A National Disgrace

'One of the saddest episodes in American history was the fact that these vets were often shunned and neglected--even demonized--when they came home. That was a national disgrace. On days such as this, we resolve to never let it happen again.' -- President Barack Obama

**

Americans with access to microphones--Barack Obama, Tim Pawlenty, local Sun-Current writer Chris Oswell--exhibit near-unanimity with regard to the Vietnam War: A stomach-turning evil occurred, when our fighters returned home: They were spat on and shat on by the [otherwise] Silent Majority. Today we can show 'Nam Vets how classy we are (in stark contrast to the unpatriotic generation which preceded us) by proclaiming our undiluted love for the entire US intervention in Indochina.

There's one type of American, needless to say, who will have considerable difficulty participating in the Obama/Pawlenty line on Vietnam: Those who believe upholding real American honor actually matters--and is far more important than reciting politically popular malarkey. These Americans choose not to participate in the great Vietnam War Amnesiafest.

Chris Oswell writes Eden Prairie veteran earns presidential citation in the 10/29/09 Sun-Current. President Obama just laureled Vietnam veterans of Alpha Company who participated in a 1970 rescue of Charlie Company, near the Cambodian border.

Did Alpha Company actually volunteer to rescue the overwhelmed company, as Oswell claims? Did every American participant in the rescue operation freely choose to participate, without the issuance of any military order?

Oswell writes, 'Seven soldiers were killed and dozens more were wounded fighting more than 400 during the' rescue.

Capt. John Poindexter [not that John Poindexter]--author of the self-published The Anonymous Battle--clarifies: 'First Cavalry division headquarters set North Vietnamese losses at 88.' IOW, when Oswell writes 'Seven soldiers were killed,' he assumes readers will understand this to mean 'Seven American soldiers'--only a silly sentimentalist would even bother mentioning the seven dozen Asian teenagers we killed. (Surely they're happier dead, no?)

But in hindsight the intervention wasn't simply mildly problematic--it was disastrous: We vastly prolonged and intensified a civil war in which millions of civilians died, in addition to the millions of combatants. If Oswell wants to defend his oddball viewpoint that the war was a shining moment for Uncle Sam, he's welcome to do so--but he should feel some pressure to show his work.

Furthermore, Oswell perpetrates a disgusting smear upon antiwar protesters, writing 'It was the second time Sorich has been to the White House. The first was in May 1970 when he was assigned to protect it from Vietnam War protestors threatening to attack it.' [sic]

Bullshit, Chris.

Farah Redux

Responding to her odious blogpost--republished here yesterday--I left this comment:

Our information on the Farah case remains limited, but judging from the police and media reports, it seems possible Farah did nothing more than voice approval for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It is my view that merely voicing approval for the terrorist assault should not by itself be considered a new 'terroristic threat'. As opposed to the Edina blogger, I take the more conservative view--believing that the library staffers' feelings are of minimal import--while Conservative Cravings adopts the nanny-state POV, asserting that when someone says they're offended the police should be summoned and asked to arrest the person the offended individual points at.

(My comment doesn't appear on her website, as she hasn't yet approved it. By contrast, comments left on gavinsullivan.com appear immediately, without censorship.)

Kindly praising my defense of Abdulahi Hassan Farah, a conservative commenter noted today:

Who else would defend a foreigner, a Muslim, and a person with mental health issues?

Do we really know any of this, btw? Isn't it a lot more likely that the accused is a US citizen--and not a foreigner?

In addition: When you adopt an unpopular viewpoint or two, it becomes vastly more likely you'll be diagnosed as mentally ill--particularly by anti-intellectual cowards. The evidence we today have--pointing to Abdulahi Hassan Farah's mental instability--is exceedingly weak evidence.

Conservative Stupidity Watch

The following important public service bulletin appears on the Edina blog Conservative Cravings:

"Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Terroristic Speech Is Not Protected

The 1st Amendment's right to free speech has been debated and interpreted for generations. Topics like politics, religion and pornography have tried to restrict speech to appeal to the greater good. Most of these arguments have failed. Though political free speech through monetary contributions was severely restricted by McCain Feingold. Security came into play with the inability yell fire in a crowded room in incitement of a riot. We are now in the time of 9/11 and with that has brought the term terroristic threat. Can't we be progressive in our interpretation that security risks of mass terror outweigh some speech? One fellow blogger does not think so. Gavin Sullivan recently advocated for a man who was arrested at the Eden Prairie library for making terroristic threats. You can link to his post which describes the situation along with the police report. In a nut shell, the man entered the library on 3 different occasions and left notes written in Arabic and drew pictures of planes crashing into buildings. He did not speak to anyone to explain these actions. Librarians became concerned and an undercover police officer apprehended him the next time he visited for making terroristic threats. Gavin defends this as free speech that is protected. I would argue that individual liberties do not apply when the exercise of those liberties harms others. Being terrified is being harmed. I think the librarians and police took appropriate actions. Sitting in the Edina library this evening, I'm wondering if I drew pictures of someone assassinating President Obama and left these notes around the library, would anyone pay attention? Would Gavin protect my speech? This is probably not the best example, because threats on a President are handled much more severely than any other citizen. However, it also draws out the point that speech related to a President is restricted and that exceptions are made to the 1st Amendment. I use this example only to paint a picture abhorrent to most people, as the threat of another 9/11 should be. But, the left continues consistently takes the position of defending anyone who appears to be compromising the security of our country and citizens. Why is this a progressive idea? Why would Democrats purposely portray themselves as weak on homeland security, and show little regard for police authority and the military? This is not a hypothetical question, I really don't know. Why is the security of our citizens a political football? Why is the flag political or the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance? One thing that ties these altogether is the lack of a nationalistic pride. Add that to the elevation of the United Nationals in liberals' eyes and the desire to use international law to interpret our constitution and you have a bedrock of evidence that liberals may love the world more than they love our country."

DFLers Party on Gray's Bay

Sue Shuff hosted a $35 per person fundraiser for the CD3 DFL this evening. A number of gubernatorial candidates attended. (Surrogates represented Steve Kelley, Tom Bakk and Tom Rukavina.) Here are a few snapshots from the event:

Margaret Anderson Kelliher

Mark Dayton

Terri Bonoff, John Benson and others. Sen. Bonoff hasn't decided yet whether to run again for Congress.

R. T. Rybak

Susan Gaertner

Paul Thissen

Jim Meffert-Nelson--a St. Olaf grad just two years younger than the incumbent--seeks the CD3 DFL endorsement for US House.

Roman Oliynyk spoke on behalf of his wife--Maureen Hackett--who

is now in Florida attending candidates' training at Camp Wellstone

George Greene and Marge Hoffa emceed the event.

Healing the Soul of America

Lauren Carlson-Vohs writes this week's Spiritually Speaking column in The Eden Prairie News. The country is going to hell in a handbasket, Carlson-Vohs allows. 'It seems a calling to each of us to take inventory of our spiritual values and act upon them.' (What difference would it make were spiritual removed from Carlson-Voh's suggestion?)

'It is a very sad development and highly immoral considering we live in the wealthiest nation on earth.' (And it was quite cheeky of these ferners to overtake us--I grant that.)

But we don't live in the wealthiest country on earth. Nor were our economic woes brought on by high immorality. (I'd pin the recession on poor regulatory oversight and human nature.)

Have you noticed how many pet owners claim the puppy mill rescued their canine from a prior, abusive owner?

On a recent trip to the Humane Society, Carlson-Vohs 'noticed several pets where it was noted the family had lost their home and moved to an apartment where no pets are allowed.' One has to steel oneself against society's dubious-sounding tales of tribulation, particularly those redolent of marketing, no? Let's try to be a lot more sensitive to the Congo's agony--even if it requires being a bit less sensitive to Fido's.

Carlson-Vohs believes our nation's mediocre statistical rankings ought to bring us to ask 'What would Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and Buddha do?'

I don't think Buddha ever commented on Sixth Century India's foreclosure problem, nor did Mohammed grumble much about the appalling lack of universal health care. (Had Jesus cared to reduce human misery, he might have explained germ theory to his followers, or tell them how to construct a bicycle--or that slavery is among the gravest sins, etc.)

We're in a huge mess--so let's expand our reliance on irrationality and Iron Age hokum. Make sense to you?

**

Healing the Soul of America, by Marianne Willaimson -- recommended by Lauren Carlson-Vohs.

The Complaint Against Farah

Page One

Page Two

Page Three

Page Four

Page Five

**

Register of Actions...

or search here for Case 27CR0947231

**

Fox report

Strib Report

Me

When the lower orders don’t set a good example

If you attend a Catholic church, you're likely aware that the institution is quite preoccupied with abortion. Almost every Sunday, one is called to add one's own voice in condemning the practice. Your church probably even organizes a bus to attend the annual 'pro-life' rally at the state capitol. If you disagree, shut up.

Hearing this constant drumbeat, I emailed Fr. Greg Welch (pastor at Edina's St. Patrick's) several times, asking if he might describe specifically what legal change he is calling for. Alas--on such a sensitive matter--the cleric won't reply in print.

The church's 'Social Justice Coordinator' Cappy Moore boldly takes on the pro-choice crowd in the current church bulletin [here's the pdf]--in 'We Must Act!' The social justice expert believes that--to end abortion in Minnesota--we ought to begin with the state's destitute women. If we could only eliminate state assistance to poor women seeking abortion, every decent Edinan might sleep easier. How noble!

Moore presents her case with a number of myth/reality contrasts, demonstrating that the state does provide some assistance to poor women. (For an institution bent on convincing succeeding generations that a man walked on water and fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish, you might not expect myth to be such a strong pejorative.)

Ms. Moore won't allow the innocent public to be flimflammed: It is nothing but a myth that 'In Minnesota the abortion rate has dropped significantly.' (Humanists take note: She has the facts at her fingertips, lest you seek to sow mythology among her wizened flock:)

Reality -- In Minnesota from the year 2000 to 2008:
2000 -- 66,220 live births and 14,450 abortions (22%)
2008 -- 72,213 live births and 12,948 abortions (18%)

See? A person would have to be superstitious indeed to review these statistics and not conclude that Minnesota's abortion fad is positively exploding. Not for long: Ms. Moore will soon visit her tough love upon the metropolis' tenements.

What a glorious time to be free!

**

"Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them?"

Algernon, in The Importance of Being Earnest

Wedlock

"To speak frankly, I am not in favour of long engagements. They give people the opportunity of finding out each other’s character before marriage, which I think is never advisable."

Lady Bracknell in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest

Dr. Bernard E. Johnson pens the current Spiritually Speaking column in The Eden Prairie News--Spiritual perspectives for making marriage last a lifetime. Johnson promises readers 'three counter-intuitive, even counter-cultural [sic] thoughts that provide a spiritually sound basis for marriage.'

Let's take a quick look at Johnson's three ideas:

1) 'No one deserves to be married.' He clarifies: 'Does anyone deserve to be accepted for a lifetime come what may?' 'Marriage only makes sense when I see it in the light of grace...pure unmerited favor both given and received.'

When 'unmerited favor' is exchanged between two adults it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute the transaction to sacred mystery--when such an obvious non-mystery presents itself. And people don't generally choose marital partners based on chance--they put immense effort into attracting a marriage partner of maximal social status and prospects. So Johnson's first point is neither spiritual nor sound--it's an announcement of his romantic refusal to seriously ponder the reality of mate selection. (It's a calculated announcement of Johnson's desire to be publicly perceived as a guileless romantic.)

2) 'Love is not enough to sustain a marriage.' What sustains a marriage, when the love has evaporated? Social pressures of various kinds--familial, societal, professional, 'for the children,' etc. Many people choose not to seek divorce--even in the most overt of sham relationships--due to the reputational costs of dissolving the 'bond'. But Johnson can think of only one alternative to love, as an incentive to sustaining a lifelong marriage: marriage vows. Johnson hasn't really given much actual thought to his message.

3) Believe in God--Johnson urges, with the following mind-numbing tautology: 'Otherwise we may be asking another human being to do for us what only God can do, namely provide a relationship that will transcend death.' Johnson apparently considers his third point to require no justification or reasoning. He doesn't mention whether any old deity will do--Ganesha, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, say--or whether selecting a group of deities would be acceptable. Would feigning belief be preferable to open atheism? Can one switch gods along the way?

How will believing in an afterlife actually cause one to occur, at the time of actual need? (We don't generally expect our beliefs to cause themselves to come into being, do we?) Or is this simply a socially-beneficial falsehood to which upright team players are required to pay lip service?

Wraith Formation

The Rev. Tim Johnson responded to my recent post on his Speaking of Faith column. He writes:

With your already-confirmed distrust of the Bible, I am not surprised that any reference that may be made to it in your mind automatically discounts the value of what is being said by the one who quotes it.

Finding a statement in the bible doesn't discount or amplify its credibility, to me. Such statements need to be assessed on their merits. To clarify: The bible says many reasonable things with which I agree. It also says many ghastly things which I reject. There are inconsistencies and contradictions within the bible, as one might expect from a Bronze Age document produced by multiple authors writing about events which occurred long before they were born--in addition to the many later emendations and historical inaccuracies recorded in the book.

And a commenter writes:

This continues a theme of yours Gavin. You seem to have contempt for institutional religion and those that practice and preach it. What was your upbringing? Did you have any faith formation? Did you break away from a church and if so why. Perhaps this would shed some light to your readers on your point of view.

We as a society have a policy toward institutional religion: socialism. Via tax policy, we effectively subsidize houses of worship on a massive scale. On this topic Erik Paulsen and I are both implacable socialists; neither of us has proposed any change in our national policy of massively subsidizing churches. If I felt--as you accuse me--'contempt for institutional religion,' why would I be so willing to subsidize it to my dying day?

And what is faith formation? If you want to instruct your children to believe that there are consciousnesses which don't have bodies, please do so. But if you learn you have a neighbor who urges her children to feel skepticism with regard to the existence of consciousness outside of any biological organism, that shouldn't justify ostracism.

The bible was written long before the discovery of evolution--a profoundly counterintuitive theory. Before evolution's discovery, people often explained mysterious phenomena by invoking the supernatural.

In 2009, many educated Americans are aware of the evolutionary origins of the natural world. But on the popular level, most people haven't really digested that natural selection--a non-conscious process--created human consciousness itself. Becoming aware of how human consciousness came into being leads many to increased skepticism concerning the purported existence of conscious beings unconnected to living biological organisms. (That means you--people in heaven.)

Julian Bond visits Carleton

Civil rights legend--and soon-retiring NAACP Chairman--Julian Bond is visiting Carleton College over the upcoming several days. Carleton's Black Student Alliance hosted an informal dinner and discussion this evening with Bond and Pamela Horowitz, his wife.

About 35 students showed up for the event, asking Bond many questions. Bond argued on behalf of the continued relevance of the NAACP and recalled a number of events from the struggle for civil rights. "We're a much better country than we were a hundred years ago," he noted.

Challenging Rev. Johnson

The Rev. Tim Johnson--a nice fellow--occasionally writes the Speaking of Faith column in The Eden Prairie News. His current article is Sow the seeds of future success--with patience.

Many people who have no health insurance could afford to buy it, but they prefer to go without--and use the money instead for cigarettes, cars 'and other trappings of American materialism.' Prior to the economic meltdown, many Americans got home loans they wouldn't be able to repay. Couples divorce 'because spouses are not willing to walk with the other person through the stages to mature adulthood.' And American businesses advertise to lure people into spending beyond their means.

With these dubious and selective observations, Johnson this week argues we're far less patient than previous generations of Americans. (We're also a bit less patient with racism, sexism, homophobia and mandated Christianity than were our predecessors, no?)

"The scriptures have a lot to say," Johnson intones, "about waiting patiently for the blessings of life, realizing that things simply take time to develop. The concept of sowing and reaping is talked of in several places in scripture. Paul's word in the New Testament is especially instructive: Do not become weary in well-doing because in due season you shall reap if you faint not."

Johnson assumes readers will happily accept that scripture and 'the Christian bible' are equivalent terms. Why? The bible is a thick book--and in addition to the reasonable stuff, it includes errors, inanities and very poorly-documented 'miracles'--as well as much which is morally abhorrent. If you are resistant to a certain line of ethical advice, of what persuasive weight would it be were I to show you that it's in the bible? I'd like to suggest an answer: Zero.

Were you to observe a friend or relative spending excessively, failing to insure her family's health or rashly seeking divorce, wouldn't it be more convincing to appeal to common sense and self-interest than to a phrase in the bible? If you acknowledge the Good Book contains much nonsense, why feel the need to point out that 'In addition to being sound, the advice I'm offering you can also be found in the bible?' Who would care?

Several Emails

Hello Krista Bettinger [Hennepin County Attorney's Office]:

A week or two ago, I read the Strib's report on the Abdulahi Hassan Farah affair at the Eden Prairie Library--and blogged about it. From the reports I've read--and from the police report--it appears Mr. Farah's crime was in voicing approval for Osama bin Laden and the hijackers.

The First Amendment ought to protect the right of citizens to advocate on behalf of unpopular viewpoints. Do you acknowledge that citizens have the right to advocate on behalf of unpopular viewpoints--including 'voicing approval for Osama bin Laden and the hijackers'? If you do acknowledge that basic fact about the rights of US citizens, then why are you prosecuting Mr. Farah?

Is Mr. Farah now in custody? What is the name of Mr. Farah's lawyer? When is Mr. Farah's next appearance mandated--and where? How can I communicate with Mr. Farah?

Best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan

****************************

Dear Jeff Goldberg:

On Sept. 21, 2009, you published a piece titled Disabled Man Makes Terror Threats in Library. What terror threat did the man make?

With the passage of a week or two, are you at all ashamed of your Sept. 21, 2009 piece--particularly its completely unsupported title?

Thanks,

Gavin Sullivan

****************************

Dear Sen. David Hann:

A week or two ago, Abdulahi Hassan Farah was arrested--for terrorism--at the Eden Prairie Library. Mr. Farah's crime apparently rests in his advocacy of an unpopular political viewpoint.

As his state senator, what concrete action have you taken to defend Mr. Farah's right to free speech under the Constitution of the United States of America?

Best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan

****************************

Hello Mr. Dean Corder:

I just received a redacted version of the police report on the Farah incident at the EP Library--and posted it on my blog.

I just read the report--and it's quite odd: I can't identify anything in it that could remotely constitute a crime. Can you? Please describe the crime you observed (or found evidence of), okay?

You're aware that the First Amendment protects the American citizen's right to advocate on behalf of unpopular views, right?

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

****************************

Hello ACLU MN:

Does the felony prosecution of Abdulahi Hassan Farah strike you as unusual?

For context, please see my recent blogposts.

I would like to get the MN ACLU's perspective on this prosecution, okay?

Thanks!

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

'Terrorism' at the Eden Prairie Library

I asked the Eden Prairie Police to provide their report on the Farah incident. Here's what they sent:

one two three four