What'd I Say?: January 2011

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

In Reply: Donald Douglas: Bully who plays victim

In reply to the following comment at the American Power post, Newsweek's Arizona Shooting Cover Story Wraps 'Assassin' in American Flag:

"And is it bully or victim? You and RepRacist3 need to coordinate better, yo!"

It's bully who plays victim, Don. Folks of your ilk are not actually being victimized by anyone; you just say you are. (That's what this whole "RepRacist" thing is about... I called you on your bigoted characterizations of black folks (pimps, gangstas, fried chicken eating, bling wearing, thugs,...) and you started claiming *I* was a bigot who'd attacked you. That, my friend, is playing the victim.)

You actually are a bully, though... You seem to believe the only way to elevate yourself or your political causes is by attempting to knock others down. (You're wrong of course, but that doesn't stop you from trying...)

Anyway... Just wanted to answer your queer query, Dr Douglas. You're a bully who plays at being a victim. Yo.
---

Submitted for moderator approval January 25, 2011 10:19 AM. Chances ol' Don will actually allow it to appear? Slim.

Friday, January 21, 2011

In Reply: Sycophants and Slugs

In reply to: The Mahablog � Lies, Damn Lies, and Donald Douglas:

Dr Douglas lies from the first capital letter to the final period. All one can do is patiently correct his intentionally slanderous verbiage with more of your own.

I've always believed that the intelligent ones come to see for themselves, and when they do, they learn the truth. The sycophants and slugs who just take his word for everything are far too stupid worry about... which is good, because there is nothing anyone can do to educate them, anyway. For them, it's all about faith, not fact. Dr Douglas is a conservative, and conservatives never lie (or cheat, or steal, or do anything else that most other folks--and all liberals, of course--tend to do. Folks like Donald (& John Hawkins, and Jim Hoff, & ...) would be nothing without their true believers, lapping up whatever lies they tell and repeating them to all their friends...

It's kinda pathetic, actually. Scary, but pathetic.
---

~~Submitted~~ Posted Jan 21, 2011 @8:40 am

Thursday, January 20, 2011

X-Post: Is Donald Douglas fucking kidding?

Apparently Dr Douglas still misses me... American Power: James Casper, Stalking Nihilist, Ignores Calls for Civility and Peace in Wake of Arizona Shooting

How exactly he can claim I'm stalking the guy without bothering to say word one about him, is anyone's guess. But if there's one thing that's clear, it's that all that bitching and moaning he does about this blog is a sham. He bitches and moans just as much when you pay no attention to him.

Alright... Let's see what our apparently lonely old friend has to say...

I've had few dealings with stalking asshat James Casper since he revealed his first-class progressive racism late last year.

This is primarily because he's too afraid to respond to what we have to say over here, preferring to skulk about his own blog, and occasionally lash out with pretty incoherent ramblings (like for instance, the post to which I'm replying.)

I do see the hate blog American Nihilist at my Sitemeter on occasion, so I know what these freaks are up to.

That'd be reading the posts on his blog... which obviously, is kinda scary... (or freaky, I suppose. Teenybopper softcore hitz is worth the rule five nonsense, but nihilist hitz is eeeeevil, I guess.)

Or, what they're not up to, actually. It turns out that since the Arizona shooting on January 8th, RepRacist3 hasn't authored a single commemoration for the fallen at his blogs, nor has he denounced the hate and libel on the progressive left.

Actually, I have, on both counts, but I haven't done so by unpacking an American Power post, so poor Donald hasn't earned himself any attention from me at this blog, in conjunction with my doing so, which seems to be what he's REALLY bitching about.

Of course, it'd be just more typical progressive hypocrisy,

Sure... We could ask how not posting about a thing (or in my case, much of anything, for the last few weeks, here) displays "progressive hypocrisy," but we know that Donald's just makin' this up as he goes along in a pathetic bid for attention, so it's probably best not to even bother.

...but RepRacist3 claimsto be all about goodness and love: "I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm letting those I disagree with be just as wrong as they want to be for the next 24 hours or so ..." Being respectful of others only applies on opportunistic holidays, apparently. Christmas is a day to score political points, it turns out, as RepRacist3 claims to be all about transcendance and Yuletide cheer (as if December 25th was some political cease-fire day).

There's so much wrong with that bit'o'nonsense it's hard to know where to begin.
I never claimed to be all about goodness and love, but I did think that on Christmas eve and Christmas day, it was appropriate to focus on faith and family. (I probably don't have to even mention what Donald chose to focus on...) But to each his own. As I said at the time, I wasn't speakin' for anyone except myself. I did what I thought was right. I'm guessing our bitchy little friend did the same, as he kept up his attacks on anyone and everyone on his crazy enemies list. Whatever. I leave it for others to judge as they will. If Donald wishes to believe that my not attacking him was some kinda opportunistic ploy, while his attacks on others on Christmas is just what baby Jesus wanted for his birthday, these are his issues, and not mine. I cannot be much bothered with his nonsense. (Of course, maybe he's just sad because I didn't wish him a Merry Christmas. Of course, there's a reason I didn't... The sad little man went monkeyshit when I dared wish him well for Thanksgiving: Happy Thanks, Don Poor guy...)

But then shortly after the New Year dawned, when blood flowed on Tucson's streets, RepRacist3 went silent. What's up with that? Evil.

Beware silence. Silence is evil.
So according to Donald, not posting is eeeeevil. The best thing one can do, apparently, is dive right in there and jump to all kinds of conclusions, about the shooter, Sarah Palin, "the Left," "the Right," and God knows who else.
Me, I think it's smart to get some facts and digest 'em, first. Not ol' Donald, though... There's hitz to get, and going on the attack is the only way to get 'em. (And since he can't attack me for joining in the ridiculous feeding frenzy of those trying to place blame on anyone aside the shooter, he'll attack me for not posting. Brilliant. Fucking brilliant.)

Instead of well-wishes, we have Reppy's demonic henchmen Fauxmaxbaer posting sick screeds attacking my comprehensive reporting as alleged "exploitation."

Absolutely it's exploitation. And Donald knows it. Count how many posts he's done on the subject, and count how many are just variations on the theme of "I hate the left," with very little in the way of new or different "newsworthy" content. I mean, I get that his sycophants dig it, but the fact is, it's just a whole lotta nothing, and especially not "comprehensive reporting." It's using the tragedy and it's aftermath to score political points, scarcely different from what some on the Left did by blaming poor sister Sarah.

There is no bottom too deep for these vile beasts. And yet, there's rejoice for those entering the Gates of Hell, for a new level of epic godlessness has demonstrated its world historical totalitarianism at American Nihilist.

Huh? Is Donald fucking kidding?

And note that when my regular commenter Bartender Cabbie called them out for unhinged stalking, they wasted no time pumping out lame responses in the comments. They'd rather noxiously allege "bullying" than publish a public prayer for the too-soon-an-angel Christina Green.

Again I can't speak for anyone but me, but my prayers aren't prayed to impress some ass on the internet... My prayers are between me and my God, thanks...

As for BC, first off, responding to folks is what we do here... All are welcome to comment (we don't fear our readers, or what they have to say) and generally, all receive a reply...

Second, he asked a question about this blog... ...and didn't once mention the AZ shooting, Christina Green, or prayer, (which I guess makes him a nihi... oh, nevermind... The chances of Donald actually being intellectually honest or consistent are slim to none, and far more likely, the latter.) And while I might've been a little harsh, given the way I perceived the tone of his comment, Mr Robbins was quite pleasant, and their conversation seemed to go quite well, thanks.

I've made screencaps of RepRacist3's blogs. Folks can see for themselves.

Yes, they can... One thing they can see is that, contrary to Don's foolish claims, I have posted about the AZ shootings... It's right there in one of Don's screencaps, even. What I haven't done, is post about Donald or his blog, either in connection with the AZ shooting or anything else, which means I haven't posted here... And it sure seems to me that THAT is what's got poor Donald Douglas so incensed, this morning... No one is paying attention to him... ...not even me...

Clearly civil discourse is a hammer with which progressives suppress dissent.

Of course, that's bullshit. There've been folks all across the political spectrum calling for better political rhetoric and less demonization of other (the other political party, the other religion, the other race, the other gender, ...) for years... And we'll keep on doing so. Bullies and haters like Donald Douglas will keep doing their thing as well, I'm sure...
One can always dissent, but one doesn't have to act like an asshole to do so... One CHOOSES to do that. One can choose to behave better, whenever one is of a mind to do so. Perhaps when Donald is ready, he'll act like a bigger better more well-behaved boy and discuss issues without resorting to these ridiculous attacks. Perhaps...

When the times really call for kindness and deliberation, we get silence instead.

Go on over to Donald's blog and check out his "kindness and deliberation," and then get back to me... I had nothing to say about Donald's multitude of rants about "the left," so I didn't post here... I'm sorry that upsets him, but I think it says more about him and his ginormous ego than it does about me. Your milage may vary...

So unoriginal --- and hateful.

Yeah... Damn me and my hateful silence. Donald needs constant attention.

So here's a challenge to RepRacist3: Make good on the sentiments of the one-day holiday well wishes by deleting American Nihilist. Follow that up with a new effort --- something good and truly decent --- dedicated to the memories of the fallen, and use that initiative to promote a genuine dialogue of peace and harmony with fellow Americans.

Sorry Donald. I don't share your warped notions, and I like my little blog here, even when I don't post to it for awhile. This blog is used to expose your nutbaggery, and for little else... Personally, I think it's plenty decent, but you're welcome to believe as you will.

I don't need to put on a show for you or for anyone. My beliefs and my actions on this blog and the rest speak for themselves, and I can accept that some don't see things my way...

I blog about any and all things under the sun, and I pray for those who are suffering. RepRacist3 runs a hate-filled stalking operation with pudd-fiddling Fauxmaxbaer. Never do they post a prayer for the grieving, and never do the denounce the evil in their midst. Thus, do everybody a favor and hang it up. Move on. If you can't do it, it's simply one more confirmation that you're nothing about goodness and cheer, and all about denying reality and destroying political enemies, even in times of tragedy.

Dr. Douglas, we've been over the reason for this blog many many times... I'm sorry that you don't so much like having your own tactics tossed back at you, but you ought to've thought of that before embarking on your little ship of hate. When we find a post of yours that's worth a reply, we respond to it, generally in disagreement. I'm sorry if your feelings get hurt, but such is life. And all this whining about this blog isn't going to do much aside making you look kinda silly... Fight back or ignore us, but for gosh sakes, whatever you do, stop all the whining... The blog isn't going anywhere... ever, more'n'likely...

As for the rest, you might wish to spend more time worrying about your own soul, rather than trying to save mine. Your self-congratulatory pleas to prayer ain't gonna do it for you, my friend, no matter what you might wish to believe. Less tell, and more show. People can see for themselves who you are, without your having to tell them how righteous you believe yourself to be. And so can God. nuff said.

I also replied with a comment at Donald's post, but I doubt our cowardly friend will actually post it, (I'm banned, don'cha know) so I include it here:

What exactly is your problem, Douglas?

Do you really miss me this much when I ignore your ramblings for too long?

This plea for attention is pretty pathetic, Doc...

That about sums it up. As usual his post is all about narcissistic appreciation of himself, and attacks on all those who ain't fortunate enough to be him. Meh.
---

Update:

In response to a comment critical of his post, Donald has doubled down on his nonsense. Below appears his comment, and my reply to it.

Ah, context, JBW.

RepHateMaster trolls the web extolling his virtues of civil debate, but when we really need it he's silent.

You too, come to think of it.

Monday, January 10, 2011

In Reply: "The next AZ or VA Tech shooter shouldn't be using firearms he purchased legally..."

In reply to the following comment at the post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News:

"I could go right now to the bad side of town and and buy an illegal gun with little problem. (well, perhaps not me specificly...I look too much like a cop, or so I've been told, to be trusted by the street thug class. But you get my meaning.)
The existing laws are more than enough.

Also, you do realise that the two biggest mass murders and terrorist incidents in US history (the OKC bombing and 9/11) were carried out without any involvment with firearms, be they legal or illegal? So access to firearms is not the problem....it's criminals and terrorists.

Finally, 'reasonable'? What do you define as 'reasonable'? I'm all for bans on the ownership of guns by felons, the mentally ill, and those under 18. But beyond that I consider most anti-gun laws to be unreasonable. Self defence is a human right after all, and anything that harms that right is simply wrong."

I would like to see some of the rapid fire weaponry more restricted, but for the most part, I was talking about current law. Both this guy and the VA Tech shooter bought their guns legally. Both had incidents in their pasts that should've prevented them from doing so. Whether that was a failure of law or of enforcement, it needs to change, so that the next VA Tech/AZ shooter isn't using a gun they purchased legally. Even though we can't stop all of 'em, it doesn't follow that we therefore shouldn't try to stop any of 'em.

As I said, the fact that some terrorists/crazies can and will go buy illegal firearms is no reason not to prevent them from buying legal firearms. People without licenses also drive, but that's not a reason to stop the work of one's local department of motor vehicles. If forcing crazies/felons/terrorists to find an illegal dealer only prevents a quarter of the murder and mayhem those folks commit, that's still one quarter better than now.

The fact that the two biggest mass murders were accomplished without guns is kinda beside the point. The number of folks murdered by criminals/crazies/terrorists using guns is pretty high up there, as well. Whether or not we should limit access to planes, explosives, box cutters, etc. are separate questions to answer, and our choosing to limit access to one tool used by terrorists/crazies/criminals has little bearing on whether or not we also limit access to another. As far as I'm concerned anyway, access to the tools criminals/crazies/terrorists use to commit their acts, and specifically, doing what we can to prevent them from having such access, is definitely an issue worth discussing.

What you or I personally define as reasonable isn't really the issue, is it? What we as Americans, by virtue of the folks we elect, define as reasonable is the real question. Some of us will think we need to be more restrictive than you (or even I) do. Some will think I (and maybe even you, as well) am/(are) being too restrictive. But together, I'm sure we can some to some consensus, and if necessary, create new law. At the very least, we can demand better enforcement of current law, and oversight to see that it happens.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 04:03 PM

In Reply: "Anyone trying to sell the notion that either party is to blame, is exploiting the tragedy for political gain..."

In reply to 2nd Suspect Sought in Tucson Shooting – No Proof of Political Motive | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:

Let me ask a question. These people on the right you're referring to, are they doing so directly or in the context of the claim of Ms. Palin's or the Tea Parties' culpability in this matter. To the extent its the former, please see my comment above. To the extent it's the latter, I just haven't encountered too many conservatives making this claim.

Your overall point, though, is accurate. This guy did it because he was plain-out batsh*t crazy. That oughtn't be a matter of political debate. Batsh*t crazy is independent of politics and batsh*t crazy isn't going to be appeased by a more pleasant tone of politics.

I don't really know how many of 'em are "in response," vs how many were posted subsequently because the "favorite book" list came out subsequently, but I'm not so sure how much that even matters. Whether or not these folks on the right are making ridiculous suggestions about the guy being a leftist in response to ridiculous suggestions from folks on the left claiming he was a rightist, or the tea party made him do it, or... well, whatever else they're claiming, they're still making ridiculous suggestions, that don't hold up under scrutiny.

I mean, if they were saying "If you can blame the tea party rhetoric (or the Ayn Rand book on the list, or the gold standard bullshit in his rants), why can't we blame "The Communist Manifesto, and thus call him a leftist" I'd be with you. But I don't agree that it is acceptable or in any way logical to answer one kind of foolishness (he's a product of the Tea Party/rightwing rhetoric) with different foolishness (He's obviously a leftist.)

Neither the left or the right (neither individual people, or the political philosophies of either camp) are responsible for what this guy did.

Anyone trying to sell the notion that the party they ain't a member of or the political philosophy they don't subscribe to is to blame, is exploiting the tragedy for partisan gain, and should be ashamed of themselves.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 02:31 PM

In reply: Profiling Terrorists and Potential Mass Murderers

In reply this post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News, and in particular, folks critical of the following comment, with whom I agree... to a point, anyway...:

"Does anyone know if he purchased his gun legally? This of course is the big question when it comes to gun control isn't it? If I buy a gun from my friend on the corner or a gun show then gun legislation is about as meaningless as a national gun registry (which doesn't exist) - or gun stores keeping paper records (which does exist). Perhaps we should look at the better solutions like profiling people more likely to start shooting in crowds. You know- white men."

I have to agree, Ezra... I was all ready to "like" that comment, until you mentioned the white men.

And yes, I did get your meaning, and agree that profiling (racial, sexual, religious, political, etc., though preferably all of 'em together, in one neat package) is a useful tool. It also can be misused, pretty easily. On the whole, though, I'm still in favor of it... We can deal with the ones who slide down that slippery slope as they tumble...

When you're looking for terrorists these days, some folks are more likely than others to be the ones you're lookin' for. When you're looking for serial killers and/or some kinds of mass murderers, folks with different demographics become the more likely perps.

The real question is, whether it'd be worth providing extra checks on some folks in some situations, in the name of preventing (or even just slowing, because nothing is 100%) terrorist acts... or for that matter, those proverbial lone gunmen, in their proverbial bell towers.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 02:02 PM

In Reply: The fact that no law will be 100% effective is not a reason to eschew having laws, at all

In reply to the following comment at the post After Shooting, Dems Will Introduce Gun And Speech Control Bills | Right Wing News

"Because everyone knows that a guy who plans on committing mass murder, including that of a Congresswoman, is going to be completely deterred by a law requiring gun registration.

/rolls eyes"

Slowed by reasonable gun laws and their enforcement, would be a step in the right direction, Bill. Sure, some crazies and terrorist types will still get through, and use a legally purchased guns to commit their crimes... But the fact that no law will be 100% effective is not a reason to fail to even try to stop (or even just slow) some crazies or terrorists in their quest to obtain legal firearms.
---

Posted 01/10/2011 01:43 PM

In Reply: There will always be crazy people... ...but we don't have to make it easy for 'em.

In reply to the following comment at Enough With The Political Blame Game When Things Like The Giffords Shooting Happen! | Right Wing News:

"Would it make you feel better if he had stabbed all those people?"
---

If he had a knife, he never would've been able to stab all those people, wound them as mortally, or kill as many as he did, before being taken down.

My argument isn't that no one should have guns, but that there should be more restrictions to prevent (or at least slow) crazy people from getting ahold of them... even if they end up trying to use knives or bats to commit their massacres, instead. When these things happen, and there is a documented history of crime or craziness, the people involved shouldn't have firearms they purchased legally. Even if it only stops half of the mass killings that occur in this country, it'd be worth it.

Knife? Hell, I'd've been happier if the guy had a musket, or one of them old-time two-shot Derringers, rather than the Glock with the extended clip he had. Even a revolver would've been a step in the right direction.

It'd make me feel better if it didn't happen at all. But there will always be crazy people, and there will always be weapons that they can use. That doesn't mean we have to make it easy for 'em by not sufficiently checking the background of the folks buying guns, or permitting guns that fire this rapidly and this often before reloading. As I said elsewhere, neither gun control or the second amendment are all or nothing propositions.
---

1/10/11, 12:50 PM

In Reply: Neither gun control (or the second amendment) is an all or nothing proposition

In reply to the following comment at Enough With The Political Blame Game When Things Like The Giffords Shooting Happen! | Right Wing News, against some else who argued that ""This violent act was caused because this individual had access to a firearm." While the commenter below chose to focus on "access to a firearm" portion, I'm more interested in the "this individual" part of the argument:

"And b/c muslims have access to bombs and airplanes, they kill people."
---

So, are you arguing that terrorists (the folks you call muslims) should therefore have access to bombs and airplanes, the way madmen here seem to have access to guns? Or might it be prudent to restrict some items from some people, so that they cannot use them to commit bad acts...

Gun control (or for that matter, the second amendment) isn't an all or nothing proposition. Some arms should be available; some shouldn't. Some people should be permitted to have them; some shouldn't. Once we agree that terrorists and madmen should not have access to rocket launchers, no matter what the second amendment says (are they not arms?), all that's left is to argue about who should/should not be permitted to have arms, and what arms they should/should not be permitted to have.

To suggest that there can be no restriction whatsoever, either in who can legally own arms, or what arms a person can legally own, is a pretty extreme position. (And yes, suggesting that no one can legally own any weapon is pretty extreme, as well.)
---

Posted 1/10/11, 12:10 PM

In Reply: If the guy is a madman, his politics cease to be significant

In reply to the following comment at Even As Arizona Shooting Story Unfolds, Some Media Already Blaming Tea Party/Sarah Palin | Right Wing News:

"'His own words were those of a madman.'
So your contention is that leftist and madman are mutually exclusive?

Lee Harvey Oswald was insane, and a leftist, and a murderer. I disagree with your notion that being crazy prevents him from being on the left.

I've known many a crazy leftist."
---

Leftist (or rightist) and madman are not mutually exclusive, but as being used here, they imply a causation between the two terms that just doesn't exist.

Madman is very likely the cause. Leftist (or rightist) is no more significant as a motivation for the the crime than "dark-haired," "male," "t-shirt-wearing," "college student," "saxophone-playing," "Arizonan" or any of the other words and phrases that describe some aspect of the guy. Pretending that any/every book on his reading list, his politics, or any aspect of his ramblings is somehow significant as a motivation for the crime--or as "proof" that some segment of the American population (whether "leftists," "rightists," or "saxophone players") is in any way culpable for the crime because this guy can be counted among them--is just pure foolishness.
---

Posted 1/10/11, 11:08 AM

In Reply: Crazy makes the politics of the AZ shooter kinda insignificant

In reply to the following comment, posted at 2nd Suspect Sought in Tucson Shooting – No Proof of Political Motive | Right Wing News:

"But, I don't see conservatives doing the same, with or without gusto. What I see is conservatives pointing out that the very opposite of the accusation is true. Think about it this way, imagine someone here started screaming that this was evidence that illegal immigration had gotten out of control, that the illegals had killed a U.S. Congresswoman. You respond that that's silly, the culprit wasn't an illegal alien. He was a native-born American. They in turn respond that clearly, you're attacking native-born Americans, by trying to tie them in with the killer. You'd conclude that's pretty silly, wouldn't you? That's kind of how your argument comes across."
---

Bill... If you haven't seen the folks on the right latching on to "The Communist Manifesto" in the guy's reading list as clear proof that he was a liberal (while conveniently ignoring the Ayn Rand book that doesn't fit their chosen meme), you haven't been paying enough attention. Sure, these folks on the right are a minority (just as the folks on the left claiming Palin was responsible are a minority of the left), but in both cases they're out there, exploiting the dead and injured in the name of striking a blow against the political partisans they believe to be eeeeevil.

The guy was crazy. Crazy make his politics, left or right, kinda insignificant, either as an explanation or motivation for his actions, or as some kinda evidence that ..."all (liberals/conservatives/Democrats/Republicans/???) are therefore evil, or wrong, or ...well, anything..., just like this guy." I mean, the Son of Sam says he did it because a dog told him to... but precious few reasonable people actually placed the blame on dogs for the murders, despite Berkowitz's claims.
---

Posted 1/10/11, 10:12 AM

Sunday, January 09, 2011

In Reply: Using tragedy as partisan political attack

In reply to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Shot by Gunman: Breaking Updates | Right Wing News, and in particular, those partisans who are trying to tie this nut to a particular political point of view in an effort to use this tragedy as a political attack.
---

The political rhetoric of both Sarah Palin's scope sights and "blueboy's" post at Daily Kos are both sadly over the top.

Are either of 'em responsible for this particular violence (or any violence, at all)? Almost certainly not. The coarsening of the culture, including violent or hateful political rhetoric like these examples are surely not good for any society, and yes, nutbags like this guy can perhaps be influenced by them. (To be clear, I'm not saying that there's any evidence that this guy WAS, only that it's possible that nutbags, including this guy, CAN BE.) But even without being a direct or indirect factor in violent acts, such rhetoric does divide us and set the stage for more (more quantity, and more over the top nasty) rhetoric. And that's just sad.

From what we know at present anyway, anyone trying to tie this guy or this massacre to any political party or point of view is talking out of their ass. Nuts are just nuts. (And I don't think that anyone can watch/read his three UTube "manifestos" and not come away thinking that this guy was fully in control of his faculties.) Blaming "the left" because he listed "The Communist Manifesto" as one of his favorite books (or blaming "the right" because he had a thing about gold-backed currency) is like blaming English teachers because he seemed to be obsessed with grammar. (Perhaps even moreso... He actually discussed grammar in his videos.)

The guy's nuts, so whether he says he did it because he's opposed to one political party or point of view or another, or because the butter dish on his breakfast table told him to, one would have to be a pretty desperate partisan to take the guy seriously and believe that he represents or proves anything about any political point of view.

That's not to say that there haven't been folks who've killed in the name of some sociopolitical cause or another, left and right, but this ain't one of 'em. (And really, ANYONE who kills in the name of a sociopolitical cause is pretty much on the fringe of American society, and not representative of or "proof of the inherent eeeeevil of") Republicans, Democrats, liberals or conservatives, and anyone who says different is again, pretty desperate to promote their own way of thinkin' and/or discredit everyone else's.)

Thursday, January 06, 2011

In Reply: "...everyone in the US, legal or otherwise, is subject to US law..."

In reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:

"Rep, we're basically on the same page with the point. the key being OUR current interpretation of the 14th is not what was intended by the Authors at the time, and the anchor baby provision of the current immigration law should be repealed. Because babies born to illegals are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' of US citizenship law."
---

B, the 14th says what it says. Whatever they intended it to mean --and there was debate about this topic at the time regarding the unwanted of their day, the Chinese in CA, so to say that they had no idea that in passing the 14th amendment, they would be granting citizenship to the children of non-citizens, seems a little disingenuous-- what they wrote gives citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

I don't know what you mean by the "anchor baby" provision of current immigration law, but if there is a provision that says illegal parents can stay because they have a citizen child, I agree with you... We should repeal that. Illegal mothers and fathers should be deported. And if they have minor children who are citizens, the kids should either go with their illegal parents (as US citizens, with the right to return to the US and live here as citizens when they're old enough to care for themselves) or stay and be raised by relatives who are here legally.

But B... Babies born to illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US citizenship law. Except for diplomats (and in some cases, native Americans), everyone in the US, legal or otherwise, is subject to US law. (By which I mean, the law applies to them. They have to live according to it, and can be prosecuted (tried, convicted, locked up, deported) if they do not.) It is US citizenship law--in the form of the 14 amendment--that makes babies born to illegal aliens on US soil citizens. And it is US citizenship law that makes their parents illegal. Both parent and child is under the jurisdiction of US law, just in different ways...

In Reply: "Illegal immigrants, because they are illegal, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US..."

In reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and the following comment, in particular:

"Illegals are not subject to 'citizenship' laws therefor can be jailed and deported for violations of other laws, your interpretation is incorrect, nor is it accepted by the courts. The law was written that way to exclude children born to LEGAL foreigners such as diplomats and dignitaries."
---

I'd reply to this, but I don't understand your argument. Please explain more clearly...
---

EDIT: Wait... I think I get it, and if so, I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote, again...

*I'M* saying that everyone in the US (except perhaps diplomats) IS and SHOULD BE subject to the jurisdiction of US law. Illegal aliens SHOULD be deported, because they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of US immigration and citizenship laws. Same goes for murderers, drunk drivers, petty thieves, and on and on... If you are in the US, regardless of your citizenship status, you SHOULD be subject to the jurisdiction of US law, and SHOULD be tried and if convicted, subject to the penalties of US law.

The 14th amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." To "simply further define those who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and thus declare that "[i]llegal immigrants, since they are i-lle-gal, are actually not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, but of their home countries" would be a DISASTER, because it would say that illegal aliens are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of US laws regarding murder, drunk driving, petty theft, and perhaps even immigration...

This isn't what US law currently is, but the "simple redefinition" in US law the OP is suggesting...

In Reply: "Here in the US, we define US citizenship according to US law..."

In reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:

"rep You're wrong! Citizenship laws apply to their parents and the children. Even Mexico's laws state that. I doubt you'd find any nation that would willingly abdicate the citizenship of children born to it's citizens just because they were born of foreign soil.

But if you can find laws that prove you are correct I'll gladly review them and concede the point."
---

I think you're misunderstanding what I said, B... Yes, "citizenship laws" apply to everyone, whatever they say, and whoever they grant citizenship to or withhold it from. But each country's citizenship laws only apply to those who they deem to be under their jurisdiction.

Mexico's citizenship laws are different than ours. That's fine for them, but Mexico's citizenship laws are not binding on us (US citizens, and/or US law,) except to the extent that we in the US determine they should be, under US law.

Here in the US, according to current US citizenship law, we have defined who a citizen is, and what the requirements are to be/become one. Among these, is the fact that those born on US soil--whatever their parentage, except for diplomats, I believe (see diplomatic immunity, above)--are American citizens. Mexico is also welcome to say that, because the child was born to Mexican parents, s/he is a Mexican citizen, according to Mexico's citizenship laws, but that has no bearing on US citizenship law or the 14th amendment.

Foreign law is no more or less binding on the US than US law allows it to be. In all cases, US law is what governs, at least here in the US, and for US citizens.

If you're arguing that US citizenship law should more closely resemble Mexican citizenship law, that's fine. (There are some parts of US law I would change to more closely resemble foreign laws, as well.) But US law prevails, and currently, US citizenship law says that those born on US soil--whatever the citizenship of their parents, apart from foreign diplomats--are US citizens, according to US law, and regardless of what the citizenship laws of other countries say about that same child.

In Reply: ""Children are subject the citizenship laws of their parents..."

Revised and extended, in reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and the following comment in particular:

"Children are subject the citizenship laws of their parents, DV. If you are a citizen of a country A and give birth to a child in country B, the child is a citizen of country A. That's what Mexico's law says about Mexican citizens, and what US law says about children born to US citizens abroad.

Any other interpretation is a clear mis-reading of the intent of the 14th."
---

I'm pretty sure that children (and their parents, as well) are subject to the citizenship laws of the country they're in, and that the citizenship laws of one country are not automatically binding on the citizenship laws of another (though of course, country "A" can legislate that the citizenship laws of country "B" have a little/some/full weight, according to the laws of country "A"--in effect adopting portions of the foreign law into their own law, if that's what country "A" decides to do.) In cases where a child is born to one or more US citizens outside of the US, it is the US that gets to decide whether that child is/is not a US citizen, and to do so regardless of what the citizenship laws are in the country of that child's birth, or the home country of his non-US parent. That is according to US law. The country in which the child is born, as well as the home country of the non-US parent also has jurisdiction, however, and can grant or withhold citizenship in those countries, according to their own laws. Where the citizenship laws of the foreign country conflict with the citizenship laws of the US, there is generally more law to deal with the conflict, often by allowing the child dual citizenship as a minor, and giving him the responsibility of deciding his/her final citizenship at the age of maturity. (Where all else fails, physical presence in the US rather than the foreign country counts for a whole lot.)

Mexico (and all other countries) can do what they wish (including offering /withholding citizenship to whomever they believe to be under their jurisdiction (either by birthright, or by physical presence), and even by offering citizenship to a child that we in the US also offer citizenship to, if that's what they wish). Here in the US--for US citizens and their progeny here and abroad, as well as for children born here on US soil--because that's what US law says----US citizenship law is the only law that matters.

In Reply: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

In reply to: Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News (also posted here: Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies - Pirate's Cove, and here: Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies : Stop The ACLU)
---

If illegal immigrants are not subject to the laws of the US, they cannot be tried for any US crime or statute. It even calls into question whether the US government has the right to deport them, seeing as how we would be doing so subject to their breaking US law (which of course, they would not be subject to the jurisdiction of, anymore...) Saying they are not subject to US law essentially gives every illegal "diplomatic immunity." Think it through...

As for the intent of the 14th amendment... I'm pretty sure the actual words of the amendment (or for that matter, any law) are legally binding, even if the amendment/law has unintended consequences. I'm not saying intent doesn't matter, but "what they meant" does not supercede "what they wrote" in any court or case of which I am aware...

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

X-Post: Donald Douglas' Fear of "Feminization," Revisited

American Power: Princess Boys

Apparently Donald misses me, and felt he had to mention me in another of his "traditional gender role" (and kinda homophobic) posts. (No matter how much he whines about we "nihilists," he can't resist pulling us back in if we leave him alone too long... ...which says alot about him...)

On to the meat, such as it is...

Donald reposted the old "Real Men Don't Knit" pic, and claims I "just about had a heart attack" over the homophobic bullshit he posted along with it. Anyone curious (or interested in facts) is welcome to read his three posts (two older, and one brand new), as well as my two replies (three, if you count this one) and judge for themselves, of course. (For those who followed another of Donald's notoriously inaccurate non-link links, the post he was trying to send you to this time was the latter one ("two").)

-- Or, you can just take Donald's word for what I actually said and did, rather than checking for yourself... I mean, Dr Douglas never lies or "shades the truth," right? He's a college professor, after all... -- If folks ever forced Donald Douglas to actually quote the folks he attacks, rather than characterizing what he claims they said and did, Donald and his whole schtick would fall apart like the cheap and meaningless shit he and his posts really portray... But alas, there'll always be sycophants who'll believe whatever he feeds them, and facts be damned... (...and they're pretty much the only ones who still have comments show up at American Power, these days.) --

Like I said the first time, there are certainly factors and traits that make one a man. But knitting (or helping with the housework, or working in a traditionally "feminine" job, like teaching or nursing) are not activities that one should use to judge others as less masculine, unless one is an idiot. I'd argue that these days, the real man is the one willing to toss off that macho bullshit and get the laundry done, the meal cooked, the diaper changed... ...and yes, to knit the shit outta something if one feels like it, ignoring the reactionary idiots who can't grow into a world that is quickly leaving them behind. Clinging to outdated gender roles, particularly this day and age, when mom & dad are both out working, and both need to help take care of the kids when they're not, is just reactionary bullshit. While I understand the pull to restore those lost values of yesteryear, the fact is, the old days were more than likely not as idyllic and free of "corrupting influences" as we remember them.

For more on this outdated macho bullshit, check out this essay I found in my local paper (which unfortunately, doesn't allow freeloaders). It speaks directly to Donald's outdated, backward notions about men and "manning up.": Guys in Snuglis Do the Real "Manning Up"

As far as the "Princess Boys..." I saw this article via "Zion's Trumpet," one of Donald's sycophants (Do You Want Your Son To Be A Princess Boy? | ZION'S TRUMPET - As it turns out, Zion simply reposted Cassy Fiano's Newsreal blog post, without much in the way of attribution: Would You Let Your Son Be A Princess Boy? | NewsReal Blog -- Check out the contempt for science this ~~guy~~ gal has... Why am I not surprised?), and the first thing I thought of was a 2008 American Power post, where Donald refused to take a real stand on the issue of gender dysphoric disorder either way, preferring to condemn pretty much everyone who was trying to do anything to help these kids.: American Power: Transgendered Children (which was based on this Atlantic mag article: A Boy's Life).

Like I said back in 2008, I don't know what the best answer to this problem is, but for some kids anyway, it isn't as simple as just saying no and forcing a child to dress and behave according to the gender of his/her body. When simply dressing the child a certain way and punishing him/her when they step outside their gender roles -- and I mean REALLY step outside their gender roles; Girls playing football and boys wanting to cook (or knit) probably isn't cause for alarm, no matter what Dr. Douglas would have you believe -- the parents should probably elicit professional help, whether they intend to help the child take on the gender role of his/her body, or help the child become the gender his/her mind is telling him/her s/he "really" is. Until one or the other treatment clearly proves to be "better" for the child, parents of gender dysphoric kids --and the kids, themselves-- are in for a difficult ride, however the families choose to deal with it. I don't believe there is one right answer and, as long as the parents are studying the literature and at least eliciting and listening to the advice of professionals (whether they take the advice or not), I can't condemn any parent of a kid like this for taking the action they do, whichever plan they choose...

For my money, Cassy Fiano, Zion, and Donald Douglas are too quickly and casually dismissing what is a far more complicated issue than their politically correct (PC for the right wing, anyway) responses suggest.
---

American Power: Picture of the Day, 3-6-09

American Niiiiihilist: The Real Scurge of Gay Marriage...

American Power: Courtney Friel, Political Scientist

American Niiiiihilist: Donald Douglas' Fear of "Feminization"

Would You Let Your Son Be A Princess Boy? | NewsReal Blog and Cassy Fiano - Would You Let Your Son Be A Princess Boy?

American Power: Princess Boys

Do You Want Your Son To Be A Princess Boy? | ZION'S TRUMPET

Guys in Snuglis Do the Real "Manning Up"

American Power: Transgendered Children

A Boy's Life - Magazine - The Atlantic
---

An American Niiiiihilist X-post

In Reply: "Princess Boy" - "tomboy" girls vs "sissies" (and a tribute to Cassandra, once of Villainous Company)

In reply to Cassy Fiano - Would You Let Your Son Be A Princess Boy?, and in particular, to to the wise comment (#14 -- If there's a way to get the permalink of another commenter, I can't figure out how...) of Cassandra (once of Villainous Company, but sadly not blogging at her old blog, currently. While we surely didn't always agree, her decision to disconnect is a real loss to reason and nuance in political blogging, especially on the conservative side...)
---

Cassandra...

Just saw that you disconnected your blog back in November (Sorry... I've been busy...) I hope you keep commenting on occasion (or better, miss blogging and reconnect your own) because there just isn't enough nuance and "thinking through" in the political blogosphere (as your 11:48 AM comment here once again shows.)

While I assume this to be a more serious internal issue than just a kid who wants to explore his feminine side -- Given the prevailing attitudes about gender roles, especially for boys (as you say), I just don't see too many boys doing this for several years straight, with the parent writing a book and going on national TV, without it being more than just exploration or a simple preference for colors and frills -- your comments about the difference between how our society treats boys vs girls as regards taking on the opposite roles is spot on, and for some, it persists into adulthood. (I'm willing to bet that every person reading this knows at least one person like POW, above, who questions the sexuality of men who work as nurses or teachers, or who knit or dance "too" well. And unfortunately, too many of us let them get away with it, unchallenged -- I've let it go unquestioned, myself.)

I hope you're right, and this is just a story about a kid who's willing to explore his feminine side, and not a boy who believes he should've been born a girl, like the ones in the Atlantic article I linked to in my first comment. While both circumstances require some deft parenting, most of 'em don't grow out of gender dysmorphia, and it has to be resolved, one way, or another...
---

Comment submitted with website in header. Zilch.

Added the following postscript, and submitted again, without the blogspot address:
(Seems my comments don't post if I include my blog address in the "Website" header field... Is that a bug or a feature? -- Guessing some might think it the latter... 8>)

Posted: January 5, 2011 • 2:43 pm (comment #17)

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

In Reply: "Princess Boy" - The issue is a bit more complex than that, isn't it?

In reply to: Cassy Fiano - Would You Let Your Son Be A Princess Boy?, and (obviously) Robert and Cassie's comments, in particular. (Cassy's post also appears here: Would You Let Your Son Be A Princess Boy? | NewsReal Blog):
--

As I said at another post on the subject: American Niiiiihilist: Donald Douglas' Fear of "Feminization" Revisited (and as Cassy and Robert both kinda said here), the issue is often more complex than just forcing the kid to dress and act a certain way, whether it be according to body features or the gender the child is reaching toward. For those interested, there was a great Atlantic article from Nov. 2008 that discussed the issue in much greater depth: A Boy's Life - Magazine - The Atlantic

I don't know that there is any one right answer, but I'm hard pressed to condemn the actions of too many parents dealing with kids like this, no matter what way they choose to address it. While I'm sure there are a few exceptions on both sides, most parents are doing the best they can to help their children through it, whether by demanding strict adherence to gender roles or by allowing the child to dictate who they are (within reason, of course.) I can't imagine how difficult it must be...
---

Submitted for posting (Is Cassy's blog moderated? I didn't notice where it said so, but my comment didn't post...) 1/4/11, 5:50 PM ("What'd I Say" blog time)
---
Resubmitted (and moderated, I believe -- It shows up on the site as comment 12, but in italics... I'll let you know...) January 5, 2011 • 7:40 am (comment #12)

What'd I Say?