X-Post: That guy's ' "Raging Primordial Rage"

So, I've been trying to figure out how to respond to that guy's latest diatribe against me. Ostensibly, it's a post about free speech, but the argument the guy offers: 1) is primarily about me, not free speech, 2) is not based in fact or evidence, but is instead just another example of him ranting and raging away, and 3) displays a profound misunderstanding as to what the Jonathan Rauch video he features and the organization behind it (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE) are all about.

Let's go to the videotape, and then to the guy's "argument," such as it is:

"Rauch, who is a far-left progressive, nails it on who's the biggest threat to freedom of speech, thought and expression in the country today. What's surprising, though, is that harassment-blogger Walter James Casper III "liked" it on Twitter --- tweeting it out a couple of times in fact. And it's ironic too, since Repsac3 is the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing. From racism to anti-Semitism to the recent attacks on Ann Coulter at Fordham, Repsac3 is down with it. He never, ever speaks out against it, and in fact joins in with his progressive hate-commentariat in mounting campaigns of personal destruction against those with whom he disagrees. I've chronicled Repsac3's criminal campaigns of intimidation many times. If he truly "likes" the ideas of Jonathan Rauch he should in fact practice them. Sadly, the record shows that while the demonically hate-addled Repsac3 purportedly champions this kind of classical liberal thought, his actual political loyalties are with those who stand against it. It's not just that Walter James Casper III is a stupid man. It's that he's also been psychological corrupted by progressive evil. Where there's a bodily inclination in him that says leftist thought suppression is not just wrong but massively vile, his raging primordial rage at conservatives kicks in to advance the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates above. Repsac3 is a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse. Honestly, his only hope is to follow the words of people like Rauch and literally repent his ideology of hatred and secular demonology."

The first line isn't far off. Jonathan Rauch does believe that "the humanitarian impulse" to prevent bigots from saying bigoted things so as not to offend minorities, enforced via campus/workplace speech codes, (and yes, often put into place by progressives) is one of the biggest threats to free speech. While I still believe there should be time/place/manner standards for speech (and from what I can tell, FIRE does, as well), I'm inclined to agree. The answer to overt or implicit bigotry isn't legal/statutory rules and punishment, it's more speech--reasoned argument to persuade, and denunciation of the bigotry and those who engage in it to create a social penalty for such behavior. You don't prevent people from being attacked, you stand shoulder to shoulder with them when they are.

Sadly, therein ends the guy's engagement with the topic at hand or with reality. Everything after that first line is dishonest attack, and nothing more.

The guy labels me "the epitome of the hateful, speech-controlling progressive that Rauch is denouncing," but never offers a single example of my attempting to control speech in the manner that Rauch discusses. He accuses me of "advanc[ing] the exact kind of censorship that Rauch excoriates," but fails to offer anything in support of his accusation. Mostly though, he just vents his spleen by calling me names and vomiting up meaningless epithets--(harassment-blogger, hate-commentariat, criminal, demonically hate-addled, stupid, psychological corrupted by progressive evil, raging primordial rage [my personal favorite, and thus the title of this post], a rodent of a person, and hardened, blackened chip of human refuse, ...)--and pretends that by doing so, he's actually saying anything.

The facts are very different. Who is the guy saying those things, if not a man who believes that the brand of conservatism he espouses is the one true answer, and that everyone else is wrong (and demonically evil) for believing in a different set of political ideals?

Which of us controls the ideas that are permitted to appear on our blogs, actively moderating for content, weeding out commentary that he doesn't like or agree with?

And which of us tried to shoehorn disagreement on the internet onto criminal laws against harassment and stalking, even going so far as to talk to his local police and his congressman.

Just recently the guy approvingly tweeted about a case in England where a conservative is using that country's anti-free speech slander laws to lash out at everyone who (falsely, as far as the available evidence is concerned) accused him of being a paedophile on twitter and other social media outlets. (And when I say "everyone," I mean it... According to the linked article "His lawyers are reported to have already discovered around 1,000 original offending Tweets and a further 9,000 re-Tweets." That's a whole lotta lawsuits...):

Lord McAlpine Twitter revenge: A watershed moment as the mob are finally taught a lesson bit.ly/TM1E1d via @melaniephillips

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) November 20, 2012

For all his blather to the contrary, the guy has no problem applauding legal enforcement to criminalize speech he disapproves of, even going so far as to attempt to do so himself...which is exactly what Jonathan Rauch and FIRE oppose.

And even aside that, the guy's scapegoating of progressives is wrong. FIRE co-founder Greg Lukianoff is a former ACLU lawyer and a progressive. And the guy himself admits that Jonathan Rauch is a "far-left progressive" (who apparently also "totally awesomely sucks the cock," by the way... I know how the guy likes to highlight that fact whenever he finds it, for reasons I leave to the reader to suss out.)

Sure, there are progressives who mistakenly believe that protecting minorities from offense by using speech codes on campus and in the workplace is a good idea. But it is also progressives (like FIRE, and like the ACLU) who're on the front lines protecting unpopular speech from those who would censor or criminalize it. That the guy tries to sweepingly generalize about progressives as though Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Rauch don't exist--while simultaneously using them to bolster his bullshit attack on progressives--is the height of hypocrisy, and shows that the guy has zero credibility.

---
Links:
Progressives Are the Biggest Threat to Freedom of Speech in America (& as of 11/25/12, Freedom to Blog Update November 25, 2012, which links back to the previous post, as though it hadn't already been fully discredited above four days earlier.)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

New FIRE Video: Jonathan Rauch ‘In Defense of Being Offensive’ - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

Twitter / repsac3: I liked a @YouTube video ...

Criminalizing the Internet - The Ongoing Saga

California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

Federal Investigation of Walter James Casper III Could Involve Civil Rights Abuses

'Isn't It Totally Awesome That Nate Silver Sucks Cock?'
---

Still more on Dishonest Donald Douglas' attempts at Lawfare: In Reply: "I never thought that person did it because of their political leanings, I think they did it because they were cowardly bullies." (Popehat, Team Kimberlin, that guy)
---

An x-post from a blog that was.

In Reply: What Happened at Fordham Wasn't Censorship...It Was Speech

In reply to: The Weekend Interview with Greg Lukianoff: How Free Speech Died on Campus - WSJ.com
---

This whole thing is a put on. No one forced the College Republicans to disinvite Coulter. They did that on their own, of their own free will (and to hear them tell it, BEFORE president McShane expressed his opinion on the subject.) No one issued a law. Campus security was not dispatched to keep Ann Coulter (or those who invited her) off the campus.

What happened was exactly what so many of us so often say we want; for those who don't like the speech of a particular speaker to respond with speech of their own. McShane, along with many Fordham students, believe that Ann Coulter has said offensive things in the past, and spoke out against giving her the opportunity to say them again at Fordham. Whether the college Republicans legitimately agreed, or simply bowed to the pressure of having so many people disagree with their choice of speaker, this isn't a case of censorship or a lack of acedemic freedom. The college president didn't stop Ann Coulter from coming or threaten to punish those who invited her. All he did was speak out saying he was disappointed in the choice they had made, and saying why. That's not censorship...it's speech.

I agree that too many schools go too far in trying to curb unpopular or hurtful speech. While I do believe that not all speech is appropriate in all situations, there is no speech that should be suppressed in all situations, on or off campus. And while I understand the appeal of making hard and fast rules, accusations of bigoted or hurtful speech have to be judged on their own merits. Zero tolerance policies seldom work, no matter what "evil" they're trying to prevent.

While i'm a liberal, I often agree with the stands FIRE takes... But I think they're missing the mark on this one... This is speech in response to speech, and a group who says they were convinced by some of that speech to change their minds.
--

Posted Saturday, 11/17/12

=======
Richard Tauchar Replied:

"All he did was speak out saying he was disappointed in the choice they had made, and saying why."

Isn't that bad enough? It's not his place to influence students in that way. Yes, he used "speech", but it's the speech of the person in power, which carries extra weight.

My Reply to Richard:

First off, the College Republican group claim that they had already decided to "disinvite" Ms. Coulter prior to McShane releasing his statement, but even if they had not, no, I don't believe that the college president should refrain from being a part of the debate because he holds power at the college anymore than I believe Ann Coulter should refrain from participating in the debate because her celebrity affords her more power than others. If he wasn't using his power--by sanctioning those who invited Coulter, or creating a rule whereby he would have to approve all on-campus speakers prior to their being invited to speak--the fact of his power at Fordham University should not prevent him from expressing his opinion, even if some with less power at the campus may feel bad (or even vaguely threatened, though he issued no threat) because he disagreed with them.
===

Tom O'Hare sez:

BS, James. The president used his power to discourage a well-known media writer/lawyer from expressing her opinion. Stop the spin. If it had been Angela Davis, he would have been fawning all over her. Get real.

My reply to Tom:

How so, Tom?

What specifically did Reverend McShane say or do that prevents (or in any way discourages) Ann Coulter from expressing her opinions? She's as free to speak today as she ever was...

When you "get real," Reverend McShane didn't even discourage the College Republicans at Fordham University. Their own statement, signed by the President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary, the Fordham College Republicans had already decided to drop Ms. Coulter before McShane made his statement:

“We made this choice freely before Fr. McShane’s email was sent out and we
became aware of his feelings– had the President simply reached out to us
before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being
cancelled."

And while you're at it, perhaps you will back your claim that Reverend Joseph McShane is in any way sympathetic to Communism--or in fact, resides anywhere on the left side of the partisan political spectrum--with more than just your own intuition. (I mean, I suppose it's possible that he's a communist (or God forbid, a Democrat), but I can find no report saying so, and no statements of his supporting communist rhetoric or ideals.)
========

Evolution is a thing...

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Ohio really did go to the president last night. 

And he really did win.
And he really was born in Hawaii.
And he really is -legitimately- President of the United States.
Again.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make-up a fake unemployment rate last month. 
And the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence
That cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy.

And the polls were not skewed to over-sample Democrats.
And Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election
To make conservatives feel bad.
He was doing math.

And climate change is real.
And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes.
And evolution is a thing.
And Benghazi was an attack on us.
It was not a scandal by us.

And no one is taking away anyone's guns.
And taxes haven't gone up.
And the deficit is dropping, actually.
And Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

And the moon landing was real.
And FEMA isn't building concentration camps.
And UN election observers aren't taking over Texas.
And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry
And the financial services industry
Are not the same thing as communism."

By Will Femia - Thu Nov 8, 2012 1:00 AM EST Adapted from The Rachel Maddow Show 11/7, and originally posted here: Evolution is a thing - The Maddow Blog

X-Post: That guy Pretends "NeoCon" Means "Jewish" in Yet Another Failed Attempt to Attack Liberals

Only one of us used the word "Jewish..." ...and it wasn't me.

In fact, if the guy were to've read the linked Mother Jones post, he might've read that the whole "Neocon" means Jewish" canard is what's actually anti-Semitic. (not to mention as phony as a three dollar bill, as that guy's own neocon self proves... Whatever he may be, it's pretty obvious that the guy is not Jewish. If he were, he'd be using it to claim every disagreement with him is proof of anti-Semitism.)

"Neocons exist. They're neither shadowy nor conspiratorial. They're part of an actual political movement with a very visible public profile. They tend to be hawkish, solicitous of Israel's right wing, hostile toward Arabs, and they played a big role in committing the United States to a disastrous war in Iraq. That's just reality, and the mere fact that many neocons are Jewish doesn't give them a magic shield that protects them from criticism.

There's nothing anti-Semitic in Dowd's column. She just doesn't like neocons, and she doesn't like the fact that so many of the neocons responsible for the Iraq debacle are now advisors to Mitt Romney's campaign. Pretending that this makes her guilty of hate-mongering toward Jews is reprehensible."

Like his "Octopus" freak-out back in January, that guy (by way of quote) says that "...depictions of Jews as snakes or puppeteers are classical anti-Semitic images, right up there with blood-sucking..." Now, anti-Semites have used octopuses, snakes, and puppeteers to individually or collectively attack folks who are Jewish. But it does not follow that therefore ALL references to octopuses, snakes or puppeteers are ipso facto anti-Semitic, and suggesting that it is--that one cannot say someone behaved like a snake without it being anti-Semitic--is itself kinda bigoted. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to refer to someone as an octopus, or a snake, or a puppeteer. It is not automatically anti-Semitic to criticize a Jewish person, EVEN by saying that person is a snake, or an octopus, or a puppeteer, any more than it's raaaaacist to call a black man a clown, that attending an anti-war demonstration makes one a socialist, or supporting the stated goals of the Occupy movement makes one an anti-Semite.

Guilt by association, sweeping generalizations--whether about folks you don't agree with, or folks that you do--or pretending that highlighting one attribute shared by two (or more) otherwise different individuals or groups makes those two (or more) individuals or groups practically identical (Take for example, pacifist priests who protest against war because they believe God opposed man killing man vs anarchists who protest war because they believe no government has the right to send people to kill and die, vs those who protest a specific war because they believe the reasons given for that war go against our American values. One can treat them as though they're all the same, and denigrate them all as anti-American, or whatever... ...but the bullshit in that approach is obvious.) While propagandists will employ one, two, or even all three of these tactics to lash out at those with whom they disagree, they are all plainly and obviously nonsensical ploys that cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

And all that aside, the only person equating neocons with Jews is that guy... My tweet and the article to which it referred specifically says neoconservatism is a political movement and NOT a substitute for the word "Jewish." If anyone is slandering the Jewish people by calling them neocons (or is it "slandering neocons by calling them Jewish"?), it isn't me...

And lest anyone forget, that guy is the one who created the "Sasquatch Israel" myth out of whole cloth, in yet another failed attempt to attack all liberals (or at least a whole lot of them) as anti-Semites. This is what desperate, despicable liars do...

More: American Nihilist: BTDT Files - Jew-Hating Anti-Semite

---
The Anti-Semitic Slur Surfaces Once Again | Mother Jones

First the guy Came For The Hominids, Now It's Anti-Semitic Cephalopods

Brain Rage: that blog And Anti-Semitic Hominids
---

If I'm not mistaken, the guy's last attack on me was August 6th... I was beginning to think he'd finally wised up... but of course not... He's that guy. He cannot resist lashing out with these lies. He's that guy. 'nuff said.
---

UPDATED: The guy finds a friend sycophant:

Antisemite Walter James Casper III: Jewish 'Neocons' Should 'Stop Whining' About Being Slurred as 'Puppet Masters' americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/walter…

— WarEagle (@WarEagle8055) September 18, 2012

@WarEagle8055 never actually says why he calls me an "antisemite" --he didn't bother to respond when I pointed out a few of the flaws in his tweet, leaving me to surmise that rather than taking the time to think for himself, he just lapped up and regurgitated whatever the guy told him, thought unthunk...which kinda makes one feel sorry for the guy, given that guy's historical record with, well, facts...
---

An x-post from a blog that once was

Donald Douglas "Stalks" My Twitter Feed, Loses His Shit Over 5 Reminders in 7 Days

A quick reply to Donald Douglas' latest attempted attack: "American Power: Walter James Casper III, Hate-Blogger and Internet Stalker, Harasses Gay-Politics Activist Evan Hurst on Twitter"

When you haven't got facts, I guess this is the kind of bullshit you throw.

On July 26th, a writer named Evan Hurst posted an article on Truth Wins Out saying that, while it might be emotionally satisfying to see politicians stand up to the anti-gay bigotry expressed by Dan Cathy's / Chick-fil-A's donation history and attitudes toward against gay folks, what those few politicians said in response goes against our American values. He even tweeted about it:

As good as it feels to have politicians telling Chick-Fil-A to get lost, it's actually not okay bit.ly/MMeAUo #p2 #lgbt

— Evan Hurst (@EvanHurst) July 26, 2012

On July 27th, noticing that the article was no longer on the site, I sent Evan Hurst a tweet asking about it.

Evan replied on the 29th, offering to send me a copy. I said yes please and thank you, and gave the man my e-mail address. And then, nothing happened...

I sent Mr. Hurst a reminder tweet on 7/30, 8/1, 8/2, and 8/3. Evan responded later on 8/3, very apologetic, and promising to send it out the next day... ...which he did not.

So on 8/5, I tweeted the man another reminder. (And for the record, it is now 8/7, and I still haven't received the article. Either Evan really doesn't want to send it to me and doesn't want to say so for some reason, or he really is a very busy (and perhaps forgetful or unorganized) guy.)

So that's the story. Why it is any of Dr. Douglas' business is anyone's guess. But attack he must, so attack he does. But, pretty much as usual, Donald is way off base and flailing. Far from complaining about harassment or anything else, Evan Hurst has been apologetic for not following through... Not that the truth matters one whit to Dr. Douglas. He couldn't care less about the guy --who I'm sure he'd label a "buttfreak hatemongering godless douchenozzle" or some such thing, where he posting about the guy in any other context. Donald Douglas doesn't give a shit about Evan Hurst or any other part of this story...except his believing he can use it and Mr. Hurst as tools to lash out at me...

In a way, I understand. Dr. Douglas' most recent posts in his voluminous "I hate repsac3" series of attacks have all proven to be the product of his own vivid but hate-inspired imagination...

7/21 - Attack: American Power: When Even Sick Left-Wing Sites Like 'Wonkette' Want Brian Ross Fired, Despicable Hate-Blogger Repsac3 Attacks Michelle Malkin as 'Whiney Wingnut Victim'
Reply: Dishonest Donald Douglas Lies About Media Bias (and me, of course)

7/23 - Attack: American Power: 'Reliable Sources' Covers Media Response to Colorado Shooting
Reply: More on Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as News

7/24 - Attack: American Power: Repsac3, Hate-Addled Internet Predator, Screams 'Liar' at Virtually Entire World on Politicization of Colorado Shooting
Reply: Bad Reporting, or Biased Reporting? Dishonest Donald Douglas Tries to Conflate the Two for Partisan Advantage

7/29 - Attack: American Power: Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs
Reply: Donald Douglas Lashes Out and Lies, 7/29/12 - Chick-fil-A, Free Speech, Right of Conscience

8/1 - Attack:American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day
Reply: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail

8/5 - Attack: American Power: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'
Reply: Partisan Propagandist Dishonest Donald Douglas Attacks Non-Partisan Tweet, In Lame Defense of His Own Political Bigotry and Propaganda

...and so he tries lashing out with this nonsense...

And just as an aside... A guy lashing out with this many unprovoked and largely personal attacks in this short a period probably shouldn't be talking too much about obsession, stalking, or harassment... I'm just sayin'...

Also... Didn't Donald recently accuse me of "stalking" for reading his tweets?
It isn't of course, whether I'm reading his or he's reading mine--they are publicly posted, after all--but it just goes to show that Donald lacks the strength to adhere to even his own expressed convictions. "The rules apply to thee, but not to me." Surprised? Not in the least. Hypocrisy has long been Donald Douglas' middle name.

And one last point: You'll note that almost all of my posts discussing the guy are responses to his attacks on me. For all his whining to the contrary and painting himself as a victim, Donald Douglas is almost always the aggressor. I'd throw a lot fewer knockout punches, if he didn't swing at me and miss so often first.

The poor guy really is scraping the bottom of the barrel these days, though... There doesn't seem to be a lie he won't tell, or a story he won't invent, if it means soothing his poor bruised ego.

Just another added to the long list of failed attacks:
American Power: Walter James Casper III, Hate-Blogger and Internet Stalker, Harasses Gay-Politics Activist Evan Hurst on Twitter
---

X-Post: Partisan Propagandist Attacks Non-Partisan Tweet, In Lame Defense of His Own Political Bigotry and Propaganda

In reply to: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'

In almost all political & social groups, violent & disrespectful members are the exception...despite what partisan propagandists say.

— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012

The meaning of the tweet--and the fact that it speaks against propagandists on the left and on the right, skewering ALL who engage in it--is obvious to all who read it, and speaks for itself.

The guy opines:

"The "partisan propagandists" are the creeps in the left-wing media who refuse to report accurately on what's going on. But as soon as there's any kind of gun violence, these same people are off the blocks with allegations of "the tea party did it!""

In defending political propaganda--and simultaneously providing an example of it--the guy would have you believe that only "creeps in the left-wing media" engage in this kind of dishonest bullshit.

Obviously that is not the case, as our guy himself so aptly proves day by day, post by post.

My posts and comments about vandalism, both involving the Chick-fil-A incidents and in general, are online and available to anyone who cares to read them. That all he could find to attack me with in this edition of his his voluminous "I hate repsac3" series was that tweet above--a comment on bad behavior, with no mention of either side being better or worse than the other--ought to tell you all you need to know, at least about the value and veracity of the guy's latest specious attack (though I would argue it kinda speaks to any / all of them. YMMV...)

I won't post them all--those interested can check my twitter timeline and blog posts--but I've been discussing this subject quite a bit lately, both on Twitter and in blog posts and comments. Allow me to add the tweet I posted right before the one the guy highlighted though, lest there be anyone left unclear as to where I stand:

If you can't follow the Golden Rule, even (especially) when in pursuit of human rights & equality, you're doing it wrong. #Respect4All

— J. Casper (@repsac3) August 5, 2012

No, there is no way the guy could've missed it... His lies about me have never been more obvious, or more easily disproven.
---

Link: Repsac3, Apologist for Homosexual Criminals, Remorselessly Defends Left's Hateful Intimidation and Vandalism on 'National Kiss-In Day'
---

An x-post from a blog that once was
---

/

Sunday Morning Wordle, 8/4/12 (x2)

Via blog link:

Via text cut'n'paste:

(I've been using the former method, but I think I prefer the latter, even if it is more work. The html link doesn't cover the whole week (or everything on the visible page, which it more what I expected), obviously... All those mentions of "chicken" in the "chick-fil-a playlist" post should've blown that word up in the first version the same way it did in the second.)

---

In Reply: Individuals Responsible For Their Individual Acts

In reply to the following comment at Chick-fil-A 'Kiss in' protest small compared to appreciation day - latimes.com

"The LGBT wants people to think that they have been unfairly mistreated. Two lesbian women decided to present themselves as victims of hate. "kill the gays" was painted on the front of their house. They claimed to police that their neighbors had done it and they were in fear for their lives because they had recieved death threats. The different LGBT "activists" were getting ready for a pitty party and i can bet the media was giddy with glee at another chance to report on all the supposed "bigots" that are hurting innocent poor gay people. The police started their investigation and it did not take long to find the truth that the two women had done it themselves. They were so selfish and focused on promoting their agenda to silence all the "bigots" that they did not even care that one of their innocent neighbors would not only face charges for vandalism and death threats but would be hate by everybody because the Liberal media would be sure to plaster their "hateful" face all over the news for a very long time. Needless to say we all know the Liberal media kept the story hush hush when the truth was found out and it barely made a splash and could only be read about by the lucky person to accidently come accross it. This sort of thing makes me wonder if the LGBT does this all the time. It sure does make it harder to believe any of their other claims. Now they have painted on a Chick-Fil-A and it just shows me the ones presenting themselves as victims of hate are the very thing they accuse others of being."
---

Not so crazy to think this vandalism might've happened the other way then, based on what you're saying.

Of course, your whole thinking only goes one way; Two lesbians do something stupid for propaganda, you place the blame on all gay folks. A message against bigotry spray-painted onto a Chick-fil-A building--for which there are no suspects, but for which the propaganda value AGAINST the marriage equality movement is obvious--and you still blame the whole of the gay rights movement. It probably was a person in favor of marriage equality who committed that act of vandalism, but whether that or an agent provocataur from the "traditional marriage" side manufacturing a controversy to exploit, the only person(s) responsible for that vandalism is (are) the vandal(s), not the whole movement from which they came.
---

Posted 6:30 PM (or so)
---

Turns out it was a marriage equality supporter who vandalized the building:
Chick-Fil-A In Torrance, Calif., Graffitied With 'Tastes Like Hate'

Manny Castro

In Reply: "Collective blame for individual action is a non-starter." (Chick-fil-A, Religion, Bad Thinkin')

In reply to Conservatives blast Chick-fil-A 'Tastes like hate' vandalism - latimes.com

Generalizing about whole groups based on the bad behavior of individual members (allegedly, anyway--I'm not saying that graffiti was planted, but it sure makes for a convenient meme) is the very building block of bigotry, whether the group is based on religious belief, sexual orientation, or political belief. Gay folks (or liberals) are no more responsible for that graffiti than folks opposed to abortion (or conservatives) are responsible for clinic bombings. Collective blame for individual action is a non-starter.
--
Posted 8/3/12, 9:00 PM (or so)
===

I will say this, though... Like the idiot(s) who did the vandalism, the people beating up on the faithful in these comments and claiming to do so in the name of marriage equality are not doing anyone any good, and are not speaking for me, at all. The God I worship sees the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, including the ones who think He would ever condone treating anyone as less than perfect creations...or who don't believe in Him, at all.
---
Posted 8/3/12, 9:10 PM (or so)

UPDATED: In Reply: The Wendy's Nontroversy: Machiavelli in the modern age

In reply to The Wendy’s social media saga | VentureBeat
---

Wendy's handled it poorly, and made the situation far, far worse...

But there's a lot left unanswered on the merits of the thing. Did the franchisee have the right to "speak" on Wendy's signpost? (I'm guessing the franchise contract speaks to this.) When you work for someone else--or in someone else's name--your right to free speech in the workplace isn't absolute.

In saying " We proudly serve ALL customers!,"did the Wendy's PR person really say anything different than what the Chick-fil-A PR person said in their 7/31 press release?: "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Is Chick-fil-A implying other fast food restaurants DON'T treat everyone with honor, dignity, and respect?!? Should people be sending them hundreds (thousands?) of angry tweets in response to their "obvious insinuation" about their competition?

No, because there's nothing offensive in either restaurant saying they proudly serve everyone...except to folks looking to create more faux controversy and gin up that cohesive anger that brings (the right kind of) folks together against a common "enemy." Machiavelli still gets results in this modern age.
---

Posted 8/2/12, 'round noon or so

Also blogging:
The Bullshit Manufactured Wendy’s Controversy | JimSwift.net

UPDATE, 8/3/12, 6:00 PM: Found the following while searching for more information last night. While this policy is for employees, and it says elsewhere in this policy statement that franchisees are not employees, I can't imagine that the policies on political / community participation in the workplace are all that much different. Two sections of the 'Wendy's Company' employee manual:

Code of Conduct | COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT | About Wendy's

As concerned and responsible citizens, employees of Wendy's are encouraged to participate in community activities. Wendy's will strive to:

Function as an integral part of the local communities in which it conducts its business operations; and
Remain keenly aware of the benefits it and its employees receive from participating in any activities that improve the health, well-being, education and culture of the community.
Being partners with our communities, we have a responsibility to support and share in the development of social and civic activities to enhance our quality of life.

When the Company elects to participate in a community project and utilize limited employee time and Company resources, management will communicate to affected employees in advance that the effort is a Company sponsored project. Be sure to separate your personal community activities from your work. Pursue community activities on your own time, with your own resources and as an individual private citizen, not as a representative of Wendy's. Do not claim to represent, or imply representation of, the Company to the public or in any public process or forum unless specifically requested to do so by management.

Code of Conduct | POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS | About Wendy's

Employees are encouraged to participate in the political process and vote for the candidates or issues of their choice. Active political participation is the personal choice of each employee and should be conducted on your own time in your role as a private citizen and not on behalf of the Company.

It is strictly prohibited for individual employees to use the funds of Wendy's or its name, assets or property for political purposes or endorsement, whether directly or indirectly. It is also against Company policy to include, directly or indirectly, any political contribution on your expense account or in any other way that causes the Company to reimburse you for that expense. In general, the cost of fund-raising tickets for political functions is considered a political contribution. Therefore, including the cost of any such fund-raising dinner on an expense account, even if business is in fact discussed, is against Company policy and in some cases illegal.

From time to time, Wendy's may, within the limits of the law and through the Wendy's Political Action Committee, support a particular candidate, or support or criticize proposed legislation, regulations or rulings that might impact the business environment in which the Company operates. Our employees are welcome, though not obligated or expected, to participate in such activities.

The political process has become highly regulated, and anyone who has any question about what is or is not proper should consult with the Legal Department before agreeing to do anything that could be construed as involving Wendy's in any political activity at either the federal, state or local level in the United States or in any foreign country.

If anyone can provide any more information, like the actual text from a franchisee agreement, perhaps, I really think they oughtta, whether via comment here or on their own blog. (This goes DOUBLE for "The Wendy's Company," which was so entirely too aggressive when this story began, but has since folded like a cheap suit. If all Wendy's did was adhere to company policy in the interest of remaining neutral as a company and making everyone who works for, is a customer of, or otherwise deals with them feel welcome--a policy that the franchisee who put up the signs should've been aware of--they really, really, REALLY ought to say so, and rebut this nonsense about their opposing free speech. Flame off.)

X-Post: Dishonest Donald Douglas: Fascist First Amendment Fail

Three stories, common theme:

American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

"MY free speech rights are sacrosanct. YOUR free speech rights are fascist*."
(*Donald Douglas epithet / misused word of the week, apparently.)
((Also, dig the side order of "Might Money makes right."))
---

Palin: Calling For Chick-Fil-A Boycott "Has A Chilling Effect On Our First Amendment Rights" | Video | Media Matters for America



"MY free speech is sacrosanct. YOUR free speech chills free speech."
(And by the way, how DARE you use your free speech to expose mine for the bigoted tripe that it is.)
---

May I present "conservative, heterosexual, white male" John Rocker:

"Over recent years, it seems the term “free speech” has become more of an oxymoron than an absolute in our society. Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement. I supposedly have the same right to express myself as you do. In a perfect world, my rights should be no different from yours. I’m quite certain that given the current stage of the world’s social climate, however, anyone ascribing to the ridiculous notion that our world is perfect is kidding himself. Our “perfect” world was replaced many moons ago by the defective reality in which we are all forced to reside – and one of the most blatant areas to view the erosion of perfection is seen in the lack of ability many in this great country have to speak freely without fear of chastisement."

"MY free speech is socra.. sicru... ... the gooddest. YOUR free speech hurts my conservative, heterosexual, white male feelings."

Best post on Rocker, bar none: The Right Not To Be Criticized: John Rocker Edition | Popehat. Read it, but protect your screen from beverage / bodily fluid spray...


Links:
American Power: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

Palin: Calling For Chick-Fil-A Boycott "Has A Chilling Effect On Our First Amendment Rights" | Video | Media Matters for America

The Right Not To Be Criticized: John Rocker Edition | Popehat
---

An American Nihilist X-post

In Recognition of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

I don't support either the restaurant or the reason some folks are eating there today, but their free speech--while wrong in content, in my humble, and in spite of whiners who only appreciate the free speech of those who agree with 'em--is just as valuable as mine.

So, with that in mind, a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day playlist, suitable for those eating at the place, and those protesting there, too...

Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens - The Stargazers
All Birds Look Like Chicken To Me - Sweet Papa Stovepipe
Back In The Chicken Shack (Live) - Phish
Betting Better Fake Chicken Meat Will Be As Good As The Real Thing - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Chick Habit - April March
Chick Singers - Dan Bern - Fifty Eggs
Chick-A-Boom (Don't Ya Jes' Love It) - Daddy Dewdrop
The Chicken - Bill Williams
A Chicken Ain't Nothin' But a Bird - Cab Calloway
Chicken ain't nothing but a bird - Duck Baker
A Chicken Ain't Nothing But A Bird - Louis Jordan
Chicken And The Hawk - Cousin Joe, aka Joe Pleasant
Chicken blues - Mississippi John Hurt
Chicken Boy Polka - Those Darn Accordions! - Vongole Fisarmonica
The Chicken Dance - Lawrence Welk
Chicken Dog - John Scofield
Chicken Half - Sugarman 3
Chicken Heart - Arch Oboler - Drop Dead!
Chicken Heart - Bill Cosby
CHICKEN HUNTIN - FROGTHEDAWG - TEXAS CHAINSAW MASHACRE
Chicken In The Kitchen - The Robert Cray Band
Chicken Little - Push Down & Turn - H.O.R.D.E. Band To Band Combat
Chicken Outlaw - Wide Boy Awake
Chicken Roost Blues - Cliff Carlisle
Chicken Shack - Pinetop Perkins
Chicken Shack Boogie - Amos Milburn
Chicken Stuff - Hop Wilson
Chicken Stuff - Steve James
Chicken Town - James Mathus & His Knockdown Society
Chicken Wing Ft. The Demigodz [Explicit] - Eric Bobo
Chicken You Can Roost Behind The Moon - Stokes And Sane
Chickens - Junip
Chicklet Learns to Surf - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Meets Surfers - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
Chicklet Wipes Out - Ben Vaughn - Psycho Beach Party OST
The Chicks I Pick Are Slender And Tender - Louis Jordan
Chicky-Mo, Craney-Cro - Louis Jordan
Chips - Chicken - Banana Split (From Jamaica To Toronto: Soul Funk & Reggae 1967-1974) - Jo Jo & The Fugitives
Coop D'Etat: Farmers, Humane Society Partner On Chicken-Cage Revolution - NPR Story of the Day Podcast
Cotton Pickin' Chicken (Lost in Paradise) - Angel Baby
Congress Passes Amendment Guaranteeing Right To Chicken Done Right - The Onion Radio News
Slate's Explainer Podcast - Funky Chicken: Do American birds taste funny because we chlorinate them? By Nina Shen Rastogi
In New Orleans, A Fried Chicken Institution Revived - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Kitty's Rambles/Dowd's 9 Lives/Jenny's Chickens - Marc Gunn - MarcSONGS Podcast
Pregnant Circus Geek Now Biting Heads Off Chicken For Two - The Onion Radio News
Savoring The Spice In Kung Pao Chicken - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Slate: The Chick-fil-A Church - Dale Willman, Slate Magazine Daily Podcast
Swinging Chicken Ritual Divides Orthodox Jews - NPR: Story of the Day Podcast
Dig That Crazy Chick - Sam Butera & The Witnesses
Dixie Chicken - Little Feat
Do These Frogs Really Taste Like Chicken - Budweiser Lizards
Fried Chicken - Steve Vai
Funky Chicken - Marcus Miller, Steve Gadd, Eric Clapton, David Sanborn & Joe Sample Funky Chicken - The New York Jets
The Funky Chicken - Rufus Thomas
Funky Chicken Song [Techno] - Fast Food Rockers
Funky Chicken Stew - The Dayton Sidewinders
The Ghost And Mr. Chicken - The Tiki Tones
Grab a Chicken (Put It Back) - Peter Frampton - Fingerprints
The Greasy Chicken - Andre Williams & The Don Juans
Hippie Chick - SoHo
Huddled Chickens - Phillips, U. Utah - I've Got To Know
CHICKENS & OTHER CLUCKERS... - Intoxica Radio w/Howie Pyro
Kicks & Chicks - The Zipps
Marque-son's Chicken - Frank Zappa
Mr. Chicken Shit (alternate take) - The Soul Seven
Quarter Chicken Dark - Stuart Duncan; Chris Thile; Edgar Meyer; Yo-Yo Ma - The Goat Rodeo Sessions
Refried Funky Chicken - The Dregs 1
Robot Chicken - Les Claypool
Run Chicken Run - The Felice Brothers
Running With Chicken - Garfunkel and Oates - All Over Your Face
The Sad Chicken - Leroy & The Drivers
Shoo That Chicken - Bo Carter
Stay Away From My Chicken House - Gene Autry
Superchicken - Sheldon Allman & Stan Worth - Television's Greatest Hits Vol. 5 - In Living Color
That Chick's Too Young To Fry - Louis Jordan
Thunder Chicken - The Mighty Imperials
VLR 04 - How to be a Chicken - Rev. Davdson Loehr - Voices of Liberal Religion
Wasted Chicks - Chicks On Speed vs Kings Of Leon
Y'all Chickenhawks to Me - Elmo and the Monsters
5-Piece Chicken Dinner - The Beastie Boys
Pepito Chickeeto - Woody Woodpecker Presents

Wasn't it the Bush Administration's Responsibility to Return the Items They Borrowed?

In reply to White House clarifies on Churchill bust - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
---

I can't speak to Pfeiffer. I think it more likely that he was as uninformed as most people seemed to've been about there being two Churchill busts and, believing there was only the one, which he's seen with his own eyes outside the Treaty Room in the residence, said the story about it being sent back was a falsehood. But maybe he did know the truth, and did intentionally lie.

I'm less sold on the rest. The Bush administration received the bust that they had as a loan for the length of his first term, and then that was extended through the length of his second. Doesn't that make the Bush administration responsible for returning it (along with other items they had been loaned for the length of his time in office) at the conclusion of his Presidency? I'm not saying Bush was in the office rolling things up in old newspaper--any more than folks accuing Obama are saying he licked the stamps on the package that sent Churchill #2 back--but wouldn't it be Bush's outgoing transition team making sure all the items loaned to them during their administration were returned?

But ok, let's say the incoming Obama transition team or the permanent White House staff agreed to take care of that for the Bush folks, and that Obama was in office and therefore "responsible" for sending the thing back--and especially for refusing the Brit's offer to extend the loan thru his term(s) in office, which he actually did do, maybe even personally, even. So what?

Why does it show disdain for Churchill, England, Israel, or any other person or country for him not to continue an art loan whose time was up? Apparently, the White House already had a bust of Churchill--which makes one wonder where that one, the one we received as a gift during the Johnson administration, was all during the Bush administration. Did Bush have both on display, or did the Obama administration go to the trouble of getting the original Churchill bust out of storage and displaying it, showing admiration, not contempt, for the man and his country? And for that matter, where was the Churchill bust during the rest of the presidencies since we received it, and would it also show disdain for England if Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did not have it in the Oval?

And further still, why do some conservatives find it preferable for this Democratic President to have the bust of an Englishman in the Oval Office, rather than a bust of one of the great American Presidents--and a Republican, no less--from whom the man says he draws inspiration?

The whole nontrovercy seems awful silly to me... ...but just the same, maybe we need a congressional inquiry to get to the bottom of the whole mess. I'm most interested in getting a complete tick-tock--finding out exactly where that Churchill bust gifted to the White House during the Johnson administration has been during each Presidential administration, and why Dubya had to get a loaner in the first place. (Did he drop the original and need to get it repaired? Enquiring minds want to know...) The truth is out there...
---

Posted Submitted for moderator approval 7/31/12, 2:00 AM (or so) / Posted Submitted for moderator approval 7/31/12, 4:45 PM (or so)

NOTE: I posted a version of this comment to the Hill blog around 2:00 AM, 7/31/12. As I was reading it over right after it appeared, I noticed I misspelled a word, and wanted to change the flow of a sentence or two, and hit edit. When I hit "save changes," a pop-up appeared saying my comment was being held for moderation. 12 hours later, it still hadn't appeared, so I found and adapted a second version I had posted elsewhere--this version--and posted that. Unfortunately, the act of cutting and pasting removed all the paragraph breaks in the resulting comment. I hit edit, put them back in and--knowing what was probably going to happen--hit save changes. Needless to say, the comment is being held for moderator approval, again. But at least I have a copy of this one--though damn, I really do think the first one I submitted and lost was more well-written... I got all the elements in there, I think, but I just couldn't recapture the flow and feel of the original... Oh well, shit happens... (If this comment doesn't appear from moderation either, I'll carefully, CAREFULLY resubmit it again in another 12 hours or so... and make no edits, no matter what happens...

This comment--in it's original, unadapted form--appears at Commentary Magazine: Re: Where’s Winston? � Commentary Magazine The one I posted to The Hill the first time, was the best version, though... Shoulda just left that dang misspelled word...

In Reply: Reading Into Speech, And Finding Exactly What You're Looking For

In reply to Allergic to Bull: It’s about Fascism: Why Everyone Should Eat At Chick-Fil-A On Wednesday

I'm with you on the Boston and Chicago incidents, but I think that to lump Mayor Lee in with them, one has to read too much into what he says. Whatever meaning he intended--and I agree that he might've intended to be threatening official Mayoral action to block Chick-fil-A from locating in San Francisco, and even that if he was intending to threaten the use of Mayoral power, he likely intentionally chose his words carefully so as not to be held accountable for the threat he was making--he did not make a threat clear enough to warrant lumping him in with the other two officials in the other two cities. There are other possible meanings, and you're choosing the most damning one, and attacking him for what you think he meant, probably.

Mostly this is a disagreement of opinion--you read one thing into his tweet, and I read another, and neither of us has any definitive proof--or will ever have any, unless the Mayor says something more to clarify the meaning of that original tweet (and even then, he could be walking back his original statement, right?)--but you're also suggesting that what he said--what you believe he said--is a violation of law.

I don't think so. I don't believe there is any law under which one can be prosecuted for what folks think a person meant in a statement as unclear as his. (And even if there were some way to prove he actually meant he would take official government action, I question whether there would need to be some overt act--or some showing that Chick-fil-A suffered some quantifiable damage, at least--before a case could be brought against Mayor Lee.) But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know...

And while we're on the subject of law, I'm still perplexed by your cite of Virginia v Black, and your suggestion that one can find "the law of what counts as a threat" as a part of that decision. As you may've read, all I found when I perused the thing was the cite about "true threats," which involve clear expressions of the intent to commit unlawful violent acts. And if you're reading THAT into what Mayor Lee said, well, I'd be very surprised.

I'm a little worried about the accusation of Mayor Lee in terms of free speech, as well. If your interpretation of his meaning is wrong, you're defining down what an attack on free speech actually is--and chilling the speech of those who would disagree with Dan Cathy, or with those who would defend him (I'm sure you recognize how being casually accused of a crime can put a crimp in one's speech)--and I think that's very dangerous.

Finally, I'm certainly not going to agree that the verbal overreach of a couple of elected officials--which they already backed off from, in the face of a whole lotta pressure from, well, almost everyone--constitutes an attack on free speech that would cause me to advocate for eating at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in the name of striking a blow for the first amendment.

I'm pretty sure that Chick-fil-A will see a good size bump in their business for a little while (and on Wednesday, for sure). The thing is, buycotts tend to be short-term. People do their duty and make a point of making those purchases for a little while, then life sets in, and the McDonalds is a half a block closer, and... people in the buycott start purchasing like usual, again.
The customers Chick-fil-A gains over this issue will almost certainly give the company a bump, short term. The customers they lose will likely never come back.

That said, I sincerely hope you enjoy your chicken, sir. I hear it's dee-lish. (The whole boycott/buycott thing is academic for me... The nearest Chick-fil-A location for me to eat at or protest is like 50 miles away... ...and at this stage, I'm not willing to make a day of it, however strong my beliefs...)
---

Submitted for "Allergic to Bull" moderator approval Posted July 31, 2012 2:59 PM (Actual post time, 8/1/12, 7:15 AM)

X-Post: Donald Douglas Lashes Out and Lies, 7/29/12 - Chick-fil-A, Free Speech, Right of Conscience

In the post Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs Donald Douglas rants and rages about supposed opinions of mine that I do not in fact have. He attributes beliefs and motivations to me that exist only in his eternally angry imagination, and periodically hops up on his little soapbox and screams them at whatever people are within earshot. I'd like to say this is a new low for Dr. Douglas, but sadly, it really isn't.

On the menu today are the various elected officials who have made verbal threats of official executive or legislative action to block new Chick-fil-A locations in their cities, in response to comments made by their CEO, Dan Cathy, and donations made to groups and organizations opposing marriage equality and homosexuality itself, both by members of the Cathy family personally and by the Chick-fil-A corporation.

In the first instance, Dr Douglas is upset by a tweet between me and Aaron Worthing, discussing something The Mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee, tweeted. Here's Donald's version of the story:

So far all the reports out indicate that San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee has warned Chick-fil-A about opening a store in the city.

See the San Franscisco Chronicle, "Mayor Ed Lee warns Chick-fil-A against coming to San Francisco":

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has joined in the growing chorus condemning Chick-fil-A for the national chicken chain’s much-publicized anti-gay views.

After mayors in Boston and Chicago recently expressed their disapproval with Chick-fil-A and its intolerance, Lee followed suit and took to his Twitter account late yesterday, firing off two successive tweets. The first one conveys his disappointment with the chain’s lack of values, and the second one takes it up a notch, suggesting that Chick-fil-A don’t even think about opening in San Francisco.

The mayor's tweets are embedded at the report.

It's clearly threatening. And the Los Angeles Times agrees, "San Francisco is the third city to tell Chick-fil-A: Keep out":

First Boston. Then Chicago.

The next city to tell Chick-fil-A to keep out? San Francisco.

Edwin M. Lee, mayor of the progressive city, tweeted Thursday night: "Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone."

He also added a warning to his subsequent tweet: "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."

Until Thursday, San Francisco had stayed mum on the debate, which began when Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, went on the record as saying his Atlanta-based chicken chain operated on biblical values and opposed same-sex marriage.

Pretty straightforward, obviously.

But not for fascist hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, a.k.a Repsac3, who attacks Aaron Worthing on Twitter with denials of the threat:

There's a whole lot there.

First off, if Donald Douglas believes that this tweet (or indeed any of the ones Dr. Douglas failed to include between Aaron and I, which I'll get to below) constitutes an "attack" on Aaron Worthing, it's obvious why he runs to legal and political authorities to protect him from unwanted blog comments, rather than deleting them and moving on, which is what most bloggers do. And obviously, the other characterizations of me are just as unsubstantiated and therefore nonsensical as they always are. No surprise there, either.

While we're on the subject of words, I note that both of the articles Dr. Douglas cites characterize the Mayor's second tweet as a "warning," rather than a threat.

I definitely concur that it was a warning. And, contrary to the way Donald Douglas is relating the difference of opinion between Aaron and I (whether because he did not read all the tweets, and shot off, uninformed and angry, or read them all, but did not understand the dispute, which once again calls his reading comprehension into question), it could be considered a threat, as well.

Here's the conversation in full. See if you can spot the parts that Donald Douglas failed to grasp:

AaronWorthing: The mayor of San Fran, the latest fascist to use official power to stifle unpopular speech ----> @mayoredlee pic.twitter.com/HodPQ6Ay (Picture link is to Mayor Lee's tweets--and particular to our purposes, the second one, where he says "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.".)

repsac3: @AaronWorthing @mayoredlee Those there are just words, Aaron...and they don't even contain a threat of official action, far as I see

Up to now, Aaron has made an allegation that the Mayor has threatened to us "official power" to stifle unpopular speech, and I replied by questioning his allegation that there was any threat of "official action" by the Mayor. I thought at the time that Aaron's next tweet was continuing the discussion of threats in the context of "official power" or "action," but reading it over now, maybe he wasn't...

AaronWorthing: no, that is a clear threat as understood in ordinary English. @repsac3 @mayoredlee pic.twitter.com/NGgaWBpT

Whatever Aaron was thinking though, it's obvious what I was talking about:

repsac3: @AaronWorthing @mayoredlee We disagree. I'm opposed to those who ARE issuing threats of govt action--like anti-abortion TRAP laws, 2me...
repsac3: ...but saying stay out of this city isn't a threat of govt action. It's just speech

(I was limited by the 140 characters (or 280, I guess). But in case it was in any way unclear, my intent in the first tweet was to say that I saw the threats to use legal/political power against Chick-fil-A as the same as those conservative legislators and governors who have enacted TRAP laws -- impossible / costly to meet regulations about the size of janitor closets, hallway widths, staffing requirements, etc, that are COMPLETELY unrelated to the care or safety of anyone involved with the clinic, targeted at abortion clinics exclusively --that are designed to run clinics out of town via excessive regulation, thereby accomplishing what they cannot accomplish by outlawing abortion directly. Whether it's clinics or fast food chicken, government officials should not be employing excessive regulation to stop those businesses they morally oppose. The intent of the second tweet was to say that Mayor Lee hadn't made a threat to use such government action.)

AaronWorthing: Don't be naive. The law isn't. @repsac3 @mayoredlee

repsac3: @AaronWorthing I'll have to wait for the blog post, because that tweet says nothing to me. What threat, and what law?

AaronWorthing: @repsac3 the law of what counts as a threat. Read, e.g. Virginia v black.

(Needless to say, I did look it up, reading (or at least skimming) several sources. All I found concerning "what counts as a threat" was a citation defining “true threats" as "those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals"

repsac3: @AaronWorthing not seeing the def of threat (other than cite of "true threat" which is about bodily harm). More of a pointer?

And finally in that last link, we get to the single exchange that Dr. Douglas highlighted. Did he read the rest, and either "willingly" or actually not understand them? Or did he just not read them, and think he had some kinda evidence that I was denying that anyone anywhere made any threats at all, and was defending, knee-jerk, everyone on my side of the political spectrum, whether right or wrong. (Y'know... like he does...) We may never know what facts he did and didn't bother to learn, but regardless, he was wrong.

My intent was clear throughout. I wasn't saying the Mayor did not issue a warning or threat of any kind, and never expressed any agreement with what he said, either. But there was no threat of "official action;" no indication that he intended to use or abuse his "official power" as Mayor to keep Chick-fil-A out of his town. Elected officials in other cities made such threats, and I spoke out against them. Often. I did not hear the same kind of threat to abuse his power from Mayor Lee. And that's what I said.

The despicable hater Repsac3 is lying again, no surprise.

A threat does not have to warn of physical harm. "Threat" could be financial injury, for example. In other words, a threat is any kind of caution, as Dictionary.com points out:

threat   [thret]
noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

There's nothing there about a threat requiring violence. But that doesn't matter to Walter James Casper III. He lies about everything.

I did not lie.

I also did not claim that a threat required violence. If anyone did that at all, it was Aaron, in citing Virginia v Black and saying that a definition of "the law of what counts as a threat" could be found in that decision. ...though honestly, I'm pretty sure that Aaron was not suggesting that a threat requires violence, either. For one thing, it would weaken rather than strengthen his assertion that what Mayor Lee said was a threat.

I don't know what Aaron was trying to say in citing that decision. (Maybe he cited the wrong case, or maybe he just didn't think I'd bother to look, figuring that only one of us went to law school, and it wasn't me... or maybe there really is something in there in support of his claims, and I'm just not seeing it, not being a lawyer n'all...) I don't know, because Aaron never answered my tweet requesting more information. (If anyone else wishes to read the opinion and figure out what it is I'm missing within, the link follows: Supreme Court opinion, Virginia v. Black)

One can certainly read a threat to abuse official power into what Mayor Lee tweeted if one is so inclined, but it isn't a foregone conclusion or "Pretty straightforward, obviously" that use or abuse of official power is exactly what Mayor Lee intended. He could just as easily mean that the location would be a ghost town given the make-up of his city, and it wouldn't be worth their while to come. One thing I'm sure of, is that compared to the threats made by the people in Boston and Chicago--which far more clearly threatened the use and abuse of official power to stifle speech--what Mayor Lee said was pretty weak, no matter what his intent.

In any case, it isn't a lie to have a different opinion.

And if that wasn't bad enough, Donald's second accusation is downright preposterous:

And he organizes his hate campaigns with others online:

According to Donald, this tweet is evidence of my organizing a hate campaign with someone else online--in this case, this gentleman, Evan Hurst.

Ready for the truth?

Evan Hurst writes for Truth Wins Out which yes, is an organization that advocates for gay causes. He recently wrote a post OPPOSING the threats against Chick-fil-A by the Democratic politicians in Boston, Chicago (and maybe San Francisco, too... I cannot recall.) I was one of several people who commented at the post AGREEING with him, saying:

"I see the chick-fil-a issue regarding these government officials as being akin to the government officials passing immpossible/extremely costly-to-comply-with regulations on medical providers in the business of providing a service to which these government officials are opposed--abortions--and thus closing them down, or keeping them from opening. (And unlike the Chick-fil-a threats, these regulations against abortion providers are already in place in several cities and states...)

I'm all for protesting, and for the free speech and right of religious and moral conscience of all involved... ...but I cannot support targeting businesses with legally unnecessary regulations and restrictions because you oppose the business on moral grounds, whether it's anti-abortion legislators targeting clinics or pro-marriage equality legislators targeting fast food chicken."

When I went back a day or two later to read what others had said in the comments, the post and all commentary had completely disappeared. I tweeted the author, replying to his tweet "advertising" the post initially:

repsac3: @EvanHurst What became of this honest post about the Boston and Chicago elected officials bad response to chickfila? #disappeardapointed

EvanHurst: @repsac3 It went away. Not by my decision. Sorry. :( If you want a copy, I'll gladly send it, as I did save it.

repsac3: @EvanHurst Would love a copy, thanks. Reader commentary below--both 4 & against--was good, too. Pulling it was BAD, imo. Tell the bosses.
repsac3: @EvanHurst Just occurred to me you may need an e-mail address to pass along the Chickfila article: repsac3blogs@gmail.com Thanks again...

There's a saying that "if you're looking for hate (or bigotry, or racism, or other examples of bad behavior), you'll find it."

Donald Douglas is proof that even when you're looking for it, you don't always find it, however hard you try. That's some kinda hate, there, talking to an author that wrote a post that largely AGREES with Dr. Douglas' position, complimenting him on it--and expressing my disagreement with the idiots that removed it--and accepting his offer to get a copy of the post.

When you insist on behaving as dumb as a bag of hammers in furtherance of your paranoid attacks on those who disagree with you, everything looks like a nail, I guess. Hate and persecution, even in complimentary tweets to an author. Yeesh.

That's something I've mentioned previously, regarding Repsac's intimidation and stalking campaign against this blog.

That Dr. Douglas actually believes and so often repeats this in public says far more about him than me.

He's a liar and an Internet predator. People should avoid him, block him on Twitter, and report him to the proper authorities.

That, too...

My conduct toward Donald Douglas and pretty much everyone else is posted for the world to see and to judge.

I quote and cite what others have to say, and then respond with what I think and believe. I'm not perfect by any means, but I seldom call folks names or make allegations about their inter-species parentage. Most of my comments are respectful and on-topic.

Given the skewering Dr. Douglas so often gets--the result of fact-challenged attack posts like the one I'm responding to here, generally--I can understand why he doesn't like me. What is less clear is why he keeps lashing out at me unprovoked, in the first place.

I may never know...

UPDATE 7/30/12, 12:25 PM:
Quick addendum to this. After I posted it, I sent Aaron Worthing a tweet letting him know I had posted about our discussion, in case he wanted to clarify or take issue with anything I wrote:

repsac3: @AaronWorthing Blogged about a twitter exchange we had the other day. Read, respond, or ignore, as you wish: http://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/donald-douglas-lashes-out-and-lies.html …

There's been no response from him so far, but when I checked his twitter feed, I noticed that he had uncritically retweeted Donald's dishonest post yesterday:

While it was long before this response went live, I'm still very disappointed in him. He struck me as more honest--or at least less knee-jerk partisan--than that...

Even still, I hope he comes by to discuss it with me and show me where I'm wrong...


Links:
American Power: Mayor Edwin Lee Warns Chick-fil-A on Coming to San Francisco — Lying Fascist Repsac3 Denies It, Shills for Left's Anti-Free Speech Thugs

Inside Scoop SF � Mayor Ed Lee warns Chick-fil-A against coming to San Francisco

San Francisco is the third city to tell Chick-fil-A: Keep out - latimes.com

American Power: California Penal Code Section 646.9 on Criminal Harassment and Cyberstalking: Statement of Warning to Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III

American Nihilist: Donald Douglas - Reading Comprehension

virginia v black - Google Search

VIRGINIA V. BLACK

Supreme Court opinion, Virginia v. Black
---

An American Nihilist X-post

Sunday Morning Wordle, 7/29/12