In Reply: Avoiding torture and cruelty has nothing to do with who they are or what they do... It's about who we are...

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Anonymous says:
April 29, 2014 at 10:58 pm

You dolt. This barbarous:

“A jury found that on June 3, 1999, Clayton Lockett and two co-conspirators, Shawn Mathis and Alfonso Lockett, broke into the Perry, Oklahoma, home of Bobby Bornt. They assaulted Bornt before burglarizing his home for drugs. While they were at Bornt’s home, two 19-year-old women arrived. The men repeatedly raped and assaulted one woman, whose name is withheld as a victim of sexual assault, before loading Bornt, Bornt’s 9-month-old son, Stephanie Nieman, and the other woman into Bornt’s and Nieman’s trucks and driving them to a rural location in Kay County.

Bornt testified that he heard Clayton Locket say, “Someone has got to go,” before he put Nieman in a ditch dug by Shawn Mathis and shot her twice. He also testified to hearing the men laugh about “how tough [Nieman] was” when she did not die after the first shot.”

My reply:

The reason we avoid torturing our country's enemies and cruelly punishing those who break our laws--even when those enemies and lawbreakers have shown that they torture and are intentionally cruel to others--is because we are not them. Our American, religious, and human values and ideals prevent our giving in those animal instincts, and we've made laws to prevent our doing so when tempted. The people who don't do that--who can't control those base instincts and do torture and otherwise behave cruelly toward others...well, they're the very people whose eyes and teeth you're talking about pulling out, aren't they...?

Avoiding torture and cruelly has nothing to do with who they are or what they do, Dr. Douglas... It's about who we are... Who we are, and who we strive to be as Americans and as human beings...
—

Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 6:26 am

In Reply: Schadenfreudian Perks and Petar Hoistin'

In reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc."

"And you know, I’d be a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Walker if he had’t linked to Donald Douglas complaining about this very blog as an example of people who had undergone similar experiences..."

Yeah, that is unfortunate... but even that hasn't been without it's schadenfreudian perks at the hands of several of his fellow rightwing bloggers, once Donalde started likening his trials and tribulations to those of Kimberlin's victims...and came up looking to some of 'em more like Kimberlin than like Aaron.
---
And on that score, I couldn't help but notice how something Aaron recently quoted Kimberlin as saying:

"His false narrative that I framed him is defamatory and inciting extremists to threaten me. He is responsible for their conduct."

sounded all too familiar:

"I banned YOU. But you publicly admitted my wishes were to be disrespected and that you would taunt, harass, and intimidate "whenever and wherever I choose."

And one of those places was my college. YOU had henchmen do it for you so you could claim plausible denial. But the cat's out now. YOU are liable."

(My henchmen contacted Aaron's extremists, and I'm given to understand our minions are all going on a picnic next weekend to trade "does your eeeeevil genius boss suck as much as my eeeeevil genius boss?" war stories.)
---

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

Posted June 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm

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

In reply to the following comment at the post Concerning Brett Kimberlin, Patrick Frey, Aaron Worthing, etc. - Lawyers, Guns and Money
---

"Not that I’m necessarily on either or any side here, but what proof/evidence is there that these “SWATtings” were actually performed by Kimberlin or his associates?" - M. Bouffant, June 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm
---

It’s almost all circumstantial, but it does seem to be happening to this particular group of bloggers, all of whom wrote stories critical of Brett Kimberlin and his cohorts. While some of the bloggers in question seem a whole lot more sure than I am about whodunnit–in some cases exactly whodunnit–the fact is, these swattings did happen to these bloggers not long after exposing or embarrassing Kimberlin and co., and someone dunnit.

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

Posted June 26, 2012 at 7:49 pm

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

In reply to this comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post "Because really important news always involves bikinis.":

I promised to make no mention of him nor link to him, and I did neither. He’s bound by the same agreement, but has continually violated it over the past few months, a fact about which I really don’t care, which is why I haven’t brought it up.

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

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

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

Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm

In reply: It isn't anti-Semitic to disagree with something the State of Israel once did or is doing now, any more than it's anti-American to disagree with past or present US government policy.

In reply to this off-topic comment by Donald Douglas (largely repeated in my reply) at the American Niiiiihilist post What're We Supposed To Call These Folks... bin Ladeners??
---

What's with you and using comment sections like a mailbox? Do the words "off-topic" really mean nothing to you?

"From the AmPow comments on the LGM thread..."

Well, if Grant says it...

LGM's commenters are the both the dumbest and most demented. Awful people.

Your opinion too, is noted.

And Repsac3, you idiot, when have I ever alleged you a Jew-basher?

Do I not comment at LGM? Am I not a progressive? When you generalize about folks in the course of making an accusation, you accuse all the folks you generalize about. (That's one of the things that makes generalizing such a stupid thing to do.)

A racist, yes, for your white-supremacist views reared during the Pale Scot affair. You yourself said you judge people first by the color of their skin. That's bigoted and racist.

I'm pretty sure I didn't, but I invite you to cite it, rather than just make this random claim...

"And everyone distanced themselves from those views at the time, except you. I don't care personally. It's not about me. It's your hypocrisy."

Saying it doesn't make it so, Donald... Put up or shut up.

"And this is the key point about progressives, which is precisely true:

"When you hold the State of Israel – a nation in a struggle for its survival from the beginning, a target for the misogynist, racist, anti-western, dictatorial regimes which surround it – to a standard you would hold no other nation under normal circumstances, let alone under such exigencies – and when you spew libel against our sole regional democratic ally for “crimes” concocted by delegitimizers, you are an anti-Semite."

Sorry Donald, but the quote doesn't sound any better (or more correct) the 3rd (or is it 4th?) time you repeat it.

Israel's a fine country, but it isn't perfect... It's not above any/all criticism. They're kinda like America, in that regard... Some very questionable things done in their past, and differing opinions about government policies, from within and without, even to this day. They, (like us, in America) are held to a higher standard than these misogynist, racist, anti-western, dictatorial regimes because they, like us are viewed on the world stage as actually having a higher, more enlightened set of values and ideals. People expect more of Israel and the US because we demand more of ourselves. I'm surprised that you and Wiesenfeld fail to understand that.

It isn't anti-Semitic to disagree with something the State of Israel once did or is doing now, any more than it's anti-American to disagree with past or present US government policy. And because of the history of the Jewish people and anti-Semitism, it's as ugly an accusation to make as it is a false one.

There is straight up anti-Semitism in the world, Donald, but these kinda specious accusations cheapen the term and will in time make it meaningless from overuse. When every disagreement with any Jewish person or policy of the State of Israel is being called anti-Semitic, the term loses it's actual meaning.

I urge you to at least consider it, Dr Douglas...
Posted at American Nihilist May 8, 2011, 7:10 AM
Also submitted for moderator approval rejected for publication, for reasons I leave for the reader to determine (though I know what I think), at Dr Douglas' American Power: Scott Lemieux Backs Anti-Semitic Tony Kushner at Lawyers, Guns and Money post on May 8, 2011 4:05 AM (AmPow blog time). Hopefully, Dr Douglas won't be too cowardly to allow it to appear there at the post where it actually belongs, but knowing Dr. Douglas as I do, I'm not holding my breath.

In Reply: Grave-dancing

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." - MLK Jr Jessica Dovey

Revised and extended, slightly, in reply to the following comment at the Lawyers, Guns & Money post It sounds as if Bin Laden may have been executed

Boudleaux says:
Since we are far enough through the looking glass that we even need to ask a Democratic President not to have American Citizens killed without any shred of due process, it is well too much to ask that any kind of “rule of law” stuff start with Bin Laden himself.

Other than that, I have small children, and I have yet to derive a clear picture in my mind of how to justify being happy someone got killed, no matter who it is.

Easter was an occasion for them to begin wrapping their minds around the fact that the Romans executed people. And that we do also. I’ll have to ease them into the notion of grave-dancing.
May 2, 2011 at 8:48 am

Boudleaux, you're obviously not one of them he-man, kill-'em-all, let-God-sort-'em-out, REAL Americans...

Me, neither. I had a similar reaction to the celebrations. I'm not unhappy that they guy is dead, or even that it happened the way it did, but I just don't have it in me to pop open the champagne (or a beer, even) and start chanting U-S-A!!, U-S-A!!, (or anything else) no matter who gets killed.

Everyone involved (the military, and folks working during both administrations) deserve our thanks and credit, but I won't be whipping out my Kool and The Gang CDs or the mirrored disco ball as a result of their accomplishment...
---

Posted May 2, 2011 at 11:36 am (LGM blog time)
---

Added, 5/3/11: Anatomy of a Fake Quotation - Megan McArdle. How a woman expressing a simple "No Grave-dancing" sentiment accidentally put folks in a tizzy, via the awesome power of the internet.

Others:
memeorandum
"USA! USA!" is the wrong response - War Room - Salon.com
While the doughy pantload didn't get it, many of his commenters (fellow rightwingers, y'all) did: The Dumbest Reaction to Bin Laden’s Death So Far - By Jonah Goldberg - The Corner - National Review Online
Complications after a night of jubilation - The Washington Post
Gregory Rodriguez from ground zero: America reboots | Opinion L.A. | Los Angeles Times
Searching for Meaning in Bin Laden’s Death | FDL News Desk

In Reply: Viewpoints, Discrimination, Free Speech, and the First Amendment

In reply to the following comment at this Lawyers, Guns, and Money post, discussing the 8-1 ruling in favor of the first amendment rights of Westboro Baptist and their ugly, homophobic protests: Court Properly Upholds First Amendment Rights of Hateful Speakers--(an opinion I agree with, on principle. As I said the other day, in regards to a different situation, "That's whole point of free speech though, isn't it? No one complains about speech that they approve of, or 'like.' One doesn't need to stand on principle to defend popular speech, because no one opposes popular speech. The whole idea of free speech is to defend the right to speak words and sentiments that 'no one likes.'"):

Manju says:
Yeah, I know. I’m saying Althouse is right. He’s moderate.

I don’t agree with him, but being pragmatic and unprincipled is generally associated with moderation.

I mean we got a bunch of absolute assholes imposing themselves on war veteran’s funerals with signs saying “god hates fags”. Its like some comic combination of the kkk and communists, the worst of the left and right.

Surely we can carve out an exception to the first without putting the foundation of our republic at risk. Again, I don’t want to do a carve out, i prefer philosophical consistency whenever possible, but a carve-out does indeed strike me as moderate.

---
In reply:

Surely we can carve out an exception to the first without putting the foundation of our republic at risk.

First amendment rights... unless you're really, REALLY, REALLY offensive. (And, offensive by whose standards? And how quickly could that become an argument about potential viewpoint discrimination, for reals and true*, in this case.)

*as real and true as a hypothetical for potential harm can be, anyway...
---

Posted March 3, 2011 at 1:12 am
---

Also mentioned: Althouse: Is it viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment for Wisconsin to permit the protesters to use the Capitol building as it has over the past 10 days?

In reply: "...when Donald [Douglas] was all about not understanding what the word nihilism meant." Redux

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment left at the Lawyers, Guns, and Money post, “Shoot, I’m not even always right, LOL!” (because in light of Donald Douglas' over the top "Holy shit he really is crazy" reply, it deserved demanded more attention than the honorable mention and "entitled" position I'd given it previously.)

Malaclypse says:

I miss when Donald was all about not understanding what the word nihilism meant. That was an internet tradition of which I was proud to be aware.
---

To which I replied:

Take heart, Mal...

Those days are clearly not yet over... ...in full caps, bold font, and that familiar "huff and PUFF and BLOW your house in" style that can only come from a man more proud of showing off his ignorance of "political terms one would think a political science professor really ought to have a grasp of" than ever he has been...

But never fear, dear readers... He's already declared himself victorious and moved on, certain that only a nihilist fool (or a "Godless freak-nozzle and Xtremist hate-merchant" nihilist fool, like me) would dare question his boisterous, bombastic, masterful delivery of that unique blend of circuitous logic and wholly meaningless ad hom that only a regular Donald Douglas reader can really and truly appreciate. (For the benefit of those who haven't already been to Donald's post and followed the link that he attached to that bit of name-calling, it goes not to anything in support of any one of the "observations" he made about me in that ad hominem rant, but to my altogether not very extreme, extremist, or "Xtremist,"? (whatever that is) Blogger User Profile. Way to let me have it there Dr. Douglas... Posting my profile really showed me...)

A quick word about Donald's unhinged charge that I "pile[d] on the allegations of juvenile sexual predation despite facts that put the lie to these sick malevloent dopes as totally FUBAR." Nowhere in any of my comments regarding this whole subject (including the comment that Donald refused to allow through the moderation stream --because apparently, that's how a "real man" welcomes comments and debate, and defends his positions vigorously; moderating away anything he doesn't like--) did I even mention the age of the models he's peppering his blog with of late or make any reference to sexual predation of any kind. (I mean, do I think it a little creepy that he's got a few models on his blog that are the approximate ages of the kids he teaches? Now that he mentions it, sure... I agree with SEK's earlier post that it's a bad idea for a professor to even give the appearance of being a letch, and that regardless of legalities and first amendment freedoms, having posts/posters of hot chicks who're about the same age as your students doesn't present a professional appearance, and may make some of his female students uncomfortable. Legal or not, the phrase "a girl half his age..." seldom puts forth the appearance of decency and high moral values that many professions call for... ...even if it's just pictures on your blog.) But contrary to Donald's claim, I have never made or supported any allegation that he has in any way victimized any underage girls, either online or out in the world. (I did have some pretty strong feelings about his furthering the victimization of Erin Andrews, but her age was never a factor.)

It's sad that professor Douglas so often feels the need to invent stories of mistreatment at the hands of those who disagree with him, but that he so often does is kinda revealing (and not in a "rule 5" teasing sorta way, either...)
--

Originally posted (in unrevised, unextended form) at Lawyers, Guns & Money, on July 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm

In reply: "I miss when Donald [Douglas] was all about not understanding what the word nihilism meant."

In reply to a Lawyers, Guns & Money post comment by Scott Eric Kaufman where he notes that Donald Douglas (Americaneocon) managed to spell SEK's name two different ways in as many sentences.
---

AmNeo’s spelling/grammar/typo errors are become legend. And as per his usual modus operandi, all such verbal errors are only fodder for partisan attack when they are committed by his oh so many enemies…

It must be a ‘pubbie/Con thing…
It’s always different when THEY do it…
---

Posted July 16, 2010 at 8:31 am

And a shout out to my favorite comment (for obvious reasons):

"I miss when Donald was all about not understanding what the word nihilism meant. That was an internet tradition of which I was proud to be aware." - Malaclypse, at the post, “Shoot, I’m not even always right, LOL!” : Lawyers, Guns & Money

Roundup and Commentary - 1/30/10

The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine. - Article XI, Treaty of Tripoli, passed by Congress 1797

Commentary:

Hypocritical - "I wouldn't mind watching your brain explode..."<- That's a hateful comment. I think I upset him. LOL http://bit.ly/9l4Dea #tcot #ocra #sgp, and sad - Did you catch my latest article? Have a good laugh at the Left's expense -> http://bit.ly/9l4Dea #tcot #ocra #teaparty #tlot. -
- Update to earlier "Liz Blaine is a hateful hypocrite" blog post

"“Bragging” about what you have vs what someone else has–including extolling the virtues of one’s hometown, rather than someone else’s hometown–is a pretty common back & forth among friends, and I’m surprised Donald didn’t take it in the spirit in which it was clearly intended." -
- Common Sense Political Thought - An apology to Donald Douglas - 30 January 2010, 11:11 am comment

Can't figure out how to successfully permalink these js-kit/Echo comments, but here they are, nevertheless:

"Yeah, Don's addiction to the word nihilism really has gone downhill lately. And we at American Nihilist are very sad about it (or would be, if we didn't think that everything Donald Douglas, Ph.whogivesashit blogs about was meaningless, anyway...)" - 1/30/2010, 10:10:14 AM EST comment -

"Sure, it looks like a toddler's temper tantrum, but it's really righteous wingnut anger at not being able to counter SEC's post with anything more than typos. Toss in a bunch of f@#l language, and it looks (to him, anyway) like he really said something." - 1/30/2010, 10:28:18 AM EST comment -

"And contrary to what our Powerpuffer says, his anger isn't limited to "leftist blog pimps." - 1/30/2010, 12:04:11 PM EST comment -
- Lawyers, Guns and Money: Phony political scientist sees morons at fake Indepedence Hall and is impressed.

"Given the history and shared values that Donald Douglas and Dana have, a better man would’ve given Dana the benefit of the doubt and spoken to him privately, rather than assuming the worst and attacking him in public in a subsequent blog post at American Power." -
- Common Sense Political Thought - An apology to Donald Douglas - 30 January 2010, 8:29 pm comment