06-16-01
HONEST FREEPERS, MORAL RIGHT-WINGERS, AND OTHER OXYMORONS
An exercise in deconstructing regressive rhetoric
Part Two

Here's the email that David Dilegge sent to me:

Rose, Mike has responded to your e-mail, http://www.conservavets.org. Again, thank you for your interest and wishing you and yours the best.

Dave Dilegge
Stafford, Virginia

Gee, he thanked me for my interest! How polite. Um, not that I really expressed any interest, but maybe these guys are so starved for attention that any kind of response is better than none.

Note the polite tone that Dilegge adopts. Remember it. This is how the more intelligent right-wingers operate. Does he truly wish me the best? Browse their site and decide for yourself.

Given the nature of Wallace's original rant about the Voter March, I went to the ConservaVets site expecting to see more of the same. One thing I will give to regressives - they rarely disappoint you. I wasn't disappointed.

On the main page of the site (near the top! woooo, I'm SOMEBODY) they have this:

Left Talk: FringeFolk E-mails ConservaVets - Read "Chairman" Rose's E-mail and our response.

(I have to admit to feeling a little stupid here...I'm not sure why they referred to me as "Chairman" Rose. Is this supposed to make me sound like Chairman Mao? Is it an insult? I kind of think it is, but jeez, it's kind of lame, isn't it? They should've called me 'Tokyo Rose' - much more insulting).

I dutifully clicked on the link, and was taken to this page, which displays my email (unfortunately, there are a few typos in it - for instance, the term 'freezers' instead of 'freepers' - which were not in the original email I sent...it appears that Mr. Wallace is unfamiliar with the concept of copying and pasting, and actually re-typed my email) as well as the response from Dilegge. Wallace then adds his response:

(15 June 2001)

Dear Rose,

I'll ignore the name calling and consider it one of your off moments. For a dedicated pacifist such as yourself, you seem to be easily worked up.

There are decent people in this country that disagree on fundamental issues. We happen to disagree on a number of points. That you would possibly have insulted me had you seen me at the March is more an indication of basic intolerance than my appearance. I do believe First Amendment rights are protected, even on the Capitol steps.

Thank you though for admitting my statement was factually correct. Insinuation is in the eyes of the beholder, and you have reacted as expected.

Is it not logical that organizers, if they cared about integrity, would have displayed only pictures of veterans who didn't vote for George W. Bush? How logical is it to think that a veteran who voted for Bush would feel that he is an illegitimate president?

I must correct you on one minor point though. Both Al Gore and George W. Bush received 48% of the popular vote, with Al Gore receiving approximately 550,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush. (Don't forget the 3.9 million other votes. The implication Rose, is Mr. Gore and supporters are wrong to claim the majority of Americans voted for him.) No one, veteran or not, believes George W. Bush received more popular votes nationwide. In a Federal Republic, Rose, electoral votes determine the Presidency. The popular vote, within individual states, determines electors. Those, as you indicate in your e-mail, are "facts" that even Al Gore understood. Those aren't right-wing talking points. That's the Constitution.

I'll tell you what Al Gore won. As I said on CNN live, and on C-SPAN live, and to a number of radio stations: "I'd publicly like to thank Al Gore and the Democratic Party for turning me into a Republican activist." That's what Al Gore won.

Have a glorious day's worth of freedom.

Sincerely, Mike

Blah, blah, blah. My reaction upon reading pure, unadulterated crap like the above is generally to roll my eyes, give a resounding snort of disgust, and turn my attention back to educating the educable. However, I think it would be worthwhile to pick Wallace's post apart and show just WHY it is pure, unadulterated crap, so that you, dear reader, will be able to spot similar crap in the future and call it for what it is. So here we go...

I'll ignore the name calling and consider it one of your off moments.

What is Wallace doing with this statement? Well, three things actually. First, he's saying that I've called him names, and since name-calling is usually considered childish behavior, he's implying that I'm childish. Secondly, he's saying that he'll "ignore" it, implying that he's forgiving enough to ignore my childish behavior. Thirdly, by saying that he'll consider it one of my off moments, he's taking on a conciliatory air - giving me the benefit of the doubt, as it were.

But here's the thing - I didn't call him any names. Look back over my email and check for yourself. Do I insult him? Possibly. Do I call him names? Nope. Not once. Now, Wallace would undoubtedly wave his arms in the air and shriek "FOUL!" at this, pointing to my use of the term "Nazi" as proof that I called him a name. But in fact, I did NOT call him a Nazi...I merely stated that he would have made a splendid Nazi. Did Wallace simply misunderstand, and THINK that I called him names? Come on.

Wallace lies, and says that I called him names, and then says that he will graciously "ignore" the name-calling. For anyone who's followed the White House vandalism propaganda, this is a classic right-wing tactic...accuse somebody of doing something they didn't do, and then loudly proclaim your graciousness by insisting that you're going to ignore it. But, as I have stated in the past with regards to the vandalism lies, being gracious does not mean TELLING people that you're gracious...it means actually BEING gracious. Let's suppose for a moment that I HAD indulged in a bit of name-calling, perhaps calling Wallace an ignorant, narrow-minded, inbred, moronic freak. If I had called him such a name, and Wallace truly wanted to be gracious and ignore it, he would, well, IGNORE it. And yet the first thing - the VERY FIRST THING - he brings up is the erroneous claim that I called him names. What does this mean? It means that Wallace is being disingenuous...which is a nice way of saying that he's a damned liar.

And on to the third point...the rather back-handed way of giving me the benefit of the doubt. Since Wallace has just a) stated an outright lie about what I said in my email and b) used the lie to adopt a phony self-congratulatory tone, the logical conclusion is that he is attempting to paint himself as a better person than I am. Nothing wrong with that - he's more than welcome to claim that he's a better person than I am. But he's not willing to do it OPENLY, because he wants to take on a passive-aggressive stance and pretend that he's not being self-righteous (which he clearly is - though, as I've shown, with no justification whatsoever).

Does it seem silly to spend four paragraphs deconstructing a simple sentence? When we see regressives resorting to sleazy tactics such as the ones described above, we MUST call them on it, and expose them. Too many people don't know how to fight this kind of verbal warfare, and it can leave people feeling confused, hurt and uncertain.

One final note - re: name-calling. Though I did not call Wallace any names (this was a deliberate choice, as I didn't want to give him an opening to go into the childish regressive tactic of claiming that all liberals ever do is call people names, rather than sticking to facts), there is absolutely nothing wrong with name-calling as long as it doesn't get out of hand, and as long as it doesn't make up the whole of one's argument. If I'd called Wallace an 'ignorant fool', I would have been expressing my sincere opinion of him. I would not have owed him an apology. This is why I did not comment upon the instances of name-calling in Wallace's original essay. He was perfectly entitled to call names - it's his essay, after all - and I don't find it particularly childish that he did so. Hell, I call people names all the time. It's fun! But it's interesting to note Wallace's hypocrisy - he makes a concerted effort to decry the practice of name-calling, yet clearly indulges in it himself. Read his essay to see for yourself, and here are a few examples: he calls the protesters' signs "stupid" and he uses terms such as "motley collection", "goons" and "white punk liberal" to refer to the protesters...and these instances of name-calling are interspersed with his comments decrying the names the protesters called HIM.

Clearly, Wallace is a lying, hypocritical S.O.B. (Yes, Mr. Wallace dear - if you're reading this, I just called you a name).

Onward...

For a dedicated pacifist such as yourself, you seem to be easily worked up.

Hmm...by my email, he can tell that I'm a "dedicated" pacifist? Nowhere in my email did I state that I'm a "dedicated pacifist", just that I'm a pacifist. It could very well be that I'm a half-hearted pacifist, or that I'm lying altogether about being a pacifist...how is he to know? He isn't, of course. One could say that Wallace is simply trying to give me the benefit of the doubt, but I've already proven that he's not interested in doing any such thing. Nevertheless, being called a "dedicated pacifist" is a compliment, and frankly, Wallace's comment has renewed my determination to remain a pacifist, despite the occasional daydreams of violence brought on by right-wing hypocrisy.

But let's look at the important part of this sentence, which is the comment "you seem to be easily worked up", and the implication that getting "worked up" is not something pacifists do. What a complete and utter load of hooey! Does this guy know what a pacifist is? Does he think that being a pacifist is the equivalent of being catatonic?

No, he doesn't. He knows that being a pacifist means refusing to resort to violence. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can feel anger and outrage.

But if he knows this (and of course he does), then why did he make such a silly comment? Ah, there's the rub. Wallace is trying to discredit me (remember, this was not a private email - he did not send it to me, but rather posted it on his right-wing website). By implying that I am not living up to the ideals of pacifism, he's implying that my claim of being a pacifist is phony. Never mind that his logic is completely whacked...it is part and parcel of verbal warfare to throw so many insinuations, accusations and outright lies out that it's nearly impossible to stop and consider each and every one. The average reader would continue on, left with the vague impression that I lack credibility.

There are decent people in this country that disagree on fundamental issues. We happen to disagree on a number of points.

Ah, there's the old benefit of the doubt bit again. Lest you are fooled, this is the guy who states very clearly in his essay that he sees liberals as "the enemy". How many people do you know who believe that their enemies are "decent people"? And further, Wallace states in his essay that liberals are "intolerant" and predicts that we liberals will one day instigate another Holocaust. Sheesh, if this is his definition of "decent people", he has a pretty lousy opinion of mankind!

That you would possibly have insulted me had you seen me at the March is more an indication of basic intolerance than my appearance.

Ah, I see - I'm "intolerant" because I might have insulted him if I'd seen him at the march. Does this mean that any time someone insults another person, the insulter is "intolerant"? If so, then the label certainly applies to Wallace, whose essay was fairly swimming in insults. With this staement, Wallace puts forth the notion that any time a liberal insults him, it is because liberals are intolerant. Why is he doing this? Because we have the clear moral ground here - it's a commonly-accepted fact that right-wingers are intolerant. Lately, right-wingers have attempted to muddy the waters by accusing people who decry discrimination of being "intolerant" of opposing opinions. Let me be perfectly clear about something -- anyone who is 100% tolerant of everything is an absolute loony. You cannot be a moral person without occasionally displaying a little intolerance. For example, it's probably a given that most of us are intolerant of murder, child abuse and rape. Yet if you follow Wallace's logic, wanting to see a man go to prison for raping a woman is displaying "intolerance" for the rapist, and by doing so, you are basically an "intolerant" person -- note that he deliberately uses the term "basic" to describe my so-called intolerance, implying that intolerance is an inherent part of my philosophy.

I do believe First Amendment rights are protected, even on the Capitol steps.

This one is definitely good for a chuckle, as it's a tactic used by idiots on message boards all across the internet. First, the term "I do believe" is just plain silly, as we all know what the First Amendment is and what it means. So why does he say "I do believe" instead of simply stating a fact? Because he's trying to be condescending, so that I'll feel inferior, and maybe a little embarrassed, and won't spend too much time thinking about what he's actually saying -- which is, in a nutshell, that the First Amendment should protect him from being insulted. Told you it was chuckle-worthy.

Nowhere in my email did I state that he did not have the right to be at the march. Nowhere in my email did I state that he did not have the right to say whatever he wanted at the march. And yet he implies that by insulting him, I would be denying him his right under the First Amendment. Bosh! Mr. Wallace is not the only person whose right to free speech is protected...MY right is protected as well.

I had, and have, the right to insult Wallace. I have the right to tell him he shouldn't have been at the march. I have the right to tell him to go to hell, and I certainly have the right to tell him to shut up.

The tactic of deliberately offending someone (and Wallace's presence at the march was indeed offensive), and then screaming about one's First Amendment rights when someone condemns the offensive action or statement, is ludicrous. Basically, it's an attempt to make people believe that the First Amendment means one can say or do anything with impunity. It's a stupid tactic.

Thank you though for admitting my statement was factually correct. Insinuation is in the eyes of the beholder, and you have reacted as expected.

"Admitting"? To admit to something is to concede to it; the general perception is that if one "admits" to something, one is doing so reluctantly. When I said that his statement (I was referring to his comments about the posters of veterans at the march) was factually correct, I was not "admitting" anything - I was politely pointing out that one can be factually correct while intentionally misleading. Wallace implies here that I was forced to admit the truth of his statements, and yet he clearly knows that I was accusing him of deliberately misrepresenting something.

The interesting part is the second sentence. I have reacted as expected, have I? Is this not a clear admission of guilt on his part, given that I accuse him of deliberately trying to provoke a certain reaction? It is. Mr. Wallace slipped up on this one.

Is it not logical that organizers, if they cared about integrity, would have displayed only pictures of veterans who didn't vote for George W. Bush? How logical is it to think that a veteran who voted for Bush would feel that he is an illegitimate president?

It is logical only if one believes that people are capable of being truly patriotic, and putting love of country above love of party. I believe this; Mr. Wallace clearly does not. To him, the stolen election is a partisan issue. I have no doubt that had the circumstances been in reverse, Wallace would be out in the streets hollering about the stolen election. That he is not doing so under the present circumstances speaks volumes about his honor and integrity.

The fact is that widespread voter disenfranchisement, a deliberate campaign to erase legitimate voters from the rolls, mob tactics, lies, propaganda, and a partisan Supreme Court caused the loser of the election to be installed in the White House. I find it perfectly reasonable that someone who voted for Bush would be appalled that the true winner of the election is not President today. I would find it perfectly reasonable even if I had never met a Bush voter who feels that Bush is illegitimate.

What Wallace is doing is attempting, again, to paint us as run-of-the-mill dissenters instead of patriots outraged over the theft of democracy.

I must correct you on one minor point though.

Condescension, and an implication that I have made a factually incorrect statement.

Both Al Gore and George W. Bush received 48% of the popular vote, with Al Gore receiving approximately 550,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush.

It seems that Wallace is the one who needs correcting here - the claim that both Gore and Bush received 48% of the vote is false. In truth, Gore received .502% more than Bush. Now, I've never been very good at math, but I know that when I was in school, if I was asked to round off a number such as - oh, say, 48.052, I would have gotten a nice fat red mark if I'd given 48 as the answer. If you want to round off the percentage of votes Al Gore received, the only correct number to us is 49%. Yet Wallace states that Gore and Bush both received 48%. Does he truly believe this? Is he just misinformed? No, because he goes on to state that Gore received "approximately 550,000 more popular votes" (539,947 is the specific number). Interestingly - and correctly - , Wallace rounds the number of votes UP, just after INCORRECTLY rounding the percentage points DOWN. Why does he do this? Because claiming that Gore and Bush received an equal percentage of the votes makes Gore's popular-vote win less significant. It lets people buy into the claim that this was "the closest election in history", which is of course a lot of bunk.

(Don't forget the 3.9 million other votes. The implication Rose, is Mr. Gore and supporters are wrong to claim the majority of Americans voted for him.)

Who claimed that the majority of voters voted for Al Gore? I certainly said nothing of the sort in my email to him.

No one, veteran or not, believes George W. Bush received more popular votes nationwide.

Hogwash...many people are ill-informed, and I remember a poll from a few months back showing that an insane percentage - I think it was around 30% - of the public DID NOT KNOW that Gore won the popular vote. Wallace is the one spouting factually incorrect statements. That being said, I think more people are aware now that Bush lost the popular vote, because the Democrats have done a fair job of making sure people don't forget (and good for them).

In a Federal Republic, Rose, electoral votes determine the Presidency. The popular vote, within individual states, determines electors.

Wallace is, of course, implying that I do not know anything about the electoral college. He is both insulting me and dodging the issue. The issue is not the electoral college - as he well knows. The issue is that Gore received more votes in Florida, yet the electors went to Bush. The issue is that the popular vote in Florida went to Al Gore. And here's the good part:

Those, as you indicate in your e-mail, are "facts" that even Al Gore understood. Those aren't right-wing talking points. That's the Constitution.

I couldn't agree more. And since the popular vote within individual states determines electors, why is Bush in the White House, Mr. Wallace? Hmmm?

Right-wingers will frequently seize on the electoral college as an explanation of why so many of us are angry, conveniently forgetting that the Bush camp had a plan all set to challenge the election if Gore had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. I don't know anyone in the protest movement who thinks that Bush is illegitimate solely because he lost the popular vote.

And Wallace knows this. But he is clearly uncomfortable with the idea of confronting the real issues, so he dodges and pretends that the electoral college is the issue. He then makes an utter fool of himself by referring to the Constitution, which supports MY argument, not his. I have to say, I love it when my opponent makes my case for me.

I'll tell you what Al Gore won. As I said on CNN live, and on C-SPAN live, and to a number of radio stations: "I'd publicly like to thank Al Gore and the Democratic Party for turning me into a Republican activist." That's what Al Gore won.

That's nice. Pointless, but I guess he wanted to share with me.

Have a glorious day's worth of freedom.

A direct respone to Wallace - I will have a glorious day when the illegitimate Squatter is kicked out of the White House and honor and integrity are restored to our judicial system and our country.

Underneath Wallace's puerile response to my email is the following:

ConservaVets Comment:

What is so typical about Rose and her lib comrades is that they frequently write a dissertation on how correct their views are, sprinkle in some name calling and labeling, then end with the "No, this is not an invitation to begin a discussion with me" standard cop-out.

They seem, as absurd as it may be, to actually believe that by simply calling someone a racist, Nazi, or their new pet term "Repug", all fair debate and discussion is over with. Well, Rose dear, we are here to stay and our numbers are growing.

Of course there are always the exceptions to the dissertation e-mail - but those profanity laced submissions will never be posted on this site.

One has to wonder how well-read these ConservaVets are if they consider my brief little email a "dissertation".

Could this comment - made by someone unwilling to affix his/her name - have been made by the ostensibly polite Mr. Dilegge? One wonders.

Here's the funny thing - a direct quote from Wallace's essay:

"You can't hold a discussion with a liar or with someone whose ethics appear so twisted that they care far less about the truth than the results they want."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

A post-script - I have sent the following email to David Dilegge:

Hi, Dave!

My, I must say that this is all rather fun. I do want to say, though, that I am concerned for Mr. Wallace's well-being. Since he did not post his email address with his essay, one might assume that he is rather sensitive to criticism - an assumption, I assure you, which did not occur to me at the time I sent my original email, else I surely would have spared the poor man any distress.

That being said, I must confess that I rather enjoy the cloak-and-dagger aspect of my communications with Mr. Wallace. Who is he, really? Why does he rely on a go-between to relay messages? Could it be that his email address is a little embarrassing - perhaps Gimmemytaxbreak@greedy.com, or WishIWasAsSmartAsThatBushFeller@duh.com? Or perhaps he is merely a sensitive soul, as I postulated above, and you - Good Samaritan that you are! - serve as his cushion against the harsh realities of the cold, cruel world and those nasty liberals who WILL insist on spreading the truth despite your valiant efforts to oppose them.

One can't help but wonder! One contemplates whether or not Mr. Wallace is a fugitive from justice, who must protect his email address from those who would bring him down! One wonders if perhaps the truth is that Mr. Wallace is merely a wimp!

One also occasionally indulges in silliness, and one hopes that you will not be overly offended, though one must also state in the interest of full disclosure that one won't lose any sleep if you ARE offended.

I have posted a response to Mr. Wallace's response on my website. It is rather long, and since it's abundantly clear that Mr. Wallace does not care to hear from "the opposition" without the protection of a go-between, and since I am a kind and generous sort who does not want to burden you unduly with the task of running back and forth delivering messages, I deemed it simplest to just post my reponse and let Mr. Wallace respond as he wishes.

Thanks for the link to my site, by the way! I've returned the favor, naturally, posting a link to your site several times in my posted response to Mr. Wallace. No, no, I don't expect any thanks. Really.

Most sincerely yours,

Rose

We'll see what happens next. Stay tuned...


~Rose

Click here to read Part Three

Read another person's response to Wallace's dishonest article


Opinions expressed in the daily rant are those of the author and may not reflect the opinion of every member of the fringefolk project. The articles posted here are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without the author's express permission. You do, however, have permission to post a link to this article and include the first few sentences as a lead-in, if you wish.

Back to I'm a Frayed Knot!