Replying to John Lundbeck

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my site.

My blog is somewhat unusual:  I comment on a very wide variety of issues, people and events.  I frequently defend unpopular viewpoints.  My comments section remains uncensored.  I don't engage in cheap shots.  I let the people I criticize have full access to my readers--so that they can respond as they wish.

While a Democrat, I frequently criticize people across the ideological spectrum.  I am not a team player.

My commentary is permanently banned (due to its unfair excess in persuasiveness) on the websites of Sheila Kihne and Jeff Fecke, two widely-read Minnesota blogs that stretch from the far right to the progressive left.

Prof. Jessica Pieklo of Hamline University organized feminist bloggers to ostracize me--with notable success--and enlisted her local police department to silence me.  I have on occasion expressed outrage over the inanity published by the Minnesota Progressive Project.

I am the most independent political blogger in the Twin Cities, bar none.

Congressman Erik Paulsen had his goons eject me from a political convention to which I had been welcomed.  The next day, Michael Brodkorb--much to his credit--telephoned me, profusely apologizing for Congressman Paulsen's incivility.

The two local, Eden Prairie papers published numerous articles about an Eden Prairie aviator who died in a fatal Osprey crash in Afghanistan.  When the Air Force released its report, blaming pilot error and negligence for the disaster, I published the dismal news.  To this day I remain the sole Eden Prairie media outlet that has published this information.

In fact-gathering for one post, I was robbed by a cop, while an Eden Prairie Police officer observed with approval.  When a popular Chanhassen priest was run out of town for purchasing a blow in a St. Paul park, he had one defender.

I criticize religious thinking--generally focusing my broadsides against the smuggest and most socially powerful.  I have invited many clerics out for coffee; half a dozen or so have accepted--and we discussed the strengths and weaknesses of believing nonsense (viewed from one party's perspective).

At 2 PM on Saturday, February 25, 2012, I will publicly debate Providence Academy's Dr. Arthur Hippler at the Ridgedale Library--on 'Evolution and Morality.'  There will not be a free seat, I assure you.

I read every single comment that gets submitted to this website--and respond whenever possible.  I make a serious effort to listen respectfully to people who do not share my views.

So when you refer to my mindset, John, I have no idea what you mean.  Do you have some record of  citizen-pundit sleuthing you'd like to bring to my attention, so that I compare your work to my own?

If you believe there is a single idea I repeat too often, why do you not provide several quotations, so as to back up your claim?

I have never said evolution is the answer to everything--or anything similar.  My position is plain:  I'm not sure studying evolution is going to solve any of our moral problems.

As you might know, I am an atheist--a person who sees no credible evidence for the existence of god.  As such, when there's a question to which I don't have the answer, I feel no reason to put forward magical mumbo jumbo.  I'd prefer to find the truth.

I am not a physicist, nor am I au fait with contemporary origin-of-the-universe theorizing.  I am not tempted to adopt any Stone Age third-hand story-telling to get the answer.  I'd prefer to listen to people like Lawrence Krauss--serious scientists whose views are based upon observation, facts and rationality, not superstition.

Broderists Take Bloomington

Taking my seat, someone nearby describes this evening's topic 'intriguing.'  Another neighbor tells her guest--apropos of what, I know not--'...it's never quite so black and white as...'

When active MPR listeners want to talk about nothing and feel good about themselves, they hold 'civility' events.

Fear not, nothing gets decided.  Sometimes people benefit from exchanging empty statements with each other; we're social primates.  Every hour spent discussing civility is an hour not devoted to shoplifting or animal abuse, I suppose.

The civility industry's most recent manifestation--an LWV-sponsored mutual-admiration palaver with A-listers Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Steve Sviggum, Stacy Doepner-Hove and Don Shelby--took place in Bloomington this evening.

A vested, insufferable Shelby--silver-maned, luxuriating in his retired-Cronkite 'defender of standards' sinecure--did most of the talking, introducing what was to become the 'concrete instance of incivility staring the sentient in the face'--the decision of Republican state senators not to confirm Ellen Anderson's appointment to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

In other words, most of this evening's discussion didn't address civility, properly understood--it concerned politics.

A good time was had by all.  Everyone went home feeling better about Don Shelby.

To the unbelievers

Like Gov. Mark Dayton, I believe primaries often help determine the best candidate, within our party.

Some hold we should allow party insiders to select our candidate for the United States House of Representatives.  They want our congressional district convention's decision--on April 28, 2012--to be accepted as final by all participants.

To do so is to allow a tiny minority--less than 1%--make the decision.

I disagree.  I want to allow the people to decide, putting the question to rank-and-file Democrats.

It is my understanding that both of my friendly opponents--Sharon Sund and Brian Barnes--have publicly accepted the elite-decided alternative.  (Please correct me e'er I err--and I will update this post pronto.)

I want our candidate to be chosen by the people, in the primary on August 14, 2012--and not by party insiders.

I am aware not all Democrats share my opinion; some feel strongly that the decision should be finalized at the congressional district convention.  If you so believe, now is the time to state your case:  I want to hear your argument.

Let us begin in clarity

Finding a genuine-feeling register in which to address one's fellow citizens is one of the great challenges facing the good-willed congressional candidate.  When I first encounter a heretofore-stranger in the political arena, I extend the hand of friendship--and to no one moreso than to my Republican friends:  You are the heirs to one of America's noblest historical legacies.  I pray during the present campaign not one of you will perceive any of my statements unmindful of your movement's underlying honorable core.

Very best wishes,

Gavin J. Sullivan
Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Newt v Mitt

Chatting with an ultralib friend the other day, I mentioned in passing I find the idea of POTUS Newt Gingrich vastly more horrifying than the Romney alternative.  Newt Gingrich is engaging in vile rhetoric--he's half Nixon half McCarthy.  I assume he'd be the far riskier pick, for the GOP, as I sense his intra-party opposition very adamant and well-connected; he of course makes liberals' blood boil.  Playing 'intellectual conservative' and attracting the rabidly anti-intellectual, white-victimhood-centric vote, ever rediscovering its inner woundedness.  In choosing Newt, I would feel required to look down on Republicans more than I would were they to go with Romney--whether or not Newt would be the easier opponent for the person in American politics I admire most.

By comparison, I find Mitt's Mormon-culture family-appearance fetishism comparatively harmless.

A small tax and a small man

The incumbent seeks to repeal ObamaCare--and has frequently mentioned negative effects he believes the policy will cultivate, when fully implemented.  Rep. Erik Paulsen often issues monarchical-sounding, dubious economic predictions--with his inimitable prophet's mien.

He'll cite an interested party's statistics--even when few general readers have any basis for evaluating the claim.  When doing so--I say with regret--Rep. Paulsen displays a lack of integrity.

To take a recent example, Paulsen has dedicated a great portion of our district's representation of late to the repeal of a 2.3% medical device tax.  Paulsen's uncredited staffer blogged: 

According to recent study [sic] by the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), the medical innovation tax [sic] could cost this country 43,000 out of its 400,000 medical device-related jobs.

Having assumed national leadership in the fight against the tiny tax, we have a right to expect Rep. Paulsen to speak honorably about the issues involved. 

When he addresses that most obvious of all questions--'What effect will the 2.3% tax likely have on medical device-related jobs?'--he owes it to us to get disinterested, highly-qualified economic advice.

He should not inordinately prioritize the counsel of business groups that hand him money.  It would be unethical to do what Paulsen does--to cite only the research of one interested party and attempt to pass it off as dispassionate.  Paulsen himself cannot be unaware of this clear moral hazard.

AdvaMed is a medical-device lobby that regularly and legally stuffs thousand of dollars into Paulsen's pockets; the study's authors are openly politically engaged and conservative.

As a practical matter, when we propose highly-specific tax tweaking, we should seek the advice of the best available, least biased professional economists.  To assess the likely impact on jobs, we should look with considerable skepticism upon statistics provided us by industry lobbyists.

By his unrepentant bad example, Rep. Paulsen reminds us all of an important ethical lesson.

Replying to Gregg and Alexandra

Gregg writes:

Mr. Sullivan maybe you should learn how to give a speech without reading it directly from a piece of paper if you want to represent our nation, just a suggestion.

Ps. I still intend to keep you in my prayers.

Thanks for your comment, Gregg--and for so politely entertaining my improbable-sounding idea. Your suggestion is completely correct, and I shall heed it going forward.

You've commented twice now that you're praying for me:

We seldom acknowledge:  Prayer is weird.  When people 'pray for someone,' they believe themselves to be emitting magical brain-beams to the author of the universe, giving It advice on how to improve life for their prayer-object.  

I mean...for Pete's sake!

I observe no evidence for believing there's a brain-beam-monitoring 'god' waiting on the other end, always looking for good ideas on how to make life rosier for my family and friends.  A moment's reflection reveals this to be wish-thinking.

I wish you happiness in life and think generally that you should do what you like.  When someone says, 'I'm praying for you,' I divine a power play at work--an assertion of moral superiority while playing 'kind-hearted, indulgent friend.'

Just to be clear:  Pray all you like, for Lassie or Kim Kardashian or me.  Needless to say, I don't admire you for praying for me:  I'm utterly indifferent--and want us to be clear it earns you no points.

Reader Alexandra writes:  Were you once Catholic, Gavin?

I was a good altar boy to the legendary Frs. Byrne and Mahon, at the same church I continue to attend--Edina's St. Patrick's.  I don't take communion or genuflect and generally read a novel during mass, though I still enjoy listening to the music. 

I'm one of those who believes the continued bullshitting evasion of the Catholic Church, on its collusion with Nazism, is disgusting.  But all kinds of herd behavior prevail within a Catholic church:  To be a Catholic is to acknowledge one has no role in guiding or judging the moral teachings of the church--one must submit.  A social reality where adults must pretend 'all is apolitical'--yields psychiatrically stunted people, the underlying contempt for the individual being the precipitating variable.

The non-believer has an important role to play, in the church community, since she is the one who approaches magical issues without bias.  If you believe your religion to be truthful, you should encourage atheists to join and to give unvarnished feedback.

The church and the school are of course Unvarnished Feedback Avoidance Systems.  But that's their problem.

To be a parishioner is to be treated like a 12-year-old, often--and the pew-warming atheist is, unavoidably, a symbolic reproach.  I occasionally meet Catholics resistant to the idea of atheists being on-the-membership-roll parishioners:  They'd prefer to engage in their self-abasement unobserved.

So, yes.