Monday's Disgrace

 

During the 2010 political cycle, John McCain campaigned as the Vietnam War's unjustifiably uncompensated victim.

The claim was absurd; Minnesota liberals such as Don Shelby and Amy Klobuchar assert the suffering of Americans during the Vietnam War receives undue acknowledgment.  Bullshit.

A high school classmate suggested our cohort engage in some collective act of thanksgiving, to the US military, expressing gratitude to troops for the freedoms we today enjoy.  No, I replied.

We the middle-aged have stood by in cowardly apathy, as our foreign military interventions have proceeded.

Should we wish to put the disgrace behind us, we should engage in non-propagandistic discussion of what constitutes ethical, responsible use of our fighting forces.

When we reflect upon the costs of our foreign interventions, undue weight ought not be assigned to the costs our soldiers bear.

It is dishonorable for Americans to solemnize the sacrifices of our Vietnam warriors without simultaneously commemorating the massively greater suffering visited upon Vietnamese civilians--to say nothing of the enormous toll the war took on Vietnamese conscripts.

Each year, Eden Prairie's self-identified patriotic citizens assemble at the local memorial, inadvertently equating patriotism with slobbering support for every foreign intervention. 

Disgustingly, city elders assign invocation duties to some Christian fraud; the ceremony invariably honors our own citizens' sacrifice--callously disregarding the suffering of foreigners, who--the non-brain-dead note--bear most of the cost.

On Monday, Eden Prairie's self-admiring citizens will again assemble; Melissa Stockwell will keynote.  Stockwell lost a leg within an intervention I strongly supported; her sacrifice merits our gratitude and consideration. 

By the same token, when we commemorate the suffering let loose by our Iraq intervention, honor requires us to note that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have experienced vastly greater loss than Stockwell. 

When Eden Prairie citizens assemble on Monday, I hope speakers emphasize that Iraq's citizens themselves have borne the lion's share of the suffering--and that losing a leg might well not put one in the top quarter-million of Iraq war sufferers.

On Tuesday, this week, the United States Congress disgraced itself, abetting the leader of a foreign dependency currently meddling in domestic politics. 

Our congressional representative disgraced himself, frothily applauding the nutty US-financed colonizer. 

Erik Paulsen's disgrace is our disgrace; honor requires that we unseat him.  He is a prostitute.

Two Democrats and an Independent contested Erik Paulsen's candidacy in 2010; all are rumored to be considering new candidacies in 2012. 

None has issued any recent criticism of Rep. Paulsen.

Your Holiness Blushes

Prepare to gasp:  I am a Wal-Mart shopper.  (Wal-Mart is a national asset--I sometimes wish more liberals were aware.)

Occasionally I observe stuff that irritates me, even in my retail heaven: 

On January 24 I notice the You Can Run But You Cannot Hide jerks have a table set up outside the store--where two aggressive hucksters ply their rancid trade.

Finished shopping, I exit the store--where the two holy men continue to shake down the geriatric and the deluded.

SDC10463, a photo by gavinjs7 on Flickr.

I approach them with my camera and snap a few pictures. 

They at first voice neutrality--almost immediately morphing into extreme personal hatred.  For me.

The portly one very menacingly requests my name.

I immediately blurt Gavin, like a dolt--and walk toward my car. 

The minister orbits me as I speedwalk--threatening legal or police action against me for having photographed the pair.

At my car, he writes down my plate--and informs me he will call the Eden Prairie Police. 

I felt shaken. 

I complain to Wal-Mart--who verify the You Can Run creeps are authorized to be there.

So I ask Wal-Mart if non-insane people--atheists, say--are also allowed to set up tables in front of their store. 

The HQ respondent directs me to my local store for an answer; I pursue the matter no further.

A month later, at a rest stop off I35 in Farmington, my son and I happen upon the YCRBYCH pilgrims jingling the tin cup. 

I gently say hullo; portly replies civilly--and then tells me the Eden Prairie Police told him, 'We know Gavin Sullivan well'--but they will not launch an APB based on my having snapped a few photos in a parking lot.  (My cop mind-reading proves accurate, Allah-be-praised.)

The police volunteer 'Gavin pulls that kind of crap all the time.'

The Possibility of Remorse

In recent days I have corresponded with the author PZ mentioned--and therefore have communicated with precisely one person who read my penultimate post.

PZ Myers--having read an imprecise-sounding article--announces that the never-punished perpetrator of a decades-previous rape can be assumed incapable of honest remorse.

I think it is possible such a person might feel heartfelt remorse--and I have a demonstration:

Think of the worst thing you have ever done, in your life, for which you were never caught.

When people perform this exercise, many experience piercing guilt and shame--active, ongoing remorse--when thinking about the worst thing they ever did that went undiscovered.

Isn't it probable that many genuinely remorseful people do not regret eluding punishment? 

Is there some reason we should doubt this insight applies to people who have committed crimes against persons?

Slickly marketed, institution-backed narratives often subliminally forbid skepticism, of course--in that churchy way. 

'She notes that the book "reads more like a thriller than a memoir," and says the fact that the case remains open "only makes it more exciting and puzzling for the reader." '  Bollocks.
 
We have a need to ascribe malevolence to people we don't like. 
 
When we can't detect enough malevolence in people we dislike, we invent it. 
 
In a properly-functioning blogosphere, we should be on the lookout for people ascribing fictional aspects of repulsiveness to already-disliked people--as this practice is corrosive of honesty. 
 
If UBL didn't shield himself with a wife, it is very important to our honor that we not invent such a wart.
 
The possibility that a person might reflect probingly upon his causation of harm, to others--even when egregious--is a monumentally important value.

Kobe Beef

I just noticed 'Jeff Fecke on Kobe Bryant':

You know, I agree with just about everyone that Kobe Bryant shouting an anti-gay slur at a referee is awful.

I'd feel weird describing any utterance of a star athlete as 'awful':  To be required to express an opinion on Bryant's slur might give someone the impression I care--or know something--about professional sports. 

That morality-laden language sports fans use, discussing their heroes, escapes me.

It’s a sign of deeply internalized homophobia, and it’s the kind of thing that should be and has been rightly decried.

I'd prefer a more perfunctory public condemnation, instead of the Fecke-beloved pillory via psychoanalysis.

Jeff Fecke:  Forever asserting 'obvious' moral or behavioral lessons that cry out for a person of Jeff Fecke's courage to come forward and solve--generally via spanking.

But honestly, Kobe Bryant is a rapist.

“Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.” That’s a direct quote from Bryant. Of course, if she did not view the encounter as consensual — and Bryant admits she didn’t — then it wasn’t consensual. Therefore, it was rape, and therefore, Bryant is a rapist, whether convicted or not.

I don't quite think Kobe Bryant would accept your conclusion above, Jeff--as I suspect Bryant believes 'to rape' presupposes some consciousness of guilt--and Bryant is claiming zero awareness thereof, until later.  (Accidental rape sounds oxymoronic to most people.) 

Perhaps feminists aver any man putting forth I thought it was consensual is lying. 

But remember:  Fecke isn't accusing Kobe Bryant of lying--he's claiming Bryant has admitted to being a rapist which, in reality, he has not.  Fecke:

 ...he isn’t a good person. And so while I will gladly point out that this is further evidence that Kobe Bryant is a jerk of the highest order, and someone who decent people should shun assiduously, all the evidence we really needed of that happened one night several years ago in Colorado. If this shattered your image of Kobe, you need to seriously reassess why you viewed him as anything other than a scumbag; his talent for playing basketball does not excuse his sexual assault of a woman.

If we had a comprehensive list of all the people Jeff Fecke believes decent people ought to shun, there'd be extremely few people left over to enjoy all the shunning. 

And Fecke, of course, is a serial abuser of shunning--as he transparently uses it to muzzle dissent.

How might one know--without sentimental bias--if one lies among the decent or the shunned?  Who gets to decide?  Should evidence play any role?  Might some sliver of due process be admitted?

And what is it that Fecke hopes all of the shunned do with their lives? 

Should the shunned be legally prohibited from making eye contact with the decent people, Jeff?

Like Humans Do

PZ Myers recently quoted this article, which says:

Twenty years after a horrific rape, Liz Seccuro pressed charges on her creepy, oblivious rapist. It was a horrible situation, and she could have run away from the conflict…but she faced her fears and got the rotten guy locked away after he tried to resume a friendly conversation, as if nothing had happened.

PZ Myers comments:

The villains here are, unfortunately, all men — men who think they can use and abuse women. It makes me embarrassed for my sex … and it embarrasses me further that there will no doubt be whiny little half-men complaining in the comments of this article. Could you all try to make that prediction false?

Let us consider the above paragraph as if PZ had addressed it to me:

I'm resistant to your gender-tribalism, comrade. 

I don't feel obligated to calibrate my pride/guilt setting in response to the behavioral performance of men generally.  My condemnation of rape centers on an individual and an act--not on a gender.

Seccuro provides 'a letter' she received from her attacker.  She doesn't say if the paragraph constitutes a verbatim quotation--nor are we allowed to review their other correspondence.  ('The letter', attributed without quotation marks to Will Beebe, reeks ghostwriter.)

We have no basis upon which to evaluate Seccuro's claim that her rapist is a horrible person now.  (When we don't know if someone is good or evil, we treat them as good, mind you.)

Liz Seccuro and PZ exude contempt for present-day Will Beebe; I am unable to participate in the scornherd, as no evidence has been put forward in its favor.

Why is it so important to the feminist--that the Will Beebe character be a moral maggot today?

'Beebe marshaled significant resources to minimize his punishment.  That proves his remorse is insincere.'

If that's PZ and Liz' meme, it's a dumb meme:

Felons quite rarely come forward, consciously incriminating themselves to law enforcement.  It is not reasonable  to expect law-breakers to sing so as to assuage their consciences.  That's not how humans work.

Most of the criminally accused do not view their courtroom trials as, first and foremost, the adjudication of their moral culpability. 

If their consciences pang for their misdeeds, they set such disquiet aside during the courtroom trial. 

In a criminal trial, the accused tries to minimize punishment.  That's what happens--and the innocent and guilty are both incentivized similarly.  (The same disposition, of course, colors one's every interaction with the law.)

The fact that Will Beebe tried hard to minimize his legal liability does not demonstrate that his remorse is false, IOW. 

Accused individuals generally try hard to minimize their legal liability:  Such conduct tells us little or nothing about the genuineness of their remorse.

I'll Never Fall In Love Again

Jeff Fecke has attacked the sexism of 1971's 'amazingly sucky,' 'misogynistic' She's a Lady.  (That Fecke's bizarre overuse of misogynist elicits no feminist outcry still astounds!)

Fecke is assessing a 40-year-old popular song using his more-sanctimonious-than-thou 2011 'feminism'. 

So he's engaging in garden variety historical vanity, applying his ethical standards to an artifact of a different era.

Fecke finds the comparison strengthens his own self-admiration; his theme never varies.

Fecke suggests objectification = sexism--and should be unacceptable in a song praising a woman's pleasures.

Fecke provides no argumentation in favor of this claim, nor does he present any evidence demonstrating women don't objectify men.

The Fecke formula:  utterly undefined goalposts followed by preening, egomaniacal moralism.

As a community we seek to embrace 'people should be nice to one another'.  Fecke--extrapolating wildly--desires a hyper-earnest, erection-unfriendly romantic marketplace:  a world without hot chicks.

I don't get how he draws out B from A.  It's a pity Fecke doesn't allow questions.

Replying--politely--to Kelly M. Pieklo

Prof. Jessica Pieklo's husband, Kelly M. Pieklo, posted a comment on my blog earlier today, to which I tersely replied. 

Mr. Pieklo is warmly welcome to comment whenever he likes--and he will never be censored, let alone contacted by the constable.  I will, when possible, treat him with respect.  When not possible, I will be straightforward.

Pieklo employs a frequent meme, among my detractors--in attempting to insult me with a contentless claim:  [I paraphrase] Gavin is deranged because he posts too frequently upon a topic I don't want him to write about.

Kelly Pieklo asserts a supposedly universally-obvious truth:  No sane person can take sustained interest in his wife's public ideas. 

Pieklo wildly overestimates the self-evident quality of his intuition, in other words. 

Prof. Jessica Pieklo, recall, publishes four blogs, tweets dawn to dusk and appears on a national radio show:  This is not a person who can easily claim she doesn't want people to know about her pronouncements.

To Kelly Pieklo:  We have never met; I subscribe to a rule of gentlepersonly conduct, and invite your reaction to it:

When we meet--in cyberspace or elsewhere--we should assume good will in the other when possible.  When we remain in communication, I will not cavalierly jump to the conclusion that you are ill-natured.  I request the same courtesy in return, from you.

If at any point I make a statement which you perceive offensive, I request that you notify me of the specific paragraph--and allow me to respond to your concern.

Observing oppositional people interacting on the web, Kelly, a fact is apparent:  Petty antagonisms and stupid personal attacks sour relations very often.

So if we wish to have a productive, civil exchange, it makes great sense for us to build in a 'relationship shock absorbor' from the get-go. 

From our first exchange, we should look each other in the eye and give our word of honor that we will not casually impugn motives--and that when one side feels the other has done so, we will allow the issue to be addressed forthrightly.  (We should above all fear excessive placidity.)

In other words, Mr. Pieklo, we will not in future say things such as this:

Clearly her name is bringing viewers to your site. Congratulations.

In attacking a blogger's motivations without evidence, the sentient adult may be forgiven for noticing an unattractive value undergirding a marriage.