Thursday, December 24, 2009

I guess what I'm trying to say is...

American Nihilist: Merry Christmas.:


I went there.

Have a very merry Christmas. If you want to.
If not, don't. (Like we really care, anyway.)

Immoderate Monk: Cats and Dogs, and a Merry Christmas:

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.)

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Merry Christmas to Wingnuts, Moonbats, and everyone in between.:

Just a quick post to say Merry Christmas to all.

Hope that everyone reading this gets all they wish for but (and?) gets even more pleasure from the giving.

Perhaps I'll actually do more posting here, in the new year... 8>)

With All Due Respect: Life is Short...Buy the Shoes: Merry Christmas:

In her post titled Merry Christmas, AUDREYBELLA at Life is Short...Buy the Shoes sez:

"I just want to wish a very MERRY CHRISTMAS to each and every one of you. I hope you have a great day and Santa brings you everything you asked for (and then some).

Please have a safe and wonderful day."

With all due respect, I concur completely. Have a very Merry Christmas, everyone!!!

(Blog to "respect" for this message chosen at random from a "Merry Christmas" google search... though I seem to recall the name of the blog from somewhere, and this may not've been my first visit there... If nothing else, the name reminds me of my sis-in-law, and that's good enough for me.)

In case the message was in any way unclear, Have a very Merry Christmas, and God bless us, every one!!

W. James Casper

Roundup and Commentary - 12/23/09

"There is brutality, and there is honesty. There is no such thing as brutal honesty." - Think - Dr. Robert Anthony


"What happened to Bryson Ross was an accident - Shellie Ross did not intentionally harm her son. The actions of Madison McGraw, on the other hand..." -
- took my time to do some research… - Grateful Always

"No sweat on moderating comments. *I* don't think it's all that necessary, but then, *I* don't run your blog, so there's no reason that anyone who isn't me need give a damn what *I* think on the subject." "As far as Shellie Ross: I'm wondering whether one of us is misreading the other a little..." -
- Immoderate Monk: Geeze, look at Madison McGraw's tweet stream...

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 12/22/09

Learn to make great chili. - Life's Little Instruction Book


"With all due respect, B, KT's post reads very differently than your own last one on the subject..." -
- took my time to do some research… - Grateful Always

"I don't believe that online legacy posts and tweeted condolences have taken the place of sympathy cards, wakes and graveside services..." -
- Immoderate Monk: "Death be not proud ... in 140 characters or less" (or Death be not proud ... in 140 characters -, it's intended target.)

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 12/21/09

One moment I'm angry at something.
I don't like it.
I can put it in a category, try to dislike it forever, teach my children to dislike it.
Or, I can express my anger, and forget about it.
Next time we meet, we're friends.
- Das Energi by Paul Williams


"Great post. I gave it a kudo-filled mention at my own blogger post..." - Immoderate Monk: Geeze, look at Madison McGraw's tweet stream... (& if/when approved, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GOES MADISON MCGRAW - KillTruck, which was it's intended target.)

"I am no fan of this Madison McGraw character--..." - Just Nikke: I got my first hate mail!

Time to bring these posts back... I've been forgetting where I've been spreading my verbal seed, again... (What, you thought I did these R & C posts for your benefit?)

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Shellie Ross, Twitter, and The 'Right' Way to Grieve

I just read this story on American Power, and it got me thinkin' lays out the story:

MERRITT ISLAND, Fla. — As Shellie Ross waited in a hospital for word on her son, Bryson, she posted this note to the social networking site "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."
She found out 19 minutes later that Bryson was dead.

Ross' decision to broadcast that message Monday night to more than 5,300 people who follow her posts on Twitter has unleashed torrents of support and derision. Social networking experts and friends said Ross was right to reach out for help, while critics questioned whether her son would be alive if she spent less time online.

Ross, 37, is a blogger — — and a prolific poster on Twitter. She has two other sons, ages 18 and 11, and her husband is an Air Force sergeant.

She tweeted throughout Monday. At 5:22 p.m., she posted a message about the fog that rolled in as she worked in her chicken coop.

The emergency call to police came at 5:23 p.m., from Ross' 11-year-old son Kris, said Joe Martin, Brevard County homicide investigator. Ross and her son found Bryson at the bottom of the pool. While Kris was on the phone, Ross performed CPR on Bryson, Martin said.

Bryson was taken to Cape Canaveral Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 6 p.m. Ross was notified at 6:31 p.m., Martin said. At 6:12 p.m. she posted to Twitter, asking for prayers.

"Her tweeting had nothing to do with what happened with regard to her son. It was an accident," Martin said, adding that no charges will be filed.

More info from ABC News:

The Brevard County Sheriff's office told that Ross' 11-year-old son called 911 after they discovered the toddler's body floating the pool. According to Public Information Officer Lt. Bruce Barnett, the mother and older son had been cleaning out a chicken coop while the toddler was playing in the backyard.

Ross had asked her older son to turn off a hose inside the pool enclosure, and the gate behind him evidently did not close properly, said Barnett.

"When [Ross] finished cleaning she went inside and was looking for the 2-year-old, who she thought was with her 11-year-old, and wasn't able to find him and started to panic," he said. "That's when she found him floating."

Barnett said that Ross estimated her son was in the pool for "maybe five minutes," and performed CPR on her son for the duration of the nine-minute 911 call.

"Weird and deeply troubling" for American Power's Donald Douglas & others are Shellie Ross' tweets. First, there is the number of them, and the fact that Ms. Ross was likely tweeting at the same time Bryson was in the pool drowning, from which some infer that Ms Ross was neglecting her child.

Blogger Madison McGraw, a woman with no connection to Ross who read about this tragedy on the internet, is a prime example:
"She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive."
and later
"Between the hours of 8:37 a.m. and 5:22 p.m (her first and last before son was found drowned in pool) she tweeted 74 times.

If a babysitter had been tweeting all day long while in charge of a 2 year old and he drowned while she was tweeting, I doubt that the parents would say, "It's okay, the babysitter feels guilty - we'll let it go."

Don Douglas is more circumspect, only saying:
"Now it turns out that Shellie Ross, whose 2 year-old son drowned on Monday, was tweeting at the time of the accident and sent a message just 19 minutes before her son's death: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."

Of course what they don't say--because they don't actually know, and can only imply the worst--is whether or not Ms. Ross actually was the slightest bit negligent, here. How do these Monday morning quarterbackin' critics know that her son wasn't sitting on her lap, or doing a puzzle on the floor a few feet away for 70 or so of those 74 tweets? What makes them believe (or even want to believe) that she didn't have someone (one of the other kids, or dad) watching her son for the vast majority of the time she was distracted by twitter (or TV, or doing the dishes, or the bathroom, or anything else that might briefly take one's focus away from one's kids, for that matter)? The answer, of course, is nothing at all... Just speculation, and a cynical "build themselves up by knocking others down" attitude.

And as for the proximity of the tweet about the fog (5:22 p.m), to finding her son and trying to save him (5:23 p.m.), it also really doesn't say a thing.

People are always somewhere doing something in the minute before the proverbial blackout hits and leaves them in the dark. If she believed the gate to the pool was locked and Bryson was safely in her yard with her 11 year old, does it really matter what she was doing in that minute prior to realizing that all was not well? Would these people be cruelly second guessing her every move and implying she was a bad mother if instead of sending a tweet, she'd been leaving the bathroom, stirring the soup on the stove, or doing any one of a hundred other little things that parents--including these holier-than-thou critics who're attacking her, I'm sure--do when they think their kids are safely in the yard playing with their siblings? Correlation does not imply causation. And while I'm pulling out the truisms, how about this one. Let he whose kid has never suffered an injury of any kind while they were the adult in charge cast the first stone. (Any parent still holding a rock is either a damned liar, or is raising their kids in a mythical world built by nerf.)

I once had a friend who was in her kitchen doing the dishes while her 9 & 4 year old boys were in the front yard playing with a playground ball, a thing they'd probably done 50 times before. Their mom could see them through the kitchen window, and there was a chain link fence with a gate--latched, she thought--keeping them in the yard. But all she could do was watch in horror as the ball went over the fence and into the street, her 4 year old ran through the gate & into the street after it 20-30 seconds later, and was hit and killed by a passing car.

All these critics who think they know how this happened, feel some perverse need to second guess this mother's every move leading up to her losing her son and cruelly blame her for what happened--you really needn't bother. Just like my friend, Linda, Ms. Ross--and her whole family, probably--is doing plenty of that to themselves, without your help. Yes, there are probably 100 things that Ms. Ross or one of her other kids could've done differently to prevent this tragedy--and I'm sure they would've done them all, if they had the benefit of the hindsight that they, their supporters and friends, and all these nasty people attacking her, unfortunately have now.

The second issue--& the one I find more interesting, really--is the reaction to her tweet while her son was in the hospital being worked on, and the ones (there are two that people mention, though there may've been others) after she knew her son had died.

Why is this a problem for anyone? Who are these people to say they know better than the rest the "right" way to react to tragedy or death in another person's family? What gives them the right (moral, not legal) to pass judgement on another person's methods for reaching out for support, and furthermore, to get on the internet and express their views about it to everyone, including the grieving mother herself? Do they not realize how hurtful they are, or do they just not care about anything other than expressing their own opinions on the subject, regardless of who they may hurt in the process?

Shellie Ross wanted to solicit prayers and good wishes for her son while he was being worked on by the medical professionals, and she turned to a whole lotta people on her twitter feed. I see very little difference between this and those who have intercessions made in church to pray for "congregant such-n-such's mother, who is going in for heart surgery on the 12th" or those who post blurbs on their blogs and facebook pages, requesting prayers for all manner of things from good resolutions to medical issues, to passing the final exam, to the safe return of a soldier (& spouse, sibling, best friend or guy who works in my office) shipping off to Iraq or Afghanistan. I just don't see how the immediacy of the emergency changes the equation, prayer-wise. If anything, I'd think it would make the need for prayer, support, and good wishes more necessary, not less.

Turning to my nemesis Donald Douglas again, he doesn't come right out and express an opinion (I think he likes to see which way the wind blows, sometimes), but two things give us a clue. He quotes pretty heavily from this awful woman, MADISON MCGRAW, who is altogther very critical of of Ms Ross, scolding her for the amount of her tweets in general, and the propriety of the ones closest to her son's death.
ABC News reports that Shellie Ross was tweeting about the fog rolling in and her chickens going back to the coop while 911 was called by her middle son @ 5:23 to report that his 2 year old brother was floating in the pool. Ambulance arrives at 5:38 to find child in cardiac arrest. At 6:12 pm Shellie tweeted and asked for prayers for her son. She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive.
After this tragedy, Shellie Ross has spoken and continued to Tweet, calling people assholes, hoping they rot in hell...but not once has she said, "I take full responsibility and I wish I could take that day back. I feel horrible and am so, so, sorry."

But then again, even if she did say that, I guess actions speak louder than words. And her actions leading up to and after her son's death speak volumes. She was twittering while her child died and she continues to Twitter, telling people to "Go Get Bent" and "Fuc* Tards."

If your child died because you were twittering, wouldn't that be the LAST place on earth you'd want to return to? If this was such a terrible time and you wanted people to 'leave you alone' why wouldn't you at least make your Twitter stream private?
I have no doubt it's only days before Ms. Ross appears for interviews and of course, people are already setting up donations.

I wish we could start a donation in Bryson Ross's name to sue his mother for negligence.

Why aren't people asking more questions about this? Do people not care about children and their safety at all? Who is looking out for children?

Lovely, woman, huh..? Her family must be so proud to've raised such a heartless, judgmental, holier-than-thou being. Obviously she's being criticized by others in ways that must seem all too similar to the way she criticized Ms Ross because in her next post, she responds with some of the same kind of sentiments she complains about Shellie Ross using. A study in hypocrisy, this one.:

"So, if those things make me evil and horrible - so be it.

One thing I know is, I haven't lost a child because I was updating my Twitter status.

So, call me anything you like.

Just don't call me Shellie Ross.

And with that - I'm done with this story. Because if the world doesn't give a shit that a 2 year old died a senseless meaningless death b/c his mom couldn't tear herself away from her online friends and she continues to remain online - then why should I?

ps-leaving shitty Reviews on Amazon for my books doesn't bother me. You MommyBloggers are so Mean Girls! Only older and haggard. With Coupons. LOTS and LOTS of coupons."

The thing Madison McGraw fails to realize, is that it's far more likely the Grace of God that's kept her from being in Shellie Ross' shoes than anything she or Shellie did or didn't do. Rather than kicking a grieving mother when she's down, McGraw ought to be thankful that she's been spared a similar fate, thus far.

This article (and Conor's below) make the most sense to me.:
About the story in general:
"If there's one truism about experiencing death, it's that every person deals with it differently. Some people might collapse in tears. Others might reach for a drink. Maybe some people would cook, or tidy up. Some people might burst out laughing. That's the thing about shock, about right? You never know. To attack someone for their reaction to such a tragedy, well, that's not very nice, to say the least. And, as Ross herself put it, "small minded."

And about the reaction of this unpleasant woman, McGraw, in particular.
"Explaining herself to ABC News, McGraw, a former paramedic and mother of three, said 'I thought, 'Who would tweet that her son just drowned?' I couldn't believe it… I've seen people react [to death], but they're screaming their heads off, crying and they don't know what to do. They're not on Twitter. I've never seen that before and I was just shocked.'

She was shocked. And she immediately tweeted about it. Huh."

One wonders whether she (& the rest of those complaining) even stopped to say a prayer for the child before hittin' the internet to rip into the mother... For the life of me, I just don't understand some people...

The second clue as to Donald's thoughts are contained in his derisive reference to the blog post of one of his "enemies", Conor Friedersdorf:
"Conor Friedersdorf blogged on this, at the Daily Dish no less, saying it's no big deal:

Isn't this just the latest example of people becoming insanely judgmental about a fellow citizen merely because she conceives of technology differently? It is unimaginable to me that people would react this way if Ms. Ross shouted over the back fence in the middle of the crisis to ask all in earshot to pray, and five hours later, still in shock, mechanically composed a letter to friends lamenting her loss.

But doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter? It provokes vitriol that I find every bit as inexplicable as I do the Tweeting of a child's death. In this moment of utmost gravity, you're criticizing her approach to social media? "This woman is a perfect example of where humanity is heading as it becomes more enslaved by technology," one commenter said. In fact, the callousness strangers direct via Internet at a grieving mother is a far more dire harbinger of where we're headed.

Hmm. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing if that was Trig Palin floating in the water? Somehow I doubt it."

Leave it to Donald (& at least one of his echoing sycophants, obviously) to use this story to score political hits.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Donald thinks tweeting about the death of one's son IS a big deal, though he fails to explain why... (I guess everyone is just supposed to "know," and anyone who doesn't, obviously isn't a part of the hive.)

I did find a woman, another blogger, who offers some explanation (though I believe that like McGraw, she makes some pretty big assumptions that she has no way of confirming, but on which she bases much of what she believes, anyway.)
The Drowned Boy & How He Changed Social Media - cara ellison:
"My feeling is that she is not in her right mind right now. She has no idea what she’s doing, and I give her miles and miles of latitude for that. This isn’t a personal failing at all. It’s just a fact; she has no way to process this. If her instinct is to be ‘alone’ while on the computer where she can receive free, safe condolences on the web, that is probably a pretty comfortable place to be.

Sometimes if neither side is safe, the safest place is the wall. For Shelli, I believe the Web is the wall. She doesn’t know me, or probably most of the people whose hearts ached for her in that moment, and it was a confirmation that yes, people are “out there”, and yes, some care, even if they can’t calm the cracking ache in her own heart. If she has no family with her, then I understand being on the web even more. If her family is there, it is quite possible she doesn’t want to talk to them, or see their grieving faces.

My heart goes out to Shelli. I think it was odd that she Tweeted the drowning of her son – the very worst, absolute worst, thing that could ever happen to any parent. But I also think the very fact of its awfulness excuses her insanity for doing it."

The same author later wrote a second post, PostScript To The Shellie Ross Twitter Story. And while I disagree with some of her assumptions and the conclusions they lead her to, I think she discusses the situation with all the grace & compassion missing from McGraw & Douglas, and I recommend both of her posts to anyone interested in this story.

As I said above, I don't understand why it's so insane (or weird or deeply troubling) for a person to reach out in the face of personal tragedy. I think it's what many of us do, one way or another. Had she used the keys on her phone to dial & talk to someone while she was in the hospital waiting room, no one would've said a word, but because she spoke more publicly, people are oddly offended.

The first experience with blogging & death I can recall was last spring, when the troubled son of a blogger I'd never before read committed suicide while in jail. (The father is the internet equivalent of a "FoaF," an online friend of an online acquaintance of a blogger I used to read pretty regularly, and one post led me to another, to his.) He wrote and posted this very soon after being notified by the police, and I can recall reading it the next day and crying for this stranger's loss and for the promise and potential of a 20 year old life snuffed out so long before it's time, and the feelings of desperation and despair that must precede such an act. I teared up again re-reading it now.

Yes, perhaps people could ask the same questions of this man that they're asking of Shellie Ross. Where was this man's wife while he was writing this, and why wasn't he with her? I don't know, but as with Shellie, I'm not prepared to assume the worst and scold him for not being where my assumptions tell me he should've been. I'd like to think she wanted to be alone, or to take something and try to sleep, to lessen the pain. But even if Chuck should've been with his wife and wasn't, that's between he and his wife, and I would no more write a post attacking him for it--especially while he was so obviously grieving--than I would step between an arguing couple in the supermarket, telling one spouse why I thought the other was right. Sometimes, it's just none of your business--even when you're invited to share in another's personal life.

More recently, a blogger who I only know as Old Soldier posted about losing his wife of 40 years three days earlier, and losing his sister-in-law (his brother's wife) the night before.

Kyle Liese was the younger brother of a guy I went through Jr high & high school with. We were never close, and I barely knew his brother at all--I have some vague recollection of him trying to sell me tickets for a ski trip upstate back in jr high, & honestly, I'm not even positive it was him (though I DO remember that a bunch of the kids who went got busted for drinking, and had to have their parents drive 2-3 hours each way to pick them up)--but I still paid my respects at the blog post, and never once considered the propriety of there being a blog about his death.

And while it wasn't about something so final as a death, Donald himself recently posted something about his home life as a kid that I found quite personal. And no matter what I think about Donald as a person, or his politics, or even the way he treats others--I'm thinking here of what he'd likely do, if the shoe was on the other foot--I would never use the personal narrative he made public, against him. In fact, while I don't blame those who choose to put such situations behind them and keep them private, I see those who choose to reveal their history of abuse as brave. I think it really encourages current abuse survivors when they see people they respect saying it happened to them, too.

When people open up their hearts and share something personal and painful in their lives, as Shellie, and Chuck, and "Old Soldier" and the friends of Kyle Liese, and even Donald did, I don't believe it is an invitation to stick the knife in, even if you happen to believe they in some way "deserve" to be stabbed. To me, it doesn't matter whether or not you support any one of their decisions to reveal themselves as they have, or think that you'd do better living their lives than they have... Common decency says you treat them with respect & compassion in public, and if you must trash them at all, do so in private. Contrary to what some seem to believe, the world doesn't need to know every nasty thought and opinion that enters your head. There's something to be said for discretion.

And for those to whom this matters:
Yes anonymous, Shellie looks to be a conservative.
But those attacking her; Madison, Donald, the NYPOST (& to some extent, Cara) are also hardcore conservatives.
Those coming to her defense (Conor and I) are further to the left. (Conor identifies right-of-center, but Donald has a whole series of posts saying different; and there should be no doubt that I'm a liberal.)

Chuck is a Democrat.

"Old Soldier" is a conservative.

I'm sure there are many who'll counterweigh my unscientific sampling here, (& I don't really think there is a political aspect to the story or to the motivations of anyone involved, aside Don and anon, who manufactured one in an all too obvious attempt to use this sad event to score a cheap point) but since that anonymous ass at Donald's blog saw fit to try to make it political, saying:
"Her husband is in the military and she asked for prayer.

How do I know already, even without reading another thing, just what is going to be said about her by the dark, dreary, dank leftard wing of the political spectrum."

he deserves a response:

No, rightard... It isn't "the left" who's mistreating the grieving military wife who asked for prayers for her dying son. It's your fellow conservatives. It's Donald Douglas, the author right there at the blog where you posted your comment.

If you insist on making sweeping generalizations about people, you might at least do yourself the favor of actually reading & comprehending the words contained in the post to which you're replying, so you don't look like a complete moron, while doing so.

And finally, since Madison McGraw was so fascinated by Shellie Ross' tweet stream, I went to take a look to see how her's compared. Madison McGraw (madisonmcgraw) on Twitter. Predictably, her feed is now protected, leaving her free to toss her stones from the safety of her newly encased glass house. Perhaps while she's hold up in there, she can stretch her shoes, rescrew her head so it's on correctly, and grow her terrible awful tiny grinch heart, before coming back out and speaking in public anymore. Yeesh.

Revising & Extending:
12/20/09, 8:20 AM: Another post that gets it right (In far fewer words than I did, too):
Blogging mom criticized for tweeting after son’s death
12/20/09, 6:25 PM: Looks like someone went to the trouble of writing an expose of Madison McGraw's tweeting, after all... (& dig the title, too. Exactly right.)
12/21/09, 2:12 PM - Be Careful When Assembling an Angry Lynch Mob.. - white and black - Open Salon

Friday, December 18, 2009

X-Post: Donald Douglas' War on E.D. Kain, Part 1

American Nihilist X-post

American Power: Mark Thompson and the Scientific Falsification of God:

It is, of course, precisely this Western Judeo-Christian heritage that the progressive left seeks to destroy. Andrew Sullivan is no conservative when he promotes a gay radical licentiousness that knows no moral boundaries. Thus, the solution: just rebrand the model in your own image and label adherents to classic teachings as "Christianists." I mean really, Mark Thompson cites E. D. Kain as suggesting "who cares"?

This is a long post, and to really understand it (& where Donald goes wrong, in my opinion) it'd be best if you read all of Donald's post as well as all of the post he's replying to... But the short answer is, Mark Thompson is citing E.D. Kain as responding "who cares?" to a different question than Donald believes he is, and wants you to believe he is. (Look for the part where Donald resorts to saying "I think what Mark really WANTED to say was...". He can't argue against what Mark ACTUALLY said, so he has to put his own spin on it. Classic Donald.)

Some people believe in God. Some people don't. Convincing the folks on the other side of the equation to believe what you believe -- whatever that is, be it God, Gods, or no God at all -- is largely pointless. What's important is how we treat each other.

Liberaltarianism and Intellectual Dishonesty:

My point of departure, as readers might have guessed, is Mark Thompson and his blogging buddies at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. Thompson's a self-proclaimed libertarian, and his cohorts at the blog are all over each other with intellectual glad-handing and backslapping on their bright ideas on atheism, gay marriage, humanitarian intervention, neoconservativism, and God knows what else. This cabal might well be aspiring to develop some newfangled "postmodern conservatism," but it's really all the same, as far as I can see.

An animating force for the paradigm seems to be the resistance to tradition and universal morality. This can be seen in the excursions on atheism at the blog, where we see commentary suggesting that since there's no possibility for the falsification of God's existence, those of religoius faith are essentially "lunatics" for proposing an alternative theory of evolution in Intelligent Design. Or we can see this in the virtually unhinged attacks on neoconservatives and the war in Iraq, where E.D. Kain excoriates the Bush administration for "invading countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan in order to democratize them ..." Never mind that the origins of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq emerged out of vastly different contexts - with varying methodologies of strategic justification - the overall animus toward the forward use of state power places this "libertarian-progressive" agenda firmly in the nihilist camp of the "world peace" utopians Robert Stacy McCain mentions above.

But what's especially bothersome about these folks is the confused intellectualism on questions of moral right. It's almost stomach-churning to read E.D. Kain's comments on Israel following this week's election: "Israel, once lively with the dream of the original idealists who founded it, has over the years become increasingly militarized, entrenched, and anti-Democratic." This is not much different from the commentary on Israel one finds at the neo-Stalinist Firedoglake. E.D. Kain, of course, has problems with intellectual integrity, as I've already noted, and he joins Mark Thompson in a left-libertarian hall of shame on that score.

This seems to be common among liberaltarians, or postmodern conservatives, however we might identify them. E.D. Kain gave the finger to a deep-bench of neoconservative writers whom he'd asked for analytical contributions - at no charge - when he deleted his online magazine, "NeoConstant," without the decency of a courtesy notification. Mark Thompson has the gall to applaud the strategic rationality of Hamas (with an obligatory attack on Israeli's actions as "self-defeating"), and then when questioned about his argument, he cowardly throws his hands up and pleads that "I honestly don't know - or pretend to know - the answer to the situation ..."

Re Intelligent Design: If you didn't read the long post I suggested you read for the last "War" post, you have another chance here.
Mark isn't simply suggesting that religious folks who try to make a science of their faith are lunatics. He's saying that anyone who tries to make a science out of any faith--including those atheists who try to prove that God doesn't exist--are lunatics. Once again, Donald only sees what he wishes to see...

Re "E.D. Kain excoriates": Interesting fact. In the ED Kain post to which Donald links, the words "Bush" "administration" or the name of any member of the Bush administration does not appear. In fact, ED Kain says that the foreign policy he's discussing & taking issue with, has been going on for three decades. Quite the excoriation, huh? Once again, Donald only sees what he wishes to see...

I don't know enough about Israel to intelligently comment on the next bit. (but at least, I'm smart enough to know that. I've seen far too many folks wade in, ignorant... and I've no doubt that everyone reading this has, as well.) I know that everyone there has been a victim of the conflict in one way or another, and that there's been altogether too much violence and needless death all around. I can say this much, though... There seem to be those who believe we in America should be more like Israel, security-wise especially. I would rather that Israel was more like us, to whatever extent that's possible. (Now, how what E.D. Kain said relates to these supposed issues of "intellectual integrity," I cannot say... ...and note that Donald doesn't, either.)

Finally, Donald has a problem discerning a person expressing the opinion that an enemy (Hamas, in this case) was doing something strategically smart, and that person giving support for the smart thing the enemy was doing.
(I was going to wonder whether Donald had ever met a smart person with whom he disagreed, but realized... All the smart people Donald knows agree with him, and all the idiots don't. That's just how Donald rolls...)

American Power: Neoclassicons:

Well, yeah. I'll just say here that Conor Freidersdorf is an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon. As anyone who's followed the recent conservative debates knows, especially in the months since the election, there's been an amalgamation of moderate conservatives, left-libertarians, and unpatriotic paleocons on the postmodern right. I wrote about this (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) the other day, in "What's Up With David Weigel?" From Conor Friederdorf to David Frum, to Daniel Larison to Andrew Sullivan, and then E.D. Kain, there's a movement afoot that wants desperately to be "conservative," but one that is failing miserably.

E.D. Kain, another neoclassicon who practically worships Sullivan - and not to mention, Daniel Larison - is himself like a confused adolescent, afraid to engage in an intellectual debate with me at this blog. E.D. Kain was once in regular communication with me as the publisher of Neo-Constant, which was described as a blog of "Hard-line neoconservative political commentary, global politics, and foreign policy." Like Andrew Sullivan, E.D. must feel a need to float along the tides of partisan popularity. He's certainly denuded himself of moral standing among those with whom he had previous communications. But that kind of childishness appears to characterize the neoclassicons overall.

They ARE conservative, Don. What they're not, is an echo chamber for Donald Douglas and those Donald Douglas himself echoes. (Whether they're echoing others or thinking for themselves is a separate question... From the little I've read, there's some of both, the exact quantities of which depend on the specific writer.)

And afraid of him? Please... For the most part, I expect it's simply that they don't take Dr Douglas seriously enough as a thinker or as a blogger to bother giving him the time of day, let alone offering a rebuttal comment on his blog or wasting time writing a post in reply to his hit pieces on their own blogs.

(But if Donald really believes this -- If he really is saying that bloggers who don't address any/all arguments put up in opposition to them fail to do so out of cowardice -- then I suppose there is no need to wonder why Donald Douglas so often avoids replying to my comments and posts... He's explained himself quite clearly, here... Obviously, Donald Douglas is a coward. [Who thinks that Donald is & will remain an intellectually dishonest putz, who, if he can get up the "courage" to reply at all, will explain why it's COMPLETELY different when HE doesn't respond to the opposition posts of others.])

As far as his last charge, I trust that he's noticed by now that one of E.D. Kain's other old friends from his NeoConstant days has spoken up (twice, even), OPPOSING Donald's accusation about Kain "denuding his moral standing" among them, and calling Dr Douglas to task for his unwarranted and personal attacks on Kain. Perhaps Donald will lay his cards on the table, and explain who in the hell it is he's talking about (aside himself, of course) who believes E.D. Kain is any less moral now than he was as a neocon.

(Having never read Kain back then, I can only hypothesize, but it don't look to me like Erik is the type to lose his ethical grounding. While his politics may have changed, the moral compass he uses to guide him--politically and otherwise--appears intact.
And putting him up against Dr Douglas and HIS morals... ...Well, I know which one of 'em I'd rather meet in a dark alley or be stuck on an otherwise deserted island with. One of 'em makes mistakes, admits when he does (see below) and apologizes for them.
The other's just angry at everyone who doesn't see the world his way, has a tendency to lash out inappropriately, and is very seldom ever wrong. Just ask him..
'nuff said.)

American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication:

I've responded to Mr. Friedersdorf with a number of detailed posts (here, here, here, and here). All of these essays are detailed and substantive. Mr. Friedersdorf's silence in engaging them goes beyond disrespect. Frankly, as is the case with Mark Thompson and E.D. Kain, it's most likely that Mr. Friedersdorf is simply overwhelmed by superior firepower; and rather than further expose the superficiality of his intellect, he adopts a variety of coping techniques: avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication are the first tactics that come to mind.

These "War On ___" posts are becoming something of a Donald Douglas/AmPow meme, where Donald gets "outraged! OUTRAGED!!" over something one of his many perceived enemies says, and writes a whole series of posts denouncing them, and demanding all manner of satisfactions. Mostly, they're ignored by the targets, which only seems to infuriate Dr Douglas further--though obviously, answering him, and even apologizing for whatever it was that sent Don into the tailspin in the first place, doesn't make the mighy Don Douglas particularly happy, either.

A few months ago, the War was on Conor Friedersdorf, and here's how I replied to this same piece of Donald's prose then:

One can intelligently speculate or flat out wildly guess as to the reasons why a person chooses not to reply to another's posts or comments--and Dr Douglas does a good deal of one of those things, just below--but unless a person actually asked you to write the posts, or in any way suggested that they would read and reply to whatever you put forth, there is no disrespect in his/her ignoring your words. And when your post(s) are largely disrespectful to the person from whom you're demanding the response(s), there is no earthly reason why they should respond. Claiming that s/he is disrespecting you by not engaging your posts--whatever their content, but especially when their content is largely an attack on them--at the very least, doesn't hold water, and may be evidence of an ego problem, as well. (Who thinks themselves so important that their words demand reply, and that one's failure to do so is a sign of disrespect?)

And did someone say something about ego? (Oh, wait... Apparently it holds more meaning if I say "ego." --God love the dictionary... I guess Doctor Biobrain and I finally got to Mr. Douglas, and he's actually citing the words he uses, occasionally. The next step, which has been years in the coming, would be to get him to provide examples of how the words he uses to tar people actually apply to the people he's tarring with them. According to him, we've all been nihilists for years though--while he has whipped out a dictionary once or twice, he's never shown how the definition applies... Think he'll do so as regards Conor?)--

But back to ego... Donald's "superior firepower" is largely a product of his own imagination. I'm not saying Dr. Douglas isn't smart; but smart ain't worth a damn, if you cannot or will not apply it to real situations.

(Re-reading it, I think the whole "War on Conor Friedersdorf" post & collection of comments speaks to many of the same issues at play here in Donald's "War on E.D. Kain". Here's the link again, in case you're interested...)

American Power: Paleocons/Postmoderns Bash Democracy Promotion, Neocons:

What does Patrick Buchanan have in common with Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Larison, E.D. Kain, and James Poulos? Perhaps a burning hatred of the "evil" neocons?

No, I don't think that's it, particularly since not a one of them used the term "evil" or "hate" (or any word synonymous or even related) in discussing neoconservatism in the articles to which Donald links... (For my money, this is what Conor Friedersdorf meant when he suggested that Donald was prone to fits of paranoia...) True, none of them are fans of the neocon vision, and of course, Donald disagrees with all of them, but perhaps that says more about him than it does about them, particularly since it is him, rather than them, turning that political disagreement into accusations of "hatred" and "evilness."

Contrary to Donald's sly assertion, it isn't that they agree or disagree with one another to any great degree, but that Donald Douglas vehemently disagrees with all of them, that sets him off with these accusations of hatred and calling individuals and groups of folks evil. The secret is, his posts are really about him, and not the people he attacks.

American Power: Steers, Queers, and Ordinary Gentlemen

Sometimes E.D. Kain reveals just a bit too much about himself. Here he is attempting to take down Robert Stacy McCain for alleged homophobism and sexism, and he ends up looking like a grotesque caricature of the most peurile practitioner of political correctness. At least his post is appropriately titled, "The Things People Say on the Internet" (emphasis added):

-- Here’s the frustrating thing to me about McCain. He can be a funny guy, with a good sense of humor. He’s obviously a talented writer. It’s just that he says such damn stupid things sometimes, and does it mainly because he’s ... an attention whore. His dissection of gay culture (and its apparently misogynistic nature) is absurd. I don’t know, but pretty much every gay guy I’ve met has had a veritable harem of girl friends. A lot of girls I know really like hanging out with gay men because it avoids that Harry Met Sally rule that all male/female relationships are inevitably about sex. And I have yet to meet one single gay man who is as misogynistic as many of the straight men I’ve known.

Then again, I’d give people overall the benefit of the doubt here – most men, gay or straight, that I know are not women haters. It is certainly not a defining feature. In fact, none of the gross generalizations Stacy evokes in his post are definitive in any way. That’s the funny thing about people – gay or straight, they’re each unique with a plethora of personal issues that compose their psychology. That’s the problem with psychology in general, but especially this hackish voodoo psychology that Stacy’s pushing.--

I think E.D. needs to spend a little time with Lou Gossett, Jr Not to mention Ernest Hemingway. (Just to toughen him up a bit. No insinuations here. Besides, E.D.'s got nothing onJames B. Webb - NTTAWWT!!).

Related E.D. Kain posts, "Neoclassicons," and "Liberaltarianism and Intellectual Dishonesty."

Ah, yes... The "fag" jokes... In Donald Douglas' tiny little world, gay folks are not "real" men like him & all of his real manly man friends, so insinuating a man is gay or in any way feminine--or going all in and actually calling him one, as Donald does further on--is considered an insult.

Bravo, Donald... you fucking bigot.

And Donald... I'm pretty sure that if you were to ask Louis Gossett, Jr., he'd say you were a bigot, too. (Couldn't vouch for Hemingway, either way...)

Free clue: It was a movie, Don. This is real life. Think about the difference, and learn to treat people better.

End of part 1 (Look for more, whenever I get around to it...)

X-Post: Donald Douglas blames it on (E.D.) Kain

American Nihilist X-post

American Power: "Blame it on Cain ... Don't Blame it on Me..."

"Cause we need somebody to burn..." "...and it just seems to be his turn."

Yeah, that about sums it up, Donald. If you weren't playing the "firestarter", how would you fill the pages of your ad hom attack blog?

"Once I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused..."

Thursday, December 17, 2009

X-Post: Donald Douglas' Wingnut Echo Chamber

American Nihilist X-post

And of course, Donald's friends & fellow travelers get into the act...

Donald references this submission by Michael van der Galien, which as you can see, is a cut and paste of part of Donald's post here, with a different title on it.

Of course, when I tried to point that out at newsreal (where Galien cut'n'pasted Donald's post) at about 4 this morning (Eastern), saying
"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." - From Immoderate Monk: Donald Douglas' Wingnut Echo Chamber

I discovered that it was yet another moderated blog, and my submission has yet to appear (12 hours later).


Wednesday, December 16, 2009

X-Post: Donald Douglas stamps his feet in a(nother) petulant frenzy

American Nihilist x-post

And she slammed the door
(The door!)
In a petulant frenzy!
(A petulant frenzy!
This is a petulant frenzy!
I'm petulant, and I'm having a frenzy!!) - FZ

In his post American Power: E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!, americanneocon blogger Donald Douglas once again loses his shit and whines because a blogger he's been attacking struck back by alerting the department head at the community college where Donald teaches (Long Beach City College, in Long Beach, CA) to allege defamation.

I'm not going to go through Professor Douglas' whole paranoid, angry, whiney rant -- or for that matter to justify what the blogger (E.D. Kain @ The League of Ordinary Gentlemen) apparently did--I don't know that I would've done the same, but then, I don't know all the details, either -- but I did want to note that Donald once again accused me of an attack I never made.

Near the conclusion of his piece, Don says :

"So, pardon me if my language is a little off color, dear readers. E.D. Kain's not the first, though. I've been previously threatened with workplace intimidation by (O)CT(O)PUS and Repsac3 (see "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."
Of course, if you follow the link (or any of the links that "defamation" post contains, including the discussion of it over at American Power, itself), you'll notice that I never posted any of the information Donald alleges I did, or encouraged anyone to do anything with the info that Octo posted, either. As I said at the time (& as I say every time he drags out this "poor me" victim card) Donald Douglas is clearly lying. I have repeatedly challenged Donald to produce any quote of my posting info about him personally that he himself had not posted previously, or to show one instance of my encouraging folks to contact anyone as regards him or his blogging, and he has failed to do so every time. The challenge still stands, though I predict that he will not do so this time, either. When it comes down to it, Donald Douglas is nothing more than a fairly large and smelly wind, offering the promise of substance, but dissipating in the air rather than producing a thing. Yes, dear readers, Donald Douglas' charges often resemble a fart in the breeze.

It wouldn't be a big deal -- I expect nothing less of Donald -- but his reasoning -- some kinda distributive theory that says whatever one author at a group blog writes, all authors at that blog are responsible for -- is part & parcel of his demonization of everyone with whom he disagrees. We're ALL nihilists, whatever our individual sin against the great Donald Douglas, and the peculiar "truths" for which he stands. E.D. Kain & I might as well be the same person, according to Donald. We each disagree with him, and thus we each are bad, bad men. Those who most often comment at his blog tend to be of this same mindset, so it's all one big circle-jerk of "me good, everyone else bad." over there.

As a most interesting postscript to this whole situation, check out the manly macho bravado with which our hero beats his hairy chest in the post (for the benefit of those who don't choose to read through it, a quick sampling:
"Intimidation and threats mean nothing. They won't silence me. They only prove the juvenile cowardice of the claimant." 

"Hey, if it's a little in-your-face, and vulgar even, MAN UP BIG BOY!! Turn off your Ladies' Hallmark Christmas movies and GET IN THE ARENA!!"

"a spineless prick whose last inclination is to stand up like a man and TAKE SOME FREAKING RESPONSIBILITY!!"

"perhaps E.D. Kain can verify for us whether this discussion is accurate. WOULDN'T WANT TO SLANDER ANYONE, YOU KNOW!! That's right, perhaps another writer at NeoConstant showed such concern for the Oprah Winfrey demographic!"

"Forgive my language, but I'm calling bulls**t!! The last thing E.D. wants is true intellectualism, because to do so he'd actually have to subject his ideas to criticism. And to this day, after a number of essays written here, E.D.'s not once taken up the challenge. And why? Arrogance and secrecy, remember. The big "pomo" hotshot now at True/Slant just can't deign to tarry with the old bloggers he so eagerly published at NeoConstant! Moreover, besides the risk of getting his butt kicked in open debate, such engagement would compromise E.D.'s previously smooth but clandestine repudiation of his former neocon roots."

So when you go to comment on Donald's post to challenge him, what do you suppose you find?

"Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."

Yep, that's some real manly bravery right there, Don. Wouldn't want anyone to kick your ass in open debate on your own blog, thereby compromising your reputation as a "big time" assho thinker... 

Perhaps a blogger who hails from Don's side of the fence--which in no way suggests he's not one of Donald's many enemies or "nihilists," obviously--said it best. In discussing this very topic, Walker Morrow says:

"Donald Douglas needs to totally f*ck off right now. He reads like he's got a bad case of sour grapes because of NeoConstant's sudden closure - either that, or he just can't stand a little criticism. Either way, he needs to back off." 

We hear ya, Walker...

UPDATE: E.D. Kain responds, via comment @ Donald's (still moderated) post. The relevant portion appears below:
There is simply no reason why we can't disagree and still be amicable. Sure, politics is all about battling it out, but it certainly doesn't have to be personal. Like I said, I've never once called you out by name. I've never once dragged your name through the dirt. I may have had harsh words for neoconservatism, but that's just a political ideology. That's not you.
Unfortunately for Mr Kain, that is not the way of Donald Douglas. Donald believes he embodies neoconservatism, and thus an attack on it is indeed an attack on him. Political enemies are personal enemies, and any sign of weakness -- like, say, admitting one was wrong about anything they said or did -- is just blood in the water.

While Donald allowed the comment to appear, he has not yet responded publicly. Will he make nice behind the scenes, but say nothing about it on his blog, or will he return with another attack? It'd be unlikely for him to accept the apology & move on after all he's said about E.D. Kain -- and even if he did, it wouldn't be long before his next personal, ad hom laden attack, anyway -- but I guess it's possible. His feud with Cassandra at Villianous Company ended sweetly, with each playing the "no enemies on the right" game, but I doubt that ol' Don could get away with doing the same here, given all he's already said.

We shall see...

UPDATE 2: Donald is so damned predictable... Attack, it is... American Power: E.D. Kain Contacts Department Again: Intimidation Campaign Escalates; Fake 'Apology' Seals Moral Indictment Against True/Slant Blogger! 

Donald's feelings are obviously hurt, and he's bellowing demands again, the same way he did when James Webb @ Brain Rage kicked his ass during the "photoshop saga." "I want an apology to me posted on his site, and a statue to my neo-conservative macho brilliance erected in the center of his hometown, and..." Blah, blah, blah... Same old shit. 

E.D. Kain can do whatever he likes, of course, but Donald's behavior is set in stone. Give him what he wants, and he'll just demand more... And until Donald's "enemies" are all preaching from his partisan holy book (or at the very least, not preaching at all, anymore), he's going to keep bitching & moaning regardless of how you treat him... Might as well stay true to your values and let Donald Douglas make his own bed. I've no doubt he'll create a situation where he gets everything he deserves, eventually... You get back what you send out, and karma is a bitch.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

X-Post: Donald Douglas: "I'm no birther... (I just post like one.)

American Nihilist X-post

In his post Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing, Dr Douglas posts the following ad, which apparently appeared in the Washington Times (Moonie, rather than Murdoch, this time) on 11/30/09:

Obama's Lack of Constitutional Eligibility-The 3 Enablers-20091130 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly-pg 9

Of course, Donald immediately backpedals, saying "I'm no "birther," but on this, Andrew McCarthy speaks for me, "Suborned in the U.S.A.: The Birth-Certificate Controversy is About Obama’s Honesty, Not Where He Was Born."
(Read it for yourself. To me it comes down to saying "I'm not a birther, but I believe Obama's lying about just about everything, so I want to see that birth certificate, anyway..." Donald is not a birther. He just approvingly posts their ads on his blog, demands to see the REAL birth certificate, and otherwise behaves JUST LIKE A BIRTHER. Denialism, thy name is Douglas.)

And of course, since there's monkeys involved, Donald has to deny being a bigot, as well.

"There's nothing racist about this advertisement, but to the radical left, that's raaacist!!!"

As one of his commenters (honorary nihilist James Webb) rightly pointed out at Don's post, "Halfrican American" Donald Douglas (that's not racist, right? I mean, Con Chairman Rush used it, and very few of his dittoheads or hive-minded sicko-phants complained) went apeshit (no pun intended) and squealed like a slimy stuck polecat (not racist either, even if a polecat's fur is black & white) when James posted a photoshopped pic of Don getting his ass kicked by a damned dirty ape--he whined at the time that James was calling HIM an ape: American Power: Blacks as Monkeys? Even When Leftists Hit Bottom, They Keep Digging (Yep, it's only racist (raaacist!!!) when Donald says it is), which as you can see, makes no sense whatsoever. Victimhood. It's not just for whiney half-term governors, anymore. (James' reply to Donald's charge of racism (raaacism!!!) back then appears here.) And the good Ph.D. is still making that claim: "Donald Douglas said... "No JBW, you inferred I was a monkey, this ad does not ...". Sorry, Don. At best, James implied you were a monkey--except of course, that he didn't. The "monkey" (ape) in the photo was the other character, not you. If anyone inferred you were a monkey at all, it was you, yourself. (imply/infer) I'll leave it to your wingnut psychiatrist, Doc Sanity, to diagnose you over the innernets & tell you what that says about your mental state, but like many who'll read this, I have my own suspicions.

That said, I agree with Dr. Douglas; there's nothing racist (or raaacist!!!) about that advertisement. There was nothing racist (or raaacist!!!) about the famous NY Post (Murdoch, not Moonie) cartoon, either. Both of 'em--& perhaps Don begging for mercy from Gen. Thade, too--might be a little racially insensitive, though...

Like it or don't, there's a difference between using words or pictures of primates in media discussing white folks vs black folks. If you're going to discuss whether a person's cheap, (or has a big nose), you might want to be aware of whether or not s/he's jewish, first. Writing about "the mob near the buffet table" implies different things about an italian wedding than it does about an irish one, even when the implications aren't intended.

It doesn't make one a bigot or a racist (raaacist!!!) to use monkeys in ads or commentary about particular black folks, or to suggest a particular jewish person is frugal, especially if you have examples of the person acting frugally, but it's also foolish to pretend there's no possibility that other's may see your comments as being racially/religiously insensitive, and that perhaps you ought to rethink your phrasing or illustrations.

Donald knows all this (when it's convenient for him to know all this, anyway), but pretends otherwise in an effort to everlastingly paint all on the left as RAAADICALS!!!! (And for Dr Douglas, little things like facts and honesty take a back seat to the ability to scream "raaadical!!!" (or "niiihilist!!!") at everyone & everything with which he disagrees.)

Monday, November 23, 2009

X-Post: Climate Conspiracy Trutherism

American Nihilist X-post

It's just what the world needs... Climate Truthers (More here.)

I accept that global climate change is a theory, and that there are scientists who believe it either isn't happening, or that it is, but that the actions of human beings play little to no part in creating it, and can play little to no part in slowing or stopping it. I think it's important to pay attention to the political/social/economic backgrounds of those who speak passionately for or against the theory of climate change, and weigh their words accordingly.

However, the idea that a whole bunch of scientists are getting together and conspiring to fake data and lie to the public in the name of propagating a particular theory as to whether & why the climate throughout the world changes--and that the proof of this is to be found in e-mail "confessions"--strikes me as being right up there with the folks who cannot accept that the Towers fell because of damage sustained by the planes, Oswald acted alone, Obama was born in Hawaii, and Lennon/McCartney really did write all those hit songs themselves.

Of course, I'm sure that that's all just what they want me to think...

The truth is out there, nutbags... The truth is out there...

(As you read these guys, just ask yourself the great conspiracy theorist question: "Who benefits?")

Sunday, November 15, 2009

X-Post: "But it's obviously terrorism!! Hasan is a MUSLIM!!!: Wingnut bigotry

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

(Disclaimer: I started working on this a few days ago, but got "distracted" by my wife being admitted into the hospital with breathing problems. My mind just hasn't been on it, since... But I figured I'd post what I had, before it got too stale. Maybe after things get back to normal 'round here, I'll whip up a new post containing the rest of this one, as I envisioned it. - repsac3, 11/14/09)

A meme is emerging among many on the Con right, that the extreme left (comprising everyone except them, natch) refuse to accept any possibility that the Ft. Hood shooting could have anything to do with his being a radical Muslim, and deny all facts to the contrary. Many blame the political correctness of everyone in our society --except themselves, who're "brave" enough to call Muslim's what they are; ticking terrorist timebombs, waiting to go off-- for allowing Hasan to commit these murders.

Of course, it's 99% bullshit, fueled mostly by partisanship (I hope), and in a few cases (though more than I'd like to believe exists), bigotry.

The meme goes like this:

"So far, so good. Let’s see if the self-deluded liberal scribes intent on ignoring the obvious have the nerve then to lump Robinson in with the “bigots” in the right blogosphere who’ve been saying this for a few days now." - Commentary - It’s Good for Diversity! - JENNIFER RUBIN - 11.10.2009 - 8:23 AM

"The tide of pronouncements and ruminations pointing to every cause for this event other than the one obvious to everyone in the rational world continues apace. Commentators, reporters, psychologists and, indeed, army spokesmen continue to warn portentously, "We don't yet know the motive for the shootings."

What a puzzle this piece of vacuity must be to audiences hearing it, some, no doubt, with outrage. To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments."
- Dorothy Rabinowitz: Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer - - NOVEMBER 9, 2009, 11:36 P.M. ET

"A consensus seems to have formed here at The Atlantic that the Ft. Hood massacre means not very much at all. >>SNIP<<

It seems, though, that when an American military officer who is a practicing Muslim allegedly shoots forty of his fellow soldiers who are about to deploy to the two wars the United States is currently fighting in Muslim countries, some broader meaning might, over time, be discerned, especially if the officer did, in fact, yell "Allahu Akbar" while murdering his fellow soldiers, as some soldiers say he did."
- The - When Muslims Commit Violence - Jeffrey Goldberg - 08 Nov 2009 09:37 am

And that's to say nothing of the myriad of lower level Con bloggers echoing posts like these.

The thing is, many of these kinda posts are reacting yesterday or today to posts cautioning folks not to jump to conclusions on Thursday or Friday, when most of the information about Hasan --aside that he was a Muslim--was not yet known. In some cases, the con bloggers trying to smear those bloggers, politicians, and media heads who urged caution are the same ones who saw his name & posted JIHAD!!! on Thursday afternoon or evening.

American Power: Twelve Killed in Fort Hood Shootings‎: President Obama, "A Horrific Outburst of Violence" - UPDATED!! Muslim Jihad in America!

MUSLIM TERROR ATTACK:'TWELVE shot dead' 12 30 Wounded, Mass Shooting at Fort Hood, US Army Base - Atlas Shrugs

American Power: Jihadist Attack at Fort Hood! - Nidal Malik Hasan Said 'Muslims Should Rise Up' - U.S. Islamists, Leftists in Damage Control! (Notice that Donald Douglas was already starting to attack anyone who dared say it might not be terrorism, by this point. He saw the guy's muslim-sounding name. He knew.)

The fact that further information released in the days since has bolstered the likelihood that Hasan's understanding of his faith did play a large role in the motivation for the killings --I refuse to play the terrorism/war crime game so many are playing. To me it was likely all of the above, and a tragedy, too. --in no way justifies bigots like Dr. Douglas & Pamela Geller who saw his name on Thursday and immediately "knew" what happened. Don't let people like this justify what they essentially said about all muslims because further information has bolstered their initial, uninformed bigotry about this one muslim.

The same people that are pissed off that General Casey was concerned about a backlash against American muslims serving honorably in the military, and claim there has been no backlash, are often the ones who support screening all muslims for extremist views (FoxNews), or tossing them out of the military altogether (Bryan Fischer - American Family Association). They fail to see that they ARE the backlash. While I’m relatively certain that the sentiments of people like Donald Douglas, Pamela Geller, that ass Brian Kilmede on FoxNews, and Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association do not represent the thinking of most Americans--or even most conservatives (indeed, there is a rebuttal & repudiation of Fisher’s bigotry linked right there on the AFA website:Fairness for All, Including Muslims)—the ideas they express about muslims and about America are harmful to the ideals for which this country stands.

(That's as far as I got... But here are more of the links I was lookin' at for possible inclusion in this post --most of 'em are the BAD examples to which I'd find--or write--the rebuttals later. If nothin' else, it'll give you an idea of where I was going with this.)
Ft. Hood Victim's Family Speaks Out Against Anti-Muslim Sentiment (VIDEO)
memeorandum: Army Chief Concerned for Muslim Troops (Joseph Berger/New York Times)
memeorandum: When Muslims Commit Violence (Jeffrey Goldberg)

memeorandum: Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage (New York Times)
Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage -
American Power: Nidal Malik Hasan Gave Signals Before His Rampage

“That’s not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?”
Gateway Pundit
MUSLIMS IN AMERICA ‘cheering’ Fort Hood Massacre - Bare Naked Islam's Weblog
“Acted Alone”?: Hasan Attack Was 3rd Planned Islamic Domestic Attack on U.S. Military Tied to Yemen; Fort Dix 6 & Hasan’s Imam

Dorothy Rabinowitz: Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer -

Commentary - Blog Archive - It’s Good for Diversity!

Sunday, November 08, 2009

X-Post: The Stupak "Coathanger Amendment" Democrats

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 884
Baca, Barrow, Berry, Bishop (GA), Boccieri, Boren, Bright
Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Childers, Cooper, Costa, Costello, Cuellar
Dahlkemper, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Donnelly (IN), Doyle, Driehaus
Ellsworth, Etheridge
Gordon (TN), Griffith,
Hill, Holden,
Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kildee,
Langevin, Lipinski, Lynch,
Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Michaud, Mollohan, Murtha,
Neal (MA),
Oberstar, Obey, Ortiz,
Perriello, Peterson, Pomeroy,
Rahall, Reyes, Rodriguez, Ross, Ryan (OH),
Salazar, Shuler, Skelton, Snyder, Space, Spratt, Stupak,
Tanner, Taylor, Teague,
Wilson (OH)

There you have 'em... Your coathanger amendment Democrats for 2009. I look forward to donating to as many of their pro-choice Democratic (or Green, or Libertarian, or...) challengers as possible, when these folks next come up for reelection.

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

Saturday, November 07, 2009

In Reply: Some Muslims are Terrorists; Some Aren't. Some Muslims are Murderers; Some Aren't. Some Murder is Terrorism; Some isn't.

In reply to this post, and the following comment in particular:
Donald Douglas said...
Sorry, Dana, but gotta disagree:

"On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period."

From Ralph Peters.


With all respect due Ralph Peters, investigators are still determining whether the guy was an extremist, how much planning there was, and whether or not his actions had anything to do with protesting our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics. Once those facts actually are determined--and as I said, I expect they will be--it won't be jumping to conclusions to say so.

Those who said so late Thursday or early Friday, however, based primarily on his name & religious affiliation, jumped to conclusions without benefit of this later information, making folks wonder whether they were & are just bigots. (Same goes for those bigoted asses on FoxNews who floated the idea of screening American Muslims before allowing them to serve in the military. I'm all for screening out violent or objectively anti-American statements and behaviors --and perhaps if the military had, this wouldn't've happened, given all the flags Hasan seemed to've raised--but I can't support screening soldiers or anyone else based on religious affiliation, alone. In addition to islamist radicals like Hasan more'n'likely is, there are reports of far right radicals, unrepentant gang members, wife/child abusers, folks with bad psychological profiles... I doubt there's many of any of these types in the service, but as Hasan shows, sometimes it only takes one... I'm all for trying harder to weed any/as many of 'em out as possible...)

Posted November 7, 2009 5:40 PM AmPow blog time

Blog Link:
American Power: Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? More Deadly Political Correctness on Fort Hood Massacre

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)