhaps whatever you make up to explain it (if you do indeed post this/reply at all) will be entertaining...

Nice try on the "evil" thing.

Pretty much nailed it, I think. But those who read my charge and your excuses can decide for themselves...

You must feel pretty stupid adopting nihilism as your handle.

We never did... Your constant misuse of the word as an epithet for your many enemies a few years ago--which you've replaced with variants of the term "demonology" of late, according to other bloggers--kind of bestowed it on us.

And Brendan doesn't offer a definition. Neither do you.

Well, we're not the ones making the charge. You are... Since you're the one saying we're nihilists, you're the one who should be making your case by defining your terms and then showing how the definitions apply... And for years now, you've failed to even try, let alone actually do so.

try this.

Again you pick a definition out of a lexicographer's hat. And again you fail to show with real-world examples (quotes, for example...) how I or anyone else you label a nihilist fits that definition.

Another failure. (It's always that second part that seems to trip you up... It's easy to just toss out labels against folks with whom you disagree... It's a whole other thing trying to convince anyone aside yourself that they actually apply... But by all means, keep trying, Dr Douglas... Keep trying...)

(The Marxist-Leninist stuff similarly doesn't apply... ...though you're welcome to attempt offering real world examples of my believing in any of that, should you wish to... In the meantime, what's freely offered may be freely denied.)

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Moderated: In reply: American (power) Tits and Ass: (Grandma Moses' tits, Norman Rockwell's ass) ((points))

Submitted for moderator approval 7/16/10, 7:08 AM, AmPow blog time...
...and (as of 24 or so hours later) apparently rejected for publication, for reasons known only to Donald Douglas, the moderator in question. (What is he afraid of?)
---

In reply to American Power: The 'Hotness Gap' Just Too Much for Illiterate English Professor Scott Eric Kaufman!, and in particular JBW's observation about the disconnect between Donald's (& Cons,' in general) disparagement of the "lib'rul" hedonism of Hollywood and their claim that all of the "hot" babes reside on the Con side of the proverbial aisle.
---

Dopey cherry picking notwithstanding, almost all of these "Rule 5" bait and switch T&A "tease" posts (and a whole lot of the music blogging at AmPow, as well) would pretty quickly come to a standstill if the blogger(s) who write/post them actually required that their subjects express, in word or deed, fealty to the (neo)con (or even worse for them, traditional) political and social values that Con rule 5 bloggers claim to advocate...

Besides... While many of our smart gals are quite pretty, (and our actresses, songstresses and other show biz gals are very smart, as well) the most important attribute for our female policy wonks and politicians isn't how good they look in a skirt or whether we can use them as props to draw people to our blogs under false pretenses for the vanity of inflating the hit numbers, but how good they are at being policy wonks and politicians.

Sorry, Don... Once again, it's a fail...

(Title (American (power) Tits and Ass: (Grandma Moses' tits, Norman Rockwell's ass)) lifted from one of my all time favorite Lenny Bruce riffs...)

Friday, April 30, 2010

Moderated: In reply/X-Post: Immigration: Apply the rules of the country of origin...

Submitted for moderator approval April 29, 2010 9:58 AM (AmPow blog time)...
...and rejected for publication, for reasons known only to the American Power blog moderator. (Though it could be the banning...)
---

In reply to the following American Power blog comment:
There is an easy solution to the problems inherent in immigration. We apply the rules of the country of origin to all immigrants seeking citizenship in this country. Say, whatever Mexico required for one seeking citizenship there it would be applied across the board to Mexicans seeking citizenship in this country.
It would be fair to all involved and would ensure that people in this country would be conversant with how other countries control immigration. Whereas a person seeking work would have a green card or what ever the equivalent paperwork required in other countries. It removes political considerations from the equation.
We could take other actions for those seeking political asylum, et al.
- Dennis - April 28, 2010, 7:26 AM comment at the post "American Power: Illegal Alien Superhighway"
Dennis: It's a neat rhetorical trick--and one with which I'd agree, believe it or don't--except that I wouldn't want American law to be determined by and at the mercy of the whims of the lawmaking of foreign countries.

If we were to get serious about enacting/enforcing laws and penalties against hiring illegal workers--against the people hiring them, along with the workers, themselves--I suspect that a whole lotta people who lack proper documentation would self-deport. (I'm a big fan of the E-Verify system, and would like to see it become mandatory for all US employees, perhaps under the tax code.)

Because I'm a liberal though, I'm opposed to denying health and safety benefits and protections to illegal aliens, or criminalizing the act of being undocumented in the US--the AZ law goes too far, in that regard--and I wouldn't be opposed to helping those countries from which we receive the largest number of illegal immigrants to improve their economies, so that there's less financial impetus for leaving one's family and home country in the first place.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Deleted: In reply: Donald Douglas is a liar, and he proves it often

Comment below posted to American Power blog April 24, 2010 3:15 AM (AmPow blog time)...
...and subsequently moderated away, for expressing facts and other content that contradicted the blog owner's chosen meme.
---

In reply to: American Power: Andrew Breitbart Blocks Racist Repsac3 on Twitter!
-----

Well... Not exactly...

"And as for Donald Douglas... Well, if he saw the twitter statuses above, he also saw the ones below that show that it was a conservative "friend" of Breitbart who sent the bigoted photo to me... ...but that didn't fit the dishonest story Donald wanted to tell, so he just ignored those tweets, once again proving what a liar he can be..."

repsac3: 1) @TrappedRoom - Supporter of @andrewbreitbart - http://bit.ly/c3rwLi (and check his history of harassing Breitbart's "enemies")

repsac3: 2) @TrappedRoom - Sender of bigoted photo (even @andrewbreitbart thinks so-but blames me: http://bit.ly/9PNdeK ) - http://bit.ly/90hWKJ

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Deleted POST: In reply: Military Expenditures - 19% of total budget (2010), 59% of discretionary spending (2011)

Posted April 23, 2010 9:19 AM (AmPow blog time) And subsequently (4/27/10, I think) deleted, along with the whole damned post. (See 4/29 update, appended)
---

In reply to: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story [UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). Please use that link, instead.], and in particular, this passage:
"Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays)"
---
While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:
"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb."
- Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
---
UPDATE - 4/29/10 - Not only was the comment to American Power removed, the whole post was deleted, which is some serious moderation for content.

While I'd like to think Professor Douglas made it go bye-bye on my account--the result of my thrashing and trashing his dishonest bullshit about the military budget in this comment, perhaps--I have a feeling it had to do with his nasty treatment of his cow-orkers in this one... I'd think there'd be some rule against doing that kinda thing, regardless of where one works... ...but especially anyplace that relies on folks believing the "employees"--the faculty of LBCC--is competent and open to intelligently discussing and debating a variety of political and social ideas and ideals, including those with which they personally don't agree. Whether one agrees with Donald Douglas's political biases and observations or not, it doesn't project a good image of any of the professors named (including Dr. Douglas) or of the college itself to have a professor calling his colleagues "communists" and "lesbians" and "far left indoctrinators," for all the world to see.

Regardless of the reason, it was moderated away, and can only be found at that cache link posted above (and on the screencaps of it that I'll post, should I ever notice that the cache link is dead, as well...)

Moderated: In reply: "Marxists and Fornicators Indoctrinators Everywhere!!"

Submitted for moderator approval 4/23/10, 10:51 AM (IM blog time) - And subsequently (4/25, I think) rejected and moderated away without ever being posted... (Two things... 1) I understand... Were I in any way associated with the school--and I suspect this club has a faculty advisor and whatnot, so they are--I wouldn't want this comment posted, either. You'll note above the Dr. Douglas' original post making some of these charges was disappeared, too... One can draw their own conclusions, but I know what I think... and 2) on the other hand, the "moderated comment" link made it look like mine was the third comment submitted, so maybe they're just not accepting ANY comments at this blog... (although they did, at their initial post.)
---

In reply to/in support of: Capitalism: A Love Story - STUDENTS FOR INDEPENDENT MEDIA
---

Read about the showing on Professor Donald Douglas’ blog (American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story). [UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version)] I noticed he didn’t seem to enjoy the film or the discussion that followed, and that he sees Marxists, lesbians, “leftist indoctrinators” and other assorted enemies to his own narrow world view throughout the whole LBCC faculty and student population.

As a blogger who has repeatedly engaged him and found him to be far more concerned with massaging his own ego and verbally bullying those with whom he does not agree–he has an extensive “enemies list” that he regularly attacks on his blog the same way he did SIM and the professors who took part in the premiere event–the remaining faculty, staff, and student body (commies all, I’m sure) has my utmost sympathies.

Given the attack–and the degree to which I dislike bullies of any stripe–I just wanted to drop by and offer my support and encouragement. While I’m not as down on the corporate media as your flier suggests you folks are–the way I see it, every source of information is biased one way or another, and it’s up to us to recognize the kernels of truth among the intentionally and unintentionally slanted/biased chaff–I’m all for increasing one’s media diet, and including as many different perspectives as possible (which might explain why I stop by professor Douglas’ blog once a day or so… It’s important to know what those who disagree with you are saying, too… especially when it’s about you, directly or indirectly.)

Anyway… Good luck with all your future SIM discussions and presentations. As long as you’re getting under the skin of reactionaries like Professor Douglas, you’re probably on the right track.
---

UPDATE: I was doing some research for another post, and stumbled across this comment from Dr. Douglas: "I'm also proud to be teaching at Long Beach City College. I'm proud of the work that I do. And I'm proud of my dedicated colleagues." One presumes that he's not including those Long Beach City College colleagues he attacks in the post linked above among those he's proud of. At least, one hopes not...
---

4/29/10 - Not only was the comment to American Power removed, the whole post was deleted, which is some serious moderation for content.

While I'd like to think Professor Douglas made it go bye-bye on my account--something about thrashing and trashing his dishonest bullshit about the military budget, perhaps--I have a feeling it had to do with his nasty treatment of his cow-orkers... I'd think there'd be some rule against doing that kinda thing, regardless of where one works... ...but especially anyplace that relies on folks believing the "employees"--the faculty of LBCC--is competent and open to intelligently discussing and debating a variety of political and social ideas and ideals, including those with which they personally don't agree. Whether one agrees with Donald Douglas's political biases and observations or not, it doesn't project a good image of any of the professors named (including Dr. Douglas) or of the college itself to have a professor calling his colleagues "communists" and "lesbians" and "far left indoctrinators," for all the world to see.

Regardless of the reason, it was moderated away, and can only be found at that cache link posted above (and on the screencaps of it that I'll post, should I ever notice that the cache link is dead, as well...)

Friday, April 23, 2010

Deleted POST: In reply: Is Marxist the new "nihilist?"

4/29/10 - Not only was this comment removed, the whole post was deleted, which is some serious moderation for content.

While I'd like to think Professor Douglas made it go bye-bye on my account--something about thrashing and trashing his dishonest bullshit about the military budget, perhaps--I have a feeling it had to do with his nasty treatment of his cow-orkers... I'd think there'd be some rule against doing that kinda thing, regardless of where one works... ...but especially anyplace that relies on folks believing the "employees"--the faculty of LBCC--is competent and open to intelligently discussing and debating a variety of political and social ideas and ideals, including those with which they personally don't agree. Whether one agrees with Donald Douglas's political biases and observations or not, it doesn't project a good image of any of the professors named (including Dr. Douglas) or of the college itself to have a professor calling his colleagues "communists" and "lesbians" and "far left indoctrinators," for all the world to see.

Regardless of the reason, it was moderated away, and can only be found at that cache link posted above (and on the screencaps of it that I'll post, should I ever notice that the cache link is dead, as well...)
---

In reply to: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, -- [UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). Please use that link, instead.] -- and particularly this comment:
"Yay! Thanks for coming, Prof. Douglass! I must say, it's long been a dream of mine to be mentioned in your blog as a Marxist." - Richard Booth - April 21, 2010, 10:08 PM
(I assume this is the former student, though given the number of folks Dr. Douglas smacks that Marxist label on in the post, it could be any number of people):
---

Richard, even Dr Douglas' "nihilists" are Marxists, now... (Any slur in a storm... It's not like these words have actual, y'know, definitions that a political scientist might be expected to understand and adhere to, or anything...)

Congrats on the formal denunciation, though... From what I've seen over the last several years, you're in good company... (if I do say so myself.) - repsac3 - April 22, 2010, 6:06 AM

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Donald Douglas: "Halfrican" a bigoted comment, but only when said by a liberal (and regardless of his point for doing so)

In reply to:
Repsac3: You can quit with the racist allegations. First, nothing Swash Zone alleges is true, so forget that. And what I've written on my own blog IS politically correct, but in no way bigoted.

As you know damned well, I love all people of all colors, races, religions, etc. I attack people on ideologocically grounds.

Finally, to keep attacking me as "Halfrican" IS racist. Show me where I've endorsed Rush Limbaugh's use of "Halfican," or where I've ever attacked Obama as "Halfican."

In sum, the bigotry is found in your desperation to get the goods on me. And you and your SWASH ZONE hordes are all about hate, as I've shown in this post on TNLib.
- American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger, April 3, 2010 8:55 AM comment by Donald Douglas
(Donald's comment was, in turn, a non-responsive reply to my April 3, 2010 6:59 AM comment, which is also quoted in a post below.)
---

When I allege that you have made a bigoted comment, I also quote the comment, explain why I believe it expresses bigoted thought, and allow others to decide for themselves.

In this case, I did none of that, and expressly said that whether you is or you ain't is irrelevant to the point I intended to make, which was that--contrary to the idea that in order for you (or anyone of mixed heritage) to express bigotry you would have to tie a noose around your own neck--anyone can think, speak, or act like a bigot, no matter their heritage. (Interestingly, you neglected to address that point in your reply, either in agreement or in opposition. I'd still be interested in reading replies to the point I was actually positing, on the off chance that you or anyone else here wishes to offer one...)

I have mixed feelings about the term "Halfrican," but figured that if it was good enough for Rush, it was good enough for Rush's listeners... (True, you haven't endorsed his using it, but you haven't objected to it, either...) If you believe it is a bigoted term that Rush was using, I shall refrain from referring to you in that way again. (Hopefully, Rush will do the same.)

You are, of course, welcome to answer by again alleging that I am a bigot if you wish, though I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind as to provide examples of my bigotry, if you intend to do so. If you do not, I reserve the right to cheerfully ignore your unsubstantiated charges as unworthy of consideration...
----

American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger, comment posted April 3, 2010 10:15 AM

Saturday, April 3, 2010

"name-calling and vitriol" and blogs we visit regularly (Do we like 'em a little or a lot, LOT?)

In reply to: The disconnect between this comment at an American Power post about Parsley's Pics, and this comment by the same person at Parsley's Pics. (Comment posted at latter link/blog.)
---

@LOT:

Perhaps I shouldn't bring this up, but I'm surprised you didn't speak up in defense of our evil, hateful, jihadi, "seething toxic dump of leftist hatred," tnlib over at Don's place...

While you didn't exactly toss tnlib under Don's bus, it might've been nice had you made it more clear that those sites with the name-calling and vitriol didn't include Parsley's Pics, in your opinion...

I'm sorry if you think this query rude, but after reading your generally reasonable replies on sites like this one-- Douglas labeled "hate site" The Swash Zone and Truth101's place come to mind, immediately--I've taken to wondering how you walk that fine line between Donald Douglas considering you a blog buddy and he and his thinking you an evil nihilist collaborator for actually treating folks with whom you disagree with common decency and respect.

While I disagree with your politics, I for the most part think you a fine fellow, but I do kinda wish you'd speak your mind more clearly when Donald engages in these attacks on the individuals and blogs you visit pretty regularly, whether in agreement with him or otherwise...

(Two bits well spent, after waiting entirely too long... Unless there's a comment in need of reply, that itch is scratched, and I'll say no more on the subject...)
---

PARSLEY'S PICS: Don't speak English, speak "Teabonics" - comment posted 4/3/10, 10:27 AM (PP blog time)

Can a person of mixed heritage be a bigot?

In reply to: American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger
Donald, I believe you are half black and half white, am I right? Funny how the leftist twerps imply you are a bigot and a racist. Do you spend time socking yourself? Ridiculous. - Stogie, April 2, 2010, 9:00 PM comment
Leaving all the ego and personal vitriol of post and comment aside, I wonder whether the folks who believe that Dr. Douglas cannot speak or act in racist or bigoted ways because of his heritage also feel the same about "full blood" minorities (Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan), or even others of mixed heritage, such as President Obama...

And even if one does believe that no black man or a "halfrican" (thanks, Rush) can be a bigot toward other black folks, what is it that prevents such a man from behaving as a bigot toward hispanics, Muslims, Christians, gay folks, Jews, or women?

Dr Douglas may or may not actually be a bigot--folks can read his words, and decide for themselves--but the argument that he can't be, because he himself has minority blood--whether made by him, or by those who would defend him--doesn't hold water, at least as far as I'm concerned...
---

American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger - Comment posted April 3, 2010 6:59 AM

Friday, April 2, 2010

"Oh, he's a MORON... That explains everything..." Ad hom, anyone?

In reply to: The Oracular Opinion: If I Hear One More Stupid Politician—I’m Going To Lose My Mind!, April 2, 2010 8:41 AM comment
---
Clearly I was mistaken...

BPB's brilliant tactic of calling the guy a moron (and doing the same to his predecessor--which made the argument airtight) is clearly the more well thought out position.

I stand corrected.

(If you don't use that sense of humor you're gonna lose it, and people will continue to wonder why so many conservatives fail to comprehend irony, sarcasm, and other humor-related rhetorical tools folks use to persuade each other. Tin ears are not a good look on anyone...)

---
Posted: April 2, 2010 10:22 AM comment

"But... both sides do it... Check out the video"

In reply to: American Power: Anarchists to Crash April 15th Tea Parties!
---

For all the whining here, it strikes me that it's folks like Dr Douglas, who're responding to bad behavior on their own side by posting videos of and otherwise pointing out the bad behavior on the other who're pretty clearly saying "both sides do it."

And it's not just that both sides do do it, either... It's that, rather than condemn the bad behavior regardless of where it originates, some point to the bad behavior over there, as though the fact that they're not the only ones engaging in bigoted, violent behavior and eliminationist rhetoric somehow morally absolves them...

Two wrongs don't make a right, period.

My favorite part of this post, though? The "counter-protest is eeeeevil" message at play here, which is so very quickly contradicted by the "counter-protest is just jolly good fun" message of the very next post.

Hypocrisy? You decide...
---

Currently unmoderated blog. American Power: Anarchists to Crash April 15th Tea Parties!, April 2, 2010 6:23 AM comment (AM blog time)
---

4/3/10 - Added to Immoderate Monk Hall of Shame (Comment apparently moderated away for ideological content by Donald Douglas, AmPow blog owner - What was he afraid of?)

Are Republicans too serious for their own good?

In reply to: The Oracular Opinion: If I Hear One More Stupid Politician—I’m Going To Lose My Mind!
---

I'll admit to not being up on the names of literary devices, but watching the video, I got the distinct impression that his intent was to make a point--though I didn't pick up on the "island tipping over = ecological tipping point" analogy until I read the statement here--and at no time did I get the impression that the man actually thought an island could or would tip over. (It's things like the fact that so many conservative bloggers are writing about this exchange believing he was serious that lead the rest of us to believe the right as a whole lacks much in the way of a sense of humor. Of course, FoxNews' dear departed "half hour comedy hour" and it's replacement, "Red Eye," certainly don't help...)

Asking for the dimensions of the island (rather than having them handy and quoting them himself) was almost certainly a device designed to further his point, as well. It's always better when you can have the words and concepts you want expressed publicly come out of a nonpartisan or oppositional mouth. Lawyers and politicians routinely ask questions they already know the answers to, for just that purpose...

And by the by, I'm pretty certain that all 12 million immigrants were never all on Ellis Island at the same time, which is likely what kept that one from tipping... ...or sinking, either...
---

Unmoderated blog. Comment appeared April 2, 2010 3:05 AM (OR blog time)

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Baby simple: Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter what "side" of the political spectrum you're on

In reply to: Evan Coyne Maloney’s Trip Down Memory Lane : Founding Bloggers
----

Yes, people are making that claim.

I having trouble finding much of anyone, but--as I said in my original comment--I will grant you that there probably are a few somewhere...

Moreover, they make excuses just like you are doing.

Excuses?

I'm pretty sure I said that anyone who holds up signs with bigoted or eliminationist rhetoric is wrong, no matter what political side they claim to be sympathetic towards.

I also said that there is a degree of hypocrisy among those who stay more quiet when their own side engages in such behavior than they are when the other side does.

but I, just yesterday, heard someone on the left suggest that if there is any violence precipitated by the tea party ralliers, that certain people (mostly affiliated with Fox News) should be held accountable – that they would be to blame.

It's kinda hard to comment, because I didn't hear what you heard, but I would say that when elected or media personalities--who because of their position in life, have a bigger megaphone and more folks who trust what they say--engage in exaggerated eleiminationist rhetoric, they do bear some moral responsibility when individual citizens act on what they hear. That's a whole other thing than suggesting they should bear legal responsibility... (I'd be most vehemently against that, and if that's what the person you heard was suggesting s/he's a loon.) That's true whether the megaphone/violent act happens on the left or on the right...

Sorry you don’t like the reminder, but I am not at all surprised.

I have no problem seeing and condemning those liberals who are violent, vandals, or bigots (in fact, I posted the very same video at my own blog, and linked back to this post, as well), and I'm kinda surprised that TeaTime believes I said anything of the kind in my prior comment.

My position is, the initial response to bad acts are to condemn them, not to point out that the other side also commits similar bad acts... In baby-simple kid's terms, two wrongs don't make a right. If Hitler signs are wrong, they're wrong, no matter what the politics of the person getting the splinters from the signpost are. I'm sorry if I was in any way unclear the first time, but I hope I've clarified my position in this second comment...
---

Not sure whether I'm still moderated on FB (some blogs only moderate you the first time, I hear, and I didn't see the "this comment is awaiting moderation" notice I saw yesterday), but then, I'm also thinkin' I may start to post all my commentary here, and this'll make a nice transition post, if I decide to do so... 8>)

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

No thank you please (LGF as liberal website)

In reply to: Tea Party Derangement Syndrome: Tennessee Flag Is Neo-Nazi Symbol � The Republican Heretic

I'm sorry, but on behalf of the vast leftwing conspiracy, I'm authorized to inform you that we want no part of Charles Johnson or LGF, no matter what political group he wishes to align himself with these days... (I remember something about him renouncing his years as a rightwing blogger, but has he actually tried to claim he's a liberal now, or are conservatives trying to lessen the stink in the wingnut war room he used to occupy by claiming he's a lib yourselves?) He made his bones as a conservative, and while we understand he's no longer acting like one of them either, that doesn't make him one of ours...

Thanks, but no thanks...

The left
-----

Submitted for approval 3/31/10, 3:47 PM (IM blog time)

Protesting as racist, violent, and unpatriotic... Say what?

In reply to: Evan Coyne Maloney’s Trip Down Memory Lane : Founding Bloggers
--------

So, is the argument that two wrongs make the latter bad actors more right, somehow?

Because so far, I haven't seen much of anyone denying that individuals on the left also behaved poorly, or that anyone who held a Bushitler sign is coming out against those carrying Hitlerbama signs.

Is there some hypocrisy, in that the more mainstream people on the left back then said less about BusHitler signs than they do Hitlerbama signs, while the better behaved folks on the Right back then complained more about BusHitler signs than they do Hitlerbama signs? Sure... It's wrong, but it's also to be expected... Part of the reason for having an "other" is how it unites the group attacking that "other," even when the attacks sometimes go too far...

But by and large, I think the video is answering a charge that very few are making, because I've not seen many people claiming that these signs didn't exist...

In the cool light of day, the real question is whether or not one believes such rhetoric is appropriate, and whether their answer depends on whose hands are holding the signposts.
---

Submitted for moderator approval 3/31/10, 12:14 PM (IM blog time)

"Last time I looked, wanting to start a civil war (insane as it is) was not a crime..."

In reply to: Classical Values: Local news that's not local news yet?
-----------

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that, compared to some of the others mentioned in the more leftward leaning blog posts-- Ex: In the Wake of Arrests in Three States, Right-Wingers Rush to Defend Terror Suspects, Criticize FBI | Firedoglake, or my favorite bigoted bloggers, who saw the word "Christian" and immediately jumped to speculating as to why why they weren't arresting the "muzzies," instead... Actual facts/charges be damned... Donald Douglas and Pam Geller spring to mind...) --you got a raw deal on this one...

As you (along with we "commies" who support the ACLU) have learned, it ain't easy speaking up for the right to express dangerous, bigoted, hurtful, hateful thoughts... You're right... It isn't a crime to want to start a civil war, or even to say so... That isn't to say that we citizens, and law enforcement too, ought not pay close attention to the crackpots who express views like this, so that expressing that opinion never reaches the stage that these asses got to (with rights come responsibilities), but no, there is no crime in thinkin' it, or even saying it...

Except for the last lines--I do think there's something special about US citizenship, and I do think it ought to afford those who have it special privileges not offered to non-citizens--I agree with the anonymous fellow above (3/30/10, 12:40 PM, just in case). The way I read the Constitution, it's "all men, not all citizens," and I do believe that because our legal system is the best in the world, we ought to use it whenever we detain or put anyone, citizen or otherwise, on trial... I'm not opposed to military trials, but I don't believe in this "not enemy soldiers subject to Geneva, not citizens subject to US protections" limbo we put them in at the start of this conflict... We're America, and we should abide by the ideals for which we fight, or amend them so that we once again can... (It's like civil commitment for pedophiles... Increase the legal penalties for the crime, but don't create some kind of civil fiction to continue detaining people who've served their prison time...) We're a nation ruled by laws and ideals, not by the things we want, short term... No one said it was supposed to be easy living up to our values... YMMV...
---
Submitted for blog owner approval 3/31/10, 4:44 AM (IM blog time)
----
Added to the "hall of shame" list of bloggers who moderate for content with which they disagree, 4/1/10

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Did Occam's Razor cut that Democrat's gas line?

In reply to The Oracular Opinion: Innocent Until Proven Guilty—The American Way Gone Astray, and in particular bluepitbull's March 30, 2010 5:46 PM comment, reproduced in full here. My moderator-removed reply follows:

Fair enough, I will explain my point.

When you control the message, you control the perceptions. Ergo, the simplest explanation is that Tea Party members are all crazed, mind numbed zombies who are mostly white and republican (your media definition). Don't deny it. If you control the media you can say anything you want and make alot out of nothing.

I still believe that if there were any concrete proof, it would have come out by now. And I think that you and I both know that Pelosi wouldn't have waited to stand up with her giant gavel and tell all about it since it would have furthered her cause, which was to ram a pos legislation down the throats of those who don't support it. And yes, it all does come back to the healthcare debate. That still seems to be the one polarizing argument in front of all of us.
-----------------

Ergo, the simplest explanation is that Tea Party members are all crazed, mind numbed zombies who are mostly white and republican (your media definition).

I don't know who you're talking to, but I've neither said or suggested anything of the kind (and for my money, neither has much of the media... though, I'm open to reviewing quotes from said media proving otherwise.)

The simplest explanation to which I was referring says that the windows that were broken out at Dem offices, the nasty messages critical of health care votes that were left on Dem answering machines, the cut gas line at the Dem rep's brother's house (after his home address was posted on a Tea Party "patriot's" website, rather than the rep's home address), and the bigoted comments that were alleged to've come from the middle of the Tea Party crowd a week or so ago were most likely done by people critical of those Democrats, rather than by false flag agent provocateur Democrats looking to frame the Tea Party, which is a far more convoluted, conspiracy-minded theory (both on the part of the provocateurs committing the acts, and the right wingers who're now claiming--with no more proof than they're demanding of those who say they know those acts were committed by the right--that that's what happened...)

Don't deny it.

I have no need to deny anything... I hold to the idea that the onus is on the individual(s) making the charge to back it up with whatever evidence (or speculation) they have... That's why you'll never hear me say that I know John Lewis was in fact called anything by anyone last week... I do find him credible and I do believe his story, but I also agree with you folks that so far, there is no concrete proof...

As far as these things go, I find Occam's Razor and plain old common sense to be persuasive... But that doesn't prove that I'm right, or that you're wrong, or much of anything else... As I said in a previous comment, unless/until someone offers something more concrete, folks'll just have to weigh what little evidence and "testimony" there is, put it together with common sense and human nature, and draw their own conclusions...

-------------
Posted by repsac3 to The Oracular Opinion at March 30, 2010 6:48 PM, OO time (and apparently removed by the moderator sometime later, for reasons that are so far unclear to me... ...though I do intend to ask for clarification...

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Lyin' King of the wingnut Savannah fears trackbacks, too

In reply to American Power: Obonics

(The reply--a trackback, as quoted below--did appear at the post, but was promptly removed by the blog owner, Donald Douglas (the Lyin' King), for reasons I leave for the reader to figure out for him/herself.):
--------

American Nihilist tracked back with Donald's Bigotronics
---

Submitted (& posted, briefly) by repsac3 to American Power at March 25, 2010 5:32 AM (AmPow blog time)

Monday, March 15, 2010

Feelings of Political Bigotry

In reply to: Want to see why I have grown to hate the left? | Political Byline, and recreated from memory, because someone accidentally closed a page he intended to leave open... (It was early, and I was still sleepy...)

---
Well, there's no point in my debating against your feelings, I guess (only you can change how you feel)... ...but I still maintain that the blogesphere would be a whole lot more civil (and perhaps even more respectful, too) if folks would stick to attacking the individuals who actually say or do the bad things, rather than everyone who happens to be in the same political or social group as that one bad actor. (It'd be even better if we could all stick to attacking the behaviors and ideas with which we disagree, and not attack the people at all, but I can see where that might be a flag too high to capture, given where we're starting out...)

I urge you to give this whole political bigotry idea some thought as you read (& reply to) the things posted out there in the vast political blogesphere, and I hope you enjoy your day...
---

Submitted for moderator approval somewhere in the neighborhood of 5:30 AM, IM blog time (and rejected, I think, because my other moderated comment offered at Political Byline this morning is still on the site (as moderated), while this one is nowhere to be found... "Freedom of speech" only goes so far, I guess...) ((Yes, I know it's not really a free speech issue... but them's the words Pat (the owner of the PB blog) used in explaining (& later defending) his decision to allow my earlier comment(s) to appear, and I don't want to cloud the issue now by bringin' the government into it...))

UPDATE, 6:30PM: Yep, it's confirmed... According to the e-mail I just received from the man himself, Patrick moderated away my comment because he felt it insulted him and his right to hate the left... So there you have it, as straight from the horses mouth as I can give you. (While I do think that one has the right to cut'n'paste the private e-mails to which one is a party into a blog post, I think it's cheesy to do so unless it's absolutely necessary.)

As to his allegation that my comment was insulting or in any way infringed on his rights, I'll simply note that I said nothing of rights, and only discussed the ethics of hating entire groups of people for espousing a particular political philosophy with which one disagrees... Given his plea for civility earlier on in that very post, I find his insistence on holding on to his hate pretty disturbing... But so it goes, I guess... (And his initial posts and comments at Don's place seemed pretty reasonable, too... Sad.)

Touchy…Touchy..., Touché.

In reply to: Touchy…Touchy…Touchy…. | Political Byline
---

AmericanNeocon IS Donald Douglas.

Well technically, Donald Douglas IS American eocon (there’s no second “N,” perhaps because, in his mind, being a neocon is the only way to be a “real” American.) But yes, I was aware. As Ex-DLB–and to some extent, Donald himself–pointed out, the professor and I go back a long way… I only used his Americaneocon appellation here because that is the name under which he posted.

Please Do.


I thought a good bit about whether to engage on this point, but I’m going to decline, at least until goaded on further… Several instances of this kind of behavior are posted on my blog and on his own, and I just don’t have the energy to dig ‘em all up and rehash them again. (Besides, is this really the kinda thing you want filling up your comment section?) If I were to name names though, I’d probably begin by suggesting that you do a search of a guy named Paleo Pat, and read the unpleasant comments Donald Douglas would write in reply to that guy when he made occasional comments at American Power… (And for the record, I know who Paleo Pat IS, too…) Then you might wish to check out the Erin Andrews saga (one example, from a third party), faux Liberty Bell situation, his war on Conner Friedersdorf, his war on the Ordinary Gentlemen blog and everyone who writes for it, … (and yes, there are others… But given your feelings as expressed elsewhere, I hesitate to bother going on, fearful that you will just refuse to see any of it… …and besides, I said I wasn’t going to get into it, didn’t I? )

As I said in my earlier comment, you’re welcome to think and feel as you will… …but from where I’m sitting, one is only Don’s friend as long as s/he’s willing to tow his particular party line… Strike too far out on your own (or use sarcasm or some other literary device he fails to comprehend), and you get added to his ever-growing enemies list–your willingness to take the punch and give him the benefit of the doubt notwithstanding…
---

Submitted for moderator approval March 15th, 2010 at 5:52 am, Political Byline blog time

Friday, February 26, 2010

The Love You Take...

In reply to: Donald Douglas - American Power: There's Nothing You Can Do That Can't Be Done...:
------------------

While you did manage to add one or two more "liberal mean boy/girl" quotes than Hillman did "conservative mean boy/girl" quotes in his post from two months ago--one of the benefits of being the one to reply, for sure--there is no doubt that there are mean boys and girls all across the political spectrum.

To suggest that either of you proved that it is liberal or conservative politics that makes folks mean, however, is just stupid. Assholes are assholes because of nature and nurture, and for the most part, assholes are willing to prove that they're assholes in every facet of their lives... ...including politics, obviously. Trying to make any kind of generalization about a whole category of folks based on a few quotes from individual members of the group is both logically and morally wrong.

Good song with a great message, though... The key to it, I think, is to start within yourself. "The love you take is equal to the love you make," after all...
---------

Submitted for moderator approval 2/26/10, 7:53 AM (IM blog time)

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

The First Amendment and the Continued Free Speech of Donald Douglas

In reply to: American Power: Libel Blogger David Hillman (Swash Zone) Workplace Harassment Fail, and in particular Donald's beliefs about what I said in a comment at The Swash Zone earlier today:
Donald Douglas: The Swash Zone community is actually struggling to devise even more crudely devious methods in their jihad to eviscerate my First Amendment rights to freedom of speech (with emphasis added):
repsac3: Where bigotry and other morally repugnant acts are concerned, I'm all for sunshine; publicize the nasty things that people say and do as much as possible -- which, by the way, is one of the reasons I'm opposed to moderating such things away. Sometimes it's good to confront and be offended by the things people say and do, and to see that as many other people as possible are offended right along with you. Rather than hide bigoted blog comments, I say highlight them, repeating them as many times as it takes for people to get good and pissed off at the people that post them. (In fact, if the lawyer's don't object, I'd suggest posting all of the threats and other nonsense received via e-mail, as well.) I'm all for blog posts, letters to local media--including the LBCC college newspaper--with full quotes and context, tweets, facebook posts, submissions to "Worst Person in the World" segments, and any other means that uses sunshine and/or moonglow to highlight the bad acts Donald Douglas and those like him engage in.

The only problem, of course, is that there are no "threats and other nonsense" or "racism" or "harassment," or whatever.

-----------

Dr. Douglas, I have no interest in silencing you. In fact--as you yourself quoted--I'm in favor of spreading your words far and wide. You are a good example of what is wrong with some on the right, and the more you speak, the more evident that becomes. So, I promise you, the last thing I want is for you to stop speaking out just as you have been. I believe you to be a bully and a bigot (politically, societally, and yes, racially, as well), and I'm all too glad to have people read what you post and see it for themselves.

As far as your first amendment rights, you should know as well as I do that none of the bloggers or enemies you mention in this post or any other have the power to threaten your free speech rights. The first amendment protects all US citizens from GOVERNMENT action against the things we write and say, not private action. You and I are free to post whatever we wish about each other, free from fear that the government will do anything to silence either of us.

I suppose you (or I) could harm the other's online reputation to the point that no one trusts me (or you) anymore, to the point that the injured party might just as well shut down their blog(s), but not only wouldn't that be a first amendment violation, everything the victor posted to destroy the reputation of the loser would be protected by it... which is just as it should be...

Other than accusing you of bad acts--which is something that I'm sure you find distasteful--exactly what part of the paragraph you quoted from my comment do you disagree with? Do you believe that people shouldn't draw attention to the bigoted or otherwise nasty things that others do and say in public, and ask that they explain and/or apologize for them? Is it wrong to write blog/twitter/facebook posts, or letters to news outlets about them? Leaving aside the fact that in this case, I'm trying to shine the bright, sunny spotlight on your bigoted comment, exactly what is it in my words that you disagree with, considering the fact that you do many of these same things to the people with whom you disagree, every day?

“Black heritage. Whoo hoo! That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!" - [Posted by Donald Douglas to THE SWASH ZONE: BLACK HERITAGE TRAIL, BOSTON, MASS. at 10:27 PM, February 17, 2010]
--------

Submitted for moderator approval 2/23/2010, 12:59 AM (IM blog time)
------
As of 2/25/10, American Power Blogger Donald Douglas has not allowed this comment to appear.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Blogging While Employed - Where is the line?

In reply to the following comments at the Swash Zone post "THE RACIST BIGOT WHO TEACHES AT LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGE":
Octopus - 2:57 PM, February 22, 2010
Octopus - 3:37 PM, February 22, 2010
Capt. Fogg - 4:17 PM, February 22, 2010
(You only need click on the first link; the others are the next two comments, in order.) ((The original post was deleted in October, 2011. The links now go to my recreation of the post, via web cache and e-mail records.)
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry if I offended anyone or spoke out of turn as regards whether or not one should contact someone's place of employment for actions they take online. My issue isn't so much with Professor Douglas' legal rights (though perhaps an argument can be made on those grounds, as well), but with the morality--and just as important--the effectiveness of doing so.

I maintain that potentially criminal acts (harassment, threats of violence, ...) should be handled by the legal profession, and acts that impinge on your use and enjoyment of one's google blog should be handled by reporting such acts to google. It isn't that I'm opposed to reporting abusive acts by immoral actors; it's only that I believe we should report such acts to the officials and agencies who are empowered to act on the reports we make.

Where bigotry and other morally repugnant acts are concerned, I'm all for sunshine; publicize the nasty things that people say and do as much as possible--which, by the way, is one of the reasons I'm opposed to moderating such things away. Sometimes it's good to confront and be offended by the things people say and do, and to see that as many other people as possible are offended right along with you. Rather than hide bigoted blog comments, I say highlight them, repeating them as many times as it takes for people to get good and pissed off at the people that post them. (In fact, if the lawyer's don't object, I'd suggest posting all of the threats and other nonsense received via e-mail, as well.) I'm all for blog posts, letters to local media--including the LBCC college newspaper--with full quotes and context, tweets, facebook posts, submissions to "Worst Person in the World" segments, and any other means that uses sunshine and/or moonglow to highlight the bad acts Donald Douglas and those like him engage in.

Long Beach City College is not responsible for anything their employee, Donald Douglas, posts online, any more than the places any of us work for are responsible for our online posts and comments. He's not speaking on the college's behalf, and they cannot--and should not be able to--control his private thoughts and actions. (again, just as I wouldn't want anyone on this side of the aisle stifled from speaking by our employers.)

I absolutely believe that LBCC ought to be paying attention to the things Donald Douglas posts, because in using his position as an LBCC associate professor of political science to bolster his internet credibility, I believe he is harming their "brand," but that is up to them to research, determine, and deal with.

I understand that some feel justified, but I just don't agree that complaining to his college superiors for acts that are not in any way related to his job is ethically correct or practically productive. If there is a legal case for harassment or threatening behavior, the college will find out about it soon enough, and I suspect that that is where the ethical SOP's would come into effect.

I feel kinda bad that we disagree, Oct, (& Fogg, & rocky, ...), but I just can't go with you on this... I don't think it's right, and I don't think it'll work, besides. I hope we can continue to act in concert where we can, but this ain't one of those times...
---------

Submitted for moderator approval 2/22/10, 5:25 PM (or so, IM blog time)
--------
UPDATE - 2/23/10 - This comment was posted at the Swash Zone blog for 18- 24 hours, and then removed by the blog owner, for content. This is the first instance where a comment of mine did not appear / was removed from a liberal blog.)

UPDATE - 10/15/11 - The whole blog post was deleted from THE SWASH ZONE sometime in the last few days. I re-created what I could of the post from the web cache and my own records here, but 12 comments originally appended to the post were lost...

Sunday, February 21, 2010

What Can Our Government Do For Us?

In reply to: First Lady: Childhood Obesity Threatens National Security | Homeland Security, and the third comment, in particular.
---------------------------

As to whether the US government has any role to play in the health and welfare of Americans, I think that ship has already sailed. How much of a role has and always will be determined by the politicians we elect to represent us. Now, I want those I vote for to use the power I lent them to speak up about issues like this, just as I would were I elected. Obviously the person who commented above me feels differently.

I'm really not so sure that the issue of obesity is political, in the sense that much of anyone in any political party is in favor of it. At best, it's a question of whether or not one believes that we should empower the people we elect to spend tax dollars or political capital on combatting it, or leave individuals to fend for themselves without the guidance and resources that the government can provide. And there we simply disagree.

All I can say to those who feel that government has no place in this issue is that you needn't avail yourselves of those resources if you don't want to. It would be nice if we could all allocate where we each want our tax dollars to be spent, so that you and I wouldn't have to pay for anything we each don't value or believe our government should be doing, but instead we elect people to do that on our behalf. And right now the people that we elected are willing to put money into helping us stay healthy, which you don't like but I do, as well as some things that you like more than I... That's just the way it goes in a representative democracy...
------------------

Submitted for moderator approval 2/21/2010, 9:06 AM (IM blog time)

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Will Donald Post it, or is the Self-described Lion Really a Lamb?

In reply to: American Power: Leftists Are Liars, and I'll Show You...
-------------------------------------------

Comment in reply to the one Donald quoted here, but posted at my blog:
---
Donald, I replied to your attempt at moral relativism before you even wrote it. That the commentary Frisch wrote is more disgusting than yours in no way absolves you, regardless of what you happen to believe.
If you honestly believe that she deserved to have people contact her department chair because they didn't approve of what she posted in her personal/political dealings online, then I don't see how you can argue against people who disapprove of what you post online contacting yours. To suggest that there are different standards for those people you disagree with than there are for yourself makes you an absolute hypocrite.

As I said in the post, neither of you deserve(d) to be attacked at your schools for non-school related behaviors, unless those behaviors are unlawful or dangerous. I'm sorry that you seem to disagree, and prefer to be so morally inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

If you believe there are distortions or lies in what I've written, you ought to be able to point them out. No where do I make the claim that you've ever wished someone's child dead. What I said was, you made disgusting comments at a post at a leftwing blog. The links are there for anyone who wishes to read the comment and decide for him-or-herself how disgusting it is. As far as making the comparison between your situation and that of professor Frisch, I'm pretty sure it was you who brought up the story and compared it to your own, not I. (Granted, you preferred to paint yourself in the role of her victim, Jeff Goldstein, but it's obvious that you're at least as much the perpetrator, as I showed.)

And while I understand that you want to change the subject, aside the one article we both quoted, nothing written by anyone at the Daily Kos has any relevance here. (But thank you for proving my point about your inability to discern individual authors and their individual posts from the site and it's readers as a whole.) Similarly, this isn't about me. I didn't make the bigoted remarks... I only posted about them. If the shoe was on the other foot, you would've done just the same. (Hell, you're trying to spin the story in your favor as it is...)

I do not worry that much of anyone--and most certainly not anyone whose opinion I value--will buy into your beliefs about my morality, Donald. I've spoken my piece about what I believe to be right, and unlike you, I'm not bending and twisting to protect my friends and crucify my enemies.

Writing disgusting things on the blogs of those with whom we disagree is wrong--no matter who does it.

Contacting the place of employment of a blogger with whom one does not agree--even if they write disgusting things on the blogs of their perceived enemies--is wrong--no matter who does it.

I note that you have so far not permitted my trackback leading to this post appear at the post to which it replies, even though I submitted it several hours ago, and you have made several posts since. Perhaps it was just an oversight, given how adamant you are about the fact that Fogg's comment did appear.

And seeing as how you repeated your comment above at a new American Power post, I hope you'll be gracious enough to permit this rebuttal to appear there, as well. I'll paste it in (along with a comment or two specific to that post) & send it just after posing it here.

(You're not under any obligation to allow my comments on your blog, of course, but it'd be odd not to, given how powerful you imagine yourself to be against we detractors, n'all... I mean, you are the Lion King, right?)
-------------
As far as your former student, I did not rebuke him or his comments in any way. In point of fact I agreed with him & said I was glad to hear that you are not the person in the classroom that you are online. I also reported that I have heard similar things from other students. (True, I did say I found it hard to believe, given how poorly you behave online, but not that I didn't believe it. And yes, I did also wonder whether you will continue to separate your politically partisan self from your political science professor self... I won't back down from that. I do wonder... ...and only time will tell.)

Finally, this isn't some plot to destroy you. (First off, I'm the guy writing that folks shouldn't contact the places of employment of their political foes, so I don't quite see how you can claim I'm a part of any kinda plot to do much of anything.) YOU made the unprovoked & bigoted comment at the Black Heritage Trail post. All I did was get offended, and write about it on my blog, which as I said above, is pretty much the same thing you do here on this blog. You're welcome to explain how the following comment can be taken any way but with offense, because I don't see it...:

"“Black heritage. Whoo hoo!

That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!"

-------
Submitted for moderator approval 2/20/2010, 11:35 PM (IM blog time)
-------
For reasons I leave for the reader to suss out on their own, American Power blogger (and self-described "Lion King of the savannah") Donald Douglas refused to post this comment at his blog.

On murdering Rush, and censuring news

In reply to: American Power: As Disgusting as Joseph Goebbels?:
-------------------------------

"planning to murder Rush Limbaugh when I suggested he be fired"?

Nope, not at the link you offered, Don, but at this one: American Power: Executing Rush Limbaugh??)

And as long as I'm leaving links, a trackback regarding bigotry, and this whole "cyber-bully" kerfuffle: Donald Douglas: “Black heritage. Whoo hoo! That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!"
----------------------
Submitted for moderator approval 2/19/2010, 'round 6:00 PM, IM blog time...

And my comment was seemingly approved, and then removed, too, judging by my e-mail...
repsac3 has left a new comment on the post "As Disgusting as Joseph Goebbels?":
Posted by repsac3 to American Power at February 19, 2010 2:18 PM
(You only get the e-mail if the comment is posted... And what's really funny, is that the next (& currently only) comment posted there, begins "It's Leftists that constantly insist upon censuring news they do not approve of - regardless of its objectivity or closeness to the facts." - Cuffy Meigs, commenting @ American Power: As Disgusting as Joseph Goebbels?, February 19, 2010 8:25 PM... "censuring news they do not approve of..." Preach on, right-wing brother Cuffy... Preach on...)

Friday, February 19, 2010

Confronting Bigotry, While Respecting Personal Expression

In reply to: THE SWASH ZONE: THE RACIST BIGOT WHO TEACHES AT LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGE:
--------------------

Anybody who's read my blogs knows of my thoughts regarding Dr. Douglas. I am appalled and amazed at some of the things he says and does, and his "faux black dialect" commentary is some of the most offensive stuff he posts. Half black or not, the guy talks like a racist, and taken together with his penchant for attacking men with whom he doesn't agree by suggesting (if not actually saying) that they're gay--apparently believing that gay men are not "real" men and thus less worthy of respect--exposes him as the bigot he is. (And that's to say nothing of his anti-muslim posts & commentary.)

It certainly doesn't surprise me that he would post something so offensive as this--:

“Black heritage. Whoo hoo!

That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!"


[Posted by Donald Douglas to THE SWASH ZONE: BLACK HERITAGE TRAIL, BOSTON, MASS. at 10:27 PM, February 17, 2010] (This comment was subsequently removed by a blog administrator.)


--but as frequently happens with things Professor Donald Douglas posts, I'm left wondering why he would stoop so low. (I mean, I know what I think... What I wonder is, what was he thinking, that would make him say such a thing?) Is he opposed to Black history and heritage? Does he have something against the trail in Boston? Does he think it's unamerican to speak of slavery, because it reflects poorly on America and the necocon catechism of American exceptionalism in all things?

All that said, I have to come out against contacting his employers directly. It's one thing to blog about his offenses, and even go so far as to post that the relevant folks at Long Beach City College should make themselves aware of the things he's writing online, should anything he says reflect poorly on the institution and it's reputation, legally or otherwise. (Dr. Donald Douglas is the only professor at Long Beach City College I know anything about... But if I were to know someone who was considering attending, and had a choice, I would certainly advise against going there, on the off chance they ended up having to take a course with the guy. And were I a parent, I would make the admissions department aware of that, too.)

But knowing about the things that Donald Douglas and all their employees are doing that may reflect poorly on Long Beach City College is their responsibility. While I certainly agree that Donald's bigotry is a matter about which they ought to be concerned, those of us on the blogesphere who disagree with him don't have the underlying grounds to speak to the school about it. We are not students or the guardians of students. He is not being a bigot or trolling our blogs in his capacity as a Long Beach City College employee. (The closest he comes is whipping out his position as a college level PoliSci associate professor and essentially yelling "respect my authoritay!!!" in his best Eric Cartman voice. Which in my experience over the years, generally only leaves folks saying "He's a professor? Really?!?) When he's blogging, he's just another private citizen, albeit a bigoted one. And just as we wouldn't want anyone contacting our employers because they disagree with the political or social views that we sit here and write about in our spare time, we shouldn't be hounding Donald at his job for what he does as a private citizen... ...not unless we have a good reason, anyway (such as being the parent of a student at the school, or God forbid, in one of the man's classes, for instance.)

I'm not saying that Long Beach City College shouldn't be aware of what Donald Douglas says and does in public, or care how his words and deeds may reflect on the institution... I'm just saying that I don't think it's our place to tell them quite so directly, if they don't already know...

That's my two cents, anyway... (And yes, I am aware of the shit-storm that may result from my tossing my pennies out, on this issue (perhaps even an ill wind or two blowing portside, even)... I'm prepared to deal with whatever comes, just as you folks are, I'm sure... In retrospect, perhaps I should've said something sooner--not that I expected anyone to change their tune on my say-so, but for the same reason I did so now; right is right. Honestly, I just figure it was a one (then two) time thing that would blow over and fade away of it's own accord... But it doesn't seem to be going that way...)
--------

Submitted for moderator approval 2/19/10, 2:48 AM (IM blog time)

UPDATE: I see Donald Douglas didn't like Octo's post, either... Can't imagine why... American Power: Swash Zone's Cyber-Bully Harassment Escalates!

A few quick things:
1) Donald Douglas' calling anyone a cyber-bully is highly pot/kettle. Barely a day goes by that he isn't attacking someone--often personally, with name-calling and insinuations that have nothing to do with the subject at hand--for what they believe and say politically or socially. And because of that...

2) seeing Donald Douglas once again playing the victim card -- even though I agree with him to a certain extent, as far as this subject goes -- strikes me as pretty damned hypocritical and sad. While I agree that contacting his place of employment without grounds to do so (being a LBCC student/parent) is wrong, his whining about it as though he does nothing to provoke such reactions in people (part of the very definition of a troll) is nuts.

3) I notice that in his AmPow post, Donald Douglas does not defend--or address in any way--the bigoted comment he made at The Swash Zone Blog that resulted in the "RACIST BIGOT" post.:
“Black heritage. Whoo hoo!

That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!"


[Posted by Donald Douglas to THE SWASH ZONE: BLACK HERITAGE TRAIL, BOSTON, MASS. at 10:27 PM, February 17, 2010] (This comment was subsequently removed by a blog administrator.)

Thursday, February 18, 2010

THE RACIST BIGOT WHO TEACHES AT LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGE - THE SWASH ZONE - 5:36 PM, February 18, 2010

It seems someone at The Swash Zone decided to remove this post and all comments to it. But since I have several back links to this post and it's comments, I'm recreating it here, via it's web cache and my file of comments. I was also removed as a contributing author to this blog as a result of my comments to this post and elsewhere about this whole situation...

UPDATE: I should also probably clarify up top here (as I tried to do below) that while I backdated it to the date and time of it's original appearance at The Swash Zone on February 18th, 2010, this post was removed over there and reconstituted here in mid-October, 2011, and that there were originally 31 comments offered in reply to this post when it was at The Swash Zone; 30 appended to the post itself, and this comment, which spent about 24 hours attached to the original post, before it was moderated away for content and reposted here at this blog (in real time), instead. Unfortunately, the first 19 comments below (which, to clarify, are not necessarily the first 19 comments that actually appeared at the SZ post, though I believe the comments I do have are in the same date/time order as they were, there) are the only ones I can currently locate and repost.
-----



On family values and pretty pictures

In reply to American Power: Karen Allow and Baby LuLu:
-----------------

I'm fine with women exploiting themselves (or not exploiting themselves, for that matter). Having that choice is what freedom's all about, and I applaud her for telling her critics to STFU, whether it be about the photos of herself she chooses to post, or the make-up of her family. I feel the same way about her pix critics as I did about Meghan McCain's "boob" pic critics from aways back, and the same about her moral (& legal) right to be a single mom as I do about gay folks and their marital/family situations.

I'm all for less holier-than-thou criticism of people who don't live their lives exactly as you believe they should, and more live and let live.
-------------

Submitted for moderator approval 2/18/10, 12:55 PM (or so), IM blog time

Friday, February 12, 2010

Obesity is a Threat to National Security, say folks Left AND RIGHT

In reply to: First Lady: Childhood Obesity Threatens National Security - Rightside News, following a comment that rightly pointed out that member's of the top brass said this a few days earlier, and that the First Lady was repeating their claims.
--------------

Title of comment (You can title your comment at this site):

"And then there was Richard Carmona (Dubya's Surgeon General)"

“Obesity is not just a health issue,” said Richard Carmona, who served as surgeon general in the George W. Bush administration. Carmona is now with the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity Alliance (STOP), a coalition of consumer, government, labor, business, and health insurers that advocate “innovative and practical strategies” to combat obesity.

Obesity “affects our national and global security,” said Carmona. He said the U.S. has reached a “tipping point,” at which obesity “now impacts every aspect of our society, including the future of our health system.”

Obesity is crippling individuals and hurting American families, the workforce – even work productivity and the nation’s ability to be prepared for natural and manmade disasters: “When we look at one of the top reasons why young men and women fail to be retained on active duty in our uniformed services, obesity again rises to the forefront at a time when we need them more than ever.”
- CNSNews.com - Health Experts Call Obesity A Threat to National Security

One can debate whether or not these folks are correct about the heath and societal risks that come with being a nation overweight, but it'd be a big mistake to claim there's some partisan bias involved in who's sounding the alarm on obesity...
--------

Submitted for approval 2/12/10, 8:50 AM (IM Blog time)