You'll get no martyrdom from me
Today, one of the somewhat regular contributors community members* to Culture Kitchen posted on his private blog that I, Michael Bouldin, because I don't support Hillary Clinton, am a white supremacist. Now, under normal circumstances, this would result in immediate banning; slanderous libel and character defamation, the kind that people go to court about and win with, is perfectly adequate grounds for that.
However, since the person in question has made a career of sorts by getting himself kicked off various Progressive blogs, simply for being a perfect and utter gaping asshole, only to then run around and cry racism, white censorship and enough injustice to make the very timbers of the Amistad weep with misplaced compassion, we're not going to go that route.
We will not feed into this martyrdom narrative, as tempting (and now warranted by libel) as it may be to do so. Instead, we look forward to watching this gentleman's continued and accelerating slide into babbling irrelevancy. Because you know, it's really not the being black we find objectionable or curious; it's the douchebaggery of confusing one person with blackness, and the further confusion of blackness with Hillary Clinton. Sorry, and speaking solely for myself, but I'm not going to be bullied into supporting a candidate just because some crashing bore on the intertubes reduces black history and pain into a primary campaign pitch for a white woman. Not only is that fundamentally unserious and in poor taste, it's also marred by the obvious drawback of not working. I'll leave up to you which is the bigger sin: douchebaggery, or ineffective douchebaggery.
So yeah, me personally, I'm really not so much angry at the white supremacist business as filled with pitying amusement. Trying just a bit too hard there, pal.
The End.
--------------------------------------
Nota Bene by liza
* I want to clarify the term
A regular contributor is a writer who's work gets posted to the front page but has no editorial responsibilities. Those responsibilities fall on the shoulders of the Ck Editorial Board : Managing Editor (Mole333), senior editors (Lorraine & Michael) and yours truly, your publisher and blogdiva.
A contributor, whether regular or sporadic, is trusted, well known and respected by the editorial board. We have selected the person as a contributor because we feel comfortable enough to leave the front of our blog to their keep.
Regular members of the site can write to the forums, add their comments, organize events with our community calendar, run polls and contribute quotes to our growing quotepedia. They do not get their work to the front of the blog and are not considered contributors --but can request the editorial board to be upped to such a clasification.
So, I just needed to make this distinction because our contributors have been quite the big happy family, eventhough most don't know each other ... yet 
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Douchebaggery | Martyr's Complex | Metablogging | Race | Trolling
» Michael Bouldin's blog | add new comment | email this blog | printer friendly version | 1016 reads
Nah.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 15 March 2007 - 12:44pm.
The post in question, and please forgive me if I don't link, has been edited, in part because it attracted a large number of hostile comments, and not just from me. These, incidentally, have all been deleted, including the expected pap about how the 'whitosphere' was trying to shut down the 'blackosphere'.
So it's pretty clear that this person both had to climb down from his defamatory claims, and to resort to censorship. I also note that I can't comment there anymore. Which leaves me, as noted, more amused than angry.
Really
Submitted by NanceConfer on 15 March 2007 - 11:03am.
Yummy! 
And how about that completely calculated, focus-group-tested response from Hillary on Pace's anti-gay remarks?
A genuine, heart-felt comment? An insight in the real woman?
Not in this lifetime.
Nance
I'm chuckling about that, too
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 15 March 2007 - 12:53pm.
Via Kos, Hillary answering the question of whether homosexuality is immoral:
"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."
What, so you're going to let other people decide whether being gay is immoral? Then why are you running for President, PanderBot?
Hillary's fear of clear, unambiguous statements that might offend some hick in Alabama that wouldn't vote for her anyway is roughly analogous to that of Bram Stoker's Dracula of crosses and garlic.
And today, this misguided woman says she wants to retain troops in Iraq past 2009. With Hillary, every day brings a fresh disappointment. I wonder what tomorrow will bring.
Now If She'd Said
Submitted by JJ Ross on 15 March 2007 - 1:18pm.
how proud she was (like John Kerry??) of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter --taking on the hallowed job of MOTHERHOOD!-- now that, yes that, would have at least been worth pondering as political power of story . . .
Speaking of messing with politically vetted positions and talking points, what is this new thing about Gore's "meat footprint" and why the warming impact of meat-raising is completely left out of Inconvenient Truth? Mole, are you reading along or should I ask in your other threads? If you haven't heard ( as I did on the radio this AM) the implication was that it belonged high on the list of significant actions people like Nance and me could take to save the climate, but was omitted as "inconvenient" to the peddling of the lefty energy agenda.
Forgive Me for the Source
Submitted by JJ Ross on 15 March 2007 - 2:16pm.
but in Googling around, I see it seems to have sprung from this? It cites the UN and Univ of Chicago, also a 1999 Time story, etc:
You could exchange your “regular†car for a hybrid Toyota Prius and, by doing so, prevent about 1 ton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year, but according to the University of Chicago, being vegan is more effective in the fight against global warming; a vegan prevents approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year than a meat-eater does.
The math is simple: You could spend more than $20,000 on a Prius and still emit 50 percent more carbon dioxide than you would if you just gave up eating meat and other animal products.
Then the Christian Science Monitor had this a couple of weeks ago:
Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet
American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.
If my family just
Submitted by NanceConfer on 15 March 2007 - 3:18pm.
gave up meat and related products.
Well, like driving, that's not going to happen.
It's cute to compare stats like this but like the mileage show DH just watched on the news, completely unrelated to how most people live.
Per the segment DH saw, the car mileage is better if you drive 80 instead of 140 mph. Well, I'll certainly keep that in mind.
Nance
a couple of things
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 15 March 2007 - 3:48pm.
HRC said:
""Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."
Hillary wasn't asked whether SHE thinks homosexuality is immoral, as in her opinion, she was asked whether it is immoral as a fact. We each define morality based on our own values. There are no undisputable written "laws of morality" out there which say what is moral and what is not. So Hillary is simply stating, correctly, that we each have to reach our own conclusions on these things. There is nothing wrong with her statement. She is against "don't ask don't tell" and has gays on her staff, has gays who are her friends .etc. I don't see what the big deal is.
Also if the aformentioned contributor has the boneheaded opinion that bouldin is a white supremacist, is that not constitutionally protected boneheaded opinion. It seems to me that it is only libelous if he is stating it as a fact and not just as his opinion. Its a matter of wording.
Stupid pills
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 15 March 2007 - 4:27pm.
...stop gobbing them down by the fistful, Wallner. Either that, or share, because your drivel makes my head hurt.
Hillary was indeed asked precisely whether she agreed with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. The correct answer to that is not what she said, but a simple "No". That is all. It really is that simple.
Next, if you think freedom of speech covers defamatory statements of fact, I refer you to case law pertaining to the subject. I don't have the right to say that person X fucks pre-teens, absent evidence to the contrary, and nobody has the right to call me a white supremacist.
The End.
Hillary was indeed asked
Submitted by JJ Ross on 15 March 2007 - 7:03pm.
Hillary was indeed asked precisely whether she agreed with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. The correct answer to that is not what she said, but a simple "No". That is all. It really is that simple.
****************
Well - except that apparently she DOESN'T either agree or disagree with him, so in a weird and offputting way, no question, wasn't the answer she gave the "correct" one regarding her own opinion, or at least the most honest one?
Probably.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 15 March 2007 - 7:12pm.
And more's the pity, because that really goes to the heart of why half the country doesn't trust her, including good, rock-solid Democrats.
Oooh, I found a picture of Wallner:
What does
Submitted by NanceConfer on 15 March 2007 - 4:51pm.
Hillary say when she is confronted with the fact that so many people get this creepy feeling about the way she acts?
She knows by now, surely, that this CYA approach turns off a lot of people. Is that part of the calculation? "Well, we'll lose the people who see us as too calculated but we'll gain X."
It's a very off-putting pattern of behavior.
Nance
here's the deal
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 15 March 2007 - 5:01pm.
Zap. Getting tired of the homophobia apologias and the 'It's OK to call people white supremacists' business. It's not.
But
you ARE switching to this as your avatar, right??
