jbjd is having a hissy. And, all the bloggers are now boycotting her.

Phil at RSOL:
Eligibility Update: “jbjd” Threatens TRSOL and My Response; Where do “Birthers” Come From?




Offshore Jobs Bob Campbell:
DNC, Obama Election fraud complaint filed with SC State Attorney General



From the comments:

jbjd herself says...


Link to the great jbjd's blog:

[center]jbjd[/center]


This comment by jbjd on citizen wells makes me wonder about John Charlton:



http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/ ... ube-video/

Phil responds to her there, and jbjd rants more.

jbjd has lots of conspiracy theories. I also remember her being all in a snit because she didn't like Orly's consent forms for the military.

She thinks the newspaper birth announcements are phony. From same Citizen Well's post:



Wound kinda tight too.

If you make your living twisting the law into strange and confusing shapes, can you really complain when someone violates your "copyright?" Isn't that just some Obot conspiracy to give the MSM control over the birther movement, or something?

And why is it that these people can never take the time to go to a library to check out their claims? Okay, I get it, you think the newspaper announcements were faked. Instead of making silly allegations, just hike down to the library and work with your local reference librarian to find out how to check the birth announcements from Hawaii for August 4, 1961. I mean, it's not like there were thousands of newspapers in Honolulu. Interlibrary loan anyone? Heck, a very nice woman from Boston College copied the Congressional Record from 1961 for me (about George Romney's eligibility) and e-mailed it to me.

I guess it wouldn't generate as many hits if jbjd posted that she'd confirmed the birth announcements were real. Although, she could STILL PUT IT IN ALL CAPS!!!1

The birth announcement thing isn't what she was ranting about. It's about her blog posts that folks would copy/paste in their birther blogs, with links back to her blog.

She doesn't like it.

Her lastest thing is about election fraud in SC. They put Obama on the ticket without verifying he's a NBC. You may d/l the forms and send a complaint as well. Just don't copy her blog post.

This is a classic example of everything that is wrong with birthers. They are completely incapable of doing even the most basic research.

From just one query in google I found the following webpages that all provide information on how to prevent others copying and pasting material off your webpage.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318361
http://www.brownielocks.com/stopcopying.html
http://en.kioskea.net/faq/sujet-674-disabling-right-click-on-your-webpage

and they were just 3 of the results on the first google page out of 1,130,000 Results returned for the query (preventing copying of text webpage.)
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=preventing+copying+of+text+webpage&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=preventing+copying+of+text+webpage&fp=1&cad=b

Obviously there are ways around these methods, but I'm pretty sure the other birther morons are probably incapable of doing any more than highlighting text with their mouse and then right clicking to copy and paste the highlighted text.

I read a newspaper article (on paper) about a decade ago that was titled "Life below 80." It talked about occupations that researchers had found you could potentially be successful in even if your IQ was below 80 (and there were some really surprising ones which I won't name in case any body gets professionally insulted).
Anyway I honestly don't know how any of these birther morons hold down a job because I don't think there were any jobs with that low a requirement. You need a whole new scale to be developed just for them because I swear their mean score is so low I'm surprised their brain keeps them breathing.

Right now she's ranting about copying and pasting, which was my point about living by the bowdlerized law and dying by the bowdlerized law. She has in the past ranted about the birth announcements. And I was responding to the factual predicate in your last quote of her comment.

I remain unconvinced that you can copyright anything using a pseudonym ...

I would suggest that Samuel Clemens and his publishers would have disagreed. Plus of course if that was the case there wouldn't be a lot of rap artists driving around in stretch hummers (I'm guessing LL Cool J isn't the name on his birth certificate, long or short form).

You can release material even completely anonymously and it will be copyrighted. The conflicting laws on the terms of such copyrights, especially in legacy material, make it very difficult to compile collections of photographs and other material with no obvious author. This is a problem for people attempting to do things like compile photographic histories of ancient events like World War II, where often a lot of the photographic evidence of events such as the Holocaust are anonymously taken photographs of uncertain origin. Quite likely, many of the photographers are dead. But you never know when someone might pop up out of the woodwork from an unknown location and assert rights to a photograph. Imagine you have a photograph taken in one place by someone who was a citizen of another place which was occupied by Nazi Germany, perhaps a country that doesn't even exist any more, and now lives somewhere else, suing in the country where the book is published.

The current term for which copyright is recognized (in Berne Convention countries including the United States after recent amendments to copyright law tested for constitutionality in Eldred v. Ashcroft) in anonymous works is 95 years, just like works made for hire and works with corporate authors.

In any case, pseudonymous publication is a much easier case. Prosecution of cases where the copyright is not registered presents special problems but does not preclude an irritating or expensive court fight.

"jbjd" is probably legally right to the extent it is not attempting to suppress fair use quotes but, instead, full articles. "jbjd" is, however, an absolute idiot from a practical standpoint for posting on blogs and not expecting other blogs to react to it or quote it in quantities technically exceeding fair use, and whatever community of peers "jbjd" has is likely to consider "jbjd" a complete dumbass.

Well, I may not agree with jbjd's determined birferism...and recently I'm struggling to follow his/her argument, but I have to give him/her some respect back for this:

jbjd October 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm


Preamble and points 1-5 at Citizen W.ells http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/ ... /#comments

OMG it's Ainsley!

Thanks Twinx - great clip from one of the best episodes of maybe my favorite TV show ever! (With, of course, so many more parallels to "real life" that I truly cannot believe it!)

Glad you liked it. I'm a Brit TWW fiend (nerd), so of course finding that clip led me on to a whole host of others...deep joy

The whole 'Ainsley story' on TWW resonated with me at the time, because I was then becoming more interested with British politics, as to how people on 'opposite sides' have life long friendships. The Ted Kennedy/Orin Hatch relationship reminded me of that recently, in USA politics

I still haven't worked that out; maintaining a friendship for many years under those circumstances.

Actually there used to be more of that kind of friendship in US politics - Reagan and Tip O'Neil for example. Anymore, not so much...

My favorite of the 'Ainsley Arc' on TWW was the Gilbert and Sullivan episode. I still can't watch the final scene without puddling up and getting "chicken skin" (Hawaiian local expression for goose bumps).

That one always brings a little tear to my eye, no matter how many times I see it.

For a while, I was worried that the show's writers would concoct a romance between Sam and Ainsley. I'm glad they didn't. I much preferred that they left it as a friendship built on mutual respect, despite their vastly different political views.

You know, it might not hurt for us to remember this somtimes in regards to the bithers, too - and I include myself in that. True, sometimes they make it very, very easy for us to trash them, but I think we need to keep site of the fact that they are our fellow citizens and that the main difference between us is that we disagree on certain issues - and while we see some things as being the "obvious" truth, they see that "obvious" truth in other things. That shouldn't give us license to consider them "less than" us in general. We may have reason to question their ability to comprehend or their wisdom, but we should be able to do that without treating them like they're somehow something other than "humans" and "Americans." And, again, I have to include myself in this - I'm just as guilty as anyone.

While I want to agree with this message, I don't know how far to take it. Soon after the election last year, I found myself in Mississippi doing volunteer work. I became good friends with a local couple out there, especially the husband. He was an interesting character with a hyper-interest in politics (which is how we got talking), a firefighter, and a veteran of the Iraq war. He was also a birther. The first one I'd ever encountered, in fact, and he was the first time I'd ever confronted the issue. Our political differences meant nothing to me. I was raised in a bipartisan household and count many Republicans among my closest friends. We had some spirited and fun discussions where we talked about our differing perspectives, which I enjoyed.

When I came back to Arizona, the "discussion" continued over email. Except, I noticed the rhetoric was reaching a level I hadn't seen before. First, his comments began to include personal insults directed at me (e.g., "I question the intelligence of anyone who voted for this man," etc.) Then, the racial vitriol began. I kept the emails. Here is one short excerpt of a typical exchange:



This friend is now a former friend. His emails got worse with every one. I was polite at first, but one day he ranted something to me about "Hussein" and his "black ass" doing something he disagreed with, and I stopped being polite. I asked him, "Has your fucking brain evolved in any sense since the 1950s?" He wrote back to say the conversation was over and we haven't spoken since. I am fine with that. The more I got to know this person, even though he invited me to his home, fed me dinner and was a gracious host, the more disgusted I became until I reached a point of having no respect for him at all. There is nothing redeeming about his political views. They are atrocious, and deserve to be exposed and ridiculed in full view of the voting public. I now find it hard to apply principles of tolerance and civility with these people. I subscribe more to the Winston Churchill point of view, that we should recognize evil when we see it and do everything we can to attack and destroy it.

About the BEST thing you can say about a Birfer is, his/her mind is clouded by hate to the point where they can't use accurate judgment to evaluate competing arguments.

Try as they might to live in an echo chamber, birfers have been unable to escape seeing the contrary arguments, and evidence. They choose to reject the truth in order to keep hatred alive.

Their morality is warped and evil. People like that seriously suck. Yes they are humans. Bad humans.

I have seen where a person's tweets have been reduced from disapproval of policy into the "tea party" talking points over the period of a couple months. The tweets now include all the derogatory terms the "Patriots" use for President Obama.

This person has in the past couple of years gone from liberal to conservative. Within the past few months to rightwing nutjob; global warming denier; birther; deather; bible thumper. It's really very odd.

For me, I see a difference between how we talk about and treat individuals and how we talk about or treat a group. This man has done plenty beyond just being a birther to give you cause to despise him and hold him up as an example of the kind of evil we need to rail against.

Where I have an issue - and perhaps I should have been much clearer in my comment - is in how we treat people who we know nothing about other than that they subscribe to the birther ideology. That ideology in and of itself is TOTALLY open to and deserving of as much ridicule as possible. The people promoting it, however, IMO, deserve to be recognized as individuals and not automatically treated as somehow "lesser" because of this ideology they hold.

If, however, one steps forward from the group and makes statements as an individual showing them to be of low character, low intelligence or what-have-you, then comments about that individual drawn from those examples aren't anywhere near as objectionable as just condemning a whole group.

I see it a bit like how some people hate all Muslims as a general principle, assuming they're all the same because they share many beliefs. To me, that's wrong - condemning the whole group based on those shared beliefs - but condemning Osama bin Laden or other Muslims who have stood forward and identified themselves through their words and deeds as terrorists is a whole different matter. They've earned our condemnation - but Muslims as a whole have not.

I dunno if that makes any sense, but that's the best I can do at the moment.

But in my former friend's example, I know him to be a person of good character and some intelligence. He's a good father, a good husband, and was kind to a complete stranger (me) for no reason. It's purely his political belief system and his clear dislike of black people, which is pervasive throughout the South, that is revolting. What do we do with such people? My answer is that we expose them, ridicule them, and attack their beliefs. I am not advocating any violent acts in any manner for any reason. I am advocating a war of ideas, and not holding back in fighting that war with words, arguments, and reason.

thorswitch wrote:


Unfortunately, in my experience, most of the birthers I've run across do exactly what you mention, Thor. That is, their comments and behavior show that they do deserve the ridicule they receive here. When you read birther sites (Orly's site, TBN, The Betrayal, The Hun, Post & Wail, Citizen Wells, etc., etc.), you see racial and religious epithets, calls to violence, accusations of treason against anyone who disagrees with them, ad hominem attacks on the courts, the legal system, Congress and any other member of the "opposition"...a non-stop barrage of insults. There is little or no civil dialogue there...for the most part, anyone who tries to have one finds themselves banned, sometimes threatened.

Are there exceptions? Yes. jbjd seems to be one and, from what I've read, Leo D. seems to keep his focus on his arguments rather than assaulting his opponents. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. The rest of them don't seem to have a tolerant bone among them. Their belief in birtherism may start from a credulity based on lack of knowledge, but in most cases it is enabled by open or latent racism or religious bigotry.

PJers and most anti-birthers have taken the time to do independent research. We''ve looked at both sides of the debate and made a rational decision based on evidence and fact. Birthers? Just the opposite. They stay with birtherism not as the result of a rigorous examination of the arguments advanced for and against it, but because they choose not to make such an examination. them. At that point, their ignorance is willing - at that point, they've made a choice.

I had a very close friend who passed away earlier this year - extremely conservative - as different politically from me as night and day. Vic was also one of the most moral, unbiased, principled people I've ever had the honor to know. An excellent debater who used logic to buttress his arguments, I loved to argue with him (and I lost at least as many as I won, maybe more). I was proud to call him my friend, prouder still that he called me his.

Most birthers, on the other hand, have earned my contempt. IMHO.

I strongly suspect I'd actually like Leo D in person. I'd like to sit across the table with him and play pot-limit omaha with black chips at some point. He has a playful nature with his legal arguments and his persona. I suspect he'd be a pleasant individual in person. jbjd also seems the same.

But frankly, many if not most birfers are just goddamn assholes.



One of my favorite people is extremely conservative. He often says things that would be considered racist here (and in fact has been publicly attacked for presumed racism), but isn't a racist. I often insult him vigorously in terms that wouldn't even fly here. He's a professor and a scientist. And a deeply ethical person. He's been an expert witness in many lawsuits and pretty much always on the right side.

I think no matter what you side you take in any activist conflict, you're going to find that there are people on your own side you despise and you wish they were on the other side; and you're going to find people on the opposite side that you wish were on your side.

However, I have to say that in the birfer situation, the number of people I find on the other side I'd want on my side is very, very low, and the number of people on my own side, on PJ and other such sites, who I'm entirely glad to have on my side is very, very high. Frankly, most birfers are not merely misled. They're scumbags.

(Emphasis mine)

On an individual basis, I pretty much agree with you. If we know that they hold views that are non-factual, poorly thought-out, delusional or otherwise wrong-headed, definitely expose, ridicule and attack those beliefs. You're able to recognize that this man has good character, isn't totally stupid, can be a good father and husband and shows kindness on general principle, and yet you're able to cast aspersions on his beliefs and denounce them for what they are. That, IMO, is how I'd like to see us handle it in general and is what I *try* (though don't always succeed) in doing.

My objection is to saying that all birthers are scumbags or that all birthers are complete idiots, etc. They all hold at least one idiotic belief - that Obama isn't eligible to be President - and we can ridicule that for all it's worth, but we shouldn't pass judgment on ever birther just over that one belief unless they show us as individuals that they've earned it. There are probably a lot of birthers who, aside from their birtherism, are relatively decent people, provide well for their families, act as a positive force in their community and so on, and I just think we should give them that benefit of the doubt until they show us - individually - otherwise.

When you have someone like Orly who has demonstrated with nearly every action she takes that she's completely clueless as to what is or isn't ethical, doesn't have the education necessary to be doing what she's trying to do, is wasting the time of our courts, tries to bend the law in ways it was never meant to go and so forth, she's pretty much fair game. This Tisdale fellow (I think that's his name) who challenged Judge Land to "Fists and Cuffs" in the Courthouse Square has shown that he thinks at least some level of violence is acceptable as a solution, and that he's not terribly wise for having sent the first letter and rather idiotic by sending the second, is another person who can be ridiculed for the things he's actually said and done, and should be.

There's nothing wrong with exposing and condemning the beliefs that birthers share, I just would like to see us be better than condemning the worth of people who share that belief based ONLY on that one fact. Those who deserve individual condemnation - like Orly, CEL, Tisdale, etc. - will generally make themselves known and can be given the treatment they've earned with their own actions.

(Emphasis mine)

On an individual basis, I pretty much agree with you. If we know that they hold views that are non-factual, poorly thought-out, delusional or otherwise wrong-headed, definitely expose, ridicule and attack those beliefs. You're able to recognize that this man has good character, isn't totally stupid, can be a good father and husband and shows kindness on general principle, and yet you're able to cast aspersions on his beliefs and denounce them for what they are. That, IMO, is how I'd like to see us handle it in general and is what I *try* (though don't always succeed) in doing.

My objection is to saying that all birthers are scumbags or that all birthers are complete idiots, etc. They all hold at least one idiotic belief - that Obama isn't eligible to be President - and we can ridicule that for all it's worth, but we shouldn't pass judgment on ever birther just over that one belief unless they show us as individuals that they've earned it. There are probably a lot of birthers who, aside from their birtherism, are relatively decent people, provide well for their families, act as a positive force in their community and so on, and I just think we should give them that benefit of the doubt until they show us - individually - otherwise.

When you have someone like Orly who has demonstrated with nearly every action she takes that she's completely clueless as to what is or isn't ethical, doesn't have the education necessary to be doing what she's trying to do, is wasting the time of our courts, tries to bend the law in ways it was never meant to go and so forth, she's pretty much fair game. This Tisdale fellow (I think that's his name) who challenged Judge Land to "Fists and Cuffs" in the Courthouse Square has shown that he thinks at least some level of violence is acceptable as a solution, and that he's not terribly wise for having sent the first letter and rather idiotic by sending the second, is another person who can be ridiculed for the things he's actually said and done, and should be.

There's nothing wrong with exposing and condemning the beliefs that birthers share, I just would like to see us be better than condemning the worth of people who share that belief based ONLY on that one fact. Those who deserve individual condemnation - like Orly, CEL, Tisdale, etc. - will generally make themselves known and can be given the treatment they've earned with their own actions.