Dear Rep. Erik Paulsen:
Thank you for your statement on The Tragedy in Haiti, in which you say:
The American spirit of compassion has been shown throughout history during disasters such as this one. Together, we can summon that spirit once again and help the victims of this terrible tragedy in the days and weeks ahead.
Is your statement historically accurate--or is it essentially a feel-good, fictional claim?
To put it to the test, let's consider [Wikipedia's] ten most devastating natural disasters in human history, considering the calamities which happened after 1800 and before 1950 (so as to consider only those which occurred during our nation's history, though not during our particular epoch). We're then left with:
Event, Death toll:
1931 China floods -- 1,000,000–4,000,000
1887 Yellow River flood -- 900,000–2,000,000
1839 Indian Cyclone -- 300,000
1920 Haiyuan earthquake -- 240,000
How did the 'American spirit of compassion' to victims of natural disasters--which you've assured us has been our unbroken course throughout history--manifest itself, in the four cases listed above? How much assistance did Americans provide in these four cases, governmentally and privately?
Best wishes,
Gavin Sullivan
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Police Misconduct
Raking up the politics, cultural criticism and memoir space in local microblogging, one aims to leave some coherent windrows. A compelling blog limns the interplay of events on the ground and a struggling, meandering consciousness.
To blog is to submit one's words to public criticism. Software honors criticism's supreme importance, in allowing bloggers to easily facilitate open discussion.
Thin-skinned bloggers ban critical commentary; Eden Prairie Republican bloggers generally uphold the McCarthyite ideal, policing their comments sections so as to hinder free speech. It's therefore perplexing when a person as ethically compromised as Sheila Kihne attempts to chastise Pres. Obama for his ostensible 'disgrace'.
Were one to dispute Kihne's account, how might one go about initiating dialog, given her North Korean attitude toward the free exchange of ideas?
With whom might a dissenter seek to parley?
In 2003, I was jury-tried for misdemeanor domestic assault. No heroin injection could conceivably equal receiving word of one's just acquittal; for a moment there was no denying: I don't live in a society of idiots.
Fighting back is worthwhile more often than is generally acknowledged.
A pocket-sized blogger can do his part to improve America--and reduce the culture's breakneck bullshit velocity. Choose unfair insults and fight back. That's what this-here hokey pokey is all about, in a half-dozen words. Admit fallibility, welcome free exchange. Never impede colloquy.
Two Wednesdays ago, observing an arrest in the Von Maur parking lot, I photographed a uniformed Eden Prairie police officer who was frisking a handcuffed, quiescent arrestee. After doing so, the police ordered me to freeze, frisked me, hurled epithets at me, pulled up my name in the database, took my camera and deleted the photograph.
I'd identified myself as a blogger, I disrupted nothing and no suspect remained at large when I arrived on the scene. I photographed a quintessentially public-record event.
The next day, I emailed the Eden Prairie Police, asking whether they remained proud of their conduct on Wednesday evening--repeatedly insulting a law-abiding citizen, frisking someone without probable cause, summarily destroying the photograph without providing any statutory justification.
I'm still trying to get an answer from the Eden Prairie Police.
Eden Prairie Police Department
8080 Mitchell RD
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Records Request Officer:
Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of the complete, unedited audio and video recordings of my interaction with the police officers--uniformed and non-uniformed--in the parking lot at Von Maur Department Store on Jan. 13, 2010 at approximately 5:15 PM.
I agree to pay reasonable duplication fees for the processing of this request.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Gavin Sullivan
To blog is to submit one's words to public criticism. Software honors criticism's supreme importance, in allowing bloggers to easily facilitate open discussion.
Thin-skinned bloggers ban critical commentary; Eden Prairie Republican bloggers generally uphold the McCarthyite ideal, policing their comments sections so as to hinder free speech. It's therefore perplexing when a person as ethically compromised as Sheila Kihne attempts to chastise Pres. Obama for his ostensible 'disgrace'.
Were one to dispute Kihne's account, how might one go about initiating dialog, given her North Korean attitude toward the free exchange of ideas?
With whom might a dissenter seek to parley?
**
In 2003, I was jury-tried for misdemeanor domestic assault. No heroin injection could conceivably equal receiving word of one's just acquittal; for a moment there was no denying: I don't live in a society of idiots.
Fighting back is worthwhile more often than is generally acknowledged.
A pocket-sized blogger can do his part to improve America--and reduce the culture's breakneck bullshit velocity. Choose unfair insults and fight back. That's what this-here hokey pokey is all about, in a half-dozen words. Admit fallibility, welcome free exchange. Never impede colloquy.
**
Two Wednesdays ago, observing an arrest in the Von Maur parking lot, I photographed a uniformed Eden Prairie police officer who was frisking a handcuffed, quiescent arrestee. After doing so, the police ordered me to freeze, frisked me, hurled epithets at me, pulled up my name in the database, took my camera and deleted the photograph.
I'd identified myself as a blogger, I disrupted nothing and no suspect remained at large when I arrived on the scene. I photographed a quintessentially public-record event.
The next day, I emailed the Eden Prairie Police, asking whether they remained proud of their conduct on Wednesday evening--repeatedly insulting a law-abiding citizen, frisking someone without probable cause, summarily destroying the photograph without providing any statutory justification.
I'm still trying to get an answer from the Eden Prairie Police.
**
{Thanks RCFP!}
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
January 30, 2010
Eden Prairie Police Department
8080 Mitchell RD
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Records Request Officer:
Pursuant to the state open records act, I request access to and copies of the complete, unedited audio and video recordings of my interaction with the police officers--uniformed and non-uniformed--in the parking lot at Von Maur Department Store on Jan. 13, 2010 at approximately 5:15 PM.
I agree to pay reasonable duplication fees for the processing of this request.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Gavin Sullivan
Thursday, January 28, 2010
EP News Backs Vatican Roulette
On the front page this week, The Eden Prairie News blares Many opt for natural family planning. The article promotes an upcoming program at St. Mark Catholic Church, in Shakopee.
A large photograph of Chanhassians Juli and Bill Currie--and their seven children--accompanies the article. The Curries 'practice natural family planning to achieve and postpone pregnancies,' we are helpfully informed. 'When you follow the guidelines, it's very effective,' says Juli Currie. But to 'actually do it day in and day out, I have my moments,' she confides. That said, natural family planning [NFP] still 'beats them all. There's no comparison,' beams Currie.
The lengthy article advances a number of highly dubious claims:
By requiring couples to communicate with each other, NFP is good for strengthening marriages;
The Billings Ovulation Method is 98%+ effective 'when used to postpone a pregnancy';
NFP is better for the environment; the use of artificial birth control results in the estrogen-poisoning of fish. (We will abstain here from exploring the psychoanalytic possibilities of this redolent association.)
As if an afterthought, the article mentions that many couples try NFP because 'the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control.' Well-behaved readers are assumed to understand this to mean 'the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is opposed to "artificial" birth control.'
One might reflect upon a similar statement, i.e. 'Americans oppose speeding', to reveal the servile mindset so frequently embedded in 'unbiased' media statements pertaining to the Catholic Church.
It makes sense to view the American Catholic Church as a large group of people with highly varied viewpoints who overwhelmingly accept artificial birth control. It's odd how rarely we see articles portraying representative Catholic couples--who believe it's fine to use the Pill, condoms, IUD's or whatever works best--regardless what the red hats think. Even non-Catholic reporters love to find oddball couples such as the Curries.
In the second half of the article, we meet Allina's Dr. Diana Gillman. Gillman brushes aside the groundless nonsense advanced prior to her arrival: Hormonal birth control is effective and convenient--and it doesn't cause infertility. There is no known link between the Pill and breast cancer--and a Pill-using woman's risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer is reduced, Gillman says. IUD's are extremely effective and convenient--but American women reject them mainly for non-empirical reasons.
After our rationality interlude with Dr. Gillman, the article returns to the superstition-based, exurban religious extremism, as if such thinking represented a stolid, middle-ground philosophical option.
We look forward to the paper's upcoming hard-news pieces promoting homeopathic remedies for pancreatic cancer and the many health benefits accruing to those who fast during Ramadan.
A large photograph of Chanhassians Juli and Bill Currie--and their seven children--accompanies the article. The Curries 'practice natural family planning to achieve and postpone pregnancies,' we are helpfully informed. 'When you follow the guidelines, it's very effective,' says Juli Currie. But to 'actually do it day in and day out, I have my moments,' she confides. That said, natural family planning [NFP] still 'beats them all. There's no comparison,' beams Currie.
The lengthy article advances a number of highly dubious claims:
By requiring couples to communicate with each other, NFP is good for strengthening marriages;
The Billings Ovulation Method is 98%+ effective 'when used to postpone a pregnancy';
NFP is better for the environment; the use of artificial birth control results in the estrogen-poisoning of fish. (We will abstain here from exploring the psychoanalytic possibilities of this redolent association.)
As if an afterthought, the article mentions that many couples try NFP because 'the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control.' Well-behaved readers are assumed to understand this to mean 'the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is opposed to "artificial" birth control.'
One might reflect upon a similar statement, i.e. 'Americans oppose speeding', to reveal the servile mindset so frequently embedded in 'unbiased' media statements pertaining to the Catholic Church.
It makes sense to view the American Catholic Church as a large group of people with highly varied viewpoints who overwhelmingly accept artificial birth control. It's odd how rarely we see articles portraying representative Catholic couples--who believe it's fine to use the Pill, condoms, IUD's or whatever works best--regardless what the red hats think. Even non-Catholic reporters love to find oddball couples such as the Curries.
In the second half of the article, we meet Allina's Dr. Diana Gillman. Gillman brushes aside the groundless nonsense advanced prior to her arrival: Hormonal birth control is effective and convenient--and it doesn't cause infertility. There is no known link between the Pill and breast cancer--and a Pill-using woman's risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer is reduced, Gillman says. IUD's are extremely effective and convenient--but American women reject them mainly for non-empirical reasons.
After our rationality interlude with Dr. Gillman, the article returns to the superstition-based, exurban religious extremism, as if such thinking represented a stolid, middle-ground philosophical option.
We look forward to the paper's upcoming hard-news pieces promoting homeopathic remedies for pancreatic cancer and the many health benefits accruing to those who fast during Ramadan.
Monday, January 25, 2010
In the midnight hour, I can feel your power
If you received the endorsement of a blogger whose writing is execrable, would you allow it to dissipate into the dear departed past--of its own self-extinguishing wont--or would you call attention to it with a special tweet, as Sen. David Hann does?
David Hann's Facebook page lays his distinguishing feature on the line, come what may: His 'sincere values' [that's what--Ed.]. To SD42's man in St. Paul, egocentric desire counts for nothing--nada.We encounter Hann's brand of frankness all too rarely in public affairs. At last we can shout with pride: I am from Eden Prairie!
**
In July 2009, I wrote Sen. Hann:
I wanted to ask you about your views on the Vietnam War. Was it a good idea for us get involved? Can you tell me a bit about your service there?
Could the US have won the war? When Americans look back on our role in VN, should we feel proud or ashamed?
When John McCain was running for president, I pointed out how peculiar it was--for Sen. McCain to suggest that the US 'got the raw end of the deal' in Vietnam. Did McCain's perspective also strike you as being historically fanciful?
Wikipedia says says 4,200,000 civilians were killed during the Vietnam War. Do you think contemporary Americans are appropriately remorseful for the massive suffering inflicted upon civilians during the war?
Very best wishes,
Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie
Sen. Hann--who's well aware that I am his constituent--didn't acknowledge my email. So I sent him a second email--which the statesman likewise deemed undiscussible:
Dear Sen. Hann,
If you consider my series of questions unfair, can you please explain why? I'd appreciate getting your perspective on America's Vietnam experience.
All the best,
Gavin Sullivan
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Deacon Najarian at St. Helena's
Deacon Stephen Najarian spoke this evening on end-of-life medical ethics at the Church of St. Helena, in SE Minneapolis, with about forty people attending. Najarian presents the various positions of the Catholic church hierarchy, without acknowledging (let alone honoring) the diversity of opinion among church-goers. As usual at such events, uncollared attendees are assumed to happily accept their child-for-life status and are spoon-fed the reactionary line as if it were taken seriously in the pews.
For Najarian, the Terri Schiavo case vividly exemplifies our society's 'assault on human life'. (Schiavo's widower Michael is cruel and barbaric, though we mustn't judge others.) He mentions tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, which the deacon considers an infamy. A questioner asks how any Catholic could vote for a 'pro-abortion' candidate; replying, Najarian comes very close to endorsing the view outright. We're repeatedly assumed to enthusiastically adhere to every threadbare tenet.
Contraception, anyone? Intrinsically evil. Living wills? Never.
While Schiavo might well have had many happy years left, had only the courts forced this or that, one isn't required to undergo every single possible treatment: A Catholic isn't required to take a vitalist position on end-of-life care, he allows. (That's correct: End-of-life expert Najarian misunderstands vitalist to mean the prioritization of longevity above all alternatives.) Extraordinary treatments can be refused. (You're not morally obligated to have a tracheotomy during your ALS battle--Rome generously grants.)
Cremation is clearly a dust-speck in Najarian's eye. It isn't encouraged or suggested, we're reminded--it's simply tolerated--and should be avoided if possible. (I seek a precise percentage in the diminution of my heaven-prospects after having been kiln-roasted, but I'm not called on.)
While Schiavo might well have had many happy years left, had only the courts forced this or that, one isn't required to undergo every single possible treatment: A Catholic isn't required to take a vitalist position on end-of-life care, he allows. (That's correct: End-of-life expert Najarian misunderstands vitalist to mean the prioritization of longevity above all alternatives.) Extraordinary treatments can be refused. (You're not morally obligated to have a tracheotomy during your ALS battle--Rome generously grants.)
Cremation is clearly a dust-speck in Najarian's eye. It isn't encouraged or suggested, we're reminded--it's simply tolerated--and should be avoided if possible. (I seek a precise percentage in the diminution of my heaven-prospects after having been kiln-roasted, but I'm not called on.)
Oregon is put forward several times as a place where the human life assault has risen to an especial crescendo. On his anti-euthanasia riff, the deacon notes 'the irony' that the Netherlands and Belgium are now in the forefront of the plug-pulling fad: 'Belgium was recently a very Catholic country,' he says.
After the dogmafest, we break for a stretch and a coffee. I say hello to Deacon Najarian, asking how long ago he means, when he thinks of Belgium as being a country praiseworthy for its Catholic aspect. 'Twenty or thirty years ago,' he responds.
Unusual that anyone would praise Belgium's social order, prior to the moral tailspin brought on by bell bottoms and rock-and-roll, no? For a small country, Belgium has a very large moral stain in its past, quite possibly eclipsing even Nazism in its horror. Najarian finds my challenge churlish.
(Would it sound odd to you to hear someone praise Germany's 'delightful Lutheran heritage,' without qualification? Especially questionable when the speaker is an ethicist!)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Replying to Jack Robertson
While blogging I try to steer clear of expressing my personal cosmological viewpoints. As that rare man of pixilated letters doing both religion and politics (from a disinterested perspective) I had to convince the masses of my virginal neutrality from the start. (Even tea-partying readers now allow His heart is in the right place.) Savoring that diminutive triumph has seen me through many a delicate night.
At other times, people have interpreted this blog's theologically-neutral perspective to be indicative of Pentecostalism, Zoroastrianism, atheism or Shia Islam--though I don't recall ever descending into mystical advocacy. (I leave that to the robed. My own religious [non-]practice and/or mentalist emissions will not fall within the purview of this blog.)
When I make a factual statement about American Catholics' lived reality--revealed by defensible, quality public opinion research--I'm not entering into any theological debate. Conservative Catholics clearly bristle when the unblindered bring this information to their attention. I grudgingly admit to (here comes one little exception to the line-in-the-sand prophesied above) my personal inability to empathize with the conservatives on this point. (I'll never do that again, unless I feel like doing it again.)
Which brings us to Jack Robertson's comment on my blog, yesterday--accusing me of attempting to whip up dissenting Catholics into some agenda-thumping faction. This represents a funny misinterpretation of everything this blog stands for. (It's Who I Am™.) I take no position on how public--or lay--opinion ought to influence the US Roman Catholic Church. OTOH, I am aware--as is anyone--that the US Catholic church of today is very different from the one we had forty years ago. I suggest we agree that 'public opinion played a role in that tranformation'. Still on board?
Jim next proudly announces he'll always be a Catholic because it's foundation is unchanging. That is of course either a ridiculous lie or an uninteresting semantic game. Again--I'm in no way voicing any personal preference--I'm simply acknowledging an obvious aspect of reality. If you want to maintain your assertion that the Catholic Church's foundation can be depended upon never to change (in the next century, say), let's end this particular facet of our dispute simply by acknowledging that very many sensible people accept my prognostication--that at least one substantive change will happen during that period.
Additionally: Were something to never change, that doesn't seem--in and of itself--a compelling reason for admiring it. A certain amount of stasis may be pleasing, in life, but change has added great richness to this one. Even vicissitudes have occasionally birthed treasure. Less is a bore.
Jim also accuses me of abusing a commenter yesterday, claiming I was excessively viper-tongued.
I don't see how my suggested prayer could really cause any harm, Jim.
And I never delete non-spam comments. On this score, I am radically different from Eden Prairie's leading public anti-intellectuals, who only allow sycophantic comments.
Lastly, Jim asks if I want ideological opponents to read--and comment on--this blog: Yes!
Dissent is what makes this blogger prate!
“A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.”
Oscar Wilde
At other times, people have interpreted this blog's theologically-neutral perspective to be indicative of Pentecostalism, Zoroastrianism, atheism or Shia Islam--though I don't recall ever descending into mystical advocacy. (I leave that to the robed. My own religious [non-]practice and/or mentalist emissions will not fall within the purview of this blog.)
When I make a factual statement about American Catholics' lived reality--revealed by defensible, quality public opinion research--I'm not entering into any theological debate. Conservative Catholics clearly bristle when the unblindered bring this information to their attention. I grudgingly admit to (here comes one little exception to the line-in-the-sand prophesied above) my personal inability to empathize with the conservatives on this point. (I'll never do that again, unless I feel like doing it again.)
Which brings us to Jack Robertson's comment on my blog, yesterday--accusing me of attempting to whip up dissenting Catholics into some agenda-thumping faction. This represents a funny misinterpretation of everything this blog stands for. (It's Who I Am™.) I take no position on how public--or lay--opinion ought to influence the US Roman Catholic Church. OTOH, I am aware--as is anyone--that the US Catholic church of today is very different from the one we had forty years ago. I suggest we agree that 'public opinion played a role in that tranformation'. Still on board?
Jim next proudly announces he'll always be a Catholic because it's foundation is unchanging. That is of course either a ridiculous lie or an uninteresting semantic game. Again--I'm in no way voicing any personal preference--I'm simply acknowledging an obvious aspect of reality. If you want to maintain your assertion that the Catholic Church's foundation can be depended upon never to change (in the next century, say), let's end this particular facet of our dispute simply by acknowledging that very many sensible people accept my prognostication--that at least one substantive change will happen during that period.
Additionally: Were something to never change, that doesn't seem--in and of itself--a compelling reason for admiring it. A certain amount of stasis may be pleasing, in life, but change has added great richness to this one. Even vicissitudes have occasionally birthed treasure. Less is a bore.
Jim also accuses me of abusing a commenter yesterday, claiming I was excessively viper-tongued.
I don't see how my suggested prayer could really cause any harm, Jim.
And I never delete non-spam comments. On this score, I am radically different from Eden Prairie's leading public anti-intellectuals, who only allow sycophantic comments.
Lastly, Jim asks if I want ideological opponents to read--and comment on--this blog: Yes!
Dissent is what makes this blogger prate!
**
“A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.”
Oscar Wilde
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Open House @ Meffert HQ in Edina
Meffert for Congress held an open house at their new HQ in west Edina this evening. Fewer than twenty non-staffers attended (not counting the candidate and his family). People socialized pleasantly; the office and staff have a clean, well-organized look. The candidate chatted and answered questions in small clusters--and then spoke extemporaneously.
Jim Meffert projects a mainstream, middle-class, family-man image. (See Eric Black for a helpful introduction to Meffert-Hackett.) He emphasizes education, health care and caring. If only we had a more decency-focused representative (who cared about jobs, etc.) things would be so much better. A rather bland, coached message, though he is presentable.
He grates occasionally, as when he employs his 'intimate' pseudo-whisper--or when statements of self-praise are followed by the politician's It's Who I Am™. And he is capable of droning on a bit, meandering. He has good taste in shoes.
I ask the aspirant several questions but don't learn much--trying to find out what a Meffert-improved health care overhaul would look like, for example. On foreign policy, he'd back a greater US commitment to ending global poverty. (Via the UN or independently? Both.) Meffert accepts the Obama position on Afghanistan and is prepared to support a long-term military commitment to that country's stabilization. His education talking points could come straight from Education Minnesota (no liability in the endorsement fight, and with heartfelt affect).
Just two years ago, Ashwin Madia and Terri Bonoff fought tooth and nail for the DFL endorsement for Congress (alongside the Jim Hovland cameo) burning through hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to take on Erik Paulsen. People felt very strongly then; emotions now are subdued. While Meffert attempts an emotional appeal, Madia--at this time two years ago--was building an army of fanatic devotees. Perhaps one of the present candidates will eventually build that emotional bond with activists.
Strong Meffert supporters like their man's organization, character and professionalism. A Meffert-supporting, prominant DFL couple tells me the Hackett operation is bush-league by comparison--having not even telephoned a Bloomington senate district chair.
No supporter--there aren't many to choose from--can describe a specific issue-position separating their candidate from Hackett. Advocates appear attracted by Meffert's résumé, personality and claimed political professional status. Of Minnesota's [dozen-or-so] gubernatorial candidates, Meffert casually mentions he knows all of them.
Active DFLers don't dislike the incumbent--they loathe and abominate him. But there's little hint of an internecine firefight now on the order of 2008's preendorsement circular firing squad. The precinct caucuses meet Feb. 2.
On Feb. 5, 2008, 214,000 DFLers attended their precinct caucus; on Nov. 4, 2008, 1.6 million Minnesotans voted for Barack Obama. Meffert and Hackett have to craft messaging and organization now to appeal to--and mobilize--that sliver which shows up at the caucuses. For now, I'm seeing Meffert emphasizing his house-proud, moderate-progressive, photogenic-family qualities and Hackett buttonholing vets, peaceniks and feminists, without appearing Naderite if possible.
After the Meffert open house, I stop by an SD42 DFL event at the Eden Prairie Library--where [fellow-Carl] Laurie Pryor is training 20 precinct chairs and activists on caucus basics. Maria Ruud--perpetually lithe, youthfully black-clad, unvainly sporty chic--stops by, receives a hero's welcome and speaks briefly, then leaves for another political event.
I ask the dependable party workhorses who they favor for the congressional endorsement: Either three are for Hackett and four are for Meffert...or the other way round, I forget. The vast majority--of these DFL überstalwarts--remains undecided. It's still too early to call--indeed, I'm not yet sure which way it's leaning.
Jim Meffert projects a mainstream, middle-class, family-man image. (See Eric Black for a helpful introduction to Meffert-Hackett.) He emphasizes education, health care and caring. If only we had a more decency-focused representative (who cared about jobs, etc.) things would be so much better. A rather bland, coached message, though he is presentable.
He grates occasionally, as when he employs his 'intimate' pseudo-whisper--or when statements of self-praise are followed by the politician's It's Who I Am™. And he is capable of droning on a bit, meandering. He has good taste in shoes.
I ask the aspirant several questions but don't learn much--trying to find out what a Meffert-improved health care overhaul would look like, for example. On foreign policy, he'd back a greater US commitment to ending global poverty. (Via the UN or independently? Both.) Meffert accepts the Obama position on Afghanistan and is prepared to support a long-term military commitment to that country's stabilization. His education talking points could come straight from Education Minnesota (no liability in the endorsement fight, and with heartfelt affect).
Just two years ago, Ashwin Madia and Terri Bonoff fought tooth and nail for the DFL endorsement for Congress (alongside the Jim Hovland cameo) burning through hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to take on Erik Paulsen. People felt very strongly then; emotions now are subdued. While Meffert attempts an emotional appeal, Madia--at this time two years ago--was building an army of fanatic devotees. Perhaps one of the present candidates will eventually build that emotional bond with activists.
Strong Meffert supporters like their man's organization, character and professionalism. A Meffert-supporting, prominant DFL couple tells me the Hackett operation is bush-league by comparison--having not even telephoned a Bloomington senate district chair.
No supporter--there aren't many to choose from--can describe a specific issue-position separating their candidate from Hackett. Advocates appear attracted by Meffert's résumé, personality and claimed political professional status. Of Minnesota's [dozen-or-so] gubernatorial candidates, Meffert casually mentions he knows all of them.
Active DFLers don't dislike the incumbent--they loathe and abominate him. But there's little hint of an internecine firefight now on the order of 2008's preendorsement circular firing squad. The precinct caucuses meet Feb. 2.
On Feb. 5, 2008, 214,000 DFLers attended their precinct caucus; on Nov. 4, 2008, 1.6 million Minnesotans voted for Barack Obama. Meffert and Hackett have to craft messaging and organization now to appeal to--and mobilize--that sliver which shows up at the caucuses. For now, I'm seeing Meffert emphasizing his house-proud, moderate-progressive, photogenic-family qualities and Hackett buttonholing vets, peaceniks and feminists, without appearing Naderite if possible.
After the Meffert open house, I stop by an SD42 DFL event at the Eden Prairie Library--where [fellow-Carl] Laurie Pryor is training 20 precinct chairs and activists on caucus basics. Maria Ruud--perpetually lithe, youthfully black-clad, unvainly sporty chic--stops by, receives a hero's welcome and speaks briefly, then leaves for another political event.
I ask the dependable party workhorses who they favor for the congressional endorsement: Either three are for Hackett and four are for Meffert...or the other way round, I forget. The vast majority--of these DFL überstalwarts--remains undecided. It's still too early to call--indeed, I'm not yet sure which way it's leaning.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
E'er You Pray With Fire
Hello Nicole,
In reading the parish bulletin this morning, I was somewhat taken aback by your contribution. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your participation in--and enthusiasm for--our parish. But I was somewhat surprised by your emphasis, which suggested that the parish unanimously shares your views on abortion.
I believe that making abortion illegal would be an extremely foolish decision for our nation. We need only look at countries where abortion is illegal now to see the nightmare we'd be enacting were we to ban the procedure: In her excellent book The Means of Reproduction, Michelle Goldberg notes that in Nigeria, approximately 20,000 young women die annually due to botched abortions. (And that's just one country where abortion has been banned.)
When you ask 'prolifers' what punishment they'd like meted out, to women who voluntarily seek out illegal abortions, their response is a case study in spinelessness. Very few will even discuss the specifics of their desired legal change. (Sadly, our own [otherwise admirable] pastor provides yet another sad example: I've asked him repeatedly to describe the law he'd like to see enacted; he won't say in print.)
One longtime member of the parish is not ashamed of his views on abortion's legal status, however: I emphatically defend keeping abortion legal--since I don't want women's rights eviscerated, and I don't want tens of thousands of young American women to die ghastly deaths at the hands of quacks.
Given that the Church has associated itself with such irresponsible political policies, it's little wonder that the college years are 'a time when many young Catholics struggle with their faith'. That isn't to be lamented, however: They're correct in feeling repulsed by an institution so associated with retrograde social policies. Their skepticism is our hope.
We ought to remind them that servility and dishonesty aren't asked of St. Patrick's parishioners--and that honorable, thinking people are warmly welcome in our church.
Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?
Thanks again for your participation. I wish you all the best, despite our apparent disagreement on an issue or two.
Cheers,
Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie
In reading the parish bulletin this morning, I was somewhat taken aback by your contribution. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your participation in--and enthusiasm for--our parish. But I was somewhat surprised by your emphasis, which suggested that the parish unanimously shares your views on abortion.
I believe that making abortion illegal would be an extremely foolish decision for our nation. We need only look at countries where abortion is illegal now to see the nightmare we'd be enacting were we to ban the procedure: In her excellent book The Means of Reproduction, Michelle Goldberg notes that in Nigeria, approximately 20,000 young women die annually due to botched abortions. (And that's just one country where abortion has been banned.)
When you ask 'prolifers' what punishment they'd like meted out, to women who voluntarily seek out illegal abortions, their response is a case study in spinelessness. Very few will even discuss the specifics of their desired legal change. (Sadly, our own [otherwise admirable] pastor provides yet another sad example: I've asked him repeatedly to describe the law he'd like to see enacted; he won't say in print.)
One longtime member of the parish is not ashamed of his views on abortion's legal status, however: I emphatically defend keeping abortion legal--since I don't want women's rights eviscerated, and I don't want tens of thousands of young American women to die ghastly deaths at the hands of quacks.
Given that the Church has associated itself with such irresponsible political policies, it's little wonder that the college years are 'a time when many young Catholics struggle with their faith'. That isn't to be lamented, however: They're correct in feeling repulsed by an institution so associated with retrograde social policies. Their skepticism is our hope.
We ought to remind them that servility and dishonesty aren't asked of St. Patrick's parishioners--and that honorable, thinking people are warmly welcome in our church.
Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?
Thanks again for your participation. I wish you all the best, despite our apparent disagreement on an issue or two.
Cheers,
Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Hopefuls Disclose Mental Info
When reading the paper yesterday, Gubernatorial hopefuls disclose mental health info shocked me: Minnesota's paper of record has asked declared gubernatorial candidates to reveal their mental health histories. (Have they sought professional help in the past, for depression or chemical dependency?) (Has it occurred to the Strib that there other reasons--no less shocking to grandpa--one might engage a shrink?)
If you buy into the accepted distinction, an upright political actor can immediately differentiate, by gut instinct--such is the visceral nature of moral adjudication among our sort of people--an in-bounds question from a [depraved] out-of-bounds question.
A significant portion of the thinking public probably considers it disgusting, for the Star Tribune to be asking this question of candidates. Even I felt a psychic pressure to team-choose. Should I join Team Disgusted--and wag an index finger at Pat Doyle?
I decided to sleep on it.
The Strib proffers several fig leaves in defense of its shocking question. 'Since Mark Dayton came clean, we're naturally curious,' went the unpersuasive implicit justification. The Strib then unleashes the North Star State's one-man-quotation-industry:
Steven Schier flatters Minnesotans, deeming us "aware of the nature of these issues and how they can affect a politician's judgment," and we "understand a little more about mental health than [we] did almost 40 years ago."
In other words, the Strib preemptively rebuts our disgust-response by suggesting that to refrain from asking the question would itself insult the public's honor. (You thought the chutzpah-peak had already been achieved with the article's title!)
The set of traditional distinctions demarcating in- and out-of-bounds questions is itself rapidly evolving--and it always foisted a pat moralistic bifurcation upon a blurry reality. It has been deemed in-bounds to ask for a candidate's religion, for example--and the media has found proxies to get candidates to clarify their social and economic status. (In 2008, Erik Paulsen had a news conference called so as to impress upon the public Ashwin Madia's bachelorhood and ostensibly disqualifying renter status.) Many traditionally in-bounds questions invite the public to distinguish among candidates based on dubious prejudices.
Concomitantly, many 'out-of-bounds questions' might reveal interesting, worthwhile information. Erik Paulsen swears fealty to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--which would be untroubling if he didn't provide us such strong reason to fear he actually believes its teachings. (The LCMS believes the Pope to be Satan's representative on earth, for example--and declares that if you accept evolution, you can't be a real Christian.) Since Paulsen himself has repeatedly informed voters of his religious affiliation, it strikes this blogger as arbitrary, that follow-up questions on Paulsen's cosmological perspective are dismissed as 'offensive'.
Predictably, the most interesting reactions came from the most sincerely stunned respondents:
"This is my answer: 'No, no, no,'" said Gaertner, who said she found the question "offensive."
That certainly ends my curiosity about Susan Gaertner's psychiatric history. Doesn't it yours?
Steve Kelley also issued a fevered-sounding call for calm:
In an e-mail, Kelley wrote that he wants "candidates for governor, and all Minnesotans for that matter, to get treatment for substance addiction, depression, anxiety, or other health concerns and not be stigmatized for doing so."
Kelley said candidates should not be asked about mental health because the job doesn't require the responsibilities of the president.
"There's nobody who is going to walk around following me as governor of Minnesota with launch codes for nuclear missiles," Kelley said in a phone interview. "It's just not the same ball game."
(Steve Kelley--sound as a pound.)
We don't need to accept the Strib's summary self-absolution in order to praise Doyle for having the cojones to ask a tough question.
Asking candidates about their psychiatric histories may have negative consequences. Some politically ambitious young people may shun treatment if they perceive they'll be required to describe it to the public later.
Society has made progress in its thinking about depression and addiction--but enormous prejudice still holds sway. When a Ph.D. psychologist has his ethical or social status attacked, he will often respond by diagnosing mental illness in his challenger. It is not uncommon to regret an intimate revelation after a friendship or affair fizzles. Having once outed yourself a lush, you may be surprised at how willing normies are, to use your alcoholism as a cudgel in times of strife. Divorcing one's psychiatric-diagnostic impulse from one's ideological loyalties and idiosyncratic tastes often proves impossible for non-Bodhisattvas.
People are vastly more likely to diagnose mental illness in people with whom they're embroiled in disputes than in those with whom they're in agreement. Even candidates 'admirably disclosing' past psychiatric turbulence likely misrepresent its nature and extent. One can conceive of an ethically righteous candidate electing to lie, in answer to the Strib's question. And can anyone doubt that at least one candidate who claims never to have sought psychiatric assistance is lying?
If you buy into the accepted distinction, an upright political actor can immediately differentiate, by gut instinct--such is the visceral nature of moral adjudication among our sort of people--an in-bounds question from a [depraved] out-of-bounds question.
A significant portion of the thinking public probably considers it disgusting, for the Star Tribune to be asking this question of candidates. Even I felt a psychic pressure to team-choose. Should I join Team Disgusted--and wag an index finger at Pat Doyle?
I decided to sleep on it.
The Strib proffers several fig leaves in defense of its shocking question. 'Since Mark Dayton came clean, we're naturally curious,' went the unpersuasive implicit justification. The Strib then unleashes the North Star State's one-man-quotation-industry:
Steven Schier flatters Minnesotans, deeming us "aware of the nature of these issues and how they can affect a politician's judgment," and we "understand a little more about mental health than [we] did almost 40 years ago."
In other words, the Strib preemptively rebuts our disgust-response by suggesting that to refrain from asking the question would itself insult the public's honor. (You thought the chutzpah-peak had already been achieved with the article's title!)
The set of traditional distinctions demarcating in- and out-of-bounds questions is itself rapidly evolving--and it always foisted a pat moralistic bifurcation upon a blurry reality. It has been deemed in-bounds to ask for a candidate's religion, for example--and the media has found proxies to get candidates to clarify their social and economic status. (In 2008, Erik Paulsen had a news conference called so as to impress upon the public Ashwin Madia's bachelorhood and ostensibly disqualifying renter status.) Many traditionally in-bounds questions invite the public to distinguish among candidates based on dubious prejudices.
Concomitantly, many 'out-of-bounds questions' might reveal interesting, worthwhile information. Erik Paulsen swears fealty to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--which would be untroubling if he didn't provide us such strong reason to fear he actually believes its teachings. (The LCMS believes the Pope to be Satan's representative on earth, for example--and declares that if you accept evolution, you can't be a real Christian.) Since Paulsen himself has repeatedly informed voters of his religious affiliation, it strikes this blogger as arbitrary, that follow-up questions on Paulsen's cosmological perspective are dismissed as 'offensive'.
Predictably, the most interesting reactions came from the most sincerely stunned respondents:
"This is my answer: 'No, no, no,'" said Gaertner, who said she found the question "offensive."
That certainly ends my curiosity about Susan Gaertner's psychiatric history. Doesn't it yours?
Steve Kelley also issued a fevered-sounding call for calm:
In an e-mail, Kelley wrote that he wants "candidates for governor, and all Minnesotans for that matter, to get treatment for substance addiction, depression, anxiety, or other health concerns and not be stigmatized for doing so."
Kelley said candidates should not be asked about mental health because the job doesn't require the responsibilities of the president.
"There's nobody who is going to walk around following me as governor of Minnesota with launch codes for nuclear missiles," Kelley said in a phone interview. "It's just not the same ball game."
(Steve Kelley--sound as a pound.)
We don't need to accept the Strib's summary self-absolution in order to praise Doyle for having the cojones to ask a tough question.
Asking candidates about their psychiatric histories may have negative consequences. Some politically ambitious young people may shun treatment if they perceive they'll be required to describe it to the public later.
Society has made progress in its thinking about depression and addiction--but enormous prejudice still holds sway. When a Ph.D. psychologist has his ethical or social status attacked, he will often respond by diagnosing mental illness in his challenger. It is not uncommon to regret an intimate revelation after a friendship or affair fizzles. Having once outed yourself a lush, you may be surprised at how willing normies are, to use your alcoholism as a cudgel in times of strife. Divorcing one's psychiatric-diagnostic impulse from one's ideological loyalties and idiosyncratic tastes often proves impossible for non-Bodhisattvas.
People are vastly more likely to diagnose mental illness in people with whom they're embroiled in disputes than in those with whom they're in agreement. Even candidates 'admirably disclosing' past psychiatric turbulence likely misrepresent its nature and extent. One can conceive of an ethically righteous candidate electing to lie, in answer to the Strib's question. And can anyone doubt that at least one candidate who claims never to have sought psychiatric assistance is lying?
**
Monday, January 11, 2010
Lend Me Some Sugar
Are Third District DFLers happily accepting cheap-date status? They sure as hell didn't last time.
My approximately-15-minute observation of Meffert-Hackett interprets it thus: We have one candidate who supports an improved US foreign policy--one that places greater emphasis on international cooperation and mutual respect--and another candidate who prioritizes domestic liberalism, centering on an improved federal role in education. (Do I have that wrong, insiders?)
I mean to say: Let's not forget the main ingredient. Something remarkable happened before our eyes last cycle. Whatever they say, the people don't just want to be persuaded. They want to be swept off their feet. A candidate capable of defeating The Dullard™ will need a tincture of seductiveness. Jettison the glam at your peril, politicians. (And start behaving as if Terri Bonoff had already shermaned.)
When we evaluate the central ideological positions--and cultural positioning--of a Jim Ramstad, an Erik Paulsen or a Leith Anderson, we ought not avert our eyes from their fundamental absurdity and incoherence.
Frankly, Mr. Shankly: How is it that the society which we so ritualistically, fervently praise could so honor such mediocrities? How did we get here?
**
When we evaluate the central ideological positions--and cultural positioning--of a Jim Ramstad, an Erik Paulsen or a Leith Anderson, we ought not avert our eyes from their fundamental absurdity and incoherence.
Frankly, Mr. Shankly: How is it that the society which we so ritualistically, fervently praise could so honor such mediocrities? How did we get here?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Team Hackett assembles in Hopkins
Dr. Maureen Hackett held a campaign event at the Hopkins VFW yesterday. Hackett is competing with Jim Meffert for the DFL nomination for Congress in CD3. While at the event I chatted a bit with the candidate--and with usual suspects Bill Sorem, Lou Ellingson, Cathy Apostle, Tommy Johnson, and others.
Some people are starting to feel strongly in favor of one candidate or the other--and Hackett clearly has some impassioned backers.
About thirty people attended. Hackett emphasized her status as a veteran and suggested a campaign stressing reestablishing US credibility in international affairs, after the Bush disaster.
After walking in, I observed Tom Styczinski seated among the DFL activists. Styczinski is a major backer of the incumbent, Rep. Erik Paulsen. (It appeared Hackett was winning him over, however.)
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
In The Drunk Tank
Former Sen. Mark Dayton is running for governor of Minnesota. After a multidecade public career, last week Dayton, 62, decided people have a right to know about the alcoholism and depression from which he's suffered his entire adult life. He went [selectively] public on December 27, 2009.
Alcoholism and depression remain stigmatized, even as society has made progress in dealing with the disorders. So Dayton was laying himself open to attack from political opponents 'and deserves praise for his courage'--went the autopilot for-attribution chatter.Sarah Janecek countered: Dayton made the announcement less out of inner nobility than as a means of avoiding being beaten to the punch by a political opponent. Janecek--a Hermès-scarved, Ross Douthat-like Republican--wouldn't identify which DFL gubernatorial campaign she suspected. But people often refuse to divulge the source of a juicy rumor: Absence of evidence shouldn't be confused with evidence of absence, as the saying goes.
Once both articles had appeared in the Star Tribune, it became difficult for an informed Minnesotan to tally Dayton's disclosure as either elevating or diminishing his reputational stature. Were Dayton genuinely expecting to have his hand forced, one could hardly blame him for presenting the information without disclosing the inside-baseball strategery that led to it. But Janecek's unearthing seems plausible enough: It's fair to score Dayton's admission a wash, I'd say.
Impassioned DFLers might disagree, seeking to impugn the source--and insist Dayton deserves praise for going public with his various unattractive maladies.
Former Congressman Jim Ramstad defends Dayton's unveiling in today's Strib. But Ramstad doesn't debunk Janecek's interpretation--he simply disregards it, as if no alternative interpretation was available: Either Dayton is a saint or meathead prejudice prevails.
Perhaps Ramstad doesn't subscribe to the Star Tribune.
**
When Alcoholics Anonymous was founded, exceptional care was taken to prevent any individual from emerging as the organization's 'public face'. Friends of Bill to this day remain deeply committed to keeping their movement's prestige out of the hands of any specific public personage. AA meetings devote hours to the various Traditions which remind members not to publicly identify themselves. (Whole meetings are frequently devoted to this specific theme.)
Were the various AA traditions not in place, a public figure could then grandstand and swagger, issuing tendentious, dubious public statements on matters relating to alcoholism and expect his word to be deemed holy writ--as Ramstad often does. A public figure who succeeded in hijacking AA's social prestige could insinuate that reasonable rebuttals (such as Janecek's) must be banished from polite discourse--as Ramstad does.
Relatedly:
On Nov. 3, 2007, when attempting--mano a mano--to unseat Jim Ramstad--an Eden Prairie diy punk intoned the following, in a speech at the Wayzata Library:
With regard to alcoholism, Rep. Ramstad in 1981, then a sitting MN state senator, got in a fight in a South Dakota motel bar and woke up the next day in jail. The first thing he wanted to know, upon coming to, was whether he had killed anyone during the melee the night before. Not only had he not killed anyone, thank goodness, but Ramstad was treated with exceptional lenience by law enforcement.
During his subsequent political career, Ramstad has put forward policies to ensure that illegal drug addicts, in the future, don't get treated with the lenience shown him. Indeed, Ramstad built a political career based on a pseudo-macho lock-'em-up shtick. At one point Ramstad would even don a flak jacket and ride with cops on drug raids. That's how he got his nickname—The Rammer—as a gung ho hard-driving anti-drug tough guy. He later became an enthusiastic proponent of the dubious D.A.R.E. anti-drug program, despite skipping out on his only obligation thereto—his promise to attend MN D.A.R.E. board meetings… and built a congressional career proudly championing an incarceration-based non-treatment-oriented Nixonion war-on-drugs philosophy. In other words, he used his immense political power to make sure that other drug users didn't get treated by law enforcement the way he was treated by law enforcement in 1981 on that day he hit bottom.
And that's not the end of the story. While continuing to advocate on behalf of his incarceration-based drug policies, our national prison population exploded—with massively unequal impact on communities of color; today we have more than 2 million people in state and federal prisons—a national disgrace. Of all crimes committed, there's one area in which we're pretty sure violation rates are quite evenly distributed among whites and blacks—and that is illegal drugs. Yet law enforcement, with Rep. Ramstad's pseudo-macho cheerleading, continues to enforce its drug laws in a horrifically racially imbalanced manner. African Americans are 12% of our population, but constitute 75% of those in prison today for drug crimes. And yet the media treats Rep Ramstad with Miss America deference, and without ever directing a tough question to him regarding his signature area of supposed expertise. Ramstad has massively exacerbated our society's central fault line, and he has received accolades from the Star Tribune while doing so.
We ought to offer a helping hand to people struggling with drug addiction—whether their drug of choice is heroin, meth, pot or booze. We ought to allow needle exchanges for drug addicts unwilling or not yet ready to seek treatment. These are the sound positions advocated by the courageous—and viscerally opposed by people such as Jim Ramstad.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Leith's April Fusillade
In March 2009, twice-born blogger Michael Spencer foretold evangelical Christianity's impending disintegration in The coming evangelical collapse, published in The Christian Science Monitor. Cleric (and local hero) Leith Anderson argued against Spencer (in the WaPo) in The Coming Evangelical Future.
(Months pass, then I notice.)
To Anderson, an evangelical is 'someone who takes the Bible seriously and believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord'.
Many adherents of non-Christian religions take the Bible seriously, surely--just as many Christians take the Upanishads and the Qur'an seriously. (Indeed--even some atheists shelve the Good Book separate from Comedy.)
One wonders how the sweet shepherd distinguishes the latter from the great mass of the theologically slovenly? Doctrinal storytelling has no doubt defined interesting spaces on the Christian Venn diagram; surely millions believe in Jesus--faultily--as Savior but not Lord, with other millions in the opposite camp. Anderson's definition implies a moral superiority in those who (very unsurprisingly, like himself) participate in fantasy relationships with a dead man whose identity and existence are not universally accepted by historical scholars.
A key qualification to keep in mind, should you seek employment as president of the U.S. National Association of Evangelicals, is to be able to straight-facedly deny various obvious truths about the organization--exuding just the right bouquet of sanctimony, disappointment and violated innocence. Anderson's skill at public lying elicits awe--as he argues against the ostensibly ill-informed media fabrications concerning his flock's well-primed reactionism, and on behalf of the movement's virginal apoliticality. One never detects the remotest trace of embarrassment.
Bravo, fisher of men!
(Months pass, then I notice.)
To Anderson, an evangelical is 'someone who takes the Bible seriously and believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord'.
Many adherents of non-Christian religions take the Bible seriously, surely--just as many Christians take the Upanishads and the Qur'an seriously. (Indeed--even some atheists shelve the Good Book separate from Comedy.)
One wonders how the sweet shepherd distinguishes the latter from the great mass of the theologically slovenly? Doctrinal storytelling has no doubt defined interesting spaces on the Christian Venn diagram; surely millions believe in Jesus--faultily--as Savior but not Lord, with other millions in the opposite camp. Anderson's definition implies a moral superiority in those who (very unsurprisingly, like himself) participate in fantasy relationships with a dead man whose identity and existence are not universally accepted by historical scholars.
A key qualification to keep in mind, should you seek employment as president of the U.S. National Association of Evangelicals, is to be able to straight-facedly deny various obvious truths about the organization--exuding just the right bouquet of sanctimony, disappointment and violated innocence. Anderson's skill at public lying elicits awe--as he argues against the ostensibly ill-informed media fabrications concerning his flock's well-primed reactionism, and on behalf of the movement's virginal apoliticality. One never detects the remotest trace of embarrassment.
Bravo, fisher of men!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Lending Leith Our Ear
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
