her nipple was basically covered up....so how was this different from the lil kim incident a coupla years ago?

nobody was screaming for indecent exposure charges back them.

oh, i forget, the superbowl is a family event.

Who the hell cares.

Shame on America. I feel such disgust with my own country right now. This place has gone mad. When did the puritans get total control. Most kids would have forgotten about it by now but we keep going on... and on... and on...

SHAME ON YOU.

I don't blame Europe for laughing at us. We've been the biggest joke on the planet since 2000.

So, then Ms. Tek, you are arguing that this public display should in fact be considered legal?

I'm not even necessarily opposed to this, but I would be kind of interested in knowing what the acceptable parameters are exactly. Perhaps you could give us a post explaining what the proper acceptable standards for public behavior should be. Where is the line, and where SHOULD it be? Enquiring minds want to know!

Am I a bad or "hung-up" person fit only for the mockery of the superiorly sophisticated Europeans for this consideration?

They were licking the nipple or doing a sex act with the nipple, then it should be illegal.

The nipple was just there. They weren't doing anything with the nipple. Who cares? She fucked up. Get over it.

Meanwile, American Boys and Girls are dying because of a "failure in intelligence". There are things way more important than a tit shot during a game that had ads advertising pills for broken penises.

"Mommy, what is viagra??"

The only reason why you would take viagra is to commit a sexual act. If we are going to be prudes, lets go all the way.

Perhaps you could give us a post explaining what the proper acceptable standards for public behavior should be. Where is the line, and where SHOULD it be? Enquiring minds want to know!

Physical contact with unwilling participants. If they want to do it in front of a stadium full of people, let 'em. If the public is offended, they'll stay away in droves. That'll put a stop to it. You want to punish Justin and Janet? Stop buying whatever they have to sell.

Alright, JR, fair enough. By "do it" you mean IT, as per the Prince song on network broadcast television?

Seems like that might run somewhat foul of current legal standards with the FCC and such. Should our laws be changed to reflect such a standard?

Would you object to explicit billboards, then, advertising the wares of adult book stores, say?

I'd have more problem with the billboard itself than the content, but that's just me.

First off, I don't believe witnessing a sexual act is going to harm children; it seems to me that children have witnessed sex throughout most of human history. So I'm not too concerned about "protecting the children" in this case. (Except maybe from all those companies pushing drugs.)

But more to the point, if Americans want to set a standard of "decency", they (we) should first act like we believe in it. The superbowl advertisers for some reason thought those obnoxious ads would sell product. What could have given them that impression? And why did the NFL feel the need to bring in an MTV-produced halftime show? It seems to me that the media is only responding to what the people want. I mean, unless you believe the airwaves are controlled by a small number of media conglomerates who are unaccountable to the viewers...

So to go crying to the government to put a stop to it now is pretty silly. Let's actually reject the stuff that we don't like before we call the cops on the people offering it to us.

First off, I don't believe witnessing a sexual act is going to harm children; it seems to me that children have witnessed sex throughout most of human history.

Huh? I'm pretty open about most stuff, including teaching kids about the birds and the bees when they ask about it, but JR, you're way off the mark on this one. I absolutely believe that witnessing a live sex act will harm some children, in particular, the very young. There is no WAY my 5-year-old could process that scene in a healthy way. Telling children the biology of how a baby is made is very different from *showing* them two people performing a sexual act.

Kids and erotica: perfect together.

Hey JR....if that is what you believe.....then expose your own kids to it....not mine ok?

I can't expose your children to Christ without your permission......do the same for me!

David Yeagley has been crazy, and extremely racist, for years. He was fired from the only job he has ever had, as an adjunct instructor at a satellite campus of the University of Oklahoma, for instigating race problems on campus. He can invariably be found hanging out with the 'black people are genetically inferior' folks, so I'm not surprised Al Barger is citing him. They share some beliefs.

Yeagley, who has spent much of his life homeless, and, I suspect, in and out of mental health facilities, has a particularly virulent hatred of African-American women. If you think his comments about Janet Jackson are far out, you ought to see him froth at the mouth about Oprah Winfrey. At the core of his craziness is an obsessive jealousy. He can't stomach the fact that African-Americans are the minority that has had the most impact on the United States.

Though aware of him for years, I have purposely not blogged Yeagley because he is so far away from having anything sane to say. And frankly, it embarrasses me to share the class 'Indian' with him.

As for Yeagley's blathering about the law, please. There is no such thing as a "a mass felony." And, even a misdemeanor conviction under local law would be unlikely since there is no proof the baring of the breast was intentional. I knew it would not take long for the racists to jump on this bandwagon, but even for one of them, this is a ludicrous argument. Shame on the person who soiled the site with David Yeagley.

Yes Diva, Yeagley is an evil, crazy racist with no legitimate point to make about anything- of course, as is basically every person who disagrees with your correct and proper assessment of the world.

Of course, it goes conveniently with YOUR OWN racial pathologies to head this straight into some 'it's because she's black' nonsense, which has not a THING to do with Yeagley's argument.

Now that we've got that out of the way, do you think that we don't have or should not have public decency standards? I'm not necessarily even saying that we should, but we DO have public decency laws in every state that this would fairly much seem to be flaunting, just prima facia.

Is it evidence of wickedness even to consider the possibility that there might should be legal repercussions to flagrantly and purposely flaunting the law in the most directly confrontational way possible?

Even if you think that all of America should become one giant, super sophisticated European nude beach, it is not. Do you believe that laws against public nudity are in fact constitutionally illegitimate, and should not be enforced?

As a good libertarian, I'm pretty strongly predisposed towards tolerance. I'm not real hot on wanting some kind of prosecution. Still, I can see why some people- particularly parents- might legitimately be upset.

I don't know how much I agree with Yeagley, but I object to the implicit message from you and any others to whom it may apply that anyone who would be angry about this incident is just to be contemptuously dismissed, and scorned into submission.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

Finally, I must politely refuse your offer to feel "shame" for offering for consideration a viewpoint that you disagree with.

Right, David Yeagley:

*Illustrates his entries about Janet Jackson with a photo of a bare-chested female gorilla;

* Accuses Janet Jackson of being on a campaign to seduce white men;

*Rages about the superiority of whites over blacks ad nauseum;

*Has a long, proud history of being a racist,

and his entry has nothing to do with racism.

Barger, you are being just plain stupid.

And, don't come limping back with a claim of ignorance, i.e., that you didn't read Yeagley's several entries on the topic or didn't see the illustration. Your lazy arse has a responsibility to do that before posting a link.

I don't think this should be about legality - she was sufficiently covered to skirt illegality. What it IS about is a violation of trust. The public ingeneral expects certain parameters for a mass, "inclusive" event such as this, and those parameters were clearly violated. The violation is what the uproar is about, not a quick flash of a partially-covered breast.

And even at that it would has passed quickly if not for the new replay technologies available to viewers and the 24-hour broadcast news industry that has arisen over the last decade in particular.

And of course we did our best to fuel the fire, as did everyone else with anything to gain. Nothing gets publicity in this media world like a perceived or real violation.

Don't miss out on the gorilla's breast, Eric. Just click on Barger's link to Yeagley's site and scroll down a little.

HERE is the Bad Eagle post that Diva's losing her mind about. He does have comments, so feel free to let him know what a no good so-and-so you think he is.

I had not noticed that posting, as it was not what I was responding to here, but so what? She seems to think that it is my responsibility to not only not talk about or consider any post that she might consider offensive, but that I should also be expected to thoroughly check to make sure that I don't give any consideration to anything written by anybody who has ever said anything which she might find objectionable.

I would have made this same post, with this same quote even if I had seen the post she finds offensive. Her continuing attempts at intimidation through accusations of "racism" roll off my back. Again, I answer with the words of Jefferson:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson

Yeagley seems to have three columns relating to the Janet Jackson thing. One of them concerns racial issues. Yeagley makes some kind of argument about black sexual pathologies, and theorizing about supposed feelings of racial inferiority.

Ms. Diva absolutely LIVES to find any conceivable arguable racial slight so she can milk it for victimhood and/or moral superiority points. Given that propensity, I can see how she could perhaps not 100% unreasonably find offense with this posting of Yeagley's.

However, his column and the provocative picture are presented as an argument about how he thinks black people seem to see themselves, rather than as anything about his own proclivities. Whatever.

For my part, I don't have any strong opinion on that one way or another. The topic does not especially interest me.

Nor is the personality of David Yeagley relevant to my point in this column. I quoted five sentences from him making an argument about prosecuting public indecency- which has nothing to do with race. It seems that he would have the same complaint regardless of the ethnic background of the participants. It's THIS argument that interests me here, not Diva's ad hominem arguments against Yeagley.

Loser.

MacDiva is not known on the internet for either fact or reason, so, that said, it is easy to understand how McD entirely misses the point of my Jackson posts. (By they way McD was proven most unreliable and superfical by Richard Poe (www.RichardPoe.com) months ago, also "exposed" by GeneExpression (http://www.gnxp.com/).

McD's information about me is so unusually erroneous that it requires no response. McD doesn't have a single fact correct. Mark this, in McD, all. Mark this.

McD's interpretations of me are McD's own, and McD has the right to make those. They are simply not based on fact, so, they are quite irrelevant.

Should McD be sued for libel? Yes. Obviously. On a dozen points. Will I pursue it? No. Just not enough hours in the day.

McD is simply not showing respect of any kind, at any level. McD hasn't shown that desert.

Controversy is easy to creat, with volatile accusations and baseless but provocative allegations. Only those with equal disregard for facts and truth will bother to be "provoked."

I will not engage in discussion with another crazy man. Al Barger fulfills my quota for that.

However, I do urge BC readers to read this thread thoroughly. It has become fashionable in some circles to pretend that the old, virulent 'other peoples are just animals' form of racism no longer exists. Yeagley, albeit insane, is an excellent example of that sort of racist. Not even at neo-Confederate sites has anyone posted a picture of an ape to depict the lovely and very, very successful Janet Jackson. It takes someone completely off the heezie like him to do something that disgusting. Neither his stupidity nor his racism know any bounds.

I agree with Eric. The issue wasn't the nudity, it was that it was unexpected. However, I don't see what the big deal about one partially exposed breast is when nobody's bitching about the repeated "a woman is either a bimbo or a shrew" messages in the commercials that ran during the SB and run, generally, during most televised sports events. A breast exposed for one second doesn't do much harm, certainly when compared to the constant barrage of ads that depict women as nothing more than sex objects or screaming bitches.

I favor freedom of expression in the age of technology, where I can, as a parent, decide to opt out of certain TV shows ahead of time by knowing their rating. Janet's exposed breast was the least of the reasons I wouldn't have wanted my pre-schoolers to watch the half-time show. [They didn't watch the game at all, btw.] The entire show was sexually suggestive, not just Jackson and Timberlake's performance.

No, Jackson shouldn't go to jail. This Yeagly fellow just seems to be patently offended that he was "forced" to see a *black* woman's breast, and not just a woman's breast. When you read his "gorilla's teat" entry and the one you cited, Al, in the order in which they were posted, you can see the man getting hotter and hotter under the collar that it was a black woman's breast he saw. He's also offended that a white man would act like he was attracted to a black woman. Boy, does that bother him.

In the next post, the next thing you know, Jackson should go to jail! How dare she show a *black* breast on the tee-vee?!

There are several messages I hear loud and clear in his posts.

--America is white [as was the Super Bowl audience]
--Black people aren't sexually attractive to anyone, least of all whites
--Blacks are trying to force white people to think they actually are sexually attractive, when everyone knows [especially Freud!] that we [a.k.a. whites] have a "natural" [a.k.a. innate, therefore god-given, therefore correct] aversion to blackness because it's unclean
--Black people want to dominate society through sexuality ["Where are all the white women at?"], and they're succeeding because they have the right contacts [Jews]
--Americans [whites] already know what is and isn't sexually attractive [white skin is, black skin isn't], but these black people are using the damn media and law [Jews] to try to tell us that we're wrong!

Here's a quote from the "gorilla teat" entry:

White society is literally being forced to accept the "black" body as equally sexually desirable. All the natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, Freudian sexual aversion, and the sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined effort. America is being told what is sexually attractive. America's sexual emotions are being dictated, through the media and the legal system, no less.

Nope, no racism there.

Bhw, sometimes I am tempted to travel to Kentucky at my own expense and have Al Barger committed. But, I can't decide between an asylum and a sheltered workshop. We all know Barger is bigoted, but he is also very lazy, which exasperates me nearly as much. He did not read that material thoroughly before he posted it. He seldom reads anything. Instead he goes to some Right Wing site and copies and pastes, or, even worse, spouts from his own mixed-up mind. Brian and I, mainly, catch him doing things like this over and over again.

Now, Blogcritics is linked to one of the most virulent racists on the Internet, thanks to Al Barger.

(Aside about Yeagley: His racist tirades are terrible, but his religious transports are even worse. He works himself into a frenzied state in which he appears to be hallucinating. It is scary to even read.)

Yeagley identifies himself as the descendant of a Comanche warrior, and yet when he writes, I hear only a white man's voice. He obviously writes from a white man's perspective about Janet's breast.

Yeagley 'became' an Indian a few years ago. Until then he called himself a white man, much like Mexican-American racist Richard Poe. After being fired from that adjunct teaching position at the University of Oklahoma, Yeagley went on the road for far Right groups as their representation of contemporary Indians. His site is funded by a neo-Confederate group in North Carolina. His appeal to his tiny constituency is his willingness to attack other minority people and worship white people.

I put together a dossier on him for hate group monitors a couple years ago, but have not written about him publicly until now. My reasoning, as an Indian myself (Lumbee) was that the less publicity an embarassing person like Yeagley gets, the better.

Yeagley is not easy to find. Only someone who frequents racist sites would see references to him. Of late, he seems to have fallen out of favor with even 'scientific racists,' who were tooting their horns for him for a while. I believe that is because his mental instability is too obvious. The entries you've read are typical Yeagley fair. He is incapable of restraint or subtlety.

Dr Yeagley, thanks for stopping by. Glad to have your input.

Diva, Dr Yeagley has far more credibility than you do on pretty much every count. Leave aside how much I agree or disagree with any opinion of his.

For starters, he is a real, identifiable person. He writes under his actual name. You could check him out, verify his genealogy.

"Mac Diva," on the other hand, writes pseudonymously. "She" claims to be a lawyer and a journalist and a black activist and an Indian and lots of other things. Given the cheesy, shrill angry black minstrel show schtick she runs, the real "Mac Diva" could perfectly well be some big fat old white Klan dude making an extended racist joke. If so, it is admittedly pretty funny.

Also, in my perusal of Dr Yeagley's writing, he seems to be scrupulously honest. He may have opinions or interpretations that you or I dislike or even find objectionable. However, he doesn't make up lies wholecloth like the Diva often does, or repeatedly and meticulously purposely misquote or misrepresent other people.

Diva, I don't know that you of anyone here REALLY want to go on about people needing to be committed. I've heard such rumors about you once or twice. Of course, since you're a fake, pseudonymous character the stuff about the nuthouse might just be part of your clever KKK rant that you have planted via one of your other pseudonymous blogs. As my hero Robert Anton Wilson would say in one of his Illuminati novels, "wheels within wheels."

Now I don't know about Dr Yeagley's thing with Janet and the gorilla. Again, I thought that he was talking about black folks feeling self hatred for their blackness. I don't know about all that, but I wouldn't find such a thing real difficult to imagine from a sibling of Michael Jackson.

Personally, I'm ALL in favor of black womanhood. Since the retirement of my beloved Sinead O'Connor, Macy Gray has taken over the spot for my top media fantasy chick. "Give Me All Your Lovin' or I Will Kill You" just makes me want to get ALL kinds of freaky. I'm just saying that Macy wouldn't necessarily NEED her AK to get MY attention- put please bring it along for foreplay.

Perhaps a brief spot in the rest home would do me some good.

Or perhaps Dr Yeagley has issues about black folk. I don't know. If the (supposed) black woman and the Injun want to have it out, that's cool. My name's Paul, and this is between y'all.

Even if you take the gorilla thing in the worst way though, Dr Yeagley still plays nicer than Diva. Even when he's ranting, he's not as hateful as Diva. Plus he's crappy with people over things they've actually said or done, rather than just making stuff up to be mad about.

All of this extended comment section illustrates more than anything the ridiculous tactics of the Diva, who goes all around the hog barn to find mud to wallow in rather than address the basic simple point of Dr Yeagley's that I cited in the original post. It doesn't take a dissection of his resume to consider his actual point about Janet and Justin being liable for indecent exposure in front of multitudes of minors.

Also, the stuff about Diva now supposedly claiming Injun heritage makes me laugh. I'm having images of Betty Hutton as Annie Oakley singing "I'm an Indian Too." Indeed, I'm listening to the definitive Doris Day version of the song as I write this.

In short Diva, be nicer to our guests. Thank you.

Or perhaps you'd like to join the Jacksons on the Group W bench.

You are a babbling idiot, Barger. Babble on.

Diva, where can I see this "dossier" you have created? I think I should sue you. You say too many things that simly aren't true, and too many things that show your intent to defame and denigrate.

Yes, you indeed must be sued. You are simply too wrong, and too malcontent.

For those who do not know, the Lumbee are basically a white-black-Cherokee group, numbering around 33,000 now, and have never been granted federal recognition, or even recognition by the Cherokee tribe itself. They're all angry about that.

I think everyone would do well to ponder the meaning of the word "racism." It is one of the most subjective, volatile Leftist concoctions of our time.

Okay, I read the gorilla post: I don't see how any human being wouldn't find it grotesquely insulting. The text next to the photo is a screed against black sexuality - the connection implied is not ambiguous. Does the writer really think Janet Jackson, a beautiful, successful AMERICAN really concocted this scheme to force "black sexuality" upon the nation? Or rather perhaps she thought it might generate publicity for her new album and teetering career. Do you really think this multi-millionaire thinks she speaks for the black masses? I think, rather, she was thinking of herself. This is in no way shape or form different from anything Madonna has been doing for years, what Britney and Xtina have done more recently. Janet may have "forced herself in everyone's face" - although I believe the extent of the exposure was inadvertent - but her "blackness" has nothing to do with it. It's called showbiz.

This line: "All the natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, Freudian sexual aversion, and the sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined effort"

This is the most insanely racist shit I have read this side of the KKK or American Nazis. "Negative associations with darkness"? You mean like walking into a cave or forest? And this relates to the color of people's skin? Preposterous. Study after study on beauty has found many cross-cultural similarities regarding facial symmetry, eye-size, ratios between body parts, healthy teeth and hair - much of it relating to signs of fertility - the only consistent issue regarding skin is its health. Janet Jackson sure as shit meets all these requirements.

Don't try to turn your own racialist psychopathologies into the standards of a nation, or the "white race" or any other pathetic demagogic lunacy.

I have heard no "liberal," white or black, defend this stunt on racial equality terms - this is the hallucination of a feverish, Mandingo-fixated brain of the most pernicious, vile, irrelevant, vicious kind.

Shame on anyone who would defend it in any way.

I may feel Mac Diva sees racism behind incidents and frames of mind when other explanations seem to cover the facts equally well, but this is a case of the most screaming egregious, obvious racism this side of a lynch mob.

Gorilla=black woman? Mindless, spineless worm=the creator of such wretched filth.

Look, I say that all women should cut off their right breast and follow me to my new nation of Amazons. I will teach you all how to fire arrows and fight with sheild and sword and well will GET the idiots in the world and make rule over them.

Yes we will... oh yes we will.

And we'll have the coolest outfits too!

Ugh. Following that link is like stepping in a dog turd on the street.

Why does Al not only proceed to walk across the carpet with dogshit on his shoe, but then invite the dog in to crap in the living room some more?

Someone will now accuse me of being doggist...

Okay, I just read that link that Al posted.

Um. What a load of racist shit.

David Yeagerly, do the world a favor and drown yourself. You are a racist, stupid, waste of oxygen.

AL, why the HELL are you linking crap like that?

Eric pretty much summed it up. David Yeagley's link and surreptitious inference between a gorilla and Janet Jackson is outrageous and is certainly beneath the dignity of Blogcritics.

Al,

It is not lightly that I say the following:

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND?

I am so thoroughly disgusted by this Bald Eagle prick that I want to not just smack the shit out of him, but his mother also for allowing him to be born.

The fact that you aren't condemning his post and his vile proclamations for the racist pile of nonsense they are tells me one of two things, you are either totally insensitive to not just black women, but women in general and harbor deep racist views, or you are just fucking insane.

Please Al, tell me you are insane, or tell this Yeagley fucker to go kill himself before he poisons someone else's mind with this hateful nonsense.

I am so disgusted I could puke.

Al, how could you? Seriously Al, how could you?

Please, again, define RACIST. Anyone brave enough to even try? Can you elevate your consciousness for just a moment and try to think?

Al, your clientele are not showing a lot of objectivity here. Wonder what sunk them into their rage?

Also, threats of violence can be prosecuted. But, apparently they're used to this sort of thing. They show no signs of concern.

Well, there's hardly more to say, unless one of them ventures to define racism. But I expect they are incapable of that.

Racist: anyone who presupposes characteristics in an individual - particularly of a negative kind - based solely upon the skin color of the individual.

Yo, David... you keep talking about suing and libel and prosecution. Yet if anyone attacks the fecal matter that you spew, you'll hide underneath the first amendment. This is fine and good... I like it when degenerates open their mouth, it makes it that much easier to avoid them.

But in case anyone is really worried what David Yeager might do legally, I can at least verse you on what Illinois law states in this case:

Battery is to actually, physically touch someone without consent.

Assault is to threaten an intent to harm.

Therefore it perfectly legal to say.

David, I wish you would stick your cock in a meat grinder while inserting razor blades into your anus until you bleed from your genital or rectum to death.

David, why don't you sit in the tub, fill it with water and then drop a toaster in there.

David, why don't you go eat some raw pork that has been sitting in a pile of chicken blood for about 4 hours.


See... I have not said once here that I am going to hurt him... nor implied that I would. Sill, I am sure he gets the message that I think he is a racist twit and that if he would help the evolution of the the human species by offing himself, I wouldn't complain. This is free speech at its finest!

And re racism: I neglected to mention that at the very core of racism is the assumption that some homo sapiens are somehow less "human" than others based upon the color of their skin.

Your comments speak for themselves. Your language and attitude display all the problems perfectly.

Your definition of racism is limited to a third grade level of comprehension. It is so incomplete that it is distorted. It is a dumbed-down piece of political rhetoric, and uttely outside the realm of psychology, as in Gestalt perception, for example.

So, this is why there is no progress with people who adhere to that simplistic, emotional-oriented piece of rhetoric.

The anal/oral obssessions exhibited in the vulgar language are as Freudian as the sun is hot.

Al, how did these non-thinking people get attached to your site?

Al, I believe it is now time for you to step in and disabuse this condescending, solipsistic, amoral, brain-damaged, evasive, constipated, pseudo-Freudian, racialist of his delusions. He makes Kim du Toit look enlightened.

Yes, I can see how the belief that white skin is "naturally" more attractive than black [or, that whiteness is in fact *the* natural standard of beauty, so that blackness could never actually achieve the status of beautiful or sexaully attractive] is far more sophisticated in thinking than the definition of racism as the belief that one group of people is superior to another by the simple virtue of their race.

Yes. Intellectual superiority. I see it now.

Yeagley, you are a cowardly, pussified, unmanly, un-evolved wussbag who deserves to have his ass kicked by a bunch of effeminate primates - and in my case I actual mean the species, not some unveiled racist rhetoric used to degrade persons of diverse racial backgrounds to that of whites.

OH, for your information, Yeagley, this is NOT Al Barger's site. It's everyone who participates at Blogcritics site, and you assbag, are welcome to get lost any time now.

No one but you said anything about superiority or inferiority. You are showing great insecurity here.

You are arguing with nature, but, locked in your political rhetoric, you can't see it.

No, David Dumbass... Its not political rhetoric, its called being a human who uses the brain that god gave us.

You are swine.

I for one would be very interested to hear what is Mr. Yeagley's definition of racism. Rather than pontificate with vague and tired cliche, please Obe-Wan Kenobi endulge our curiosity and enlighten us with your wisdom!!!

No one but you said anything about superiority or inferiority. You are showing great insecurity here.

How about this:

It is a dumbed-down piece of political rhetoric, and uttely outside the realm of psychology, as in Gestalt perception, for example.

So, this is why there is no progress with people who adhere to that simplistic, emotional-oriented piece of rhetoric.

Are you not alluding to your intellectual superiority over the people here who follow the "simplistic" belief?

You are arguing with nature

No. We are disagreeing with *your intepretation* of nature.

RE #44: Mr. Yeagley I'm still waiting. The gauntlet has been thrown and I'm calling you out. Please be kind enough to indulge us. I'm really looking forward to this!

BB, you're wasting perfecly good electrons trying to get a sensible response from him. Like all true wingnuts, he'll just flouce off accusing us of 'blind hate', for refusing to acknowedge his 'superior wisdom'. There's just no point arguing with these people. They inhabit a world completly orthogonal to the rest of the universe.

Time for Al Barger to clean all the dogshit Yeagley has left over the blogcritis living room carpet.

Tim, rather than fall into the trap of insults and innuendo I would prefer that he choke on his own words. Come on Mr. Yeagley. Impress us with your formidable intellect - PLEASE!!! That is if you've got the balls.

>>I would prefer that he choke on his own words. <<

I thought he'd pretty much done that already.

BB, he's at soccer right now. He just wrote a email to his webhost complaining about me. Read my latest trackback to this post to get the oh-so-juicy details.

Tim I am reminded of the quote:

It is impossible to win an argument with an ignorant man.
..Anonymous

Perhaps your advice is well advised but I must say that I am disappointed. I am in just the mood for a weeny roast.

Ms. Tek, it appears that Mr. Yeagley can only muster the courage to pick on women.

BTW, nothing sexist is implied :-)

No worries, BB. I understand. ;o)

Wait a minute. Just got back from being out. Left the PDA and the laptop at home for once. Didn't have time to go online anyway. When I last looked into the matter, Al Barger was claiming I 'made up' the information about David Yeagley and his post. So, I'm playing catch-up, here. I rarely express some emotions in public, but I am gratified (yes, gratified!) that people listened to what I said and took the time and energy to follow-up by reading Barger's entry and its sources. That is all I ask, that people consider persons like this for themselves instead of buying into the claim 'there are no racists.'

I don't believe anything logical will penetrate Yeagley's mind, such as it is. However, along with the other racists he cites, including the bloggers at Gene Expression and Richard Poe, he is monitored by civil rights groups as an advocate of racial hatred hatred and anti-Semiticism. In other words, he is a known quantity. Except for the far Right speaking circuit, which also seems to be losing interest in him, he has rendered himself unemployable. So, he is paying the price for epitomizing evil in a way. Furthermore, his blog has never caught on. The comments he has received by having 'Janet' in some headlines far outrank his usual silence or single digits. Only one new link to his blog appeared -- from Al Barger. The blogosphere is responding better than I had hoped in regard to this pathetic excuse for a human being.

MD, sometimes you really irk me with your tangents and racist conspiracies but this time I have to give you credit where credit's due. You were right on with respect to this character. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and if he should ever rear his ugly head again I will be waiting for him.

I too rarely show my feelings publicly but the ugly arrogance of this guy was certainly deserving.

TEK, I apologize for accidently pushing "reply" instead of "forward."
That message was not intended for you, but notice there was nothing hateful or vulgar in it. Do you notice things like that?

Now, here' my definition of racism: a desire to harm members of another race, because of their race.

I suppose the key word is harm. That is highly interpretable. So, let's make it "ill will," or "intent to harm or injure."

I don't really know what definition will satisfy "black" people, or "black" women specifically. The only people that have clearly shown ill will and intent to harm regarding this thread are apparently "black," but, then again we never know. Lots of pretenders on the internet, as noted by your host.

To express offense, to express defensiveness, to express resistance to invasion of privacy, to express disapproval of behavior or clear intent, is not racism.

Equality does not mean everyone's ideas must be the same, or that all people think on the same level of objectivity, or have the same capacity to, or have the same education.

I think some people here are not really used to being treated equally, but instead, think equality must mean they are to be thought of as faultless, respectable regardless of language or attitude, and honored irrespective of behavior.

That's not being treated equally. That's being indulged.

Macdiva, I don't know how you can live with the false information you continually contrive. I realize the internet is a free place, but people like you are jeopardizing that freedom for us all. You never substantiate any of your accusations. This is very unprofessional, and you should really stop it.

Opinion is one thing. Everyone can disagree with everone else. But to present falsities, as though they were fact, is denigrating to everyone.

Let's see the link to your posted dossier on me.

Let's see that list on which my name is included, watched by civil rights groups for racial hate and anti-semitism.

Provide this information. Then someone might take you seriously. Otherwise, you are a serious liar, and a liability to the internet.

I still refuse to address the refuse known as David Yeagley. However, anyone wanting additional information can Google for most of what I have said here. The information is online, including the firing as an adjunct instructor from the University of Oklahoma and his participation in a traveling minstrel show for the far Right. The most damning material you will find about Yeagley is written by, you guessed it, Yeagley. I'm not going to link to it, but if you seek it out, you will see that what he posted in those entries is typical.

Don't worry about Yeagley's threats. Even in very conservative Oklahoma he is a pariah. No lawyer would ever represent him, even if he had a case.

"Now, here' my definition of racism: a desire to harm members of another race, because of their race. I suppose the key word is harm. That is highly interpretable. So, let's make it "ill will," or "intent to harm or injure."

Dear Mr. Yeagley. Let me begin by saying I am not black, nor am I of the colored persuasion. In fact I'm as lily white as they come. So I gather from your response that is your definition of racism. From which unabridged dictionary did you pull that out of? Or can I presume that having used the word "suppose", that is something you just came up with off the top of your protruding brow? With all your intellectual superiority is that the best you can do? So what this all comes down to is you are just making it up as you go along. Well sir it doesn't work that way in the real world so please spare us your insincere prattle. We have seen your obscene website and racist inference of Janet Jackson and if anybody has a right to be offended it is her and I sincerely hope that she has excellent lawyers that will be visiting upon you forthwith. I would also add you should be so lucky that a female of any race that attractive would even give you a second look. Now I believe I speak for most when I say please do the human race a favour and crawl back under the hole from whence you came.

Greetings,

I'm a Doctor who was once an adjunct Professor at a mail order college in Bumfuck, Oklahoma.

It is my professional opinion that there might be a medical explanation for all of this.

Bear with me:

"BAD EAGLE" might have had a BAD EXPERIENCE as a child--- and now thinks he's a BAD BOY who needs to be punished.

He was probably caught by his mother in the act of masturbating while looking at a National Geographic pictorial featuring large naked-breasted African women.

When embarrassed by his mother at the EXACT moment of his climax, he was not only humiliated, but saw his own mother as a sexual object, which not only furthered his humiliation, but created a psychological trigger mechanism whereby he made the following associations:

black = breast =
nipple = sexual excitement =
jack-off = sin =
mommy = humiliation =
self-loathing = punish me =
write really silly shit and post it in public = typographical suicide =
verbal/modem powered flagellation =
absolution/redemption =
christ-like sensation =
subsequent madonna imagery =
holy white mother tit he'll never be worthy of =
---a return to---
black = breast

ad infinitum.

In layman's terms, this simply means that when he sees the color black and/or a naked breast, his psyche immediately vomits forth a chaotic swirl of old negative associations from childhood that eventually ends with his abused and abusive sexual member rising like a starving Pavlovian Dog strapped to an out-of-control escalator.

And he doesn't like this feeling.

His body knows instinctually, (due to inherent bio-physical taboos that deactivate his little semi-flacid tool of sin in order to avoid mating with "his mommy"---thus preventing the conception of a brother who's also his son), that he is not worthy of mating with a woman, nor touching that sacred black breast, nor approaching anything that is meant to cause pleasure because, in the end, (literally and figuratively) those acts will eventually cause him more pain and humiliation. (Bruises sometimes turn black.)

It is the sum of these underlying psychological traumas that drive him to:

1) post his theories in public; (he hopes to be punished for his lust and his little evil pee-pee)

2) write things like: "All the natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, Freudian sexual aversion, and the sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined effort"

NEXT!



Paper submitted 2/9/2004 by Dr. M. C. Sharkolian, Ph.d, Ob/Gyn, B.S.

ROFL!

This is the most apt analysis of Yeagley I've seen outside of Native American forums, where he ranks slightly above pond scum.

And oh, before I foget, Lumbees are Cheraw, not Cherokee. (Figures that he wouldn't know what he is talking about.) To be more specific, we are Cheraw, Scottish, British, West African and any strays that might have passed through the area and set eyes on lovely Lumbee maidens. Appearance can vary. The commonality of ancestry, place and segregation has resulted in an identifiable culture.

Oy, vey. I wrote a small essay here having NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with race nor even intending to push people's buttons (I THOUGHT I was being pretty unobjectionable), yet here I am- Hitler again, at least through guilt by association [comment 32, for example].

For my part, I am not defending anything Yeagley says about race. I wasn't reading anything about race when I was originally there. [Ms. Tek, I only linked to that piece because Diva had already cited it at least twice, and I figured at that point on making it convenient for y'all to see what exactly she was complaining about.]

Look at what I quoted here, and the post that it was from. Nothing racial in it. I picked it out because he was the first person I saw who suggested what suddenly seemed like an interesting and perfectly reasonable question: Couldn't Jackson and/or Timberlake reasonably be prosecuted for indecent exposure? That seems like a fair question. Perhaps I'm wrong to ask.

As to dragging a bunch of racial stuff into this THANK MAC DIVA. She spends a big part of her time LOOKING for stuff to be offended by. It wasn't here, but she went over to HIS turf to find it and drag it back over here (starting with comment 10, and in another unrelated post). If anyone is dragging racial poopy onto our carpet, it's her.

She lives to play a big game of racial gotcha. Well, fine, she GOT ME! Two points for her. Somebody I quoted said other things that are objectionable.

I won't defend the gorilla post. That looks pretty crappy to me. I take rather a different view on women of color than Yeagley apparently does. On the other hand, how might I have felt about Diva's comment #6 HERE? How much nicer is that than Yeagley's gorilla? I don't recall any of you standing up for MY little bitty hurt feelings. [Note also there my response in comment 12 as a model of trying to make nice rather than taking offense.]

As to my outlook on the topic of black women, I would very much like to father Macy Gray's child. I would be quite pleased to stay at home raising what would doubtless be a beautiful brown daughter. In short, Macy would not need that AK she sang about in "Give Me All Your Lovin' or I Will Kill You" in order to get my attention- though she would of course be welcome to bring it along for foreplay as we conceive our offspring.

Having inserted a hopefully more positive interlude there into this rancorous discussion, let me address some of the rest of y'all:

Blogcritics: Have you all lost your minds?

Are you reading the incredible wicked hatefulness coming out of your own keyboards here? "Meat grinder"? "Kill himself?" Then you're shitty with Yeagley for his supposed bad attitudes? Even taken the worst way, nothing he's saying is even in a LEAGUE of ugliness with what all you "good" people are spouting here.

You all have double and triple and quadruple standards on race that you need to examine. Anything that any black person might conceivably be offended by apparently absolutely demands that all good people make a public display of great emotional outrage. Anyone who doesn't make the proper display of OUTRAGE is presumed to be wicked and evil by association. [Dawn, I must gently and lovingly reject your hysterical outrage in comment 32.]

As to being "racist," de-humanization of the individual seems to be the main bad defining point of racism, and you have all certainly de-humanized the heck out of this guy.

Perhaps the Bad Eagle has some racial hangups. He writes about a lot of things. I've only read him a little bit. He's had some interesting things to say on other topics in the past. Some of them I agree with. Some I don't.

Perhaps the Native American has some negative and unhealthy racial attitudes. Who would have thunk? Hey, I'm expected to show great tolerance for black racial pathologies on a daily basis. If there's one group in America that rates even more understanding for possibly negative racial attitudes than a black man, it would definitely be an Indian. At worst, he's not violent, or advocating violence- so cool your jets.

Hey, Jesus hung out with the worst sinners he could find. Perhaps a better approach than your wicked hatred would be to make nice. Try something more like, "Brother, that gorilla thing ain't cool. What the heck are you thinking?"

Some of y'all think that Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" was a great philosophical statement, with that "only love can conquer hate" stuff. Why don't you consider trying some of that with Yeagley?

Going off like you have here may make you feel better, but it is not helpful nor morally superior nor intellectually superior. It may be cathartic for a black person. It may help the white folks assuage their white guilt. It does not, however, improve our understanding of each other, nor does it increase the peace.

Even if I find some of his views highly objectionable [I was particularly unimpressed with his "turd world" comments], I'm inclined to try to be nice to people who are not violent. Look how much direct personal abuse I absorb here on a regular basis. Look how many direct LIES and wild accusations I absorb from Mac Diva again and again- mostly with pretty fair humor.

Why exactly should I be so particularly outraged over Yeagley? To me, Mac Diva is FAR more offensive- and far less honest about it. Where was all this righteous outrage when she was going on about the "Jew Horowitz" a few days ago? Where is the outrage at her very wicked personal attacks on me, and for that matter everyone else whom she regards as conservative? Or is hating Jews or white guys cool?

I've been attacked by Diva on this site as supposedly supporting slavery. I'd have more good reason to be upset about that kind of LYING than over some guy at another website who seems to have some unfortunate personal aversion to black women.

I'd suggest you consider addressing the wickedness and DISHONESTY constantly being put into the world by Diva right here in our own Blogcritics house before going out looking for the splinter in someone else's website eye to get all up in arms about.

Racial and tribal hangups are a basic part of human psychology. They go all the way back into the reptilian brains of our early evolution. Insert image from 2001 of the bone turning into the space ship.

It is our job as evolved beings to try to use our higher brains to sort these things out. Having a similar counter-reaction from the reptilian brain center doesn't help.

Perhaps some of you should write David Yeagley an apology for your unspeakable rudeness, then try addressing your differences in a calm and respectful manner.

At a minimum, I would appreciate it if you would at least not use MY post as the spot to spew on about wanting to see this guy dead, or in a meat grinder. Thank you.

You might be surprised at what a little respectfulness gets you. Some of what he says seems pretty objectionable. Yet note the way that he writes. He's not cursing, nor sending out death wishes, nor anything like that.

Finally, I apologize if this response lacks the full measure of righteous indignation that some of you would like to see, but I mostly try to save actual outrage for people who are violent thugs (ie Arafat or Hussein) or people who are engaged in defending them.

Someone who simply writes a few mean words on a website, however, I generally don't get too mad.

Shark had perhaps a somewhat better approach in comment 62- the ever popular Rod of Ridicule. The height of my psychiatric credentials is a minor in psychology from Ball State University, so in proper humility I won't presume to make any grand appraisal of his Freudian analysis.

It's funny, though, which is a start.

Let us close here, then, with the classic words of reconciliation and benediction from Paul Simon:

I've reason to believe
We all will be received
In Graceland

As predicted (see other thread), Al Barger's habitual 'What racism? I ain't done nuthin' response. Who does he think he's foolin'?

And, no, I'm not about to change my mind about him. He has proved his credentials as a bigot too often. In fact, I withdraw my across the board offer of fetching a last drink of water for any dying human being in regard to Barger. May he choke on his own forked tongue.

Again with the habitual malicious and unfounded accusations of racism. In what way have I spoken here ill in any way of black folk or any other race? Ah, but then actual FACTS should not be allowed to get in the way of your higher truths, right? I mean, why start now?

Barger is the online equivalent of a guy who hurls a hand-grenade into a crowded room and then says, "Hey, I thought somebody asked for a light."

AND the following is so disengenuous that it's funny:

"I wrote a small essay here having NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with race nor even intending to push people's buttons... "

"...Couldn't Jackson reasonably be prosecuted for indecent exposure? That seems like a fair question. Perhaps I'm wrong to ask."

Oh. My. Gawd.

Picture Barger as a pre-Raphealite cherub sucking its thumb and blushing.

First of all, Barger, it's not like you and/or Bad Eagle Scout came up with some original, revolutionary thought: an easily offended fellow Puritan litigant in Knoxville named Terri Carlin filed a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT almost a week ago.

And after a week of a few hundred thousand hits at Blogcritc and dozens of original entries on the subject of Janet's tit, pornography, and America's crudeness, your simple wittle post asking a simple wittle question that includes a link to Himmler Junior's site with a picture of a gorilla was obviously meant to stir up some 'liberal' shit.

Which it did, as usual.

At which point, you don your halo and play innocent victim at the hands of a hypocritical liberal horde who are poisoned by PC.

Man, I've only been here a few days, and I've already figured out your MO.

The only way to deal with people like you is to "NOT PICK UP THE HAND-GRENADE".

==================================

re: Shark's ever popular Rod of Ridicule - You ain't seen nuttin' yet, Big Owl.

Al, the only person worth apologizing to are the people who were so fundamentally damaged by reading that filthy tripe that they needed to resort to primal rage to purge themselves.

But, since in many ways I really like you and was only trying to force you to see what an lowly asshole that Yeagley fellow is, I will apologize for my attack on you. Al, I am truly sorry for harshing your mellow. I do NOT think that you are a racist, but guilt by association can often be a crime in itself.

Also, do yourself and those of us so deeply grossed out by the fact that a man who would call himself a human would compare a woman's reproductive organ to that of a primates, DON'T DEFEND HIM. HE IS A WORTHLESS RACIST PIECE OF CRAP.

I group him with all the other monsters in the world, you know, like child molesters and child killers.

Burn on Mr. Yeagley, burn on. Your racist filth has been found, and you have been discovered for the vile turd you are.

"I would be quite pleased to stay at home raising what would doubtless be a beautiful brown daughter."

Excuse me? Mixed race kids are not brown. I am not BROWN.

*shakes head* I am an mixed race American. I am NOT a color.

except for the tattoos, of course (smile)

TAttoos are in Black and Grey.

Gentlemen(?),
I raised the issue, can taste be dictated? Can something as personal as sexual attraction be defined by law and coerced on others?

That's what this is about, but people were apparently too offended by an illustration of a gorilla to get the point.

Perhaps I should have used a different animal, a cow's udder, a horse's pap, or a leopard's nipples. Would that have been more effective?

I do not believe that all people have equal sexual attraction for each other. This is contrary to biology and psychology. That in America there are legalists who in the name of equality want to force everyone to be attracted to everyone else, is the zenith of ideological narcissism. It is outside the realm of common sense.

Barger SHOULD be defended. He took up only the issue of prosecution for indecent exposure.

That other people do not know how to live with being offended was perhaps a fact he overlooked. Everyone else is supposed to be free to offend, but somehow, some certain people are expected to take it, and never express themselves when THEY are offended.

This is called tyranny.

Ah, at last some semblance of logic. If this were simply about your personal taste then we could disagree with your distaste for chocolate honeys, but not think you necessarily a deranged racist. But you have done exactly what you accuse us of: extrapolating out from your own taste to that of all "white people," AND trying to defend your own personal taste as something more than your own personal taste with psychobabble about an innate preference for light over dark, associating dark skin with uncleanliness (!?!), and extrapolating a personal stunt by a performer into some kind of collective subconscious assault by black people upon white.

This is all just preposterous, bizarre, and would apear to rflect some kind of psychosis.

And by the way, the Houston police have already said there was nothing remotely prosecutable about the halftime show, regardless of my own feelings regarding its tawdryness.

Would it have made a difference had you used another animal? Why would it ever occur to you to compare a human being - in neither a joking nor metaphorical manner - to an animal?

I don't know that the Houston Police have any reliable judgment in this matter at all. It is the state's attorney who would and should file. Or, the people should file a class action suit. The state files in their behalf, I believe.

Sexual preference, based on culture, gender, color, is the most obvious element of nature. Why would you deny this built in selection process? It is not intellectual superiority that dictates such a denial, it is a fabricated idealism.

Now, in an increasingly integrated world, people are attracted to whomever they please. However, they cannot escapte the politicalization of sex.

Too, there are races, few in number, who have to be concerned about preserving their own race. This kind of preference does not imply disdain for other races. That is a political lie. Love for one's own race is natural. Some individual people tend to step outside this realm, and pursue their own experimentations. No law against that, today, anyway.

Wow, this is the most hate-filled, vile, vulgar, and offensive blog I have come across on the internet. The very thing you are accusing Mr. Yeagley of is so much more profound in yourselves, I guess that is what they call denial. In case you haven't noticed, he has been nothing but respectful in his replies to your hate-filled vile displays at disagreement. If you want to disagree with Mr. Yeagley, then please do so with some civility and semblance of intelligence. Your racist replies are more reprehensible than what he wrote. I hope he can prosecute you for them. Good riddance!

um, yah

The gorilla reference shows shock jock blogging mentality and at its best extremely poor taste and judgement, but most likely that Bad Eagle Yeagley is correctly belonging to the label that Mac Diva and others here (myself included) are attributing him. Much as I dislike the way she drags racism into almost everything (as BB also said above), she is 1000% correct in this case. The only place eagles like this need to land is in jail.

Al, IMO, there is a very real responsibility to validate sources beyond a single blog entry, even if you didn't link to the gorilla thing in the piece, the fact that it exists so close to the other post looks very bad for you and for the blog author in question. If the other entries in that blog are screaming racism, hate speech and other obvious intolerances, I think it goes way too far to give that site and that author any sort of attention. Why?

Shock jock blogging. Bad Eagle is right.

Joe is absolutely correct. Yeagley made a hateful little gesture with that gorilla picture. That wasn't very nice at all. He should be nicer.

But these wishes for death and mutilation are 10 times uglier than the worst thing he's ever said. It's also very bad karma. Your collective cheap, smug moral arrogance deserves only rebuke. Shame on you.

Dr Yeagley, I apologize for the, as Hannibal Lecter would put it, unspeakable rudeness of my fellow Blogcritics. Usually, most of them are really nice folks. Apparently, the chance for cheap moral posturing over your gorilla post has overwhelmed all their civility, unfortunately.

RE #75 from Joe writes: Wow, this is the most hate-filled, vile, vulgar, and offensive blog I have come across on the internet.

Really? You must not be very well travelled on the internet then. May I respectfully suggest that intelligent life exists beyond AOL?

Hey, Al, when are you going to apologize to the rest of us for "Dr." Yeagley's vulgar displays of racism?

Wow. Mr. Yeagley has the right to express himself freely, of course, but his site is truly reprehensible. The manner in which he speaks about people who happen to have dark skin is appalling.

Put me down on the list of people who believe MD is usually an extremely bad judge of character who spies a racist around every corner, but that she is 100% correct in this case. Mr Yeagley. is a bad egg, through and through.

Bad call, Al. Really bad call. Even MD's juvenile treatment of you get no guff from me on this post, because Mr. Yeagley is simply foul.

Yes Phil, some of Yeagley's stuff offends me as well. However, he's not making death wishes and mutilation and such. Your comment above is perfectly civil and reasonable, but Lord God, look at what vile, disgusting things others among us are saying here.

Dawn, why would I apologize to you for his writing on his website? I've never endorsed a thing he's said.

However, he's a guest in our house- in my corner of the house, speaking to us in a civil manner, and you are WAY out of line.

Hmm, I must be chopped liver. Al - could you please address what I said in #77 about a responsibility to check out the sources you link to beyond a single blog entry?

Do you agree, disagree? Which way to you fall on this?

Sorry Al, but Mac Diva has her stopped clock being right twice a day thing right here. NOTHING about Yeagley's discourse is civil. I suppose that one could pretend as if there is a difference between saying "Your mother is addicted to drugs and is a prostitute with no teeth" in flowery academic jargon or you can say it in guttural street lingo, either way say it to the wrong person and you have a fight on your hands.

This Yeager fellow sounds like someone who classified himself as a Native American as a rejoinder to those who would accuse him of being racist, which he most definitely is. Mr. Barger, there are many more people whom you could have quoted who are suggesting that Janet Jackson belongs in jail without resorting to his ilk.

Yeager makes a good point now and then? Well let me tell you ... Louis Farrakhan makes a LOT of good points. Let me see any member of the Bnai Brith Anti - Defamation League, or any white Republican for that matter, put any stock in what he says.

And Al:

Louis Farrakhan is often quite civil, using the best manners and language, when he speaks about whites and Jews the way he does. The unfortunate thing is that by using this guy's arguments you have allowed the subject to be shifted from whether and how Janet Jackson should be punished to attacking a clear racist and accusing those who want something to be done about Janet Jackson's outrage (which I believe was accidental by the way) of racial motivations. Of course, that is EXACTLY what Janet Jackson's defenders, especially those who are defending Janet because she is black and defend EVERYONE because they are black, want. Great way to play into their game.

You cannot disassociate responsibility for the views of someone that you yourself made the uncoerced choice to use as a source by the way ...

Al,

If I am out of line on this matter for calling Yeagley out on his bullshit, then you sir aren't even in the stadium for your part in this.

Stop trying to find a decent place to insert yourself so as not to admit you made a HUGE error in judgement by dragging that foul dissembler over here. Just admit it and move on. We all make mistakes.

Al, I wish to say that I did not attack you personally but with all due respect bro you should show better taste with your links. I happen to be the father of mixed children who are more tanned than I and when I see monsters out there it immediately invokes my paternal instinct to protect my family. On the other hand you are right when you say that we are not justified in our moral outrage by cursing or making death wishes etc. I must qualify that however by saying Mr. Yeagley's soft response does not fool anyone and Satan himself can disguise as an angel of light. His demeanour is insincere and merely a rouse to hide his deranged sinister self. Combine that with his initial arrogance and I must say that he brought it on himself. Having looked at his latter post, I am now of the view that he should seeking the assistance of a good psychiatrist as well as an exorcist. I say that not to be mean but with all sincerity that he needs help. Nevertheless I will be the first to apologize if I have offended him, but I would hope that he will will do the right thing and remove that ugly Gorilla inference on his site. Mr. Yeagley, there is no political subversion or conspiracy with respect to sexuality and your gorilla statement is absurd as well as racist. It is hateful and there is no justification for it. Count yourself lucky you live in America because in Canada it is considered a hate crime and you would be behind bars right now. Please do the right thing and remove it and all will be forgiven. Leave it on and you will reap what you have sown.

You're a better man than I, BB.

It wouldn't make much difference for Yeagley to withdraw those entries, which he won't do anyway. What you are seeing is a perspective he has held for at least a decade. Nearly every utterance he makes is bigoted against people of color, Jews or women. The people of color can be any color, except white. (Yesterday's bashing was of the Japanese and Mexican-Americans.) White liberals are let off the hook after being excorciated because they are being duped by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

And, let's not forget that Yeagley has made himself unemployable by harassing people at the only sort of real job he has ever had. (Interestingly, the straw that broke the camel's back there was an attack on black women he had published in a 'campus paper' funded by the far Right through him. He has had that obsession for a long time.) A person willing to give up having a livelihood for love of bigotry is very in love with bigotry.

Yeagley's second theme is a weird Opus Dei kind of Catholicism, complete with religious transports in which he claims to have visions. Ironically, Docent Shark guessed this in his satire of Yeagley. Yeagley's strange superiority complex seems to be tied in with that, a belief he has been chosen by God as a guide to save white people from us 'muds.' (That's his rap during minstrel shows for the rabid Right.)

Third, communism. Yes, that tired old cant. Yeagley and the 'scientific racists' he was attached to for a while have a Cold War mentality. Any change in America since the 1940s is the work of the 'red-brown coalition' - commies and colored people, with agitation by the Jews thrown in, of course. And, that change, allowing 'inferior' people rights, is destroying the country, according to them.

One of the things that strikes me about my critics is that they are neither researchers, analytical thinkers or readers. According to them, I am just standing on a street corner waving a placard saying 'Racism.' Not at all true. I've been following the far Right's machinations for years. My research and that of other people who monitor it is very thorough. I bring good analytical ability to what I discover. The myth that 'racism is over' is just that. I am not about to pretend otherwise. It is amazing to me that people are foolish enough to believe the biggest elephant in the American livingroom is not there.

As for Barger not being a racist, I strongly disagree. Someone who has a fixation on black people and constantly belittles them, who is a neo-Confederate sympathizer, and who misses no opportunity to declare white people superior, is by definition a racist. Racism means believing one or more groups are superior to other(s) based on 'race.' He more than qualifies.

BB, just to let you know, I changed the title of that blog, and removed the picture. It distracted from my point, apparently.

However, this has nothing to do with your opinions, or anyone else's on here. It has only to do with my respect for Richard Poe, who advised me that the picture created unnecessary flack, and indeed confused people as to my point.

All of my points remain the same, however. You cannot dictate sexual preference. This is what Janet Jackson was trying to do. That is what I resent. For you to say I'm "off" because I am revulsed only shows that you are the one with satanic tyranny, not me.

We all have natural aversions of all kinds. To demand that they be dropped, to match your "tolerance" or sexual preference is precisely what I find offensive.

Janet Jackson is still a slave, apparently, though a willing, multi-millionaire slave.

Not really Eric. By stooping to the level of hatefulness we allow him to take the moral high road. Let's not give him the satisfaction because he doesn't deserve it.

I suppose it isn't necessary to remind everyone how little is factual in anything McD says, and I'll try not to waste everyone's time with further refutations of her fantasies.

She seems oblivious to any confrontation of reality. She hasn't produced one piece of evidence to support her "facts." Her "flights" have intensified in her last post above, and this is worrisome.

I wouldn't say this if she was just giving her opinions. She claims to present "facts" about me, and others, which simply aren't facts.

In respectable circles, if one refuses to present the facts, one is discarded as utterly unreliable.

For instance, there are psychological studies, done at the University of Texas, by Langois, Ritter, Casey, et.al, done in 1995, which show that infants (of all colors) prefer white smiling faces. This study was published in Developmental Psychology, 31, p.464-472. I haven't looked at the follow ups, but this was the initial discovery.

Of course, this has nothing to do with sex or character, but visual reflexes.

McD, at least on these threads, has shown no knowledge of any research, fact, or reference.

(populating ignore list that exists in my head.)

Mac Diva:

"Racism means believing one or more groups are superior to other(s) based on 'race.'" That is more or less a good definition. But then again, by that definition, not all people who are racists are necessarily bad, immoral people who harm others, right? I would propose that a better working definition would be "someone who causes harm to someone else because of their race." Thoughts don't harm people, actions do after all; actions could include speaking words incidentally.

Also ... define far right :-). I would tend to believe that merely because most conservatives seem to have aligned themselves on the right side of the aisle that one should not presume most conservatives to be racist or even presume that their racism is why they are conservative. And please do not correlate being a racist with opposition to feminism, abortion, gay rights, statism, and other items on the left - liberal agenda because more than a few blacks disagree with those same things, heck most blacks indeed in some areas.

And by the way ... communists did infiltrate the black movements and won over more than a few dupes and used them for their own purposes. They have been credibly accused of completely creating some black leaders and undermining other more legitimate ones. The KGB tried very hard to undermine Martin Luther King, Jr. and set up their own puppets when they failed to recruit him, that is a known fact. I still say that the stubborn refusal of modern black leaders and intellectuals to unambiguously denounce communism and communists (and their love affair with Castro whose regime is as racist as any other in addition to being oppressive) pretty much takes away their credibility on any other issue.

"All of my points remain the same, however. You cannot dictate sexual preference. This is what Janet Jackson was trying to do. That is what I resent. For you to say I'm "off" because I am revulsed only shows that you are the one with satanic tyranny, not me. We all have natural aversions of all kinds. To demand that they be dropped, to match your "tolerance" or sexual preference is precisely what I find offensive."

Mr. Yeagley I appreciate you removing the gorilla picture, albeit for the wrong reasons. It would also be helpful on you part to extend a full and unremitting apology. I am trying my best to understand you so please indulge me and explain why you have fixation on people of color and their sexuality? Don't you realize that even making such a statement is in itself racist and absurd? Do you at all consider yourself a religious person and if so how can you justify yourself? If you are indeed repulsed by people of colour for whatever reason don't you recognize that you need professional help? And I say that with no antipathy.

David Yeagley:

As a man of SCIENCE (background engineering and computer science) I should let you know that I regard pyschology and psychiatry as complete bunk, practitioners of such "arts" as frauds and thieves, and those who believe in that garbage as feeble - minded gullibles.

Now, as to black people imposing their sexuality on poor defenseless whites ... I suppose that white men were raped by black women during slavery and that is where all of these Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and (a more recent albeit not quite slavery example) Strom Thurmond offspring came from. I would urge you to go do some research on advertisements from slave auctions and see how young attractive black female virgins carried a SUBSTANTIAL SURCHARGE completely unrelated to and far above their practical economic value. Since the number of black slaveowners was miniscule, you ought to be able to figure out why attractive female black teenagers were just so expensive.

And you also must acknowledge that the pervasive sexual imagery did not begin with black performers. If Janet Jackson was trying to alter your pyschological makeup to accept her as attractive, then what pray tell was/is Madonna's aim? More to the point, why did white people invent pornography? At worst, Janet Jackson can be accused of being a poor imitation of the original purveyors of cultural degradation ... including the very people who bought and sold black teenage girls for their own gratification.

Gerald Ball, I don't believe there is any question Yeagley has done harm. In the real world, he has instigated racial problems on a college campus and been fired for it. (Again, Google for yourself, if necessary. The notion that I am supposed to do everyone's research for them is tiresome.) His blathering on his blog has been less of a problem because few people knew about it. That is why I have not written about him despite having been aware of him for years. But, I believe that he and others like him set the country back decades by dredging up discredited notions about 'race.' Younger people latch on that nonsense and it drags us back in time. That is harm, too.

Again, talking to Yeagley is futile. I wonder if he has had some kind of head injury because information, even nuances, floats right past him. For example, his response to criticism of depicting Ms. Jackson as a she-ape was to ask what other kind of animal he should have used. Reality, that Ms. Jackson is a fully fledged human being who should not be likened to an animal did not even cross his mind, such as it is. What can any of us do with someone like that? The belief that people of African descent are a sub-species, promoted by the 'scientific' racists he associates with, is so deeply embedded in his mind that only death will end it.

powerful stuff Gerald, thanks

What is the "harm done?" And what about that precious "free speech," which allows Negro rapists shout out ever possible perversion, like raping white women,(and any women) killing white people, etc.

The people who should really be offended by all this, and who should support me in my campaign against it, are conservative BLACK PEOPLE.

I would never have started on this blog, but I was invited to participate. I didn't realize it was a LEFT oriented place. I hastily began responding without studying the site more carefully.

So, where is the harm? Who is so sensitive to be harmed by words, but a child? I'm from the darker races. I've grown up as a "non-white." You don't imagine that I know what it's like?

I'm saying it is weak to depend on others for your own sense of self. In fact, it is a ploy to dominate others. "You OFFENDED me," really only means, "You have to do what I SAY."

You know what's sillier than Bad Owl Barger and Bad Boy Eagle's posts?

Yall trying to rationalize with them using logic and examples from history.

"But Mr. Himmler, sir, not all Jews are rich, have hook noses, and want to eat your children..."

This isn't even funny anymore.

They're playin' yall like a Stradivarius.

If yall would leave Bad Owl and his buddy Bad Eagle Scout alone, this FORUM would be:

1) empty
2) unread
3) gone in days


...but nobody listens to me... ~snif~

Lord! I just looked at Yeagley's Rant for the Day. He is very upset about 'Negroes' dominating, according to him, the Grammys. It particulary bothers him that Outkast performed in quasi-Indian outfits. (I suspect the influence comes from Mardi Gras or maybe they have Indian heritage of their own.) A perusal of photos of Outkast shows brown faces. Based on the high level of intermixture between Africans and Indians in America, I suspect Outkast might be more Native American than an Indian-come-lately like Yeagley himself.

As a public service, here is the entry.

Negroes' Revenge

In a most timely fashion, the "black" entertainment group called OUTKAST trumped all things American Indian. They took the Grammy award for Album of the Year, and displayed their true colors in an imitation American Indian show. (See Yahoo Slide Show: Grammy Awards)

Dressed in vomitable verdure, they performed their typical sex-oriented African undulations, in supreme contrast to the dignity and nobility of the people whose pitifully commericalized attire they displayed. How agonal for any Indian who cares!

So, where is the outrage from Indian Country? Not a word in the papers. Liberal Indian leaders, and white liberals, make lucrative careers out of protesting Indian mascots used by schools for their athletic teams, but it's okay for a foreign race to play Indian in an obviously degrading way at the Grammys. Okay for an American "minority" race, which apparently has no identity of its own, and is compelled to imitate others, to be professional Indian mascots.

Is it that American "black" people are allowed any form of racism known to man? Is it that "black" people are exempt from all that of which they accuse others? Is it that "black" people are to be allowed dominance over every one else?

Oh, are they "honoring" Indians? Would that be their defense if accused?

White Liberals have double standards. Jackie Goldberg finally got her little Assembly Bill passed in California, banning the use of "Redskins" from public elementary schools. What a grand gesture. Will Ms. Goldberg also protest the Negro's mockery of the Indian? Will she also ban them from "playing Indian?"

No, when it comes to political racial love, everyone perfers "blacks." Indians are out. Indians are always on the bottom. I have pointed it out many times. This is why I detest racial coalitions. These are white liberal based organizations, designed for racial agitation, and they always want the unique validation of the Indian image, but they are anti-Indian. Most Negroes are anti-Indian. They feel they are better than Indians. They feel they are "white."

OUTKAST just proved that.

Anyone who thinks Yeagley is redeemable is kidding him or herself.

I think some very important points have been made and some positions clarified.

This is a group blog with almost 400 members - there is no politcal litmus test to participate, but I find it very telling that people from all over the political spectrum have come to very similar conclusions here.

Yeah, Mac, I found Yeagley's post for today a bit telling myself, what a tool.

Gerald and Mac both make good points but we are missing the fundamental issue here. Any opinion that preaches fanaticism, hatred and intolerance (whether it be race, politics, religion or whatever) is WRONG period no matter which side of the fence you belong. Mr. Yeagley - words and images can be more powerful than any weapon so choose them wisely. You did not answer my questions and opted for the tired cliche-ridden freedom of speech route. I am trying to give you an opportunity to come clean. Please, spare us the hyperbole and be real or begone.

Diva,

Earlier, you said (with a sense of outrage):

"Now, Blogcritics is linked to one of the most virulent racists on the Internet..."

And now, you're spreading his diseased diatribes like the Asian bird flu.

As if one needs MORE evidence that the guy is a nut-case...

What gives?

Mr. Yeagley are you still there? Please be kind enough to respond to comment #104. Any reasonable person would understand you cannot hide behind the constitution or tired clichés such as 'some of my best friends are black'. I've also read the book 'Black like Me' but it does not excuse what you write now does it?

Seach for David Yeagley at University Oklahoma faculty

Took me all of five seconds to find this; Yeagley is listed on various sites as working for at least 3 different university's in Oklahoma.

According to his own site, he's currently on the faculty at University of Oklahoma.

Well, no, he's not listed as a faculty member. Wonder how Ok University officials would react to a right-wing racist spewing shit on the web and saying he's on the faculty?

Bad Eagle, which is it? You a fraud or is the University of Oklahoma site wrong?

Thanks in advance,
Bad Shark

A certain Blogcritic keeps claiming I'm making things up, Docent Shark. (I know, the typical resort of the none too bright and sneaks. Just yell, 'She's lying!' a lot and other people may not check out the information for themselves.) So, though I would prefer not to, I'm posting the evidence. I've kept mum about Yeagley for years except for discussing him with other Indians. But, now that he is 'out' there is no putting the evil genie back in his bottle. The post above about Yeagley's latest entry and the reference to yesterday's are meant to underline the fact that Yeagley has been like he is for years and is not about to change. Several of the conservatives on the thread seem to think the Janet Jackson entries are anomalous. They aren't. To see that, it helps to look at least a few other Yeagley entries.

I have kept to my rule of not linking to Yeagley and hope to continue doing so.

I wish to make clear my involvement in this thread is not to crucify Mr. Yeagley. That would prove nothing. I vehemently disagree with the notion that some people are not redeemable. I wish also to add ANY opinion that preaches fanaticism, hatred and intolerance (whether it be race, politics, religion or whatever) is WRONG period NO MATTER WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE YOU BELONG. And I mean ANYBODY - not only Mr. Yeagley.