Dean Esmay, hypocrite

Okay, I know, it’s just adding fuel to the fire, but y’know, they don’t call me the Master of Juvenile Scorn™ for nothing.

So that big post Dean put up about my refusing to agree with him over Rabbi Kahane’s Open Letter to the World? The one where he calls me a “Kahane apologist” and goes apeshit in the comments?

All I said was that Kahane’s letter is true. Which is, frankly, mostly what Dean said in his earlier post:

Otherwise, I must say I agree with damn near everything in that video.

So, even though he acknowledges the truth of the video, he can’t seem to get off the topic that Kahane wrote the text, and he seems to think he can browbeat me into agreeing with him that Kahane was a terrorist. Three words, Dean: Not. Gonna. Happen.

You know, the Google search engine is a wonderful thing. Why, look what I found with only a cursory search: It seems that as recently as July of this year, Dean didn’t give a damn about people expressing far more favorable opinions of Kahane than I. In fact, he let many instances of commenters and co-bloggers discussing Kahane’s good points go by without saying a thing. No rants about his being a terrorist, no calling them apologists.

This one’s from July, in the comments to a post by Ron Coleman. In fact, co-blogger Ron Coleman said much of what I said about Kahane, and yet, Dean did not go batshit on Ron.

I do know that Meir Kahane’s interest in the State of Israel was based on his love of the Torah, of God and of the Jewish people. I heard him speak in Chicago and a close relative of mine knew him and wrote a biography of him. His views were largely characatured. I was not a follower of his, however; not a topic for this thread. But Arnold, you’re just wrong: Kahane’s views were closer to mine than to yours.

Huh. Go figure. Here his co-blogger is, in Dean’s word, a Kahane apologist. And yet, no vitriol. I don’t get it.

In the very next comment, a regular commenter at Dean’s blog says that Kahane was no racist. And yet, Dean does not call him a “Kahane apologist” either.

And I can tell you for a fact that Kahane was no racist. He was in fact a jewish nationalist, whose views and practices were probably closer to the middle eastern Jews from the islamic lands than the Ashkenazim who constitute most of american Jewry. I know for certain that was one of the reasons the israeli cultural and governmental establishment hated and feared him. Because many of them have racist attitudes about their sefardi and oriental Jews.

I am SO at a loss to explain these discrepancies.

Here’s one from a few years ago where the same commenter says he would support Kahane if he lived in Israel (well, and if he hadn’t been murdered by an Islamic terrorist), and yet, no chastisement from Dean. Okay, it’s from 2003. I can accept the argument that Dean has changed his mind in the past few years. But since July 14, 2006? I’m thinking there’s something else at work here.

And look at this! Another one from Arnold Harris complimenting Kahane, and this one’s—wait for it—from August 16, 2006! Holy cow, that’s only three months ago! Why, it’s as if Dean only got his mad on for Kahane in my case, and ignored it in the others. But no, Dean wouldn’t be that disingenuous, would he?

Of course he would. That is Dean in a nutshell. He likes to throw mud in every direction, see what sticks, and then whine that he didn’t mean to get anyone mad, all the while crying that people are being mean to him. I know it, he knows it, hell, even his own regular readers know it, and say as much in his comments. You’d think he’d be at least a little embarrassed by now. You would be wrong.

For instance, that “personal favor” he talks about in the beginning of his post? The post that started the argument that led to my split from Dean’s little part of the blogosphere was a post with the phrase “To Judith Weiss, Meryl Yourish, and all the other resentful feminists I know.” I asked him to please remove it from Google’s cache, as I’ve been on job hunts and it comes up on the first search page when you Google my name. He did, and I was grateful. But I wouldn’t call that a favor. I would call that a long-overdue removal of an insult. Then again, that’s just me. (If you find that you simply must see the origin of the tiff, here’s a post that sums it all up. The rest you’ll have to find for yourselves.)

I figure by now Dean has caught on to my answers to the question he asks in his post. But just in case, one more time: No.

This entry was posted in Bloggers, Juvenile Scorn. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Dean Esmay, hypocrite

  1. Aussie Dave says:

    Meryl,

    Of course you are right in what you say, but why waste the energy on this guy? I hadn’t even heard of him until he went ape on Robert Spencer, and I’m sure he loves this free publicity.

  2. Mostly, Dave, because there’s only so far I can let Dean talk trash about me before I respond.

    Besides, he lies about me. It annoys me to see lies published about me going unanswered.

  3. Aussie Dave says:

    Fair enough. You should just withhold linking to him, so he doesn’t benefit from the traffic. Because I suspect he picks on higher-traffic blogs (like Jihad Watch and yours) in order to drive people to his.

  4. Actually, his is the higher-traffic blog. Which is what makes the lack of clickthroughs so amusing.

    I’ve gotten about 400 referrers from him since he started this brouhaha. In roughly a week.

    That’s not counting the ones he made while writing his magnum opus about me.

    Update: Add 50 to that total as the sum of referrers from the—what is it now, three?—posts he wrote about me since yesterday. Yep. That’s what his readers want, more personal attacks from Dean.

  5. Veeshir says:

    He’s become unhinged and the only responses you’ll get are unhinged, vitriolic, hate-filled, name-calling rants.
    It bothers me that I feel I can’t even address his arguments as he just goes absolutely crazy and starts just calling me names. Notice that he accused me over and over of saying stuff that I didn’t say even after I pointed out that I hadn’t said it. The funny part? Before one set of attacks, he sent me an email saying, “I’ve responded, perhaps we misunderstood each other”. I figured he would have a reasoned response but it was the one with, So stop lying, you fucking cowards

    It’s really too bad, I used to really respect him and now, I just cringe when I see his name. He’s actually bullied me into not being able to discuss him because then I feel responsible for his absolutely deplorable behavior when he attacks responds.

    I’m only writing this here because I figure the post’ll be enough and my little contribution wouldn’t have much of an effect.

  6. Wild Thing says:

    Your post about all of this is excellent. I just want to thank you. Just call me one that appreciates people like you and Robert Spencer and others that do want to get the truth and share about it.

  7. Beth says:

    Veeshir, you forgot “You traitors. [SPIT]” ;-)

    So Meryl, does this mean you’re now a traitor too? AND a terror sympathizer?
    WTF!!

    I guess that means because Dean criticizes Christianity, he’s a traitor too, considering >80% of Americans are Christians. I think I’d rather be a “traitor” for “slandering” (LOL) less than 1% of Americans. Or at least “slandering” the religion chosen by less than 1% of Americans, anyway. (But it’s different for him, right?)

    And WTF is with this hangup on Kahane he’s got? It’s not like there are a billion Kahanists on the planet wanting the rest of the world to convert to Orthodox Judaism. I know (and OMG, like!) a self-identified Kahanist, if you will, and she couldn’t care less what religion I or anyone else belongs to. (And even if there were, it’s not like it’d be converting to what I see as an oppressive religion.)

    What the hell is he trying to prove, anyway? Does he think he’s going to convince teh internets that Islam is a Religion of Peace, based on the “moderate” Muslims that he knows of? (Good luck with that!) I guess we’re all supposed to ignore the fact that even the “peaceful moderates” hate America and want to see Israel pushed into the sea? Sorry, I’m an American, and for me, America comes first. I couldn’t care less about the “moderates” in Iran, either, and find it amusing that some people still hope for the “moderate” Iranians to overthrow the vile mullahs. It’ll just be “moderates” hating the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

    Apparently because most Muslims aren’t murderous lunatics, we’re supposed to respect them and trust them, even though they don’t respect or trust us. Funny, that.
    F.E.T.E.

  8. Beth, you simply don’t understand the thing between Dean and me.

    He doesn’t really give a damn about Kahane. He found something to bash me with, and so, he bashed.

    Trust me. He does this every so often. Most of the time, I ignore him. This time, I didn’t.

  9. DW Lurker says:

    Heh. Dean didn’t notice those comments or was too busy to respond. See if you can find one comment critical of Islam to which he hasn’t responded. Or one post by Ali, Aziz without an ‘attaboy!’ from Mr. Esmay.

    Posts about African-Americans are guaranteed to get a response from him, usually beginning with a tortured, white-guilt disclaimer about how he’s not black, but “some of his best friends are” and they’ve told him how “tuned in” he is to black culture.

    These he finds time for. And to spit on people (including veterans) who don’t agree with his view of “moderate” Muslims.

  10. DW Lurker says:

    He’s been quiet when Robert Spencer had demolished his and ‘Makato-Chan’s’ bizarre and mistaken interpretations of the Q’uran.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Since I do not want to be associated with any terrorists, I will post anonymously and admit that if Dean or whoever says so, I must be a terrible person, for saying the following:

    I went to the Kahane website, or a mirror IIRC, and whatever I read did not smack of terrorism. I agreed with most of what I read, and what I disagreed with, or did not like, seemed to reflect more on me than on his views.

    Who can deny that a person is either a Jew or not a Jew? And according to the laws, it is based on matrilinearity unless you hold to Reform Judaism. Me: my father is Jewish, my mother is Catholic, so officially, AFAIK, I am nothing.

    I was circumcised, I have a Hebrew name, I was a Bar Mitzvah, I try to live by the Torah and even the Talmud at least insofar as my means allow. But my mother never converted and I never converted, so what am I? Conflicted ;> And Kahane spoke to that.

    Is Dean Jewish? This is not an ad hominem, it is merely to say that he cannot possibly appreciate the resonance of such texts of his as the one on “Bridget loves Bernie.”

    I don’t know what is terroristic about Kahane. Maybe I haven’t read enough. Is transfer terroristic? I think it would be a good idea, especially in terms of his proposal for buyouts. I don’t think stabbing gays is a good idea, but I don’t think homosexuality is a good idea either (male homosexuality that is, ha ha ;>).

    My cousin is a cantor. I should say, she is a Reform cantor. That is, not according to the Orthodox! I should be indignant, right? Well, I’m not. I’m disquieted. Of course I wish her all the best and that she serve Judaism as best she can, and I’m sure she will go on to do great things. But in fact women are not supposed to be clerics. (Yes, I already said I’m terrible.)

    What did he say that is so wrong? “Give me that good old time religion?” I am a Jew according to the Reform denomination, and I consider myself in my heart a Jew, but then again so does Michael Richards. I’m Jewish enough for Torquemada or Hitler, but maybe not enough for me. I often think about taking steps but, being a product of assimilated American society, the Chabad people with the funny hats weird me out.

    I really don’t know what to do with myself, but again to be awful, I would say to Dean, that it seems to me:

    It’s a Jewish thing. You wouldn’t understand.

    To which I suppose he would say: You mean, “Hitler had a point?” To which I would reply: No, but Hitler loved dogs and was a vegetarian and a nonsmoker. Not all of those things are necessarily bad (even if I am not a veg or a nonsmoker).

    If he wanted to blow up women and children in an effort to take over the world, I am against that. But as I say, I am for just about everything about him I have read. The fact that I adore shrimp and lobster and all kinds of treif does not mean that I am right.

    Wasn’t it Primo Levo who said:

    ‘Jew is somebody who at Christmas does not have a tree, who should not eat salami but eats it all the same, who has learned a bit of Hebrew at 13 and then has forgotten it.’

    Levi was Jew enough for Hitler.

    Meanwhile, if one terrorist kills another terrorist, why indeed does Esmay care?

Comments are closed.