A Limp Excuse For Weiner's Public Ejaculation

First, I apologize for the blog hiatus.  This blog is, still, a one-man show and a combination of being busy and then sick made it impossible for the show to go on.  And yes, I will eventually comment on the frivolous suit that Brett Kimberlin has filed against myself and others basically for truthfully describing him as a pedophile and related matters.  He thinks this will intimidate myself and my co-defendants but frankly I relish the opportunity to prove my allegations to be true.  But beyond that, I will be very likely to engage new counsel and I will maintain silence in the short term until I have a chance to consult with him or her.

But let’s get to the subject of this Weiner post.  Now to be fair to Weiner, this is not his limp excuse.  And by “ejaculation” I mean in the sense of speaking loudly and emotionally, not that other definition.

But yesterday was the start of Rosh Hashanah, i.e. the Jewish new year and my Jewish friends are going to party like it is 5779!  Awful jokes aside, deflated New York City mayoral candidate Weiner was doing the typical politician meat and greet when he had an argument with a man who heckled him.  Here is some early, edited, video of that encounter:

In that version you can’t really hear what the other person initially said to prompt Weiner’s explosion into saying, “well, it takes one to know one, jackass.”  But the result was a bizarre and very undignified shouting match where Weiner argues that a presumed voter has no right to judge him.  Um, no, when you run for public office, you are submitting yourself to the judgment of every person who has the right to vote for you (and presumably several of the undead, given that this is a heavily democratic city).  Also at one point Weiner argues that the man’s opinion of him is invalid because Weiner has done so much more good for his community than him, which 1) Weiner cannot possibly know and 2) is snotty as hell, even if true.  But as snotty as it is, it is a fascinating window into how Weiner justifies himself to himself.  He believes only God can judge him.  And he believes somehow his slippery Weiner is made up for by the supposed good he has done—which is strange because he is also singularly unaccomplished as a politician.

Seriously, these guys—such as Bill Clinton—always like to go to famous historical examples of adulterers whose adultery didn’t harm their reputation, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Except Dr. King actually accomplished great things, such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott and his “I have a dream speech.”  Weiner’s list of accomplishments are, by contrast, quite deflated.

But even though his campaign is hopeless, this did not stop the Atlantic from riding to the rescue.  Weiner released a longer version of the video, which you can view here:

Untitled from Anthony Weiner on Vimeo.

And the Atlantic’s Wire blog steps in and offers this defense.  You see, at around the 3:50 mark, the heckler mumbles something about Weiner being “married to an Arab.”  While it is not conclusively obvious that it was a bigoted comment (or even that the same heckler said it), it’s really hard to imagine what context we didn’t hear that would make that anything but a bigoted comment.  So the Atlantic offers the defense, for Weiner, that he was simply responding to a bigot, writing:

Weiner's campaign released a longer video of the encounter, which seemed like an odd move, likely to result in more unflattering coverage. But if you watch the video, you can see why. The voter called him "a real scumbag," which isn't the worst thing anyone's ever heard on the streets of New York. But then he took a bigoted shot at Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin. At about 3:50 in to the video, the voter mumbles, "Married to an Arab."

This even led to a few conservative twitterers to offer apologies for condemning Weiner’s behavior early on, as reported by Twitchy.

But not me, because I am not buying it.

First, isn’t it interesting that the Atlantic is offering Weiner a defense that he himself has not offered?  His official campaign website has no comment about the incident at all.  And his official twitter account provides only these defenses:

.@RossBarkan if by melt down you mean stood up to a heckler. Yep. Did that. That's what Mayors have to do sometimes.
— Anthony Weiner (@anthonyweiner) September 4, 2013

.@moneyries in defense of me, the guy waited til I took a bite of honey cake to take a run at me.
— Anthony Weiner (@anthonyweiner) September 4, 2013

 

There is nothing there about standing up to bigotry or anything like that.  And what you will see over and over again, is the classic case of the “dog that doesn’t bark.”  That is an academically popular metaphor referring to the Sherlock Holmes story, “Silver Blaze.”  You can read it, here, but it involved the theft of a horse and key to the unraveling the mystery was the fact the guard dog didn’t bark.  Earlier in the piece, Holmes was discussing the case with Colonel Ross and Ross they had this exchange.

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” [Ross asked.]

“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Later on, he explained his cryptic comment as follows:

“I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others. The Simpson incident had shown me that a dog was kept in the stables, and yet, though some one had been in and had fetched out a horse, he had not barked enough to arouse the two lads in the loft. Obviously the midnight visitor was some one whom the dog knew well.”

In other words, the metaphor is that when a dog should bark and it doesn’t bark, it is evidence of something.  In the story, it was evidence that the dog knew the thief.  Here, it is evidence that Weiner had no idea about the shot at his wife.  We all know by now Anthony Weiner is a dog, and he didn’t bark at this almost certainly bigoted comment.  Indeed, listen very closely to the beginning of the encounter.  Here is my transcription, with apologies for the language:

Heckler: You’re a real scumbag, asshole.

Weiner: Wow, very nice, very nice.  That’s a charming guy right there.

Heckler: [inaudible] married to an Arab.

Weiner: Very nice, in front of children, that is charming.

Unidentified person: We need you to [inaudible], need you to...

Heckler: That is disgusting, disgusting, you are disgusting.

Weiner: Yeah it takes one to know one, jackass.

But, let’s note that it is not even clear that Weiner heard him say that about his wife, if the same man said it.  Indeed, he appears to be most offended by the use of the curse word in front of the children.  Which would be a stronger argument if he didn’t call him a “jackass,” right in front of children a few moments later, although some will claim that “jackass” is not a curse word at all (I remember advocating that loophole a few times as a child, when I wanted to get away with saying “ass” in public).

And then Weiner’s big response—besides lamenting his rudeness and the fact he said it in front of children—was “it takes one to know one”?  If he was responding to him being knocked for marrying Huma, then it takes one what?  A man married to an “Arab?”  And the Weiner goes on to say that the man has no right to judge him, that only God can judge him, and that he contributes much more to the world than his heckler.  And notice something else: in all of Weiner’s responses he acts as though the only person being attacked is him.  Because in all likelihood, that is the only person he thought was being attacked.

Look folks, it is reasonably well known that I am a white dude and my wife is a lovely mostly Filipina American.  And now and then I have heard people say things that are bigoted about her.  I know exactly how a husband feels when someone says something bigoted about his wife.  The response isn’t “it takes one to know one.”  It’s not to assert the other person has no right to judge my conduct.  It is not to say how great my accomplishments were compared to the other person.  And it certainly is not to ignore the attack on my wife and act like it was only a swipe at me.

No, in that case, the response is to call him out for his bigotry.  And really, is it difficult to imagine a politician even grandstanding to make it clear to the whole world that he is a crusader against bigotry and whatnot?  Can you imagine any such politician missing that opportunity?  And certainly the reaction isn’t to pretend he hadn’t attacked his wife.  And even after he had time to reflect he still didn’t make say anything about any bigotry directed at his wife on twitter.  I suspect now this meme has taken off he will claim to be a crusader against the bigotry directed at his wife.  But right now we are being asked to accept a defense that 1) Weiner has not actually offered and 2) is not consistent with his responses.

Look, I think ultimately this is a tempest in a teapot, but this site is called “Allergic to Bull” for a reason, and I am calling bull on the claim it was about bigotry not attacking his conduct—although I don’t presume everyone asserting that was lying.  His response was not about alleged bigotry but simply disliking what he heard as a criticism of his infidelity.  The longer video doesn’t make Weiner look better: it only makes his heckler look worse.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.