Friday, January 11, 2013

In Reply: Provoking Public Fear No Way to Sell Responsible Gun Ownership (Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate' )

In reply to Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate' - KPTV - FOX 12
---

Probably be a good idea to proactively identify their intent, somehow (A t-shirt or a sign, perhaps?).

Just strolling through the streets--and with the camo headscarf, rightly or wrongly seen as the "hoodie" of the mass casualty gunman, besides--was probably a little short-sighted...though probably also intentional. (While they may just be idiots, I suspect that they intended to provoke both the public fear and the police presence as a way of furthering their cause.)

Having a right to do a thing doesn't always make it the right (or smart) thing to do.
---

There are a whole lotta good comments appended to the post, but two stood out for me (of the ones I read, anyway. There were over 400...):

Ebony Leopard commented:
"The greatest threat to gun owner's rights are other gun owners."

And "EMGK4O" said:
I am pro-gun and a hunter. Open-carry through a Portland neighborhood with AR-15s is ignorant, if not stupid. This is counter-productive to those of us who use guns responsibly. Of course, the last thing we need are laws to keep this from happening. If I was there, I would also have approached these two and gave them an educated reason why they are being irresponsible.

Also - for those of you who dislike guns, if the day ever comes you or your family needs defended with force, I will put my life on the line and use the tools I have to defend my countrymen. Until that day, you won't know who I am or what I would do to help your family - regardless of where you stand on gun control. If that day ever comes, you will be thankful for responsible gun owners and the laws which give us the ability to defend our freedom. These two are hooligans who don't represent responsible gun owners.

Like the fools threatening to kill any law enforcement or government agent who comes anywhere near their guns--I'm sure you've all seen (or at least heard about) this unhinged fellow, for instance:


--these two idiots aren't helping to convince the American public that gun owners are responsible and trustworthy, and therefore further legal restrictions and safeguards are unnecessary.

Posted 1/11/13, 9:00PM (via ipad, initially... Reformatted and otherwise updated for clarity: 1/12, 7:00 AM)

Thursday, January 10, 2013

In Reply: The Value of an American Flag: More than the sum of it's parts

In reply to Midlands teacher accused of stomping on American flag in class - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina
---

I do understand the likely intended message of the act, which is "the map is not the territory," and "symbols REPRESENT the things they symbolize, but only because people choose and agree that they do," but this was a very thoughtless and disrespectful way to try to teach it.

In the high school class I took, the teacher ripped up a map of our area live in class (noting that no fissures appeared in the ground outside as he did so), but showed us pictures or newspaper accounts of people committing more extreme acts like flag burning and desecration (the US flag was shown being destroyed somehow, but he was careful to include the flags of at least 10 countries) and book burning.

My teacher's take was that American flags do start out as just cloth, but we Americans put our hopes, dreams, and ideals into them like putting on a shirt, so it becomes the difference between taking a t-shirt out of your closet and setting it on fire, vs putting gasoline and a match to the one you're wearing.


While it's true that symbols are not literally the things they symbolize, that doesn't mean that they're worth no more than the sum of their parts, either. If you think about it, the cloth is probably the least valuable thing about our American flag. It's a shame this guy forgot that half of the lesson.
---
Posted Thursday, January 10, 2013, 12:17 PM


---
More:
Teacher suspended for stomping on American flag during lesson about symbolism - EAGnews.org :: Education Research, Reporting, Analysis and Commentary

Language in Thought and Action - Symbols

Language in Thought and Action: Fifth Edition: S.I. Hayakawa, Alan R. Hayakawa, Robert MacNeil: 9780156482400: Amazon.com: Books

Added: After posting, I pulled out and started rereading Hayakawa's chapter on symbols. This passage seems relevant:
"In all civilized societies (and probably in many primitive ones as well) the symbols of piety, of civic virtue or of patriotism are often prized above actual piety, civic virtue or patriotism. In one way or another, we are all like the student who cheats on his exams in order to make Phi Beta Kappa: it is so much more important to have the symbol than the things it stands for."
I'm still reading the chapter, so maybe I'll be back with another quote or two...

(This was the textbook for the high school class I talked about in the comment, and I credit this book and that class and teacher with much of the intellectual content and philosophical bent of my blogging today...)

X-Post: An Open Post To Donald Kent Douglas - @ampowerblog

Look... I understand you have some bug up your ass about me, but let's face facts...

Almost everything you're whining about in your recent posts (and indeed in many of your posts about me over the last several years) took place forever ago in online blog years:

* The last time I even tried to comment at your American Power blog was late January or early February, 2012.

* The last time you posted a new expose about someone contacting Long Beach City College was Thursday, October 13, 2011

* The incident where the one-time American Nihilist author talked about doing so was posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009, and that guy hasn't written anything at American Nihilist (or even thought about you for more than five seconds, I'll wager) since August of that same year.

* Even the damned Occupy tweet you're so fond of talking about was posted on November 23, 2011.

The actual life of the average blog post can't be much more than six months (but let's give it a year)...
A tweet prolly isn't fresh for more than a month or two, (but let's give it six).

After that, Don, it's time to give 'em up and just let go...

If you feel the need to go after me over current shit (or even semi-current shit), I understand. But really... Any attack on a blog post or tweet that's over a year old--and especially ones for which you're offering not a shred of new information--is just D.O.A., and no one --NO ONE-- cares...

I'm telling you Donald, because I'm guessing that your online friends don't want to hurt your feelings, whereas I obviously do not have any reservations about doing so...but trust me when I say, pretty much the whole of the fucking internet will be grateful if and when you finally, at long last learn when to say when...and with very few exceptions, any topic that's a year or more old is already way the hell long past when.

At least give it some thought. Maybe ask a few of those "blog allies" you wrote about in your most recent attack post (or at least read their blogs and notice that in this regard, you're out there on yer own... Whatever else they do, the rest of the bloggers in your little clique are not refighting year old feuds... pretty much ever.)

'Nuff said, Fred. Do as thou wilt. I'll be out here either way...
---

An American Nihilist X-post

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

X-Post: Dishonest Donald Kent Douglas - Obsessed Wingnut Blogger Still Obsessed

In reply to American Power: Ban, Block and Report Walter James Casper III in 2013

Some excerpts, and my replies:

As concerns PUBLIC COMMENTING SYSTEMS:
"Since then, Walter James Casper III has continued to stalk this blog, claiming "trolling rights" to comment here whenever he pleases. Of course, no one has a "right" to comment on someone else's blog. The right to freedom of speech guarantees freedom from discrimination by government."
The only one talking about rights (in the legal sense) or freedom of speech (in the government sense--though I suspect that most folks think "first amendment" for government censorship or discrimination, but view "free speech" more broadly to include other instances where one person or group tries to keep another from speaking out. YMMV...) in this situation is Dishonest Don. What I said was, as long as he posted about me on his blog, I would not agree not to refrain from commenting on those posts just because he demanded I do so, which sent him into a spittle-flecked, semi-litrate rant just about every time I said it. (Lost to ol' Dishonest Don was the fact that while I said it, I didn't actually do it. I even let him in on the game at least once, but he still came out ranting like some drug-addled stuffed-full-of-himself-to-bursting Charlie Sheen, regardless.) (There's links for this, somewhere... I'll post 'em when I find 'em.)

And keep in mind, almost all of this whining Donald Douglas is doing is about things that happened long, long ago (in blog-time, anyway). I'm almost certain that the last comment I tried to submit to an American Power blog post was in late January or early February, 2012. The fact that he's still this worked up about it--and still lashing out at me on his blog and on Twitter, largely unprovoked--should tell you all you need to know about the kind of guy Dishonest Donald Douglas chooses to be.

"In denying his stalking and harassment --- criminal activity of which I have reported to the police" (and for which they've probably laughed at him profusely, and definitely done absolutely nothing about, because no matter how much Donald Douglas wishes it were otherwise, unwanted blog comments are just not covered by criminal statutes - wjc) "--- Repsac3 claims that he was only "submitting comments to an area open to public comment, in rebuttal of posts attacking me by name." See that? He was only harassing this blog on the justification that the commenting system here is an area "open for public comment." The problem, of course, is that there's no such thing as a "public" blog open to "public comments.""
Dishonest Don keeps using that word "harassment," but shows no evidence that he has clue what the word means.
"Put aside the obvious fact that Blogger blogs are owned by Google and not the U.S. or any state government (and hence privately owned), the individual proprietor of a blog, even a Blogger blog, retains all the rights to allow any and all comments at the site."
I've acknowledged the fact that a blog owner may accept or reject any and all comments at the site repeatedly, including the very first time I said Dishonest Don's "banning" was a load of horse shit:
"As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well."
I don't think I could've been more clear. Donald's "proprietor of the blog" argument is a non-responsive strawman smokescreen.

As Dishonest Donald probably understands full well (no matter how hard he tries to convince his readers and other gullible fools otherwise) whether or not what one posts is a public blog (or has a comment section open to the public) is not about "rights" or "ownership," but about whether or not the blog appears in public or the comment section allows the internet hoi-polloi to post public comments. And to put it plainly, Donald's blog is public, and has always had a comment section open to the public...and he well knows it.

(As to his other point, it's worse than that... As the owners, Google ultimately decides what can and cannot appear on a blog proprietor's blog...and if a given proprietor doesn't like Google's choices, s/he can go find another blog platform. The proprietor may have rights, but it's Google that's in control.)
"And this is after being repeatedly warned to cease and desist, the legal threshold over which Repsac3's actions became criminal."
Dishonest Donald Douglas is making that up. There is no law protecting Donald from blog comments that he doesn't want, no matter how often or BOLDLY IN CAPS he types "stop."

(That's not entirely true... If someone were actually harassing Dr. Douglas--submitting tens or hundreds of comments every day, or submitting comments threatening to injure or kill him or those he loves--I'm sure that Google and the law would be all-too-happy to make that behavior cease and desist and to punish the person(s) responsible for it, as well--and probably without Don's ever having to ask the person to stop a single time, besides.)

What Donald is talking about here are single on-topic comments (generally links to a reply post at American Nihilist) offered to those blog posts where he wrote about me, generally unprovoked. (And as often as not, prolly, I didn't actually bother making the comment. As I said above, just saying that I might comment was enough...) I think I figured out once that it came to about 30-35 comments over a two year period. And like I also said above...that period ended almost a year ago, which makes one wonder why Dishonest Don is STILL so obsessed about it...
By developing a psychotic theory of "public commenting," radical leftist harassers delude themselves that they have a "right" to torment their targets. A blog, of course, is nothing like, say, a public park. Anyone can use the park, regardless of whether they contributed to the provision of that park, a public good, through tax contributions or user fees to the government agency responsible for providing that service. In other words, there are distinct realms of consumption of good and services. The oceans are common pool resources that no single nation-state owns. The public good problem is the incentive for one state to use more resources than it would be allowed under existing norms, regimes, or legal treaties. Even in this case, an otherwise common resource is nevertheless restricted in its use by state actors, otherwise the common resources --- say fisheries --- would be depleted. In sum, Walter James Casper III has invented a system of "public commenting" that only exists in the dark recesses of his addled and hateful mind. There is no right to comment on someone else's blog, no matter the kind of commenting system the blog uses.
Again, Dishonest Donald Douglas is arguing against a strawman he built all by himself. I never said I had a legal (or even ethical) right to have my comments appear on his blog. Indeed, I fully expected that Donald would refuse to allow them to appear, showing him to be a coward afraid to be confronted at his own blog. That's why I generally simultaneously posted the comments I submitted to American Power on my own blog, showing that they contained no threats or off-topic nonsense, and very little bad language or other content that would justify their not being allowed through moderation.

(And yes, I fully understand that a blogger can refuse to allow specific comments or commenters for any reason s/he wishes, right down to bias against anyone whose name begins with their least favorite letter of the alphabet...but we who regularly read, write, or comment on blogs judge bloggers in part based on how they treat their commenters, and especially how they handle those who disagree with them... While a blog owner has every right to moderate away all comments written by folks whose online names begin with "R," it will affect how crazy or arbitrary the blog reading public thinks that blog owner is...and whether their online time might be better spent reading a blog with an owner more sane...)

If Dishonest Donald was really "tormented" by my posting a single on-topic comment in rebuttal to somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3's of the blog posts he wrote talking about me over a two year period, I think the problem lies with him, not me. The fact that not one of the political, law enforcement, or legal individuals or offices he's contacted about me has ever so much as sent me a text on his behalf speaks to how serious his allegations of criminality against me actually are. (I had one lawyer tell me that his accusations of criminality are the only actionable offenses he sees between us, and that he wants to represent me. Anecdotal and worth every cent you paid to read it and not one penny more, but true, nevertheless. Unlimited quantity of salt grains available on request.)

A better question might be why Dishonest Donald Douglas was and seemingly still remains compelled to write all these posts--many of them unprovoked--where he mentions me by name in the first place. I'm not saying he CAN'T write them...but I AM saying it's mighty odd behavior for a guy claiming he has been stalked and harassed by me, and who claims to have been tormented by the blog comments that I used to submit in reply to some of those posts. Something to really consider, that...

And one more time, for the record... I submitted my last comment to American Power in late January or early February, 2012, which was a long time before Donald ever changed to the Disqus commenting system--three to six months before, if I'm not mistaken) Not only do I not "rue the day" Dishonest Don made that switch, I'm not entirely sure he has even successfully banned me via the "fabulous Disqus black-listing system" at all, seeing as how I never tried to submit a comment since he made the change. (I'm also pretty sure that I actually suggested he make the change to a commenting system that has a mechanism for banning, somewhere along the line...though damned if I can find and cite where I did so, now...) ((I'll plug the cite in here, if ever I come across when/where I said it...and actually remember where the empty "socket" is by then...))

Yeah... Dishonest Donald Douglas' attempt to criminalize blog comments is still a big ol' bust, just like it has been every single time since first he ever tried to sell folks on this big bad bag of nothin'. While it may be rude, there is no law or term of service against submitting a reasonable number of on-topic comments to a blog post, even if the author or blog owner would rather that you didn't. That's why Disquis and others have such "fabulous black-listing systems."

As regards NO SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS:
"Repsac3, at his Twitter profile, claims he's against 'sweeping generalizations.'"
I do...and I am... But (in yet another example of my having no trouble admitting when I'm wrong, much to the chagrin of Dishonest Donald Douglas), I just went over and changed my profile. I've been using the wrong term for what I intended to argue against. What I meant to say was I'm against "hasty generalizations," and especially against hasty generalizations backed with intentionally "cherry-picked" evidence.

A sweeping generalization goes from whole to part, suggesting that because a thing in generally true, it's true for every individual. For example:

Republicans supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...
...and therefore, Ron Paul (a Republican) supported those wars.

A hasty generalization--the fallacy Dishonest Donald so often commits--does the opposite, going from the individual to the whole. Donald cherry-picks the ten or twenty communists he finds at a protest attended by fifteen hundred people, and says or implies that everyone who attends the protest or supports the cause is therefore a communist.

But don't take my word for it... Let's use Donald's own examples:
"...when union goons are repeatedly caught out as violent thugs..."
Number of "violent thugs" in this example: 3
Number of union folks attending the protest: hundreds of union-tied protesters... Maybe even thousands of people.
"...and when the union leadership advocates violence..."
Two links (though Dishonest Don tries to make it look like three) about one guy, Richard Trumka, and one thing he said to the press about not inflaming an already bad situation by sending in scab workers to cross a mineworker picket line in 1993. (The company subsequently did try to hire scabs, violence broke out, and one man was murdered.)

"To be clear, generalizations are a form of argument to explain general tendencies. To say that unions are violent and thuggish is a generalization that is repeatedly demonstrated as true. The examples of individual union members who do not engage in violence or thuggery don't disprove the generalization."
A generalization only explains "general tendencies" if one can show that a significant number of the whole (over half, at the very barest of minimums) actually exhibits those "general tendencies." It's not the "individual union members who do not engage in violence or thuggery" that disproves the generalization, but that MOST union members do not engage in the violence or thuggery that does. Besides which, it isn't me using individual acts by individual actors to generalize about the whole...It's Dr. Douglas, so perhaps he ought to direct his argument back toward himself. What I'm saying--and what Donald apparently understands himself, at least when he thinks it works to his advantage--is that "the examples of individual union members actors who engage in violence or thuggery a given behavior don't prove any generalization about the larger group to which they belong." When there are hundreds or thousands of union members attending a given protest and even 10% of them commit some act of violence or vandalism while the rest do not, the threshold of Dishonest Don's "general tendencies" theory simply isn't met and neither hunts nor holds water. To say otherwise is to engage in a hasty generalization using intentionally cherry-picked evidence.

The rest of Dishonest Donald's examples--"seat belts save lives," "progressives favor high taxes," "Occupy Wall Street," "..."--all follow that same pattern of suggesting the behavior of a statistically insignificant number individuals "speaks to" or "proves" some generality about the whole group of those individuals. (In some cases, like with seat belts, the generality itself is born out by the numbers, but Donald throws in an argument that no one's making about individual deaths even with seat belt use. Again, it isn't the individual examples that count; it's how many of them there are relative to the whole. If four people out of a hundred die while wearing a seat belt, it's an anomaly; if seventy-five people do, it's probably safe to make a generalization about the deadliness of seat belt use.)

As concerns "LIBERAL-DEFENDER NOT LIBERTY-DEFENDER":
"Walter James Casper III has used his hate-blog American Nihilist to publish my workplace information with exhortations for progressives to contact my college administration, with the obvious intent to get me fired for my conservative advocacy and allegedly politically incorrect statements."
Quite the mouthful, but pretty much all untrue.

I have never published Dishonest Donald Douglas' workplace information.

Not only have I never made any exhortations for anyone to contact Dishonest Donald Douglas's college administration, I have repeatedly and consistently spoken out against every single person who ever has made exhortations to do so, who actually has done so, or who has ever talked about contacting any college administration about any professor's online behavior--including those times when Donald Douglas threatened to do so (and according to some accounts, likely actually did so) and when he posted approvingly about a mob of rightwing bloggers who contacted a school and succeeded in getting a liberal professor fired for he online partisan behavior..

According to those who did threaten to or actually did contact Dishonest Donald's college superiors, just about all of them claim to've done so in an effort to get him to stop harassing them online, which is awful ironic, in light of Donald's many protestations about me. Make of that what you will... None of them referenced his conservative advocacy or political incorrectness.
"But Repsac3 offered his co-bloggers front-page posting time to launch ideological attacks on my livelihood."
No... I never once said anything about ideological attacks on anyone's livelihood. Dishonest Donald is lying.
"The fact is that Repsac3 always had --- and still has --- editorial control over the contents published at his blog. If he didn't, then the post targeting me would still be available at the blog. (It has been edited by the blog administrator, Repsac3, to remove my contact information, as it should have been from the start, but wasn't.) Of course, it should have never been published in the first place, under any circumstances, and the "personal responsibility" for the post rests not with the author but with the person who provided the pixels at the front of the hate-blog, Walter James Casper, the blog publisher of American Nihilist."
I can appreciate that Donald Douglas has some very nanny state ideas about personal responsibility and how one should run a group blog, but these are things that reasonable people can and do disagree about.

To me, the idea that anyone is responsible for the words and ideas expressed in a blog post or comment aside the author who wrote and posted them is absolutely crazy. To my way of thinking, each person is wholly responsible for what they themselves say, and for deciding whether and when to amend or retract their own words.

Maybe there are group blogs where the authors discuss their posts ahead of time and the blog owner approves every post is for publication before the fact...but I've never heard of a single one.

Here at American Nihilist, (and at most group blogs, I'm willing to bet) every author is his own editor and publisher. And here at American Nihilist, every author takes personal responsibility for their own posts and comments, including deciding whether and when to admit that something they wrote crossed an ethical line.

To me, personal responsibility means giving the author of an offensive post the space and freedom to defend what he's written or apologize and edit or delete his own post. Donald seems to believe personal responsibility involves having some authoritarian daddy figure step in and censor the post for that author.

Each person reading this can decide for themselves which version of personal responsibility they ascribe to and judge Donald Douglas and I accordingly. If anyone wants to take me to task for my beliefs or behavior in this regard, please avail yourself of the comment section below. No literate comment will go unanswered...

Dishonest Donald is free to run his blog(s) any way he chooses, but he is not free to dictate how other bloggers must run theirs.
"No amount of dodging can possibly escape the truth, which is why Repsac3 has been universally condemned for his intimidation campaigns among conservative bloggers and free speech advocates."
Yeah, not so much... Not so much at all...
"After Carl S___ and SEK launched their vicious libel campaigns at my workplace, Repsac3 praised those attempts to get me fired, remarking that such attacks worked in having me no longer blogging about those pricks."
Again, Dishonest Donald Douglas is stretching the truth.

Here's what I actually said:
"The reason most of the folks who contacted LBCC about Donald gave for doing so, was to stop him from attacking them via trolling comments on their blogs and attack posts on his own. That certainly doesn't justify their solution--though ironically, it worked, in most cases; Other than repeatedly going back to the endless well of legitimate outrage and less legitimate victimhood these incidents seem to provide for him, Donald barely mentions any of the people who contacted LBCC, anymore--but it does shed a little more light on the situation... If you explore some of the posts and comments they made about these incidents, a few of 'em sounded pretty desperate to get Dr. Douglas to back the hell off."
And if that's not enough, here's what I said when Dishonest Donald first tried to spin my words about his focus on the guy who didn't (and said in no uncertain terms that they shouldn't have), rather than all the guys who did:
"What I said was, Donald barely mentions the folks who contacted LBCC anymore... And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what Donald just said, too... I don't know his reason... Maybe it's because they took action against him, or maybe it's just because they're "no longer worth Don's time." But whatever the reason, aside these ridiculous whiny, weepy "I'm such a victim" diatribes, Donald barely mentions the folks who actually contacted LBCC, anymore... For whatever reason, Donald would rather lash out at me over this whole "workplace intimidation" thing, even though I never contacted anyone... I leave it to others to deduce why..."
I fail to see how I could've been more clear.
"Further, as the left's campaigns of lawfare and workplace intimidation have become widespread, Repsac3 has repeatedly defended the hate and laughed off attacks on conservatives has "wingnut" whining."
One only has to read the posts and comments I've written discussing "Team Kimberlin" to see how far off the mark Dishonest Donald is as regards lawfare. My posts about workplace harassment--including those situations involving Donald, himself--show him to be lying there, as well. As far as "wingnut whining," I could only find one tweet, which had to do with Michelle Malkintent and the supposedly liberal media... What Dishonest Donald was referring to is anybody's guess...
"So, for all of my readers and blog allies, remember that this is a dangerous ideological opponent and political enemy who is working to do harm to those with whom he disagrees. Like Zilla of the Resistance has advised, the best remedy is to ban these assholes, block them from your comments sections and block and report them on Twitter for stalking and intimidation."
Yeah... I don't even know what to say to that, except to suggest that, rather than taking Dishonest Donald Douglas' (or anyone's) characterization of another person as Gospel, folks ought to read what that person has to say and see how s/he behaves toward others firsthand, and then judge for themselves.

Please do...
---

Links:
American Power: Ban, Block and Report Walter James Casper III in 2013

Oh noes!!! "Repsac3 Banned from American Power"

Donald Douglas just can't let me go

Donald Douglas Abuses His Google

“Shoot, I’m not even always right, LOL!” - Lawyers, Guns & Money

American Power: Jeff Goldstein Knows a Thing or Two About Low-Life Leftist Scum
Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you"

What'd I Say?: 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)

Saberpoint: Strange Things Are Happening....Donald Douglas Annoyed by Leftwing Blogger

Online Disagreements and The Offline World We Live In...

Dishonesty and Ad Hom: Is this all Donald Douglas Has?

What'd I Say?: Search results for Kimberlin

Twitter: "Whiny Wingnut Victim"
---
Dishonest Donald Douglas Cries "Victimhood!!!" (and changes the definitions of common words to "prove it.")

BTDT FAQ Files - Workplace Harassment

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

If it was one of Dr. Donald Douglas’ many specious accusations and allegations about W. James Casper (repsac3) that brought you to this site, either directly--or far more likely, via your own due diligence (Dr. Douglas seldom actually provides links or citations, himself--please go back to the post, comment or tweet you read, and see whether Donald 1) paraphrased and characterized whatever it is he is claiming Mr Casper said or did, or 2) provided quotes, citations and links to Mr Casper’s actually saying or doing the thing Dr Douglas is alleging.

And then really think about why Donald Douglas (almost certainly) didn’t do the latter, and what that omission tells you about how seriously anyone should take his accusation(s)...

It'd be one thing if the primary source material of Dr. Douglas' complaint was no longer available to read and view in full context, verbatim, in whatever place he originally found it. But I know of no instance where that is the case. Donald Douglas is intentionally keeping his readers from the primary sources of his many complaints, and it's incumbent on every honest reader to take that fact into account, and to judge both the complaint and the complainer accordingly...

(Try it yourself. Decide on a page and link number--say the fifth link from the bottom on the ninth page of the Google search link above (pick your own page and link location, obviously)--and see for yourself whether Dr. Douglas backs his accusations against Mr Casper with anything concrete (quotes, links to or screencaps of exactly where he said or did whatever Donald is accusing him of), or whether it’s all paraphrase and characterization. While there may be exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there will be no quotes, no links, and no screencaps. There will just be Dr. Douglas telling you what he claims Mr Casper said and meant--as well as telling you exactly how you should feel about it--rather than showing you the supposed offense firsthand, and letting you judge it for yourself.)

While folks like Donald and liars like him want to hide what those they disagree with have to say by moderating their comment sections for content and limiting the number of verbatim quotes, citations, and links they use when blogging, I want nothing more than to give folks every opportunity to read exactly what they have to say, in all of it's contextual glory, and thus will quote and link to their exact words as often as I can...

Please read what Donald Douglas has to say about me and about the world in general. Weigh his arguments (as well as the arguments of those who disagree with him, of course), judge as fairly as your conscience allows, and come to your own conclusions.

I ask for nothing more.

And I ask for nothing less.
---

Oh yeah... The tweets...

The call for helper-trolls (which seemingly didn't get a whole lotta response):

...and the cliquey mid-teen mean-girl attack (which oddly, did... Go figure.):

Gotta love this crazy fuck... Yeesh!
---

Added:


Oh lookie... Another wingnut "blogger ally" using "he must be a faggot" as an attack against someone they disagree with politically... Could these assholes BE any more predictable? (or homophobic?)
---

An American Nihilist X-post

Monday, January 07, 2013

In Reply: Not So Sure About Arming Kindergarten Teachers

In reply to Move to arm teachers picks up steam in TN - The Tennessean - tennessean.com
---

I honestly don't know what to think on this one...

I'm an "evolving" liberal on concealed carry--as far back as Virginia Tech I was supporting CCW for current and former law enforcement and military students on college campuses, but I've got nagging--though non-specific--reservations about elementary and middle school teachers being armed.

What would be the legal liability for teachers and districts who had armed employees who failed to protect their students...or worse, accidentally shot one in the course of trying to protect them? Any law that allows responsible gun owners--and especially non-law enforcement civilians--to carry guns in schools has got to explicitly address that issue.

While I do lean toward concealed carry these days, I still worry that it will lead to more self-appointed "heroes" like George Zimmerman looking for trouble and injuring or killing people who wouldn't be shot but for the actions of an over-confident gun owner. While I'm all but certain such cases will be few relative to the number of gun owners out there (VERY few, probably), those few cases do still weigh on me... (I'm more of a "Castle Doctrine" guy, myself... By all means shoot anyone whose trying to get into your locked house against your wishes. But any scenario that involves you going after someone to initiate a confrontation or take aim at someone who is retreating, doesn't sit so well with me...)
---

Posted January 7 at 10:47pm

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Something I Really Need To Remember...


d'X-Post: Despairingly Desperate, Dishonest Donald Douglas Digs Deep

Desperate to lash out, Dishonest Don once again dips his dick in the "guilt by association" inkwell to brand me a "small c Communist," or some such thing....

In a post ostensibly about an inaugural ball being thrown by Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now program--wherein Dr Douglas proceeds to label everyone involved and their mothers "radicals" and "Communists," (so what else is new?)--Dishonest Don searches my twitter stream--finally going back far enough to locate a "#NowPlaying - Democracy Now!" tweet from last November--and goes on the attack:

"And yet once again, such hard-line communists and Israel-haters are regular listening fare for the extreme left-wing troll-rights harassment stalker Walter James Casper III:



As I've been reporting, Repsac3 has become more openly radical than ever and at this point it's safe to say he's a small-c communist as indicated by his radical activism and affiliations, far-left online blogging and Twitter footprints, and by the long list of hard-left and ideological communists who fill his mass media repertoire and inform his programmatic political commitments.

Walter James Casper III is a tool of the anti-American, anti-capitalist left in this country, and by definition is a traitor to American exceptionalism and the limited government system established by the founders. But like all the other communists manning today's hard-left ramparts, he will deny any of these orientations and venomously denounce the "McCarthyism," which is tantamount, of course, to a thinly-veiled confession of such un-American radical politics.

It's amazing how far out in the open the communists have come over these last few years. But with the Democrat Party today taken over by the "boring from withing" revolutionary radicals of the Alinsky mold, it's really no surprise at all."
Leaving aside all of the at-this-point-patently-obvious-bullshit about MY being the obsessed stalker here, what is Donald's evidence that I'm "extreme left-wing" or "openly radical" (which you'd think'd be easy to show with cites and quotes, what with my being so open about it, n'all) or, well, any of the rest of his nonsensical labels and lamentations?

Yeah, pretty much nothing but a tweet saying I listened to an almost-three-year-old "Democracy Now!" podcast a little over a month ago. Color the world shocked... Dishonest Donald Douglas is talking out of his ass, again...and still not backing any of it up with cites or quotes, preferring to TELL, rather than to SHOW. There's a reason for that, and I'm willing to bet that pretty much every person who reads these words knows exactly what that reason is. (...including Dishonest Don himself, when he inevitably comes slinking 'round like the stuck and stinky polecat he is.)

'nuff said.

Links:

American Power: Communists Angela Davis and Danny Glover to Headline Democracy Now!'s Inauguration-Night 'Peace Ball' in Washington D.C.

Dishonest Donald Douglas, Desperate To Lash Out: I'm connected to these stories how, exactly?

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

If it was one of Dr. Donald Douglas’ many specious accusations and allegations about W. James Casper (repsac3) that brought you to this post, either directly--or far more likely, via your own due diligence (Dr. Douglas seldom actually provides links or citations, himself--please go back to the post, comment or tweet you read, and see whether Donald 1) paraphrased and characterized whatever it is he is claiming Mr Casper said or did, or 2) provided quotes, citations and links to Mr Casper’s actually saying or doing the thing Dr Douglas is alleging.

And then really think about why Donald Douglas (almost certainly) didn’t do the latter, and what that omission tells you about how seriously anyone should take his accusation(s)...

It'd be one thing if the primary source material of Dr. Douglas' complaint was no longer available to read and view in full context, verbatim, in whatever place he originally found it. But I know of no instance where that is the case. Donald Douglas is intentionally keeping his readers from the primary sources of his many complaints, and it's incumbent on every honest reader to take that fact into account, and to judge both the complaint and the complainer accordingly...

(Try it yourself. Decide on a page and link number--say the fifth link from the bottom on the ninth page of the Google search link above (pick your own page and link location, obviously)--and see for yourself whether Dr. Douglas backs his accusations against Mr Casper with anything concrete (quotes, links to or screencaps of exactly where he said or did whatever Donald is accusing him of), or whether it’s all paraphrase and characterization. While there may be exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there will be no quotes, no links, and no screencaps. There will just be Dr. Douglas telling you what he claims Mr Casper said and meant--as well as telling you exactly how you should feel about it--rather than showing you the supposed offense firsthand, and letting you judge it for yourself.)

While folks like Donald and liars like him want to hide what those they disagree with have to say by moderating their comment sections for content and limiting the number of verbatim quotes, citations, and links they use when blogging, I want nothing more than to give folks every opportunity to read exactly what they have to say, in all of it's contextual glory, and thus will quote and link to their exact words as often as I can...

Please read what Donald Douglas has to say about me and about the world in general. Weigh his arguments (as well as the arguments of those who disagree with him, of course), judge as fairly as your conscience allows, and come to your own conclusions.

I ask for nothing more.

And I ask for nothing less.
---

An American Nihilist X-post

Friday, January 04, 2013

X-Post: Far-Right Whack-Job Dishonest Donald Douglas Confuses Posting A Link With "being down with a thing" In Yet Another Failed Attack Post


This likely comes as no great surprise to much of anyone, but Dishonest Donald is lying. (So what else is new?)

Nowhere in the tweet he references do I ever say I'm "down with" anything Thom Hartman said in that particular show (or any show, ever...).

All I did was post a link to it...just like Dishonest Donald did, himself...only four days earlier, and to a podcast instead of a youtube post.

So if Dishonest Don believes my link means "I'm down with Thom," do you think he believes his own link mean the same, or is he once again claiming the rules are dependent on what he wants them to say, and that his link to that Thom Hartman show is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than mine, because it's only eeeeevil when other people post it?

One set of standards, for friend and foe alike. Please make a note of it.

Link: American Power: Far-Left Whack-Job Thom Hartmann Wants to 'Outlaw Billionaires'

---
Ya'know... I posted several tweets and links regarding Dishonest Don, today... Funny that he doesn't claim that means I'm down with what he posts, huh...

Situational ethics and standards, through and through... Things mean just exactly what Donald needs them to mean at that given moment, and nothing more or less... (And please pay no attention to the hypocrisy.)

And for the record, yeah, I also think Thom's "tax everything over 1 billion at 100%" is "seriously some f-ked up shit." But unlike Dishonest Don, I'm not afraid to listen to people I disagree with...and I don't need to demonize them, either.
---

An American Nihilist X-post

X-Post: that guy sez -- "It's just a good teaching thing"

link

1) I don't want to cast any aspersions here...but I'm virtually certain that the ad service Lawyers, Guns and Money uses targets the ads to the reader... (there was even some chat about it in the comments there, recently). The fact that this guy saw what he calls "Southeast Asian jailbait" when he went to the site probably says more about him and the cookies on his computer than it does the bloggers at LGM. I'm just sayin'...

2) Does the guy really not understand the difference between the ads added to a post by a third party advertising service and pictures added by the blogger himself, or is this just another bit of willful ignorance? This isn't his first foray into this particular kind of stupidity. (which was suitably answered at the time by fellow nihilist, brother Kevin: Hypocrisy, Thy Name is [that guy's name].)

3) Contrary to LGM or Roy, the guy himself posted the risqué shots on his own blog--a blog that--at the time--he was recommending that his students read, saying "I recommend my blog for students to read, on a voluntary, non-assignment basis. Occasionally I'll pull up an academic post in class as a lecture launcher -- and actually, THAT'S A GOOD TEACHING THING!!" (He seems to think that the fact that he has since stopped recommending that his students read his blog--perhaps because of the incident where someone contacted the college about the photos on his blog, though he does not ever actually say so--somehow absolves him of the argument against posting college-age girls in skimpy outfits to a blog you send your college-age students to read, rather than suggesting that it was not, in fact, appropriate behavior. I leave it for the reader to decide for themselves...)



[his blog]: National Security Expert Thomas Ricks Gets 'The Best Defense' Intel at GSGF

“Shoot, I’m not even always right, LOL!” - Lawyers, Guns & Money

[his blog]: The 'Hotness Gap' Just Too Much for Illiterate English Professor Scott Eric Kaufman!

4) And that's to say nothing of the fact that "Courtney" was running a "scam" on "her" readers (including our guy, who obviously took it kinda hard), and wasn't exactly who she said she was, even...so who knows whether "Lauren" even knows "Courtney" or that either really was of age at the time the pix were taken... (And holy shit... I don't remember those 2 comments (#1, and #2) from "Courtney" herself, s-l-a-m-m-i-n-g the guy hard at that post, either... Damn... That was some kinda take down, and right in keeping with how he treats conservatives--and especially female conservatives (to the extent we can even trust that much about ol' "Courtney")--who don't adhere completely to his ridiculous ways of thinkin'. I'm kinda surprised he even dared to leave those comments posted...)

5) And finally, there's this:

(Yeah, he added the "The owner of this blog neither necessarily uses nor endorses the products advertised on this site" disclaimer, since--which to me, kinda proves he understands the difference between blog owner content and ad service content, though your milage may vary on that point--but it was there, then...and without any disclaimer...)

I'm sorry, but the behavior and thought processes of that guy makes it very hard to take anything he posts very seriously...

...and yes, this is a post discussing something he said that isn't about me... The first I've posted in quite awhile. (I wonder if he will now think he has PROOF!! that I'm harassing him, finally, and get on the internet to complain go to his lawyer to sue call out the feds to arrest me for hurting his feelings... I wouldn't be surprised...by any of it)
---

An X-post from a blog that once was

X-Post: Asshole, indeed.


"Right. It's what they always do, because we wouldn't want to make any "sweeping generalizations" or anything. Assholes."

When you know you're making an asshole of yourself (and even say so in your post), but do it anyway, you leave little doubt that you are an asshole. But at this point, does anyone expect anything less from this crazy fuck?

Yes, there is a possibility that maybe these two drug addicts may've walked through an occupy site once, twice, or even camped out for awhile. But Occupy didn't call for or encourage drug use or bomb making, either explicitly or implicitly. Whatever illegal or outrageous things a relatively small number of possible Occupy participants or hangers-on said or did, at no time did the Occupy movement call for or encourage violence, vandalism, or bigotry. And yes, it is a sweeping generalization to attribute whatever crimes these two drug addicts may've committed to everyone in the Occupy movement, especially seeing as no one is even accusing them of committing any crimes at or on behalf of the Occupy movement. The guy knows all this...but in his zeal to attack everyone and everything with which he disagrees, he simply does not care that he's making a fool of himself by trying this cheap rhetorical dodge. In fact, he seems kind of proud of it, actually pointing out his own sweeping generalization.
---

You know... I do suspect that there may be something different going on with [this guy]... Several of his posts from late December seemed ripe for one of these obsessed mentions of his, but didn't include any...almost conspicuously didn't include any. Even the crazy post above doesn't mention me by name.

Maybe it's just coincidence...but maybe it's not. I opted not to say anything at the time, hoping the creep was choosing to turn his life (or at least, his bile-fueled cannon) around, but now that he's lashed out again, I see no reason to refrain from speculation. Either way, I'll keep documenting the guy's obsession for as long as he keeps lashing out...but his behavior of late do seem odd...



ADDED: [his blog] Occupy Wall Street: Deadbeats, Freeloaders, Scofflaws and Terrorists

Aaaaand, the all-too-predictable double-down, wherein he cites one other supposed "Occupy" tweeter (speaking against capitalism, this time, as though that has ANYTHING to do with his previous post about the two drug addicts and potentially violent criminals who--according to Murdoch's New York Post, anyway--may've somehow had something to do with an Occupy protest somewhere somehow, maybe...), and pretends that that one tweet somehow proves everyone who supports the Occupy movement is a criminal I mean, communist, and thus substantiates his earlier crazy-assed post. (Maybe the guy really doesn't understand what a sweeping generalization is... These posts sure make it look like he doesn't... Maybe I'm overestimating the poor guy's intelligence...)

---
Links:
Harvard Grad, Occupy Wall Street Activist Busted on Bomb-Making and Weapons Possession Charges

Occupy wherever you are

"occupy wherever you are"

Occupy Wall Street: Deadbeats, Freeloaders, Scofflaws and Terrorists

Obsessed much?
---

An X-post from a blog that once was

Thursday, January 03, 2013

1/3/13 - Hypocrisy

Well, I haven't been doing so good with the posting here everyday, bit... (I did post a few things at American Nihilist earlier today, but that really doesn't count, does it?)

So, to get something posted--and in keeping with the AmNi posts, perhaps--a quote about hypocrisy:
Many of us believe that wrongs aren't wrong if it's done by nice people like ourselves. ~Author Unknown
More here: Hypocrisy Quotes, Sayings about Hypocrites and Self-Righteousness

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

So...It's January 1, 2013...

...and I decided to try to post a little something here everyday this year... Maybe some kinda confessional, maybe a photo or video, or maybe...well...whatever else is possible to post. We shall see...

I haven't got a whole lotta time tonight (it'd be a good night for one of those picture or video posts), but I figured I'd do what little I could.

In addition to posting a lil something everyday, I've also set taking better care of the health (taking the prescribed drugs, exercising, seeing the docs and doing the tests,...), trying to cook something at least once or twice a week, and getting more organized as goals for the year.

I don't have all the drugs (waiting on insurance company mail prescription order), but I did do the exercising, and testing...

No cooking yet.

I shelved a few books in the "library," today.

And of course, this is the first post.

Not perfect, but not too bad...

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)