Thursday Soliloquy

Phileas Fogg, as self-composed as if the judgment did not in the least concern him, did not even lift his eyebrows while it was being pronounced.  Jules Verne Around the World in Eighty Days

People's assessment of others' character and mental health is strongly correllated with extraneous social-affiliational interests.

When we assess others we predictably exhibit excessive certitude.  Harshly negative assessments of others should be considered especially suspect when they coincide with political interest.

It should give us pause, then, when we adopt the dogmatic register.  (Listening, dfl mob?)

The political tribe is an egoists' ponzi scheme; the heretic hunters at present own the pitch.  Political faction inherently seeks its most mindless still-salable iteration, absent countersteering.

Our predicament entails an aspect of a dark age, as the internet's promise--of opening the political discussion to admit nonrobots--has been successfully usurped by a coalition of the stupid and the spineless. 

At some point one anticipates an imagined 'intelligent public discourse', occurring within the commentariat; its absence now constitutes a daily assault.

McCarthyite certitudes often sweep affiliational groups; they fiercely resist challenge--and have a built-in tendency to infest and to fester. 

Noting the current Pieklo-Fecke McCarthyite stupidity directed at me, I do not mean to suggest that anything unusual--or even dfl-specific--is occurring.  This type of outbreak is depressingly commonplace.

To determine the intelligence of a mob, find the IQ of the dumbest member and then divide by the number of people.  - old saw

When the Mentally Ill Blog

A commenter has asked if I am diagnosing 'profound mental illness' in Prof. Pieklo, based on her tweet.

Non-professionals tend to overestimate their ability as psychiatrists.  So I try to resist the impulse to issue dogmatic psychiatric conclusions about others, in the manner Fecke and Pieklo daily practice.

While I detest Fecke and Pieklo's psychoanalytic philistinism--and loathe and abominate their McCarthyism--I should make clear:  In calling them mentally ill, I am not engaging in diagnosis.
 
Jessica Pieklo has made it publicly known:  Her mother's mental illness was of pancreatic cancer severity.  In her tweet, Pieklo acknowledges she and her mother share this unfortunate predilection.

 

Pieklo's statement requires no diagnosis; it is a plain admission.

Mental illness is very common.  The mentally ill are our friends and neighbors--and deserve to be treated with decency. 

An extremely common manifestation of mental illness:  Scorched-earth personal attacks on others, often without evidence or reasoning, implicitly including a claim of moral omniscience.

When the mentally ill lash out at others, publicly--insisting their own integrity be considered sacrosanct and undiscussible--we are required to correct them, in defense of the public square's integrity.

Jeff Fecke

Hello E___,

I just noticed your comment--and wanted to reply.   I am life-banned at the absurdly-named moderateleft.com--hence this email.

In January Jeff Fecke issued his idiotic attack on me.  (Fecke provided no evidence and didn't allow me to respond on his site.)

Jeff Fecke didn't simply ban me from his comments section: He blocked my IP address, making it quite difficult for me to even access his website.  (Disgracefully, Fecke expunged the comments for which he was banning me.)

I consider Fecke's conduct highly uncivil and bizarre; Fecke has since admitted to his history of grave psychiatric imbalance.

My interaction with Fecke started after another blogger--Prof. Jessica Pieklo--publicly labeled me a misogynist.  (Prof. Pieklo also subsequently acknowledged her travails with profound mental illness.)

Prof. Pieklo banned me from her comments section and--illustrating her utter contempt for civil liberties--enlisted the Chanhassen police in resolving our ideological and stylistic disagreement.  Pieklo further goaded local feminist bloggers into blacklisting me.

I learned that Jeff Fecke considers himself an adept arbiter of the feminist/misogynist divide, so I tried to get him to adjudicate my disagreement with Jessica Pieklo--the latter having broken off communication, 'playing the fainting lily' as the unenlightened may have once said.

In response, Fecke simply jumped on Pieklo's bandwagon--calling me a misogynist, with no evidence.

Wishing you well,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Replying to a UU Cleric

Last month I proclaimed the Third District Heathens Guild into existence--and we held a meeting at the Eden Prairie Library.  Five guests attended; the conversation was very lively--and we're now on to Installment #2--to take place at the Wayzata Library on April 27 at 7 PM:  "Why Religious People Lie." 

So I looked up a bunch of Wayzata churches and emailed the people listed, inviting them to next week's roundup.

I received a heartfelt refusal, in reply, from a Unitarian Universalist churchman who just-almost takes offense at my talk's title.  Well, here's my reply to him:

Thanks very much, K____, for your thoughtful reply.

The title (of what I envision as being a conversation, as was last month's meeting in Eden Prairie)--is admittedly provocative, but you've misremembered my wording: It's Why Religious People Lie. Yes, I am aware of your UU group.  I admit I'm but one mortal suburbanite with perhaps a too-limited array of friends and acquaintances; perhaps I overgeneralize, that's possible.

When I dream up a generic Eden Prairie believer, it's a mainlinish protestant or catholic that I think of. Such people assert knowledge of magical ancient events without evidentiary basis--and hence, may be described as lying. Certainly if they are unwilling to acknowledge that their claim is very improbable.

So when I assert 'Religious people lie,' am I including you? Well, I guess I'd have to get a clearer idea of what is meant by your 'deep naturalist mystic religious views'.  If it makes magic-based dogmatic claims I suppose it won't bother me so long as it resolutely keeps out of the public/community sphere. If such believers sought any elevated status for themselves, above, say, gardening enthusiasts, I would very much want to know why.

Your conclusion, Kent, assumes my project is itself at root spiritualist, which I find funny. To be frank, it seems a bit early in our relationship for you to be putting forward any psychoanalysis of me. Honestly, I'm holding the meeting because I find that strangers in our community seal themselves off from each other, excessively, out of politeness, on these matters.

Of all people, we the non-superstitious benefit least from the conspiracy of silence. We ought to apologize for our non-belief less frequently. That's what our group is for. We're not asking for a box of chocolates, though we are noticing religious people exercising considerable secular muscle--and we would very much like to eject religion from the public square.

Which is to say, Kent, I hope you reconsider--and brave entry to the Wayzata Library Wednesday week.

On my honor, I will not yank at your nose or jump on your toes. If, after our discussion, you feel I owe you an apology, I promise to evaluate that claim on its merits, and I will not allow self-love to prevent you from receiving a fair hearing.

Gavin

Tea Partying again

Attended the big local Tea Party in Chanhassen this evening; I had to cut out after the first hour.  While the 70 attendees are perhaps two-thirds male, women participate with enthusiasm; this group is female led.  They're proud to have graduated to a larger meeting room with this evening's installment.

A folksy conservative Christian leads us in prayer.  All eyes are closed and heads bowed.  We thank god for making America wonderful, "in Jesus' name".  Some Tea Partyers clearly perceive the movement as having an evangelical component.

The culture netherspirals as does the economy.  We must end fiat money, someone suggests, eliciting no disapproval.  A prim woman delivers an adoring tribute to Sarah Palin's Going Rogue.  Today's S&P downgrade of US debt strongly bolsters group reality-ownership.

Props all around, for Sarah Palin. 

Those who have served in the armed forces are asked to stand:  Without you, we couldn't even have this meeting.  The claim that my security requires boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan has not been demonstrated.

Newbies stand up and introduce themselves. 

The shared muttering contempt for Obama contains some suspicious odor.

They want:  To get the country recommitted to patriotism and 'the founding principles'.  Their ideology, then:  The history buff's beloved picking-and-choosing from the past--asking the rest of us to participate in the fantasy by keeping our mouths shut.

If we accept the Tea Partyers' invitation to pick and choose our way through history for that which we like best--the result is not going to be anything other than politics--and within that perpetual maelstrom, few will defer to the Tea Partyers' more patriotic-than thou claim.

Saturday's SD42 DFL Convention

Much of the 'party proceeding' is status acknowledgement kabuki, part of the reason no young people attend, I imagine.

The identifying meme is Wisconsin; one's degree of indignation at 'the unionbusting' is the litmus test that ensures admittance to tribal bonding.  The event has a certain brain dead, dinosaur aura.

No speaker says 'Our economy benefits when public employees' engage in collective bargaining--and here's why...'  All workers deserve unions; any effort to bar public employees from unionization is an assault on the dignity of labor--goes the undiscussible ancient Truth.

The party for activist government should be the party for efficient delivery of public services. 

At some point Donna makes an arrestingly unscripted thrust:  Why do we always speak of 'the middle class'?  Why don't we just speak about everybody?

Political people constantly mention 'the middle class', of course, because that's how the great majority of voters self-identify.  Within the prevailing flattery vortex, a middle class person is ever happy to banish all other classes from consciousness.  Our usage of the phrase, then, illustrates our acceptance advertising's primacy.  Well, Donna rejects that.

By not filtering our public statements by social class, we express solidarity with those who have not yet lifted into the middle class--and those who identify as members of some other class.

Many references to the Koch brothers, of whom the true blue cannot speak sufficiently ill. 

A man says his wife writes the local Spiritually Speaking column, and an out-of-state letter-writer strenuously rebutted her--and what do you know?  He was with a group funded by the Koch Brothers! 

America's plutocrats keep an avid eye on The Eden Prairie News rotating church column--just as I'd expected.

Attendees assume the Kochs' generosity 'obviously' equals corruption.  As with their Wisconsin apoplexy, there's a distinct bashfulness as to showing their work. 

I leave not understanding why I should think ill of either Koch. 

We leave without hearing any economics- or rights based argument in favor of public employee collective bargaining.

Jeff and Jessica

Politically-oriented bloggers, in our town, at least--gravitate toward fierce partisanship.  They often express open, personal hostility toward the other side.  (Conservatives are evil, i.e.) 

Ongoing psychological pressure acts upon bloggers:  Harsh personal attacks frequently get hurled at the opposite team, often at individuals.  Bloggers too often seek respectable-media annointment and public popularity.

To be publicly attacked is--for many--traumatizing. 

There is egoistic incentive to blog non-anonymously--and there are psychic costs.  Being a public voice is ego-enhancing:  Bloggers--high and low--experience their public identity creation as constituting a source of self-respect. 

To minimize one's attractiveness as a target, one is incented to avoid the edges of one's marching formation. 

When we hear a person suffers from depression, we often think: 

It is unfortunate that Bob suffers from depression.  Bob is such a good and decent human being.  Why can't he just see the good in himself?  'Tis a pity.  Lovable ol' Bob, such a good person!

Yet if your life interfaces with a depressed individual, it is difficult to maintain such a dainty emotional attitude:  Depressed persons may make difficult emotional demands, often pertaining to the depressed person's need for worth-acknowledgement. 

The depressed person may insist her views be considered 'above criticism.'

When one comes under criticism, an upright inner voice should try to rationally evaluate the claim, consciously working to view the matter from a non-emotionally-exercised frame of mind. 

A depressed person sometimes overreacts--jumping to an 'emotionally soothing' viable response:  To erase the criticism--ethics shmethics--by obliterating the critic's standing. 

Hence, the depressed person may issue extreme personal attacks--as, daily, Fecke and Pieklo do--while demanding their own ethical purity be held sacrosanct. 

Both Prof. Jessica Pieklo and Jeff Fecke have lobbed extreme personal charges against my character--and both have banned me from responding, within their comments sections.  Neither will provide any evidence for their charges. 

Both insist their judgment is final and undiscussible. 

In the past week, Prof. Pieklo and Jeff Fecke have published about their struggles with depression.  I in no way condemn either for struggling with this [common-as-blogspot] illness, which has--so wrongly and so often--been stigmatized.

That said, I have one pronounced interpretive difference, with Fecke and Pieklo: Entering the public fray, one must anticipate robust criticism. 

The depressed person is not entitled to demand that his words be considered above criticism.  She may not demand her undefended attacks be taken as holy writ.  Other bloggers should not refrain from spirited criticism.

Sharp, above-board criticism is rare, among Twin Cities bloggers--and must be protected from those who seek its stigmatization.

Thanking Veterans

The Tea Party, then, assumes members are conservative Christians.  Our emcee further acknowledged the veterans present--thanking them for 'providing us with the freedom we now enjoy.'

We shouldn't issue blanket public thank-you's to military veterans:

It reinforces our stultifying passivity, as US citizens--when we embrace all-or-nothing assertions that 'American soldiers are defending our freedom.' 

Many veterans participated in service that doesn't constitute 'defending American freedom.'

Regardless our individual and collective intentions, American freedom was not advanced by intervening in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been draining to the country, economically and morally.  War ought to be strenuously avoided. 

Prudent political leadership should be very wary of foreign entanglements.

We should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible--and seriously consider a large reduction in the size of our military.  American troops should not be stationed abroad indefinitely and should be withdrawn from South Korea, Japan and Europe.

While the Libyan action is cause for concern, the international support and limited nature of the American involvement give confidence. I accept the 'right to protect' though I am not enthusiastic about our overthrowing foreign governments.  American participation in the Libyan intervention should not exceed the UN mandate of protecting civilians.

At the Monday Club

I attended my first-ever Tea Party event this evening in Chanhassen.  It's pleasantly jarring, to be confronted face-to-face with actual participants in a movement, instead of the media abstraction. 

It starts a bit late and is emceed with the expected 'credibility-enhancing' patriotic-populist self-congratulatory amateurism.  The overupholstered agenda proceeds and--as at all political meetings--we are urged to self-praise for our good citizenship.   An I'm representin' vapor-mist wafts among the fifty-to-sixty- something comfort-fit exurban 'anti-elitest' conservatives.  

It's a populistic movement within an 'embittered, shunted-aside' wing of the white middle class.  Rep. Winkler is a prick--a speaker mentions in an aside.

We are told:  Labor unions are drumming up support now among home childcare providers.  Big Labor has divided the state up thus:  The SEIU has the northern half of the state--the ACLU has the southern part of the state. 

We nod as if gratefully edified.

We're in a packed, overheated meeting room at the Chanhassen Rec Center.  The meeting is called to order; the man seated next to me is summoned to the lectern to lead the group in prayer. 

He prays conversationally as all present bow heads and shut eyes--many squinting jesuspleasinly.  The off-the-cuff prayer is explicitly Christ-directed, enlisting the Good Shepherd in our shared battle with socialism and humanism.

The woman leading the event would never have dreamt of such public advocacy five years ago.  Newcomers are invited to stand and introduce themselves by name.  A portly, lapel-badged state representative's presence is acknowledged. 

Rep. Kline and Rep. Paulsen won't vote to shut down the government--pussies! 

Only Rep. Bachmann is really dedicated to the Constitution as it was really intended (just without all of that yucky pre-1921 craziness, of course).

They apparently believe in a radical paring back of governmental economic involvement, though this view is more loved in the abstract than in the details, particularly among the broader public. 

Their motivation for budget-cutting is moralistic; the Tea Partiers' cartoon-Keynes:  An irrelevant socialist fool who didn't know jack about economics. 

(John Maynard Keynes'--avant-aristocrat, brilliant, field-playing homosexual with Russian-ballerina beard wife) endearing last words:  I wish I'd drunk more champagne.  A difficult person not to adore.)

While harboring many of my own gigantic dream budget cuts, I prefer choosing the resultant fiscal stance first and then carving a budget that fits that stance.  I don't share the Tea Partiers' dream of a massive, purity-restoring reduction of the federal role.

They interact as if unaware their Constitutional fundamentalism is incoherent-to-meaningless. 

They are the salt of the earth, they assure us.

They meet weekly; the meetings are longer and boringer than one might prefer, though that criticism has a certain overapplicability.

Condescending Saviors

DFL heresy is policed by a mutual admiration society which--with its party--has decreed Gov. Walker's proposal apostasy and beyond-the-pale.

A bidding-war for rhetorical outlandishness is afoot: Wisconsin is enduring a new McCarthyism, democracy faces a state of emergency, psychosis has hijacked Wisconsin Republicans--you know the drill:

Prof. Jessica Pieklo:

In another move that shows nothing but contempt for the rule of law, the Walker administration announced that it was no longer collecting dues on behalf of state unions and, as of Sunday, was charging employees more for their pensions and health care.

Jeff Fecke:

And so [WI Gov. Scott Walker] declared, smugly, that he would destroy the public employees’ unions, curtailing their right to organize, eliminating their source of funding, and removing their right to negotiate anything of meaning.

And if the unions didn’t like it? If they reacted to the removal of their collective bargaining rights negatively? Walker would call in the guard.

Jeff Rosenberg:

Tea Party governor Scott Walker wants to torpedo the economy by eliminating workers’ rights to negotiate for better wages.

Robin Marty:

Wisconsin Governor Republican Scott Walker is busy busting unions and forcing public workers to give up their rights. 

A corrupt DFL blogosphere, in sum, is committed to head-in-sandism. 

So I emailed a friend who has run for federal office--Ashwin Madia--and put my questions to him:

Public employees are hired by taxpayers. (If I've got that wrong, please set me straight.) If public policy makes their unionization difficult--and public employees don't organize--does some injustice occur? 

Is it your view that--absent public employee collective bargaining--taxpayers have a tendency to under-reward public employees? Why?

He replied:

...I think you're right that public employees are hired by taxpayers. I also agree - like I think the teachers in WI agreed - that when everyone in the private sector is making cuts, the public sector ought to have to absorb cuts, too. You know I've always believed in balanced budgets, and we all need to sacrifice to make that happen, including public employees.

Having said that, I do think that they ought to be allowed to collectively bargain - I think Walker went too far, particularly given that the employees conceded all of the budget cuts he sought.

Note the difference in tone:  When set alongside the extreme, all-knowing sky-is-falling rhetoric on offer from Fecke, Pieklo, Marty and Rosenberg, Madia is not flipping out, even as he issues his several mildly-dissatisfying paragraphs. 
 
Public employee unions are a core DFL constituency.  If you seek status within the DFL bloc, your pro-union purity must be above reproach. 

On economics and democratic theory, it's difficult to make much of a case for public employee unions--so you can respond with Madia's pabulum or the fab four's Chicken Littleism.
 
'...I do think that they ought to be allowed to collectively bargain...': 

Minnesota Democrats believe that when public employees are not represented by unions, a substantial injustice occurs--as taxpayers have an ingrained tendency to abuse and under-reward government employees.

I don't believe that they have made that argument effectively--or, indeed, at all--and call upon them to do so.