An Open Letter to Andrew Kessler, AKA "Leftist Southpaw"

I'd originally written this as a comment response, but decided as I was finishing that it was better left as a solo post. By way of background, the "Leftist Southpaw" has made a number of comments to the blog, and I recognized fairly early on that it was the writings of a guy named Andrew Kessler. I've known Kessler for more than 25 years - we were in elementary school together, then middle school, junior high, and the first year of high school. I switched high schools in the fall of 1986 as the result of a shift in educational policy direction on the part of the school district, but kept in touch with many of my old friends (after all, we'd been together in school since kindergarten, at least).

Kessler and I are both lobbyists in DC, and I thought we were on good terms. He and I had lunch several times, and I'd been working on getting a group of us who'd been together in the early years and found ourselves in DC together again for lunch - folks that I'd been seeing on an individual basis. As I said, I've kept in touch with a lot of people, and despite having not graduated from the public school system, I was invited to participate in the planning of and attendance at the high school's 15-year reunion. I was unable to attend (regretfully), and was still corresponding with people and participating in the class' yahoo group.

I made the error of posting a link to a post on this blog about solidarity in the face of terror (an early post quoting Winston Churchill in response to the London bombings) on that Yahoo group, and was met with what a lot of people thought was an inappropriately harsh response from Andrew Kessler. It was surprising for me, filled with anger and vitriol. I apologized with a letter and sent a private one to Andrew, which was misunderstood. I did not reply.

Then he began commenting here.

Here is my response to his latest comments:

The leftist southpaw said... "'I'm not sure why _I've_ become the focus of your anger. I've got theories, but nothing certain. Nothing, certainly, that I'm going to share here.'"

"Please share, publicly or privately. You take such pride in your fortune-telling abilities."

Kess, I have no plans on turning my blog into an exploration of what motivates your psyche. Though I'm sure your ego would certainly appreciate the boost that such attention would create, I'm just not quite as interested in you as you seem to be in me.

"Apologies if you thought I was trying to hide my identity earlier. I thought I was making it pretty clear who I was via my alias."

If you weren't trying to hide your identity, Kess, then you would have simply come out and said, "This is Andrew Kessler, and I think that your post in memory of the late Chief Justice was misguided, and here's why." Instead, you launched into a pseudonymous diatribe.

To discern from your alias who you were would have required my remembering that you were left-handed. Honestly, it's not a detail that has kept me awake at night - on the list of many folks I know who are left handed, you probably wouldn't have made it.

No, it was your particular tone of vitriol which smoked you out - not your left-handed progressiveness.

"And who is this Ilena Rosenthal you refer to, who keeps posting on your site? It would appear the two of you have quite a past!"

Ilena Rosenthal is the titular head of a one-person operation called "The Humantics Foundation for Women" - an organization that purports to advocate for women harmed by voluntary breast implantation. Except they do little in the way of actual advocacy. For instance, in the two most-recent series of public hearings on the matter in Washington, DC - the most important events in the breast implant issue - Ms. Rosenthal was markedly absent. This would be like your organization missing the most important public meetings on substance abuse policy at HHS, two rounds in a row.

The organization was recently suspended by the state of California (then reinstated some time later), during which time Ilena Rosenthal continued to try and raise money for the organization. She may or may not be currently in the United States. The organization's only public address is a mail-drop box in San Diego, California, and there is every indication that for some time Ms. Rosenthal has been living in Central and South America.

Ilena Rosenthal and I went toe-to-to on Usenet some time ago. When she began to delve into personal details about my life, I began doing some research into her organization. When I pressed her on questions regarding financial irregularities on her organization's publicly-available financial documents (IRS Form 990s - the equivalent of non-profit tax returns. By irregularities, I mean that in successive years, Ms. Rosenthal's forms failed to account for monies left over from previous years, as called for on the form's instructions), Ms. Rosenthal e-mailed my wife.

This e-mail, filled with mistruths and the most alarming rhetoric, was written with the intent of having my wife put a stop to my inquiries into the operations of her non-profit - in other words, to bully me into silence.

It didn't work. I don't take kindly to such bullying, especially from folks who I believe are abusing a public trust. What's funny is that despite her protestations that if simply left alone, Ms. Rosenthal would leave me alone, she has never done so. I have routinely gone weeks, months ignoring her (I have said a number of times that I've grown tired of the general lack of civil discourse on Usenet, and for all sorts of reasons have posted less). Yet, despite her promises, Ms. Rosenthal continues to post on usenet about me.

She's a usenet kook of the highest order. I certainly hope you're not considering befriending her. As someone who's known you a long time, has mutual friends with you, still has some measure of affinity with you (though you are certainly trying desperately to destroy that) - I'd strenuously advise you against it.

Just about every ally Ilena Rosenthal has ever had has had that friendship either abused or completely blown-up. They have, by and large, all regretted ever coming into contact with her.

"I keep fighting the urge to post here, but it's so much fun watching you blow up via blog!"

You mean like your generally-regarded-as-inappropriate apoplectic response to my link to my blog-post with the Churchill quote?

Seriously, Kess - I'd be really intrigued to know what you consider "blowing up" via blog. At this point, I put it in the same category of your other claims that you've been unwilling to substantiate.

But as to your inability to control your urges, maybe that's why your own blog has been woefully neglected.

"I checked out cajun tiger's blog. Do you share his views comparing a woman who murders her chilld to one who opts for an abortion? Just curious where you stand on the issue."

See, this is something you still fail to understand. One can be friends with someone and not agree with them on certain issues (or many issues, for that matter). I don't need to be lockstep with my friends or have them be lockstep with me. What's more, I find there's a great deal to be learned from listening to the opinions of those who do not agree with me.

The Cajun Tiger is my friend. I've been friends with him for several years, and we're part of a larger circle of friends who have lunch on a regular basis. But that circle of friends contains people who have beliefs along a large swatch of the political spectrum, and it makes for some fascinating (and sometimes very heated) political and policy discussions.

Do you agree with 100% of your friends on 100% of the issues 100% of the time? I sure hope not. If so, how utterly boring and uneducational for you.

Now, if you had ever taken the time to actually get to know me over the years and understand my core philosophies (instead of playing into your self-created fantasy of me as some mindless conservative zombie), you'd have learned that I'm a solid libertarian (likewise, it's something you could have gotten had you taken the time to really read what I write on this blog, or do a little research into what I've written over the years on Usenet, etc).

As such, I don't agree with CT's equating abortion with infanticide or progenicde. I believe in a woman's right to choose - though I have certain moral and ethical problems with late-term abortions (with the exception of circumstances which impact the life/health of the mother). I do believe in parental notification laws (I am a parent, after all), and I have some concern with the federal funding of abortion.

By the same token, I take great issue with the federal laws initiated after the Laci Petersen murder. While I think there is some merit to charging someone with a double-homicide if they kill a woman who is pregnant at the time (I find such crimes heinously galling, and I would hope that you would, too), I don't think the federal government has any business legislating in that arena.

As I said, had you ever taken the time to really get to know me, then you would have known this already. Unlike you, I don't presume to know the entirety of the scope of someone's opinions on issues based upon who they consider to be their friends.

So, now we're left with this, Kess: I've politely and patiently answered the questions that you've asked of me, and responded to you point-by-point. I'm still waiting for answers to questions I have asked of you - for instance, you've had ample opportunity to substantiate your insinuation that I've "sold out", or, barring that, admit that it was a poor choice of quotes, apologize, and move on. The same holds true with a number of other claims and insinuations you have made.

I suppose it all comes down to the following: what's your point, Kess? Just what are you trying to accomplish here - and what have you been trying to accomplish by provoking me since July of this year? Are you trying to demonstrate to the readers of this blog that I'm not who or what I claim myself to be? Are you trying to make me feel bad for leaving the Greenburgh school system back in 1986? Are you trying to demonstrate that you or your personal beliefs are somehow superior to my own?

I mean, it's fairly clear to me that you're not interested in any sort of a meaningful dialogue. If you were, you wouldn't be posting in the tone that you have, and you'd be answering some of the responses that I've given to you.

So what is it you want, Andrew?

- Andrew Langer