Defamation or Free Speech?
Here's the story so far. Rod Dreher started westfeliciana.blogspot.com, another blog, back in May to discuss local politics in West Feliciana, LA. There was a big controversy about something called the Home Rule Charter (HRC). Some people started discussing aspects of it on a Topix forum post. Topix is a very successful and popular forum for discussing local current news events, debating politics, making announcements, etc.
Rod became upset regarding reports of alleged bullying and he posted his reaction here. In this post he presents two conflicting opinions about the Topix forum post.
There's been some talk, in public meetings and on Facebook, that some people are afraid to speak out about the Home Rule Charter issue because they feel intimidated, and have been "bullied."
I don't want to say that it's never happened, only that it hasn't happened to me. If "bullying" means some anonymous jackass said slanderous things on Topix, then sorry, I don't count that. Those people are cowards, and should be completely discounted.
This is the first opinion, that anonymous Topix forum cowardly jackasses don't count. He doubles down on this opinion later:
But if people are only worried that some idiot on Topix is going to say mean things about them, sorry, but I can't take that seriously. I'm told they trash me all the time on that site. Big deal.
Then he makes this pronouncement:
By the way, you may not know this, but a Texas couple won $14 million last year in a defamation lawsuit against anonymous posters on Topix who libeled them. A Texas judge compelled Topix to release their IPs, which led the plaintiffs directly to those who had libeled them.
I am eager to talk to a lawyer who would be willing to file a libel suit on contingency against these anonymous Topix commentators, the identities of which Topix can be compelled to reveal (or at least their IPs). Sooner or later, the West Feliciana people who have been libeled anonymously on Topix are going to be able to find out the identities of those who have defamed them. And when they do, they are going to own those people, and their nice houses. If you know what I mean.
Do we have a lawyer in town who would be willing to sue Topix to compel them to release the IPs of our local slander trolls? Get in touch with me -- I'd love to be party to that lawsuit. I bet some others would too.
Now we originally laughed at this post, and it's still pretty funny on its own. It seemed like a serious overreaction, probably a Rod-got-up-on-wrong-side-of-bed kind of thing or Rod-ate-too-much-and-drank-to-much-last-night kind of thing. Here's why. The link about the Texas couple explains the nature of the actions of the defendants in the defamation suit.
Mark and Rhonda Lesher of Clarksville, Texas, filed a suit against anonymous commenters who accused them of being sexual deviants, molesters, and drug dealers on Topix, once self-described as "the country's largest local forum site."
"This vindicates us. This is vindication for all the scurrilous, vile, defamatory statements that caused us to be indicted, to be tried, that caused us to move out of town and my wife to lose her business," Mark Lesher said, the Texarkana Gazette reported. "You can't post anonymous lies on the Internet without suffering the consequences."
Furthermore, and this is what really blew me away:
Since reports of the rape allegations began to surface in 2008, more than 25,000 comments, on about 70 threads related to the trial, were posted on Topix message boards for anyone with a search engine to see.
I started this in 2007 and have posted — along with Pikkumatti and Kathleen — a total of 2,180 posts on this blog. Twenty-five thousand is a big number. I can't imagine going into the confessional and saying "Father, I bore false witness against my neighbor 25 thousand times since my last confession." There's no way the derogatory comments about Dreher amounted to anything close to this. There's no big payout here, chumps; keep playing the Louisiana Lottery.
As far as I could see after reading all the comments on the aforementioned Topix site, there is nothing accusing Rod Dreher or Ellen Kennon or Becky Hilliard or any of their friends in this whole political argument of felonious behavior, of raping and molesting people, of dealing drugs, grand theft, racketeering, eating at chain restaurants, shopping at Wal-mart — nothing like that. The strongest accusations I saw pretty much stated that Dreher didn't know what he was talking about and that he was stirring up racial tensions. That's just criticism, not libel or defamation. I seriously couldn't believe that he made the comparison of criticisms against him to people who had lost their business over false accusations of serious criminality. What makes it even harder to buy is that Dreher doesn't disclose the details of the supposed defamation; he doesn't even provide a hint. Was it a comment — possibly deleted — about dealing drugs or child molestation? Or was it something of the Justin Bieber eats poop variety? We don't know; he doesn't say.
"I'm told they trash me all the time on that site. Big deal." That attitude seems to change by the end of the post, and it most certainly changed a week later on July 16 when he put up a post about defamation charges filed by himself and Ellen Kennon titled Defamation.
Ellen Kennon and I met with detectives from the Sheriff's office this afternoon to discuss the possibility of pressing criminal defamation charges against anonymous Topix commenters. Filing charges would be the first step in unmasking them and holding them accountable for the defamatory things they've said in public under the cloak of anonymity.
In my case, there are lots of items trashing me, but given my job, I have the status of a "public person" in terms of libel law. People can say things about me that they couldn't get away saying about someone who was a "private person" in the eyes of the law. Still, I identified two or three specific posts involving me that, in my view, constitute criminal defamation, especially insofar as they make reputation-damaging assertions that are provably false, as well as malicious, and that hurt my professional and personal reputation. See the Louisiana statute below.
It is possible that the investigation will not find that there are sufficient grounds to determining criminal defamation (which is a misdemeanor), and either the DA will choose not to press charges, or the judge will not find sufficient grounds to subpoena Topix's records -- in which case our only recourse will be in civil court. We'll see where this goes. I can report, though, that there is a criminal investigation underway. I know there are lots of people in this parish who have been slandered on Topix, but who felt that they couldn't do anything about it. Well, maybe you can, if the anonymous trolls cross certain legal lines. Like I said, we'll see.
Rod Dreher has lamented his status as a "public person" before. But he has benefited from being a public person, so I don't see why he shouldn't suffer the slings and arrows of his outrageous fortune. My aunt died really young and my dad didn't even get a lousy t-shirt out of the tragedy, let alone a $1 million book advance. I'm not entirely sure his statement "People can say things about me that they couldn't get away saying about someone who was a 'private person'" is true. Over the years I've pointed out what I believe are inaccuracies, inconsistencies and absurdities in Dreher's viewpoints, especially in his anti-Catholic knee-jerks. None of this amounts to libel or any kind of defamation, and I don't see why it would if I accused my next door neighbor of the same thing. My neighbor does not publish a blog or do any writing so it would probably be considered bad form to criticize opinions he expressed to me in private ("I can't believe my neighbor, Jim ______, thinks Chevys are better than Fords; what planet is he from?"), but the idea that I couldn't get away with saying it because he is a "private person" is simply not true.
So when he speaks of the "lots of items trashing me", do any of these rise to the level of libelous or defamatory? I didn't see any on that post. And he admits that it's likely that there will not be "sufficient grounds to determining criminal defamation". So the announcement that there's a criminal investigation underway has one primary purpose as I see it: to put a chilling effect on free speech. Does this work? I think it might in some cases. People start to worry, thinking "Uh-oh, did I tick him off with my remarks? Will he make trouble for me? Will they release my IP address in the court case?" This is probably because they don't know what constitutes libel nor how difficult it is to prove.
But there is an off chance that people might be dragged into court over this matter. Maybe Angela Corey will be disbarred in Florida and become the DA of Baton Rouge, I don't know. That is why I have started the First Amendment Defense Fund (FADF). It's basically a PayPal account. This fund has the specific purpose of defending people who comment on Topix and are named in this frivolous lawsuit filed by Rod Dreher and Ellen Kennon. Hopefully we won't need to pay anything out, so if that's the case after 6 months or so I'll return all the contributions. I started out by contributing $25 to the fund.
I don't think I have anything more to say about this right now, except that I think Rod's anger mainly stems from the fact that he cannot delete comments on Topix like he can on his own blog. Here's one last comment on the HRC thread from commenter Billfr:
The biggest winners, though, will be all those other local SF-WFP residents who will be filing criminal complaints with the sheriff against the people they think wronged them here on Topix and launching criminal investigations through the sheriff's office too. Not only will they be able to smack around people they might have disliked for some time and even sue them for some money, with all the national stories being spun out of this, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other locals also got their 15 minutes of media fame, just like that Zimmerman witness Rachel Jeantel. I think that guy Pauli in Cleveland is already blogging about this, I don't doubt others have already picked it up too at least in BR [Baton Rouge], and Rod himself would be foolish not to tip off his colleagues everywhere he has them. There's no such thing as bad publicity, at least not for Rod.
Lol. Well, again, criticism does not equal defamation, and any smart person knows this.
I suspect this one very insightful quote from TLWORL (pg. 245) explains nearly everything about this matter:
ReplyDelete"Uncle Rod, you're too intense!"
By the way, my little itty bitty book review of TLWORL is up for all the world to read and to scoff at.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your review, Oengus. I recommend it to everyone here.
DeleteYour review made me sad about Dreher. If he has the insight to come to the view that:
his sister, by her life, by the witness of her friends about her loving concern for others, and by her patient and uncomplaining endurance of her illness, practiced and lived out on a day-to-day level the Christian ideal of love.
and that, as a result, she is now indeed a saint, Dreher is fully aware of the very real challenge of doing that very thing himself. As you mention, that is God's call for each of us.
But whether he thinks (falsely) that sainthood is "unobtainable for him" or he has come to some other conclusion, that challenge is a very heavy burden for a believer. I would have hoped to see from his book (and you would certainly have seen it if it was there) that Dreher accepted that challenge and changed his life as a result. But it doesn't seem so.
Nor does it seem so from his blog output, especially the jihad to bring the heavy hand of the Louisiana justice system on people who said mean things online. Seems like the same old Rod Dreher, focused on food, France and phony intellectualism.
Ecclesiastes comes to mind. Vanity and a chase after wind.
(And yes, I see the log in my own eye on this, as I fall victim too often to the same temptation.)
Thanks for the compliment about my book review.
DeleteRod Dreher mentioned today that Stephanie Lemoine, who is mentioned in his TLWORL book, died this morning from cancer.
In connection with this, Rod also mentioned a sort of premonitory dream he had involving himself and his sister. I also recollect other dreams that he mentioned in his book.
Yes, it might be supposed, going by just his blogging, that Rod Dreher still remains the same old "too intense" Rod Dreher that he has always been.
But when I read about this dream, I suspect that he remains very deeply affected by his sister's death, and that behind the scenes, the Spirit of God is very much working on his heart to draw him to himself.
I'm just plain wary of people bringing up what they've been dreaming about. Not that I'm going to throw him in a hole for telling everyone his dreams or sell him to slave-traders, but I just think it's too easy to make stuff up. It's too much like a pick-up line, or something.
DeleteMy wife and I talk about weird dreams we had, but we don't broadcast these on the 'net.
If God ever sends me a message in a dream I'm going to presume that's there's a copyright that goes something like this: "All images and text made available in this dream are copyright of Almighty God. Any reproduction or redistribution is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in civil and criminal penalties. Offenders will be prosecuted to the maximum extent available." Unless there's a talking monkey at the end who says "Don't forget to blog this, OK?" That's my Gideon's fleece.
Pauli & Oengus,
ReplyDeleteDreher has systematically reduced his following to those who never question his sourcing, particularly his visions and dreams. He once explained the number of children he has by revealing he had dreamed of a bird's nest with only 3 eggs in it. Ladies, is that really how that works? Bird's nest birth control? I'm just a guy, so maybe I missed that part in fifth grade.
Anyway, at this point I probably don't have much to add to his lawsuit threats except that I'm still thinking Dreher's primary motive is auditioning as online guard dog and gatekeeper for the local interests he's calculated are in his own best interests too and thrown in with while simultaneously getting to silence anyone hurting his feelings, with the no-lose fallback position being he gets personal attention no matter what. When did Dreher ever complain about too much attention, even negative attention? There's just no down side for him in anything he's up to in this. In the very worst case, he can fold his cards and run away to somewhere else, anywhere else, just like he always has and pick up right where he left off. The only really important element in his life is an internet connection. What he leaves in his wake might be a different story for those people stuck behind, but that's never bothered him before, has it?
Keith
Pauli: "I'm just plain wary of people bringing up what they've been dreaming about."
ReplyDeleteLooking at the content, they don't appear weird to me, but appear like short and very simple situations containing someone near to the dreamer, and which involve a release of emotions. And there are no "talking monkeys" or other Hollywood effects. I recollect in the book RD mentioned a dream involving his sister holding a tray of muffins, all very short and simple.
But yes, since we are talking about RD, your skepticism is very understandable. It is entirely possible that he's "making this stuff up." There is no absolute way to know for sure.
I guess I have the unfortunate tendency to look for the best in everything.
By the way, I am very interested in dream interpretation, and I believe that God sometimes uses them to speak to some people. And from what RD describes, my guess is that they are probably authentic. If dreams can be said to have an "interpretation", it is usually not found by looking for some kind of "profound" meaning, but the simplest ones possible.
Well, as someone who was very much into the interpretation of dreams might say, "Sometimes a nest with three eggs is just a nest with three eggs."
DeleteNobody remembers the premonitory dreams that don't happen.
ReplyDeleteYes! There is a lot of self-selection and revisionism which goes on with dreams. Everyone has at least 365 of these things every year, and most are loosely based on things already in the mind. I have no doubt that Dreher had a dream about a gay Greek poet and a beer bottle, but I don't think there's nearly as much depth in it as he does. Every bit of revelation a dream like this allegedly contains is most likely projected onto it by the dreamer.
DeleteDoes this mean you can't learn anything from a dream? No, I think people can learn a lot from dreams, but they should realize that for the most part it is the subconscious mind's way of putting things together so they make sense. Not some type of message from the great beyond.
I kind of regret mentioning the dream aspect because it has somewhat derailed the proper subject of this thread.
ReplyDeletePauli's article was about the brouhaha in RD's Louisiana parish regarding the Home Rule Charter issue, and what Pauli considers to be RD's irrational over-reaction to people making snarky remarks in the Topix forum.
I've seen a few other Topix forums on unrelated matters and they remind me of the old time "flame wars" that would break out in the ancient dial-up modem BBS forums (remember those?). Compared to those, what's going on in this particular case about HRC almost looks tranquil in comparison.
it has somewhat derailed the proper subject of this thread.
DeleteI don't believe that threads can be derailed that easily, Oengus. I'm pretty liberal about what I allow to be written in comboxes, as you may have noticed.
Compared to those, what's going on in this particular case about HRC almost looks tranquil in comparison.
Compared to those it's tranquil, I agree. Boring is another word which comes to mind. The more I think about this the more I feel that Dreher's overreaction is based on his frustration at not being able to delete offending comments.
The more I think about this the more I feel that Dreher's overreaction is based on his frustration at not being able to delete offending comments.
DeleteI agree.
Pauli: "Compared to those it's tranquil, I agree. Boring is another word which comes to mind. The more I think about this the more I feel that Dreher's overreaction is based on his frustration at not being able to delete offending comments."
DeleteI think you are entirely correct, Pauli. A few snarky comments in a public forum like Topix is no basis for a defamation lawsuit. My wager is that ultimately, despite all of the "sound and fury signifying nothing", it will go nowhere. It will never survive the "laugh test."
Oengus, what ties both subjects together is Rod Dreher's signature use of suggestion and his career habit of marketing himself to the highly suggestible on his blogs, whether in matters of faith or in attempts to intimidate the easily cowed on Topix. In the Stephanie Lemoine post he even posts photographic journalistic documentation of the weeping statue from his iPhone, and you then know irrefutably that the statue weeped in the manner he claimed it did because...? Because the science of photography tells us irrefutably that white pixels on a lower eyelid must be tears? Because not to believe would be mean and uncharitable, and, really, what sort of Christian would we be then?
ReplyDeleteHere's another face someone photographed, and you can clearly see it's the image of our Lord, complete with the puncture wounds left in His forehead from the crown of thorns.
I could accept Dreher's suggestions and dreams and visions as the faith of a believer if he didn't at the same time try to claim (via suggestion only) the irrefutable scientific objectivity of the professional journalist, but he wants to have it both ways, and it's that opportunistic blending of the two to the narcissistic ends of his own self-promotion only that lights him up as the rank hustler in my eyes, whether he does so out of cynical, evil intent or only naively. Maybe we can pray that Dreher is one day released from whatever demons psychologically drive him to consistently use his talents with words and suggestion to feed as a predatory hustler on the easily suggestible on his blogs, but until then he still remains a master manipulator and a predatory hustler, at least in my eyes.
Keith
Keith: … the rank hustler in my eyes, whether he does so out of cynical, evil intent or only naively.
ReplyDeleteKeith, I think you have stated in so many words the biggest problem that many people have with RD. You think he is a basically a self-promoting hustler.
I have to admit that the biggest problem I have with RD's blogging is that I am never completely sure of his sincerity. While RD bloviates on many subjects, and I think he can be interesting sometimes — albeit when it comes to food, it's now gone past "campy" to having gotten rather tedious (I am just not that into food) — I don't consider what he writes on his blog to be that especially self-revealing. The general tenor of things is that of someone wanting to be respected the "objective journalist" but also as a cosmopolitan "man of the world" with a "broad-minded" outlook.
Just a few times, and I mean only very rarely, he's left a very terse note, on some comment I've made, which came close in my eyes to saying something honest about himself personally. But this is very rare. Most of the time a he maintains a certain standoffish distance as a "professional writer" addressing his "audience".
Does he take the Faith seriously? I can never tell for sure. I wonder sometimes that he fears that if he clearly did he would suffer professionally, and that he would lose the approval of a lot of people whose approval he badly wants. But I really don't know for sure one way or another. After reading TLWORL, I can say that his book succeeded at least in making me feel like I came to know his sister, in some measure, but it did not succeed in making me feel like I really got to know him as a person. There was still much of this keeping a "professional distance" between himself as the writer and me as the reader. This is one of the things I found complicated about the book, maybe even a little perplexing. I still think he was very deeply affected by his sister's death, but there is something there about it that he won't entirely reveal.
Keith: "a predatory hustler on the easily suggestible on his blogs"
As for the "easily suggestible", I am left wondering what exactly you mean. I guess you mean "supporters". However, when I read the comment boxes on RD's blog, it seems that he gets a good deal of very vocal opposition to nearly every opinion he states (e.g., some of the threads about SSM). Sometimes I think that RD doesn't do all that well at standing his ground any principle he holds. For me, he is just never convincing. (His book on "crunchy conservatism" was not convincing to me.) In fact, I still can't tell, going by his blogging, if he has any principles that he would really stick with if the heat ever got turned up. And sometimes I wonder what his point is, other than just trying to drum up web hits for TAC. He'll toss out some "problem" on his blog, and like Linda Richman tell his audience to "discuss amongst yourselves", and round and round it goes. But in all of it RD never tells us what he really thinks is the solution to the matter.
Oengus, although here I'm referring to Dreher's periodic use of his unverifiable dreams, visions, even his iPhone "documented" "reporting" on a weeping statue, in the broadest sense I'm referring to Dreher's constantly pinging the world for it's needy and laying bait for them. The spiritually needy, the psychologically needy, the peudointellectually needy, etc. For all of them, the Rodster has a patented and well-tested bacon treat to offer, the common ingredient being "look, I'm just like you, which means you're just like me, the Great Man, the Nationally Known Blogger". Here's a foodie bacon treat, and here's a weeping statue bacon treat, and here's being-against-gays-but-not-really-but-sort-of bacon treat (which the gays love), and here's a Catholic (they have a Lavender Mafia, you know, wink, wink) bacon treat, here's a can-you-save-Rod-from-himself-with-your-prayers?-don't give-up-now-you-may-just-be-getting-through-to-him bacon treat, and on, and on, and on, yadda, yadda. Rod is essentially nothing more than Oprah wearing a Heat Miser head: he "connects" to people only because he feeds back what they want to hear, or think they want to hear. Since they've obviously not heard it from themselves or someone with better credentials in their book, Rod's bacon treats become the closest approximation yet to the fulfillment of their needs.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine if you abandoned Rodworld the moment before he was going to name a new Rod Comment Award after you - you! - just as he did those other two trained lapdog stooges he has, whoever they are. Why, that would be as bad as finally not buying a lottery ticket the day your numbers hit. Just think how miserable you'd be if you betrayed yourself like that.
The only real sin in Rodworld is not taking Rod seriously, is dismissing him out of hand as a lightweight, pseudointellectual wannabe and simply mocking him. That will get you banned as uncivil, meaning not sufficiently needing Rodworld to justify the risk of contagion you, like every other commenter, presents within his population. What, God forbid, if you were to spread the contagion of immunity to Rodness?
Let's take a closer look at the Stephanie Lemoine post:
Yes, I did see that. There were two small beads of liquid appearing on the lower lid of the statue’s right eye. They had been there since we started to pray. I took the photo above with my iPhone camera.
Make of that what you will. I know better than to try to say what that was, or what it meant. I believe this kind of thing can and does happen, miraculously. All I’m willing to say about this particular incident is that these “tears” weren’t there when I first examined the statue — and I examined it from a number of angles, both before and after this incident. Nobody touched the statue while I was there. The liquid appeared to have emerged as we knelt to pray.
In any case, I don’t really care whether this was a small miracle, an optical illusion, or what have you. I used to be really into this sort of thing, but not so much anymore. I mean, I believe it can be authentic, but I don’t think much about this stuff anymore. It’s not the important thing.
"It's not the important thing", which is why Rod didn't devote three paragraphs and an anchor photo to it. The important thing is being on both sides of the issue, any issue, to bait in those who need this or any other affirmation while simultaneously baiting in those who equally need to debunk it.
Topix isn't the important thing, Rod's above such cowards, except when those Topix cowards have the temerity to place themselves above Rod. That becomes blasphemy, because thou shalt have no other gods before him.
Keith
One more interesting thing which is really off topic. You notice there's no cross marketing between Dreher's TAC blog and his book and his new local blog, I mean, the TAC blog and book are in one universe and the local blog in another. Now the locals know all about the Ruthie book, so no need to taint the local blog with it. But why not raise his local profile by referencing TAC, and why not inject more localism into TAC by referencing the local blog?
ReplyDeleteI think the answer is that, now that Ruthie's gone and it's no longer possible for her to eclipse or outshine him, Rod wants to replace her - but as the local's local Dreher, not as The National Rodster. That's why he couldn't stop himself from splitting his focus and starting the local blog. However, any prolonged reading of TAC and any intelligent local who's not the same sort of wannabe (like that Ellen Kennon hippie) is going to conclude, "that boy's not from around here. Neptune, maybe?". And by the same token, the last thing Dreher needs seeping into the national blogosphere are those screaming, skirt-clutching posts on his local blog about suing the bullies that mocked him. Imagine Jonah Goldberg or Robert Stacy McCain getting ahold of those.
So I'll be real interested in seeing what how long this lil ghostbuster can go without crossing the streams, and what happens to Rodworld when he does.
Keith
Keith: can-you-save-Rod-from-himself-with-your-prayers?-don't give-up-now-you-may-just-be-getting-through-to-him bacon treat
ReplyDeleteI carefully read what you had to say, and maybe you are right, and therefore I have to confess that my level of cynicism does not quite equal yours. I guess my misfortune is that I still think that RD has something, buried somewhere, called a little spark of humanity (and that alone makes it worth praying over). But if RD is a devil from Hell, he certainly has never requested anything from me (so I guess I am safe as I have never signed a "pact" with him), and I certainly will not win any "Rod Comment Awards" from him either. If anything, I have probably ticked him off a few times. And I am already on record with Pauli as very warmly criticizing him on plenty of counts.
Keith: "You notice there's no cross marketing between Dreher's TAC blog and his book and his new local blog, I mean, the TAC blog and book are in one universe and the local blog in another. ...the last thing Dreher needs seeping into the national blogosphere are those screaming, skirt-clutching posts on his local blog about suing the bullies that mocked him.
Yes, that is very interesting. I notice that his Bonnie Blue Review has no links back to TAC, and his profile doesn't mention his connection to TAC. However, his email address is there for anyone to use. But if there is an attempt on his part to keep the "beams from crossing", it can't possibly last very long in this Age of Google, assuming that Jonah Goldberg and Robert Stacy McCain even care that much anymore.
Oengus, I wasn't pointing any fingers at you, only at Dreher's passive-aggressive appeal to the pity of others. That's what he feeds on, the natural kindness and generosity of others.
ReplyDeleteKeith
Rod is a hustler but he is hustling himself and those around him worse than he is hustling anyone else. And using religion to do it. He also uses tragic situations to do it -- like the Scandal and his sister's death -- and in the process makes them all about himself. The dude is hiding from himself and desperate to do so.
ReplyDeletehe is hustling himself and those around him worse than he is hustling anyone else
DeleteI think that is Keith's point, Kathleen. He's including the people reading his stuff and commenting on his blogs in the set you label "those around him". There are a number of Catholics who think his use of tragic situation of the Catholic scandal has been positive effect toward its resolution, people like John Zmirak, Erin Manning and Michael Liccione.
They are reading him uncritically and forgetfully, in my opinion; when they read his stuff, they take each piece on its own without factoring in all the many other things he has written which would expose his lack of credibility on any subject touching Catholicism. They ignore his propensity to continuously criticize Catholics for nearly everything from church architecture down to serving coffee in Styrofoam cups whenever he says he's angry at something silly a Catholic nun said.
Whenever I read him mention Catholic stuff, I keep in mind his well-known habit -- going back to when he was a Catholic -- of criticizing the church for everything and anything he doesn't like. I also keep in mind all of his inconsistencies (lest Diane have to remind me) like putting up with orthodox gay clergy and abusers while loving to talk about the "Lavender Mafia" in the Catholic church. [cue that Dragnet theme again.] All this while playing nicey-nice with Andrew Sullivan.
BTW, would Andrew Sullivan ever commit libel against anyone? Like the Palins, for instance? Or maybe even Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI? Oh, wait, Ebendict and Sarah Palin are public people. Never mind.
I will never understand what motivates Dreher's Catholic fellow travelers. As you say, Pauli, they don't see the gestalt. They don't recognize the pattern, the double standard, the sheer obsessiveness -- Rod's relentless, unremitting, monomaniacal Catholic bashing versus his refusal to say boo about similar problems in his own communion.
DeleteI think Mark Shea finally gets it. I really do. The others...I dunno. It's weird.
Don't look now Pauli but "countrylad", who's already pumped out 362 posts since Jan 11, has just chimed in on the "haters". Now who do we know who always uses the hysterical term "hate" and "hater" to refer to ordinary disagreement where he's concerned?
ReplyDeleteKeith
Yep. I got the "new post" notification email and have already responded. I'm just getting started on this, and I intend to put all my chips on the "Come at me, bro" square.
DeletePauli, apparently there's something to this lawsuit threat stuff. According to "countrylad", most of the "community" is now behind Rod Dreher. Morale has improved, so perhaps further beatings will prove unnecessary.
DeleteKeith
More and more, I think, Rod shows classic signs of textbook-case control freakery. As others have pointed out, he can't control Topix the way he can his own heavily censored blogs, and that drives him nuts. Hence the lawsuit threat. Yikes. That is control freakery on steroids.
ReplyDelete"What do you think about starting a West Feliciana Reform Party?"
DeleteI wonder what the WFRP platform will include? Will Party conventions open with ceremonial readings from TLWORL? With a slug of good-quality bourbon?
(Meanwhile, from the comments box, the sound of crickets chirping....)
Hasn't he admitted on his own blog to being a mild aspie?
DeleteAre aspies control freaks? I can't keep up with the Young-People-Disorder-du-Jour. In the '90s it was ADHD. Now it's Asperger's. Can't keep 'em all straight without a scorecard. LOL.
DeleteYes, aspies are definitely control freaks. And they talk A LOT, usually about only one or two subject. And they lack empathy and are bad at anticipating others' reactions to their actions.
DeleteIs desecration a form of defamation? If so, Dreher lopes on undeterred to continue to unilaterally define his sister, now safely dead and unable to either kick or sue his ass for doing so.
ReplyDeleteSeizing on an opportunity presented by someone named Russell Arben Fox, Dreher leaps for the opportunity to compare TLWORL with a larger, greater novel. Why not? He's Louisiana's self-appointed next Walker Percy.
Here in his obsession with those he couldn't control, his sister and his father (we understand that Rod's are ultimately classic daddy issues, right, but daddy, though old and infirm, is not yet safely dead) he reveals the next front he will open in his endless war of revenge: a novel. Hold your water if you can, Oprah and Diane Rehm.
I like to think of these next three paragraphs below delivered hand-in-waistcoat, beneath a brow wreathed in a crown of wild olive leaves:
(continues)
I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately, trying to inhabit her mind, and my father’s mind, trying to understand from inside what the world looked like to them, and why they felt so strongly that I had betrayed fundamental loyalties. I think the only way I can fully explore this is within a novel. In Little Way, I deliberately repeated variations of the phrase, “That was the way things were supposed to be” — this, to convey the conceptual and emotional framework through which my sister interpreted the world. She believed in a strong way that the world was constructed in fixed categories that would be discernible to anyone with right reason and right intentions. She could not accept anything that disrupted her vision of The Way Things Are Supposed To Be; that is how things more or less are in my family. I don’t say that as a criticism, but only to be descriptive. I tell the story in Little Way about arguing with my father as a teenager about some political question. He became so angry with me because I disagreed with him. He thought I was calling him a liar. I tried to explain that we had different opinions about the issue, but he plainly couldn’t conceive that I could, in good conscience, reject his opinion. To him, he was not offering an opinion, but the obvious truth.
ReplyDeleteThis inability, or unwillingness, to accept the relativity of their judgments was a central fact of my father’s character, and my sister’s. It’s what has made them both bedrocks of constancy and moral strength. But it is also their blind spot. Contrariwise, I have a much stronger sense of the relativity of many things, but I have spent my life craving the kind of certainty that Ruthie and Paw had — that sense of fundamental harmony between themselves, their beliefs, their place, their purpose. Unable to accept the yoke of family tradition and expectation, I’ve been on a pilgrimage for a substitute to release me from the tension and anxiety of being unmoored. As Russell discerns, I want what Ruthie had, but am unable to have it. This gets back, though, to fidelity to one’s own nature. I couldn’t have stopped questioning and seeking and being curious no matter what; I was made to be that way. Ruthie was constituted to be an abider, a sticker — and part of what helped her to achieve her telos was that she believed what was particular for her was actually universal.
In short, I think that Ruthie’s standpoint was more or less pre-modern, and mine is more or less post-modern. We saw each other across a philosophical chasm. Most people I know couldn’t conceive of the world as Ruthie saw it. But I think Ruthie would have been perfectly understood by most people in history, in most places. Same family, different worlds. The question that occupies my mind is how to resolve this tension. I can see the destruction Ruthie’s unyielding, unempathetic point of view worked in our own relationship, but I also see the good things it accomplished. I can see both the good and the bad in my own approach — the freedom it entailed, but also the relative rootlessness.
This inability, or unwillingness, to accept [Rod's control of] their judgments...pre-modern, post-modern...pseudointellkectually overinflated to 100 psi like Hunter Thompson's Cadillac tires and ultimately all about Rod.
(continues)
And finally, here's the classic, carefully-gardened-by-Rod gurgling Rod-enabler response from someone named Charles Cosimano:
ReplyDeleteCharles Cosimano says:
July 22, 2013 at 12:03 pm
I can think of any number of novelists who, writing your story, would have you as the noble seeker and Ruthie and your father as the Axis of Darkness trying to hold you back. Leaving the old behind and letting it rot is part of our literary and cultural heritage. Tradition is a bad thing. After all, that is exactly how our families felt when they left the shores of Europe. It is the view enshrined in the entire poem that the lines on the Statue of Liberty are taken from.
So, for an American, leaving home behind and ignoring the family should be no problem. In fact there is the feeling that there is something not quite right about those who do have the problem and that is largely the result of our literature, particularly our fiction, was written by those who saw anything old as bad by definition.
You are a break from that. You actually are bothered by such things. You need to write that novel.
You are a break from that, Great Man.
Sorry for the length, but in this overstuffed calzone of hot bubbling pathologies lie lessons for us all, I think, foremost being the doom of silencing criticism and surrounding ourselves only with agreeable enablers.
Keith
Yikes.
DeleteThe kids, the hubby, and I have been watching our old videotapes of I Claudius on the weekends. (Yeah, I know, too raunchy for kids. They're 21 and almost 19, but still.... Not too bad, so far, though. The icky Caligula stuff comes later.)
Anyway...all that stuff about silencing criticism and cultivating yes-men sounds eerily familiar. Augustus and Tiberius, call your office. Livia and Sejanus will answer....
And, for your final megalomania contact high, Rod Dreher, Power Broker
ReplyDeleteYou know who's going to get my vote for Parish President this fall? The candidate who credibly promises the cleanest break with the current way of doing business.
You are a break from the current way of doing business, Great Man.
Keith
Will the West Feliciana Reform Party be fielding a Presidential candidate in 2016?
DeleteWill the West Feliciana Reform Party be fielding a Presidential candidate in 2016?
DeleteAbout the time Rod announced he had left Rome for Rivendell, I'd mooted the possibility that he'd wind up as the Secretary of the Southern Agrarian Party (or something like that).
By the standards of premonitory blog comments, I call that a bullseye.
Southern Agrarian Party has a great acronym to match.
DeleteWhat really amazes me here is that about 15 minutes after he arrives back to his hometown, Rod is launching a political crusade. If it were me, I'd wait at least 5 years before getting involved and I'd tip-toe in at that. He has this massive ego and thinks he has a right to tell everyone what to do.
ReplyDeleteHe was the Catholic convert who spent most of his time by his account: "gritting his teeth" in Church each Sunday and the rest of the time crusading against the church for every fault he perceived either real or imagined. He went from youthful lefty (was against Reagan when he was president) to conservative who tried to make his mark by calling conservatives phony for living in suburbs and from the accounts I've read he plunged into the politics of the Orthodox church.
He seems to utterly lack in humility.
Yeah, that struck me, too. And he was that way when he joined the Orthodox Church in America, too. Right after joining, he was on the roster for the OCA speakers' bureau. And about five minutes later, he was trying to run the OCA.
DeleteYikes. It's, like, megalomania, dude.
Oh yes, he thinks he should be *the* judge and arbiter of Orthodoxy in America. This is why he demands that private things should be made public — so that he can peer down from his high seat and declare his judgments to us peons.
DeleteOf course, old school ethnic Orthodox would have none of it and ran him out of the OCA, along with his boy Met. Jonah. Only ROCOR is willing to deal with him now, on the naive assumption that he is a political ally.
RD: " I think the only way I can fully explore this is within a novel.
ReplyDeleteYes, Pauli, I saw that madcap blog posting from RD. And like wow, it was pretty crazy.
He cannot write such a novel because at a certain level he simply doesn't understand people that well, let alone his sister, as is amply demonstrated by the long … hey, I am at a loss to know what to even call this stuff … Deluded sophistry? Zany lunacy? Goofy meshugaas? Downright moonbat-crazy? Is the man even serious? Is it really a colossal joke on everybody? Or has he gone totally daft? I wonder sometimes.
Somebody in the family really, really needs to do an intervention, because this is starting to look seriously flaky. Would a serious punch in the nose from Mike Leming be called for? I don't know.
While I thought TLWORL was passable as a book, I very much dread to think of what kind of novel RD would manage to write with that kind of idea in mind. And what publisher would be stupid enough to even touch such a bomb?
Man. I hope my thing falls off before I get old.
ReplyDeleteYou know, for once I really don't know what to say in response to this latest Rod Dreher ejaculation other than that I now feel closer to Paw and Ruthie than I ever have. Pre-modern-wise, I mean.
Keith
There might be some substance abuse issues here. I smell it.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and I think the substance in question is the internet. Consider how Rod has spent the last 24 hours of his life: Gene Kelly! The Gulf will fart your doom! Ruthie review! Paris! Sister Dulce! Old people fornicating in nursing homes! Andrew Sullivan! Gay marriage! Figs! Figs! Figs! Great American Ruthie Novel!
ReplyDeleteMy prescription is unchanged: 30 days minimum, in a good Orthodox monastery, completely away from the internet.
Andreas, unless your "real name" is David Ryan, you are not the first to suggest this. Publicly, that is.
DeleteBut if you're in denial about your addiction, the internet is a mighty fine place to hide
DeletePauli, thanks for the link. Eloquently said by David Ryan. Maybe he should reappear and inject his voice of reason into the current ZOMGDefamation!!1! Wars.
DeleteKeith quotes Rod's evaluation of his sister, "that she believed what was particular for her was actually universal."
ReplyDeleteYou don't say! Would that she were more open-minded like her brother, and his live-and-let-live attitude to the suburbs and their "McMansions" and mega-churches and strip-malls.
Would that she were more open-minded like her brother, and his live-and-let-live attitude to the suburbs and their "McMansions" and mega-churches and strip-malls.
ReplyDeleteWell, boom.
Two words:
ReplyDeleteAm
bien!
mix that up with Dreher's well-documented love of (unknown quantities of) distilled spirits, then mix that up with whatever he needs to get rolling the next day, and we already have a good idea that Rod's next project writing a novel is certain to run the entire gamut of emotions, from A to B.
Keith
yeah so much for it being "mono"
Delete