Friday, April 30, 2010

In reply: "...that full-on visual impact"

In reply to: THE SWASH ZONE: "Read More" (i.e. "After the Jump") Links Now Available for Long Posts
---

While it's a groovy tool to have--many would argue that my long-winded ass would benefit from using "read the rest" links, I'd guess--there are times you just need that full-on visual impact. (I happened to recently find myself re-reading this old SWASH ZONE post, fer'instance...)

I guess what I'm saying is, use it judiciously, (and in good health, of course).

Submitted for Zoner approval Posted 8:54 AM, April 30, 2010 (Shared time zone)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

In Reply: Law Enforcement/Security, or Obama's Private Shock Troops?

In reply to: Nontroversy Born - Osborne Ink: News that's fairly liberal, but never unbalanced.
---

You'd think that folks on the right would be more pro-security/pro-law enforcement, but this is the second time (of which I'm aware--there may be others) that tea partiers and the cons that support them have gone off the deep end and accused members of US law enforcement / security--professionals whose job it is to risk their lives to protect the American people--of threatening them for partisan gain at the behest of the President. (Here's my response to Gateway Pundit from the last time they pulled this crap; I'm not surprised that Jim Hoft is a major player in pushing this story, as well.: With All Due Respect: Re: OBAMA SECRET SERVICE Pulls Guns On Conservative Tea Party Protesters In Bristol)

I don't know the whole story regarding this current incident--the pictures and videos I've seen are all strangely silent about what was going on prior to the SWAT/special forces/jack-booted thugs from Obama's personal "re-education" force--oh, they were just area cops?-- showed up, but I'm inclined to give LE and the Secret Service the benefit of the doubt, particularly as concerns charges that they're acting on partisan political orders.

Anyway, great post. I gave it an honorable mention link at my post about this nontroversy. (and kudos on the word too, bytheway...)
---

Posted to Osborne Ink 4/29/10, 7:57 PM (WIS blog time) ((No comment links))

X-Post: Donald Douglas Hate, Racism, and Lies

In which Donald Douglas at the blog American Power: Democrat Party of Hate and Racism makes a pair of contradictory and conspiratorial allegations of racism against yours truly, in spite of documented evidence to the contrary.

The post begins with Donald posting a video that contains recordings of nasty calls allegedly received by FreedomWorks, and photos of over the top anti-republican signs. Assuming they're not propaganda, I'd imagine that most people would reject that kinda talk, just as we do when folks on the right engage in it. Along with the video though, Donald Douglas posts the following unsubstantiated bullshit about the folks he hates today.:

Extreme hatred warning, not unlike the searing demonology we get from Scott Kaufman, The "Boogie Nights" Boy, and TBogg (just for starters)
Now, anyone who's curious is welcome to follow those links to the home pages of the blogs Lawyers, Guns and Money - where Scott Kaufman is one of several bloggers, Brain Rage, where James B. Webb--who Donald Douglas has taken to calling "Boogie Nights Boy" of late, for reasons that are clear only to him--is the one and only writer, and TBogg's author page at Firedoglake; and maybe, if you don't happen to share their politics, you'll even find something on one of their home pages that strikes you as offensive, but it's telling that Donald Douglas didn't even bother to try and link to any specific "searing demonology" (or hatred, or racism) by any of these writers. Apparently Mr Douglas feels that you're just supposed to believe whatever he says. That's right; Donald's ego is so large that he thinks if he says it, everyone will just accept it, and evidence backing whatever claim he makes should be wholly unnecessary. That's some serious pomposity.
And racism too, from Repsac3, who's obviously created a dummy Twitter account to make vile racist attacks on conservatives:
Obviously, Donald? Based on what? The voices in your head?

The facts about this are well documented, and Donald should be well aware of them, after the last time he launched an attack on me based on actions of this conservative and bigoted clown.

Anyone interested can follow the "documented facts" link above for the full story, but in a nutshell: There is was a person on Twitter using the name TrappedRoom, who followed all the big name Cons and lists (#tcot), and trolled liberals who argued with Andrew Breitbart (#andrewbreitbart) by sending them odd (and in several cases, including mine, bigoted) pictures, which were posted to a TwitPic account. (Sometime last night, the Twitter account for TrappedRoom disappeared, but the Twitpic account is still up (and I have screen caps, in case it also shuts down.)

So Donald is attempting to sell a conspiracy theory alleging that I created a dummy account on Twitter to frame poor @andrewbreitbart with having a bigoted conservative fan named TrappedRoom who trolls liberals who argue with him on twitter, and that I sent all eighty-seven of these photos to myself and my liberal friends. Right. And he expects people to believe this because...

...well, he doesn't say why, or provide anything in the way of evidence, aside a link to my tweet linking @andrewbreitbart to @trappedroom, the guy who sent the photo to me. (And I added a comment to the photo page, with a bit.ly link to the "documented proof" post above. After I post this, I'll add a link to it, as well.) He's Donald Douglas. He just expects you to believe him.

Or does he?

Apparently, even Donald figured out that this was too big and ridiculous a load for even his most sycophantic readers to swallow, because he subsequently added the following:
*********
Added: Evil loves company ... turns out Repsac3's forwarding a career troll-spammer's racist tweets. Takes one to re-tweet one, I guess.
(When Donald posted it, the "career troll spammer" link went to TrappedRoom's Twitter account page but, seeing as how that account's closed, you can get much of the same info from the TrappedRoom twitpic account page info I changed it to.)
So here, Donald Douglas changes the story; acknowledging that the guy was a career troll spammer (who, one presumes from the context, isn't me any longer, according to Donald), and alleging that I'm only forwarding his racist tweets. (Of course, Donald fails to mention that when I "forwarded" the tweet, I was only doing so in the name of shining a light on this conservative, and drawing attention to his ties to Breitbart/conservative fandom, and to his pretty obvious bigotry. But why should he? Those facts don't fit the false narrative Donald is trying in vain to weave.)

The illogic and hypocrisy here is pretty astounding... After a start so blatantly dishonest that even Donald knew enough to change it, Mr Douglas is attacking me for forwarding a racist twitterpic... and he's mounting that attack by posting the racist twitterpic on his American Power blog, where even more people can see it... (And let's not forget that a few days ago, Donald linked to the very same racist picture in yet another American Power blog post attacking me.)

So here's the question: If Donald believes it's wrong for me to use this conservative troll's bigoted photo to shine a spotlight on his racism (and thus show that yes, there really is at least one racist conservative/Breitbart fan), why does Donald believe it's acceptable for him to repeatedly use the exact same bigoted photo to attack me? If "forwarding" the link to the photo makes me a racist, wouldn't Donald Douglas be a racist for posting both the link and the photo itself on his American Power blog? Wouldn't the same standard to which he's holding me apply to him, as well? Or does he believe there are different standards, dependent on political bias?

The answer to that is too obvious for words... Donald Douglas is a lying hypocrite.

A lying hypocrite who apparently cannot even make up his mind which lie he wants to tell:

@AmPowerBlog: I guess @repsac3 took down @TrappedRoom. Must be hard out there for a racist. In response to my post: http://tinyurl.com/24nexlw #News #p2

Oops!! Guess I was wrong... Donald didn't realize out how ridiculous--and more importantly, fact free--a story that was (or maybe he figured that with the account gone, there wasn't enough evidence for anyone to challenge him on the lies--ignoring the fact that since he's the one making these twin allegations, the burden of proof rests on him to back them up with more than just his fabulist speculation.)

Check the facts, and decide for yourselves... But I trust that you'll come to the conclusion that once again, Donald Douglas is the lying double-plus hypocrite and all-around character assassin he accuses his many enemies of being. And that ain't good...
---

American Nihilist X-post

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

In reply to the following comment:
There is an easy solution to the problems inherent in immigration. We apply the rules of the country of origin to all immigrants seeking citizenship in this country. Say, whatever Mexico required for one seeking citizenship there it would be applied across the board to Mexicans seeking citizenship in this country.
It would be fair to all involved and would ensure that people in this country would be conversant with how other countries control immigration. Whereas a person seeking work would have a green card or what ever the equivalent paperwork required in other countries. It removes political considerations from the equation.
We could take other actions for those seeking political asylum, et al.
- Dennis - April 28, 2010, 7:26 AM comment at the post "American Power: Illegal Alien Superhighway"
Dennis: It's a neat rhetorical trick--and one with which I'd agree, believe it or don't--except that I wouldn't want American law to be determined by and at the mercy of the whims of the lawmaking of foreign countries.

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

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

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

Wingnuts and Moonbats X-Post

In reply: Only if you're a tea partier... RE: Did the Tea Party win the debate over the N-word accusations?

In reply to: Did the Tea Party win the debate over the N-word accusations? - Washington Examiner
---

No, I don't believe Breitbart and the Tea Party crowd have won much of anything, here. For all his bluster, @andrewbreitbart has no more proof that the incident never happened than the congressmen have that it did.

Sure, it would be nice if there were some kinda audio or video footage conclusively proving the words were or were not spoken, but I'm pretty sure that trees falling in the middle of the forest make noise, even when no one captures the sound on tape. And as the great 'pubbie philosopher once said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The eye witness testimony of the congressmen--and the tea party protesters, too--is apparently the only evidence there is, and after that, it all comes down to who we each find more credible. It's not surprising that for activists, anyway, the divide between who folks find more trustworthy falls along partisan lines.
---
Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

In reply: "...a post I never agreed with in the first place..."

In reply to this comment by Octopus at American Nihilist: Donald Douglas just can't let me go
---

Octo...

Further clarification: Octo is not the owner of the Zone but merely a group facilitator. All who are members of the Zone are owners of the Zone. The Zone is the perfect commie-socialist-liberal-hippie-commune and no match for a wingnut buffoon.

Not that I want 2 B... ...erm... sorry... to be all negative, but dude, I don't recall having a vote--or even being notified a vote was taking place--as regards my summary dismissal as an author over there. And maybe I should be a better guy or more of a "manly man" about the whole thing, but it kinda hurt my feelings. (And deleting the 31st comment, as well as any record that it ever existed, didn't help, either.)

To me, Donald represents the nutbag right, and by slapping him down, I slap down all who think like him, too. It's his narcissism and pomposity that makes him such a great target... He's smart enough to try to debate--where many on the right don't seem to be, and just mutter some bullshit nasty phrase about socialism or "the red menace" that they heard on FoxNews or Rush--and no matter how badly he loses, his ego tells him he's won, so he keeps coming back to get his ass kicked again.

Besides, the way he beats up on people--the ones over on the American Nihilist blogroll, fer'instance--offends me. I really dislike bullies. So I toss punches back his way...

I understand that you don't get it, and you don't like it, and you think I shouldn't bother... And I even get that that's why we're no longer co-authors on either blog... And that's fine, if that's how strongly you felt about it... But I think I've written some good posts about a whole lotta issues as a byproduct of popping this overstuffed gasbag, and I enjoy doing it, besides... ...so stop with the intervention... Considering the fact that you turned tail and left me to endlessly speak up for and defend this friggin' post where you out his bosses and all but suggest folks harass them--a post I never agreed with in the first place, but felt you had the right to post here, regardless--and that while I'm sticking up for your right to post, you're quietly removing my Swash Zone authorship and later deleting that comment--Octo... you''ll forgive me if I don't take your advice as seriously as I otherwise might, or feel the need to justify much of anything I choose to do here...

That said, your advice is noted.
Maybe I'll even take it, one day... We shall see...
---

Posted April 27, 2010, 1:23 PM

In reply: Everybody Draw Mohammed - I just don't want to offend those who don't deserve it, even to make a point about those who do

In reply to: Brain Rage: In Defense Of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day:
---

I've been bouncing back and forth on this topic, thinkin' everyone I read has a good point...

As of now, I'm with Thundercock philosophically, but don't intend to participate because I don't wish to offend people. (There's a whole lotta things I wouldn't post on the grounds that I don't want to offend, including some of the stuff that appears here, and at American Nihilist, for that matter.) ((And then, contradictory somebitch that I am, I laugh my ass off when you folks post 'em. I just suck.))

If I was the kind of person who had no issue with posting things I knew might be offensive to other religions (or races, genders, sexual orientations, etc.), I'd like to think I'd offend muslims as well, in spite of the potentially increased risk of violence from extremist assholes... though I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't take that into account, too. (I don't know whether Comedy Central made the right decision in not airing the shows as created, but I'm not in agreement with those--mostly keyboard commandos on the right, I've noticed--who're calling them cowards for not being willing to put Matt, Trey, and themselves at risk. While I think it's admirable and heroic to stand up to threats of violence in the name of an important cause, I don't find fault with those who aren't willing to do so, either. Some of us are firefighters who'll run into the burning building that everyone else is running out of, but others of us just ain't physically or mentally built to do that kinda thing.

As I said elsewhere, it's an ethical choice between standing up for freedom of speech and against censorship on one side, and standing up for treating people who are different from you in some way--a religious belief, in this case--with respect, on the other. I think it's a question that each person has to answer for himself, and I can't fault anyone for making a different choice than I would, because they're both worthwhile goals.

And of course, I'm in no way influenced by the fact that I'm a really shitty visual artist... 8>)
---

Posted APRIL 27, 2010 2:50 AM (BR blog time)

In reply: Unitarian Tolerance (if I do say so myself)

In reply to the following comment from Charles Giacometti, which appeared at INSTAPUTZ: In which Ann Althouse makes sense. on 4/26/10, at 8:35:16 AM EDT (No links to individual comments via ECHO):
---

You could have entitled this entry, "Wherein even an angry old drunk realizes Glenn Reynolds is a rube...."

But I also agree with the angry old drunk, and will go even further. The "draw Mohammed day" is clearly anti-Muslim. As Respac notes, visual depictions of Mohammed are indeed offensive to many Muslims. I have friends who were raised Muslim but no longer practice it, and they were upset about the Danish cartoon (though they would never go so far as to even protest it). Still, they were offended, and at least in one instance, I could tell profoundly so.

Moreover, for a million reasons, Americans shouldn't be in the business of mocking religions.

For the record, I am a religious person, Unitarian Universalist specifically, and I am taken aback by some of the comments in this thread ("coddle the fucking morons who believe this stupid shit.") These commenters seem to assume that all religious people are stupid, childish, and more. When I sit in the pews on Sunday, I look around at MIT and Harvard professors, musicians from the Boston Symphony, doctors, lawyers, therapists. I can say with all confidence that none of them are morons.

As for keeping religious beliefs private and out of the public square, I need only point to the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, both of which derived a great deal of energy, power, and moral authority from religious leaders and lay religious people.

Just to be clear, the extremists who would threaten to kill someone over a drawing should indeed be mocked (not to mention prosecuted). So too should the transparently fake "religious" leaders of the right, and the deeply flawed people like KLo who attach all their failings and inadequacy to a religion they claim to understand but clearly don't. But let's understand that there are indeed intelligent, reasonable, and principled people of faith in our midst and around the world.
--

My reply, posted 5:43:11 AM, EDT (same link):

It says something that we're both UU's, and both offering a message of tolerance for the innocent muslims that'll get caught up in this. Taking a stand against censorship and violence in the name of political and religious intolerance is a worthwhile goal--and like I said, a huge, united front in the face of those who're threatening violence really does appeal to me--but the more I see of the people who're supporting it, the more I realize what a bad idea it is.

A Reply to Donald's AmNi Comment - R U O K? I 1dr... U R N N42n8 b ing...

(D comment 2 which I reply appears here.)
---

Ah, Donald...

How nice of you to drop by...

I guess they let you off the second job, eh...? (Next time... A little quieter... There's folks studying their nihilist handbooks, 'round here...)

"The irony... it burns... Octo (the owner of The Swash Zone) isn't talking about me; he's talking about Donald ..."

No, I WAS talking about me.
Perhaps, but you were using Octo's words and voice to do so, and when he said those things, he was talkin' about you...
U R BANNED.
U R a public blog.
Turnabout is fair play. If you're such a big talker, send me ALL your employer's information. WORKPLACE ADDRESS. NAME OF BOSS. PHONE NUMBER. E-MAIL ADDRESS.
Tell you what... When I allow my place of employment to post that kinda info online for public use, you're welcome to look it up, just like people have done with the info that you allowed your employer to post online for public use.
We'll publish it.
First off, who is "we," paleface?

Second, I think you're really gonna like this...

(From the link, above:)
*** UPDATE by repsac3, d'brainz behind American Nihilist (or somethin') - 4/26/10 ***

In light of the fact that I do not think it's ethical to involve otherwise uninvolved people in political or personal conflicts (spouses/kids/parents, bosses/coworkers/clients, neighbors/clergy/???), and have repeatedly/ said so in posts and comments; and because the author of this post is no longer a contributor to this blog--in part due to issues surrounding whether and how to respond to the things Donald Douglas posts, I suspect (Octopus and I never discussed why he removed himself from this blog and removed my authorship from his blog, The Swash Zone--only that it had taken place)--I am taking it upon myself to edit Octopus' post, and block the names and contact information for Donald's superiors at his place of employment.

While I still have mixed feelings about it--I still believe that Octo is a big boy who can defend his own post, and I don't like the idea of editing someone else's writing without their permission--Octo is not here to actually defend his post or to edit it, and I am left holding the bag. (To those who're currently contributors; as long as you're a blogger here, your posts are your responsibility to defend and/or change. Should you choose to walk away and leave me with that responsibility, you'll just have to trust that I'll do the right thing by both the blog and by you.)

In this case, given the absence of anyone left here who's willing to defend Octo's posting of the info in question, I'm substituting my ethics for Octo's, and doing what I think is right. While this isn't the only post at this blog that I personally find a little cringe-worthy, it's the only one that generates a lot of complaints (yes, pretty much all of them from Donald Douglas), and has no one willing to champion it's continued untouched existence.

I suspect that this will turn out to be a pretty unique set of circumstances that won't all converge again, but one never knows the fyutchum, do one...? If faced with somethin' like this again, I'll again bite the bullet, again weigh the options, and again make a choice... (Hopefully, I'll've saved this little speech for the occasion, so I won't have to go makin' up a whole new one...)

To those who followed a link here to be shocked and appalled that such information was really posted; Yep, it was really posted. Commence being shocked and appalled, and then if you're curious, follow the links above (as of 4/27/10, I'm still locating and adding links) to understand my reason for not removing the info earlier.

To those who followed a link here looking for that information for some other reason, whether innocent or "less so," you'll just have to find another source for it. There are several, including, ironically, the umpteen number of times Donald Douglas has himself linked to and quoted the information found here (or elsewhere), at various posts on his own American Power blog.

Forgive the big build-up for what'll amount to a bunch of "-'s" and "*'s," but it isn't everyday I censor another person's post, and I want to make my thoughts about doing so clear, both for and against...

I now return you to the original post, as written... ...well, almost.

---SNIP---
If the Coward or any of his followers harass you online you, contact --------- ---- ------ at (***) ***-**** or --------- -- -- -------- ------- ------ ---- at (***) ***-**** and describe the harassment. For serious online abuse or defamation, there is always this option (case file in progress).
Hope that makes you happy, slappy.
Those are YOUR rules, but you make them up as you go.
I'm pretty sure MY rules were (and still are) that people could use the google, and that public blogs are public. They don't need making up, as they was born with a good foundation from the get-go.
HYPOCRISY IS ALL YOURS.
The way you use it, hypocrisy might as well be a meaningless word. Don't just say it, show it. That, or shove it.
U R BANNED.
U R Band-aid.
U R INTERNET TROLL.
U R not in control.
U R STALKER.
U R not Walker.
UR ARE HARASSER.
UR R jackasser.
DO NOT COMMENT ON MY BLOG.
Don, old boy, it's a public blog. That's all I'm gonna say.
DON'T LIKE IT? DENOUNCE DAVID HILLMAN'S POLICY IN WRITING.
The way I remember it, I helped write David Hillman's blog policy. It says:
We welcome civil discourse from people of all persuasions but express no obligation to allow ourselves to be trolled. Any comment that fails to rise above ranting, taunting, profanity, and name-calling will be deleted without further comment at the discretion of any contributor.
There's not much there to denounce, because there's not much there with which I disagree. (When I was there, the rule was the person who authored the post controlled the comments attached to it... Assuming that's still true, I'm down with their policy... though that doesn't mean I'd make all the same decisions they have, any more than they'd individually make all the same decisions I have.)
SAME THING. BAN. CAN'T HAVE BOTH WAYS EVIL MAN REPSAC3
Ah... I see what you're getting at, oh boisterous one...
Well, no, I don't think blogger gives you the tools to ban someone from a public blog, and I think you have to really make a case for stalking, harassment, threats, ... too.
That's not to say you can't say so, as LOUDLY and BOLDLY as the html tags will allow you, but banning someone from a public blogspot blog is pretty much an empty threat, and kinda silly, besides.

I suppose it's a little rude to keep commenting after the blogger asks you not to, but how rude depends on what you actually say... Not straying off topic, and laying off the ad hom--especially the meaningless ad hom (and perhaps, NOT SHOUTING QUITE SO LOUDLY) would be far better than, y'know, doing those things...

I'm not quite sure whether that's the kind of denunciation you had in mind, but yeah, banning a person off your public blogger blog is rather a fool's errand, no matter what letters come after the "D" in your real life/online name. (After "Donald's" shocking revelations about Lance 'Boogie Nights' Thundercock, I don't trust that I know the real name'o any o'y'all... or me, either.
REPSAC3. HYPOCRITE. FAIL.
screenname. meaningless. adhom.
NOTHING COMPARES TO YOUR EVIL AND EX-DLB'S TOO STUPID TO SEE IT.
You watched Sinead O'Connor on TV the other night, didn't ya... That explains all the "U R's"

And calling folks stupid is just no way to make friends, Donald. (At least, not the kind of friends that mom would approve of...)
I DO NOT COMMENT AT SWASH.
Not anymore... But it took you a little while after your "banning," didn'it? One might even go so far as to say that your expecting me to do as you say, and not as you did, is a little hypocritical, mightn't one?

Yeah... 1 mite.
YOU WILL NOT COMMENT AT AMPOW.
Remains to be seen. I'm reserving my right to, as a member of the blogging public.
SIMPLE RULES.
Well, U R a simple guy.
FOLLOW THEM. ABIDE BY THEM.
No shoes.
No shirt.
No service.

Learn it.
Live it.
Love it.
BE A DECENT HUMAN BEING.
Always try 2 B, Double D...

Better get back to the grind... They prolly miss U by now...

X-Post: Donald Douglas @ American Power just can't let me go

American Nihilist X-post
---

Sure... Donald says he wants to ban me, and yet he keeps reaching out...

Donald Douglas: Banned Hypocrite @repsac3 is down with my ban at SwashZone but feels ban at AmPow doesn't apply to him. Classic leftist d'ble standard #tcot

repsac3: If @AmPowerBlog could back his claim that I'm "down with his ban at SwashZone" with proof, he would've. Another epic fail for Dr Douglas.

Donald Douglas: "Hypocrite @repsac3 'I'm with ya. Deleting every dang trollish comment...is fine' http://tinyurl.com/398mv8f D'ble standards yo! | U R BANNED"

Now if you follow that link, it takes you to a post at The Swash Zone that discusses Donald Douglas being banned at that blog, and specifically to a comment where, referring to Donald, I say the following (in part; those interested can follow the link to read the whole comment (or for that matter, the whole post and all comments.):
"When it comes to not being welcome here, I'm with ya. Deleting every dang trollish comment he makes is fine (though as you know, in my blogging, I prefer to leave such commentary posted, as everlasting examples of the bigoted, bad behavior they are... Often I'll end up with several posts linking back to them, even, building an ever-growing library in support of my contention that bigots are bigots, and the vile things they say matter...)"
Donald apparently believes it is somehow hypocritical of me to say it was fine for the owner of The Swash Zone, who had banned Donald from his blog at some point earlier, to delete Donald's comments from the blog if he so chose. Of course, I have no idea why Donald feels this way, because I recently said something very similar to another blog owner who had banned a commenter:
repsac3: "'@ampowerblog s welcome to delete...everything I contribute to his blog if he..chooses-it is his blog, after all' Same. http://bit.ly/9puyIh"

If you follow that link (to Donald's blog American Power), you'd find the following comment from me.:
"As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well."
Same sentiment, in both cases. It's fine for a blog owner to delete the comments of a banned user, whether Donald (or I, or anyone else) is the owner or the banned user... ...but (in both cases), I'd prefer that the owner didn't do so, because I believe in more speech, rather than less. No double standard. No hypocrisy. Same message.

Donald Douglas: "@repsac3 Octo says: http://tinyurl.com/24moxnl 'Without permission and despite repeated warnings, he continues to stalk' | same! U R BANNED"

Same link, full paragraph:
"The nutty professor has been a serial predator for years. Without permission and despite repeated warnings, he continues to stalk this forum … even on Christmas Day. He has violated the anonymity of bloggers by revealing their identities in public. He lashes out at anyone who does not accord him the special status he thinks he deserves. Most of all, he has a sadistic streak." - THE SWASH ZONE: THE RACIST BIGOT WHO TEACHES AT LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGE
The irony... it burns... Octo (the owner of The Swash Zone) isn't talking about me; he's talking about Donald, violating the same kinda ban (and doing so on Christmas morning, no less) that Donald's now trying to enforce on me. In other words, Donald is pissed off because, ban-wise, anyway, I'm doing to him what he did to Octo. Octo said you're banned, Donald kept posting on Octo's blog. Donald said I'm banned, I'm doing the same thing he did... So I ask you... Who's the hypocrite?

repsac3: "@AmPowerBlog Of course, y'understand that when Octo said that, he was calling YOU a stalker, right? http://tinyurl.com/24moxnl"

repsac3: "@AmPowerBlog And by the way, isn't he talking about u posting at his blog after u were banned? Hypocrisy? Yep http://tinyurl.com/24moxnl"

Yep... That's exactly what Octo was talking about...
Donald Douglas has left a new comment on your post "Hatemonger Leftists":
(O)CT(O)PUS ...
I see pain and torment in your post. So, on this day I wish safety and goodness to you and yours. Merry Christmas and peace on earth.
P.S. You have not banished me. Eloy's waiting to hear from you.
[Posted by Donald Douglas to THE SWASH ZONE at 8:32 AM, December 25, 2008]
which was not long after the owner of the Swash Zone blog "banned" him. Funny, but it sure looks like Donald didn't feel the ban at the Swash Zone blog applied to him, doesn't it?
"P.S. You have not banished me." (One can almost hear the playground bully sing-songing Na-na, na-na, naaa-na... You can't stop me."

Hypocrisy, thy name is Douglas.

Monday, April 26, 2010

IRT: Don't Delete; repeat!!

In reply to this comment and this one, at the American Nihilist blogpost "Donald Douglas just can't let me go"
---

ex DLB: As to your first point, yeah, there is also some irony in the fact that I later said I thought it was inappropriate and over the top to contact the folks Donald works for (it was almost like Donald and I were on the same side, there, though he keeps claiming the opposite is true)...

And yes, I wouldn't put that kinda skillful/misleading edit past Donald, either. (I recall reading/commenting on Jake Tapper pulling something like that--though damned if I can find it now--where he quoted only a fragment of what the guy said (which of course, meant the opposite of what the guy actually said) as though it was truth. (Not Truth, but truth, if ya know what I mean...) In the same post he said something like "I just don't think this administration would start lying so soon," and I asked him via comment whether it'd be ethical of me to post a blaring headline on my blog saying "Jake Tapper admits to not using intelligence when he writes!! Says 'I just don't think...' in his blog." If I remember correctly, it was deleted from the comment stream.)

So no, I'm not one to delete much of anything... Good comments (by which I mean, on topic, respectful ones, whether they agree with me or not) spark discussion and debate, and evil, nasty, trollish ones make great "bad" examples.

I delete spam on sight, however... unless some other contributor makes a comment about it before I get to it... (just in case you happen to know of anyone who's done that somewhere's, recently... 8>)

People can run their blogs any way they wish--and I get that there's a cost to having bigoted or insulting stuff on your blog, even when you leave it there just for the purpose of repudiating it, so I don't really blame anyone for taking a different approach than I do--but I believe in shining a light on bigots and other kinds of assholes, rather than hiding their words and deeds away... Sometimes it's good to be offended, because it give you impetus to do something about those things that offend you.

I'm far more likely to repeat a blog post or comment I find offensive--so that other folks can be offended by it too--rather than deleting it. (I guess I have my "sunshine as disinfectant" slogan: Don't delete; Repeat!!)

Milage may vary, of course... and no malice to those who see it differently... Everyone has to travel their own road...

Sunday, April 25, 2010

X-Post: The continued lies of Donald Douglas: "Andrew Breitbart Blocks Racist Repsac3 on Twitter!"

Predictably, Donald gets this one wrong, as well...

American Power: Andrew Breitbart Blocks Racist Repsac3 on Twitter!

I guess it's all in the timing, but, interestingly, Andrew Breitbart also banned Repsac3 today:

While technically, the term is "blocked," so far so good... @andrewbreitbart did indeed block me today, after one of his minions (or perhaps some wacked out fan, but a Con, nevertheless) sent me a bigoted photo to which I objected.
Here's where Donald has the right raw materials, but falls off the rails of truth, regardless:
No surprise the issues are the same: Repsac3's racist bigotry. He was stalking Andrew with racially derogatory Twitpics, trying to smear conservatives.
Um, no... Let's look at those links again.

After a short but pretty much reasonable exchange of tweets with @andrewbreitbart about his seeming obsession with @EricBoehlert -- While I no longer have the tweet, Breitbart said it had something to do with Boehlert's well-trimmed beard, as I recall -- I got the following message from Cletus Trollbia/trappedroom :
And if you follow the link:
That's right, a bigoted picture sent to me by somebody else... But why blame @andrewbreitbart? Good question. Here's the good answer:
Is he friends with @andrewbreitbart? I have no clue, but I can tell you this; he seems to be a conservative, judging by the folks he chooses to follow on twitter, and a whole lotta people that Breitbart argued with over the last few days received these bizarre photos from this clown, though mine happened to be the most bigoted one of the bunch:
And this is only the most recent... There's 2-3 more pages of this same kinda crap, almost all of which is directed at people who argued with @andrewbreitbart just before this ass posted a picture in that tweeps "honor"... (I could prove that too, but you folks should do at least a little of the work...) I don't know if the guy's a friend of Breitbart or just some nut, but the fact is, he's doing this to liberals who argue with Andrew Breitbart. And as I said in my tweet to him (one of the ones to which Donald links, though the photo shows it more clearly) With friends like these, who needs enemies? And just like Donald, when confronted with facts that don't fit his meme (a bigoted Conservative), Breitbart turned tail and ran, ignoring the fact that I laid the situation out for him, too:
J. Casper: @andrewbreitbart All you need do is check the history of the guy who sent it to me @TrappedRoom... and his message supporting you...
J. Casper: @andrewbreitbart but don't sweat blocking me anyway... I knew it was coming... Why fight, when you can run away?

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

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

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


The dishonesty of folks like Breitbart and Douglas is staggering... ...and they know we're on to 'em, too, so they shut their eyes and wish us away...

Sorry Cons, it's just not that easy...
------
American Nihilist X-post

Picturing Muhammad - Is it ethical to potentially offend innocent people to make a point about guilty ones?

In reply to: INSTAPUTZ: In which Ann Althouse makes sense.
---

I have to agree with you and Althouse (Did I really just write that?)

The distinction between "the right to do a thing" vs "the morality (or in some cases, intelligence) of doing it" gets lost on some people... (The recent gun protests come to mind... Sure, you have the right... But is it wise?)

I just hope that at least some of the folks who're signing on to this thing are ignorant of the fact that visual depictions of Muhammad are offensive to a whole lotta Muslims (and not just fundamentalist/extremist Muslims, but moderate ones, as well), and that they care enough to rethink their participation on those grounds, once they become aware of that. (I don't blame anyone for not knowing... Until very recently, I didn't, either...)

It's not that one can't be intentionally provocative or even offensive in protesting/making one's point... (I'm currently in hot water (well, room-temperature, anyway) for using Rush Limbaugh's term "halfrican" to needle a certain biracial neocon blowhard in the wingnuttysphere, and, while he did react pretty much exactly as I suspected--repeatedly denouncing me as a racist while simultaneously excusing Rush for the very same offense--I don't feel good about sinking to that level of discourse just to make that rhetorical point.)

The question (which I think each person needs to answer for him/herself) is whether or not it's ethically worth potentially offending innocent people to make a point about the actions of the guilty. Sometimes I believe it is, but I don't think this is one of those times... ...though I confess that the idea did appeal to me at first glance.

X-Post: Oh noes!!! "Repsac3 Banned from American Power"

In a recent post, blogger Donald Douglas a.k.a. AmPowerBlog, a.k.a. americaneocon (No, there is no second "n." He's America neocon, or American eocon... We're not sure which) asserted and blurted Repsac3 Banned from American Power. Yes folks, it's official (he even says so, below); I am banned from Donald's public blog.
Oh, the horror.
Oh the humanity of it all.
Oh my God, he must be kidding if he thinks that's gonna keep me from challenging his neo/social conservative doublespeak whenever and wherever I deem appropriate...

Let's read further, shall we?...:
As readers know, I enjoy debating the crazy lefties, but sometimes things get out of hand. So, this is official: James Casper, a.k.a. Repsac3, is formally banned at American Power. Because he's so stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, I've tolerated his trollery for years. But since he's launched an unprovoked racist attack on me as "Halfrican," that's about all I can take. I don't care who originated the term or who uses it. It's repugnant and I don't condone it.
Leaving aside the everpresent ad hom contained in any Douglas post, comment, or message to or about those with whom he disagrees, my "trollery" pretty much consists of replying to his posts very much like every other person who comments on his blog. (In fact, I think I'm less trollish than many, in that I don't often engage in name-calling or other pointless foolery. I simply dispute the post, and move on. That's not to say that I never call anyone stupid (or whatever), but I surely do so far less often than, say, Professor Douglas, or the Daves.) Of course, I am more likely than most to disagree with Donald (which appears to be the definition he's using for "troll," these days), but I wasn't aware that was a banning offense. (and if it is, it makes Dr. Douglas a coward.)

Now, let's talk "halfrican." First off, I referred to Donald this way two or three times, the last being on April 4th--so it isn't as though Mr Douglas is reacting to something that happened recently; While Donald feigns ignorance, he knows very well the point I was making in using Rush Limbaugh's term for Barack Obama, Hallie Berry, and others of mixed racial heritage (including, one assumes, Donald Douglas, himself), and that I stopped referring to him (or anyone else) that way the moment Donald admitted he found it offensive--which one thinks he would've done when Rush referred to him that way (by extension, anyway). Of course, he didn't. The point though, is that Donald may claim this is his justification for "banning" me, but it's pretty obviously a made up excuse. Personally, I think Donald just doesn't like that I don't accept what he alleges at face value, and that I tell folks when he's wrong or acting like a bully... ...even on his own blog... (Maybe so, maybe not, but I know what I believe...)

Most of all, I'm tired this idiot Repsac3's puerile gotcha imbecility. In response to my post on LBCC's communists, Repsac3's been trolling my comments,...
Trolling his comments... catching him in what was likely an intentional lie to deceive his more gullible readers... It's apparently a fine line, with Donald... (More on the likely intentional lie, below.)
...and left a link to the "One Minute for Peace" website; and clicking around there we find this:
Actually, what I left was a link in support of the assertion I was making which, because it was about an issue raised by peace groups (as was the false claim Donald made) appeared on the "One Minute for Peace" site. (I've yet to find the source of the original flyer to which Donald was reacting, and I suspect, lying about. Again, more on that below.)

I'm not sure what the video had to do with any of it--and while Donald included it in his post, he doesn't say, either--but it's a thought provoking video, nevertheless. The premise of both the site and the video is that it'd be a good thing if we spent more money on supporting peace--say, the amount of one minute-worth of the annual military budget (Annual budget=approximately 3 trillion dollars. one minute-worth of that annual budget=about $1.98 million). One can agree or disagree, but it's hardly a radical, dangerous idea.
One Minute for Peace is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker "social justice" organization that has long been criticized for its communist affiliations and for abandoning its original religious principles.
Wow, a "social justice" organization. (in this case, a religious one.) We all know what that means according to Glenn Beck, and just in case we didn't, Donald comes right out and says it: Commies. (Will the McCarthyist red-baiting from some on the right never cease?) It's a neat trick Donald plays... If you follow the "long been criticized" link (to Wikipedia, which is seemingly only considered trustworthy by folks on the right when it says something they like), you'll note that for the most part, the folks who've "long been criticizing" the "friends" and suggesting that they're communists are social conservatives like Donald. It's like what FoxNews does... Report that someone or something is controversial, and then justify repeated hit pieces on that person or thing by saying that "some say" there's controversy surrounding them.

The fact is, I don't know much about the "Friends," other than that they're another "liberal" religious tradition, and thus not respected by some on the "religious right." (See what Donald had to say about Unitarian Universalists--my "liberal" religious tradition--in the "nihilist" sidebar at right.) But it doesn't really matter because, whatever the truth is about them as regards communism or whether some Quakers believe they've become too political and strayed from their religious roots, it doesn't make what they say about the US military budget any more or less true. Donald is creating a smokescreen. Commies or not, the numbers they cite from the US OMB are either correct or they're not, and suggesting that they're commies doesn't make those numbers more or less factual or accurate. (Finally, we're getting to the meat of the thing...)
And it's simply breathtaking the gross deceit these groups are willing to perpetrate. They claim that their budget estimates are from


"the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending."

But take a look at a pie chart, from U.S. Government Spending, showing the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. A full 56 percent of spending is designated for health, pensions, and welfare:

Welcome to the meat: Here's the story: In an earlier post, Donald mentioned seeing a flyer from a peace group that he says) claims that military spending is 59% of the US budget, and goes on to call that propaganda, saying that it's only 19% of the US budget. To whit:

(From American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story): "Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays):"

Suspicious, I did a little research, and determined that it was likely that the banner was referring not to the entire budget--which would put military spending at somewhere between 19 and 23 percent of the pie, but discretionary spending, where is is indeed about 59% of the pie. I replied to his assertion thusly:
---
While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:
"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb."
- Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
---
You'll note that in the example above--from this current post, I mean--that Donald again ignores the fact that the "Friends" refer to "the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending." (though he does quote them using those words), and talks about/shows a pie chart of the entire budget. Sorry Donald, but they are still not the same thing, and conflating the percentage of the whole budget alloted to the military (or the percentage of GDP alloted to the military) with the percentage of the discretionary budget alloted to the military is dishonest and wrong. Try comparing the numbers that the "friends" (and the creators of that banner) were (likely, in the case of the banner folks) using, and get back to us.

Everything else Donald says in the post about the rise of entitlement spending and the decline of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, may in fact be true... (Perhaps I'll check it out later.) But none of that changes the fact that the 59% Donald disputed was a percentage of discretionary spending, and thus his claims of "propaganda" based on the whole budget were sadly mistaken at best, and itself propaganda at worst. (The fact that he's still trying to make the discredited claim after having the discrepancy pointed out to him might give the reader a clue as to whether or not it was an honest error.)

But back to the other point of Dr Douglas' post:
I rarely ban radical leftist commentators from American Power. Mostly, I'll moderate or disable comments if I don't feel like dealing with their stupidity (James B. Webb is a case in point). Mostly, I have fun with them for the sheer hilarity of it, and for the epistemological heuristic utility of obliterating the mindless left-wing/socialist ideological claptrap. And as we see time and again, leftists never seriously engage on point, but rather demonize, ridicule, and attack as racist as part of their ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism. I will continue to debunk and deflect all of this, since that's what I do. And I'll also continue the periodic back-and-forth blog wars as long as there's some fun or learning in it. But Repsac3's nothing more than the devil's frontman, and I've had enough. He's welcomed here no longer.
Here's the thing... As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well. Folks are welcome to judge me as they will, but standing up to Donald's bullying ways has become a habit, and I'm not going to stop because he wishes I would... (Of course, were he to stop treating others so poorly, I'd have no choice but to stop calling him on his behavior and the mistruths in which he engages to smear others...) I think I've said it before... As long as Donald keeps acting the fool, I'll keep pointing and laughing at him. The other folks who're involved with American Nihilist (whether as writers, "fellow nihilists" -- other folks on Donald's extensive "enemies list," or readers) can do as they like, but I intend to continue exposing Donald Douglas for the man he is... ... "banning" or no banning...
-------

American Nihilist X-post

IRT: Congress May've Written Themselves Right Out of Health Care Coverage

In reply to: The Oracular Opinion: Congress Wrote Themselves Out of Health Care Coverage
---

You folks did catch the fact that it's a proposal from a Republican, Charles Grassley, that's the major reason for this ambiguity surrounding the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program in the health care reform law that Pam writes about, right? (Sure, he blames it on unnamed "others," but the truth is there for all to see...)

Guess we won't be putting him on Mount Rushmore...

From the NYTimes piece Pam references in her post:
The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.

“The whole point is to make sure political leaders live under the laws they pass for everyone else,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday. “In this case, after the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that’s where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes.”
Just kidding, of course... I'm all for requiring lawmakers to be subject to the laws they pass (and thus think Grassley was right), and agree that their federal benefits should be no better than the ones the rest of us receive. (Glad to see they voted down the pay raise, at least...)
---

Posted April 25, 2010 2:01 AM

Saturday, April 24, 2010

In reply : American Power: James B. Webb (Anti-JBW ad hom deleted)

In reply to: American Power: James B. Webb All-Talk (Non) Political Analyst Pwned: Word Bro ... Atheist Megalomaniac EPIC FAIL on Intellectual Substance

Donald Douglas: "You told me not to comment on your blog some time ago, and I have observed your rules. But when Repsac3 stalks and taunts American Power with genuine racist insults, when he refuses to observe my rules and common decency, you're down with that ... of course you're into racist photoshopping and cyberstalking, so NST, yo!"
I'll lay dollars to doughnuts that what Don is referring to is when James Webb told him not to leave off-topic comments and links over at Brain Rage, but Donald's excuse sounds so much better... (Like James said in the comment to which Don's referring, anyone and everyone is free to leave comments there... ...as long as they're on topic.)

Genuine racist insults: Golly, I love when the answer is right there in the link Donald himself posts... It makes him look that much more foolish. He knows he's lying... He knows that my use of the term was a response to Rush using it, and to Donald's golden silence to it when a fellow Con Republican referred to him that way... He knows, and yet he tries to paint me as a bigot, while simultaneously giving Rush a pass... Hypocrisy, thy name is (still) Douglas.

From the link above: "I have mixed feelings about the term "Halfrican," but figured that if it was good enough for Rush, it was good enough for Rush's listeners... (True, you haven't endorsed his using it, but you haven't objected to it, either...) If you believe it is a bigoted term that Rush was using, I shall refrain from referring to you in that way again. (Hopefully, Rush will do the same.)

You are, of course, welcome to answer by again alleging that I am a bigot if you wish, though I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind as to provide examples of my bigotry, if you intend to do so. If you do not, I reserve the right to cheerfully ignore your unsubstantiated charges as unworthy of consideration..."

Refuses to observe my rules and common decency: I'm perfectly decent, and generally nicer to folks of all stripes than many who post/comment at American Power, including the host. But it's a public blog, and accepts comments from anyone who reads what Donald puts there. Whether he likes it or not, I'm one of those people. If he wants a private clubhouse, he's welcome to have one, but when he puts his (or other folks') words and pictures out there for public consumption, he ought to expect that members of the public will reply, and that includes me... (...especially when he goes to all the trouble of mentioning me by name, and with links'n'all...)

And by the by, I don't think James ever expressed support for either my use of Rush's term for mixed race folks like Donald and the Prez, or my decision to make Donald delete my comments (rather than sheepishly not posting them because he verbally "banned" me from his public blog). In fact, I'd be kinda surprised if he went to the trouble of coming out in favor of either one...

I'll leave James to respond to/ignore the rest of Donald's "manly man" rant as he sees fit. (...on his own blog, I guess, because the "manly man" removed the comment section from his post, so that James can't kick Don's ass there in front of all his "friends." That's some kinda courage for such a tough talker...)

Yo.

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

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

Well... Not exactly...

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

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

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

Posted April 24, 2010 3:15 AM (AmPow blog time)...
...and subsequently moderated away, for expressing content that didn't fit the chosen meme.

IRT: Bannage? We don't need no stinkin' bannage...

In reply to American Power: Repsac3 Banned from American Power

"As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well." - American Nihilist: Oh noes!!! "Repsac3 Banned from American Power"

Snoogans, indeed.
---

Posted April 24, 2010 12:27 AM

Friday, April 23, 2010

American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (ScreenCaps)

First the post was disappeared.

Then link to the cache of the disappeared post went dead.

So now, may I present the screen-caps of the cache of the disappeared post:
(Click to view full size images):
((For context, see previous post, "Marxists and Fornicators Indoctrinators Everywhere!!"))

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

In reply to: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story [UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). Please use that link, instead.], and in particular, this passage:
"Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays)"
---
While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:
"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb."
- Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
---
Posted April 23, 2010 9:19 AM (AmPow blog time) And subsequently (4/27/10, I think) deleted, along with the whole damned post.
---

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

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

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

IRT: "Marxists and Fornicators Indoctrinators Everywhere!!"

In reply to/in support of: Capitalism: A Love Story - STUDENTS FOR INDEPENDENT MEDIA
---

Read about the showing on Professor Donald Douglas’ blog (American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story).

***[UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). ***UPDATE 8/11/10: The cache link no longer works, either. I've now posted the screencaps, as promised.*** We now return you to the original post, already in progress...]***

I noticed he didn’t seem to enjoy the film or the discussion that followed, and that he sees Marxists, lesbians, “leftist indoctrinators” and other assorted enemies to his own narrow world view throughout the whole LBCC faculty and student population.

As a blogger who has repeatedly engaged him and found him to be far more concerned with massaging his own ego and verbally bullying those with whom he does not agree–he has an extensive “enemies list” that he regularly attacks on his blog the same way he did SIM and the professors who took part in the premiere event–the remaining faculty, staff, and student body (commies all, I’m sure) has my utmost sympathies.

Given the attack–and the degree to which I dislike bullies, of any stripe–I just wanted to drop by and offer my support and encouragement. While I’m not as down on the corporate media as your flier suggests you folks are–the way I see it, every source of information is biased one way or another, and it’s up to us to recognize the kernels of truth among the intentionally and unintentionally slanted/biased chaff–I’m all for increasing one’s media diet, and including as many different perspectives as possible (which might explain why I stop by professor Douglas’ blog once a day or so… It’s important to know what those who disagree with you are saying, too… especially when it’s about you, directly or indirectly.)

Anyway… Good luck with all your future SIM discussions and presentations. As long as you’re getting under the skin of reactionaries like Professor Douglas, you’re probably on the right track.
---

Submitted for moderator approval 4/23/10, 10:51 AM (WIS blog time)...
...and subsequently (4/25, I think) rejected and moderated away without ever being posted...

(Two things... 1) I understand... Were I in any way associated with the school--and I suspect this club has a faculty advisor and whatnot, so they are--I wouldn't want this comment posted, either. You'll note above the Dr. Douglas' original post making some of these charges was disappeared, too... One can draw their own conclusions, but I know what I think... and 2) on the other hand, the "moderated comment" link made it look like mine was the third comment submitted, so maybe they're just not accepting ANY comments at this blog... (although they did accept at least one, at their initial post. And also, see 4/29/10 updates, above and below (#3 on the list of two things... Ain't it always the way...)

UPDATE: I was doing some research for another post, and stumbled across this comment from Dr. Douglas: "I'm also proud to be teaching at Long Beach City College. I'm proud of the work that I do. And I'm proud of my dedicated colleagues." One presumes that he's not including those Long Beach City College colleagues he attacks in the post linked above among those he's proud of. At least, one hopes not...

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

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

Regardless of the reason, it was moderated away, and can only be found at that cache link posted above (and on the screencaps of it that I'll post, should I ever notice that the cache link is dead, as well...) Screencap link: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (ScreenCaps)

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)