Not that anyone is reading this blog, but I’m going to go on the record and offer my unqualified support to Dr. Dawg.
A while back, a conservative blogger who goes by the name Raphael Alexander said something very stupid about Dawg. I will not repeat Raphael’s comment here, as I do not wish to participate in the attack on Dawg any further, even inadvertently.
Suffice to say, Dawg is a good guy, and the accusation Raphael made about him was both heinous and completely unsupported. Raphael was given multiple chances to apologize and retract the comment, but did not do so.
And so Dawg initiated legal proceedings.
If you want a good indication of Raphael’s culpability, note the reaction of those with legal backgrounds who probably agree, ideologically, more with Raphael than Dawg, like Jay Currie or even Ezra Levant.
Utter silence, as far as I can tell. No one from a legal background is standing up for Raphael Alexander because his position is completely indefensible.
He should have posted on apology to Dawg at the very top of his blog. Instead, he’s demonstrated malice by deleting comments from Dawg in which he asked for an apology, and by posting confidential legal documents.
Meanwhile, Raphael’s less informed but supportive commentators have done nothing but throw vile ad hominem attacks at Dawg, or (in one hilarious case) relied on chicanery in an attempt to show that what Raphael said about Dawg was really no different from what he (Dawg) has said about others.
I’m hoping Dawg’s lawsuit, if things go that far, will give some of these people reason to think twice before defaming an ideological opponent in the future.
As a matter of fact, I am probably one of those who disagrees with Dawg, ideologically, more than I disagree with Raphael. Fortunately, I’ve reached the stage where I don’t need to agree with someone ideologically to respect him or her as a person. And I do respect Dawg — almost have to respect him, as he’s a fellow academic.
But I also like his blogging work. His blog attracts a colorful cast of characters, including conservatives like Jay Currie, libertarians like me, left-liberals, and even an all out Marxist. I can’t think of any other place on the Internet — literally — where people of such diverse viewpoints can get together to discuss the issues.
It just doesn’t happen. Every other blog or discussion board is one sided, and the heavy club of moderation is typically employed to ensure the conversation stays that way.
And what’s odd is that Dawg is able to preserve this spirit of toleration despite being on the far-left himself (and no, that’s not meant as a pejorative.) That makes his blog important. Or at least important to me, as someone who believes both in reasonable disagreement and the possibility that respectful discussion can, sometimes, overcome that disagreement.
Thus, I support Dr. Dawg in his legal action. First, I support that action on its own merits, as Raphael’s comment was truly odious. But, in addition, I feel like I’m standing up for a good guy — not at all how I feel when I find myself defending the speech rights of people like Marc Lemire.
Good luck, Dr. Baglow. If I wasn’t an impoverished grad student, I’d kick a few bucks your way (and I might do that, anyway.) Since I am one, this post (likely to be unread) will have to do.