Gavin Sullivan

A small tax and a small man

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:01:44 PST

The incumbent seeks to repeal ObamaCare--and has frequently mentioned negative effects he believes the policy will cultivate, when fully implemented. Rep. Erik Paulsen often issues monarchical-sounding, dubious economic predictions--with his inimitable prophet's mien.

He'll cite an interested party's statistics--even when few general readers have any basis for evaluating the claim. When doing so--I say with regret--Rep. Paulsen displays a lack of integrity.

To take a recent example, Paulsen has dedicated a great portion of our district's representation of late to the repeal of a 2.3% medical device tax. Paulsen's uncredited staffer blogged:

According to recent study [sic] by the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), the medical innovation tax [sic] could cost this country 43,000 out of its 400,000 medical device-related jobs.

Having assumed national leadership in the fight against the tiny tax, we have a right to expect Rep. Paulsen to speak honorably about the issues involved.

When he addresses that most obvious of all questions--'What effect will the 2.3% tax likely have on medical device-related jobs?'--he owes it to us to get disinterested, highly-qualified economic advice.

He should not inordinately prioritize the counsel of business groups that hand him money. It would be unethical to do what Paulsen does--to cite only the research of one interested party and attempt to pass it off as dispassionate. Paulsen himself cannot be unaware of this clear moral hazard.

AdvaMed is a medical-device lobby that regularly and legally stuffs thousand of dollars into Paulsen's pockets; the study's authors are openly politically engaged and conservative.

As a practical matter, when we propose highly-specific tax tweaking, we should seek the advice of the best available, least biased professional economists. To assess the likely impact on jobs, we should look with considerable skepticism upon statistics provided us by industry lobbyists.

By his unrepentant bad example, Rep. Paulsen reminds us all of an important ethical lesson.

Replying to Gregg and Alexandra

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:19:48 PST

Gregg writes:

Mr. Sullivan maybe you should learn how to give a speech without reading it directly from a piece of paper if you want to represent our nation, just a suggestion.

Ps. I still intend to keep you in my prayers.

Thanks for your comment, Gregg--and for so politely entertaining my improbable-sounding idea. Your suggestion is completely correct, and I shall heed it going forward.

You've commented twice now that you're praying for me:

We seldom acknowledge: Prayer is weird. When people 'pray for someone,' they believe themselves to be emitting magical brain-beams to the author of the universe, giving It advice on how to improve life for their prayer-object.

I mean...for Pete's sake!

I observe no evidence for believing there's a brain-beam-monitoring 'god' waiting on the other end, always looking for good ideas on how to make life rosier for my family and friends. A moment's reflection reveals this to be wish-thinking.

I wish you happiness in life and think generally that you should do what you like. When someone says, 'I'm praying for you,' I divine a power play at work--an assertion of moral superiority while playing 'kind-hearted, indulgent friend.'

Just to be clear: Pray all you like, for Lassie or Kim Kardashian or me. Needless to say, I don't admire you for praying for me: I'm utterly indifferent--and want us to be clear it earns you no points.

Reader Alexandra writes: Were you once Catholic, Gavin?

I was a good altar boy to the legendary Frs. Byrne and Mahon, at the same church I continue to attend--Edina's St. Patrick's. I don't take communion or genuflect and generally read a novel during mass, though I still enjoy listening to the music.

I'm one of those who believes the continued bullshitting evasion of the Catholic Church, on its collusion with Nazism, is disgusting. But all kinds of herd behavior prevail within a Catholic church: To be a Catholic is to acknowledge one has no role in guiding or judging the moral teachings of the church--one must submit. A social reality where adults must pretend 'all is apolitical'--yields psychiatrically stunted people, the underlying contempt for the individual being the precipitating variable.

The non-believer has an important role to play, in the church community, since she is the one who approaches magical issues without bias. If you believe your religion to be truthful, you should encourage atheists to join and to give unvarnished feedback.

The church and the school are of course Unvarnished Feedback Avoidance Systems. But that's their problem.

To be a parishioner is to be treated like a 12-year-old, often--and the pew-warming atheist is, unavoidably, a symbolic reproach. I occasionally meet Catholics resistant to the idea of atheists being on-the-membership-roll parishioners: They'd prefer to engage in their self-abasement unobserved.

So, yes.

Education, religion, and the free society [sic]

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:19:20 PST

Thank you for your reply, Dr. Flanders.

I am interpreting your statement to indicate that you do not regularly publish on any topic. If you can direct me to any exception, by all means let me know--I'd like to take a look.

To be frank, the question I am asking myself is, 'Does Dr. Flanders hold any interesting viewpoint--as regards "education, religion, and the free society"?' I have made an honest effort, and have put the question to the person who likely knows best--and thus far, I have found nothing.

Secondly, Dr. Flanders: Can you to please review your professional profile, on Providence's website, and confirm that, with the exception of the Dr. Flanders writes and speaks crap--which we have already determined to be false--the other factual assertions are truthful?

What precisely to you do, as 'adjunct scholar with the Acton Institute'--and are you compensated for it? (Is it considered unusual for an 'adjunct scholar' to publish nothing, over a period of 8 years or so--while continuing to make hay with the title?)

Providence's website asserts '[Dr. Flanders] serves on the board of advisers for the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas.' Is this a truthful statement--or is it a falsehood?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Paulsen on Giffords

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:26:56 PST

Of several obvious alternatives, which is the ethically correct way to comport oneself? That's a central theme you'll notice if you review my most beloved public scrapes, over the years.

And so today we here note: Rep. Erik Paulsen has publicly called attention--multiple times now--to the great platonic intimacy he feels he shares with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

If you were severely disabled as the result of a madman's attack, would you like high-status people to publicly offer their love to you--and to publish photographs of themselves alongside pre-injury you?

I don't claim to know which alternative thinking people ought to prefer--though I do hold that respectable opinion can encompass the view that it is reprehensible (of the high status love-giver) to engage in such behavior--as it cannot help but be viewed as political, when publicly broadcast.

And that, by the bye, is this writer's opinion--that it is disgusting when Rep. Paulsen preens on so.

The 2011 Tucson shooting was a great tragedy. If public policy lessons are to be drawn from it, bring on the suggestions. But let us take heed: We live in an era that expects the crime victim to engage in public interviews after having been shot in the head.

A congressman gladly accepts a flattering supporting role in the made-for-tv remarkable recovery narrative.

To the dustbin!

Might it not be more dignified to keep one's statements to the Giffords in confidence?

My speech, this morning

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:27:10 PST

I Declare

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:52:41 PST

At 10:30 am on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, I will deliver a brief speech at the Eden Prairie Library's 'Conference Room.' The public is invited.

Liberal Catholicism's decadence

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:22:50 PST

At the Catholic church I attend, a submerged ideological tension exists: The self-flattering ultralib wing is opposed by a conservative bloc. A couple of times I've heard people saying that when Archbishop Nienstedt sent out his anti-gay dvd they mailed it back to him. Snap!

Glancing at Strib headlines I see Priests told not to voice dissent--and it's one of those times I don't envy the position of church liberals. The Catholic liberal tradition is a painful identity burden, since it's so plainly self-deluded.

There can be no liberalism underneath an all-male accountable-to-no one oligarchy. If you believe in dissent, gay rights, eliminating gender barriers and a Church hierarchy that is more attentive to the opinions of the laity--and you believe you have any more business in a Catholic church than does an atheist, you ought to have your head examined.

The Strib writes that ultralib Rev. Mike Tegeder 'said he believes the church is being too political...' If you're a liberal Catholic, that's the genteel-hypocritical perspective you're required to adopt. Archbishop Nienstedt: Political. Me: Neutral.

The liberal Catholic is in an exceptionally weak position to push back against an Archbishop Nienstedt--as he (the former) is asserting individual rights which the hierarchy is most unlikely to honor. When the Church acts in its pigheadedly antigay, McCarthyite manner, the atheist can honestly acknowledge: The Church is being true to Herself.

"PA Grad" writes:

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:40:06 PST

" ...a Truth that must be permanently shielded from contradiction or probing inquiry. An Ivy League-pointing community which values submission and not asking questions."

Mr. Sullivan, have you heard the comments numerous current and former students of Providence have posted that say the exact opposite sentiments about PA that you express in this statement? If not, please hear me.

I went to Providence Academy. I was raised Catholic but considered myself an atheist until around my sophomore year. I constantly argued with Catholic teachings on just about everything and anything that smacked of a Supreme Being while in classes at Providence. Rather than being chastised for disagreeing with "the supreme truth" Teachers genuinely appreciated my dissenting contributions and told me so. I got solid grades, was not discriminated against for my views, and was eventually convinced of the merits of Christianity and Catholicism. The teachers at Providence without a doubt valued my questions.

First, let's confirm that you've genuinely adopted the Catholic faith: You now believe all non-marital sex is gravely sinful? That artificial birth control should never be used, even by married couples? That not one woman should ever have any role in Church governance? That Hindu worshippers are wasting their time? That the author of the universe cares deeply about how you touch your penis?

How could one consider becoming a Christian--one feels required to ask--when there is no evidence for the resurrection? How can that not be a deal breaker?

No matter how hard I wanted to be a Catholic, I'd have difficulty saying 'Credible evidence points to the resurrection being true,' given that no such evidence exists.

While I am aware how frequently Providencefolk trumpet their community's 'open-mindedness,' I am interested in learning whether real tolerance reigns there--disregarding self-perceptions, which often embed community-membership signalling and vain ideology.

To find out whether Providence is infested with boneheaded intellectual rot, I looked for the low-hanging fruit: Does the school have any clear frame through which evolution gets presented? I learned that Providence teaches evolution but reassures anti-evolutionists that it's okay for them to reject it. In other words, a perversion of impartiality reigns at Providence.

If any Providence person holds that the school encourages genuine religious questioning, please ask them, 'On which controversial church issues are students asked to explore all options, irrespective of red hat dogma?'

Sunbird

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:05:03 PST

During recent discussion of Providence Academy, evolution has ignited an occasional spark.  Providence instructors teach evolution while imparting that--due to 'academic freedom'--students are within rights to decide 'No, evolution is not true--I do not believe in evolution.'

Such a view completely misunderstands 'academic freedom.' Within elite research biology labs, there is simply no controversy over whether evolution is true.  It is obvious from student comments that many have not been instructed unambiguously: 'Evolution is true.'

A student's freedom 'to dissent' with evolution, then, should be of precisely the same elasticity as his freedom to argue cigarette smoking increases longevity--or that an invisible Pontiac Sunbird is orbiting Pluto. 'Academic freedom' does not mean allowing utterly unqualified individuals to make highly consequential factual errors.

I am not a scientist, yet I know some cool stuff that was not known to most a century ago. A lot of this scientific knowledge, I admit, I am unable to explain. But I don't particularly need to--I've farmed out all of that hard work to real scientists.

To believe in evolution is to accept that, from some initial cells [whose arrival on the scene remains the subject of some legitimate scientific questioning] no cosmic intervention is needed to explain the flora and fauna we see around the globe, which came about by way of random mutation, adaptation by natural selection, speciation etc.

Some commenters have argued, 'The Catholic Church accepts evolution, so we have no dispute to discuss.'  But let's be honest: Many Providence people distrust and reject evolution, based apparently on folk-Catholic superstition.

Providence people feel anxiety about evolution because the religion appears to assign a rather large role to magic (in explaining our species' existence on earth). If you believe in evolution, you acknowledge that no deity at all is needed to get you from those initial living cells, 3.8 billion years ago, to us.

Sometimes religious folks say, 'Evolution and my religion are in fact not in contradiction.' When they say this, they're purposefully holding at arm's length evolution's deeper implication--that god isn't needed to explain anything after those first cells.

If you're willing to add in some completely unnecessary magic (to explain the existence of the brown-headed cowbird and us) that allows you to say 'Evolution and my religion are in harmony.'

And people aren't stupid--they're sensitive to how absurd their religions look to unbiased outsiders (incentivizing the establishment of madrassas designed to bamboozle the young into thinking their creed has intellectual respectability) so they don't discuss evolution, unless they're stating that unconvincing, discussion-ending bromide that 'evolution is accepted here.'

I am quite ambivalent about what 'values' we can really take, if any, from our acceptance of the theory of evolution.

email to Bruno Chaouat

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:38:08 PST

Thank you for your book recommendation, Dr. Chaouat.

I wish I could get your substantive response, however--as a Holocaust Studies scholar. What is the official position of the Catholic Church, as regards its conduct leading up to and during the Holocaust?

Does the Church officially express remorse or embarrassment--or is Providence Academy's Dr. Bill Stevenson correct when he insists the Church has never acknowledged any responsibility for aiding Nazism, owes Jews no apology and indeed deserves Jewish gratitude--since its conduct during the period was laudable?

When I brought Pope John Paul II's 1998 'formal apology' to Dr. Stevenson's attention, he insisted that the media had twisted the Vatican's words--and in fact JP2 accepted no institutional responsibility for aiding Nazism.

Does the Catholic Church in fact take any identifiable position on this question? If the Vatican views itself as pristinely blameless, why did John Paul II issue his 1998 'formal apology' at all?

Warmest regards,
Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Dr. Chaoat responds:

"It is absolutely notorious that the Church has institutional responsibility in the Holocaust and compromised with Nazism. In a very good documentary on Heidegger and Nazism, entitled "Only a God Can Save Us," you can see very vividly the Church's rabid antisemitism and the role it played to consolidate the regime."

Faithiness

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:46:37 PST

I had originally signed up to attend the previous quarter's open house, at Providence--but forgot about it and rescheduled when I noticed the missed calendar event. I informed Providence that I was a person of good will, interested in learning more about the school; they pleasantly acknowledged my rsvp.

Judging from the comments section, most Providencers think critical commentary from outsiders should not happen: They have the right, supposedly as a matter of good-neighborly decency, to request outsiders not comment on their community.

When outsiders do comment, their views can be dismissed sight unseen--say the reactionary and closed-minded many: They can automatically be assumed ill-motivated. (Catholic Church, tautologist's wonderland.)

The Church inculcates a harshly negative disposition to atheists and to those who leave the faith. The person drifting out of the church unconsciously adopts a feeling of self-contempt, the view that leaving = failure--that removing oneself socially from one's church is logically required after the abandonment of faithiness.

To the non-believer, such assumptions can resemble arbitrary, institutionally self-serving memes, magnetizing the whistleblower.

People who reject Catholics' claim to moral superiority perceive Providence Academy a mild provocation, justifying probing public consideration. Hence the recent grating of the tectonic plates.

The existence of an institution such as Providence--a newish thousand-student state-of-the-art ambitious-middle-class 'traditionalist Catholic' K-12, only a suburb or two distant--feels anachronistic, even in its disneyfied manifestation.

A community in possession of the supreme truth--a Truth that must be permanently shielded from contradiction or probing inquiry. An Ivy League-pointing community which values submission and not asking questions.

Several more responses...

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:15:09 PST

As an educator, author and PhD it is reasonable for people to take Dr. Arthur Hippler's public comments seriously. You're not helping his cause when you suggest 'no one is allowed to criticize Dr. Hippler,' 'Non-PhDs should never criticize PhDs' or 'Providence Academy shan't be criticized ever.'

Dr. Hippler asks 'whether one can have an obligatory moral claims without a supernatural being as the source of those claims' [sic]. Absent coercion, I have no ability to force others to accept my moral arguments. (As a practical matter, that doesn't prevent me from enjoying life. Should it?)

Dr. Hippler writes that a 'discussion of the foundations of morality would also allow us to contrast the Christian view of man to the “evolutionary” one that Mr. Sullivan seems to accept.'

Just a moment ago, Providencers were bellowing that evolution is accepted within the school. If so, I must then ask Dr. Hippler who among us holds any non- or anti-evolutionary 'view of man'? When that person reveals himself, may we ask him for some opening remarks, that we may observe his distinguishing features?

I am thunderstruck by Dr. Hippler's new revelation that 'The Church does not address the way in which life arose.' I was given to understand the Church held an opinion on this topic.

Concerning the Church's conduct during the Holocaust, Dr. Bill Stevenson believes no contrition is in order:

Now, regarding the supposed crimes of the Church, especially during WWII, nothing has suffered so much damage in the last few years as the theory that Pius XII was complicit in Nazi atrocities. So, no, I don't grant it. But let us say that there was full and complete cooperation between the Church and National Socialism, it would hardly equal the evil of Nazis themselves.

If the Catholic Church bears any significant responsibility for abetting Nazism, then Stevenson's perspective is morally repulsive in the extreme.

The Nazis' fanatical Jew-hatred emerged after centuries of Church-promoted antisemitism, during which--for generations--Christian children were raised to view the Jews in their midst as Jesus' killers. During the war, there was a significant number of vocally pro-Nazi priests.

If you held a position of social stature in the community and you failed to take action to prevent the rise of Hitler, couldn't reasonable people agree--with benefit of hindsight--that this would constitute an important moral failure?

The Roman Catholic Church formally apologized Monday for failing to take more decisive action in challenging the Nazi regime during World War II to stop the extermination of more than 6 million Jews.

To consider organized Christianity (including the Catholic Church) innocent as regards the Holocaust reveals an utter lack of moral seriousness. Shame on you, Dr. Stevenson.

The question is not whether Providence is a good school--no one in this parley has disputed that--the question is 'Would Providence be better if it jettisoned religious bias, and adopted an attitude of skepticism regarding magic-based claims?'

Responding to commenters

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:51:19 PST

I visited Providence Academy the other day during an 'open house'--an event geared to recruiting new students. At one point we divided into small groups and I observed Dr. Arthur Hippler tell prospective students and their parents about the Catholic religion classes Providence students are required to take.

Dr. Hippler made several dubious points: A dad signalled his objection to evolution, and Hippler set the man at ease. Reasonable people, Hippler said, reject a purely evolution-based explanation for the origen of life. Hippler warmly communicated that the dad's rejection of evolution should be viewed as intellectually respectable.

When people put forward crackpot theories, a wrong gets committed when the professional educator takes pains to reinforce it. I did not claim Providence teaches evolution is false; the school teaches that reasonable, scientifically-informed people can reject evolution. That's bad; biology teachers should not give students the impression that any legitimate scientific controversy exists, between evolution and 'intelligent design.'

Non-superstitious people have good reason to take interest in their neighbors' religious institutions. Catholics are taught to dislike and distrust atheists and to view adherence to the faith as situating them in a morally superior position vis-à-vis the atheist. Religious communities apportion social status (in part based on perceived piety); they assign very low moral status to the atheist. When a socially powerful institution seeks to stigmatize and vilify your philosophical minority, for stupid reasons, you may find it worthwhile to pay attention, and respond.

I'm happy to debate Dr. Hippler whenever he likes, though I am not sure where we might go with our discussion. I--like biologists--say life on earth is the result of evolution. The first complex single-celled organism was itself the result of non-conscious, materialist processes. Dr. Hippler states that biologists 'take no position on the origin of life.' He is wrong: While no consensus may now prevail, biologists have a number of theories on how our most distant ancestor cells formed. Few university biologists believe the development of the original cells calls for any magical explanation; a wide variety of theories is currently under examination.

A student suggests I have called for the closing of Providence Academy. That's not quite my position: One or several benefactors probably made some very large donations to get Providence off the ground. If I had a large amount of money to put toward improving the world, I would not consider starting Providence a worthwhile use of my benefaction.

Several commenters appear unacquainted with basic standards of discourse--and think they can dogmatically assert that my views are offensive, or that I am 'an ignorant bigot,' without giving any reason. That's not allowed, within upright discussion.

I reject Catholic belief assertions because they lack any basis in evidence. That Catholicism is obviously man-made and false I consider profoundly happy news. Adopting Catholic beliefs causes much mischief and suffering in the world, and emboldens unethical people. Providence enlists social pressure to convince young people to adopt a wide-ranging belief system without evidence--and to feel morally superior to people who reject superstition. I consider that unworthy.

A Visit to Providence Academy

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:07:27 PST

This evening I attended an open house at Providence Academy--the palatial 'traditionalist' 'conservative Catholic'--place deconstruct-me quotes where you please--K-12 in Plymouth. The school puts on open houses three or four times per year, primarily for families considering enrolling children here. The facility is of elite private school caliber, though the kitsch back-to-colonial-days architecture betokens a certain mental dullness.

A mom-phalanx greets me and I am escorted upstairs to the event. Attractive recent graduates, current students, teachers, parents and administrators extol the institution's multifaceted charms and moral benefits. No superlative seems sufficient.

The school is 'very Catholic,' with religious dogma ostensibly permeating every moment; there are plenty of crucifixes and Jesus pictures. I don't see any obvious priest or nun during my entire time here.

A dad asks if the school teaches evolution.  He wants to be reassured that the school allows Darwin no quarter.

The chairman of the school's religion department fields the question, pussyfooting this way and that. He advances his 'personal' viewpoint on the subject: There probably wasn't Evolution--as in gradual genetic change linking some earliest single-celled ancestor and us--'but clearly there was some development, though it's nonsense to suggest that humans were created just by pure random chance.'

'If you believe that, my friend, you are the radical and I am the moderate'--goes the school's put-upon middle-brow 'cultural conservative' ideology.

I interject, 'Evolution is the basic theory underlying the science of biology. If you reject evolution, you should, as an ethical educator, inform your students that almost all biologists accept evolution--it is not even a controversial subject, within university biology departments.' He cheapshots Dawkins, then proclaims:

'We're not here to engage in a debate.'  No one is allowed to challenge superstitious stupidity here, in this temple of inquiry. Wouldn't want that. These are quite scripted events, of course; I pay immediately by being cast the evening's enemy of civility, a favorite rhetorical weapon for religious people--the unreviewable civility edict. Normality resumes.

The religion teacher voices a popular social stance, among adherent middle-class Catholics: 'The society out there is very secular. Religion even sometimes gets ridiculed.  This culture really kicks us around.'

When they recite this shibboleth, Providencers might also note: Ours is a social order exceedingly friendly to religious belief. The tax exemption alone is equivalent to gargantuan recurring subsidies. The ritualized complaint about contemporary America being a very secular place should not fail to acknowledge our extreme generosity, subsidizing churches year after year, even as they insult skeptics and promulgate the taboo against criticism.

The people at Providence Academy don't believe that having their views challenged is good: Life--family life--gains beauty and innocence when we declare permanent loyalty to historical assertions for which no evidence exists. Devoting one's life to a list of magical absurdities becomes much easier when one is surrounded by well-dressed striving peers who are committed to upholding their end of the hypocrisy-exchange.

The 'headmaster'--disneyfication nowhere ceases at Providence--thunders if malcontents call his pupils cowed and protected and they define protected as 'residing within a wholesome, orderly social space, where goodness and Jesus take center stage,' then he will proudly plead guilty, thank you very much. (The stoic victim pose forever remaining in style here.)

Does anyone really care about the Koch-Brodkorb fling?

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:35:33 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:24:31 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:25:54 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:46:33 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:40:46 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:33:15 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:57:38 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:07:58 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:11:32 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 07:44:32 PST

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.'

To Fr. Rudolphi

noreply@blogger.com (Gavin Sullivan) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:36:52 PST

I attended the Thanksgiving Mass and wanted to comment on your central point: You claimed people should give thanks to god.

Among other things, you said you thank god for having good eyeglasses, which aid you greatly, day-to-day.

When we don't know who should properly be thanked for some good, it's bad to direct thanks to some arbitrary entity. False thank-you's are nearly as irritating as false apologies.

Edina Catholics believe god to be a supremely good, all-loving force. Were such a force to exist, it would merit attention from conscious creatures; we would seek to understand it--how it functions, where it came from, why it does what it does.

For god to be supremely good, it would have to be fair. Yet we observe great inequality in the distribution of economic opportunity, from one individual to the next. Most have suffered vastly more want than have we.

Many people with faulty eyes do not have good vision correction. This results in enormous cost, in quality-of-life, around the world. Millions today cannot read or even watch TV or film due to inadequate vision correction.

It is almost unimaginable to you and me--that we might have to go years without needed vision correction, in the contemporary world.

As beneficiaries of good optometry, should we attribute our luck to preferential love from the author of the universe?

That's the question I wish you addressed. You didn't.