Immoderate Monk

Merry Christmas 2011

2011-12-24T06:24:00.000-05:00

I became aware of these two videos within 24 hours of each other, and they both make me smile...

At first I envisioned some kinda east coast <--> west coast chick singin' let it all hang out goofy Christmas song video rivalry, like them rappers used to have... (That is what them rappers used to have, yes?!?)

But the fact is, I'd much rather see 'em workin' together, sometime, somewhere... I think they're both phenomenal talents, and I urge anyone unfamiliar to get to know these performers better... (Obviously, this isn't their best work, but for what they are, these videos are pretty great...)

East Coast: Antigone Rising

West Coast: Francesca Valle

For more info:
Antigone Rising
Francesca Valle

Merry happy, everyone... Celebrate, and be joyous.

Merry Christmas, Happy Winter Holiday

2010-12-24T18:00:00.000-05:00

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...

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

2010-09-26T09:46:00.003-04:00

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...

2010-09-26T03:31:00.001-04:00

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...

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

2010-09-25T21:34:00.005-04:00

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

2010-09-25T09:20:00.002-04:00

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.

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

2010-09-21T17:52:00.003-04:00

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

2010-09-21T16:01:00.003-04:00

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.)

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

2010-07-17T07:08:00.001-04:00

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...)

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

2010-04-30T12:58:00.001-04:00

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.

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

2010-04-25T06:15:00.002-04:00

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

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

2010-04-24T12:19:00.000-04:00

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!!"

2010-04-24T10:51:00.004-04:00

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...)

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

2010-04-23T09:06:00.015-04:00

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

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

2010-04-04T09:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

2010-04-03T11:43:00.000-04:00

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?

2010-04-03T10:08:00.001-04:00

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

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

2010-04-02T10:30:00.001-04:00

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"

2010-04-02T09:31:00.001-04:00

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?

2010-04-02T03:17:00.000-04:00

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)

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

2010-04-01T17:33:00.001-04:00

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>)

No thank you please (LGF as liberal website)

2010-03-31T15:47:00.005-04:00

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?

2010-03-31T12:14:00.005-04:00

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..."

2010-03-31T04:44:00.006-04:00

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

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

2010-03-30T18:48:00.003-04:00

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...

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

2010-03-25T08:32:00.004-04:00

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)

Feelings of Political Bigotry

2010-03-15T11:15:00.004-04:00

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.

2010-03-15T10:41:00.004-04:00

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

The Love You Take...

2010-02-26T07:53:00.000-05:00

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)

The First Amendment and the Continued Free Speech of Donald Douglas

2010-02-23T01:05:00.005-05:00

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.

Blogging While Employed - Where is the line?

2010-02-22T17:30:00.005-05:00

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...

What Can Our Government Do For Us?

2010-02-21T09:06:00.002-05:00

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)

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

2010-02-20T11:44:00.002-05:00

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

2010-02-20T00:30:00.004-05:00

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...)

Confronting Bigotry, While Respecting Personal Expression

2010-02-19T02:51:00.005-05:00

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.)

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

2010-02-18T17:36:00.020-05:00

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

2010-02-18T12:58:00.003-05:00

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

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

2010-02-12T08:45:00.005-05:00

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)

Iron Mountain: A blueprint to tyranny, or a hoax?

2010-01-15T10:31:00.004-05:00

In reply to: LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN: IRON MOUNTAIN, A BLUE PRINT TO TYRANNY:
-------

While I've no doubt that some will say this is only proof of the coverup, many believe the confessed author when he says that "Report From Iron Mountain" was a satirical work of fiction. YMMV...

L. C. Lewin, Writer of Satire Of Government Plot, Dies at 82 - Obituary; Biography - NYTimes.com
---

Submitted for moderator approval January 15, 2010 7:30 AM, LtTbK blog time

Political Bigotry of a Conservative?

2010-01-09T16:37:00.003-05:00

repsac3 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
January 9, 2010 4:32 PM (Since the post to which I was replying was removed (by the bloggess, I assume), I removed my reply.)
-------------------

The Chronicles of a Conservative said:
"repsac3 and Sue alike. I note your personal attacks in the place of debate."

CoaC: You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but I suspect we have a different definition of "personal attack," because I don't believe I've attacked anyone personally. (Things folks have said, absolutely... But people themselves? Not so much...) Perhaps you might offer an example of one or two of these personal attacks...

"The ignorance and blindness of the Left is Amazing!"

Again, I have no clue who "the Left" (or "the Right," for that matter) is... I'm repsac3... If you have an issue with something I've said or done, talk to me, but don't pretend that I represent everyone who more or less agrees with me politically, or that I am responsible for every action taken by any liberal anywhere. In fairness, I will offer you the same courtesy.

"I am completely unconcerned for your well being, and would relish the opportunity to let you know that I think your blogs are despicable , as are your misguided, unAmerican viewpoints."

Have at it--preferably there, because I'm not sure it'd be a welcome subject, here--but please, if you do, be far more specific... Taking issue is fine. Generalized "I hate you because you don't agree with me" is just political bigotry, and there's far too much of that, already...

"Had your views any credibility, you would be looking to help Pam’s situation here"

And one does this how, exactly?
How is your comment helping Pam's situation?

Because I surely do not see much of anything here in your comment that's helpful to anyone, aside perhaps your own ego.
But by all means, teach on, CoaC... Tell us all how each of us can help Pam out, with you as our guide...
------

The Chronicles of a Conservative (CoaC), who blogs at The Chronicles of a Conservative

No Blog has no new comments, anymore

2010-01-08T17:12:00.003-05:00

In reply to: No Blog: JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION!, though sadly, he's now restricted access to commenting on this very strange blog--even the first post, where a whole bunch o' folks had their say back a year or so ago. (Frank's rant in the post below made me think of this guy, who also took off on a largely off-topic rant against me, aways back... Sad to see he shut it down...)
------------

Probably the best piece of writing you've stolen & passed off as your own... Here's hoping you find your inner liberal, one day...
-----

Submitted (but not approved, as per his comment settings) 1/8/10, 5:00 PM (IM blog time)

In reply to a "thinking" man

2010-01-08T12:11:00.003-05:00

In reply to "Frank The Thinking Man's" January 8, 2010 11:43 AM comment -- done here, because such a reply was no longer welcome where he'd posted the original comment. (In fact, the comment itself wasn't welcome there either, and was deleted by the owner of that blog before I was able to get this posted... What follows is all that Frank said, and my reply to every word.)
------------------

Frank The Thinking Man, sez:
Hey repsac3, Get a life and stop analyzing everyone's comments!

Perhaps you might get a life and stop analyzing mine... I don't recall your even being in this conversation, up to now... (Besides, at best, I was only analyzing one person's comments--the person to whom I was actually talking--and only because his comments didn't make sense.)

I see that you've got you panties in a bunch again...

If you say so... though I'm pretty sure you don't even know me, which kinda makes one wonder what the hell you're talking about...

I honestly think that some of these people are living in La, La land. I smell anger and rebellion in each and every of your words here.

If you're smelling anything in words, I think we know who's really in LaLa land.
No, I'm not angry at all... In fact, I'm amused.

Why do people like her/him just keep coming back and back and back. Until they become a real pain in the ass.

Him, thanks... It's a conversation, Frank. One party talks, then the other responds, and so on... Sometimes others join in.... As far as I know, that's what bloggers who choose to keep their comment sections open are looking for, at least in part.

As for conversation or anyone engaged in it being a real pain in the ass, that's open to individual interpretation, I guess. I may well think the same of you and your contribution, though I'd likely be less willing to blurt it out, particularly at first meeting... Everyone's an asshole, sometimes... I try not to make snap judgments about folks...

I feel sorry for people like that. I really do. I honestly gave up and don’t care anymore about what anyone says on their blogs anymore, because everybody is going to say something that another person don’t like... .

Your words belie your actions, Frank... If you didn't care, you wouldn't've commented...

You are correct, however... No matter what one posts, someone's going to disagree. (Again, that's what the comment section of a blog is for, in part...)

Also, I am sick of people’s comments thinking they have the answers to solving everyone els’s problems.

In a strange way, Frank, that's how this whole thing got started... If a whole bunch of Pam's fellow conservatives hadn't slammed on her for posting on the sites of & being respectful to a few liberal bloggers--thinkin' they know better than her how Pam should conduct her online life, and being pretty damned insistent and disrespectful about it, besides--she never would've written the post to which POL, you & I replied.

I make no claim to having any answers, but like you & the rest of the folks who posted comments to Pam's "MY blog" post, I do have opinions, and I posted 'em. You needn't agree with 'em, but there's no need to make 'em into some kind of demands to follow into bliss. All I did was speak my mind, Frank... No more, and no less.

I suggest you people stop analyzing what’s wrong with me or the Professor or anyone else. . Stop bugging us with your useless comments already! How long is this going to go on. . You can’t analyze anyones feelings from just reading this blog. So stop it!

The only way people are going to stop judging you (or me, or anyone else) is if you stop putting yourself out there. No one critiques an unspoken thought. If you speak, people are going to judge you by what you say, so all I can tell you is you have two choices; Shut up or man up. (It gets pretty easy the more you actually do what you more or less suggested above--fail to care; Sometimes you have to look at the folks doing the judging, and decide how much or how little their (stupid) opinions matter to you or to anyone else, anyway... There's a whole lotta folks not worth one's attention.)

If the Professor says he don’t want to continue with this subject, why are YOU writing 2,000 more words to him?

Because, Frank, I'm not him, and I thought that some of what he said--both initially & in his subsequent comments--was a tad disingenuous. I replied, to say so. (As far as I know, there is no mystical blog rulebook that allows a person to spout whatever nonsense they like, and then insulate themselves from reply by saying they don't want to talk about it anymore. Like it or not, one cannot declare the conversation over just after granting themselves the last word.)

It seems to me that his explanation for deleting his own comment should be sufficient, so why question him?

I didn't question his explanation for deleting his comment--though I did subsequently disagree with it in a later comment. I questioned his hostility to the fact that I wasn't able to read his mind and know he was going to do so, and thus replied to the comment at the same time he was deleting it. To me, that was a valid question.

I get people talking about me politically on other blogs. I got people analyzing my site and my personality on other stupid blogs. What are you trying to do? Bring traffic to your site? If you can’t bring yourself to end a topic then that’s your frigge’n problem. TAKE IT TO YOUR BLOG. We’ve all been through some sort of crap in our lives and experiences, we don’t need you or anyone else to question us.

As I said above, as long as you put yourself out there, you're going to get people judging you. If you can't deal with being judged for what you say & how you say it, you'd be better off not speaking... The only other alternative is to accept that it's gonna happen, sometimes... It's the price of "fame."

As for what I'm doing, the answer is no more or less than you or any other person who comments on other folk's blogs is doing... So I guess the question can be turned 'round on you, sir... Looking for traffic, are you? (Or was it just that you thought had something relevant to say, perhaps?)

It's interesting that you simultaneously attack me for not ending the topic and continue the topic, yourself... You send a very mixed message, Frank... ...but perhaps you believe the rules are somehow different when you do the opposite of what you tell others to do... Practice what you preach, my friend.

Proffessor, if I were you, I’d ignore her/him. I know it’s hard, but I’m slowly starting to learn that if you pretend it didn’t happen–at least on the web, you can move on to someone or something else.

Sound advice... Now if only you'd thought to take it, yourself...
--------

The players:
Frank The Thinking Man,, blogger at Is Your Glass Half Empty or Half Full

Professor of Life (POL), blogger at Professor of Life

Pamela D. Hart, who blogs at The Oracular Opinion

And then me, of course...
----

UPDATE, 4:10 PM: I'd gladly send this post to Frank, but he hasn't published his e-mail address on his profile
And, while I could post a link to this post as an off topic comment on his most recent blog post, it'd make me a hypocrite to do so, since I often delete such off topic chaff on my own blogs. If you have an opinion as to what you think I should do as far as this dilemma goes, feel free to leave it as a comment. I'll read it, though I can't promise I'll take your advice...

Cats and Dogs, and a Merry Christmas

2009-12-24T09:03:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-12-22T10:21:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

2009-12-21T02:00:00.002-05:00

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

In reply to: BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GOES MADISON MCGRAW � KillTruck
-------

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

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

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

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

2009-12-19T19:46:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Douglas' Wingnut Echo Chamber

2009-12-17T03:39:00.002-05:00

In reply to The Alinsky Rules in Action | NewsReal Blog
------

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-12-16T02:21:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-12-15T03:47:00.002-05:00

In reply to American Power: E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!, and in particular the following:

I've been previously threatened with workplace intimidation by (O)CT(O)PUS and Repsac3 (see "American Nihilist: DEFAMATION - DONALD STYLE"). They posted my college vice-president's information online and encouraged readers to file complaints against American Power with LBCC's administration!

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

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

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

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

Comparing Bush/Obama: audience vetting and the press

2009-10-17T10:07:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Racism on the menu (At-Largely)

2009-10-10T20:28:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-10-10T19:48:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush v Gore, Birther/Truther statistics

2009-09-19T14:22:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-18T17:34:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes a banana is just a banana...

2009-09-15T19:50:00.002-04:00

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

Sebastian wins the prize.

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

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

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

2009-09-14T22:14:00.003-04:00

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

Emily:

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

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

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

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

Undaunted by facts, theblogprof keeps spinnin'

2009-09-11T21:51:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-11T20:05:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted for approval September 11, 2009 8:05 PM

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

2009-09-11T19:30:00.003-04:00

(Anti-abortion protester killed, also.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-05T13:09:00.002-04:00

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

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

Um, no...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-04T01:58:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-04T01:50:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-26T15:04:00.004-04:00

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

Be patriotic. Go Shopping.

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

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

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

2009-08-13T11:58:00.003-04:00

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

I wouldn't get too excited. Arlo can obviously speak for himself--& I hope he does so again here, since I've had two conservatives contact me pointing to this page, gloating, already--but after reading the commentary at ArloNet, a few comments from Arlo himself, in particular, (and particularly particular, his 7/23/09, 11:35am message in the "2 cups" thread: http://snurl.com/pss2r), I'm pretty sure it's a rescue mission, rather than a statement of approval of the Republican party as is, (or has recently been, either.) I highly doubt he was a big supporter of the actions Bush was taking, and suspect that his joining the party at that time was to move his fellow Americans (Republican Americans) AWAY from the Bush model, through his one vote, at least. (While he did this years ago, this is the first many of us have heard about it. If he intended to use his fame to help any part of the Republican cause, he's done a poor job of it thus far.)

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

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

Whose Death Panels are these, anyway?

2009-08-11T11:23:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-10T13:12:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-10T10:16:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-09T15:32:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

---

Really, Lew? A Nazi doctor?

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

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

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

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

Death Panels? Withholding Treatment? Really?!?

2009-08-09T11:55:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted for approval August 9, 2009 11:56 AM

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

2009-08-09T10:06:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-06T17:46:00.003-04:00

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: Joker-ology
---

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

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

ObamaJoka & BushHitler: Another post on the posters

2009-08-04T16:50:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-04T13:39:00.008-04:00

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

What 2470144 said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 3, 2009 1:33 PM

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

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

2009-08-04T12:44:00.006-04:00

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

Anyway, the point:
---

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

Rumors, Hypocrisy, and Rightwing Fringe Gossip

2009-08-02T17:55:00.003-04:00

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

Prof. Jacobson,

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

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

Cynthia

August 2, 2009 2:57 PM

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-01T15:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

Here's another:

be8da9ee-3abc-420d-934c-f1f294d5d9c9_600.jpg
Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:28 am"
---

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

In other words, these men and women are hired specifically to give their lives so that others can save the president. They're amazing people."
Tom W. | 07.31.09 - 12:44 am
--

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

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

Google Secret Service Counter Assault Team for more info.

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

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

2009-08-01T10:24:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-08-01T08:45:00.008-04:00

In reply to: Pat Dollard - Young Americans - Breaking: La Guardia Evacuated Over Potential Terrorist With Bomb, and in particular:

"I am always amused how the threat is isolated inside, meanwhile, a very large cluster of soft targets is formed outside. Can you say much easier target.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello? Are you feelin' ok?

2009-07-30T12:31:00.009-04:00

"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!

2009-07-30T09:00:00.000-04:00

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

2009-07-27T16:38:00.003-04:00

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...

2009-07-22T16:47:00.000-04:00

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

2009-07-21T16:33:00.000-04:00

"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

2009-07-20T15:51:00.000-04:00

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

2009-07-03T02:46:00.001-04:00

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

2009-07-01T09:34:00.001-04:00

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

2009-07-01T02:44:00.000-04:00

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.)

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

2009-06-25T15:27:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h/t Twitter / @DivadNhoj1981

The Palin Faux Outrage of the Weak

2009-06-25T13:43:00.004-04:00

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

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

Nothing to get excited about…

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

Future Perfect

2009-06-24T15:47:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-06-18T16:37:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too much fame, too many people pulling...

2009-06-16T15:34:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

MsPlaceDemocrat, Misplaced name

2009-06-16T12:43:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-06-16T08:39:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hate? We libs hate? Really?!?

2009-06-16T01:49:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronoun troubles

2009-06-15T17:06:00.002-04:00

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

@ Paul:

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

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

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

Let go of the "group" mindset...

2009-06-15T12:40:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Define the verification word meme}:

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

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

2009-06-13T10:05:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

von Brunn and Domestic Terrorism, Security Procedures

2009-06-12T07:17:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogger anonymity, pseudonyms, and Donald Douglas

2009-06-10T07:31:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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