My Apologies To Leon Drolet
November 21st, 2007 | by christine |I wandered over to Chet Zarko’s blog today and found his article on the latest round of Zarko v Lessenberry. I check Zarko every day, but I didn’t follow the Lessenberry stuff, so I wasn’t familiar with the history of the issue. So I followed the links in his diary, and eventually, I came to this:
I hate self-hating Ukrainians most of all. Obviously you were a follower of Petlura, who has transferred his/her allegiance to a gay imitation fascist with a pink pig as a last resort. I understand you now.
That’s Jack Lessenberry, on Chet’s defense of Leon Drolet.
Admittedly, that seems to come from private email, not from Lessenberry’s published articles. (The relevant published article is here). People tend to speak differently in private, and I don’t think the responsibility for private speech is as great as it is for public speech. And as much as I’m willing to scold Chet right now for publishing private correspondence, I find it hard to believe that Jack Lessenberry didn’t expect his email to be published. Especially since Chet appears to have been publishing the emails as they came in, and there were several hours between them.
So the fact is, Jack used the word “gay” as a slur. What’s worse than an “imitation fascist?” Apparently, a “gay imitation fascist”.
Nice.
And over on Michigan Liberal, we have the comments in this thread, to which Leon responds:
Enjoy the homophobic attacks, and join the Rev Fred Phelps “church”…sounds like some michiganliberal posters would be a perfect fit.
I don’t want it to appear that those comments are representative of the Mich Lib community as a whole. That was just the comments of a couple of people. But out of the hundreds of MichLib users, only 3 people complained.
I didn’t complain either, and I should have. It’s just that, I’ve complained about so many things at Michigan Liberal that it just doesn’t matter what I have to say over there. I didn’t see the point in getting into another fight. It would just be Christine bitching about something again. Although unlike the fights over Saul Anuzis or sock puppets, this fight would have had some value. Ah. Hindsight.
So, in light of Pastor John’s article, and after seeing Lessenberry’s stuff (which I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t see until today), I feel that I should say something. Better late than never, I guess.
First of all, back to Chet’s article; I agree with Chet that the editor of the Metro Times should condemn the use of the word ‘gay’ as a slur. I’m not thrilled with the idea of an editor getting involved in a writer’s personal correspondence, but an employer certainly has an interest in how an employee’s conduct reflects on the business. (assuming Jack is an employee(?))
Second, adding “gay” to the long list of names that Leon legitimately deserves to be called (for abusing our democracy), is wrong. If you’ve done that in the past, please don’t do that again.
Third, to Leon, I apologize. Not for what anyone else has said, but for what I haven’t said. If I see something like that in the future, I’ll speak up. I would rip you apart if you were doing that to someone else, and it’s wrong for me to be silent when it’s being done to you.
5 Responses to “My Apologies To Leon Drolet”
By Chetly Zarko on Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
Actually, Christine, I pondered not publishing the exchange at all, but I believed Lessenberry wanted me to publish it, based on its tone and style. It was the second time this year Lessenberry engaged in similar stupid banter after I wrote a letter to the editor of the Metro Times. I let the first exchange remain private. Third, the response was not to my private inquiry to Lessenberry, it was to a public official letter to the editor of the Times, which the editor forwarded to Jack. Jack responded shortly after he received it. I responded politely, he responded again, and again.
All of these factors conspired to suggest to me I should publish the e-mail. Almost invariably I will not publish e-mail exchanges between myself and others, unless with permission or in some kind of redaction set-up. This e-mail however was in a letter to the editor reply context - so I felt quite safe ethically in doing so. There are e-mail exchanges I’ve had with a number of individuals on the left I’ve avoided publishing (although I reserve the right to do so) simply because they didn’t rise to this level (or newsworthy-ness) and because there was a reasonable give-and-take in the exchange. I mean - I sent a letter to the editor and I got this tirade. I see no reason to protect Jack in that situation.
I do applaud your recognition of this issue. At the request of the Metro Times editor, I had to write the “gay imitation fascist” thing differently in the letter than on my website. I even spoke to Leon when Mr. Heron raised the very ironic concern that he was trying to protect Leon (still, there was something plausible to Heron’s concern there, so I accommodated). As Leon noted on MichiganLiberal, the veiled references have been going on for some time and it only makes those who make them look bad.
I also think that you don’t need to apologize for your co-horts. Condemning their behavior (and that doesn’t mean you can’t work with them on future issues, in my opinion, although people do tend to take things personally when they shouldn’t) is sufficient. I’d hope ML and BFM would be willing to take recognition of this, and at least put a check on Jack rather than constant worship of his writings. A widespread public condemnation of this (both the gay part and the fascist part) by the key supporters of Jack would be sufficient — I’m not saying he should be fired (or his column withdrawn, which I think is all that it is) for this. It’s newsworthy, but earth-shattering. Of course, the leaders of ML and other BFM’ers are so obsessed with not recognizing anything I do that they’ll forgo their own values here and probably do nothing. That’s fine though too - it only reflects on them.
By the way, Jack makes a veiled reference to Ann Coulter as a justification. I condemn her excesses too. And I kind of like Jack’s writing style (not its content, I rarely agree with him) - there’s no question he can write pithy material. He’s a good writer. There’s a difference between pithy and good humor, and crossing the line into just raw ad homimen-land. “The Man with the Pink Pig” (Yours), or even “worshipper of Petlura” (Jack’s), or “Zark-Vader”, are all fine.
By wizardkitten on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
“so obsessed with not recognizing anything I do”
Wow, Chet. Ego much? No obsession here. Don’t much care about what you are doing. Have better things to do.
“forgo their own values here”
Well, now I have to say something. As one of the “leaders” of BFM who is now being slandered here by you, I just want to say that I pick my battles. This isn’t one I really care to indulge in. I’d much rather go after the politicians who actually pass the laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians rather than bother with media people or other bloggers. That goes for the pols on the left also- just recently I questioned what Dillon would do.
So, when it comes to the things that actually matter, such as legislation, I will say something. Have before, will do so again.
If Jack came on BFM and said these things, I’d call him out on it. If anyone came on BFM and started slandering Drolet for being gay, or published the “Hillary is having a lesbian affair” crap, I’d kick their ass. Trust me on that.
But I certainly am not going to go out of my way to address whatever mess you have gotten yourself into in private e-mails with someone. I also will not go and tell other blogs how to run their business. And I won’t throw out all of Lessenberry’s work based on one comment. If this were a constant pattern with Jack, such as the continuous gay bashing I see coming from the right, it would be different.
Your obsession with the people on the left and constantly telling us how we should behave is really kind of creepy, Chet. Almost stalkerish in its scope. Don’t you have better things to do?
Go play with your camera. It’s a great hobby and it will free your mind from this obsession you have with us.
By christine on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
@Chet, thanks for the comment.
I suspect Jack either knew the exchange would be published, or he at the very least must have known it could be. He just shouldn’t have used that language, even if he had an expectation of privacy.
I wrote this post for 2 reasons: first, I wanted to differentiate myself from the people who think this kind of language is ok. I understand where some of them are coming from … they think that since they would never vote or take any political action against the gay population, that it’s ok for them to say things like that. All they do is reinforce the discrimination, which is not good under the best of circumstances, and is especially bad in light of the fact that hate crimes are up.
Second, I do have some credibility on the left (depending on who you ask!) and I thought I might do some good by speaking out.
However, I see that Nick over on Right Michigan was going on about Stryker funding “gay militant groups”. What’s worse than a militant group? A gay militant group. I see he also was talking about “gays feigning marriage”, as a means to get people stirred up over there. I don’t see anyone on the right complaining about Nick’s use of gay-bashing. Leon has credibility over there. Republican Michigander too, (Assuming RM’s famous “libertarian streak” is real) They could say something, but choose not to.
So I think there’s room for improvement on both sides. But that doesn’t change the fact that I agree with you on the Metro Times issue. Jack shouldn’t have said that.
Coulter is not a justification for anything, though her success is fascinating. The Republican Party & organized conservative groups financially support her for saying the things that she says. She gets speaking engagements for joking about Clinton being assassinated, or Edwards being a ‘faggot’. In comparison, I doubt that Jack Lessenberry is going to be financially rewarded by the Democratic Party or some progressive group, for using the phrase “gay imitation fascist”, which he at least had the sense not to publish. (A restraint that I suspect Coulter would not even consider)
Also, what is this weird obsession that people have with your name?
@WK - I might create a sock puppet at BFM just to watch you tear it up. Just for fun.
By Chetly Zarko on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
Wizard,
I didn’t ask you to throw out all of Lessenberry’s work on this. You’re beating on a strawman you’ve built. Quite to the contrary, I said you should condemn him for this, and move on, possibly working with him (or agreeing with him) in the future. If you read above, I say he should NOT be fired (or column terminated), just condemned. If you read my blog entry on Christine’s entry over at OutsideLansing.com, you’ll find that I say that condemning someone for one thing does not preclude you from agreeing with them on another thing or even working with them (there are situations though, where I would not work with someone even if they agreed with me, but that has to rise to a level much higher than Jack did here). I also don’t expect you to read everything or much of what I write - but some things will naturally come to your attention, as this has. Your action or inaction on them is important.
Second, I have not “slandered” you - merely expressed some opinions your are probably discomforted by. I pick my battles too - that’s why I don’t and can’t comment on or even see everything on BFM or ML. Would never try. But I do scan them as sources and occasionally take note of important stuff. ML has explicitly told its diary writers to not write about me (save my name’s “porn-worthiness,”), and BFM has. I’ve never done anything to you, yet you have decided to label me (or, worse, simply accept the label others have decided to place on me) and censor me. Many complain about polarization in politics - you contribute to it through your actions, and by that I mean not merely in supporting or opposing issues (it’s one thing to support a policy, like stem-cell research which others might label as divisive, and another actively insult, attack, or shut people out).
Regardless, you say you don’t have time to follow my stuff. That’s fine. I understand that. But you do follow Christine’s blog - and commented here - so you are NOW aware of Lessenberry’s work. Will you condemn it? You don’t have to throw away the rest of his body of work to condemn this. Or will you fulfill my prediction that neither BFM (which I understand acts as a majority rule board) or ML will do so, and fulfill my point that BFM’s majority has an intentional policy of trying to shutout my work.
As to laws and priorities, I think you’d go after conservatives who used the same words as Lessenberry even if they weren’t lawmakers. That’s a double-standard. Of course, I can’t prove that, but it’s an opinion. As to “laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians,” can you name one law that discriminates against them other than the Proposal 2-04 which arguably doesn’t take away anything and doesn’t involved a right (marriage isn’t a right, it shouldn’t be recognized by the state in the first place but to the extent the state wants to subsidize nuclear family formation it it has no less of a compelling interest in doing so than it does subsidizing anything else). But I’m interested in which laws actively discriminate against gays — in fact, three Republicans including Joe Knollenberg, just voted for ENDA, a law that actively prevents private discrimination.
Finally, Christine, just a minor point. The reason Jack wouldn’t publish this is his audience that ultimately (indirectly) pays his salary wouldn’t like it. I think Ann Coulter is no different — she’d no sooner call a religious conservative some religious slur than Jack would publish a slur (or his editors would allow) against gays.
As to Jack’s “restraint” in not “publishing” and only saying it in an email, I’d suggest to you that 1) it was in an e-mail response to a public letter to the editor, to one of the readers of his column’s newspaper - hardly private, hardly a professional way to treat readers. 2) is it better that he thinks he can “get away with it in private”? I know you’re not defending him, just wanted to be clear.
As to Nick, I’ve criticized Nick’s some of conclusions before, and some of the attacks over there in comments. If he said that, it was inappropriate (of course, I don’t think of “militant” as necessarily always bad, whereas fascist I believe is always bad — so a plausible argument could be made that Nick was just trying to be descriptive and was careless, I don’t think an argument could be made Lessenberry was trying to be descriptive). I read RM not much more than I read BFM or ML (although I do occasionally comment because I can), so I don’t see everything there either.
As to my name’s interestingness - I must thank my mother. It was truly a superior choice (sorry about the ego there WK). There’s quite a backstory behind how it was chosen, but I digress.