Superimposed Narrative

Victim-impact statements return justice from the societal to the tribal--and encourage popular misunderstanding of the relationship between citizen and state.

Middle-aged lush, down on luck, takes out bright-futured youth. 

At sentencing, friends and family of deceased wear Justice-for-Victim t-shirts.  Sad symbolism, no?  (The cold, impersonal state should punish. T-shirts trivialize.)

After the hearing, Assistant County Attorney Brian Lutes admitted he had a hard time maintaining his composure while the impact statements were delivered.

Odd that the emotions of legal professionals are deemed newsworthy--and that when noted they're so damn predictable.  'Twould be cool if the Strib writer found an unmoved observer, a person complaining of the ceremony's emotional inadequacy--or of its prepackaged air.

"Cast a cold eye

On life, on death.

Horseman, pass by."

While no doubt appearing to 'conceal' his emotional output, might Brian Lutes actually have been performing--emotionally--in a manner calculated to be crowd pleasing?

Eulogistic license can be exceeded:  The deceased 'did more good in a single day than most people do in an entire lifetime...' 

Since tragedy, they have done much MADDish stuff.  It is suggested we come to appreciate their voluntarism, as expressive of good citizenship.

"This isn't about him or about us. It's about justice," she said. "It's all just so sad and senseless."

It is the senselessness that prevents one from adopting the community-wide ideological frame that's being proposed.  The voluntarism, t-shirts and StarTribune article hint at a sensefulness that never quite gets delivered.

Triteness: "Nothing prepares you to pick out a casket for your child..."

Such articles include a subliminal component of collective revenge, in which we throw stones at the guilty man's mental well-being.  We adopt a brutal black-and-white moralistic perspective.  Demonizing the drunk is assumed central to the journalist's assignment; no attack on the perpetrator's essential crookedness requires any skepticism:

"I don't believe he's sorry," he said. "He may be sorry he lost a foot. He may be sorry he will be spending time in jail and not be able to drink."

The hard-boiled cliché assumes people are especially mystically knowledgeable, having been touched by random violent death--and therefore must be pressed to inform us of some heretofore doubted religious truth:  'The teen's dad believes Lifto is headed for hell.' 

It would be nice were a jaundiced observer occasionally found, saying

It was senseless; the guilty dude is a sad case, this social problem requires ongoing vigilance--but drunk driving represents a fairly small portion of easily-preventable death, globally.  This particular random occurrence should not privilege any specific magical belief-set.

Critical Mass

Jeff Fecke, I have noted, exploded the other day--though while defending Prof. Pieklo's honor it is interesting that he nowhere endorses her misogyny claim. 

His argument centers on the internet-stature gulf which separates him from me--and why he should not and can not take any of my ideas seriously, due to his understandably gigantic ego.  Thankfully, his reasons have nothing to do with the quality of any of my ideas, so there's hope.

Speaking ex cathedra, Fecke blugeons my claim to be a legitimate critic.  Let me clarify:

People announcing themselves legitimate critics should be allowed to have their way, unless unrebuttable information can be presented for withdrawing the description.

When a person engages in 'legitimate criticism'--lifting stones, challenging CW, asking difficult questions, hectoring individuals and groups, etc.--she will be personally attacked. 

When examining personal disputes in which we ourselves play no role, we often observe ad hominem attacks not grounded in the stated reasoning.  (People use words as clubs--as Jeff Fecke frequently calls out a vast array of people as misogynists, in blatant political-hit mode.) 

We must direct greater skepticism at public, personal attacks--and should err on the side of promiscuity when handing out legitimate critic licenses.

Accepting this rule empowers people and enlivens democracy:  In this society, you are considered a legitimate critic if you so claim, and we will heckle those who put forward silly reasons for denying you your badge.

The community should take personal attacks against 'legitimate critics' with greater skepticism, demanding those leveling charges provide evidence.

The Case for Courtesy

I announce my unapologetic hatred for the idea that adults require your permission before viewing any publication they damn well please.

Once you have published something, it is fair game for comment--and no one owes you apology for having read your stuff.

Jessica Pieklo blogs here, here, here and here, tweets here, YouTubes here--and appears as a regular guest on this purportedly national radio broadcast. 

There is a mundane reason why a community observer would follow her in all of these venues:  There are very few people experimenting with 'psychic transparency' quite in Pieklo's comprehensive manner.  It is an awesome, ghastly sight to behold.

IOW:  If you're not taking in all seven channels, you're missing her project's core:  To exemplify right identity--soup to nuts--and thereby gain the authority to adjudicate the worth of other people. 

Putting the most public-facing individuals' ideological projects to the test is within the purview of legitimate social criticism. 

The sluttier bloggers are still wrestling with this obvious truth--still pretending to believe Pieklo's oeuvre off-limits--while evincing a certain ass-covering skittishness vis-à-vis a buffoon's recent effort.

Anyone may declare herself a critic, and she will be treated as 'a legitimate critic' until I read, in published form, a persuasive, evidence-based reason for withdrawing the honorific--or be prepared to state the case on my own.

The corrupt coward's charges are serious charges--and not for a millisecond do I seek to dodge them.

With complete gentlemanliness I entreat her--in the spirit of civil rights--to make her case or withdraw it.

Done Being Quiet

Today:  Pieklo flashmob's full flower...and that name blogger published on me, though quite disappointing--as it wasn't about me or anything interesting--and had nothing to say on the present dispute.  Leaving Fecke's oddity aside:

After my criticisms, Jessica Pieklo broke down--and assumes her collapse was due to my pre-planned hex.  (She became complicit in her own silencing--in victim-speak.)  I have attempted to demonstrate my longstanding skepticism--as regards magic spells--though I've learned my testimony can't be considered due to some unnamed historical character stain.

In other words, the charge currently being directed at me has no foundation and is stupid.  Hence, the requirement that specifics not be discussed.  Hence, my resistance to the do-gooders' stance.

My focus on Hegemommy has been called sexist, but I defend her selection and stand by the posts--better than anything on Care2.

When Hegemommy has her mojo she emits a multi-sceneried pageant of progressive self-affirmation delicious in its dreadfulness.  (Pieklo's happiness has now achieved a new peak, though one detects a falseness.)

The dispute proceeded, the two sides adopted disparate narratives--I guffawed at Pieklo's sentences, causing irritation among the sanctimonious.  The uplift narrative eventually morphed into the desired me-affirming claim of 'abuse' or 'harrassment,' albeit without evidence, as--somewhat embarrassingly for the undeluded--none occurred. 

An internet buffoon doesn't care, as it won't get him acknowledged by Matt Yglesias. 

To the dustbin!

Dear Jessica and Jeff,

To publish is to welcome criticism; one doesn't get to choose one's critics. 

The self-appointed critic need offer neither apology nor obeisance--and if anyone considers him tarnished, the burden of proof is on you. 

To impede, stonewall or insult a legitimate critic is not honorable, in a public intellectual.

Jeff, I just took you to task for your sloppy usage, in applying 'extreme misogynist' to Jared Loughner.  You made clear--and brusquely--you would not facilitate substantive dialog.  Your reaction's bitter, put-upon tone stimulated a hunch:

Searching your blog for misogynist yielded as feared:  You diagnose misogyny very often, and for a huge variety of reasons.

I thought:  I'm in luck:  Hamline Prof. Jessica Pieklo has--repeatedly, publicly--proclaimed me a misogynist.  Jeff Fecke is exceptionally good at identifying misogyny.  So I ask you to assist, Jeff:

Please email Jessica Pieklo, and request her evidence for labeling me misogynist--as she will supply none to me.

Do you endorse Jessica's 'misogynist' designation, or oppose it?

Do you feel Prof. Pieklo has made the charge while according sufficient due process to the accused?

When Prof. Pieklo provides you with her list of quotations, I am quite sure it will not require you more than 15 minutes:  Please read her evidence--and then provide your determination. 

I will be very appreciative of your quarter hour, as I find her charge's sting quite burdensome--just as I have no doubt you would, were she to direct it at you, with no evidence.

Sincerely,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Debate and Dehook

Jeff Fecke revealed an unappealing side in our to-and-fro the other day--which is dispiriting as I'd maintained hope he might be a gentleman.  (I prevail upon readers to review the transcript--and assume no further blow against Jeff Fecke will remain needed, after his own contributions.)

1.  Prof. Jessica Pieklo seeks to publicly label me a misogynist--and demands all accept her decree without evidence.

2.  Jeff Fecke states that Jared Loughner is an 'extreme misogynist'--directing us to an article that provides no reason for viewing Loughner a misogynist.

A thread of similarity, is all:  Points 1 and 2 both include faith-based charges of misogyny.  In each case, the person advancing the charge reacts with pique when evidence is questioned--and during subsequent give-and-take, the misogyny-locator reveals an aggressively obstructionist, wounded attitude toward any challenge.

Observing the public rhetoric of Prof. Jessica Pieklo, over some months, one is reminded of a fanaticism that sometimes finds comfortable home in feminism.  The fallen feminist seeks to deflect criticism via willy-nilly accusations of gender-based abuse--eventually basing her identity in the affirmation she experiences when lobbing mindless charges.  (It is merely a sliver of feminism with which I am today taking issue.)

[Fecke is not interested in pursuing our dialog:  'Gavin, I’m not going to hold your hand for you.']

If he's unwilling to talk, of course, we are invited to speculate:

In order to achieve honorary male feminist status, Fecke may feel incentivized to refrain from providing evidence, when hurling the charge of misogyny--as a subtle expression of solidarity with his aggrieved sisters. 

I am not arguing for the good character of Jared Loughner, and I don't deny he may be a misogynist.  I am simply drawing attention to the fact that Jeff Fecke asserted the charge, initially, without evidence:  He's so good at finding misogyny he implicitly asserts the right to identify it by nose alone.

Fecke considers my line of inquiry nitpicky; I consider it weighty--and pray I never have to admit accusing anyone of misogyny alongside spurious evidence.

On the Stature Marketplace

In my post the other day, I smote Jeff Fecke on two points central to his Loughner blogpost--while another commenter addressed Fecke on an unrelated, uninteresting point.  After these two critical comments, Jeff Fecke responded:

Yes, yes, you’re all right; I’ve posted a correction in the next post.

So I went and read his newer piece, in which I anticipated he'd respond to my two central thrusts.

Instead, he responded solely to the other commenter's criticism--and a theory occurred to me--a gut instinct:

Readers are aware that a professor at Hamline has been trying to smear me in retaliation for my exposing the dishonesty, stupidity and bad taste ubiquitous in her published work.  Prof. Pieklo has--I acknowledge--had some success in tarnishing my reputation, among the ill-informed.  She refuses--for reasons only too obvious--to defend her whispering campaign in response to direct questions put to her--very politely--by the unjustly adjudged party.

When people deliberately seal themselves off from others who they know to be curious concerning their consequential views, they invite just speculation.  Pieklo refuses to take questions--as she's quite aware of the intellectual weakness of her position.  But she's happy, still:  She's stumbled upon a cheaper response that does the job and demands no draining intellectual effort:

Pieklo--speculating imaginatively, the knower herself being above questioning--seeks to visit social punishment upon a detractor, by labelling him misogynist in the public square.  She's happy to knowingly abuse her scholar social status, lobbing a phony charge of misogyny for the purpose of punishing a legitimate critic. ('I'm that tough,' she says to herself.)

Social snubs are often translucent--allowing definitive interpretation to forever remain elusive. Though if you've read Jeff Fecke, you know of his solicitude to every news cycle's feminist party line. 

Not knowing Fecke much, I wonder: Does he uphold reasonably high ethical standards? Would he willingly participate in the classic transaction linking the socially prestigious and the intellectual--publicly upholding a position he in fact has not examined, so as to corner the feminists' imprimatur?  

To return to our opening:  I put two strong critiques to Fecke's recent post--and the blogger responded in the well-known manner of the snub-deliverer:  He pretended I didn't exist, responding only to the other questioner.  Can you think of any reason he might act thus?

Do you think Jeff Fecke is aware--or not aware--of Prof. Pieklo's vendetta? 

If Fecke is aware of Pieklo's crooked campaign--and if we theorize Fecke an indefatigable flatterer of feminists--what attitude would you predict he might take, were we to assume him interested in advancing the social stature of Jeff Fecke?

Well, duh:  He should brutally cold-shoulder me.  (Which has a certain predictive attractiveness, as it corresponds precisely to what Fecke actually did.)

I have no doubt that the imagined, dismal portrait of Jeff Fecke's character--above--in no way corresponds to reality.  Wouldn't it be nice if he emitted some sign, reassuring us?

Gabby Giffords Must Be Made Of Titanium

I plagiarize my title from Phoenix Woman--who uses the same pixels in their irony-free version.

Since the Arizona shooting, an upright citizens' herd has been forming.  To participate, one bleats jaunty optimism about Rep. Giffords' impressive progress and sunny prospects for recovery.  A Reaganesque voice is summoned as one marvels over the special Giffords character traits which the participant is sure will force fate's contours.  One gains nice-guy points within the chattering classes when one pulls off Gabby-cheerleading salably.

Phoenix Woman's post builds to the groan-eliciting Keep it up, Congresswoman Giffords.  Within this mode of collective reassurance and self-congratulation, every sentence offered must be vetted for inoffensiveness were an uninjured Giffords to read them herself.

If I knew the injury would leave me with major permanent cognitive impairment, I'm not sure I would wish for recovery at all.  Given that such an outcome appears at least one realistic possibility for Rep. Giffords, I resist participating in the public rah-rah.  One must entertain the possibility that Giffords herself, pre-tragedy, might share the same intuition.  I commented:

Your post provides no evidence that any minimally satisfactory recovery is underway–despite our shared hope. Recovery--from a gunshot wound to the head--has little to do with the ethical qualities of the patient, I suspect.

Whether some variable now is acting ‘in her favor’ is contingent on a number of factors, philosophical and medical. One possible outcome--speaking about such injuries in a general sense--is drastically reduced cognitive functioning.

I wish Giffords a complete recovery.  But until I know her quality of life will reach some tolerable minimum--high above its current state--I can't claim any envy for her fate, when compared with that of Judge Roll.

**

In another comments thread, I put forward a viewpoint cribbed from recent stuff at The Economist and Will Wilkinson:

What is the rationale for unions, among public employees? Do they need protection from the representatives of voters? (If so, why not simply appeal to voters--and stop all lobbying, striking, threats, etc.?)

MPP's Alec responded:

In a word, yes, duh.The immediate, short sighted whims and needs of the public might not always coincide with what's right or in the interests of the employees. For example, it might be politically expedient to cut a budget by slashing wages, but that's why we have a voice. Take a look at the rights, benefits, and salaries of employees in right to work states. Those employees are lower paid, work in more dangerous workplaces, and are treated worse. So yeah, why shouldn't public employees be able to advocate for their interests?

Thanks Alec--you've clarified our friendly disagreement considerably. It seems weird to me that government employees need to band together, to achieve protection against the people's representatives. If--in the absence of public employee unions--politicians reduced payroll and headcount excessively, voters could choose other politicians, imho. Public employment should be viewed as a means of accomplishing important civic ends--and not as a means of maximizing the happiness of public employees.

A blogger's footnote:

I note with regret Mercury Rising's execrable ethics--deleting comments they deem excessively persuasive, and--in order to shore up the ego of their typist Charles II, they replaced my comment with one of their own authorship to deliberately mislead readers into thinking I wrote it. In several years' blogging, this is the lowest I've seen it go.

Fecke's 'Loughner' Immoderation

Killing In The Name Of bemoans, 'Many pixels have been spilled handwringing about what part of the political spectrum Jared Lee Loughner belongs to.'  To discuss the consequences of the Arizona shooting, that would seem an important preliminary.  Jeff Fecke in fact takes a thoughtless position:

It is because the immediate reaction of the left to the shooting was not shock or surprise or disbelief. It is because, to a person, our reaction was, “Oh my God, the tea partiers have finally done it.”

So sure is the blogger of his knee-jerk judgment's inevitability he considers it safe to assume conservatives, deep down, believe it too:

And of course, if they’re honest, this was the reaction on the right as well — which is why Sarah Palin’s staffers spent the hours following Loughner’s shooting spree pulling down inconvenient photos from Palin’s site and scrubbing vitriolic tweets.

If Sarah Palin's site gets scrubbed, might there be any wholesome or realpolitik reason for the update?  Isn't it conceivable the scrubbing might have been done by a staffer, without Palin's consultation?  It cannot obviously be attributed to the Right's belief the shooter would be a Tea Partyer.  Other plausible motivations readily present themselves.

Fecke writes Loughner's 'political views, such as they were, appear to have been influenced by the fringe-of-fringe-right sovereign citizen movement and by a deep and abiding misogyny.'

The first entity in no way implicates any mainstream American political faction.  So Fecke must base Loughner's 'political views' in extreme misogyny--apparently for the purpose of pleasing feminists.  How does Fecke know that Loughner is an extreme misogynist?  He links to an article:

On April 24, in a thread titled "Would you hit a Handy Cap Child/ Adult?", he wrote: "This is a very interesting question….There are mental retarded children. They're possessing teachers that are typing for money. This will never stop….The drug addicts need to be weeded out to be more intelligent. The Principle of this is that them c— educators need to stop being pigs.

Fecke--reading Loughner's anonymous posting in a gamer forum, above--is horrified by Loughner's apparent use of the word cunt.  An anonymous forum post uses cunt--and Fecke believes he has identified a clear and present danger.

Note also that the quotation's misogyny is not remotely its distinguishing feature.  So Quotation # 1 does not support Fecke's contention.  What about the second quotation?

Later that day, in an even more horrifying post titled "Why Rape?", he claimed that college women liked being raped. He wrote, "there are Rape victims that are under the influence of a substance. The drinking is leading them to rape. The loneliness will bring you to depression. Being alone for a very long time will inevitably lead you to rape."

So a person writing anonymously in a gamer forum types the above sentences--and Fecke believes we can diagnose extreme misogyny?

Poppycock.  Anonymously stating a nutty thing, in a remote internet forum, might stem from a variety of motivations, in a 22-year-old.  And the specific words just quoted might easily be interpreted a condemnation of drinking--or an expression of anxiety concerning his own pariah status.  Further, the quoted sentences do not endorse rape.

Fecke goes on, frothily, calling out the Right for encouraging violence.

There is merit in reinforcing societywide buy-in, concerning the no political violence rule.  Yes, our gun-craziness should be reined in.  But the urgency of this discussion is not increased by the Arizona shooting--and Fecke's weird, unbuttressed argument that the Right's irresponsible rhetoric deserves special opprobrium now is--we have learned from examining Fecke's blogpost--based on idle speculation.

On the website of a self-consciously 'independent-thinking moderate,' Killing In The Name Of disquietingly name-checks a song by Rage Against the Machine, the 'far left' poseurs:

The song lyrics reference the allegation that some members of US police forces are members of the Ku Klux Klan organization, whose symbol is the burning cross. The BBC News website refers to it as railing against "the military-industrial complex, justifying killing for the benefit of, as the song puts it, the chosen whites.

Oh, my.

Hamline's Disgrace

An acquaintance presents himself a morally engaged citizen exceptionally attentive to civility. 

One's seriousness, talkin' civility, may be measured by the comprehensiveness of her exploration of difficult cases:  Actions which appear uncivil but in fact are not, and squalid actions which appear pristinely civil.  Any serious participant should be able to produce examples of each.

To care about civility (or any ethical value) one must honor the requirement to leave herself open to challenge--and to wrestle sincerely with, and respond to, critics. 

One must greet the neighbor with an open heart--and be zealous about not finding ill intention where none exists.  When I observe ill intention, I must of course try to play counselor for the interest in favor of no malice being present.  If that is a plausible case, then the entire matter of intention, as regards our discord, is off the table--and our parley will henceforth be one among mutually-acknowledging gentlefolk.

When someone offers his first inkling he might be an ideological foe--he should be persuasively told 'I welcome you warmly to what I am convinced will be your place in the honorable wing of my detractors.'

Recently my civility advocate notified me of a program I should take in. 

When a person thrusts conspicuous good citizenship--based upon the depth of her adherence to civility--I chafe, worrying our interaction might obscure an ocean of bullshit.  I emailed him:

I am politely curious: What do you mean, when you call a statement uncivil? Would it be possible to provide an example?

What should we do when we disagree--when one person calls something uncivil and another person says 'no, that's not uncivil'?

Further, if we agree that some person's statement is uncivil, what should we do to fix the problem? Can you find an example?

He replied almost immediately--'expressing regret' for not having time to engage on the topic, swamped with Jesus' many demands.  I had without question struck a nerve.  There will be no challenging, adult, ideas-based interaction, to disrupt my ego-enhancing civility kabuki act.  To the dustbin!
 
An intellectual--broadly defined:  A person who commits to allowing challenge, in matters concerning value.  To allow challenge is to adopt an attitude--directed as widely as possible--that no challenger can be presumptively judged 'ill-intentioned,' absent evidence.  To challenge--on one issue or on two dozen--is not a presumptive breach of ethics or manners.

Were we to meet at a bloggers' tea, and you mentioned a troll had been snapping at your heels of late, as Eden Prairie's earnest spur I would pry proudly:  When you say troll you are describing a dishonorable participant within your comments section, usually anonymous.  But your troll isn't anonymous, and doesn't say impolite things.  Does he fit any of the requirements for trollhood?

On the policy side, Jessica Pieklo extrudes a mélange of wacky and boring viewpoints.  Writing on her personal site, she blogs and Tweets a pseudo-self-deprecating, happier-than-thou, calvinist feminism--kid-lovin' mom and sanctimonious boozer--with identity life raft legal expert.

 

Not long ago, I made some mildly barbed attempts at humor, in her comments section, and published several criticisms of Pieklo on this blog--never in a dishonorable vein.  I couldn't have predicted her thin-skinnedness.

Pieklo--on Twitter and on her radio program today--cops to the breakdown 'caused' by my comments.  She claims my statements are 'patriarchal,' 'misogynistic'...atomic bombs of magical evilness--and that they forced her to leave Hegemommy fallow three straight weeks!

I am charging Pieklo with considerable intellectual error, of course--and we should try to empathize, momentarily:  Occasional meltdowns come with the ideas-blogger terrain.  We wish you well, and you're not alone, we might sincerely offer--though we grumpily add we cannot be asked to orchestrate your reputational reinvention for you.  That's your job.

Pieklo crossposts her typing onto something called Women On the Verge.  In her latest singular, 'Helen Reddy' blogpost, she lobs her standard litany of victimized cheap shots, invariably without evidence.  A Hamline University professor can parade in the public square an ethical slob, we have learned, with zero concern for consequence.

In Done Being Quiet, Pieklo congratulates herself for having the courage to overcome my misogyny-storm, without ever supplying a quotation.

Her self-pity is Pluto-encompassing; of course she refuses to state her case.  (If you weren't a scoundrel, you wouldn't ask for a case, Neanderthal.)  Ever thirsting to play Abimael Guzmán to my Mickey Kaus, she claims to see my inner thoughts.  One simply isn't prepared to encounter such philistinism, in a Hamline professor.

Upon publishing the post, the site's founder Ana Lewis immediately commented on it--congratulating Pieklo for standing proud in the face of her psychopathic, loughneristic attacker. 

Recall:  Upon hearing Pieklo's description of 'her stalker,' Lewis had been provided no evidence in support of Pieklo's scorched-earth attack.  As a matter of sisterly solidarity, Ana Lewis accepts Pieklo's character assassination sight unseen.  (Such bravery!) 

In Lewis' you go sister comment--which she has since edited, in a vain attempt to convince the public she's not a jerk--she calls me various names and suggests I would enjoy being castrated.  I posted this riposte to Ana Lewis on Prof. Pieklo's blogpost--but it was removed an hour after I posted it. 

Need I say more?

Paulsen, Krull make EP News

The Eden Prairie News' reliable Erik Paulsen toady Leah Shaffer has earned the paper a Congressman's affection.  But this article seems to take it up a notch:  It's a Paulsen press release published as a news item.  The paper is apparently removing the veil--and allowing Rep. Paulsen to cover himself:

'Listening and learning is the best way to most effectively represent people, [Paulsen] noted.'

'Paulsen described Giffords as someone who always has a smile on her face and is always upbeat. '

'If anyone can get through it, I mean she can. Because she’s so tough.'

Shucks.

In the same issue, Comrade Krull assaults readers with New school configuration – same tradition of excellence--as insipid as its title indicates--beginning with the requisite 'learnedness-establishing' epigraph: 

'As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.' – Abraham Lincoln. 

Krull's Rail Splitter voice doesn't quite hit the mark:

'I do not suggest nor pretend that the journey we have embarked on will be an easy one.'

'I know that as long as we keep our focus on the tasks at hand and direct our energies toward successfully implementing our Transformation Plan, we will reach our goals.'

'We must constantly attend to the horizon before us to ensure that we are making the changes necessary to ensure that students have what they need while they are in our classrooms and have what they need to be successful once they graduate.'

I'll be keeping my focus on the tasks at hand.  Please, reader, consider doing same.

Glenn and Ann

 

I snapped the picture above with my Blackberry before driving to work this morning.  Snow everywhere this winter.  As every day, just watched Bloggingheads.  Ann Althouse and Glenn Loury held forth on the issues.

Ann: Loughner is diseased; something is quite wrong with his brain; we should focus on identifying and institutionalizing severely mentally ill people.

I'm not confident that Jared Loughner suffers from an identifiable physical abnormality; Ann's attitude on Loughner seems very immersed in a particular media moment.

Loughner:  A person who had been noticed by his fellow citizens--identified as someone against whom reasonable people might consciously take great precaution--is able to buy a deadly weapon capable of firing dozens of rounds very rapidly--and carry it in public.  Isn't that fucked up?

It's going to be difficult to identify future Loughners, prior to their crimes.  I'm not confident in our ability to significantly improve, in identifying dangerous people.  If we're going to involuntarily commit more people who have not committed violent crimes, there will be serious civil liberties issues which will need to be addressed.  In private discourse, people identify third parties as insane constantly.

When people know they can have others involuntarily deprived of their rights--by making convincing allegations of insanity--they will do so, as a means of punishing enemies.  It's an extremely difficult line to draw.

Is the Tea Party to be admired or feared? 

My understanding of the Tea Party comes from occasionally reading Walter Hudson, a Minnesota Tea Party activist.  Reading Walter, I have formed a negative impression of the Tea Party.  I observe aggrieved anger, an omniscient tone, a more-patriotic-than-thou sanctimony and a turbocharged contempt for liberals.  It's a form of anti-intellectual hysteria.

What do you think of tying Loughner's crime to a national conversation on civility?

Rubbish.  People are free to speak as they please.  The political system will punish line-crossers; the line will be--and is--implicitly negotiated.  Loughner does not appear to have had any meaningful connection to a political faction.  High-toned 'public dialog on civility' is an exercise in hypocrisy:  the PBS-watching crowd patting itself on the shoulder.

What if Loughner did have such a tie?  What if he was a pro-life, anti-tax Republican?  Would it then be fair to blame the GOP?

Somewhat.  People do judge others upon the company they keep.  There is social utility in this practice, as it incentivizes us to care about our affiliates' ideas and comportment.  This social utility is enforced when we impose sanctions upon violators.  Our imposition of social sanction upon others is inexact and hypocrisy-prone; McCarthyism pervades social interaction, as social sanctions get imposed for illegitimate ends. 

Do we need to tone down the violent metaphors and strong language in public discourse?

No; the political environment will police itself.  (I'm with Will and am against Michelle on this matter.) 

Ann wants to promote rationality and critical thinking instead of this platitude civility. 

Prioritizing civility privileges the the already powerful.  Locally, our discourse is far more hampered by the refusal of public actors to engage with each others' ideas than by incivility.  (David Hann and Jenifer Loon--for example--do not take questions from the floor.)  People know they can use false charges of incivility in order to impose social sanction upon their political enemies.  (Jessica Pieklo and Sheila Kihne ban me from following them on Twitter--without justification:  In a properly functioning civic environment, this should entail cost.)

People really hate Sarah Palin.

I don't hate Sarah Palin at all; I consider her an exceptionally ill-informed, undisciplined politician.  I observe a politician with an unusually thin ideological core--a demagogue.

What about blood libel?

I'm not offended by Palin's use of the term, though to use a term with such a specific historical association reinforces my belief that she's out of her depth--and indeed, that McCain's elevating her was a serious error in judgment.

A similar issue occurred here, several years ago--when Erik Paulsen's staff had Sen. Geoff Michel call Ashwin Madia a carpetbagger.  After Michel had made the charge, I asked him if he was aware of the term's history.  He claimed he had no idea; I concluded Sen. Michel is either lying or he's a moron--perhaps both.  (When a public figure reveals--or claims--lack of awareness of something I know, I deduct points.)

Did you watch the AZ ceremony/Obama speech?

No--I viewed a brief summary on the Guardian's website.  I just don't expect to encounter meaningful interaction, in presidential statements.  The stakes are so high; I am cynical--and feel skepticism toward the political stratosphere, even now.

Before the AZ ceremony, there was an unusual native American religious ceremony.  Glenn:  Perhaps it's a normal AZ/Southwest thing?  Our culture replaced a culture that preceded it; that was unjust.  The ceremony = paying respect for the previous culture.

People shouldn't feel obligated to express anything other than polite indifference, toward other people's worship rituals.  I don't want religious rituals incorporated into public events.  I suppose I consider Mormonism as having earned the extra point, so to speak, in sheer stupidity.

What about the Second Amendment?  Ann:  Unbiased scholars have looked into the history and concluded that it was indeed intended, at least in part, to defend the full citizen's individual right to possess firearms.

I support repealing the Second Amendment--and allowing jurisdictions to enact the gun laws they please.

Canadians have lots of guns but there's a lot less crime there. 

Canadians do relate to one another in a far less McCarthyism-drenched psychic space.  I admire Canada. 

Ann believes Republicans are correct in demanding Congress state the specific Constitutional provision[s] which make lawful any new congressional act. 

No--this should not be required.  It is not called for in the Constitution.  The courts are responsible for Constitutional interpretation; it is not Congress' job to engage in such activity.

6 = 18

Jared Loughner shot a bunch of people at Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's meet-your-representative event five days ago, with President Obama giving the requisite 'studiously non-political,' obviously political follow-up address yesterday, in Tucson.

Loughner appears to be genuinely mentally ill, though prior to the event he wasn't homeless and had made effort to avoid the stigma and loss of sovereignty that might follow psychiatric evaluation.  Troubling mental health symptoms are in fact quite widespread; hindsight is 20/20.

After his arrest, Loughner's head was shaved* and a photograph caught him making a peculiar face.  The portrait arrived as the culture was adopting a narrative of Loughner's essential reppellency:  He is imbued with invisible evilness powder; you would have noticed it and done something.

The media narrative has it both ways, ascribing extreme evil to a person surmised to be incapable of bearing responsibility.  A classmate gushes Loughner's extreme weirdness to a culture thirsting for precisely this description.  The flesh is weak; who knows what they'd be telling us had we asked them about Loughner a week ago.

In public discussion, accusations of mental ill-health are hurled with scant evidence.  Everyone seems to agree that to be mentally ill is to have earned universal scorn, that no inner state could be more self-evidently shameful or permanent.  We are superstitious.

Nor does Loughner seem to have had coherent partisan motivation, though it could be non-coincidental that the event occurred in Arizona, the most gun-crazed state.  Liberal efforts to pin the attack's origin on Republican incivility do not persuade.  Right-wing insouciance on firearms has occasionally been excessive, but the present event isn't plausibly related.  Political actors will tailor their rhetoric to the modified circumstances; perhaps nothing needs to be done.

While his ideology looks incoherent, Sarah Palin used the wrong word in calling him apolitical. The federal level politician was not selected by accident.  (Prior to her eloquent blood libel* riff I hadn't known her to be a reader of this blog.)  One can have unhinged views which are nonetheless political.

Affiliational groups, voluntary and involuntary, are odd. Most accept it as reasonable that the dishonorable conduct of a family member somehow reflects upon one's own reputation--and their successes justifiably elevate our own status.  (Though people tend to see justifiability in any status elevation.)

Other affiliational groupings also have this same oddity--which has the socially-beneficial effect of making us all intensely concerned with the thoughts and acts of teammates.

For a Robust Marketplace

Sorry, Tojo! [2:11]:  "Like our wars in the Middle East, the conflict with Japan was absolutely an assault on another’s culture..."  Prof. Jessica Pieklo

**

With Done Being Quiet, Hamline Prof. Jessica Pieklo doesn't so much respond to any criticism I have directed at her--but foists the notion that legitimate criticism of her writing is not conceivable.

She's now posting at a girls-only site, in addition to her primary, insufferable, singing-to-the-choir gig.

Prof. Pieklo considered my comments on Hegemommy unfair--in their excessive persuasiveness--and so banned me.  She now baselessly attributes a number of viewpoints to me--and engages in name-calling that would make a longshoreman blush.

Does this kind of bullshit go down at Hamline? 

When you publish, you invite criticism. 

If you don't want people to comment on your words, then don't put them on the internet.

If you don't like someone's blogpost, then explain why you don't like it--and throw in a quotation or two.

Catholicism's Third Rail

Catholic doctrine encompasses a variety of dubious moral and historical claims.  The organization's distinctive, hard-edged demands are seldom discussed, as they are deemed distastefully controversial.  A nudge nudge conspiracy reigns in which priests--themselves skeptics, fearful of additional membership attrition--soften the religion's requirements to a people pleasin' mush.

A commenter believes the great majority of priests are genuinely celibate:

I have met and known many priests in my life and i wouldn't say that about any of them. I don't believe you have personally known any priests if you are accusing most of them of not being celibate.

It is unlikely that any profession composed of able-bodied men is celibate, never having a consciously induced orgasm.  Nor could one expect the occasionally succumbing padre to casually reveal such humiliating (even career-ending) information.

I am not aware of unbiased data on the actual sexual practices of American Catholic priests.  To properly research the question, one would have to interview a random sampling, persuasively reassuring every participant of the project's resolute confidentiality. 

In the absence of data, we must rely on intuition.  While the question feels prurient, priests accrue considerable social prestige in part for their advertised sexual sacrifice.

The stakes are high:   Fr. Mike Krenik lost his parish without benefit of discussion when it was revealed he sought a harmless spasm. 

The sentient know:  In his willingness to depart on one occasion from the celibacy requirement, Fr. Krenik probably isn't unusual at all.

As a believer in evolution (as a skeptic concerning fairy tales, in other words) the orgasm evolved to motivate sexual activity.  It is for men both blessing and curse--and thus a useful enigma for religion authorship.

On Nov. 17, 2003, fifty-eight Twin Cities priests met, and by their own report,

...discussed a wide range of related topics, the church international, the priesthood of the laity, the ordination of women, sexual orientation and the priesthood, etc. In the end we returned to the focused question of our brother priests in the above-named dioceses, mandatory/optional celibacy. It is by no means the only answer to this pastoral problem, but it represents another positive initiative toward making the sacraments more accessible. It is also a matter that conceivably could be changed by the stroke of the pen of a willing pope.

It is extremely rare for priests to publicly dissent from church doctrine--even of the sheepish variety quoted above. 

While at that meeting seven years ago, the clerics settled upon just one issue over which they would go to the mat:  Priestly celibacy.  Their argument rested entirely upon 'making the priesthood a more attractive profession.'

The confessors' 'anti-hypocrisy' letter, then, embeds its own multiple hypocrisies:  Church teachings impose a variety of untenable burdens, many with disparate demographic impact.  Some might consider the exclusion and subordination of women to be of vastly greater moral urgency.

The friars acted as a bloc, not as individuals, so as to maximize their political punch and to minimize the individual participant's risk of retaliation.  (It's a pity St. Hubert's parishioners haven't learned from their example.)

The divines stated their demand as 'a call for dialog,' though the signatories clearly wanted an immediate end to the celibacy requirement:  It...'could be changed by the stroke of the pen of a willing pope,' they wrote.

Expressing their motivation purely in terms of 'the future of the profession' is of course both comical and sad:  Even while marching to the barricades, the priests feel required to pay homage to the vileness of their basic instinct.

Hand, Job

Father Mike Krenik of Chanhassen was ticketed for trying to buy an orgasm in a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be seen by anyone.

If you were my friend and I learned that yesterday you accepted an orgasm for pay in a hidden place, I would not think the less of you.  I might express curiosity, or concern for your health, but you would not be jeopardizing your friendship with Gavin Sullivan were you to reveal such a thing.  'That's your business,' I might say.

Catholic priests publicly commit themselves to a life of celibacy.  I believe celibacy to be impossible, for most men.  Were it possible, I repudiate assigning it any special ethical stature. 

If you choose to become a priest, you are entering a profession which demands lifelong plausible deniability, within an institution that asserts the ethical superiority of sexlessness.  People respect you more because they believe you don't ever enable orgasms. 

To a happily faithless person, there is a stupidity in assigning stature to clerics.  That said, Fr. Krenik's citation presented an ideal opportunity for the congregation to take a step into psychic adulthood.  People should have come to his defense--insisting that he remain on the job--since a silent majority doesn't care about his minor infraction.  Their spinelessness saddens.

After Fr. Krenik got caught, he left on the next train--voluntarily resigning, Archbishop Nienstedt's beretta to his temple.  St. Hubert's parishioners--never polled--evince no impulse to appear insulted.  To be a Catholic entails the frequent thespian obligation to assert one's worthlessness.  Assertions of worthlessness are fraudulent and put forward--ironically--in barter for egoistic advantage.

Three weeks ago, The Chanhassen Villager published my letter to the editor:

I read of the arrest and "resignation" of Fr. Mike Krenik, until recently senior pastor at St. Hubert's.  In response to journalistic curiosity, one parishioner said, “The man doesn’t make the church.”

 In so saying, the parishioner implies Fr. Krenik's alleged offense is a morally grave one, "requiring" his being removed as pastor.

The parishioner's statement therefore puzzles me--as I view it as a rather minor offense--if a moral offense at all.

As I understand it--an undercover male cop, posing as a willing partner, offered "service" to Krenik in a discreet, hidden area of a public park.

If those are indeed the facts, then who cares?

The parishioner might likely reply: "It's against the rules of the Catholic Church for a priest to do that kind of thing."

To which an Eden Prairie blogger might reply:

The church has many rules--and many are not only not enforced, they're hardly ever even discussed.

I guess I'm just not very nosy, and don't consider the priest's sex life any of my business.

Indeed--I consider it an important point--expressive both of my own and of Fr. Krenik's dignity--that his consensual, adult sex life is his business exclusively--and is not any of my concern.

Groessel's Blind Spot

I just read Paul Groessel's article on the Eden Prairie school board dispute, the city's most contentious politico-cultural brawl in memory.

It is worthwhile to ponder the probable narratives in which partisans are immersed.  They nurse two basic horror stories, to explain their opponents' heresies. 

For resenters, it's Melissa Krull and team's high-handedness or villainy.  She's somewhere between bad and 'Satan's ambassador to earth'.  (It can get quite colorful.)

Paul Groessel's article reviews many obnoxious things the superintendent and board did--and he's accurate.  The Eden Prairie Sun has reported relentlessly--often courageously--on the misbehavior of Krull and team. 

Some Krull supporters believe that the opposition movement which has sprung up--originally to oppose the plan and now morphing into 'throw the bums out'--is the classic Archie Bunker put-upon Caucasian victimgasm. 

Groessel displays awareness of the liberal side's hunch.  He asks resenters if it's true, they tell him no and then he considers the question permanently closed.

IOW, he shirks the most obvious journalistic impulse:  Do the charges of unseemliness--against the facebook-based resenters--carry any weight?

Groessel's is a weirdly incurious attitude.  Instead of briefly considering the possibility that opponents constitute a commonly-observed, grotesque American excrescence, he stenographically 'takes opponents at their word':  Their motivations are immaculate; their central concern focuses upon K-6--not on desegregation.

I followed the fork's other tine--and tried to conjure the perspective of a reasonable, polite skeptic, vis-à-vis the resenters.

Playing devil's advocate (yeah, it was difficult), I interacted with a number of resenters, courteously asking the questions which any moderate unbeliever would feel obliged.

I learned quickly that the resenters exemplify an identifiably glennbeckish, McCarthyite cultural position--seething with hatred for apostates--which very well could conceal disgusting undercurrents. 

Having presumptively absolved the resenters on the racism charge, Groessel remains forever unaware of their noisome attributes.

A blogger complains.

Redemption Song

We psychoanalyze groups of people, constantly--or attempt to 'objectively' identify the unspoken values and expressive requirements that prevail in them.  Sometimes psychiatric diagnosis en masse is indicated. 

Non-controversial, perhaps--though frank communal self-assessment gets zero bandwidth here in America's Single Most Wonderful Place to Live.  While the community abounds in those beset by this or that psychiatric flu-to-cancer, a setting can just as easily be off-kilter at the group level.  Regrettable then that we're so pristinely unable to discuss it.

Participating these recent days within Resentment Central, one observes the oreillyish, on-your-knees mental slavery to which Eden Prairie's bottom quartile so desperately aspires. 

Attempting any serious discussion immediately sets off the anti-thought goose-stepping.  I paraphrase, with a tincture of caricature:

We don't like you, because you're not right.  You're not right because we don't like you.  You're a bad person because you are ill-intentioned.  You are weird because no one else here asks those questions.  We won't answer, because you're weird.  We're exceptionally civilized people, because we talk to you.  You are ill-intentioned, therefore get out of our forum.  (We notice your kind just doesn't like kids.)

**

We need some means for initiating non-banal community discussion in which talk radio's bullying ethical anarchy can--for brief periods if nothing more--be reined in.

Don't look for it underneath Eden Prairie School Board Accountability's many miters--our local shrine of tautology.

To the dustbin!

Lora Peterson's Admission

Opponents of the plan gather under the rubric of the 615-member Eden Prairie School Board Accountability Facebook group, where commenters recently have expressed outrage at the notion that someone might call them racists.

As the first person to publicly criticize Superintendent Melissa Krull for her refusal [see my Dec. 22 post, below], I understand that good citizens shouldn't casually call their neighbors racists, absent ballast.  As a skeptical blogger, I also thought it unlikely Krull's perspective could be utterly baseless--and so have tried of late to lift some stones and see what might be found.

After the board meeting, Eden Prairie News' Editor Karla Wennerstrom published K-6 update:  after the vote, in which she sought the perspectives of various participants in the debate.

Wennerstrom interviewed Lora Peterson--a prominent resenter--for the article.

The controversial plan includes various big changes.  One of the changes:  Redrawing elementary school boundaries so as to integrate the district on the basis of socioeconomic status.  (Economic status--it appears probable--is being used because the courts won't let the district use race.)

So I contacted Lora Peterson and asked if she was aware that some of the citizens who object to the plan do so in part due to their dislike of its busing component. 

To Peterson, this question is extremely sensitive:  She believes anyone interested in pursuing such a question, ipso facto, reveals ill intent. 

I must have an agenda, she intones.  She insists I ask her only Lora-Peterson-approved questions; I demur.

When I ask about the plan's busing component, she replies with interminable filibustering focusing upon the plan's non-busing implications.

Peterson rejects the use of the word desegregation, we learn--as to her it implies that the geographic concentration of lower-income citizens in Eden Prairie came about as the result of coercion or design. 

I inform Peterson that--in my usage--"a district is 'segregated' when minorities and/or poorer citizens are concentrated in specific geographic sections."  (No serious observer contests that Eden Prairie is somewhat segregated, under this definition.)

We eventually learn Peterson will not engage in any discussion which allows desegregation and Eden Prairie to be used near each other.  Once I'd come to understand Peterson's elevated linguistic sensitivity--political correctness, I think some call it--and stated the question using Peterson-approved phrasing, she allows:

"Some of the opposition is opposed to busing kids all over town and crossing paths instead of continuing the current system of bringing kids together being continued and grown into some complete integration at the expense of almost $2 million."

I'd wanted to find out if Peterson could accept that some portion of her group's opposition stems from opposition to busing.  (I confirmed that Peterson is aware of the specific definition, in American parlance, of busing.)

Once Peterson has issued the sentence quoted above--an intuition presents itself: 

If a politically-aware, racist white person exists in our community, he almost certainly joins Peterson in opposition to the plan.

I would like to learn whether this intuition vexes Lora Peterson--and if she believes it merits response.