Reply to Hillary

Thanks to Hillary for her comment on my previous post. 

The view that abortion = murder is widely held though seldom examined.  So I occasionally engage adherents in above-board dialog--asking them to defend the proposition.

I start by having them compare two hypotheticals. If to you the two hypotheticals are morally interchangeable, you've passed my preliminary test: You may really believe abortion = murder.

If--in reviewing our recent email exchange--you conclude that I addressed GOP Mommy in an unpleasant tone, please provide quotations.  I have re-read the exchange and do not find my tone offensive--though I admit I only rarely offend myself.

You claim to have found 'many inaccuracies' in my blog, but list none.  Please defend your accusation with quotations.

You claim I tried to paint GOP Mommy a zealot. But she was free to defend her position--or to distance herself from it. She opted instead to oscillate wildly, to our dismay.

I didn't delete any email from the exchange--though cutting and pasting from Gmail can be messy. If GOP Mommy notices any statement missing from our posted exchange, I will happily add it upon receiving her notification. I did not intentionally omit any word.

You claim I posted GOP Mommy's email address to encourage readers to 'seek her out and attack her personally' ('There are no words for that kind of low level journalism.') Your charge is opprobrious:  I have never once encouraged readers to behave dishonorably.  And GOP Mommy plainly lists her email address on her blog, above the fold.

When an anonymous blogger receives an email from someone asking for her position on a public issue, can she reasonably assume her interlocutor will not publish her reply? 

You 'hate to see people personally attacked for their beliefs'.  While I don't share your view, I didn't attack anyone personally.  I asked GOP Mommy a number of fair questions; her responses understandably embarrass her--that part I get.  I remain puzzled by your position, Hillary.

**

GOP Mommy wrote '...I believe anyone sick and demented enough to *want* to kill a baby should be segregated from normal society to keep us safer.'

I interpreted the above sentence to mean 'all women everywhere instinctively view abortion as being immoral'. 

GOP Mommy insists the statement applies to her personal perspective only--and not to other women.  (Applesauce!)

The somewhat 'pro-life' blogger says she publishes pseudonymously to keep her 'kids safe from imbalanced kooks like' me.

This charge is discreditable to you, madam.

Around the MOB: GOP Mommy

Mitch recently name-checked his fellow Minnesota Organization of Bloggers member GOP Mommy, a pro-life purist unafraid to proclaim (albeit pseudonymously) abortion equals murder.

We exchanged emails; she confirmed her adherence to the above formulation.  I then asked:  When you enact your preferred law banning abortion, what will be the punishment for a woman who voluntarily seeks out--and obtains--an illegal abortion?

The blogger responds that she only wants the law to go after the abortionist [not the murder-seeker, i.e.].  And GOP Mommy wants the abortionist's transgression 'handled like an ethics complaint.'

The 'pro-life' blogger says that the abortion-seeking woman can't be held liable, since she's done nothing but 'seek information'.  (She will reverse herself later on this point, while denying ever having veered from her latest about-face.)  A certain emotional coloration enters with:

For the record, I don't have to justify myself to you.

Furthermore, I believe that women having an illegal abortion should absolutely be punished, that is not even debatable-but I am also incredibly concerned about the person performing the abortion as anyone that has taken the hippocratic oath to protect life, but ends a life purposely should lose their practitioners license and should find a new career. Just like how the government prefers to deal with the illegal immigration issue by punishing those that employ illegals, sometimes it makes more sense go after those that allow the problem to be a problem.

Until you have a uterus, don't bother to question me. I am a mother. THAT is why I am pro-life instead of pro-murder.

In the above we observe the standard local 'conservative' victim-response, when asked to defend their publicly-stated positions.  The woundedness continues with:

If you refer back to my original email, I was quite upfront about my position. I never said I don't want the abortionist to go to jail, on the contrary, I believe they should face whatever criminal charges the DA would be able to bring. As in the case of the doctor that killed Michael Jackson, not only will he face criminal charges but he will also lose his license to practice medicine. He is doubly punished in that way.

Also, I have never said I don't want the female to go to prison, on the contrary, I believe anyone sick and demented enough to *want* to kill a baby should be segregated from normal society to keep us safer. 
 
I don't think that when abortion is illegal, it is looked at by women in the same way that murder is. If a woman stabs and kills her boyfriend, she knows she has just committed a HUGE crime, but I don't think some women are intellectual enough to understand that killing an innocent baby is just as serious. A few gals making headlines for going to prison for the rest of their lives may be what it takes to give a wake up call to people that think it is okay to fuck around without protection but "are not ready" to be a parent. Pregnancy is preventable. 
 
For the record, she had just written [in her previous email] 'if abortion were made illegal then no punishment would be carried out against a woman seeking an abortion. Asking questions (seeking) isn't a crime.'
 
GOP Mommy seems to need to argue 'In all cultures all sane adults intuit the immense moral value of a united human sperm and egg cell.'  (Rhetorically, she is then saved from having to argue for imposing her religious beliefs upon non-adherents.)  So it's an attempt to make the pro-life argument from a secular set of assumptions.
 
On the other hand, I don't accept that everyone everywhere automatically knows very-early-stage abortion is wrong.  As an empirical matter, GOP Mommy is certainly wrong on this point, to say nothing of the fact that most human mothers, historically speaking, haven't even been aware of cellular biology.
 
All the same, it was nice having a civil, not-excessively-polite conversation with a member-in-good-standing of the right.

Sheila Kihne's Sulfurous Smear

Dear Sheila Kihne:

[CC:  Sen. David Hann]

You recently published a blogpost entitled "Corrective Action" Taken Against DFL State Senate Candidate Ron Case for Campaigning in the Classroom.

I praised you for seemingly uncovering something interesting. 

Well, I just re-read your post--and spoke with a family member who has taught in public schools--and note:

You claim that 'corrective action' was taken against Ron Case and that Case's principal has acknowledged Case used his classroom for 'political activity for personal gain'.  But you present no evidence whatsoever in support of your claim.  How can it be verified?

In your post, you include an email from Oak Point Principal Chuck Richter to Superintendent Melissa Krull.

Please read the email yourself:  Nowhere does it say Ron Case was found to have engaged in any inappropriate behavior whatsoever. 

While Richter's email mentions 'corrective action' (a phrase which can also accurately describe a principal's request that a teacher speak in a lower tone of voice)--nowhere does it mention that the corrective action involved Ron Case.

Can I ask you to issue a public apology for your sloppy slur?

Sen. Hann:  Can I ask you to respond to this email--and dissociate yourself from Sheila's discredited, lazy and false accusations?  (As a sitting Minnesota state senator, does Kihne's sleaze embarrass you?)

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Eden Prairie Responds

The other day I published an email I'd sent to Eden Prairie's Police Chief Rob Reynolds, informing him of unethical and illegal conduct committed by two Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force officers who were working with the Eden Prairie Police on Jan. 13, 2010--and EPPD Officer Chris Fietek's role in the cover-up.  I've also informed various people at City Hall--including Mayor Phil Young.

To recap:  In Officer Fietek's immediate presence, Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force undercover officers--without suspecting me of having committed any crime--called me an idiot, frisked me, took my camera and destroyed my property (a digital photograph).

After observing the illegal police conduct, I reported it immediately to authorities.  My account has been coherent and consistent throughout.

Via the city attorney, I just received Eden Prairie's response. 

Eden Prairie does not contradict any of my accusations.

A known, longtime community member has accused the police of highly specific, eyewitnessed illegal activity involving a named Eden Prairie Police officer--and the city has responded with mealymouthed CYA language:  "The Officer's report was written for information purposes only..." [sic] and "The city does not have any data responsive to this question." 

(That's bureaucratese for 'You're right--now please go away.')

Note to the Robed

It was a slip-of-the-tongue, I'm sure, which had you mentioning--from the pulpit this past Saturday--that Archbishop Óscar Romero was gunned down in Panama.  (You must be aware the 1980 murder occurred in El Salvador, right?)

Your larger point--that we're exceptionally free in America (so different from El Salvador, where a person can be murdered simply for standing up for his Catholic faith)--is I'm afraid also nonsense. Romero wasn't murdered for his adherence to the Magisterium; he was murdered [by Roberto D'Aubuisson] "one day after a sermon where he had called on Salvadoran soldiers, as Christians, to obey God's higher order and to stop carrying out the government's repression and violations of basic human rights" [Wikipedia]. 

In other words, Romero was assassinated for impeding the functioning of a murderous US-backed regime. 

Our freedom and their tyranny are by no means independent variables.

Paulsen's October Iran Statement

One-half year ago, Rep. Erik Paulsen issued an Iran statement--which I'd never really digested until this evening.  The rat-a-tat-tat psychic jump cuts are pure Paulsen:

Mr. Speaker, with the recent disclosure of a second site for enriching uranium in Iran, our relations with that country continue to be at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. The Iranian regime has made no secret of its ambitions to acquire nuclear technology, while it continues to engage in human rights violations and suppressing dissent.

The U.S. should demand Iran take specific, concrete actions in the near-term. This legislation is going to help in that effort.

 The Iranian government will be more responsive if the United States can isolate the regime and apply some distinct pressure that help will force Tehran to deliver on its commitments, and not merely to do what it has done in the past – and that’s use negotiations to merely run out the clock.

In other words:

1)  There's a problem with Iran.

2)  The USA's obvious, central, unique response must be to publicly announce ultimata.

3)  Since the Iranian leaders are pure-evil, irrational actors (mere pantomimes in Iran's sitcom-phony political charade) we can't pause for one moment's rational deliberation.  We must knife them immediately.  Then they'll obey.

Notice any logical problems?  Paulsen's ideological brick-laying is pristinely mortarless.  He doesn't say why he believes A brings about B--you have to accept that prior to his conferring sanity upon you. 

When the build-up to the Iraq War was occurring, both Erik Paulsen and I strongly supported the action.  I've long since accepted that the decision to invade was a gigantic national disaster, Vietnam War-sized in its damage to our national interest.  Were we today presented with an international actor precisely as bad and strong as Saddam Hussein, I'm confident I would oppose the rush to war that I enthusiastically supported eight years ago.

Doesn't a homologous one-paragraph narrative feel required--at minimum--of our Congressional Representative?  In short, how did he get from supporting the most gigantic national blunder of his generation, to today advocating highly-aggressive, ultra-unsubtle diplomacy toward Iran?  What lessons were learned along the way?  On what basis should your constituents so suspend skepticism?

Erik Paulsen--Quiet American--insists on out-in-the-open, take-it-or-leave-it diplomacy-by-ultimatum--predicated on the presumptive denial of our adversary's very comprehension of the moral sphere's existence.  (And we occasionally like to think our grandparents were simpletons.)

Paulsen's Closing Remarks again assert that by harming Iran economically the regime will submit forthwith to our nuclear demands.  Were this cause-effect chain to function as advertised, a number of moving parts would have to mesh perfectly.  In demanding his constituents suspend critical thinking--and refrain from reviewing the complex chain of events he believes he can set in motion--in a far-off country of which we know little--Paulsen reasserts his Radical Right capacity to shock the conscience.

Hackett and Meffert Meet in Edina

About 125 people showed up this evening at Edina's South View Middle School for a generally sparkless 75-minute CD3 DFL Congressional candidates' forum. 

The candidates smiling above are Maureen Hackett and Jim Meffert.  Senate district conventions--occurring on upcoming Saturdays--will decide much of the outcome.  The final decision (barring a primary challenge) gets made on April 10, 2010.

The consensus is that either will have great difficulty unseating the incumbent.  Having acknowledged the long odds--which candidate can give Paulsen the tougher fight?  Hmmm...

On the way in I am sternly warned:  Photography isn't allowed unless both campaigns give the go-ahead.  (The rule appears designed primarily to frustrate Republican spies.)  Shortly after the event begins, I observe Laurie Pryor tell the fellow sitting in front of me to stop videotaping; he responds saying he's with The Minnesota Daily.  (Can anyone verify?)

Meffert impresses this evening; he is the more polished debater--and has improved considerably since we first saw him at Southdale Library in December.  His posture and register are excellent this evening; his phrasing conventional and occasionally impassioned.  (The trademark Meffert intimate pseudo-whisper continues to mildly irk, though no one else seems to mind.)  Hackett occasionally uses odd phrasing and inadvisably curls her visible legs while speaking.

At one point Hackett says the Iraq War 'was all about oil'--a formulation which raises hackles with some, as it can indicate a non-controversial perspective [we didn't intervene in Congo because Congo has little importance to the regnant economic order] or it can indicate an International A.N.S.W.E.R.-type leaning. 

When moderator Cam Winton asks about the TSA's use of high-tech body scanners in airports, Hackett's reply suggests some vague conspiracy.  During an evening in which neither candidate seems negatively disposed toward the other, Meffert responds mentioning his rejection of 'paranoid' political thinking, which I interpret as the evening's only real jab. (And it might also be a subtle reminder to sophisticated listeners of Hackett's 2005 contribution to Ralph Nader.)

When the middleman asks the candidates how Congress should respond to the Citizens United decision, Meffert boldly advocates a Constitutional Amendment rescinding corporations' First Amendment protection.  Both candidates agree restrictions on corporations are required in response to Citizens United. 

Winton follows up asking if labor unions should be subject to the same political curbs that both agree ought to apply to corporations.  Both candidates whiff, essentially saying yes.  (Some Democrats think that while there are indeed strong reasons for restricting the political influence of corporations, these reasons don't make much sense when pointed at unions.)

The candidates voice support for making abortion 'safe, legal and rare', indicating no interest in making an issue of Paulsen's radical Human Life Amendment 'solution'.  (Some think that when your opponent advocates eviscerating women's rights, you should bang him over the head with it.)

A seasoned political pro would likely find a female candidate preferable, to go up against Erik Paulsen.  And you might be reluctant to go with Meffert--whose thumbnail sketch looks so similar to the incumbent's. 

That said, I score this evening's forensic a slight Meffert win--though I didn't hear any Hackett supporters express dissatisfaction with their candidate's performance.  It remains an open race.

An Email to Chief Rob Reynolds

Hello Chief Reynolds:

In order to shield her fellow officers from punishment, Off. Chris Fietek knowingly withheld obviously-relevant information from her report--to wit:

In Off. Fietek's immediate presence, Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force undercover officers--without suspecting me of having committed any crime--called me an idiot, frisked me, took my camera and destroyed my photograph.

(We've now learned that Off. Fietek wasn't even aware of the agency she was working alongside, on Jan. 13. In her phony-baloney 'report', she refers to 'HCSO deputies'; the officers have since been revealed to be Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force undercover officers.)

Will you have the report's multiple errors corrected?

When can I pick up a copy of the new, truthful version of the report?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan

A Blogger Defends Kihne

I recently asked nearby conservative bloggers to demonstrate support for the free exchange of ideas by publicly declaring their disagreement with Sheila Kihne's draconian letters policy.  This elicited a reply from one--and I am very grateful to her for taking the time to respond.

That blogger's reply, however, constitutes nothing beyond the boring old SD42 GOP litany.  At the risk of boring you, I'll respond:

You suggest that a more groveling attitude might win me access to Sheila Kihne's comments section.  In this you misunderstand several gavinsullivan.com ur-positions: that citizens should be able to easily exchange ideas, that they should have access to their elected representatives and that public participation should not require insincere declarations of worthlessness.  So while I would welcome Sheila's return from Pyongyang, no mawkish, thespian 'longing' should be required of me.

You accuse me of making untrue statements about you, but list none.  If you believe you've been unjustly singled out for my jujitsu, please provide evidence.  Jettison your sillier claims and instead Pat Benatar me:  While I welcome above-board dialog with all comers, I zealously defend the integrity of my history. 

One of the ungainlier, self-replicating charges of the local Right regards my being--invariably phrased thus--a creepy stalker.  I've repeatedly asked conservatives to produce even a single credible accusation of my ever having stalked any person once.  You have my email address.

Conservatives are aware of the dishonesty at the root of their stalking charge--but repeat it anyway.  Observing conservatives' behavior, we are forced to ponder their lack of rectitude.  (In possession of this awareness, we find it difficult not to guffaw when they play the victim.)

Your Mensa paragraph is unfortunate.  I interpreted your response as seems most rational by my lights and invite readers to check it for themselves.

To local Republican politicos, I hold a bizarre, bomb-throwing, stunningly non-obvious position on free speech--and this much is true:

I believe that the status of free speech waxes and wanes in our community--and it remains imperfect today.  There are people here who are afraid to express themselves, for fear of illegitimate retaliation.  Dumb impediments to honest interaction abound still--and justify our solemn attention.

Even as ultra-miniature pundits, the model we exhibit speaks profoundly about the nature of our community, and our vision for its future.  Were an outsider--observing our local blogosphere--to comment upon the exalted status enjoyed by freedom of expression and the mutual exchange of ideas, in and around 55347, we'd be justified in enjoying a moment's pride.    As pundits we model civility by keeping lines of communication open, welcoming even agitated criticism and never allowing disagreement to orgasm into permanent breach. 

When we build barriers to the free exchange of legitimate ideas, we most certainly do diminish the status of free speech in our community.  Were an outsider to visit Eden Prairie and report back (to her peeps, i.e.) that our public square is divided into non-interacting soundproof booths, our standard ontological torment would momentarily be justified.

For a bit of rhetorical oomph, I assert that Jane Six-pack finds my description of our free speech climate obvious; she finds your on/off-like-a-light-switch position on free speech hyperideological.  (Should you disagree with me on this intuition, we might be able to structure a public opinion research project.)

Your blog is your private possession--you argue--so no one can claim any 'community interest' in its functioning.  I disagree.  Sheila Kihne is an opinion leader in Eden Prairie--and is a close political ally of both Sen. David Hann and Rep. Erik Paulsen; no person engaging the local marketplace for ideas could possibly not interact with her.

Thanks again for your response.  As always, I welcome above-board, unsupervised give and take.

Sheila Il-Kihne

Should you observe the gorillas housed in the Como Park Zoo, you'll likely feel amazed, frightened or disgusted.  But it's equally likely a sentient observer might think the small display cruel.  I left feeling quite sorry for the beasts--and mostly forgot their suffering a half hour later.

If you believe in the humane treatment of animals, be prepared to face the Dear Blogger's wrath:

In her post today, Kihne hurls a brain-dead insult:  A woman named Catherine Zimmer had a sensible letter published--criticizing the inhumane treatment of gorillas in zoos. 

Kihne feels she can depend upon readers to agree with her--that anyone who feels strongly in favor of the humane treatment of gorillas has already provided sufficient evidence of their doctrinaire liberalism and insanity. 

Conservative readers:  Does that seem obvious to you?  Must a traditionalist believe animal suffering unworthy of a moment's ethical concern?

By the time I found Kihne's post, two subordinates had already praised it--one of whom gave clear evidence she hadn't fully read Zimmer's letter. 

When Sheila Kihne spots something objectionable on this blog, she leaves a comment, sends an email or even telephones me.  

While she quite reasonably demands the right to challenge a fellow blogger within his own comments section, she does not allow her own dissenters any similar courtesy.

(Here's the mind-bending retort Sheila deemed too offensive for her readers' eyes.)

I seem to recall once learning a word that describes such a person.

**

Little misogynist on the Prairie:  Kihne has just published anew, describing her revulsion for having to view out-of-shape older women ('visual pollution') in locker rooms. 

The expert mantrap then hints at supporting the immediate expulsion of all illegal aliens.  'Has the federal government done something to boot people out of the country who are here illegally? I didn't think so. 8.5 years now. Tick tock'.  (Holding such views is still considered ruggedly commendable out here, among the booboisie.)

Kihne goes on to condemn the left for preventing a more grueling interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.  When Kihne achieves hegemony, criminals are going to get a proper spanking.

The Local Right

A quick trip around the blogging neighborhood:

Sheila Kihne wallops Ron Case today, besieging Case for using a public classroom for campaign work.  Kihne is to be lauded for her work--and is entirely correct in expecting a DFL standard-bearer for state senate to be aware of such rules. 

Kihne does oversell her critique:  That Case makes his literature available at the city-owned Dunn Bros--where all candidates get equivalent access--is not problematic.  If Case has made politically valuable connections via his involvement in Eden Prairie public education, he can't be expected to throw out his Rolodex when campaigning, can he? 

Whatever our frequent stylistic and ideological differences with TAND, her inquisitiveness occasionally benefits Eden Prairie.  (As a supporter of Ron Case, I certainly hope he can do better--and win.)

[Note:  I retracted the above praise here--after I realized Sheila got her facts wrong.]

Previously Kihne put up a long, boring military-themed rant which I'll confess not having been able to finish.  (Did anybody make it through that one?)  On foreign policy, Kihne might save us time by revealing her stances on the defining issues of the day: 

Given what we know now, should we have invaded Iraq? 
Should we get out of Afghanistan soon?
Should we be performing assassinations in other jurisdictions?
Has Israel been a good friend to the US--or a bad friend?

(In fairness--my answers are no, yes, no & bad respectively.)

If Sheila Kihne is the pitchfork-wielding bomb-thrower of Eden Prairie's right, Crystal Kelley is her meek-voiced admiring sister.  (When I recently accused her of anality, Kelley amusingly mistook my dilettantish psychoanalysis for perversion.)

Crystal Kelly--aka Friendly Neighborhood Republican--is currently running an I reached out to another piece concerning her bonding with a 'pro-life' neighbor.   (Their warm-hearted desire to see millions of women imprisoned or forced to complete pregnancies against their will certainly inspires.)  In any case, the two run into each other when picking up the mail; slowly an intimacy blossoms (upon the foundation of the sanctity of life).  The money shot:

Though we are different, we are very much the same. We have the same worldview, the same value system, similar opinions. We are conservatives.

Such peaks of interhuman bonding must be rare, no?

Edina reactionary Catholic blogger Angela Berger is currently advocating excommunicating pro-choice Catholic politicians, invoking something called Canon 915.  The spirit of McCarthyism lives in the reactionary Catholic ethos, of course:  They'd love a Church which had the courage to use the tools of social control it retains. 

In my recent posts on Catholicism, one again notes the unidirectional nature of idea transmission endemic in the religion's standard practice.  Rank-and-file 'orthodox' Catholics can't defend their theological and political positions; their infantilizing religious practice fails to prepare them for ideological competition--as it would if it really believed itself to be in possession of The Truth.

A latent, unsatisfied punishment urge pervades 'devout' Catholic consciousness.  Pew-warming Catholics bond over their supposed pro-life unanimity--but antiabortionists never clarify their practical goal--how a woman caught seeking an abortion ought to be punished.  Nor do pro-lifers discuss the practical and political difficulties sure to result, when millions of abortion-seeking women are forced to bring unwanted pregnancies to term.

**

Hello Ann:

A commenter on my blog accuses you of giving preferential treatment to Ron Case--allowing his campaign literature to be distributed within your shop.

Can I get your response?

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie
 
Hi Gavin,

My policy is to post no campaign literature or signs unless a candidate is holding an event to meet the public in my store. In this case, the candidate may post or distribute literature during the event. I welcome any candidate from any party running for any office to arrange an event to meet the public.

If a candidate posts something at any other time I remove it as soon as I am made aware of the posting.

I have never given preferential treatment to any candidate. My mission is to support the process and allow my guests an opportunity to meet candidates and ask questions.

I would be happy to discuss this with you if you have any further questions.

Thank you,

Ann Schuster

to Sheriff Stanek

Dear Sheriff Rich Stanek:

On Jan. 13, 2010, I happened upon a felony drug arrest in the parking lot of Von Maur Department Store, located at Eden Prairie Center.  I've since learned the arrest included Hennepin County Sheriff's Office undercover officers working in cooperation with the Eden Prairie Police. 

When the action was over--with one suspect in a squad car and the remaining female suspect handcuffed and cooperative, I walked deliberately toward the scene--and took a photograph of EP Police Officer Chris Fietek frisking the suspect.  No undercover officer was in the photograph.

The police officers expressed rage with me for taking the photograph and for approaching the scene of the arrest--despite the fact that no suspect remained at large.

Afterward, I wrote to the Eden Prairie Police complaining of the officers' unprofessional conduct. 

In response, the EP Police provided me with Officer Chris Fietek's report, shown above. 

On the positive side, Officer Fietek's report does not falsely suggest that she or any officer suspected me of breaking any law.  Her report acknowledges that when I arrived on the scene, both suspects were in custody.

Officer Fietek doesn't mention, however, that the undercover HCSO officers verbally abused me, frisked me, detained me, took my camera and destroyed the single digital photograph in my possession.

Can you think of any reason Officer Fietek might have omitted this information from her report?  (Perhaps she has an exceptionally bad memory?)  Can you please have the undercover HCSO officers contact Officer Fietek and remind her of these key facts--of which they are completely aware?

My interaction with the officers occurred alongside an Eden Prairie Police squad car which had just participated in a felony arrest--with numerous other police vehicles, marked and unmarked, close by.  Surely some audio and/or video recording of the entire event exists?

I'm quite confident that even an audio recording will make clear the truthfulness of my account--and reveal Officer Fietek's dishonesty.

On Jan. 30, 2010, I mailed an FOIA-type request to the Eden Prairie Police, asking that they provide me with unedited copies of any recordings they have of my interaction with them on Jan. 13, 2010.  They have not yet responded to my request.

I want to make the same request of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office--okay?  (If you need me to mail you the form letter, please let me know and I will do so.)  Please provide me with any recording[s] you have of my interaction with the officers, okay?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Sermon du jour

Still in it for the long haul--Eden Prairie Democrats gleefully note--the funerary David Hann for Governor campaign hobbles forth.  (Upright, neighborly Eden Prairie DFLers do not respect or like Sen. Hann.)

Readers here were introduced to my state senator long ago, when he and I attended a publicly-announced political event.  He was surrounded by his aggressively-rude posse when I attempted to politely ask Hann several questions. 

Hann instead wanted to play painfully unclever word games.  After he'd no-commented me into giving up on getting anything out of him, he oozily praised himself for the (in my words) heavy-handed and yet safely deniable fuck you he'd delivered to the basement-dwelling, lumpenproletariat blogger. 

Just before giving up, I asked Hann if he would ever respond to a non-adoring citizen's question.  And in response to this question (perhaps thinking meta-meta was sufficiently removed from political) Hann accidentally answered truthfully:  He would answer questions from non-blogger citizens, he said--and he'd take questions from known newspapers or tv stations--but he would not discuss politics with a blogger. 

I left feeling genuinely stumped when trying to imagine how Hann can perceive himself to be a gentleman.

Some posts back I mentioned a Hann oddity:  He puts himself forward as a self-conscious 'traditionalist,' though he unashamedly calls attention to his 'sincere values'.  And--in my presence--Hann openly assumed the worst when meeting an unknown constituent.

When publicly calling attention to his own sincerity--David Hann violates the gentleman's first rule:  When the personal character of another is unknown, a gentleman leaves open the possibility of giving an A+. 

To walk about in public assuming oneself to exceed others--sight unseen--in sincerity is to approach the world with a malodorous disposition.

Honorable should be the default position for our assessment of other people's character.  That's why any true gentleman would prefer guzzling Ipecac to hearing a friend publicly state her sincerity sets her apart. 

A gentleman's mirth-generating self-delusion--that he lives in a world filled with honorable people--prevents him from ever developing Hann's repulsive sanctimony.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

The other day Rep. Erik Paulsen--reflecting on Haiti--issued a sweeping claim about the American national character:  The American spirit of compassion has been shown throughout history during disasters such as this one. 

I looked up the four biggest natural disasters--from 1800 through 1950--and then asked Paulsen to provide evidence that in response to each, 'The American spirit of compassion' sprang forth.

No substantive 'spirit of compassion' has yet been demonstrated on any one of the four.  (To prove his point Rep. Paulsen would of course need to produce evidence on each of the four cases.)

To summon the social/cultural reality faced by people (of your own race, class, age and location) fifty years ago would be beyond the imaginative ability of most.  To pull up more distant realities--social relations involving people of disparate race, class, gender and cultural situations--is that much harder.

Having accepted this conventional historical stance, you'd be reluctant to speculate on 1839 America's public opinion regarding distant natural disasters, right?

To hold this inclination is in no way to express disdain for previous generations of Americans, nor does it require one to believe contemporary America has no compelling relationship with the society that precedes it. 

With his statement, we learn of our Congressman's deep naïveté.  In making the remark, Paulsen assumes previous generations viewed the suffering of faraway multitudes with the same moral urgency we feel now. 

Prior to the Civil War, few white people cared about the brutal abuse--of millions--who resided in their own country.  Even today our compassion for the suffering of foreigners remains appallingly selective and convenient.

In addition to their quotidian legislative grind, members of Congress play important symbolic roles--modeling good citizenship.  Insisting that to be a good American one must be a dependable simpleton, Paulsen further alienates himself.

Dobsonites Rendezvous @ OLG

Local priest-flatterers assembled this evening at Edina's Our Lady of Grace to hear Archbishop John Nienstedt and St. Thomas Law Prof. Teresa Collett speak on Culture of Marriage and Family Life.

An obsequious youngish man starts the evening's event, telling the two hundred assembled of the ecclesiast's various splendors.  Our society's current degraded state--we learn at the lad's knee--has its root in the 1965 judicial abomination Griswold v. Connecticut, which inserted a loony-left 'right to privacy' into Constitutional interpretation while it (also obnoxiously) prevented states from banning the sale of contraceptives.  He segues forth to bemoan Roe v. Wade, natch. 

Catholics unenthused for a return to 1964 are assumed not to exist--as the toady reveals we won't be allowed to address questions to the august guest using mere vocal chords; we must write them on index cards and hand them in for his review. 

Passive aggression here has its immaculately deniable aspect.  We're all livid this evening that the Pill's legal.  We laugh politely at the robed one's unfunniest witticism-placeholders.

At the lectern, Nienstedt is elevated two feet or so; he reads his address as an assistant mans PowerPoint's one-button intricacy.  He runs us through the standard hell-in-a-handbasket prattle, replete with unsourced statistical claims; he urges us to sign the Manhattan Declaration.  His reading voice doesn't bother me except when he says spouze and twice evinces belief that presently means 'now'.

When his parents celebrated their sixtieth anniversary, his mother is asked 'How did you do it?'  Nienstedt quotes her responding 'We live the commitment every day'--an oddly New Age phrasing for a woman who gave birth on March 18, 1947--to my ear.

We're urged to read Robert George's The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals.  Maggie Gallagher receives multiple props.  Families must attend Mass together and 'nothing short of sickness or death' ought to stop it.  Deviant sex:  Nyet.  (If you don't like it, rough.)  Non-married adults get in the way of societal perfection, I sense; biological children are preferred to foundlings.  Channeling again--the multiply-divorced represent a rebuke to the marital ideal and should be icily tolerated.

After his grave keynote, Nienstedt responds to a few questions.  As usual at such events, one of the dimmer (though fervently hidebound) questioners is puzzled by the double-talk:  Why don't you just come out and say Vote Republican?  The archbishop wistfully notes that back when the Catholic Church got involved in politics 'decades ago', things didn't work out all that well.  (Do you think?)   It's unnecessary for Nienstedt to speak explicitly--instructing you to vote for this candidate or that--because 'people can connect the dots,' he says.  Wink.

To address a crowd with a controversial set of viewpoints--roundly rejected even by majorities of Catholics, without allowing any alternative views; to read one's entire 40-minute lecture, to refuse face-to-face challenges, to silently leave midway within the evening's program, simply because one is no longer on stage:  We expect such comportment from Catholic untouchables.  It's another thing entirely for a secular intellectual to uncritically wallow in this rigged venue. 

Enter St. Thomas law Prof. Teresa Collett--a passionate advocate for the protection of human life and the family according to her own web page.  (I will one day oppose these ideals--after I've destroyed Christmas Ed.)  She begins with a quotation on 'authentic democracy' and ends with one by Martin Luther King, sidestepping the Church's centuries-long opposition to democracy and manumission.  Collett--prim and annoying, with Oklahoman brogue--repeatedly suggests the Founders wanted us to be highly religious.  (They generally didn't, of course, but who cares?)

Most of the crowd perseveres.  When our speaker informs us of NFP's near-perfect reliability, I mentally toast the Curries.  She praises marriage because it 'increases the likelihood that children will have high-status jobs'.  For real.

Happy to confirm every lurid cliché concerning her fellow intellectuals, Collett goes through a long series of legal travesties, describing each dispute with farcical one-sidedness, throwing in a 'witty' political jab now and again--masquerading as our informant from within the intelligentsia.  Mentioning China's one-child policy, she suggests our eggheads are this very moment planning its imposition in America.  She caricatures an imagined liberal state legislator snidely asking her how legalizing gay marriage will harm her own. 

The goal is not just the elimination of abortion, we again learn--we must end contraception. 

Collett's favorite rhetorical move is in placing her audience on the side of African Americans in opposition to the liberal whackjobs who seek to equate gay equality with racial fairness.  Black plaintiffs are frequently identified by race ('A beautiful African American woman' etc.).  The crowd can't get enough, then do--then we drive off into the night's fluffy, powder-dry snowfall.