Friday, April 23, 2010

IRT: "Marxists and Fornicators Indoctrinators Everywhere!!"

In reply to/in support of: Capitalism: A Love Story - STUDENTS FOR INDEPENDENT MEDIA
---

Read about the showing on Professor Donald Douglas’ blog (American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story).

***[UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). ***UPDATE 8/11/10: The cache link no longer works, either. I've now posted the screencaps, as promised.*** We now return you to the original post, already in progress...]***

I noticed he didn’t seem to enjoy the film or the discussion that followed, and that he sees Marxists, lesbians, “leftist indoctrinators” and other assorted enemies to his own narrow world view throughout the whole LBCC faculty and student population.

As a blogger who has repeatedly engaged him and found him to be far more concerned with massaging his own ego and verbally bullying those with whom he does not agree–he has an extensive “enemies list” that he regularly attacks on his blog the same way he did SIM and the professors who took part in the premiere event–the remaining faculty, staff, and student body (commies all, I’m sure) has my utmost sympathies.

Given the attack–and the degree to which I dislike bullies, of any stripe–I just wanted to drop by and offer my support and encouragement. While I’m not as down on the corporate media as your flier suggests you folks are–the way I see it, every source of information is biased one way or another, and it’s up to us to recognize the kernels of truth among the intentionally and unintentionally slanted/biased chaff–I’m all for increasing one’s media diet, and including as many different perspectives as possible (which might explain why I stop by professor Douglas’ blog once a day or so… It’s important to know what those who disagree with you are saying, too… especially when it’s about you, directly or indirectly.)

Anyway… Good luck with all your future SIM discussions and presentations. As long as you’re getting under the skin of reactionaries like Professor Douglas, you’re probably on the right track.
---

Submitted for moderator approval 4/23/10, 10:51 AM (WIS blog time)...
...and subsequently (4/25, I think) rejected and moderated away without ever being posted...

(Two things... 1) I understand... Were I in any way associated with the school--and I suspect this club has a faculty advisor and whatnot, so they are--I wouldn't want this comment posted, either. You'll note above the Dr. Douglas' original post making some of these charges was disappeared, too... One can draw their own conclusions, but I know what I think... and 2) on the other hand, the "moderated comment" link made it look like mine was the third comment submitted, so maybe they're just not accepting ANY comments at this blog... (although they did accept at least one, at their initial post. And also, see 4/29/10 updates, above and below (#3 on the list of two things... Ain't it always the way...)

UPDATE: I was doing some research for another post, and stumbled across this comment from Dr. Douglas: "I'm also proud to be teaching at Long Beach City College. I'm proud of the work that I do. And I'm proud of my dedicated colleagues." One presumes that he's not including those Long Beach City College colleagues he attacks in the post linked above among those he's proud of. At least, one hopes not...

UPDATE, 4/29/10 - Not only was the comment to American Power removed, the whole post was deleted, which is some serious moderation for content.

While I'd like to think Professor Douglas made it go bye-bye on my account--something about thrashing and trashing his dishonest bullshit about the military budget, perhaps--I have a feeling it had to do with his nasty treatment of his cow-orkers... I'd think there'd be some rule against doing that kinda thing, regardless of where one works... ...but especially anyplace that relies on folks believing the "employees"--the faculty of LBCC--is competent and open to intelligently discussing and debating a variety of political and social ideas and ideals, including those with which they personally don't agree. Whether one agrees with Donald Douglas's political biases and observations or not, it doesn't project a good image of any of the professors named (including Dr. Douglas) or of the college itself to have a professor calling his colleagues "communists" and "lesbians" and "far left indoctrinators," for all the world to see.

Regardless of the reason, it was moderated away, and can only be found at that cache link posted above (and on the screencaps of it that I'll post, should I ever notice that the cache link is dead, as well...) Screencap link: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (ScreenCaps)

Thursday, April 22, 2010

IRT: Is Marxist the new "nihilist?"

In reply to: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story, -- [UPDATE 4/29/10 - Apparently that post--and thus all links to it--have fallen down the memory hole. Here's a link to a cached version from April 27th, 2010: American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story (cached version). Please use that link, instead.] -- and particularly this comment:
"Yay! Thanks for coming, Prof. Douglass! I must say, it's long been a dream of mine to be mentioned in your blog as a Marxist." - Richard Booth - April 21, 2010, 10:08 PM
(I assume this is the former student, though given the number of folks Dr. Douglas smacks that Marxist label on in the post, it could be any number of people):
---

Richard, even Dr Douglas' "nihilists" are Marxists, now... (Any slur in a storm... It's not like these words have actual, y'know, definitions that a political scientist might be expected to understand and adhere to, or anything...)

Congrats on the formal denunciation, though... From what I've seen over the last several years, you're in good company... (if I do say so myself.) - repsac3 - April 22, 2010, 6:06 AM
---

4/29/10 - Not only was this comment removed, the whole post was deleted, which is some serious moderation for content.

While I'd like to think Professor Douglas made it go bye-bye on my account--something about thrashing and trashing his dishonest bullshit about the military budget, perhaps--I have a feeling it had to do with his nasty treatment of his cow-orkers... I'd think there'd be some rule against doing that kinda thing, regardless of where one works... ...but especially anyplace that relies on folks believing the "employees"--the faculty of LBCC--is competent and open to intelligently discussing and debating a variety of political and social ideas and ideals, including those with which they personally don't agree. Whether one agrees with Donald Douglas's political biases and observations or not, it doesn't project a good image of any of the professors named (including Dr. Douglas) or of the college itself to have a professor calling his colleagues "communists" and "lesbians" and "far left indoctrinators," for all the world to see.

Regardless of the reason, it was moderated away, and can only be found at that cache link posted above (and on the screencaps of it that I'll post, should I ever notice that the cache link is dead, as well...)

Sunday, April 18, 2010

It's a shame folks even care about Kagan rumors

In reply to: Le�gal In�sur�rec�tion: Kagan Rumors Expose Left-Wing Hypocrisy and Homophobia:
---

"First, the left has a long history of outing (allegedly) gay Republicans. "

"The Left" doesn't exist a single monolithic thinking entity that can be hypocritical any more than "the Right" does.

Now, if you have quotes from John Aravosis or the folks who made "Outrage" saying that it's wrong to question the sexual preferences of Kagan, you'd actually have something...

But ascribing their tactics as concerns the outing of gay folks to everyone on the left is as foolish and misguided as blaming everyone at a protest for the signs, chants, and actions of the relative few who behave poorly. Some (left and right) believe in outing gay folks, and others (left and right) are opposed to it. (Me?... I'm for folks outing themselves--at this stage, I do think it helps folks realize that most gay people aren't flamboyant activists, and are instead pretty much like straight folks... Eventually, I hope it won't even be important enough to matter to much of anyone besides extremists, either way--but I'm not in favor of outing anyone against their will.)

The way I see it though, one is only a hypocrite if one says one thing when it's gay folks on their side being outed, and another when it's gay folks on the other being outed... Holding "the Left" or "the Right" responsible en mass for what a few individuals say on the subject--regardless of what it is they're saying--just doesn't pass muster...

The only person to blame (or congratulate) for what John Aravosis says is John Aravosis and the individuals who quote him approvingly. I fail to see how his words make everyone on "the Left" hypocrites... (And of course, the same goes for William A. Jacobson--or any other individual on the right--and "the Right," as a whole.)
---

Submitted Posted to Legal Insurrection (a moderated blog) April 18, 2010 3:41 PM (shared time zone)

Thursday, April 08, 2010

IRT: "...what's really going on in this country: the robots leading imbeciles."

In reply to: The Oracular Opinion: If I Hear One More Stupid Politician—I’m Going To Lose My Mind! - April 7, 2010 5:19 PM comment, by grannywithapitchfork
----------

First of all, repsac3, the right has to have a sense of humor just to exist in this world.

I'd think that's true of everyone, Granny... But the fact remains that it's often the failure to comprehend the joke (or even that it was a joke) that sets some conservatives off on an "I'm offended" rant. And having seen what passes for conservative humor... well, let's just leave it at that...

Secondly, I watched the thing 3.5 times, which was all I could stomach.

How sad for you, that watching a man speak so affects you...

The man can't string two words together, and how he ever got elected I cannot fathom.

I'm guessing that folks who think he's an idiot think the people of GA are idiots too, on the grounds that they elected him... YMMV... Personally, I find that offensive, but perhaps you'll luck out, and the folks in GA that you're calling idiots will be too stupid to notice that you folks are insulting them...

Maybe it was one of those "teachable moments" that they're all so proud of.

I don't even know what that means, but it kinda reads like another insult to the folks of GA... If so, see above.

If "at no time" did you "get the impression that the man actually thought an island could or would tip over" then you must have been watching it with your eyes closed.

If you say so... (though the fact that I make reference to the gestures he made and whatnot kinda make that a pretty dumb theory...)

If you're going to be an apologist for the left...

I'm not apologizing for anyone, Granny... I'm flat out saying I think you're interpretation is mistaken.

...maybe you should pay more attention to what's really going on in this country: the robots leading imbeciles.

That's the saddest part of it all... You folks claim to love the country, but you sure don't seem to like the people very much... All I keep reading is how the folks in government are idiots, the American people are imbiciles... Damned sad... I can't imagine how folks who feel so poorly about us all even manage to get through the day...

Me, I love this country, the government we created and keep, and the vast majority of the folks in it, as well... While some claim that makes me naive, I'd much rather be a believer and a patriot than the cynics and naysayers I see bitching about everyone and everything...

I'll pray for you.

Why thank you!! (That's the first pleasant thing you've said all comment.) I'll pray for you, as well... (I"d tell you to have a nice day, but given all the piss and vinegar, I'm not sure you're able...) Try and think a happy thought or two, at least... America and the folks who live here really aren't so bad as you imagine...
-------

The Oracular Opinion: If I Hear One More Stupid Politician—I’m Going To Lose My Mind! - April 8, 2010 2:41 PM

IRT: "I truly believe Johnson thought Guam would tip and capsize."

In reply to:
Respac: I believe I’m a fairly open-minded person and give people the benefit of the doubt, even Liberals, which has dubbed me a “liberal ass kisser” and a “traitor” from many on the Right. With that being said, I truly believe Johnson thought Guam would tip and capsize. Here is my reason:

In his first comment to the Admiral, Johnson states he is concerned with the island becoming over populated which could result in the island “tipping and capsizing” and he uses hand and body gestures to PROVE his point. A person making the argument of a “tipping point” would most likely not use hand and body gestures .

When the Admiral reassures Johnson that “they” don’t expect that to happen, Johnson THEN proceeds to contest using the environment, ecological system, coral reef and “stuff like that” argument.

IF Johnson’s major concern was the environment and ecological system why didn’t he present it in his opening statement?
- Law and Order Teacher: NAPOLEON WAS RIGHT! - April 7, 2010 4:22 PM comment by Pamela D. Hart
------

Pam: All I can say is I don't see it that way, and, at least so far, haven't heard anyone who knows the guy or was actually in that room who does see it that way.

If you want me to critique his delivery of the humorous metaphor, I'll agree that he could've done better. But not being good at delivering a humorous line isn't the same as not trying to deliver one... (Watching the video again, I thought I even detected a slight smile on his face as he makes the "tipping" motion which is, unfortunately, mostly obscured by his hands... YMMV...)

The population argument is of a piece with the environmental impact argument, rather than two separate points, and a person trying to use a metaphor for "tipping point" very well may make that motion... (It's not as though he wasn't saying the island might literally tip over; it's that he meant it figuratively, saying that the increased population and environmental impact will bring the island to it's tipping point. And watching the video again, it's pretty apparent that the guy has a little Italian in him, and says pretty much everything accompanied by hand gestures.)

It's a matter of interpretation, and I can no more prove I'm correct than can those who think he's stupid or incompetent... Should he make other statements that bring his intelligence or ability to think and reason into question, I'll revisit my position, but not having seen any myself, or heard reports of any from credible or non-biased sources, I'm comfortable believing he was trying to make a reasonable and valid point, and simply did so clumsily... ...as evidenced by all the folks who failed to understand his intended meaning.

I find my explanation much more likely that the one some folks on the right are positing; that the people of GA failed to notice that they were electing an idiot to represent them in the House. With respect to the cynics and the sophisticates here, I prefer to have more evidence before branding anyone an idiot or believing that our crop of elected officials is full of 'em... If you believe that makes me naive or a happy idiot myself, so be it...

For all the labels I hear tossed around about libs in general or me in particular (nihilists, anti-Americans, blame America firsters), I seem to be the least "down on the US" person in this conversation... I believe we elect good men and women, and for the most part, they selflessly do their best for the country and it's citizens... (While I didn't agree with Bush or his policies, I believed the same about him, too.) Naive? yeah, maybe... But I'd much prefer to naively think the best of us and give folks the benefit of the doubt--at least until they don't deserve it anymore--rather than believe that they all suck, and America's done for... I couldn't live with that kinda cynicism, and as I said above, I feel bad for those who do...
------

Law and Order Teacher: NAPOLEON WAS RIGHT! - April 8, 2010 6:36 AM comment

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

IRT: "The less these people plague the nation with their stupidity the better for all of us."

In reply to: Law and Order Teacher: NAPOLEON WAS RIGHT! - April 6, 2010 9:45 PM comment by Law and Order Teacher
---

"This guy is not competent to be in congress if he is too sick to speak clearly or think clearly."

I'm not making the "too sick" argument; I'm saying he's no more or less competent than anyone else in that room, and just tried to make a point with a "tipping over/tipping point" metaphor that many misunderstood--in some cases intentionally and willfully misunderstood, in the name of partisan politics.

But I'll go this far with ya... If he is in fact too sick to do the job, he shouldn't be serving. (He wouldn't be the first or only elected official I felt this way about, up to and including a well venerated and much celebrated Republican President who served during my lifetime...)

"I don't have a lot respect for most politicians of any political stripe. The less of them the better. The less these people plague the nation with their stupidity the better for all of us."

I always feel bad when I see folks on the right talk that way about the US government and the people we elect--and by extension, the people who do the voting, as well. I'm not saying elected officials are geniuses or Gods, but given all it takes to get elected and to serve, by and large, they ain't stupid, either. (It also makes me wonder why so many who feel this way about government and elected office turn around and work for or around elected officials or government--and in some cases actually run for elected office themselves.)

In this regard, we disagree... I believe that the people who run and who serve are intelligent and giving Americans who are doing what they can to protect and defend the country and our way of life... ...no matter which party they hail from. (That's not to say I don't disagree with some of 'em, politically or personally, but I neither think them stupid or un-American for believing in a different political philosophy than I do. Wrong, yes. Stupid, no.) I can't be so cynical as to think our government is made up of fools out to get us, and I feel kinda bad for those who are and who do...
---

Reply posted April 7, 2010, 5:28 AM (LaOT blog time)

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

IRT: Those Seething Toxic Dumps of Hatred We find Intelligent and Worth Listening to

In reply to: PARSLEY'S PICS: Don"t speak English, speak "Teabonics" - Law and Order Teacher's 4/5/10 10:06 PM comment
------

"The reason I read tnlib is I respect her intelligence, she may be a little misguided, but obviously intelligent and worth listening to. :)"

So, not a "seething toxic dump of leftist hatred," then... That's what I think, as well...

I'm only suggesting that you be so kind as to say so, the next time someone says otherwise about a liberal blogger you find intelligent and/or worth listening to... Your reply to Dr. D's characterization of tnlib seemed a little wanting, if not outright vague/actually misleading on the subject... (It almost seemed as though you were implying that her site was among those with the name-calling and the vitriol... Fortunately, I knew better, but there's a whole lotta folks there--perhaps including Dr. D., himself--who likely don't know that you frequent this and other bloggers and sites identified as hateful and hurtful dens of anti-americanism and godlessness by Mr Douglas and others like him, and that you not only live to tell the tale, but quite enjoy your time among we elites, and come by kinda regularly...)

I guess what I'm saying is that it'd be a better world if we stood up for the people whose company we appreciate and enjoy, whether or not we agree with them politically...

Oh... I don't really believe that over-populated/over-developed islands really are prone to sinking, either...(Just in case you failed to pick up on my deadpan "Johnsonesque" humor in my recent comment on your blog...)

Comment posted to PARSLEY'S PICS - Don&'t speak English, speak "Teabonics" 4/6/10, 12:02 AM (PP blog time)

IRT: On tipping over and tipping points

In reply to: Law and Order Teacher (blog): NAPOLEON WAS RIGHT! - April 5, 2010, 9:39 PM comment by Law and Order Teacher (the man, not the blog)
---

"First, I guess I'm humorless, but I don't get the "humor" and neither did the admiral. I couldn't have kept a straight face when the congressman said this.

I would certainly have been interested in some clarification of his remarks. If I had made this statement, I would have been compelled to offer some follow-up to it so as to identify it as humor, or in this case, lack of it."

I never claimed it was funny, only that the "tipping over" thing due to overpopulation was intended to be a metaphor for the island reaching/surpassing it's ecological "tipping point" with the increased population and the demands on the area and it's natural and manmade services.

As for follow up, you're in luck, because he did offer some, not long after the media and blogs got going on the 'idiot" meme...

---------
“I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over,” said Johnson. “I was using a metaphor to say that with the addition of 8,000 Marines and their dependents – an additional 80,000 people during peak construction to the port on the tiny island with a population of 180,000 – could be a tipping point which would adversely affect the island’s fragile ecosystem and over burden its already overstressed infrastructure.

“Having traveled to Guam last year, I saw firsthand how this beautiful – but vulnerable island – is already overburdened, and I was simply voicing my concerns that the addition of that many people could tip the delicate balance and do harm to Guam.” - Hank Johnson and a "capsizing" Guam - Political Insider, Atlanta Journal Constitution
-----------------------
A later statement on the Congressman's website simply said "The subtle humor of this obviously metaphorical reference to a ship capsizing illustrated my concern about the impact of the planned military buildup on this small tropical island." - Rep. Johnson's statement on Guam comments in an Armed Services Committee hearing
-------------
And even the folks in Guam seem to get it...
----------
"Madeleine Bordallo, Guam's delegate in the House, told Kuam News that she understood Johnson's comment was in jest. "I know Congressman Hank Johnson, and I'm sure that -- he's been here to Guam -- so I'm sure that it was just a joke," she said.

Furthermore, Bordallo added, she is not concerned about Congress being ill-informed about the island. Over 50 percent of the Armed Services Committee has been to Guam, she said."
- Guam Tipping Over Comment No Concern for Guam Officials - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


I get that the guy looks foolish in the video--especially if that's what you're lookin' to see-- but don't accept that he, or the people who elected him, really are dumb enough to believe that islands can/do tip over if not correctly weighted. (Everyone who's anyone knows that islands are for more likely to sink quite evenly down before any tipping would occur...) If the man really did lack that much intelligence, it's pretty unlikely that this incident would be the first and so far only indication of it...

Anyway, them's the statements you was suggesting you would've made, if you was in his shoes... Apparently in that regard, anyway, you and he came to the same well thought out conclusion... You can decide for yourself whether that makes your intelligence level somewhere down by his, his intelligence level somewhere up near yours, or just dumb luck by one or the other of you... 8>)
---
Comment posted to Law and Order Teacher: NAPOLEON WAS RIGHT! on April 6, 2010 12:19 AM (LaOT blog time)

Saturday, April 03, 2010

IRT: "name-calling and vitriol" and blogs we visit regularly (Do we like 'em a little or a lot, LOT?)

In reply to: The disconnect between this comment at an American Power post about the blog Parsley's Pics, and this comment by the same person at the blog Parsley's Pics. (Comment posted at the latter blog and link.)
---

@LOT:

Perhaps I shouldn't bring this up, but I'm surprised you didn't speak up in defense of our evil, hateful, jihadi, "seething toxic dump of leftist hatred," tnlib over at Don's place...

While you didn't exactly toss tnlib under Don's bus, it might've been nice had you made it more clear that those sites with the name-calling and vitriol didn't include Parsley's Pics, in your opinion...

I'm sorry if you think this query rude, but after reading your generally reasonable replies on sites like this one-- Douglas labeled "hate site" The Swash Zone and Truth101's place come to mind, immediately--I've taken to wondering how you walk that fine line between Donald Douglas considering you a blog buddy and he and his thinking you an evil nihilist collaborator for actually treating folks with whom you disagree with common decency and respect.

While I disagree with your politics, I for the most part think you a fine fellow, but I do kinda wish you'd speak your mind more clearly when Donald engages in these attacks on the individuals and blogs you visit pretty regularly, whether in agreement with him or otherwise...

(Two bits well spent, after waiting entirely too long... Unless there's a comment in need of reply, that itch is scratched, and I'll say no more on the subject...)
---

Comment submitted/posted 4/3/10, 10:27 AM (PP blog time) at PARSLEY'S PICS: Don't speak English, speak "Teabonics"

IRT: Donald Douglas: "Halfrican" a bigoted designation, but only when said by a liberal (and regardless of the Lib's point for doing so)

In reply to:
Repsac3: You can quit with the racist allegations. First, nothing Swash Zone alleges is true, so forget that. And what I've written on my own blog IS politically correct, but in no way bigoted.

As you know damned well, I love all people of all colors, races, religions, etc. I attack people on ideologocically grounds.

Finally, to keep attacking me as "Halfrican" IS racist. Show me where I've endorsed Rush Limbaugh's use of "Halfican," or where I've ever attacked Obama as "Halfican."

In sum, the bigotry is found in your desperation to get the goods on me. And you and your SWASH ZONE hordes are all about hate, as I've shown in this post on TNLib.
- American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger, April 3, 2010 8:55 AM comment by Donald Douglas
(Donald's comment was, in turn, a non-responsive reply to my April 3, 2010 6:59 AM comment, which is also quoted in a post below.)
---

When I allege that you have made a bigoted comment, I also quote the comment, explain why I believe it expresses bigoted thought, and allow others to decide for themselves.

In this case, I did none of that, and expressly said that whether you is or you ain't is irrelevant to the point I intended to make, which was that--contrary to the idea that in order for you (or anyone of mixed heritage) to express bigotry you would have to tie a noose around your own neck--anyone can think, speak, or act like a bigot, no matter their heritage. (Interestingly, you neglected to address that point in your reply, either in agreement or in opposition. I'd still be interested in reading replies to the point I was actually positing, on the off chance that you or anyone else here wishes to offer one...)

I have mixed feelings about the term "Halfrican," but figured that if it was good enough for Rush, it was good enough for Rush's listeners... (True, you haven't endorsed his using it, but you haven't objected to it, either...) If you believe it is a bigoted term that Rush was using, I shall refrain from referring to you in that way again. (Hopefully, Rush will do the same.)

You are, of course, welcome to answer by again alleging that I am a bigot if you wish, though I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind as to provide examples of my bigotry, if you intend to do so. If you do not, I reserve the right to cheerfully ignore your unsubstantiated charges as unworthy of consideration...
----

American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger, comment posted April 3, 2010 10:15 AM

IRT: Is it impossible for a person of mixed heritage to be a bigot?

In reply to: American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger
Donald, I believe you are half black and half white, am I right? Funny how the leftist twerps imply you are a bigot and a racist. Do you spend time socking yourself? Ridiculous. - Stogie, April 2, 2010, 9:00 PM comment
Leaving all the ego and personal vitriol of post and comment aside, I wonder whether the folks who believe that Dr. Douglas cannot speak or act in racist or bigoted ways because of his heritage also feel the same about "full blood" minorities (Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan), or even others of mixed heritage, such as President Obama...

And even if one does believe that no black man or a "halfrican" (thanks, Rush) can be a bigot toward other black folks, what is it that prevents such a man from behaving as a bigot toward hispanics, Muslims, Christians, gay folks, Jews, or women?

Dr Douglas may or may not actually be a bigot--folks can read his words, and decide for themselves--but the argument that he can't be, because he himself has minority blood--whether made by him, or by those who would defend him--doesn't hold water, at least as far as I'm concerned...
---

American Power: TNLib at The Swash Zone: Prototypical Leftist Hatemonger - Comment posted April 3, 2010 6:59 AM

X-Post: Two faces of American Power

In this first AmPow post, counter-protest (against the 4/15 Tea Parties, in this case) is eeeeevil. "The thought of infiltrating a lefty organization to cause mischief has probably never crossed the minds of most conservatives." Yeah, counter-protest is crazy bad, and conservatives would never do such any such thing...

Well, except for this counter-protester Donald writes about in his very next post. Is counter-protest still eeeeevil, like it was in the last post? Of course not, because this counter-protester is attacking a bunch of liberals, and that makes all the difference...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Douglas...

And then there were the Gathering of Eagles, whose whole purpose was to counter-protest anti-war demonstrations. (Whatever happened to them, anyway?)
-------
American Nihilist X-Post

Friday, April 02, 2010

X-Post: First you build the strawman...

"The current media talking point is that ONLY the Tea Party/the Right/Republicans/Conservatives are making threats, against Democrats." - ONLY the Right huh? - The Daley Gator

I won't go so far as to say that no media personality anywhere has made any such claim, but I submit that there are very few who have, and that they're likely not serving a major market... In short, contrary to the claim of this blogger--as well as others who are spinning the case that liberal violence, vandalism, and bigotry are treated differently than conservative violence, vandalism, and bigotry, background circumstances being equal... or somewhere close to equivalent, anyway--it's far from a media talking point.

I asked the blogger who posted that whether he'd be willing to quote a few of those media talking heads saying that ONLY the right are making threats in a comment early yesterday morning, saying:
I take issue with your premise…

Any chance you might provide a few quotes of individuals in the media saying that ONLY the right engage in this behavior? Because I’ve heard a good bit of “the other side does it, too” from the reportage, even involving instances where the broken glass/nasty phone message/cut gas line about which they’re reporting is only found on one side of the equation…

I submit that, when the terms are the same, anyway, the media reports/doesn’t report pretty much evenly. (By which I mean that no, threatening verbiage against Breitbart won’t get the same coverage as threatening verbiage against an elected official, but when it’s elected official / elected official — say Cantor vs Stupak — the amount/degree of coverage is pretty similar.) - ONLY the Right huh? - The Daley Gator, March 31, 2010 at 5:04 am comment
but so far, there's been no response.
Let's go to the video tape:

A collage of Tea Party activist signage over the past year:


A collection of anti-war protester signage and spoken word collected while Bush was in office:


Anyone see a substantial difference between the extremist nutjobs on the left and the extremist nutjobs on the right? I don't, but some folks on the right sure seem to...

Evan Coyne Maloney, the man who created the latter video, had this to say:
Not too long ago, taking to the streets to protest your government was considered a patriotic act.
What we said, if I'm not mistaken, was that it wasn't an anti-American act, and that this country was founded on dissent. Protest pretty much always has been patriotic, but that doesn't mean protesters are free to say and do anything they wish without facing criticism from the rest of us or legal action when appropriate. The impulse and the act of protesting is patriotic; bigotry, violence, and vandalism however, are not patriotic acts, even when committed at otherwise patriotic, all-American events.
But it seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009.

Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence.
Of course that's ridiculous... It's not protesting against this or any President or policy that's potentially dangerous, but what some fools say and do at protests and elsewhere that may incite violence and other bad acts...
If you’ve opened up a newspaper or watched a cable news program in the past week or so, you’ve probably seen members of the media painting Tea Party activists as dangerous bigots. That’s because disagreeing with President Obama on issues like government spending and high taxes makes you a racist, you see.
Twaddle.
What you've seen for the most part is members of the media highlighting individual Tea Party activist words and deeds that they believe have been dangerous or bigoted, as well as other members of the media ignoring or papering over those "few bad apples" and defending the Tea Party as a whole. Disagreeing with the President on the issues has never made anyone a racist. Expressing disagreement with the President on the issues in racist terms however, has.
What’s interesting about the media’s latest freak-out is that there were radicals a-plenty under President Bush. They protested in the streets. They talked openly about revolution and killing. But oddly, the violent imagery used by people claiming to be advocates for peace never registered with the media. They were too busy fawning over Cindy Sheehan.
More whining victimhood about a media that hates conservatives...
Yes, there were protesters (and radicals, too) under President Bush, just as there are under President Obama. And yes, the Tea Party reactionaries and their bigoted, violent imagery has gotten more attention than the anti-war radicals and their violent imagery. But that's because the Tea Party movement as a whole has gotten more media coverage. (Does anyone remember an hour long CNN special on anti-war protesters, where representatives were able to come in and express their views, unfiltered? Yeah, me neither...)
Why the difference in coverage? Did the media cheerlead the protests against President Bush to hurt him politically? Are they trying to marginalize the increasingly powerful Tea Party movement because they favor President Obama’s agenda?
The difference in coverage of the Tea Parties in general isn't very difficult to explain... (It has to do with the fact that one of the organizers is a lobbyist and former US House Majority leader... Just a guess...) And cheerleading? FoxNews hosts fanned out and became featured speakers at Tea Party events throughout the country, running free advertising for Tea Party events for weeks, as well. (It's one thing to cover the story; it's quite another to be the story...) Show me a mainstream news source that did anything like that for anti-war events.

As for why the bigotry and vandalism is getting more coverage, I think that also has to do with who the victims of the behaviors are... Call a former civil rights leader and current US congressman a nigger, and/or spit on the guy, and it's going to make news... When there's a rightwing nut on the internet who suggests breaking the windows at Democratic congressional district offices to protest the passage of healthcare reform--and then there's a series of broken windows at Democratic congressional district offices--the media is going to notice and report on it. First black President as monkey? As witch doctor? Watermelons growing on the Whitehouse lawn? I'm sorry, man, but that stuff is clearly bigotry, and like it or not, it's going to make a difference to we citizens, both in and out of the media...

Yes, Dubya was portrayed as a smirking chimp too, and yes, it wasn't very nice when individuals on the left did it to him, either--but anyone who doesn't understand the difference between portraying a white man as a monkey and a black man as the very same monkey just doesn't have the intelligence one needs to speak in public... It'll be a great day when protesters can portray anyone of any race as a monkey and have everyone take it as a comment on the person's intelligence or protrusive ears, and not a comment about race, but we just ain't there yet...
One thing’s for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story.
There is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, and both videos above show some... If it's wrong to demonize the president by comparing him to Hitler, it's wrong to demonize the president by comparing him to Hitler... Two wrongs apparently do make a right to some folks, though... If your first response to seeing bigoted signs being held by your own side is to point to bigoted signs being held by the other side, there's something wrong with you. (Now, if you can show me a guy holding a BusHitler sign in 2004 saying that tea baggers holding Hitlerbama signs are crossing the line, I'll join you in condemning the hypocrisy and double talk bullshit of that asshole...)

Free speech is a wonderful thing; you can learn a lot about your fellow Americans by really listening to what they have to say, good or bad.

Oh look... Donald Douglas at American Power has added his two bits: BUSH = HITLER: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same...
[Evan Coyne Maloney] is therefore in a good position to recall the signs and symbols of the left-wing opposition to the Bush administration's post-9/11 national security policies. How do they compare to the Tea Party protesters expressing their opposition to Barack Obama's program of national socialism?

Evan has now produced a timely new video splicing together footage that he calls "A trip down memory lane." He describes it as four minutes of nonstop examples of violent imagery and extremist rhetoric employed by left-wing anti-Bush protesters. He writes: "For some reason, despite it being well documented at the time by me and many others, the media chose to ignore it." Indeed.
Here's another photo of the BUSH = NAZI ideological demonization from March 20, in Hollywood:
"Stop Bussh"s Terrorism" (with nazi SS's, natch) photo cut
Recall that "SS" stands for "Schutzstaffel," Hitler's paramilitary security state within the state.
Plus, posted previously, "BOOSH," the racist Bush slur.:
(This one you had to see...)

Racist Bush slur?

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand the subtle workings of the neocon mind, but that sure looks like an explosion to me... You know... Boom!!?!

Boosh!! go the bunker-busters!!

(As near as I can figure it, Dr Douglas is trying to say this Boosh! sign has something to do with the internet term "Joooos," which I'm pretty sure is a pronunciation thing--often used by Cons like Donald, very much the same way they've taken to using "raaaaacist" of late--to refer to folks on the left who they claim are anti-semitic -- which begs the question as to why an anti-semite would be making fun of himself by using the term... But I didn't major in neocon logic. (I think I read on a wingnut blog somewhere that the term neocon is itself anti-semitic... Which'll be news to Dr Douglas (Americaneocon), I'm sure... unless it's one of those "it's only ok when WE do it," things... like these Nazi/Hitler references, apparently...) ((Neat how I got back on topic there, eh?))

One more thing you probably ought to know about the picture I posted and the one I didn't... They were back to back, on the same sign. So even assuming Boosh!! is in some way a bigoted thing to say, it only counts as one bad liberal apple, not two...
When it comes to the Democrats, I'm ashamed for my country. But I'm not resigned. The tea parties are the salvation of democracy.

And since I know lefties will say "both sides do it." .... No, sorry, there's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- comparable to the secular demonization and violent rhetoric against the GOP during the Bush years, and it contiues today.
Ashamed of your country, Donald?... I seem to recall you having quite the little hissyfit when the First lady said that... Guess it's ok to say, now that a Republican is no longer President. (Con "rules for thee, but not for me," section 102)

And while I understand that YOU feel that conservative Tea Party Hitler signs are completely different from liberal/anarchist/libertarian anti-War Hitler signs, your feeling that way just doesn't make it so... Unless I miss my guess, most people will think all Hitler signs and other over the top, bigoted, violent exhortations are pretty bad no matter which side is responsible for 'em or what you happen to believe about any of it, but I guess only time will tell...

Also blogging:
Evan Coyne Maloney’s Trip Down Memory Lane : Founding Bloggers
Hate, Violence, and a Short Memory - The Republican Heretic

---
Wingnuts and Moonbats X-post

IRT: Are Republicans too serious for their own good?

In reply to: The Oracular Opinion: If I Hear One More Stupid Politician—I’m Going To Lose My Mind!
---

I'll admit to not being up on the names of literary devices, but watching the video, I got the distinct impression that his intent was to make a point--though I didn't pick up on the "island tipping over = ecological tipping point" analogy until I read the statement here--and at no time did I get the impression that the man actually thought an island could or would tip over. (It's things like the fact that so many conservative bloggers are writing about this exchange believing he was serious that lead the rest of us to believe the right as a whole lacks much in the way of a sense of humor. Of course, FoxNews' dear departed "half hour comedy hour" and it's replacement, "Red Eye," certainly don't help...)

Asking for the dimensions of the island (rather than having them handy and quoting them himself) was almost certainly a device designed to further his point, as well. It's always better when you can have the words and concepts you want expressed publicly come out of a nonpartisan or oppositional mouth. Lawyers and politicians routinely ask questions they already know the answers to, for just that purpose...

And by the by, I'm pretty certain that all 12 million immigrants were never all on Ellis Island at the same time, which is likely what kept that one from tipping... ...or sinking, either...
---

Unmoderated blog. Comment appeared April 2, 2010 3:05 AM (OR blog time)

IRT: "Oh, he's a MORON... That explains everything..." Ad hom, anyone?

In reply to: The Oracular Opinion: If I Hear One More Stupid Politician—I’m Going To Lose My Mind!, April 2, 2010 8:41 AM comment
---
Clearly I was mistaken...

BPB's brilliant tactic of calling the guy a moron (and doing the same to his predecessor--which made the argument airtight) is clearly the more well thought out position.

I stand corrected.

(If you don't use that sense of humor you're gonna lose it, and people will continue to wonder why so many conservatives fail to comprehend irony, sarcasm, and other humor-related rhetorical tools folks use to persuade each other. Tin ears are not a good look on anyone...)

---
Posted: April 2, 2010 10:22 AM comment

IRT: "But... both sides do it... Check out the video"

In reply to: American Power: Anarchists to Crash April 15th Tea Parties!
---

For all the whining here, it strikes me that it's folks like Dr Douglas, who're responding to bad behavior on their own side by posting videos of and otherwise pointing out the bad behavior on the other who're pretty clearly saying "both sides do it."

And it's not just that both sides do do it, either... It's that, rather than condemn the bad behavior regardless of where it originates, some point to the bad behavior over there, as though the fact that they're not the only ones engaging in bigoted, violent behavior and eliminationist rhetoric somehow morally absolves them...

Two wrongs don't make a right, period.

My favorite part of this post, though? The "counter-protest is eeeeevil" message at play here, which is so very quickly contradicted by the "counter-protest is just jolly good fun" message of the very next post.

Hypocrisy? You decide...
---

Currently unmoderated blog. American Power: Anarchists to Crash April 15th Tea Parties!, April 2, 2010 6:23 AM comment (AM blog time)
---

4/3/10 - Added to Immoderate Monk Hall of Shame (Comment apparently moderated away for ideological content by Donald Douglas, AmPow blog owner - What was he afraid of?)

Thursday, April 01, 2010

IRT: Baby simple: Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter what "side" of the political spectrum you're on

In reply to: Evan Coyne Maloney’s Trip Down Memory Lane : Founding Bloggers
----

Yes, people are making that claim.

I having trouble finding much of anyone, but--as I said in my original comment--I will grant you that there probably are a few somewhere...

Moreover, they make excuses just like you are doing.

Excuses?

I'm pretty sure I said that anyone who holds up signs with bigoted or eliminationist rhetoric is wrong, no matter what political side they claim to be sympathetic towards.

I also said that there is a degree of hypocrisy among those who stay more quiet when their own side engages in such behavior than they are when the other side does.

but I, just yesterday, heard someone on the left suggest that if there is any violence precipitated by the tea party ralliers, that certain people (mostly affiliated with Fox News) should be held accountable – that they would be to blame.

It's kinda hard to comment, because I didn't hear what you heard, but I would say that when elected or media personalities--who because of their position in life, have a bigger megaphone and more folks who trust what they say--engage in exaggerated eleiminationist rhetoric, they do bear some moral responsibility when individual citizens act on what they hear. That's a whole other thing than suggesting they should bear legal responsibility... (I'd be most vehemently against that, and if that's what the person you heard was suggesting s/he's a loon.) That's true whether the megaphone/violent act happens on the left or on the right...

Sorry you don’t like the reminder, but I am not at all surprised.

I have no problem seeing and condemning those liberals who are violent, vandals, or bigots (in fact, I posted the very same video at my own blog, and linked back to this post, as well), and I'm kinda surprised that TeaTime believes I said anything of the kind in my prior comment.

My position is, the initial response to bad acts are to condemn them, not to point out that the other side also commits similar bad acts... In baby-simple kid's terms, two wrongs don't make a right. If Hitler signs are wrong, they're wrong, no matter what the politics of the person getting the splinters from the signpost are. I'm sorry if I was in any way unclear the first time, but I hope I've clarified my position in this second comment...
---

Not sure whether I'm still moderated on FB (some blogs only moderate you the first time, I hear, and I didn't see the "this comment is awaiting moderation" notice I saw yesterday), but then, I'm also thinkin' I may start to post all my commentary here, and this'll make a nice transition post, if I decide to do so... 8>)
---

Originally posted at Immoderate Monk

Monday, March 29, 2010

X-Post: Donald Douglas, Academic Prick


Donald Douglas' foul-mouthed rant, visualized.

Wordle: Academic Prick

---
American Nihilist X-post

Friday, March 26, 2010

X-Post: Stand Against Tea Party Hatriotism and Bigotry



Oppose those who use or excuse vandalism and violence in the name of advancing a particular political belief (the very definition of terrorism, as far as I'm concerned...). Cutting gas lines and tossing bricks? For all their whining about it aways back, these (the violent ones, not the teabaggers as a whole, or even the subset of hatriots shown in the video above) are the proud right wing extremists Bush's office of Homeland Security warned us about over a year ago.

By and large, Americans are better than all of this. Just say no to the violence, the vandalism, and to the political/social/ethnic/racial/sexist/religious bigotry some choose to engage in out in public. Don't let assholes like these dominate the message or the story that is America.

---
Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

X-Post: Bigotronics

(First two quotes-- everything through "...LBCC PoliSci professor Donald Douglas has come to addressing his comment himself appears here." --originally posted at American Nihilist on 3/25/10. Additions to this post appended below as Massa Douglas speaks 'em and/or I find 'em.)
---

What he daddy ought to've tole him is to keep his fool mouth shut if'n he can't say somethin' nice 'bout folk what ain't like him... ...but Lawdy, it seem like that'd be too much to ask o God, hizself...

American Power: Obonics:
Pardon my own slang here for a moment, but my daddy done tol' me dat Mr. Charley goin' t'own my po' llittle black ass if I didn' knows how be writin' in stan'rd English ... know what' I'm sayin'? And with a steady hand, mofo!. Miss Rondell's from Tupelo, Mississippi, but she might as well be from another world. And she don't seem so po' herself, considerin' all those ocean cruises she be talkin' 'bout. But I better be careful here, yo! Jes' be's messin' wit' dis heah stuff an' I be gettin' attacked as RAAACIST!!

The difference, massa douglas, is that Miss Rondell isn't writing that way to make fun of or otherwise belittle those not like her... You're a bigot because, Halfrican American or not, your intent is to hurt those who fail to think, act, look, or (in this case) talk just like you...
---------

“Black heritage. Whoo hoo! That is teh awesome. I goin' be try'n escpe from de massa's house to be goin' to dis heah black her'tge trail. Y'sm sir!" - [Posted by Donald Douglas to THE SWASH ZONE: BLACK HERITAGE TRAIL, BOSTON, MASS. at 10:27 PM, February 17, 2010] (The author of the "Black Heritage Trail" post deleted the comment because she found it offensive, but it subsequently became the subject of posts here, and here. The closest LBCC PoliSci professor Douglas has come to addressing his comment himself appears here.)
---------

Of course massa don's not alone in the bigotronics... From this blog's namesake: "'We don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me. Now lets get som of diss free stuffs dat Walmats givin us!" - the malcontent, 3/23/10

UPDATE: Dr. D., the lyin' king of the wingnut Savannah, deleted my trackback to this post, left in the comment section of his.

Way to stand behind what you post there, Donnie...

---
American Nihilist and Malicious Content X-post

Thursday, February 18, 2010

X-Post: In reply to "Amy Bishop Leftist Hate Politics" (Donald Douglas / American Power)

American Power: Amy Bishop Leftist Hate Politics or Amy Bishop Leftist Hate Politics | Right Wing News

"It turns out just writing about the murdering proclivities of radical Obama-backing Harvard professors gets some folks on the radical left pretty angry."

Sorry, no Donald, that isn't it at all... Plenty of bloggers all across the political spectrum are discussing the case... ...but only a select few--all far right reactionaries, from what I've seen--are actively trying to turn a workplace shooting by a sick individual into something political... and now, racist.

"Comrade Repsac3, Commissar of State Security, People's Commissariat for Internet Affairs, who I thought put his Donald-demonology to bed, must have instead been lurking in the shadows, waiting for a chance to pounce. Here's his post, "Why Donald Douglas is a scumbag." Yeah, noticing that a Harvard scientist who murders her faculty collegues for failing tenure will engender some emotions like that from folks."

Again, it's the politics, stupid. While Donald offered nothing but one or two "RateMyProfessor" posts as evidence--(the same kind of "RateMyProfessor" posts that he admits below are "mostly disgruntled students getting their revenge," and yet are trustworthy enough to base a few posts on, when he can find one or two that support his chosen meme.) he implied in his initial post on the subject that Amy Bishop killed these people because she was a liberal. And yes, attempting to connect the murder of three people (and attempted murder of several others) to the woman's politics WHEN THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE'S ANY SUCH LINK, just to try to score political points for "your" team, makes one a scumbag... or at the very least, a sad, sick, desperate individual. If one don't want to be looked on as a scumbag, one ought not act like a scumbag, I guess... Beyond that, there's little I can offer the guy...

And recall that Comrade Repsac3 attracts some of the most bestial commenters on the web. Here's this from "The Original" (an attack monkey), who invested in a little hate-research over at RateMyProfessors:

Why, Professor Douglas!! I thought the whole "attack monkey" thing was raaaasccccist... or is that one of those things that only you, Barack, and Hallie, as Halfrican Americans, can say without getting into trouble. (Jebus, it's so hard to keep up with the guy's ever-changing standards.)

What do you think Donald calls the "studies" he did at RateMyProfessor.com... Surely that wasn't "hate-research," was it? Because it's always different when Donald does it... (The king of "OK for me, but not for thee", he is.)

--- snippage of The Original's theory that Donald pads his RateMyProfessor.com ratings with dummy reviews. I wouldn't put it past the guy--he has got quite the ego, and goes to great lengths to defend himself when it gets bruised--but I have no evidence of his doing so, and it's beyond the scope of this post, besides. ---

Folks can follow Comrade Repsac3's links to RateMyProfessors to confirm The Original's suspicions. I don't read my evaluations, frankly. It's mostly disgruntled students getting their revenge. But Comrade Repsac gets his jollies over there, which helps kindle his warped hatred -- which is all he's got.

To be fair, what I actually did was comb through some of Donald's reviews and pick a few that supported my hypothesis that Donald's political bias affects his classroom performance--which is the same thing Donald did (or perhaps it was one of his fellow reactionaries--I have no proof that Donald did the combing, personally, though the effect is the same, since he used what that reactionary found in exactly the same way, regardless). One former student said Amy Bishop was "a liberal from "Hahvahd", and that was enough for Donald to write a post implying that liberalism played some part in the tragedy (so suck on that all you von Brunn/Roeder -accusing nihilists!! Liberals kill, too!).

Anyway, I got a little additional attention for pointing out that leftists only politicize murders from which they can tar Republicans as evil racists. That explains the title of my post, "American Power: Amy Bishop Killed Minorities: Leftists Silent on 'Racist' Rampage; Victims' Families Ask, 'Why Was She Still Teaching?''"

Can Donald Douglas be more oblivious to the irony of some of the things he says?

It is true that liberal bloggers will always be more likely to post about a conservative ideology-inspired crime, and conservatives will always be more likely to point out the crimes inspired by liberal ideology. "Family values" conservative sex scandals. Liberal bigotry. Anti-choice wacko who kills an abortion provider while the doctor is in church, with his family. Eco-terrorism.

But that isn't what this is about. Amy Bishop isn't the liberal equivalent of Scott Roeder. He killed in pursuit of his extremist understanding of socially conservative principles. She killed--as far as we know, anyway--because she believed that she deserved tenure, and if she didn't get it, screw 'em all!! (Maybe a clearer picture of her motivation will emerge, eventually.) I agree that it wasn't the denial of tenure that was to blame--any more than being opposed to abortion was to blame for Scott Roeder's crime--but some kind of sociopathy or insanity within her.

Donald is doing nothing if not being a "rightist" politicizing a set of murders with which he can tar liberals as being similarly evil... ...and racists... ...and hypocrites, taboot. In short, he's doing the very thing he's railing about liberals doing. And he refuses to see it, no matter how often or how clearly it's pointed out to him.

And Donald, one more thing. It's not racist (or bigoted) to kill minorities. It's racist (bigoted) to kill minorities BECAUSE they're minorities. BIG difference. So unless you have any evidence that she was targeting the minorities, you're talkin' out of your ass, with the fervent hope that some of THIS shit will stick to the proverbial "Blame liberals" wall. Fat chance.

Uber-hypocrite Steve M., who gets my name wrong while attacking me, responds to the race questions:

That the guy got Donald Douglas' name wrong has little bearing on the veracity of his reply. (If there were no brain farts & typos, Donald would have to invent them, because they seem to make up the majority of his "tactical elan." Maybe as far as Steve is concerned, Don looks like a David. Maybe Steve knows a guy named David Douglas, and just typed it, too busy paying attention to the substance of his reply--you know, the subject at hand. Whatever the reason, everyone reading what Steve wrote--including Donald--knew who Steve was referring to, and Donald's "woe is me, he got my name wrong" is a cheap distraction from the fact that Donald never bothers to explain WHY he believes Steve is a hypocrite, or provide EVIDENCE to that effect. It's an attempt at the fine art of distraction, but Donald is a crappy magician.

You know what? I have no freaking idea whether there was a racial motive in these killings. I know that, when you dig into the past, the intended pipe-bomb victim was white, and Bishop's brother was white. Maybe David Douglas has an explanation for how those crimes, if she's guilty of them, fits his new theory of racism. Maybe back then she was trying to eliminate the white race, one whitey every few years, as a revolutionary act. I sure hope he tells us. He has such insight into the criminal mind -- I'm dying to know."

Okay, dying to know?

Then I'll just direct little Stevie over to Dag Blog's entry, "Not About Tenure. Seriously" (with emphasis added):

OK... So Donald, by virtue of quoting another person at another blog, is about to explain how Amy Bishop's alleged crimes--including the shooting of her white brother and the attempted bombing of a white professor at Harvard--fit Donald's theory of racism as motive.

Friday, at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, a biology professor named Amy Bishop murdered three of her colleagues and wounded three others. Two of the people she wounded are still in critical condition, and I offer my sincere hopes for their complete and swift recovery. The murderer had been denied tenure in the department, and media coverage has centered on the question of tenure. Tenure, that strange and exotic academic rite, is obviously the hook for this story, and the resulting coverage is appalling.

The New York Times headline for their story today (which doesn't deserve a link) is "At an Academic Pressure Cooker, a Setback Turns Deadly, Official Say." There's something appalling about the passive construction in that sentence, as if it's the "setback" that did the killing. But the story, with its emphasis on "the pressure-cooker world of academic startups" is worse. It also undermines its own angle: the killer's potentially lucrative biotech startup was going well. Meanwhile, Inside Higher Ed fautously links to an old article about faculty who have minor breakdowns after being turned down for tenure, as if one could compare a shouting incident or a distarught person climbing up an ivy trellis with cold-blooded murder. (No link for you either, IHD.) The general thrust of the coverage is that the tenure process is so painful and stressful that an otherwise normal person might snap and become violent.

Let me just say, as someone going through the tenure process: bullshit.

On the other hand, the media has had no interest at all in the question of race, although Bishop shot almost every non-white faculty member in the department. (She also shot and wounded two white victims, a professor and a staff member.) She killed both African-American professors in the department (one of whom was too junior to have had anything to do with Bishop's tenure decision). She killed the department chair, who was ethnically South Asian. A Latino faculty member was wounded. There may only be two non-white faculty left in the department. Whether she intended it or not, Amy Bishop effected a racial purge of the Alabama Huntsville biology department. But the press isn't interested in asking whether or not she intended it. Perhaps the question isn't exotic enough.

These murders are not about tenure. They are about Amy Bishop's moral failings. Those failings might or might not include racism. But a person who responds to a career setback by cold-bloodedly murdering three people, and attempting to kill three more, is not the victim of a difficult process. Amy Bishop is a horribly defective human being. Whatever complaints she may have had a week ago, she has forfeited any right to make them.

There you have it. According to Donald, this crime was (or at least might've been) motivated by racism because non-white people died. And when non-white people die, racism's to blame. (Don Douglas, as Al Sharpton.) But what of the question Steve asked Donald, about Amy's alleged white victims? You know, the one Donald was supposed to be using this quote to answer?

Donald?

Mr Douglas?

Al?

Not a creature stirring, not even a mouse...

I'm telling you, Donald is a piss poor magician.

Jesus Christ!

Seriously. A "racial purge" of the entire Huntsville department! That's what I'm talkin' about!

But the silence on the left is splitting eardrums nationwide. You just can't talk about this stuff! A white Harvard leftist opens fire on a room full of minority professors and students. And we should just STFU and not politicize it? Okay. Sure. Those leftists sure got me beat in the moral equivalence department.

As usual, Donald's "STFU" link doesn't actually show anyone telling Donald to STFU. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was Donald himself who issued the only STFU in this debate, saying "Might I suggest that the dude just STFU, since he's obviously eating big crow at this point." Facts can be such stubborn things...

The fact is, killing non-white folks is murder, but it's not in and of itself racist. Killing non-white folks is only racist if they're killed BECAUSE they're not white. And no matter how much Donald spins & twists, there's no evidence of that.

To whatever extent there was a "racial purge" of the biology department at Huntsville, it's because that was the makeup of the biology department at Huntsville. If the professors had primarily been men, it would've been a "sexist purge." If the majority of the professors had been lefthanded, Donald might call it a "southpaw purge."

In spite of Donald's implications, no one--not even Donald--is saying that Amy Bishop chose to fire at the people who were not white first. All the reports I've read--including ones posted (& thus presumably read and understood) by Donald at American Power--say she simply chose the person next to her, and then the person next to him, and so on, in order, without regard for who they were individually.

The only reason minorities were shot is same reason that only biology professors were shot. They were the people in the room at the time. If one of the professors had brought his spouse from the PoliSci department to the meeting, there's a good chance that a PoliSci professor might've been shot (or shot at), as well. In fact, one gets the impression that Bishop was anything but discriminatory in choosing her victims. If she was picking and choosing only those who her warped mind was telling her deserved killing--whether it was the non-white folks, the men, the professors with the most seniority or power over tenure decisions, or the ones who were wearing brown shoes--the number of injured & dead might be lower.

As several of us keep saying to Donald & his reactionary friends, it is not ok to cry out "liberal extremist" or "racist" when there is zero evidence in support of those things as motives or contributing factors. Politicizing the murders of three people for partisan gain is repugnant, and the people who would sink so low as to do so deserve to be called out. I stand by what I said at the outset; Donald Douglas' willingness to make the deaths of these three professor's into some ploy for partisan advantage is just one of the things that makes me believe he is a real scumbag at heart. Good men just don't do that sort of thing.
---------
Relevant links:
American Nihilist: Why Donald Douglas is a scumbag
American Nihilist: American Power Scumbag Doubles Down
No More Mister Nice Blog
Amy Bishop…(The Sanity Inspector)
It’s liberal racism: Right wing still deperately trying to connect murderer Amy Bishop’s politics to shooting � thump and whip
The Mahablog � Why Sarah Palin Is a Goddess
(Lotta needless and speculative commentary by the author at this one, but she aggregates more of the straight news pieces on the case than anyone else I've seen): University Diaries � amy bishop
Not About Tenure. Seriously. | dagblog.com
‘Oddball’ portrait of Amy Bishop emerges - BostonHerald.com
-----------------

American Nihilist X-post

Sunday, February 14, 2010

X-Post: Michelle Obama thinks obesity is our biggest threat?

With All Due Respect X-post
---------

In which a right-wing blogger named The Malcontent makes wild and unsubstantiated claims about the First Lady's efforts to combat childhood obesity...

=============
the malcontent: Michelle Obama thinks obesity is our biggest threat
Over the past year, I've been thinking, reading and speaking a lot about this issue, but the statistics never fail to take my breath away. Right now, nearly one third of children in America are overweight or obese - one in three. And one third of all children today will eventually suffer from diabetes - in the African American and Latino communities, it goes up to almost half.

So it's not surprising that a study published just this month found that obesity could now be an even greater threat to America's health than smoking. In fact, medical experts are predicting that this generation is on track to have a shorter lifespan than their parents.

Obesity is also one of the biggest threats to the American economy. If we continue on our current path, in ten years, nearly 50 percent of all Americans will be obese - not just overweight, but obese. So think about how much we'll be spending on health care to treat obesity-related conditions like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Think about all the missed days of work and decreased productivity we may see as a result. - Transcript: First Lady's Remarks To The US Conference of Mayors, January 20, 2010

Right after that speech, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued an order to stop the production of Nukes and to drop Dunkin Donuts and Kentucky Fried chicken on Every School Yard in the United States!

So she really thinks that obesity is a bigger threat than Terrorist? No surprise here folks!
=========

(Note: The citation for Michelle Obama's January remarks--or for that matter, any indication that the words comprised a quote in need of a citation--did not appear in The Malcontent's original post. The remainder appears as posted on his site.)

I'm sorry, but I'm calling Bullshit. The First Lady did not say that obesity is our biggest threat. She did not say that obesity is a bigger threat than terrorism. And, while I'm not in her head (any more than this blogger can rightfully claim to be), there is no evidence to suggest she thinks either of these statements are true, either...

What the First Lady DID say (echoing Military Brass and at least two former Surgeon Generals--including Richard Carmona, who served under George W Bush, is that military readiness, and therefore national security, suffers when too many folks are too fat and too out of shape to pass the physical. One can agree with that or offer an alternative viewpoint, but either way, Michelle Obama never said obesity was a bigger threat than terrorism, or that it was the biggest threat this nation faces.

Nowhere in the speech The Malcontent quoted: [link], or in her speech from a few days ago, announcing the "Let's Move" campaign: [link], did Michelle Obama say or even allude to the things The Malcontent attributes to her. But do facts like these register with these reactionary naysayers? Of course not...
"Right you are (AGAIN) Mal. I don't think that the Gov. has the right to dictate what to eat to our kids. that's WHAT WE THEIR PARENTS ARE FOR. ALSO SHE WANTS TO TAKE ALL VENDING MACHINES OUT of the schools, well Hello! Big Govt. Once again." - A Guy From Brooklyn

With all respect due Brooklyn, here, I'm not seeing anything to back up what he's alleging... This is a campaign to educate parents and get kids moving and eating right. I see nowhere where the government is dictating what anyone must or cannot eat, and I can find no news report suggesting that the First Lady or anyone in the Obama administration wants to take vending machines out of schools. (They do want to encourage healthier fare be sold in the vending machines, though, and yes, Senator Harkin did introduce a bill to regulate what can and cannot be sold in public school machines... but that's hardly the same thing as ripping 'em out...)

Rather than reply with anything substantive--or God forbid, admit he was in any way wrong--the malcontent scoffs: "Thanks for the entertainment Repac, I don't know what we'd do without you." and leaves it at that.

More of the malcontent's dubious claims appear here, in reply to another person's comment:
I would be one of the first ones to admit that childhood obesity is a huge problem. If, as first lady, she wants to make this her "cause", that's great. Much like "just say no", or "let's read". But to have an office dedicated to this cause, and to spend great sums of money is well beyond the scope of government. I don't have a problem with the worst lady taking up a cause,all of them have,it's using government edicts,mandates and money I object to. Just as you are always bringing George Bush into every subject... Tell me, did the media never gave Laura Bush any limelight on her helping Afghan women. The answer is no.
A great starting point would be cutting the FAT out of her personal staff, getting rid of a few of her "Ladies in Waiting"
And think of this, once the government starts to tell you what to eat, what to drive, what to wear,which doctor to see for what ailments, and what and WHO to listen to and see, how far behind is being told how to vote? - - - or would it even be necessary to vote at all?
Now pardon me I really need to go now, I smell my French Fires burning in the hot oil.

Classy, eh?

And again, there is nothing offered to back up anything he claimed...
"An office dedicated to this cause"?
"Great sums of money"?
"The government telling you what to eat, drive, wear, etc?"
What is The Malcontent talking about? (And, does anyone else detect a whiff of 1970's chauvinism in the whole "first ladies taking up a 'cause'" bit?)

And as before, when another person's comment challenges him to show his facts, he retreats to another one line non-answer answer: "Hows it feel to be funny Shaw?"

Finally, in reply to those who might wish to trot out the whole "Nanny State, government thinking for you, rather than you thinking for yourself" meme (like my conservative friend Pamela D. Hart did in her comment at The Malcontent's blog), I believe we citizens make up the government, and that when we enact laws protecting people's health and safety, we are acting in our own best interest. We, as citizens, are thinking for ourselves and using our power to protect those things we hold most dear...

Whether it's smoking, wearing a seatbelt and not using palm devices while driving, or even mandating what food can & cannot be served to kids in public schools, we as citizens have an interest, and in our role as stewards of our country, we propose & vote on those things we Americans think will better our lives.

The government isn't some otherworldly big bad evil. It's us. We (a few of us, anyway) run for office, we (not nearly enough of us, but some...) vote for the candidates that we believe will best represent us, and we petition the reps we elect when we want something more or something different from 'em. They is us. I do not fear us, even when we elect people with whom I do not personally agree...

As I said above, the vast majority of this "Let's Move" obesity thing is about education, not dictation. While I can appreciate the philosophy that says "*I* want to personally decide what my kid can and cannot eat while at school," is there really any parent saying they want their kids (and everyone else's, too) to have access to as many sugary, chemical-laden foods and drinks as possible? If the vast majority of parents, educators, and health professionals want to keep kids from ingesting too many "bad" foods, then why can't we get together as a nation and say so? Why can't we get together as "the government" and do so?

Roundup and Commentary - 2/13/10

Here and now, folks.
Or else spend infinite future
fighting quarrels of endless past.

- Paul Williams - Das Energi


Blog Posts:

With All Due Respect: Michelle Obama thinks obesity is our biggest threat?

American Nihilist: Why Donald Douglas is a scumbag

Commentary:

"One would think that those who have a problem with something posted on another blog would discuss it ON THAT BLOG, or on their own blog." -
- The Oracular Opinion: Frankly My Dear… February 13, 2010 9:24 AM comment

"Or perhaps those that do agree with mine just choose not to talk about it. The only thing we can tell for certain is that the Truth naysayers are far more vocal." -
- The Oracular Opinion: Frankly My Dear… - February 13, 2010 11:59 AM comment

"By all means, let it loose, Truth... ...before you piss me off, too... 8>) " -
- Wingnuts & Moonbats: Conversation with Andrew Breitbart about the ACORN tapes - Saturday, February 13, 2010 12:42:00 PM EST comment

"I looked, Me, Myself, And I, but unfortunately your old blog was no more and, after going through every dang page on your current blog, I can report that--assuming you really don't delete any comments, ever (and that nasty spam infestation indicates you really don't)--Truth has never once posted a comment of any kind on your current blogspot blog. ((And by the by, I noted a number of familiar names that post(ed) there, both friend and foe... Sometimes I think the political blogging community here in the US really isn't all that big.)" -
- The Oracular Opinion: Frankly My Dear… - February 13, 2010 4:19 PM comment

"Truth, we're all superior at something... You just happen to be a magnet for comments about you... Draw 'em like flies, you do..." -
- The Oracular Opinion: Frankly My Dear… - February 13, 2010 4:43 PM comment

Saturday, February 13, 2010

X-Post: Conversation with Andrew Breitbart about the ACORN tapes

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post
--------

It all started with the following tweet:

andrewbreitbart: : "OPEN OFFER STILL OPEN: Harshbarger, Soros, Podesta & @ericboehlert still refuse to watch FULL-UNEDITED ACORN tapes with Hannah, James & me."

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart How about releasing them to the media as a whole so we ALL can watch them together on our TV screens?"

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 sure! show me the network interest and im game!"

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Are you seriously telling me that no one in the media has asked for the full unedited ACORN tapes?!?" repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Cause, speaking as a news consumer, I sure want to see 'em..."

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 As a 'news consumer' U should enjoy: FULL AUDIO & FULL TRANSCRIPT (Except Philly, per lawsuit): http://biggovernment.com/acorn/"

ACORN Video Investigation Resources
Baltimore: Exclusive Story | Full Audio | Full Transcript
DC: Exclusive Story | Full Audio | Full Transcript
New York: Exclusive Story | Full Audio | Full Transcript
San Bernardino: Exclusive Story| Full Audio | Full Transcript
San Diego: Exclusive Story | Full Audio and Transcript, Part I | Full Audio and Transcript, Part II
Philadelphia: Exclusive Story
Los Angeles: Exclusive Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Full Lavelle Stewart Audio and Transcript


(Note that there are no FULL VIDEO links, where we can watch lips move and take note of everyone's non-verbal cues.)

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart Interesting, but they aren't the full tapes, Andrew. Media Matters has been asking since 9/09 http://bit.ly/bw0ob8"

As questions mount, Media Matters calls for ALL unedited ACORN footage to be released

Washington, D.C. -- Today, in light of mounting questions challenging the credibility and the legality of the ACORN surveillance videos, Media Matters for America calls on Andrew Breitbart to release the full, unedited, and unauthorized footage shot at various ACORN locations across the country -- including locations where the two filmmakers may have been rebuffed. ACORN has said that the surveillance effort failed in "at least seven other locations," including Philadelphia, where ACORN filed a police report against James O'Keefe, and the ACORN worker says that she asked him to leave.

"Given the increasing number of questions about the credibility of these tapes and the people behind them, there is no reason that anyone should accept this footage at face value," said Eric Burns, President of Media Matters. "Anyone committed to responsible journalism would have already released all the unedited tapes in their entirety."


andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 no, those are full tapes. again: those are full unedited tapes. @mmfa is ALWAYS wrong. learn that and you will live a long life."

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Where is the full video? Where are the tapes where James & Hannah didn't get the goods?" repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart I want to see more lips mouthing the words I hear... ...and they exist."

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 we showed the ONE LA video with Felis Harris. He didnt kick them out. But didnt help. THAT WAS IT."

repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart Are you saying that only one ACORN office rebuffed them? There were NO other tapes/locations that have not been released?" repsac3: : "@andrewbreitbart (and that still doesn't speak to full unedited video tapes.)"

andrewbreitbart: : "@repsac3 yes, that is what i am saying. only felix harris in one of the LA offices rebuffed them. ONE. deal with it." andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 said will play fullvideo in front of soros, podesta, @ericboehlert. offered full audio, transcripts. what r u expecting to change?"

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart If it's true, I can deal with it. But I know ACORN just as vehemently says there were others..." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart ...and neither of you is offering more than your own words. Both of you have biases, so I have reason to doubt you both."

(And apparently, only one of you has video tapes.)
((I think my second tweet above crossed @andrewbreitbart's tweet below, which explains why he asks me for proof "after" I say neither ACORN or he is offering anything more than their own claims.))

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 they are liars. and have been proven to be so time and time again. what offices repelled them? show us these heroic employees!" andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 here's your SINGULAR HEROIC ACORN employee: http://tinyurl.com/y89zw3z"

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart If you can play the full videos for them, you can play them for the rest of us, in public." (replying to "@repsac3 said will play fullvideo in front of soros, podesta, @ericboehlert. offered full audio, transcripts. what r u expecting to change?", a few tweets above.)

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 yes, would insist that FULL VIDEO showing w SOROS, PODESTA and EARACHE BOEHLERT was done for public. Would be awesome!"

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I'm with you, then. Full, unedited videos, start to finish... though I suspect the best you'll get is @ericboehlert."

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 PUBLIC! TELEVISED! Q&A AFTER! And Hannah, James & my interrogators there to have to answer for their lies."

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I'm with ya, Breitbart. I want EVERYONE to answer for whatever appears." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I still say they should've been released from the beginning, though... ...and without meeting demands in return." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart (Hell, I'd also include the ACORN workers who appear in the videos, if they wish to appear.)"
repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart I just hope you won't use the fact that Soros is as unlikely to appear as Melon-Scaife would've been in his time..." repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart ...to refuse to do this, should the others agree..."

(After 10-15 minutes)

repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart The bottom line is, I'm all for the circus,but the circus isn't necessary for you to release the full unedited ACORN tapes" repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart In fact, if this was about truth, you would've released the full unedited tapes when the story broke."
repsac3: "@andrewbreitbart That said, thanks for taking the time to speak with me... Far too rare to have folks in any kinda media replying to 'us.'"

andrewbreitbart: "@repsac3 you're welcome."
------------

Now, I don't particularly like the guy, nor do I trust him, but I did think it was pretty cool that he discussed it with me.

The most interesting things to me were where he claimed the media has no interest in the full, unedited tapes (I somehow doubt that, though so far, the only folks I've been able to quote specifically ASKING for them are Media Matters. I will keep looking, however...), and the dispute over how many unsuccessful tapes the Mac Daddy, Hannah & Breitbart actually have (or had.) Andrew claims--without proof--that there was only one. ACORN claims--also without proof--that there were at least seven. I don't really trust either of 'em--they both have reason to lie--but hopefully the unvarnished and undisputable truth will come out, somehow...
--------------------

Wingnuts & Moonbats X-post

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)