Does anyone really care about the Koch-Brodkorb fling?

I often find I take a different emotional disposition toward political developments than do most liberals--of whom I count myself.  TwoPutt Tommy has expressed apparent 'inner disgust' about an imagined Koch/Brodkorb intimacy--he's most recently called the affair 'sordid'--which I find uncivil.  I mean, two people succumbed to age-old temptation.  Their tastes are not for us to judge--and to in any way condemn either requires a claim to personal immaculateness I don't feel obligated to make.  I don't care about their affair--and frankly wouldn't have turned them in if I were to first come upon the information.

Afternoon Delight

As a political force in Minnesota over the past decade, Michael Brodkorb ratcheted up the McCarthyism greatly, primarily via Minnesota Democrats Exposed.  The Minnesota Republican Party worked hard to make 'the sanctity of marriage' a political issue, putting a gay marriage amendment on next fall's ballot at a time when economic issues would appear of exceptional salience.

An overly-brisk moralism is now afoot, among salivating DFLers:  'We'd normally be inclined to look the other way, but given these people achieved political stature based on what have been revealed to be false personal claims, then--in this case, with regret--we have every right to lash out at them.'

The crocodile tears don't convince, IOW.  Kevin Hoffman:  Koch made a giant ass out of herself.  I mean, did she in fact make 'a giant ass out of herself'?  To whom?  By having an affair?  It takes a lot to make me cry.

O cunning enemy, that, to catch a saint,
With saints dost bait thy hook!

Hoffman zings Michael Brodkorb on thin grounds:  'It must have been a familiar feeling, because his wife called 911 on him in June after his angry outbursts scared her and their three children.'

Do we have reason to accept Hoffman's assertion, above?  Hoffman takes on faith one individual's narrative.  The police report makes clear:  The allegations Hoffman mentions--that Michael Brodkorb had 'angry outbursts' that 'scared her and their three children' both come from one source:  Sarah Brodkorb.

When I hear one participant describe 'what happened' in a non-violent verbal dispute, I want to hear the other side's perspective too, prior to playing stenographer to one party.  Hoffman feels empowered to accept Mrs. B's narrative (I mindread) because Michael Brodkorb is politically unpopular, a Roy Cohn figure to liberals, and because women's allegations of abuse are deemed authoritative, within present-day polite society.

This hour's undiscussible DFL moral intuition--that when we deal with bullies, we must adopt their modus operandi--is not in fact self-evident.

Minnesota DFLdom has its own McCarthyism problem, evidenced by the unseemly response we've observed to what appears a banal little middle-aged, middle-class matinee.

Snippet from an email

No, Afghanistan hasn't cost us nearly as much as Iraq, though in retrospect I don't think it benefited us.  It wasn't a good decision, to do anything more than retaliate against al-Qaeda.

I went to see John Edwards at a rally at a union hall in St. Paul--the evening before he suddenly dropped out.  I was already behind Obama and attended the Edwards rally just to experience it and have something to blog about.  At the packed hall, there was a great deal of waiting and listening to boring nobodies--then Edwards spoke and people were very pumped up.  Then he walked all through the crowd, shaking hands with everyone--rather breathtaking, for a major presidential candidate. 

He was surprisingly short, as I recall, and one could see how he might set off a certain kind of woman--his charisma had a whiff of sexual wandering about it, I can see in retrospect.  Human motivation is of course an immensely complex topic; your question suggests Edwards was/is perfectly sincere or an utter fraud--and I don't think any of us works that way.  I'm not even sure that sexual infidelity reveals much, about one's faithfulness in business or political relationships.  Pol Pot was said to be a very faithful husband.

That said, even prior to his downfall, Edwards form of 'straight talk' never really registered as straight talk, to me.  I didn't dislike him, but I didn't believe he was presenting any economically viable plan for wealth redistribution.  (Nor do I consider serious wealth redistribution to get far, politically, anytime soon--and I'm not sure it would even be possible, logistically, within this social order.)  Given the present make-up of Congress, I don't think a lefter president would have much effect; I think Obama is about as good as we can hope for, at this moment.

Woody Guthrie: A Life - by Joe Klein

You can view the passage yourself by clicking here, then search inside the book for the word fend. Click on page 368:

"Just before he left, though, there was another shock.  Jackie Gibson was pregnant, the result of an unsuccessful attempt to fend off a drunken Woody on Pete Seeger's couch one midwinter night.  She wanted money for an abortion.  Cisco, discussing the matter with Woody and Marjorie one evening, volunteered to say that he'd slept with Jackie too and thus take the weight off Woody's shoulders.  Woody said little at the time, but then--without Marjorie's knowledge--he wrote a scandalous letter to Jackie, which alternated between frenzied erotica and a plea not to have the abortion.  He said he didn't want another of his children to die, but didn't offer any plans or alternatives.  Jackie was understandably outraged, and went ahead and paid for the abortion herself, vowing never to speak to the man again."

Hyperlinks not in original.

Duperies

On Christopher Hitchens' sad passing, Andrew Sullivan--within an off-the-cuff memorial--mentioned he detected some British-style anti-Catholicism in the deceased's attitude toward him.  Perhaps true, though I'm inclined to give Hitch the benefit of the doubt this week.  In any case, I pray no reader here attributes any such vice to me:  I find fault in religion, generally, and dislike local religion most when it is wed to social power, as it so uncomplainingly is. 

Having attended Protestant services quite a number of times, I can honestly call it a toss-up:  There's much meriting criticism within both Catholic and Protestant houses.  Unlike our lamented, lost comrade, I am a Catholic atheist.  The non-believer has an important role to play, within any church:  He is the one who participates without magical bias--and feels no need to parry and gesticulate within the eternal I'm-ever-so-pious competition.

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.  -- Jefferson

A priest is a person who has accepted a position as moral leader within a system that presumptively excludes half the population, within a cultural institution built on the presupposition that the orgasm inevitably defiles.  The underlying Christian narrative is awash in misogyny too, of course.  In 'Mass,' we observe the priest's weekly effort to avoid mentioning any of the stern proscriptions and threats upon which his religion is built.  When I exit church, then--walking past our innocent-appearing new friar--I try to avoid eye contact, as I harbor a distrust of his profession and him.

The Catholic Church pretends to stand proudly athwart history:  Bullshit.  Attend a mass, or look into the social scientific research demonstrating the depth of confusion, among contemporary American Catholics', as to the faith's central tenets.  Or read of the latest sexual abuse scandal:  They are very much of this world, this community, this era.

A Scottish Play

Sparknotes interprets There’s no art, To find the mind’s construction in the face as meaning 'There’s no way to read a man’s mind by looking at his face.'
If that's a fair interpretation, then--while it's a good and deep thought--it's not really my meaning, in calling attention the importance of face in our own culture.  I'm saying that social status is immensely important in our own social setup; a great deal of effort and mental bandwidth goes into 'fitting in' and maintenance of one's social role and position.  The idea that Chinese individual conduct is dictated-to in a way entirely unknown within American society represents a basic misunderstanding of American society, in other words.

Not Ovine - replying to an Eden Prairie womanpriest

Oh, thanks Judith--I'd forgotten we'd communicated previously.

I enjoy aspects of church life, I try to remind people that social scientific research demonstrates very few people in the Catholic church accept the magisterium 100%--and that the stuff about which they disagree with the Church is deal-breaking stuff:  They don't believe in--or don't even know about--transubstantiation, they don't believe that non-christian paths are worthless, etc.  The diversity of belief within the church is greater than gets acknowledged; the priesty 'everyone here believes similarly' is propaganda, of course.

Anyway, I like aspects of the church life, and enjoy the music--and the topic of life's ultimate truth is one I care about.

Am I 'the person who stirs up a group'?  You mention the mean and narrow comments you receive--and such comments are probably directed at me, too, though I rarely get to hear them.  But I'd put it a bit differently:  Participants in a catholic church are affirming a number of dubious historical and moral propositions.  In churches people participate in a moral-stature hierarchy--and in that hierarchy piety is equated with moral goodness.  People implicitly bond over their shared view that non-belief is very bad and shameful.  So I don't view my role as 'stirring up the group'--I view my role as replying to the prejudice and inanity that's rife within such a community. 

Participating silently is a worthwhile start--as people can quite easily get a key message.  'There's a person who doesn't believe--and isn't the slightest bit apologetic for not believing!'

Btw, the idea that Catholicism's misogyny can be adequately reversed by allowing equal access to the priesthood and higher church offices seems a bit over-optimistic, no?  The central narrative of Christianity is so obviously man-made; women are secondary, subordinate players, sexuality is condemned--and the condemnation places great emphasis on the 'vile' birth canal. 

Within the church, parishioners are conditioned to take a sheep-like attitude, to life's biggest questions.  Within the church, then, a schizophrenia prevails:  'I'm a sheep, I'm depraved and I'm morally superior.'  It seems very important, to me, that someone stand up and reply to such claims.  Even if, silently, as I generally do.

Anyway, I don't seek to offend you, of all people.  At least you're not a sheep!

Concerning a recent Jeff Fecke political gesture

On Dec. 8, Jeff Fecke tweeted,

Back in '94, Gingrich and Luntz circulated a list of words GOP should call liberals. “Traitors” was at the top...  LINK

I viewed the source, Language: A Key Mechanism of Control, a Newt-tied 1994 GOP internal strategy document which ostensibly makes the damning suggestion.  And while traitors does not appear 'at the top,' in the version which I viewed, one can imagine a legitimate research project, ordered up and paid for by a major party's political leadership:  Help us define messaging--both consistent with our philosophical tradition and ethical--that helps us attract greater public support.

The most obvious form of unethical pitch-making, to me, is the ill-considered attack on one's opponent's ethics, loyalty or mental health.  And yes, Language emphatically crosses into 'ethical McCarthyism':  It is a generic, one-size-fits-all suggestion, that a Newt-favored candidate should attack the integrity of anyone who disagrees with GOP political ideology.  The document violates the gentleman's core principle--to assume the best in others, and try to be friendly--and not cavalierly invoke characterological diagnoses in others, since such diagnoses are suspiciously consistent with his own egoistic social status agenda.

Fecke's I'm so offended showboating grates, given his own dyed-in-the-wool McCarthyism.  I shall be happy to defend this assertion should anyone provoke me in the comments section.

Confessional

Hello Judith,

Several years ago, I saw an item in the Eden Prairie paper about you--and wanted to say hello.  Then I happened upon the piece in today's Metro section, which seemed to me good.

I am a non-believer--an atheist, in fact--though I attend church at St. Patrick's in Edina, the parish in which I grew up.  I enjoy some aspects of attending church and participating in parish life, though I make clear to anyone who asks, I emphatically don't accept any of the Church's magical claims.  I try to be nice to people.  I enjoy the music, and while I generally find the sermons unpersuasive, they can stimulate thought.

Occasionally I encounter Catholics of a strident, orthodox perspective who are unhappy with my presence 'in' the church.  It's fun to encounter such people, to communicate to them that their anger is without basis: the church doesn't prohibit well-behaved non-believers from attending Mass, provided the non-believer does not take communion; the angry conservative Catholic generally catches his breath and notices that he's having difficulty articulating any rationale for his anger.

I don't often encounter open questioning, at the church.  I've sensed some unapproving reaction, when people become aware that I don't genuflect, cross myself or recite any of the rote statements--nor do I ever applaud.  (Currently I'm reading the [Hitch-suggested] Parliamentary Socialism while the others recite the lord's prayer.)  One reason I enjoy attending church is to bear witness that 'many pleasant people do not accept the catholic faith'.  My silent presence within the church is perceived as a jarring thing--people notice it; it makes them wrestle with several ideas they'd like to banish from consciousness, i.e. 'Some people have heard our message, and find it repellent and without evidentiary basis.'

My participation in the catholic church is an interesting contrast to yours.  I reject the church's teachings in numerous instances:  It makes many false assertions and stupid demands--and so thinking people should question it, in the interest of everyone's breaking the chains of unjustified repression.

I have no dislike for religious people, and view your own position as far more interesting and courageous than most of the catholic sheep I encounter.  Were we to go head-to-head on religion--I'd still be interested to learn your reasoning, as to why you apparently accept such a great portion of Cardinal Ratzinger's magical opinion.

That said, I am guessing you receive far more vilification, from dogmatic catholics, than do I--and I have nothing but contempt for any person who gives you difficulty for your decision to be a womanpriest.  Unlike the people I see in church, you have taken action which has entailed some ostracism and personal cost.  I completely admire that--and wanted to express that to you [non-religiously]:  

Godspeed.

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Killing Civilians

Who was it, among your friends, who sent you the Gerry Frederics paper?  I'm curious.

The friend who sent you the Gerry Frederics paper is an imbecile, of course.  With that fact firmly in mind, I still feel that you allow your emotions excessive latitude, when viewing WW2--and it causes you to make a muddled point, when you cheer on the Allied carpet bombing that killed 500,000 or so German civilians.  Let me explain:

When we imagine the average German, during the Nazi era, we can reasonably hold some responsible:  They failed to see, and take action to stop, what we any sentient, mentally competent adult must know:  When people in authority start advocating brutality against minorities and racist violence, the educated citizen has a moral obligation to intervene--and to take risks, if need be.

It would appear unreasonable, I think, to hold all German citizens responsible for Hitlerism.  Some bear more responsibility than others; the portion of people in any society willing to buck mass opinion is rarely large.  I'd hoped we might agree that holding any German under age 10 responsible--at all--would be ludicrous.  I'd hoped we could agree that when children are killed during war, that that's bad--even when they're attached to the morally filthy team. 

Among the 500,000 or so civilians we killed, a significant number bore no responsibility for Hitlerism. 

The carpet bombing, which you have acknowledged was an intentional policy of large-scale terrorism, either sped the defeat of Nazism or it didn't.  We can have a sane discussion as to whether our terrorism had significant effect in degrading the Germans' ability to fight on.  A. C. Grayling, who appears lucid, argues that area bombing did not materially benefit the Allies' military objectives or hasten the Germans' acceptance of unconditional surrender. 

If Grayling is wrong, and the death of all of those German civilians did in fact speed the arrival of VE Day, then I suppose we'd have to accept that you gotta do what you gotta do, given the extremity of evil we were combating.  Were we the ones assigned with the task of mowing down thousands of children, I hope afterwards you wouldn't call me a sissy if I said, 'Gee, that was regrettable.'