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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Power: Princess Boys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Power: Courtney Friel, Political Scientist

American Niiiiihilist: Donald Douglas' Fear of "Feminization"

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

American Power: Princess Boys

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

Guys in Snuglis Do the Real "Manning Up"

American Power: Transgendered Children

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

An American Niiiiihilist X-post

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

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

Cassandra...

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

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

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

Comment submitted with website in header. Zilch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas, Happy Winter Holiday

All my best to all who pass this way, and all who love them... May Christmas be as sacred as your faith and reason allow. Whether you find yourselves at midnight mass or going out for Chinese, may you celebrate with friends, family, food, and fun.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm letting those I disagree with be just as wrong as they want to be for the next 24 hours or so... Life's too short, and my faith calls for peace, love, and joy 'round now... May everyone reading these words get all of 'em, to overflowing...

Merry Christmas, and God bless...

In Reply: Visuals Matter (Obama and Compromise)

In reply to: And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: Why Obama's Victories Aren't Enough
---

I think you're correct on the facts, but still think he's blowing the optics, Doc... He makes it look like he's giving it away from the beginning, rather than making the other side demand it, and then reluctantly giving it up.

Yes the result's the same... But it looks different to folks... (While I like the fact that there's not so much unanimity on the left, there is something to be said for that "we'll let everyone die if we have to, but we're not giving in" lock-steppedness of the Republican party. (Again, optically speaking... Even though I often think the tent is a little too big--Lieberman and Kucinich or Sanders are really in the same party, and kinda wish for a more parliamentary system, with multiple parties, and coalitions of folks coming together to get things done, rather than the "we hate them/they hate us, politics as football" mentality--I do respect folks who speak their minds (rather than the hive mind, "my party right and wrong" opinion), even when I don't agree with what they have to say.)

I do think you're correct, but I also believe the administration can make these deals look more like he's fighting, and only compromising when there's no other choice... ...even if he knows from the get go that that's where he's at. It is little more than gamesmanship, and it is unlikely to change the outcome of the negotiation, but those visuals do matter.
---

Posted Wednesday, 12/15/10, 6:55 AM

In Reply: Donald Douglas is just a garden variety bully

In reply to Hackman's Musings: Beyond Exclusivism, and specifically, this comment:

"Religious bullying is, unfortunately, rife within the fundamentalist right. It's a shame, it's offensive, but Douglas's comments are probably not unexpected."
---

Not to pull this too far away from a discussion of faith but, as someone who has butted heads with Donald Douglas for the past several years online, I don't believe it's about religious fundamentalism for him (though he does occasionally express fundamentalist beliefs, generally in the context of hitting others for having different or less faith than he does, or Cthulhu forbid, no faith at all. He seldom evangelizes about his own specific religious beliefs--indeed, I don't believe he's ever mentioned his church or denomination, at all.

If you read through the posts on his blog on any given day, I think you'll find that Donald Douglas is just a garden variety bully, and that for him, religion is just another club with which to hit his many political/social/ideological "enemies." YMMV...
---

Submitted/posted Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:33:00 PM MST

In Reply: Granting Others The Right To Be Wrong

In reply to: Hackman's Musings: Beyond Exclusivism
---

The exclusivity of many religions (and of politics, and probably other things, as well) is a very difficult concept to broach. Obviously, one believes that their own faith is the one that God smiles on; the one that will lead them to have a righteous life, and to an everlasting reward. But part of saying "I'm practicing the faith that God desires" is saying "those who don't worship as I do, are wrong, and God knows it."

And while I understand the compassion involved in bringing folks into your "one true" faith (whatever you believe that faith and denomination or sect thereof to be), there comes a point where human compassion bids you give people the right to be wrong. Sometimes, you have to allow people the right to choose their own faith, even if you believe the one they choose (that is, any one except your own) will lead to everlasting torment, or reincarnation as a mayfly.

The next step; the religious / political / social bullies are far more sad . As you say, it stops being about helping or saving you, and becomes all about them and their wants and needs. Your not living up to their standards becomes an issue of disrespect toward them.

I believe that you have to allow people to be wrong. I'm not saying one cannot try to lead the lost out of their religious, political, or social confines and into the light, but there comes as time when it's more compassionate (and rational, too) to just let them be wrong, and even to let them believe that you're the one who's wrong. The alternative is a world full of "my-way-or-the-highway" bullies like Mr Douglas.

A good piece...
---

Posted Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:52:00 AM MST

In Reply: They. Are. Cupcakes.

Two comments, in reply to: Cupcakes Are Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist (WTF?) at Chicks On The Right

#1) @Kelly, December 10, 2010 at 8:22 pm

"The music reminded me of “Oh Yeah”… Remember, from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? Which was done by Yello… a Swiss Eletronica band who happen to be white. I think someone is grasping at racism straws because they WANT to be insulted by cute, animated, singing baked goods."

THAT’S what it was, runnin’ through my brain after watching the video… I knew it was from an 80′s teen flick, but I couldn’t place it. "OOOH Yeaaaah… (chic chic, bubbita booow…” ...or somethin’ like that…)

As far from the author politically as I can be… but couldn’t be more in agreement with this post. (Now if they was singin’ “Swanee,” or “Ol’ Man River” I might consider the argument, at least…) But not only is that the whitest “hip-hop” I ever heard (better chance of being reverse racism, if ya ask me), they. are. cupcakes.

Only one complaint. It’s my understanding that there are five “a”s in raaaaacist; no more, no less. I’m just sayin’… - December 13, 2010 at 8:48 am



+++++

#2) Sorry, I was re-reading the comments, and was reminded of somethin' else...

Re: Carolyn - December 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm

"I’m curious. Did the “reviewers” who claim this is racist see the On the Rocks performance of Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance?

I’m assuming that if we apply the same standards, that too is RAAAAAACCIISST"

I have a feeling the standard was based on the size o' the lips, and the "blackface."

But now that you mention Lady Gaga (& I mention blackface--though aren't the "black faces" of the cupcakes what this whole thing is all about?), I'm reminded of this post I saw on a conservative site awhile back. (While I'll cop to the fact that many of these kinda grievances come from my side of the aisle, not all of 'em do...) Link: American Power: Hey, Ain't That Racist? Lady GaGa Does Al Jolson ... Leftist Establishment is Down With That!

(In the interest of full disclosure, that author and I do have a history (...not to mention a present, and likely, a future, as well) of butting heads. But that doesn't make his post and the allegations contained in it any less relevant to the discussion, in my humble. YMMV...) -- December 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Someone else at Chicks On The Right said it reminded her most of this:



Kinda... But I heard the Yello, right off...

X-Post: Man Charged With Incest After Three-Year Relationship With Daughter is Political Science Professor

Hey... Isn't Donald Douglas a political science professor, as well? And wouldn't you know it, they both blog about their political views, and are very close to the same age, too. In some ways, Professor Epstein and Professor Douglas could be twins, and we all know what THAT means... (well, if you're foolish enough to play the "guilt by association similarity" game, anyway...)

Treat folks like individuals, people. The fact that two people share the same politics, or profession, or even facial features, does not mean if one of 'em is a rapist, or commits incest, (or is, for that matter, a model citizen), that the person with the same kinda job, politics, or physical features will be in any other way like the person they resemble in that one way, no matter the memes some bloggers seem to be pushing, of late.

Please... Think before hitting that "post" button... We beg you.
---

American Niiiiihilist x-post

X-Post: Death Threats from Folks Decrying Death Threats

No excess words. Just the facts:

"I love Ann Althouse. She is my friend and I look up to her in many ways. I am thus horrified to see calls for her death at a leftist message board discussing recent responses to the death of Elizabeth Edwards:

I can't fucking wait for Ann Althouse to die. The only thing that would make that perfect would be if her husband cheats on her beforehand.

While I've already posted on all of this at length, I'm still shocked at how brazen are some of the leftist death chants, for Althouse — and for me too, from the genuinely demonic Tintin at Sadly No!, as just one more example:" - Donald Douglas, American Power: Leftists Chant for the Death of Ann Althouse — UPDATED!!

Same guy:

"And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl:" - American Power: Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers

And just so there's no confusion:

Can we get a close-up?

Link to Donald Douglas' "If only it wuz liberals leftists" video, for any who wish to see more of the gore Donald is wishing on Americans to his political left. WARNING: It's pretty SICK, and not in a good way. (I posted the actual video once at this blog. Once was more than enough.)

Donald's friend doesn't even bother putting any space between decrying death threats, on one hand, and making one, on the other:
@Serr8d sez: Death wishes for Ann Althouse from @tintin_sadlyno @repsac3 ««Now there's a couple 'tards who'd look good wearing coiled hemp. @AmPowerBlog

Clearly, the hypocrisy is strong, in some.

If anyone who supports these clowns wants to cite and link to any death threat I've made to/about anyone, we'll at least have something concrete to talk about. Perhaps there was some time when, in the heat of ideological battle, I was as much of an ass as these folks. Chances are slim, however, because I think that all such threats are morally repugnant. Those made over the internet, just because someone expresses a different sociopolitical point of view than you do, are also pretty stupid, too, and say far more about the person making the threat, than they do about the person they're targeting.

EVERYONE who makes death threats to/about anyone else, no matter the reason, is wrong. As I recently said in a comment at another post: "That said, Donald is right about one thing... I hereby denounce, renounce, and generally condemn the words of anyone calling for Donald Douglas, Ann Althouse (or for that matter, anyone else, right, left or otherwise) to get sick, die, or suffer physical pain. (I know Donald would prefer I denounce, renounce, and generally condemn the people, as opposed to their words, but I believe to do so would take things too far... ...at least until I believe that they've made a continuous habit of uttering such intemperate remarks, in which case I'll revisit the issue of denouncing/renouncing/condemning the people, in addition to their words.)"

I continue to stand by that. The threats folks opposed to Donald Douglas' words and deeds are making to/about him (and/or about Ann Althouse) are just as despicable as the threats Donald and his friend Serr8d are making about folks opposed to the words and deeds of Donald Douglas and others of their ilk. Threats of death on the internet are always wrong; and not wrong only when done by the people who disagree with you. Rather than the moral wishy-washyness of Donald Douglas and serr8d, one set of standards, by which we judge friend and foe alike. So you tell me which of us is closer to honest to God nihilism (as opposed to Mr Douglas' "all those who disagree with me" variant of the term)...

Well whatta ya know...I guess Donald got his wish for "a "big deal" entirely fresh, full-on new entry denouncing all of those calling for my death and Althouse's," after all... I hope he approves... ...though as I predicted in that earlier comment, I'm betting he won't.
---

An American Niiiiihilist x-post

X-Post: Donald Douglas' New Low in Guilt by Association: You Resemble a Known Bad Man, Therefore, You're Bad.

American Power: Guilty Verdict in Elizabeth Smart Case: "And I noticed that Ms. Smart's rapist, Brian David Mitchell, bears a strong resemblance to my dangerous stalker, James Casper. Seriously. Grow the beard and hair at Reppy's pic and it's a spitting image."

Is Donald really so hard up for things to hit me with that he's sunk so low as to saying I resemble someone recently convicted of rape? What does that even mean, other than Donald has allowed his fucked up guilt by association beliefs to fall to a new low. When "you're bad because you have facial features alot like a guy who was convicted of a crime" is the whole of you're argument--nevermind the fact that he's way off in my opinion; he's got quite the imagination to believe I even slightly resemble the guy, let alone am the "spitting image" of him--you best just stop speaking, before you embarrass yourself still further.

In the spirit of fair play, however, I'll help ol' Don out. You picked the wrong person from your seemingly neverending list of "enemies," Donald.

Me (being tailed by the FBI... or perhaps, a Freemason)

My Evil Twin, Skippy

Am I a Godless nihilist evildoer?
Clearly, I am... I mean, those images say all that needs to be said...

Borrowing another of Donald's bullshit memes, he might just as well stop taking swings at me... These pictures "prove" that everything he ever said about me was correct. There is nothing more to be done. He might as well give up blogging and run for office, because he'll never have a more complete victory over the forces of nihilism (defined, as is his wont, as everything and all that isn't just like him) than he achieved today.

Physical resemblance as a weapon. Another step down the ladder of logic and reason for Professor Douglas.

And by the by... Isn't Donald's blog starting to look more and more like a venue with which to personally attack the people who he disagrees with, rather than a blog of breaking news and neoconservative opinion? I mean, aside from the guilt by association angle I already noted, tossing an "enemy" willy nilly into an otherwise serious news story is just not good blogging. He can't post his daily dose of tits and ass without lashing out at someone. It's just sad, because I think he used to be a far better blogger (and human being). Anyone who doesn't believe me ought to check his archives from the early days of American Power. It used to be a very different blog.

That's not to say that he won't continue to get those hitz by which he and some of his buddies measure and compare the length and girth of their blogging penes in the ConBlog shower room... People love lowbrow, lowest common denominator entertainment, more than that intellectual stuff he used to post, probably. American Idol or the WWF will always get more viewers than a Puccini opera or a Shakespeare play on public television--or for that matter, a good book... Hell, ANY book--but that doesn't mean Idol and WWF: RAW are delivering more quality or cultural literacy than the play, the opera or the book... It just means folks enjoy 'em more. There's a whole lotta theories as to why, but whatever the reason, and whatever you think about it, a fact's a fact. Hitz is nice, I'm sure--and important, if the goal is to earn money--but (as should be obvious) the more "lowbrow" you go in search of the hitz, the less "highbrow" you become, and the less worthwhile your blog becomes. Donald is very proud of being a political science professor, but he doesn't post nearly as many political science pieces as he used to. ANYONE can post tits and ass or knock-down, drag-out fights between bloggers, and yes, tits and ass and the knock-downs will prolly earn more hitz. But political science, they aint.

Whatever... That's just what I think... And I look like Skippy there, so clearly, I'm eeeeevil.
---

An American Niiiiihilist X-post

In Reply: Fairness and respect for ideas other than your own

In reply to: Elizabeth Edwards Dies | Politics | Christianity Today.
---

I believe I've made it pretty clear what I think about the timing, tone, and purpose of the Donald Douglas post that was cited in this Christianity Today article. But the folks here--original author and commenters alike--have been pretty fair, both to those with whom they agreed, and those with whom they have not. Had the author not included that controversial cite from Mr Douglas, it would've been a different piece, with a different set of reactions. (In saying that, I'm in no way suggesting that the author shouldn't've included Douglas cite; Once Donald Douglas put his comments out there for people to read and consider, they became a topic worthy of discussion, no matter what one thought of what he said, or when, or why.)

While I was concerned with the fairness of the CT blog during the period when comments expressing a particular set of viewpoints disappeared from the thread--I am no fan of moderation for ideological content (Those who've visited my blog quickly get a sense of how opposed to that kinda moderation I actually am.)--those concerns proved unfounded when the comments were reinstated and allowed to take their place in this marketplace of ideas about the Christian faith today.

I hope the conversation continues, both about the specifics of Elizabeth Edwards' final public statement and the controversy of the Douglas reaction, and about the nature of faith in times of sickness and grief, in general.
---
Posted at Christianity Today on 12/11/10, approx 12:30 PM (There's no permalinks or timestamp on CT commentary.)

In Reply: "The thing about the Bible is, different denominations of Christianity read, understand, and emphasize passages within it differently"

In reply to: Hate Mail | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment from mightysamurai:

"Well you see, a long time ago there was this guy named 'Jesus' and he wrote this book...

And yes, that was sarcastic. Seriously man, do you even understand Christianity at all? I don't have to 'believe' that I am qualified to judge who is and is not a Christian. All I have to do is look in the Bible and compare the rules, standards, and commandments laid down there with the beliefs and actions of people who claim to be Christians. If their beliefs and actions conform to what the Bible says, they are Christian. If not, then they are not Christian (or at least poor Christians).

This is not hard to figure out. I don't know why so many people persist with this ridiculous argument that no one can say what a true Christian is when there exists a millennia-old text that clearly defines what a true Christian is."

In reply:

@mightysamurai Today 06:57 AM

"I don't have to "believe" that I am qualified to judge who is and is not a Christian. All I have to do is look in the Bible and compare the rules, standards, and commandments laid down there with the beliefs and actions of people who claim to be Christians. If their beliefs and actions conform to what the Bible says, they are Christian. If not, then they are not Christian (or at least poor Christians)."

The only conclusion I can come to, is you're being willfully obtuse for the sake of argument... I'm not talking about some weird street preacher who wants to baptize people with his own urine, or the Wesboro Baptist folks here, as my previous comments made clear. Kingfisher sounds as though he believes that those denominations who do not go out and evangelize are not "true Christians." To me, that's nuts, just as it would be if he said the opposite, condemning those who do evangelize to non-Christian status.

The thing about the Bible is, different denominations of Christianity read, understand, and emphasize passages within it differently. So who among them would you declare lesser or un-Christian? Is it the Protestants or the evangelicals who are mistaken? What about the Jehovah's Witnesses? What about anti-Trinitarian denominations, like the Unitarians?

Even on the very subject you're talking about, there is disagreement among Christian individuals and denominations. Some agree with you, believing theirs is the only "true" Christianity, attacking those who don't worship Jesus just as they do. (Though he seldom speaks of his exact denomination, Donald Douglas, who wrote the original post, falls into this category, judging by the things he said about Elizabeth Edwards, and her final public words.) Others believe that the big picture--worshiping Jesus--offsets the smaller differences between denominations, and sees all Christianity as a spiritual good.

So yes... If someone talks about committing murder or rape as the one true way to get closer to God, that ain't a real Christian, and I'll join you in passing judgement. But I'm not going to attack or denounce those individuals and sects of Christianity who don't pray in public or evangelize to others--or those who do--as being lesser or not "truly" Christian. You do as you will, Mighty Sam...

--
Revised and extended from a comment posted at Right Wing News 12/10/10, 2:42 PM (or thereabouts)

In Reply: "I'll leave the judging of "real" Christians and "real" Christianity to God, thanks."

In reply to Hate Mail | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment from Kingfisher:

Your statement is illogical. Christians are taught to live their lives like Christ. Those who seek a personal, private relationship with God without a Christ-like attitude in their everyday lives isn't a real Christian. For example, Obama loves telling us that his Christian beliefs don't belong in politics but he has no problem professing his socialistic beliefs on the American people. Actions originate from beliefs no matter what those beliefs might be.

From a secular standpoint, people professing God in public is really no different than people professing other beliefs. You don't like visits from Jehova's Witnesses (like me) but I'm also visited frequently at home by environmental radicals and other secular liberal nutjobs trying to sell me their lies. Why not tell them to keep their beliefs to themselves and leave us alone? Because your statements are a pathetic attempt to try to suppress Christian beliefs. You know you cannot eliminate them altogether so you'll try to limit them within church walls.

What you refer as demeaning is what Christians receive all the time for professing our faith so don't lecture us about "proper relationships.' This is the price we are willing to pay.

I would never force anybody to accept Christ because that is against God's wishes. However, I also don't like people trying to suppress my right to speak out.

---
My reply:

"Those who seek a personal, private relationship with God without a Christ-like attitude in their everyday lives isn't a real Christian."

I'm sorry you feel that way, or that you believe yourself qualified to differentiate "real" Christians from (what? fake ones?). You're welcome to believe as you will, but I think you're giving yourself medals you didn't earn. I'll leave the judging of "real" Christians and "real" Christianity to God, thanks.

"Why not tell them to keep their beliefs to themselves and leave us alone?"

Mr fisher, You must be confusing me with someone else, because I didn't tell much of anyone to keep their beliefs to themselves, Christian, or otherwise... (If you disagree, I'll thank you to quote the part where you believe I did so.) What *I* said was, I think it's kinda creepy for any person to attack a dying/very recently deceased woman for not living up to that guy's standards of faith. I can see where you might not agree with me there, being able to divine "real" Christians from the rest of us'n'all, but that was the opinion I was offering, regardless.

"What you refer as demeaning is what Christians receive all the time for professing our faith..."

I'm not sure what it is you're talking about... What specifically do you believe I was referring to when I talked about folks not having their faith demeaned and denigrated, and how is it that the folks I was referring to--the ones who prefer not to pray in public and evangelize to others--became not Christian? (Oh, wait... I forgot for a sec that you believe you're fit to judge.)

"However, I also don't like people trying to suppress my right to speak out."

And as soon as you quote whatever it was I said that leads you to believe I'm doing any such thing--as opposed to say, responding to the speech of someone else with speech of my own (and not suppressing his, mine, or your speech, as far as I'm concerned)--we can discuss it.
--
Posted to Right Wing News 12/9/10, 04:53 PM (or thereabouts)

In reply: Demeaning and Denigrating One's Personal Relationship with God

In reply to Hate Mail | Right Wing News
---

"So why should Christians who are called (but do often fail) to try to be like Christ, hide their faith from public view?"

They shouldn't, necessarily, but they can if they choose... Do you not agree?

Perhaps I spoke less clearly than I might've. (That, or you're choosing not to understand my point, in order to make your own.)

Yes, it is ok to express your faith in public if you choose. Requiring it of those who don't choose to, however--as in the case of Elizabeth Edwards, who did not express her faith as Donald Douglas thought she should have--is another matter.

No, you certainly don't have to hide your faith, if you choose not to, and I'm sorry I left you with the impression that that's what I was saying. Plenty of folks wish to minister to others and bring them to whatever Good News they believe in. But you don't have to express your faith friends and strangers alike, if you choose not to, either. Many believe that prayer and other expressions of one's faith should remain private, and all I'm saying is, just like those who want to broadcast their faith, those who wish to maintain a more personal relationship with God ought to have their wishes respected, and not demeaned and denigrated.

It's ok to show it, and it's just as ok to maintain a personal, private, and yes, hidden relationship between you and your God.

If folks come down on one side more than they do the other, it's only because those who maintain a more personal relationship stand less chance of irritating others, whereas those who choose to evangelize inappropriately, (and sometimes appropriately too, if the person to whom they're witnessing is particularly sensitive to folks suggesting that the beliefs they already have are not sufficient for salvation, or whatever) can piss folks off, as anyone who's received too many unwanted visits from Jehovah's Witnesses (probably the most grievous example, for most) can attest.

I hope that clears up any misconception I may've created by being in any way less than clear, the first time.

In Reply: "public displays of expression of faith - crass, phony, and wholly unnecessary"

In reply to: Hate Mail | Right Wing News, both post and current comments, which seem to've devolved into believer vs atheist, as though that was ever the issue with Elizabeth Edwards...
---

It just ain't right to question or demean the religious beliefs of others, particularly those on their deathbed. It makes no difference whether you're a believer questioning a non-believer (or as in the case of Elizabeth Edwards v. Donald Douglas, a believer with a faith not just exactly like your own) or a non-believer questioning a believer. It's just kinda heartless and hateful, and not particularly Christian, either.

A whole lotta folks believe one's relationship with the divine is a private matter, and "public displays of expression" of faith--essentially wearing one's God on one's sleeve--are crass, phony, and wholly (holy?) unnecessary. (For the Biblical, Matthew 6 speaks to this, as well.)

America was in part founded so that folks could worship as they saw fit... So while I understand that there is no government action in the words of those who would condemn others for their religious (or atheistic) beliefs and actions, it nevertheless strikes me as being against the spirit of the founders, and thus, of America, itself... YMMV...

In Reply: Compassion Towards Elizabeth Edwards, and Not Wearing One's God on One's Sleeve

In reply to: Donald Douglas Receives Hatred For His Compasssion Towards Elizabeth Edwards | ZION'S TRUMPET
---

I believe the difference of opinion with Donald Douglas isn't that he is in any way suggesting that folks on the left are opposed to Christianity (though he is making that absurd suggestion), but that he is berating a dying/very recently deceased woman for not wearing her God on her sleeve, as it were. (Matthew 6, particularly verses 1, and 5-6) To many of us--including many devout Christians--there is something unseemly and downright creepy about such behavior, especially on the very day of her death.

I leave it to others to unpack the rest (or whatever portions thereof they deem worth unpacking.)
---

Like many conservative sites, this one appears to be pre-moderated for content. Wonder whether my comment will actually appear?

In reply: Navigating Past Moderation at NewsReal Blog

An attempted reply (and e-mail to the moderators) at Navigating Past Nihilism | NewsReal Blog:

I've offered three or four responses, about 12 hours apart, to the 12/6/10 "Navigating Past Nihilism" post by Donald Douglas. None have successfully posted.

While I may've changed a word or two here or there between them (as well as the one I'm repeating here), the posts more or less consisted of the following:
---
A reply to this post from "stalking nihilist asshat central" (though we prefer to call it 'American Nihilist'):
http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/navigating-past-specious-allegations-of.html
---

"Stalking nihilist asshat central" is the term used in the original post to refer to my blog, American Nihilist, but I am willing to censor the word "ass" (a**), should that be what's keeping my comment on hold.
(Needless to say, I am the person to whom Donald Douglas refers in his piece--and accuses of racism, no less--and I would appreciate the opportunity to put my reply before the NewsReal readership.) According to the commenting rules at NewsReal (specifically #6) that is a permissible use of a link.

To the best of my knowledge, I am not running afoul of any of the other commenting guidelines, and would appreciate having my comment appear, or at least receiving an explanation as to why the NewsReal powers-that-be have determined it may not.

Thanks for your time. I'll watch for my comment to appear, or for a reply to my e-mail box. (Should I not get either response--emails do get lost, after all--I'll resubmit my comment, then, if necessary, resend this e-mail again tomorrow.)

repsac3 ("repracist3," in the post in question. I trust you understand why I believe I deserve the opportunity to state my case in reply.)
---

One has to wonder what it is some blogs and bloggers are afraid of, when they refuse to allow comments in dissent to appear.

In Reply: The honest faith of Elizabeth Edwards

In reply to: dotCommonweal - The honest faith of Elizabeth Edwards:

David Gibson: Thank you for a post respectful to believer, questioner, and non-believer, alike.

While I'm not so certain that questions, debates, or even discussions about the nature and sufficiency of faith of a dying/very recently deceased woman should be a topic of conversation among the general public (friends and family are one thing, but most of us are strangers to each other, let alone to Elizabeth Edwards), since it has been made a question by this blogger, Donald Douglas, you handling of the topic has been among the best I've read, gentle and fair to all points of view, including Mr. Douglas'.

While I don't think Mr Douglas understood your message--he accuses you of "apologizing for Mrs. Edwards' rejection of God," which is certainly not the message I took from your piece--most readers more'n'likely understood that faith can be very personal, and that it's not always about the "public display of expression" of faith. Like affection, some displays are best left between two; you and him or her, in one case, and you and Him, in the other.

@Jimmy Mac: Thanks for the Merton quote. I'd forgotten that one, and I think it really adds perspective to the discussion.

“Faith means doubt. Faith is not the suppression of doubt. It is the overcoming of doubt, and you overcome doubt by going through it. The man of faith who has never experienced doubt is not a man of faith.” - Thomas Merton

In Reply: Elizabeth Edwards: "perhaps praying for Mrs. Edwards, rather than coming down on her for having imperfect faith,..."

In reply to Elizabeth Edwards Dies | Politics | Christianity Today, and specifically a commenter named Dan, who said:

Read the posts. No one has passed judgment on the poor woman for being unorthodox in her belief. Expressed sorrow, perhaps, but no one has said anything judgmental about her. And should someone speak ill of her, shame on them. w.shuster's post gives more info about what she believed, but the details of her beliefs are still unclear to me, nor does it really matter now anyway. What is important is that God is loving, merciful, compassionate, and just. He will do what's right.:

My reply:

@Dan

"No one has passed judgment on the poor woman for being unorthodox in her belief. Expressed sorrow, perhaps, but no one has said anything judgmental about her."

I seem to recall saying somewhere that in fact, no one posting/commenting at this site HAD passed judgement on her, but that I believe in saying "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." [Cite] as well as "They hate the truth of Elizabeth Edwards' rejection of God, her nihilism in the face of the awesome unknown." [Cite] (and there's more, too), Donald Douglas, cited in the original post, WAS passing judgement on Mrs. Edwards (not to mention, misrepresenting her religious beliefs.) If you check my first comment, that's all I've been saying, all along... If anything, I expect that many reading and commenting here agree that perhaps praying for Mrs. Edwards and her soul, rather than coming down on her for having imperfect faith, would've been the way to go, both before and after her death.
---

Judging by the "Christianity Today has held your post for moderation" pop-up I saw after submitting this (something I'd not seen before, there), I have a feeling I'm going to be prescreened for content over there at CT from here on out, and that this comment (or perhaps any of my comments) will not see the light of day, there... What is it they so fear? Questions?!?

UPDATE, 12/9/10, 8:30 AM: I was mistaken. 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...)

In Reply: Elizabeth Edwards: Should Be Remembered for Political Legacy Over Personal Tragedy | NewsReal Blog

In reply to: Elizabeth Edwards: Should Be Remembered for Political Legacy Over Personal Tragedy | NewsReal Blog:

A very nice tribute to a woman the author completely disagreed with, politically. Such a thing is all too rare, these days.

(With any luck, perhaps NewsReal will actually post this comment.)
((Have I mentioned yet today how cowardly I think moderation before the fact for content is, and how much it sucks?))

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

In reply to: Elizabeth Edwards Dies | Politics | Christianity Today, after someone at Christianity Today deleted the second part of my earlier comment there, presumably because it did not tow the line they sought to project.
---

Second RM's comment. (which by the time I'd posted my comment, had also been deleted. I wish I'd thought to copy it...)

How can it be that it is acceptable to question the faith of a dying woman at this blog, but not acceptable to discuss what the Bible and the church says about questioning the faith of others, or the propriety of hitting a dying/newly deceased woman--and indirectly, her family--within 24 hours of her death?

It is my belief, understanding--and as far as I can find, anyway, factually the case--that most Christians, in person and on the web, and including most Christians right here at this blog, would not and did not berate Mrs Edwards or suggest that she was "anti-religion" or a "nihilist" before or after her death, but instead prayed that Mrs Edwards sought and found redemption.

"How about you just let God sort it all out instead of judging others here or trying to pick a theological fight - which you would lose."

Dan, there is not a doubt in my mind I would lose a theological fight... I believe I conceded that point at the outset, (though perhaps it was in the part of my comment that was moderated away.)

But by that way of thinking, how about we just let God sort it all out instead of judging Mrs Edwards or her imperfect faith? (Essentially, that's my point. If it is acceptable for folks to judge Mrs Edwards, why is it not acceptable for folks to pass judgement on the timing and propriety of those who would judge her, including--and at this site, especially--by discussing what the Bible and the church teaches, in this regard?
---

Predictably, I suppose, this comment was deleted from Christianity Today within minutes of it's being posted. Very disappointing.

UPDATE, 12/9/10, 8:30 AM: I was mistaken. 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

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