Wednesday, December 08, 2010

In Reply: Elizabeth Edwards: "this was a time for prayer, good wishes, and Christian mercy"

In reply to Elizabeth Edwards Dies | Politics | Christianity Today
(And please see the updates, below.)
---

While I can appreciate those who wish for everyone to know God's love and mercy, I take issue with Donald Douglas' tone and timing in essentially berating a dying woman for not believing that God intervenes in the lives of men--Donald's post actually claims she does not believe in God at all, but the quote from the 2007 American Prospect article posted above (as well as in his original post) says she does believe in God, but doesn't believe God would cure her cancer, even if asked (in part the result of God not intervening to save her son from dying, another sad chapter in her life).

Elizabeth Edwards was not anti-religious or a nihilist who rejected her faith, as Donald claims. Like many--especially those who've had tragedy in their lives, but also everyday people who haven't, members of the clergy, and unless I miss my guess, at least one person you know personally--she questioned her faith, and wondered why bad things happen to good people, and what God's role is in such events.

Rather than attacking her for not believing as he did, and then turning his guns on those he doesn't agree with politically-- as though they are in some way responsible for Mrs. Edwards believing God gave us life, a path to follow, and free will, (yes, Dan, even Elizabeth Edwards believed it was God who gives us those guidelines, and obligates us to live by them, in order to receive enlightenment and salvation), but that He does not protect us from all harm, even if we ask Him to --Donald could have suggested we all pray that Elizabeth Edwards found the God he believed she'd lost, in her remaining days (or as it turned out, hours).

The way I see it, this was a time for prayer, good wishes, and Christian mercy, not recrimination of a dying woman and the gathering of political points. That is not the Word found in my Bible (but then, I am a Unitarian Universalist (born Roman Catholic), and Donald takes issue with my religious beliefs, as well. Nowhere in Donald's post linked above does he speak of praying for Elizabeth, and for her everlasting soul.

(What does God and the church say about dealing with those who don't share your faith... or even your denomination of Christianity? It has been awhile, I admit, but I don't believe I was ever taught to berate or shame others for not being a Christian (or as Christian the folks who attended my church, rather than that Episcopalian one on the next block.) Is recrimination and literally "holier-than-thou" attitudes really the name of the game, or is Donald himself perhaps in need of some intercessory prayer, to help him bring others to God and the Bible without beating them over the head with such a Good (and often heavy) Book? (I'll certainly be praying for him, regardless.)

To everything, there is a season... ...I'm just not sure this was the season for Donald to be planting faith, or for that matter, whether his seed was any good, anyway.
---

UPDATE 1: Christianity Today deleted the second part of my comment (everything after "(or as it turned out, hours)." I find that odd.

UPDATE 2, 12/9/10, 8:30 AM: Sometime late last night, all the comments that'd been held or disappeared from the Christianity Today post (mine, and everyone else's) reappeared, and are still there as of this morning. Should that change again, I'll be back, but I expect that a moderator there was either new, or a little overzealous in protecting the Christian (or more likely, the Christianity Today) brand, and that the situation has been fixed for good. (That's what I hope pray, anyway...)
--
Previously: American Niiiiihilist: American Power: Elizabeth Edwards: Nihilist

Subsequently: What'd I Say?: In reply: Elizabeth Edwards: "How about we just let God sort it all out instead of judging Mrs Edwards or her imperfect faith?"

X-Post: American Power: Elizabeth Edwards: Nihilist

Or "Donald Douglas Omits Human Decency in Post About Dying Woman"

More of that famous Donald Douglas class:
American Power: Elizabeth Edwards' Parting Statement Omits Mention of Faith in God:
The story's trending at Memeorandum. And at ABC News, "Elizabeth Edwards Won't Receive Anymore Cancer Treatment: John Edwards' Joins Family at His Wife's Side." But I notice at her farewell statement an odd aspect to her "three saving graces": She doesn't list faith in God as one of them:


STATEMENT FROM THE EDWARDS FAMILY

Elizabeth has been advised by her doctors that further treatment of her cancer would be unproductive. She is resting at home with family and friends and has posted this message to friends on her Facebook page.

You all know that I have been sustained throughout my life by three saving graces—my family, my friends, and a faith in the power of resilience and hope. These graces have carried me through difficult times and they have brought more joy to the good times than I ever could have imagined. The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And, yes, there are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful. It isn’t possible to put into words the love and gratitude I feel to everyone who has and continues to support and inspire me every day. To you I simply say: you know.

With love,

Elizabeth
***
Clearly Elizabeth Edwards wants to put her faith in something, be it hope or strength or anything. But not God. I wonder if it's just bitterness, that's she's been forsaken by more than just her estranged husband --- that's she's been forsaken by Him. And imagine if she'd have become First Lady. Americans generally expect outward expressions of faith in our presidents, Christian faith especially, and thus in our First Ladies as well. The Democratic base obviously doesn't care, as we can see in the "wow factor" expressed by the author at the American Prospect. Being anti-religion is cool, so Edwards' non-theological theology gets props from the neo-communists. Still, at her death bed and giving what most folks are calling a final goodbye, Elizabeth Edwards couldn't find it somewhere down deep to ask for His blessings as she prepares for the hereafter? I guess that nihilism I've been discussing reaches up higher into the hard-left precincts than I thought.
Isn't that lovely? What better way to show God's love and mercy than to attack a dying woman for not being sufficiently Christian? One would think the term "holier-than-thou," and the connotative meaning attached to it, would've prevented a real Christian (or for that matter, a human being laying the slightest claim to decency) from saying such things. Donald though, is a very special kinda guy. Attacking the recently deceased and soon-to-be-dying for not living up to his political, social, or religious standards is just one of the many fucked up creepy services he offers.

The God I worship doesn't want any part of those who berate the dying for not being sufficiently humble before Him in the days and hours before or after their deaths, in the name of petty political points. Speaking for myself, I can only say that if this is the kind of message Donald is receiving from his place of worship, I think it's time for a new place of worship, one that has the slightest concern for human dignity and worth.

From the comments (one can only imagine the ones he moderated out of existence, if these are the ones he allowed to appear):

mantis said...
What would Jesus do?

Attack a dying woman, that's what!

God has a nice warm spot in Hell reserved just for you.
-- December 6, 5:10 PM

gail said...
I don't think this is an example of nihilism. It seems more like the Stoicism practiced by the ancient Romans, like Marcus Aurelius, an honorable, if grim, philosophy. --
December 6, 2010 7:44 PM

Anonymous said...
She is dying jackass. -- December 6, 2010 7:54 PM

Anonymous said...
You, Donald, are scum.

You have redefined the meaning of low blow. -- December 6, 2010 8:57 PM
---

An American Niiiiihilist x-post
---

UPDATE, 12/8/10, 4:15 PM: There are now 80 or so comments at Donald's original post, permitted through moderation because it allows him to fancy himself a victim and a martyr, as this subsequent post indicates: American Power: Opiate of the Masses

Also, two more from me, and others blogging (updated as necessary):
Donald Dick | TBogg

Dying woman forgets to mention God

Elizabeth Edwards Is Dying, Hates the Baby (Baby Jesus)

A House With No Frame | The Moderate Voice

Elizabeth Edwards Dies | Politics | Christianity Today

bjkeefe: Wingnut Taste

Compassion and Love Are Not Partisan, or Exclusive to Any One Religious View | The Moderate Voice

Fading Elizabeth Edwards Draws Media Sympathy, Support, and Controversy | The Atlantic Wire

This “it” may be the “that” that’s so far up with which it can’t be put. : Lawyers, Guns & Money
This “it” may be the “that” that’s so far up with which it can’t be put. - Acephalous (Same post, but the comments at each make it worth visiting both.)

Rising Hegemon: You stay classy

What'd I Say?: In Reply: Elizabeth Edwards: "this was a time for prayer, good wishes, and Christian mercy"

What'd I Say?: In reply: Elizabeth Edwards: "How about we just let God sort it all out instead of judging Mrs Edwards or her imperfect faith?"

Righties Dance on Elizabeth Edwards' Grave -- And Use My Reporting to Do It | AlterNet

Don Vader Finds Your Lack of Faith…Disturbing � Heavy Metal Librarian

Why Elizabeth Edwards Left God out of Her Last Goodbye

Elizabeth Edwards and God - ReligiousLeftLaw.com

Cram & Ballwell !: Elizabeth Edwards Deserves To Rest In Peace

Faith and Politics in America - Boing Boing

Doubt – apple juice

In Death Elizabeth Edwards Inspires Talk of God - 1 A Woman's Point of View News Analysis - AnneofCarversville.com

Find and Ye Shall Seek: A mature faith and an immature faith

Hackman's Musings: Beyond Exclusivism

Wingnuts Prematurely Criticize Elizabeth Edwards : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

catsittingstill: Late off the mark

Donald Douglas Receives Hatred For His Compasssion Towards … | HappyTipsDaily

Feel-the-love department | Civil Commotion

Asshole of the Year | Bors Blog

New rules: there are some things you are not allowed not to say anymore : Pharyngula

The Self Taught Atheist: Unabashed Christian Arrogance

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

X-Post: Navigating Past Specious Allegations of Racism

Dr. Don's recent post on nihilism (make that posts on nihilism)--where, as he has done so many times before, he once again defines the term, but fails to support his belief that "the Left" espouses and promotes nihilism in all (or for that matter, anything) they do--deserves some attention, which I will at some point no doubt offer. First though--because it's far easier--a quick word or two about the "RAAAAACISM!!" charge Donald shoehorns into the debate and once again flings in the general direction of American Nihilist.

In discussing societal norms, Dr. Douglas says:
"And one of those agreed commitments is that we treat those of different races with respect --- that is, we don't abuse them with racist attacks and, even worse, defend those attacks with the most reprehensible evasions and distortions of truth imaginable. But unfortunately, that's the going program at RepRacist3's dungeon of nihilist hatred, where folks there think of me as the opposite of albino Edgar Winter. Nope, no colorblindness at RepRacist3's stalking nihilist asshat central:


These are bad people, well outside the accepted normative commitments of decency and right in society."
As you can no doubt see, on this occasion Donald is yelling RAAAAACISM!! because a guy who has commented at American Nihilist 3-4 times in total once said that "Donald is the anti-Johnny Winters."

Now, there are two issues with this. (Donald likes to intertwine and confuse them in his occasional responses, so I'm going to do all I can to present them as separate from one another as possible.) The first is, whether or not what thepalescot said is actually racially offensive. The second is, why--even if someone believes it is racially offensive (and to be clear, I do not believe it is racially offensive)--anyone other than thepalescot ought to be held responsible for thepalescot's words and intended meaning.

First, is it racially offensive? Well, PScot is saying something intended to offend Donald. In context from other comments, thepalescot holds Johnny Winters in high regard; he does not hold Donald in that same high regard, to be sure.

Whether it's racist though, is a whole other kettle of fish. Donald immediately latches on to the fact that Johnny Winter is an albino, though PScot makes no direct mention of either Johnny's or Donald's skin color until a day later, AFTER Donald brings it up. (Donald says "Edgar Winter" in his post, which I hope is just a brain fart, and not some kinda indication that white (or albino) folks all look the same to him. We can be relatively certain how he'd spin it, were it me making such an error, say, talking about Wendell Holmes' (of The Holmes Brothers) bout with cancer, but calling him Sherman. Still, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt.) There's a whole lotta ways in which Donald is dissimilar to Johnny Winter; why Donald chooses to focus on the race of each of them to the exclusion of any/all other factors that make these two men different isn't clear... ...unless he's manufacturing an "outrage, OUTRAGE!! RAAAAACISM!!!" that just wouldn't exist save for Donald's creating it, of course.

Of course, maybe PScot was referring to the fact that Johnny Winter is a very white man playing a very stereotypically black music, and was thus saying that Donald is a black man with what are still considered stereotypically white political views, which is what PScot says in his subsequent comment the next day. I'll grant you that judging the individual based on the stereotypical facts about the group is foolish--it's essentially judging the book based on the cover, or engaging in sweeping generalization, both of which lead to some really faulty conclusions--but even still, I see it as more of a racial comment than a racist one.

Contrary to what Donald appears to believe, it's not bigoted to discuss demographics. Black people (or Jewish people, or female people, or conservative people, or gay people, or people born with a particular physical abnormality, or ...), as a group, do share a collection of sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs (as well as physical attributes, of course.) None of these attitudes, beliefs, or attributes are universal throughout a given group--which is why one cannot cavalierly apply the attitudes or attributes of the group onto any individual member, any more than one can apply the attributes or attitudes of one member onto the whole group--but they do nevertheless exist, and it isn't morally wrong--that is, RAAAAACIST or BIIIIIGOTED--to talk about them.

In the realm of music, guitar blues was born of and even today continues to be largely populated by black people. Johnny Winter is an exception to that stereotype. The demographics of "blues musicians" are changing, and as time goes on, those demographics will likely keep changing. It is in no way racist to make any of those statements.

In the realm of politics, conservatism was born of and even today continues to be largely populated by white people. Donald Douglas is an exception to that stereotype. The demographics of "conservatives" are changing, and as time goes on, they will likely keep changing. It is in no way racist to make any of those statements, either.

There's definitely something to be said for a society where we're all just "people," and no one pays any attention to the demographics. Donald believes no one should pay any attention to the color of his skin, and that any mention of it is RAAAAACISM!!. I understand the appeal, but then, I also wish he would apply those same standards to gay people, to liberal people, to those people who don't fit into his notions about JudeoChristian religious belief, to people who are not Americans. If racially, people are people, then why are people with a sexual orientation other than his own also not "just people?" Why is it he believes that those who don't share his politics can be grouped together as though they are "all the same," and stigmatized by him? Why are they not just people?

Like I said, I get the appeal of a world where we're all just people, but I don't really want to live there, as lovely as it likely would be. To me, there's something to be said for having and embracing all those demographics that make you you. I don't believe people should deny or discount their ethnic or racial heritage. Whether one is Polish or black or a Scot or Israeli (or even white, even), I believe one should be proud of it and incorporate it into who they are as a person and how that heritage fits into their beliefs about being an American, too. The same goes for one's religion, their gender, their chosen political beliefs, their sexual orientation, and any/all the other "demographic" groups to which they belong. (Well, perhaps not "all." If one is in the demo "pedophile" or "murderer," it'd probably be best not to celebrate ones inclusion in those groups.)

Yes, recognition and celebration of these demographic groups do allow for racism and bigotry, often when members of one group get it into their heads that their group is superior, and one or more of those "other" groups are inferior to them --protestants v. catholics, "the right" v. "the left," straight v. gay-- but they also allow for cultural exchange and tolerance of those not like oneself. And, I believe there is an inherent good in knowing where you came from and who you are, besides.

I don't believe it's raaaaacist (or biiiiigoted)for someone to notice the color of Donald's or my skin, or to evaluate what one or the other of us has to say based on whether we self identify politically left or right; religiously Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, or Unitarian; gay or straight, married or unmarried, Ph.D, high school dropout, or somewhere in between, fully able-bodied or physically challenged, etc. Sometimes one or more of these factors will make a difference or provide a little insight into why we think as we do, and sometimes they won't, but I don't believe we should pretend that such differences between us all don't exist, in pursuit of some vague notion about equality or fairness. Yes, we're all just people, but we're also each individually a whole lot of demographic "ingredients," and yes, I do believe they matter, as well.

Obviously, I do not fully subscribe to either the belief that America is a "melting pot" or that it is a "salad bowl." The best approach is somewhere between the two, in my view. To be an American does mean one has definite characteristics, shared ideals and beliefs, but as I said above, I don't believe you have to completely renounce the rest of your "demographics" to be an American.

The bottom line is, thepalescot said Johnny Winter is white, that Donald Douglas is black, and that he prefers the work of one man over the work of the other. He did not say his preference for one over the other was based on either man's race; just that he preferred one man's work over that of the other. If you believe, as Donald seems to, that that is RAAAAACISM!!, you'll have to explain how and why, because I don't see it...

The second issue Donald's post brings up is why in God's name he believes that EVERYONE at American Nihilist is a RAAAAACIST, just because he perceives thepalescot's comment as RAAAAACIST. Now, for the rest of this post, let's all assume that Donald's perception is correct; for the sake of argument, let's all pretend that what thepalescot said was racist. (Do you understand, Donald? This is NOT what I believe, but for the sake of the argument, we're all going to pretend that we all agree with you, here. I want no misunderstanding, like last time when I said "...people don't need you, or me, or Brendan to protect them from unpleasant words or ideas." [for the benefit of those joining late, Brendan is another blogger, and Donald wanted him to delete a comment thepalescot wrote at one of Brendan's blog posts, because Donald believed the comment to be offensive], and you latched onto "unpleasant words or ideas," and convinced yourself that I was thereby saying the comment in question--thepalescot said Donald was mighty swarthy for a guy with such a Scottish name--was objectively offensive, or that I actually agreed with you, when it was clear as day from the full context, that that was not the case. Got it? OK...)

So some guy named thepalescot came to American Nihilist and made a racist comment. Now what? Am I obligated to remove the comment from view, and pretend it never happened? Must I denounce thepalescot (either together with or instead of removing his comment)? Is ignoring his bigotry not an option open to me, believing that to engage him would only encourage him to post more bigoted crap?

And if I do not denounce him, and/or delete his comment, am I really therefore a racist myself? Are the other American Nihilist authors--either those who took part in the blog comments, or those who did not--really also racists, because they didn't act as Donald seems to believe they should (deleting comments and denouncing folks)? What about the other readers? Are they too racists, according to Donald?

WHY?!?

Does Donald really not believe that the only person responsible for a racist comment is the person who actually made it? Does he really go in for this collectivist guilt thing, where every person here at American Nihilist is responsible for every word or idea uttered by any person at American Nihilist, including any random commenter who steps in off the information superhighway? Really?!?

I think Donald is wrong to generalize about folks like that. thepalescot is an individual, and not representative of the demos "the left," or "American Nihilist writers or readers." If one is offended by a blog post or comment, one should hold the person who wrote it accountable and liable, but not pretend that that one writer speaks for every person who ever wrote at or read the blog in question. Donald has a bad habit of this kinda generalizing; one post or comment at Kos "proves" all liberals are anti-semites or communists (rather than simply holding the writer accountable). "I" (or "we") engaged in workplace intimidation because a guy who last blogged here over a year ago posted information he found at Donald's college website, and suggested that folks write the president of the college and the head of Donald's department over something Donald had posted. The fact that I objected from the get go is beside the point. By not stopping the guy and deleting his post, Donald pronounces me (or all of us) "guilty," rather than focusing on the blogger who actually made the post. Brendan is a racist for not deleting thepalescot's "swarthy" comment, even though he neither wrote it or agreed with it.

Not even Donald believes his own rhetoric, or he would've acted when this white "racist" posted the following at American Power: "Daley's political instincts are impeccable and his knows this swarthy avatar is just a tenderfoot who's another Jimmy Carter, a one-term wonder who's hemorrhaging political capital faster than GWB." Maybe it's only raaaaacist to refer to conservative biracial men as "swarthy," eh?

Donald is just plain wrong, on both counts. What thepalescot said wasn't racist, and no one except thepalescot deserves credit or blame for his words, whether racist or not.

As I've said many times before, Donald started these allegations of RAAAAACISM!! against this blog and me personally after I called him out for what I believed to be bigoted characterizations about black folks in his blogging. I believe his use of ebonics and racial stereotypes of black men (such as Obama) as fried chicken eating gangsta pimps is racially offensive (or should be, to anyone who cares about race relations in this country), and I won't stop saying so. His retaliatory responses--including these "swarthy" and "Johnny Winter" bits, as well as claiming that it's RAAAAACIST for me to call a person I disagree with a clown, provided that man is black. (One presumes it would not be racist for me to disagree with a white guy saying the same thing, and to suggest he is a clown for expressing the opinions with which I disagreed.)--just don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned...

I'd be most interested in what others have to say, whether or not you agree with me... As always, even Donald himself is welcome to reply.
---

American Niiiiihilist x-post

Monday, December 06, 2010

Throwing Red Meat Bombs at Our Foes, to Impress Our Friends

In reply to the following comment at National Review Online:

repsac3

So is Mr Kurtz throwing bombs, red meat, or maybe it’s a meat bomb?

Isn’t labeling him a rhetorical bomb thrower, well, labeling him?

Look, I see nothing wrong with using labels to describe people, canned goods, file folders, politicians etc., as long as the label is fact based and accurate. Mr. Kurt’s research supports his label and passes my sniff test. On the other hand, Mr. Frum seems to be someone in search of his lost relevance since leaving National Review, and failing miserably in his quest.

For a fact-based analysis of my labeling him "irrelevant", check the numbers on his latest book sales.
-- 12/06/10 13:34

Dollar Bill

To whatever extent Mr Kurtz is using his labels to stifle debate by dismissing his opponents, he is throwing red meat bombs, I'd say... Those who've read his book, however, suggest that he's actually making a case, rather than just tossing these labels around... Once I've read it, I can say more...

Yes, calling rhetorical bomb throwers rhetorical bomb throwers is in fact labeling them. As you say further in your comment, labels can be useful, as long as they actually apply. Some who've read his book seem to believe he does actually make his case. Once I read it, I'll be better able to form and then express an opinion on that. But with all respect due Mr Kurtz and those who agree with him, I don't see the authoritarian socialism of the USSR, or even the more benign socialism of much of Europe, being advocated by much of anyone in the Democratic party. Perhaps after reading his book, I'll feel differently.

Anyone whose actually trying to make a case for the labels they're trying to affix onto those with whom they disagree isn't simply labeling them, and to my mind anyway, isn't the target of the No Labels campaign. Rather it's those who don't make any case--either treating their chosen label as "common knowledge" that doesn't need substantiation, or using it to end debate "you're just a fascist, so why should I bother trying to discuss anything with you?!?"--who seem to be the real targets of the campaign. And sadly, there seem to be more of those sorts of labelers around than the ones--perhaps including Mr Kurtz--who actually try to make a case and thereby increase the dialog.

As for whether one's relevance to the debate can be determined by how many books one sells, I can't rightly say, though I tend to doubt it... As to whether those book sale numbers, or for that matter, "relevance" is any indication of intellectual value or sociopolitical or moral correctness, however, I really don't believe they are. -- 12/06/10 14:55

In Reply: Fascist, Socialist, Racist, or Nihilist; Labels get in the way of discussing issues

In reply to: David Frum, Speech Policeman - Stanley Kurtz - National Review Online
---

I don't know, kids... It seems to me that most of the labeling is done to dismiss others and to avoid discussing the specifics of issues, rather than to further clarify them.

Whether the term is fascist, socialist, racist, or nihilist, it doesn't get anyone any closer to the meat of the issue. I don't care what you want to call the President (whether that President is Reagan, Clinton, Dubya, or Obama). Saying he's a Nazi or a Stalinist or a smirking chimp doesn't really say anything, making it pretty much a waste of time, except as bomb-throwing rhetorical red meat for those who already agree with you.

All I need to know is what you think about some specific thing an elected official is doing, and why you believe as you do. In that regard--and looking at both the WaPo article and the No Labels website, I'm pretty sure their intent is to get past the labeling and onto specifics, rather than to police anyone's words--I believe Frum and Galston are correct. Allusions to Stalin or Marx, Mussolini or Hitler (or the political ideologies they represented) are meaningless, because no one here in the US is advocating anything close to what they once did. We are all Americans, and if we cannot come together at least enough to recognize that 99% of everybody here--including the folks in the "other" party--loves America just like you do, but has different beliefs about what has and will continue to make this country great, we're not going to get anywhere. There's a real difference between disagreeing with another person or group's political views and seeing that person (those people) as an enemy. - 12/06/10, 12:19 PM

Besides, we're all referees of American political debate, and like Mr Kurtz, Frum and Galston are puting their thinkin' into the arena. Some folks'll agree with 'em and some won't (just as with Mr. Kurtz and his ideas), but they're really not doing anything different with their article than Mr Kurtz is doing here with his; criticizing the discourse of those with whom they do not agree.

Kurtz is free to call Obama a socialist, Frum and Galston are free to suggest that such labeling is over the top, and Kurtz is free to in turn label them as wannabe referees of American political debate... It's all speech, and it's all good, just as it will be when someone comes along and says Kurtz's labeling of Galston and Frum is over the top, too.

In short, I don't see anyone limiting anyone else's speech. I just see more speech, which is as it should be... -- 12/06/10, 12:34 PM
---

William A. Galston and David Frum - A No Labels solution to Washington gridlock?
No Labels
Facebook | No Labels

Sunday, December 05, 2010

X-Post: Donald Douglas Two Minute Hate - December, 2010

Sunday, December 5, 2010, 7:00 PM - American Power: Navigating Past Nihilism:
"And one of those agreed commitments is that we treat those of different races with respect --- that is, we don't abuse them with racist attacks and, even worse, defend those attacks with the most reprehensible evasions and distortions of truth imaginable. But unfortunately, that's the going program at RepRacist3's dungeon of nihilist hatred, where folks there think of me as the opposite of albino Edgar Winter. Nope, no colorblindness at RepRacist3's stalking nihilist asshat central:"
---
Saturday, December 4, 2010, 7:00 PM - American Power: Barrett Brown Cross-Posts Lame Response to R.S. McCain at Sick and Evil Little Green Footballs:
"It's okay actually, since I often refuse to throw links to those who're unworthy --- the lying dirtbag RepRacist3 comes to mind."
---
Saturday, December 4, 2010, 12:01 AM - American Power: Unpacking Progressive Trolling:
"Robert's representative troll is c u n d gulag at Mahablog, and by implication Repsac3, who was also trolling the thread there."
(More evidence that Dr Douglas doesn't yet understand the definition of "trolling." He seems to think it means "dares to disagree with me in print on the internet.")

"Folks will recall that Ordinary Gentlemen is the blog home of uber weasel E.D. Kain, who, like Repsac3's nihilist horde, mounted a campaign of workplace intimidation against me."
(Folks will recall that Donald Douglas is, of course, lying.)
---

Friday, December 3, 2010, 10:30 PM - American Power: 'I'm equating Bloggingheads.tv and its visitors with liberalism':
"Anyone with half a brain would have known, but not the despicable stalking asshat RepRacist3."

"But despicable dumbshit RepRacist3 makes a lame gotcha attempt anyway, mumbling stupidly about "you're a fool if you in any way agree with her ..."

"So much for RepRacist3's close reading skills."
Reply: American Niiiiihilist: Dr Douglas, you're clearly a selective-reading idiot...
---

Thursday, December 2, 2010, 12:01 AM - American Power: Disemboweling Sarah Palin:
"Althouse says leftists love this, and Repsac3's hating band of nihilists gets off on stuff like this, and more:"
Reply: American Niiiiihilist: Disemvoweling Donald Douglas

A Devil's American Henchmen X-post. Follow the link for more...

X-Post: Dr Douglas, you're clearly a selective-reading idiot...

Or, "Despicable Me"

American Power: "I'm equating Bloggingheads.tv and its visitors with liberalism" - Althouse
"Anyone with half a brain would have known, but not the despicable stalking asshat RepRacist3."
Right.

That's why nearly EVERYONE came down on Althouse in the comments at her original post, right there on her own site--which presumably, is largely populated by folks friendly to her points of view, as well as fans who're more likely to be familiar with her writing style and thus understand both the words she writes and the gist she tries to convey with them.

That's why she had to subsequently go to another site to defend her post with that explanation.

Dr Douglas, you're clearly a selective-reading idiot to come to the conclusion that my understanding of Ms Althouse was any different than those of most of her loyal readership, or the other blogs/bloggers who commented, after reading through the various posts/comment areas you referenced. No other conclusion is possible. The words at those posts make it abundantly clear what the general understanding of the original Althouse post was, and your conclusion to the contrary makes it awful clear that the only half-brained fellow hanging around in the area of these Althouse posts is you.

Look Donald... Pretty much everyone, from regular Althouse readers commenting at your first link (where she does not explain herself, at all), to those commenting at your second link (where just about everyone calls Bullshit! on her too-little-too-late attempt at a face-saving explanation after the fact) doesn't agree with you, or with Ms. Althouse. (Or do you think she'd prefer Dr. Althouse?) I'm not saying that that might not've been what she meant to say in her first post, but pretty much no one read it that way, so the fault lies with the lady for failing to more clearly convey her intended message.

Even at your own post, you say "leftists love this", and show the G.W.A.R. video, not bloggingheads.tv. So tell me Don... If your understanding was that Althouse was talking about the bloggingheads site, why didn't you include that site in any way in your post? (Nevermind... The answer is clear... You're a friggin' face-saving halfwit.)

"But Althouse explains"

Exactly Don, old man... The fact that she had to explain should tell you something (but maybe it was speaking to the missing half of your brain, eh?) If her point was anywhere near as clear as it was concise (read: short), she wouldn't've HAD to explain. NO ONE understood her, and even now, they still think she's off her rocker on this. The first answer still stands; It's G.W.A.R., for Christ's sake. They don't represent liberals, they represent post-adolescent bad metal-loving adolescents. (One of them spends a whole lotta time on FoxNews, in fact... If anything, that says more about that member's politics than any music performance video would or could.)

Bloggingheads isn't recognized as a liberal site by much of anyone, either. Althouse herself has appeared there pretty often, and almost all bloggingheads videos include both sides getting their fair say. It's a pretty desperate play to try to suggest bloggingheads.tv represents the liberal mindset. But whatever... The woman has her opinion...
"Besides, finding buttwipe bjkeefe in the comments at the Gwar Bloggingheads was a dead giveaway"
Now, a close reading of the bloggingheads site makes it pretty clear to anyone with maybe just a smidge more than half a brain that bjkeefe did not comment at the G.W.A.R. bloggingheads post, but instead had a comment included in their "Out of Context" sidebar, which seems to appear on every bloggingheads page, including the ones that include Ann Althouse herself. So no, Don, the fact that his comment is there no more implies fandom of this or anything G.W.A.R has ever done than it does fandom of this or anything Ann Althouse has ever done. So much for that "close reading" there, half-brain... That bus you thought you was drivin' just plum rolled over you.
"And of course I was extremely concise at my post on Gwar, not only indicating that we should be fair but adding a video of Gwar beheading Barack Obama. But despicable dumbshit RepRacist3 makes a lame gotcha attempt anyway, mumbling stupidly about "you're a fool if you in any way agree with her ...'"
Close reading would of course notice the "if" in the sentence, as in:
Donald, clearly Althouse can be a little over-sensitive, sometimes, if she thinks anything done by Gwar is anything to get excited over. And clearly, you're a fool if you in any way agree with her (which, given your recent suggestion that calling a black man a clown is RAAAAACIST!!* (*unless he's Barack Obama, or any other black man with whom you disagree politically or socially, in which case not even photoshops of them as fried chicken eating pimps is in any way offensive or bigoted), is likely.
I didn't say he did agree with her; I said IF he agreed with her, and that it WAS LIKELY he did, given his over-the-top sensitivity in the past.

Now yes, I do believe Donald was on board with Althouse's G.W.A.R. is anti-female (or anti-Con female, or pro-violence against women) thrust, as evidenced by his cut & paste of the G.W.A.R. video and the words "liberals love this," (not to mention charging--without a scintilla, as usual--that the folks at American Nihilist actually "get off" on stuff like this.)

Close reading would also note that even Donald admits his post was on G.W.A.R. (and liberals, of course), and not on bloggingheads.tv (and liberals).

That's everyone else's point, in a nutshell. The Althouse (and subsequent Douglas) post(s) were understood by everyone and their baby sister as talking about G.W.A.R., not bloggingheads.tv, or much of anything else... Hence, everyone's reaction, including my own. (I have no proof of course, but I don't even buy Donald's magical understanding of this "fact" that everyone else failed to get except him, and believe his hindsight post explanation to be FAR better than his actual sight at the time, if ya know what I mean... YMMV...) Hell, Donald even discusses G.W.A.R.'s political leanings in his post, saying "But to be fair, Gwar's bipartisan..." So who here really believes Don knew Althouse's point was not about G.W.A.R. at all, but about bloggingheads.tv, as he now claims?

No, me neither... Don will say or do anything to save face, and to attack others...
"So much for RepRacist3's close reading skills. Stupid asshole."
See above. Decide for yourself who's the "stupid asshole" as concerns "close reading skills". Rinse. Repeat as needed.

As always, folks can decide for themselves whether they agree that Donald (and Althouse) seem to be accusing liberals of being anti-feminist because G.W.A.R. (a band whose lead singer regularly appears on FoxNews, not MSNBC) at least one time disemboweled someone wearing a Sarah Palin mask onstage.... or something... And maybe my point about Donald and his "calling a black man I agree with a clown is RAAAAACIST!!, but photoshopping a black man I don't agree with as a fried chicken eating gangsta pimp, isn't" argument is in some way different than Althouse's "a video of G.W.A.R. disemboweling Sarah Palin on a liberal site (Bloggingheads.tv--where Althouse has appeared on several occasions--is a liberal site?!?) proves liberals hate women" argument, but seeing Donald comment on both in a very similar way sure suggested a connection to me... Again, the reader can decide for him/herself...

Everything we wrote or referenced is linked below, and I urge anyone who cares, to read what we (and others) wrote and decide for yourself where the truth lies.

I'm sure you already know what I think... Dr Don is getting desperate, and all this ad hom and spurious charge-throwing is just more evidence of it.

I'd be interested in whatever response one wishes to offer, either with my point of view or against... Even Dr Don himself is always welcome to speak up.

And Don... Your silly "racist" thing is getting mighty tired, bro... Either put up or shut up, nes pa? (Not that I expect you actually ever will come across with more than this yelling of "RAAAAACIST!!" at me, but it can't hurt to keep on askin' anyway...)
---

American Niiiiihilist x-post
---

The most relevant links:
Bloggingheads.tv - more video on the web (THE video)

Althouse: Violence against women...

alicublog: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Ann Althouse equates liberalism with GWAR.
alicublog: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Ann Althouse equates liberalism with GWAR.: Comments on Echo, Pg 1

American Power: Disemboweling Sarah Palin

American Niiiiihilist: Disemvoweling Donald Douglas

American Power: "I'm equating Bloggingheads.tv and its visitors with liberalism"

Not part of the narrative, but included:
Bloggingheads Community - View Profile: bjkeefe

American Power: "There's nothing at Fox Nation about menthols, drugs, or mothafucka's. Just a headline about gangsta rap..."

American Power: Obama's Gangsta Grillz

American Power: You're Not Entitled to Your Own Facts

Not included, but should've been:
“That’s Specious Reasoning, Prof. Althouse.” “Thanks!” : Lawyers, Guns & Money

Friday, December 03, 2010

X-Post: Disemvoweling Donald Douglas

mrcn Pwr: Dsmbwlng Srh Pln

t's Gwr.

lths sys lftsts lve ths, nd Rpsc3's htng bnd f nhlsts gts ff n stff lke ths, nd mr:


Bt t b fr, Gwr's bprtsn, s cmmntr ndcts:
Thanks again Ann for your one sided fanning of partisan hate. This crappy band according to Wikipedia has trashed on stage every president since Reagan, also John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. But don't let the facts get in the way of throwing more red meat to your Althouse Hillbillies. They might just buy a toaster on Amazon for you!

---

Donald, clearly Althouse can be a little over-sensitive, sometimes, if she thinks anything done by Gwar is anything to get excited over. And clearly, you're a fool if you in any way agree with her (which, given your recent suggestion that calling a black man a clown is RAAAAACIST!!* (*unless he's Barack Obama, or any other black man with whom you disagree politically or socially, in which case not even photoshops of them as fried chicken eating pimps is in any way offensive or bigoted), is likely.

The ridiculous of your post (and Ann Althouse's) is summed up in the first two words. "It's Gwar." And if those two words really aren't enough, the majority of the comments at Ann's blog (including the one you cite, ironically) should help explain why this is just another manufactured outrage. C'mon... It's GWAR, for Christ's sake.

As for me and the folks at American Niiiiihilist, well, it is possible that someone here (writer or reader) may be a G.W.A.R. fan, but if you had any real evidence that any one of us "gets off on stuff like this," you'd've whipped it out, big boy. (Actually, history shows you wouldn't've... You tend to just make shit up and say it, truth, reason, or even the slightest trickle of evidence be damned.) And your link back to the post where a blogger who hasn't written for AmNi in over a year once reposted your publicly available work info over my objections (an incident that first happened in February of 2009, and that you're STILL whining about) is pretty clear evidence that the blogger at The Mahablog was correct. You need to chill, take your lumps, and move on, already. Holding onto all these grudges and imagined slights just can't be healthy, Don.
---

American Niiiiihilist x-post

X-Post: "Who's that trip, trap, tripping over Don's bridge?"

American Power: Progressive Trolls

In which Dr. Douglas finds a conservative fellow traveller who, like him, chooses to redefine the term "troll" to mean "anyone from the left who disagrees with me, and dares to say so on my blog."

Of course, of the 42 comments currently appended to his new friend "Robin of Berkeley"'s American Thinker piece, about a third are calling her out for the hypocrisy--many seemingly from the right. And predictably I suppose, Robin or Berkeley's response is to call those commenters trolls too, and to ask the editor at American Thinker to remove any that violate AT comment standards--which in her mind, is likely all of 'em. A woman cut from Don's own heart, she is... If you can't beat 'em, the least you can do is delete their words and prevent them from appearing anywhere near your own, so as not to disturb the illusion that everyone agrees with you.

Yeesh.

And yeah, we got a mention from Donald, as well:
And that's to say nothing of the freaks at American Nihilist, for whom no undomesticated attack is out of bounds.

Buck up, Don. They're just words... and here at American Nihilist, (unlike at your blog), you're always free to drop on by and rebut them with words of your own. As long as you're more or less on topic and not selling something (commercially, I mean), your comments will appear as written.

It's one thing to say "Comment and debate are always welcome," but it's quite another to actually adhere to those standards on your blog. -- That said, American Nihilist applauds your finally removing all that dishonest bullshit from your profile... ...though liberal "trolls" throughout the blogosphere are no doubt mourning the death of that "tactical elan" for which you had been so famous (or notorious, anyway).

It seems the folks at wikipedia have met Donald and Robin (or others like them), as well.: "The term ["Troll"] is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent."
In a nutshell, Wikipedia.

Well, come along! I've got two spears,
And I'll poke your eyeballs out at your ears;
I've got besides two curling-stones,
And I'll crush you to bits, body and bones.

Snip, snap, snout.
This tale's told out.

Added, 3:20 AM: American Power: Barbara O'Brien: Hate-Enabling Progressive
"The commenters there as as bad as anything on the web, further substantiated by the demonic racist Repsac3."
Jesus, dude... Man up, stop sniffling over spilt milk, and quitcherbitchin', already. This kinda repetition may work on some of your less intelligent readers, but the vast majority (yeah, even of your readers) prefer intelligent argument to all this whining and name-calling. What Barbara called you on, you were clearly guilty of, and changing the subject, declaring victory, or calling her names isn't going to change that. I mean, I know this is what you do, but really man... try manning up, admitting the fuck up, and moving on... These three posts about the maha blog ain't convincing anyone you're right except you.

And anytime you want to do more than yell RAAAAACIST!! at me (like perhaps, backing those bogus charges), I'm here for ya, buddy.
---

American Niiiiihilist x-post

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Enjoy music, give a book, get an album.



Can life be any more simple, or sweet?

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

No softcore T 'n' A for the "classic liberal" PaleoCon...

In reply to the following comment at The Classic Liberal Blog:
Please do stop back in … In all fairness though, even though I generally despise neocons, me and Donald Douglas have a good relationship. We share an affinity for Rule 5!, I said:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Dr Douglas has tossed you under the bus for agreeing with Ron Paul too often and questioning the US government's support of Israel. American Power: The Classical Liberal: Israel Bashing Paleocon?

I'm sorry, but Donald has decreed "NO RULE 5 FOR YOU!!"

Your softcore t'n'a links are over, as far as he's concerned... (Can there BE any worse punishment than no "rule 5" links?!? And yes, that's a real quote.)

Sorry, CL.

While we seldom agree (I'm one o' them "LiberaSocialiNihilists," don'cha know... Just ask Don... (...or Old Rebel, more'n'likely...)) I do enjoy reading your stuff, and appreciate your tone, even when folks don't agree with your ideas and ideals. That and a few bucks'll get you a cuppa joe at a Starbucks (not to mention more derision from folks like Don, prolly), but there's a lot of folks who believe that how you say something is at least as important as what you say... ...and if you ask me, there should be a whole lot more, too. - repsac3 November 30, 2010 at 7:23 am
---

Of course, the joke was on me, because I was thinking of a completely different classic liberal blog and blogger... (And if I ever find the one I was thinkin' of, I leave a link to it, as well.) Still, a kind word can't hurt THIS classic liberal (and even if it could, there's no way to edit my posted comment, now... What's done is done, and I'd just as soon not go back there...) Besides... Perhaps this classic liberal will actually live up to those kind words, at some point... And Donald HAS tossed the poor guy away like last week's leftover takeout, rotting away in the back of the fridge... That part of the comment was accurate, anyway...

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Happy Thanks, Don

American Power: Blessings For Which We Give Thanks:
"William Jacobson has good wishes for all of his readers on this Thanksgiving, even the trolls and leftist lurkers.

I'm not that big of a person, toward demons at least. I need see some apologies on the other side. It's all about the iteration."
I'm very sorry you feel that way, Donald. Blogging ain't beanbag, my friend. I disagree with you sometimes, and I say so. Rather than whine about it, you ought to logically and rationally rebut. (though not on Thanksgiving.)

Have a lovely Thanksgiving and holiday season, regardless. My best to you, your family, and all you hold dear. Try to get along with Tim, if you see him.
- November 25, 2010 11:51 AM
"All bull. You don't give a shit about me or my family, RepRacist3. Politics doesn't take a break on holidays, and you don't get a pass for running a stalking blog. Don't 'feel' sorry. Say you're sorry.

And quit commenting here. You are not welcomed. You violate my space and disrespect me. Comment at your own fucking blogs, you prick, and get a damned life."
Donald Douglas - November 25, 2010 12:02 PM
And later:
American Power: Glenn Reynolds a Coward? But Hey, It's Thanksgiving!
"That's leftie Oliver Willis, blowing the fuse on the stupid (and fake) holiday truce assumption."
Believe as you will, Dr Douglas. Do and say whatever you think appropriate for the holiday, your Judeo-Christian faith, and your American beliefs.

My beliefs about America and God lead me to stay my course, and continue to wish you and yours the best and pray for you all, despite your obvious inclination to lash out in return.

We are the people we choose to be... And so it goes...

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

X-Post: The guy at American Power is Not Entitled to His Own Facts

An American Niiiiihilist blog x-post

In a recent post over there at AmPow, Donalde launches into yet another attack on me and this blog, but once again does so against an enemy of his own imagination.

Unlike our friend over there, we will quote the words Donalde writes, rather than substitute in our own impressions and imaginings (all the better to demonize; Donalde couldn't do what he does if those who read his posts insisted that he provide solid evidence of his accusations (quotes, links), rather than telling them what he says his "enemy's" words are, and what they mean. I sometimes wonder whether he thinks they're too stupid to see what he sees if he doesn't feed this opinions and prejudices to them like pablum, or that he knows that they're smart enough to see through his bullshit, if he actually gives them all the facts.) Let's begin.
I wrote previously: "I think the folks at American Nihilist owe me an apology."

And I'm renewing the call.
The folks at American Nihilist don't owe Donalde a thing. Nothing I've written about him is less than honest, and even my opinions are backed with quotes and other supporting evidence. (While Donalde says his problem is with the blog as a whole, his hissy fit of the moment only names me and discusses my posts.)
And to be clear, I've been subject to enough racial slurs in my life to let a couple go. Indignities are part of living in a diverse society with real differences in race, class, and ideological persuasion.
I couldn't say what slurs Donalde has or has not been subject to, or how he's reacted. All I know for sure is that the supposed slur about which Donalde has been whining for the last few months, as said by this PaleScott guy, didn't seem to me to be a slur at all... (And believing that Donalde has been crying over a whole lotta nothing is the extent of my big bad RAAAAACIST crime...)
But when leftist go around calling people out as RAAAAACIST, I'd at least expect some consistency, honesty, and intellectual integrity. In the case of James Casper --- a.k.a. "Repsac3" --- that's obviously asking way too much.
Nonsense. I quoted the words Donalde wrote, and explained why I believe these ebonic pronouncements and photoshops posted on Donalde's blog portray bigoted stereotypes of black folks as uneducated drug abusers.
Some folks will remember that Repsac3 unveiled is bigoted race-centric view of the world during The Pale Scot controversy: "American Power: It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power" The comments left at BJ Keefe's blog were so bad that BJ Keefe himself disowned them, while nevertheless hypocritically citing a First Amendment principle to allow such hatred to remain in his comment thread.
Anybody wonder why neither of those links quotes anything I said, or indeed shows any evidence at all of this supposed "bigoted, race-centric view of the world" that Donalde accuses me of having? It's simple. It only exists in Donalde's mind.

What I actually said was, I didn't think Pale Scot's comment was racist. Plain. Simple. Hard to misunderstand, unless one is being willfully obtuse. I don't believe it's RAAAAACIST to say that most folks with celtic given and surnames are more fair-skinned than this particular Donald Douglas is. Obviously Donalde disagrees, but as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing RAAAAACIST about talking about someone's skin color... ...not unless you in some way treat that person as less than you (less intelligent, less worthy, less attractive, ...) as a result of their skin color. If my name was Deshawn, it wouldn't be RAAAAACIST for someone to say I was mighty light-skinned for a guy with that name. It would be RAAAAACIST for them to say I couldn't shoot hoops or rap because of my fair skin.

BJ did think that Pale Scot's comment (just one comment, by the way) was in some way bigoted, and he did say so on his blog. Like Donalde, BJ is welcome to his opinion. I think they're both wrong. (For the record, there was nothing for BJ to "disown," because BJ didn't make the comment in the first place. Neither BJ or I subscribe to Donalde's odd theory of the distributive properties of blog comments. (In fact, I doubt many do, even on the conservative side of the aisle.) To us, (most of us, more'n'likely) the only person responsible for the words in a blog post or comment is the person who wrote them, and not everyone who's ever posted there or read the words in question. Personal responsibility, not collective guilt. BJ never "owned" Pale Scot's words in the first place, so he has nothing to "disown.")

Another thing BJ and I agree on, is that we do not moderate or censor our comment sections, even when we disagree with what a given commenter has to say. It's not exactly a first amendment argument, but we do believe that the best response to speech with which one does not agree is more speech, not removal. Donalde prefers to make disappear thoughts and ideas with which he does not agree, which is fine on his own blog (though I still think it cowardly), but pushy when he tries to dictate what other bloggers should do on theirs. (Donalde did want BJ to remove Pale Scot's comment, and only threw his hissyfit after BJ refused to do so.) Anyone who was offended or otherwise did not like Pale Scot's comment--including Donalde and BJ--was free to say so, right there at the same blog post where Pale Scot made his comment. To many bloggers, including BJ and I, that is a far superior way of addressing discontent, rather than moderating away those comments that we (or anyone else) disagrees with or finds distasteful. To me anyway, removing blog content is cowardly. Better to face one's accuser and argue head to head.
In any case, I shouldn't be returning to this subject, but as Repsac3 is a stalking asshat and a liar who maintains a stalking website, and who has been the ringleader in a campaign of harassment, including the publication of my workplace information, I don't mind taking the time every now and then to point out what a pure bigot and demonologist prick he is.
The thing of it is, Donalde never seems to do anything more than cast vague aspersions and call me names. He's never showed me telling a lie; he just says I'm a liar. My blog is a response to his, where folks who he's attacked are free to reply to him. My posts in particular are not all that different than what he does to other blogs and bloggers. I quote him, and then explain why I believe his post is wrong. I'm sorry he doesn't like it, but if he really thought it was wrong, he wouldn't do it, himself. (Something about dishing it out, but not being able to take it, comes to mind.) Not only did I never post his workplace information or harass him, I argued against such behavior. While Donalde is good at making up and posting these charges, he sucks at successfully making anyone who isn't easily led believe any of them. It's all words, and no substance.
The other day I posted on Dennis Prager, "American Power: The Liberal Leftist Mind Rejects Sad Facts" Harasser and hate-sponsor Reppy responded "American Power: An Aversion to Acknowledging Sad Facts". With regard to President Obama's endorsement of racist hip-hop mysogyny, RepRacist3 dismissed socal commentator Thomas Chatterton Williams as a "clown." (Chatterton is the author of Losing My Cool: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-Hop Culture..)

That's tyical of Repsac3, a progressive bigot who takes to attacking dignified, accomplished black men as "clowns." Clearly derogatory and offensive, this is what leftists love to do: infantilize and demean blacks, whipping them with epithets, keeping them down on the progressive plantation.

Again, note Donalde's definition of racism; Any less than respectful criticism of a man (or an belief held by a man) who is black. Not only is this definition bullshit on it's face, Donalde doesn't even hold to it under all circumstances. If the dignified, accomplished black man is Barack Obama (and whether or not one agrees with him politically, one cannot argue with a straight face that the Presidency is not a dignified and accomplished position), all bets are off, and photoshops of the man as a pimp or a drug dealer become perfectly acceptable.

I called Thomas Chatterton Williams a clown based on his position about Barack Obama's comment about musicians he's learning about, not based on his skin color or anything else about him. Race was never a factor, except to Donalde, who seems to see RAAAAACISM in any comment about black folks he respects (and not in similar comments about black--or any other shade--people that he doesn't respect.)

As I said above, it's ok to talk about a person's race. Doing so doesn't make one a racist. (To be a racist, you have to express the opinion that some races of people are better/worse than others, by virtue of race, alone. Just saying someone is white is fine. Saying someone is stupid because they're white, is not.) It's also ok to disagree with a person--no matter his or her color or gender or creed or sexual orientation--and to say so, even disrespectfully, without being a bigot. I'll grant you it can be a fine line--if you're going to call someone a name, you do have to pay some attention to the possibility of bigotry, even when that is not your intent (the NY Post Monkey cartoon was an example of that, in my humble opinion)--but the only folks to whom "clown" might be bigoted or offensive (as a class thing, I mean) are actual, hard-working clowns. (Calling a black man a clown is fine (at least as far as racism is concerned). Calling a black man a clown because he's black, isn't.) It's clear from Donalde's comments that he appears not to understand the difference... (...though honestly, I'm pretty sure he does understand that difference, and this is all feigned ignorance and manufactured outrage, because he has nothing else... Donalde's worst enemy sometimes, is that he's a lot smarter than he wants his readers to think he is.)
Reppy's racist ally in that regard is TBogg: (Cut of "Samuel F. Perkel Sambo Watermelon" logo, from a very long time ago.)
Sure... I could point out that TBogg posted that logo to illustrate his beliefs about the attitudes of a "Red State" blogger who discussed Rush Limbough taking Michael Steele behind the woodshed and birching him good (figuratively, one hopes), but all Donalde sees is the logo posted on TBogg's blog and--again employing that feigned ignorance--shouts RAAAAACISM!!

I could further point out that since TBogg posted that logo back in May 2009, Donald has reposted it on his own blog several times, seemingly always fully aware that context counts, and that it is possible to post a racist logo without being a racist yourself... ...but only if you're a conservative.

I could do all that, but it wouldn't matter. As far as Donalde is concerned, when a liberal posts a racist logo, it's because he's a racist. When a conservative posts that same logo, he's making a clever point that needs to be viewed and understood in context. Same logo, but different rules, depending...
And as for the facts, this is what Chatterton wrote --- in full context --- with regard to President Obama:


What's on President Obama's iPod? A wide range, he told Rolling Stone magazine last week, from the jazz of John Coltrane to the ballads of Maria Callas. And more: "My rap palate has greatly improved," Mr. Obama noted. "Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert."

Expert or not, that's the wrong message for the president to be sending black America.

Does Mr. Obama like Lil Wayne's "Lil Duffle Bag Boy"? In that song, the rapper implores young black men to "go and get their money" through round-the-clock drug hustling. And with Lil Wayne, it's not just an act: The rapper is currently serving a one-year term on Rikers Island after being caught in New York with drugs and guns stashed in his Louis Vuitton overnighter.

Lil Wayne is emblematic of a hip-hop culture that is ignorant, misogynistic, casually criminal and often violent. A self-described gangster, he is a modern-day minstrel who embodies the most virulent racist stereotypes that generations of blacks have fought to overcome. His music is a vigorous endorsement of the pathologies that still haunt and cripple far too many in the black underclass.
The president once spoke out for a strong black family. Indeed, Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention represented the finest traditions of black conservatism going back to Booker T. Washington. Now he's down with the minstrel-misogyny that continues to keep black youth in their place. And that racism of low expectations is enabled by leftists like James "Repsac3" Casper. These Kos-Kleagles apologize for the bigotry of their own ranks while constantly playing the race card to excoriate ideological enemies as bigots and "clowns."
As for Thomas Chatterton Williams (and what is it with Donalde calling him "Chatterton," btw??), I think I answered this argument just fine the first time Donalde reposted it:
The fact that Obama enjoys some of the music of rap stars that have written lyrics that one clown at the Wall Street Journal (or two clowns, if you count Donalde) believes to be "ignorant, misogynistic, casually criminal and often violent" -- and nowhere does it say that Obama likes songs with such lyrics in particular, just that he mentioned enjoying stars whose body of work includes such lyrics (Jay-Z, Lil Wayne, and Nas, to be specific)-- does not mean Obama is engaging in any "bigoted racist stereotyping," as Donalde believes. (I note here that even Thomas Chatterton Williams, the clown from the Wall Street Journal, himself says no such thing in his op-ed, instead suggesting that "The president is entitled to his friends and aesthetic tastes. But he undermines his own laudable message and example when he associates himself with a hip-hop culture that diminishes blacks.," a far cry from calling the President--and, by implication, every fan of Jay-Z, Nas, or Lil Wayne, black, white, and otherwise--a racist.)
Nowhere does Obama say he applauds the life these rappers have lead or the lyrics that Mr Williams (or Dr Douglas) finds so offensive. He doesn't even say he likes the tune of one of the songs Mr Williams and Dr Douglas are on about. So, while I understand what Mr Williams is saying, I believe his purity test for appropriate music for the President goes a little too far. Just as it's possible to enjoy and applaud the football talents of OJ Simpson and still believe he's a murderer, it's ok to have a little Lil Wayne on one's iPod without applauding or endorsing every act the man has ever committed... ...or any act the man has committed, save for creating the piece(s) of music one enjoys.

No, liking a song by Jay-Z doesn't in fact mean that one is "down with the minstrel-misogyny that continues to keep black youth in their place." All it means is the President likes the music. Donald is wrong. His "Kos-Kleagles" link clearly says the KKK is and pretty much always has been a right wing reactionary group, and at the post attached to his "playing the race card" link, several commenters acknowledge that talking about Charlie Rangel's civil rights history ISN'T a case of playing the race card to get preferential treatment based on his race. (Look for Donalde to attack his own links as "nihilist, socialist propaganda" in 3... 2... 1...) If Donalde and his "rule 5" friends limited themselves to softcore hotties and musicians who towed their conservative line, they'd be outta softcore hotties and music to listen to pretty quickly. It's ok to think Will Smith or Mel Gibson is a good actor AND completely wrong politically. Being a fan (or for that matter, a friend) doesn't mean being down with every word and deed a person has ever produced in his/her life. Real people don't submit the musical artists (or actors, or friends) they enjoy to sociopolitical litmus tests... They just don't.
These are bad people, progressive KKK henchmen. Repsac3's Twitter background provides an idea of the circle of secular demonologists this evil man follows --- and the hatred both he and they endorse.
I don't know, gang... Donalde makes some pretty big charges in his post, but from where I'm standing anyway, he fails to back them with anything more than his words, just like always... He hates liberals and anyone else who doesn't see the world as he does, he hates me, and that's pretty much all he's got, and all he's said in his post.

Anyone who wishes to provide concrete examples of my supposed hatred or my supposed racism is welcome to comment or post. I'm always willing to discuss whatever allegations you have, but more of this namecalling without backing substance of the type that Donalde regularly engages in will be dismissed as the poppycock it is. Nothing (except spam, and completely off-topic bullshit, if I'm in a mood) will be deleted; all will be addressed. So have at it....
---

A link from back when criticizing a distinguished, accomplished black man wasn't racism: American Power: Attacks on Obama Driven By Racism?

Saturday, November 20, 2010

In Reply: Voting is a Pleasure (isn't it?)

A comment (revised and extended, here) left at the NY Times in reply to: Spain's R-Rated Election Campaign, a piece that in part discusses the following ad:


(The tagline reads "Voting is a pleasure", and is the slogan of the Young Socialists of Catalonia, who ran the ad.)
---

I don't know what ad the author was watching, but I seem to recall a series of women's shampoo/conditioner ads (I'd name the company, but I don't want to run afoul of any rules that would keep my comment from being posted) ((Herbal Essences, by Clairol)) that seemed more suggestive, and they played constantly on broadcast TV here in the US, with no "R" rating or much of any complaint from our more socially conservative brethren.

I don't know what people in Spain are like, but as for here in the US, the "voting is a pleasure" ad really doesn't seem all that different from what we regularly see on broadcast TV. I think it's a great ad, and not offensive at all... (...especially not when compared to the internet video game ad with the candidate on a seagull bombing illegal immigrants.) As another person wrote at the NY Times site, I'd rather see this positive message, suggestiveness and all, rather than the barrage of negative campaign ads we Americans are hit with throughout our election seasons (and the ads for 2012 should be starting any day. Joy.)



There were several of those... but this one below (which came after those, as I recall), was prolly my favorite.



h/t: American Power (who seems to be among those who disapprove--which is kinda odd, given the "rule 5" softcore T'n'A and suggestive keywords he and his fellow "conservatives" use to draw hits (though not necessarily politically interested readers) to their blogs.)
Also: memeorandum
---

Posted at NYTimes.com November 7th, 10:07 AM

Friday, November 19, 2010

In reply: Welcome back rage of brain (and will the pow(d)erpuff boy ever go away?)

UPDATE: First, a quick answer to the surprising number of foreign folks who come here looking for this via search engines:

The correct / most common response to "Welcome back" is something like "Thanks! Glad to be back."

You're welcome. Glad I could help.

(Believe it or don't, this post is probably one of the highest hit via search engine, and that query is the reason why... Go fig. Anyway, now back to our show...)
--------------

Revised a little, in reply to: Brain Rage: I'm Back; the post and this comment, in particular.
---

Glad to see you back, JBW... Post whenever you feel like it... It's not like it's your life, y'know... We all have our friends and fans (and occasionally gather a new one or two), and they'll come around when there's something to see...

I mean yeah, there are those bloggers who really do matter (and many more who only think they do--See below), but for the vast majority of us, it's a chance to say what's on our mind and share pix and videos we think others might enjoy. (It is cool to get a nice note from someone who enjoyed a post or was glad you spoke up, of course... But I think most of us blog and comment because we have something to say, and the credit and thanks we occasionally get is just icing on the cake.)

Anyway... I'm glad you're back, and I look forward to finding another post or two worth poaching, whenever you happen to get around to writing 'em...
---

And as for [that guy], give it up, malcontent... You can TRY to act like a bully (though why you choose to, I have yet to understand), but everyone here (& most folks at your own blog as well, more'n'likely) knows who and what you really are... ...and aren't.

Be gone, powderpuff.
---

Posted NOVEMBER 19, 2010 3:52 AM (Brain Rage blog time)

Whip It Real Good



First saw the original here: I Whip It Real Hard, Real Hard...

(ht: wehm.com, and my lovely bride, who told me about it.)

Monday, November 15, 2010

In Reply: Rationing healthcare based on effectiveness and necessity, or rationing based on one's ability to afford treatment?

In reply to: No More Mister Nice Blog: SO MUCH FOR "EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES", and in particular Donalde's suggestion that discriminating between effective, necessary medical treatment and ineffective unnecessary treatment amounts to "rationing care" or vindicates Sarah Palin and her make-believe "death panels," using an article that instead suggests limiting the amount and quality of health care based on what one can afford (You know, the way it used to be, before heathcare reform.)
---

My favorite part of Donalde's (with an extra "e," for his tactical elan) argument is his oft linked USATODAY.com editorial (reposted three or four times at his AmPow blog since it was first published in mid-October, and even more often via tweet) suggesting that the provisions of healthcare reform will clog the system and lead to overuse, because people will now be able to get medical care they previously could not afford.

The man who wrote the editorial (and Donalde, obviously) believe that this will necessitate rationing care, oblivious to the fact that care was being rationed before healthcare reform, based on who could/couldn't afford it. This is the kind of rationing and death panels folks like Donalde prefers. Survival of the financially fittest, and those who can't come up with the scratch are judged unworthy by the financial panel of death that is conservative healthcare.

Folks like Dr Douglas lack compassion. They're not against rationing of care; it's just a matter of who gets it, and who doesn't.
---

Relevant Links:
American Power: Paul Krugman Was Against Death Panels Before He Was For Them

American Power: If You Oppose ObamaCare You're RAAAAACIST and UNEDUCATED!!

Twitter / @Donald Douglas: @singlepayer 'ObamaCare will clog America's medical system' http://is.gd/gOe6q

(There are almost certainly others, but I haven't the time to ferret them out.

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)