Friday, July 31, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 7/30/09

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step. - Napoleon Bonaparte


Nihilists! All of them! Off with their heads!!:You’re surprised? - The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Damned White People!: Riehl World View: Those Damned Brown People!

In which repsac3 foolishly reaches out to Donald Douglas, and gets his hand bitten by the same douchebaggery that's got everyone so upset with him in the first place.: Immoderate Monk: Hello? Are you feelin' ok?

I'm not holding you (or any other conservative) responsible for the pretty obviously conservative cop who let loose with the "banana eatin' jungle monkey" rhetoric, and I'm not holding Dan responsible for your nonsense, either. (...even if he does let you spew it here on his blog.): Riehl World View: Those Damned Brown People!

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 7/28/09

Say "thank you" a lot.


I believe it's important to draw the lines for oneself, and to argue for why one believes them to be right for others, too. While this does open one up to charges of being holier-than-thou (and taken too far, one can become that), it's important to stand up for what one believes in and to try to impart it to others, even if only by example.: Villainous Company: Decency: July 28, 2009 01:32 PM comment (No permalink)

“The best defense is offense” seems to be his creed, and all of you hypocritical, feminist, Victorian, writers of “lunkheaded prose” might as well just accept that he has done no wrong. Hits is hits, and enemies of Dr D. quickly becomes “nihilists.” (although frankly, even I’m surprised how quickly he turned on y’all…)": Smitty Apologizes . . . | Little Miss Attila

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 7/27/09


“Rule 5″ if you must (though I’m with Chaz on this one, & hope folks will at least try to make the buff body fit in with the general theme of the blog, somehow), but please stick to the models who consent to having pix & videos of themselves shot & distributed.: - Rule 5 and all that

Reporting about crime is fine; becoming an accomplice after the fact, isn't.: Immoderate Monk (or, if approved, Video of ESPN’s Erin Andrews nude? - The Daley Gator)

Monday, July 27, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 7/26/09


Whatever one’s opinion of rule 5 though, there is a difference between a willing model and an unwilling one, and no amount of “newsworthiness” justifies posting pictures, videos, or links to pix/videos of unwilling models captured illegally or immorally. - Donald Douglas Would Like Some Attention. - Little Miss Attila

One who cannot admit error, and must instead lash out at others, is a sad person, indeed.: Villainous Company: First Rule of Holes: July 26, 2009 12:14 PM comment (No permalink)

Thursday, July 23, 2009

My blog,, has been removed/disabled.

My blog was tried & found not spammage, as of 7:30 PM on 7/23/09. While the dance is a little frustrating, I was only locked out for four days, and the situation did work out. Now I just hope it won't happen again...

New comment, left on Blogger help 7/22/09, 8:15 PM:
Mishka: According to your fellow blog*star, nitecruzr, a non-spam blogger who requests a review should also list themselves on the spam appeal database right away, rather than waiting the ten days.

This is how he answered the question in his 7:53 PM message in the following thread: :

"And Gatsby has stated in other threads that you can submit an appeal request immediately after the review request. Simply

"we do filter to make sure that users have already submitted a request and use that info" "

While I'm still not certain which of you is correct, I'm leaning toward nitecruzr because he seems to've invested more time/energy into solving blogger issues--he has his own site devoted to solving blogger issues for we folks, after all, which is more than one can say about the google/blogger matrix itself--and I urge you to discuss this with him so that all the blog*stars are giving out the same info...

Being innocent, but caught up in the google/blogger bot anti-spam nets anyway, is stressful enough without getting conflicting info from the only people willing to help. (& a big thank you to you and to all thew blog*stars for being willing to help, BTW... Much love & good karma, for that...)
-- My Blog Is Labeled As SPAM, What Do I Do? - Blogger Help

New comment left on Blogger Help 7/22/09, 7:30 PM:
jlapidus: It seems that "the blogger community" consists of a bunch of bots who have no idea what your blog (or mine) is about, and a few fellow users (human) who--if I understand this correctly--donate their time trying to appease their fellow human users, so we don't go all terminator on the Google/Blogger bots who can't tell a mourning (or anti-moderation) blog from spammage.

(I'm sorry to tell you, jlapidus... It's likely to get worse... I was solving the CAPTCHAs to post and requesting reviews (3 of 'em, at least) for about a month, before I discovered my blog was removed/disabled two days ago... From what I understand, it's the second step in the process to getting it cleared...)

Just so no one misunderstands, I love the official blog stars, and I'm glad they speak google/blogger bot & can get them to respond, occasionally, but I do question why the google/blogger matrix doesn't just hire & pay humans (the blog stars, or other professional techies, who can tell the difference between blogs of mourning and remembrance {or anti-moderation} and spam) to handle the human users, and let the bots deal with the computers. The idea that there is so little human to human interaction between google/blogger and their users is what leads to there being so many problems and miscommunications/misunderstandings like the one I express below.

nitecruzr: As I've mentioned elsewhere, one of your fellow official blog*stars, Mishka, says that people like jlapidus & I have to wait 10-14 days after requesting the review (step 1) BEFORE requesting the appeal (step 2), and that redoing step 1, or doing step 2 too soon (before the 10-14 days goes by), puts one at the end of the review line... If you two speak to each other (or if the bots can tell you) can you clarify that point, so that all the stars are imparting the same wisdom, and we all follow the same set of rules...

-- Is this some kind of sick prank? - Blogger Help

New comment, potentially left on nitecruzr's site 7/22/09, 5:15 PM (It's moderated) - The Real Blogger Status: The Girl In Short Shorts, and definitely left on my new & temporary IM site: Moderation is for Monks: The squeaky wheel...:
For the record, I'm following your 3 step plan as laid out here [The Real Blogger Status: Blogs Are Being Removed For Just Cause] -- though

1) so far, no one's responded to any of the three actions I've taken, and

2) Mishka, another all-star BHF person, called into question whether one should wait 10-14 days after clicking the links for a review before submitting one's blog to the appeals database & posting in BHF "Something's Wrong." (In case you and Mishka want to get on the same page, that conversation took place here, yesterday: My Blog Is Labeled As SPAM, What Do I Do? - Blogger Help)

Anyway, thanks... I'll keep watching for positive results...

New Comment, left on Blogger Help 7/21/09, 5:30 PM:

If either that "going to the back of the line" thing or the "wait ten days before requesting a spam review" thing are true, it'd be really nice if Google/Blogger did more to help the people using their stuff. A good set of rules and directions, written by the Google/Blogger employees responsible for the bots that flag us and the people/bots responsible for clearing the innocent & canning the guilty, would be a giant step in the right direction.

My blog-- [] --was initially flagged in late May. At first it was only flagged, meaning I could still access & post to it, as long as I solved a CAPTCHA each time. I hit my "?" and requested my review. For awhile, I did it every day (This is the first time/place I've seen anyone say not to), and received the reply that my request was received on such-n-such-a-day (Say, May 28th). One day--probably 10-14 days later--it seemed to have no record of that May 28th request, and put me down as having made my request THAT day (Say, June 11th, or so). Somewhere between then & yesterday, I got involved in other activities, and wasn't as conscientious... I know that I ended up with a third initial date for my review submission (Probably late June or early July), and that when I looked yesterday, my blog was "removed" &/or "disabled."

So after doing more research, I followed the three step directions listed on nitecruzr's "Real Blogger Status" site-- [] --and 1) hit the blogger link to request my review, 2) submitted my blog to the appeals spreadsheet (the link above that Mishka says you're supposed to wait ten days to do), and 3) posted about my false positive flagging here in "Something's Broken."

So, is nitcruzr right, or is Mishka right? How are we supposed to know how best to handle this situation, when there seems to be no official instructions, explanations, or timeframes from Google/Blogger, and no way to contact them, leaving us with these very well meaning & helpful--though perhaps not on the same page--fellow users?

I've been nothing but happy with Google/Blogger for the last several years--and honestly, I do fully expect that this issue will be resolved in a way that'll leave me happy, too--but that doesn't mean it couldn't be handled a bit better by Google/Blogger, so that those of us who're innocent but get caught up in the spam nets anyway, know what to expect, how long the resolution should take, and what we can do to help the process along.
-- My Blog Is Labeled As SPAM, What Do I Do? - Blogger Help - Repsac3, 5:30 PM

Submitted to blogger help (& posted here) 7/20/09, 4:38 PM.:
"Sorry, the blog at has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs."
I have followed nitecruzr's instructions and

1) requested an unlock review: "We received your unlock request on July 20, 2009"

2) submitted a Spam Appeals to the database

3) posted a query about my plight here at BHF. [My blog,, has been removed/disabled. - Blogger Help]

I was a little concerned because when the blog was locked (I could post to it, but I had to solve a captcha), I submitted three or four review requests, all of which seemed to fall on deaf ears... But apparently, this is normal, and my blog isn't lost... ...yet, anyway...

(Is it true that there's no timeframe for this process, and I could be without this blog for as many days, weeks, months as it takes for Google/Blogger to review my blog & decide on it's fate? I ain't thrilled...)
-- My blog,, has been removed/disabled. - Blogger Help

My earlier (July 6th, 2009) comment, at another Blogger Help thread (Posted here with 7/20/09 post, above):

I'm getting a little concerned, as well. My blog, Immoderate Monk--a blog I use to make sure that comments to moderated blogs don't disappear into the internet aether, that has nothing violent or particularly offensive on it--was first marked as a spam blog on June 27th or 28th. I clicked the link for a review on June 28th and got the "we received your request on June 28th & will review" message on that date, but nothing changed. Just to be sure--since the message on my dashboard stayed the same--I would click that link to request a review, and everyday I would get the same "we received your request on June 28th..." message... ...until today, when it made me type in the code to request a review all over again. Now the message lists July 6th as my "review requested" date.

I'm a little worried that if I don't keep on this, I'm going to find my blog deleted because someone/something at the blogger end is dropping the ball. I'm hoping I can get some reassurance that blogger/google/whoever is aware, and that my little blog and all those comments that the blog is meant to protect won't themselves vanish into the internet aether, when I'm non guilty of the crime of which some robot is accusing me.

If anyone has any suggestions, or if anyone from the blogger/google family is reading this and wants to offer any explanations or reassurances, I'd really appreciate it. I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I'd rather have a little more spam, than see innocent bloggers go down--especially if I'm one of those innocent bloggers.
- Your blog is marked as spam - Blogger Help

Roundup and Commentary - 7/22/09

This nation cannot afford to be materially rich and spiritually poor. -- John F. Kennedy


The Squeaky Wheel...: The Real Blogger Status: The Girl In Short Shorts (or Moderation is for Monks: The squeaky wheel...)

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

IM post: Exploitation For Blog Hits

"Immoderate Monk" post, in reply to Men Being Assholes. | Little Miss Attila:

As some folks here know, I'm not on your side politically, but I've been following this thing (and a related story about bigoted "jokes" and other commentary) on a whole bunch of blogs for the last several days...

Right or left, Cassandra's 4:01 AM post is right on target. One has to have standards of behavior, and one has to uphold them, whether the target (or the perpetrator) is a political/social friend or a foe.

While I like pretty women as much as the next guy, I find the whole "Rule 5" thing to be kinda distasteful because I see it as kind of a bait & switch. They come, they oogle, and the hit counters ding! as though they came for the politics. To me it's as though the blog authors in question are saying their writing isn't good enough on it's own...

But whatever one thinks of Rule 5, at least the women in question willingly posed for the snapshots that get posted (all the ones I've seen, anyway)... There's a vast difference between exploiting oneself and being exploited by others without consent, as the result of an illegal and sleazy act. The people responsible for getting & posting the video are criminals. But everyone who helped it get passed around, whether by posting the video itself or a link to it elsewhere are far from blameless, no matter how they justify it. And those who heard the story and then searched for the video really ought to take a good look at what that says about their own standards and values, as well.

The best post I've seen on this, Male category: You call yourself a man? Not while Erin out your fantasies online - News, Fantasy, Video
Submitted for approval July 21st, 2009 at 12:30 pm (Little Miss Attila blog time)

Monday, July 20, 2009

IM Post: Permitting bigotry and offensiveness to pass unchallenged silently condones those behaviors

Immoderate Monk post, in reply to "whatever," @ American Power: Atwater Councilman Frago Sorry for "Stupid" E-Mails: Leftists Outraged, Blacks Reject Apology; Media Ignore Outburst of Democratic Race Insensitivity!
Repsac3: "Permitting bigotry and offensiveness to pass unchallenged silently condones those behaviors."

whatever: "Alas, most seem only to find their voice when they know people like you will approve of what they have to say...which I believe is the point of this article that your liberal intolerance made you miss."

I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that, whatever... Few are looking for the approval of "people like me" (whatever that means), but they are seeking the approval of their friends. When confronted by people in one's own circle "innocently" telling bigoted or insensitive "jokes," too many of us (myself included, sometimes) don't want to appear to come off as "better than..." by coming down on the person telling 'em. (Even though more than likely, almost everyone is uncomfortable when faced with off-color remarks--perhaps including the person making them, even.)

Unless you're traveling in a far different world than I, I'm pretty sure MOST people would approve of anyone who stands up for people against insensitive or bigoted comments... even people far different from me politically, religiously, or socially.

Individuals are bigots; most political or social groups are not (and the groups who are bigoted are pretty obvious about it.) In light of that, your "liberal intolerance" line makes no sense whatsoever, whatever...
Submitted for moderation July 20, 2009 12:51 PM (AmPow Blog Time)

Roundup and Commentary - 7/19/09


"...a registered Democrat? Really?" and "Folks know bigotry when they see it."

Sunday, July 05, 2009

X-post: Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga, Cont'd

American Nihilist X-post

(In case anyone is just joining us, the beginning of this post is here: American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga)

When we last left Dr. Donald Kent Douglas, Ph.D. and James B(ig, bad barebackin' brain rage) Webb (No, I have no clue what the "B" really stands for, if anything at all...), Don was calling James a pussy and crowing about kickin' ass, or something.

JBW responds: Brain Rage: American Power And Unhealthy Obsession. James takes note of Donald's obsession, though I'm of the opinion that it isn't James he's obsessed with, but having the final word, and preferably, being able to claim any kinda victory. After explaining how Donald got to be the way he is--a radioactive neocon spider, of course--James explains that his previous photoshop, which Don took as a threat of physical violence, was just his good old liberal attack hate monkey, Thade. He says (& pay attention, because this bit actually going to become important later on, which in itself should tell you alot):
Seriously though you can relax Don, that's just a picture of my pet liberal-attack-hate-monkey Thade. He says that he'll be happy to meet you for a throwdown anytime anywhere but he has two conditions: 1) Your tussle will have to stay within the bounds of "monkey rules" (I truly have no idea what that means; just pray that there's no flinging of poop involved...) and 2) You must rub bananas all over yourself prior to the fight; apparently it gets him into the mood.

James mentions Don's repeated claims of victory (and finds them as odd & misplaced as I do), and then discusses the truth about his own drinking-while-blogging-while-drinking. (James likes wine... alot. Perhaps more than sleeping, even.) Then James tries (again) to explain how some photoshops of Sarah & Trig can be more offensive than others, saying that the intent of the person creating or posting the picture plays an awful big part. Then it's another try at explaining hypocrisy, and Don's penchant for using "gay" as an insult, and we're off to the races... I can't imagine what could come next...

...or could I...? (No, not really...)

Donald Douglas (predictably) roars back with his post: American Power: Blacks as Monkeys? Even When Leftists Hit Bottom, They Keep Digging. That Don answered; not surprising. What Don answered with; off the friggin' wall.

Don claims that James is a racist, and that this saga has turned JBW into "a purveyor of the most despicable racial slurs." No, really.


You didn't see it?

Well, according to Donald Douglas, "Mr. Webb smears me as a monkey "throwing poop." Mr. Webb is referring to his previous Planet of the Apes smackdown Photoshop. I called him out on it earlier. This is an implied threat here, and I'd frankly prefer to hear it to my face. But, instead of retracting his post, Mr. Webb digs even deeper into the hellhole of moral depravity. Now I'm a "poop throwing monkey."

Don's evidence? Remember that paragraph I told you to pay attention to above, where James says:
"Seriously though you can relax Don, that's just a picture of my pet liberal-attack-hate-monkey Thade. He says that he'll be happy to meet you for a throwdown anytime anywhere but he has two conditions: 1) Your tussle will have to stay within the bounds of "monkey rules" (I truly have no idea what that means; just pray that there's no flinging of poop involved...) and 2) You must rub bananas all over yourself prior to the fight; apparently it gets him into the mood."

Apparently, somehow, Donald reads this paragraph, and believes James is saying that Donald is the pooh flingin' monkey!?!! Talk about playing the race card. (For that matter, talk about reading comprehension.) In Donald's mind, James is saying he's a monkey, and because the big DD is half black, this is no different than when the NY Post ran their cartoon: Donald did not discuss this cartoon at the time, but many of those of his ideological bent claimed it was much adieu about nothing, so I'm surprised that Donald now finds it so offensive. He seems to though, because his whole post is based on the ridiculous claim that James said he's a monkey.

I commented at the post asking whether anyone could explain how Donald could manage to squeeze that meaning out of what James wrote (see below), but the only person to reference my comment at all didn't address my questions, but instead wondered why I was stickin' my nose in, in the first place. (More about that, later.) Here was my comment:
"If Donald originally thought James was threatening violence based on that picture, wouldn't James have to've been the monkey, and not Donald, who is clearly pictured on his knees, at the monkey's mercy?

And after James comically explains that the monkey isn't he or Donald, but is instead a third party named Thade, James says that Thade is demanding "monkey" rules" for the throwdown, and that he (James) prays that there is no flinging of poop involved ("in the monkey rules," according to the most elementary understanding of subject/object sentence structure.)

Given all that, where is the part where James says or implies that Dr Douglas is a monkey, or that Donald throws poop (let alone that Donald is a poop throwing monkey?)"

To end the post, Donald again demands an apology, this time for James' "blacks as monkeys slur."

Jesus Sheeples!!!

JBW replies, Brain Rage: Donald Douglas Wants To Kill My Hate Monkey, beginning in his usual over the top humorous way, decrying the obvious threat Dr Donald Douglas made against Thade, the beloved liberal-attack-hate-monkey, but not too far in, the ridiculous, mind-numbing stupidity of the things Donald was accusing James of saying and doing got to be too much for him. I mean, when Donald's real gripes are more outlandish than the ones James could make up, where is there to go?

So rather than continue the comedic onslaught, James ties the "poor me" victimology that Donald has been displaying with the "poor me" victimology of Sarah Palin, where everyone, from small time bloggers to the major media to the folks behind the scenes in the McCain campaign conspired to get her, any way they could. (and yes, as I write this, the news is spreading far and wide of Palin's untimely and odd resignation from the AK Governorship. If they were out to get her, I guess they got her.) Not only did James not say or in any way suggest that Donald was a pooh flinging monkey (or any monkey at all), it was Donald, in his post Attack of the Leftist Hate Monkeys!, who intimated that James was a monkey. Sure, I'm one of those (like Don, apparently) who recognizes that there's a difference between suggesting that a white guy like James (or like Dubya Bush) is a monkey and doing the same to a black person like Donald (or like Obama), so I won't be using that fact to cast aspersions of racist bigotry on the professor. But even so, it's not surprising to see Donald accuse someone else of the very behavior he himself did. And as James points out, it takes a whole lotta bullshit bravado to then demand an apology for that action you accuse others of, but as usual, Donald has a ready supply of that.

And so, James apologizes for Donald being the kind of person he is, and for his treating Donald as a more rational thinking and feeling human being, saying (& read this carefully, because like before, aspects of this quote will soon be important to the story):
"And that's really big of [Dr Donald Douglas] to demand an apology for something I never said and then offer to graciously accept it. But here goes: I'm sorry, Don. I'm sorry that you seem to take yourself and the rest of the world so seriously that you have no discernable sense of humor to speak of. I'm also sorry that you can not grasp the concept that a handicapped person could be included even tangentially in a joke about someone else without that handicapped person being the butt of the joke, nor that you can not grasp that a black person who doesn't look obviously black by most objective measurements and rarely identifies himself as such could be included in a joke about fighting a fictional monkey without that black person also being called a monkey. I like handicapped people, neoconservatives, black people and monkeys and I call many from every group friends. I'm sorry that you can't view the world without confusing several of these hominids in your blindingly righteous indignation."

There's more after that, including the intention of his going off on a Donald-like rant about how the posting of the NY Post monkey shooting cartoon was a not so veiled threat of monkeycide against James' liberal hate monkey Thade, but as I said above, James realized he could not out crazy the crazy, and whatever he wrote, Donald would no doubt top it when he responded with his next set of fucked up accusations against JBW, and all liberals (nihilists).

As if to prove my point, Donald next posts the following: American Power: James B. Webb Apologizes. That's right, Don takes what James wrote just above as a real apology to Donald, and accepts it, ending the matter... (well, after Donald gets a few last digs in, of course... Would you expect anything less?).
The post opens with Don's quotes of two e-mails he received; one from regular AmPow anonymous (though not really) commenter Gregory Koster, and the other from another of Don's "real" anonymous fans, who write him e-mails critical of contrarian posters such as myself rather than posting comments on the site, because they fear that the contrarian in question will follow them back to their own blog homes, & might actually post comments on their blogs, too.

Greg's e-mail offers some interesting insights. He rightly says that every time Donald adds to this post war saga he gives up a little of his dignity,and that he's no longer even reading these "Webb war" posts, but then he combines that with accusations that JBW is never going to stop or apologize, because his psyche won't let him. (when obviously and demonstrably, the opposite is true. JBW did stop, which was the only way to get Donald to drop this bone. According to Donald, James even apologized, too...)

This latest reader who wishes to remain anonymous because she fears repercussions, and therefore sends her comments to Dr Douglas directly, via e-mail (there have been several, before her) prefers to focus on me. In reply to the "Blacks as monkeys" comment reposted above, this anonymous e-mailer says:

I can't believe that Repsac3 is still sticking his nose into this thing. It looks like the others could just stay out of it, and allow you and JBW settle things between yourselves. That's the way they operate, though ... like members of a gang, ganging up on a single individual. I guess they believe in power in numbers ... several of them against you. They are the most disgusting group of men that I have ever had the displeasure of learning about ... if, indeed, they can be called 'men.' They are more like a bunch of bullying, juvenile delinquents. I've a good mind to go to another of my screen names and comment, I'm so disgusted. If I did that, I wouldn't be posting as anonymous, and they wouldn't be able to come to my blog, via yours. I'll have to give that some thought."

I attempted to comment in reply, but Donald was moderating the comments at that time, & seemingly did not approve my comment. Fortunately, I posted it elsewhere, as well:
"In reply to American Power anonymous reader #126, who, like several others, so fears that I might comment on her blog, that she routed her question through Dr Don via e-mail, but was kind enough to allow him to post it for all to see.

I "stuck my nose into this thing" because the thing in question was posted on a public blog, where comments and debate are welcomed, and positions are vigorously defended.

Had Donald & James been working things out in private, (perhaps via private e-mail), I certainly never would've commented about it on anyone's blog. But I believed (and still do) that the fact that both men chose to air their differences on their blogs--where, as I mentioned, comments are accepted and encouraged--allowed me (along with several other people on both blogs, not to mention other writers on their own blogs), to comment on the situation.

In fact, I'll note that in writing your e-mail to Donald and allowing him to publish it, you yourself chose to "stick your nose into this thing," as well. Perhaps Donald and I would do better if we could just settle things between ourselves without outside comment as well, but as long as we continue to vent our spleens on public blogs, where commentary is welcomed and encouraged, I trust that folks like you will continue doing the same thing with your noses that I did with mine, and for very much the same reason.

As for whether we who disagree with Dr Douglas constitute a gang, I'd say no more or less so that those folks who regularly comment in favor of Don's many posts. I trust you'll be fitting them with leather "YesMen" gang jackets any time now...

Personally, I would very much enjoy your taking the time to reply to any/all of my commentary in your own voice. You wouldn't even have to "out" yourself and risk having me follow you back to where you make your internet home and, golly forbid, comment on your blog, since Donald allows anonymous comments here. Just don't sign in (or sign out, if you get automatically signed in) and choose either "Name/URL" -- where you can put in any old thing you wish, or "anonymous" -- which is, well, anonymous, and let me have it. I would be most curious how you (or anyone) would intelligently answer my comment on that "Blacks as Monkeys?" post, because Ms Anon, I really don't see how Donald could ever think he was the "monkey" in question, given how clearly both the words and picture told a different story...

(Assuming this comment gets approved, anyway...) I thank you for your time, and look forward to reading your reply."

Immoderate Monk: Open Message to American Power Anonymous Reader #126 (I have since successfully posted it to the post in question, though at this point, I must wonder whether Donald will allow it to remain posted...)

Judging by the other comments at Donald's "apology" post, the people on Don's site read a very different interblog debate than I did... It's kinda sad...

Theoretically, this should be the end of the photoshop saga. JBW's done, Don got his apology and the last word (unless he counts my word), so this should be done... ...but when it no doubt turns out not to be, please join me for the next thrilling installment...

Roundup and Commentary - 7/4/09

Blog Post:

American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga, Cont'd

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 7/3/09


In reply to American Power anonymous reader #126, who, like several others, so fears that I might comment on her blog, that she routed her question through Dr Don via e-mail, but was kind enough to allow him to post it for all to see.:
Immoderate Monk: Open Message to American Power Anonymous Reader #126 (In reply to: American Power: James B. Webb Apologizes, which Dr. Donald Douglas chose not to approve.)

Donald Douglas does not like it when bloggers on the left give him the same attention he regularly offers his left wing blogger "enemies" in his blog, American Power. Turnabout may be many things to Donald--though knowing him, he probably thinks it's one o' them dirty leather-clad gayboy sex acts, like swinging, or barebacking--but fair play, it ain't.:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga

Friday, July 03, 2009

X-post: Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga

American Nihilist X-post

If one needs further proof that Dr. Donald Kent Douglas, Ph.D--who at one time may've been a respectable associate professor of political science at Long Beach City College and a decent human being--has lost his friggin' mind, one need only look at the strange, vindictive, hypocritical, egotistical saga that has unfolded over the past week or so.

In the beginning, there was mother Sarah, and Trig. They were good and fine & most importantly, right.

Then a mean old blogger from Alaska named Linda Biegel [Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis] photoshopped that photo, turning baby Trig into Alaskan rightwing shock jock and self-described "Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible-Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea-Bagging Rascist [sic], White Guy Bigot," Eddie Burke. The photo is intended to satirize Eddie Burke's close political relationship with Ms. Palin, but wingnut bloggers spring into action, trying to make it an attack on poor Down's Syndrome baby Trig.: BUMPED: How Celtic Diva Treats Trig Palin; UPDATE: Call to Action.

Never one to pass up a chance to attack any liberal (nihilist)--and in the process, generalize about ALL liberals (nihilists), because obviously, whatever ONE liberal (nihilist) does, ALL liberals (nihilists) are responsible for--our man Dr. Don joins the fray.: American Power: Democratic Values! Left-Wing Alaska Operative 'Ghoulshops' Trig Palin! Near as I can tell, Don's first argument was that the blogger in question was simply trying to make Trig look "goulish," and that the face wasn't that of Eddie Burke, the Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible-Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea-Bagging Rascist [sic], White Guy Bigot." Don cribs some info from the Con's for Palin site, and suggests that his fellow wingnuts harass the Alaska blogger by sending her nasty "friend" requests via Facebook. (That appears to be a coordinated effort, as other right wing bloggers posting on this story do the same.)

Reaction, both in the comments at Don's post and elsewhere: Brain Rage: American Power And Trig Palin "Ghoulshopping", and American Nihilist: Sarah, Trig, and Eddie, the HRSBTNGBTBRWGB H8R point out that it isn't about Trig but about the odd relationship between the governor and the shock jock, that various people across the political spectrum do stupid things, and that Donald & his wingnut friends are being hypocritical to suggest otherwise.

This is where the misogyny and "do as I say, not as I do" photoshopping by some of Dr Douglas' bestest con buds begins: No Sheeples Here!: Blimpie Biegel. The sheep's post is about calling the female Alaska blogger fat and ugly, and little else. In classic ad hominem style, sheep says that overweight women cannot express political opinions. Dan Reihl plays the picture straight, but repeats the nonsense about it being an attack on poor, darling, Down's syndrome Trig, and like sheep, attacks the blogger as being ugly (& thus not worthy of consideration. And like Don, Dan Reihl suggests using the "be my friend" feature of Facebook to harass Ms. Biegel.: Riehl World View: Talk About Dumb. Then there's this rude dog, named Rude Dog. S/he treats both women as brain dead, with Sarah's only value in her looks, and Linda not even having that much going for her.: Linda Kellen Biegel & Sarah Palin : A Tale By The Rude Dog - The Rude News. These folks clearly respect women... Of course, they do.

It's odd... While both sheep & Reihl link to Cons for Palin in their posts, perhaps these bloggers didn't read the site closely enough to've noticed where it asked "Why do they always attack her for her 'femaleness' -- for her appearance or her attractiveness as a woman or her role as a mother? It's crude and sexist. It's not okay." One wonders whether the PUMAs--a mostly female & feminist gang of (former) Hillary Democrats who for the most part now support Sarah Palin and anyone or any thing that's against Obama--have anything to say about how this blogger is being treated by these Conservatives. I won't hold my breath waiting to find out, however.

True to form, Donald doesn't write any new personal attacks against Linda Biegel himself, but cuts & pastes sheep's and Dan's misogynistic attacks.: American Power: Palin Hits Back at 'Malicious' Photoshop of Son Trig. I'd like to say there was anything more to Don's post, but sadly, there isn't. Dr. Don did get a few replies, however, including an update to JBW's Brain Rage post: that I already linked to once before, above: (For those too lazy to scroll: American Power And Trig Palin "Ghoulshopping").

Now seemingly high on the ad hominem arguments photoshop can create, our man DonKDouglas asks sheep, his dealer, to give him another fix, for use in his next post: American Power: James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays.

(As an aside, one wonders whose little babies sheep is disrespecting & denigrating by replacing their heads with Linda's & James' respectively, and why neither those innocent children nor their innocent parents don't seem to matter to any of these conservative concern trolls, least of all, sheep herself. Surely Trig isn't the only baby in America that deserves their protection, right? Apparently, he is, though... One can almost hear them saying, "Screw these kids... If mother Sarah didn't give birth to 'em, they just don't count.")

As Donald has done before, this post makes "gay" a pejorative, and fires both barrels of Dr. Don'a famous homophobia & bigotry at James B. Webb, albeit in his occasional send-up of hip "gangsta" vernacular, yo. After quoting a few fellow Cons who agree that "All Democrats are...___(plug in evil thing here.)--as though his quoting other Con's spouting the same opinions as him turns his opinions into facts--he tries to revive some crazy old argument he had with James about Dr. Don posting links to unrelated posts in Brain Rage's' comment section (Don's become famous for his blog whoring--he'll seemingly do anything for a hit, including posting links to his posts among the comments at your blog, regardless of what your post or his is about. In this case, Don posted a link to something about punk music in the Brain Rage comments, at a post having nothing to do with Don, punk rock, memories of old times, or anything else. James didn't approve, and let Don know, but left the link. The next time Don did the same thing, however--as though James had never said a word--James deleted the link.) Anyway, Dr. Don tries to somehow show hypocrisy, because James had an attitude about unrelated links at Brain Rage, and yet dares to post links in reply to Don's American Power posts in the comments of the very American Power posts to which James is replying. Shocking, I know. How could he?!? (Perhaps it'd be unwise to mention how many times ol' Don has said things like "This thread is DONE. If you want to say something else, write a post on YOUR blog, and link it back here.", because showing that much hypocrisy might upset Don further, and then God knows what he might do.)

Anyway, Don follows that with his equally strange theory that, like STD's, you can and do catch any/every behavior that anyone you link to, or anyone THEY link to does or is. James links to something called the OUT campaign, a site trying to increase the visibility of atheists. A gay man in Malaysia ALSO links to the OUT campaign site, so ipso facto, obviously James loves that gay Malaysian man-meat, or something. (You think I'm kidding... Read the post, and then ask yourself why Don titles it " James Webb, Atheist Hypocrite, Loves teh Gays." The guy has flipped his fuckin' bird.) ((Of course, since Donald himself links to Brain Rage, and Brain Rage links to the OUT site, according to Don's own wacked out theory... Well, I think you know where I'm goin' with this...)) It's at this post that Don begins to get some comments from a few of his "homies"--regular readers who align themselves with his political viewpoint--that he really should pay attention to... Of course, he doesn't.

JBW: Brain Rage: I Don't Think Donald Douglas Likes Me..., and I: American Nihilist: Touchy, meet touché. reply. JBW points out a few of the obvious inconsistencies I mention in this post, while I pretty much provide the links & leave it to the readers to decide for themselves how badly James mopped the floor with professor Donald Douglas, mostly by quoting his own words back at him.

Before JBW was even done writing the post above, however, Dr. Don was already pecking out his next incomprehensible screed, based on a comment JBW had left on Don's prior post.: American Power: James "Barebacker" Webb. Perhaps because he was still unable to create his own photoshops, Donald instead posts two pictures of a buff gay man--one without a shirt--which perhaps says far more about Don than about James. (Or maybe it's just more of that wholesome Rule 5 "breast blogging" that gets a slew of Cons such as himself all hot'n'bothered once or twice a week? [It's a bait & switch maneuver, to get folks who're surfing the net for softcore porn & "downblouse" or "nipple slip" shots of celebs to visit their conservative political blogs for a second or two, giving them more hits on their way to that illusive million, and thus "my dick is bigger than your dick" bragging rights, or something... More on that--including an actual "my dick is bigger'n' your dick" claim by Donald Douglas himself--to come.]) I'm just shocked that Donald actually managed to repurpose one of his favorite homophobic words beginning with the letter "B," for use against JBW. Again, one of Donald's readers gently tries to talk some sense into him. Again, Donald only hears what he wishes to hear, and ignores the comments.
And, perhaps seeing that Don was in trouble, Stogie, one of Donald's ideological homies, joins in the fun: Saberpoint: Jimmy B. Webb: What's a Libertarian-Socialist?. (The less said about that, the better. Let's just say that Stogie lacks the intelligence that makes Don readable, and leave it at that.) JBW updates his "I Don't Think Donald Douglas Likes Me..." post, in reply to both.

Don must've learned to photoshop, because his next screed attacks me, picture and all.: American Power: Comrade Repsac3: Commissar of State Security, People's Commissariat for Internet Affairs. I can only surmise that he was upset that I'd commented at all on both his posts and JBW's, and / or that I'm just generally a thorn in his side, because I didn't photoshop anyone, or even repost any of the photoshops that anyone else had posted. In fact, other than showing that the original photoshop was clearly intended to be of Eddie Burke, making a statement about Eddie Burke, and my suggestion that these serial pity parties for Sarah were making her look weak, I'd pretty much handed folks links, and let them decide for themselves...

Nevertheless, Don offered this post that suggests I'm some kinda commie propaganda officer or some such thing, and kindly gives similar titles to the other folks I blog with semi-regularly. As usual though, he doesn't back his outlandish claims with anything. My response was to question why a college professor with a doctorate would stoop to such a level of discourse. (A question which itself becomes an issue later on.) The real heat, such as it is, comes from Tania Ciolko (Skye), who asked why Donald bothers with me, which later prompts yet another post from Dr Don.

My other response, seeing as how Don chose to abuse the access with which we'd cautiously trusted each other, was to block him all access to my facebook account. It was obviously too much temptation for him to simply keep tabs on my blog posts and movements outside our normal political sphere of interaction--or whatever purpose it was for which he'd first sent me the friend request, back on tax / tea party day. To paraphrase a line from a pretty funny movie I saw way too many times as a teen, "I fucked up. I trusted him." The fault was mine. I knew what kind of person he was becoming; I just didn't think he'd cross that line.

Despite his untrue claim that I'd initiated our FaceBook contact, and the post linked above suggesting that he was going to cut it off to protect himself, because I was a "stalker," Donald never did do so--you can speculate to yourselves as to why--and in the end, it was he who misused that access, downloading and manipulating the photo seen in this post, and me who had to remove him from my friend list and block him, before he did anything else to abuse what little "friendship" we had. I'd like to believe it was still a chance worth taking, even though it ultimately resulted in his abusing the privilege we gave each other. Should there be another situation like this one, I hope I'll take that chance again, and still believe it might work out better.

(I also now see that neocon teen sensation cOurTnEymE1o9 also left a comment, though she sadly went light on her usual unreadable teen vernacular, and mid-to-late 90's era penchant for random letter capitalization. She might make a fine Don Douglas sycophant one day, but their current mutual admiration is just a little too "daddy home alone with the politically precocious sexy step-daughter" creepy for me... It ain't McCain Palin creepy, but it's close. I'd've replied, but Don had already set the comment stream for that post to "moderate," and anything I'd've said there likely wouldn't've made it through, anyway...).

JBW then posted: Brain Rage: American Power And Republican Humor Fail. The thesis is, Cons just cannot be funny, no matter how hard they try. And, while Donald looks for approval of his funny in the comments to the post about me cited above, he denies trying to be funny in the post below. Typical.

His irrational desire to attack still not sated, Don fires another shot at his many perceived enemies, this time using an editorial cartoon that applies far better to he and his fellow Con bloggers--religiously following "Lipless" McCain's "How to Get a Million Hits..." Rules 1-5 (see reference to "Rule 5,"--the bait 'n' switch breast blogging tactic--above.)--rather than folks like JBW & I, who really could (couldn't?) give a shit how many people show up.:
American Power: Democratic Epic Moral Fail! Don hits all the usual notes, railing on about "total moral bankruptcy and infinite hypocrisy", without offering a single example of either, and again repeating that same "Homophobic, Red Shirt, Bible Thumping Nazi, Gay Bashing, Tea Bagging, Rascist, White Guy, Bigots." line/link that he's used in every last one of his posts in this saga...

And then he quotes some other Con, to justify the photoshops that he & his con buddies've done, citing some variant of an eye for an eye kinda thing. (He specifically mentions his post attacking me, even though I never photoshopped--or even knowingly posted a photoshop of--a single soul, friend or foe. (Not until this post, anyway...) Apparently, not vocally objecting when some other as yet unmentioned liberal blogger photoshopped Don in clownface last October makes me guilty enough for him to "give me a taste of my ...erb... that guy's own medicine."
Whatever you say, Chuckles... (The name of that pic, as created by LGM blogger davenoone? "americaneoclown"... Considering that Dr. Douglas' blogger screen name was/is "americanneocon," that's pretty funny.)

Again Dr Don tries to sell the notion that the picture is a slight on poor, poor, Down's Syndrome baby Trig, even going so far as to selectively quote JBW & another commenter, all the better to spin the illusion that both said poor, poor Trig was an ugly baby. There's a line or two about how all liberals are evil scum or something, then, true to form, Don whips out his online dick, in the form of his blog traffic report, and lays it right up next to JBW's online penis, (which he also seemingly conveniently keeps on hand, for just such emergencies, I guess) and crows like an early morning piss-hard cock about how much bigger his is...

JBW spoke next,: Brain Rage: American Power And The Descent Into Madness. James calmly explains where Dr. Don intentionally shades the facts as concerns his suggesting that someone was an ugly baby. In context, it's easy to see they were talking about Eddie Burke, rather than Trig Palin, but that doesn't stop Don from carefully cutting quotes and blaring that liberals (nihilists) are calling poor, sweet, Down's Syndrome Trig ugly. Next, he points out that he (& I) have on several occasions said that we are not Democrats (nihilists), making Donald's repeated claim that we speak as we do because we're blinded by party loyalty kind of strange, to say the least. Finally, he sticks a pin in Dr Don's whole "my dick is bigger than his dick" internet traffic measuring by pointing out how pathetic it is, and by clearly showing that one's ratings on tv or blog hits online does not convey higher morality, or even spiritual or intellectual worth. (Who gets bigger ratings, PBS or American Idol?)

In Dr. Douglas' next post, American Power: Talking About Ugly Babies, he begins by quoting one of his many anonymous fans who, fearing being verbally attacked if they were to post on Don's blog, instead write him private e-mails which he faithfully reproduces at length on his blog. Oddly enough, they always agree completely with professor Douglas, and praise his forthrightness in combatting the evil nihilist trolls that are obviously against all that is right and good. After that it's all accusations of JBW being gay--"NTTAWWT!!!" ("Not That There's Anything Wrong With That" in case you're like me, and not hip enough to know what the fuck Don was talking about). Nothing to see there...

It doesn't get any better in Don's very next post, American Power: "You Better Watch Your Back", which is more of the same homophobic gaybashing on JBW, who isn't actually gay. (While Don claims to be a friend to the gay community, the frequency and ferocity with which he uses it as a slur against others, and FREAKS THE FUCK OUT when someone, in the course of tossing his logic back at him, suggests that he might be gay, paints a very different picture of Don's true feelings about gay men.) This time, Don alleges that JBW is hittin' on one of Don's male readers, because James commented that the man looks younger than his 63 years... Heady stuff, that. One can see why Don might be offended, or scared into a homophobic panic, or something... By this point, no one's commenting on Dr Don's rants...

Considering that this saga is all about photoshopping, it seemed we hadn't had one in awhile... JBW fixes that, in his post, Brain Rage: American Power And Ugly Babies, which replies to Don's previous two entries. James plays it surprisingly straight in this one (other than the photo), but excoriates ol' Don just as thoroughly as he has in every other post so far. The high point is James' appreciation for that handsome "young looking, for his years" reader of Don's site, Rusty Walker, with whom James (& I) have had several pleasant exchanges, even though we disagreed. (It is possible to treat those with whom one disagrees with respect. It isn't weakness, but strength. Anyone can "shout" a name or a label on the internet, and think they've achieved something. It takes a real man to be firm in his beliefs, but respectful of those to whom he's speaking, even (especially) if they disagree with those beliefs.)

Finally, we reach the last of Don's many posts whining about photoshops and attacking folks. [As of this writing, anyway... I'll update, if there are more...]: American Power: Wonkette Attacks Trig Palin as 'Cheap Prop', Links More Grotesque Photoshops! This screed is pretty much the same as all the others, blaming all liberals for the actions of any liberal, "mistaking" sarcasm and satire for gospel truth, and generally tearing one's clothes in mourning for the decency of the dubya years. This time the victim is Wonkette : Sarah Palin Will Soon Condemn, Bomb Entire Internet, and this place: Sarah Palin thinks photoshopping special needs babies is appalling - The Something Awful Forums, who're creating/collecting photoshops of Sarah & Trig like crazy. (Note... By the time I showed up, someone from that last link had created a new site, in case the phenom of photoshopping Sarah/Trig reaches meme status...: CONSERVATIVE CULT – They will destroy us all.) Don, as usual, is puffed up with righteous indignation and moral better-than-thou, denying that he and others hyping this story with faux indignation at "the secular collectivist left" are using poor, retarded Trig and his special needs status in an attempt to make the issue about him, rather than about Eddie, the "homophobic, red-shirt, ... bigot." (If you've actually followed one or two of Don's links, I'm sure you know the whole phrase by heart...)

Apparently, this photoshop thing is causing blog wars like this to bust out all over: Rumproast -- Connect-the-Nazis [UPDATED], which is in reply to one of Don's blog buddies whipping out the word "Nazi" as a marketing ploy. (Gotta get that million hits, kiddies, whatever it takes...)

It was here that I once would've been done, but it seems the crazy isn't over yet...

All went quiet for a day or two, and taking note of that, JBW posts his wrap-up/apology to his regular readers: Brain Rage: American Power Powers Down. James does get in a few last jabs after the bell, but it'd be hard not to, given that in wrapping up, one must say why they were ever in the fight in the first place, which necessitates saying why one's opponent deserved the beat down he got.

James also put forth my long-held theory that sites like Don's thrive on such conflict, and that without commenters who disagree, it's all mutual masturbation, with writer and reader alike stroking each other's egos with comments that essentially boil down to "You're so right, and so am I, for agreeing with you". A few of Don's regular contrarians, now Brain Rage devotees, nodded in agreement and said that they, too deserved a break from Don's clam-shack of continuous negative vibery, and all was right with the world.


Don roars back, exclamation points and all, with his post: American Power: Attack of the Leftist Hate Monkeys!. Actually, this one's kinda lame, with Dr Don kinda using JBW as a stepping stone on which to skip himself to a different story, about another Con blogger who had "liberal troubles." (Get an infestation of those guys, coming in and adding common sense to one's senseless posts, and folks might actually start thinkin' for themselves...). In the 4-5 lines Don does devote to JBW, he rings those same old bells... Declare victory, use some way over the top hyperbolic verbiage, like "depraved," and "sick," and then give justification for his own tactics, conveniently found in a post by some guy named John Hawkins, who suggests that Cons fight as dirty as they wanna be, because "Nice Guys Do Finish Last (PJMedia)." As of this post, no comments in reply.

JBW, knowing this post just didn't have enough photoshops in it, helps out in his reply post, : Brain Rage: American Power And Hate Monkeys. Here, James admits his addiction to the crazy (an addiction I know all too well) and then proceeds to logically explain where Don went wrong, this time. James points out the hyperbolic verbiage, and notes that it is hyperbole like that that begat this mess, way back when these "happy" few were decrying the initial photoshop of Sarah holding Eddie Burke, the homophobic, red shirt guy... James also takes note of the "hits = rightness" meme, questioning why, if that is so, folks like Andrew Sullivan--the worst of the worst, according to Dr. Don--dwarf ol' Don's hit count numbers by like 20 to 1. Alas, we may never know, because were Don forced to confront incongruent facts like that, his whole world view would crack more than it already has. Don just doesn't look at anything that doesn't need seeing.

Done? No, of course not. Don doesn't know the meaning of "last word," unless it's contained in a post / comment that he himself wrote.: American Power: James B. Webb: Depths of Psychological Denial. First off, Don returns to his homophobic roots, employing the "barebacker" slur in the very first paragraph. Mostly, this is a second reply to James' "Power Down" post, which I'm guessing he wrote after realizing that his first hopscotch-y try was kinda just phoning it in. For backup, Donald calls in his old friend DocSanity, a real psychologist of a decidedly partisan conservative bent, who offers her considered medical opinion about liberals over the internet in her spare time (because everyone knows how ethical & right it is to analyze and diagnose patients one has never seen.) While she's welcome to trade her ethics for her partisanship, her doing so makes her just another partisan hack, very much like our fair professor, himself.

Don swaggers around, using the term "big boy" several times (which may also be a penis thing, given Don's propensity for dick swingin' and measuring contests), and going back to the famed misquote, suggesting that James now thinks the original photoshops taking Trig out & putting Eddie in are disgusting, worthy of condemnation, or about Trig, at all... Thankfully there's a link, where the honest reader will see through the ploy...

Then he manages to get out a dictionary to combat James' challenge that Don stand behind his charge of hypocrisy as concerns putting trackback links in one another's comment sections, but as usual, Don only goes so far as to crib the dictionary definition that suits his purpose, and ignores the part about making the definition fit the charge he makes. (Regular readers know how many times I've challenged Don to make that "nihilist" charge stick, by quoting all these nihilist things I've said, and then showing how they jibe with the dictionary definition of the word, and how many times Don has failed to even try, whether by ignoring the challenge outright, or by doing what he did here, quoting a dictionary, but failing to link the definition he cribs to any concrete fact, often shifting the goalpost to something that he thinks might fool his readership into thinking he scored a successful point. Sadly, a few actually fall for it, while the rest just maintain an uncomfortable silence, praying that someone changes the subject before they have to say something, either in support of Don, or in support of truth.)

Anyway... With that, this "tough guy" Don--this "man's man" who spends his whole first paragraph calling James out for a physical altercation, alternating between gloating about his own physical prowess--(waving his dick in the wind) and calling James a pussy--(one can almost hear Dr. Douglas makin' with the chicken noises over the internet), who "welcome[s] comments and debate" on his blog--promptly goes back to moderating the comments, so that one must have their comment ok'ed by Don before appearing on his site. He is a tough one, huh?

As of this moment anyway, that's where it stands... (There is this post: American Power: Attention Conservatives: Be Feared, that's tangentially related, as it is another justification for employing bad behavior (kind of a "too bad we're not all Ann Coulter" kinda thing), but unlike the others it doesn't mention anyone by name.) So, as I said the last time I was "done," I'll update this post the next time it turns out that this isn't over. (After Don speaks, there's at least a chance it'll end. I wouldn't even try to stop after a JBW post... Dr. Don would never let anyone but him have the last word, which can make these things kinda funny... Don's like Pavlov's dog... Hell, this post will likely generate another post from him, so as long as I continue to update this post, I'll be guaranteeing myself something to do on a rainy day, and continued unhinged rantings from the house of Don.

Roundup and Commentary - 7/2/09

Blog Post:

American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga


People demanding more than their fair share.:
The Puff in the Pastry: The Fancy Food Show Roundup

If you're secure in your ideas and ideals, you can afford to be civil even to those who disagree with you.:
American Power: Attention Conservatives: Be Feared

Not a poop throwing monkey, but maybe a yarn spinning professor?:
American Power: Blacks as Monkeys? Even When Leftists Hit Bottom, They Keep Digging

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Roundup and Commentary - 7/1/09


It's a shame, sir, that you criticize the behavior of others, and then justify acting in that same way because "they did it first." As I've said to you before on this blog and elsewhere, change begins with you and with me, one by one and conversation by conversation. If you believe something is wrong when done by that side, it is equally wrong when done by this side. I'm not quite sure whether your argument is that bad behavior is justified as retribution, or justified because it works, but either way, I take issue with your saying that bad behavior is justified.:
Valley of the Shadow: The Post Plague Year Rules for Commenting

These serial pity parties that the PUMAs and a few others on the right are constantly throwing for Sarah Palin are going to backfire, by making her look weak and / or not sufficiently thick skinned enough for national public office.:
New York - Runnin' Scared - Latest Sarah Palin Permanent-Campaign Prop: Wonkette

We all should lead by example:
Immoderate Monk: The Golden Rule compels you

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

X-post: The Ricci riddle and the law's limits - Kermit Roosevelt

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

"That means that the way people think about Ricci – and this includes the justices – is in large part shaped not by logic or law but by their attitudes about the world. In particular, it depends on whether they think it is more likely that minority candidates were simply not as good as the whites, or more likely that there was some unintended bias skewing the results. What drives these attitudes, as Holmes knew, is experience. The facts of Ricci are an inkblot in which we all see the pictures life has drawn for us."

Read the rest: Kermit Roosevelt - The Ricci riddle and the law's limits -

Other posts on the subject worth reading (added as I find 'em):
The history behind Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court case that will decide who gets the good jobs in cities across America. (3) - By Nicole Allan and Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

Roundup and Commentary - 6/30/09

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” - Anatole France, 1844 - 1924

Blog Post:

Wingnuts & Moonbats: The Ricci riddle and the law's limits - Kermit Roosevelt


Paying attention to--and when necessary, writing and enforcing laws mandating--equality of outcome is necessary to ensure we get what we all want, equality of opportunity.:
American Power: Leftist Reaction to Ricci v. DeStefano

I'm all for equal rights for everyone, including the "physically challenged," but you're never going to see my name on a petition demanding that blind folks be given jobs as lookouts--though I do think they should be afforded their turn at reading the eye chart, just like everybody else. Equality of opportunity, don'cha know...):
RealClearPolitics - Comments - repsac3, Jun 30, 11:59 AM (no permalink, scroll to date/time/name)

Max [Blumenthal] offers an analogy between the situation in these two places, and again the meaning & purpose of an analogy is twisted, as though saying that two things are alike in any way, is saying that they are alike in every way. (Apples and oranges; both fruits, both have a skin, both kinda round, both healthy to eat, and yet so "not identical" as to've spawned a phrase using both of their names, about making comparisons between disparate objects.):
American Power: Despicable: Huffington Post Equates Iran Neda Murderers to Israel

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)