Gavin Sullivan

Local Republicans on Fort Hood

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:40:44 PST

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is the sole suspect in the Nov. 5 Fort Hood shooting. What have local conservative bloggers been saying about Hasan and his killing spree?

In Murder Does Not Need A Label, Conservative Cravings laments our (supposedly) recent practice of dividing 'murder' into various degrees--and our still more recent addition of the 'hate crime' designation. To the Edina blogger, murder is murder--and no legal distinctions should be made among murderers. (Read her post if you think I'm kidding.)

In PC Army, Eden Prairie Republican Sheila Kihne savages our armed forces for their 'better screwed than rude' policy. Hasan's fellow students--Kihne quotes Mark Steyn--'complained to the faculty about Hasan’s "anti-American propaganda"'... But Kihne doesn't make clear what changes she would like to see in US military policy. (While praising Kihne's call for tighter First Amendment restrictions on soldiers, The Activist Next Door's servile commenter Jim complains of the indefensible Second Amendment restrictions imposed upon same.)

Elsewhere in her post, Kihne--no champion speller--takes Nancy Pelosi to task for refusing to put off the health care vote in deference to the country's hurt feelings over Fort Hood. (One minute we're too PC, the next we're insufficiently PC--you just can't please some people.)

And with her universally admired class, tact and respect, Kihne announces: 'Class, tact, respect, these things mean nothing to liberals.' [sic]

One day Eden Prairie will dedicate an equestrian statue to Sheila Kihne--mark my words.

Bush SOS Condoleezza Rice Visits Beth El

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:25:49 PST

Condoleezza Rice spoke this evening at the conservative [in both senses] Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park--and Women Against Military Madness arranged an anti-torture rally outside the event. [Strib, KSTP, Fox, MPP] About one hundred protesters showed up. It was almost 60°F outside with no precipitation--a rarity for mid-November. While there I chatted briefly with Coleen Rowley, who opposed John Kline in the 2006 cycle in CD2.

I didn't see Condi enter Beth El; I heard someone say Norm Coleman walked by. The police set up a barricade on the south side of the parking lot, so the protesters shouted Shame!, Torture is Immoral!, You're supporting torture! etc. at the ticket holders. None seemed at all frightened by the show of opposition.

The indoor event appears to have been well-attended, too: The parking lot was almost full when I left. A Beth El congregant was among the participants in the protest, which bore no whiff of anti-Semitism.

I didn't hear anyone saying anything crazy or offensive. The fancy-dress attendees would generally look over at the protesters as they made their way into the synagogue, but the protesters made no attempt at attracting them over for conversation. One brave couple did walk up and ask what the protest was about--and were greeted with complete civility by the sign-holders. As their conversation began, the cop asked them to move toward the door--which I considered unnecessary since the conversation was not heated.

A National Disgrace

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:29:32 PDT

'One of the saddest episodes in American history was the fact that these vets were often shunned and neglected--even demonized--when they came home. That was a national disgrace. On days such as this, we resolve to never let it happen again.' -- President Barack Obama

Americans with access to microphones--Barack Obama, Tim Pawlenty, local Sun-Current writer Chris Oswell--exhibit near-unanimity with regard to the Vietnam War: A stomach-turning evil occurred, when our fighters returned home: They were spat on and shat on by the [otherwise] Silent Majority. Today we can show 'Nam Vets how classy we are (in stark contrast to the unpatriotic generation which preceded us) by proclaiming our undiluted love for the entire US intervention in Indochina.

There's one type of American, needless to say, who will have considerable difficulty participating in the Obama/Pawlenty line on Vietnam: Those who believe upholding real American honor actually matters--and is far more important than reciting politically popular malarkey. These Americans choose not to participate in the great Vietnam War Amnesiafest.

Chris Oswell writes Eden Prairie veteran earns presidential citation in the 10/29/09 Sun-Current. President Obama just laureled Vietnam veterans of Alpha Company who participated in a 1970 rescue of Charlie Company, near the Cambodian border.

Did Alpha Company actually volunteer to rescue the overwhelmed company, as Oswell claims? Did every American participant in the rescue operation freely choose to participate, without the issuance of any military order?

Oswell writes, 'Seven soldiers were killed and dozens more were wounded fighting more than 400 during the' rescue.

Capt. John Poindexter [not that John Poindexter]--author of the self-published The Anonymous Battle--clarifies: 'First Cavalry division headquarters set North Vietnamese losses at 88.' IOW, when Oswell writes 'Seven soldiers were killed,' he assumes readers will understand this to mean 'Seven American soldiers'--only a silly sentimentalist would even bother mentioning the seven dozen Asian teenagers we killed. (Surely they're happier dead, no?)

But in hindsight the intervention wasn't simply mildly problematic--it was disastrous: We vastly prolonged and intensified a civil war in which millions of civilians died, in addition to the millions of combatants. If Oswell wants to defend his oddball viewpoint that the war was a shining moment for Uncle Sam, he's welcome to do so--but he should feel some pressure to show his work.

Furthermore, Oswell perpetrates a disgusting smear upon antiwar protesters, writing 'It was the second time Sorich has been to the White House. The first was in May 1970 when he was assigned to protect it from Vietnam War protestors threatening to attack it.' [sic]

Bullshit, Chris.

Farah Redux

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:33 PDT

Responding to her odious blogpost--republished here yesterday--I left this comment:

Our information on the Farah case remains limited, but judging from the police and media reports, it seems possible Farah did nothing more than voice approval for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It is my view that merely voicing approval for the terrorist assault should not by itself be considered a new 'terroristic threat'. As opposed to the Edina blogger, I take the more conservative view--believing that the library staffers' feelings are of minimal import--while Conservative Cravings adopts the nanny-state POV, asserting that when someone says they're offended the police should be summoned and asked to arrest the person the offended individual points at.

(My comment doesn't appear on her website, as she hasn't yet approved it. By contrast, comments left on gavinsullivan.com appear immediately, without censorship.)

Kindly praising my defense of Abdulahi Hassan Farah, a conservative commenter noted today:

Who else would defend a foreigner, a Muslim, and a person with mental health issues?

Do we really know any of this, btw? Isn't it a lot more likely that the accused is a US citizen--and not a foreigner?

In addition: When you adopt an unpopular viewpoint or two, it becomes vastly more likely you'll be diagnosed as mentally ill--particularly by anti-intellectual cowards. The evidence we today have--pointing to Abdulahi Hassan Farah's mental instability--is exceedingly weak evidence.

Conservative Stupidity Watch

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:45:18 PDT

The following important public service bulletin appears on the Edina blog Conservative Cravings:

"Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Terroristic Speech Is Not Protected

The 1st Amendment's right to free speech has been debated and interpreted for generations. Topics like politics, religion and pornography have tried to restrict speech to appeal to the greater good. Most of these arguments have failed. Though political free speech through monetary contributions was severely restricted by McCain Feingold. Security came into play with the inability yell fire in a crowded room in incitement of a riot. We are now in the time of 9/11 and with that has brought the term terroristic threat. Can't we be progressive in our interpretation that security risks of mass terror outweigh some speech? One fellow blogger does not think so. Gavin Sullivan recently advocated for a man who was arrested at the Eden Prairie library for making terroristic threats. You can link to his post which describes the situation along with the police report. In a nut shell, the man entered the library on 3 different occasions and left notes written in Arabic and drew pictures of planes crashing into buildings. He did not speak to anyone to explain these actions. Librarians became concerned and an undercover police officer apprehended him the next time he visited for making terroristic threats. Gavin defends this as free speech that is protected. I would argue that individual liberties do not apply when the exercise of those liberties harms others. Being terrified is being harmed. I think the librarians and police took appropriate actions. Sitting in the Edina library this evening, I'm wondering if I drew pictures of someone assassinating President Obama and left these notes around the library, would anyone pay attention? Would Gavin protect my speech? This is probably not the best example, because threats on a President are handled much more severely than any other citizen. However, it also draws out the point that speech related to a President is restricted and that exceptions are made to the 1st Amendment. I use this example only to paint a picture abhorrent to most people, as the threat of another 9/11 should be. But, the left continues consistently takes the position of defending anyone who appears to be compromising the security of our country and citizens. Why is this a progressive idea? Why would Democrats purposely portray themselves as weak on homeland security, and show little regard for police authority and the military? This is not a hypothetical question, I really don't know. Why is the security of our citizens a political football? Why is the flag political or the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance? One thing that ties these altogether is the lack of a nationalistic pride. Add that to the elevation of the United Nationals in liberals' eyes and the desire to use international law to interpret our constitution and you have a bedrock of evidence that liberals may love the world more than they love our country."

DFLers Party on Gray's Bay

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:09:50 PDT

Sue Shuff hosted a $35 per person fundraiser for the CD3 DFL this evening. A number of gubernatorial candidates attended. (Surrogates represented Steve Kelley, Tom Bakk and Tom Rukavina.) Here are a few snapshots from the event:

Margaret Anderson Kelliher

Mark Dayton

Terri Bonoff, John Benson and others. Sen. Bonoff hasn't decided yet whether to run again for Congress.

R. T. Rybak

Susan Gaertner

Paul Thissen

Jim Meffert-Nelson--a St. Olaf grad just two years younger than the incumbent--seeks the CD3 DFL endorsement for US House.

Roman Oliynyk spoke on behalf of his wife--Maureen Hackett--who

is now in Florida attending candidates' training at Camp Wellstone

George Greene and Marge Hoffa emceed the event.

Healing the Soul of America

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:33:40 PDT

Lauren Carlson-Vohs writes this week's Spiritually Speaking column in The Eden Prairie News. The country is going to hell in a handbasket, Carlson-Vohs allows. 'It seems a calling to each of us to take inventory of our spiritual values and act upon them.' (What difference would it make were spiritual removed from Carlson-Voh's suggestion?)

'It is a very sad development and highly immoral considering we live in the wealthiest nation on earth.' (And it was quite cheeky of these ferners to overtake us--I grant that.)

But we don't live in the wealthiest country on earth. Nor were our economic woes brought on by high immorality. (I'd pin the recession on poor regulatory oversight and human nature.)

Have you noticed how many pet owners claim the puppy mill rescued their canine from a prior, abusive owner?

On a recent trip to the Humane Society, Carlson-Vohs 'noticed several pets where it was noted the family had lost their home and moved to an apartment where no pets are allowed.' One has to steel oneself against society's dubious-sounding tales of tribulation, particularly those redolent of marketing, no? Let's try to be a lot more sensitive to the Congo's agony--even if it requires being a bit less sensitive to Fido's.

Carlson-Vohs believes our nation's mediocre statistical rankings ought to bring us to ask 'What would Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and Buddha do?'

I don't think Buddha ever commented on Sixth Century India's foreclosure problem, nor did Mohammed grumble much about the appalling lack of universal health care. (Had Jesus cared to reduce human misery, he might have explained germ theory to his followers, or tell them how to construct a bicycle--or that slavery is among the gravest sins, etc.)

We're in a huge mess--so let's expand our reliance on irrationality and Iron Age hokum. Make sense to you?

Healing the Soul of America, by Marianne Willaimson -- recommended by Lauren Carlson-Vohs.

The Complaint Against Farah

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:31:06 PDT

or search here for Case 27CR0947231

Fox report

Strib Report

When the lower orders don’t set a good example

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:03 PDT

If you attend a Catholic church, you're likely aware that the institution is quite preoccupied with abortion. Almost every Sunday, one is called to add one's own voice in condemning the practice. Your church probably even organizes a bus to attend the annual 'pro-life' rally at the state capitol. If you disagree, shut up.

Hearing this constant drumbeat, I emailed Fr. Greg Welch (pastor at Edina's St. Patrick's) several times, asking if he might describe specifically what legal change he is calling for. Alas--on such a sensitive matter--the cleric won't reply in print.

The church's 'Social Justice Coordinator' Cappy Moore boldly takes on the pro-choice crowd in the current church bulletin [here's the pdf]--in 'We Must Act!' The social justice expert believes that--to end abortion in Minnesota--we ought to begin with the state's destitute women. If we could only eliminate state assistance to poor women seeking abortion, every decent Edinan might sleep easier. How noble!

Moore presents her case with a number of myth/reality contrasts, demonstrating that the state does provide some assistance to poor women. (For an institution bent on convincing succeeding generations that a man walked on water and fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish, you might not expect myth to be such a strong pejorative.)

Ms. Moore won't allow the innocent public to be flimflammed: It is nothing but a myth that 'In Minnesota the abortion rate has dropped significantly.' (Humanists take note: She has the facts at her fingertips, lest you seek to sow mythology among her wizened flock:)

Reality -- In Minnesota from the year 2000 to 2008:
2000 -- 66,220 live births and 14,450 abortions (22%)
2008 -- 72,213 live births and 12,948 abortions (18%)

See? A person would have to be superstitious indeed to review these statistics and not conclude that Minnesota's abortion fad is positively exploding. Not for long: Ms. Moore will soon visit her tough love upon the metropolis' tenements.

What a glorious time to be free!

"Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them?"

Algernon, in The Importance of Being Earnest

Wedlock

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:14:26 PDT

"To speak frankly, I am not in favour of long engagements. They give people the opportunity of finding out each other’s character before marriage, which I think is never advisable."

Lady Bracknell in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest

Dr. Bernard E. Johnson pens the current Spiritually Speaking column in The Eden Prairie News--Spiritual perspectives for making marriage last a lifetime. Johnson promises readers 'three counter-intuitive, even counter-cultural [sic] thoughts that provide a spiritually sound basis for marriage.'

Let's take a quick look at Johnson's three ideas:

1) 'No one deserves to be married.' He clarifies: 'Does anyone deserve to be accepted for a lifetime come what may?' 'Marriage only makes sense when I see it in the light of grace...pure unmerited favor both given and received.'

When 'unmerited favor' is exchanged between two adults it seems a bit of a stretch to attribute the transaction to sacred mystery--when such an obvious non-mystery presents itself. And people don't generally choose marital partners based on chance--they put immense effort into attracting a marriage partner of maximal social status and prospects. So Johnson's first point is neither spiritual nor sound--it's an announcement of his romantic refusal to seriously ponder the reality of mate selection. (It's a calculated announcement of Johnson's desire to be publicly perceived as a guileless romantic.)

2) 'Love is not enough to sustain a marriage.' What sustains a marriage, when the love has evaporated? Social pressures of various kinds--familial, societal, professional, 'for the children,' etc. Many people choose not to seek divorce--even in the most overt of sham relationships--due to the reputational costs of dissolving the 'bond'. But Johnson can think of only one alternative to love, as an incentive to sustaining a lifelong marriage: marriage vows. Johnson hasn't really given much actual thought to his message.

3) Believe in God--Johnson urges, with the following mind-numbing tautology: 'Otherwise we may be asking another human being to do for us what only God can do, namely provide a relationship that will transcend death.' Johnson apparently considers his third point to require no justification or reasoning. He doesn't mention whether any old deity will do--Ganesha, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, say--or whether selecting a group of deities would be acceptable. Would feigning belief be preferable to open atheism? Can one switch gods along the way?

How will believing in an afterlife actually cause one to occur, at the time of actual need? (We don't generally expect our beliefs to cause themselves to come into being, do we?) Or is this simply a socially-beneficial falsehood to which upright team players are required to pay lip service?

Wraith Formation

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:39:55 PDT

The Rev. Tim Johnson responded to my recent post on his Speaking of Faith column. He writes:

With your already-confirmed distrust of the Bible, I am not surprised that any reference that may be made to it in your mind automatically discounts the value of what is being said by the one who quotes it.

Finding a statement in the bible doesn't discount or amplify its credibility, to me. Such statements need to be assessed on their merits. To clarify: The bible says many reasonable things with which I agree. It also says many ghastly things which I reject. There are inconsistencies and contradictions within the bible, as one might expect from a Bronze Age document produced by multiple authors writing about events which occurred long before they were born--in addition to the many later emendations and historical inaccuracies recorded in the book.

And a commenter writes:

This continues a theme of yours Gavin. You seem to have contempt for institutional religion and those that practice and preach it. What was your upbringing? Did you have any faith formation? Did you break away from a church and if so why. Perhaps this would shed some light to your readers on your point of view.

We as a society have a policy toward institutional religion: socialism. Via tax policy, we effectively subsidize houses of worship on a massive scale. On this topic Erik Paulsen and I are both implacable socialists; neither of us has proposed any change in our national policy of massively subsidizing churches. If I felt--as you accuse me--'contempt for institutional religion,' why would I be so willing to subsidize it to my dying day?

And what is faith formation? If you want to instruct your children to believe that there are consciousnesses which don't have bodies, please do so. But if you learn you have a neighbor who urges her children to feel skepticism with regard to the existence of consciousness outside of any biological organism, that shouldn't justify ostracism.

The bible was written long before the discovery of evolution--a profoundly counterintuitive theory. Before evolution's discovery, people often explained mysterious phenomena by invoking the supernatural.

In 2009, many educated Americans are aware of the evolutionary origins of the natural world. But on the popular level, most people haven't really digested that natural selection--a non-conscious process--created human consciousness itself. Becoming aware of how human consciousness came into being leads many to increased skepticism concerning the purported existence of conscious beings unconnected to living biological organisms. (That means you--people in heaven.)

Julian Bond visits Carleton

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:45:12 PDT

Civil rights legend--and soon-retiring NAACP Chairman--Julian Bond is visiting Carleton College over the upcoming several days. Carleton's Black Student Alliance hosted an informal dinner and discussion this evening with Bond and Pamela Horowitz, his wife.

About 35 students showed up for the event, asking Bond many questions. Bond argued on behalf of the continued relevance of the NAACP and recalled a number of events from the struggle for civil rights. "We're a much better country than we were a hundred years ago," he noted.

Challenging Rev. Johnson

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:39:08 PDT

The Rev. Tim Johnson--a nice fellow--occasionally writes the Speaking of Faith column in The Eden Prairie News. His current article is Sow the seeds of future success--with patience.

Many people who have no health insurance could afford to buy it, but they prefer to go without--and use the money instead for cigarettes, cars 'and other trappings of American materialism.' Prior to the economic meltdown, many Americans got home loans they wouldn't be able to repay. Couples divorce 'because spouses are not willing to walk with the other person through the stages to mature adulthood.' And American businesses advertise to lure people into spending beyond their means.

With these dubious and selective observations, Johnson this week argues we're far less patient than previous generations of Americans. (We're also a bit less patient with racism, sexism, homophobia and mandated Christianity than were our predecessors, no?)

"The scriptures have a lot to say," Johnson intones, "about waiting patiently for the blessings of life, realizing that things simply take time to develop. The concept of sowing and reaping is talked of in several places in scripture. Paul's word in the New Testament is especially instructive: Do not become weary in well-doing because in due season you shall reap if you faint not."

Johnson assumes readers will happily accept that scripture and 'the Christian bible' are equivalent terms. Why? The bible is a thick book--and in addition to the reasonable stuff, it includes errors, inanities and very poorly-documented 'miracles'--as well as much which is morally abhorrent. If you are resistant to a certain line of ethical advice, of what persuasive weight would it be were I to show you that it's in the bible? I'd like to suggest an answer: Zero.

Were you to observe a friend or relative spending excessively, failing to insure her family's health or rashly seeking divorce, wouldn't it be more convincing to appeal to common sense and self-interest than to a phrase in the bible? If you acknowledge the Good Book contains much nonsense, why feel the need to point out that 'In addition to being sound, the advice I'm offering you can also be found in the bible?' Who would care?

Several Emails

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:26:18 PDT

Hello Krista Bettinger [Hennepin County Attorney's Office]:

A week or two ago, I read the Strib's report on the Abdulahi Hassan Farah affair at the Eden Prairie Library--and blogged about it. From the reports I've read--and from the police report--it appears Mr. Farah's crime was in voicing approval for Osama bin Laden and the hijackers.

The First Amendment ought to protect the right of citizens to advocate on behalf of unpopular viewpoints. Do you acknowledge that citizens have the right to advocate on behalf of unpopular viewpoints--including 'voicing approval for Osama bin Laden and the hijackers'? If you do acknowledge that basic fact about the rights of US citizens, then why are you prosecuting Mr. Farah?

Is Mr. Farah now in custody? What is the name of Mr. Farah's lawyer? When is Mr. Farah's next appearance mandated--and where? How can I communicate with Mr. Farah?

Best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan

****************************

Dear Jeff Goldberg:

On Sept. 21, 2009, you published a piece titled Disabled Man Makes Terror Threats in Library. What terror threat did the man make?

With the passage of a week or two, are you at all ashamed of your Sept. 21, 2009 piece--particularly its completely unsupported title?

Thanks,

Gavin Sullivan

****************************

Dear Sen. David Hann:

A week or two ago, Abdulahi Hassan Farah was arrested--for terrorism--at the Eden Prairie Library. Mr. Farah's crime apparently rests in his advocacy of an unpopular political viewpoint.

As his state senator, what concrete action have you taken to defend Mr. Farah's right to free speech under the Constitution of the United States of America?

Best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan

****************************

Hello Mr. Dean Corder:

I just received a redacted version of the police report on the Farah incident at the EP Library--and posted it on my blog.

I just read the report--and it's quite odd: I can't identify anything in it that could remotely constitute a crime. Can you? Please describe the crime you observed (or found evidence of), okay?

You're aware that the First Amendment protects the American citizen's right to advocate on behalf of unpopular views, right?

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

****************************

Hello ACLU MN:

Does the felony prosecution of Abdulahi Hassan Farah strike you as unusual?

For context, please see my recent blogposts.

I would like to get the MN ACLU's perspective on this prosecution, okay?

Thanks!

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

'Terrorism' at the Eden Prairie Library

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:00:09 PDT

I asked the Eden Prairie Police to provide their report on the Farah incident. Here's what they sent:

one two three four

Free Speech in Eden Prairie

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:36:13 PDT

An Eden Prairie man--Abdulahi Hassan Farah--'was charged Monday in Hennepin County District Court with making terroristic threats, a felony,' reports the Strib's Vince Tuss. Farah's crime? He expressed an unpopular political viewpoint while visiting the Eden Prairie Library. The Star Tribune continues:

Eden Prairie police went to the library on Wednesday, after a man on his way out handed a note to a worker at the service desk.

The note was in a foreign language and included drawings of buildings, a Star of David and "911," the complaint said, adding that the worker believed it was a reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Police returned Thursday after another worker received a note, one with pictures of a plane crashing into something. According to the complaint, the notes were believed to be written in Somali or Arabic.

On Friday, staffers told a detective who was in the library that the man was back and that he was seen writing two notes, according to the complaint. The man left one note under the desk where he was working and the other at the counter, the complaint also said.

If you handed someone a note and the recipient could not even identify the language it was written in, it would be weird were you to subsequently be charged with 'making terroristic threats', no? (If the note was later translated into English and was determined to contain an unambiguous threat, the reporter should certainly have noted that, right?) But let's be clear on the main issue: It's entirely legal for a person to express admiration for Osama bin Laden or the 9/11 hijackers--and to seek to make her viewpoint known in the public square.

Okay, he held a THF

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:26:05 PDT

For weeks a number of bloggers had been berating Rep. Erik Paulsen for cancelling CD3's lengthy Town Hall Meeting tradition. Paulsen eventually relented--declaring a Town Hall on 9/11/09. The audience was larger than I'd previously witnessed with Rep. Jim Ramstad--and with the Congressman much farther removed from his constituents: Paulsen spoke from up on stage at Maple Grove High School's auditorium. Plenty of Republican wingnuttery on display, with a bracingly sectarian invocation, some immigrant-bashing and much chortling over the latest example of Democratic insanity--the concept of universal health care. Sacre bleu!

Democracy has not entirely been reinstated, however. Ramstad held multiple, quarterly Town Hall Meetings; Paulsen has held one, without committing to any future schedule. Many of the questioners slobbered obsequiously, thanking their monarch for deigning to acknowledge the citizenry. How bizarre.

EP News plays Paulsen flack

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:39:52 PDT

Hello Ms. Leah Shaffer:

You write:

"In lieu of district town hall meetings, Paulsen has opted to hold smaller forums with groups of constituents ranging from seniors to meetings with large employers and business leaders. Additionally, Paulsen has been holding "tele-town hall meetings" where constituents can put forward questions and listen to answers via a conference call. The plan is on to have one more tele-town hall meeting related to health care next week, he said. Even if a person's question doesn't make it to the front of a queue, Paulsen noted that staff gets back to everyone who's submitted questions within 24 hours." [my emphasis]

The whole paragraph is of course fawning nonsense, but your final sentence [above] states a known falsehood.

I've contacted Rep. Erik Paulsen on numerous occasions; I never receive any reply or acknowledgment. Here are a few examples: one two three four Do my inquiries strike you as shockingly rude or beyond-the-pale?

You're certainly aware of this, aren't you? Rep. Paulsen will not disclose what--if anything--I did, to get put on his black list. I've repeatedly requested Rep. Paulsen explain his blacklisting of me--and disclose what I might do to get my name taken off his list. He will not acknowledge my inquiries. Do you know why?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan

Eden Prairie

Civility Sermonizing

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:09:45 PDT

A commenter--the gutsy Anonymous Guy--recently took me to task for various failings; I wanted to respond today. I republish his entire comment down below.

A widespread misunderstanding pervades political discourse in CD3 concerning civility. The prevailing view posits 'any politician committed to silence, mush and blandness can achieve lofty civility'. In other words, civility is entirely a matter of refraining from using certain words and phrases, even when well-justified. By this standard, Rep. Erik Paulsen's frequent self-shoulder-patting on civility is perfectly au fait.

I counter: We need to acknowledge that civility requires several additional components--and indeed, civil discourse can occasionally be strengthened when strong language is judiciously employed. When Erik Paulsen ducks dialogue--cancelling our multi-decade town hall tradition, he assaults civility. When he lies to the local media--just this month telling the Sun-Current his private meeting with a GOP fat cat constitutes 'a town hall meeting', he undermines civility. When Congressman Paulsen maintains a blacklist gagging his staffers from replying to non-sycophantic constituents, he corrodes civility. Rep. Paulsen's anti-civility efforts have been vastly more damaging to the quality of CD3's public intercourse than anything any local blogger has published.

Similarly, Paulsenbots reacted with horror recently when I lobbed David Brock's anti-Anita Hill attack at one Tom Styczinski--calling him a bit nutty and a bit slutty. Many observers seem to believe that when a person calls another a slut, for example, that the party using the strong language is invariably at fault--and is therefore guilty of undermining civility. I ask such participants to recall: I didn't hurl the epithets at Mr. Styczinski by accident: I laid a strong foundation for them.

Remember: Rep. Paulsen abolished CD3's town hall tradition, replacing the venerable institution with invitation-only, topic-predetermined teleconferences. No well-informed observer could fail to note Paulsen was severely reducing the ability of constituents to communicate with him--in public--as social equals. To throw voters off the scent, Mr. Styczinski wrote his bootlicking letter to the Eden Prairie News, thanking Paulsen for his delightful recent 'Town Hall meeting'. Styczinski was emphatically testing the outer limits of public bullshitting--and was likely thinking 'surely no one would have the temerity to attack me personally over this!' (Well surprise, Tom.)

So the assault on civility was Erik Paulsen's and Mr. Styczinski's--the congressman's compliant valet. In attacking Mr. Styczinski personally, my intent was to restore civility, by maintaining a more limited boundary separating acceptable and unacceptable public discourse.

Furthermore: The Sun-Current has acknowledged to me, in writing, that Congressman Paulsen's staff called Paulsen's meeting with the fat cat 'a town hall meeting'. The phrasing did not originate with the reporter.

Also: Yes, Paulsen can reinstate the quarterly town hall tradition anytime he wants. But please recall: Congressman Ramstad held multiple town halls each quarter. If Erik Paulsen decides to recommit himself to civility--and restart the town halls--he'll have to make clear his commitment will be to quarterly town halls at multiple venues, just like his predecessor. His constituents have every right to notify him: Once bitten, twice shy.

Anonymous Guy commented:

Gavin:

I could not resist calling you a nutty slut earlier, and making the point about how you should not just throw insults at people that you disagree with. I do have some comments on the actual content of your letter as well, if you are now willing to engage in a civil conversation.

You start out by saying, “US Rep. Erik Paulsen has unwisely ended the Third Congressional District's multi-decade tradition of town hall meetings--implementing the democracy-shrinking change without any public warning or consultation.”

What evidence do you have that Congressman Paulsen has ended the tradition of holding in-person town hall meetings? It seems you are making an assumption that just because there was not an in-person town hall meeting in August, their will not be any in-person town hall meetings. Is August the only time you can hold an in-person town hall meeting?

You make another assumption in your criticism about the town hall meeting at Morrie’s. You assume “Team Paulsen” are the ones that called it a town hall meeting, it seems just as likely the writer or editor came up with that characterization. It is also possible that it was a term Morrie’s company uses. I know in the company I work for they often hold what they call “town hall meetings.” Actually, according to the definition you linked to, it is a perfectly acceptable use of the term. The community in this instance would be the company’s employees.

Also, your criticisms of Congressman Erik Paulsen’s telephone town hall meetings are off base. Everyone is invited to the town hall meetings, and with people’s busy schedules that format allows more people to participate. I will quote from the Wikipedia definition that you linked to. “There are no specific rules or guidelines for holding a town hall meeting.” This means that it is very legitimate for Congressman Paulsen to use another format to try and increase participation, and accurate for him to still call it a Town Hall meeting.

Concerning The Acquitted Doctor

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:37:42 PDT

Supporters rally behind the freshly-booked Dr.
James McLeod - downtown Minneapolis, Spring, 2004

Hi Pat,

In our recent exchange I got quite justifiably roiled--and regrettably suggested that your father-in-law 'is a pedophile'. Upon reflection, I am in fact agnostic on that point. Since you have such a close relationship with the McLeod family, I wanted to ask you:

Two accusers came forward against Dr. McLeod. One of the cases went to a trial which resulted in acquittal. (As always, if I have anything incorrect here, by all means set me straight.)

As a juror, one would presumably be asking oneself 'Is Dr. McLeod guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?' So for the acquittal, jurors reached a unanimous verdict: They had not been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. McLeod molested (to wit: masturbated and fellated) the then-adolescent patient. (The jurors were unaware a second accuser waited in the wings.)

I'm curious to learn what a well-informed McLeod defender would say, in describing the entire matter to an intelligent outsider. The inquiring outsider would be asking questions somewhat different from those which were addressed within the courtroom, of course. She'd want to know how two accusers would be coming forward, making claims that Dr. McLeod had molested them.

Has Dr. McLeod put forward any persuasive theory on this? (If not, please forward this entire email to Dr. McLeod--I'd like his response to all these various questions.)

I was unable to attend the trial; the matter created quite a stir within our family and within the larger community. Everyone I spoke with was curious about the matter. The media reporting on the issues was circumspect; I don't recall any reporter really offering an opinion on what he observed, at the trial, so people had essentially no basis for assessing the credibility of the accuser.

Not long ago, I purchased a transcript of the trial. The transcript is about 1,000 pages long and arrived at my doorstep in six volumes, of which I've only read the first--which includes the testimony of the accuser and defense attorney Bill Mauzy's cross-examination.

Reading volume # 1 of Minnesota v. McLeod, I wanted to share a few impressions. The upper middle class accuser strikes me as being well-spoken, exceptionally level-headed and internally coherent: The accuser is highly credible. Mauzy attempts to attack the accuser's trustworthiness with appeals to age-old popular prejudices--against artsy types and those still developing in the sexual-identity department. (Both of these lines of attack are irrelevant and unmoving, no?) And a great amount of the courtroom discussion examines the accuser's admission of having cheated on his diet, as if such cheating ['lying'] would indicate some predilection towards inventing molestation claims against the family doctor! (This line of argument also seems incredibly stupid to me. Does it impress you?)

After the acquittal, Dr. McLeod had his license to practice medicine reinstated. So parents are now taking their children for medical care with Dr. McLeod. Presumably these parents find Bill Mauzy's courtroom rhetoric quite persuasive--that 'actors' are untrustworthy, that sexually-confused youth are liable to concoct stories about being molested by their doctors, that sneaking a bag of potato chips indicates Jekyll/Hyde-level psychic imbalance. In your observation, has Dr. McLeod ever expressed embarrassment over the moronic statements made in his defense, in court, by his own lawyer?

Before I'd allow my child in Dr. McLeod's care, I'd need to review a much more comprehensive explanation of Dr. McLeod's views on the entire matter. As a parent, I'd be in a very different position than a juror: I'm not determining whether reasonable doubt of Dr. McLeod's guilt exists--I'm trying to decide whether significant doubt of Dr. McLeod's innocence exists. So I'd need someone to explain to me why two accusers came forward, with similar charges--and why the accuser is so poised, internally-consistent and even relaxed. Does Dr. McLeod have incredibly bad luck? Does he believe the two teens organized a conspiracy? If the latter, does Dr. McLeod think anyone other than the two teens was in on the conspiracy? What for?

If Dr. McLeod is unable to speak on these questions, then your opinion will be very welcome--since I'm confident you're up-to-speed with the McLeod family's line. I'd like to publish a blogpost on this matter--and therefore I'd appreciate any fact-checking you can offer on anything in this email.

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan

Letter to the Eden Prairie Sun-Current

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:21:41 PDT

To the editor:

US Rep. Erik Paulsen has unwisely ended the Third Congressional District's multi-decade tradition of town hall meetings--implementing the democracy-shrinking change without any public warning or consultation. (The Sun-Current should poll readers as to whether they agree with Paulsen--that voters needn't be allowed the opportunity to speak with their representative.)

I just came across your Paulsen talks Cash for Clunkers [Eden Prairie Sun-Current, 8/13/09, p7]. In the article, Marc Ingber writes:

"U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen visited Morrie's Minnetonka Mazda dealership Monday, Aug. 3, for a town hall meeting to discuss issues related to the auto industry." Your article continues, "Morrie Wagener, CEO of Morrie's Automotive Group, hosted the Republican congressman." You neglect to mention Wagener is a major Paulsen contributor.

Wikipedia defines a town hall meeting as 'an informal public meeting derived from the traditional town meetings of New England. Similarly to those meetings, everybody in a community is invited to attend, voice their opinions, and hear the responses from public figures and elected officials...'

Paulsen in fact did not hold a pre-announced, public meeting in which everybody in the community was invited. The Sun-Current was negligent in allowing Team Paulsen's phony descriptive phrase into the article, without quotation marks.

Embarrassed for having abolished our lengthy Third District town hall tradition, Rep. Paulsen is attempting to persuade voters that a private meeting with a political sugar daddy now constitutes a 'town hall meeting'. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, Mr. Paulsen.

Sincerely,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Question Marx

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:17:37 PDT

Dr. Bernard E. Johnson alternates with a number of local churchfolk in writing the Spiritually Speaking column in The Eden Prairie News. Johnson demonstrates his elevated humility this week--urging us to embrace life's question marks. How wonderful it is that religious people maintain such modesty--freely admitting they just don't know much. Shucks!

Perhaps it will occur to the moralist that a below-the-belt, fact-free attack on an unpopular philosophical minority might buttress his thesis:

"Richard Swenson is a medical doctor and respected scientist who had written about the amazing reality of the human being and its equally amazing limitations. He is especially interested in those who confidently rule out the possibility of God based on the revelations of science. Such people have rejected question marks and, in Swenson’s opinion, been blinded by a thimbleful of knowledge. Here is a person with a three pound brain sitting in judgment on God! Whatever else atheism is, it is too small."

Who's Swenson, you ask? He's Menomonie, Wisconsin's leading creationist yarn-spinner, pumping out a superstition-promoting book every several years. His own bio doesn't include the word scientist; his academic stature hasn't yet earned him a Nobel (nor even a Wikipedia entry). In his More Than Meets The Eye: Fascinating Glimpses of God's Power and Design, the 'futurist' reveals the following about Jesus: 'Without a doubt, he shed at least one red blood cell for every human who ever lived' (as Publishers Weekly noted as it panned). No non-creationist could conceivably find Swenson's opinion of any interest whatever.

Thousands of cosmological maps have been proposed over the millennia--and immense change has occurred within individual religions over time. To commit oneself to a specific faith in its particular temporal guise is to reject nearly as many alternatives as does Richard Dawkins. To choose one religion to believe in--among the thousands that humans have described--requires one to reject a slew of subpar claimants. If we judge it a capital offense to employ one's three-pounder to reject gods, we should buy our crucifixion lumber in bulk.

My email to Bill Frenzel and Jim Ramstad

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:48:49 PDT

Hello Messrs. Frenzel and Ramstad,

I sincerely hope both of you are well.

Yesterday I published a post criticizing Rep. Erik Paulsen for cancelling our CD3 'Town Hall' tradition, and for the regrettably dishonest manner in which he did it--claiming to be innocuously replacing the in-person Town Hall forums with a telephonic 'equivalent'.

An anonymous Erik Paulsen supporter replied to my post, calling into question whether you actually adhered to the 'quarterly' schedule I claimed. To be honest, the claimed interval came from my memory, having resided in CD3 for more than three decades, and having attended your Town Hall forums on numerous occasions.

I strive for accuracy and fairness in my blogging. Can you please provide me with a list of the dates/venues of your Town Hall forums, during your Congressional careers? If you preserved no such list, might you please attempt to reply from memory?

If for any reason you won't answer this inquiry, can I humbly ask you to provide a few brief sentences explaining why you view the questions as out-of-bounds?

Fondly,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

cc: US Rep. Erik Paulsen

Tom Styczinski: A Bit Nutty and a Bit Slutty

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:09:39 PDT

Congressman Erik Paulsen's several predecessors established a decades-old tradition of holding quarterly 'Town Hall Forums'--in which constituents could address questions to their solon face-to-face. Upon assuming the seat, Paulsen unilaterally erased this democratic inheritance.

I've repeatedly emailed Rep. Paulsen, politely requesting his rationale for dismantling the Forums; he refuses even to acknowledge my inquiries. Paulsen has shown some sensitivity in the face of citizen displeasure with regard to the elimination of the time-tested institution.

The pharisaic legislator has marketed the move as a democracy-neutral 'tech upgrade'. The Town Hall forums are now conference calls--albeit with a distinction or two: The calls aren't open to all constituents. (Paulsen hand-picks invitees--and refuses to inform this blogger as to the scheduling of future forums.) Unlike his predecessors--Paulsen limits his cherry-picked questioners to the single topic of his choosing.

How might this pleasurable state of affairs be perpetuated? We'll need an obedient GOP lapdog willing to try to bamboozle the public on the dullard's behalf. Enter Tom Styczinski:

Mr. Styczinski has a letter-to-the-editor in the July 23, 2009 Eden Prairie News:

Paulsen Listens Through Teleconference

On Monday night, July 13, I attended [sic] the Town Hall meeting held via a telephone conference by Congressmen [sic] Erik Paulsen. The topic of the meeting was health care reform. Congressman Paulsen used this forum to tell us about what was happening in Congress, and more importantly, to listen to the voters.

I was really impressed with our young Congressman's grasp of the issues and the way he listened to our concerns. A lot of the participants provided great insight into how the government can affect employees and small business owners. Congressman Paulsen showed he understands our concerns and I know he will continue to fight for us.

Tom Styczinski
Eden Prairie

A Vietnam Letter

gavin6@gmail.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:27:45 PDT

Eddie Adams on the big picture

Vietnam veteran Randall Omlie makes a number of points on the Vietnam War, in the 7/30/09 Eden Prairie Sun Current. Omlie says the US government showed honorable appreciation to returning Vietnam veterans, but the vets had to endure blistering public scorn and ill-intentioned media misreporting which have challenged Omlie's powers of forgiveness. Omlie claims--without citation--that Dan Rather reported 'the TET offensive [sic] as evidence that we had lost the war'--though in fact 'the U.S. military was achieving one of its greatest victories ever' [with the Tet Offensive]. Because Dan Rather convinced Americans we'd lost, the public turned against the war--ergo: the loss. Had only the American media informed the US public of the marvelous military rout visited upon the Vietcong as 'we' responded to the Tet Offensive, Americans would have allowed President Lyndon Johnson to encourage an even greater commitment to winning the war. Victory would have been ours:

"For example, while CBS news and Dan Rather were reporting the TET offensive as evidence that we had lost the war, the U.S. military was achieving one of its greatest victories ever. Most people never knew that the entire Viet Cong and all of its infrastructure was completely destroyed after TET, the joint U.S. and South Vietnam military had complete control of the country, and the long-sought after stability was finally achieved.

Unfortunately, this precipitated a new war as the North Vietnamese army then poured many huge divisions into South Vietnam, (with many containing women and children), and the exhausted military also faced lagging support at home.

The media reporting and political manipulating should be studied in detail to avoid future recurrence. The term, "Welcome Home" has become a somber greeting among my fellow veterans who know that we actually won the war, but were politically forced into retreat."

As an argument in support of an open-ended, blank-check US commitment to buying victory in Vietnam, Omlie is quite unconvincing. As matters stand, 2,000,000 or so Vietnamese civilians died in the war--to say nothing of Vietnamese military deaths--with massive civilian death inflicted by US aerial bombardment upon Vietnamese non-combatants. Proportionally, the human rights abuses were almost entirely upon Vietnamese people. Mightn't we find a way to show appreciation for the sacrifices of Vietnam veterans without endorsing every cockamamie historical fantasy some dream up? The Vietnam War was a disaster for the US national interest--and for millions of Vietnamese people. LBJ's life and legacy were wrecked by his/our idiotic overcommitment to the Republic of Vietnam. Citation-free attacks on Dan Rather allow some to overlook our country's role in a reprehensible historical catastrophe. That lacks honor.

See also: http://tinyurl.com/gn0mic