Saturday, December 31, 2011

The Lies of Brooks Simpson

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I cannot help but wonder how somebody with such
questionable ethics could land such a responsible

position at a major state university. ~Connie Chastain
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I hadn't really planned to start tracking the lies of the Lyin' SOBs this soon, but Brooks Simpson has made himself hard to ignore. In the comment thread of a blog entry dated Dec. 29 and titled "Stirring the Pot," his mendacity is on conspicuous display.

He quotes part of a post I made at the Southern Heritage Preservation Group thusly:

Crossroads has a very recent post titled “Who Supports “Flagging” the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts?” and in which Professor Simpson engages in one of his favorite pasttimes — tarring people with the racist brush, in this case, the VMFA flaggers. I cannot convey to you how much I despise phony racism smears, particularly of good people like CC Lesters, Susan Frise Hathaway and others….

The professor replies with this:

Now, how did I tar the SNN with the “racist brush”? By mentioning that the flaggers were endorsed by SNN? By quoting Ms. Chastain’s good friend Dr. Hill? By mentioning that Ms. Chastain’s own blog heads the link list at SNN? By pointing to a flagger podcast with SNN? How is any of that racist?

Ah, no, perfesser, that's not how you wielded the fake-racism tar brush, but dealing with your questions will have to wait. Right now, I want to call my readers' attention to your claim that Dr. Hill is my "good friend."

It's a baldfaced lie.

And it is by no means the perfesser's first lie about moi. It's just the first one I've decided to devote an entire blog post to.

Not that I would object to calling Dr. Hill a good friend, if it were true. In fact, I'd be glad to acknowledge him as such, if he were. It just so happens that he isn't. He's an acquaintance of mine.

I've met Dr. Hill in person quite a number of times at public events, and "swapped howdies," as my Daddy used to say. I've heard him make speeches perhaps half a dozen times at some of those events.

I used to be a member of the League of the South, of which Dr. Hill is president, and I received quite a few emails from him during that time. They were virtually all mass mailings. Only a handful were to me personally, and even those were about League business.

From 2000 to 2004, I published a personal e-zine, 180 Degrees True South, a pop culture look at the proSouthern movement that featured its successes and failures, its movers and shakers, its critics and defenders -- which sometimes included articles about the League of the South or League events. Occasionally, Dr. Hill himself was the subject. A few times, I received emails or comments in my guest book from him, always about the content of 180 DTS articles.

Since Dr. Hill joined Facebook and friended me several weeks ago, he has made a few comments to and/or about me, some of them quite complimentary, which I appreciated very much.

I dunno. Maybe in the perfesser's world, those things are what constitutes good friendship. Maybe it's drafty and cold and lonely way up there in the Ivory Tower, and nearly anything can look like "good friendship" from that distance. Pathetic, huh? But my concept of good friend is more than minimal contact, mostly via the Internet, with an acquaintance, however personable and admirable I think he or she may be....

I suspect Dr. Hill would also be very surprised to find out that he and I are good friends.... Perhaps he will let me know if/when he reads this.

Now, I'll admit this is not a huge lie. It's not a lie of much consequence, for me, anyway. It's no skin off my nose to be called Dr. Hill's good friend. Presumably, it's no skin of his nose, either.

It just simply isn't true. Which makes Brooks Simpson a liar.

Which leads to the question ... why? What makes somebody lie the way Brooks Simpson does? (And he does, frequently.) Yes, this particular lie isn't of any consequence for me, but any lie is of consequence to the liar, whether they may realize it or not.

So, what do you suppose it is? Could it be as I've already alluded to, that the professor is so inexperienced in human relations that he doesn't know the difference between good friendship and acquaintanceship? Or does he know and he's "confusing" them on purpose to make a point? And if so, what point? Does he imagine that because he holds (or feigns) a bad impression of Dr. Hill, that everyone does? And thus, Dr. Hill is somebody he can use to smear others, by association?

And why this obsession with tarring and smearing people, anyway -- to the point of telling baldfaced lies, even when they turn out to be of no consequence? The obsession to smear others -- particularly with society's witch-hunt issues, of which "racism" is a major one these days -- is sometimes an indicator of a person's feelings of uncertainty about their own morality. Could that explain it, at least partly?

Whatever may be his motivating factor, I cannot help but wonder how somebody with such questionable ethics could land such a responsible position at a major state university.

It's a little creepy, when you think about it. Are all faculty at our nation's institutes of higher learning held to such a low ethical standard? Or are liars like Professor Brooks Simpson the exception rather than the rule?

(Photos: Dreamstime and Public Domain Pictures)

Friday, December 30, 2011

Happy New Year! Coming in 2012 from 180 DTS!

Here's a little of what to expect the coming year from 180 Degrees True South.

Lyin' SOBs (Sages of Book-learnin')

As a Southern heritage advocate, I admit to being astounded by the level of dishonesty exhibited by some who promote the primacy of formal education regarding the War Between the States and related history. Certainly not all of them, but the dishonesty of some I've encountered online is conspicuous -- and when you add to that their snideness -- their unvarnished and odious hatefulness, actually -- the result is truly breathtaking.

They use a variety of methods of lying -- by innuendo, by implication, by omission, by assumption, and others. From time to time on 180, we'll look at the Lies of the Academics (and their snideness), but for now, how about a musical tribute to the Lyin' SOBs? Of course, most popular music about lies and lying confine it to romantic relationships, but even so, some of the lyrics fit our Sages of Book-learnin' to a T! Enjoy!

Liar -- Three Dog NightLiar Liar -- Castaways
Lies -- KnickerbockersLyin' Eyes -- The Eagles


Some time ago, I promised to disclose my position on various topics related to Southern history and heritage. I had in mind a single post that briefly hit all the topics, but some of them are just too lengthy. Thus, I will be making these disclosures in separate posts over time. Stay tuned.

My Novels

I'm shooting for a Spring release for the second novel in my Georgia Series, Sweet Southern Boys. For those who are new to my novels, they are contemporary stories that portray white Southerners as (gasp!) ordinary, decent human beings who face adversity in their lives with courage and faith. Because I self-publish, mostly, I've never felt the need to trash the good people of my region in order to tickle the fancy of New York editors (like THIS Southern writer).

The novels are Southern Man ~ Sweet Southern Boys ~ Little Sister ~ Neo-Confederate. There is a possible novella brewing, titled Wesley's Women, that would fit in the timeline between Little Sister and Neo-Confederate. For excerpts on published and in-progress stories, click the covers below. Use your browser's BACK button to return here.

A family man is targeted with a false sexual harassment accusation by an amoral young woman and her uber-feminist mentor.Best friends growing up in small-town Georgia discover their Southern heritage -- and the dark side of human nature.

It isn't always Big Brother who's watching. Sometimes, it's Little Sister. Ainsley Kincaid is watching out for her Bubba, Shelby ...Politics is dirty business. And dangerous. Ask Congressional candidate Randy Stevenson...
Cover Mockups (some images are copyrighted comp images)

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

More Music Like They Don't Make Anymore

Nelson Riddle, "Route 66 Theme" -- Ah, Buzz and Todd...They don't make guys like you anymore, either....

"Alone" -- The Great Billy Vaughn -- Used to play Goofy Golf in Panama City, Florida to this kind of music... Even amusement parks and fun-stuff had class back then.

Acker Bilk and "Stranger on the Shore" -- what can you say? It's just beautiful.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

The Raven Chronicles

On the comment thread following Kevin Levin's article at The Atlantic, Susan Frise Hathaway posted a civil and thoughtful comment -- to which somebody named The Raven replied, starting with this ad hominem attack:
"You are a denialist and public liar. Slavery caused the American Civil War. Feel free to ignore decades of scholarly research and books like Battlecry of Freedom. Pride in ignorance is proclaimed here at your own peril."
She also mouthed off to me and others in that comment thread (but, predictably, Robert Baker chooses to refer only to SHPG folks as trolls.)

Then she zoomed over to Perfesser Simpson's blog to make snide remarks to me in a comment thread there.

For some reason, the fact that I have written and published fiction is fascinating to some of our critics. The perfesser has thrown off on my novel-writing abilities several times (without having read my novel, of course) and he's thrown off on self-publishing -- apparently because two of my three stories were self-published. Actually, I find myself in good company; I'm not a bit ashamed to be classified with them. I guess the perfesser looks down his nose at them, too, for self-publishing....

Famous Self-published Authors --

In any case, this is not my first encounter with Raven, who called Susan a "public liar." I first encountered her on Levin's blog several months ago and wrote about it here:

Time to Bring Back Backsass (scroll down to nearly the end of the entry, last few paragraphs, beginning "And that's how it stood...")

Backsass -- Quoth the Raven

Yesterday, over at Perfesser Simpson's Crossroads, she posted to me:
"Obsession over the Lost Cause has made you an Internet stalker. Why don’t you leave discussion of history with those who have requisite knowledge and intellect? Then you’ll have more time to write another “romance novel”, for people with grade-school literacy.?
Izzat right? Of course, I submitted a reply, and of course, the censorin', prevaricatin' perfesser, the resident Anthony Fremont at Civil War Crossroads, sent it to the cornfield.

But not to worry. I saved a copy. Here 'tis:
My, my. Such snippiness.

Very likely, my response will be sent to the Crossroads cornfield, but I'll submit it, anyway.

Openly posting on comment threads using my real name is stalking? No, stalking is what Professor Simpson does -- "Over the last few weeks I’ve raised questions about various assertions I encounter as I tiptoe through the internet to sample historical understandings about the American Civil War."

"Tiptoeing" and lurking and spying on groups he perceives as not doing Civil War "right-think" -- and then coming back here to make derogatory posts about the people he's spied on -- that's internet stalking. I don't tiptoe, and I don't lurk -- I willingly post with my own name. It's not my fault if my comments get censored by tolerance-and-diversity bloggers...

As for obsession...Between November 14 and December 8 -- less than one month, Brooks Simpson has posted 8 -- count 'em, EIGHT, viii, (8), posts either about me, or that include references to me.

Heritage versus History -- Dec 8
Romancing the Flag -- Dec 6
Help Connie Chastain Out -- Dec 4
The Sunday Question: A Better Symbol for Southern Heritage? Dec 4
The Strawman as Other -- Nov 30
New Discoveries From Ann DeWitt -- Nov 20
What’s Wrong With This Icon? -- Nov 17 (Doesn't mention me by name, but the entire post is about a graphic I designed)
Guilty Pleasures … and the Hypocrisy of Connie Chastain Nov 14
That's obsession.

Oh, by the way, regarding romance readers and "grade-school literacy".... Do bigotry much, do you? Statistics on the educational level of romance readers:

42% have a bachelor’s degree or higher …
--27% have college degrees
--15% have post-graduate work or degrees
7% have associate degrees
17% have attended a trade school or have some college
23% have high school diplomas

~Compiled from studies commissioned by the Romance Writers of America:

Stay in school and study hard, Raven, and you to might aspire to becoming a romance reader some day.
Look, I can be as snippy as the next blogger, but I don't pretend to be part of the Tolerance-and-diversity Hypocrites Association. Besides, my namecalling is far more likely to deal with exhibited behavior, underlying motives and/or level of integrity than with intelligence or educational levels. Of course, some academics define people solely by their educational level, and they like to belittle people's intelligence, but that leaves out a whole lot of a human being's humanity.

In any case, I found it very interesting that this chit (indicating childish behavior, folks), Raven, who called Susan Frise Hathaway a public liar, has a very public blog that starts with (as of Dec 14) a post from 11 months ago, titled Reloaded, that is a HUGE PUBLIC LIE -- blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabriel Giffords shooting.

I don't follow imperial politics and related news like I used to, but I observed enough to know that after the shooting, left-liberals and their enablers in the mainstream media went absolutely bonkers, blaming Palin's re-election map and screeching about "right-wing rhetoric" inciting violence, blah-blah-blah...

I also know that information that quickly began to emerge about the shooter, Jared Loughner, indicated he was not a right-wing-Republican controlled automaton helplessly carrying out rightwing-influenced violence against innocent Democrats, but a demented lunatic under no political influence at all. The Southern Poverty Law Center did its best to create a connection, fabricating imaginary straws even it was unable to grasp at... Fact is, even those who wanted to wrongly blame Palin and/or "rightwing vitriol" had to give it up in the face of the facts about Loughner....

But there it is, still on The Raven's blog, when she's had plenty of time to submit to the truth and remove it. So this "public liar" accusation far better fits The Raven herself. Perhaps she should change her name and symbol to ... The Vulture... or maybe, The Buzzard.


Photo Credits:

~ Billy Mumy as Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone Episode It's A Good Life is translinked from Wikipedia under Fair Use of U.S. Copyright law.

~ Photo of California Condor As a work of the U.S. federal government, this image is in the public domain.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Hate Rants at the SHPG?

Somebody named Cornbread Bridgeman, who hangs around comment threads at Corey Meyer's "Blood of My Kindred Blog" writes, "Ms Chastain, apparently you are totally incapable of unbiased thought since you can visit the SHPG and not see several examples of hate-filled rhetoric so there is no sense in me communicating with you any longer."

Well, folks -- I cain't see what ain't there. I posted the following at Kindred... It remains to be seen whether it will be approved or censored:
Mr. Bridgeman, just to humor you, I have the Southern Heritage Preservation Group's FB page open in another window. Here's a recap, as of 7:24 a.m. on Sunday, December 11, the first fifty (50) posts to show up, in the order they appear. Not a single hate-rant about yankees among them:

A post that says, "Surprised the camp tonight at the Christmas party with a new flag.......... "(there's a photo of the flag, a First National/Stars and Bars emblazoned with camp I.D.)

A post about the dangers of censorship (re: disputing claims that the right to display the Confederate flag is a defeat for racial tolerance).

A graphic of a battle flag with a poem superimposed over it.

A post reporting that the Southern Baptist Convention is considering removing "Southern" from their name.

Admonition to "Keep it flying!"

A post that says: "Officer on COPS just intoduced himself as a 5th Generation it bad if I couldn't help but wonder if his family were Confederates?"

A satirical post (by me) of a letter to General Forrest notifying him he had been elected, in absentia, as Grand Wizard of the KKK, with instructions to issue orders that will (a) weaken the organization and (2) disband it.

Welcome to a new member.

A post about how soldiers viewed possible disgrace in battle.

Link to a poll about whether there is still unrest between North and South.

Quote from Sam Watkins lamenting the sacrifices of Southern soldiers being for nothing.

Link to a story about the 150th anniversery of the battle of Chusto-Talash, Indian Territory. Confederate victory

Post about income tax imposed in the Confederacy

A member's personal remembrance of ancestors who served

Another member's photo of an ancestor's service record

Post of a photo of the 4th Texas Infantry in battle and the note, "Proud of these men"

A couple of quotes about the venality and arrogance of the British

A post by a new member with no message or image -- presumably a Facebook glitch

A post by a member correcting a wrong assertion about his Cherokee Confederate ancestors.

Two more posts by the same new member with no message or image -- presumably a Facebook glitch

Post by a member acknowledging that we the people of the states will never be free as long as the federal governement remains our master

Welcome to a new member

Link to the (Southern version) of the lyrics to "Root Hog, or Die"

Post about a book by Marx and Engles praising Lincoln

Prayer by the Group Chaplain

Link to story about guns of the CSS Pee Dee being recovered from river

Post announcing Flagging of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts scheduled for 12/10.

Link to a report about a judge censoring the U.S. Flag (Mr. Bridgman, the Southern heritage advocate who posted this line wrote, "Alot of good men, both Southern and northern fought and died under this flag," (Old Glory).

Link to a website about the flags of the Confederacy

Link to a blog post about a young man going hunting with his grandfather

Post of a quote by Jefferson Davis about limitations placed on the federal government by the constitution or organic law

Notice that the Texas SCV is filing suit over the denial of their license plate by the DMV

One member's photo of his Georgia SCV license plate

Photo of a First National flying in Bristol, Va

A post commemorating the anniversary of the Battle of Prairie Grove in Arkansas and Missouri

A post about the Mississippi state flag, hoping it doesn't go the way of the Georgia flag back in 2001

Post to a YouTube video about flagging the VMFA

Post of a vintage postcard showing municipal buildings and Confederate memorial in Portsmouth, VA

Post about saving battlefield land associated with the Battle of Shiloh

Link to a website about Little Big Horn

Post from a member wishing everyone a Merry Christmas

Welcome to a new member

Link to a story about Byron Thomas moving battle flag from dorm window

Link to CW Memory about the dustup between Levin and Sebesta

Post about the History Channel program "Decoded"

Photo and letter about Edmund Ruffin

Welcome to new member

Post with quote from "The South Was Right"

Post about the Cherokee nation siding with the Confederacy

Post reminding members to check the SHPG page itself as relying on News Feed lets some posts fall through the cracks
Not a single instance of a hate-rant -- and these post are pretty much representative of what gets posted there all the time.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Censored Replies ... and more...

I used to upload my censored comments to my ISP's server, but they no longer provide webhosting for personal webspace for their customers, so I'll post these here. Most of these are comments from Perfesser Simpson's blog, specifically following the "Romancing the Flag" entry -- and replies submitted by moi that never made it to the comments section.... Keep in mind that this is the man who complains about "censorship" at the SHPG.

Can you say double standard?


SIMPSON: So let’s see. A painting that’s historically inaccurate and of which you say, “The flag does look quite outsized, or else the guy’s a midget — oops, very unPC… a little person,” nevertheless strikes you as “a stunning portrayal.” Indeed. You would think that your own comments on proportion are denigrating. To each their own.

ME: Ah, no. Joking about it is not denigrating. Using it to insinuate other people are racists is denigrating it.


ME: So, it’s historically inaccurate. Perhaps the artist should be arrested and fined? Lemme see if I can get this across — I don’t CARE if it’s historically accurate or not. I don’t even care if the flag is too big, something I noticed years ago when I first found the print online. It’s a stunning painting, and it reminds me of North Georgia…. Besides, the flag doesn’t appear to be any more out of proportion than at least two of the flags in the painting in your blog header. And my comments don’t begin to denigrate the painting in the manner that this blog entry of yours does.

SIMPSON: I find it interesting that someone who complains about a “thought police” immediately thinks of arrests and fines for an artist who offers a historically inaccurate image. That’s quite repressive of you, Connie. At least you admit that you’re denigrating a picture you also say is “stunning” … which we’ve heard several times now, suggesting that your vocabulary is somewhat limited. No wonder writing is so challenging for you. I’ve simply pointed out that it was historically inaccurate. As you agree with that, it would seem that we have found common ground.

ME: Intentionally mischaracterizing sarcasm, are you? Is that what they teach you in perfesser-school? No, repeating a word doesn't indicate limited vocabulary -- otherwise, one has to wonder about your limited vocabulary indicated by your overuse of "historically accurate" (3 times just in the blog entry, twice more in the comments) and "historically inaccurate" (3 times in the comments).


SIMPSON: Well, given that the artist was known for his art work on various paperbacks, including fantasy and fiction, I can see why someone who dabbles in both likes it. It’s her taste, not ours. Besides, if you ever looked closely at her own efforts along this line, you would see why she likes that form of art. I look at the book cover art she designed and I see Ben Affleck surrounded by the cast for a dinner theater revival of Designing Women. That’s what happens when you do your own publishing … and she needs to learn how to spell nascent, too. So much for being your own PR person.

ME: "Ours" who? BTW, I know how to spell nascent; I just make typos sometimes: Ben Affleck, huh? I never thought of that. The microstock photo model is a Brit (or, at least, his photographer works in the UK), and he's light haired and blue-eyed, and I had to do a lot of processing to make him dark like Troy. This fellow has dark hair and eyes, and he's a dead ringer for Troy. I'll put him on the book when I have time to track down all the places where the old cover has gone and update them. The two blond ladies in the background are reasonable facsimiles of the characters in the book. The dark-haired woman bears a remarkable resemblance to Patty Stevenson. I'm not an illustrator. I do page layout and I photoshop existing images. Here are covers I've done for others: Where are the book covers you've done, Professor? I'd love to see them.


KEVIN LEVIN: Is that Fabio holding the flag?

ME: Interesting you should bring up Fabio, the romance-cover icon from the 1990s, Mr. Levin... I speculated on whether Perfesser Simpson is a closet romance reader -- and perhaps a Fabio wanna-be -- when he acknowledged familiarity with "some of the passages" in my publications. Said he: "Ms. Chastain is not above showing us that she’s quite familiar with some sexually suggestive sites (which may explain some of the passages in her publications)."

Actually, I believe I've found a cover-hunk Brooks could aspire to emulating:

He's even got his own Facebook page...


SIMPSON: It looks more like one of those fellows from Western pulp fiction. I think Connie should use it as cover art for a forthcoming book.

ME: Oops -- too late. I already have cover-art-with-flag....


No doubt, the Prevaricatin' Professor, the wielder of the censorship button at his own blog who disapproves of others who do the same thing.... this professor who is a master of the Double Standard, will no doubt chide me for posting so much about him on my blog, as he has done in the past.
From November 14: See, since July, the content of Connie’s blog has been almost exclusively devoted to commenting on the blogs of people she defines as “anti-Confederate bloggers.” Now, while it’s someway bizarrely flattering to have all this attention thrown one’s way, I thought the public display of this continuing obsession was a bit disturbing (maybe I’ll become a character or even a subject in one of her self-published e-books. :) ). However, rarely do Ms. Chastain’s posts amount to anything more than that, and so, with the exception of a few moments which I have found too amusing to pass up, I don’t particularly care to draw attention to her rantings and ravings.
Notice the lie that I have a "continuing obsession" with him? Well, it's not an obsession, and it's not so much him that interests me -- it's his dishonesty about Southern heritage advocates; it's his twisted view of the Civil War and Confederates, it's his obsession with slavery and white supremacy, and, frankly, it's his double standard.

I don't get to blog every day like he does. Some months I have several posts, some only two or three. The time period he speaks of -- from July to November 14, is five months. Between July and Nov 14, I made 25 posts -- which, if they had been evenly distributed in time, would average out to 5 per month.

But before chiding me, maybe he should look at his own blog first. Interesting that between November 14 and December 8 -- less than one month, he has posted 8 -- count 'em, EIGHT, viii, (8), posts either about me, or that include references to me.

Heritage versus History -- Dec 8
Romancing the Flag -- Dec 6
Help Connie Chastain Out -- Dec 4
The Sunday Question: A Better Symbol for Southern Heritage? Dec 4
The Strawman as Other -- Nov 30
New Discoveries From Ann DeWitt -- Nov 20
What’s Wrong With This Icon? -- Nov 17 (Doesn't mention me by name, but the entire post is about a graphic I designed)
Guilty Pleasures … and the Hypocrisy of Connie Chastain Nov 14
Petty and hypocritical attitude he exhibits, isn't it?

I'm thinking next of posting all his announcements that he's finished with me and/or the SHPG. Swearing us off. Bidding us adieux. Quittin' us. Saying adios, au revoir, sayonara, hasta la vista, baby. I might even include the usually very short time period that follows before he starts posting about me/us again...

I can be pretty smartaleck in my comments to and about Simpson, Levin, Meyer,, but I don't make comments designed to question Simpson's intelligence ... only his integrity. I endeavor to refrain from the kind of ad hominem attacks he employs, although one or two may have slipped past me. Having said that, I note that it is very sobering to think of young minds in learning mode coming under his influence....

The Prevaricatin' Professer, Part Deux

Deceit by innuendo and implication


From "History vs Heritage," a subsequent entry posted to the Prevaricatin' Professor's blog, comes this falsehood:

"We’ve recently seen someone who is an avowed defender of Confederate heritage declare that she has no interest in historical accuracy (and that claim extends beyond the image that has prompted some discussion on this blog)."
Ah, no. Professor, when I said I don't care if it's historically accurate, "it's" referred to the Confederate flag in the Duillo print. Clearly. Anybody who understands pronouns -- and a professor surely ought to -- understands that.

So your statement here is not true -- unless you mean it "extends beyond" in your own mind. In that case, I would agree that it is your claim that I have no interest in historical accuracy (not my declaration) that extends beyond the image -- and into untruth.

You have a history of making claims that extend beyond truth, far into into the murky regions of falsehood.

But hey -- it's your bloggy, you can lie if you want to.... (with apologies to Leslie Gore).

I will probably have to visit the subject of "historical accuracy"again some time. But that's it for this go-round.

Friday, December 9, 2011

The Prevaricatin' Professer

Deceit by innuendo and implication

Professor Simpson has posed the following question to me in an entry on his blog. As I noted in the comment thread following that entry, it's a pack of lies disguised as a question. Why? Because the implication in addressing the question to me is that it has something to do with me -- as if I have made the claims he's asking about -- or it is otherwise relevant to me.

Here’s a question for Connie: if so many enslaved African Americans loved their masters and were loyal to the Confederacy, then why did a good number of white southerners after the war conduct a war of terror against African Americans, killing the very people they claimed were loyal to old Massa and the good old CSA? And why didn’t former Confederate leaders try to stop that sort of terrorism against people who supposedly in the tens of thousands embraced the CSA and all it stood for?
He'd have to do a few things before I'd consider answering. First, he would have to explain what the question has to do with me. Second, he'd have to answer a few of my questions first -- mainly to quantify claims made in the question -- and reframe imprecise sections of it into more precise terms. Keep in mind that this vague, diffuse question was posed by a man who made an entire blog post about the importance of using precise words....

My questions:

(1) IF so many....? Don't ask me an "if" hypothetical. First establish whether something was or wasn't -- then ask me about what you've estblished.

(2) How many is "so many'? Who has quantified it?

(3) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves loved their masters? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

(4) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves were loyal to the Confederacy? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

(5) How many is "a good number"?

(6) Demonstrate what percentage of white Southerners that number represented, and thus establish how many Southern whites conducted a "war of terror" against African Americans, and how many didn't. Distinguish between those white Southerners who were engaging in self defense and protection of their families in a time of lawlessness and those who were conducting a war of terror. And since it is accepted that it was wrong for the KKK to terrorize freedmen, please explain why it was all right for union leagues to terrorize white Southerners...

(7) Reliably document it that they claimed African Americans were loyal to old Massa and the good old CSA. Remember, using your sentence structure, we're talking about the claims of "a good number of white Southerners after the war." After identifying them (see question 5) provide primary historical source documentation for "their claims."

(8) Nathan Bedford Forrest was a former Confederate leader who try to stop that sort of terrorism.

(9) Who claims that slaves and former slaves "....supposedly in the tens of thousands embraced the CSA and all it stood for?" Where/with whom did the "tens of thousands" figure originate? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

Sometimes, the prevaricatin' professor lies outright -- for example, he has claimed twice that I've "admitted to stalking" on my blog. Anyone is welcome to use the search function in the righthand sidebar to search for said admissions. I'll tell you right now, though, you won't find anything, because I've made no such admissions. He lied.

Blatant outright lies, though, are less his style than implication and innuendo. He intentionally "misunderstands" sarcasm, parody, satire, etc., pretending to take them seriously in order to lob insults at those he disagrees with. He is a master of ad hominem attacks and employs them frequently.

For example, he has, on several occasions, brought up the fact that I have written and self-published a novel. Without ever having read the novel -- presumably -- he passed judgement on my fiction-writing ability, my motives for self-publishing -- down to the petty denigration of the book's cover. Why? Who knows. Perhaps practicing character assassination and engaging in the delicious denigration of others is the only way he can feel good about himself. That's just a guess, and my opinion, but I don't see anything inaccurate about it.

Petty, spiteful, venomous -- all perfectly describe the attitude he has revealed toward me and toward the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook. Don't believe me? Too harsh, you say? Nope. It's all documentable just by skimming the entries and comment threads at his blog....

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Sit back and relax...

If you don't like smooth jazz, come back later. Yankee-bashing will resume, but right now, I'm on jazz break...

Friday, November 18, 2011

None so blind as he who will not see...

"You know, I don’t know why folks such as these aren’t simply honest about themselves. Why not simply declare oneself a 'pro-Confederate blogger'? Why do these people lack the courage (unless you want to tell me they lack the intelligence) to say who they are and what they advocate? Are they ashamed of using the word 'Confederate'?" ~Brooks Simpson

I have a question for the Professor...

Look over yonder, in the sidebar.


Look under the masthead -- directly under it. See that graphic?

Aw, heck. Just so you can't pretend it's not there, let me post a larger version of it here:

See it NOW, Perfesser? See CONFEDERATE right there between the Proud and the Descendant?

Just didn't want you to miss it.

What's Wrong with This Icon?

It's not big enough! So...

Precise Language....

"Words matter. What words one uses carries implications once should consider carefully." ~Brooks Simpson

The professor has an interesting post up today:

Language, Interpretation, and Understanding

Among other things, he writes, "Precision in language is important. A majority of white northerners may have harbored serious racial prejudices, but a majority of Republicans fought for equality before the law for African Americans during Reconstruction."

Well, I guess precision is important, depending on who's doing the language. How precise is "a majority"? Fifty-one percent is a majority. So is 99 percent, but there's a very wide, potentially imprecise range between them.

So much for precision in language....

"Do as I say, not as I do," seems to be the blogging philosophy of these anti-Confederate bloggers.

I may come back to this post of his. I may not. But I may.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Bigotry 101 -- Part Deux

Okay, back to Perfesser Simpson's recent blog post about me and my pictorial essay of the trashing and trivialization of the U.S. flag. He writes,
Even more interesting (and perhaps a bit disturbing) was her eagerness to conduct extensive research into the misuse of the United States flag: in particular it appears that Ms. Chastain is not above showing us that she’s quite familiar with some sexually suggestive sites (which may explain some of the passages in her publications). At least now we know how she spent Veterans Day.
Perfesser! What passages in my publications are you speaking of? And exactly how familiar with them are you? Have you been reading my novels? You closet romance reader, you!

That reaction aside, I have been completely astounded by the attention given three or four of the photos I posted. There are eighteen of them in my essay exhibiting violations of the US Code's laws regarding the U.S. Flag -- and what do Corey Meyer, Robert Baker and Brooks Simpson point out the most, if not exclusively? The "sexually suggestive" ones. How do you say "minds in the gutter" in academese?

Simpson even implies that I'm familiar with sexually suggestive websites. You know, for an academic and a blogger, he sure doesn't seem to know much about the Internet Haven't ever heard of Google, Perfesser? Google is our friend. I don't know anything about sexually suggestive sites, but Google knows a lot about them -- and all kinds of other sites as well.

Hey, dear readers. Is there anybody out there who can pinpoint the factors that indicate research has been undertaken with "eagerness" from only the results that are posted on the 'net? Yes, that is correct -- you'd have to be a witness to the researcher as she's doing the research to determine that.. Since he was not a witness to my research efforts while underway, perhaps the Perfesser consulted his crystal ball to ascertain my frame of mind and emotional state when I Googled the net looking for instances of trashing the U.S. flag... which took maybe an hour. (I guess Googling is what passes for "extensive research" in what passes for the academic world these days, LOL!).

Don't look now, Perfesser, but your crystal ball is on the fritz. Or maybe you called Miss Clio... or threw some chicken bones.... Or maybe you got the info from the voices in your head?

In any case, that passage set off the Pinocchiometer and I haven't even officially started using it yet! Oh, my, there it goes again, in reference to this:

Indeed, she seems to know exactly where to look when it comes to collecting images that involve the desecration of the United States flag, which she sees as the flag of the “enemy.” It’s funny to see someone who sees the US flag as the flag of the “enemy” complain about other people as not being good Americans.
I don't see the U.S. flag as the flag of the enemy -- except in the historical context that the USA and the CSA were enemies during the Civil War. Do y'all reckon the Perfesser doesn't know the historical application of the term? Or is he ignoring it in order to, well, lie?

The perfesser goes on to say, "And apparently it’s bad form to show a baby wrapped in a US flag, but okay to do this." Actually, bad form or not, it's against U.S. law to carry things in the flag. Simpson says, "...Ms. Chastain highlights these images without being critical of them..." -- setting off the Pinocchiometer again, since I listed the laws, straight out of the U.S. Code, that were being violated in those photos.

Does it matter to me that Christina Aguilera violated US flag law? Not a bit. It was just fun to point out Corey Meyer's hypocrisy in expecting Confederate heritage advocates to turn into the Confederate flag police while he ignores the actual violations of federal law regarding the U.S. flag. That was the whole point of my photo essay -- a point easily discerned by reading it but one that the Perfesser somehow missed, leading me to suspect he either didn't read it, or he read it without comprehension...

NOTICE: Censored Replies will either go offline or be moved sometime over the next couple of weeks. I've been informed by my ISP that they're discontinuing free webspace per each email account, due to lack of use by customers. Too bad. Meanwhile, you can see what may or may not be the final entry by clicking here:

Tuesday, November 15, 2011


Before I get back to Perfesser Simpson's hatchet job on the SHPG and myself, I would like to take time out to announce that 180 Degrees True South has acquired ... THE OFFICIAL 180DTS PINOCCHIOMETER!

I'll be putting the Pinocchiometer through its shakedown cruise, its maiden voyage, its test run, very soon. We'll submit statements by critics about me, this blog, the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook, the League of the South, the SCV, UDC, Southerners and Confederates in general, and whoever else they may choose to target with half-truths and outright lies. Come and watch Pinocchio's nose measure everything from the little white ones to the whoppers!

More coming soon, so stay tuned!

Monday, November 14, 2011

On Conversing with Fence Posts....

Before I get back to Perfesser Simpson, go read the comment thread following On respect for flags, because this post is a continuation of that. Robert Baker, for those who are just coming to this, is a follower of Kevin Levin, an anti-Confederate, an indoctrinee who emerged from higher education hermetically sealed off from the outside world and new ideas -- at least, judging by my interaction with him on the Southern Heritage Preservation Group and his blog. He appears to have drunk deeply of the Politically Correct Civil War Kool Aid....

Robert's comments are in blue. Mine are in gray.

Robert: Your ardent defense represents your feelings about the flag.

Me: NO! Really? Ya think?

And if I could access the Facebook page again, I could provide you examples of.

Of what? People holding the Confederate flag "sacred"? Maybe. Probably just holding it in great respect. But look, what if there are people out there who fall down and worship it, and pray to it three times a day? WHAT'S IT TO YOU? Why is it any of your business? If you don't care about the flag or Confederate heritage, that's just fine with me, I ain't gonna tell you they should. But where do you authoritarians -- who are completely antithetical to American freedom, by the way -- get off telling others what they should and should not think?

I also use sacred as a loose term but if you want to divide it into religious gestures to make you feel better. Go ahead.

You used it as a "loose term"? What does that mean -- a term with no meaning? Sacred has a meaning, Robert. Look, did you mean to imply that Confederate heritage people put the flag on a plane with God, Jesus and religion, or not? Because I don't, and I don't see much of that on SHPG, either. I see a lot of respect for the flag and for the soldiers who carried it... But again, it's none of your business how other people see it.

1.) Your first point is trying to justify your defense based on the assertion that it is okay.

NO! Really? Ya think? Defense based on the assertion that something is okay? Who would have EVER thought of that! Am I breaking new ground here in human reasoning, or what?

Again, I've never said that nor has anyone. Yet you promote some of the very things seen above in the misuse of the Confederate flag under the guise of 'heritage'.

You've never said what? That Confederate heritage advocates are responsible for policing the treatment of the flag? Corey has certainly implied it on his blog, more than once.

2.) Why are you responsible? For your inaction.
Well, Robert, you find out who made the plastic Confederate flag truck testicles, let me know, and I'll go ask 'em to stop.

Your fervent defense of the flag i the face of opposition that are offended knows no bounds...

You're absolutely right because I think the vast majority of "offendedness" over the flag is phony, made up, without depth. It is not the result of somebody feeling offended, but of somebody wanting to tell others what the can and cannot do, what they can and cannot think. It is the result of authoritarianism trying to end free thought and force everyone's brain into the same mold -- a mental, cultural, historical Procrustean bed.

...yet your defense of the banana hammock stainless banner is non-existent.

There's a banana hammock stainless banner? The one I found on the Internet sure looks like the StarznStripes to me.

3.) He is not demonizing anyone. He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the defense you make (as I listed above) in contrast to the non-existent defense in cases such as that. Some of these examples have been pointed out in connection with that facebook group which I cannot see.

Pay attention, Robert. Corey is demonizing the Tampa SCV. He is implying that they did not put the big Confederate flag beside the Interstate as a symbol of Confederate heritage, but because of babes in Confederate flag bikinis (he sems to have a fixation on scantily clad babes, particularly if there's anything Confederate about their teeny, tiny apparel) and because of plastic truck testicles with Confederate flag on them. That is exactly what he implied.

Yes, there are proConfederate people who need to be educated in the proper display of the flag, but Corey's (and I daresay your) interest is not in educating them but in demonizing them.

If it is your business to tell Confederate heritage advocates that they must police, restrict, and stop the misuse of the flag (but then who would y'all have to demonize?), then it is my business to tell opponents how they must police, restrict and stop the misuse of the U.S. flag. Presumably, Corey considers himself to be a proud American, but I've never seen him defend Old Glory in situations like those I showcased on my blog.

The difference, Robert -- and do try to grasp this ... the difference is that I'm not holding him or you responsible for stopping the trashing of the Stars and Stripes. I don't have your gestapo mentality.

Also, don't use the war like it happened yesterday. You didn't fight in it. To pretend you have stake in it is to spit on everyone that did.

I haven't done that. What have you been smoking?

Finally, He did not set the standard. He commented on your lack of standard. You should know the difference.

Yes, he did. He's the one who started it, on his blog, implying that Confederate heritage advocate -- the SCV, the UDC, the Facebook group, whoever -- are responsible for anyone's misuse of the flag. Now, when the same standard is applied to him and the flag he presumably honors, both you and he are going through all kinds of nutty gyrations to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

Your last statement is sort of retarded. Sorry but it is. Union heritage advocates would include Southerners that fought in the Revolution, 1812, Mexican-American, Southern Unionists, Spanish American, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Boznia, Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan and so on.

Sorry, that is not correct. "Union" in my usage clearly implies the North/feds in the War Between the States. Period. Besides, this country is not called "the Union" anymore. It is the United States.

So are you saying Southerners are responsible as well?

If they wanna be, why not?

Or maybe you should create the catch all that EVERYONE, including you with your ridiculous rants above, is responsible for the trashing of the flag. Got it now?

Sorry, no. I don't hold Confederate heritage advocates responsible for policing misuse of the Confederate flag (but I approve and applaud when they do) and I don't hold Union heritage advocates, or just run-of-the-mill Americans responsible for policing the misuse of the U.S. flag, but I would have no objection if anyone did. You authoritarians are the ones who assign responsibility to others based on YOUR beliefs (and misconceptions).

If you like I can put it in crayon using Grey with CBF stickers to make it pop

Nah, just try writing something that makes sense.

Bigotry 101

Dear Readers, don't you wonder sometimes how some people managed to get so highly educated and hold such lofty positions in the academic establishment of this country -- without basic reading comprehension skills? That's been the case repeatedly with Perfesser Brooks Simpson and, to a lesser extent, Corey "Billy Yank" Meyer, who is apparently employed in education but not in such an elevated position as the perfesser.

Today (Nov. 14) Brooks is holding forth about my pictorial essay on respect for flags. He managed to write almost 800 words while completely missing the point of the essay. In fact, he swerves more than once into irrelevancy without ever coming to an understanding of my blog post. Does it come as any surprise that I think his missing the point is intentional, simply a device for enabling the criticism of Confederate heritage advocates that he loves to wallow in?

As time and my schedule permit, I hope to answer his swerves AND remind him what the point of the essay really was (you know, the one that either went totally over his head, or that he intentionally ignored). But for now I want to address his claim that the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook "...contains members that embrace the desecration of monuments to Union heroes..."

I didn't remember seeing any advocacy for desecration of Union hero monuments but I don't get to visit the group as much as I'd like. Between limited time, Facebook's cockmamie way of operating, frequent overhauls and changes, its bugs and glitches, fast-moving entries and abysmally inadequate search function, I don't see everything that gets posted in SHPG -- or any group I'm a member of -- so I had no idea what he was talking about. However, I can tell you I viewed his claim with titanic skepticism.

It so happened that he had a link to a post that supposedly proved or illustrated his claim that members of the SHPG "...embrace the desecration of monuments to Union heroes..." so I followed it:

It took me to a screen that displayed this notice.

So the thread is gone, removed. However, I wasn't going to just drop the matter, so I messaged several officials of the group and conversed with them about it. With the permission of the group's leader, I post the material parts of that conversation here:

Connie Chastain: Brooks Simpson has a post up at Civil War Crossroads saying there are members of this group who "embrace" the desecration of monuments to Union heroes. He has a link presumably to a post advocating such desecration, but it takes you to a notice that the post has been removed or can't be loaded.

I know a lot of people think it's a waste of time engaging these yankee bloggers, and I'm not asking anybody to. I would just like to know if any one knows anything about the post/thread Simpson is referring to. I attempted to put the link in this message but Facebook won't allow it because it's an "invalid URL."

Generally speaking, I'm not enthusiastic about removing posts or threads, unless they are just over-the-top -- filthy language, sacreligious, etc. I'm especially disappointed when we censor threads such as the one Robert Baker figured prominently in several weeks ago, just because it got a little heated. But if that is the consensus of the leadership, I'll accept it. Just so you know, I am a strong advocate of freedom of expression whether I agree with it or not. I think ideas we disagree with should be met with counter ideas, not removed.

In any case, if anyone knows what that post/thread said and who made it, could you let me know? If you don't want to respond here, email me at Thanks.

JS: Gary posted here a couple of days ago, along with an apology, the picture of him joking around at Grant's monument in San Francisco. It created a firestorm. This group does not encourage the desecration of yankee monuments we have to be a cut above those that desecrate our monuments!

CR: I should say not, far from it! Only the Left and people like the Woodsboro Baptist Church advocate the destruction of soldiers monuments to American heroes.

KR: Connie, I do not know what he speaks of, but will be glad to take a closer look at it. I for one do not advocate desecration of any marker, monument, or gravesite, whether it be Confederate or Union. nor am i a believer in censorship. We can debate (even heatedly) as long as it does not fall prey to name calling or insulting anyone's intelligence or educational background.. stick to the subjects involved. First amendment guarantees the freedom of speech to me even if i deem it offensive or not, the individual has a right to say it. i have a choice to react or not react

BE: Connie, When there is an independent audience or neutral turf, then it's a joy putting them through the wringers, but if they are going to control the environment and even "Edit" your Posts, it's time to gather up your keyboard and go home.

CC: May I use these comments on my blog? ... I just want to put up an explanation for how abysmally stupid Simpson is being if he zeroes in on joking around as desecration while monuments and memorials to Confederates are removed or targeted day after day...

JS: You have my OK Connie!

Okay, so I vaguely remembered seeing that photo but I didn't read the thread. So, perfesser, was that the one? Gary pretending to take a leak on Grant's monument? ONE freaking member posting ONE freaking photo of himself JOKING AROUND at Grant's monument? THAT is how you define "embracing desecration of monuments to Union heroes?" One person out of 1,224 members, one photo out of 2,401 photos? A joke that creates a FIRESTORM of protest from other members?

Lemme ax you something. Why did you mention the offensive post of ONE MEMBER but not the FIRESTORM of protests from others? Why didn't you mention that the "guilty party" APOLOGIZED for and VOLUNTARILY REMOVED the post?

Does your dishonest approach to the SHPG in general and this post in particular begin to dawn on you?

BTW -- when was the last time you enountered anybody APOLOGIZING for advocating for the desecration/removal of Confederate monuments, memorials and symbols?

Gentle readers, this is not the first time Perfesser Simpson has attempted to smear the whole group of hundreds of members based on what a tiny handful post. Last time, he was disdainful of a few posts that showed disrespect for the U.S. flag -- but judging by his response to my recent pictorial essay on flag respect, presumably he's not REALLY offended by the disrespect Americans show their flag so long as they're not Confederate heritage advocates.

You know what it is when somebody smears a whole group by the negative words or actions of a few, don't you, dear readers? Yes, it's called bigotry,

As I said, when/if I have time, I'll address the other bits of idiocy he brought up in order to keep from seeing the point of my photo essay -- that SHPG members claim slavery "wasn't really all that bad" -- and then I'll address his completely pointless comments about the essay itself; and it's gonna be a doozy. So stay tuned.

Note: KR's sentiments that even heated debate is okay so long as it does not fall prey to name calling or insulting anyone's intelligence or educational background apply to the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook -- not my blog. Here, I will call bigotry what it is. I will call mendacity, hypocrisy, evasion, missing the point and poor reading comprehension skills what they are -- even when they're exhibited by a lofty academic.

Friday, November 11, 2011

On respect for flags...

The furor over the decision of the state of Texas to prohibit the issuing of license plates for the Sons of Confederate Veterans (the so-called "Confederate flag license plate"), combined with Veterans Day observance, has given me pause to think.

Not allowed for a Confederate flag. Okay for Old Glory.

Isn't it odd that people who mm-mm-mm over the trivialization of the Confederate flag (see HERE, HERE and HERE) virtually ignore the trivialization of the U.S. flag -- and it a flag of sovereignty -- like the examples at the end of this commentary?

Why do you suppose that is? Well, it's not hard to figure out. The purpose of criticizing trivialization of the Confederate flags is, quite simply, demonization -- and the people who do it absolutely LUST after demonizing Confederate heritage advocates in specific, and white Southerners in general. They have NO desire whatever to demonize U.S. Americans, who are no less guilty of the same things -- and sometimes worse things.

F'rinstance, Corey Meyer posts repeatedly about how the SCV doesn't properly honor the Confederate Flag but makes a LOT of illogical, off-the-wall ass-umptions in order to do so. HERE, he writes, "I see the SCV have place the world’s largest confederate rag along the interstate down in Florida, and I wonder if this was really about heritage or not? When the SCV placed this flag here do you think they had the following two images in mind as well? For the Neo-Confederates to hold the rebel rag so dear to their heart, I must say that, well no pun intended, to put the rebel rag symbol on a pair of testicles takes balls!!"


Pardon me for pointing it out, but it's a stupid question. Why would they have these two images in mind, just because you do? Yes, Corey YOU are the one who has these two images in mind -- that's obvious by your inclusion of them on your blog -- but because YOU do, don't imagine every one else does.

Now, a quick question for YOU. When you put that picture with the big-arse American flag front and center on your blog, did you have the following two images in mind?


Besides, what has putting a Confederate flag motif on a pair of plastic truck testicles got to do with "neo-Confederates"? Are you implying that neoConfederates did this? Where is your proof? Just tell us WHO did it, and how you know. Otherwise, you owe a lot of people an apology -- though I'm sure hell will freeze over first.

Look, when you and Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson and Andy Hall and all your myrmidons take on the responsibility for policing the trivialization and trashing of the U.S. Flag, THEN you might have a case for holding the SCV, or Southern Heritage advocates, responsible for policing the trivialization and trashing of the Confederate flag. Until you do, you are outting yourselves as hypocrites, liars and demonizers ... not to mention truly bad examples of -- and unfortunate excuses for -- Americans...

Dear Readers, when you scroll through the images below, keep in mind these words from the U.S. Code. (The "flag" referenced is, of course, the flag of the United States... Old Glory ... the Stars and Stripes....)


The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.

The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.

The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

Are we to assume, Corey, that the SUV or any other patriotic Americans have the stuff below in mind when they run a U.S. flag up a pole somewhere?


Reckon the patriotic pair above will need one of these before the night's over?

Such honor to Old Glory!


At least it's colorful!

Hey! A flag you can kick around, Corey...

Might wanna wear one of these while your doing it. Website sez, "Great for 4th of July parades and patriotic events." (Like presidential candidate debates, maybe?)

How about Flag paper plates, so you can smear Old Glory with food goo, and then toss it in the nearest dumpster?

Just what every red-blooded, pro-American, anti-Confederate blogger needs to be truly patriotic! An American flag doo rag!

Ooooh, gonna need a super gonzo Pledge Fabric Sweeper For Pet Hair to keep Fido's American Flag Pet Bed up to U.S. Code standards!

Oops, Corey! Call Christina quick -- tell her the U.S. Code sez No carrying things in flags!

Aw, how cute! American flag-motif diapers for little American Patriots behinds... Reckon Christina stocked up on these lofty symbols of American Flag respect?

Reckon our blogger friends have one of these in their blog offices?

Wanna WEAR the flag? U.S. Code is easy to ignore, when flag clothes are THIS goodlookin', huh, antiConfederate blogger fellers?
Love them "Patriotic polar fleece pants", don'chu?

More patriotic American flag junk that critics of the Confederate flag will surely dig, here: American Flag Wall of Shame

Gentlemen, methinks you need to get your own house in order before you start criticizing others'. Remember ... pots and kettles, motes and beams, and all that.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Interesting (Repeat) Visitors

I don't pay a lot of attention to the hit counter/visitor log for 180 Degrees True South. I'm more interested in visits to and Word Slinger Boutique. But I do check it every so often. I'm gratified by the occasional visit from a .mil domain, and I often wonder whether the Pentagon is keepin' and eye on me, or whether some Southern soldier, far away from home, visits to read a little about his heritage.

The hits from the State Department are a bit more intriguing. Why on earth...? I mean, I don't even own a passport....

But recently, doing a quick check of my visitor log, I noticed something really, really interesting. Here are the entries that caught my eye the past two days, from a screen grab of my visitor log. I've had to truncate some of the info and scrunch them up a little...

I wonder who's located in Gilbert, Arizona, and other locations in and around Phoenix... where the University of Arizona's various campuses are located... I've received visits from IP addresses in Scottsdale and Tempe, too... Hmmmm...

And who in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be interested in little ol' moi's blog enough to visit ... 107 times! (West Roxbury, huh? Seems like I've read about that place not too long ago... Oh, yeah, I remember:

But the most mystifying are the visits from two IP addresses in Galveston, Texas.... 108 visits from and 146 from (apparently an IP address of the University of Texas)...

So, does this mean One-Eighty is developing a ... following? Or what? LOL!

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Playin' the Victim Card

High drammer, as my Daddy used to say.  Pore widdle Keffin....

I don't mind linking to his blog, or Perfesser Simpson's or Corey's. I don't mind folks seeing for themselves what those people are up to.... I pretty much don't pay attention to Andy anymore, since he's the only one who's stuck by his statement to ignore us. (The only caution I'd have about his Dead Confederates blog is to knock back some No-Doz or Vivarin a half-hour or so before you visit.)  As I recall, Levin didn't make such a statement, Perfesser Simpson did, and broke it in a matter of days -- or was it hours?  Corey held out the longest before his obsession with us Lost Causers and Mechanized Cavalry babes broke through and made it onto his blog screen....

Well it proves one thing ...   It proves that you wealthy college
boys don't have education enough to admit when you're wrong.
                                                                 Sam Quint, Jaws

Unintended Humor (from the Humor Impaired)

So I make up this little poll while I'm waiting for content to upload to another of my websites...   I post it between 10 and 11 Tuesday morning. Blogspot always puts the wrong time on my blog entries -- not sure why, because the clock on my computer has the correct time.
At any rate, something like about three hours after I posted the poll, Perfesser Simpson is bloggin' about it (and he calls ME obsessed, LOL!)
Vote Early, Vote Often …. But Vote!

For those of you who don’t like Kevin Levin, here’s the poll you’ve all been waiting to see, prepared by a blogger whose obsession with other bloggers is legendary, judging from the contents of her blog.
Maybe now that some folks have gotten that out of their system, we can move on.
Why is humor soooo much funnier when it comes from the humor impaired?  I mean, Perfesser, you could move on regardless of what I do or don't do.  You realize that, don't you?  Unless you're acknowledging that I have some ... power ... some  hold ... over whether you, or your blog, or your comment thread satellites, can move on....?
Speaking of comment threads, there are only four following the Perfesser's post as of this writing, but they're even funnier than the original “Vote Early, Vote Often …. But Vote!” post itself!  Take a gander:
Charles Persinger
November 1, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

I see nobody has participated in the poll as of yet—i guess when her blog only has a handful of followers there isn’t much participation.
Wow!  Nobody has participated in the first three hours of a poll that will be online until December 31? Oh, woe is me!
Brooks D. Simpson
November 1, 2011 @ 1:40 pm

When I visited to get the link, a grand total of thirteen people (one for each star on the CSA flag) had voted. You have to poke around the poll to discover that.
So, twenty-seven minutes after Charlie posts, Perfesser Simpson suddenly finds there have been thirteen respondants. Whoops.  I guess being able to count is what separates the perfessers from the sycophant comment-posters...  The perfesser continues: 
I think it’s an “unfortunate circumstance” that the poll’s results are not readily visible without a bit of poking around. :) That said … Kevin gets his own poll! Rats! :)*
  And Charlie responds: 
Charles Persinger
November 1, 2011 @ 2:13 pm
I should have looked harder but I’m afraid i will lose brain cells if i stay to long.
Whew!  Good thing he didn't hang around.  Doesn't look like he has a whole lot of brain cells to lose! 
James F. Epperson
November 1, 2011 @ 3:56 pm
This woman keeps finding ways to exceed herself …
  Why thank you, sir.
*(More about the "unfortunate circumstance" reference here:

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Censored Replies Now Visible

Click the graphic below to read 'em.

Use your browser's BACK button to return here.

Vote in the Poll!


Who does Kevin Levin love bashing the most? There are no right and wrong answers -- this is an opinion poll only. (More commentary to come later... I'm busy right now.)

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Credit Where Credit is Due

Yesterday (October 14) I received the following private message through Facebook's message service:

Someone passed this link onto me today....


Not quite sure what it all is, but the top seemed like it had some private information. Please advise me what to do with this, I honestly do not want to be recieving your personal information online and I will try to stop the person(s) from passing this around.

The URL was to my home page, an html page with a table of three rows and eight columns filled with live links (169 of them). These links are the quickest way for me to access websites I visit most frequently -- quicker, even, than using a browser's dropdown favorites/bookmarks menu.

Normally, the links page resides on my C: drive and loads automatically as the home page of whatever browser I'm using -- most often, IE or Firefox. (I also use Opera and Chrome to view the webpages I design for Word Slinger Boutique customers, but I rarely use them for my own browsing.)

Anyhoo, for the past several weeks, I've experienced much grief with my computers, as I've written about a couple of places. Because the disk drives on both machines were corrupted and/or unreliable, about three weeks ago I uploaded my home page/links page to private webspace provided by my ISP, so I would have access to it regardless of what computer I was using.

When our machines finally got stable enough to use fairly normally, I started using the home page on my C: drive again and used the one on my ISP's server only when my browsers were were being difficult ("Webpage cannot be displayed.") rather than precipitating a blue-screen crash. As the systems stabilized, the misbhaving occurred less frequently and, frankly, I forgot about the page being on my ISP's server.

When I got Corey's message, I hafta tell you, I flew into a bit of a tizzy. There was indeed private info (log-on info) to a couple of very important websites. I immediately deleted the page from my ISP's server and changed the log-ons at the websites.

Since Corey is a member of the loyal opposition, I assumed someone from his circle sent him the URL to my page. Right now, I am in the crosshairs at Crossroads, so I asked Professor Simpson if he was the one who sent the link to Corey. In reply, Andy Hall posted on the comment thread to explain to me that when I clicked one of those links, it would send the URL of my page to the site I was visiting, so likely my personal page had been sent to any number of sites and blogs. Anyone checking their hit log could see a live link, click it and go to my page. Of course, I knew this, but it didn't occur to me because I normally browse using my home page on my C: drive, which cannot be accessed that way.

Andy was right -- it's my doing, and my responsibility, that the URL went to people's visitor logs; but I was mainly curious about who would email the link around. Corey ain't sayin', which is certainly his prerogative, so I likely won't find out who it was.

In any case, through my own oversight, because of my almost total focus on these misbehaving machines, very sensitive personal, private information (mine and my husband's) is now floating around out in cyberspace. The log-ons are no longer functional, but they would be -- for no telling how long -- if Corey had not notified me.

So Corey, we may be on opposite sides of the Civil War, and we may irritate the hell out of each other, and frankly, I don't have a lot of patience with some folks in your cyber-circle, but I have to tell, I do appreciate what you've done. My gratitude is plentiful and sincere.

Thank you, sir.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Answering the Anti-Confederate Bloggers

At one time, I was amazed by the interest two academic Civil War bloggers show in an anonymous social networking group and other discussion/chat groups on the internet.

You see, at some point in my life, I had acquired the notion that academics sat in their ivory towers thinking lofty thoughts, far above the rest of us common folk with our conventions and contentions...

Boy, was I wrong. I've learned they can be as petty and thin-skinned as any plebian down here on the sidewalk of life.

Before my recent computer crashes and resultant time lost online, I had planned to address some posts and comments made by these guys and their myrmidons, but ... time moves on, and there's a whole new crop of lies, half-truths, idiocy and egoism -- and an infrequent honest question -- to address...

Stay tuned. I may or may not post what I'm replying to. If you get curious, consult the Index below and follow the links to the blog posts in question. My comments, replies and observations are in no particular order -- just whatever I feel like addressing at any given time.

I'll start here with some comments to/for/from/about Crossroads:

Professor Simpson, Connie is my given name. Chastain is my maiden name (also my author name). Have you ever heard of the convention in western culture of women who marry taking their husband's surname? That's where Ward comes from. It is my married name. Connie Reb is a nickname.

You're trying awful hard to be condescending and you're only making yourself look foolish in the process.

More information for those to whom this subject is unclear:
Given name:
Maiden name:
Married name:

The GROUP believes there was a Confederate regiment of black cooks? There are over a thousand people in the group, and they all believe that? They're all mental clones? They would all HAVE to believe it for the GROUP to believe it, wouldn't they? Maybe that's how you group-think people operate, all thinking alike, so you attribute it to others but I see a great deal more discussion, diverse ideas, and even disagreement in SHPG than I do from the sycophants who post at your blog and Kevin's.

I know about that mistake Ann made, you know I know it, because we discussed it on Andy Hall's blog. What you're doing by unnecessarily bringing this up over and over is known as piling on, "... a phrase used in American football, where defenders throw themselves onto a pile of other defenders, under which is the ball carrier. It's a needless activity, since the ball carrier is already down and the play is over." (Found in an online forum.) The whistle has blown, Professor. Show a little class, a little gentlemanliness. Let it go.

So, you doubt the WPA Slave Narratives? You think Prince Johnson ought to be "worked"? Did you actually mean "worked over"? That's slang, btw, which means to inflict severe physical damage on; beat up. ( Perhaps Prince needs a severe academic beating -- to show he's lying? Since he presents ideas you slavery-focused anti-Confederates disapprove of, he needs to be run through the academic wringer, beaten into submission and come out "proving" what you all believe -- or at least come out neutralized....

Simpson told one of his commenters: "Connie’s had her say (and can continue to have it on her own blog). Among those who appreciate her message is Michael Hill of the League of the South, an organization Connie holds in high esteem. Connie waffled about her feelings about the League when I confronted her with this material, although she gladly links to it … but when Hill complimented her work, she did not object. I don’t think anyone’s fooled about how she feels about the League of the South, even if she lacks the courage to just come out and endorse Hill’s view of matters."

This is incredible! Truly astounding! Professor Simpson knows all this just from seeing a link on a blog. Isn't that amazing? He can just look a link on the Internet and know what the person who put it there thinks and feels... Doesn't have to consult a crystal ball, doesn't have to call Miss Clio, doesn't have to throw chicken bones -- He. Just. Knows.

This post from him illustrates the truth that you don't have to have common sense to be an academic. He apparently doesn't realize that I didn't waffle or lack courage when he "confronted" me (smirk) several weeks ago with this material -- "this material" being a link to the League, which you can see by scrolling down and looking on the righthand side bar for "Interesting Websites." There, you will also find links to Patriot Press Books, Black Confederate Soldiers, Discriminatory Freight Rates, Douglas Harper's Civil War Essays, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Author Nancy Brewer. (Wonder what THOSE links "tell" him.)

The fact that Simpson ignored them all to focus solely on the League tells you a whole lot more about him than it does about me. At any rate, my response, or non-response, was not from waffling or a lack of courage -- it was from my extreme contempt for his ludicrous demand.

However, since it really isn't an earth-shattering revelation, I don't mind providing information about my involvement with the League and my thoughts on its principles.

If memory serves, I have been a member of the League twice, possibly three times, in the past twelve years. I once served as the chairman and webmaster of a small, local chapter. I am not currently a member.

I originally joined the League after observing it for 18 months. Shortly after I discovered DixieNet on the web, I came across a claim that the League was a "racist hate group" and I wanted nothing to do with one of those. The claim came from a wholly unreliable source and I suspected it was dismissible, but I wanted to make sure, so I read League literature and observed League activities both online and in person, for a year and a half. I concluded that the claim was not true, so I joined for the following reasons:

1. I believe in the right of secession, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (the right of the people, endowed upon them by their Creator, to alter or abolish their government and to create another that suits them better). I believe it is the only way to keep a government from becoming tyrannical. (Well, revolution is another way, but I prefer peaceful secession to violent revolution.)

2. I believe the South would be better off as a nation on its own.

3. I believe the South has always been culturally distinct from the rest of the United States (which is why it has been known as "a nation within a nation") and I support the cultural strengthening required to keep it that way, particularly in the face of efforts, deliberate and inadvertent, to amalgamate and homogenize it into the rest of the country.

The League of the South supports the right of secession, and particularly the right of the Southern states to secede and form their own nation, and the renewal and strengthening of the South's unique culture.

And I certainly do not object to Dr. Hill's compliment about my writing.




Civil War Memory, Kevin Levin

It’s Not a Good Day For the Black Confederate Myth Makers
History Detectives Embrace Reconciliation at the Expense of History
History Detectives Tell Us What We Already Know
Portraying Silas and Andrew Chandler

The Blood of My Kindred, Corey Meyer

Black Confederate Researcher Fails To Read Her Own Discoveries
Connie Chastain Forces a Long Post…as Usual!

Crossroads, Brooks Simpson