Donald Douglas Beclowns Himself (again), and Insults His Friend

Yeah, Donald did it again...

In a desperate attempt to lash out at me, Donald posted the following:

Thousands March Against Israel in Los Angeles: Racist Repsac3 Sees Conspiracy of 'Phony' Protest

"Perhaps readers will feel sorry for him, as apparently Walter James Casper III is a dead man walking, with a debilitating heart condition, but it's just sad that he's losing his cognitive faculties as well.

Thousands turned out for the protest march I covered last weekend in Los Angeles. See the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, "Pro-Palestinian protest in Westwood draws thousands, causes Wilshire to shut down."

Never mind that, though. It turns out that near-death Repsac3, in his diminished capacity, is bizarrely warping reality in his ongoing demonization efforts and hate-mongering. It was a "phony" protest, or something:"

Not an answer, @MadJewessWoman Donald (not Doug) shows up to these phony protests and makes a point looking for these women. It's Stalking.
— W. James Casper (@repsac3) August 4, 2014

An interesting theory as posted, but obviously an outright lie--provided one doesn't "neglect" to include the parent tweet the way Donald seemingly chose to, for reasons I leave to the reader to determine, of course:

Right... It wasn't me who called the protest phony (or "phoney"), but Donald's erstwhile friend MadJewessWoman. So if Donald truly believes anyone's seeing a "conspiracy of phony protest" or "losing their cognitive faculties," based on calling the protest he attended phony, well...it ain't me Donald's insulting. It's his friend, MJW.

And for what it's worth, as far as MadJewessWoman goes, I have to say I agree with him...

"Well, we know Repsac hates Israel and the Jews --- given his long history of tweeting support for the racist Occupy Wall Street movement, not to mention his tweets backing the Jew-hating BDS movment --- so his conspiracies are all of a piece. Right in line with this old man urging Muslims to stand up and blame the Jews for the September 11 attacks. Yep, this is what Reppy's all about:"

It's no surprise that Donald makes these claims without ever citing or screencapping the posts or tweets where I say anything anti-Semitic or racist or conspiratorial. He doesn't because he can't. Donald wants me to be those things, so he just makes it up out of whole cloth and hopes his readers will believe him just because he said it. (Sadly, a few probably do, but there's no point in arguing with anyone too stupid to require evidence. Let people like that believe as they will; sooner or later they'll drown in a rainstorm from looking up too long, and good riddance when they do.)

The fact is there are no tweets supporting BDS--in fact I don't support that movement, and never have--and while I did once post a tweet saying "Occupy Wherever You Are," it's quite the implausible stretch for Donald to imply that that tweet is in any way racist...not that the implausibility of his...well, "conspiracy theories" regarding me have ever stopped him before...

Without evidence it's just Donald talking, and his claims are worth every penny you paid to read him making them... 'nuff said.

Repsac3 started trolling me over six years ago, upset that I was paying no attention to him, and he's never given up. That is some obsession. His stalking hate-blog is now members-only, but he continues to troll my online presence relentlessly, and at this point it's actually clinical and perverted. The dude should give it up and take care of his health, enjoy whatever remainder of time he has on this good green earth.

And most of all, he should just disassociate with the racist anti-Israel protesters he's been reaching out to. Seriously, these are terrible people. Liars and racists. Too bad for Reppy, but it's come to this in his twilight.

First off, anyone following those links will note that they go to another guy's blog post from 2008. (Yes, 2008. That right there should tell you just about all you need to know about what we're dealing with.)
If that isn't enough though, Donald obviously fails to comprehend the meaning of my comments. I was trying to goad Donald into responding to my arguments, not telling him I was feeling lonely. (If you don't spell it out for him...) Follow the links and decide for yourself whether Donald's suggestion that I was "upset" because he was "paying no attention" to me holds any water. (And while you're there, you might also notice who followed who to that blog post, at least based on the order of the comments... Donald talks a good game, but the evidence is seldom in his favor...which is why he so seldom bothers to offer any...)

Second, he fails to explain how a "stalking hate-blog" can even be a "stalking hate-blog" when no one--including Donald--can read it, (and didn't he whine for years that I must "TAKE. IT. DOWN"?) or how in the hell I'm trolling his online presence without ever addressing him--as near as I can figure it, he thinks he owns the people he talks to or about, thus making those people and topics off-limits to bloggers with whom he disagrees; both of which make him sound crazy.

The sad fact is that Donald thinks that anyone who dares disagree with him over the internet is a stalker &/or a troll. There are countless blog posts and tweets where he repeatedly proves this. In that regard, Donald needs to grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin. Like it or not, people are going to disagree with the things he posts, sometimes to his face. Calling them trolls or stalkers doesn't prove anything except that Donald is a little paranoid.
That he sees me as some kinda mortal enemy who controls "henchmen" and forces them to mistreat Donald online and off is obvious to anyone who reads his many screeds about me. As far as THAT goes, I don't even know what to say; It's at least as crazy as it sounds, and yeah, it sounds fucking nuts (and way more than just a little paranoid), even to me.

I commented on his blog. When he didn't like that anymore, I posted on my own blog, discussing his take on one issue or another. When he attacked me by name in screeds like the one I'm replying to, I responded to those on my blog, too...just like I'm doing now. Sometimes we travel in the same political circles, discussing the same topics and/or talking to the same people. These are the things Donald calls "stalking," "harassment," and "trolling." I'm sorry these things so disturb him, but he really ought to get over it, because it ain't going to change. Much as he may wish it were otherwise, he's not going to intimidate away those with whom he disagrees no matter how loudly he screams "TROLL!!!," so he really ought to try to find away to cope with everyone disagreeing with him, online and off.

Finally, I'd ask Donald where he got the idea I was dying any time soon--I have to assume it isn't from laughing myself to death over his endlessly ridiculous claims about me, though one really does never know--but the chances of his offering any evidence in support of that bullshit claim are pretty much nil, as well. Suffice to say he is indeed lying. I assume that comes as no surprise given the rest of this post, but just to confirm: I am not dying; Donald is once again lying.
---

Life's too short to put up with the willfully stupid:
Twitter / BlissTabitha: Thousands March Against Israel ...
Twitter / Dnoles1611: "@BlissTabitha: Thousands March ...
Twitter / itz_ehmohbee: #worldwide Thousands March ...
Twitter / thatMrGguy: Thousands March Against Israel ...
Twitter / thatMrGguy: Thousands March Against Israel ... (Yeah, he actually reblogged it, too.)
Twitter / AceNewsServices: Thousands March Against Israel ...

Bad news for MadJewessWoman, since many of these bloggers claim to be her friend... Just sayin'

(OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if MJW retweets "Doug's" post herself... In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all...)

In Reply: I condemn Cliven Bundy's racist remarks, Donald Sterling's racist remarks, and the commentary of those who try to explain away or excuse the bigotry of either of them.

Revised and extended, in reply to this untitled post at No More Mister Nice Blog:

Donald Douglas has been mad since Cliven Bundy exposed himself, and has been desperate to turn the tables ever since. How desperate? THIS desperate: Sick Leftist Jamelle Bouie Attacks Alleged Racist Rancher as Demonic 'Cloven' Bundy.

In Douglas's hate-filled partisan mind a simple typo becomes a demonization of Bundy. (Some may recall how he did the same thing when he saw a kid holding a "Sasquatch Is Real" "protest" sign in NY. Intentionally or not--and I'm willing to accept not, though that doesn't change anything--he misread the sign as "Sasquatch Israel," and then spun a myth out of thin air that this kid was an anti-semitic liberal, and that his sign was saying that like Bigfoot, Israel does not exist. For those who don't know or remember the story, yeah, this really happened.)

As with "Sasquatch Israel" of years past, bitter partisan ideology trumps reason and logic and even good sense. Jamelle Bouie's hitting the "o" instead of the "i" right next to it--typing "Cloven" instead of "Cliven"--is not just a typo, but the writer literally L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y demonizing the racist rancher. (Why he's not "cowing" the rancher, I don't know.) And as with this Donald Sterling story, Donald repeatedly sent tweets alleging this "Cloven = the Devil" meme to seemingly every single Slate employee he could find a twitter handle for, demanding that they respond. Then he sent more tweets to every one of his conservative allies, hoping that they'd back him up. And then for good measure, he did all that again. I don't think anyone bit on the "Cloven" smear, and so far it's only the real partisan hacks who're nibbling on this one too. (That may change, and it won't surprise me much if it does...but "Sterling as Dem torchbearer" is still just as ridiculous and desperate an allegation as "'Cloven' typo exposes Dem demonization.")

Donald Douglas is desperate to turn those tables and find some racist or bigoted Democrat with which to tar all Democrats. Personally, I think the donations from 20 years ago is kinda thin gruel on which to hang one's hat. (How's that for a mixed metaphor...) But even if Sterling is or ever was a Democrat, so what? Anyone who claims that any one Democrat or Republican represents ALL Democrats or Republicans is an idiot.

I condemn "Cloven" Bundy's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of those who tried (and are continuing to try) to excuse them or explain them away.
I also condemn Donald Sterling's racist remarks, along with the verbiage of anyone who tries to excuse them or explain them away...should anyone actually do that, that is…
And in both cases, I don't care which party or political movement the people saying or defending the bigoted remarks come from...

One set of standards for friend and foe alike...
---

Posted Sunday, April 27, 2014, 12:05 AM

In Reply: "However wrong some folks might've thought Ms. Zerlina's opinion was, laying into a black woman by saying she was "cry[ing] like a freakin' little black baby whose mom's too busy with a crack pipe to pay her any mind." is far more likely to cause people to defend her rather than to disagree with her."

In reply to American Nihilist: And Then I Met a Man Who Had No Feet, discussing this post.
---

Whenever I read blatently bigoted or offensive posts like his I wonder whether the people who write and post them realize that the only people applauding are other bigoted offensive people. Everyone else is disgusted.

And even if these people really believe what they're saying, and think they're speaking "hard truth"--and sadly, I suspect that some of 'em really do--I cannot believe that they don't realize how badly they're alienating themselves from everyone who isn't an offensive bigot...or alternatively, that they just don't care.

I mean, I guess we on the left should be happy... This is no way to get normal, decent people to join the conservative movement, or even the Republican party. However wrong some folks might've thought Ms. Zerlina's opinion was, laying into a black woman by saying she was "cry[ing] like a freakin' little black baby whose mom's too busy with a crack pipe to pay her any mind." is far more likely to cause people to defend her rather than to disagree with her. To the extent people outside of the bigoted Right read posts like these, it's probably a small win for the Left, but speaking for myself, I'd rather not win at the expense of the individuals and groups these bigots verbally beat up on...
---

Posted March 11, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Links:
American Nihilist: And Then I Met a Man Who Had No Feet

@ZerlinaMaxwell Should Never Be Threatened for Making Stupid Comments, But That's No Excuse for Stupidity (Read the comments. Wow.)

In Reply: Similarity Breeds Familiarity

In reply to a comment at the Daily Texan post "Trayvon Martin and The Case of Yellow Journalism," an editorial cartoon that was subsequently removed from the site, along with all commentary about it.
---

Most of your rant is just downright disgusting and not worthy of reply, but I was intrigued by your comment about human nature... (which as best as I can recall, was that people are racist by nature.)

I agree that there is a certain bias for tribalism--to have a more positive view of those like you (which implies a less positive view of those different from you)--but I don't know that I'd call it racism or bigotry, necessarily. A lot of the time, it's just a matter of being able to more easily identify with folks with whom you share some common trait...

Look at national politics, where the accepted common wisdom is that Mormons will support the Mormon candidate, women will vote for the woman, Texans will vote for the candidate who is (or ever was) from Texas, Irish for Irish, gay for gay, same college, and on and on..., (There's even evidence that the bald are more likely to support the candidate with the least hair, plumbers the one who once worked as a plumber, etc.)

It's the same in most other aspects of life, too... ...and most people don't even give it much thought... Similarity breeds familiarity, I guess...

It is a bias, but I don't think it's necessarily bigotry or racism (though it can become that, of course...) It's just that like naturally attracts like, and people have an affinity for people who "mirror" them in some way.

To say otherwise is to suggest that those Mormons who support the Mormon candidate and Texans who vote for the guy who was born in their hometown (or the next town over) in Texas are bigots for doing so, and I just don't agree that that's the case...
---

Posted (and subsequently removed, along with everything else at the post) 03/28/12 07:46 PM

X-Post: A Bigot's a Bigot, no Matter how Small (That is to say, ethically small)

"While the term [ebonics] is avoided by most linguists, it has gained a certain amount of salience outside of academia (such as on Internet message boards), often as the object of ridicule, particularly when it is inaccurately parodied as more different from Standard American English than it really is. Black American linguist John McWhorter argues that the use of Ebonics as a term does more to hinder black academic achievement than to help it, in that considering an ethnic group's slightly-different speech to be a completely different language from English serves only to widen the perceived divide between whites and blacks in America." - Ebonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep... That's for sure...
---

A Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

X-Post: New Bigotronics for the "Donald Douglas on African Americans" post - Monday, August 8, 2011, 12:01 AM

Monday, August 8, 2011, 12:01 AM - American Power: 'Nothing From Nothing':

"Perfect Democrat theme song. You don't gets to be hangin' with those mofos unless you be chippin' in some snaps (cash). And Billy Preston's 'fro is da kine!"

Previous: Donald Douglas - On African Americans
---

An American Henchmen (Nihilist) X-post

X-Post: Donald Douglas - On African Americans - July 9, 2011 Edition

Donald didn't write this rant... but he sure does seem to approve of it

Saturday, July 9, 2011, 12:01 AM
American Power: Jenn of the Jungle Smacks a 'Liberal'

She's smacking down a progressive really, but maybe she's not reading David Horowitz on the terminology.

In any case, see Jenn at The Political Jungle:

"Really??? Do you even have a fucking clue who any of us are? NO. You squeal like a fucking twat on fire about Faux News and "indoctrination" all day long without a fucking clue.

Yeah I was "indoctrinated". By reality, eventually.

I'm from the SF Bay Area....I was a totally indoctrinated leftard. I fucking organized a march against the 1st "Iraq War" in high school. I NOW KNOW had we done the job then we could have saved thousands+ of lives....but I followed the leftist line. LEAVE NOW....let the flying spaghetti monster figure it out. THAT was what the MSM told us then...I notice they totally do NOT say that now in regard to say....LIBYA.

My friends were black, brown, tan, yellow and every color in between....it doesn't change the fact that criminal invaders are scum sucking racist fucks and blacks, oh and I mean NIGGERS are fucking running wild in this country now that their lord and savior is "president". Look at the fucking news asshole...riots in the streets endless shootings, rapes, lies, massive property destruction....ignorant blacks seem to think that they have no rule of law now. I can't MAKE this up. It's FACT. Look at the tiny little microcosm of just the 4th of July weekend. WHO shot police, their own and who rioted in the streets and ran like ANIMALS.

I look at the state of the California educational system and see we are burdened not just by anchor babies but we are LITERALLY educating MEXICANS every day by the THOUSANDS. WHY????"

Classy, huh?
---

An American Rim Station (Nihilist) X-post

X-Post: Raaaaacist Inciiiiivility (and more of Dr Douglas' guilt by association thinkin')

Saturday, April 16, 2011, 11:15 PM - American Power: Even More Progressive Civility!: "Leftists truly are the biggest racists, just ask REPSAC = CASPER = RACIST."

Saturday, April 16, 2011, 9:30 PM - American Power: More Progressive Civility: "Friends of REPSAC = CASPER, no doubt."

No explanation, no link to any "raaaaacist" or "inciiiiivil" thing I've ever said or done in either post... Just Donalde Douglas once (or twice) again blowing smoke, playing at guilt by association ("If that guy who said something racially offensive is a progressive, and repsac3 is a progressive, that clearly proves..." It's just that easy to accuse folks, when you're Donald Douglas.) and hoping someone will actually pay attention to him. Sad.

It occurs to me that he may've been pissed that I tweeted about a fellow Orange County Republican and Tea Party activist earlier on April 16th: Racist Orange County Republican Email: President Obama and His Parents Are Apes - Orange County News. Maybe (employing that same guilt by association thinking he's famous for) Donalde thought I was tweeting about him, and thus lashed out... I mean, it's not as though he's never said anything racially offensive about black people or otherwise been bigoted toward those with whom he doesn't agree politically, is it?

One clue about civility, Donald... Whatever one thinks about the idea of talking more respectfully (even to those with whom one disagrees), it isn't about judging the behaviors of others... It's about doing the right thing, oneself. There will always be bigots and other incivil people. It shouldn't be about finding examples of people on "the other side" acting uncivilized or bigoted and trying to tar everyone else on that side with the bad behavior of the few... If ya ask me, the question one should ask oneself is whether one wishes to be counted among the uncivilized, oneself. While you can't control "them," you can choose to control yourself... ...or choose not to, I guess...

I'm just sayin'...

Others: memeorandum: Marilyn Davenport's Racist Email Denounced By OC GOP
---

American Niiiiihilist X-post

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

X-Post: In Reply: Them ignorant, illiterate, "Barack Obama supporters" (if ya know what I mean...)

In reply to [blog]: Michelle Malkin Gets Hate Tweets

Unreal, but to be expected from Barack Obama supporters. As I've said many time, Obama really needs to work on his inner city education agenda. These be some illiterate mo-'fukers', yo!

Whatever you think of the guy's tweet*, his thoughts no more represent "Barack Obama supporters" than the few racists in the tea party (like the guy with the "niggar" sign, or the one who wrote the "Colored People" rant about the NAACP) represent "the American right."

*Me, I don't approve of calling women whores under very many circumstances... (Male and female, whores do exist, and naming it is appropriate, when that's actually what's going on... But as with other slurs, it does take on a different meaning, depending on whether the target is male or female. Just as comments about being "cheap" take on an added meaning when said about jewish folks, the shaming of women by calling their sexual habits into question make the term different for "girls" than for "boys"...) As for whether Malkintent is closed-minded, a racist, or a puppet is more up for grabs, however...

Classy use of dialect there... That guy does black folks proud at every turn...
(It's almost as though he don't know no better, yo...)
---

x-post from a blog that once was

In Reply: Shirley Sherrod, and the "Discrimination" of Helping Your Own Community

In reply to Breitbart & Co. trash the truth: USDA official Shirley Sherrod was just the most recent casualty, and in particular, to a guy named Anton1, who said:

Shirley Sherrod is a self-proclaimed reformed racist. That is undeniable. Her actions, feelings, and thoughts during her employment were admittedly racist. That is undeniable. Albeit later, she realized the error in her bigotry, and all is forgiven, UNLESS, you happen to be a white farmer under her self-proclaimed bigotry BEFORE she realized her errors. When did she realize that her bigotry and hate for white people was wrong? How many instances of racial bias, had been purpotrated by her, BEFORE her self-proclaimed epiphany? Why are these qustions not being asked? Is it possible that with this prior self-proclaimed hatred for whites, she has opened the door for multitudes of lawsuits from white farmers that feel as if she didn't "give the full force" of what she could do? Does anyone think her self-proclaimed "opened eyes", at some unknown point in her life, will protect her, and her employer, in a court of law? The TRUTH stands, as is.

(The comment system at the Daily News is really shitty, so I can't say whether what he wrote had paragraph breaks before he hit send, but it definitely came out without 'em... just like my comment did.)
---

@Anton1: With respect, I'm not sure how much of a racist Sherrod ever was, though I do think she had some bigoted ideas and attitudes... She seemed to be more of a "separate and equal (and eventually, better) kinda gal, who put all her efforts into helping her own, and just paid as little attention to white folks as possible. While that kinda thing isn't always "kumbaya, we are the world," it generally isn't illegal or immoral, either. (In fact, many groups/segments of the general population do that - women's groups, jewish groups, alcoholics, cancer survivors, professional/union organizations...) People choose to do things to help and advance themselves and their own, both in their spare time and in their professions--and even when it means not helping folks who ain't in their group--all the time.

There likely were no "other/previous white farmers," because she had always worked for co-ops whose whole mission was to help black farmers. (And don't forget, the whole story begins with the words "The first time I was confronted with helping a white farmer...") That the Spooners were even sent to the black co-op was a fluke, and she really was under no obligation, legally (or otherwise, depending on your morals) to help them at all--it wasn't in her or her co-op's job description.

But she did help them, even initially, doing the minimum required--literally, the least she could do for them. And it was through helping them that she realized they were no different from any of the other (black) farmers she'd helped, and that it wasn't about skin color, but about need and ability.

While there can be, and often is, some overlap and grey area between 'em, there's a difference between being racial and racist, to traffic in special interest/identity politics and to be a bigot. It's good to be proud of your own race, religion, gender, etc (all those individual attributes that you were born with and that you've chosen for yourself, that make you you); and it's good to want to help your own community (those who share one or more of those attributes that make you you), as well. But at the same time, it means that you're discriminating against those who aren't in your community, by not doing as much for the outsiders as you do for the insiders--and even by looking at them as outsiders and insiders. It can be a fine line.

Personally, I think it's ok (if not outright good and even necessary) to "discriminate" in that way; to have an in group and an out group, and even to do for some and not for others. (Contrary to the rumors, I'm not actually a commie Marxist socialist, at all.) It doesn't all have to be equal for everyone, in effort or in outcome.

In fact, it's a lot like a literal community... say, your own neighborhood. If you and your neighbors decide to take it upon yourselves to pick up trash or turn an empty lot into a playground or a ball field, that doesn't mean you have to go into the next neighborhood and do the same for them. You don't owe anyone outside your neighborhood your spare money or your free time, just because you got together and did for yourselves, donating one or both to your goals. (You can even set restrictions on folks from outside the neighborhood using your new playground or ball field.)

It gets a little trickier, ethically, when it's not a community of proximity like your neighborhood, but a community based on those things that so often divide us, like race, religion, gender, etc., but I think similar rules apply. In my opinion, that's what Shirley Sherrod was involved with, a group of like-minded black farmers helping themselves and each other to save and improve their own "neighborhood" of farms. The Spooners were just from another "neighborhood," and Ms Sherrod wasn't sure she should be giving her time to them, when her own "neighbors" still needed so much help, and she had pledged herself to them. In the end, Shirley Sherrod decided to spend more of her time working and playing in a bigger, more inclusive neighborhood.

When it comes to these trickier communities--the ones that so often divide us--it really depends on one's own heart, and the real and true motives contained in it, which may not be obvious to others... ...and on always drawing the lines between "us" and "them" in disappearing ink. That's where Shirley Sherrod went wrong, initially... She spent her earlier years using a big ol' permanent marker, until she realized how much better a solid pencil with a really big and often-used eraser would be for everyone...
---

Comment revised and extended from original

Attn News Media: Please Investigate This Claim from Shirley Sherrod

I was reading Agriculture secretary to review resignation of USDA worker - CNN.com, and the following paragraph caught my eye:

Sherrod said she first heard of the possible controversy when someone e-mailed her Thursday to taunt her about her comments. She immediately forwarded the e-mail to the USDA so the agency would be aware. She was told that someone would look into it.
She said it wasn't until Monday that she heard back, and by then, she was being asked for her resignation.

"someone e-mailed her Thursday to taunt her about her comments."

Attn news media: Please investigate and report on this angle of the story. Andrew Breitbart claims he did not have the complete video, and that the portion he received from his source on Sunday came pre-misleadingly edited (breitbarted) and chyroned with the false allegation about "taxpayer money." Breitbart is obviously a liar in general, but if he is telling the truth in this particular regard, then who misleadingly edited this video in that all-too-familiar Breitbart way, and what was his/her motivation and intended outcome? Was it the same person who e-mailed her four days before the story broke, and if not, what is this e-mailer's connection to the misleading video and story?

I maintain that either Breitbart is responsible for the misleading edit, or his mysterious source is the culprit. The evidence--both previous experience (the ACORN fiasco, the Teabuggers,...) and even the most cursory look at who's dirty fingerprints are all over every aspect of this current bit of fiction up to now--says it's Breitbart, but if he's going to place the blame on his mysterious source, he really ought to be expected to prove it. (You know... the same way Andrew was demanding proof that the nice old couple really were "the white farmers" Ms Sherrod was talking about in the video, in his CNN appearance on Tuesday.) I mean, if he wasn't even willing to trust the 80+ year old couple who self-report that they were "the white farmers" in question, without launching an investigation into their background, then I see no reason why anyone in or out of the media should take Breitbart's word that there really is a mysterious source who misleadingly edited the video without his knowledge or consent. So like Mr Breitbart, I expect the media to do their due diligence, and do everything possible to ferret out the truth, and continue asking the questions until they get answers. (And maybe... just maybe, there's some wealthy liberal blogger or media gadfly who's willing to offer a large reward for documentary proof of exactly who misleadingly breitbarted that video, and when, and why, and at whose behest... Y'know... Just like Andrew himself might do...)((Or maybe those journolist guys and gals can take up a collection...))

In Reply: Racism, Bad Judgement, or a Tiny Tempest in a Teacup?

In reply to: Ku Klux Kontroversy - Youth for Western Civilization, a story about a Georgia teacher who led four white AP History students wearing Klan garb through the school lunchroom, where students--including black and mixed race students--were eating.

Pretty offensive, right?

But here are more facts:
The students were dressed that way to shoot a class video project about the history of racism, almost certainly depicting KKK bigotry as the evil it was and is.
The teacher didn't know the lunchroom was being used at the time.
The teacher realizes she made some mistakes in judgement, and takes full responsibility for her actions.

Less offensive? I think so, too.

The author at the Youth for Western Civ blog sees the bruhaha erupting from this incident as "a small tempest in a teacup about 'racism'," the result of "the PC Left" getting bent outta shape over an "AP History teacher [who] obviously thought it would be a good exercise in white guilt over racism and slavery."

I think he's mistaken. My comment (revised and extended from the original, for clarity) appears below.
---

I don't know, but it seems to me that even the teacher herself isn't on your side, here... She admits she made a few errors in judgement in this situation, and I think she's correct.

She shouldn't be fired over the incident--as you say, she didn't intend to offend anyone, and she takes responsibility for screwing up--but it isn't "a tempest in a teacup" or "an example of political correctness run amuck," either. (I'll feel differently if she is actually fired over the incident, but up to this point, I believe the school's actions are justified... and again, I don't hear the teacher saying any different.)

Seeing kids dressed up as racists (like the klan) or genocidal murderers (say, in Nazi uniforms) is offensive, and rightly so--particularly to those cultural groups who are descendants of their intended victims, but also to anyone who thinks these groups were a stain on humanity (and continue to be--there are bigots wearing Klan/Nazi symbols and preaching some of their tenets to this very day, who do intend offense and harm).

Context counts for alot, but there's also something to be said for thinking things through and planning ahead. Simply realizing that kids in Klan garb could easily be misunderstood and
1) running the idea by the principal,
2) having the kids take the sheets off when not actively shooting video (it's not like it's hours of costuming and make-up. It's a white sheet and a party hat. Toss the sheet over the head, strap on the hat, and your "dressed."), or
3) just not allowing kids to dress up as bigots/murderers in the first place, because whatever one's good intent, it's just too easily misunderstood and misinterpreted,
would've prevented the whole incident.

I don't agree with your take on this... While it wasn't the teacher's intent to be offensive, she didn't do enough to prevent some folks from being rightly offended by what they saw. They lacked the context to judge the incident for what it actually was because the teacher failed to provide it to them ahead of time. (For the person at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article who likened this to a civil war reenactment: One big difference is, when you attend one of those, you know it's a reenactment and choose to be there. The folks in the lunch room did neither. And for another, I don't think many see either the union or confederate army uniform as offensive...)

It's not a firing offense, but it's not nothin' either... As you (sarcastically) say though, at least it furthers the ongoing discussion of race and tolerance in America, and (contrary to that sarcasm), I think that's a good thing...
---
Posted Friday, 28 May 2010 05:39 (Western Youth blog time)

Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites

See UPDATE, appended.
------------------

FOXNews.com - Racist Music Just a Download Away on Mainstream Music Sites

The relevant quotes:

You're unlikely to find CDs by groups like Skrewdriver and Brutal Attack sold alongside the latest hits from Rihanna and the Jonas Brothers at your local retailer.

But the white-power punk bands' ballads are just a click away online.
...
But there is a market for it — which leads to the question of whether online music retailers should screen what they sell, or if it should be up to the buyer to decide what's suitable.
...
"If you're going to be able to carry that hard-core Marxist stuff, what is the problem with someone saying, 'White pride, worldwide?'" Schoep asked.
...
Nora Flanagan, a spokeswoman for the activist group Turn It Down, which lobbies against objectionable music, said the companies have every right — and a social obligation — to remove the songs from being sold on their sites.
...
"It's absolutely their right to sell it," she said, "but it could be their choice not to — if they wanted to take a stand on it."
...
Chris Kennedy, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, said the term censorship is "thrown around" too loosely.

"Censorship should only be applied when the government tries to censor someone," he said. "Otherwise, we're just talking about the choices that entrepreneurs and businesses make in a free society. When companies decide they're not going to accept their product, that's not censorship — that's just choices that they make."

First off, the last bit from the gentleman from the Cato Institute, reminds me of what I said back in April, 2007 about Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market. It isn't censorship or a violation of anyone's free speech rights, unless it is done by a government entity. When a tv or radio station fires a member of their on air talent, or a music outlet chooses not to carry a particular group's music, no one is being censored--even if they do so because they object to something the on air person or musical group said. When the government comes in and arrests the on air talent for something s/he said, or confiscates the group's recordings because of lyrical content, THAT'S censorship.

I think online & brick & mortar music retailers ought to consider screening their offerings for content. I also think that if you believe they've mishandled an artist--either by offering the music when you think they should not, or by removing an artist you think should be available--you need to speak up, and be willing to shop elsewhere if they consistently don't see it your way. I've always been a big fan of shopping your values, and believe that when a lot of individuals are willing to write companies and buy products that in some way reflect the values of the society they want to live in, things can change.

The only thing that worries me is that music retailers will play it safe, and controversial music of any kind will be harder to find. While I agree with retailers removing Neo-Nazi white power music, I'd be quite sad if humorless Christianists were to scare them away from offering Monty Python's The Life of Brian, or the right complained about "commie folk singers" like Pete Seeger or something. Were things to really go bad, we could end up with nothing but a steady diet of the most vanilla pop stars, and if the Victorian era prudes had their way, even they would lose any hint of sexual appeal.

I have high hopes however, that there are enough heathens, Stalinist nihilists, and perverts--but not enough black/white/brown/??? racists [changed from "neo-Nazis" at UPDATE]--to curtail sales of the truly dangerous music being sold, but leave a little spice... But we should watch it, just in case...
--------
UPDATE: While a little odd, my first commenter -anonymous- makes a good point. It isn't only white power music that's racist or otherwise objectionable, even to me. If thug rap or socialist folk or Christian/anti-Christian music offends you, by all means speak up and refuse to do business with those outlets that continue to sell that offensive crap (whatever you determine "that offensive crap" to be).

Rene Marie & the (Black) National Anthem

Updated, 7/12/08



My initial reaction--which hasn't changed, much--was that this singer was wrong for doing what she did, but that the song, and the idea behind it, is beautiful. She was hired to sing a particular song and, while I agree with artistic expression, and really dig the version she offered, this wasn't the proper venue for it.

Given Rene Marie's penchant for blending such songs in past (see/hear below), the city probably should've taken the extra step to be sure she wasn't going to do so in this situation. It's not as though this information wasn't available...

Still, while I agree that she shouldn't've done it the way she did, I'm glad I heard her sing this (& hope I can find an mp3 of it to add to the iPod), and I will be buying some of her music.

-----
UPDATE: 7/12/08: I found a place to hear/download not only this piece, but the whole three part composition--"Voice of My Beautiful Country" that the "Star-Spangled Banner/Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" piece is a part of... Go here to hear it, and (while it lasts, anyway) to Rene Marie's site to download it.
-----

'Black National Anthem' brings City Council president hate mail :
Local News : The Rocky Mountain News:

Hickenlooper said in an interview that he spoke to Marie after the ceremony and that she apologized profusely.

The mayor also said that Marie told him she meant no disrespect.

"She blended the two songs together," Hickenlooper said. "She was trying to make an artistic expression of her love for the country. She did not intend to make a political statement or anything."

Marie sang the first verse of James Weldon Johnson's "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing," also known as the "Black National Anthem," but adapted those lyrics to the tune of the "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Marie said she had no regrets. She deliberately didn't tell anybody about her song choice "because I don't think it is necessary for an artist to ask permission to express themselves artistically," she said.

"I would not change a thing," Marie said.

"You have to risk things. You have to. Otherwise, you might of well live your life by a script."

Rene Marie breaks out :
Music : The Rocky Mountain News:

Marie calls herself a "GRITS" ("a Girl Raised in the South") but no one below the Mason-Dixon Line, or anywhere else, knows what to think the first time he hears the most daring medley in her repertoire.

When she first sang it in Mississippi, every jaw in the place dropped. When she called the tune, using its short name, in early rehearsal at the recording studio, drummer Jeff "Tain" Watts, who came up with New Orleans-born trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, dropped his sticks and said, "I'm not playing that."

Not playing what?

Marie, who relishes the drama of the unexpected, had thought to pair the traditional white anthem Dixie with the heartbreaking meditation on lynching Strange Fruit. She brought off the collision of opposites as an ironic comment on the way the world still works.

In Mississippi, black and white audience members approached her afterward with tears in their eyes and tragic stories to tell. The same thing happened everywhere else, too. Born in controversy, Dixie/Strange Fruit became the emotional centerpiece of Marie's much- praised CD Vertigo.

Anyone shopping for symbols can find one right there, illustrating the purposes of Marie's unblinking, semiautobiographical work.

"I want to make you laugh and cry," she says. "I want you to squirm uncomfortably in your chair, think of a loved one, get angry, hang your head in shame and raise your hand in protest. . . . I want you to take that leap, make that change, turn that corner."

Hear: "Dixie/Strange Fruit" here

More info:

Another perspective on the controversy: Rene Marie’s patriotic lesson - Colorado Independent

rene marie ~ Q & A

The history behind the 'Black National Anthem' - Cleveland Lifestyles – Living, Food, Health & Fitness News from The Plain Dealer

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

When I first heard this story (I think it was on Tucker Carlson, God help me), I wasn't sure how I felt about it. I wanted more info about who was saying what. But aside the news article above, just about all I could find was commentary from the rightwing perspective. (Needless to say, they're thrilled that there's a group of black Democrats, several of whom were leading advocates in the civil rights movement, restricting membership to their group on the basis of race.)

The only website for the Congressional Black Caucus I could find was from the 108th Congress, and defunct. (I'm not going to bother providing that link. Anyone who feels the need to go to a dead site can do their own search... In fact, I wonder why I'm even writing this... If you're that curious, go google it. If you're ok with trusting me on the fact that there's really nothing there, stay here. But either way, it's time to quit reading this paragraph. Go. Look somewhere else. Right now. I mean it. Go.)

But then I stumbled on this site. I didn't notice the name of the place on the way in, but I liked what I was reading. Very thoughtful stuff...

I hit a post about a quarter of the way down that started:

===============
"Black empowerment and unity does not require white interloping. Just look at what happens when whites intrude into The Blackprof: manipulation, division and out right lying."
====================

I started thinkin' "BlackProf? What the heck is The BlackProf?" It was then I realized I was reading a site that was primarily by & for black college professors. It didn't matter... The ideas and arguments were far too good to leave (& far, far more cogent than the ones I found on the RW sites), even if that one poster did think I was intruding. After reading the rest of the thoughtful comments, I even decided to post my own...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off, I'm white liberal male, so any who feel I don't deserve a place at this table can skip this comment. (Judging by some of the comments above, there are some who feel that I have no more business being here than Cohen does being in the CBC.)

I'm troubled by any organization that rejects membership based on the criteria that is usually cited as discriminatory. (age, gender, race, sexual orientation, class) The fact that the folks doing the accepting/rejecting are lawmakers who are otherwise charged with creating laws that protect minority rights makes the situation even worse.

It would be one thing if it was a matter of self-selection, where no one except blacks / or women/ or homosexuals wanted to join the Black / Women's / Gay & Lesbian caucus, but once someone outside that group pledges support for the goals & methods of the organization & wants to join... ...well, it gets troubling.

As some said above, it really is a question of whether the caucus is about the politicians themselves or about the people they represent & the causes they wish to champion during their time in office.

I can appreciate the need for folks who define themselves by their religion/race/gender/sexual orientation/age/??? to want to congregate together and set their own agenda on their own terms, without imput from those who do not share their unique social/cultural experience. While it is discriminatory (& sometimes illegal) to do so, perhaps it is right and necessary, like the discrimination one needs to tell the black letters from the white page, and therefore read. There are some things that have to be lived to really be understood, and cannot be taught.

I also believe it is necessary for folks with shared goals to join together without regard for age/gender/race/etc., even when their goals concern a particular "discriminatory" group.

The CBC wants to be both kind of groups at once. They have the goals of helping all black americans in their mission statement, but they don't seem to believe that anyone who isn't black has the ___ (heart?, social/cultural experiences?, right?) to help achieve those goals.

Perhaps their ought to be a group for those who care about _______ people, as well as one for those who are _______ people...

For what it's worth...

Posted by: repsac3 | January 26, 2007 05:10 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tom Tancredo wants to ban minority caucuses, saying that they promote racism. Considering the number of nutty caucuses & whatnot there are in Congress, (here's a list of 'em), I'm not in favor of that, but I would like to see an end to membership restrictions that concern anything aside one's ideological position on the issue the caucus is about. I wouldn't want anyone on the shellfish caucus that doesn't give a damned about mollusks anymore than anyone else would, but as long as they do care, a black lesban baptist who likes peanut-butter is as fit to be in that caucus as a heterosexual white atheist who doesn't.

Keep the caucuses, lose the restrictions...

One more bit about racism, having nothing to do with congress. Two links:
YouTube - A Girl Like Me
blackprof.com: Black Doll Bad, White Doll Good