Thursday, July 2, 2009

American Power And Unhealthy Obsession

M'ka-a-ay. It now appears that my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power might just be developing a slightly unhealthy obsession with yours truly (and by "slightly" I of course mean "scarily"):

This post is a lengthy response to yet another iteration of the recent attacks on this blog. (Actually, a couple of iterations. James "Barebacker" Webb" has photoshopped me again since I started working on this post! And this time, with this particular Photoshop, James appears to imply a physical threat. I don't buckle to threats, so if big boy James is really calling me out, he knows where I am. He's a sorry-assed punk who's been beaten badly already, for all to see. But if he's looking for serious trouble, he'll need to get real personal and kick me to the curb like a man - put up or shut up!)
That's the opening salvo from Don's newest post about me: "James B. Webb: Depths of Psychological Denial". Now if you read it carefully you'll notice that he says that he was already writing this newest rant prior to my latest riposte. The post is about how I'm living in denial or something like that but more importantly it speaks to the very real possibility of Don actually having an unhealthy obsession with this humble little blog and its author.

Now I have it on good authority that Don was not always like this. Apparently he used to be a relatively sane and good-natured fellow but it seems that a bite from a radioactive neoconservative spider sometime after the 2004 presidential election somehow gave him the shrieking name-calling power of ten Republicans combined! Now whenever someone professes a belief in global climate change, two gay people show affection for one another or Barack Obama speaks of hope and change in his smooth, dulcet baritone Don's Neocon Sense starts tingling and he immediately leaps into rhetorical action, casting aspersions and calling these people "idiot" as only someone with a PhD can.

Seriously though you can relax Don, that's just a picture of my pet liberal-attack-hate-monkey Thade. He says that he'll be happy to meet you for a throwdown anytime anywhere but he has two conditions: 1) Your tussle will have to stay within the bounds of "monkey rules" (I truly have no idea what that means; just pray that there's no flinging of poop involved...) and 2) You must rub bananas all over yourself prior to the fight; apparently it gets him into the mood. Now I know what you're worried about guy but fear not: Thade isn't a gay hate monkey. But just the same if he does start humping you just go with it, although it's most likely just a reaction to the bananas. Oo-oo, ah-ah!

And here's a free tip for all you kids out there: When you have to increasingly proclaim that someone is "down for the count", that you've given them a "brutal pounding" or even a "merciless thrashing", odds are that you're not actually winning the debate like you think you are. There's a reason Barry Sanders always just handed the referee the ball after a kickass touchdown run. It's the insecure Terrell Owens' of the world that need to constantly brag to validate their own performances and dwindling self-esteems.

But back to Don's post. I won't waste your time with all of the details but basically Don now accuses me of being in denial and quotes another conservative blogger as proof of such. Pretty pedestrian stuff, really. Oh wait, here's something good:
(ASIDE: Dr. Sanity's example of an alcholic's denial is hypothetical, and is not specific to my criticism of James B. Webb. It is interesting, though, that with James B. Webb, many of his attacks are alcohol-fueled. I don't know if James' drinking problem is related to the supression of the other feelings and conflicting guilts, but there's no doubt that when someone has been shown as not just badly wrong, but bereft of moral virtue, some kind of psychological clinical adaptation must take place. Absent that, one might completely breakdown to a catatonic state.)
Actually most of my writing is alcohol-assisted. You see, I have insomnia so I do most of my writing at night with a nice bottle of wine (or two) by my side. I know, I'm shattering the illusion that I spend all day writing and posting like Don does but I just post-date my posts so that they automatically go up the next day while I'm out doing other shit. And trust me when I say that my drinking is not any kind of a problem: I'm really, really good at it. Wait... Hands...starting to shake. Completely breaking down into...catatonic state! *glug*glug* Ah-h-h! Sorry, it turned out that I just needed some more of my happy-go-go writing juice to keep me clever and good-looking. Crises averted.

OK, let's see. Don recaps our debate of the last week, quotes me as saying that the whole Palin/Letterman outrage was overblown and then claims that I've "eaten my words dissing the 'ghoulshopping' of Baby Trig" by quoting me as saying this:
I understand ... any of those photoshops attacking or making fun of Trig are disgusting and should rightly be condemned ...
Which is true. Have you seen some of these things? Disgusting, and I rightly condemn them. OK Don, I'm now going to type these next lines out very slowly and I'm going to need you to read them thusly to make sure that you keep up with the rest of the class: Not every photoshop of Palin and her child is attacking or making fun of Trig. Read it again, slower this time. Didja get that? Blue Oasis' photoshop was making fun of Eddie Burke; my photoshop was making fun of you.

Even the pictures with Ronald Reagan's face taped over the face of the buff gay guy you like so much hanging on your refrigerator in the photoshop above aren't making fun of Reagan or the buff gay guy; they're making fun of you. Because you see, the joke is that you and other neocons like yourself get off by jerking it to pictures of your infallible hero Reagan. Funny, huh? And just as it was with Letterman, even though you don't get or understand the jokes that doesn't mean that you get to make up your own meanings and intentions for them and then scream "Hypocrisy!" at the top of your lungs just to fuel your supposed moral outrage. And when you do, you're again practicing the selfsame "intellectual dishonesty" you were crying about me accusing you of yesterday.

Here's another example you might find familiar: You quote me as saying the following:
I called you on your inability to recognize or define hypocrisy and dared you to publically prove your claim you went apeshit and wrote a rambling screed trying to smear me as being gay ...
To repeat myself once again, I told you not to link to yourself in the comment sections of my posts if your links were not relevant to the material in those posts. When I link to myself in the comment sections of your posts and the links are relevant to the material in those posts that's not hypocrisy, that's me being consistent. Also, you left off some of the more relevant sections of my quote. It actually read like this:
Then when I called you on your inability to recognize or define hypocrisy and dared you to publically prove your claim you went apeshit and wrote a rambling screed trying to smear me as being gay (which says so much about you, by the way) and so many other stupid things.
Remember Don, you're the one who thinks that accusing another man of being gay is some kind of horrid insult and as I mentioned, that says a whole lot more about you and who you are. Now relax, I'm not similarly accusing you of being gay. I'm just stating that you obviously have some real sexual hangups and problems with homosexuals and homosexuality. Now you can claim that you're just fighting a culture war for the continuation of "opposite" marriage or that you're just against the slow creep of moral and physical depravity that teh gays represent to good moral people like yourself but the rest of us can smell what The Rock is cooking, and it stinks of bigotry.

That's about it, I guess. Sorry to end this one so abruptly but all that's left to address is Don trying to be clever by intimating that I'm gay once again and then bitching that I still call him "Don", which is just so disrespectful to someone who so obviously deserves every scintilla of respect I can muster, isn't it? I guess that just proves that my "moral bankruptcy and nihilist hypocrisy are on display" for the whole world to see. Are you watching, world? I hope so. And Don, seriously, do yourself a favor and at least try learning a new tune. The rest of us don't make fun of you for calling us "nihilists" because you use the word too little. Switch it up a bit and I promise that you'll eventually sound smarter as a result. Cheers.

[Update: For those who haven't been following this little blog war from the beginning, friend of this blog repsac3 of American Nihilist offers up an extremely comprehensive wrap up of the past weeks back and forth in his newest post "Donald Douglas - The Photoshop Saga". Wow, I really hadn't realized just how many times we've traded shots thus far. As Reppy mentions, I've been considering just letting it go but Don also makes it so damn easy (and fun) to fuck with him. We'll see how it goes.]

No comments: