Participating openly in the public fray, it ought to feel too-obvious-to-publish one's belief in maintaining these minimally-acceptable ethical standards: To be willing to listen to criticism, to conduct oneself with politeness, to allow adversaries access (engaging regularly with one's smartest critics), to refrain from appointing oneself God of Civility and to foreswear uncritical participation within illegitimate fora.
Locally, there are few people who aim for--let alone achieve--these basic integrity minimums.
I have noted with distaste our local lefties, engaging in their thespian pseudo-populism, on Wisconsin. The Fecke, Pieklo, Rosenberg herd mugs a supposedly-taunting refusal to defend any instrumental 'societal net gain', when public employees are allowed to collectively bargain [with their employer the people], without limitation.
Instead, Fecke, Pieklo and Rosenberg ham it up for their gallery, giving an intra-team confidence-building pep talk, so as to beef up their own model-liberal stature. You make hay when the sun shines.
In projecting their rhetorical poses, Fecke, Pieklo and Rosenberg seek to uphold the sacredness--the human-rightiness--of public employees' right to organize. For many, such a right is not sacrosanct, given that a consensus among economists does not exist, in support of the purported 'net social benefit' brought on by the unionization of public employees.
Pieklo pines for a Republican Wisconsin governor of Robert La Follette's majesty--without noting La Follette's equanimity vis-à-vis his era's non-organized employment status, for public employees.
Fecke, Pieklo and Rosenberg's theatrical gestures--their dances transparently assert--'are justified by the rank insincerity of the other side's theatrical gestures.' (The God of Civility self-anointment, ever-present as ever, amid American ears.)
In a properly functioning liberal ideological culture, an intellectual should feel embarrassed, engaging in herd-populism of the Fecke, Rosenberg, Pieklo variety.
Right-wing ethical slobs engage in public conduct every bit as repulsive--granted--but we should be able to expect better of liberals. That we cannot irks.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Mr. Walker Said
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed legislation which would effectively limit [public sector] union workers’ collective salary bargaining rights.
For Minnesota DFLers, it might as well be Kristallnacht: to suggest civil discussion of a proposal such as Gov. Walker's is to commit a grave affront.
MNpublius launches a ferocious attack on Gov. Walker's intentions: It's not just 'an attack on the middle class,' it's an attack on 'the economy in general'. ('It’s another front in the GOP’s war on the middle-class, launched to pay back their corporate backers for their hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.')
MNpublius' Jeff Rosenberg sees into Gov. Walker's soul--and doesn't trifle with reason: Rosenberg holds a pepfest for political homies--as we observe him frequently doing. MNpublius commentators need feel no requirement to set hatreds aside and evaluate ideas; Rosenberg doesn't like having his ideas probed.
The fact is, Gov. Walker's primary motivation probably doesn't lie in destroying his state's economy and/or middle class, and Jeff Rosenberg knows this too--when he's not grandstanding for his gallery.
Next, I wanted to see if Prof. Jessica Pieklo had published anything--and found these three recent tweets:
Would give just about anything to be in Madison right now. For so many reasons.
I must live in an alternate universe that people actually support candidates like Walker.
Yeah, so from the GOP we've seen #curbstomping, and now calling to cops on political opponents. You're right. Not at all fascist.
So Pieklo, like Rosenberg, can't momentarily entertain any serious argument in support of Walker's viewpoint. The Republicans' goal must be fascism--says the ultradelicate sensitivity expert.
Next, I checked the Minnesota Progressive Project--and found this piece by Eric Ferguson. Like Pieklo and Rosenberg, Ferguson ascribes extreme ill intent to Gov. Walker, who--like other conservatives--takes 'advantage of disasters, and the dislocation and distraction they cause victims, to impose policies the people would never stand for if they were able to resist'.
Ferguson isn't 'comparing Scott Walker to Augusto Pinochet,'--he'd never do that--though 'the pattern is the same.'
'Conservatives are taking advantage of Republican control of some state governments to attack a basic right to organize,' Ferguson dogmatically asserts.
I ask Pieklo, Ferguson and Rosenberg: What benefit do public sector unions confer? From whom do public sector employees need to be protected? If governments knew public sector employees weren't paid a premium and could be dismissed at will, might it not be possible public sector employment would increase?
For Minnesota DFLers, it might as well be Kristallnacht: to suggest civil discussion of a proposal such as Gov. Walker's is to commit a grave affront.
MNpublius launches a ferocious attack on Gov. Walker's intentions: It's not just 'an attack on the middle class,' it's an attack on 'the economy in general'. ('It’s another front in the GOP’s war on the middle-class, launched to pay back their corporate backers for their hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.')
MNpublius' Jeff Rosenberg sees into Gov. Walker's soul--and doesn't trifle with reason: Rosenberg holds a pepfest for political homies--as we observe him frequently doing. MNpublius commentators need feel no requirement to set hatreds aside and evaluate ideas; Rosenberg doesn't like having his ideas probed.
The fact is, Gov. Walker's primary motivation probably doesn't lie in destroying his state's economy and/or middle class, and Jeff Rosenberg knows this too--when he's not grandstanding for his gallery.
Next, I wanted to see if Prof. Jessica Pieklo had published anything--and found these three recent tweets:
Would give just about anything to be in Madison right now. For so many reasons.
I must live in an alternate universe that people actually support candidates like Walker.
Yeah, so from the GOP we've seen #curbstomping, and now calling to cops on political opponents. You're right. Not at all fascist.
So Pieklo, like Rosenberg, can't momentarily entertain any serious argument in support of Walker's viewpoint. The Republicans' goal must be fascism--says the ultradelicate sensitivity expert.
Next, I checked the Minnesota Progressive Project--and found this piece by Eric Ferguson. Like Pieklo and Rosenberg, Ferguson ascribes extreme ill intent to Gov. Walker, who--like other conservatives--takes 'advantage of disasters, and the dislocation and distraction they cause victims, to impose policies the people would never stand for if they were able to resist'.
Ferguson isn't 'comparing Scott Walker to Augusto Pinochet,'--he'd never do that--though 'the pattern is the same.'
'Conservatives are taking advantage of Republican control of some state governments to attack a basic right to organize,' Ferguson dogmatically asserts.
I ask Pieklo, Ferguson and Rosenberg: What benefit do public sector unions confer? From whom do public sector employees need to be protected? If governments knew public sector employees weren't paid a premium and could be dismissed at will, might it not be possible public sector employment would increase?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Piecemeal Cuts Are Okay
Minnesota has a $6.2b budget deficit. The economy is fragile. How to solve the problem?
Mark Dayton won the governor's race proposing to close the gap by tapping top earners for an additional $4b.
Raising taxes so aggressively--in an economy this weak--is a bad idea. The best way to balance the state's budget is to cut government spending--focusing when possible on the reduction of middle-class subsidies, phasing out the mortgage interest rate deduction and ending state preferences for politically-fashionable forms of energy production--for starters.
Solving such a huge fiscal problem will likely require a tax hike component; it should be kept to a minimum--no more than one-quarter of the overall package.
Democrats who don't like the $900m in spending cuts included in HF130 should propose alternative cuts of equal magnitude.
Mark Dayton won the governor's race proposing to close the gap by tapping top earners for an additional $4b.
Raising taxes so aggressively--in an economy this weak--is a bad idea. The best way to balance the state's budget is to cut government spending--focusing when possible on the reduction of middle-class subsidies, phasing out the mortgage interest rate deduction and ending state preferences for politically-fashionable forms of energy production--for starters.
Solving such a huge fiscal problem will likely require a tax hike component; it should be kept to a minimum--no more than one-quarter of the overall package.
Democrats who don't like the $900m in spending cuts included in HF130 should propose alternative cuts of equal magnitude.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Woman Question
Prof. Jessica Pieklo believes herself an abuse victim--though she provides no evidence. Bloggers often believe they should be able to dictate the criticism their writing receives, and from whom. I reject this claim.
We live in a society which has progressed, in recent decades--gradually awakening to gender injustice. An unbeneficial byproduct of this cultural change--widely accepted, generally without discussion--asserts that complaints of sexist abuse, lodged by women, must be accepted without evidence.
To request evidence, in response to a woman's accusation of gender-based abuse, is to empower abusers--goes the meme.
To welcome this state of affairs is to welcome carving out a large exception from standard practice, when it comes to the assessment of claims.
Complaints of gender-based abuse should not be accepted without evidence. False, mistaken and ill-conceived claims do occur--and therefore due process is required, just as with other types of accusations.
Prof. Pieklo's position--claiming victimhood while publishing no evidence--rests upon a hackneyed assumption of 'female innocence' which itself ought to be done away with.
After Prof. Pieklo began issuing her claims, I asked her to publish evidence: She has provided none.
As ever, I welcome Prof. Pieklo's response--either here or on her own blog. I have never censored a single word of Pieklo's, while she has banned--and goaded the police upon--me.
So I contacted Jeff Fecke--a liberal Pieklo ally who frequently finds it politically beneficial to charge people with misogyny. I asked Fecke to evaluate Prof. Pieklo's evidence [to wit, none] and to inform Pieklo of his appraisal.
Fecke responded with his extaordinary Open Letter in which he:
a) expresses thanks the First Amendment protects bloggers such as myself--and threatens legal action if I continue;
b) insinuates I am complaining of being ignored by Prof. Pieklo;
c) falsely accuses me of publishing Prof. Pieklo's course syllabus;
d) idiotically calls gavinsullivan.com 'a run-of-the-mill right-wing blog';
e) claims knowledge of my motivations;
f) diagnoses me--via falsehood and mind-reading--a misogynist;
g) implies--without evidence or definition--that I have stalked him;
h) orders me to 'leave [him] alone'--an odd request, as I don't ask bloggers for permission prior to criticizing their ideas.
Fecke has charged me with misogyny and has publicly called for my ostracization--and announces I should stop bothering him! (Fecke doesn't believe in allowing people to defend themselves, within his comments section, when he lobs such easily-rebutted idiocies.)
Minnesota liberaldom, sadly, cannot question an accusation of gender-based abuse--no matter how baseless--put forward by a college-affiliated feminist.
Several comments follow Fecke's imbecility:
a) Jeff Rosenberg spinelessly sucks up to Fecke;
b) 'Nerdie McSweatervest' and 'Gavin Lover Not' complain Fecke's post reveals ignorance of subject;
c) Fecke attacks my intentions and claims I have demanded a response ['the essence of trolling', to Fecke];
d) 'Far East Independent' valiantly assails Fecke on fair play grounds.
A wee problem: I never issued any demand--and Fecke provides no quotation.
BTW: Jeff Rosenberg made the same charge--but Rosenberg threw in the towel once he became aware intellectual indolence might constitute a problem, should he voluntarily re-enter the fray.
As noted, we live in a democratic culture which wants to uphold the view that feminist is a person incapable of dishonesty or error.
We live in a DFL culture which incentivizes supine feminist flattering--Jeff Fecke's stock-in-trade.
The above-mentioned realities present a serious problem--both for gender equality and for liberalism, properly construed.
Woman's self-appointed defenders have become bloated, lazy and obsessed with the maintenance of their own social position--supremely confident their dogmatism will forever go unquestioned.
To the dustbin!
We live in a society which has progressed, in recent decades--gradually awakening to gender injustice. An unbeneficial byproduct of this cultural change--widely accepted, generally without discussion--asserts that complaints of sexist abuse, lodged by women, must be accepted without evidence.
To request evidence, in response to a woman's accusation of gender-based abuse, is to empower abusers--goes the meme.
To welcome this state of affairs is to welcome carving out a large exception from standard practice, when it comes to the assessment of claims.
Complaints of gender-based abuse should not be accepted without evidence. False, mistaken and ill-conceived claims do occur--and therefore due process is required, just as with other types of accusations.
Prof. Pieklo's position--claiming victimhood while publishing no evidence--rests upon a hackneyed assumption of 'female innocence' which itself ought to be done away with.
After Prof. Pieklo began issuing her claims, I asked her to publish evidence: She has provided none.
As ever, I welcome Prof. Pieklo's response--either here or on her own blog. I have never censored a single word of Pieklo's, while she has banned--and goaded the police upon--me.
So I contacted Jeff Fecke--a liberal Pieklo ally who frequently finds it politically beneficial to charge people with misogyny. I asked Fecke to evaluate Prof. Pieklo's evidence [to wit, none] and to inform Pieklo of his appraisal.
Fecke responded with his extaordinary Open Letter in which he:
a) expresses thanks the First Amendment protects bloggers such as myself--and threatens legal action if I continue;
b) insinuates I am complaining of being ignored by Prof. Pieklo;
c) falsely accuses me of publishing Prof. Pieklo's course syllabus;
d) idiotically calls gavinsullivan.com 'a run-of-the-mill right-wing blog';
e) claims knowledge of my motivations;
f) diagnoses me--via falsehood and mind-reading--a misogynist;
g) implies--without evidence or definition--that I have stalked him;
h) orders me to 'leave [him] alone'--an odd request, as I don't ask bloggers for permission prior to criticizing their ideas.
Fecke has charged me with misogyny and has publicly called for my ostracization--and announces I should stop bothering him! (Fecke doesn't believe in allowing people to defend themselves, within his comments section, when he lobs such easily-rebutted idiocies.)
Minnesota liberaldom, sadly, cannot question an accusation of gender-based abuse--no matter how baseless--put forward by a college-affiliated feminist.
Several comments follow Fecke's imbecility:
a) Jeff Rosenberg spinelessly sucks up to Fecke;
b) 'Nerdie McSweatervest' and 'Gavin Lover Not' complain Fecke's post reveals ignorance of subject;
c) Fecke attacks my intentions and claims I have demanded a response ['the essence of trolling', to Fecke];
d) 'Far East Independent' valiantly assails Fecke on fair play grounds.
A wee problem: I never issued any demand--and Fecke provides no quotation.
BTW: Jeff Rosenberg made the same charge--but Rosenberg threw in the towel once he became aware intellectual indolence might constitute a problem, should he voluntarily re-enter the fray.
As noted, we live in a democratic culture which wants to uphold the view that feminist is a person incapable of dishonesty or error.
We live in a DFL culture which incentivizes supine feminist flattering--Jeff Fecke's stock-in-trade.
The above-mentioned realities present a serious problem--both for gender equality and for liberalism, properly construed.
Woman's self-appointed defenders have become bloated, lazy and obsessed with the maintenance of their own social position--supremely confident their dogmatism will forever go unquestioned.
To the dustbin!
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Hypothetical du jour
We have compared our opinions about the role of the political blogger, Jeff:
I think bloggers should discuss their social obligations in a more open manner--and would like to see bloggers question each other more often.
You believe the blogger shouldn't feel any obligation to respond to public questions. (Please correct me e'er I err, daddy-o.)
Were we to poll blog readers, which viewpoint would you expect to receive more support--mine or yours?
Jeff, what if a vain man severely rebuked you, without evidence--publicly calling you a racist, while sanctimoniously rescinding your right to respond, within his forum?
What would you predict my response would be--observing such a state of affairs? In the opposite situation, what do we already know Jeff Rosenberg's response would be?
BTW, Jeff: A wonk, a techie, a nerd is a person steeped in research and data who finds questions of value and ethics troublesome-to-irrelevent. Do I have that right?
In your recent response, Jeff, you at times descend into open disdain; I hope I have avoided any similar speech--toward you--as I consider it unseemly. Your personal anger stems from your misunderstanding of my viewpoint: I do not coerce other people, ever--and make no demands upon you.
When you receive fair questions from a polite inquirer, I believe you feel social pressure to reply--though you deceive yourself if you feel that pressure coming from me. Guess where it is coming from.
I think bloggers should discuss their social obligations in a more open manner--and would like to see bloggers question each other more often.
You believe the blogger shouldn't feel any obligation to respond to public questions. (Please correct me e'er I err, daddy-o.)
Were we to poll blog readers, which viewpoint would you expect to receive more support--mine or yours?
Jeff, what if a vain man severely rebuked you, without evidence--publicly calling you a racist, while sanctimoniously rescinding your right to respond, within his forum?
BTW, Jeff: A wonk, a techie, a nerd is a person steeped in research and data who finds questions of value and ethics troublesome-to-irrelevent. Do I have that right?
In your recent response, Jeff, you at times descend into open disdain; I hope I have avoided any similar speech--toward you--as I consider it unseemly. Your personal anger stems from your misunderstanding of my viewpoint: I do not coerce other people, ever--and make no demands upon you.
When you receive fair questions from a polite inquirer, I believe you feel social pressure to reply--though you deceive yourself if you feel that pressure coming from me. Guess where it is coming from.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Sharpshooters
Thanks Jeff for your mostly-civil reply--and congratulations on your family's new arrival.
I am quite aware of our community's diversity--as regards values and ethical views--and try not to demand adherence to beliefs others don't accept. At no point in yesterday's letter did I coerce you. I acknowledge your freedom to respond or not respond--and never suggested otherwise.
Within a well-functioning democratic culture, people advocating social change ought to respond to thoughtful questioning. In making this statement, I am of course expressing my opinion; I am not forcing it upon anyone. Should someone reject my 'accountability' principle--as you so adamantly do--I welcome discussion.
Bloggers often try to influence the esteem in which other opinion-producers are held. We advocate on behalf of our preferred standards of assessment. In evaluating a blogger, I place considerable weight upon the quality of her engagement with critics. If I observe a blogger dodging or gratuitiously maligning critics, I will argue he should be respected less.
You believe labeling others illegitimate is okay and places no special responsibility upon you; I argue that calling another's legitimacy into question is a grave--usually regrettable--social act, since, in making such a claim I am arguing another person's quality of citizenship should be considerably reduced.
I am not able to take such a decision lightly--and acknowledge a clear need for accountability when I label another analyst illegitimate. Should I call another commentator a troll, say, people will be justified in asking me to defend my assertion. They should by no means accept my illegitimacy-designations on faith.
When we acknowledge others as non-illegitimate participants, we empower them--as we then look foolish when we dodge or censor their questions. (As a scrappy outsider, I of course happily welcome this consequence.)
A central tenet of the gentleperson's code is to make ongoing effort to resist drawing negative conclusions on others' character--in the awareness that interpersonal sniping is often egoistic and political.
Most people have a yen for validation; prudently expressed, it is an honorable human need. I have at no point demanded any special validation from anyone, Jeff--and while I enjoy affection, from others, I require it from no one.
You assail me for 'requiring us to play Internet Policemen'.
Fair point--though I suspect you too occasionally enforce netiquette. Us sharpshooters should participate in defining and implementing community rules and standards. When we promulgate any set of community values, we may at times have to play Internet Policeman.
You chastise me for demanding dialog with whichever innocent I am currently singling out. Again--at no point have I ever asserted such a right--nor is my track record notably poor, in selecting my blog's subjects. (The tarantinoesque Fecke and Pieko implosions are instructive, interesting meltdowns that will reward diligent study.)
I am quite aware of our community's diversity--as regards values and ethical views--and try not to demand adherence to beliefs others don't accept. At no point in yesterday's letter did I coerce you. I acknowledge your freedom to respond or not respond--and never suggested otherwise.
Within a well-functioning democratic culture, people advocating social change ought to respond to thoughtful questioning. In making this statement, I am of course expressing my opinion; I am not forcing it upon anyone. Should someone reject my 'accountability' principle--as you so adamantly do--I welcome discussion.
Bloggers often try to influence the esteem in which other opinion-producers are held. We advocate on behalf of our preferred standards of assessment. In evaluating a blogger, I place considerable weight upon the quality of her engagement with critics. If I observe a blogger dodging or gratuitiously maligning critics, I will argue he should be respected less.
You believe labeling others illegitimate is okay and places no special responsibility upon you; I argue that calling another's legitimacy into question is a grave--usually regrettable--social act, since, in making such a claim I am arguing another person's quality of citizenship should be considerably reduced.
I am not able to take such a decision lightly--and acknowledge a clear need for accountability when I label another analyst illegitimate. Should I call another commentator a troll, say, people will be justified in asking me to defend my assertion. They should by no means accept my illegitimacy-designations on faith.
When we acknowledge others as non-illegitimate participants, we empower them--as we then look foolish when we dodge or censor their questions. (As a scrappy outsider, I of course happily welcome this consequence.)
A central tenet of the gentleperson's code is to make ongoing effort to resist drawing negative conclusions on others' character--in the awareness that interpersonal sniping is often egoistic and political.
Most people have a yen for validation; prudently expressed, it is an honorable human need. I have at no point demanded any special validation from anyone, Jeff--and while I enjoy affection, from others, I require it from no one.
You assail me for 'requiring us to play Internet Policemen'.
Fair point--though I suspect you too occasionally enforce netiquette. Us sharpshooters should participate in defining and implementing community rules and standards. When we promulgate any set of community values, we may at times have to play Internet Policeman.
You chastise me for demanding dialog with whichever innocent I am currently singling out. Again--at no point have I ever asserted such a right--nor is my track record notably poor, in selecting my blog's subjects. (The tarantinoesque Fecke and Pieko implosions are instructive, interesting meltdowns that will reward diligent study.)
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Hello JR,
I want to question you a bit today, but first must make clear: I am capable of error; I don't own reality. I may simply misunderstand a sentence of yours; I welcome correction on any point, large or small, as always.
As a participant in the communal exchange of ideas, I have an obligation to be open to criticism--and to facilitate critics' access to my audience; I do not censor.
Bloggers should avoid fallacious arguments, welcome--and reply to--critics, foreswear attacks on intentions and treat all questioners as legitimate critics.
That last rule is important, ethically, as (when it prevails) it greatly disempowers cowards: people who attack others' standing without providing evidence--and who ban genuine criticism from their sites.
A buffoon mindlessly attacked me recently, and with detectable displeasure I noticed your comment--in which you mock my self-description as legitimate critic.
You're now aware that I apply 'legitimate critic' to all honorable public actors, including myself--with the exception only of those against whom I am prepared to martial reason and evidence to the contrary.
Best practice--for bloggers and politicos--should be to treat critics, by default, as legitimate critics.
If you disagree, can you explain why? (If you include me among 'illegitimate critics', please explain your basis--and provide an example or two, for clarification.)
Were I to encounter a blogger asserting 'I won't respond to JR's question because he isn't a legitimate critic,' I'd attack such pomposity savagely. I defend our public square's legitimacy--and to that end must energetically defend the legitimacy of your full participation therein. (Anyone cavalierly seeking to marginalize JR--based on hearsay--will find me a pest, I promise.)
Were I to encounter a blogpost brushing you aside, goading the stupid to attack your integrity without evidence, a pressing ethical obligation would bear down on my shoulders, JR. You share my intuition, don't you?
Entering the public square, we should attempt to look kindly upon the neighbor--and show considerable resistance to attacking any fellow citizen's standing.
In your comment, you appear to differ with my appraisal--and therefore I welcome your responsive perspective.
Gavin
As a participant in the communal exchange of ideas, I have an obligation to be open to criticism--and to facilitate critics' access to my audience; I do not censor.
Bloggers should avoid fallacious arguments, welcome--and reply to--critics, foreswear attacks on intentions and treat all questioners as legitimate critics.
A buffoon mindlessly attacked me recently, and with detectable displeasure I noticed your comment--in which you mock my self-description as legitimate critic.
You're now aware that I apply 'legitimate critic' to all honorable public actors, including myself--with the exception only of those against whom I am prepared to martial reason and evidence to the contrary.
Best practice--for bloggers and politicos--should be to treat critics, by default, as legitimate critics.
If you disagree, can you explain why? (If you include me among 'illegitimate critics', please explain your basis--and provide an example or two, for clarification.)
Were I to encounter a blogger asserting 'I won't respond to JR's question because he isn't a legitimate critic,' I'd attack such pomposity savagely. I defend our public square's legitimacy--and to that end must energetically defend the legitimacy of your full participation therein. (Anyone cavalierly seeking to marginalize JR--based on hearsay--will find me a pest, I promise.)
Were I to encounter a blogpost brushing you aside, goading the stupid to attack your integrity without evidence, a pressing ethical obligation would bear down on my shoulders, JR. You share my intuition, don't you?
Entering the public square, we should attempt to look kindly upon the neighbor--and show considerable resistance to attacking any fellow citizen's standing.
In your comment, you appear to differ with my appraisal--and therefore I welcome your responsive perspective.
Gavin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
