List: Blocked On Twitter By...

As of 6/28/12, (in order of most recent to least recent, as far as I know) I am blocked on Twitter by:

@jtLOL - Jim Treacher - Discovered today (6/28/12) and a complete surprise. The last time we interacted in any form was months ago, as far as I can even recall...and I think that was as commenters on some third party's blog, rather than via twitter. Nevertheless, I'm honored that he thought me worthy.
~~~

@Skye820 - Tania Gail (Ciolko) - Discovered 6/23/12--(but probably in place a whole lot longer than that--perhaps years, even--because I can't even hazard a guess as to the last time we interacted via any medium)--when she added her cents to a Donald Douglas slam on me, after he mentioned her in one of his tweets. "Casper fears me."

For the record, Skye820 and I had a few interactions on one of her blogs (now defunct - See: Wingnuts and Moonbats: Free Speech, Imus, and the Free Market) and in Youtube comments about anti-war protests back in 2007. If we interacted anywhere more than ten times in total between January, 2008 and now, I'd be surprised. That she ever accused me of "stalking" her to anyone, even based on the 2007 interactions--where I commented on her public blog no more than 5-10 times, probably, (mostly about the Imus case, as I recall) and also at youtube videos (one or two she posted, and a few others where we were both just commenters) for another 10 or so--is pretty laughable.

As I said in reply to her tweet (or was it Donald's?), the political blogosphere is pretty small, and anyone who hasn't interacted with many of the same people at/in different venues probably doesn't go to more than one or two very insular venues to start with. Even following someone from one venue to a second to see more of what they post--which I suppose it's possible I did do, perhaps seeing a YouTube video that she embedded at her blog, and then going to YouTube to watch and comment on it--shouldn't really be all that scandalous to anyone who's spent more than a few days on the internet. In fact, I'd argue that it's pretty common, and what most people who embed their videos or other activities hosted at other sites INTEND for you to do. I'm just sayin'
~~~

@AndrewBreitbart - Disgraced Conservative Blogger Andrew Breitbart - Blocked Sunday, April 25, 2010 - One of his fellow right-winger fans--or maybe just a troll--sent me a racist photo ( A quick search revealed that the guy sent weird photos to pretty much everyone who argued with Breitbart on twitter. Mine just happened to be racist), and I used it to rebut Breitbart's claim that there are no racist right-wingers. Hilarity ensues. (In this case, hilarity came in the form of a knee-jerk banning, rather than any reflection about what actually happened. In retrospect though, I was wrong to hold disgraced conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart responsible for his wacked out, bigoted fan (or troll).) The whole sordid tale, with photos and links and all, is recounted here. As with Jim Treacher--moreso, in fact--I was honored to be blocked by such a prominent wingnut blowhard.
~~~

@AmPowerBlog - Donald Kent Douglas - (Since the day he started the account, prolly. He obviously fears my obvious superior moral fortitude, obviously.) - If there's anyone reading this post who doesn't know the backstory, please peruse as many posts as it takes at the following blog to understand why we're not tweeps.: American Nihilist (another blog I once started, currently in hibernation). There is no honor to be had from this blocking...and no honor in the man doing the blocking, either...
~~~

Updates up top, as needed.

In Reply: "It’s about free speech, here and now..."

In reply to Your Free Speech Ends at the Point a Bully Says So | The Moderate Voice
---

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Don’t tell me, tell the guy who opined that this Maryland decision has anything to do with “political expression” or “people on the far left,” rather than a legally skilled crazy person who is targeting ANYONE, right or left, who says too much about his sordid past.

It took me awhile to come around to the position that Aaron Walker was being railroaded, precisely because so many people have been making it about “the George Soros / Tides Foundation funded far left hitman” and saying that “there can be no law or justice as long as Eric Holder is running things”.

It’s not about “the Left.” It’s not about the guy’s history as a bomber or any of his convictions from the 80′s and 90′s. It’s about free speech, here and now, and what Kimberlin (and perhaps a few friends, though the evidence of their roles is still a little too vague for me) is doing to silence his critics.
---

Posted MAY 30, 2012 AT 7:15 PM

In Reply: "It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic." (Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker, Free Speech)

In Reply to the following comment at The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested:

To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors.

It was all speech, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic. - jpe - May 29, 2012 @3:23 pm

I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons I said I wasn’t sure justice was served, here…

Like others, I have a feeling there are two separate issues though; the peace order, which, if I’m understanding it right, had been in place short-term already, but was made long-term today, and Aaron Walker (Worthing)’s arrest, which may or may not have anything to do with violating the temporary peace order that was already in place, and which, if it does, may include his instigation and participation in the blogburst as a means of harassment. (Other theories / rumors include contempt of court for behavior in the courtroom today, assault, stemming from a previous physical altercation between Walker and Kimberlin (he hit him, or not; he took his iPad and refused to return it until officers showed up;…) There are also questions as to whether Walker’s continued participation in posting about Kimberlin would be a violation of the peace order.

The closest thing I’ve found to anyone speaking for the other side of this thing is the blog and twitter stream of BreitbartUnmasked. I don’t know who it is, though the righties all seem to believe it’s one of the principle players–either Ron Brynaert or Neal Rauhauser--though some even think it’s Brett Kimberlin, himself. Check it out, but since the guy’s anon, take what he offers with as much or little salt or other spices as your taste dictates…

I think at this point just about everyone left and right whose interested in the saga wants mainstream / lamestream media coverage, and law enforcement / legal system action where necessary. (Though, it is a little scary how many rightwing commenters I’ve seen at various blogs today taking about “street justice,” or similar terms… Thankfully, they’re getting slapped down by others at the blogs (mostly), but still…) If Kimberlin, etc. are guilty, I want them to face justice. But if there’s no evidence that they are, or that one or more of their accusers are stretching the truth, I want to know that — and perhaps for them to face justice.

Lastly… Anyone else have an issue viewing The Mahablog on an iPad? When I read the comments, it defaults to–and snaps back to–the top of the comment stream. I finally figured out that I could keep it scrolled to where I wanted by hitting the comment permalink that was as close to where i wanted to be as possible–for example, to write this comment in the box, i hit the permalink of the last comment submitted, and even now keep snapping back to that comment (which luckily, was short, so I can still see the comment box–but it’s something I’d never experienced on another blog…
---

Posted May 29, 2012 @9:10 pm

In Reply: There is such a thing as hate speech, but this wasn't it. (Madeleine McAulay)

In reply to Open Thread: Does Madeleine McAulay's View On Gay Marriage Constitute 'Hate Speech'? (Video)
---

Nope, it never was hate speech.

I disagree with the idea that religious beliefs should be the basis of secular laws, and would prefer to see the word "marriage" (a religious rite) stricken from all secular laws (perhaps replaced with "legal union," or some such thing), dividing the religious definition from the secular one (the state could recognize the religious marriage ceremony as one form of a legal union, without diluting the term "marriage" by equating the religious rite with the ceremonies performed before judges, ship captains, etc.. It would also allow legislatures to write laws about legal unions that are not beholden to anyone's religion, and without the charge that they're "redefining" anything.

But, I have no problem with folks who see it differently for whatever reason--including their religion--expressing their thoughts on the subject, and do not think there is much of any hate expressed in the video. (If anything, she's more snarky toward (& I believe, politically bigoted against) liberals (as a group, I mean) than she is gay folks... ...though I wouldn't say she hates them, either.)

The video's back up on YouTube, by the by... (I was actually searching for commentary about that--whether YouTube said anything as to why, even after reaffirming their decision a second time when Madeleine appealed, they chose to put it back up--when I stumbled onto this site.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted 5/28/12), 11:30 am (or thereabouts... This is one of those "posted 7 hours ago" set-ups... ...and I can't be bothered to watch for the minute "7 hours ago" becomes "8 hours ago.")

In Reply: Standing Up For What You Believe is Right isn't Always Easy (Ask Replacements Ltd. and Madeleine McAulay)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the American Conservative post "Punishing Businesses on Gay Marriage," about the backlash against Replacements Ltd., a North Carolina business who rallied against the anti-marriage equality amendment that recently passed in that state:

I doubt that the conservatives who stop shopping at Replacements will take the course of action that homosexual activists have taken against those opposed to SSM. The homosexual activists are especially aggressive and are determined to shut down all speech that they disagree with check out this link American Power: YouTube Pulls Madeleine McAulay Gay Marriage Video as Violating Guidlines on 'Hate Speech' to see an example
5/26/12, 10:22 AM
---

It was the wrong decision, to be sure... ...but it was youtube's wrong decision.

I get why people might be offended when you suggest they're second class citizens, so I don't actually blame the "homosexual activists" who complained about Madeleine McAulay's video--though they were wrong; it isn't hate speech to spout Christian dogma about marriage; it just fails to take into account that we shouldn't and generally don't look to the Bible to write the laws in this country, in part because this is the result when we do--but it was up to youtube to stand up for speech, and in the end it was youtube who failed Madeleine McAulay ...and all of the people who use their service. (Twice, in fact. Madeleine appealed their original decision calling the video hate speech, and even after looking a second time, they still said it contained hate speech.)

And (tying this back to the original subject) there are a whole lot of conservatives and others who feel strongly about speech who are vowing not to use YouTube, based on decisions like these. I'm all for voting with your wallet and your feet when you feel strongly about a political or social issue. So, perhaps I'll use youtube a little less, and spend less time and money in CA and NC, until they get right with human rights... except for Replacements, Ltd. and others in those states who stood firm against laws that make love and equality a crime. (And having spent some time in the dinnerware industry back in the 80's and 90's, I can say that I heard nothing but good things about Replacement's Ltd. back then, so even apart from my being down with their stance on marriage equality, I recommend them highly to anyone who needs to find discontinued dinnerware, flatware, crystal pieces for their table.)
---

Submitted Posted 5/27/12, 2:13 AM
---

Also:
Replacements Limited’s Stand for Gay Marriage Has a Cost - NYTimes.com
American Power: Bob Page, Replacements Ltd. CEO Who Turned Firm Into Pro-Gay Campaign Outlet, Now Concerned His Radical Politics Could 'Hurt Our Business' ("Radical politics"... What a maroon...)
Gay 'Replacements Ltd' Owner Faces NC Hate After Opposing Amendment One| News | Towleroad

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

In reply to the following comment at National Review Online:

repsac3

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

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

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

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

Dollar Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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