Monday, June 29, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 6/28/09


Check out my posts and comments for yourself, and feel free to challenge me on whatever "depravity" or whatnot you find. As others here & elsewhere have already noted, I'm not the person Don paints me as...:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

I. will. not. take. it. down.:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

A Homo, Pink Shirt, Bible Burning, Commie, Gay Lovin', Tea Drinkin', Race Respectin', Colorful [or Colorless], Woman/Man/Tranny, Multi-Culti -- seemingly named "God man," ironically enough -- earns an AmNi invite.:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

I bet Lipless McCain's hit stat dick is way bigger'n Don's. I wonder if he feels all inadequate in the con locker room, and showers alone, so no one sees...:
Brain Rage: American Power And The Descent Into Madness

Sunday, June 28, 2009

X-post: Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Luthor - World-O-Crap

American Nihilist X-post

"It seems like the staffs of WND, RenewAmerica, American Thinker, American Renaissance, The American Vision, American Power and other like-minded asylums woke up on November 5th and decided that instead of enduring a black man in the White House, they’d go rather live in a comic book universe where Lex Luthor is the President. After all, losing to Luthor, that doesn’t make you a loser, because he’s a supervillain. What’re you supposed to do against an evil genius who has usurped the power of the United States government? Just blog like the dickens, I guess. On the bright side, once you do defeat Super-Villain President, you have lots of good options for relocating the Gitmo detainees — the prison planet of Ysmault, the Anti-Matter Universe of Qward, or the Phantom Zone."

Read the rest: World-O-Crap - Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Luthor

Roundup and Commentary - 6/27/09

Blog Post:

American Nihilist: Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Luthor - World-O-Crap


A college professor with a Ph.D., and this is the level of discourse you're choosing?:
American Power: Comrade Repsac3: Commissar of State Security, People's Commissariat for Internet Affairs

It's not the pictures, Dr. Don, it's the words...:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

Who's that ugly baby, DonKDouglas?:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

In which Dr. Douglas engages in some serious verbal acrobatics, and some guy named Smitty quotes himself some Alinsky and misapplies the first amendment, as have so many on the right before him.:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

I have no issue holding Donald to the standards he sets for others. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Don feels the same, and has no issue holding me to the standards *I* set for others. If that's somehow a bad thing in your book--because some guy named Alinsky also suggested holding folks to the their own rules and standards, albeit via different means, and for different motives--I can do nothing to help that.:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail!

Saturday, June 27, 2009

X-post: Touchy, meet touché.

American Nihilist X-post

I won't steal any of it, or even make further comment in the post.

I'll just point to Dr. Douglas' rambling attack: American Power: James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays, and James Webb's blistering reply: Brain Rage: I Don't Think Donald Douglas Likes Me...


UPDATE, 4:00 pm (AmNi blog time): Jesus Sheeples, You've got to be fucking kidding...

American Power: James "Barebacker" Webb
Saberpoint: Jimmy B. Webb: What's a Libertarian-Socialist?

I weep for the future, should these people ever regain control of anything stronger than a TV remote.

Roundup and Commentary - 6/26/09

Blog Post:

American Nihilist: Touchy, meet touché.


As others have said, between Michael Jackson & Farrah--& the way I remember it, every girl (and a few of the guys) in jr high had that hair style, or somethin' like it--it was a bad day for 70's icons, and for my youth...:
American Power: Michael Jackson Dead at 50

Wow. Just wow.:
American Power: James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays

I doubt Dr. Douglas will ever really understand how unintentionally funny he is to many of those who read his words.:
Brain Rage: I Don't Think Donald Douglas Likes Me... ("Touchy, meet touché." Snark done right.)

Jesus Sheeples, Don... Give it a rest!!:
Brain Rage: I Don't Think Donald Douglas Likes Me...

Pointy loses sight of the ball in the cigar smoke.:
Saberpoint: Jimmy B. Webb: What's a Libertarian-Socialist?

Is Dr. Donald Douglas really a "Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible-Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea-Bagging Racist, White Guy Bigot"? Only his hairdresser knows for sure:
American Power: James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays

A college professor--with a Ph.D, no less--wrote those posts.:
Saberpoint: Jimmy B. Webb: What's a Libertarian-Socialist?

Friday, June 26, 2009

X-post: Sarah, Trig, and Eddie, the HRSBTNGBTBRWGB H8R

American Nihilist X-post

I don't want to tell and the wingnut echo chamber (Yeah, that last one is, predictably, a PUMA site) what to do or nothin', but wingnut ladies and gents, the last thing your 2012 candidate needs is yet another manufactured outrage to make her look like she's everlastingly playing the "poor me" card. It's hard enough just being a female candidate playing in a male dominated world, without you folks making her look weak by throwing these serial pity parties for her. And besides, Sarah Palin is so bad on the merits, that these dirty tricks and personal attacks you folks are endlessly alleging on her behalf really are unnecessary.

Photo & further info, courtesy of The Mudflats - Anchorage Assembly on Ordinance 64. Round IV - Pictures

UPDATE: In a most excellent post, JBW of Brain Rage expounds on this further, including the photos in question. (Rather than stealing the whole post, I only swiped the photo. Nevertheless, I strongly urge you to check out his post, which is frankly, better than mine. {Damned non-nihilist nihilist!}):

The only way this could be worse would be if Sarah Palin's office took the bait and... ...oh... nevermind... Statement on the desecration of photo of Governor Palin and baby Trig

Yeah... When Sarah gets involved, it shows where her priorities are... and where they aren't. (Doesn't the Governor have any actual work to do?)

Roundup and Commentary - 6/25/09

Blog Posts:

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

American Nihilist: Sarah, Trig, and Eddie, the HRSBTNGBTBRWGB H8R


There was a whole lot less manufactured outrage (in fact, none that I can find) when it was LettermanTrig...:
American Power: Democratic Values! Left-Wing Alaska Operative "Ghoulshops' Trig Palin!
This photoshop no more represents "Democratic Values!" than the photoshop & joke on Chris' site represents "Republican Values!" It's just a few idiots with overly partisan feelings, a nasty streak, and too much time on their hands...:
American Power: Democratic Values! Left-Wing Alaska Operative "Ghoulshops" Trig Palin!

I don't have time to decide... I'm clicking boxes, man...:
Is This Post About Fractals or Procrastination? - Ideas Special Report

The Palin Faux Outrage of the Weak:
Immoderate Monk (If I'm not mistaken, Sister Toldjah is the first blog since I started cross-posting moderated comments to Immoderate Monk, to not approve my comment. There's cowards, and then there's COWARDS, I guess...)

I'm not nearly as sure as you that one's body should take precedence over one's mind in these situations, or that one must present visible physical anomalies to have legitimate issues--and since there is seemingly reliable medical opinions supporting either "matching the mind to the body" via therapy, and "matching the body to the mind", via surgery (in adulthood) theories, I think it should be up to the parents and the kids to decide, without much input from outside observers with political axes to grind--but I appreciate that you read the piece & got back to me, anyway...:
American Power: Protecting the Transgendered, Normalizing Deviancy? (Damn... That's one serious run-on sentence...)

The Right's Misogynistic Hatred?
Misogyny... Only disgusting to some, when it's scatological, I guess...:
American Power: Palin Hits Back at"Malicious" Photoshop of Son Trig

Thursday, June 25, 2009

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

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

(The whole article is damned good and well worth reading, but I'm only reposting the "here's what you can do" paragraphs (the meat) below. I'm also leaving my twitter avatar green because, while it's usefulness pales in comparison to the suggestions in the post, I do think that little green tag makes a psychological difference. YMMV...)
So instead of empty gestures and hashtags, why don't we actually engage in some activism and help, instead of whispering about this like some kind of neighborhood scandal that will never catch up to us because it's an ocean away?

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

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

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

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

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

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

h/t Twitter / @DivadNhoj1981

Roundup and Commentary - 6/24/09

Blog Posts:

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Maybe Something About Foreign Policy, Too...

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Wingnut Scum Blames America for Violence in Iran

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


The prevailing opinion isn't that our beloved US was or is at fault, but that US intervention of the type most often advocated by American neocons hasn't been a rousing success thus far.:
Neo Conservatives Are Dead Wrong - John Parisella -

Moral depravity is in the eye of the beholder. Some think it depraved to believe that government should be able to force women to birth and raise children against their will.:
DISSENTING JUSTICE: Nixon on Abortion: Might Be "Necessary" With a "Black and a White. . .Or a Rape"

More of my famous "wild transgendered relativism":
American Power: Protecting the Transgendered, Normalizing Deviancy?

I'm not blown away by it, but I do think it's Mike Judge's best work, and I will watch it until it's demise... unless I need to go protest against injustice and imperialism somewhere that night, or something.:
Articles: Comment on Is Mike Judge's The Goode Family - Proof that Liberal America Can't Laugh at Itself?

He's eating lunch for your protection:
Neo Conservatives Are Dead Wrong - John Parisella -

second Macleans comment (getting 404 message, as of 6/23)

Why "None Of The Above" will probably never appear on the ballot:
American Power: Nixon Would Have Aborted Me!

What makes you you; what you look like on the outside, or who you know/believe you are inside?:
American Power: Protecting the Transgendered, Normalizing Deviancy?

Future Perfect

Internet Ephemera & Stuff Worth a Look:

Junior status: Sharing dad’s name a mixed bag - Men's health-

freedom and neoconservatism | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 6/23/09

The one who loves least controls the relationship. - Think - Dr. Robert Anthony


A response, in three parts:
My 'leaving it to the reader' implies that I trust intelligent people to look at the facts and opinions I present--as well as the facts and opinions of the person I'm having the discussion with--and come to their own conclusions.:
American Nihilist: American Power, and the Art of Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication: The Attack on Conor Friedersdorf
"You don't like me. And that's too bad."
I don't like the way you often treat people with whom you disagree, no.:
American Nihilist: American Power, and the Art of Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication: The Attack on Conor Friedersdorf
I was replying to the way you and some of your ideological cohorts treat people with whom you disagree, not defending any of Conor's particular arguments.:
American Nihilist: American Power, and the Art of Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication: The Attack on Conor Friedersdorf

When I look at the people suggesting one kind of response over the other, it seems like it's mostly politicians and partisans who want more "fire and brimstone," and mostly diplomats and experts who think Obama's done the right thing up to now.:
American Power: McCain on Iran

In the end, no elected or appointed official forced your parents or his to abort you or Barack for any reason. Hopefully, there will never come a time when some elected or appointed government official forces any woman to carry a child against her will, either.:
American Power: Nixon Would Have Aborted Me!
I'm sorry... Are you suggesting that Nixon wasn't a racist, but pregnant black women who choose abortion are?:
American Power: Nixon Would Have Aborted Me!

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 6/22/09

What is useful will last; what is hurtful will sink.


"We [liberals] don't fear the government, because we think we are the government.":
Noah Johns...Are you in the"Noah"?: Why liberals think the way they do (and why they are wrong)

Liberals say the Iranian people should have listened to the government warnings? Really?:
American Power: Neda is Martyr to Iranian Revolt!

"I neither think America or any American deserves credit for starting this revolution (directly or indirectly), nor do I think America or any American will deserve credit or blame for how it ends, be they successful or unsuccessful. This is about Iran and the Iranian people, not about us.":
American Power: Rock-Throwing Protesters Put Iranian Police on the Run!

Monday, June 22, 2009

X-post: American Power, and the Art of Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication:The Attack on Conor Friedersdorf

Let me state at the outset that I really have little to no idea who Conor Friedersdorf is, having read very little that he's written up to now (though from the context of Donald's hit pieces, and the tiny bit of googling and reading elsewhere I did this morning, it appears that Conor is one of those conservatives that chose the red pill, and thus can see those aspects of the right wing matrix that are the most harmful to the conservative cause. This, of course, makes him the target of every Agent Smith in Right Wingnuttia--including of course, our hero, Donald K. Douglas, Ph.D..)

Thus, it isn't my intention to defend Mr. Friedersdorf on the merits of his arguments--indeed, I don't intend to address them much at all--but instead to discuss professor Douglas' tactics in this fight; the same ones he uses in any fight, with any perceived enemy. My text is Donald's most recent screed, American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication, one of four posts since Wednesday--and the last of three in a row (almost... there was one about Obama & Iran, sandwiched in)--attacking Mr. Friedersdorf. (And check those titles... In addition to the one I'm writing about, we have "American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist, and American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Hammered on Multiple Fronts, Threatens Dan Riehl -- No... he didn't.)

Unless I see some serious engagement on some of the points I've raised, this should be may last post in the current debate over Conor Friedersdorf. I will keep my eye open for some of the more egregious claims Mr. Friederdorf is wont to make in his future blogging; but there will be no further iterations in the current controversy in the absence of new information or responses.

Four posts generally is more than enough, Dr. Douglas... ...especially when your target has not responded in kind, but has instead tried to discuss your specific concerns in the comment sections of your previous three posts, to no avail. [here, here, here, and here.] And, while there may be some egregious claims somewhere, the ones that Donald highlights are based on his interpretation of what Conor said, rather than what Conor actually said. (It's all "It's obvious what he means is..." when professor Douglas' interpretation is not obvious at all, and in some cases, requires a pretty good twisting and willful misunderstanding to make such a meaning even plausible.)
Mostly, it's simply not worth my time.

Funny... That's what I said to Conor, about Donald and his clan.
Why engage if folks are too lazy or too self-absorbed to even attempt a rebuttal to the points I've raised? There's some current roiling on the right, and this is good, but some of those engaged in it are not acting in good faith, and that really defeats the purpose of it all.

Funny... That's what Conor said about Donald.

Frankly, I'm not particularly invested in Mr. Friedersdorf. He's not a class intellect, and his writing is both arrogant and pedantic.

Methinks you doth protest too much... The number and nature of the posts Dr. Douglas has written about the man speaks to his investment in Mr. Friedersdorf far more clearly than do his words of denial...
I'm interested in ideas. As I've noted, Mr. Friedersdorf has made some generally off-the-wall arguments on some key public policy issues. He's also embarked on a personal jihad against Mark Levin, who is currently the #1 bestselling conservative author in the country. That kind of personalization of political difference is itself worthy of rebuttal. And as a number of my good friends have joined the exchange, I thought I might behoove myself to throw them some support.

Given the number of posts Dr Douglas has devoted to "taking down" Andrew Sullivan, I'm not sure he should be suggesting anyone else is on a personal jihad against a political foe. (In fact, it appears that Friedersdorf only did two Levin posts, meaning Donald is already on more of a personal jihad than the person he's accusing...) Add to that the bandwagon mentality to which the professor freely admits, and a different picture starts to emerge. (Classy how Donald's "good friend," Dan "real man" Riehl, takes Conor down by calling him a girl. The macho man's fear of being feminized--implying that the female sex is weaker, and less worthy of serious consideration & respect, I guess--strikes again.)

I've responded to Mr. Friedersdorf with a number of detailed posts (here, here, here, and here.

(For the record, those posts--in order--are 1) "Is Waterboarding Worse Than Abortion?," a post from June 3rd in which Donald argues that Conor was suggesting that abortion clinic bombers should be waterboarded--something that is not at all apparent by the actual text (first mention in this post); 2) "Neoclassicons" from June 17th (I linked to one of Conor's comments from this post, above); and then 3) June 18th's "Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist"; and 4) June 19th's "Conor Friedersdorf: Hammered on Multiple Fronts, Threatens Dan Riehl" posts, both of which I linked to above.) As to whether one believes these posts are detailed and substantive, ad hominem-laden smearfests, or some mix of both, I leave for each reader to decide.
Mr. Friedersdorf's silence in engaging them goes beyond disrespect.

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?)

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.

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?) Donald's superior intellect 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.

Readers can check Mr. Friederdorf's comments to the links above. Let me first note the most recent for some flavor:
Conor: Look man, if you want me to address your arguments, just state one clearly enough for me to respond!

This response fits with any of the tactics I mentioned above, although I'd add the noun "dishonest" as well. Readers might check my search of "Conor Friedersdorf" posts. All the argument I've made are "clear" and compelling. That Mr. Friedersdorf chooses not to engage them simply confirms his penchant toward avoidance and more.

One only has to backtrack from the comment link Donald offers to see exactly what piece of Donald's writing Mr. Friedersdorf was replying to in that comment. It was the second time in that thread that Mr. Friedersdorf asked Dr. Douglas to offer one, clear concise argument, rather than a laundry list of complaints. Donald refused to comply. (As to whether that exchange provides evidence of anyone engaging in avoidance, obfuscation, prevarication, or dishonesty--and if so, who--I again leave it to the reader to determine.)

I actually wrote on Mr. Friedersdorf's essay attacking "war on terror hawks." As I said at the time, Mr. Friederdorf "equates the actions of one lone wacko with those of an international terrorist network that's responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as well as a number of other terrorist atrocities around the world in recent decades." (From: "Is Waterboarding Worse Than Abortion?")

Here's the thing, professor. Saying a thing--particularly without offering anything in the way of evidentiary support--does not make it so.

Mr. Friederdorf has never responded to this substantive, AND APPARENTLY CLEAR, point.

(Note here that Dr. Douglas makes this claim, and then spends the rest of this paragraph, along with the following three, arguing against the response that Mr. Friedersdorf "never" gave. In fact, Donald even links to one of those responses that seemingly are not there, right there in the statement he makes. Crazy.)

He did retreat to denial, of course.

If Dr Douglas can resort to assertion, I see no reason that My Friedersdorf cannot respond with denial. As I've said to the professor several times, "quod gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur; "what is affirmed free of proof, may be denied free of proof."

But he has not systematically defended his argument that conservatives should treat suspected abortion killers just like captured Islamofascist jihadis - that is, he suggests conservatives should support waterboarding for both. It's not possible to pose a hypothetical like this a priori if the proponent of the scenario doesn't in fact see the two categories of antagonists ("combatants") in equivalent terms.

Not only hasn't Conor defended that argument, he denies even making it (The denial is right there at the "Mr. Friedersdorf has never responded" link, above.). What we have here instead, is Donald's straw man, which he doesn't even have the decency to knock down, himself.

Nowhere in the piece to which Donald is ostensibly replying does Conor make or defend the argument that "conservatives should treat suspected abortion killers just like captured islamofascist jihadis" or suggest that "conservatives should support waterboarding for both" (or in fact, "either").

Instead, Conor asks whether, in the event of an ongoing terrorist campaign run by fringe pro-lifers to shut down abortion clinics, [w]ould these predominantly conservative officials, commentators and writers [who believe the executive branch possesses broad unchecked powers to combat terrorism, including the designation of American citizens as enemy combatants, the indefinite detention of terror suspects, wiretapping phones without warrants, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and other powers initially claimed by the Bush Administration and its defenders] be comfortable if President Obama declared two or three extremist pro-lifers as “enemy combatants”? Should Pres. Obama have the prerogative to order the waterboarding of these uncharged, untried detainees? Should he be able to listen in on phone conversations originating from evangelical churches where suspected abortion extremists hang out?" It isn't about terrorists (domestic or otherwise) at all, but about Presidential power, and what the limits of his power are... ...or should be.

In fact, Mr. Friedersdorf claimed that he "did not equate" the actions of the abortion murder suspect to global terrorist barbarians.

Umm... Are we now talking about Roeder (and if not, who the heck is "the abortion murder suspect"?) and , when (& more importantly, why) did we change from discussing a hypothetical situation where "an ongoing terrorist campaign [is being] run by fringe pro-lifers to shut down abortion clinics," to the very specific legal case of Roeder?
He then demanded that I explain what "leads you to believe otherwise."

Another change. In point of fact, rather than asking Dr. Douglas to "explain" what lead him to believe otherwise, Mr Friedersdorf says, "If you disagree, please excerpt the portion of my post that leads you to believe otherwise." I leave it to the reader to "explain" to themselves why Donald changed the wording of Conor's request, noting how conveniently it allows Donald to continue:

And so I did,"explain, in Donald's words" rather than "excerpt, from Conor's" here. (Keep in mind that professor Douglas is about to explain why he believes Conor is equating actions of the abortion murder suspect to global terrorist barbarians):

At your original post I cited weeks ago, "A Question for War on Terror Hawks," you assert moral equivalencies between a lone U.S. murder suspect and the untold number of violent jihadists within the global terrorist network - including many, of course, who were captured on the battlefield and held as enemy combatants in a real war on terrorism. Your post, as it proposes partisan payback for the robust anti-terror policies of the Bush years, basically endorses an Obama administration policy of declaring domestic anti-abortion terrorists as identical enemy combatants; you also deploy taunting language in saying, "I wonder how 'War on Terror Hawks' would react" if President Obama had the "prerogative to order the waterboarding of the uncharged, untried detainees." The scenario is not simply a hypothetical. It's transparent advocacy in furtherance of ideological retribution. Most of all, your post is dishonest hackery, and your defense of it is peurile idiocy.

Leaving alone the fact that there was nothing in Mr Friedersdorf's actual words that Donald could excerpt to make his case--and thus he changed the request Conor made from "excerpt" to "explain"--how did he do with the explanation? Did Donald provide anything in the way of physical or personal evidence, or did he simply repeat his initial claim, saying that "you assert moral equivalencies between a lone U.S. murder suspect and the untold number of violent jihadists within the global terrorist network," still without showing any physical, personal, or circumstantial evidence. I say the latter.

Also, there was nothing in Mr Friedersdorf's post that "proposes partisan payback for the robust anti-terror policies of the Bush years, [or] basically endorses an Obama administration policy of declaring domestic anti-abortion terrorists as identical enemy combatants." Just as with Donald's previous assertion. there is no citation that Donald can make. To many--myself included--it appears that Conor is arguing against treating domestic terrorists the same as international terrorists, or giving the executive branch unfettered power to mistreat either.* And, since Obama has no such policy, it is impossible for Conor to endorse it. (*This sentence edited to add missing words that were intended to be in the original text, thus improving clarity, @ 8:43 AM, AmNi blog time--about 6 hours after initial posting.)

To this, Mr. Friederdorf DID NOT ALLEGE vagueness on my part. Indeed, he asserted that my argument - offered in good faith at his request - was "a paranoid theory."

Not to be too picky, but Conor's reply, which in full reads: Donald, It's quite a paranoid theory you've developed. But it is unsupported by any evidence. Should you take the time to converse with me like a gentleman, I'll happily engage your substantive arguments, and I think you'll find that your wrongheaded assumptions about me will change. Or you could keep engaging in juvenile ad hominem attacks. But what's the point of that?, and is in reply to an entire post--titled Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist)--rather than just the part the professor excerpted. Conor's reply could well be about any part of that post, or all of it, taken together. At the very least, there is nothing to make one assume that it was only or at all in response the part Donald chose to highlight.
I'm not prone to paranoia, actually, so there's little to make of Mr. Friedersdorf's comment other than a one-off bit of snark. It is a good example, however, of my point above, which is that Mr. Friedersdorf resorts to avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication when confronted with superior argumenation.

Rather than guessing, one might ask Mr. Friedersdorf what he meant by his "paraniod theory" comment, and challenge him to back his words with the same kinda proof he's requesting from Donald... On the other hand, there is nothing so far to suggest that Mr. Friedersdorf was in any way resorting to avoidance, obfuscation, or prevarication. Maybe next time.

And that's actually kind of sad for him. The man clearly hopes to make an intellectual contribution of some sort. But as we see here, he's flummoxed with a case that deploys inferential logic as a matter of straightforward argumentation. It's simply not that complicated, much less unclear. So why no response from Mr. Friedersdorf? He rebuked me for not defending my original post, and then he turns and panics when I stand up to him. Readers can see why I question this man's capabilities.

While Dr. Douglas' take on the matter is interesting, I wonder about a man who so often needs to declare victory over another. Surely if it was so decisive, everyone would see it for themselves. Conor isn't flumoxed by Donald's response to him; if anything, he's flumoxed by Donald's inventive ways of seeing the world, and his refusal to accept Conor's more reasonable explanation of his own words. (Has the professor never heard that the least complex answers are usually the right ones? Why assume that when Conor says "A," he really, secretly means "B"--particularly when he tells you flat out that "A" means "A", and not "B"?) And how can Donald rail on about how wrong Conor's response is, and then deny Conor responded, at all? Readers can see why I question the professor's abilities, too.

But that's not all. I offered a detailed and highly reasoned argument in my essay, "Neoclassicons." Mr. Friedersdorf appears to be among a number of bloggers seeking to claim the mantle of today's "genuine conservatives." As I noted at the post, "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."

Once again, Mr. Friedersdorf refused to respond. He did make some lame, and completely irrelevant, points about how he'd been "defending Rod Dreher," as if dropping some names of people not even tangentially related to the discussion might possibly be considered a rebuttal. Mr. Friedersdorf apparently does that thing quite a bit, so we shouldn't be surprised.

No, as with the last post, Conor Friedersdorf did respond (see the link our man Donald offers right there in the same paragraph where he says Conor refused to respond.)... He just didn't respond to whatever it was Donald Douglas deemed he should have, hence the professor's claim that Mr. Friedersdorf "refused to respond." His mention of Rod Dreher had nothing to do with namedropping, but was clearly in response to Donald saying: "So, I might as well comment on Dan's remark earlier on the conservatives schism (David Frum vs. Rush Limbaugh, etc.), when he noted that "To be honest, I wonder if this whole moderation movement isn't simply about purging the social conservatives."' and the professor's subsequent discussion of "theoconservatism," where he says (of the neoclassicons, including Conor) "These folks, let's loosely call them neoclassical conservatives, or neoclassicons, are driven by an essentially leftist-libertarian domestic policy orientation that is primarily animated by an intense hatred of "theoconservatism."

In reply, Mr. Friedersdorf says "I haven't any desire to purge social conservatives. I spent 14 years attending a religious private school, I've spent the last two weeks defending Rod Dreher, a religious and social conservative, against those who want to purge him..." How Donald could misinterpret that as "name-dropping," rather than the response it so obviously was, makes one wonder about Donald's ability to understand simple english (or was it more of a "willful misunderstanding?")

My main thesis at "Neoclassicons," in any case, is that these folks are not "conservative." I especially indicated that Andrew Sullivan - who is the ideological lodestar for these people - is not a conservative. Hardly anyone would situate Sullivan on the right of the ideological spectrum nowadays. Andrew's colleague at The Atlantic places him at "the center right." And even liberals now think of Sullivan as one of their own.

Except for the fact that the line about the Atlantic should probably read "center-left," rather than "center-right," I accept that this is Donald's thesis. That neither makes his thesis true, or has anything to do with this Conor guy that this piece is supposed to be about. Let's move the story forward, Don...

And this is the key thing in all of this: Mr. Friedersdorf seems to think that the most important intellectual developments today are taking place on the left of the political spectrum

Sadly, no, Dr. Douglas... At least not based on the article at the other end of that link, anyway, which was titled "Lefty Blogs Chart Course for Future," and discussed the fact that--at least according to Conor, anyway-- liberal blogs use more graphics (pictures, charts, maps) than conservative blogs. Hardly proof that Mr. Friedersdorf thinks that the most important intellectual developments today are taking place on the left of the political spectrum... I mean, in the same post, Conor gives cons credit for their focus and use of twitter. What does that say, hmmm?
This fact helps explain Mr. Friedsdorf's jihad against Mark Levin. The latter, as I noted, is the hottest thinker in conservative politics today. Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is essential reading for anyone who's seriously thinking about the future direction of the American right. And Mr. Friedersdorf is attacking him?

It takes no great leap of imagination to see that not only is Mark Levin threatening to Conor Friedersdorf, but also that Mr. Friedersdorf's attack on him are less about ideology and more about self-promotion. "Hey, if I attack Mark Levin I can score some points with the Andrew Sullivan and the left-libertarians."

Jihad, schmihad... It was two or three posts, out of a whole lot, from what I've (now) seen... And Mr Friedersdorf was primarily discussing Levin's behavior, rather than his politics, perhaps to say that acting like an asshole doesn't make one any more (or less) right, but it may make fewer people listen who aren't already on your side which to me, says alot... A real liberal would just let you continue to act like assholes, and sing to that same old 20-something % choir. Believe it or not, it's true... Only your best friends will tell you, and politically, that ain't the likes of me...)

That's really all there is to it. As I've shown at this post, which is now a lot longer and more detailed that I'd anticipaed, Conor Friedersdorf is an essentially dishonest man with an inflated sense of self-importance. I can hardly be more clear in saying this, but being that as it may, I'm not expecting a response to the arguments I've made in any case. Mr. Friedersdorf doesn't have it in him, and in all of his recent slurs, he's mostly out to gain attention for himself rather debate those who really do care about the movement.

Professor Douglas, you say some very unintentionally funny things... I'm not sure what you've actually shown, but it don't appear to me, anyway that you've made your case...

I've enabled comment moderation. I won't be publishing Mr. Friedersdorf's drive-by snarks here. If he responds with a post at either of his blogs, I'll reply in kind if they are substantive - and if in fact they move the debate forward.

That also, says alot...

Otherwise, I'm moving on ...

One doubts it...But one can only hope.

Roundup and Commentary - 6/21/09

RT @DivadNhoj1981: صلح یک احتمال بدهید (Farsi: Give peace a chance) #iranelection

Blog Post(s):

American Nihilist: American Power, and the Art of Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication: The Attack on Conor Friedersdorf
With All Due Respect: American Power, and the Art of Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication: The Attack on Conor Friedersdorf
(same post, different blogs)

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 6/20/09

Look people in the eye.

(I got nothin' but the pretty quote... which means I either spent the day AFK, or didn't read anything worth replying to...)

((No complaining... Sometimes, there isn't even a pretty quote. Cope.))

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 6/19/09


Professor Douglas is down with barebacked gay licentiousness... long as they'll roll in the mud with him, Obama-wise:
American Power: Gay Rights Big Guns Bail On Biden DNC Fundraiser

Obama's been blowing it, but wingnut propaganda pictures ain't the answer:
DownWithTyranny!: Obama Tosses Gays A Bone

IMAC... and The Balcony Theatre:
The FUVBlog - R.I.P IMAC (No permalinks, but my comment is there...)

The misogyny and viciousness of that alleged "Senator Cunt face" youtube thread however...:
American Power: Did Boxer Call Him "General Walsh"? (That's Senator Boxer to you, Douglas.)

"They're all pussies and nihilists now!":
American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist

Did someone say misogyny?:
American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Hammered on Multiple Fronts, Threatens Dan Riehl

Actions have consequences:
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Olive Garden pulls Letterman ads - They obviously don't want my business, anymore

If Conor Friedersdorf thinks he's going to get anything but ad hominem and trash talk out of Dr. Douglas & his little band of fellow neocons and far-right conservatives, he's going to be very disappointed:
American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Hammered on Multiple Fronts, Threatens Dan Riehl (and of course, there was no threat... These folks see what they want to see, whether or not it makes a lick o' sense.)

Friday, June 19, 2009

X-post: Remember when I was talking about chickenhawks?

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

THIS is an example of a potentially chickenhawk statement:

Fortunately, there's been a response:
Twitter Users Heckle Hoekstra En Masse | TPMDC:
Earlier today, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) put up [an] astonishing post on Twitter, likening the oppression of the Iranian people to the plight of House Republicans.

In the hours since, the Twitter community has responded -- with massive heckling.

Also, this:
Pete Hoekstra Is A Meme

Blog posts making fun of him. Pete must feel like Nancy Bellicec, at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

(To be fair however, it's also an example of an analogy, which I was just discussing --that is, getting on professor Douglas' case about-- here. So... Am I being a little bit of a hypocrite in celebrating these folks willful misunderstanding Hoekstra's analogy, after jumping on Donald when he willfully misunderstood one? Yes, I am. But at least I'm aware of it, and I'm willing to cop to it, too, (as soon as I realized it, anyway...) Besides... Some of these "hoekstraisms" are kinda funny, and that's reason enough to post about 'em.)

Previous "chickenhawk" discussions:
Sidebar, between the "Diggs I Dugg" list and the "Follow Me" gadget (as of this posting... I tend to rearrange the furniture, here.) - Donald Douglas, who serves and sacrifices for his country on the battlefields of Long Beach City College, CA
Wingnuts & Moonbats: La la lala, la la lala, Elmo's Song - Mitt Romney's sons, all serving their country on electoral battlefields throughout the country, like the 5 young men in Saving Private Ryan. (in comments... Up till then, I couldn't think of any other chickenhawks.)

The FUVBlog - R.I.P IMAC

A sad story, for anyone who's ever been there...

The FUVBlog - R.I.P IMAC

Posted June 16, 2009 by John Platt

Lots of NY area concert fans are distressed to learn about the closing of IMAC (the Inter-Media Arts Center) in Huntington after 36 years. The reason given…it’s grown “too old, too flawed and too decayed” to operate. It reminds me how I felt about the Bottom Line’s closing. back in 2004.

So many special memories… Bromberg, Joan Armatrading, Keb Mo, Phoebe, Snow Jonatha Brooke, etc. I’ll never forget tango-ing across the back of the stage with Jonatha while Michael Rothbard was making announcements. (Talk about being upstaged!)

The room always had good sound, good sight lines, and a great vibe. And Michael, who loved the music, was always the mensch. He and Kathy are excited by the next (still vague) chapter, so we should be glad for them, even if we feel the void. Doors close, let’s hope doors will open, too…

And, my comment there:

Huntington boy (now out east, @ exit 68) who’s seen a number of great shows there, from The Roches and Louden to Ritchie Havens (though not the most recent show, I’m sorry to say) to… …well, a whole bunch of performers, large and small. (The best? Seeing one time Who bassist, John Entwhistle, with Long Island bar band natives, Rat Race Choir, I guess–Great show, but LOUD!!! What did I expect though, right? He played bass for The Who…)

I also remember and, (with all respect to IMAC and the folks here who’ll miss it at least as much as I will), still mourn the loss of what it was prior to that, the great Balcony Theatre, where I took in all those great music films, in the days when VCRs were just getting going, and my tastes in music were still forming… I’d buy my ticket at 8pm or so, and not come out until the weekly midnight showing of “The Song Remains The Same” was over. Got a little “smokey” in there, but that too, was part of it’s charm…

Hopefully it’s next incarnation will do justice to it’s wonderful, memorable, music and entertainment past.

Roundup and Commentary - 6/18/09

"I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." - George Washington

Blog Post:

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Remember when I was talking about chickenhawks?


The right to protest vs the wisdom of doing so, partisanship:
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Video from the Fire Dave rally

That's what he (Bill Maher) said:
The Blue Voice: What a serious commentator... - repsac3 | 06.18.09 - 5:59 am (See: "wish I wrote that" section, below)

People have to fight for the government they want, themselves. (We can help, but we can't do it for them.):
PoliGazette - Why Iranians are Still in the Streets

"Talking with the leaders of a given country (with/without preconditions) is one thing. Knowing who those leaders are and aren't, and only bestowing the legitimacy that comes with US recognition onto the actual leaders, rather than to anyone with the ability to stage a semi-successful electoral coup, is another."
American Power: Obama: "Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions"

"Not recognizing Ahmadinejad (or Moussavi) until Iran recognizes one of them, has nothing whatsoever to do with potentially meeting with the leaders of certain countries, with or without preconditions.":
American Power: Sullivan Waffles! Take Iran Recognition "One Day at a Time"

"Dana asks the right question though (for which I have no good answer.): "Why is it that the only people who want to get married these days are homosexuals?"':
American Power: Why Do We Still Insist on Marriage?

Ratings & "the demo," Tex Antoine, Olive Garden doesn't want my business:
Immoderate Monk or (Don Surber - Conan thumps Letterman)

Wish I Wrote That:

Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters sez: "Compared to our enemies, Americans are pussies":

Thursday, June 18, 2009

X-Post: Video from the "Fire Dave" rally

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

I thought I was done with this story, but the woman in yellow so offended me with her ugly, vicious mind, I couldn't let it pass unchallenged... A person like that ought not to be seen or heard in public (& I really hope that wherever she works, she isn't.)...


Among the more alarming lines of attack -- particularly given that the rally was held because Letterman supposedly made a joke about Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Willow -- was that Letterman's son Harry was born out of wedlock (he recently wed Regina Lasko after dating for over a decade).

"Should we talk about his son?" one protester asked Green. "I believe his son was born out of wedlock. I believe there's a term for that."

"Is someone making jokes about his child?" asked another. "Especially, you know, when he had a daughter out of wedlock himself" (he didn't; 5-year-old Harry is his only child).

"How dare he?" asked yet a third, the most offensive of all. "When he has a bastard son, and a slut for a wife" (Letterman's wife Lasko has kept a notoriously low profile).

It should be noted that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter Bristol gave birth to baby Tripp (out-of-wedlock) in December and broke up with the baby's father, Levi Johnston, in March.
-- "Fire David Letterman" Protest Becomes Hatefest, Draws More Media Than Protesters

X-post: Rule 5 for the rest of us: Sasha Grey Likes Gang Bangs -- Deal with it, Tyra

American Nihilist X-post

Porn Star Sasha Grey Likes Gang Bangs -- Live With It, Tyra Banks - AlterNet

Porn star Grey, who has achieved success as a mainstream actress, has gotten tons of criticism for working in porn.

Those of you who’ve seen Steven Soderbergh’s “The Girlfriend Experience” will know a little bit about Sasha Grey, who plays the main character. Those of you who are porn enthusiasts will know a hell of a lot more, seeing as Grey has been in more than 160 porn flicks over the past three years. From “Teenage Whores 3” to “Anal Cavity Search 6,” Sasha’s done it all. (Or at least most of it.)

But while Grey’s been a porn world bad ass for a while, starring in a Soderbergh film has, uh, exposed her to a more mainstream and art house audience. It’s also opened her up to a s**t storm of criticism for participating in what many consider to be an exploitative industry.

But while it’s easy to call Grey deluded for thinking that she’s liberating women instead of promoting oppression, you’d have to ignore a hell of a lot of what she’s saying in order to make the claim. During her 2007 appearance on “The Tyra Banks Show,” an 18-year-old Grey kept it together while a wide-eyed, semi-psychotic looking Tyra essentially implied that Grey must have been abused as a child, even if she didn’t, you know, realize it. There is, after all, no other reason a young lady would ever, ever get into porn.

Sasha waxed poetic on how she represents herself, on appreciating porn, and her willingness to do most anything experimental as a means of exploring her sexuality. Meanwhile, Tyra stared, mouth agape, throwing in patronizing one liners and refusing to believe that Sasha could possibly have any idea what she’s talking about.

We’re not quite ready to call Grey a feminist liberator, as some have suggested, but the outright condemnation, too, seems a bit rash. Sasha’s 20 now and sticking by her original claim: porn allows her to explore her sexuality and no one has ever forced her to do anything she doesn’t want to do. Is it really impossible to be a porn star without being exploited? What do you think?

Tried looking for the blog she mentions in the second vid, but only found her MySpace page: sasha grey - 21 - Female - City of Angeles, California

X-post: "I Hate Arabs More Than Anybody": Desperate Army Recruits Neo-Nazis

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

I believe the vast majority of American soldiers are fine upstanding patriotic citizens. But even so--even if only a tiny percentage of the military is made up of race extremists, white or otherwise--this article is chilling, because these people are getting training in how best to kill with precision, by our government.

"I Hate Arabs More Than Anybody": Desperate Army Recruits Neo-Nazis
By Matt Kennard, Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute. Posted June 17, 2009.

Why the U.S. military is ignoring its own regulations and permitting white supremacists to join.

Since the launch of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military has struggled to recruit and reenlist troops. As the conflicts have dragged on, the military has loosened regulations, issuing "moral waivers" in many cases, allowing even those with criminal records to join up. Veterans suffering post-traumatic stress disorder have been ordered back to the Middle East for second and third tours of duty.

The lax regulations have also opened the military's doors to neo-Nazis, white supremacists and gang members -- with drastic consequences. Some neo-Nazis have been charged with crimes inside the military, and others have been linked to recruitment efforts for the white right. A recent Department of Homeland Security report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," stated: "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Many white supremacists join the Army to secure training for, as they see it, a future domestic race war. Others claim to be shooting Iraqis not to pursue the military's strategic goals but because killing "hajjis" is their duty as white militants.

Soldiers' associations with extremist groups, and their racist actions, contravene a host of military statutes instituted in the past three decades. But during the "war on terror," U.S. armed forces have turned a blind eye on their own regulations. A 2005 Department of Defense report states, "Effectively, the military has a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy pertaining to extremism. If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt they are likely to be able to complete their contracts."

About the title: The article opens with a profile of an Iraq War veteran named Forrest Fogarty. There's seven paragraphs discussing his teen and early adult years in the white power movement and his experience with army recruitment, and then:

In 2003, Fogarty was sent to Iraq. For two years he served in the military police, escorting officers, including generals, around the hostile country. He says he was granted top-secret clearance and access to battle plans. Fogarty speaks with regret that he "never had any kill counts." But he says his time in Iraq increased his racist resolve.

"I hate Arabs more than anybody, for the simple fact I've served over there and seen how they live," he tells me. "They're just a backward people. Them and the Jews are just disgusting people as far as I'm concerned. Their customs, everything to do with the Middle East, is just repugnant to me."

Read the whole article here

(I'd've just done a "Digg" post, but I kept getting an invalid url message, no matter what I did. Maybe I'll Digg this post instead, just to get the story the wide attention it deserves... But if anyone from Digg happens to be reading this, or anyone at all knows how to work around whatever the issue was (I suspect it had something to do with the quote marks in the title--& thus in the url--myself), please let me know...)

Roundup and Commentary - 6/17/09

A person who competes is a person who does not know who she is.
She is suffering from stifled awareness.
A person who feels jealous is a person who does not know what he has.
He is suffering from stifled awareness.

The amazing thing is, it's not that easy to stifle awareness.
It requires constant diligence.
You have to really work at it to be miserable.
- Das Energi, Paul Williams

Blog Post:

Wingnuts & Moonbats: "I Hate Arabs More Than Anybody': Desperate Army Recruits Neo-Nazis

American Nihilist: Rule 5 for the rest of us: Sasha Grey Likes Gang Bangs -- Deal with it, Tyra

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Video from the Fire Dave rally


floggin' for truth; relentlessness on the gap-toothed comedian, and the humorlessness it displays; and a tiny dose o' crazy:
Wingnuts & Moonbats: Sarah Palin Accepts David Letterman's Apology for Coarse Jokes - (Is it finally over?) (Yep... All that, in one comment.)

Appreciation for a good blogger not leaving us, after all:
A Change of Mind… and Format - Old Soldier

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

X-post: Sarah Palin Accepts David Letterman's Apology for 'Coarse' Jokes - (Is it finally over?)

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

Sarah Palin has accepted comedian David Letterman’s apology made during Monday night’s broadcast of “The Late Show” for crude jokes made about her and her teen daughters last week.

Read the rest of the article HERE, and what others are saying about it at Memorandum

I'm as sympathetic as the next guy. The jokes were crude, rude, and unnecessary. But once he said he was sorry... the first time... that should've been the end of it.

No one was, say, tortured. It wasn't like anyone used a picture depicting the imminent death of a whole lot of innocent Americans to deliver a punchline.

Dave (& really, some writer, more'n'likely) was just foolishly insensitive. It happens, especially when someone is trying to be funny. It wasn't done maliciously, with the intent of hurting anyone or achieving some further political or social end. And, contrary to the rightwing spin, there is nothing to suggest that it was intentionally or knowingly aimed at a 14 year old. (Yep... along with telling a bad Joke, Dave got the facts wrong, and thought the person about whom he was telling the joke was of age. Is it better that the joke was aimed at an 18 year old? Well, only if it's worse that the joke aimed it at a 14 year old, I guess... These things swing both ways...)

The fact is, it was just a really bad, really insensitive, rude, crude, vaguely lewd joke. I hope everyone understands where I'm coming from, and that I'm in no way defending the joke, or the people responsible for it being told.


Is it finally over? Is our long national nightmare, with every reporter & right wing blogger following Sarah & Dave's every bloody word on the subject, finally ended? Is the campaign of intimidation, which caused one company, Embassy Suites, to buckle under and pull advertising from never were Letterman Show sponsors in the first place, making their quick fall to their knees even stranger--(& I know where I'm never staying, anymore...) going to end--perhaps with Embassy Suites reversing their decision, after realizing how foolish they now look?

Or are we going to keep milking it for all it's worth, trying to squeeze every last drop of publicity for one's own side, and scorn for the other side out of this silly, stupid story? Palin's gonna need a new reason for people to keep talkin' about her, ya'know... Besides, Letterman still hasn't been fired, yet... ...and I bet he has one more big ol' apology in him, if he really strains for it...

Let us pray that if they must prey, they at least find new victims...

Roundup and Commentary - 6/16/09

Do something really special for someone, but challenge yourself to do it for a person who cannot pay you back; consider doing it anonymously. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself." - The Check Book: 200 Ways to Balance Your Life - Nicholaus & Lowrie

Blog Post:

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Sarah Palin Accepts David Letterman's Apology for 'Coarse' Jokes - (Is it finally over?)


Hate? We libs hate? Really?!?:
Immoderate Monk &/or Valley of the Shadow: The Two Minute Hate as perfected by Democrats

If it's hate at all, it's hate when any of us do it.:
Immoderate Monk &/or Valley of the Shadow: Advancing Towards Fort Sumter - 10:08 AM comment (#4)

The failure to understand analogy:
American Power: Leftists Hit Bottom?

Too much fame, too many people pulling...:
Immoderate Monk / (Comment # 23 - Pajamas Media - Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty)

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 6/15/09


I must be hittin' too close to home...:
American Power: Social Network Stalking? Grace Explosion Gone, Repsac3 Lurking... (x2--or 3, if you care about a simple beat down of a guy who, in retrospect, wasn't even worth that.)

Limiting the responsibility of people who commit bad acts, by labeling them mentally unwell, and "the zealotry of the turncoat":
American Power: Rovian Islamism? Sullivan Equates Bush Administration, Sarah Palin to Iranian Thuggery!

Different post, same message:
American Power: Politicizing Gun Murders

"Maybe it's an insult that you have to actually be a neoconservative to see...":
American Power: Rupert Murdoch to Sell Weekly Standard

Let go of the "group" mindset...
Immoderate Monk

Monday, June 15, 2009


Apropos of nothing really... (Well, nothing much, anyway)... I just can't get the song out of my head, so I thought I'd share, & perhaps get it stuck in yours, as well...

X-post: Donald "Folks need to be careful about their allegiances" Douglas, and his enemies list

American Nihilist X-post

There's little doubt that this bjkeefe character (and Roy Edroso, who tipped him off) are, or soon will be, on Donald's "naughty" list. (I'll be making sure they're on ours, in anticipation of that inevitability):
Following a link (curse you, Roy Edroso!) to American Power, we see that college perfesser Donald Douglas is among the howlers of Wingnuttia trying to convince themselves that the neo-Nazi shooter at the Holocaust Museum was actually a liberal run amok. (No, really.) Where others have mostly been content just to parrot this stream of bullshit, Douglas unleashes a torrent in the process of expanding his already stupefyingly long enemies list.


The gist of Douglas's fumings? "Folks need to be careful about their allegiances."

In his profile, Douglas says about himself: "… in friendship, you'll find no one more dignified, trustworthy, nor loyal."

Allegiances. Friendship. Nice words, aren't they? I'll spare you the obvious nod to Mr. Orwell, and just observe that this is what the wingnut urge to purify has come to.

Read the rest

(Because after all... Isn't helping the professor maintain & keep track of his ever-growing "people I hate, and you should, too" list (see our blogroll, for just some of 'em)--a list which is increasingly including people who foolishly believe they're working on *his* side of the political spectrum, often for the same social causes and political outcomes that Donald himself is-- the real purpose of this blog?)

Roundup and Commentary - 6/14/09

Blog Post:

Donald "Folks need to be careful about their allegiance" Douglas, and his enemies list


Censorship vs self-selection:
The Left Politicizes Gun Murders -- Politics Daily: "1:26AM Jun 14th 2009"

Congrats on a post well done:
bjkeefe: Time For That Picture Again

"There is no such thing as "the Extreme Political Right" in this country. That is just a Left Wing myth." Whooboy... Another denilalist wingnutter...:
American Power: Understanding Ideology

Internet ephemera I think is worth reading:

Common Sense Political Thought: Political ideology

X-Post: Donald Douglas Calls Salon's Joan Walsh A Pro-Choice Extremist

American Nihilist X-post

I already responded to the match-up between Walsh & O'Reilly in several places ([here] and [here], to point out two), but I was really taken aback by Professor Douglas' headline in his post/hit piece on the subject: American Power: O'Reilly Hammers Pro-Choice Extremist Joan Walsh!. In light of recent events and the ongoing discussion & debates about political extremism here in America, is it really very smart to be tossing that word at run of the mill political opponents, right now?

For a guy who seems to have trouble accepting that there is such a thing as "right wing extremism" or that this von Brunn character was and is an example of it, he sure is pretty free with using the word "extremist" to label a mainstream and widely respected liberal writer...

I posit that it is this very demonization of political opponents and "up-is-down" redefinition of terms that coarsens our political culture and makes us lose respect for each other as fellow American citizens.

I feel sorry for Donald, having to live with and around those he so hates... I really do. I can't imagine what it must be like to believe that every liberal is a "nihilist extremist," bent on destroying the center-right country he so loves (Well, loves except for all those liberals who populate it, o'course...)

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 6/13/09

You are the cause of everything that happens to you. Be careful what you cause.

Blog Post:

Donald Douglas Calls Salon's Joan Walsh A Pro-Choice Extremist


Substantive criticism of Jews doesn't make one an anti-Semite:
American Power: Thoughts on Our Civil War

"Is there such a thing as a right-wing extremist? When you go past the right wing of the Republican Party, through Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan, what comes next? Is there anything there or just a gaping void?":
Absolutists, breaking the cycle, bi/post partisanship, golden rule, ...

Obama is a pussy? Really? (No, Donald, he's a politician...):
American Power: Gay Radicals Pissed After Obama Defends DOMA

Down goes Bill! Down goes Bill!! (Things Joan Walsh did really well):
Joan Walsh: Why I went on "The O'Reilly Factor" - Salon

Murderers, extremists, and mental illness; coarsening of the culture; and respect for repsac3:
Snoop, the Left Never Was Proud of its Left Wing Extremists...

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.” or "a pretty good rorshach for one's prior views":
American Power: O'Reilly Hammers Pro-Choice Extremist Joan Walsh! ("Extremist" Donald? Seriously?!?)

Saturday, June 13, 2009

X-post: Snoop, the Left Never Was Proud of its Left Wing Extremists...

With All Due Respect X-post: Snoop, the Left Never Was Proud of its Left Wing Extremists...

...and that may be the point.

In reply to the article Is The Right Still "Proud To Be a Right-Wing Extremist"? , which appears on the People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch blog, Mark Harvey (AKA Snooper) offered the following:

Is The Left Still "Proud To Be a Left-Wing Extremist"?

This was going to be one more rewrite of articles the Leftinistra like to pawn off as fact but I changed my mind.

Right off you can see where this guy is coming from. "Leftinistra"? Yeesh...

The original article posted by one named Kyle is entitled, "Is The Right Still "Proud To Be a Right-Wing Extremist"?" Isn't it interesting how these frauds never ever challenge their own? Isn't it interesting how these frauds on the left side of life never ever acknowledges the heinous acts of their own?

Two things:

Kyle's Right Wing Watch post was replying to those among the right who, in response to the Department of Homeland Security Report, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, [pdf] chose to call themselves right wing extremists.

Of course, as Kyle points out in his piece:

The report was not a warning about mainstream conservative political groups or lawful anti-abortion activists or religious organizations - it was a report about violent, radical extremists. But it was the Right that intentionally conflated the two and now, in the wake of two high-profile violent acts carried out by right-wing extremists, it is the Right that is insisting that they have nothing in common with such people.

And that is exactly the point: the report was not about them, but they made it about them because they thought they could score some political points and raise money by doing so.

How ridiculous and crass this phony controversy became can pretty much be summed up by these cards, which the Liberty Counsel is still selling on its website, that, in light of the recent attacks, seem to be in pretty poor taste:

They claim to be right wing extremists themselves when the report first came out (even though the report was clearly about protecting the American people from the possibility of violent right wing extremism, given the political and social climate), and do everything they can to distance themselves and their ideas from real violent right wing extremists when the nutjobs DHS was talking about actually do show up.

Second, it is unlikely you will find your run of the mill leftist applauding left wing extremism, or claiming to be left wing extremists themselves, like those on the right have done. There are no "Proud to be a Left Wing Extremist" cards on sale at liberal websites. Mr Harvey's assertion that the left "never acknowledges or challenges the heinous acts of their own" doesn't hold water...

1) Daily Kos: Why "We're fighting them over there...." is the Biggest Lie of the Bush Administration (Several paragraphs of acknowledgment & challenge to Earth Liberation Front terrorism & sabotage.)

2) Here are a few libs discussing and challenging the actions of the Animal Liberation Front (called PETA in this first link, but corrected here) and some of the 60's radicals. Another. Last one (or two, as the comment just below it continues the conversation.)

3) Finally, here's a link to me from 2008, discussing the idiot blac block ninja wannabees that sometimes show up at peace protests: About Peace Thugs

So much for that leaky bucket...

For instance, the Jihadi that assassinated an Army Soldier in Arkansas. He hated America as well. The left hate America and all she stands for seeing that the left cannot reconcile anything they believe in with the United States Constitution. Ever.

This is just moronic. First off, we libs love America, which is why we keep trying to defend it from the batshit dumb thinking of wingers like this guy.

But even assuming "the left" did hate America, the syllogism (or in this guy's case, "silly gism") he's offering doesn't make sense, and is a perfect example of why some fathers should've pulled out sooner than they did.

Mr. Harvey's basically saying:

Humans drink water.
My pet cat drinks water.
Therefore, my pet cat is human.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

I have tried to get at least ONE member of the Leftinistra to at least TRY and support their rhetoric with our Founding Documents but none have come up to meet the challenge. Ever. And I don't expect any to try, either. Why? Because they cannot.

Though I predict it'll be fruitless, given this guy's intellect & biases, I'd be glad to support my rhetoric, constitutionally... Pick a subject, Snoop.

They all accuse others of that which they themselves do.They have the Eco Nazis that run around burning buildings down that aren't green enough adding poison gases into the atmosphere. They have arsonists that run around fire-bombing Recruiting Stations across America and the list goes on and on and on.

I'm not sure whether these are supposed to be examples of liberals "all accus[ing] others of that which they themselves do"--the first might be, the second, not so much--or just the next part of the rant, but yes, some liberals exhibit some "do as I say, not as I do" thinkin' (just like some cons), and yes, some libs and cons engage in hypocritical, self-defeating acts (although first off, I've never heard of any eco-terrorist burning a building down because it wasn't green enough--sometimes it's about the land it's on, sometimes it's to cost the company that owns it money, and sometimes it's to destroy records--and second, there are levels of good & evil. Nothing is 100% pure, and one would have to be an idiot not to understand that (but then, look at who I;'m talking to... A guy with a "human" cat.). The terrorists may believe that a little poison smoke is less evil than the company &/or whatever bad thing it's doing.)

To put it in terms Mr Harvey may understand, it's like those wingnuts who kill abortion doctors. They believe all life is sacred in principle, but also believe that murdering one doctor is worth saving all those unborn lives.
Hypocritical? Maybe, but that's how domestic terrorists like Harvey's "eco-nazi's" & my rightwing extremist anti-choice folks think.

You won't find any right-wingers participating in any of those activities.

Well no, that'd be silly... Right wingers by & large are not environmentalists or opposed to military service. Besides, a few of 'em are too busy shooting doctors and potentially gay folks in church, and police/security officers/minorities in the streets, of late... ...just like George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security said they might be. (Snooper does realize that that report was written while Bush was in office, right?)

Certainly, you will not find right-wingers attending a DNC election convention or any other DNC meeting of the mindless tossing bleach at their opposition. You won't find any right-wingers dropping rocks, bricks and or sandbags from overpasses onto passing vehicles occupied by their opposition. You won't find any right-wingers stealing campaign signs from the front yards of their opposition. You won't find vitriolic attacks on their Leftinistra version of Sarah Palin coming from the right-wingers, either.

I'm not going to try to dig up each & every one of whatever bullshit stories Mr. Harvey is referring to, here... If he's too lazy to back his claims with supporting evidence, why should I?

Suffice to say, yes, there are individual morons on both sides of the aisle who do bad things, and Mr Harvey's denialism (Thanks, Professor!!) that right-wingers ever do such things shows how far off the reservation Snoop really is. One can argue that the birthers are pretty vitriolic, and the hate overheard at Palin rallies is documented truth--& don't forget McCain (to his credit) correcting the idiot accusing Obama of being a muslim. (Which to too many on the right, means "terrorist.")

Tell ya what... The campaign sign thing is just too easy...
1) ginger's-obama-sign
2) Dawn Teo: YouTube Those Campaign Sign Thieves for the Pleasure of Local Police and the Global Public

And sometimes, Snoop, you right wingers even victimize each other, campaign sign-wise:
3) Mike Huckabee President 2008: Romney Campaign Caught Stealing McCain Signs

But you just keep up those denials, Mr Harvey... It shows everyone who you really are...

You won't find any right-wingers trying to get their opposition removed from the internet because they might be dangerous or that they disagree with anyone. Need I go on? You won't find any right-wingers trying to hack into a web site they don't like.

Woops. Here's one... | Right Wing Hackers Target IndyMedia Network. Look!! Here's another. Brave New World: Hack Attack: The Talk of the Town: The New Yorker As the kids say, Epic fail, Snoop.

You won't have any right-wingers running all over Blogspot and hitting the "FLAG" button because they won't "shut up". You won't find any right-wingers writing emails to their opposition describing how dead they want them to be.

1) Gawker - On The Internet, Everyone Knows You Want to Kill Them - we get letters
2)Daily Kos: Saturday hate mail-apalooza
3) Hating the Hate Mail | Media and Technology | AlterNet
4) The Online Lunchpail ™: When PBS got right-wing hate mail

All of that comes from the left-wingers. Period. End of discussion.

Well, all except that stuff I mentioned (as well as a good bunch I didn't.) Sorry Snoop, but your claims are demonstrably false, and your unwillingness to see it shows you to be the fraud you are.

You won't find any right-wingers defecating, urinating and desecrating any flag of any sort in public at "peace rallies" or "anti-war rallies".

Perhaps not at peace rallies, but at anti-illegal immigration protests? Whole other story:

1)Group burns Mexican flag in front of consulate - KVOA News 4, Tucson, Arizona - If you prefer, here's the report from Freeperville, home of Roeder & von Brunn: Group burns Mexican flag in front of consulate (Tucson AZ)

2) Spoke too soon. This mexican flag was torn down & stmped at a peace rally by an "Eagle," YouTube - american eagle stops on mexican flag at pro war~anti war rally

You will fiind that after a right-wing gathering, the area is left behind cleaner than it was when they got there.

Well there are all those symbolic tea bags...

The murder of Tiller the Baby Killer was a gross act of stupidity and the right-wing immediately yelled out for this cretins' just in prison or worse.

Not all of 'em, Snoop...
Drake: Tiller's Murder "An Answer to Prayer" | Right Wing Watch
From two Freeper threads: Little Green Footballs - Bad Craziness Watch: Right Wing Reaction to the Tiller Murder

Yet, when attacks on Soldiers and other military personnel across this nation take place, not a peep of outrage comes from the alleged most tolerant people on the globe.

First off, bringing soldiers home safely is one of the big reasons libs protest against unnecessary and poorly planned military missions like the one in Iraq. But aside that obvious fact...
Kos: Daily Kos: Another Religious Nut With A Gun Shoots Army Recruiters.
Juan Cole: Balloon Juice � Blog Archive � Soldier Dead in Arkansas
C&L: Crooks and Liars � Now the right-wingers want to blame military-recruiter slayings on liberals

And then there's the stupidity of even comparing the two murders, in the first place:
Dr. Tiller and the Army Recruitment Station Killing | Lean Left

They are a lot of things but tolerant is at the bottom of the list. The worst of the worst are in the Bay Area in California. Just ask Code Pink - the people that sent in excess of $600M in "aid" to the enemy to kill, wound, maim and fight our Troops. There's tolerance for you right there. I call that treason and you won't find any right-winger doing that at all.

Jordanian authorities ban protest by US anti-war group: "The group recently sent 600,000 dollars worth of humanitarian aid to residents of the Iraqi town of Fallujah who were displaced by a massive US-led assault in November."

Humanitarian aid to help the unintended victims of war, the citizens we went there to liberate...
Isn't that what our government is doing to this very day, with all that rebuilding of hospitals, schools, roads & whatnot? How much did the Bush administration alone send to Iraq & Afghanistan, for the very same purposes? Treason my ass, Snoop. I call bullshit. Put up or shut up.

You also won't find any right-wingers spying on their own country and passing of vital national secrets to the enemy either. That is reserved to the left-wingers. Facts are hard to hide people.

Hard to hide, but impossible to show any of 'em in your post, apparently... Left wing spies?

Besides, right wingers expose their state secrets in front of TV reporters: Those "National Security" Republicans Are Disclosing Intelligence Secrets. Gee, Wonder Why? | Crooks and Liars and spy on fellow American citizens, instead: Is the Pentagon spying on Americans? - Lisa Myers & the NBC News Investigative Unit-

The Leftinistra are the singularly most ugly, mean-spirited pieces of trash outside your viral Haji yet the Leftinistra support the enemy over their own nation and those that protect their very rights to exist. And yes, the Leftinistra toss the term "neocon" around like they know what a "neocon" is or something. I merely laugh in disdain because their use of the term "neocon" is allegedly a term of derision - tolerance at work I am sure. If they ever learn what a "neocon" is, they would drop it like a hot Pelosi panty.

Unsubstantiated trash talk like this deserves no reply. If you're going to take the time to speak, you ought to actually say something folks can understand...

The Leftinistra labeled the holocaust Museum shooter a right-winger when it has been shown that he was/is nothing of the sort.

Snoop, even the FBI & Homeland Security are calling him a right wing extremist. "In another alert, the agencies said von Brunn was associated with right-wing extremism." [Link] You folks really ought to give up denying it... It only makes you look blinded by partisanship, and out of touch with current events...

All we hear no is silence from their sheeple.

Liberal silence? Really??...

He was one of their own - a hater of Christianity, an anti-Semite (there are no anti-Semites on the right-wing) and a hater of the "neocon".

Have you really never heard of Paleoconservatives? Does the name Pat Buchanan ring a bell? (Scroll to the section on Jews.)
Nope... No anti-Semitism there, Snoop.

Amazing isn't it? Yet the fools on the left try and blame others for what they themselves partake in on a regular basis and call it good. Why? Because they did the deed and the Leftinistra never do anything wrong. Just ask this buffoon Kyle.

Mr Harvey cannot quote Kyle (or me, or much of any other lib) saying the left never does wrong, because it'd make us look as stupid as Mr Harvey does here, denying that von Brunn was/is a right wing extremist. Of course libs make mistakes large & small. Alot of 'em, more'n'likely... And yes, there are certainly left wing extremists here in America. (See Snoop... It isn't so hard to admit your side isn't perfect... I bet you could do it too, if you really tried...)

Right Wing Watch? By all means, watch. We are watching back and we are better at it and I wear my Right Wing Extremist Badge with honor and courage.

You do that, Spanky... ...but then, don't get all bent outta shape when real right wing extremists like Roeder & von Brunn make you look like an asshole for voluntarily claiming that title for yourself, thus willingly associating yourself with murderers and kooks. (Some people are just too damned stupid to come out of the rain...)

The Leftinistra do not because they are the very cowards they hate. The self-loathing of the Leftinistra is all too obvious.

Perhaps the Left-Wing Extremist Report by the DHS is "right" after all, eh?

Well yeah, that report probably is right, Snoop. Does anyone doubt that left wing extremists will use the internet itself to attack? (And, does anyone doubt that right wing extremists will follow suit, or are we still denying they exist... ...or suggesting that they're too stupid to understand how to hack, like we leftists?)

I have a question for these cretins on the left-wing. If the right-wing is as you all claim that we are, seeing that there are millions of us and we are all killers, murderers and such, is it wise to back us into a corner and piss us off?

Just sayin'. Think about that.

Yeah... Because after insisting on linking yourself with murderous nutbag extremists--even going so far as to proudly call yourself one--the next thing you want to do is threaten folks with violence. Gotta love it.

The thing that Mr Harvey fails to understand is that almost no one here on the left is calling him or his fellow right wingers murderous killers. HE'S doing that, by insisting on wearing his DHS approved Right Wing Extremist badge so friggin' proudly. Unless he was fixing to hurt or kill any of his fellow Americans because of his political beliefs, THE REPORT NEVER WAS ABOUT HIM!!! One of the very first paragraphs of the report talks about VIOLENT RADICALIZATION. Not violent? You're probably not a radical... at least as far as DHS is concerned. It's clear as a mountain stream, except to those who refuse to open their dang eyes.

We can debate issues and beliefs and argue various programs, policies and laws on their constitutionality or not. We are willing but the Leftinistra are not because they would lose every time.



Remember, Conservatism wins every time in elections and that is why in tough races, democrats put up conservative candidates against liberal republicans...and win. John McCain lost because he might as well join the DNC because he is in fact one of them at heart, just like his esteemed colleague Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham. There isn't a conservative bone in their bodies.

But um... Wasn't McCain still more conservative than Obama? And, for that matter, aren't the Republicans in those races against the "conservative" Democrats generally MORE conservative than the Democrats they're running against? Can you explain why the Dems won in those cases, Snoop, if conservatism wins every time?


Thought not... Another very leaky pail of nonsense...

This is why candidates like Sarah Palin frighten the Leftinistra on the democrat side and the republican side.

Been there, done that... Palin ran, and Palin lost. Perhaps she'll do it again, but few fear her... She's played the game once on the national stage, and the American people already judged her unfit...

I am neither.

If I have a label, I am a conservative libertarian constitutionalist. Neocon? Don't make me laugh.

Always convenient, when one doesn't have to adhere to any political party's platform... Makes it easier to criticize the ones actually in the game, too.

Catch the chatter of those that agree with little boy Kyle at Memeorandum.

Another Leftinistra moonbat spanked.

Someone was spanked, that's for sure...

Though not part of the original argument, I came across this comment while researching for this post. It succinctly explains why the DHS report applies to von Brunn.: trex on June 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Also, a h/t to Professor Douglas at AmPow... His post on this was a cut'n'paste of Mr Harvey's, and said very little else... (In fact, the best thing about Donald's version is that it elicited Cracker's wise & witty take on Mr Harvey's assertion that there are no anti-Semites on the right. He's got a way with words, that boy...)

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)