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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to the following American Power blog comment:

There is an easy solution to the problems inherent in immigration. We apply the rules of the country of origin to all immigrants seeking citizenship in this country. Say, whatever Mexico required for one seeking citizenship there it would be applied across the board to Mexicans seeking citizenship in this country.
It would be fair to all involved and would ensure that people in this country would be conversant with how other countries control immigration. Whereas a person seeking work would have a green card or what ever the equivalent paperwork required in other countries. It removes political considerations from the equation.
We could take other actions for those seeking political asylum, et al. - Dennis - April 28, 2010, 7:26 AM comment at the post "American Power: Illegal Alien Superhighway"

Dennis: It's a neat rhetorical trick--and one with which I'd agree, believe it or don't--except that I wouldn't want American law to be determined by and at the mercy of the whims of the lawmaking of foreign countries.

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

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

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

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

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

Well... Not exactly...

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story [UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). Please use that link, instead.], and in particular, this passage:

"Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays)"
---

While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:

"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb." - Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reply to: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, -- [UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). Please use that link, instead.] -- and particularly this comment:

"Yay! Thanks for coming, Prof. Douglass! I must say, it's long been a dream of mine to be mentioned in your blog as a Marxist." - Richard Booth - April 21, 2010, 10:08 PM

(I assume this is the former student, though given the number of folks Dr. Douglas smacks that Marxist label on in the post, it could be any number of people):
---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two wrongs don't make a right, period.

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

Hypocrisy? You decide...
---

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

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

The First Amendment and the Continued Free Speech of Donald Douglas

In reply to: American Power: Libel Blogger David Hillman (Swash Zone) Workplace Harassment Fail, and in particular Donald's beliefs about what I said in a comment at The Swash Zone earlier today:

Donald Douglas: The Swash Zone community is actually struggling to devise even more crudely devious methods in their jihad to eviscerate my First Amendment rights to freedom of speech (with emphasis added):

repsac3: Where bigotry and other morally repugnant acts are concerned, I'm all for sunshine; publicize the nasty things that people say and do as much as possible -- which, by the way, is one of the reasons I'm opposed to moderating such things away. Sometimes it's good to confront and be offended by the things people say and do, and to see that as many other people as possible are offended right along with you. Rather than hide bigoted blog comments, I say highlight them, repeating them as many times as it takes for people to get good and pissed off at the people that post them. (In fact, if the lawyer's don't object, I'd suggest posting all of the threats and other nonsense received via e-mail, as well.) I'm all for blog posts, letters to local media--including the LBCC college newspaper--with full quotes and context, tweets, facebook posts, submissions to "Worst Person in the World" segments, and any other means that uses sunshine and/or moonglow to highlight the bad acts Donald Douglas and those like him engage in.

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

-----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogging While Employed - Where is the line?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"“Black heritage. Whoo hoo!

That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!"
-------
Submitted for moderator approval 2/20/2010, 11:35 PM (IM blog time)
-------
For reasons I leave for the reader to suss out on their own, American Power blogger (and self-described "Lion King of the savannah") Donald Douglas refused to post this comment at his blog.

On murdering Rush, and censuring news

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

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

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

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

And my comment was seemingly approved, and then removed, too, judging by my e-mail...

repsac3 has left a new comment on the post "As Disgusting as Joseph Goebbels?":
Posted by repsac3 to American Power at February 19, 2010 2:18 PM

(You only get the e-mail if the comment is posted... And what's really funny, is that the next (& currently only) comment posted there, begins "It's Leftists that constantly insist upon censuring news they do not approve of - regardless of its objectivity or closeness to the facts." - Cuffy Meigs, commenting @ American Power: As Disgusting as Joseph Goebbels?, February 19, 2010 8:25 PM... "censuring news they do not approve of..." Preach on, right-wing brother Cuffy... Preach on...)

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

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

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

No Blog has no new comments, anymore

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)

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

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...

Hello? Are you feelin' ok?

"Day after day, love turns gray like the skin of a dying man..."

In reply to: American Power: The Erin Andrews Flame War
---------------------

I suspect you're not going to listen to me, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't try. I don't expect you to allow this through the moderation filter either, but you're welcome to post it, if you wish.

Stogie (in the last minute comment you added to the top of this post) was right, and you should've listened to him. Sheeples, in her comment to this post, is correct as well. Perhaps you'll listen to her.

Granted, I'm loving every minute of this ass-whipping you're getting--& will probably continue to get, after this post-- (which itself ought to tell you something), but... well, it's bad enough when you treat political "enemies" like me as badly as you do... But when you start treating your "friends" this badly, it's a sign that something's actually wrong...

You really ought to listen to what Stogie, and Cassandra, and Miss Atilla, and the twin Daves, and... well just about everyone who's commented, here or anywhere else... is telling you, and take it easier, and slower, and turn down the dang heat...

It's ok to have folks disagree with you, Donald. And initially anyway, that's all that happened. It isn't the story that's an issue--though I personally think you pounded it WAY too hard. You've done what, 10 posts on miss Andrews, all with essentially the same info?--but that you posted a link to the illegally obtained & posted video, which many people believe further victimizes her. You seem to believe that it was newsworthy, and that that justified posting the link. Nothing more, and nothing less.

But rather than just disagree, you've called those who saw it differently than you, Victorian, radical feminists, hypocrites (for posting anything from Vargas-style pinups to male calendar models, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the issue was the consent of the model, not rule five in toto), and even, poor writers.

Look... I'd never be so foolish as to think you'd ever find accord with the likes of me, but you really ought to cut your friends (political, personal) some slack. If you really can't, you ought to figure out whether you need a good vacation away from partisan blogging, or something in the way of professional help.

Don't take my word for it... Ask the bloggers and commenters you trust to contact you (privately, so that they can tell you the God's honest, without embarrassing anyone involved) with their thoughts on how a few of your recent posts on the subject (& especially this one) reads. It ain't good, Donald. When Stogie & Sheeple (& I predict others, before long) are trying to wave you off, it ain't good.

That's all I'm gonna say...

(I have been working on my own post about this, for AmNi... ...but at the moment anyway, I almost feel too sorry for you (because I really do think there's something wrong... Stress?, depression?, ???) to finish & post it... We'll see how it goes... Hopefully, I'll get over it, and be the nihilist bastard you already seem to think I am.)
---
Submitted for approval 7/30/09, 9:31 AM (AmPow blog time, or 12:31 PM here in IMonk-land) ((& may've been held from posting here at IM for awhile too, because it was written as a personal note (sorta), and right this second, I'm not sure I want to post it, at all.))
---

Predictably, it didn't take long for Donald Douglas to engage in the very unmitigated douchebaggery for which he is making himself famous throughout the blogesphere. I no longer feel sorry for him, and will now hit the post button, a scant 2 hours after writing all that appears above. The AmNi post I referenced above may follow eventually, as well.

For a kick, also read Stogie's comment to the same post, submitted ten minutes after mine:

Donald, the best thing to do now is (1) Stop calling other bloggers names like "liar" (a difference of opinion does not necessarily make one a liar and it just inflames them more with no benefit whatsoever).

(2) Drop this ugly mud-wrestle and let it die; just STOP. Take time to COOL OFF.

(3) Take a vacation. You are stressed out and not thinking clearly. Suspend blogging for a week or two with a post titled "On Vacation." Go fishing. When you get back things will look better.

I bet that ain't the only one, either... Folks have to be writing him privately with their opinions, and lord knows what he isn't letting through the moderation filter... (Damned self-serving critic, that Stogie. Prolly a feminist, too. They all just suck.)

The Palin Faux Outrage of the Weak

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

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

Nothing to get excited about…

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

American Power, and lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one lied about you or your blog, Donald.

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

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

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

Dem agent, Jason isn't

Reply to: American Power: Jindal Torpedoes Presidential Aspirations

Stogie said...

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

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

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

-------------------------------

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

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

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

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

Definition of Marriage

Reply to:
American Power: Pam Spaulding: A Black Lesbian Who is Wickedly Dishonest
------------
Norm said...

Donna B:
The issue of gay and lesbian marriage has nothing to do with equality before the law. Civil unions are equal before the law. What is at issue is the definition of a word: marriage.

February 25, 2009 8:48 AM
------------------------------

@ Norm:

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

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

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

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

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