From the category archives:

Haters

Duke Rape Case: Vulgarity, Hypocrisy, Double Standards, Myths, Money, Etc.

by La Shawn on April 21, 2006

in Duke Rape Case, Haters, Justice

Monday, April 24: Comments closed on this post. A defense lawyer wants to see the evidence. Read and discuss the latest news.

Update (4/23): Read Newsweek’s latest story about this case. It’s long and detailed enough to cover almost everything we know so far.

The emerging images pop right out at you: two strippers start dancing, the players get rowdy, the strippers get angry and start to leave, the players get angry and call them names as they head out, one of the strippers returns the taunts, the drunk accuser-stripper goes back in to retrieve her shoe (but may not have found it), second stripper is angry at the players and the drunk stripper, calls 911 to report name-calling, has someone else call 911 to report drunk woman in her car, cop arrives and sees drunk woman passed out, drunk woman is taken to a “substance abuse” center, realizes she may be in big trouble because of her past drunken criminal behavior (leading police on a car chase and trying to run down an officer), claims rape, is sent to hospital where exam reveals injuries “consistent” with rape, points the finger at three men at the party, media and black “leaders” go crazy and play up race angle, DA – in a fight for political survival – takes the race bait and vilifies 46 men, some of whom weren’t at the party, tests all but the black player, and despite no evidence charges two men with rape.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

And this is highly unlikely to have happened: “She [the stripper] identified Reade Seligmann, 20, with 100-percent certainty as the man who forced her to perform oral sex on him.”

Yet no DNA connected Seligmann or Finnerty to the accuser; no DNA under her nails from trying to fight them off. No connection also means their DNA wasn’t found on her, either. Don’t mean to be graphic, but if someone had forced me to…let’s just say the lab techs would have a sufficent sample of blood evidence to work with.

Also see this must-read comment.
—————————————————————————————————————————

Update (5:05 p.m.): This case is burning up the search engines, too. In the last hour, I’ve had over 800 unique visitors looking for information about this case. To give you some perspective, an “Insta-lanche” may generate about 500 visits per hour, depending on the time of day and how Glenn describes the post.

By the way, the wonderful e-mail I’m getting greatly outweighs the troll droppings and hate e-mail. Thank you.
—————————————————————————————————————————

[click to continue…]

{ 114 comments }

Haters

by La Shawn on February 23, 2006

in Haters

cartoonsHackers are attacking Michelle Malkin’s servers (site was down for most of the morning) — probably because she posted a lot of Danish-Muhammad cartoons on her site in defiance of haters and their goal to shut down dissent by any means necessary. Defy on, Michelle! (She’s sicced the FBI on the idiots.)

Until her site is up completely, Michelle is blogging at Pajamas Media.

When people have no argument, no leg to stand on, and severely limited reasoning ability, the impulse is to attack personally and peripherally. I’ve been and will continue to be the target of similar irrational impulses. Dissenters and haters won’t silence Michelle, they won’t silence me, and I hope you won’t let them silence you!

(Hat tip: Debbie Schlussel)

Others blogging: Bryan Preston, Sister Toldjah, Bruce Armstrong…

Update:

1) From The Brussels Journal:

In Europe a secularized post-Christian culture is facing a Muslim one. The secularized culture is hedonist and values only its present life, because it does not believe in an afterlife. This is why it will surrender when threatened with death because life is the only thing it has to lose. This is why it will accept submission without fighting for its freedom. Nobody fights for the flag of hedonism, not even the hedonists themselves.

2) A liberal and a conservative find common ground.

Hesperophobia, Part I and Part II

{ 56 comments }

My Brother’s Keeper

by La Shawn on February 14, 2006

in Haters

Africa ***2/15/06 — Scroll down for updates***
——————————————————————–

One of the many reasons I don’t like the term “African American” is that I’m not African, and I doubt any African — black or white — would claim me as such.

Being of African descent doesn’t make one African. It’s strange that we use the word “African” as a nationality when I suspect that true Africans refer to their countries when referring to their nationality, and not the continent.

I read this article about black American bias toward black Africans. Zedueh Doerue, an African immigrant who came to America four years ago, says he’s harrassed by black American thugs because he’s African. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out why:

“As a general trend, the two groups are having tensions,” said Jacqueline Copeland-Carson, a scholar with the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and author of the book, “Creating Africa in America.”

The tensions can be especially raw and violent in urban communities struggling with poverty, she said, as black Americans who feel economically trapped clash culturally with immigrant Africans who have escaped turmoil worse than Hurricane Katrina and may have stereotypical views of black Americans as being lazy or glorifiers of gangster life.

Regarding the lazy and gangster life stereotype, Africans are being rational. In fact, we all use the same reasoning when looking for a place to live or deciding whether to walk down a certain street at night. All people of all colors do it for the same reason: based on stereotypes of urban cities, we know it’s in our best interests to move to neighborhoods with lower crime rates. In America’s “urban communities,” most of the stereotypes hold true. Stereotypes aren’t the same as myths or urban legends, by the way; they’re based on facts.

[click to continue…]

{ 45 comments }

Troll LBC, Go to Jail!

by La Shawn on January 10, 2006

in Haters

troll Revenge can be sweet.

I sometimes daydream about exposing and embarrassing blog trolls, e-mail idiots, and cyber-stalkers, but attention and acknowledgement are exactly what they crave. Besides, what law enforcement agency would arrest a troll, for crying out loud? Well, my daydreams may turn into reality.

The Communications Act of 1934 criminalizes anonymous harassment by a telecommunications device. Congress recently amended the law to criminalize anonymous harassment via the Internet (PDF copy of bill).

Some argue that the law curtails freedom of speech. Perhaps. If someone is blogging or commenting anonymously about a private citizen in an “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent” manner ” with intent to “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass,” it is actionable, according to the new law. But should someone have the freedom to do that? Apparently Congress doesn’t think so. What do you think?

Of course, words like obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, and indecent are terms of art in our post-modern society. One man’s “indecent” comment is another man’s “no big deal.”

Disagreeing with a post is not trolling. My definition of a troll is someone who disagrees with a post but attacks me personally in his response. (If you think I’m being too sensitive about that, ask yourselves if you’d put up with ad hominem for its own sake, especially from anonymous cowards).

[click to continue…]

{ 34 comments }

News that parodies itself

by Mean Dean on December 8, 2005

in Bush Bad, Haters, Liberals, Lunacy, Media Bias

As you can tell, I’ve been enjoying my guest stint here at La Shawn’s in part because it has given me a chance to flag some opinions that often lead to copious complaintage over at blogs4God.com. Especially when I poke fun at the hypocrisy of the main stream media. Of course, some times the MSM does the work for me … like today …

In the interest of love and tolerance the University of Connecticut chapter of Students Against Hate, lead by journalism and social welfare major Eric Knudsen, shouted-down Ann Coulter while she gave a speech on the UConn campus.

S, the Saddam MagazineThe WaPo is reporting that Saddam’s trial is proceeding as scheduled after a one day delay due to a Harry Ried-like boycott – because of an unjust trial. Gee, wonder where Hussein got that Ramsey Clark-ish idea? What’s next, a Howard Dean meme that Saddam was just minding his own business, that Bush should be on trial? Please refer to the larger/legible version on the magazine cover to the right for a ‘clearer picture.’

David Broder opines not so poetically about the good old days, like you know, when speaker Tom Foley was in charge during the House post office scandal and the gifts-for-trips improprieties in the early 1990s. Perhaps Mr. Broder is just grumpy because last night’s tax relief legislation didn’t include casinos, country clubs, hot tub facilities, liquor stores, massage parlors, golf courses, racetracks and tanning salons?

[click to continue…]

{ 6 comments }

Miami Airport incident

by Hube on December 8, 2005

in Bush Bad, Cultural Decline, Haters, Lunacy

Hube here again. I posted this late yesterday over at my home site, The Colossus of Rhodey with the updates from this morning:

Breaking news: a 44 year old American was shot and killed by air marshals at Miami Airport earlier today:

A passenger who claimed to have a bomb in a carry-on bag was shot and killed by a federal air marshal Wednesday on a jetway connected to an American Airlines plane that had just arrived at Miami International Airport from Colombia, officials said.

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said after the plane had parked at the gate, a passenger indicated there was a bomb in the passenger’s carryon bag. The passenger was confronted by air marshals but ran off the plane.

A team of air marshals pursued and ordered the passenger to get on the ground. The passenger did not comply and was shot when apparently reaching into a bag, Doyle said. He said this is the first time an air marshal has shot at a passenger or suspect.

I’m willing to bet one or more of the following will happen shortly:

[click to continue…]

{ 13 comments }

Loan Shark Sharpton

by Hube on December 3, 2005

in Ethics, Haters, Liberals

Hey peeps! Hube here again. Check this out:

Perpetual racial huckster Al Sharpton has a new gig: pitchman for car title loans.

In commercials airing locally, the ever-colorful Sharpton stands on a stage with an American flag and happily declares, “Finally, there’s someone in Virginia who will loan money to people the big guys won’t loan to.”

Car title lenders give cash to those who own their cars free and clear, with interest rates that can approach 300 percent annually. The lender can repossess and sell the car if the short-term loan is not repaid on time. The controversial practice is permitted in about half the states, and consumer groups are pushing hard for more regulation. “These are predatory small loans,” said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America.

Al doesn’t feel any problem with the ads:

“If I felt this is in any way abusive, I would stop doing the ads,” Sharpton said yesterday. He filmed three commercials for LoanMax, a Georgia-based company with 150 offices across the country, and said he considers these loans different from predatory ones because the borrowers have assets (the car) but not the credit rating to get bank loans.

To virtually no one’s surprise, Al’s like-minded political brethren have felt differently about “predatory” lending. “Predatory Lending is the civil rights issue for this century,” says Congressional Black Caucus member Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) who refers to the matter as a “civil rights issue.”

But this is Al Sharpton, folks. With a list of questionable activities as long as a Fidel Castro speech, Al will nevertheless get a pass on this, too. Besides, according to LoanMax president Rod Aycox, “People just love Reverend Sharpton.”

Speak for yourself, Rod.

{ 18 comments }

Overexposed

by La Shawn on November 9, 2005

in Haters

Looks like the anonymous anti-La Shawn person decided to give up “the fight.”

I discovered the blog last year and realized it was operated by someone I’d kicked off my blog. This person dedicated time and energy to “debunking” my posts. So compelled was he (I’m almost certain it was a man) to have his say about thoughts that came out of my head, he’d follow trackbacks on LBC to other blogs and leave comments and his URL. It was hilarious.

I’ll quote myself: “If you people couldn’t handle me in 2004, I think 2005 will be quite a miserable year for you.”

Whoever you are, I hope you’ve finally found something (anything!) worthwhile to do. :?

{ 14 comments }

Queen Redux

by La Shawn on August 12, 2005

in Haters

crownI call myself “queen” every now and then mostly because it irritates the haters. But sometimes I like to act like one, too. I wrote a post back in 2004 called Queen of My Domain. It was a message to people I allow to comment on my blog, but who trash me on discussion boards and other people’s blogs.

The policy is still in effect. Although I appreciate being respected in my “house,” I don’t want to be disrespected elsewhere, either, especially when untrue and unfair accusations are leveled. Since I am queen of this domain, if and when I find such “behind my back” comments, you won’t be allowed to comment here anymore. Why would I do that? Because I can. And because actions have consequences. Don’t blame me. I didn’t make that rule.

If you wonder why your comments aren’t getting through, there’s your answer.

Nasty E-mailers and Trolls, Beware

by La Shawn on August 11, 2005

in Haters

After receiving one hate e-mail too many, I’ve decided to curtail the activity by threatening to e-mail the rancid missives to the perpetrator’s boss. So far it’s done the trick, and the bored hater got the message.

One of Michelle Malkin’s haters wasn’t so fortunate. She writes:

And Patrick Mitchell, who works [Update: he has been canned. Please don't bother the company anymore. Thanks] at the Los Angeles office of Ogletree and Deakins, writes from work:

Read what the now-fired idiot wrote. About a month ago I was getting one hate e-mail after another from one person who used different Yahoo! accounts (he thought he was shielded) from his work computer. After I threatened to forward all of them to his boss and Cc the IT department, the e-mails suddenly stopped. Earlier today I had to threaten two trolls; the harassing comments ceased.

Sometimes you’ve got to play hard ball. Actions have consequences, and I’m more than willing to help you understand the concept.

{ 38 comments }

Courage Under Fire

by La Shawn on April 5, 2005

in Faith, Haters

Update (4/5): I will not answer your e-mail on this topic unless you cite Scripture to support your assertions and arguments. Demonstrating some knowledge of the Bible would also encourage me to respond.

Update II (4:36 p.m.): I hope I didn’t give the impression that all the e-mail I’m getting from Catholic readers is vitriolic. Some of you have been reasonable and evenhanded. I appreciate the love, kindness and support as well.
———————————————————————————————————————————–

I’ve been the object of scorn since I started writing political columns back in late 2002. I’m quite used to the sometimes vile and often gutless and cowardly attacks from the left. My detractors are usually disgruntled liberals of all colors and proclivities, perverse and otherwise. I can deal with them. I even accept chastisement from fellow Christians, especially those who have my best interests at heart. I can always tell.

I blog about politics most of the time, and being a conservative doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a Christian. Rarely do the political discussions lead to theological debates. I don’t know if that’s a good thing, but it keeps the peace, relatively speaking. One thing that divides, however, is truth, biblical truth. Since I blogged about the death of the Pope, the e-mails have not ceased. Responses come from fellow Reformers and non-Reformers who send prayers and words of encouragement, lauding me for the sensitive way in which I’ve approached the subject. The responses I’ve gotten from Catholic readers are varied.

I’m the first to admit my timing may have been off, knowing how sensitive people can be. Emotions are running high at a time like this. But that’s all I’ll concede. What I wrote about salvation needs to be said all the time, and that was my focus. I’ve attacked no one.

What’s most disappointing is that some of the hostile folks are bloggers who’ve wholeheartedly endorsed my political views. Together we’ve ranted against liberalism. As long as I wrote what was agreeable to them, all was well. But after just one post, a mere comment on the death of the Pope, some of these same bloggers have expended the energy to e-mail their intent to de-link my site from their blog rolls.

Just like that, they’ve severed the relationship. All these months of writing in tandem on political topics, and suddenly they want nothing to do with LBC. Let me tell you something, people, my comment was mild compared to what needs to be said!

If you’ve been reading this blog long enough, you know I’m not bothered by self-important announcements about why you won’t be reading or linking anymore. In theory. I’m bothered that you’ve turned so quickly. It’s almost stunning.

I do believe God is trying to tell me something. Uncharacteristically, this whole episode has disturbed me. True to form, however, I’m fueled by it and motivated to defend my faith! It’s funny how people don’t seem to care about offending me by what they believe, but then cry like banshees when I express my faith.

Believe me when I tell you, without puffed-up pride, that while you may try to ignore me, I suspect you’ll be hearing from me. How do I know? Because I have a mission. It’s called the Great Commission:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28: 16-20)

When I first read that verse, tears flowed. The God of Creation said he’d be with me, always. And he’s here with me right now. When we follow God’s commands rather than the traditions of men, we can rest assured in the Apostle Paul’s declaration:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2: 1-5)

All praises belong to the Father in Christ Jesus, who is our Intercessor and Redeemer before the Father. There exists no other intercessor or redeemer between God and men, and I’m eternally grateful that my salvation depends on no man or work or tradition, but only on Christ’s unending grace and unspeakable mercy.

One last word to my new detractors. You once admired my courage to speak boldly for conservative values. The same courage allows me to speak boldly for the biblical view of the Gospel. If I’ve lost favor with you, so be it. The courage is still the same, and it will cease for no man.

I’ve Reached Ann Coulter-Hate Status!

by La Shawn on December 31, 2004

in Haters, Liberals, Me, Me, Me

Update V (1/3/05): OK. I’m now convinced there’s no such thing as “bad publicity.” Thanks, liberals. Link, link, link!
——————————————————————————–

More blog envy from the left. A bored person who hides behind various and corny pseudonyms has spent his/her precious time running a blog devoted to me: lashawnbarberexposed.blogspot.com (Sorry, dude/dudette; no link from me.).

I kicked this disgruntled pest off my blog, so he/she started one to “comment” on my posts. I’ve known about this site for a couple of months, and I’m writing about it now because I hope other disgruntled liberals link to it, and link liberally. It’s fuel to my fire.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the seething rage (and vulgarity) of certain unnamed and unlinked-to leftists (there are many others) caused their latent lunacy to spring to life. I’m nobody, people. Find something better to do. Contribute something to the world besides anti-La Shawn rage. I assure you I’m not worth it.

[click to continue…]

{ 115 comments }

When Bloggers Attack

by La Shawn on October 26, 2004

in Haters, Lunacy, Me, Me, Me, Rants

This morning I wondered what I’d blog about. Before I read the news I always check the blog first to delete the inevitable troll trackbacks and comments. On my first day back from hiatus, I’ve had to delete quite a few.

But the contention has reached a new level. A few black liberal bloggers who hate me have given up all attempts to rebut my arguments, if they ever did so at all. Reasoned discussion be damned. In the beginning they at least feigned interest in my arguments; now they just don’t care anymore. They’re focused on me.

[click to continue…]

{ 76 comments }

Blowing-Off-Steam Rerun

by La Shawn on September 3, 2004

in Haters, Me, Me, Me

My traffic has been picking up, and I may have a few new readers and potential commenters who don’t know me and haven’t read my blog or column archives. I want to re-post an entry from July 9, 2004, “Totally Gratuitous, Self-centered, Blowing-Off-Steam-On-A-Friday Post.” It was a reaction that had built up from reading other blogs and comments.

It might be helpful to some here today. I don’t know. Whatever. Here it is:

July 9, 2004

“Before I get started, I want to apologize to first time visitors or friends visiting in response to my morning e-mail. This rant is brought on by some of the derogatory and disparaging comments I’ve been reading about myself on other blogs and from those who e-mail me or come onto my blog to insult me. Pardon this post, and thank you for your kind words of support.

At least once a year, I think I’m going to publicly blow off steam and address liberals who seem to resent my very existence. First of all, this blog is a not a democracy; it’s a dictatorship and I’m a benevolent dictator. Absolute freedom of speech doesn’t exist anywhere, except maybe on a deserted island, and freedom of speech in the constitutional sense doesn’t exist on this blog for anyone but me.

It takes a lot for me to lose my temper. Surrounded by liberals, I’ve had little choice but to develop a thick skin. I take the ad hominem for what it’s worth, and I welcome civil dialogue with all.

I know what liberals say about me. Sometimes the bloggers link to a specific post and end up in my referrer’s list, sometimes they don’t link at all. I find these by googling myself from time to time. Some of the posts are laden with emotion and boiling over with intense dislike for me and what I have to say; others respectfully disagree. As I am free to write what I want, they are free to criticize.

A few times I found outright lies. One person in particular roams through the blogosphere operating under at least three different aliases and has at least three different blogs. A frequent blog commenter, the person’s writing style is unique. I know it’s coming from the same mind. The individual has been banned from my site and many others for personal attacks, outrageous accusations and lies. [click to continue…]

{ 18 comments }

Queen Of My Domain

by La Shawn on August 21, 2004

in Haters, Rants

crownOne of the great things about having a blog is that you get to control it. You can run it any way you want. Some bloggers are liberal and open hosts, allowing commenters free reign to insult other commenters and even themselves without being deleted or banned.

Others tolerate no dissent whatsoever. If your views stray in any way from the host’s, you’re banned.

I’m in the middle. I allow dissent and discussion, but I won’t tolerate personal attacks on myself or other commenters. As long as folks are civil, I don’t interfere. Usually.

I am Queen of My Domain and no one else’s. But what if someone insults me in a different kingdom? What control do I have over that? Keep reading.

I don’t usually visit so-called discussion boards because some are a bit too uncontrolled. Even if there’s a moderator, you often find vile and vicious words strewn throughout the “discussion.”

I found myself in one such board because someone had posted a link to my blog and it showed up in my referrers log. Against my better judgment, I decided to take a look. It was an anti-black conservatives thread, and the person who posted the link occasionally comments on my blog. I read several posts by someone who had to be in his teens or early twenties, at the most. Needless to say, this ranter hates black conservatives. Fine. Whatever. Free country.

The purpose of this post: While I can’t control anyone else’s blog or “discussion” board (and don’t want to), I want it widely known that if a commenter on my blog posts anything insulting or offensive or false about me on another blog or board and I find out about it, they will be banished from my territory. Under my rulership, the person can’t even access my site.

Unfortunately, the resourceful and determined can find ways around banning. That goes with the terrority of public web sites. Someone I banned months ago occasionally rears his ugly head, but as soon as I spot him, he’s gone until the next time.

The person who posted the link is quite civil and even-handed on my blog, which I appreciate. But I don’t understand why he/she would want to incite the anger of young, anonymous, unaccountable (and sometimes unstable) discussion board groupies against me. I don’t have the time or the inclination to figure it out. And I don’t want to.

Here’s some advice: If you want to trash me on another site and you want to continue commenting on my domain, don’t link to my URL, OK? Your discussion URL shows up on my referrers list.

Side note: A HaloScan user informed me that she gets error messages when trying to trackback to my posts. If you are a HaloScan user, please let me know if you’re having similar problems.

Rest easy, everybody!

{ 27 comments }