In Reply: Donalde Douglas again proves he's humorless...

In reply to American Power: Picture of the Day, 10-25-10, and in particular Donalde's October 26, 2010, 5:16 AM comment.

(My previous comment, suggesting that our fair Donalde was misreading Walter, and that Don lacked a sense of humor--Walter's faux caption was pretty clearly intended as a rightwing commentary on "the leeeeeft" and "the lamestream media," and thus did not deserve Donalde's "Walter: You're obviously and asshole. Your comments won't be approved should you come again. Prick." reply--was unfortunately lost in the internet aether. This one, in reply to Donalde's follow-up comment and the suggestion that Walter was serious and that I approved of what the man was saying about American troops ("Repsac3 tried to comment, approvingly, but he's banned so his excoriation didn't get through." I was excoriating who, exactly?) (as well as the odd sentence "These are the freaks show will be repudiated on November 2nd.", did not suffer the same fate.)
---

Have it your way, Donald... ...and be glad you have sycophants like Dennis who will just about always see things just as you tell him they are.

I'm telling you, Walter is (or was) on your side, and was trying to diss "The Left," just as you so often do... If you really don't want him though, we "nihilists" will be glad to accept him (and at least listen to his ideas, though not necessarily agree with them) over on our side of the aisle.

So please, keep on attacking your erstwhile fellow conservatives because you fail to understand their attempts at humor. Sure, it makes you look kinda foolish, but anything that makes folks on the right rethink the people and ideas they see as "friendlies" is all to the good, as far as I'm concerned...

You really are humorless, Donald, and it really is sad...

X-Post: Donald Douglas 'Sho Be Thinkin' Ugly'

American Power: Obama 'Sho Be Looking Ugly'
(also: Obama ‘Sho Be Looking Ugly’)

Hey hypocritical leftitst assholes: SaQuinta Bentley is RAAAAACIST!!
Yeah.

Because, you know, it's totally racist if black people use "derogatory" ethnic slang. Whatever. Let's just say the mofo Obama is f**ked up in da hood

Donald still doesn't understand that it's not using ethnic slang that's derogatory, but using it to be derogatory to some or all members of that ethnic group. And no, it doesn't matter whether the speaker is a member of that same ethnic group or not. Black people can say or do bigoted things, even toward (against) other black people.

Folks who actually do use ethnic slang (like ebonics, or hispanic slang) in their everyday life are not being derogatory to anyone by doing so. People who wear ebonics or other ethnic slang like a costume, to make light of or otherwise talk down to/about people they view as less intelligent or less worthwhile than themselves however, are acting like raaaaacists and biiiiigots.

Folks can read the entries in Donald Douglas' blog and determine for themselves whether he is a black man who regularly speaks in ebonics, or whether he only does so to be derogatory toward black people he views as lesser people than himself (whether it be due to his beliefs about their politics, their level of education, or for some other reason).

While he feigns ignorance in pursuit of some elusive rhetorical point, Donald Douglas is smart enough to understand the difference between folks who speak using ethnic slang, and those who use ethnic slang as an ethnic slur. And for the most part, the rest of us are, as well...

Here's Donald Douglas - On African Americans. Compare these posts with the majority of what Dr Douglas posts online, and decide for yourselves...

And for more of that "conservative love" of their fellow man, check some of the comments at both American Power and the "Hat Tip" post from one of his fellow cons. They kinda speak for themselves: Weasel Zippers - Feeling The Love From That Black Vote..
---

Previously:
American Power: White Minority

American Power: Obama's Gangsta Grillz

American Power: 'There's nothing at Fox Nation about menthols, drugs, or mothafucka's. Just a headline about gangsta rap...' (And in reply: Donalde Douglas: "It's not Raaaaacist, it's Hilaaaaarious")

American Power: Obama Loves Gangsta Rap (And in reply: "You mean, it's RAAAAACIST!! to be snarkin' dat POTUS BE DOWN WID DE FATTY BLUNTS AND MENTHOLS, MOFO CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP?" Yes Donald, it is.)

American Power: Michelle Malkin Gets Hate Tweets (And in reply: Re: Them ignorant, illiterate, "Barack Obama supporters" (if ya know what I mean...))

American Power: Obonics (And in reply: Donald's Bigotronics)

“Black heritage. Whoo hoo! That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!"
---

American Nihilist x-post

X-Post: The Right to Hate: A Study of an Accusation of Racism

As folks more than likely well know, I have something of a political difference of opinion with Dr Donald Kent Douglas, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Long Beach City College, in California. Over the last several years we have discussed and debated many an issue, but we've seldom come to any agreement. Perhaps we are just set in our beliefs, or perhaps each of us is honestly convinced that their own political philosophy really is better than that of our opponent. Whatever the reason, Donalde and I are often at odds.

On occasion, and moreso recently, Donald Douglas has posted screeds or portions of screeds in ebonics, a faux black dialect.

“Black heritage. Whoo hoo! That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!" - Donald Kent Douglas

While I cannot be certain of his reasoning, I believe he does so in an attempt to belittle and treat as ignorant urban black people--especially Obama supporters--for whom he has contempt, due either to their politics or their failure to achieve as he has.

Pardon my own slang here for a moment, but my daddy done tol' me dat Mr. Charley goin' t'own my po' llittle black ass if I didn' knows how be writin' in stan'rd English ... know what' I'm sayin'? And with a steady hand, mofo!. Miss Rondell's from Tupelo, Mississippi, but she might as well be from another world. And she don't seem so po' herself, considerin' all those ocean cruises she be talkin' 'bout. But I better be careful here, yo! Jes' be's messin' wit' dis heah stuff an' I be gettin' attacked as RAAACIST!! - Donald Kent Douglas - American Power: Obonics

Whatever his reasons, I believe that in adopting this "ebonic" persona (and including references to drugs, gangs, fried chicken, lack of education, a slave mentality, etc, and also posting photoshopped pictures of Obama as ... well... see for yourselves--examples of both Donald Douglas' "bigotronic" linguistics and photoshops also appear here. I invite you to judge for yourselves whether Donald Douglas is crossing the line.), Donald Douglas is perpetuating bigoted stereotypes about black people... and about conservatives.

Needless to say, posting my opinions about Donald's bigoted blog entries and commentary has not made Dr Douglas happy. And after a person using the screen name ThePaleScot posted this comment on someone else's blog to the effect that Donald Douglas was more swarthy than most folks with the surname Douglas and the given name Donald--names common in Scotland--along with the fact that this person has subsequently posted comments on my blog AND that I refused to renounce, denounce, and repudiate ThePaleScot for his comment because I'm not convinced that what he said was an expression of racism, Donald has decided to allege white supremacy on my part, which is kind of ironic, given the posts above opposing racism that lead Donald to make his specious charge. But nevertheless, accompanied by a Black Flag video and lyrics about the coming 'White Minority', as well as a really really bad photoshop of me in a Klan cap, posted in the American Power blog sidebar, Dr Donald Douglas is pushing the RAAAAACIST!! meme in an effort to discredit me. (People familiar with Dr Douglas are no doubt aware that many of his posts decry these exact kind of "raaaaacist charges" when made by "the Left," and that he recently posted a link to his friend Troglopundit's blog, highlighting a post critical of bloggers and others on the right making specious charges about racism, which again, makes Donald's retaliatory allegation against me kind of ironic. But hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does, I suppose.) What follows is my response to the most recent of Donald Douglas' posts making this charge, originally posted at American Nihilist. (I have little doubt that it won't be the last, or that it's even possible that Dr Douglas will use this very post to allege white supremacy, the next time.):
---

Regarding American Power: The Right to Hate

Donalde seems to believe that his calling me a racist somehow makes me an actual racist, like his words are magic, or something. Looking at what appears below, no other explanation is possible. When you look below the surface of his specious charge of racism, there is nothing there to support it. I invite you to carefully read his post:

Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt refused to sign anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s. Typical for leftists.

This is the kind of sweeping generalization that frequently gets Dr Douglas in trouble. "Leftists" don't typically do anything, any more than "Rightists" do. This bullshit racism charge isn't a right wing thing; it's a Donald Douglas thing.

There's no justification for what Roosevelt did, except to say he was a man of his time. There were a whole lotta Democrats and Republicans on the wrong side of civil rights for black people, and all too few Democrats and Republicans on the correct side. (For instance, Donald neglects to mention that the two NAACP members highlighted at Donald's "justifications" link below as having tried to persuade President Roosevelt to sign anti-lynching legislation were supporters of Roosevelt. One of 'em even worked in his administration. So why aren't these folks considered "typical leftists" by Dr Douglas?)

I've been having a go 'round with Reppy's white supremacist blog, where he writes: "I only repudiate hate and such when I think something is hateful."

American Nihilist has been called a whole lotta things (mostly by Dr Douglas here, and mostly as speciously and "fact-free" as this), but "white supremacist" has never before been amongst them. Does Donalde provide any evidence that American Nihilist is anything but friendly to folks of all races? Of course not. He can't. He's just doing exactly what he accuses "the Left" of doing, and yelling "RAAAAACIST!!" at the top of his lungs, hoping no one will notice he has no reason to do so. (This is far from the first time that Dr Douglas has simultaneously condemned and committed an act. Hypocrisy seems to come naturally to him. (Not because he's half-black, not because he's a conservative, but because he's Donald Douglas.)

The one thing Donald does offer is a single line from a comment I made: "I only repudiate hate and such when I think something is hateful." Follow the link. Read the comment. Ask yourself whether you feel any different. Do you repudiate whatever folks tell you to, or do you also think for yourself, and only call hateful that which you actually believe to be hateful? Donald continues his screed by saying

"That's what lefties do.,"

but I believe that that's what most people do. They don't give into the pressure of others and repudiate whatever folks tell them is "eeeeevil." Rather, they think for themselves, and make up their own minds.

In a different part of that same comment stream at my blog, I told Donalde that "I think you believe the denial itself is the smoking gun that proves folks guilty. There is no shame or wrongdoing in denying a thing that isn't true, Dr. Douglas. A Denial isn't itself a smoking gun." The same thinking applies here. Donalde doesn't talk about what it was I failed to repudiate, only that I failed to repudiate it, as though that itself makes me a racist. It's hogwash.

Deny the hate and spin long, rambing and insane justifications for it: "That ordinary people did these things is deeply disturbing; that they manufactured a social rationale for their acts is more disturbing still"

I don't even know what Donalde is accusing me of here--there's no connection between his description of the folks who supported lynching back in the 30's and my blog--but this is the chunk that contains the "justifications" link I mentioned earlier. Check it out, and read about those "typical leftists" who were on the correct side of history.

Reppy's Motto:

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

-- Robert C. Byrd, letter to Sentor Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944.

Like I said, Donald Douglas has got to be getting pretty desperate to suggest that I have anything in common with segregationists, including the thinking of 1940's era Robert Byrd. The whole post pretty pathetic, but it's a good example of how far Donald Kent Douglas will go. (Needless to say, I've got screen shots, just in case he ever comes to his senses and realizes that this post reveals a whole lot more about who he really is than it does about me.)

Previously: American Power: White Minority

I'm sorry, but who posted the white supremacist Black Flag video, and all the lyrics? Yeah, for all his bluster about American Nihilist being a hate site, that was Dr Douglas, on his blog. Make of that what you will.

AND FROM ST. BLOGUSTINE:
"Your unconquerable strength is in your ability to express the truth. They despise you for it. Let them!"

And despise they do.

And what is a Don Douglas post or comment without a little dab of self-worship? No wonder he believes conservatives can do no wrong. He fancies himself a God, and since he's a conservative... well, it just stands to reason, right?

In the end, Donald Douglas is just mad because I believe that posts like these are offensive, both to the black people they malign and to everyone who believes that engaging and encouraging such tropes about black folks is wrong. Donald doesn't like that I had the temerity to call him on this crap. Now if you ask me, calling Donald out for engaging in bigotry against black people makes me a pretty bad white supremacist, but you're free to come to your own conclusion about that. So, I understand why Donalde is angry, but the answer to his problems isn't lashing out at me with specious charges of racism for saying that his "bigotronics" posts are offensive. The answer is cleaning up his own house and not posting such things, anymore.

The choice is his to make.

Other posts, related:
American Power: Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea
Faith maintenance - Acephalous
American Power: It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power
ThinkingMeat - More hilarity and hypocrisy from Donald Douglas
American Niiiiihilist: The Pale Scot Affair
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats x-post, which in turn was adapted from an American Nihilist post.

X-Post: Donald Douglas Plays 'No True Scotsman" with One Time Friend, Fellow Conservative, (and if his "friends" are to be believed, Pedophile) Blogger

American Power: Alex Knepper, FrumForum Blogger, Fired by Daily Caller Over Pedophile Controversy:

"And it's stange that Alex claims to be a conservative, but I don't think so, unless this is the kind of faux-conservatism David Weigel recently discussed. In other words, it's not. Just more of the same morally relative post-modern radicalism that increasingly informs the mainstream of the Democrat Party left."

Yeah, Alex Knepper says he's a conservative, and he's written for Breitbart's Big Hollywood, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and David Frum's FrumForum, but no true conservative would ever lust after kids the way Alex Knepper did, so he's obviously a secret Democrat. (And they say Knepper's rationalizing? Yeesh...)

Dr Douglas ought to be ashamed to put this kinda logic free tripe out there... but of course, he isn't. There is nothing Donald Douglas won't say or do to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance in his life, no matter what. There is no such thing as a conservative pedophile, even if Donald has to shut his eyes tight, stick his fingers in his ears, and sing "lalalallalalalalalalalalalalaaaaa" at the top of his lungs until everyone stops talking about it... or until he can convince himself that his one time friend Alex Knepper is really a liberal Democrat.
---

American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: A Douglas Hirabah Against "the Left," continued

The majority of Donalde's Leftist Violence and the Los Angeles Times Bombing post is made up of a lengthy cut and paste of an LA Times article titled "Bombing of The Times in 1910 set labor back a generation, by Lew Irwin. Much as the title says, it's a story about the 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles Times building, an act committed by two brothers on behalf of the Ironworkers union, and one of many bombings and other acts of domestic terrorism committed by union workers throughout the country between 1907 -1911, as they fought against anti-union shops. (There was a fair bit of ruthlessness and inhumanity visited on unions and union workers by the other side, as well, but nothing approaching the dynamite campaign waged by the unions. And union or not, it was working people who suffered the most from the bombings, both in terms of those killed or injured, and those left without work.)

After reading the story, Donalde's reaction is thus:

This is frustrating since Irwin is so unhappy that the bombing was a "setback" for organized labor. I see it for what it was: typical of the left's inherent impulse toward destruction and death. And like we saw in the late-60s with the Weather Underground, and later in Germany with Baader-Meinhof, the cycle turns and political violence becomes respectable. Violent provocateurs are gearing up now. We saw the potential in Toronto last summer. The left's own frustration will stay capped for only so long.

Of course Donalde is again misstating the case in his seemingly endless and unhinged war on "the Left." If "the Left" had an inherent impulse toward destruction and death, such acts of domestic terrorism would be common here in this country; such acts are not common. When they have happened here, such acts of political violence have not become respectable. (I can't speak to Germany with as much certainty as I can the US, but I seriously doubt domestic terrorism became respectable there, either.)

I can't say much about Donalde's violent provocateurs except that it's kinda hard to tell who they are, how many they represent, or what kind of violence they're provoking. Conveniently, Donalde neglects to say, either. As a person on "the Left," I only agree with a portion of their goals and even less with some of their methods for achieving them, but perhaps I'm just too moderate... ...though I'll bet Dr Douglas doesn't think so, which in turn calls his judgement into question.

The Toronto link points to a story about blac-block anarchists who, for the benefit of our erstwhile PoliSci professor, are not a part of "the Left," pretty much by definition. (I mean, aside our friend Donalde, apparently, who has ever heard of a big government, pro-tax, anarchist? Yeah, me neither.) Anarchists are opposed to right wing conservatism, to be sure, but they're just as opposed to big government liberalism of the sort championed by many on Donalde's mythical "Left." Anyone who fails to understand even that much isn't worth his daily ration of salt... or air. (It'd be like saying "Because Iran opposed Saddam Hussain' Iraq and the US opposed Saddam Hussain's Iraq, Iran and the US share the same political philosophy.")

There are legitimate ideological differences between folks on the left and folks on the right in this country, and they are worth discussing. There's no need for Donalde Douglas to stoke the fires of distrust and discord with ginned up bullshit about an evil monolith called "the Left," that largely doesn't exist. Not that that'll stop him, of course...
---

American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: A Douglas Hirabah Against "the Left"

American Power: Leftist Jihad Against Pamela Geller

A Leftist jihad, Dr. Douglas?

Not even Geller herself is making that claim in the post to which Donalde links (which is all about fundamentalist Islamist death threats--though she seems to be blaming Muslims for them), and Donalde says nothing to make his case that "the Left" has anything to do with it.

I mean, I've no doubt that many (most?) folks on the left who are familiar with her "work" believe Pamela Geller expresses bigotry toward Muslims and toward anyone who has the temerity to disagree with her, whatever their religion or ethnicity, but believing that--or even saying so, even directly to her face--is hardly launching any kinda jihad against her, and it surely isn't threatening her life.

Yeah, there probably have been a few nuts who, in the name of their liberal politics, have made anti-Semitic or other real threats. But they no more represent "the Left" than clinic bombers or that moron who shot up the Unitarian church in TN represent "the Right." Making broad generalizations about any whole class of people based on the actions of the weakest links in their midst is exactly how bigoted thoughts and beliefs are born and take root. And one might even argue that doing so is itself "weakest link" behavior.

There are many legitimate arguments one can have about liberal vs conservative thought on any given subject, and there are even individual assholes doing evil things for political motives that one can highlight and attack, if one is so inclined. So why does Donald Douglas so often slander "the Left" with bullshit that, even being generous, can only be attributed to a small number of individuals?
---

American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: Donalde Douglas: "It's not Raaaaacist, it's Hilaaaaarious"

American Power: "I don't care if these commie freaks wanna holla RAAAAACISM!! and LIAR!! The photoshop (and my bigotronics) is not RAAAAACIST. It's hilarious." (Well, I know Donalde's chosen post title went somethin' like that... That's the point his post is trying to sell, anyway)

Sorry Donalde, Deny it as loudly and proudly as you think you need to. But when even FoxNews was smart enough to scrub this bit of bigotry, you're fighting a losing battle.

By all means though, you keep posting this kinda bigoted garbage and denying that you're contributing to outdated and sad stereotypes about black folks, (and I might add, about conservatives, as well...) You seem to think you're getting the better of folks like me and Roy Edroso, (or "pissing us off"???) in some way by posting this shit, but I assure you Donalde, it ain't doing me or anyone on our side of the aisle any harm for you to show yourself and those who will inevitably chime in in the comments there to support you, for who you folks really are... By all means, you keep on showing us all how "hilaaaaarious" you can be, whenever you feel the urge. (That Donalde has stooped so low as to blame folks on the left for bigoted posts like these kinda shows just how desperate to explain them away he's becoming... Nobody tell him that perhaps NOT POSTING THIS KINDA SHIT ON HIS BLOG IN THE FIRST PLACE, would be a good way to avoid having to explain it, at all... Shhh...)

As for the lying bit, I leave it to the reader... In the initial piece, Donalde says he's paraphrasing FoxNation. When I pointed out that the scrubbed FoxNation piece (cached) doesn't say anything about smokin', well, anything, Donalde now points to the text of a FoxNation commenter (perhaps the only FoxNation commenter comment that wasn't lost in the scrub of the post, and only because that one was copied by Roy Edroso before the scrub, which turns out to be pretty (and pretty ironically) convenient for Don), claiming he took his inspiration for:

Lil Wayne doin' time for attempted weapons possession, yo! And some lefty lamebrains have issues? You mean, it's RAAAAACIST!! to be snarkin' dat POTUS BE DOWN WID DE FATTY BLUNTS AND MENTHOLS, MOFO CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP?

from an equally bigoted commenter named "eagletimberwolf" at FoxNation who posted:

SINCE HE AIN'T IN THE ALOHA STATE ANYMORE, HE HAD TO TRADE IN THE COOL BREEZE, TASTY WAVES, AND FATTY BLUNTS FOR MENTHOL CIGARETTES, A CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP TO GET THROUGH THE HEAVY DAYS. HOPE HIS GIRLS DON'T TURN INTO RUMP SHAKIN' BACKUP DANCERS....

I leave it to you... If you believe quoting/paraphrasing a pseudononymous commenter at FoxNation is the same as quoting/paraphrasing FoxNation.com itself, Donalde was speaking truth. If not, perhaps Dr Douglas just kinda misspoke, the first time. In any case, we here at American Nihilist only report... You decide.

More Donald Douglas "hilaaaaarity":
Donald Douglas - On African Americans
---

And Previously: American Niiiiihilist: "You mean, it's RAAAAACIST!! to be snarkin' dat POTUS BE DOWN WID DE FATTY BLUNTS AND MENTHOLS, MOFO CRACK PIPE AND GANGSTA RAP?" Yes Donald, it is.
---

American Niiiiihilist x-post

X-Post: The 'Imaginary Commies' in Dr Douglas' mind

In reply to: American Power: 'Imaginary Commies' at 'One Nation' Rally

That's right. Because it's all just some crazed right-wing propaganda scam. Just ask Tintin, the blogging asshat at Sadly No!

"Because we do in fact hate commies, at least real commies, not the imaginary commies that community college Assistant Associate Professor Douglas sees lurking behind every potted plant."

Must have been a gazillion potted plants on the Washington Mall last weekend. Because you know, there's just no socialism any more, right?

Are you really still trying to "win" your battle with Sadly, No! that you lost two weeks ago?

Dr Douglas, you ought to give it up. Tintin is correct; There's not a whole lotta your brand of Stalinist commies here in America, and even if there are a few somewhere, they're surely not attending a rally in support of such mainstream ideals as were being supported by the folks at One Nation. (Were there some kookie ideas being talked about there as well? More'n'likely... Were they getting wide support among the rest of the people attending? Unlikely.)

Among the American Communist and Socialist groups there, you would find very little support for Stalin or for mass murder, were you to actually bother to look, and then be honest about what you found. (Which is unlikely, as mindless, unthinking, unexamined FEAR is the name of the game.)

It's not the ideas that are evil; it's the people who use those ideas to further their own desires for money, or power, or both. It does no good to make folks afraid of ideas like Islam or Communism. Banning or burning the Koran or the writings of Marx isn't the way; Better to let folks study all they can about them, and then prove those ideas wrong.

Yelling "Cooooomunist!!" and pretending that the few of 'em who were a part of the One Nation rally 1) represent the same thinking and practices as Stalin in the late 30's, and 2) represent the thinking of everyone at the rally, isn't going to cut it with anyone who isn't already a true believer.

These various American Communist and Socialist party groups were there supporting the same list of goals as everyone else, not dictating goals to anyone. (If anything, it was the more moderate left who was influencing them, not the other way around...)

The cooooomunists you're trying to make your readers fear are for the most part, long gone. These tiny groups of American idealists are wrong, intellectually and practically, but they aren't a threat to anyone, no matter how loudly and vociferously you proclaim their demonic, Stalinist, nihilist, boogety-boogety-boogety evil.

If you can't show elected Democrats (or large swaths of "the American Left) actually supporting dangerous Stalinist ideas and tactics, using actual quotes or legislative language, I mean, you ought to stop making the claim, already... (I don't expect you will, of course, but that doesn't mean I'll stop askin')

American Nihilist x-post
---

Posted to American Power October 4, 2010 12:40 PM, AmPow blog time...
...and edited away, shortly thereafter. (While Donalde is welcome to run his blog this way, it doesn't bode well for his "tactical elan" to just keep blocking comments for content, whether through pre- or post-moderation--though for what it's worth, I do prefer the latter, and I bet many of his readers do, as well.)

X-Post: Donalde Douglas and his con crew confuse the media with the message

American Power: Climate Terrorism

Once again, Dr Douglas and a gaggle of his rightwing friends confuse the misplaced "creativity" of a writer/director (or in past, an ad agency) with the issue they are trying to bring attention to.

In this case, it's a short film called "No Pressure," written by Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually, Mr Bean, ...), that includes Gillian Anderson, british soccer star Peter Crouch, music donated by Radiohead. It was shot by director Dougal Wilson. Everyone involved donated their time and talents.

The four minute film is pretty nasty. In it, people unwilling to try cutting their carbon emissions by ten percent by the end of 2010 are blown up pretty graphically, with gore and guts galore. The writer says he was going for the same kind of humor as one might find in a Monty Python sketch, and the scenes did kind of remind me of Mr. Creosote, from "The Meaning of Life." Unfortunately, I didn't find that bit funny, either. The whole thing is in pretty bad taste, though as with Mr. Creosote, I'm sure there are some who get the joke that the rest of us all seem to be missing.



However--and here's where teh Donalde and his fellow cons fall off the rails--the explosions are not tied to anything the 10:10 organization says or stands for. They don't advocate killing anyone or say that folks who don't reduce their admissions might as well be dead, or any such thing... but you'd never know that by reading the conservative, climate change denier reaction. To them, this film in some way proves that climate science is the work of "the Global Warming Taliban" and Enviro-Nazis, all of whom are "rotten to the core." More:

Midnight Blue Says: "This is the radical environmental movement’s version of the Final Solution. If you don’t go along with anthropogenic global warming, you will be exterminated."

Zombie (no comment) sez: "final proof that the Green movement are a bunch of crypto-fascists with violent fantasies of exterminating their opponents, and who use threats to enforce groupthink"

James Delingpole offers this: "With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness."

Bad taste? Sure.
Indicative of the environmentalist movement's true feelings about those who don't agree with 'em? Not so much.

There's no doubt that the filmmaker's made a mistake in creating such a film, and the 10:10 organization should've rejected it outright. But it sure seems to me that some of the most strident opponents of the film have themselves gone over the edge in denouncing it, reading in messages that only they can seem to hear, and trying to tie this one creative overreach to the whole of the environmental movement. When they start denouncing you as the Taliban and as Nazis, there's little doubt what their intent for you is... ...the same eliminationism they're accusing you of perpetrating...

Related:



There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign's 'No Pressure' film | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Backlash over Richard Curtis's 10:10 climate film | Environment | The Observer
American Nihilist x-post

Donalde Douglas: Treat people like the individuals they are...

In reply: American Power: HUMAN EVENTS Reporter Assaulted at Socialist "One Nation" Rally

This one was caught on tape. Who knows how many additional altercations weren't recorded? These people are thugs. From Jason Mattera:

Jason Mattera. The guy who ambushes Democratic officeholders, butters them up, and then hits them with rude or obnoxious questions. (And admits having no problem being rude to them, because they're Democrats.) And Donalde's calling "the Left" thugs... Funny.

Again. There is no "these people." It's one woman who may be a thug, and because the video is edited, there's no conclusive evidence that she wasn't provoked in some way. (Why edit the video, otherwise? What was cut out?)

If the woman wasn't provoked, she's a damned nut to be so angry for no reason (Emily Miller wasn't wearing any "I'm a right-winger" ID on her, so it wasn't political).

Either way, the police saw the tape, and didn't find cause to arrest the woman for assault or anything else, which also makes me curious... What we see in the edited video looks bad, but what did the police see (either in the uncut video, or there at the scene) that we're not seeing, that caused them to let the crazy lady go? Hopefully if any legit media decides to cover the story, they'll interview those cops to find out what it was we didn't see. (I'll lay bets that the unedited video isn't being released anytime soon. They never are until they're required to be by law, and when they do get released, they tend to exonerate the folks getting framed by the edited versions...)

But really, Dr Douglas... This woman represents herself, not "the Left." (You know, the same way you don't speak for all of "the Right," as concerns the Rutgers suicide issue, for just one example.)

People are individuals, and whether good or bad, you ought to consider treating them that way, rather than pretending they're nothing more than representatives of the sociopolitical groups to which they belong.
---

This one posted October 3, 2010 8:35 PM (AmPow blog time -- moderation was turned off, but Donald deleted it pretty quickly, for reasons that remain unclear. (He's obviously afraid of something, though...)

X-Post: Dr. Fred Gottheil and Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians: A Statement of Concern

This stands a good chance of being my last post about Dr. Fred Gottheil and his role in fighting discrimination against women, gays and lesbians in the Middle East, or his role in attacking academics (by which I think he means liberals) for not replying to an e-mail he sent them, and thus standing up against said discrimination. That's not to say I won't respond to other posts on the subject, or that I'll stop trying to collect signatures on Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern, posted and hosted at the following link: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition (If you're reading this post--and we both know you are--and haven't yet read/signed the Statement of Concern at the PetitionOnline site, I respectfully request that you pause at the end of this paragraph and go take care of that now. The remainder of this post will still be here when you get back. OK, go. Thanks.)

For those who aren't familiar with the story: Dr Gottheil, an economics professor at the University of Illinois, stumbled across a petition written by Dr. David Lloyd back in January, 2009, which was critical of certain policies of the Israeli government, and was signed by about 900 academics, including many from the US, and even a few who taught at Dr Gottheil's university. (900 US, other Academics: "divestment and pressure" against Israeli "apartheid" - Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid). Displeased, he got to wondering whether these same academics who were so willing to criticize Israel would also be willing to criticize countries in the muslim Middle East for their violations of human rights. So, he wrote up his Statement of Concern, a four page document criticizing various human rights abuses perpetrated against women, gays and lesbians in the Middle East, and e-mailed it to 675 American academics culled from the 900 who had signed the "Israeli Apartheid" petition, asking them to reply back to him with the word "YES," indicating that they supported his Statement. The results were disappointing. 27 professors sent back a "yes," 3 or 4 more sent back "no"s (as well as nasty words about Dr Gottheil, he says), and the rest failed to reply at all. Dr Gottheil attributes the lack of response he received to anti-semitism and "sanctimonious bigotry."

From the outset I found aspects of his story questionable. First off, the initial stories were posted on far right fringe sites like FrontPage Magazine, that I've never found particularly credible. These are people who see Islamofascists and communists throughout much of our population, including in our government. They obviously don't live in the same America I do. I take everything they say with big grains of salt and a whole lotta skepticism.

And then there was the story, itself...
Why didn't the first stories about what happened include links to either petition, rather than thumbnail descriptions of each by Dr. Gottheil?
Why is it that he never released the names of the 27 academics who did sign his statement?
What about the list of people he was accusing? Rather than this vague slander of academics (which I'm pretty sure, is being used here as a code-word for "liberals")? Before jumping to any conclusions, shouldn't we try to get their side of the story, allowing them to explain why they didn't sign the statement? (Still curious about that, I intend to start writing these folks, to see if anyone on Dr Gottheil's likely list wants to speak for themselves.)
What about his methods, and how they may've affected the return rate? How did Dr Gottheil contact these 675 academics? How does he know they received and read what he sent? Did he follow up with them, and if so, how?
Since he was comparing his return rate to that of Dr Lloyd and his "Israel divestment" petition, why isn't there any discussion how either man gathered their signatures, or how long and hard each man worked on the gathering process? Did either of them enlist any help? (Fellow professors, a human rights or sociopolitical education organization, or even a public website)? What about each man's history of working on these issues? Had either of them gathered signatures, written anything, or otherwise been involved with divestment in Israel/human rights in the Middle East before? What is the history of the issues, themselves? How much infrastructure is already out there (knowledge about the issue, campaigns already in place, ???)?

In short, I thought that Dr. Gottheil's/FrontPage Magazine's/the rightwing blogosphere's explanation of "sanctimonious bigotry" and a double standard, as well as any suggestion that there could be no other explanation, was short-sighted and foolish, and displayed a willingness to accept that correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), no matter what.

The questions above--many of which have not been answered, to this day--show that there are many possible reasons why these academics might not've returned Dr Gottheil's e-mail, and that there is insufficient evidence (at the very least) to show that the circumstances surrounding the gathering of signatures on each petition were sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison between the two. Signing one petition but not the other is NOT evidence that one cares about one issue more than the other. There are many reasons why one might've done that that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism, anti-imperialism, or support for Muslim dictatorships (e-mail ended up in spam folder, unread, e-mail thrown away unread by recipient, because they didn't recognize sender address, e-mail thrown away by sender after reading as hoax, or spam, or right-wing trick, or belief that private e-mail campaigns with no public website are ineffective, or... well, the possibilities are endless...) And, there are many explanations for why one petition might've received more support than the other that involve the way the signatures were solicited, rather than any animosity toward Jews, or love of third world citizens. (by a friend vs by a stranger, via e-mail vs in person or via a website, backed by a human rights organization and/or political educator group vs backed by no one, gathered by several people vs gathered by one person, petitioners asked to sign repeatedly (if necessary) vs only being asked once, with no follow-up, ... the list goes on and on...)

Unless Dr Gottheil or any of the right wingers propagating this meme can eliminate or at least account for all of the other variables, or can at least compare two sufficiently similar petitions and circumstances, they cannot claim that anyone has shown any double standard in this story.

Just the same, I also conducted an experiment. In the last week, I contacted just about every blog I could find that covered this story, and tried to post a comment at the post discussing it, asking that the bloggers and their readers sign onto Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern, which I had posted on PetitionsOnline.com. These were bloggers who obviously cared about this issue, because they had posted about it. And because the comment would be posted on their blogs--and in a good number of cases, had to be approved by them, as blog moderator, BEFORE it would appear), it was highly likely that they would see the comment inviting them to sign.

This is the comment I posted (It did vary occasionally, based on the content of the post or other comment(s), but this is the text I used as my template):

Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com, and is accepting signatures from anyone willing to speak out against human rights abuses in the Middle East. As you're obviously interested in the story, I urge you to step up and sign it: Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition

Of course, we'll be counting on everyone here to reply to this request.

Here's how I did:

Blogs that posted my comment (alphabetical order by blog name):

01) Media Backspin: An Experiment Exposes Academia's Double Standards Against Israel (Moderated)

02) BarkGrowlBite: LEFTIST DOUBLE STANDARDS (Moderated)

03) Look No Further - Big Citizen (Moderated)

04) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - THE BLACK KETTLE

05) Love of the Land: What Kind of Academic Signs These Anti-Israel Petitions? (Moderated)

06) SEE MUSLIMS..MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE CATCHING ON TO YOU…. - Canadian Kuffars (Moderated)

07) carnage and culture: Australian Muslim cleric calls for a beheading. Who cares?

08) An empirical test for academic hypocrisy

09) American Thinker: What Kind of Academic Signs These Anti-Israel Petitions? - Comments (Moderated)

10) What bias? Contrary

11) An experiment in Academia | Wolfville watch (Moderated)

12) Elder of Ziyon: A unique experiment on anti-Israel academics

13) Shameless hypocrisy watch: “What kind of academic signs anti-Israel petitions?" - Los Angeles Middle Eastern Policy - Examiner.com

14) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - First Thoughts | A First Things Blog (Moderated)

15) Leftist Professors and Double Standards - FrontPage Magazine

16) Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II | FrontPage Magazine

17) fousesquawk: An Academic Petition You May Never Have Heard Of (Moderated)

18) GeeeeeZ!: Larry Elder REALLY tells it like it is.........

19) An Empirical Test for Academic Hypocrisy - Grendel Report (Moderated)

20) Hummers & Cigarettes: Academia: Sanctimonious Leftist Professors (Moderated)

21) I Beg to Disagree: Academic Criticisms of Israel: 96% Hypocritical (Moderated)

22) The Day In Israel: Mon Sept 20th, 2010 : Israellycool

23) Academic Bigotry: Israel and the Social Justice Farce - The Lesbian Conservative (Moderated)

24) Leslie S. Lebl: Disrobing the Left (Moderated)

25) Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy: "They are sanctimonious bigots at heart" (Moderated)

26) True Catholic : Re: AUSTRALIAN MUSLIM CALLS FOR BEHEADING - WHO CARES?? SUCH A DOUBLE STANDARD!

27) The Fall of Human Rights | No Left Turns

28) Reverend Rubicon: Leftist Professors and Double Standards

29) XDA: Thoughts of the Day

30) “Fellow academics” call prof “master of the obvious.” | Right Wing News

31) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ | San Francisco Examiner (Moderated)

32) What's the difference between a highly educated bigot and a lowly uneducated bigot?

33) Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… Social Justice Advocates vs. Israel (Moderated)

34) Our Man in Palestine - The Daily Beast

35) Considerettes - Conservative commentary served up in bite-sized bits - Social Justice Advocates vs. Israel (Moderated)

36) Leftist Professors and Double Standards Part II - THERESE ZRIHEN-DVIR, Regard d'un Ecrivain sur le Monde

37) Australian Muslim Cleric Calls for Beheading -- Who Cares? - Larry Elder - Townhall Conservative

38) Trees For Lunch: A Form of Bigotry You Seldom Hear of

39) Villainous Company: Quantifying the Hypocrisy of Lefty Academicians

40) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ | Washington Examiner (Moderated)

41) Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: Not Everyone Likes the Jews
---

Blogs that failed to post my comment, or actually deleted it from their blog:

1) American Power: 'Sanctimonious Bigots' – Leftist Professors and Double Standards - 9/25 - *** Dr. Douglas has added several posts to his blog since I submitted my comment, so I reluctantly have to assume that he has rejected my comment asking he and his readers to step up and sign Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern. As he is both a conservative and an academic in the field of political science, I'm most disappointed in his obvious lack of concern for the human rights of women, gays, and lesbians in the Middle East. Given the chance to reply (figuratively, anyway) to Dr Gottheil's e-mail plea--a plea we can be almost certain Dr Douglas received and read--he chose not to step up, just like those "leftist" (and likely "nihilist" or "demonic," too) professors that he posted about failed to do. Double standard? You decide. ***

2) The Baltimore Reporter: Sally Quinn: Obama Went to Church Because Americans Are Bigots - 9/27 - *** - The Baltimore Reporter (blog) fails to approve my comment. Apparently, standing up for human rights in the Middle East is more of a rhetorical bit of self-indulgent pleasuring themselves than an actual, y'know, ideal that they strive to live up to. Meaninglessly denouncing the "evils of liberalism" for being hypocrites on this issue, while similarly being hypocrites themselves is just so much easier. And, in refusing to post my comment, they not only do nothing about the issue of human rights abuses in the Middle East themselves, they don't allow their readers to make the choice to do anything, either. Nice going, wingnuts. ***

3) DUFF & NONSENSE!: Humbug and humbuggers! *** Disappointingly, as of 9:20 AM on 9/25/10 (less than 12 hours later), this blogger seems to've deleted my comment, as well as the Blogger backlink to this post. How should we judge that, when evaluating this conservative's commitment to human rights? Duff sure seemed to care when it was liberal academics who weren't stepping up, but when it's his turn to speak out, he chooses not to do so himself, or to allow any of his readers the opportunity to do so, either. Hypocrisy? You decide. ***

4) It’s all about the hypocrisy Full Metal Cynic - 9/28 - *** - Given that there is a new post at this site, and my comment is still being held for moderation, it's lookin' like the chances of it's getting posted are pretty slim. It is indeed, all about the hypocrisy, I guess... ***

5) American academia: Condemn Israel, love Muslims | Liberty Pundits Blog *** 9/26 *** - It seems that Liberty Pundits here flagged my previously posted comment for review. Y'all see what I posted at all these sites... Is a comment asking folks to sign s Statement of Concern about human rights in the Middle East, at a post about that very same Statement, critical of the fact that a whole lotta previous folks didn't sign onto it, somehow off topic or offensive? Or is it that Liberty Pundits hates liberals (and/or muslims) more than they love supporting God given natural rights for all mankind? Hypocrisy? You decide. ***

6) Prof calls fellow academics ‘sanctimonious bigots’ - 9/25 - *** Rachel at 'Thoughts From A Conservative Mom' here, obviously doesn't really care much about the rights of muslim women or gay folks, because she chose not to allow my comment about signing Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern to appear. Not only didn't she reply to Dr Gottheil's plea (very much like those "sanctimonious, bigoted" academics failed to do), she doesn't want her readers to reply, either. Let human rights be someone else's problem, I guess... Sanctimony and hypocrisy walk hand in hand, sometimes... ***

7) education teacher : As if we needed more proof that liberal academics are usually hypocites and bigots

While I did do pretty well on the comment end of things -- Of 48 conservative blogs/bloggers total, 41 posted vs 7 who refused -- I didn't do so well on gathering signatures from these conservatives (or their readers, even)... As of this post, I have a total of nine signatures. And one of those nine belongs to me. Very disappointing.

Now by the same logic that says folks who sign a statement critical of Israel but do not sign a statement critical of muslim countries are hypocrites and are showing a double standard, what are we to make of right wing bloggers who publish posts critical of leftwing folks who don't sign a petition, when they themselves also fail to sign the very same petition? Are they hypocrites? Are they showing their own double standards? Is this proof that right wing bloggers don't care about the human rights of women and gay folks in the Middle East?

No, of course not. Just as with the academics, there are all kinds of possible reasons these right wing bloggers failed to sign, that have nothing to do with bigotry, or not caring, or double standards of any kind.

And that's the point.

Guess who else failed to sign the statement online? Dr Fred Gottheil. That's right, the man who wrote and e-mailed the statement to these (liberal) academics--but none of his friends, co-workers, or fellow conservatives--refused to sign his own statement here online, where everyone could see it. He also refused to distribute the statement to anyone else, or do anything further in support of the issue he claimed to care so much about in his statement. What are we to make of that, I wonder? What was his motivation for writing the statement in the first place, and how do you think his motives might've affected how he conducted his experiment--methods that I've already called into question above (research bias), and how he interpreted the results he received (Was there confirmation bias)?

Had Dr Gottheil really wanted to gather signatures opposing human rights abuses in the Middle East--rather than "proving" the rhetorical point he came in with--he could've and would've done a far better job trying to get those signatures than to send out a single "cold call" e-mail to a bunch of strangers and not even do any follow-up to make sure they received and read what he sent them. It seems to me that he wanted these academics to fail his little test, and wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, they did. The only surprising thing about it is that anyone is trying to attribute these facts to causes other than Dr Gottheil's methods and motivations, and that they're presumably trying to do so with straight faces.
---

My previous posts on the subject:
9/21/2010 - Wingnuts & Moonbats: Dr. Gottheil, Where's Your Petition? - My initial questions on first reading Dr Gottheil's story.

9/21/2010 - What'd I Say?: An Open Letter to Dr. Fred Gottheil, regarding his "Statement of Concern" - More questions for Dr Gottheil.

9/22/2010 - What'd I Say?: More questions for Fred Gottheil, regarding his Statement of Concern - After the release of the Statement of Concern at FrontPage Mag, repeating the questions Dr. Gottheil failed to answer.

9/23/2010 - What'd I Say?: "If Fred Gottheil doesn't reply to my unsolicited e-mails, it's proof that he doesn't care about this issue." - My initial theories, and the transcript of a three part e-mail exchange I had with Dr. Gottheil, based on my e-mailing him the previous two posts.

9/23/2010 - Wingnuts & Moonbats: A Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians - Dr. Fred Gottheil - My first attempt to get people to sign onto Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern, posted on my blog. Many visits, but no comments, either in support or opposed.

9/23/2010 - What'd I Say?: Dr. Fred Gottheil and the "sanctimonious bigots" commenting at the Washington Examiner - More theory, and my first realization that all these rightwing folks complaining about the "academics" haven't actually done anything about this issue themselves, except bitch about folks not like them, and claim to be superior.

9/23/2010 - What'd I Say?: Attn Conservatives: You've (figuratively) "received the e-mail" from Fred Gottheil... How have YOU replied? Kinda the same post as above, better written, and submitted to a different blog.

9/24/2010 - What'd I Say?: In Reply: Why Dr Fred Gottheil's "experiment in Academia" didn't yield valid results - My first thoughts about comparing the number of signatures on the two petitions, and theories/facts regarding why one got more replies than the other.

9/24/2010 - What'd I Say?: Was I really unfair to Dr Gottheil? - My response to the suggestion that I'm being unfair to Dr Gottheil. No one has as yet tried to explain how... (including the blogger who accused me) ...but you're welcome to give it a shot, if you'd like.

9/24/2010 - What'd I Say?: Dr. Gottheil's "Statement of Concern" is now posted at PetitionsOnline.com... - The announcement of the PetitionOnline.com posting of Dr Gottheil's Statement of Concern Calling for Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians, and where I kept track of it all.

9/26/2010 - What'd I Say?: Still talking about Dr. Gottheil, at GeeeeeZ! (blog), this time

9/28/2010 - What'd I Say?: In Reply: Did Dr Gottheil's motivations taint his methodology? - Experimenter bias, confirmation bias, correlation/causation fallacy

10/1/2010 - This post, which will hopefully be the final one. I'll keep trying to collect signatures on the online petition, but I feel confident that I've pretty much buried any notion that Dr Gottheil actually proved anything about the Left, or the Right. (If ya ask me, all he proved is that he's either not particularly good at the scientific method, or he's a propagandist. I leave that for each reader to decide for themselves...)

Those who still wish to buy into his "results" anyway, ignoring all the facts to the contrary, are welcome to do so. There will always be some with perfectly good eyes who nevertheless refuse to see... They are likely beyond my helping...
---

Miscellaneous Links:
900 US, other Academics: "divestment and pressure" against Israeli "apartheid" - Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid

Democratic Underground - Here is the text of the Statement of the Concern - Democratic Underground

FrontPage Magazine
---

Wingnuts & Moonbats x-post

To peruse all my other commentary on this subject, previous and since, click GOTTHEIL label, below.