Thursday, June 28, 2012

List: Blocked On Twitter By...

As of 6/28/12, (in order of most recent to least recent, as far as I know) I am blocked on Twitter by:

@jtLOL - Jim Treacher - Discovered today (6/28/12) and a complete surprise. The last time we interacted in any form was months ago, as far as I can even recall...and I think that was as commenters on some third party's blog, rather than via twitter. Nevertheless, I'm honored that he thought me worthy.

@Skye820 - Tania Gail (Ciolko) - Discovered 6/23/12--(but probably in place a whole lot longer than that--perhaps years, even--because I can't even hazard a guess as to the last time we interacted via any medium)--when she added her cents to a Donald Douglas slam on me, after he mentioned her in one of his tweets. "Casper fears me."

For the record, Skye820 and I had a few interactions on one of her blogs (now defunct - See: Wingnuts and Moonbats: Free Speech, Imus, and the Free Market) and in Youtube comments about anti-war protests back in 2007. If we interacted anywhere more than ten times in total between January, 2008 and now, I'd be surprised. That she ever accused me of "stalking" her to anyone, even based on the 2007 interactions--where I commented on her public blog no more than 5-10 times, probably, (mostly about the Imus case, as I recall) and also at youtube videos (one or two she posted, and a few others where we were both just commenters) for another 10 or so--is pretty laughable.

As I said in reply to her tweet (or was it Donald's?), the political blogosphere is pretty small, and anyone who hasn't interacted with many of the same people at/in different venues probably doesn't go to more than one or two very insular venues to start with. Even following someone from one venue to a second to see more of what they post--which I suppose it's possible I did do, perhaps seeing a YouTube video that she embedded at her blog, and then going to YouTube to watch and comment on it--shouldn't really be all that scandalous to anyone who's spent more than a few days on the internet. In fact, I'd argue that it's pretty common, and what most people who embed their videos or other activities hosted at other sites INTEND for you to do. I'm just sayin'

@AndrewBreitbart - Disgraced Conservative Blogger Andrew Breitbart - Blocked Sunday, April 25, 2010 - One of his fellow right-winger fans--or maybe just a troll--sent me a racist photo ( A quick search revealed that the guy sent weird photos to pretty much everyone who argued with Breitbart on twitter. Mine just happened to be racist), and I used it to rebut Breitbart's claim that there are no racist right-wingers. Hilarity ensues. (In this case, hilarity came in the form of a knee-jerk banning, rather than any reflection about what actually happened. In retrospect though, I was wrong to hold disgraced conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart responsible for his wacked out, bigoted fan (or troll).) The whole sordid tale, with photos and links and all, is recounted here. As with Jim Treacher--moreso, in fact--I was honored to be blocked by such a prominent wingnut blowhard.

@AmPowerBlog - Donald Kent Douglas - (Since the day he started the account, prolly. He obviously fears my obvious superior moral fortitude, obviously.) - If there's anyone reading this post who doesn't know the backstory, please peruse as many posts as it takes at the following blog to understand why we're not tweeps.: American Nihilist (another blog I once started, currently in hibernation). There is no honor to be had from this blocking...and no honor in the man doing the blocking, either...

Updates up top, as needed.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

In Reply: Schadenfreudian Perks and Petar Hoistin'

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc."
"And you know, I’d be a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Walker if he had’t linked to Donald Douglas complaining about this very blog as an example of people who had undergone similar experiences..."
Yeah, that is unfortunate... but even that hasn't been without it's schadenfreudian perks at the hands of several of his fellow rightwing bloggers, once Donalde started likening his trials and tribulations to those of Kimberlin's victims...and came up looking to some of 'em more like Kimberlin than like Aaron.
And on that score, I couldn't help but notice how something Aaron recently quoted Kimberlin as saying:
"His false narrative that I framed him is defamatory and inciting extremists to threaten me. He is responsible for their conduct."
sounded all too familiar:
"I banned YOU. But you publicly admitted my wishes were to be disrespected and that you would taunt, harass, and intimidate "whenever and wherever I choose."

And one of those places was my college. YOU had henchmen do it for you so you could claim plausible denial. But the cat's out now. YOU are liable."
(My henchmen contacted Aaron's extremists, and I'm given to understand our minions are all going on a picnic next weekend to trade "does your eeeeevil genius boss suck as much as my eeeeevil genius boss?" war stories.)

Sometimes it's better to just let their own petar do the hoistin'...

Posted June 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

In Reply: "...these swattings did happen to these bloggers, and someone dunnit." (Kimberlin, Swatting, Free Speech)

In reply to the following comment at the post Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc. - Lawyers, Guns and Money
"Not that I’m necessarily on either or any side here, but what proof/evidence is there that these “SWATtings” were actually performed by Kimberlin or his associates?" - M. Bouffant, June 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm
It’s almost all circumstantial, but it does seem to be happening to this particular group of bloggers, all of whom wrote stories critical of Brett Kimberlin and his cohorts. While some of the bloggers in question seem a whole lot more sure than I am about whodunnit–in some cases exactly whodunnit–the fact is, these swattings did happen to these bloggers not long after exposing or embarrassing Kimberlin and co., and someone dunnit.

Besides, even if one is skeptical–even to the point of thinking it might be an inside, false-flag mission, even (and while i’m not linking to ‘em, there are folks who believe that)–putting more sunlight on the thing and speaking out for federal investigations or task forces or whatever is still a good thing, in that a successful investigation will expose the guilty parties, whoever they are.

Posted June 26, 2012 at 7:49 pm

In Reply: It ain't about left v right... It's about right v wrong. (#Kimberlin, Patterico's Pontifications)

In reply to: Patterico's Pontifications ~ Aaron Walker SWATted

"The part that sickens me is that if lefties were getting SWATted, fringe right people would say the same kind of crap. We’ve reached the point where many don’t even see political opponents as people."

Amen, Patterico.

Many folks have talked about these issues for what they are; the badass nasty dangerous tactics of some pretty awful (and likely not quite sane) people, and in the case of Aaron especially, attacks on free speech. (To be honest, I've spent alot more time following and commenting about Aaron's situation because there was a clearly identified villan and the whole thing was much easier to understand. The rest is pretty speculative, with shadowy characters that all sound a little too Truther/Birther conspiratorial to get a handle on...)

For too many others though, the whole thing has become a convenient way to attack the left, which makes it that much harder for libs to stand up for free speech and no threats, SWATting, or lawfare for all. Anon--who writes in an awful familiar tone, btw--is just one example of the kind of attacks we on the left face when talking about this. Anytime folks try to talk about these attacks in a non-partisan way--or God / FSM / heaven forbid, actually say these are NOT left vs right, lib vs con issues--there is some pretty intense pushback, including from some of the more involved players (My most recent run-in was with Lee Stranahan, who jumped into a Twitter conversation stream between Liberty_chick and I, just to assert that we were wrong, and it IS a left vs right issue.)

Partisanship has it's place, but not when people are having armed units sent to their houses and having their free speech rights curtailed. Those who insist on making these attacks on (mostly) rightwing bloggers into examples of just what all eeeeevil commie-nihilist liberal leftists are like... ...Well, all I can say is, you may be helping your cause, but that cause isn't justice for the folks who've been SWATted or sued by these dangerous individuals. Far be it for some crazy lib like me to tell you what to do here... ...but if you're making this a referendum on liberals, instead of a war for free speech and safe congress for all of us, you really ought to rethink what you're doing, and why. (Don't listen to me if you suspect my motives or my sincerity are not up to your exacting standards; instead, listen to the many voices on your own side of the partisan fence preaching from the same gospel as I am. It ain't about left v right... It's about right v wrong.)


No one, no matter their politics, deserves to have the police sent to their house under false pretenses, period.

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to be threatened with acts of violence to themselves or their families, or acts of vandalism to their property, period.

No one, no matter their politics, deserves to be repeatedly dragged into court under false or frivolous pretenses in an effort to keep them quiet, period. (...though here, I blame the legal system almost as much as the serial litigants themselves. Anti-SLAPP laws and a more informed judiciary would go a long way, here.)

I don't think I could be any more clear as to where I stand, but if I was the slightest bit vague, I'll do what I can to clarify... (FWIW, I got SEK's initial comment, eventually... but it took several readings to figure out his meaning and intent in posting what he did. I have faith that his blog post will be far more clear.)

Posted 6/26/2012 @ 1:29 am PP blog time.

Monday, June 25, 2012

In Reply: "Not everyone who is accused of some criminal or civil breach is actually guilty...and for me, that tips the scale in favor of defense attorneys as heroes."

In reply to the following comment at the Allergic to Bull post "Memo to Texas “Civil Rights” Group: Fathers (Allegedly) Defending Their Daughters From Sexual Assault Have Rights, Too"
Thing is, most people aren't defense lawyers. Defense lawyers would be sympathetic to any client, pretty much. You could be the combination of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pol, and you still get your lawyer providing a zealous defense. It's their job, just a like a sewer pipe does its important but undignified job.

For normal people, the molester is completely unsympathetic. It's hard to see someone that horrible as a person. Saying he got what he deserved isn't the same a approving of the manner of death. If a mafia hitman is gunned down by a rival gang, you could say he got what he deserved, but he still think the rival gang's shooters are criminals.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, Omega, but I don't believe defense lawyers, as a rule, find their clients sympathetic.

Rather, I believe what you say further down, that they have a job to do, unpleasant though it may be, and that they do it, regardless of what they personally believe about their client, either in terms of guilt or innocence or as a person. (I'm sure innocent people can behave like assholes, and guilty folks can be quite charming, apart from their penchant for committing crimes.)

In that regard, I'm torn when it comes to attacking defense attorneys for defending the clients they do...

On one hand, it's hard to understand how anyone could advocate for some kinds of / specific criminals, even for money. Arguing that some overwhelmingly damning piece of evidence cannot be admitted at trial because the police officer failed to say or do some small thing in the course of finding/securing/logging it, thereby letting a clearly guilty man go free, seems like an awful way to make a living, karmically-speaking.

On the other hand, what could be more noble and in keeping with our American values and legal standards than upholding the rights of even the lowliest scumbag? I remember reading an article somewhere (which of course, I cannot find now) that interviewed one of the military lawyers who had been assigned to defend an alleged GITMO terrorist, and how he spoke about the necessity of his doing so in our adversarial legal system. He was clearly honored to've served both his country and the law by doing everything he could to defend his client. Just based on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," everyone--and maybe even the accused, especially--deserve to have zealous representation, and the people who provide it should be proud of what they do...

(Obviously, I lean one way idealistically, and the other in a more "real world" sense...)

The fact remains though, that not everyone who is accused of some criminal or civil breach is actually guilty... ...and for me, that tips the scale.

...As far as we civilians, though... I do get what you're saying... It's not that I don't understand the folks who whoop and holler and high-five when bad people meet their ends... I just personally find it a little distasteful... (Maybe it has something to do with my religion, or the number of people in my life who've died.)

I don't (or at least, try not to) look down on those who don't see it my way, but by the same token, I doubt I'll be joining them in the celebrations anytime soon...
Posted June 25, 2012 2:24 PM and 2:32 PM

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Judging Friends and Foes Over the Intertubes and Innernets

repsac3: Folks online are only as real...

repsac3: Fortunately, there is a record...

repsac3: ...the real meat--the REAL truth...

repsac3: To whatever extent...

Advice from others has it's place, but firsthand experience and your own good sense is worth far more. Don't spend a whole lot of time listening to some third party characterize and interpret what a person said and did through the lens of their own biases and beliefs--especially when you can see exactly what that person said and did, in full context, all on your own.

For good and for ill, anyone whose been online for awhile has created a searchable record that speaks to who they are. The truth is out there. Use it, and judge for yourself...

Thursday, June 21, 2012

In Reply: I'm Sorry... WHO Broke the Agreement?!?

In reply to this comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Because really important news always involves bikinis.":
I promised to make no mention of him nor link to him, and I did neither. He’s bound by the same agreement, but has continually violated it over the past few months, a fact about which I really don’t care, which is why I haven’t brought it up.

(However, I’m glad he’s posting my phone number on the Internet, though, as that’s a very polite thing to do.)

I was gonna say... T'wasn't you who broke the ceasefire agreement... Teh Donalde's mentioned you and that guy who isn't TinTin several times recently, [on edit: SEK, only once, on Friday, May 18, 2012; it was the other guy Dr. Douglas mentioned several times.] hoping to get in on the whole "I'm a victim" thing brought on by the RW "Kimberlin" jihad of late. (He wants so very badly to be taken seriously by his fellow Wingnuts that he's willing to do whatever it takes... Sadly for him, several folks on the right saw through the mask and called him out for his own anti-free speech / Kimberlin-like behaviors...)

Besides... I have screencaps... God is watching...

Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm

In Reply: Grand Juries "Routine" in Homicide Cases

Two comments (an hour or so apart) in reply to Allergic to Bull: Texans Should Be Angry At Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn For Wasting a Citizen’s and Grand Jury’s Time...

Reading a bunch of the news stories about the case, I kinda get the feeling that sending the case to a grand jury was just standard procedure. I can't find anyone--not even those who would ostensibly be on the "prosecution" side of this case (law enforcement, the district attorney, ...) who believed the father deserved to be charged or prosecuted. The local news stories and statements by all concerned treat it's going to the grand jury as unremarkable, and just the next (last) step in the process to clear the father of any legal wrongdoing...

While I'm with you on it being a waste of money--and certainly burdensome on the father if he was obligated to pay for a lawyer for this (not to mention other "potential defendants" against whom no one in the law enforcement / legal community believes charges should be filed)--I'm not sure this is a moral or legal injustice, or that the district attorney is personally or professionally at fault, at least based on the way most of the news stories and statements by those involved and those familiar read...

(I submitted comments to a few local news stories asking for clarification on this... I'll comment here again, if I see anything that speaks to the issue one way or the other...)
Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 21, 2012 10:20 AM


Got a reply to my query from a reporter in TX: "in Texas, every case that is ruled a "homicide" -- death by other than natural causes -- is routinely forwarded to a grand jury even when prosecution is unlikely." - Grand Jury: father's action was justified | The Gonzales Cannon

Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 21, 2012 11:32 AM

Friday, June 15, 2012

In Reply: Self Defense - Be Skeptical, and Investigate Accordingly

In reply to: Allergic to Bull: Memo to Texas “Civil Rights” Group: Fathers (Allegedly) Defending Their Daughters From Sexual Assault Have Rights, Too

Yeah, the civil rights guy's statement went too far over the line.

I mean, I do believe that the see-saw can teeter-totter too far either way in cases where death results from (alleged) self-defense, especially when the dead party is wholly unsympathetic. Some of the whoops and hollers in support of this father come on a bit too strong for my tastes, and make me wonder whether these folks are just itching to dispense a little vigilante justice, and perhaps even hoping to get the chance--though it's far more likely that it's just men "proving" they're "real men." (I'm not one for celebrating death, even of demonstrably evil people. I found a lot of the "bin Laden is dead" hootin' and hollerin' distasteful, too. Obviously, I don't score high with some folks on that "real men" scale.) The father, from what I've read, is remorseful over having killed the guy, in spite of what he'd done to his daughter. Some of the commenters at Allah's post talk about the residual effects of taking a life, even when it's legally justified.

I believe such cases need to be thoroughly investigated, with a little extra bias toward the rights of the guy unable to tell his side of the story, perhaps--I'm not saying the person who did the killing shouldn't be considered innocent until proven guilty or nothin', but I do think there ought to be a healthy dose of skepticism driving law enforcement to be sure that it was self-defense, not a murder dressed up to look like self-defense.

(And let me be clear, here... I'm NOT casting aspersions on the father in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. It sounds to me like he did no more or less than he felt was necessary to defend his daughter, and I fully expect that the investigation--even (especially) my "heightened scrutiny as a result of being skeptical" investigation--will bear that out.)

But I do believe that whenever someone is killed or seriously injured to the point that they cannot tell their side of the story, in a case where the living party asserts self-defense, it is incumbent on law enforcement and the legal system to take extra steps to assure that justice is served.

If ya ask me, a good bit of the uproar over the Trayvon Martin case was sparked by the fact that it didn't look like that investigation was taking place, and the lack of public relations (obviously, the investigation was going on behind the scenes, so the story wasn't as it appeared) allowed both legit and illegit factions to start asking/demanding answers.

Folks who kill and claim self-defense don't need to be charged or arrested straight off--but they do need to be thoroughly questioned and otherwise investigated, and not exonerated by law enforcement officials in the court of public opinion until they are sure no case can or should be made.

In that regard--and with an eye toward the folks who make online comments figuratively high-fiving this father...if not describing exactly what size flaying knife they would've used to peel this guys skin off alive and the like, if it was their daughter--I understand where the human rights guy was coming from. (I get vengeance, especially where one's children are concerned...but that's why we have a theoretically dispassionate law enforcement and legal system, and don't leave the administration of justice to the wronged parties alone.)

Submitted for moderator approval Posted June 15, 2012 1:44 PM

Monday, June 11, 2012

In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, Donald Douglas)

Revised, expanded, and now updated, below, in reply to the following comment at the blog post Shut Up, They Explained: Another Blogger Threatened With Imprisonment For Writing About Brett Kimberlin | Popehat:
@Donald Douglas
"They view free speech as a right for those who uphold the progressive agenda."
That's news to me.

And I have been threatened with a defamation suit by someone who's right wing. I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies.

I feel yer pain...

I won't mention any names (not at Popehat, anyway), but I had a blogger (not so coincidentally named Donald Douglas) threaten to (and, according to what he himself publicly claimed, actually did) speak to two different police departments, unspecified federal authorities, at least one lawyer, AND his congressional representatives (again, at least one), primarily because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so.

(For the record, none of the folks this blogger spoke to ever made any contact with me... ...but after speaking to several folks familiar with the law and/or the internet, and getting variations of the following advice from several of 'em, I pretty much stopped "inciting" said blogger...though we do still travel in some of the same circles.)

Here was that advice: "Any guy crazy enough to think he's entitled to have police officers, the FBI, and his congressman enforce the rules of his blog is likely crazy enough to be dangerous when he discovers that they cannot. In any case, it's probably not a good idea to put yourself in the position of finding out."

(This ties in with my recent comment at an earlier Popehat post on the subject: While those willing to stand up to Team Kimberlin even after being threatened--or actually attacked--by them are free speech heroes, there is something to be said for not poking bears or crazy people with sticks, no matter how richly they deserve it, and there is no great shame in refraining from doing so...)

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @4:22 am, Popehat blog time.

Updates, lots:

The blogger over at Popehat decided to remove a series of comments, beginning with mine, above, and continuing with several others that discussed what I wrote, after Dr. Douglas outed himself as the blogger to whom I was referring. While I believe the thread was discussing / debating important issues that are also at play in the Kimberlin saga, I can understand why Ken did what he did, and it is, after all, his establishment, not mine. I bear him no ill will.

That said, I don't believe the conversation should be lost, and not just because I was so heartened to read that others very quickly saw what I saw in Dr. Douglas' actions against me back then, especially as it relates to his hypocritical and nakedly partisan grandstanding about the Kimberlin matter now... ...though I'd be lying if I ever claimed that it had no bearing at all on my decision to repost the otherwise lost material. Guilty as charged.

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:08 am:
STFU Repsac. I went to the police because you were a ringleader in exactly the kind of campaigns that conservatives are now dealing with. You run an entire blog to attack me and organize workplace attacks: I was only after I took your harassment to the authorities that you finally stopped stalking me.
[It's 99% dormant now, and has been since February, but the "American Nihilist" blog was created to make fun of Dr. Douglas, and especially his at-one-time-pretty-consistant habit of slurring everyone and everything with which he did not agree with the adjective "nihilist." There was no "organization of workplace attacks," there, and no real "ringleader, either. I did start the blog, but there were several authors, all of whom wrote independently, and each of whom were wholly responsible for the content of their own posts. Donald is correct that I stopped responding to his posts and comments, both on my blog and on his --there was no "stalking"-- after he announced his trips to the police and congressman's offices but, as stated above, that was because it was at that moment I realized there really had to be something wrong with him. Normal, well-adjusted people don't appeal to the police and their congressional representatives to enforce their stated blog comment policies. On the advice of friends and law enforcement / legal professionals alike, I stopped poking the crazy man's cage, lest he take more extreme or violent action once he discovered that law enforcement would not make me stop commenting at his blog against his wishes.]


Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:24 am:
@Repsac3: "...because I played tit-for-tat in the comment section of this fellow's blog whenever he mentioned me, even after he requested I not do so."
Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG. This is someone who backed a campaign of workplace attacks attempting to get me fired. He was not threatened with a lawsuit for defamation. He was about to prosecuted for criminal activity. So folks, again, please cite the examples of conservative lawfare. The campaign to silence speech is a left-wing phenomenon. That's nice that some "liberals" are speaking up here in the comments, but that doesn't mean that it's not the left that's seeking to clamp down on speech by any means necessary. See Pamela Geller for more: "Ray Bradbury Dead, Censorship On the Rise":
[There was no "harassment." At posts where Donald mentioned or referred to me, I would submit a comment defending myself against whatever slur the man had posted about me. Because he generally moderated his American Power comment section for content before the fact, my comment would not actually appear on his blog unless he allowed it to. And again, at no time did I back any campaign of workplace attacks, or in any way attempt to get to get Donald fired. In fact, I regularly spoke out against every person who ever contacted Donald's employers, whether politically partisan friend or foe, on principle. I cannot prove that I was NOT about to be prosecuted criminal activity--it's kinda hard to prove a negative--but I followed up with one of the police officers that Dr. Douglas spoke to, who assured me in no uncertain terms that I was not in any criminal legal jeopardy as far as her department was concerned (though she was not pleased with the behavior of either party in the dispute, and felt we both ought to grow up, or at least spend more time outside and away from the keyboard--advice I have tried to follow, ever since.) My family lawyer here in NY and a lawyer who specializes in internet reputation-related matters based in CA, each said the same. So maybe I was about to be prosecuted for some kinda criminal activity, or maybe I wasn't...but in point of fact, I was never prosecuted for anything, and no one from any department, office, or firm ever contacted me based on Dr. Douglas' many complaints. Make of that what you will...]


Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @9:27 am:
Pertinent comments are welcome, but please do not use this as a venue to carry on disputes from elsewhere. Thank you.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @9:40 am:
The "amusing" thing? We likely would never have known Donny was the guy Repsac was talking about had he not spoken up...

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @9:48 am:
Ken, tell that to Repsac please. I'm not dragging in other disputes. I'm responding to falsehoods. Thanks.
[Ummm... No, no comment. Press on.]


Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @10:08 am:
It was directed to everyone.

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @10:15 am:
Yes, friends, I told Repsac to stop harassing me at MY BLOG.
Did you ever consider, you know, banning him? And I love how you outted who, exactly, he is. That's really classy, and totally not the sort of thing people like Team Kimberlin do. Oh, wait. It is exactly the sort of thing they do. Yeah, my bad there. They also don't go to law enforcement to stop people from saying mean things about them... Oh wait, they do. Shit. Well, I'm sure I'll come up with a way you totally aren't like them, Donny, don't you worry. I'll not rest until I have discovered a way in which you are kinda like them. Well, I'll start right after my nap...
[To be more fair than I really need to be, Dr. Douglas was (and is) on a Google/blogspot blog and was using their comment system, which gives one no method for actually banning someone. One can moderate all comments before the fact, or allow all comments and delete those one does not like after they post. That said, Donald did very clearly announce that I was banned from commenting on his blog, in what I imagined to be his most authoritative voice. As he did not choose to ban himself from attacking me with all manner of slurs and falsehoods in his blog, however, I did not take his verbal banning very seriously, and continued to submit comments to those posts where he referred to me or my blog by name or other identifying feature.]


Goober • Jun 11, 2012 @6:00 pm:
Donald - I followed your link. I found this interesting tidbit:
Harassment consists of the intentional crossing of your emotional or physical safety boundaries. You must have boundaries set in place clearly in order for that to apply.
All I have to say is that while repsac might be an asshat troll, you are even worse.

Are you seriously coming at us with this weak-sauce BS and claiming that you were justified in going to the authorities to get him to stop hurting your feelings because "he crossed your emotional safety boundary?" My guess is that kimberlin feels like his well-established emotional safety boundary has been crossed, too. By your standard, he is perfectly entitled to go to the police.

You want to claim that
1.) you are somehow above Bret Kimberlin and
2.)that right-wing bloggers don't engage in lawfare to stop people from saying things they don't like?

1.) You're not.
2.) You did. Or at least you tried.

You don't get to stand against Bret Kimberlin when you'd be doing the exact same thing to Repsac that Kimberlin is doing to his opponents if the authorities had taken you seriously and acted like you asked them to.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that if the police had mistakenly pursued the matter, that you wouldn't be cheering them along. Tell me that.

And to say that your case is different than Kimberlins, I wonder how...

People said things about you that you didn't like.
They wouldn't stop when you asked them to.
They wouldn't stop when you warned them to.
They wouldn't stop when you demanded them to.

And so you went to the police.

Wait, I forgot, was i just describing your case or Kimberlin's? I lost track...

Ken is right. Stop with the partisan crap, folks. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum either comes from. if you let politics taint your thinking to the point to where you can condemn a man for doing something that you did, yourself, and justify it by playing a right vs. left game, you've lost track of the target.

Oh, and my politics are probably to the right of Ken's, in case you were preparing to throw insults my way about being a lefty supporter.

repsac3 • Jun 11, 2012 @6:51 pm:

Sorry to cause a kerfuffle...

My intent was just to say that:

1) these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum. It's not about left or right--and especially not about "the left" and "the right," or any other demographic. It's about right and wrong, and that knows no color, creed, or political philosophy; and

2) bloggers and media types who don't discuss this whole "team Kimberlin" thing, whether because they are ignorant of the stories, or because they intentionally choose not to get involved out of confusion (some aspects go pretty far into the weeds) or out of fear of reprisal, are not evil and do not prove anything about the kind of people they are, either as individuals or as members of those demo groups I mentioned above.

As for the rest, both out of deference to the host and because it's all been said already anyway, I got nothin' more to add... (In retrospect, I'd even go back and subtract some, were it possible... But alas, bells cannot be unrung...)


Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:04 pm:
To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about, especially "Goober":

1. Repsac3 sponsored workplace attacks at his blog, designed to get me fired --- ultimately I found pro bono representation to defend against the left's lies and smears, which he never repudiated. I was defending against HIS BLOG's and his allies' Kimberlin-style attacks.

2. He harassed me at the comments to MY BLOG when he was told repeatedly to cease and desist --- that's not a "free speech" issue.

3. Brett Kimberlin is waging lawfare against anyone who criticizes him ON THEIR BLOGS, whereas I've never filed a lawsuit against anyone.

I'm not going to spam the comments with the evidence of the progressive attacks on me. THIS IS A PARTISAN ISSUE AND IT'S THE LEFT TRYING TO CRUSH FREE SPEECH. Progressives are on jihad. Look at the Atlas Shrugged link above FOR JUST ONE MORE example.

And get a clue, sheesh. Name one example of conservatives doing what Brett Kimberlin is doing. God, comparing me to Kimberlin, a convicted domestic bomber, is seriously deranged. Get some help.

Narad • Jun 11, 2012 @7:15 pm:
To all the ignorant trolls who don't know what they are talking about....
"Trolls"? I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout failed to precede you before I responded previously, but perhaps you shouldn't compound the problem by not knowing what words mean.

Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:20 pm:
@Repsac3, the guy who sponsored workplace attacks against my employment:
"...these things happen, one way or another, all across the political spectrum."
Wrong. Where are the conservatives waging lawfare against progressives for blogging the truth about someone? It's always the other way around. It goes like this: Progressives attack people. They then get called out for it by those defending the targets. And then they finally launch campaigns of destruction to obliterate their ideological enemies. The victim is either destroyed or ends up fighting long costly battles to defend themselves, as I did. It's that simple. No one here has evidence of a right-wing campaign against left bloggers who simply wrote the truth. I'll update my views when I see the evidence, but I'm not holding my breath. And with all due respect to Ken, Repsac3 is a proven liar.
[Response to the first link:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas Says The Devil I Made 'em Do It... (See comments)
And response to the second:
American Nihilist: Donald Douglas: Satire Impaired]


Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) • Jun 11, 2012 @7:24 pm:
"I'm sorry that your CV as a complete academic washout..."
Not. I'm an Associate Professor of Political Science at community college. The opposite of a washout, I'm a teacher and mentor to hundreds of political science students, and thousands of GE students over the years. And you? What do you do, besides launch ad hom attacks on people of which you have no clue?

Scott Jacobs • Jun 11, 2012 @7:25 pm:
No, Donny. While perhaps in this specific case it is about leftist groups funding an attack on free speech by (mostly) right-wing folks, the first target of this lawfare episode is a left-winger. And just because this single instance it is Leftists funding this, if you honestly think the Right is so virtuous as to never resort to threats of legal actions to silence critics, apparently you have never heard of Angela Corey. Nor of efforts to criminalize speech. Efforts that are supported by Republicans. See New York's efforts to pass cyber-bullying laws. See Tennesee's laws to that effect. See any number of similar instances. While, as Ken has said, there are valid partisan issues involved here, if you only care about this from a "Right vs Left" standpoint, you a) aren't helping the story because you become the basis of the Left's dismissal and b) you really don't give a flying fuck about free speech in the first place. I don't care who the fuck you think you are, Donny, but you're acting like a complete tool. How about you cut that out, hmm?

Jess • Jun 11, 2012 @7:31 pm:
Donald, I know I’ve posted this comment before but it bears repeating. It is what YOU make of it. You CHOOSE to make this a partisan issue and therefore in my opinion you are part of the problem. I’m with Scott Jacobs and Goober on this one. I don’t see anything about someone actually actively reaching out and contacting your employer and sending them false content to get you fired, which would be a different story all together. If your employer wastes their time getting hung up on reading some asshat’s blog you have a far bigger problem and that problem is with your employer. If you can’t delete or ignore asshat comments on your own blog you need to either become more technically competent or put on your big boy pants and suck it up knowing thats what happens when you have a blog. Ken has been the ONE place that has focused attention where it needs to be and you are becoming a very annoying distraction. Truly this is not the place for your pissing contest with another blogger. Please go away.

Ken • Jun 11, 2012 @7:34 pm:
I asked people not to drag a dispute from elsewhere to here. Apparently people felt that I didn't mean it. They continued, and others engaged them in it.

I've deleted the comments that were engaging in the dispute. If you have a problem with that, or will have difficulty not engaging in this any more, please go take a breather someplace until you are OK with it.

For now, cut it out. Further persistence will be met with me editing comments to amuse myself.


Following Ken's putting his foot down on this whole thread, Donald tried to justify his participation in it to Ken via Twitter, offering up still more links ostensibly "proving" I am the devil incarnate or whatever, and followed that up with quite the twitter war with Scott Jacobs--who by the way, is romantically involved with Breitbart blogger Mandy Nagy (Liberty_Chick), who in turn, has been intimately involved in this whole Kimberlin affair almost from the beginning.

You can imagine how it all turned out...

Anyway... That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it

In Reply: Those who pay no attention to free speech issues online are disappointing...but not eeeeevil (Popehat, Team Kimberlin)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the post The Kimberlin Crew Pokes The Bull And Gets The Horns | Popehat:
It isn't, in my mind, so much they they are Democrats therefore that party should denounce them, it is the fact they they have worked for the Democrats.

If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity.

"If R's have to denounce stupid shit said by a guy, he D's should probably be required to denounce actual criminal activity."
I see where you're coming from... but I'd spend more time questioning the former proposition than pushing a "two wrongs make a right" kinda theory...especially if I was a Republican.

I mean, sure... anyone who actually worked with or funded Kimberlin, et. al. ought to be asked about their collaboration or funding, and given the opportunity to talk about why they chose to work with/fund the guy at the time, and where they stand now, based on the information about the accused parties that is available (as well as the info that isn't). And of course those who're speaking out for (or against) Team Kimberlin ought to be held accountable for whatever they actually do say. But D's (or R's) in general have no obligation to answer for Kimberlin (or for those who're accusing them). All D's (or all R's) are not responsible for what every/any individual D or R says or does...not even if the individual D or R claims to be speaking or acting in the name of all D's or R's or the causes they generally champion.

While I believe everyone ought to speak out against what's going on with Team Kimberlin--and what happened to Aaron Walker in particular (because it's the least convoluted, easiest to understand, and most egregious part of the thing (IMHO), if for no other reason)--I don't blame folks for not doing so, whether because they're frightened of retaliation or because they're just focused elsewhere.

My analogy is to firefighters: Yes, those who intentionally run into burning buildings to save lives are heroes, but I don't believe it follows that everyone who has never run into a burning building deserves to be criticized for not doing so.

In the same way, the people willing to stand up to Kimberlin--especially those willing to do so after being threatened or worse (like Aaron, or this Paul guy from the (currently) most recent Popehat post)--are free speech heroes. But that doesn't mean that folks who have ignored the story, whether intentionally or out of confusion or ignorance, should be slammed as cowards or "in league with the eeeeevil one(s)" for doing so. Not blogging about this story doesn't prove anything...not about anyone individually, and certainly not about any/all demographic group(s) to which they belong.

Coming from the left, I can say for good and certain that the folks intent on making this about attacking all progressives because Kimberlin claims to be one are causing liberals who would otherwise come out against attacks on free speech, intimidation, and lawfare to hold off, lest they be seen as agreeing that liberals in general have something to answer for, here. It's awful hard to align yourself with people who see you as evil incarnate, just because you disagree with 'em, politically...even when it is the right thing to do.

Posted Jun 11, 2012 @2:46 am, Popehat blog time.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

X-Post: Carrie Hope Fletcher - The Silly Song

From what I can tell after checking her out over the last hour or so, I could've picked anything Carrie Hope Fletcher has put into the world for this the Goodness and Goodwill blog, but this one was my favorite (and the video that initially made me want to include her):

Finding Carrie was pure serendipity, and on a day where I kinda needed a little of exactly what she has to offer...

I recently started having a problem with youtube volume on all my devices, so I did a search, and discovered that apparently, youtube has it's own volume control; a fact I did not know up to now. (And yes, someone--either me, or the gremlins who occupy the internet--had turned mine almost all the way down sometime last week, leading me to crank up my computer volume--and still strain--every time I wanted to watch something.) After reading about the problem and the fix, I went to youtube to test it out, hit on "recommended videos," and picked one of Carrie's from the list, pretty much at random. (I'm not sure I was even looking while I picked, or for the few seconds afterward... I just needed to be watching a video to up the volume, and the one smack near in the middle of my "Videos - Recommended for You" page was as good as any.) But damned if I haven't been Hopeful, ever since... 8>) (Once I could actually hear her, and started to pay attention, obviously...) I'm sure Carrie has her bad days like we all do, but that kinda makes her even more a creature of goodness and goodwill, doesn't it?

Anyway, it'd been awhile since I posted something here, and this--the video, and the girl in general--really hit the spot (and probably saved me from sinking back into bad habits, besides. Life's too short to waste time in muck and mud. 'nuff said.)

Carrie's links:
Carrie Hope Fletcher - Facebook
Carrie Hope Fletcher - Tumblr
Carrie Hope Fletcher (carriehfletcher) - Twitter
ItsWayPastMyBedTime - YouTube

A Goodness and Goodwill X-post

In Reply: Quinn Cummings Talks (and authors book about) Home-Schooling

In reply to: The QC Report: There's a Smart Young Woman on a Light Blue Screen

First off, you look and sound great and, while too many such videos will forever take away my ability to "hear" what you write as coming out of the mouth of Lucy McFadden*, I suppose that is a good thing... ...though, I'll miss it, too.

It also has me very interested in reading the book, so it succeeds on that level, as well. Like one of the other commenters, I get a little wary around homeschoolers who do it to insulate their children from certain political or social views, because differing views are part and parcel of being an American, and it's never too early to learn to navigate those waters, but there is much value in understanding how your child learns and being able to give them the kind of individualized instruction that works best for them. (Parents ought to do that, regardless... Public education should be a floor; There is no reason parents cannot or should not supplement it with their own expertise about their own kids, even if they cannot or do not wish to homeschool.)

"Please prove you're not a robot"
I Think I'm A Bunny

*for those reading this here on What'd I Say, Google it, if you don't already get the reference.

Submitted for blog owner approval 6/10/12, 8:45 AM (or so... I'll update and link once the comment is approved... unless it isn't, of course...)

In Reply: It's OK For People to be COMPLETELY WRONG...and still see them as worthwhile human beings. (Allergic to Bull, Bigotry...or not)

In reply to this most excellent post, which deserves reading in full: Allergic to Bull: On Romney’s Mormonism and Religious Tolerance (Honestly, it doesn't have much to do with Romney or Mormonism, except as inspiration...)

Straight on double-plus right, sir...

Many (most?) religions preach and teach that theirs is the one true path to all good things (however they define that), and many go further and say that those who don't follow their particular path will never get there... While it's possible for such beliefs to lead to bigotry--especially when governments or other institutions of power (including certain religious institutions themselves, ironically) get involved--the beliefs themselves are not bigoted.

I have this hippie dippy book called Das Energi, by Paul Williams (whattaya want, I'm a lib) that talks about the ability to discriminate as being key to the ability to see and perceive, and suggests that we draw our lines between people with disappearing ink. See the differences between us (be they religious, political, ethnic/heritage, ...), sure, but don't take them beyond the situations where they actually matter.

There has to come a point where it's ok for other people to be completely wrong about something--because they're not the same religion or denomination as you, or vote for candidates in the other party, or like mushrooms on their pizza--and still treat them as fellow citizens and worthwhile human beings deserving of respect.

(On that other thing... You was robbed and wronged, and I hope you get your rights back very soon. While I have issues with the partisan bent and allegations of collective guilt that some in your corner are trying to put on the thing, I unequivocally support free speech for all, even folks I probably don't much agree with... The best (and only) answer for speech you don't like or agree with is lots more speech... 'nuff said.)

Submitted for blog owner approval Posted: June 10, 2012 7:43 AM

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)