When Liberals Go Wild
September 22, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën
Hart Williams, who blogs at The Democratic Daily and who runs a blog himself, is upset with me for writing about what truly happened in Jena and trying to distinguish truth from fiction. Not only did he publish an angry post at TDD ánd angry comments here, he also e-mailed me. Just for fun here are the e-mails:
E-mail one, from Hart to me:
Dear Michael, you write:
- 2007-9-22 @ 2:09:42 am [ Edit - Delete - Unapprove ]
Michael van der Galien [Taken out personal information!] Ah, attacking me nowadays no? Nice.- 2007-9-22 @ 5:09:11 am [ Edit - Delete - Unapprove ]
Hart Williams [Taken out personal information!] Michael:”Attacking” isn’t the term I’d choose for noting your astonishingly arrogant commentary on this case, and several others in the past couple of weeks.”Accurate” is probably more … accurate.Sorry. Like I said: You had seemed a decent guy until your recent dive into the Hate Machine’s rabbithole. When Michelle Malkin decides to cite you as a great example, you’re probably already in questionable waters.Perhaps you’ve just fallen in with bad company.When you’d like to return to the “moderation” fold, I’ll be the first to welcome you back.Bests,
Email two, from me to Hart:
I won’t respond at my own blog to idiotic statements like that. I’ve got my opinions and I’ll express them, whether you think that makes me a Bush cheerleader or not. For you and your ilk it seems that everyone should always disagree with Bush and American conservatives on everything. Guess what? I agree quite often with American conservatives and have always done so (in fact, I was the right-of-center voice at TMV).
Have a good day Hart.
E-mail three, Hart to yours truly:
Michael:
Since you’ve set the tone, let me respond in kind.
What kind of arrogance leads you to pontificate on racism in Louisiana — something that you’re not in the least qualified to bray about?
And, I’m fascinated at how much you’d like to jump into bed with Bush on an illegal war of aggression and conquest. I suppose that no one around you remembers when another serial ignorer of laws invaded and occupied YOUR country?
I was well aware of your predilictions, but in the past couple of weeks, you’ve gone over the edge.
Now, if my pointing these things out is “idiotic” so be it.
But, at the tender age of 27, you are in for a hell of a comeuppance from Life, sir.
Hubris is a bad habit to get into, and hard to break. It’s really sad to see someone who seemed a decent and honorable human being turn into a lickspittle and a Nazi camp follower.
Let’s see how ashamed you feel when you hit forty.
More e-mails below the fold
E-mail four, me to Hart:
Hart: you’re an extremist. Comparing Bush to Hitler? Are you completely out of your mind? Never talk to Dutch people like that. We know - and I know - all too well what Hitler did.
Also: I find it hilarious that you seem to be unable to deal with the fact, yes fact, that the media has distorted what truly happened in Jena. I’ve said, and repeated in a post today, that racism should be fought against and that Jena should adopt a zero-tolerance policy in this regard.
That doesn’t, however, make the Jena six innocent nor does it force us to feel sympathize with them.
Perhaps you should do more research on something before you write about it. Al Sharpton is a bad, bad teacher.
And - no, you set the tone. I’m responding in kind.
CC Pamela [note: the editor of TDD]
E-mail five, Hart to me:
No. Michael, you’re the extremist.
You take an extremely flattering view of your political acumen and your knowledge about US and world history.
Comparing Bush to Hitler is historically accurate — to 1933 at present.His brownshirts do not roam the streets in uniform, but, rather the blogosphere, and the media, and every reporter in America can tell you about the intimidation that takes place when one incurs their displeasure.
In one of the most liberal democracies on earth, we are now subjected to unlimited surveillance, wiretaps, secret searches, warrantless searches, seizures and forfeiture without due process of law, etc. etc.
But that’s OK with you?
You actively promote the maladministration and unlawful war (read the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials and educate yourself) of a man PROVEN (spin notwithstanding) to have stolen the 2000 election, and almost certainly the 2004 election, as well. You might even recall that the USA screamed about the Ukranian election in 2005, even though exit polling was LESS outrageously out of tune with the “results” than the 2004 US election.
Worse, you are meddling in the politics of my country, when I have NEVER contemplated like action with yours, and have protested (and continue to) my country’s meddling in the internal politics of other sovereign nations.
And now, for you to jump into bed with Michelle Malkin and David Duke, and arrogantly presume to lecture US on race relations in the Deep South (quick, smartypants: how does the current level of school segregation compare to the PRE-Supreme Court 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education?*) .. that’s astonishing hubris by any standard, Michael.
You want to flame me? You are upset because I point out your insufferable sudden conversion to the culture of smear and distortion and propaganda of the American Right?
Well, then you won’t mind if I tell you to mind your own business. Deal with your problems, and stick your big nose in someone else’s business. You are welcome as a guest in the American political dialogue, but when you start braying grand pronunciamentos, then someone has to tell you you’re living in a fool’s paradise.
Whe the hell are you? What have you ever accomplished in your life? What qualifications do you have to pontificate on US politics? What experience do you have, in your twenties, that ANYONE should pay any attention. In the grand scheme of things, you’re about as important as a fart in a windstorm, young man, and your utter lack of any humility or proportion belie any claims that you might make of “moderation” or “liberalism” (and I mean that in the “classical” sense).
You are old enough to mimic opinions, and to pretend that they’re your own, rather than a mere synthesis of some stuff you’ve read. The mere apprehension of words is NOT the same as practical experience, or, in the Greek, ‘gnosis.’ Direct knowledge.
So, get over yourself, and get off your high horse. Your arrogance is unjustified, your opinions unqualified, and your self-importance unbelievable.
This is the moment when a little humility would do you a world of good. But, being full of yourself and young, you’ll ignore this, and blindly wade forward into the quicksand of the consequences of your rash action.
And when you find yourself there, don’t say you weren’t warned.
You were far less attacked than you thought you were. And I was far kinder to you than I needed to be, now that the mask is stripped off, and we can see you for the pimple-spotted, snotty adolescent that you now reveal yourself to be.
“CC Pamela”
Get a clue, kid. Adults don’t go running to hide behind mommy’s apron when their little feelings are hurt. It smacks of childish peevishness and not at all of any maturity, either physical or intellectual.
My final response to the distinguished gentleman:
LMAO! In bed with Malkin and Duke? Because Malkin links to me (without me asking her) and Duke what? What the hell do I have to do with that racist? I don’t link to him, I don’t agree with his views, what? You’re an extremist Hart and I feel bad that this is what’s becoming of the progressive movement in the US. You’re going completely insane.
As for my knowledge of the US: I don’t know, it’s kinda my… study you know.
Pamela should fire your sick and ass asap. What’s wrong with you? Forgot to take prozac?
Hart - you’ve got no idea how little I think of you. Seriously. Stay off drugs, don’t drink ’till your drunk. O and don’t bother sending me e-mails, you’re spammed.
And some people wonder why I’m criticizing the left more and more…
Note: I receive more e-mails like this, quite often actually, but I thought these ones to be particularly funny. Hart makes such a fool of himself, that I couldn’t resist but to publish it.
“Comparing Bush to Hitler is historically accurate — to 1933 at present.His brownshirts do not roam the streets in uniform, but, rather the blogosphere, and the media, and every reporter in America can tell you about the intimidation that takes place when one incurs their displeasure.”
Oh boy.
I wonder whether moderates who read that still believe that ‘moderates’ should ’side’ with ‘liberals’ like that.
Well, I left a comment at TDD. More so about the case…I’m not entirely up on this case as I should be, but it seems that what you’re saying is perfectly reasonable.
My one question is why no charges were brought against the young white men who assaulted the black student?
Harto’s argument seems very much designed by anger and frustration at the racial conditions there (see the “two crackers in a red truck” coment). I can’t blame him/her/it for that, I would feel the same.
I am, sadly, a bit of a hot head myself. I can’t say I wouldn’t have a moment of irrationality and go off at least verbally, if not physically, on racists, klansmen, etc.
But this is why we have laws. We can’t provide special treatment to these young men just because they suffered psychological harm. As far as I can tell, they committed a CRIME.
Am I not following something?
I’m quite sure you’re not a “Bush cheerleader”. A conservative, sad to say
, but not some sort of apologist for the administration. And I don’t think there was anything wrong with your posts on Jena.
Maybe another case of BDS?
Though I have to add, I wouldn’t have let him anger me quite so much. Better to simply say, “Whatever”, and leave it at that.
Tom - this is not the first time that someone has accused me (and this blog) from being ‘extreme,’ or distorting what’s been said, etc. so I felt it was the right time to point out just how out of line these people are. There’ve been more blogposts published recently which take a swipe at me, basically for leaving TMV.
Otherwise, I would’ve shrugged, but I’ve had it with these posts and e-mails.
LMAO
Hart Who?
What exactly are his high credentials that make him think that he’s your superior?
It’s truly amazing, that so many people who believe themselves to be moderate or reasonable have to resort to spewing that kind of spittle simply because they feel threatened by rational arguments that expose the weakness of factual basis for their own points of view. Although I’m not in 100% agreement with your views on Jena, Michael, you’re simply pointing out that there are two sides to the story and some people seem to need to make sure that that other side isn’t heard. It’s the same old story with many on the left in America today- shoot the messenger as quickly as you can. Seems you’ve been “Petraeused”, Michael- and I guess you should feel honored to be in good company.
Apparently, it is sufficient that he is over 40.
I guess that means that next Feb I will be good enough to post about something. Michael has to wait 17 years.
Bummer.
Over 40? Oh goody, I’m overqualified!
Some helpful shorthand. Suggestions welcome for future additions.
Without commenting directly on the accusations and charges, you should note, Mr. van der Galien, that publishing ones email correspondence, especially emails in which *your* responses are not included, is really the last vestige of scoundrels and malcontents. For shame.
Todd My responses are included. Read the post again please. Then comment.
And - all e-mails received are considered right for publication, unless otherwise said in e-mail.
you should note, Mr. van der Galien, that publishing ones email correspondence, especially emails in which *your* responses are not included, is really the last vestige of scoundrels and malcontents
Um, looks to me as if he included the entire chain, both sides, in its entirety. And vestige? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. If you’re going to ad hominem someone, please, at least make it coherent.
Wow. Where were these people when someone was publishing out-of-context excerpts of emails that Michael and I wrote without posting any of the author’s own vulgarity-filled emails?
Alas, consistency is like the Holy Grail — many seek, but none find.
But his responses are included.
“It’s truly amazing, that so many people who believe themselves to be moderate or reasonable have to resort to spewing that kind of spittle simply because they feel threatened by rational arguments that expose the weakness of factual basis for their own points of view. ”
Yes, it is truly amazing. It’s also truly amazing how those making rational arguments in one case respond when they themselves are provoked by an opinion they dislike in another case. In this case, I think the e-mails are outrageous, and the response appropiate.
But, but, but.
The most troubling (and interesting) aspect of blog rage is to see how some participants change tactics from situation to situation. It’s easy to be calm and rational when everyone on a site agrees. It’s entirely different when faced with disagreement, and provocative disagreement at that. Too often, the response is to abandon rational arguments in favor of ‘in kind’ attacks and raising the ante in rage skills.
I look for blogs and comments that can maintain the calm and rational aspect, not when it’s easy, but when it’s hard.. The leading by example sorts seem to be a vanishing breed
There are some, Im happy to note (this post being one) but they are not always the most popular, if graded by ‘hit’ numbers.
That’s a core problem, in my view.
“Um, looks to me as if he included the entire chain, both sides, in its entirety. And vestige? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. If you’re going to ad hominem someone, please, at least make it coherent.”
Er, via Webster, Vestige: “a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something.” Seems you don’t know how to use the dictionary coherently.
Mea culpa on the publishing of *your* responses, Mr. van der Galien, but publishing ones email correspondence in a public domain is still an unsavory event. Your defense “And - all e-mails received are considered right for publication, unless otherwise said in e-mail” is simply silly.
In fact, the reverse should be assumed. In my years of blogging at both DD and my own, I’ve never assumed an email correspondence, no matter how vitriolic or churlish, should be printed with the express intent of humiliating the writer of the email. And in Hart’s case, it seems to have backfired on you anyway.
lol yes, just read the angry comments left here by all the readers of this blog, blasting me for publishing them!
In the months I’ve been reading Michael’s work I’ve never noted any sort of anti-American bias or known his writings to be ill-considered.
I wish I could say the same about many Americans and their blogs.
Er, via Webster, Vestige: “a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something.” Seems you don’t know how to use the dictionary coherently.
Heh. Better check your usage and take some grammar lessons, as your usage is nonsensical.
I believe you meant to use the traditional phrasing of “last refuge,” which would actually make sense in context. As in Samuel Johnson’s oft-quoted “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Or Asimov’s “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” “Last vestige” indicates a lone remaining marker of an otherwise dead and gone item or event. So, you claim you were saying that Michael was never going to do such a thing again?
Given the accusation was erroneous in initial application, kinda cuts the nuts right off of both your allegation and your usage.
Are we seriously debating the definition of a word?
Really?
“And in Hart’s case, it seems to have backfired on you anyway.”
By coming across as unhinged and overly-emotional? Is that how you win a “blog war”?
I guess I’ve learned something today.
Sorry, Kevin. Incoherent grammar annoys me, and the phrasing was clearly nonsensical in context.
Fascinating. Do I have your permission to use this quotation in regards to posts made on other blogs?
More importantly, if other instances can be found of bloggers posting emails without permission and/or without their full context, will YOU promise to confront them with equal vigor, emotion, and persistence?
Or is this really just a “principle” contrived for this specific instance?
Tully, no problem, I just hate it when these things devolve into flame wars like this.
and the real cute part is how he throws me into it as well…
oh well truth must hurt.
screw ‘em
NOTE: I decided to take some Assistant Editorial initiative and delete both Todd’s previous post, as well as my own. They were both personal in nature, and I’m sorry for setting a bad example!
Now now, lets not attack Todd for obsessing over words.
obsessing: anyone willing to define it?
Jason Steck writes: “Fascinating. Do I have your permission to use this quotation in regards to posts made on other blogs?”
Sure. Email me.
“More importantly, if other instances can be found of bloggers posting emails without permission and/or without their full context, will YOU promise to confront them with equal vigor, emotion, and persistence?”
Um, “vigor, emotion, and persistence?” I’m not that worked up about this. But yes, I do tend to call it out whenever I see it.
“Or is this really just a “principle” contrived for this specific instance?”
Is *your* question contrived for this instance? Do you see nothing wrong in publishing private email correspondence in a public forum without the consent of the other party?
If Hart said to Michael, feel free to publish this, then great, complaint withdrawn. There’s no “law” about any of this that I’m aware of (although many emails today contain standard legal verbiage forbidding the dissemination of their contents).
But in my experience, persons dropping email correspondence into public forums (blogs, usenet, etc.) are usually grinding some kind of ax (and thus making themselves look petty in the process).
Michael: “obsessing: anyone willing to define it?”
I’ll email ya
I’m not normally a big fan of it, but since Michael and I were recently the targets of the practice and since there was zero criticism from the so-called “progressive blogosphere” elements that are now outraged at Michael, I’m honestly not inclined to see your protests as anything other than manufactured.
I’m sick and tired of being on the sucker end of double standards. So, until I start seeing some consistency and willingness from so-called “progressives” in regards to their (claimed) standards of civility, decorum, and the like, well, I’ll stand with my friends.