Asymmetrical Information

Jane/Megan:

You're Right.

Enjoy some well earned time off. Kick back and have a drink.

But hurry back.

Regards

Chas

PS: Is Mindles still afloat?

Megan, take a breather. And don't let the vitriol of those losers get to you.

And keep up the good work. I eagerly await your return.

J

Megan,

There's nothing, really, to add except another "hurry back because you are most assuredly missed," and that you may ultimately wish to change e-mail addresses and disable comments. If folks want to offer their opinion of your opinions, let 'em maintain their own damned blog.

Chin up Megan. I've undergone a similar transformation over the years. I voted for mostly Democrats in my 20's to voting for mostly Republicans in my late 20's early 30's. I find it laughable when the political right is referred to as "angry", "mean" and "hateful". While there is certainly some of that to be found on the extreme right, I've found that there is far, far more thoughtless hate and vitriol from the left than from the right. Those who would like to see the causes of the left advanced really do make horrid spokesmen for their cause. The more I hear them talk/write, the more distance I want to put between myself and their message. They're only hope right now is the ignorance that pervades much of American society. I can only hope those folks stay home on election days in the future.

Megan,

I'm saddened, as I've just found your site. But I'll be content reading the archives until you return. True ... the double-standard of people such as these is depressing; luckily, you don't dwell in their world.

I say you should name names, my sweet, and we'll show them what angry, mean, and hateful really mean.

Megan,

Go to the window. Look outside. Look at all the white stuff. Look how calm and peaceful everything is (now that the really crazy SUV drivers have all spun out).

There, don't you feel better?

I'm sure I'm not the only fan who's snowbound and looking for some good blogging!

Okay, you can take a day or two off, but no more than that; your public is waiting!

Happy blizzard,

M/J,

I like coming to this page precisely b/c you do not get emotional about things, choosing to engage in reasoned debate even when those on the other side do not. I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that, when one is emotional about a topic of discussion, it is a sure sign that he/she has departed from reasonable discourse in is speaking from emotionally held biases (I know, not mmuch of a paraphrase, but you get the point). I am sorry you have had to deal with those who brutalize a rational person such as yourself for no other reason than their seething hatred of self and the success of others. Hopefully you can feel better in the knowledge that some of us recognize your virtues.

Feel better.

I'd just like to add my voice to those who are hoping you'll be back soon. I will say also that I think the reason you make some people so angry is exactly because you write in a well-reasoned, factual manner. Your reasonableness often leaves your opponents with only two choices: take the high road and concede that you have a point, or stew in impotent fury and vent some of it in an email to you. So maybe it's just a sign that you're right on track -- if you weren't, no one would be angered by what you write.

I work at the University of Michigan and I am a graduate student. I endure this abuse constantly. If the only arguements you have are name calling you stopped thinking long ago. Hang in there girl-I think your great!

Buck up, girl!! I know that I am winning the argument when the other side gets all red faced and snotty. It is a sure sign that their position is augered into the ground. By the way, what were those comments that got to them? I hope to get a chance to read them, perhaps in a few days when the sun comes out.

Take a break but, please, come back soon! These yammering vermin should be beneath your contempt.

Nothing irks vermin like an exterminator who keeps using smarter mousetraps, and it sounds like you have some highly irritated mice running frantic circles in your inbox.

Hope you'll be back around soon but in the meantime, get away from the computer for a while and give yourself a well-deserved rest. I've left some of my favorite sites for up to a week at a time, on occasion, when issues were getting to me. It's good to give your perspective a hard reboot now and then :-)

And in the meantime, just take backhanded pleasure in one thing: Your virulent detractors have to live with themselves, and that's a worse punishment than anything you could possibly hand them.

why use email when there's comments? email can be traced back, whereas ips can't be (if you're not directly connected...)

we love you.. or at least i love you, and mindles (not in THAT way.. not that there's anything wrong with it...)

remember, being a chicago kid means you'll always attract this kind of crap (and congrats to those prominent lefty blogs, apparently their readers are meaner than they are, which is an accomplishment *cough atrios, rittenhouse, du *cough)

enjoy your break, throw some snowballs at the leftists (loosely packed, wouldn't want to hurt anyone.. no ice balls)

and maybe check out a home depot or lowe's to see how big a 2x4 is (i thought you were being kind of wimpy with suggesting it, but apparently opinions vary)

in case you need to help someone out of the snow... rock the car back and forth (with engine and bodies in concert), don't spin the tires, press gently on the gas... you'd think everyone would know this, but i had to help a ridiculous amount of people at big bear in california (you drive to a ski hill knowing nothing about how to drive in snow??? fing californians)

ps... fing just helps avoid annoying people who hate bad four letter words (sorry... i'm being an idiot)

come back!

Sorry it all got to you. I'm sure you know rationally that it is the nutburgers who write the trash; those of us who admire your writing tend to just, well, quietly read it.

Thanks for making the Web interesting, and remember that you have quiet well-mannered allies as well as foul-mouthed enemies out here.

there's no call for anyone of either side to use vitriolic invective...if you can't argue the points and not insult the writer, you have no business in adult discourse. but the left does not hold the patent on rude and immature behavior. on the comment sections to this very page i have been called very uncivil and unclever names simply for stating my case. but megan, remember the supreme court decision in sticks, stones, et. al. v. names (1973). buck up, kid, and rise above the fray. don't sink to that level.

A friend of mine once remarked that "mind-numbingly stupid asshole" is a category more fundamental than left or right. Alas, he was right. Jane, sorry you had some run-ins with some of that species. Take the time that's necessary to make it feel more rewarding than draining.

Pity we can't readily set up the All M.-N.S.A. forum and just let them go at each other. Obviously a bunch of intelligent, articulate, thoughtful left-wing bloggers are running into the same sorts of jerks, so it's not like there'd be any shortage of supply.

Hey, I'm a Political Science student. I couldn't get a second date until I gave up going out with Political Science majors. People who have emotional attachments to ideas cannot, - CANNOT, be reasoned with. I tried for many years, to no end and much frustration.

So don't try. Just relax and remember that these people will never, never be in charge. They do not matter. Extremists, by their nature, are marginal souls who replace any hope of progress for their ideals with purity of thought and a hatred for any opposition. This prevents them from ever making enough friends to actually make a difference. Who is really going to be convinced by a bunch of invective?

If the objective is to change people's minds, rather than showing what side one is on, it seems to me that swearing is rather pointless. On the other hand, the intimidation factor of a rapidly filling in- box could ensure a captive audience by silencing all opposition. By, say, making rude remarks loudly and often on a weblog until the blogger gives in to idioterrorism.

Don't give in to idioterrorists. Be strong. Delete the trolls.

Megan,

I am sorry that the swarm of mental midgets has driven you from your blog, and hope that it won't be long before your grace us again with your words of wisdom/random observations (select one or both).

I have seen this before - it appears to be a common blogosphere phenomenon. To write a blog, it seems to me, requires putting part of yourself in the public view. But you don't have to leave yourself open to the attacks of your mental and moral inferiors.

I'm sure there are email filtering programs you can use to get rid of the hate mail - get one. Then come back. Otherwise the midgets win. Your true friends will still be here.

Come back soon! The only thing that rankles a little is that, by taking down your comments and going silent, you've given the people who sent you hate-mail exactly what they wanted. Now they'll have every incentive to try to silence you next time you say something they don't like.

Don't let the idiots get to you, please. Please come back, and soon.

Jane-

Idiocy is by nature impersonal. It's got nothing to do with you, and vice versa.

Now, to pirate someone else's post:

Go to the window. Look outside. Look at all the white stuff. Don't you realize that it's pure snow? Do you have any idea what all that is worth?

Some people are idiots. Take joy in the fact that you're not one of them. Come back when you're ready.

Dave Perron

Jane, let's laugh and rejoice. People like that are doomed to eternal irrelevance. Clearer heads and finer minds will prevail! Just don't stay away too long. If you do, the "errorists" will have won!

A good book, some warm cider, and a dark computer can be great medicine. Watch the snow and take it easy. Your faithful readers will patiently await your return.

I just put some $$ in your tip jar. I figure you were attacked because you were drawing fire for those of us who don't blog. Think of it as hazard pay or something.

Gave me a moment to reflect though... The activity of donating is simpler than the activity of spelling out four letter words. (two clicks vice five keypresses.) Yet despite the rather impressive total in your tip jar, I rather suspect that more people Tirade than Tip. Curious commentary on the human condition.

You do a splendid job. I most certainly appreciate your efforts. Hurry back.

Megan...don't give up blogging!...

We need people out there that can discuss the issues calmly and analytically. You're the site I come to after Instapundit and Lilecks.

Keep up the good work, and don't let the hate get you down.

No need for me to chime in here, is there?

Well, guess I will anyway: come back when you're ready, Megan: you will be missed.

-NZB

The more shrill, invictive, and mean spirited they get, the more it becomes apparent that their losing. Chin up, I had my 2x4 handy against those losers.

I don't claim moral superiority. I'll just claim to be the one left standing after all is said and done

Megan:

I admire your writing and your approach to life and the issues of the day. Keep talking to us!

Please come back to us, Megan. There are a lot more nice people in the blogosphere that love reading your work than there are jerks who send hatemail. I hope the minority of (admittedly loud) jerks won't end up taking you away from the rest of us.

I recommend getting PopFile, a mail filter that you can train to weed out the cursing email. It's at popfile.sourceforge.net; the current version is not as reliable as I'd like, but it's still a terrific program.

On the larger issue of hate mail, my theory is that the Left is angry because they are not able to argue well on substance. I feel like I have to avoid political conversations with my Lefty friends, because all they want to do is recite their slogans. They've stopped listening to the other side, because they are afraid of what they might hear.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

Don't worry - make yourself a scotch on the
rocks, and put on some Louis Armstrong. It
always helps.

Illigitimi Non Carborundum Est!

What they want is to drive people from the field of debate with a torrent of bile, invective, and spite, shouting down any disagreement (while crying about how "dissent" of their type is being "crushed").

(This also illustrates one of the great truths of life: those on the left who define themselves a priori as the good, humane ones who care about people often use that as an excuse to treat actual people like dirt; after all, they're the good people - feel their goodness wash over you in a wave - so anything they do to advance the cause of The Movement in the face of its opponents - who by definition must be scum because of their opposition to the march to a more "progressive" society - is acceptable. Especially the sort of hate they accuse those who do not share their world view of harboring.)

It's an orchistrated campaign aimed precisely at crushing the spirit of anyone who deviates from their world view. So I'll close as I started:

Illigitimi Non Carborundum Est.

Jane,
I'm just agreeing with everyone else. You are smart and funny, a joy to read. Those folks just tear down; ignore them. They really aren't worth your notice. You're doing something positive, contributing informed, intelligent analysis -- something they can't do. Hope you come back soon.

"Look, they write their message with crayons. We use fine-point quills." - Mario Cuomo

:roll:

Wil Wheaton was whining about hate mail last week. I told him to quit whining and I'm telling you the same. Get your ass back in gear and up the volume. Vituperative responses like you've been getting only mean that you're having an effect, so don't quit now.

On the larger issue of hate mail, my theory is that the Left is angry because they are not able to argue well on substance.

I see. Fascinating theory.

And who decides they can't argue well on substance? You?

And what explains the angry Right?

Did you come up with this like you did with your comments about Krugman and Marxism in your "Idiotarians" post?

Jane, you don't have to face nastiness head-on.
Just delete all e-mail that looks like flame missives, or get them screened so that you can deal with e-mail from 'rational' fans, readers, etc.

I've gone through the same thing recently. Since September or so, when it became apparent that I had made a full transformation from the left to the right, my hate mail has more than doubled. Many times I thought of giving up blogging because I can't stand the vitriolic mail and the threatening comments. But if we gave up, Megan, that would be two voices silenced. Do we really want to give them that?

I reply to some of the mail on my site, some I just delete because it's too hateful to look at again. I don't want to rehash all the sordid details right here, but suffice it to say that I've been reduced to tears a number of times.

Please email me if you want to talk about it.

GT: You've got exactly zero class. Cad.

Otherwise, Megan, don't stop kicking against the pricks. They will always show up anyway, evidently.

Sure, there are people on the Right who are unable to talk about something without letting emotion get involved. And yeah, people can make their own decisions about who can or can't argue well. Especially in their own forum. GT, you have to see that your post is crap. I hope it doesn't get deleted. It is an example of what everyone in the comments section is talking about.

I've been through the same, since I started blogging back in 2000. It comes and goes, and the good mail makes you forget the bad. Just had a vicious left/right war/anti-war fight with my best friend from high school last night. I was her maid of honour a few years back. I have outgrown my knee-jerk liberalism, but she is still an unreconstructed, Yankee bashing socialist. For her/them, it is all about feelings rather than fact, unless those 'facts' come from Moore or Chomsky. We are on the right side of history, no pun intended. Please come back soon, but DO take a break first. You've earned it and your writing and thinking will be even better for it. An old editor told me you're not a real writer until you make a few enemies. :-)

I just hit the tip jar. Money talks. This site is very valuable to me. Hope you come back soon Jane.

Jane,

I have read you blog occasionally for sometime. I don't agree with some of the things you say, and I do agree with others. That's the way of things.

Regardless of what I think of each post I would not dream of sending you (or any blogger) hatemail. Why? Because that childish and pathetic which I am not.

Remember the old saying 'empty wagons make the most noise'

I see. So if you disagree with the Right, that is the definition of crass?

My, that makes things quite simple for all.

Jane/Megan,

I rarely if ever post here, but I'm a daily reader. I certainly understand the need to take a break, but I wanted to let you know you have one more reader who enjoys what you have to say and finds it thought-provoking.

Take care of yourself.

GT, disagreeing is not the problem. Hardly any two people can agree on everything. But the manner in which the debate is carried out is important, and face it, the Left in general has not been able to keep it civil. Take you for instance. your posts are dripping with sarcasm. You could make your point without doing that, and people would listen. Instead, we see that you have nothing to say, but insist on saying it. Sadly, you are not an isolated case.

Megan,
I dont usually post since most of my thoughts have already been said with more eloquance that I could impart.
I don't think I need to tell you that chasing you off gives them the appearance of "winning".
FALSE! We know there can be no meaningful dialog in a vacuum, which is what those losers have between their ears.
That said, a little time off is good. Relax,enjoy,
and come back to us STRONG.

Megan, I hope I speak for many silent readers who agree with and support you. Come back soon!

PWH, STW, GBY!

Chris

Delete the trolls. But post their addresses (and header information) first. Trolls are sensitive to daylight, after all.

Yes, the manner in which it is carried out is important.

So why doesn't the Right begin by not posting such silly arguments like "The Left can't argue on substance"? Once you start down that road everything else falls apart.

It is particularly cynical of A. Kling whose blogging on Idiotarian Economics was shown here only a few weeks ago to be full of errors and outright misrepresentations, including completely taking a post of Krugman's out of context and showing a deep misundertsanding of what Marx said (as shown by d^2).

Yes, Jane is right that there is a lot of vitriol in the blogging/commentary world.

But this applies to BOTH the Left and the Right.

By the way sarcasm is not the same as insults.

No, Jane, please don't stop! If they silence your voice, the terrorists will have won.

Megan- I have an email political group populated by a couple of types that have apparently been writing to you. Amazing to me how these otherwise intelligent people (yes they are), when arguing about politics, render themselves sub-adolescent.

Everyone on the right is stupid, selfish, racist and mean. Non-lefties want to despoil the environment and ruin life for future generations. And yes - when all else fails, claim that those on the other side are saying things that they never ever said - if it aids you in winning your argument.

Yeah, I get truly annoyed myself at times. Then I remind myself that they resort to such tactics because real substantiation for their positions simply ain't there!

Think about THAT and cheer up!

Jane, I'm sure I've read your blog a couple of times but only link through Reynolds or Green. And only to fill in the quiet moments at work. Don't let the sloppy seconds in too deep. I used to read the crep at 'smirking chimp' and reply with my gung ho military brat southern white boy conservative innocence. And have been severely chastised for my responses. But I've learned. Now, I just disguise my responses as an innocent liberal and they just don't get it. So perhaps you can rest and joy in the knowledge that at least there is an army of one or more out there giving back to the liberal cretins some of their own spew. And they also don't get that my 'handle' is an acronym claiming to be 'one for whom the chimp smirks'.

Jane,

Your response to the lefty flamers was my introduction to you, as I followed a link from Glenn Reynolds. I like you already. I too have been saying to my colleagues on the left that if endlessly repeating their tiresome trope about Bush being a moron who stole the election is the best they can do, the GOP will be in power for a long time. As Andrew Sullivan nicely put it, how must it feel to be defeated by a retarded monkey? And the irony is, this is a Democratic Gore supporter who is telling you this.

Best,
Rick Rosendall
Washington, DC

Megan:

As others have noted, 'asshole' is a catagory that welcomes members from the Right as well as the Left. When I was one of the few Lefty bloggers going at it back in Nov. 01, my inbox was regularly treated to all manner of right-wing hate mail. These morons who've been troubling you do not represent the Left, just as the Nazis and racists who mailed me don't represent the right. We should all occasionally recall that the original concept of "Idiotarian" included members of both the Right and the Left. One thing that I learned the hard way was that letting them know they pissed you off only encourages them. Something to keep in mind for what I hope wil be a long future for your blog.
And if you wouldn't mind a few pointers from a Lefty, I submit the following:
1. If you open a mail and note that there is not a proper salutation, delete it immediately. The author was likely so filled with hate when they hit the keys that they couldn't be bothered with manners.
2. If you notise that their are alot of werds misspled and, the grammer isnt to good, and the sentances are runing togather... then enjoy a little chuckle to yourself that at least some of your foes are dipshits.
3. A borderline correspondance that actually does make a little bit of sense will usually stay civil if your response is poilte and thanks them for taking the time to write. This has worked for me even when the topic was guns.
4. Most important: Don't let them get to you! These pinpricks are likely slapping each other on their virtual backs right now since they have managed to take you out of the game for a time. We all need a break now and then, but don't let them think they are responsible for running you down.

Anyway, though I often disagree with you, you are a rockin' smart woman who will be missed by all. Come back to us soon.

Just want to note that I'm horrified by my misspelling of the word "their" above as "they're". Good God, I was typing way too fast for my own good. ;-)

Unfortunately,you did what you shouldn't have done which is to demonstrate how effective they are in getting to you. The tack you took trying to show how deluded they are by responding with more rational thought and insight obviously doesn't work with these people. Revealing how successful they've been in upsetting you only serves to encourage them even more. Keep up the good work and eventually you'll develop a hide thick enough to simply laugh 'em off.

Sent here via instapundit--hang in there!

The "warbloggers" (I'm assuming you're one) have done a tremendous service for those of us struggling to make the case for war out in the world of run-of-the-mill, non-epithet-spewing, reflexively anti-war liberals. Every day I've been able to pull evidence to support my position from the blogs, and as it turns out there are plenty of people for whom evidence makes all the difference, eventually. The people I've managed to persuade are now persuading others. You've done a good deed, and remember: no good deed goes unpunished.

On the other hand, it doesn't sound like you should expose yourself to a lot more venom. Having been involved in minor internet skirmishes in my own realm, I've never had the slightest desire to launch a blog.

Maybe someday when Microsoft comes up with a special filter for hate mail . . .

Feel better!

It's been my experience that most people both on the Left and on the Right prefer to listen and read opinions that they agree with.

There is no doubt that there are many, many people BOTH on the L and the R whose responses are no more than a variation of "you suck!".

But even among those that have more elaborate thought processes very few are willing to accept that they are wrong or that people disagree with them.

That's why so many political commentary websites ban those that disagree with the prevailing view.

Megan, dear - Hang in there. Don't let the turkeys get you down. I've heard some nasty stuff from left-wing "friends" of mine as well, and I think I've figured out the root cause of it.

They're furious that the blog allows you to say what you want to say. These types don't believe in truly free speech, so their attitude is (as one was foolish enough to say to me), "So, you like having a blog because it allows you to just say what you want without having to listen to anyone else's opinion?" That's the extreme left-wing idea of blogging - that we are somehow breaking the "correct" rules of discourse by speaking our own minds on our own blogs. We're circumventing their "brave" "protests" because we're not following their rules of political correctness. They don't have to be civil to us because our views are beyond the Pale and we don't care for "the people" like they do. And so on.

Don't ever stop. You're one of the most elegant voices of reason, and you're one of the reasons I created a blog myself. Take a break and gaze at all that lovely snow. And then come back and break some heads.

Megan - You are special to many of us. I read each morning your blog before any other. I'll follow the example of some of the other commentors and drop a few coins in your tip jar. Hurry back.

You write well. Please continue.

As an antidote to the debris, I read P.J.O'Rourke and drink hot chocolate. (I wish we had snowfall: I'm in Arizona in a drought.)

Unwilling to do the sort of work it takes to understand complicated issues, the extremes of left and right fill their mental vacuums with cheap abuse and sloganeering. But this convinces only the like-minded, particularly if malt beverages are in the mix. Discourse is useless with these vein-popping sorts. Pies in the face are best. But as this recourse frequently is unavailable, a quicker trigger finger on the delete button is recommended. You know what they say about the tree falling it the forest with no one to hear it.

As #1 here on this thread, I take an encore.

I gotta admit, I am surprised at the response. With the exception of one total cad - also a bounder - ( GT ), note that we all miss you...

We have a snow total of thirty inches now with more coming. Ah, county life. But power is still on, there's a fire in the fireplace, I have a good book to read and - best of all - I found the ingredients for a hot toddy.

As for the marchers, I found an old Gary Larson tee shirt. It has a group of marchers - very reminiscent of the recent idiotarians - who are carrying a banner "Idiots of America". Gag: they're holding it upside down. They can read it, but no one else can. Interesting, eh?

Chin up, Megan, dearest...

Hurry back, babe..

Jane, the Yogi Bera (the great American philospher) phrase--deja vu all over again--comes to mind as well as other threadbare ad hominems, America on the wrong side of history or American Imperialism. There are no new ideas coming from the Left as demonstrated by their vitriol. Take a break, smell the roses and watch how the US leads the world in the successful resolution of this problem.

Hi lady:

I'm with Charles -- take a break, blow off some steam, then please come back. I'm sorry some folks lack the class to treat a lady correctly in an honest political debate; please don't let those morons stop you.

I speak for a lot of folks when I say we don't want to lose your commentary.

Just start singing Monty Python's "Always Look On the Bright Side of Life;" you'll feel better in no time.

Come back soon ,Megan.

If it is any consolation I'm 52 ,and have always been more libertarian than anything else. But because of my interests I've always been surrounded by lefties. Some are good folks, but for 30+ years many have vitrolically and viciously yaken me to task in public for not being a good moral person like themselves. I once had a big fat bully who who resembled Michael Moore come up to me at a party and gleefully stab me in the chest with a button that said "Lobotomies for Republicans: it's the law." When I slapped his hand away and warned him to back off he accused me of being "violent."
They never learn.
Steve Bodio

Please return soon. I've never posted a comment on your blog, but I've read it since I was turned on to it by a friend. Your writing is sublime and will be missed.

People can be sucky and lame.

I am still not a fan of the administration, but I'm a heck of a lot smarter person for reading the intelligent, articulate, cut-to-the-bone arguments I've read on various pro-administration blogs throughout the past few weeks.

You're going on my "must read" page!

(Came here after reading Josh's comments on OxBlog.)

Megan, you do wonderful work. The nature of the Internet is that all kinds of human debris have access to email. You must either ignore them or enjoy annoying them. Here's hoping your time off measures hours. Best wishes.

Dear Megan,

I can add little to the supporting comments already posted except to add my compliments about your lucid observation and argumentation.

The objective of those using foul language and insults is to silence a clear voice of reason. Living in the murky depths, they have every reason to hate and fear the light.

The quality of those who denigrate you should be measured against the quality of your admirers.

I hope to enjoy your writing again soon.

Many of us treasure you and consider you as part of our 'internet family'.

Any Lady would be disturbed to receive such correspondence and the failure of these people to curb their mongrels is deplorable. To have the residue of such a landmine on the sole of your shoe is an unfortunate but perhaps inevitable result of their failure to be considerate of others.

We look forward to seeing you again, soon.

Don't give in to the morons.

And if you want me to screen your email, let me know.

news flash! blogger receives hate mail! film at 11...

<tumbleweed rolls by>

<sound of crickets>

Megan,
I was just routed from Reynold's site, and I read the intelligent, well-judged, and calm "I've had it up to here" note. I too try to assume that the opposition is not evil; I reasure myself that every person is a hero in their own mind. I do not know if the problem with these hate-mailers is a lack of intelligence, or a failure in the code of ethics. It may make me a 'young fogie', but I would never talk that way to a lady.

Respectfully,
Tadeusz

I have been noticing that the leftwing carping has risen in proportion with the realization of the ineffectiveness of the "peace" protests as well as all the other efforts to tie what they see as the American beast down. And of course the waiting gets on everyone's nerves. I haven't received a lot of email, probably because I hide my email in a "contact" link near the bottom of my page. Instead trolls look for ancient posts of mine to poop on.

In any case, what I think you should do is put up the most ridiculous email and make fun of it. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade! That's what I would do, anyway. No doubt GT would disapprove! ;)

an old Arab proverb:
"The Dogs Bark, But the caravan passes on".
They are the Dogs and you are the caravan let the dogs bark as you pass on on your way to your destination.
Barry

congrats for not stooping to their level and don't let them get ya down.

biggest hyprocracy I see is a lot of these folks are wondering why the right is "avoiding debate" yet they can't enter onto one themselves, they must attack and destroy without any consideration of the other side's facts. How peaceful.

Jane: Andrea's concept had real merit. You ought to do a "Howling to the Moon" side link featuring the "Best of the Idiotarian Inbox". Publicizing stupidity is the essential first step in excising it from public discourse. Think along the lines of what the Scopes Monkey Trial did for W J Bryan and the Creationism Enforcers in mid 20th century America. They won the trial and lost the debate.

well, the occassion of meeting a jerk should be a reason to rejoice that you are not one of them. after all you get to go home and be you and they have to put up with being annoying and clueless and that is a hard row to hoe. sometimes i feel compassion for the clueless loser assholes who have to be themselves 24 hours a day. think upon that and count your blessings.

The exit from the teachers lounge at Dearborn High School had (may still have for all I know) a little sign that said "Illegitimati Non Carborundum*" which meant "Don't Let the Bastards Wear You Down."

All you have to remember is the delete key is to the right on your keyboard.

*I think that is what was there. I don't know Latin.

Megan, I sure understand where you're coming from. Sometimes the bozos just wear you down. That was part of the reason I "went fishing" for a few days a couple of weeks back.

Enjoy the rest, and try to get back in time for the big doings coming soon. The blogosphere needs your voice.

Megan...no....you give up..and they win...your blog is wonderful..and educational..and fun..and there are too many quiet, broke people who love you...

Megan we all need to take a breather sometimes, enjoy a brief respite and come back to us fully refreshed and fit for battle, the rest of us will have to make do as best we can.

GT, hmmm...and what to say about GT...kicking a person when their down? Antagonizing someone who's announced their intention to withdraw? My what a fine and brave lefty troll you are. I'm sure you'll make a good informant or communist dupe one day, seeing as you're already a callow and gutless prick. Keep up the good work jackass.

GT:

Please see Brian Linse on how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Three ca. 1930s cartoon mice, are singing harmony and dancing, and grinning BIG grins:

We'd tip our hat to you!
If we had one
(Boom boom boom boom)
We'd tip our hat to you
But we haven't got a hat!
(B-B Boo-boo boom boom boom)

In other words,
Dammit! I like you, Megan.
Squeak!

Megan,

Sorry to hear about all the idiots you've had to deal with lately. They simply cannot beat that "moron" in the White House; they're losing the argument and they know it. Take some time off, recharge your batteries and then be sure and get back into it because you're way too important to lose.

My what a fine and brave lefty troll you are. I'm sure you'll make a good informant or communist dupe one day, seeing as you're already a callow and gutless prick. Keep up the good work jackass.

See what I mean?

There are posters like this all over.

You are 90% facts and reason, and I really enjoy your site and opinions. Don't give up blogging. For every mean-spirited, non-logical asshat that sends you hate mail, I'm sure there are many tens of supportive and agreeing readers.

MW (a long time lurker/first time poster)

Come back, Jane, keep up the good work, etc.
My applause (and obviously many others) for keeping up a tough standard in fractious times.

In the primate-psychology sense politics is about emotion: the identification with one side or another so as to feel part of the tribe, reinforced by the sense of enemies out there. Plus, very few of us can do anything to influence the major events we face--a recipe for serious emotional stress. Therefore, being rational about politics takes real training and self-control and you should expect a fair amount of monkey shit thrown your way.

Way back in SIDL debate when I first learned about the Aristotelean fallacies, my favorite (not to use, you idiot, to observe!) was ad hominem, aka "have no case, abuse your opponent". Any opponent--left, right, libertarian, authoritarian or simply confused--who can't do better than call you names, has no case and should merely be ignored. In a juried debate, they would have lost speaker points for abusing the opponent. Clearly you win on speaker points and we all encourage you to come back.

Practically speaking, you may want to delete unread any missive--comment or email-- that begins with abuse, or at the moment it degenerates into abuse. No point giving the uncivil a soap box or letting them hurt you by reading their vitriol. As my mother used to advise me about dealing with my younger brother; "Just ignore them until they lose interest."

My dad had a great line for occasions like this. Hardly unique, but worth repeating:

Don't let the bastards get you down.

When the invective gets too bad, you might remember the response of John Randolph of Roanoke to similar treatment in the US House of Representatives. He rose from his seat & quoted McGuffey’s first reader: “See, see the little dogs, Spot & Trey & all, they bark at me!”

Apologies for a failing memory, but that’s close enough. Just don’t let the little dogs get to you.

Re: the Bertrand Russell quote by Mac above: my father, then-Captain Paul Jones, US Army was a prisoner in East Germany for several weeks in 1958 after the helicopter in which he was riding went off course and crash-landed in the east zone.

All the men aboard were interrogated by an East German politcal officer, but Dad threw him for a loop- he spoke fluent german and had a degree in political science, and argued Marxist dialecticism with the commissar, much to the latter's dismay.

The interrogator ended up red in the face, shouting at dad and pounding on the table with his fist. Dad smiled and said, "In America we like to quote the chinese philospher Confucius, and Confucius say, 'He who raises his voice has lost his argument!'"

They sent him back to the cell and didn't talk to him again until the crew was released in exchange for some plainclothes spies....

Keep up the good work- as long as your opponents are incoherent and irrational, you're winning!

Remember you are being condemned by stupid people; the smart people appreciate your ability to think and write.

I'm a great believer in radical human stupidity. Propostion 1: We're all idiots; some people just haven't learned to be quiet about that fact.

This world has enough vitriolic chowderheads to swell the ranks of the Left, Right, Center, Northeast, Top, Bottom, Strange, and Charm. When you're high profile, you're going to draw out the people who'd rather lash out than talk.

But c'mon, commenters, let's not pretend such a small cross-section draws a fatal smear across the Left or that to every position, only one side has any substance. FreeRepublic is filled with people who live to hate and send death threats to "Hitlery", but that doesn't negate the validity of all conservative ideals, does it?

It's worth noting that the most offensive post on this thread came from the right, or whatever you call the folks who see Commies behind every corner. Does he impugn the rest of the right-of-center commenters here? No, only himself.

And, though we'd probably explode if we ever came on contact, I defended you over at the source of most of your mail. Keep blogging, minus the 2x4s.

Megan, I think I can understand how you feel. Take a well deserved break. But please come back. Your voice will be sorely missed.

GT:
Gentleman says: I disagree with your opinions, but I am sorry for your personal distress.
Cad says: You got what you deserved.
Whom did you chose to be?

Don't give in to these thugs.

I love Megan!

Megan --

Surely there's some sort of b-school axiom about satisfied customers keeping quiet, and unhappy ones raising the roof? I've read your blog almost daily for over a year now, and lazily never voiced my appreciation. Out here on the Left Coast (Seattle) I've felt very alone in my politics and opinions...your writing, even when I disagree (not often) helps me to clarify my own thinking. Thank you for the time and energy you've put into janegalt; you've stuck your neck out and HAVE made a difference.

"I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction."
--Tony Blair

I was going to comment, but found that my comments would take too much space.

So instead, I posted here.

Come back soon, Megan! We love you.

1. Wisdom is recognizing stupidity in a dialog.

2. Prudence is recognizing that this thread is not the right time or place to respond to it.

3. Restraint is the exercise of prudence.

4. Respect is that which is accorded to he or she who prudently invokes restraint.

GT: A simple "I strongly disagree with you on many occassions, Jane, but hope we can continue to disagree in future debates" would have earned you some genuine kudos.

That opening sneer, regrettably, is going to linger like a bad air.

It's psychologically taxing to have your world-view methodically destroyed. And it's worse when (as your position lacked logic to begin with) you can't fall back on logic to defend yourself. The vitrol of your opponents is a sign you're winning and she be worn with pride.

Just a quote for you, Megan:

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life"
--Sir Winston Churchill

Don't let 'em get you down.

Megan -- Thanks so much for your blogging to date, and enjoy your self-perscribed R and R. For emotionally sensitive souls, hate mail can be truly wounding; you're confronting the reality that some of your enemies think you to be no better than a murderer. I hope this backlash of "lovemail" takes some of the edge off; for us, your admirers, you are a force for good, providing emotional fuel and intellectual ammunition for our own struggles (which is why we all wish for your speedy return as soon as you feel up to it!). Keep fighting the good fight, out of the public eye if need be for a time, but always in heart and mind.

Megan, your amusing and instructive posts have kept your site on my must-read-every-day list for over a year. Thank you for all the words you have contributed to my enjoyment and education. I look forward to your return.

Hey, lady:

Creepoids fear you, as they dread all tellers of truth. Pity them - in just a few short weeks the world will see them for the morally and intellectually bankrupt losers they are. Don't give up the ship!

Megani,
Keep up the good work!

Megan:

I really have nothing to say that hasn't been better expressed already. Just be aware that your work is respected and appreciated and there will be many of us who will miss you for whatever length of time you choose to be away. As Pejman said on his site, come back when it's fun again. We'll wait.

Did anybody pay GT to provide comic relief to this thread?

Megan, What you are doing is important. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced by the fascists. When the Soviet Uniton began to unravel, some smart guy, I forget who, said something along the lines of: "Once we decided to stop lying, it was over." Telling the truth is important. So is courage. One of the things I learned in Ranger School is that everyone makes puppy noises sometime. The really tough guys are the ones who fail, who wind up whimpering, and yet they get back up and start the slow painful slog again. Now, Suck it up and drive on. No one ever said telling the truth had to be fun (lopsided ironic grin).

Well, its just this sort of reason I don't have a comments section. (That, and the fact that I don't have enough readers to actually comment-- I also don't have enough readers to regularly send me hate mail.)

Well, Jane, you're a great blogger and a great writer, and you will be missed. (Somehow, I suspect, not for all that long, but what do I know?) Enjoy your hiatus. And take good care of that doggie of yours.

God bless and godspeed.

Anony mouse,

You seem to think that my first post was directed to Jane.

It wasn't.

It was directed to A. Kling whose previous post I quoted.

Jane's point was that she received a lot of attacks from people that disagree with her (I assume personal and insulting attacks).

and A. Kling proved why this is (as Jane herself says) something both the L and the R do.

What did Kling say?

my theory is that the Left is angry because they are not able to argue well on substance

In other words if you disagree with me it's because you can't reason.

And then we wonder why there is no tolerance in these political/commentary websites.

What made Kling's comment even more outrageous was that Kling, only a few weeks back, wrote an article about "Idiotarian Economics" where he chastised the left and which was shown to be full of errors. In particular d^2 destroyed what Kling said about Krugman and about Marx.

So here's someone who makes easily demonstrably false statements accusing those that disagree with him of being unable to argue on the substance.

I simply pointed that out and look at some of the responses I received:

Did anybody pay GT to provide comic relief to this thread?

or

My what a fine and brave lefty troll you are. I'm sure you'll make a good informant or communist dupe one day, seeing as you're already a callow and gutless prick. Keep up the good work jackass.

In other words here in this thread the Right has provided at least two fine examples of the kind of infantile ad hominem attacks you normally see in grade school.

Jane - lots of good ideas above. Might I also suggest, if you have not done it already, that you simply stop reading email? Put up a post saying so, so that people that read the blog know. Then only read email if you feel like it. Take down the address, even.

There's no reason why anyone has to be able to speak to you privately.

Other than that, just let me add on to the group hug here. (hug). Guess maybe you need it.

My condolences for the hatemail. However, I don't see how you're going to improve the quality of debate if you say things like this:

... which you singlehandedly save the people of Iraq and the world by -- agitating to keep Saddam in power.

This is language perhaps benefits from its lack of vulgarity, but it is nevertheless offensive to those of us on the left who do try to engage in intelligent debate. The left no more supports Saddam remaining in power than you favor Hitler, as your hatemail probably accuses you.

I think you should reflect a little yourself. Then your public grief might seem a little less self-serving. (But then again, this is your site, after all.) None of the popular right-wing blogs that I visit -- the ones found on almost everyone's link list -- refrain from slandering liberals. Indeed, maybe we should all be a little more reflective.

I've been considering attending a so-called "peace" rally, if only to inject some sanity and provoke critical thought, something sorely lacking among these cretins.

I would bear the sign "Saddam Tortures Olympic Athletes." Considering that the Olympic movement was founded to promote peace, that's one irony worth contemplating.

If she really wanted to be off-blog she would have turned off the comments, too. I hope you feel better that your pals are licking your wounds for you. Sorry deary, you say something that can be interpeted as "smash a few folks with 2x4s if they get out of line" and you will get a few hate emails. Comes w/ the territory. Don't say stuff like that next time. I don't think it would be out-of-context to quote Ari Fleisher here: "You've got to be careful with what you say and careful with what you do."

Hey, M/J? If it stops being fun, stop doing it; you don't owe anybody anything. I'd hate to see you stop, however, because I've thoroughly enjoyed visiting here. Hopefully, the fun will come back. After reading the far-too-usual ad hominem post over at Brad Delong's site, I wrote following:

"The commonly made assertion that those who don't share my political perspective are simply idiots is an unfortunate phenomena that exists in both major political parties, and probably all the minor ones as well. It is an assertion that is also, ironically, quite stupid. It is a form of stupidity that most of us have fallen prey to at least once, if only silently. Hopefully , as one gains maturity, which unfortunately is a process that some never experience, one begins to understand that most political disagreements stem from fundamentally different assumptions, usually regarding human nature. Since fundamental assumptions are unavoidable in political theory, and are, in the final analysis, not subject to empirical proof (hence the term "assumption") it is senseless to attribute stupidity to everyone that has a differing political perspective. This isn't to say that idiocy is not rampant nearly everywhere on the political spectrum; it is a constant source of wonder that people are so very often incapable of learning from plainly observable phenomena. To assume, however, that all who disagree with me are imbeciles is itself the height of imbecility, and forecloses dialogues that can foster wisdom."

It also interesting that those who institute ad hominem language sometimes resort to an accusation of hypocrisy when people reply in kind, when complaining about such rhetorical tactics. Well, if one is punched in the nose, it not hypocritical to respond with a punch in the nose, as a means of complaint. The person who first abandons civilized discourse is the one upon whom the vast majority of responsibility lies.

I note that Jack beat me to the punch, but I'll repeat:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

Rats only bite humans when they are cornered or the human is unconscious. It sounds like you had them well-cornered. Now, don't remain unconscious too long. Come back soon. Your voice is important.

Hopefully more of your supportersd are hitting your tip jar.

Best wishes,
Peter

Amitava:

To quote the late great Walt Kelly [aka Pogo]: "I was beginning to like you as an enemy, so don't make me hate you as a friend."

Unfortuneately, while The Right has its nasty characteristics - not-so-subtle racism is one - The Left has a habit of commenting with a definite music note whining.

The tune is "Poor persecuted pure ME".

Ami, you a gutsy soul. Forget the lyrics and don't learn the tune.

Thank you!

Your secret friend

Jane/Megan,

One of the first things they teach you in medical school is that the world is full of assholes. (In medical school those assholes happen to be your teachers, but never mind.) The second thing they teach you is to ignore them.

Hang in there. It's hard not to take venomous attacks personally, but none of those emailers really know you, do they? Of course not. (And your post wasn't offensive. It was poetic license.)

Hope you come back soon and with as much fire as ever.

Good point, Kate -- some people ARE so pedantically anal that they cannot handle a little humorous hyperbole, and in the absence of being able to address the argument, resort to pointlessly foolish nitpicks. A shame these same people have access to email clients, isn't it? Hopefully Jane will be back soon in spite of them, her common sense is missed.

If you all ignore GT, he'll just go away like the sad little man that he is. Notice how he keeps coming back to check what kind of responses he's drawn? It's just a need for attention -- if you don't give it to them, they get even angrier. Apply the same philosophy to this blog and please come back soon!

GT: my post about the possibility of you being a mercenary comic was not an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you could get paid for such ribald hilarity, more power to you. Its and example of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise, with its implicit assumption that nobody would play the fool in this context without mercenary motivation.

Megan, please don't take any of these nasty comments from the "Left" to heart...

They compared you to Bull Connor, that Democratic Party bastion of their last domestic success, Jim Crow? So, to bad-mouth you, they compare you with a DEMOCRAT?

That should be enough to illustrate the inanity of these people. Do not end the fight, please.

We will end the Tyranny of the Poets, just you wait and see.

my post about the possibility of you being a mercenary comic was not an ad hominem logical fallacy

It was childish.

So, GT, struck a nerve, did I? You got served the dish you merit.

Hi Megan,
I'm so sorry about all this garbage. Please take care of yourself, as long as it takes, and come back when you can. As you know, many thousands of people enjoy your writing immensely, and would sorely miss it.
I go through the same kind of thing at least once a week -- not so much because of hate mail (I don't merit any yet, I guess, darn it!), but for other reasons, but I think the feelings are much the same.
But as all the comments here show, there are many intelligent people who are fully on your side, and see the others for what they are. It is odd, though, isn't it that it is the unusually well-mannered bloggers, like you, who seem to get singled out for this sort of thing? Hmm, maybe not so odd after all.
Take good care of yourself.
Arthur
P.S. And how's your dog? I hope he continues to do well. Give him a hug from me. (And one for you, too!)

There have been so many bloggers of late who have decided to leave. They had their reasons. And if you must, we will not like it but understand. But certainly, we wish you to return to your posting. I read more than I comment, but you (and Mindless since he arrived) are needed. As said many times before me, "Never give up, never surrender!"

Nerve?

Not sure about that.

It's just childish.

Dealing with trolls is like dealing with hyenas at a safari park. Don't feed them; keep your windows rolled up and keep driving. Avoid eye contact.

Very few of us ever want to be hated, or the objects of hate, particularly if we believe we're coolly rational and objective ourselves. You have to weigh the value you get from maintaining this blog against the pain of the e-mail, and look at your choices. Personally, I'd filter e-mail and immediately delete anything that slipped by that was crude or otherwise out of bounds. You don't have to be civil to those who put no value on that virtue themselves.
And I hit the tip jar as well, as the strongest endorsement I could find of this blog.

Very few of us ever want to be hated, or the objects of hate, particularly if we believe we're coolly rational and objective ourselves. You have to weigh the value you get from maintaining this blog against the pain of the e-mail, and look at your choices. Personally, I'd filter e-mail and immediately delete anything that slipped by that was crude or otherwise out of bounds. You don't have to be civil to those who put no value on that virtue themselves.
And I hit the tip jar as well, as the strongest endorsement I could find of this blog.

Very few of us ever want to be hated, or the objects of hate, particularly if we believe we're coolly rational and objective ourselves. You have to weigh the value you get from maintaining this blog against the pain of the e-mail, and look at your choices. Personally, I'd filter e-mail and immediately delete anything that slipped by that was crude or otherwise out of bounds. You don't have to be civil to those who put no value on that virtue themselves.
And I hit the tip jar as well, as the strongest endorsement I could find of this blog.

All,

The problem with ad hominem arguments is that they are so effective when preaching to the choir, and they usually sound good to the preacher himself. It requires real honesty and discipline to avoid them. Their prevalence, directed against people I disagree with, by people I agree with, distresses me. The best way to figure this out is to radically change your beliefs, so you can hear your former friends, whom you still love, being attacked by your new friends, and vice versa. Myself, I have found that those who have attacked GT to be adopting a noticeably nastier tone than his. I find his tone in the 'slightly irritable and grouchy' range. I found some of those attacking him to be in the 'nasty name-calling' range. Perhaps, since I am just passing through, I am missing some history here.

---- Yours,
---- 3om

All,

The problem with ad hominem arguments is that they are so effective when preaching to the choir, and they usually sound good to the preacher himself. It requires real honesty and discipline to avoid them. Their prevalence, directed against people I disagree with, by people I agree with, distresses me. The best way to figure this out is to radically change your beliefs, so you can hear your former friends, whom you still love, being attacked by your new friends, and vice versa. Myself, I have found that those who have attacked GT to be adopting a noticeably nastier tone than his. I find his tone in the 'slightly irritable and grouchy' range. I found some of those attacking him to be in the 'nasty name-calling' range. Perhaps, since I am just passing through, I am missing some history here.

---- Yours,
---- 3om

Megan

Take a break. Be supported by others for a bit. Recoup. Renergize. You do great work and your voice is needed. Unfortunately voices like yours will attract haters. Talk to Michele. Be true to yourself and what you know to be true. Be brave.

My prayers are with you.

Megster;

You oughta definitely consider a page for fisking hate mail, like the guy over at Best Page In The Universe:

http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi

May as well have some fun with it.

(Your critics just can't bear to get their ass kicked by a girl, the pansies.)

Tom,

I think some of the nastiness, from this observer's viewpoint, is due to the fact that Jane Galt, the proprietor of this website, is feeling bad because she is getting a slew of nasty email. And, from the original posting, would appear to be thinking about hanging it up.

Which, if you think about it even as a mere passer-by, is unfortunate, if only because that means she will not be posting her analyses (which is presumably why you came here), never mind that it would also remove a forum for people to agree or disagree w/ what she says.

And GT (and a couple of others) come in at this time, and basically say, "Hah, good riddance. You deserve it. Get lost, you bum."

The sort of thing which, I'm sure, in other circumstances would be derided and condemned (like if someone said that to a gay person who'd been beaten up, or an Iraqi who'd lost a child, or a mother whose son was just executed in Texas for a first-degree murder). So, some of us look at that, and conclude that this person is, really, quite obnoxious and less deserving of civil intercourse, since they have, by their actions/words, indicated that they do not happen to feel that way about some of their fellow blogospheric residents (e.g., Ms. Galt).

And by the way: Illigitimi Non Carborundum Est! = I said without soda, you bastard!

I don't have much to add to the well-deserved sentiments expressed by the vast majority of the posters in this thread. I will just say:

1) You've created something very worthwhile here, and I hope you take pride in it;

2) Incoherent, abusive email from those who disagree with you is a sign you are on the right track, not the wrong one, and;

3) When you return from your time off, we'll be waiting for you, and just as ready to respond to your well-considered thoughts. I hope you continue to consider it an appropriate use for your valuable time.

Warmest Regards,

M. Scott Eiland

Anger, volume and curse words do not win arguments.

Reason does.

Keep the faith

Semper Fi

Well, I hope it's not too late for this lurker to mention how wonderful your posts are and how much he looks forward to them. Your site is part of my morning 'electronic blog paper', right before Den Beste.

Brian, I think Michael Fumento has much better examples of how to deal with hate mail.

Keep the faith J.G.! The sweet music of reason should never be drowned out.

Ms. Galt:

Actually, I probably should have noted, in my previous comment, that I find your comments and observations eye-opening, thought-provoking, and often times amusing (usually, when you mean them to be, I think).

It can be wearing to be constantly harried and critiqued, and as bloggers do this w/o remuneration, I've little doubt that, at times, it must seem like a frustrating thing for a hobby and personal avocation.

But I think you know (or you should, if you don't) that not only do many of us enjoy reading your blog (and sometimes even commenting on it), it DOES make a difference, too.

For the undecideds, there are some who, perhaps are swayed.

For those in agreement, it helps to hear, from an articulate source, our own or additional reasonings, laid out cogently and intelligently.

For those in disagreement, but of good will, perhaps it helps THEM, too, to realize that not all opponents are mere blood-thirsty, warmongers, but instead that there ARE thoughtful reasons why we disagree.

For those in disagreement, and otherwise, well, f*** 'em.

Just a thought....

And GT (and a couple of others) come in at this time, and basically say, "Hah, good riddance. You deserve it. Get lost, you bum."

No, I never addressed Jane in this thread.

Can you not read?

I addressed A. Kling. I addressed his comment.

Is there a reason conservatives change the facts so much when they are arguing?

Mostly what PejmanPundit said, but in a word: If you run, the idiots have won. Don't let 'em win.

Maintain the Good Fight. Two things to remember: 1 - Quoting Rush: "Conservatives deal in facts, Liberals deal in emotions"; 2 - Quoting Larry Elder: "Facts to a Liberal are like kryptonite to Superman."

Dammit! I never get hate mail. The closest I came was some fkwit from the Netherlands who, on his site had a message that it was a gun free site, but, nevertheless, wanted to take me outside and have me shot. Since I'm a cripple, I suggested he hold me up when the shooting began.

Megan:

Have a nice respite, but please come back. You have a lot to say that is valuable. Above all, do not let the bastards get you down.

Megan:

Have a nice respite, but please come back. You have a lot to say that is valuable. Above all, do not let the bastards get you down.

Well, probably the reason leftists seem more hateful than rightists to you is that rightists don't hate you and (some) leftists do. Your little 2x4 joke was not exactly a rational / sweet reason sort of communication.

The reason why rational communication between far-distant points of view is so difficult is that very fundamental principles are almost impossible to argue about, partly because, for everyone except maybe Socrates (and I'm not at all sure about him), the principles themselves are usually more deeply held than any reason which can be given for them.

For the record, I did not send any of the emails you received and do not send that type of email.

None of this excuses anyone, but my site and several other comparable sites did just receive mail floods of 600+ nonsense emails, and Pandagon/Jesse and Atrios routinely receive grossly abusive comments on their message boards. Jesse is a young kid and, unlike myself and perhaps you, a fundamentally nice person, and he's allowed it bother him.

I admire people who have comments, but would never do so myself.

Jane-

You will be missed. You are appreciated and your opinions are valued. Meryl is right:

"Don't let the bastards get you down."

You're a fine writer; don't let the nimrods get you down.

Megan: take a break if necessary, for whatever reason, but do come back. You are useful.

Two thoughts: 1) when my wife was accused, in a grad seminar, of making an ad hominem argument, she responded (correctly) "He started it!" I always thought that was a hoot.
2) My grandfather observed that "there are always more horse's asses than there are horses. Don't let it get you down."

a handy rule to use with four-letter rules is that when you're done writing them, they should only have four letters.

Well, you could just give yourself over to comedy, if the economic and political commentary thing is getting to be a drag.

Your little 2x4 joke was not exactly a rational / sweet reason sort of communication.

Bingo, another sucker hooked per Kate's observation. Of course, since Jane is notorious for her bellicose, confrontational prose, any reasonable person would have read that line and assumed the worse.

Honestly, have any of the people who took that comment seriously enough to be offended by it checked to discover whether a 2x4 might be lodged up their own rear quarters?

Megan, your site is one of the bright spots on the Net. You are making a huge difference in a profoundly positive way. Please take a break until you see this again, or the nutjobs win.

Warm regards,

Skeej

Megan, your site is one of the bright spots on the Net. You are making a huge difference in a profoundly positive way. Please take a break until you see this again, or the nutjobs win.

Warm regards,

Skeej

Megan, your site is one of the bright spots on the Net. You are making a huge difference in a profoundly positive way. Please take a break until you see this again, or the nutjobs win.

Warm regards,

Skeej

Dean,

I think you gave an excellent reply as to why it was open season on GT, but I think GT is correct in that he never attacked Jane.

GT,

Conservatives, being as mistake prone as liberals, especially when in an emotionally charged argument, change the facts about as often as liberals. Did you make an ad hominem attack against conservatives? Or was that sarcastic humor? Or are they the same?

Jane,

I just saw Dr. Phil on David Letterman. He had a list of insulting things David had said over the last six months. Dr. Phil was able to laugh it off. Maybe we should all email Dr. Phil and ask him to have a show about dealing with insults on weblogs. I think your blog is worth an hour of national television to save. Anybody?

---- Yours,
---- 3om

GT,

One more thing. Since it isn't clear whether you do like Jane's blog and support her efforts, if you do, you could say so.

---- Yours,
---- 3om

Hey GT, is that you at http://gtblog.blogspot.com? Why is it that you don't support comments?

And have you figured out yet why you're getting static? Hint - you weren't the only lefty in this thread. But the rest of them, such as Brian Linse, showed some class. There's a time and place for everything.

You can redirect your hate mail to me if you want - it'll be a welcome break from the enlarge-your-breasts/penis or other spam I get. Better yet, post it like Michael Fumento does here.

Or even perhaps forward it to their employers or ISPs?

Whatever you do, you're welcome back whenever you're ready. And if you repost the posts you took down, so much the better, lest the trolls should think they won.

Best wishes, Megan. I've been following your site for over a year now, and I've always appreciated your ideas, even when I didn't agree, and your perspectives. Take a break and come back whenever you feel like it. I'll definitely keep an eye out for when you do.

When I read Zizka's comment, I decided to track back to her site to see her point of view.

"We liberals, myself and Bartcop excepted, are basically nice, fairminded, accepting people who believe in rationality, dialogue and so on. (That's one of the reasons why conservatives hold us in such contempt.) But dialogue with conservatives is usually fruitless. Even the civilized, rational ones have certain basic core beliefs about theocracy, the authority of the Bible, the law of the jungle as an ideal, the American imperial mission, the woman's role, etc., which liberals cannot accept, but which are also difficult to argue about."

Note to Zizka: not all conservatives are Pat Robertson. As far as I know, only one is, and most conservatives I read find him kind of smelly. But there is one way in which you and he are very similar; both of you are only really interested in preaching to your own choirs. (And that, my dear, is why you don't have comments.)

I read liberals too, but I won't read you. You've got nothing to say that isn't in the Handbook.

Megan, come back.

Please keep 'em flying, Miss U.S.A.

Pretty please.

All this begs the question: what the dickens is wrong with swatting away looters and vandals with two-by-fours?

And what is the fascination with eagerly misunderstanding the extremely clear message that Megan was trying to make about all this?

(As for liberals, I reserve the right to beat them over the head with either arguments or soft, foam-rubber planks. Neither weapon does any permanent damage.)

Could Henry Miller spell "correspondance?"

Invective from the Left has been nasty for a very long time. Their strategy: fling insults, ad hominem "arguments" and profanity until decent people won't stoop to their level, and when the decent abandon the field the game defaults to the rude. Exposure may blunt the invective somewhat. Glenn Reynolds posted an interesting suggestion:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/007587.php#007587.

But keep the two by fours handy. And please do return to the field.

Come on back, Jane, swinging that 2X4 of love

Any idea what Jane's signature, --30--, means? Just curious.

One thing about moronic wingnut fucks - they can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

Piss off, twit...

David, --30-- isn't Jane's signature, it's a journalist's device meaning "end of article."

Ms. Galt:

I found your website, and particularly this entry, via Blogdex. I have yet to read your opinions, but I now plan to backtrack and read it based on this post of yours; I find your statements regarding civilized debate and courtesy to be incredibly refreshing.

Although I myself am not directly responsible for any of the assinine individuals who appear to have e-mailed you, I nevertheless apologize for their conduct.

I consider myself of a 'liberal', 'left' frame of mind, but at the same time I wholeheartedly believe much of what you said in this particular message regarding the courtesy that should exist in debate.

Please know that there are many 'liberals' out there who would deplore the evident onslaught of profane and unkind e-mail that you received and the actions and behavior of those who sent it to you. I am one.

My best to you, and my wishes for a relaxing sabbatical and a prompt return.

Mike

P.S. Mr. H. Myers, I would like to respectfully suggest in response to your comment that both conservatives and liberals have individuals in their ranks who resort to "fling[ing] insults, ad hominem 'arguments' and profanity until decent people won't stoop to their level." It is unfortunately an apolitical behavior, not one unique to either family of political belief.

Golly, "Jane," I didn't realize there was a gun to your head forcing you to blog -- especially forcing you to suggest using weapons on people you disagree with.

I didn't realize there was a gun to your head when you appeared on TV not long ago to discuss blogging, thus exposing you to the danger of (eek!) being read by even more people who might happen to disagree with you.

Can't stand the heat? Kitchen door's that way.

Damn, you liberal-haters really do think you qualify for a categorical exemption from other people's anger, don't you?

Poor girl.

You have no problem suggesting that felony assualt and battery is a proper way to deal with someone whom you disagree with, but then you go running under your bedcovers when you get vitriolic emails from peoplee who disagree with you. Just be glad that those people who emailed you didn't decide to express their disagreement with a piece of southern yellow pine.

Any one who tells people to throw bricks or swing 2x4s at protestors needs a break, and perhaps institutionalization.

Either you are a sicko or a wacko.

I just have one question? Are there actually important and influential Lefty blogs. I haven't actually seen one.

Megan - Speaking as a person who has spewed and ranted off the cuff her whole life - I find the way you express yourself the be the prime example of DEBATE 101. You fight with facts, and reason with evidence. You don't resort to name calling or insults. Why? Because you are so intelligent that you don't need to. So in your honor, to those who would send you hateful email

FUC YU LOOOSERS!

Wow, three morons in a row who can't read!

A crisp $20 bill to any one of you three reprobates who can cut-and-paste a single sentence of Megan's in which she clearly, unequivocally advocates "using weapons on people you disagree with," "felony assualt and battery [as] a proper way to deal with someone whom you disagree with," or "throw[ing] bricks or swing[ing] 2x4s at protestors."

Show me any single sentence that advocates any one of those things, as opposed to using force to fend off vandals and I swear before every person in this thread, as a man of my word, I will give you $20. Put up or shut up, kiddos.

(I feel safe knowing that I'll be keeping my money, because a)none of them actually have read Megan's posts, and instead they let Atrios tell them what to think, and b)they're too cowardly to actually engage in argument. Witness the fact that two of them used fake e-mail addresses.)

And make sure everyone notices L'il Dave, up there. He's the little gargoyle who hangs out fellating Hesiod and Atrios 24/7, making comments that show how tough he is, but isn't quite man enough to put an e-mail address on the Internet. Those are the kind of people that those two attract, and AFAIC, they're welcome to them. The liberal argument can be made quite well by Kevin Drum, and Ted Barlow, and Oliver Willis, and tons of others, without giving those two and their little cheering sections any credibility whatsoever.

Armed Liberal has a quote up on his banner: "We're the good guys. We benefit in the long run from elevating the level of the debate at every opportunity." -- Brad DeLong

Anyone who thinks that that's what Hesiod and Atrios and their Moron Brigades are doing, raise their hands. Higher, please, I can't see them. Anyone? Bueller? No?

"All this begs the question: what the dickens is wrong with swatting away looters and vandals with two-by-fours?"

Michael Ubaldi answers his own question: the problem is exactly that the comment allowed vigilantes to see anti-war protesters as "looters and vandals" and made them feel justified in their violent urges toward those people.

I understand that Jane received the deluge of nasty email in the wake of an incident in Georgia where a cinder-block thrown from a car struck a 10-year-boy attending a protest.

Now, I don't think it's very nice to write nasty emails to Jane, but that doesn't make her post any more defensible.

First, I sincerely hope that Jane/Megan returns to the blogosphere. Second, I hope that she can find it in her to apologize for the 2x4 joke. I, for one, would be very impressed.

cheers,
ND

PS. I also understand that the emails started pouring in after Atrios linked to both a story about the Georgia attack and referred to "Jane Galt's goon squad." Now, that's certianly not very nice, and I was tempted to call it "unfair." Unfortunately, Ubaldi's post is a testament to the aptitude of Atrios' correlation. If we're really interested in reason here, J/M doesn't need goons like Ubaldi.

Phil,

you know you'll keep your money because she has taken down the "controversial posts." I have indeed read the post. I can no longer quote it verbatim because it is no longer available here and I haven't found a copy elsewhere. If someone else has the exact quote, please post it.

But Phil, don't be so disingenuous.

ND

You can accuse me of disingenuity when you can produce that sentence that unequivocally advocates beating protestors, period.

Mark Kleiman was sure able to suss it out: Jane Galt suggested that if the anti-war march in New York turned Seattle-like, the good folks in New York ought to meet violence (against property) with violence (against persons).

And, as luck would have it, his link to the archived version of Megan's page still works. All emphases are mine:

Anti-war protesters are great. I disagree with them, and I really, really disagree with letting ANSWER organize their rallies, but I think having people who are willing to stand out in the cold to show their feelings about something as important as war is vital to the health of our nation. I share most New Yorkers' distaste for parades we're not in, because any largish event pretty much shuts down the entire city, but I certainly think they should be afforded every consideration that other groups get. Period, full stop. Peaceful protesters should be allowed to march in peace, and I'll applaud their willingness to take a day and stand up for what they believe in.

Violent protesters, I have no sympathy for. Do I think that if some thug is about to smash someone's window to show -- whatever -- that bystanders are justified in beating him up to prevent it? Yup. That goes for frat boys on a drunken tear, anti-war protesters, pro-war protesters, or anyone else who wants to take out his personal feelings on the property or person of bystanders. Real libertarians believe in property rights. They also believe that the kind of juvenile destructiveness displayed by a growing segment of the anti-globos is profoundly antithetical to a healthy society, and that members of that society are justified in mounting a forceful response. Am I advocating that they be torn apart by a mob of angry New Yorkers? No.

Disingenuous, my ass. I've showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Perhaps, Jane, people were offended by the fact that you seem to justify violence against protestors. In fact, those who are inclined to take action against protestors would have taken a great deal of comfort in your words. A smart defense attorney could easily find numerous ways to work your words into a defense of a beating. Oh, and neat rhetorical trick presenting the issue as war weary New Yorkers against protestors. An accurate representation would have been war weary NY's angered by other war weary New Yorkers. The protestors were New Yorkers too, of course, but that's not nearly as inflammatory or as condusive to violence as portraying the protestors as something other than New Yorkers.

Should vulgar emails be sent? Of course not. However, when you snicker about the prospect of some New Yorker taking a 2 x 4 to another New Yorker, you're using words that up the ante. You're providing the words that a shortfused hothead could, would, use to justify violence against someone who may well be entirely innocent of whatever crime the pro-war thug believes they have committed. Vigilante actions such as you write about are notoriously inaccurate.

If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You don't like getting angry emails, don't be the one who introduces the notion of violence into a specific situation. That's what you did and that's why people who were on their way to a protest with every intention of being peaceful, nailed your little butt. You had it coming in spades.

Finally, I suspect you are misrepresenting the level of obscenity and threatened violence. One only needs to spend time at Free Repubic and Lucianne.com to discover how abundant the threats of violence against the left are. That's what you joined with - the extra-chromosome crowd. Congratulations. You now belong to a fine tradition that includes Lee Harvey Oswald, Bull Connor, Byron De La Beckwith, James Earl Ray, Timothy McVeigh and Sirhan Sirhan.

You don't like being compared to those people? Then don't advocate violence. You think you didn't advocate violence, you're just making a prediction or perhaps a warning? If it's a warning, then address it respectfully to the people whom you believe will be either the attackers or the target. You consider your words prophetic, then don't snicker. The sanctimonious and entirely misplaced notion of moral superiority is what dooms you and your letter to the ranks of the cheerleader for the violent thugs of the right. You want the ability to proclaim yourself morally superior? Then stop being fatuous and insincere and using rhetoric you believe to be oh-so-clever that advocates violence while providing you with a defense against the charge.

Shame on you.

Oh, look, the original post is archived too. Here it is in it's entirety. Again, all emphases mine:

Diane E. has a link seeming to indicate that the scruffier element of Saturday's peace rally is planning on demonstrating for peace by, er, wreaking mayhem. Nothing says "Stop the Madness of Western Imperialism" like a white college student from Winnetka opening a can of whup-ass on some Korean vegetable stand!

So I was chatting about this with a friend of mine, a propos of the fact that everyone I know in New York is a) more frightened than they've been since mid-September 2001 and b) madly working on keeping up the who-the-hell-cares-if-I-get-hit-by-a-truck? insouciance that New Yorkers feel is their sole civic obligation. Said friend was, two short years ago, an avowed pacifist and also a little bit to the left of Ho Chi Minh. And do you know what he said? "Bring it on."

I can't be mad at these little dweebs. I'm too busy laughing. And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.

Still want to stick with "disingenuous?" I think the original post and the amplification clearly, unequivocally refer only to the kind of protestor that would be committing vandalism and violence. There is no way that a reasonable person could read it otherwise, but then again, I don't expect reason from Atrios or his readers. I doubt he can even spell it.

(Megan, I'm sorry if I've committed a boo-boo by requoting posts that you said you were going to take down. But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's a bald-faced liar.)

It's all been said already, but if I may summarize:

Megan, come back. We miss you.

Idiots, go away. We won't.

There are uncivil people in the blogosphere, but Megan isn't one of them, and if you don't have the reading comprehension skills to tell the difference between her comments regarding vandals and incitement to violence against peaceful protestors, you don't have anything to contribute to a civil discussion.

>I've been considering attending a so-called "peace" rally, if only to inject some sanity and provoke critical thought, something sorely lacking among these cretins.

Oh, yeah, that'll work. Come to the peace rallies, swell our numbers. We don't mind. Who knows, maybe some sanity and critical thought will rub off on you.

Bullshit Jane Galt isn't emotional, and hateful, and uncivil. Bullshit her comments about "pre-emptive" violence weren't inciteful.

She chose to misinterpret a protest organizer's words and to portray him as inciting violence. If you read the original story, you'll find that he was deploring potential violence if the protesters were under duress. Not quite the same thing.

The violence did not happen, in spite of the duress. However, protesters were attacked. Jane Galt owes an apology for her vicious words. She also needs to take some time out to reflect that communication goes both ways. You incite anger and "pre-emptive" violence, you're gonna catch some flack for it.

I'm not surprised none of the JG fans can see it, because that's exactly why so many people are anti-war.

Phil, your selective use of underlining is itself disingenuous: your emphasis is, of course, the imposition of preconceptions, not an exegesis.

Anyway, if Jane/Megan had bothered paying any sort of attention to Diane E.'s misrepresentation, she might have realised that the '2x4' comment was completely unjustified, based on exaggeration, and simply out of order. Reasonable people can, and did. take offence with such knee-jerkery. It's a pity that others took offence and resorted to hateful email, because that just perpetuates the cycle of kneejerking.

Basically: my gut says, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. Sorry.

The corollary being that it'd be a happier environment if people on both sides weren't so quick to whip out the 2x4s. We live, alas, in critical times.

Phil, I apologize that I mistook the origin of your disingenuousness. I see that we can indeed come up with the original post. But your wager is safe because you will likely never admit that Jane's remark about how "effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner" might be used justify some 2x4 wielding nut taking that piece of wood to a peaceful protester "pre-emptively" (i.e. with only imagined provocation).

If you are able to comprehend this, please say so; if not, I don't really see the point of continuing a discussion.

In my first post, I wished that Jane might not only feel better, but also understand why people had been so angry. You, Phil (and MWB and others) are pushing me closer to Lilly's point of view.

Finally and tangentially, anti-war demonstrations don't have a solid philosophical connection with anti-globalization protests. It's simple silly to try to equate last Saturday's protests with the protests in Seattle several years ago and to suggest that the participants would act in similar fashion. But that's not a convenient distinction for many of you to make, I know.

love always,
ND,
war-weary New Yorker

Nick, the whole post is there for anyone to see. I underlined the portions that I felt represented the core of her statements. If my underlining is preventing you from reading the rest of the words on the screen, I can recommend a good opthalmologist for you.

The violence did not happen, in spite of the duress. However, protesters were attacked.

So those cops that got beat up, I guess the pro-war people did that, huh?

"She chose to misinterpret a protest organizer's words and to portray him as inciting violence. If you read the original story, you'll find that he was deploring potential violence if the protesters were under duress. Not quite the same thing."

"Duress" of course, being defined as being obligated to follow a legally issued court order. And he wasn't deploring it, he was whining and making excuses for it (not to mention the quotes from others who weren't bothering to apologize for it). Nice try. We can read, believe it or not, and we've heard the excuse making for violence before. There was no violence because the cops were ready for it. Expect the vigilance to continue.

"The violence did not happen, in spite of the duress."

"Duress" again. Do you own a dictionary?

"However, protesters were attacked."

Not that I saw. A crowd of over 100,000 people will have some rowdies in it, and resisting arrest tends to get one roughed up a bit. Hardly the orgy of skull bashing your crowd is accusing Jane of promoting.

"Jane Galt owes an apology for her vicious words. She also needs to take some time out to reflect that communication goes both ways. You incite anger and "pre-emptive" violence, you're gonna catch some flack for it."

Gee, so now it's a civil right to threaten to destroy property and otherwise disturb the peace because one's in a snit over losing a court decision? When exactly did the Rodney King Amendment to the Constitution pass, again? I'm not impressed with your righteous outrage. If you tolerate snakes in your midst, don't be surprised when you get asked to stand aside while they're removed or chased off. Jane called it right.

"I'm not surprised none of the JG fans can see it, because that's exactly why so many people are anti-war."

And nonsense like this is why the "peace" movement is widely perceived as having the brainpower of a gerbil kept too close to the paint thinner cans (which explains its popularity among the Hollywood crowd--they get to be the smart kids for a change). If you don't want people to treat you like you're about to smash in a shop window, don't be apologists for people who do, or for those who vaguely threaten violence if they don't get to ignore lawful authority.

"And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner."

PRE-EMPTIVE!!!!! Am I to assume that no one on the right knows what pre-emptive means? It means that the person is beaten with the 2 x 4 BEFORE actually taking action that would justify such a response. And the only justification for that level of response is a physical attack not on property but on person.

WHEN! - not IF they try to unleash violence - WHEN. HER assumption is that violence is inevitable.

She is telling NY'ers that violence is inevitable and that they have the right to take pre-emptive action. Where do you think that trainwreck logic leads? And she finds the notion that a pre-emptive assault with a 2 x 4 is funny. I don't know whether she is sick, mean, or a simple sociopath who can write but what she wrote there was depraved. There is no other interpretation.

Defend Jane all you want. She failed to make her point in a civilized and constructive fashion. She used the word pre-emptive, she used the word when - not us. The protests have been peaceful and there was no signifigant reason to believe that this one wouldn't be also - except that it's quite a hitch in the fallacious rightwing notions about both their own and the left's morality.

Bring it on, Phil. You're defending the wrong side and, just like Jane, are looking for clever ways to defend the indefensible.

I see that we can indeed come up with the original post. But your wager is safe because you will likely never admit that Jane's remark about how "effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner" might be used justify some 2x4 wielding nut taking that piece of wood to a peaceful protester "pre-emptively" (i.e. with only imagined provocation).

I'm not even remotely concerned with how an unbalanced or easily-provoked person might interpret Jane's post, or what activities he or she might cite it in justification of. If I were, I would have said so.

What I said (why do people have such difficulty in dealing with what other people actually say?) was that at no point did Jane recommend or advocate or implore that people "beat protestors with 2x4s." I said nothing more and nothing less than that, and I bloody well meant nothing more and nothing less than that.

Here is what I asked for: "[C]ut-and-paste a single sentence of Megan's in which she clearly, unequivocally advocates 'using weapons on people you disagree with,' 'felony assualt and battery [as] a proper way to deal with someone whom you disagree with,' or 'throw[ing] bricks or swing[ing] 2x4s at protestors.'"

Not "What some yahoo might think she meant" or "A single sentence that those bent on doing violence could point to as justification," but one that clearly, unequivocally advocated those actions. Can we please, please deal with what I said and not what you wish I had said? Or what you would like me to have said?

Could someone have interpreted her remarks as such? Yes--but it isn't what she said. It would have been a misinterpretation, not a reasonable reading. You do know what "clear and unequivocal" means, no?

The words "Lenin-style" clearly refers specifically to anti-war protestors who engage in violence. To say otherwise is dishonest. The fact that somebody might use it for a rationalization for assault on a peaceful protestor cannot be blamed on a writer who clearly stated that she favored violence as means of inhibiting those who have themselves chosen violence. The fact that a child somewhere had a cinder block thrown at them is a significant as the fact that soem policemen DID suffer injuries at the hands of the "pro-peace" crowd in NY.

I'm sure Jane can "take it" just fine, if she decides it is worth the bother. Without having read her E-mail, I cannot comment on their messages. I have no trouble, however, in believing that she received specific threats of violence upon her person, for the offense of writing that people who engage in violence should be deterred with violence. That some in this forum are unable to discern the difference between advocating violence as a deterrent on the violent, and specifically threatening violence against a person for the offense of such advocacy, well it says rather more about their powers of reason than it does about the original advocacy.

"why do people have such difficulty in dealing with what other people actually say?"

Jane/Megan actually said "pre-emptive."

Lilly had a pretty good explanation of exactly what's wrong with that.

Until we meet again,
ND

Jane should not be held accountable for the actions of anti-protesters who illegally assaulted marchers in New York. Her words were merely that, words. Some people took them as a joke, others as a rational way to deal with law breaking protesters, others still as provocation to beat up protesters, and finally still others may have taken them as license to beat up peaceful proteseters. Jane cannot control the way people interpret her words (I personally interpretid them as the words of a person fed up with pseudo-protesters who undermine their arguments by resorting to illegal action, a miniscule portion of the war protesters, but a portion none the less).

Jane owes no person an apology. She did not commit any violent acts. Likewise, the posters who sent her nasty emails do not owe her an apology. They may have been hate filled, misguided, incorrect and hurtful to Jane, but that doesn't mean an apology is in order.

Also, the notion that people who wrote in blasting Jane prove the fact that liberals are the nastier of the two groups is incorrect, not because conservatives are nastier (though I'd love to see some data and study on the issue opposed to self-serving anecdotal arguments by both sides), but because the information Jane and other posters on this site use to come to this conclusion is immeasurably skewed due to the nature of what Jane writes. Under Jane's test for who is nastier, a Nazi blogger would probably get the impression that libertarians were the most hate filled group out there because libertarians would nastily respond at a greater rate than other Nazis.

Furthermore, I don't see Jane offering any evidence that I can test her claim with. Jane may say she has gotten thousands of nasty emails all from people claiming to be liberals, but until I can verify this they don't exist. Clonaid and the Raelians said they cloned a baby, but I won't believe it until I can test it. Likewise, I won't believe Jane until I can see a few of these four word filled diatribes of liberal loathing.

Jane, it's up to you whether or not you come back to blogging, but I would submit that running away from nasty people who disagree with you (in essence taking your ball and going home) is an immature and self-defeatist way to deal with criticism, warranted or otherwise. If you want to play the liberal science game come on back, but if you can't stand up to my guess inane and idiotic criticism I'm scared to think what your response would be when someone rightly criticizes you.

""And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.""

"PRE-EMPTIVE!!!!! Am I to assume that no one on the right knows what pre-emptive means?"

Well, considering the hissy fit that the prospect of pre-emptive warfare has your crowd in, some of us are wondering if *you* know the meaning of it. But that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

"It means that the person is beaten with the 2 x 4 BEFORE actually taking action that would justify such a response."

No. Shooting an armed robber who is raising a gun with the apparent intent of shooting you is pre-emptive, yet fully justified.

"And the only justification for that level of response is a physical attack not on property but on person."

Depends on what they're doing. I knew several Korean store owners in the Los Angeles area who had their businesses looted and burned to the ground during the Rodney King riots. I happen to believe that the world would be a better place if the rioters had been prevented from that action by whatever force necessary, up to and including shooting the little bastards between the eyes. I suspect I'm not alone in this belief. You, of course, may choose to disagree. Bully for you.

"WHEN! - not IF they try to unleash violence - WHEN. HER assumption is that violence is inevitable."

None of you own a dictionary, do you? "When" still means that nothing happens until a violent incident occurs or is about to occur. Unless you're arguing that no violence is going to happen in any protest in New York, ever, there's nothing objectionable about this. You're reaching, and anyone who can bother to read what you're saying knows it.

"She is telling NY'ers that violence is inevitable and that they have the right to take pre-emptive action. Where do you think that trainwreck logic leads?"

Exactly where she states it leads: if someone tries to initiate violence, it should be stopped--by force. Is this too complicated for you to follow?

"And she finds the notion that a pre-emptive assault with a 2 x 4 is funny. I don't know whether she is sick, mean, or a simple sociopath who can write but what she wrote there was depraved. There is no other interpretation."

It's a lot funnier than the sight of a thug destroying the business of a law-abiding citizen, then crowing about it as a great triumph against the evil, nasty U.S. government. Of course, YMMV as to what constitutes cause for amusement.

"Defend Jane all you want."

It is our privilege and our honor to do so. Mocking your crowd in the process is just a bonus.

"She failed to make her point in a civilized and constructive fashion."

Or so you assert. She was reacting to the threat of rather uncivilized and nonconstructive behavior. A straightforward warning as to potential consequences of such actions is actually rather constructive.

"She used the word pre-emptive, she used the word when - not us."

Some of us don't have our copies of "Webster's for Confused Lefties," so we're not inclined to read her use of those words in that manner. God help her if she had used the words "perfidy" or "miscreant"--you'd probably be trying to bring her up on war crimes charges.

"The protests have been peaceful and there was no signifigant reason to believe that this one wouldn't be also - except that it's quite a hitch in the fallacious rightwing notions about both their own and the left's morality."

We know passive-aggressive threats when we see them: "Oh, I'll feel so awful if this terrible decision by the courts causes people to take matters into their own hands." After the riots in Seattle and elsewhere since then, those comments are occurring in a context that every honest observer knows about. We were watching this time, and we'll keep watching. Keep things peaceful and law-abiding, and I don't have a problem with you, and any cops who don't respect that should be dealt with according with the full force of the law. Those who don't go along with that program should know that there will be real consequences.

"Bring it on, Phil. You're defending the wrong side and, just like Jane, are looking for clever ways to defend the indefensible."

Yawn. It's very defensible--it has been defended with honor. You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

The hilarity of a warblogger making a straight-faced plea for civil discourse is simply too much to bear.

Thanks, Megan. I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time.

"So those cops that got beat up, I guess the pro-war people did that, huh?"

From reports, one cop was beaten, not even hospitalized. God, can't you people avoid exaggerating or misstating the truth even once? And I would not be at all surprised if it was the pro-war people who did it. It's not as if it hasn't happened before.

""Duress" of course, being defined as being obligated to follow a legally issued court order."

No, "duress" defined as being forced into pens, being pushed back when there was nowhere to go, and being prevented from following a legally issued court order. They were told not to march, and they were forced to march. They were told to assemble in a certain spot, and they were prevented from doing so. Stop dishonestly assigning definitions to my words, it's the mark of an intellectually bankrupt argument. Or perhaps I could use your juvenile debating tactics on you: Do YOU have a dictionary? Oh, and here's another good one: what color is the sky in your world?

"And he wasn't deploring it, he was whining and making excuses for it (not to mention the quotes from others who weren't bothering to apologize for it)."

Go cut and paste me one sentence that is evidence that he was making excuses for it. Just one. Besides, if Jane can't be held accountable for her words, then neither can he. Perhaps he was "joking" too, eh?

"Not that I saw."

So if you didn't see it, then it didn't happen? A child was attacked in Georgia. You want to claim that didn't happen because you didn't see it? Does the sun not rise in the east if you don't see it?

"Gee, so now it's a civil right to threaten to destroy property and otherwise disturb the peace because one's in a snit over losing a court decision?"

Again, show me a sentence where he threatened to destroy property. You're apparently making the case that it's OK to sanction people to commit felony assault because you don't agree with peaceful protesters opinions and rights to assemble. Oh, but wait - she was just "joking".

"The world is a hornet's nest and we now have the profound bad luck to be living in it under a child armed with a big stick while a bunch of his friends "double-dog dare" him to just do it and see what happens." TBogg said it, and it's so true.

>>So why doesn't the Right begin by not posting such silly arguments like "The Left can't argue on substance"? Once you start down that road everything else falls apart.

This says it EXACTLY. And everyone has seemingly forgotten that she's the one who advocated hitting war protestors upside the head with a 2x4 because "they deserved it."

Jane threatens to quit to get some sympathy comments. Why can't she, instead, say, "I need some moral support here people" instead of an empty threat?

She's usually been quite, quite reasonable - and right and wrong on many things. If this was any other subject the "right" would be revealing their true colors in the comments. Instead, this one time, they're playing nice. I've seen it happen.

I'm not saying that's a good thing.

And "they" don't seem to hold the right-wing talk shows up to the same standards. What explains their popularity? And don't say that's isolated - Rush gets 25 million listeners. and that's just one of them.

This isn't a court of law, so what difference does it make what a defense attorney could or could not do? I'm sure that Megan would more properly express herself in the appropriate venue (such as at an actual rally). An individual blog doesn't have to have the same rules as a nationally broadcast television show or a public rally. If it did, those of us with blogs would be screwed.

Now, try this on for size. I am not upset that somebody offed Jeffrey Dahmer. I am against the death penalty. Nevertheless, I didn't cry one damn tear or feel one bit of regret or sadness when I heard he was killed. Had I thought about it beforehand, I would have said that I wouldn't be upset if someone offs Jeffrey Dahmer. To be more present tense, if some prisoner happens to kill Charles Manson in a fight, I won't be upset. In fact, I might even be somewhat relieved. Am I promoting that some prisoner should go ahead and kill Manson? No, I'm not. I'm just saying that in the event it did happen, I wouldn't care a tiny bit. Honestly, how many of us would?

To clarify, so I don't start another shit storm, I am not equating protestors or even violent rioters with cannibalistic and/or psychopathic monsters. I am using a common rhetorical device of setting up a situation with a parallel construction to further explain the first situation, not setting up a parallel moral equivalence. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between serial killers and violent rioters. Serial killers are far, far, far, far, far worse. Orders of magnitude worse. Just to be perfectly clear.

Don't let these losers win. Name names and post the e-mails for the world to see.

"Don't let these losers win. Name names and post the e-mails for the world to see."

Yeah, Jane. Post 'em if ya got 'em. Show us who the losers really are. Unless it would upset your apologists, of course.

Then explain how the hell you went from the original article, which was deploring violence, to saying it would be OK with you if people committed violence. I'm sure we all would like to see how your thought processes worked on that one.

>>>A crisp $20 bill to any one of you three reprobates who can cut-and-paste a single sentence of Megan's in which she clearly, unequivocally advocates "using weapons on people you disagree with," "felony assualt and battery [as] a proper way to deal with someone whom you disagree with," or "throw[ing] bricks or swing[ing] 2x4s at protestors."

A crisp $20 bill to you sire, if you've ever read and can give proof that he's incited either violence or hate/abusive mail against anyone.
(sand yes, I recognize that Ms. Galt's really not advocating violence she's just, well, uh, well, ... What exactly was she doing? Oh, she was making a strong point in an inelegant (sp?, unladylike way. She got some of that back in an ungentlemanly and unladylike way.

quid pro quo.

And people "like" GT come back because they know how their views will be distorted (not saying that's just a "right-wing thing) and are "defending themselves." I believe in an open comments section , they have that right.

Ooooh, my bad. "Jane" doesn't advocate violence against people whose ideas displease her. "Jane" advocates vigilante justice. Yeah, that's much more responsible.

"Go cut and paste me one sentence that is evidence that he was making excuses for it. Just one."

OK.

"With Monday's ruling against an orderly, nonviolent protest march anywhere on the streets of Manhattan this Saturday, U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones has steered the City of New York towards chaos."

Pretty straightforward, I'd say. The judge made a bad decision, so bad things are going to happen--it's the judge's fault, you see. And "chaos" has some rather ominous implications in the context of street violence at protests in recent years.

Oh, and this:

"Then there are those who will seek a more creative outlet, avoiding the pens and hoping to sow chaos all over Manhattan."

There's that pesky word "chaos" again, and he seems to think that sowing it will be a creative exercise. How special.

You're selling, but we're not buying.

After reading Jane's comments from the archived original post I have come to the conclusion that Atrios is Jane Galt.

They have the same style - a little bit of sarcasm here and there. Demonizing either side is satifying TO SOME - but that doesn't make it right.

Most of the comments here are not about the orginal post (directly) but more about the level of discourse today. It's at an all time low.

jill, read very slowly. If you were strolling down the street and a ranting man approached you and struck you on the head, that would be deplorable violence. If a ranting man approached you, was warned to respect other people's space by a bystander, lest force be used to cause the ranting man to desist, and still the ranting man raised his fist in anger, and the bystander pre-emptively punched the man in the nose, that would be a good use of violence.

Here we have someone in the anti-war movement tacitly admitting the potential for violence by the anti-war protestors, and another person stating that when some attempt to realize that potential, it would be preferable for pre-emptive violence to be employed to prevent it. Are you truly unable to grasp this?

It's amusing the way this Galt person's mind works. The Washington D.C. anti-war demonstration last month attracted by some estimates a quarter of a million protesters, and yet reports of violence were virtually non-existent. Gee, wouldn't that lead a reasonable and objective-minded person to conclude that trashing and bashing are not exactly endemic to the anti-Iraq war movement?

And yet, dear Ms. Gault seizes on a rather ambiguous article in the Progressive Review (dubbed by her wingnut pal Diane E. as a "Marxist rag" - but apparently anything to the left of the Weekly Standard qualifies for that designation in wingnut eyes) which absolutely did not directly advocate or condone planned acts violence, but simply mentioned in passing various postings on something called the NYC Indymedia Center web site, which apparently discussed unspecified acts of civil disobedience, presumably including vandalism.

Well, hell. Look hard enough on the Internet, and you can find wackos at either end of the ideological spectrum advocating all manner of nihilistic, violent and irresponsible acts. Including shooting abortion doctors and blowing up clinics, come to think of it. But in any case, based on this highly questionable evidence, Galt opines:

Diane E. has a link seeming to indicate that the scruffier element of Saturday's peace rally is planning on demonstrating for peace by, er, wreaking mayhem.

Yes, from the PR article we can confidently state that there are definite plans afoot for violence and mayhem at Saturday's peace rally! I mean, are we talking smoking gun here, or what? Or maybe it's more like a typical wingnut, guilt-by-association McCarthy-ist smear. Some indeterminate, unidentified collection of self-styled anarchists talk smack on an obscure fringie web site, and all of a sudden there's big trouble comin' to Gotham City. Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

Now that she's established that violence by the "scruffier element" is pretty much a foregone conclusion, Galt further states:

And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.

Yep, when, not if, these radical anarchists attempt to wreak havoc and destruction, it will be riotously funny when some enraged citizen picks up a club and begins meting out a bit of vigilante justice - presumably by bashing the offender's skull in. Gosh, no wonder why Galt and others of her ilk can't wait for Shock and Awe to begin. If summary execution of plate-glass window breakers by self-appointed defenders of Truth and Justice can stimulate that level of mirth, imagine the hilarity that will ensue once the cruise missles begin falling on Baghdad. Should be an honest to God laugh riot.

Galt, you seem to have no compunction about besmirching the honor and integrity of the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated peacefully by tying them into the rantings of a few fringe loonies; nor do you have a problem with countenancing assault and battery - and possibly homicide - by "concerned citizens" in response to acts of vandalism. And of course, from the snug security of your living room you are all but itching to unleash massive death and destruction on Iraq, all the while showering with contempt any who might dare to disagree.

But now here you are all weepy-eyed and self-pitying because you get some disagreeable and uncomplimentary email that contains some naughty words. Hey Janey, haven't you heard the old saying that what goes around also comes around? If you're going to dish it out, then it's sort of expected that you should be able to take it with equal aplomb. Kind of goes with the blogging territory, don't you know?

Janey, I hate to say it, but based on all I have gleaned from your site, you are really one dumb fucking empty-headed fascist bitch, in my personal estimation. Someone really should take a 2x4 to your sorry ass. Sure, it might inflict some permanent damage, but then again it also might conceivably succeed in knocking some sorely lacking sense into you. A win-win situation for humanity either way, I would say.

Oh, and before you complain about my off-color language, you should perhaps take a gander at your loopy pal Diane E's site, where she wrote just a few short days ago (truncated version):

"Dear So-and-So: Fuck you."

And then went on to say:

"Normally, I strongly believe you should not use obscenities when framing a complaint letter. But this was too much."

Amen to that, sister.

"So those cops that got beat up, I guess the pro-war people did that, huh?"
From reports, one cop was beaten, not even hospitalized. God, can't you people avoid exaggerating or misstating the truth even once?

"You people?" I remember when Ross Perot got nailed for that one.

In any case, if you're somehow insinuating that I'm a Bush voter or Republican or something, I direct you here. If you're insinuating something else -- Jane Galt supporters? Pro-war people? White people? Irish-Americans? -- please state it outright.

By the way, the NYC Police Commissioner is quoted as saying that 8 police officers were beaten up, including a mounted officer who was dragged from his horse, so the plural "cops" is in fact perfectly accurate. See here: "Eight officers were injured, including a mounted cop who was pulled off his horse and beaten, Kelly said. A horse also suffered injuries when a protester punched its face and pulled it to the ground by its reins, police said. Mid-afternoon Saturday, the department called for its highest level of mobilization.

Wow, those peaceful protestors tried to beat up a horse. How peaceful.

Hi, Jane:
Here's a link to Michael Fumento's website: http://www.fumento.com/. Mike makes really fun presentations of the hate-mail he receives. The site has 13 volumes of it, with his replies. Great pick-me-up for anyone who has had to put up with people who pound the table because the facts don't support their ideology.

Quick question -- how many of the people insisting that Megan meant to promote violence and/or vigilante justice were actually born and raised in one of the five boroughs of New York City or a surrounding area like Newark or Jersey City?

I only ask because as a native New Yorker I grew up hearing shit like that all the time. It generally amounts to nothing but a lot of tough-talking hot air. It's kind of like someone from some other wimpy city saying something like they wouldn't be upset if someone cursed at someone else. This is a city were a**hole is practically a term of endearment. Just curious if other native New Yorkers are reacting the same way or not.

Let me get this straight. Jane says to use force to protect your property if violence erupts from the protesters. Some cracker in Georgia chucks a rock and hits a kid, ergo it's Jane's fault. Who was that that accused the Left of poor or no logic?? How dare you!! And people bitching about a 'call to violence' when they have no problem supporting Stalinists is pretty fucking amusing. Who said irony died on 9/11??

"Anti-war demonstrations don't have a solid philosophical connection with anti-globalization protests" Oddly enough, I agree with you. But only becasuse anti-globo protesters don't have solid philosophical connections with each other. It is really just a hodgepodge of different causes coming together under a convenient banner. So no connections, just similarities. Just to add a little context to the debate/name calling/hissy fit, did I mis-read that story about anarchists engaging in a running vandalism battle with police for a couple hours in San Fran a few weeks back after the first 'big' anti-war protests? If I did, then maybe it is a little out of line to expect trouble. If I didn't, then it doesn't take a wild leap of logic to assume that a group of people that have shown a preference for violence almost everywhere they go would do so again. To say that if they go beyond civil dialogue to violence to respond with force isn't a radical idea. It's like supported by like laws and stuff, so, you know, its like cool and everything. It is accepted practice in this country to protect life and property with physical force. The judgement is in how much force vs. perceived threat.

I would like to be the first to call for an invasion of Canada to secure a steady supply of 2X4s to ensure that the pogrom started by Jane Galt is successful. It is time to bring the evil hegemony down on those that would challenge its authority, and bring to power those loyal members of the VRWC that have toiled so long, especially our secret plants in the media. Howell Raines, your hard work is about to be rewarded. Eric Alterman will suffer mightily for his efforts to expose our plants. We are breaking out the dreaded 4X4 on him. Crushing dissent one board foot at a time. I'm working on copyright protection on that, so no one steal it. Jane or Mindles, you are free to put that as a header on your blog though.

Really, I just want to see the protest sign, 'It's all about the WOOD'.

So John Russell thinks Jane shouldn't dish it out rhetorically if she can't take it, thinks someone "really should" beat her with a 2 x 4, but also thinks vandals should be allowed to dish it out physically without any risk at all of having to 'take it' themselves? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Of course, those like Russell who use belittling nicknames like "Janey" and call their opponents "wingnut" over and over and over don't tend win much agreement from the unconverted.

My original post was not about anything Jane wrote although the usual right wing crowd was unable to notice that.

I hadn't realized what Jane wrote nor the reaction it had elicited.

But now I've had a chance to read it in full.

I guess one can make the argument that Jane was only joking. It's a bit strained but that has never stopped right wingers before. After all, what exactly was she saying by "pre-emptive" action? Was she suggesting that people go around with 2x4s and wacking anybody that looked suspicious?

I think several other posters have dissected Jane's writings better than I will. But since the right wingers who don't read have already attacked me for daring to debate Jane (which I hadn't actually done) I might as well add my 2 cents.

1) If Jane wants an echo chamber like so many other political sites it's pretty easy to accomplish. Take your email away and don't have a comments section.

2) If you don't want to do that then you have to be willing to take what will be thrown your way. As others said, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen!

3) If you want a site that is open to debate but has higher level of discourse than what we see elsewhere you have to start by thinking of the consequences of what you write. What did you think your 2x4 comment would provoke? Nothing? Maybe you should try to put yourself in the shoes of the other side. If Brad de Long had written that anti-war participants should walk around with 2x4s ready to pre-emptively wack any Bush-supporter that seemed to get out of line, what would your reaction have been? What would have been the reaction of other right wingers?

4) Finally, its good to accept and recognize when you have made a mistake. I've noticed you have a very hard time with that.

jill, steve m, john russell --

This isn't directly related, but I curious about something: Do any of you ever wake up on a sunny morning after a good night's rest and think, "What a great day to be alive?"

Sip from a freshly-steamed cappucino and savor the mellow, bittersweet flavor of the beans and sigh contendedly?

Pop the cork on a wet white wine, pour it into a glass, and then browse the floral aroma off the top with a gentle sniff?

Crack open a new, non-political book and treat your eyes and nose to the essence of newly minted words that don't require an irritated response?

Slip your body slowly into a hot spa and feel the tingling as the healing warmth carresses your skin?

Browse a weblog comments section and think "well, I don't like that point of view, but it's not worth my time to get vitrioloicly angered by it?"

If not, may I politely suggest that you indulge yourself in one of these pleasures, or another of your own choosing, and genuinely relax? It's not good to take political statements so personally as you seem to have done here, or get so fantastically upset over them. Breathe slowly and deeply and find something soothing to do; your heart and soul will thank you, and treat you to a longer life as a consequence.

A merry heart maketh for a good medicine, and all that.

Cheers!

"With Monday's ruling against an orderly, nonviolent protest march anywhere on the streets of Manhattan this Saturday, U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones has steered the City of New York towards chaos."

Ooooooh, chaos. Scary word. Got a dictionary? Here, let me help:

chaos

cha·os [káy òss] noun
1.disorder: a state of complete disorder and confusion

2.cha·os or Cha·os
earliest condition of universe: the unbounded space and formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe

3.PHYSICS apparent disorder: the unpredictability inherent in a system such as the weather, in which apparently random changes occur as a result of the system’s extreme sensitivity to small differences in initial conditions

[15th century. Directly or via French, from Latin, from Greek khaos, “void, abyss,” the original sense in English (source of English GAS).]

Nothing in there about violence, is there? Apparently those "negative connotations" are all in your tiny mind. They sure aren't in the dictionary. Unless you want to stretch all the way back to the English root of "gas" and claim that the protesters might be planning to pass gas all over Manhattan - which might be annoying, but hardly violent.

In fact, chaos is exactly what happened, as predicted.

"By the way, the NYC Police Commissioner is quoted as saying that 8 police officers were beaten up, including a mounted officer who was dragged from his horse, so the plural "cops" is in fact perfectly accurate. See here: "Eight officers were injured, including a mounted cop who was pulled off his horse and beaten, Kelly said."

Read again for comprehension. It says ONE officer was beaten up, and EIGHT were INJURED. It does NOT state that eight officers were beaten up. It does not state what the injuries were - they could have been self-inflicted paper cuts for all you know.

I withdraw the "you people" and would like to substitute the more accurate YOU, personally. You can't tell the truth even when your own evidence is against you.

From the same article: "I think it went well. It was orderly," Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters Saturday. "We facilitated people's ability to make their opinions known."

Regarding all "If you can't take the heat etc." comments:

If our beloved blogger is to be believed (and I willingly do so), she is taking a break. She is not reading your comments, she does not care what you are saying, and all of this massive discourse is equivalent to a bunch of people yelling at each other in a boardroom after the boss has left the meeting. (Yes, she's the boss. This is her comments area, after all... HER house.)

Being a human being, as opposed to a robot, she is also perfectly justified in falling short of every single one of your persnickety and mostly hypocritical expectations. And if her lack of super powers inspires you to drop out of her readership, I hardly think she'll lose karma points (nor sleep) over it. She isn't asking your permission to take a break; she's TAKING one. It's her privilege. She owes you and humanity precisely diddly-squat, and if your philosophy can not permit that possibility, then feel free to continue ranting at the empty air while she continues to live her life under a slightly lighter yoke of harassment than you feel she deserves.

At least a horse can brush off mosquitos without being accused of dereliction of duty. Shameful.

You don't want Jane Galt. You want a blog-producing 'bot with a fat red target nicely situated on its ass and a happy mechanical iron smile for every clod of dirt you toss. Disgusting.

I AM ASHAMED TO BE OF THE SAME SPECIES AS YOU. My consolation is that I'm also the same species as Megan.

GT:

Since you ask, what Jane meant by "pre-emptive" was clearly explained in the comments to the original posts. The example that someone (possibly Jane) gave was if a protester/vandal had already picked up a brick or trash can and was clearly about to toss it through the window of a store (Saks Fifth Avenue or McDonald's -- it hardly matters). Some people think whacking such a person with a 2 x 4 hard enough to keep him or her from smashing the window would be justified. Neither Jane nor anyone else I've seen has argued for beating vandals to death or striking peaceful protesters at all. Got it?

Well, Mr. Russell, if one were a small business owner, with a family that depended on the success of that business for their well being, and someone with a political agenda decided that wrecking one's business property was the way to advance that agenda, then the smacking of the property destroyer with a two by four is a perfectly reasonable response. To say otherwise is to say the advancement of a political agendas gives one the right to harm innocent people. Who, exactly, is the fascist here, the person who claims the right to harm others without immediate physical risk or interference, or the person who claims that illegitimate harm of innocent people can be legitimately challenged on an immediate physical basis? Before you fatuously claim that vandalism is a tolerable action, and therefore cannot warrant a physical response, go tell it to somebody who loses their life's work, and has their family's aspirations crushed, by the work of vandals. Furthermore, the advocacy of beating someone for their advocacy of beating a vandal, and thereby preventing the vandalism, reveals you to be the goon. In John Russell's world, if the cause is perceived just by John Russell, then the acts that flow in support of those acts are to go physically unchallenged, no matter what harm comes to innocent people.

Not really weevil.

That would require people to carry 2x4s and be on the lookout for people they deem suspicious.

It's a pretty dangerous proposition particularly since different people would have different ideas as to when to practice their preemptive strikes.

BTW, wouldn't that be illegal in any case? I'm no expert but can someone tell me what would happen, legally, to anyone that hit a demonstrator with a piece of lumber and used as his excuse "It was a preemptive strike"?

Is "I hit him because I thought he was about to damage some property although he had not actually damaged anything at the time I hit him" a valid legal defense in NYC?

Self contradiction is so entertaining, particularly when it can be found in the same post:

"In fact, chaos is exactly what happened, as predicted."

and later, quoted in support of your argument that the protestors were well-behaved:

"I think it went well. It was orderly," Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters Saturday. "We facilitated people's ability to make their opinions known."

So, Jill--order or chaos?

I'll leave a dissection of your implausible suggestions--that the writer of the piece I quoted was warning of imminent Manhattan-wide flatulence as a result of the judge's ruling and that seven of New York's finest (and a horse! What must PETA have thought) might well have been felled by paper cuts--for others to undertake for their own amusement.

Will Allen, you are missing the point. Nobody threatened violence, except Jane Galt and her supporters. The question of when violence is justified does not even enter into the equation. The words that were distorted and misconstrued by Diane and Jane as a threat of violence were no more than a prediction of "chaos" on the part of other people. For this, Jane's fevered imagination produces a scene of a nasty scruffy peace protester threatening the hard-working ethnic shopowners of NY, and condones real violence to deter this imaginary bad guy.

Who threatened violence? Megan did not threaten violence. She said she wouldn't be upset if some violent rioter got beat up. Where in that did she threaten violence? If I say I wouldn't be upset if Charles Manson gets killed, am I threatening to murder Charles Manson? Here's a clue - NO! Man, I posted a little "Valentine candy heart" to Robert Chambers on my blog with the letters "FOAD" on it. Uh oh, I must have been threatening him with death! Except I wasn't.

And if the bad guy is imaginary, there was no condoning of violence either. The whole damn scenario was predicated on the bad guy being real. He wasn't real, that is true. Good news. But it's not like anyone was suggesting people just go out and randomly beat up on others simply because someone MIGHT have done something.

"Self contradiction is so entertaining, particularly when it can be found in the same post:"

Seeing someone make himself appear to be stupid is also very amusing. Especially when that someone tries to do it with words he doesn't understand and yet is such a strong proponent of owning and using a dictionary.

I said it was chaos. By most participants' reports, it was.

The police commissioner said it was orderly. He has his own agenda and is entitled to his opinion.

There is no self-contradiction here. Two different people, two different views. I wasn't quoting the commissioner to support my argument that they were well-behaved, though I could have. It is entirely possible for people to be well-behaved in a chaotic situation, and for two people to experience the same situation differently. If you'll go back and read the definition of chaos, that word that you seem to have so much trouble with, you will see that it does not describe behavior, but a situation.

And I hope that you will never again feel fear of violence or bad behavior when someone uses the word chaos. That must have been so debilitating, and it was so easily cleared up with a dictionary.

You do have one, right? Look up "self-contradictory".

My god, Will, is it really that hard for you to understand? It is a bad idea to advocate violence of any kind in a public forum. It's particularly bad to advocate pre-emptive violence and then claim that pre-emptive violence is funny.

There are unprotected people out there who have lousy judgement and are more than willing to hurt people in the name of some misbegotten rightwing sense of morality and patriotism. Those 600 people in Oklahoma City died because of that, James Byrd died because of that and that young gay man in Nevada died because of that. These may be acts of violence by people who are looking for justification for crimes they WANT to commit, but the right, all too often, provides the justification and with that justification, increase the likelihood that the crimes are committed.

What I find offensive about Jane's original post and your defense of it is that you express a delight in a simple act of thuggery and then use every legalistic means available to you to deny that's what it was.

"The example that someone (possibly Jane) gave was if a protester/vandal had already picked up a brick or trash can and was clearly about to toss it through the window of a store (Saks Fifth Avenue or McDonald's -- it hardly matters). Some people think whacking such a person with a 2 x 4 hard enough to keep him or her from smashing the window would be justified. Neither Jane nor anyone else I've seen has argued for beating vandals to death or striking peaceful protesters at all. Got it?"

Dr. Weevil, that is someone's rather glowing interpretation of what she wrote. That is, in point of fact, not what she wrote. She left what she was talking to up to the imagination of the reader and that is the problem.

Suppose a kid appears to be about to throw something through a window, the store owner swings the 2 x 4, the kid ducks and his clobbered full force in the head and dies a few hours later. Is that justified action? Should a store owner have the right to run the risk of killing a kid because he suspects they are about to break into his store? Are store owners capable of making a mistake? How do you know the whack won't result in death? What about the store owner with adequate insurance? Does he have the same right?

I find you guys morally appalling. You want so badly to be able to find ways to advocate violence and get away with it. Criminals I've met do the exact same thing.

Do the right thing. Tell her to knock it off or she won't be welcome on the right the same way her idiotic posts would never be accepted on the left. She has no business using the word "when" and "pre-emptive".

Dear Megan,

Remember, Dagny Taggart never gave up, no matter how awful her world became. She took some time off, came back and won her battles in the end. I hope to see you back from the Valley, soon.

"She has no business using the word "when" and "pre-emptive"."

The argument against Jane in a nutshell: she used those bad, bad words, and must be taken to task.

Lilly, your crowd doesn't own the English language, as much as the PC movement has tried to make it so. Jane used both words in an appropriate context, and your distortions of the English language don't change that, any more than Jill's Chaos through Flatulence and Felled By Killer Papercuts theories are going to inspire much more than giggling from non-believers.

Of course, there are other forums where you can go and expect to get a sympathetic hearing for your views that the bad, bad people over here are advocating that peace marchers minding their own business be beaten senseless, but this isn't one of them. Have fun--you might even manage a rewrite of the English language that portrays things as you would have them. Don't expect us to be speaking it, or paying much attention to it, though.

The argument against Jane in a nutshell:

She advocated a form of vigilantism which, in all likelihood, is illegal.

And now she can't stand it when people point that out to her.

Remember what was said about the kitchen and the heat.

And now it's time for another exciting round of...

CONNOTATION VERSUS DENOTATION!
Duh duh duh DAH duh DAH!

I'm your host, the LRF, and let's meet today's contestants. Representing literal face-value meanings, we have Ms. Connie Connotation, and facing her off on the more abstract side of the debate is Ms. Dana Denotation. With us also from the Institute for Logical Reasoning are my respected colleagues Dr. Rita Rational, Chair of Logical Affairs; and Ms. So Su Mi, Esq., our resident legal expert.

Today our four-member panel will be discussing the meaning of the phrase (drumroll please!) - preemptive. Connie, give us your take - what does "preemptive" mean to you?

CC: Well, LRF, it's pretty simple. "Preemptive" is an ajective variant of "preemption," which per any typical dictionary definition means to acquire, sieze, purchase, appropriate, etc. something before another party does. In short, it is the taking of action before something else physically occurs, or before someone else takes an action.

Thanks for that definition, Connie. Now we turn to Dana. Dana, can you explain to us how you understand "preemptive?"

DD: Yes I can, LRF. "Preemptive" may denote many things; for example, when two levels of authority conflict, one typically preempts the other, meaning the higher authority gets to take action regardless of what the other was planning to do. On the other hand, one party may have clearly expressed an intention to do something, vocally or through actions, and a second party counter-acts in advance.

So there are many ways of understanding it?

DD: Definitely. Denotive meanings can be all over the map for any number of reasons.

Interesting. Dr. Rational, we have just taken a related question, perhaps you can comment. Our listener asks: "What kind of influences determine denotative outcomes?"

DRR: That's a very good question. A thorough answer is more complex that our time here allows, but summarily, denotative outcomes can be influenced by one's own personal history, by cultural themes, even political needs.

I see. Can you give an example?

DDR: I recently saw a very good example by a pseudononymous blogger named Jane Galt, which yielded much controversy. The debate that followed was highly revealing. Suppose you were in the vicinity of a peace/anti-war rally. If someone were to advocate using a "2x4," "preemptively" against a "Lenin-style" protestor, how would an average person understand this?

That IS a very interesting example. Let's begin addressing that question by turning it over to Connie. Connie, how do you understand that example?

CC: Well, the 2x4 is a piece of kiln-dried timber that measures approximately 1.5x3 inches after it is 'finished' and shipped. The common use is for residential building material, but it can be implemented any number of ways - tool sheds, playground equipment, hobby projects, even a weapon if a person possesses sufficient upper body strentgh.

As for the second term, the '-ly' suffix merely indicates the condition of being preemptive, which we have already addressed. "Lenin-style," in the purely connotative sense, is best understood as meaning "in the manner or pattern of Lenin." Lenin, of course, is a Russian historical figure.

What about Lenin?

CC: I'm probably not as well equipped to answer that as my foil.

Okay. Dana, over to you.

DD: Well, even the 2x4 is a tricky word; it is not uncommon for the term to be used in casual banter as a metaphorical device, indicating the "setting straight" of someone who is bent on ill behavior. The context here does suggest a weapon, but is it being used offensively or defensively?

Preemptively is equally tricky. Preemptive action can be defined as acting offensively based on unreasonable assumptions, true enough. But there are legitimate preemptive actions such as self-defense; perhaps Ms. Mi can comment there. In this case it does appear to be self-defense based on "Lenin-style." Lenin was a violent man, so the connotative understanding is that the party in question was making appearance of violence, and then attacked pre-emptively with a 2x4.

Thanks. Ms. Mi, you're our legal expert, can you comment on the self defesne angle?

SSM: Well, LRF, our audience does need to understand something: US legal doctrine and precedent leaves a clear place for preemptive defensive action, on your own behalf or even on the behalf of another party, and 2x4s have certainly been used for that purpose.

When you have reasonable cause to believe that your person or property - or that of another - are in danger, you may use violent force against that person under a broad range of circumstances.

So if we accept Dana's understanding of "Lenin-style," would that be "reasonable cause," and would responding to that with a 2x4 be considered acceptable under the law?

SSM: The particular circumstances would have to be tested in court, but yes, as described that would be a fair interpretation.

Dr. Rational - do you find room for an denotative interpretation suggesting that the party in question is planning to use violent force in advance of being threatened?

DRR: No I do not.

Okay. We have another listener-submitted question, directed explicitly to you, Dr. Rational: "How would you interpret a debate where one side uses strong denotative interpretations to oppose the connotative meaning of the words?"

DDR: I would find that line of argument to be childish, foolish and stupid. Connotations should always be accepted unequivocally and denotations handled with great restraint, until it can be proven that the party who used those words was incorrectly understanding them, or had a very specific denotative view.

Denotations, as we observed earlier, are influenced by many things. When debating on the basis of denotations only, the argument is necessarily weakened. Smart people will express their denotative understanding of the words, but with-hold their rhetoric until one of the two aforementioned conditions is met. Unfortunately, those kind of debates bring a lot of dumb people out of the woodwork, and things tend to go downhill from there.

I see; strong words! Well, we're almost out of time, so let's introduce one more listener question. Another listener asks: "I saw that incident Dr. Rational was talking about, and then I saw some guy called Atrios characterize the response as vigilante violence. Some of his fans then came over to the Jane Galt site and were arguing about it. Can Dr. Rational comment on this?"

DRR: I fear I cannot be of much help to this listener. I specialize only in rationality and logic, and consequently cannot issue any comment whatsoever on Atrios.

Well, our time is expired; that's all for today, folks! A hearty thanks to Ms. Connotation, Ms. Denotation, Ms. Mi, and Dr. Rational for giving up their time this evening.

In our next show, we will constipate the dickens out of ourselves and then complain incessantly about the unconcionable violent horrors found within classic Tom & Jerry episodes. See you next week!

Alright, Scott, my interpretations of those words has been expressed. You tell me what you think those words mean.

Words have meanings. I know the right is offended by that notion but they do have fixed meanings. I've read Jane's post several times now and I just hear a smart mouth running off without any awareness of the fact that she is advocating illegal and violent bahavior. And then all you guys come in here and argue from here to eternity that she didn't mean what it is she actually said.

"And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner."

Please note:
1. WHEN they try
2. teaches them how effective violence can be
3. pre-emptive manner
4. (though it's at the beginning of the sentence) laugh even harder

What words in there have I misinterpreted? The only people misrepresenting her post are those of you on the right who apparently don't know right from wrong.

I've kept silent about this brouhaha but I can no longer, Will Allen.

>>Well, Mr. Russell, if one were a small business owner, with a family that depended on the success of that business for their well being, and someone with a political agenda decided that wrecking one's business property was the way to advance that agenda, then the smacking of the property destroyer with a two by four is a perfectly reasonable response. To say otherwise...

Who in all this has said otherwise??? Has anyone denied the right of a hypothetical Korean victim of a hypothetical Winnetka anarchist to defend himself and his property? I haven't seen one.

No, what we're objecting to is the hilarious image of superJane riding to the rescue of said Korean victim armed with a 2X4 when she admits she doesn't even know what a 2X4 is! Some comic book hero!

That and the preemptive slander of an actually overwhelmingly peaceful antiwar protest crowd (as could have been predicted from previous marches). That's what got our hackles up.

Why even bring up the largely irrelevant Seattle globalization protest scene to the New York march?
C'mon, Jane was "itching for a fight", but it was all in her imagination.

"The argument against Jane in a nutshell: she used those bad, bad words, and must be taken to task."

And the argument against the person who inspired Jane's inappropriate remarks is that he used the word "chaos", which you - and Diane, and Jane - dishonestly redefined as "violence".

"Lilly, your crowd doesn't own the English language, as much as the PC movement has tried to make it so. Jane used both words in an appropriate context, and your distortions of the English language don't change that, any more than Jill's Chaos through Flatulence and Felled By Killer Papercuts theories are going to inspire much more than giggling from non-believers."

You've really lost it now. You don't understand the English language, as you've amply demonstrated. You are the one who wants to make words mean what you want them to mean, and don't know how to use a dictionary. Those were not "theories", they were humorous remarks. Jokes. You know, like "joking" about "pre-emptive" assault. I meant people to giggle at them. Is it only funny to you if it means someone you don't agree with might get hurt?

"Have fun--you might even manage a rewrite of the English language that portrays things as you would have them. Don't expect us to be speaking it, or paying much attention to it, though."

No, I guess you've got your own version of English, wherein "chaos" means "violence" and "one" means "eight" and "when" means "if" and "duress" means "obeyed the law".

"What words in there have I misinterpreted? The only people misrepresenting her post are those of you on the right who apparently don't know right from wrong."

The Logical Reasoning Fairy seems to have done a rather crackerjack job of addressing your questions, so I won't go into depth. I will note, however, that in your notes you fail to note that:

1) By implication, the other party is involved in violence (see biography of Lenin, V. I., for clarification);

2) While you continue your obsession with the word "when," you seem to be oblivious of the fact that the hypothetical in question is based on a conditional that is outside of Jane's control or of the control of anyone other than the would-be rioter/thug in question;

3) Pre-emptive isn't limited to the meaning you're assigning to it (see above to my reminder that you don't own the English language);

4) The context that would cause a New York native to feel some amusement at the image of a vandal suffering smashus interruptus at the hands of someone who didn't take kindly to his attempt to destroy someone else's property in the name of "peace" (do I *really* need to elaborate on this? Read a newspaper.); and

5) The paragraphs above, which would lend more context to the paragraph in question.

It's hard to stack the deck when the cards are face up, Lilly. You're not fooling anyone.

Lilly, I find you morally apalling, in that you maintain that vandals have the right to destroy innocent people's property without physical interference, until that time the destruction has been accomplished. In your view, hurting innocents out of a misbegotten view is appalling, but hurting innocents via vandalism, if it is done in pursuit of goals you support, isn't nearly as appalling, and to physically stop the vandal is, in your view, more unacceptable.

Your attribution of glee on my part in the prospect of violence is simply slander. I merely prefer that those who institute the violence receive the largest negative consequences. Furthermore, to characterize a murderous nihilist like McVeigh, or the drunks who murdered Matthew Shepherd as "right-wing" is just the typical mindless cheap-shot of a person who has substituted sloganeering for reason, and no, I am neither "conservative" nor "right wing".

Jane clearly supported the right of people with whom she disagreed to protest peacefully. She wished that people who had violent intent be met with more effective violence prior to innocent people being harmed. News flash: people with violent intent aren't innocent. Does this mean that a shopkeeper should randomly smash every third protester? No. Does it mean that somebody who screams "Kill the gentry!" (I've been in crowds when violent thugs have screamed this), and raises a brick to toss through a window, should get popped in the nose prior to tossing the brick? Absolutely.

Your view is that the vandal cannot be deterred prior to the brick being throw; no pre-emption allowed! Thus the store owner is damaged, and perhaps put out of business (who knows what ensues from that act, and accumualtive insurance claims can devastate the ability to maintain coverage), a family's prospects are perhaps destroyed, people perhaps hurt (do brick throwers have perfect knowledge of where their brck will land?), all because you maintain that it is illegitimate to physically prevent the brick thrower from hurling the projectile. Now, who has a broken moral compass here?

She wished that people who had violent intent be met with more effective violence prior to innocent people being harmed.

And we would identify them how, exactly?

With a violent intent detector?

Is there a universally accepted definition?

If in the heat of the moment somebody gets carried away and waves a stick does that justify whacking him preemptively?

And I ask again, isn't it illegal in any case? Wouldn't I go to jail if I attacked somebody preemptively, short of that person waving a gun at me (which is NOT what Jane was talking about)?

Yes, whacking someone over the head in defense of property, particularly not your own property, would likely get you a felony charge and a nice lawsuit.

I know post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

But it amusing that our comrades on the left are having a shit fit - to use the technical term - as they realize that nothing has really changed post-The Big One.

War preparations go on apace. Most people in the hinterlands are saying ho-hum, glad I don't live in the Big City. Chirac is having hissy fits over Eastern Europe.

As far as NYCity seems concerned, does the fallout with Steinbrenner and Jeter seem more important than radioactive fallout? Probably...

Life goes on its merry way. Old Arabic Proverb: "The dogs bark, but the caravan goes its way."

Must be frustrating, no real response beyond the chattering classes.

Nothing has changed: in all likelyhood, nothing will change.

Ho-hum. Wake me up when the beer cart comes around.

Snore

A felony charge, huh?

So, if convicted one could never vote again?

Further thought:

Megan:

You should be pleased at the number of loyal readers you have.

But then you knew we all loved ya, gal.

Pay no never mind about the foamers-at-the-mouth. A position of detached amusement is in order. Those poor frustrated souls...

Lilly writes:

"Suppose a kid appears to be about to throw something through a window, the store owner swings the 2 x 4, the kid ducks and his clobbered full force in the head and dies a few hours later. Is that justified action? Should a store owner have the right to run the risk of killing a kid because he suspects they are about to break into his store? Are store owners capable of making a mistake? How do you know the whack won't result in death? What about the store owner with adequate insurance? Does he have the same right?"

While we're making up hypothetical situations, suppose the store owner doesn't swing the 2 x 4, the brick smashes the window, and the shards of glass or the brick itself kills some innocent kid inside? What about that? You seem to care more about the safety of the asshole who starts the violence than about anyone else's safety. In this case, who started it is important, and most of us have a lot less sympathy for someone who gets hurt while trying to hurt other people or destroy their property than for those who are trying to prevent such harm.

It sounds a lot like one of the arguments against war on Iraq: if the U.S. armed forces harm a hair on the head of any Iraqi civilian, that makes the whole thing unjust, even if millions of Iraqis are released from slavery, torture, and death.

GT:

Now you admit that it's OK to preemptively attack, that is, defend yourself against, someone who's waving a gun at you. I think you just gave away your whole argument. If someone is trying to hurt you, you have a right to defend yourself. If someone is trying to destroy your property, you may or may not have a legal right to use force to stop him -- I think it depends on the state -- but most people think you have a moral right, as long as the use of force is not disproportionate.

As for how you can know that someone is going to cause harm when he hasn't actually damaged anything yet, sometimes it's perfectly obvious. For instance, if someone has a lit Molotov cocktail in his hand, I think it's a safe bet he plans to throw it at someone or something. If he doesn't, it will eventually go off in his hand, and you seldom hear of anyone committing suicide that way.

Again, this sounds a lot like one of the stupider anti-war-on-Iraq arguments. A lot of people act as if the only proof they will accept that Iraq is working on nuclear weapons is an actual smoking crater and mushroom cloud.

No GT, you don't become a felon when you get threatened with assault on your own property and you commit battery in response to that threat to your person or property. Beware the use of excessive violence however. Killing the trespasser would be very unwise, legally, if it doesn't happen to be immoral for you. The threat concurrent with the assault is considered a mitigating circumstance. But that was a legitimate question which most of the rest of this thread has elided over when considering the general case of whacking the rest of the generalized populace for vague reasons.

weevil,

If Jane had said that property owners under attack should defend themselves I don't think anyone would have objected.

I know I wouldn't.

But that's not what she said.

What she wrote was interpreted by many here, myself included, as advocating that people go around with 2x4s and HIT OTHER PEOPLE who they think may be about to attack SOMEONE ELSE'S property before they do so.

That's vigilantism and it's illegal.

Now maybe that's not what she meant and maybe she expressed herself incorrectly (note that posters BOTH from the left and the right have interpreted that way). If so she could have saved herself a lot of grief by explaining clearly what she meant.

Why are people in such an uproar over this? Aren't bloggers supposed to receive hate-mail all the time?

Tom Tomorrow occasionally puts some examples of hate-mail at his blog for all to laugh at. Maybe you should do that.
Hate-mail usually ends up pathetic and laughable, rather than hurtful.

Tom,

I see someone in front of a store. It is not my store. That person has a rock and is looking menacingly at the store, maybe screaming but AS OF THAT MOMENT has done nothing illegal yet.

I suspect that he is about to throw the rock into the store (but only suspect since he has not done so yet) and take my 2x4 and whack him.

Several people see me do so (or it is capture in cameras).

What would happen to me, legally?

Scott - you don't go into depth because you can't without losing the argument. If you're waiting for the logical reasoning fairy to clean up your thinking skills, well, good luck with that. The Logical Reasoning Fairy expressed him/herself in that fashion because it was the only way to argue the person with whom they disagreed - the facts wouldn't sustain the desired position and adults who have the facts on their side don't resort to such nonsense. As ridiculous as your posts are, Scott, you kicked the LRF's ass from here to kingdom come.Most of us learn how to think by having the courage of our convictions and not resorting to double talk and lies when things get tough.

1. But the act of violence hasn't happened yet and until the point where the brick meets the window, it hasn't. Are you saying that shopkeepers who have 2 x 4's ready also have perfect skills to understand when an act of violence is about to occur and NEVER make mistakes? Are you saying that ANY repercussion that happens from the swing of the 2 x 4 is okay by you if a shopkeeper suspects that someone is about to commit an act of violence? Please, remember according to Jane, no actual act of violence is necessary for this pre-emptive action. What defines what is a threat? A bushel of apples about to be thrown? A paper towel? BTW, the brick scenario is the convenient invention of this thread. Jane didn't mention that. She simply talked of "pre-emptive violence."

2. This is one of the most preposterous responses on this thread. I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about except you seem to be saying that since Jane isn't in control of when this violence happens....I'm not sure at all what the second part of your thought is. What I am saying is that she is setting the stage for her readers to believe that violence is inevitable. She could have used "if' just as easily but didn't.

3. And pray tell, what are the other definitions of pre-emptive in your world? My dictionary contains really only one. LRF's definitions all revolved around the same precept also.

4. And is it still funny if turns out the brick in hand actually turned out to be a book and the shopkeeper made a mistake? Is it funny to beat someone who's about to throw a book in a trashcan if you think they're going to do something else with it? Pre-emptive violence is only funny if you're a fairly sick individual.

I am not attempting to fool anyone Scott. You are.

Now, you, Will, I don't even know what to say to you but I'll tackle your lies and nonsense one at a time also.

No, I don't claim that vandals have the right to destroy innocent people's property without physical interference. That is entirely your misrepresentation (and a very self-serving one I might add) of what I actually wrote. My point is that one does not have the right to take
"pre-emptive" violent action. Because one does not have the right to take pre-emptive action does not mean that vandals have the right to destroy property without threat of physical interference. Vandalism is an act of criminality that, at the very least, leaves one facing prosecution in the cooler headed chambers of the justice system. Vandalism is rarely one instantaneous act although throwing a brick through the window is as close to that as one gets.

"I merely prefer that those who institute the violence receive the largest negative consequences." I'm puzzled by what you think you're saying here. The person who takes pre-emptive action IS the person who institutes the violence. Maybe you want to rethink this sentence. It either reveals you to have no command of logic or no respect for law and civility.

McVeigh was not a nihilist - he was a right wing thug. I've read his statements and he was offended by liberals, offended by big government, offended by the loose morals of the nineties. He was right wing as were the guys who murdered Matthew Shepherd. You have not read enough about them if you think you can pull that crap off. Don't rearrange history. They were all right wing and proud of it.

Kill the gentry? Please. No one but other right wing goof balls believe people say that stuff.

"Your view is that the vandal cannot be deterred prior to the brick being throw; no pre-emption allowed! " Not by a 2 x 4, he can't. Restrain him. Call the police. Grab the brick. But you cannot assault him without being the first to commit a criminal act.

"all because you maintain that it is illegitimate to physically prevent the brick thrower from hurling the projectile."

No, I maintain it is illegal for the shopkeeper to assault someone with a 2x4 because he believes a brick will be thrown. And I maintain that by Jane advocating that as reasonable behavior, she is participating in increasing the likelihood of violence against otherwise peaceful protestors.

"Now, who has a broken moral compass here?"

You do. You want the right to hurt people because you believe they will do you harm.

Your ability to interpret what I'm saying is so skewed that the idea of someone as incapacitated in that area as you with a 2 x 4 in your hand is truly, truly frightening.

I want to point out that at no point could you accuse me of misrepresenting what Jane said - that's because I took her at face value. And at face value - she's advocating criminal behavior and is proposing laughing at the consequences.

And you are indulging her.

Crap, methinks I didst commit the sin of definition switching a couple times in my post. Ah well, the point stands.

Looks like Lilly has just come out in favor of preemptive assault and battery:

"Restrain him. Call the police. Grab the brick. But you cannot assault him without being the first to commit a criminal act."

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if someone is not doing anything illegal -- and Lilly says he's not until he actually throws the brick -- restraining him is assault (and maybe battery, too). It's also very difficult to get a brick out of someone's hand without his permission, unless you touch him in a way that can be construed as assault. Of course, if the court decides that you were defending yourself, it's OK.

So Lilly is now in total agreement with Jane, except that she can't imagine any case where a 2x4 might be necessary for this restraining or disarming to occur. Time to think a little harder about my Molotov cocktail example? Must a shopowner or bystander wait until the flaming gasoline has already spattered all over the target before intervening? I don't see how a jury could convict a man who used a 2x4 to knock an unthrown but lit Molotov cocktail out of someone's hand. The idea that you must always wait until the violence has already occurred seems unsound.

Another point.

Even if what Jane meant was that shopowners under attack should defend themselves by countering their attackers, is that a good idea?

What do the police and other experts in crowd control recommend?

Do they say "Yes, atack anybody who goes after yuour store"?

Or do they say "No, its not a good idea. The attacker will have friends and accomplices and it is the nature of a vandal attack that it gets out of hand. Even if you attack them in response to a previous aggression chances are you will simply escalate the problem and you or someone else will end up dead or seriously injured. You'll end up in jail. Leave it to the police".

Anybody know?

You almost nailed it on the Malotov cocktail except that at the point it is lit, it is ONLY a weapon and it is unlikely that a passerby would have something in his hand that could easily be mistaken for a lit Molotov Cocktail.. There is no reason to be holding a lit one unless you intend to destroy something and a Molotov Cocktail CANNOT be kept in hand. It must be thrown in order to protect the person who holds it. At the point it is lit it becomes a VERY dangerous weapon and the criminal act has begun. There is nothing pre-emptive about taking a 2 x 4 to someone who has lit a Molotov Cocktail in hand. However, a kid who works in a body shop could easily have something in hand that could be mistaken for an unlit one. The standard is that it must be lit.

I'm objecting to pre-emptive action that is as risky as assalting someone with a 2 x 4. Going out and talking to people is pre-emptive also and should be a shopkeep's first action upon seeing someone lingering outfront brick in hand. Jane didn't see fit to suggest that. She went right to extreme violence which she finds humorous.

No, I do not agree with Jane. I think she's a thug and is advocating criminal behavior which she apparently find humorous. I'm just amazed at the number of ways you guys find to defend her. Give it up. It was a morally appalling post and there is nothing more to it than that.

OK, maybe next anti-war protest, the marchers can all carry two-by-fours and look for potential troublemakers among the public.

Sound good?

Beautiful. Here we have a bunch of irredeemable jackasses accusing JG of advocating violence when she hasn't even blocked their IP addresses to keep them out of her bandwidth. The least you creeps can do is put some money in her tipjar to pay for your little "release".

All this picking of nits is giving me a headache. Trying to boil the whole issue down to how close the hairy anarchist has to be to the plate glass window, and how much forward motion has to occur in the arm holding the rock in order for a forceful intervention to be justified is such a crock... just the kind of third-rate, junior high school level sophistry I've come to expect from all these "deep thinkers" of the radical right.

The fact is that Galt's post was by any remotely fair-minded reading irresponsible, demagogic, dishonest, and inflammatory - all of which have nothing to do with the "how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin" bullshit that's been the subject of so much pointless discussion.

To begin with, Galt starts out by offering up the reddest of red herrings, stating that her pal Diane has uncovered evidence "seeming to indicate that the scruffier element of Saturday's peace rally is planning on demonstrating for peace by, er, wreaking mayhem." The inference is quite clear: There is meaningful-sized faction among the protesters that's committed to violence and vandalism.

Only trouble is, it's a complete crock. Even the most energetically creative reading of the Daniel Forbes article the link points to cannot credibly lead to the conclusion that he or anyone else of consequence is advocating any such thing. But hey, that's OK, because here it is just two days before the protest already, and people just can't be too careful, now can they? I mean, suppose you're out walking around, minding your own business, and you run into a crazed anarchist or something? Like, what's a mother to do?

So Mr. Forbes imaginary call to arms in this noxious "Marxist rag" becomes a convenient springboard allowing Galt to give voice to her very own little Charlie Bronson Death Wish fantasy of rough street justice:

And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.

It really is kind of funny at that, when you think about it. In classic right-wing scaremonger fashion, Galt invents herself a convenient boogyman more or less out of thin air - the all-purpose cadre of scruffy rock-throwing anarchists, running wild through the streets of New Yawk, breaking windows, setting cars on fire, terrorizing little old ladies, and God knows what else. And then, after alerting her readers to these nihilistic troublemakers dark designs, she prescribes her preferred solution to this non-existent menace - a little dose of frontier justice, preferably administered with thick wooden clubs.

Now, that is just a hugely responsible thing to be writing two days prior to a huge protest rally, is it not? Implying the evidence suggests there's a sizeable faction of protesters committed to violence, when in fact the "evidence" Galt offers up suggests nothing of the kind. And then, after setting up this bogus straw man, she rhapsodizes about how hugely amusing and satisfying it would be to physically assault such a person - with the very noblest and purest of motives, naturally.

Still, there's something just a little bit creepy about seeing humor and entertainment value in attacking another human being with a club, no matter how morally justified the attacker might be - or at least thinks that he is. And pray tell, exactly what do you expect a would-be vandal might do after being preemptively whacked? You know what, if you don't put him on the ground, there's a very good chance he just might decide to whack back. And if he's a young, strong, and hot-headed male, he probably will whack pretty goddamn hard, club or no club.

No, fact is, if you're going to do any whacking, you'd better whack him upside the head, hard enough to make sure you put him on the ground. Trouble is, if you club someone on the head with a 2x4 hard enough to put him down, you will almost certainly crack his skull. Which means, of course, that you stand an excellent chance of killing him. And for what? To avenge the untimely demise of a plate-glass window?

But whether or not you can find a way to rationalize that, the real point is that Galt blew the trumpet to summon her army of would-be whackers with no credible evidence that any serious violence was even being planned. Based on nothing more than her fear-mongering and demagoguery. And then tops that off by inviting her readers to share in the humorous and satisfying mental image of hard-nosed, take-no-lip upright citizens dispensing street justice at the end of a club.

A real nice thing to put out there two days before the event. Did it ever occur to Galt that some disturbed, Bernie Goetz-type character just might take her up on it? Or that some zealous, civic-minded soul who started out as the clubber just might wind up as the clubbee? Nah... I doubt it. The Jane Galts of this world don't much concern themselves with such messy and disagreeable details - they're having way too much fun waxing indignant and self-righteous.

Man, according to an old German proverb, is merely an ape in velvet. Jane, my suggestion is that you should chill out and treat yourself to a nice fresh banana. You've earned it.

"She wished that people who had violent intent be met with more effective violence prior to innocent people being harmed."

Rather, she invented people (with no grounds for such invention) with violent intent (against property, not innocent people) and encouraged others to be ready to club these imaginary violent people, to use deadly force against them, in case it was imagined that they saw people with violent intent against property.

It's indefensible.

I just had a minor epiphany:

The folks who are making this into such a big deal are doing so not because this is important, but because Jane Galt, in spite of her literary fecundity, hasn't given them anything else they can even attempt to use against her.

Suddenly, the world of this thread falls back into a logical order.

It really is kind of funny at that, when you think about it. In classic right-wing scaremonger fashion, Galt invents herself a convenient boogyman more or less out of thin air - the all-purpose cadre of scruffy rock-throwing anarchists, running wild through the streets of New Yawk, breaking windows, setting cars on fire, terrorizing little old ladies, and God knows what else. And then, after alerting her readers to these nihilistic troublemakers dark designs, she prescribes her preferred solution to this non-existent menace - a little dose of frontier justice, preferably administered with thick wooden clubs.

But by that same token, if the convenient boogeyman - the all-purpose cadre of scruffy rock-throwing anarchists - really ARE an invention out of thin air, then nobody gets hit by wooden clubs (since Galt didn't advocate violence against anyone else).

Yet you seem to have a problem with this?

Yeesh, how far up your rectum did you have to reach in order to pull THAT one out? Pack up the self-righteous soapbox and Pontif's cap and go home, little boy.

And wash your hands. Please.

I have read Jane Galt off and on for a few months now, and found her commentary interesting, well-written and occasionally WAAY over my head (esoteric economic theory makes me dizzy).

The comment that some violent protestors might get their heads handed to them by unimpressed New Yorkers elicited a snort and a chuckle at the mental image, ala the remembered scene from Police Academy where the fat, slow cop whups ass on the three or four guys from the old neighborhood who give him lip when he wants to know why they're moving the large TV from an apartment ("It's our TV," one of them gasps after hitting the ground).

I read Jane's remark as humorous hyperbole, cartoon violence against cartoon villains.

Come back, Jane!

"I read Jane's remark as humorous hyperbole, cartoon violence against cartoon villains."

Thing is, Bruce, you're sane. Makes all the difference.

>>you are really one dumb fucking empty-headed fascist bitch, in my personal estimation

Oh shit, John Russell. How !@#$% dumb are you? You are just not a smart person. On what little brain and basis you have, please do not stratify people against the 99 percent of people who may disagree with Ms. Galt.

What would you call somebody who really is one DFE-HFB? Reserve it for those who deserve and even then practice - reserve.

DITTO for "And people bitching about a 'call to violence' when they have no problem supporting Stalinists is pretty fucking amusing."

And holy bat wings Robin, but LGF- you're a little to time/emotion invested and infested here. Post those LOOOOOOONG post's elsewhere. Comments are supposed to be short. Essays are not short, therefore do not belong here.

Public discourse is still at an all time low. Last time I was here Ms. Galt and a slew of economists were talking invective economic theory and it was entirely too dispassionate about real life. Here's a slice of that REAL thing.

Q. If you throw a violist and a soprano off a cliff, which one would hit the ground first? (two answers)

1) The violist. The soprano would have to stop halfway down to ask directions.

2)Who cares?

[full disclosure - my wife is a violist, and there are more viola jokes here.]

I find this funny. I believe the author is not actually advocating throwing violists (or even sopranos) off cliffs.

I'm sure none of you still lurking in here pissing on Jane laughed at all the dismemberment jokes in Monty Python movies. Or chuckled when people acting like gits were exploded, stomped or shot suddenly. None of you ever laugh at cartoons. None of you ever laugh at jokes that even remotely seem to advocate violence against The President. None of you ever laugh at all.

Jane is guilty of speaking in a colorful way, and to say she is advocating violence is absurd on its face. When people use the loaded language of their opponents (like pre-emptive, said with dripping sarcasm by many on the left and as if it were scripture not shaky doctrine on the right) for effect they risk having the Yale Literature department train down from New Haven, deconstruct their words and personal backgrounds for intent and then worry about what the supposedly feeble-minded common folk might do if they happened to read it, or stick it under their pillow.

Your heroes Atrios and D-Squared also speak colorfully. More power to them. I shall try not to be humourless next time I encounter it.

Bloglodytes! Get over yourselves! I can't believe you are still here.

Here's something funny with no violence. But perhaps some of you will find some in it if you squint, or play it backwards or some such extraordinary effort.

Dear Jane,

Don't let the bastards get you down. I've been publishing an online conservative magazine since 1996 and received more than my share of hatemail comparing me from Adolph Hitler to David Duke, humorous given my family's history. Look at the hate email as fuel ... if you're getting them angry that means they can't respond intellectually. You've won.

At any rate, I'm happy that your absence isn't permanent. There is a reason why people visit your blog ... you're good. Damned good.

BTW, in Texas, at least, it is legal to defend your or someone else's property against vandalism or theft with deadly force if you reasonably believe that you have no other way to defend said property.

Having said that, like someone else mentioned, her comment was an off-handed tongue-in-cheek reference to the image of New York as "tough". Having read Megan's blog for a while, now, and knowing her general attitude and how she writes, I never would take that post to seriously advocate violence. She used hyperbole to express disgust with those who would use violence to protest violence.

But whatever.

Bolie IV

Rule One of Blogging: Don't feed the trolls.
Rule Two of Blogging: Sometimes your friends are just as bad.
Rule Three of Blogging: It's my house and I make the rules. They don't have to be logical and you don't have to agree. Feel free to go home.
Rule Four of Blogging: I do this for fun. When it's not fun, I won't do it. If you like me doing it, make it fun for me.

The problem with extended debate like this is people seem to lose the forest for the trees. Does it really matter what the elements are of a successful defense of self-defense in face of an assault and/or battery charge? No. The problem comes with the sentiments Jane expressed and how she expressed them.

If I say:

In this hour of tribulation, on the eve of war, I would laugh hysterically if someone hits our president in the head with a 2x4, if he starts an unjustified war.

you can bet rightwingers would be pissed as hell because I'm advocating violence against Bush if he starts a war in Iraq. And they would be right. It doesn't matter what the meaning of "hour" or "eve" is. It doesn't matter what war we're talking about, and whether or not it is "unjustified." It is clear what I'm celebrating: violence against the president if he invades Iraq.

Jane was celebrating a form of violence that would almost certainly harm innocent marchers. That was wrong.

Well, what would the cops do? We had two similar, real life situations last year.

First case: young Korean boy in family grocery. Two local characters come in, demand money. Result: two local characters lying on ground with broken collar bones. Kid was a third degree black belt in karate. This time 'I didn't pull the hit'. Cops come by, scrap the hoods up (they had a rap sheet as long as your arm, as the saying goes), take them to the hospital, then on to the slammer. No bail is accepted by the magistrate. They're still in slammer awaiting trial. Korean boy a local hero.

Second case: another mom and pop store. The usual two idiots decide they need some traveling money. Pop is WWII vet: has gun. Shoots the two. Cops come for the mopping up, take the jerks to the hospital and thence slammer. DA announces it's open and shut. Pop was defending his property with reasonable force (the jerks each had a pistol), prosecution of jerks only.

Around these here parts you can count on two things. In both such cases, the DA won't prosecute either the boy or the pop. If he did, the judge would throw the cases out of court on reasonable self-defense. If the judge didn't, the jury won't convict.

So it goes...

Hey Megan,

I, for one, LOVE your writings (even though I usually disagree), and always look forward to reading them.

That said, your ‘2x4’ post probably went a little too far, especially given how emotional people get when an issue like war is involved. But it happens sometimes. I know from my own experience, you’re trying to be funny, or you get carried away by your own rhetoric, and you end up writing or saying something that in hindsight seems kind of stupid, or could easily be taken the wrong way. And I’ve seen instances where people on the left whom I admire, (like a certain NYT columnist), are guilty of the same thing.

Anyway, don't let people who are obviously idiots get you down. Come back soon!

I thought this entire matter was a tempest in a teapot, and had decided to mostly ignore it. If Jane has fun blogging, she should do it. If she doesn't have fun, she should stop. I wouldn't have used the language she did, but since she clearly stated, without qualification, that peaceful protesters should be unmolested, I had no objection. What caused me to rejoin this thread were sentiments such as these:

"PRE-EMPTIVE!!!!! Am I to assume that no one on the right knows what pre-emptive means? It means that the person is beaten with the 2 x 4 BEFORE actually taking action that would justify such a response. And the only justification for that level of response is a physical attack not on property but on person"

or

"nor do you have a problem with countenancing assault and battery - and possibly homicide - by "concerned citizens" in response to acts of vandalism."

or

"Restrain him. Call the police. Grab the brick. But you cannot assault him without being the first to commit a criminal act."

or

"No, I maintain it is illegal for the shopkeeper to assault someone with a 2x4 because he believes a brick will be thrown."

All of which indicate, while distorting Jane's words (no, to "whack" someone with a 2x4 is not the necessarily the same as "beating" them, or employing deadly force, since most beatings entail more than one blow, and many people more people have been whacked with a piece of lumber without dying, as opposed to the oppposite), that the writers contend that the vandal cannot be met with superior physical force until that time he has already accomplished his harm of innocent parties. Implied in this thinking is that the mere willfull destruction of innocent parties' property is not so serious as to warrant a physical response needed to prevent it, unless one foolishly contends that a person holding a brick, or a thirty pound garbage can, can be "physically restrained" with a gentle hug.

As some posters have noted, the legality of physical violence intended to pre-empt the destruction of property varies by jusirdiction. Given vandalism's potential for great economic and physical harm, a citizen who is under the reasonable belief that the destruction of innocent parties' property is imminent should have as much leeway as one who believes that innocent parties are under imminent threat of physical assault. I had a 2nd cousin who was killed by a small shard of glass, which entered his brain through an eyesocket, and yes, I would appreciate it if some refrain from calling me a liar, as they did when I stated what I've heard protesters of the anarchist variety scream while vandalizing. Destroying property can ruin lives economically, as well as leading to physical death, so meeting vandals with superior physical force, prior to their accomplishing their goals, is legiitmate, and yes that might mean the use of a 2 x 4. Who is to determine whether a reasonable level of superior force was employed; that the application of force ended once the threat had subsided? Well, that's what we have juries for. To state, however, that the pre-emptive use of violence is illegitmate in the prevention of lawless property destruction is to cede the field to the criminals.

Finally, there are many dictionaries in the world. The one at my fingertips defines chaos as a "state of complete disorder". Since most people would agree that obeying the law is part of having a state of order, in the civil sense, to advocate COMPLETE disorder, in the civil sense, would imply to many reasonable people that lawlessness was being advocated. Should all lawlessnes be met with a 2 x 4? No, of course not, but given the destructive chaos that has accompanied many protests, it is not entirely baseless for one to think that the advocacy of chaos might entail the violent destruction of property.

Some really interesting comments by all. Some viewed Jane's comments as comic hyperbole. Some viewed her comments as advocating a violent counter demonstration to an otherwise peaceful gathering.

I thought Jane was responding to Diane E. who referenced planned mayhem with respect to civil disobedience, which of course reminds me of a story.

When I was growing up in Colorado in the early 70s my best friend's Mom use to tell this story about the Klan when she was a child in Indiana. Don't know if the story was true, but I believe she used the story to convey her thoughts about racism.

In any event, she was the youngest child of a large Irish Catholic family who purchased a farm in a county where Catholics just weren't welcomed. Well her father had been warned that the Klan would be paying the homstead a visit. His response was to invite the immediate family (from the next county) over for dinner and song. Well the story goes that the Klan came by that night and were welcomed by about 28 to 32 shotguns-20 guage I think. No shots were fired. Well because of that preemptive action, the Klan never came by again.

I've always loved that story for a number of reasons. Given the way the conversation was metastasizing, I thought you might find it interesting.

Timmy

Rule for comment posting #1:

If you are making the 270th post, you aren't adding to the debate, which has gone on far too long. Turn off the browser and get back to work.

Jane, I doubt you'll ever read down this far (especially with all the hatemongers bashing you in these comments), but I miss your writing. Hurry back.

And for what it's worth, I think you were right on target advocating the limited use of violence to prevent innocent people's property. But then, I'm basically libertarian too, so that's not much of a shock. :)

Orbitron

lilly

jill

Steve Cohen

Steve

My biggest problem with the comment is the unsuitability of a 2x4 as a weapon. 2x4's are awkward to hold and would thus be hard to use effectively. If you're going to use lumber, use a 2x2 or a 1-1/2" dowel rod. If you can, sand the corners off the 2x2 (for your hand) before wielding it.

Bolie IV

Oh well then in that case just go an purchase some bokuto.

I first saw this mentioned on Radio Free Nation but it applies here

‘In Austin, Texas, Robert Fisk sees at first hand the vast gulf between the pro- and anti-war movements in the United States.’

The show was over, recorded for one of those nice liberal local American TV cable channels this time in Texas where everyone agrees that war is wrong, that George Bush is in the hands of right-wing Christian fundamentalists and pro-Israeli neo-conservatives.

Don Darling, the TV host, had just turned to thank me for my long and flu-laden contribution. Then it happened. Cameraman number two came striding towards us through the studio lights. “I want to thank you, sir, for reminding us that the British had a lot to do with the chaos in the Middle East, “ he said. “But I have something else to say.”

His voice rose 10 decibels, his bare arms bouncing up and down at his sides, his shaven head struck forward pugnaciously. “Yeah, I want to tell you that the cause of this problem is the fucking medieval Arabs and their wish to enslave us all and I tell you that it is because we want to save the Jews from the fucking savage Arabs who want to throw them into the sea that we are about to fuck Saddam.” There was a pause, as Don Darling looked at the man, aghast. “And that,” cameraman number two concluded, “is the fucking truth.”

Darling called to the studio manager. “Where does this man come from?” he demanded to know. The lady from the University of Texas organiser of this gentle little pow-wow advanced on to the studio floor in horror: “Who is this person?” I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. All of a sudden, our nice anti-war chat had been brought to a halt by a spot of redneck reality. There really were right-wingers out there in the darkness that really did want George Bush to zap the Arabs. I asked the guy his name: “Gregg Aykins,” he said. “And the FBI can do nothing to me if you give them my name.”

It was a telling moment, a symbol of the vast gulf of reason between the pro- and anti-war movements in America. They don’t talk to each other. And if they do, neither comprehends the other. Like the endless chat programmes on Pacifica Radio and all the smaller liberal talk shows from Boston to LA that serve up inedible dollops of anti-Bush, anti-Republican rant, there is simply no contact between the intellectual “elite” of the left and the less privileged Americans who work with their hands and join the military to gain a free education and end up fighting America’s foreign wars.

At a seminar at the University of North Carolina, I listened to a group of professors and senior lecturers and “activists” debating how to influence the “path to war”. “What we’ve got to do is to reach out to mainstream press and bridge-build to other activists,” a lady with long grey hair announced, reading a list of proposals all couched in the language of academic discourse that ensures her message is incomprehensible outside academia which she wished to discuss.

Quite apart from the irredeemable nature of the “mainstream” press The New York Times, The Washington Post and the rest are far too busy carrying more Iraqi horror stories from “intelligence sources” than reporting the American anti-war movement the lady’s desire to “bridge-build” with fellow “activists” was all too familiar a theme.

The people with whom these liberal academics should be building bridges are the truck-drivers and bellhops and Amtrak crews, the poor blacks and the cops whose families provide the cannon fodder for America’s overseas military adventures. But that, of course, would force intellectuals to emerge from the sheltered, tenured world of seminars and sit-ins and deal directly with those whose opinions they wish to change.

When I made this very point at Harvard and several other universities, I was told, rather patronisingly, that these people the phrase was almost identical had “so little information” or are “not very informed”. This is, in fact, untrue. I have heard as much sense about the Middle East from a train crew en route from Washington to Georgia and from a waiter in a St Louis diner as I have from the good folks of North Carolina.

Black Americans, for example, are uninhibited in their sympathy for Palestinians under occupation. But when I told a lecturer in Austin that I had asked hotel staff and air crews to turn up to my lectures on the Middle East and America and that all had come I was treated with a kind of weird amazement, puzzlement that I should bother to ask such unpromising material to think about the Arab-Israel conflict mixed with faint pity that I should ever expect them to understand.

Sometimes I rather suspect that the anti-war left in America likes being in a permanent minority. I mean no disrespect to the Noam Chomskys and Daniel Ellsbergs and Dennis Bernsteins; they fight, amid abuse and threats, to make their voices heard. Yet I have an uneasy feeling that many on the intellectual left are fearful that America will lose its next war amid massive casualties but are even more fearful that America may win with minimal casualties.

Perhaps this is unfair. But as long as America’s anti-war movement talks to itself rather than to others, it is going to go on being surprised when the Gregg Aykinses emerge from the darkness with their hatred and venom intact to support George Bush’s forthcoming war in Iraq. — Robert Fisk in the Independent

MS, i don't ever remember the Soviet elite mixing with the masses, either. I'm also puzzled because I'm neither a Christian Fundamentalist nor am I Jew. But I support the Bush administration, you know one fundamentalist, the President, two African Americans and two Wasps (one from the mid-west and the other from Wyoming).

I concur with you observation that there are a number of elites, who wish for a messy war and aftermath as well as high casualties (Iraqi, Americans or both). They harbor no animus against the military combatants or civilians; they simply wish to shorten the term of the current administration. They anticipate their own rise to power, but may end up with country poised on isolationism. That is another story.

Timmy

I think this is just whining.

If you've made it this far, you'll want to read this.

Gosh, Jane, I'm a lefty blogger who decided to check in on you again via Popdex, and I'm sorry to read that somebody's giving you such a bad time. It takes a bit of nerve to put yourself out there with personal opinion and commentary the way you do! I don't want to deal with e-mail flamers like you're describing, so I just blog links, quotes, and quick comments. Hopefully my site is an example of infuriating but nonetheless informative or entertaining material from the left ... Please remember, if somebody's being verbally abusive towards you, the political viewpoint is just a pretext. The actual agenda, of course, is forcing their views on others.

PS Keeping the rhetoric toned down and mellow is not only helpful when dealing with large, volatile crowds - some people think it also helps when dealing with situations like North Korea. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19FRIE.html

Megan,

Just wanted to drop yet another note of support, and my hopes that you'll hang in there and get back to blogging very soon!!!!!! All warm wishes, Patrick

Aw, poor Jane, we weep for you--all you did was make some dubious assertion that the anti-war protestors in New York were most likely vandals (Do you write for Fox? You should! That's a good one! They could add it on to their pre-scripted terms for anti-war protestors currently including 'usual suspects,' 'anarchists,' and 'celebrities'--last to be uttered as if it is a rat leaving your mouth!) and offer 'preemptive' violence as a rational response!

Why, just today, on the way here, I passed by some guy on the sidewalk who was looking at me funny! He had on a Rush t-shirt, so naturally I assumed he was going to eat me--so I stomped his effing face in! Pre-emptive violence rules! And you know what I saw on the news the other day? Them goddamn kids in Iraq who have been starving for ten years and who have all kinds of sicknesses because the US bombed out their water supplies back in the first Gulf War! And those kids who are deformed because of all the depleted uranium in the country! Them damn kids look suspicious, you know? Maybe it's their brown skin or all those damn rags they wear--what, they don't have Wal-Marts in Iraq? Well, they're all going to grow up and be terrorists, I just know it--so let's bomb the f*** out of them, too, whaddya say?

To the person who said that Jane Galt's comments have sometimes gone over your head, I would like to welcome the world to the world's shortest man. Jane obviously watched a lot of tv news--how's that for smart? Violent protests are "Seattle-like." Perhaps Galt is not aware that it was the cops who started the violence in Seattle, and while the majority of the 50,000 protestors from all spectrums of our society were entirely peaceful, less than 50 people participated in "violence"--altho, if you ask me, smashing the window to a Starbucks' really doesn't seem as 'violent' as mass murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Ever hear a window scream?

Oh yes, but anyone who disagrees with people who somehow think that mass murder equals peace is a 'mental midget,' etc. Dr. Weevil wonders if the evidence we need of Iraqi 'evil-doing' will be a mushroom cloud . . . such low rent scare tactics make us cluck out tongues in sadness. From Lockheed Martin to the Heritage Foundation and on down to people like 'Dr. Weevil'--the only question is, is Weevil a paid schill for the war industry or an unpaid one?

Poor Jane Galt. Poor warmongers. How can anybody rain on your War Fever Parade? Why don't you go get the umbrellas, and we'll put on our boots.

I was in DC. I saw, in the earliest post 9-11 "protests" (literally, pro-Saddam active-measures programs run by the ISO) about a dozen fellows openly getting ready for some after-hours violence (rattan bats, body armour), and in full view of the protestor's own legal representatives.

There was a reason why there was no violence. It had nothing to do with Leftist pacifism (an oxymoron), but rather self-preservation - the DC police were out in force, and have long become experienced in their shenanigans. From my vantage, since September of 2001, the minders of ANSWER protests have thus felt it "in their best interests" not to provoke a confrontation. Our cops certainly won't start one either, but they are well and able to finish any - especially given the recent paucity of said marches (well under a "quarter million" I assure you; I'd be surprised if there were counted more than 10,000 last time around, with pro-US counter-protestors steadily gaining in numbers themselves).

Mind you, I'm sure the Left could bus in lots more, if they had a better cause to work with. Or more money; I suspect their funding has suffered a sudden sharp drop of late.

If Jane confesses to a loss of good temper, to the point of violent impulses, and thus responds with a quiet retreat to cool off, well and good. Although I certainly don't advocate the clubbing of Leftist protestors (even if they do front for the most repressive Marxist regimes of the 20th century, as well as FARC drug lords), I have enough respect for the Left's capacity for ascerbic personal abuse to understand her sentiments.

It says much, that a number of Left-leaning pundits feel compelled to press the retreat. Reminds one of the Taif Accords.

Comments are Closed.