Oh, the horror.
Oh the humanity of it all.
Oh my God, he must be kidding if he thinks that's gonna keep me from challenging his neo/social conservative doublespeak whenever and wherever I deem appropriate...
Let's read further, shall we?...:
As readers know, I enjoy debating the crazy lefties, but sometimes things get out of hand. So, this is official: James Casper, a.k.a. Repsac3, is formally banned at American Power. Because he's so stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, I've tolerated his trollery for years. But since he's launched an unprovoked racist attack on me as "Halfrican," that's about all I can take. I don't care who originated the term or who uses it. It's repugnant and I don't condone it.Leaving aside the everpresent ad hom contained in any Douglas post, comment, or message to or about those with whom he disagrees, my "trollery" pretty much consists of replying to his posts very much like every other person who comments on his blog. (In fact, I think I'm less trollish than many, in that I don't often engage in name-calling or other pointless foolery. I simply dispute the post, and move on. That's not to say that I never call anyone stupid (or whatever), but I surely do so far less often than, say, Professor Douglas, or the Daves.) Of course, I am more likely than most to disagree with Donald (which appears to be the definition he's using for "troll," these days), but I wasn't aware that was a banning offense. (and if it is, it makes Dr. Douglas a coward.)
Now, let's talk "halfrican." First off, I referred to Donald this way two or three times, the last being on April 4th--so it isn't as though Mr Douglas is reacting to something that happened recently; While Donald feigns ignorance, he knows very well the point I was making in using Rush Limbaugh's term for Barack Obama, Hallie Berry, and others of mixed racial heritage (including, one assumes, Donald Douglas, himself), and that I stopped referring to him (or anyone else) that way the moment Donald admitted he found it offensive--which one thinks he would've done when Rush referred to him that way (by extension, anyway). Of course, he didn't. The point though, is that Donald may claim this is his justification for "banning" me, but it's pretty obviously a made up excuse. Personally, I think Donald just doesn't like that I don't accept what he alleges at face value, and that I tell folks when he's wrong or acting like a bully... ...even on his own blog... (Maybe so, maybe not, but I know what I believe...)
Most of all, I'm tired this idiot Repsac3's puerile gotcha imbecility. In response to my post on LBCC's communists, Repsac3's been trolling my comments,...Trolling his comments... catching him in what was likely an intentional lie to deceive his more gullible readers... It's apparently a fine line, with Donald... (More on the likely intentional lie, below.)
...and left a link to the "One Minute for Peace" website; and clicking around there we find this:Actually, what I left was a link in support of the assertion I was making which, because it was about an issue raised by peace groups (as was the false claim Donald made) appeared on the "One Minute for Peace" site. (I've yet to find the source of the original flyer to which Donald was reacting, and I suspect, lying about. Again, more on that below.)
I'm not sure what the video had to do with any of it--and while Donald included it in his post, he doesn't say, either--but it's a thought provoking video, nevertheless. The premise of both the site and the video is that it'd be a good thing if we spent more money on supporting peace--say, the amount of one minute-worth of the annual military budget (Annual budget=approximately 3 trillion dollars. one minute-worth of that annual budget=about $1.98 million). One can agree or disagree, but it's hardly a radical, dangerous idea.
One Minute for Peace is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker "social justice" organization that has long been criticized for its communist affiliations and for abandoning its original religious principles.Wow, a "social justice" organization. (in this case, a religious one.) We all know what that means according to Glenn Beck, and just in case we didn't, Donald comes right out and says it: Commies. (Will the McCarthyist red-baiting from some on the right never cease?) It's a neat trick Donald plays... If you follow the "long been criticized" link (to Wikipedia, which is seemingly only considered trustworthy by folks on the right when it says something they like), you'll note that for the most part, the folks who've "long been criticizing" the "friends" and suggesting that they're communists are social conservatives like Donald. It's like what FoxNews does... Report that someone or something is controversial, and then justify repeated hit pieces on that person or thing by saying that "some say" there's controversy surrounding them.
The fact is, I don't know much about the "Friends," other than that they're another "liberal" religious tradition, and thus not respected by some on the "religious right." (See what Donald had to say about Unitarian Universalists--my "liberal" religious tradition--in the "nihilist" sidebar at right.) But it doesn't really matter because, whatever the truth is about them as regards communism or whether some Quakers believe they've become too political and strayed from their religious roots, it doesn't make what they say about the US military budget any more or less true. Donald is creating a smokescreen. Commies or not, the numbers they cite from the US OMB are either correct or they're not, and suggesting that they're commies doesn't make those numbers more or less factual or accurate. (Finally, we're getting to the meat of the thing...)
And it's simply breathtaking the gross deceit these groups are willing to perpetrate. They claim that their budget estimates are fromWelcome to the meat: Here's the story: In an earlier post, Donald mentioned seeing a flyer from a peace group that he says) claims that military spending is 59% of the US budget, and goes on to call that propaganda, saying that it's only 19% of the US budget. To whit:
"the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending."
But take a look at a pie chart, from U.S. Government Spending, showing the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. A full 56 percent of spending is designated for health, pensions, and welfare:
(From American Power: Long Beach City College Premier of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story): "Notice this banner at the table, showing defense spending as percentage share of federal expenditures. Communist demonstrators had the same banner at the March 20 ANSWER protest in Hollywood (and of course it's pure propaganda, since military expenditures for 2010 are expected to total 19 percent of budgetary outlays):"
Suspicious, I did a little research, and determined that it was likely that the banner was referring not to the entire budget--which would put military spending at somewhere between 19 and 23 percent of the pie, but discretionary spending, where is is indeed about 59% of the pie. I replied to his assertion thusly:
---
While I can't read the fine print in the photos to be sure, I suspect that 59% refers to the amount of discretionary spending devoted to military expenditures, as proposed in the 2011 budget -- (though I believe I also read that that was the amount of discretionary spending devoted to the military in the 2008 budget, as well).:
"59% is the percentage of the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending. This does not include all the budgeted spending, just the programs that get approved every year. Some groups argue if you look through the fine print of the budget that figure could be pushed even higher. It’s likely they are right.---
***
This Federal Budget Pie Chart for 2011 uses figures from the proposal that President Obama presented to Congress in February 2010. You can see the plan online at www.whitehouse.gov/omb." - Budget Details : One Minute for Peace
You'll note that in the example above--from this current post, I mean--that Donald again ignores the fact that the "Friends" refer to "the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending." (though he does quote them using those words), and talks about/shows a pie chart of the entire budget. Sorry Donald, but they are still not the same thing, and conflating the percentage of the whole budget alloted to the military (or the percentage of GDP alloted to the military) with the percentage of the discretionary budget alloted to the military is dishonest and wrong. Try comparing the numbers that the "friends" (and the creators of that banner) were (likely, in the case of the banner folks) using, and get back to us.
Everything else Donald says in the post about the rise of entitlement spending and the decline of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, may in fact be true... (Perhaps I'll check it out later.) But none of that changes the fact that the 59% Donald disputed was a percentage of discretionary spending, and thus his claims of "propaganda" based on the whole budget were sadly mistaken at best, and itself propaganda at worst. (The fact that he's still trying to make the discredited claim after having the discrepancy pointed out to him might give the reader a clue as to whether or not it was an honest error.)
But back to the other point of Dr Douglas' post:
I rarely ban radical leftist commentators from American Power. Mostly, I'll moderate or disable comments if I don't feel like dealing with their stupidity (James B. Webb is a case in point). Mostly, I have fun with them for the sheer hilarity of it, and for the epistemological heuristic utility of obliterating the mindless left-wing/socialist ideological claptrap. And as we see time and again, leftists never seriously engage on point, but rather demonize, ridicule, and attack as racist as part of their ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism. I will continue to debunk and deflect all of this, since that's what I do. And I'll also continue the periodic back-and-forth blog wars as long as there's some fun or learning in it. But Repsac3's nothing more than the devil's frontman, and I've had enough. He's welcomed here no longer.Here's the thing... As long as Donald Douglas is posting a public blog that accepts comments, I'm going to continue to comment on what he posts, whenever and wherever I choose. He's welcome to delete anything and everything I contribute to his blog if he so chooses--it is his blog, after all--but that won't stop me from making the contribution in the first place, and pointing out every cowardly deletion he makes (on my blog, I mean), as well. Folks are welcome to judge me as they will, but standing up to Donald's bullying ways has become a habit, and I'm not going to stop because he wishes I would... (Of course, were he to stop treating others so poorly, I'd have no choice but to stop calling him on his behavior and the mistruths in which he engages to smear others...) I think I've said it before... As long as Donald keeps acting the fool, I'll keep pointing and laughing at him. The other folks who're involved with American Nihilist (whether as writers, "fellow nihilists" -- other folks on Donald's extensive "enemies list," or readers) can do as they like, but I intend to continue exposing Donald Douglas for the man he is... ..."banning" or no banning...
.gif)
