Sunday, February 04, 2007

Ilana Mercer: The "Idiocracy" Has Spoken! (About My Hornbeck Pieces)

Barely A Blog - Updated Again: The ‘Idiocracy’ Has Spoken! (About My Hornbeck Pieces)

I could go through this new post over at Ilana Mercer's blog paragraph by paragraph, but there's no point. It all comes down to this: She's apparently received several comments questioning her heartless opinions & speculations about Shawn Hornbeck, and her feelings got hurt, so she's lashing out at the "idiocracy" -- those of us who disagree with her -- & stamping her feet with all the righteous indignation she can muster.

Speaking for this "idiot," I'd much rather have Ilana beat up on me than on a kid who spent the last 4 years with the man who kidnapped him.

'nuff said.

* History Post * Ann Coulter Was Wrong

National Ledger - Ann Coulter Was Wrong

I was deleting old bookmarks, when I came upon this article about Ann Coulter from last June, not too long after she'd made those nasty comments about the Jersey Girls being harpies. The author, Cliff Kincaid, wrote in part

--------------------------------
"Coulter appears to be saying that she knows something that is both shocking and disgusting about why these women were acting they way they did. But she has no way of knowing that. Coulter may be offering only her personal opinion about what was supposedly going through the minds of these women, but she obviously has no evidence for her opinion."
---------------------------------
Does that bring to mind a certain mother/daughter "mind reading" team about whom I've been writing a lot, lately?

The rest of the article offers more commentary about making judgements based on fact, not supposition. It also talks more about the awful things Ann Coulter was saying about folks, including veterans who've spoken out in favor of liberal positions. Even now, 8 months later, it's an interesting read...

Talk about tying my recent posts together...

I have a bunch of older articles and posts gathering internet dust in my archives. I'll try to pull out one or two on the weekends, if nothing more interesting is going on...

Me, a hater?

The Redhunter: Videos: Leftist Anti-War Protesters Abusing the Troops

So, I was surfin' the net, just goofing around, and I decide to do a search for myself. Among the hits I get was a Right Wing blog called "The Redhunter."

Turns out, your humble host is a hater... Can you imagine?
According to this Redhunter guy, I hate the troops. Here's how I was outed as a hater:

The other day, I added a comment to a youtube video of Joshua "Spit" Sparling on Faux News. Redhunter saw it & obviously didn't like it, because he collected my comment, along with several others he disapproved of, and posted them on his blog, under an explanation that said:

----------------------------------
"...But if you want to get an idea of some of the hate that is directed at the troops who served in Iraq and dare to publically say that they support our efforts there, go to YouTube and look at some of the comments that have been left under the videos I posted above. Here's a sample of what was left in response to the last video above"
-----------------------------

Mine was the last comment on the list. It said:
----------------------------------
"Where's Ann Coulter now that this poor amputee is exploiting his victimhood in the name of right wing politics? Wonder what foul name she'll be calling him, and how soon that'll be? (If she actually ever did--which we all know will never happen--I'd defend Mr Sparling's right to speak out, just as I did Ann's other victims.)"
-----------------------------

Does that show my hate for the troops?
Is it even insulting or disrespectful to Joshua Sparling? (Not that I've never been disrespectful, particularly of Joshua's repeated victimization at the hand of peaceniks, but this isn't one of those times.)

And, after my post at the end of the list, "redhunter" writes:

"Can we question their patriotism now?"

I had to post a comment at Redhunter's blog:
----------------------
I fear you've misunderstood my comment about the video...

I fully support Joshua's right to speak out, though I do disagree with him.
I just wondered whether Ann Coulter would be intellectually honest, and rail against Joshua the way she did Max Cleland. (All that crap about trotting out the victims, blah, blah, blah...) If she actually ever was that intellectually honest, she would be as wrong about Joshua as she was about Max. And I would be among the first to say so...

You may question my patriotism, if it'd make you feel better (I've no need for a freeper seal of approval, anyway), but if anybody's got a beef with that comment above, it oughta be Ann Coulter, not Joshua or you...
--------------------------

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Still More: Ilana Mercer's Daughter Weighs In On Hornbeck

Barely A Blog - Letter of the Week: My Daughter Weighs In On Hornbeck

Ilana's daughter sez:
-----------------------------------------
If you’ve been participating in this here blog at all, you’ll want to read this. I have perused some of the antagonistic comments here and think there’d be more substance to my response if I didn’t comment about them. Instead, here are my impressions of the Shawn Hornbeck debacle. Straight from the horse’s mouth. The horse being Ilana’s daughter. And I’m not really a horse. I’m a person:

---------------------------------------

Ilana's daughter is wrong. I really didn't want to read another attack on Shawn Hornbeck and his family by anyone in the Mercer clan. Unfortunately, that didn't stop it from happening, again... I also question her personhood, a little.

---------------------------------------
That little shit. That is my reaction; it has little to do with what my mother taught me. This reaction has to do with my mother and how I feel about her.

-------------------------------------

I suspect that Ilana's reaction is no more based on reason than her daughter's, no matter what either of 'em says. This seems to be about their inability to sympathize with folks who aren't like them.

--------------------------------------
It is quite a thing, being my mother’s daughter, to read of her impressions of parenthood, and particularly in this article regarding Shawn Hornbeck. Bill-O is generally a man not good for one’s digestion, but I sympathize wholly with his low regard for this kid. And my mother’s, too.

I can see it now. This bathos ridden North American kid, quivering and gesturing at the keyboard. Still full of histrionics, even without an audience. To pen something so sinisterly anonymous to his parents, a simple sentence so torturous because it is coming from the child: “How long will you look for your child?” What kind of awful dramatic shit is that? How many crappy Hollywood flicks has this kid seen? How many books has he read in comparison?

---------------------------------------

No, miss Mercer, you CAN'T see it. You can create a version of events to justify how you feel or what you believe, but you cannot really know anything, any more than anyone else who wasn't there.

You imagine a child havin' a ball torturing his poor parents with anonymous cryptic messages. Other's imagine that Shawn was made to write it, under threat of violence, or that it wasn't Shawn who wrote it at all, but Devlin. Folks can imagine scenarios all day, based on whatever is or isn't in their hearts.

I think we ought to wait until we have more facts, rather than inventing these fictions, at all... But I ask you; If they're going to create these fictions, why are the Mercer's so willing to imagine the worst of Shawn and his motivations? What does it say about them?

--------------------------------------------
Here’s a basic guide to escaping the torment Shawn suffered through. You email your folks, you tell them where you are and you get your ass home. They’ll come get you; parents are good at that. They generally like to keep kid and kid’s possessions altogether under one roof.

---------------------------------------------

Saving yourself from predators is just that easy. So easy, even a child could do it. The fact that so many children are murdered or raped in these situations means nothing to miss Mercer. If they didn't save themselves by hoppin' on the old internet & popping off an email to mummy & daddy (like I would've)... Screw 'em. Who needs such weak willed kids, anyway? It's not like their parents can't make more...

Cold. Very cold.

--------------------------------------------
As a child partially schooled at a private elementary and middle school in Cape Town, South Africa, I have seen a different kind of child than the North American specimen. I was shocked to my core when I first stepped into a North American classroom. I was disgusted with and dismayed by my classmates, as they genuinely, unblinkingly quizzed me about the population of lions in my back yard, how come I wasn’t black, and, “Why did you leave a place that had such nice weather.” Not to mention the petulance and total lack of respect for the teacher, the teacher’s lack of discipline with respect to the feet on the desks, the eating in class, the idiotic guffawing and god knows what else I took in within 10 minutes of immersion with my fellow 12-year olds. ILANA INTERJECTS: [I recall you came back crying. You said: “Mom, the children in my class are retarded. Take me out of there.” So I did.] END ILANA This is the way fellow feelings are nurtured in North American schools and obviously in the homes, too. I couldn’t bring myself to act that way with my peers, even away from home.

I quickly skipped a grade and moved just slightly beyond the level of the stupid and ascended to the heights of mediocrity. That is about as good as it gets in the North American schooling system (sadly it has gone that way now in my place of birth, too).

------------------------------------------------------

Do I even need to say anything?

Look, kitten... Speaking strictly for my little parcel of North America, you're welcome out, anytime... Take your mom with ya...

-------------------------------------------------------
A combination of my experience in schools here and in South Africa and my home life lead me to this overall impression of Shawn Hornbeck’s behavior. It is mostly a gut reaction, hence the emotion. Yes, I accuse this victim for his total lack of care. If he hated where he was, he would have emailed his parents and told them where he was. If he was feeling the slightest discomfort he could have shuffled over to the computer and told mom and dad he was bored and was ready to come home now. He didn’t. He toyed with them. He cruelly toyed with his parents. How could you live with yourself? If you’re old enough to play a video game (I can’t even get them – they’re not as easy as they look), you’re certainly old enough to give a damn.

---------------------------------------------------------

Slightest discomfort?
Bored?

Is that what you imagine Shawn was feeling?

Like her mom, Miss Mercer has written a fictional story, and is railing against it, rather than facts. They have no idea what Shawn was thinking or feeling. None at all.

----------------------------------------------------------
Okay. So for a moment I linger on his selfishness. Then I can’t help but think of my mother in place of his parents. It breaks my heart. I can’t even let my imagination wander there without shedding tears. Tears of disgust with myself if I were to do such a thing. When my mom writes about life coming to a stand still for a parent in this kind of situation, I know she ain’t kidding. I’ve seen her concerned for my life and it is an earth-shattering thing to look at. One should feel privileged and fortified for being the object of such emotion. I can say with utter confidence that I would have felt the same way at age eleven or fifteen and will continue to feel that way until I am an old woman.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I can say with utter confidence that you're fooling yourself if you think that you would feel that way at 11. Despite your pretty words, I doubt you really have the ability to empathize outside of your little circle, even now. If you did, you would avoid adding to the hurt of Shawn and his family by keeping your vicious opinions off the internet, where they can see them.

You say you feel. Good for you. Why broadcast it to the world, when you know it's going to bring grief to all those victims and families who don't share your opinions? What is the point of needlessly hurting others?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn could obviously access a computer and other people. That premise alone is evidence enough that that child could have done something. But he did nothing. He prolonged his situation unnecessarily. And why am I not surprised? My old peer group in South Africa understood the value of life and respected their families. No matter how belligerent we all were as teenagers, no matter how much we would push our parent’s patience and write horrid things about them in our diaries, we loved them utterly and would never give them cause to worry for our lives. No way. We acted out within known boundaries. We were grounded, sure. We had to do extra chores. Absolutely. And we had to shed the attitude, definitely. So what? Did it kill us? No. It just made us human with a value for our lives and the lives of others. We don’t require special tuition in order to learn how to give a damn.

posted by Ilana Mercer on 02.02.07 @ 6:27 pm |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Shawn could access a computer and other people. That doesn't prove anything. It doesn't address what he believed would happen in his world if he took advantage of that access. Perhaps he acted badly. He most certainly didn't act the way a smart cookie like you would've at 11. But you have no more knowledge about why he acted as he did than I, or anyone else does. You think you know, of course. Your whole diatribe, like that of your mother's, is all about what you think you know about Shawn Hornbeck and his ordeal. You've written a story, and now you're punishing the bad character you created. It's fiction, dear. All fiction.

Your writing does not provide any evidence that you give a damn about anyone outside of your mom.

You certainly don't give a damn about Shawn Hornbeck, or his family. Because they failed to meet your standards, they mean nothing at all. At best, they're but a bad example in Ilana Mercer's preachings on free will.

What of other parents of children who failed to act as mother & child Mercer think they should've, and were harmed or killed as a result? What should they take from your words? Should they believe, as you do, that they deserved whatever they got?

From where I sit, your ability to give a damn is severely lacking. You & your mom live in a cold, heartless world.

======
And now, the comment I sent to Ilana's Blog , which she rejected, as usual.
======
------------
Ilana, I really like your daughter, at least in this one sense... Unlike you, she doesn't waste a whole lotta time with lofty theories... She speaks much more plainly about what you've been saying since your first hit piece on this kid.

Shawn Hornbeck was a bad child who deserved everything that happened to him, once he failed to summon the courage and reason required to escape the first time he had the chance. That little shit made his own damned bed, and chose to lie in it. (And if he was joined in that bed by some 300 pounder with a penis, well, he must've chose that, too...)

Given your belief in free will, I wonder why you (and now your daughter, as well) have chosen to write these articles about Shawn. I mean, even if you are correct about everything you've said, how does your saying it benefit you or anyone else? Do you fail to realize how your words will hurt Shawn Hornbeck and his family, or is it that--like Shawn failing to contact his mother when he had the chance--you simply fail to care? Like Shawn, are you not choosing to act in a way that will bring hurt and anguish to every victim and family who fail to live up to your standards? Never mind Shawn... What motivates your poor choices, Ilana?

As I said in comment one, I believe that you and your daughter lack compassion. I feel sorry for you both, as well as for all who share your cold, cruel world. I hope they choose better in future.
------------

Ilana Mercer has some disturbing fans...

It's the topic, I know, but still...

I've mentioned this once before in passing, but they keep getting... ...well, I'll tell you what.
I'll just do the Faux News thing. No commentary. I report, you decide.

From Barely A Blog: In Defense of Bill O'Reilly :
-----------------------------
Shawn was living a life that many children who live at home do - they play all day - going to school is just going through the motions for them - with social promotion.

Shawn’s life is what many children no doubt dream about - sort of like “Treasure Island” - going off on a ship and just playing games day and night.

Shawn no doubt was not a great student, or he would have missed school.

Has anyone suggested that Shawn “ran away” rather than that he was kidnapped?

By Frank Zavisca on 01.26.07 5:07 am

-----------------------------
I’m amazed that O’Reilly had taken this position. This is a man who agrees with the likes of Susan Estrich and Wendy Murphy that young men under age 18 are too young and innocent to consent to or knowingly initiate sex with adult females, describes such affairs as “rape” and “child molestation,” and believes the “victims” are “traumatized.”

By Michael kuehl on 01.26.07 4:28 pm

-------------------------------------
Given his comment about “a NAMBLA offshoot for women,” James Casper obviously believes that adult women who have sex with young men under age 18 are “child molesters,” “pedophiles,” and “rapists.” And because pubescent teenage males under statutory age are fundamentally indistinguishable from prepubescent girls of 10 and 11, such “victims” are “children” and “little boys” who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

What nonsense! Biologically, pubescent teenage age males under age 18 are not “children” but young men. They don’t have the minds and bodies of 10- and 11-year-olds, nor do they have the bodies of underage adolescent girls of comparable age.

Almost invariably, in affairs and dalliances between adult females and young men under age 18, the “child” and “victim” is much bigger, stronger, more aggressive, more physically intimidating, etc. than the adult and “victimizer.” For this reason alone, it’s ludicrous to define such liaisons as “pedophilia” and “child molestation.” Yes, women are “pedophiles” and “child molesters” for having sex with young men as old as 16 and 17 who might be 6′4″ and outweigh them by 50-150 pounds!

Moreover, for abvious anatomical reasons, women can’t “rape” anyone in the pure sense of that word. “Rape” signifies not only violence but penetration -and, with female victims, possible impregnation. Ergo, even to describe such intrigues as “statutory rape” is objectively inaccurate and thus absurd. In such encounters, the “victim” penentrates, and possibly impregnates, the “criminal.”

Lastly, under the law, teenage males under age 18 are old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to commit felonies, and often “waived into adult court” if they commit violent crimes. Obviously, if young men under age 18 are old and mature enough to know what they’re doing, legally and morally, when they commit aggravated assault, murder, and rape, then they’re old and mature enough to know what they’re doing when they consent to or initiate sex with adult females.

By Michael kuehl on 01.28.07 6:29 am

-------------------------------

From In Defense of Bill O'Reilly:
----------------------------
5. 1/31/2007 - 4:16:31AM
BY: Brian
I think everyone who believes this "mind control" theory are just naive. This was a man/boy love relationship and Shawn was a willing participant. Do your research on the dynamics of that type of relationship and then go back and look at the FACTS! I'm not supporting that type of thing, I'm just saying, that's what it was. PERIOD! I can't believe how stupid people can be and the lack of common sense, especially when the facts are right in front of your face. All you people claiming there was some brainwashing or mind control are so out of touch with reality it's insane. You are all just so hell-bent on putting the nail in Devlin's coffin you've become blind to common sense and reality. I'm not supporting Devlin, but Shawn is a lying little deviant.

--------------------------
9. 2/2/2007 - 21:56:58PM
BY: Ex-runaway
I'm not going into the legal format of the case,but what do you people think a person turns 18 and a sex drive is installed! I remember 13 an 14 year olds getting married. Wjether it's a good decision could be debated. I know of one 16 year old that runs his own dairy farm. I do believe we are keeping our children as helpless babies to long. We all want our children to have a good future but sometimes we seem to keep them in a bubble for much too long - and then let them loose dumb and unable to deal with the reality of life.

-------------------------

April, 2011: (I'd update that second comment link if I could, but it seems the Free Market News Network (FMNN.com) has pulled up stakes and no longer has a cached version that I can find and link to... The article was there though, posted 1/30/2007: Contributors Archive - Free Market News Network

Friday, February 02, 2007

O'Reilly's comment not a factor for fundraiser - Naples Daily News

O'Reilly's comment not a factor for fundraiser | naplesnews.com | Naples Daily News

Very disappointing... I thought John Walsh was a better man. I expected him to stand up to Bill, not let him get away with verbally abusing this child.

Damn.

Ilana Mercer: Hornbeck and the tyranny of low expectations

Guess who's back...

That's right, Ilana Mercer, with another article explaining why we shouldn't treat Shawn Hornbeck as anything but a selfish, willful child who is responsible for his continued captiv... ...no, wait... Ilana doesn't believe Shawn was held captive. I think she called his situation a "predicament" in one of her earlier articles.

In Defense Of Bill O'Reilly
Hornbeck: Too Busy Playing Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War
In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

Let's take this latest article one paragraph at a time:
(Apparently, I lack the correct browser to change the font or style of the letters, so I'll have to use lines to set Ilana's words apart from my own - I'm sure neither of us wants to be mistaken for the other.)

Ilana writes:
-------------------------------------------------
Note to Keith Olbermann: some things are true, even if Bill “Orally” says them. The adorable Olbermann launched yet another coruscating attack on Bill, because he promised to do a segment on kids who, unlike Shawn Hornbeck, mustered the strength to escape their abductors. As I did in last week’s column, where I also defended O’Reilly for opposing the therapeutic establishment in its efforts not to diminish, but to trash, the concept of individual responsibility. (Bill must be hanging out at his old haunt, WorldNetDaily.)
------------------------------------------------

While it is true that Shawn did not escape his captor, we don't know whether unmustered strength had anything to do with the reason he did not. Perhaps his 11 - 15 year old reasoning told him that to do so would endanger himself or someone else.

I know that Ms. Mercer does not subscribe to very much psychology, and she seems particularly hostile to any psychological thinking that might mitigate or take the place of personal responsibility (particularly when it entails placing blame), but the fact is, threats are effective. (In fact, a little further down in this article, Ilana explains why her daughter would find a way to call home, no matter what. The reason? The threat of what Mama Mercer would do to the girl once she returned home, if she did not call.) If Shawn believed that Devlin would kill his family, or anyone else, for that matter, even cold hard reason might tell him that behaving as Devlin told him would be the smartest course of action.

Have I any proof that Devlin threatened Shawn? I do not.
Does Ms. Mercer have any proof that Shawn was simply too lazy to muster the strength, or lacked the will to escape? She does not.
Does she imply that Shawn was responsible for his continued captivity because he failed to act? Indeed, she does.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ilana Blog update 2/2/07 : 9:45pm: I submitted a comment to the blog version of this article about 30 minutes ago. Deleted. I get the feeling Ilana doesn't value my comments, anymore. I'm going to submit it again, on the off chance it was a malfunction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ilana continues:
--------------------------------------------
So here’s another angle for Bill. With the “Hildebeest” adding her voice to the deafening din about “Our Children,” how about sparing a thought for Hornbeck’s poor parents? This really dates me, doesn’t it? First I submit that teenagers have a modicum of free will and an ability to tell right from wrong. Next, I venture that the boy wasn’t exactly finely tuned to his parents’ anguish.

A parent in this situation is beside himself with worry. All he or she can think of is, “Is my baby alive; is he warm enough.” And, “Please God don’t let him suffer.” As a parent, I’d be driven to distraction by thoughts of my daughter in agony. Daily life would come to a stand still. I also know this:

I’d be furious to learn that my daughter posted a message on mom’s website, but failed to notify me she was alive. Recall, in a forum on the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation Web site, the boy posted a note asking his parents how long they were planning to look for their son. (Shawn also had a Member Profile on a website called “MindViz.com.”)
---------------------------------------------

I got nothin' on the "Hildebeest" bit... (Good to know Ms. Mercer is not always the intellectual she plays, and can wallow in the filth of personal attack with the rest of 'em, though)

How does Ilana know what Shawn thought or felt about his parent's anguish? She doesn't. Ilana's got her scenario, of course, but it's one she created, and it may or may not bear any resemblence to actual fact. Ilana believes that Shawn had the ability to end his parent's suffering. Maybe he did. She also believes that Shawn knew it, and chose to let them suffer. To her, Shawn was a bad child.

Fortunate for Shawn, Ilana Mercer did not give him life, and the woman who did does not appear to be furious with her son for not clearly notifying her of his whereabouts. Fortunate for Shawn, his mother prefers to give her child compassion rather than recrimination, even if it does make him soft and weak. I shudder to imagine what Ms. Mercer would do if Shawn actually were her child. While she--and her daughter, it seems: My Daughter Weighs In On Hornbeck--are convinced that it could never've happened to them, I am far less sure that all her teaching about free will and the irrepressable spirit of humanity would make a dime's worth of difference, when the monster meets the intended victim.

Ilana, continued:
-----------------------------------------
There Shawn’s parents were, dying a slow death every day—because, face it, kids have that effect; they burrow in your soul like no one else. So these folks are pining away, and the little so-and-so can’t bring himself to append this to his message, “Your son is alive, don’t sweat … like, whatever. Sorry gotta run; I have a game of Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War on the go with my buddy Tony.”

Then it dawned on me that my girl, who still checks in with me even though she’s an adult, would have let me know she was alive. She’d be too scared not to, on the off chance that she’d be returned to me one day. And because she was brought up to think rationally, she’d know better than to try this line on me: “Mom, I was suffering that syndrome the nice lady on TV said I had, and that prevented me from calling you for 4 years.” Thin gruel, indeed.
-----------------------------------------

Ilana writes as though this little so-and-so--Shawn, the child who was kidnapped--was a teen away at summer camp who neglected to get in touch with the folks, rather than what he was; an 11, 12, 13, 14 year old kid who was taken from everything he'd ever known, against his will, and made to live with and rely on this guy who probably didn't have the best of intentions. I somehow doubt that Shawn's life with this guy was all video games and cookies.

Though Ilana makes with the cute, cutting commentary as to Shawn's attitude toward his parent's whilst "away," the fact is, something caused Shawn to act as he did. We could speculate, like Ilana, that Shawn found paradise with Devlin, and just didn't give a damn about those people he used to live with... Hell, why bother with them, when there were video games to play, and school to miss?

We could also create an alternate scenario... One that might also explain why Shawn might stay right where he was, not doing anything to upset the delicate balance, smiling, so that no one knew, so that Devlin wouldn't...

Yeah, we could make shit up, like Ilana, to explain Shawn's behavior, but I prefer to let Shawn, and Ben, and the police, & Devlin tell us what really happened. They were there... They know far more than we do about the circumstances.

I'm sure Ilana's child(ren) was brought up far better & more rationally than Shawn. Hell, to hear her & her daughter tell it, their upbringing was better than many of ours or our children's. I would expect nothing less. I wish all of Ilana's children well. But no matter what Ilana believes, there are times when fear can kick the shit out of rational thought & good breeding. There are many things a person will do when they know the gun is at their head. There are almost as many things a person will do when they aren't sure, but think it might be.

At what point does it become irrational to do whatever you believe will save a life (yours, or someone else's)?
What if the gun is at your head?
What if it's at your mom's head?
What if it's not at your mom's head right now, but you've seen pictures of the man with the gun in your mom's house?
What if your told "I know where your mom lives, and I will kill her?"
At what point do you stop believing someone will die?

What if your not _____ years old, but 11 or 12?

At what point does it become rational to take a chance with your mom's life?

Do I know that Shawn was threatened? I do not, any more than Ilana knows Shawn was NOT threatened. We haven't the facts, either of us. But only one of us is passing judgement without them.

My point is, does Ilana believe there is nothing that motivates behavior besides personal responsibility? Does emotion play no part at all? And if it does, are their no psychological factors that affect one's emotions? I guess I know what Ilana thinks, but I don't buy it.

As far as syndromes, we differ. I believe in some of 'em, I could probably be convinced either way on others, and there are some that're bunk. It means little that Ilana and her daughter share a distrust of psychology. Her article is about Shawn, and his parents. If she cannot tell us what they believe about psychological syndromes, Ilana's story about her daughter "knowing better" is useless.

Ilana, some more:
----------------------------------------------
Small children during the Holocaust performed amazing acts of bravery, such as smuggling food for their families in and out the ghettos. Some were shot on site by the Nazis. In a story titled "the brave children of Afghanistan,” the BBC tells of the heroism of poverty stricken, severely malnourished, war-damaged kids in Kabul. They shine shoes to support their families, earning $1 a day. Asked “how he felt about his situation,” the one little boy replied: “I am happy and not happy. Happy because I work, but not happy because I cannot earn enough to bring my family everything they need.”
----------------------------------------------

There is no debate that there are heroic children in the world. Even if Ilana can convince others that Shawn isn't one of them, so what? What is Ilana trying to prove, anyway?

Personally, I'm glad Shawn survived his ordeal. There are many kidnapped children who are found dead. There are many others who are never found, at all. What does free will and personal responsibility tell us about them? How many tried to escape or get help, and were killed for it? Should we judge them heros for trying, or fools for failing? How many accepted their fate and died weak and in fear? Are they just more children like Shawn, who didn't muster up the strength to escape? If we're going to judge Shawn, shouldn't we judge these children, as well?

And what of all the children who're being abused by one of their parents? Are they to be judged for not getting out, too?

Where does all of Ilana's judging of the VICTIMS of crimes stop?
At what point does she blame the criminal?

More Ilana:
-------------------------------------
Yet people claim that the lad in question, Shawn, was incapable of contacting his hapless parents for 4 years, not even to let them know he was alive. Come now! I’m not here advocating such a developed—or defeating, to some—sense of duty in small children as evinced by the Afghani kids. Nor am I implying children are miniature adults; they are developmentally different from grownups. But neither is a teenager an ameba. The human spirit is irrepressible, in children too.
--------------------------------------

Speaking for myself, I only say that he didn't contact them. I don't know why he didn't, or whether--given his predicament--he believed he could've. Perhaps Shawn or his parents will talk about it one day... In the meantime, implying that one knows he could've contacted them, or that one knows Shawn believed there would be no physical or emotional cost for doing so, is just more guessing in the abscence of facts. Why guess?

Ilana says the human spirit is irrepressable.
What does that mean? Does an irrepressable spirit give a child wisdom or physical maturity? Does it make him understand human nature any better, or give him anything other than a will to live?

Shawn Hornbeck lived. His irrepressable spirit is intact.

My point when I first asked Ilana about children being minature adults was for her to explain what role child development might play in Shawn's situation. (For my money, Ilana is treating Shawn as though he was her. Not an 11-15 year old child, but an adult with a firm life philosophy that enshrines free will above all else. Both here and in the first article, Ilana fails to answer the question, except to say kids are not adults. While that is one tiny step, Ilana needs to explain how children are different, and what a free willed 11 year old with an irrepressable spirit really knows about escaping from a predator.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ilana Blog update 2/3/07 : 12:38am
Second submission deleted. Ilana is too cowardly to defend her thoughts on her moderated blog.
Too bad...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ilana, the last of it:
--------------------------------------
An anonymous sage said that “expectations tend to be self-fulfilling”: expect nothing and you’ll get nothing. In the United States, if kids so much as dial 911 in an emergency, they are decorated for bravery. Mitchell Hults, the boy who gave police the description of the perpetrator’s white truck, has been hailed as a hero by the sheriff and showered with awards and gifts. This, for merely reporting what he saw! If the consensus in society is that doing the bare minimum is an act of supreme courage; then failing to perform basic obligations must be considered the norm.

In The Constitution of Liberty, Friedrich A. Hayek insisted that “The assigning of responsibility is based, not on what we know to be true in a particular case, but on what we believe will be the probable effects of encouraging people to behave rationally and considerately.” In other words, don’t fall for the tyranny of low expectations; let your teenagers know you expect them to behave rationally and considerately.
--------------------------------------

While I think it was a little much for Mitchell to get a free truck, I am glad that his actions were rewarded. Yes, in a better world, children (& adults) wouldn't need rewards for performing a civic act like calling the police with information they witnessed, but in a perfect world, no one would be shameful enough to verbally revictimize a child who recently spent several years with his kidnapper, for... Hell, I can't even figure out what it is Ms Mercer is getting out of writing these diatribes about Shawn... Frankly, I though libertarians believed the right to tell a person how to conduct their business stopped at the end of their most protrusive body part. "You judge you, and I'll judge me, and we'll both get along just fine."

Unfortunately, we live in a place and time where one can easily be second guessed for stickin' one's neck out, so some folks need a little reward to remind them to do the right thing. All the expectation in the world isn't going to help that, as long as there are so many judgemental folks...

With respect to Mr. Hayek, I don't believe that one need give up on the facts of a particular case (as Ms Mercer so willingly seems to've done) to have high expectations in all cases. Responsibility shouldn't be assigned based on ideal situations, because ideal situations do not exist. Responsibility is a fact based, not faith based.

+++++++++++++++
Ilana Blog update 3
If Mohammed won't come to the mountain...
I'll drop Ms Mercer an invite
+++++++++++++++

UPDATE: This is the comment Ilana rejected twice over at her blog.
------------------------------------------------------
I understand that you don't hold much regard for the psychological theories that some use to explain why Shawn Hornbeck failed to meet the standards you set for him. In their place, you believe in the immutable truth that this child is endowed with free will and a sense of right and wrong.

But your comments talk about Shawn as though you believe he used his free will to choose, and chose wrong. You write as though you’ve somehow divined his motives for acting as he did, judged him, and are now telling your readers he is a bad child.

I contend that you do not have the requisite information to know why Shawn acted as he did, any more than “that nice lady on TV.” Like her, you have very strong beliefs about the nature of man’s relationship to his world (call them immutable truths, if you prefer), and like her, you are making your beliefs fit Shawn’s predicament.

Why judge Shawn or his behavior, particularly so soon after his release? Devlin will go to trial. Shawn and Ben will tell their stories. Why guess as to why Shawn didn’t write an e-mail to his parents? Shawn will probably tell you, in his own words. When he does, you are free to scoff at his foolish excuses and poor reasoning. But at least you’ll be scoffing at Shawn’s description of his experiences, which makes far more sense than scoffing at the events as you imagine them.
------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Political Tests & Quizzes: Have you been tested?

Earlier today I stumbled into an online argument about Fascism. The "debate" occured here: News Hounds: Dennis Kucinich Debates Hannity And Colmes On The Fairness Doctrine (in the comments section), but there is really no need to follow the link, fascism-wise, anyway. Pretty much the whole "debate" was downright silly. A few right wing trolls began tossing out insults & whatnot, and few of my fellow lefties--who I gather had some time to waste--returned fire. (Ok... I admit that I've been sucked in to these kinda things once or twice, myself... But my contributions usually consist of a single good(?) one liner that I'm compelled to type & post. These newshounders were makin' a COMMITMENT, as though they were defending... (I don't know... What would we crazy liberals be willing to fight real hard to defend?) ...the right to spit on Sparling. What I'm tryin' to say is, they were really goin' at... My usual view on these things is, "Don't feed the trolls, and they won't multiply.")

So, anyway... Somewhere in the middle of this melee, someone accuses the opposing political philosophy of being fascist. (Yeah, I could go check the transcript so as to be more precise, but my head hurt just reading it the first time. Besides, a representitive of the aggrieved political party pretty quickly suggested that no, it was the accuser's party that're really the fascists, so it doesn't really matter. If the trolls/lefties didn't say it first, they said it second.) The Communists were added to the battle, followed quickly by the Nazis. It was a typical troll-induced mess. (I'm convinced that political trolls--regardless of their outward political philosophy--secretly ARE Nazis, or at least employees of a promotion firm out to increase everyone's exposure to the Nazi party. Were it not for the trolls, how often would anybody discuss the Nazi party on the internet? But with 'em... Well, have you ever seen a trolling that didn't involve the Nazis? Me, neither.)

As the original topic was the Fairness Doctrine (government control of the diversity of political speech over the broadcast airwaves), the folks doing the arguing above were not completely off topic. As with much troll-induced verbiage, they were streching the topic to it's illogical extremes.
The Fairness Doctrine will give us one state run radio station, offering one point of view.
No Fairness Doctrine will give us many radio stations, all owned by one corporation, offering one point of view.

Between the "who's the real fascist?" argument, and the control factor (state or corporate) inherent in the Fairness Doctrine topic, I got to thinkin' about political philosophy. All this talk, finally, brings me to my actual topic...

When I first started crawling around political newsgroups & "egroups" (remember them?), someone started talking about how the spectrum of political thought is really more than just left - right. That scale describes economic political thought, but says little about how one feels about government power and control, the authoritarian - libertarian scale. S/he says s/he got the idea from this site: Political Compass (It's been upgraded at least a few times since I was first there). And along with the thinking, there's a quiz you can take to determine where you fit on their political graph. (As many have pointed out, including the political compass folks themselves, there does seem to be a bias to the questions. But it's still kinda interesting...)

Here's how I scored on Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.30

These scores set me pretty far LEFT and fairly LIBERTARIAN. It's difficult to compare myself to others, as I've only had 2 occasions:
1) when I heard about this test (see above), many folks took it, and posted their scores on whatever group it was, and
2) more recently I saw a whole list here,
but I can say this much;
On the left - right scale, I've seen relatively few (-8's), and only 2-3 (-9's) that I can recall.
On the authoritarian - libertarian scale, (-5) or (-6) was/is more common, both then and now.

If you want more info: Political compass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

While I was redscovering the Political Compass, I found other political tests and quizzes. I won't describe them all; you can check 'em out for yourself.

Political Survey. (Follow the "Take the Survey" link from this homepage.) ((Not crazy about this one, myself.))

My scores:
left/right -5.1350 (-0.3091)
pragmatism +0.5082 (+0.0306)

(Hard to tell what they mean, really... But there they are...)
=====================================

OkCupid! The Politics Test

According to this test,

I am a Social Liberal (75% permissive)
an Economic Liberal (10% permissive)
& best described as a: Socialist.
====================================

Moral Politics - A Morality-Based Political Test (Long version)

My Score:
-2 on the Moral Order axis and +3 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches
The following items best match your score:
System: Socialism
Variation: Moderate Socialism
Ideologies: Social Democratism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (84.07%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (80.24%), John Kerry (77.47%), George W. Bush (53.02%)
Statistics
Of the 280620 people who took the test:
0.6% had the same score as you.
12.9% were above you on the chart.
82.4% were below you on the chart.
48.6% were to your right on the chart.
30.5% were to your left on the chart.
=================================

World's Smallest Political Quiz

According to this test I am a LIBERAL
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.
================================

Millennium: Social Attitude Test

My scores:
Radicalism: 80 percent
Tenderness: 39.5 percent
Socialism: 62 percent

These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded radical; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.

To round out the picture, your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
======================================


If I'm not mistaken, that's all of 'em. If you want still more info (Believe it or not, some political spectrum theories don't have a quiz.), go here: Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My advice; get tested. 8>)

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed

When I first heard this story (I think it was on Tucker Carlson, God help me), I wasn't sure how I felt about it. I wanted more info about who was saying what. But aside the news article above, just about all I could find was commentary from the rightwing perspective. (Needless to say, they're thrilled that there's a group of black Democrats, several of whom were leading advocates in the civil rights movement, restricting membership to their group on the basis of race.)

The only website for the Congressional Black Caucus I could find was from the 108th Congress, and defunct. (I'm not going to bother providing that link. Anyone who feels the need to go to a dead site can do their own search... In fact, I wonder why I'm even writing this... If you're that curious, go google it. If you're ok with trusting me on the fact that there's really nothing there, stay here. But either way, it's time to quit reading this paragraph. Go. Look somewhere else. Right now. I mean it. Go.)

But then I stumbled on this site. I didn't notice the name of the place on the way in, but I liked what I was reading. Very thoughtful stuff...

I hit a post about a quarter of the way down that started:

===============
"Black empowerment and unity does not require white interloping. Just look at what happens when whites intrude into The Blackprof: manipulation, division and out right lying."
====================

I started thinkin' "BlackProf? What the heck is The BlackProf?" It was then I realized I was reading a site that was primarily by & for black college professors. It didn't matter... The ideas and arguments were far too good to leave (& far, far more cogent than the ones I found on the RW sites), even if that one poster did think I was intruding. After reading the rest of the thoughtful comments, I even decided to post my own...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off, I'm white liberal male, so any who feel I don't deserve a place at this table can skip this comment. (Judging by some of the comments above, there are some who feel that I have no more business being here than Cohen does being in the CBC.)

I'm troubled by any organization that rejects membership based on the criteria that is usually cited as discriminatory. (age, gender, race, sexual orientation, class) The fact that the folks doing the accepting/rejecting are lawmakers who are otherwise charged with creating laws that protect minority rights makes the situation even worse.

It would be one thing if it was a matter of self-selection, where no one except blacks / or women/ or homosexuals wanted to join the Black / Women's / Gay & Lesbian caucus, but once someone outside that group pledges support for the goals & methods of the organization & wants to join... ...well, it gets troubling.

As some said above, it really is a question of whether the caucus is about the politicians themselves or about the people they represent & the causes they wish to champion during their time in office.

I can appreciate the need for folks who define themselves by their religion/race/gender/sexual orientation/age/??? to want to congregate together and set their own agenda on their own terms, without imput from those who do not share their unique social/cultural experience. While it is discriminatory (& sometimes illegal) to do so, perhaps it is right and necessary, like the discrimination one needs to tell the black letters from the white page, and therefore read. There are some things that have to be lived to really be understood, and cannot be taught.

I also believe it is necessary for folks with shared goals to join together without regard for age/gender/race/etc., even when their goals concern a particular "discriminatory" group.

The CBC wants to be both kind of groups at once. They have the goals of helping all black americans in their mission statement, but they don't seem to believe that anyone who isn't black has the ___ (heart?, social/cultural experiences?, right?) to help achieve those goals.

Perhaps their ought to be a group for those who care about _______ people, as well as one for those who are _______ people...

For what it's worth...

Posted by: repsac3 | January 26, 2007 05:10 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tom Tancredo wants to ban minority caucuses, saying that they promote racism. Considering the number of nutty caucuses & whatnot there are in Congress, (here's a list of 'em), I'm not in favor of that, but I would like to see an end to membership restrictions that concern anything aside one's ideological position on the issue the caucus is about. I wouldn't want anyone on the shellfish caucus that doesn't give a damned about mollusks anymore than anyone else would, but as long as they do care, a black lesban baptist who likes peanut-butter is as fit to be in that caucus as a heterosexual white atheist who doesn't.

Keep the caucuses, lose the restrictions...

One more bit about racism, having nothing to do with congress. Two links:
YouTube - A Girl Like Me
blackprof.com: Black Doll Bad, White Doll Good

Fun with Ilana (& Bill), part B 1/2

I was going to completely skip this topic for today...

There is no rush, anymore, as Ilana has closed off all further comment on the Hornbeck / O'Reilly entries on her blog. (From what I can tell, this is not unusual behavior. All of her blog entries except the most recent few have their comment areas closed to further comment.) So, there is no reason to rush, as it's unlikely that she & I will have much further contact. I still plan to finish the saga, however... I just figured it'd be nice to take a day off from it.

But last night, I noticed that Ms. Mercer had posted her vicious little Defense of Bill O'Reilly screed at a new site: Free Market News Network. And, to my delight, they had a place to post Feedback. I suppose you can guess what I did next...

Yep, I finally got to post my whole reply to Ilana's defense of O'Reilly article. It was vetted, & perhaps edited slightly by Free Market News--so slightly I cannot tell, for sure--but it appeared earlier today.

That made me feel good enough, but a few comments below mine, a person using the nom de keyboard, "concerned" began his/her comment thusly: "repsac3, your post was the most reasoned comment on this event I have read." Makes me jazzed to be a vocal American!!

YouTube - Asylum Street Spankers Video



Very funny video!!!
But not suitable for children or uptight cow orkers...

"Sure we Americans love our troops. Check out the number of SUVs with them magnetic ribbons stuck on 'em."

Joshua Sparling: A swiftie spitting swiftly

Joshua Sparling could well turn out to be the little swiftboater who cried traitor.

First he is the recipient of the hate-filled "Christmas card" while in Walter Reed (A white supremist took responsibility, but there is some question as to whether he actually did it, or was just seeking a little notoriety for his cause.)

Next there was the alleged airport incident (in which Mr. Sparling, in a wheelchair due to injuries sustained in the occupation, is stopped at a security checkpoint because he doesn't have his boarding pass (it's being held at the gate that he's trying to get to, somewhere past the checkpoint), and while he's arguing his with security, a woman (passenger? airport security?) says nasty things to him about his service in Iraq. The situation is finally made right by three heroic W.W.II vets who were just passing by, and a different airline than the one he was going to fly out on.)

And now, poor Mr. Sparling's been spat at, again by someone who disapproves of his service in Iraq. While the NYT article says Joshua spat back, I understand that he now claims he did not. (I'm sure the article is correct about the rest of the incident, though, right? Even though it fails to have very much information about the identity of the assailant, the distance between the parties, what "words" preceded the alleged spit-fire, whether the writer witnessed the assault or reported what he was told by Joshua and the Freepers he was with, or a quote from any witness who doesn't have something to gain by the story. There isn't even a photo of a wet spot on the sidewalk.)

Here are some other sites asking questions:
Media Matters - Questions for the NY Times about the alleged spitting incident during anti-war protest
Spitting on the truth (with an action alert) | TPMCafe
Media Matters - Still more questions for the NY Times regarding the alleged spitting incident
AlterNet: Rights and Liberties: Did Spitting 'Victim' from DC Protest Cry Wolf?

The Christmas card incident resulted in a flood of gifts and well wishes for Mr. Sparling and the other patients at Walter Reed (over 20,000), and appearances on Fox News. He & his family also attended the 2006 State of the Union address, as guests of Dennis Hastert. I bet Mr. Sparling was quite honored to receive all that attention.

Could it all be true? I suppose it could. But it's still pretty unusual that this one guy has been accosted three times by anonymous folks who don't support the occupation. Google reports a few allegations of mistreatment of Iraq vets who are not Mr. Sparling, and just about as many allegations of anti-war folks being abused by pro-war activists. (All but one are reported on sites who's slant matches the story they're selling... ..I mean, telling. Just like with Joshua's claim, there are few names or independent witnesses.)

I've no doubt that among all the folks who are against this occupation of Iraq, there are a few who are violent, or rude, or otherwise lack good graces. Even all of Mr. Sparling's stories turn out to be true, it says very little (if anything) about the anti-Iraq war movement. A majority of Americans want the occupation to end. Given the number of people in that majority, it's inevitable that some of 'em will be bad eggs. It'd be a mistake to judge the whole group by their most offensive members.

Joshua Sparling is fast becoming the Iraq occupation's John O'Neill. While I appreciate their service, the lies told by Mr. O'Neill & his fellow "swifties" have evermore put a stain on the honorable service of every vet who served on a swift boat. Their smear campaign was targeted at John Kerry; but their tactics and the name, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", made collateral damage of the reputations of every man who served on one.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Fun with Ilana (& Bill), part B

First off, Bill O'Reilly's been bad, again. BillO did another segment about Shawn Hornbeck on "The Factor(fiction), 1-29-07. He just won't let up...

Also, I neglected to add this link, one of several posts concerning the Devlin case, and the first to discuss Bill's dubious contributions, on The True Crime Blog.

Now back to business...

When we last left Ilana Mercer's Defense of BillO, I had just received the following reply from Ilana:
=================
[Thanks for your contribution. Indignant huffing and puffing does nothing to discredit opposing views—and almost always conceals straw arguments. I have never said children are, developmentally, miniature adults. They are not. But neither are they amebas. To follow your determinism, one might as well not impart any direction or moral instruction to a child, because he is incapable of so much as calling home if lost. My perspective arises from a non-deterministic view of human beings. You might want to read up a bit also on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder—the real deal, not the version the public has been brainwashed by. Thanks. —ILANA]

=============

I guess before I continue, I have to rant a little more about the way Ms. Mercer chooses to run her blog.

According to the rules, she decides what comments (or portions thereof) will appear. Aside from the things I said yesterday about moderated blogs, it also creates a lag between the time one submits a comment and the time Ilana gets to her blog to moderate (& hopfully approve) the posts her readers have submitted. Once, it took a matter of minutes; usually, it takes several hours.

(For some reason, though, it LOOKS to you like your post is there immediately, as long as you're using the same browser & computer. I discovered this when I sent a friend to the site to read a post I had just submitted, and he wrote back telling me it wasn't there. He was right. On Safari (the browser I used to post the comment) it was there; on Netscape, it wasn't. I discovered later that "unposted posts" will remain there in limbo until Ilana moderates them. Approved posts show up for all to see, and rejected ones vanish...)

Also according to the rules, you're limited to 200 words. (I suppose you can guess how well I do with that!! 8>) I try my best--though I suspect I've been over the limit just about every time--but it kinda limits how much of her article one can respond to at a time.

If you've read everything up to now, you'll note that I've barely said a word about the original article, In Defense Of Bill O'Reilly, except to say that Ilana lacked compassion & heart. (As I wrote it, I had visions of the Grinch's "two sizes too small.") I'd been distracted by the comments, most of which had little to do with what O'Reilly actually said, or Ilana's defense of his comments.

That's not to say I hadn't written them; I had... But given her rules, I had to figure out how to reference the part of the original article to which I was replying without wasting any of my 200 words by quoting it, and then chop my thoughts into 175-225 word chunks.

So, rather than replying to Ms. Mercer's PTSD comment--which I figured could wait--I sent in my first chunk in disagreement with her defense of Bill... (My reply to the PTSD comments appear at the end of this post.)

My blog, my rules... I'm returning the original article quotes, but sticking with the chunks, so as to avoid misrepresenting the sequence of events over on Ilana's blog. In other words, While the relevant sections of Ilana's article are shown below, all that appeared on Ilana's blog were my "replies" (edited, in one case)

---------------------------------
Ilana Mercer, from In Defense Of Bill O'Reilly:
Indeed, in Newsweek’s telling, “The 11-year-old boy no longer had to go to school. He could watch TV and play videogames all day. He was given an iPod, a computer, an Xbox 360 and a bike.” At 15, he had a girlfriend and a best friend, with whom he regularly rode his bike, went skateboarding, hung around the mall and played videogames.

Shawn surfed the Web. On at least four occasions he was stopped by police late at night and given a ride home. Not once did he so much as mutter under his breath, “I’m that kidnapped kid.” And get this: young Shawn even filed a police report when his brand-new bike was stolen, but failed to mention that its owner had been nicked too.

Tony Douglas, the bosom buddy, would sleep over at Shawn’s place. He attests to the chummy interactions between Shawn and his kidnapper, Michael Devlin. Shawn, in turn, spent holidays with Tony. A “neighbor, Krista Jones, observed Devlin teaching the boy to drive his pickup truck, while others saw the two pitching a tent outside the apartment.”

These are the unsettling facts in the Hornbeck case. Naturally, they make people uneasy. If not for the ersatz experts waiting in the wings to rape reality with dubious theoretical constructs, a torpid public might have grappled with some of these discomfiting realities.


My Reply:
Some of Shawn's behaviors while "away" from home are disconcerting. And questioning them is fine. Wild speculation as to the answers to those questions, whether by psychologists & social workers, or those that oppose them, is not.

Ilana:
Newsweek, Olbermann, and our execrable experts asserted that Shawn “was almost surely threatened with gruesome consequences if he said a word about his abduction to anyone else.” Based on what evidence? The freedom Shawn was given to come and go as he pleased? One Dr. Terri Weaver got carried away in trying to explain why, while on his bike rides, out with his girlfriend, at the mall, or at a slumber party, Shawn failed to dial 911 on the cellphone he owned. Devlin could have threatened to kill the boy’s family and pets, she hyperventilated. Another tele-twit asserted, sans proof, that Shawn had decided to sacrifice his needs to save his family. To date, there is no evidence that the boy was molested. Devlin is charged with “felony kidnapping and felony armed criminal action,” but not with sexual assault.


My Reply:
There is no evidence as yet that Shawn was threatened or molested. There is also no evidence as yet to suggest he was not. That is the point of my disagreement with Mr. O'Reilly and your defense of him.

While accusing these tele-twits & execrable experts of creating scenarios without proof, you & Mr. O'Reilly are doing the very same thing. They are attaching psychological motives to Shawn's actions. You are simply substituting their psychobabble motives for your own motivation of free will and personal responsibility. They claim to know that Shawn was with Devlin because he was psychologically trapped. You claim to know that he was there because he chose to be.

{Ilana edited away all but the first sentence of the preceding paragraph.}

I agree that the experts are jumping the gun, and haven't the facts to know. But I submit that you haven't the facts & don't know, either. They're coming at it from their "expertise," and you're coming at it from yours, & neither of you are wearing any clothes. There isn't enough evidence yet to understand the motivation underlying Shawn's behavior, no matter how certain you, Bill, the psychologists, or anyone else sounds whilst making their claim.

All we have are a few troubling behaviors. Many of us wonder about them. But anyone who claims to be able to explain them using the few facts we currently have, no matter what their expertise or brand of belief, is kidding themselves as well as those they're trying to convince.
--------------------------------

Ilana attached the following to this post:
=========================
[Once again, you miss the point entirely, perhaps because you are unfamiliar with my writing–and the work of others who refute the therapeutic worldview. O’Reilly is not one such individual; he just happened to hit a home run, initially, on the issue, but was soon subdued by viewers like you, and by “the experts,” because he hasn’t a philosophy to speak of. This is not a matter of two sides of the coin. That teenagers have a modicum of free will and an ability to tell right or wrong is an immutable truth; it isn’t subject to the vagaries of this or the other expert analysis. Sure, there are mitigating factors, but teenagers are still capable of the above. Americans, prior to the advent of the Managerial State, knew this, and brought their children up in accordance with this natural, universal truth. Hayek, in The Constitution of Liberty, says that treating people as if they have these qualities is integral to liberty, even if, say, you don’t believe people have free will. The therapeutic abolition of free will has resulted in the disintegration of conventional morality–and right and wrong. The facts of the case do not change this immutably true reality.–ILANA]
By W James Casper on 01.28.07 4:29 am

=============================

It is here that some of my new submissions began vanishing. Maybe Ilana didn't approve of the content, or maybe there's some kinda glitch over at her blog that only allows you to have one submission awaiting approval at a time ('s'possible, right?), but whatever the reason, this bit, in reply to the "PTSD" comments at the top of this post, was submitted next, & never appeared.
--------------------------------------------------------
After reading your "Sloppy Science" article, as well as an interview with Marilyn Bowman, PhD, I'm still unsure where you stand on PTSD in particular or psychology as a whole.
I believe you're saying PTSD is a legitimate psychological disorder, but is far more rare than the mainstream psychological community would have us believe. Those born with a particular personality trait (neuroticism) or who suffer from other psychiatric or personality disorders are more vulnerable to PTSD. Treatment for those who are suffering from PTSD (or simply think they are) should be individualized (not a one-size-fits-all approach), & available for those who want it. No one should be forced into treatment against his or her will, or “for their own good.”

I agree with everything in my summary, &--to the extent that I understood the articles I read--with your approach to PTSD.

On determinism, I am not suggesting a child is incapable of calling home if lost. I'm saying that this child did not, but the reason he did not can no more be explained by free will than determinism without more information.

For example: Does Shawn suffer from any underlying psychological or personality disorder that would make him more vulnerable to any peri- or post- stress disorder? Knowing that fact (among others) would help explain his behavior.
----------------------------------------------------------

Alrighty... I guess that's enough for this entry...
(We're almost caught up, I swear, and nothing new has happened as regards this topic over at Ilana's blog--WHOOPS!!! Spoke too soon!!!--I was about say I've had a post awaiting approval there for the last 24 hours or so, but when I checked just now, it's vanished... Man, I hate that!!!)

Monday, January 29, 2007

Fun with Ilana (& Bill), part 1

In the beginning was Bill O'Reilly, and he was bad. Very bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. (If I'm not mistaken, that's one "bad" for every segment Bill O'Reilly has done on Shawn Hornbeck to date. It's close, anyway...) If you are unfamiliar with the story, or are interested in finding more bits I've written about Billo's treatment of Shawn, follow them links & don't skimp on the "comments" sections...

Then one morning whilst doing a search, I came across WorldNetDaily: In defense of Bill O'Reilly, by ILANA MERCER. While I generally wouldn't bother reading anyone who writes for WorldNetDaily, I was interested in reading the first, and as yet only, person write, speak, or otherwise communicate in support of the thoughts Falafel Bill offered about Shawn Hornbeck on tv & radio. (To my knowledge, rumors of an interpretive dance in support of O'Reilly are unfounded.) As you may've guessed--particularly if you read Ms. Mercer's piece--I did not find myself agreeing with much of anything she offered in her defense of Bill. And, noting that she also had a blog on which she'd posted portions of the Worldnet article, I set out to offer another side.

Noting the rules,
Barely A Blog is private property. Posts are published at the discretion of the proprietor. The forum is moderated and missives edited for style and taste. Please keep comments concise (200 words, at most), run a spell check, and try as best as possible to be grammatical.

and knowing that what I wanted to say might not pass muster, I offered a very quick "test post." I said,

May you never be a victim.
But if you are, may you find more compassion in others than you possess in yourself.

Please seek spiritual guidance and reclaim your heart.


To my utter surprise, it appeared on the blog a few hours later. On it Ilana had added the following, in brackets & bold print that clearly identified it from my own,

[How do you know i have not been a victim? Yes, ass-uming again…]


I was perplexed. Curious, I replied

I “ass-umed” nothing. My wish for you never to be a victim addressed your future. I made no statement about your past, either way. For the record, I hope you never WERE a victim, either, but I’ve no way of knowing.

And seeing as how we’ve never spoken before, I also wonder why you claimed I was “ass-uming again”.

(Nitpicky, I know, but as a writer, I would hope you appreciate the need for careful wording in order to convey specific meaning.)

Thank you for posting my first comment (& hopefully this one, as well.) I am generally suspicious of blogs who edit for content prior to allowing a comment to appear. It often ends up that only those who’s comments are complimentary ever see the light of day, manufacturing a false impression that there is little or no dissent with the official blog position. I find that a coward’s way of winning an argument. I hope to find you feel the same.


When this comment appeared, it contained the following comment, as regards my "ass-uming" questions.

[I was referring to the general habit of assuming or asserting with no prior knowledge, which is a habit I encounter in many interlocutors these days. I am in the process of updating this blog post with a comment I hope you will ponder and address. So please check back]


To my thank you, she replied:

[Sure.]


So far, so good. In the meantime, comments were showing up from other readers. As I read them, it became all too clear I was not amongst friends... ...or sane persons. I note here that Ilana added none of her own bold, bracketed "words of wisdom" to either of these posts. One is left to assume she read 'em, approved of their content (& whatever else she looks for prior to permitting others to speak on her blog) and sent 'em on through... Two excerpts, from two different contributors (Same blog as before.):

Shawn’s life is what many children no doubt dream about - sort of like “Treasure Island” - going off on a ship and just playing games day and night.
===============
I’m amazed that O’Reilly had taken this position. This is a man who agrees with the likes of Susan Estrich and Wendy Murphy that young men under age 18 are too young and innocent to consent to or knowingly initiate sex with adult females, describes such affairs as “rape” and “child molestation,” and believes the “victims” are “traumatized.”


Raise your hand if you're a little frightened.
Me, too.

My third offering to Ms. Mercer's blog:
Wow…
Reading through the comments posted thus far… I’m almost at a loss for words.
“Treasure Island”?!? “…going off on a ship & playing games day and night”?
Am I misreading Michael’s comment, or is he advocating in favor of some kinda NAMBLA offshoot for women, where having sex with boys isn’t a crime, but a loving and beautiful act for all involved?

Forgive me for being a little bewildered, but the thinking expressed here is very new to me.
Are children just tiny adults to you folks? Are they just as capable of making decisions as you and I, intellectually or emotionally? Is there even any such thing as emotional development, or is that just more psychological claptrap? Should the actions of children be judged by adult standards, or are children… well… children? Is any psychological condition legitimate, or is it all–if you’ll forgive the expression–crazy talk?

And Ilana... Might it be fair to suggest that it wasn't me "ass-uming" anything in our first encounter, but you...?

I intend to get more involved with specific portions of both the original piece and the update, but fear that to begin in this comment box will put me over the posted word count.


This post also appeared, but Ilana chose to remove the line suggesting that she had made the assumption. (Too snarky? Too accurate? Perhaps we'll never know... I sent her an e-mail wondering why, but there has been no reply.)

But added comment? You bet there was... Ilana said:
[Thanks for your contribution. Indignant huffing and puffing does nothing to discredit opposing views—and almost always conceals straw arguments. I have never said children are, developmentally, miniature adults. They are not. But neither are they amebas. To follow your determinism, one might as well not impart any direction or moral instruction to a child, because he is incapable of so much as calling home if lost. My perspective arises from a non-deterministic view of human beings. You might want to read up a bit also on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder—the real deal, not the version the public has been brainwashed by. Thanks. —ILANA]


I shall end here, and resume this exciting adventure in a post in the near future. (Taking no chances on the possibility that some other topic may strike, and occupy the "next post." For the record, I have no other family or friends expecting a baby, so I think it'll be safe to assume part two will be next, but... 8>)

Welcome Ariana!! (Your uncle's a liar.)

Yeah, I know that in my last post I said "beginning in my next post..."

Well, life crept in, literally...

While I was still preparing that "next post," my wife called to tell me that her sister just gave birth to her second child, our first niece. (It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we already have a nephew.) Somewhere in Italy, & here in America, too, there's a whole bunch of happy family & friends bidding miss Ariana Romeo welcome to the world.

Barring any other earth-shaking events in my life, the next post will start that weird & wacky odyssey...

Moderation is for monks... ...and cowards.

It's happened again. This time two whole comments offered to Ilana Mercer's Barely A Blog disappeared after being submitted. (At this moment, two others are awaiting her approval. I can only hope they will make it through the process, and as written.)

As I said before, I think that many of the folks who feel the need to vet other's contributions to their blogs, yahoo/google/??? groups, & whatever else, turn out to be cowards. They want to spout their opinions, but prefer not to have to defend them. Those submissions that parrot the owner's views appear, and those that present an opposing view either lose salient points, or vanish into the internet aether, never to be seen. (Experience has taught me to keep copies, especially when dealing with moderated blogs. I'm not a speedy writer--I think I'm too critical of my own words, & thus spend way too much time rejiggering sentences & paragraphs--and to have all that time & toil just disappear because some disagreeable soul doesn't want to be contradicted on his/her blog really pisses me off.)

It's not as though a blog/group owner cannot delete off-topic or commercial posts or those that would likely offend the sensibilities of their readers, after the fact. (Blogs written for young children or God-fearing church folk chock full of "motherfuckin' bad language", ads for tampons, or death metal concert reviews don't fly with much of anyone. By contrast, blogs written for death metal heads have no need of the sermons of God-fearing church folk or the nursery rhymes of children. If there's a blog audience anywhere in need of tampon ads, I am thankfully unfamiliar with it.) My point is, there is little reason to moderate before the fact, as one can do so as problems arise. To treat everyone as though they are going to offend (or be off-topic, or post advertising) until they prove otherwise, doesn't fit in with my ideas of innocence & guilt, and makes me wonder a bit about the moderator. All this said, moderating for advertising, off-topic posting, & bad language is far preferable to moderating for intellectual content, as Ms. Mercer and others do.

I believe there's no reason for me to submit to Ms. Mercer's version of my posts, particularly when I have my own all-too-seldom-used blog. Should she choose to grace us with her presence, her posts will be welcome, and appear as written, even if she chooses to explain in detail just how far up my ass she believes I ought to shove the broomstick. Should she post a coupon good for 50% off her favorite brand of napkins, however, I can't promise I'll allow it to stay on my blog (though it will appear, initially)... A fella's got to have some standards...

So, beginning with my next post, and for as long as it takes, I will offer the saga of my one man odyssey into the classical liberal world of Ilana Mercer, focusing on her daring defense of Bill O'Reilly , and all that followed. Nothing will be held back, and all are welcome to join in and comment.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Ilana Mercer: In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

Barely A Blog � In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

This woman, as well as the majority of her commenting readers, frightens me.

I was content to comment away over at her site, until I discovered she intentionally cut a line from one of my posts. (Have I mentioned how cowardly I find bloggers who moderate the intellectual content of their comments, deleting those ideas they would rather not confront, and manufacturing a false aura of agreement with their ideas? If I hadn't before, I guess I have, now... 8>)

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt for the moment--the line she cut WAS kinda snarky, but a direct rebuttal of an assertion she made--but I also won't be surprised when she does it again, or indeed turns out to be exactly the kinda coward that so many "moderated bloggers" are. Why engage a reader's argument, when you can just make it appear s/he never said it in the first place?

And then there's her defense of Bill O'Reilly's comments about Shawn Hornbeck... I must give her credit for going there (while opposing virtually every argument she makes in his favor)... Precious few legitimate writers are quite so foolhardy... Even if her debate tactics end up exposing her as a coward, it's a very brave thing to publicly defend a man who says Shawn enjoyed being with Deviln. She even goes so far as to expand that theory further than Billo ever took it. While I think she's a "classical liberal" (libertarian) kool-aid drinker, there is no doubt in my mind that she mixed it herself, and approves of every ingredient...

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Is Ann Coulter Correct?

I wrote this on an Amazon message board last night, hoping for a response that'd shed some light on this for me... So far, I haven't gotten any response at all...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In all the hubbub regarding Miss Ann & the Jersey Girls, no one yet has cogently explained the underlying point that she was trying to make. (Most who talk about these passages & her subsequent appearances--regardless of side--get stopped cold by the offensiveness of her words, but even those who try to get past "how she said it" (mostly those on her side, of course) seem to take as a given that "what she was saying"--the idea that the left is "trotting out" these women & other victims of tragedy to speak because they have a built in "shield of infalability" and thus cannot have their ideas criticized--is true.

Probably needless to say, I don't believe Miss Ann's theory of infallibility is correct, but I'm willing to listen if anyone would like to step past the rhetoric and explain it.

Here's my thoughts on this thing, so far...

Contrary to Ann's theory, these IF's (infallable folk) HAVE been criticized, both on their ideas and personally, prior to Ann's screed. Some of that criticizm has even come from the left. (I'd have to google for concrete citations, but I recall a good bit of talk when Cindy Sheehan started making statements about Israel, ferinstance.) Didn't Falafel Bill make a point of saying on his first "post-harpies" show that he "beat" Mrs. Sheehan on the facts, without resorting to the invective that Ann employs. (Of course, on the very same show, he also said he agreed with Ann's point, though not her words. I guess Bill criticized Cindy without criticizing her... ...though he neglected to explain how, then or since.)
Further, no one--not Ann, or Bill, or David Horowitz, or, well, any of the outright Coulter supporters or the "I wouldn't say it that way, but..." folks--no one has yet shown even one instance where anyone has said "You can't disagree with them, they're WIDOWS (or amputees, or the parent of a dead child), for gosh sakes!!" The way I read her words, Ann is suggesting that this sentiment is so widespread as to've silenced the rightwingers (until Ann "heroically" broke the taboo, of course), but it certainly doesn't seem so.

Ann Claims that these IF's are being "used" by the left, as though they either don't actually hold the opinions they claim to, or would not be voicing them were it not for their leftie handlers. Of course she cites nothing in the way of proof...
I believe that the Jersey Girls were profoundly affected by the murder of their husbands, and by the Bush administration's response to those murders. (It's my understanding that at least two of them were loyal Republicans who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000.) They wanted to understand exactly how this tragedy could've happened, & felt the Bush administration was resistant to finding out & telling them. All of them became less enchanted with Bush & the Republican party as a result of their experiences, and said so to anyone who would listen.
Did the left help the Jersey Girls get their message out? Sure. Did the left benefit from helping the Jersey Girls get their message out. Yes, again. I maintain that no one maliciously or wantonly used anyone, here. Both the Jersey Girls and the left at large were helping each other achieve what were often shared objectives.
Cindy Sheehan & Michael Berg started out on the left in the first place. Both were peace & justice activists before their sons were killed, and losing them only made their commitment to such things stronger. As they are already "on" the left, it's hard to say they're being used by it. The murders of their sons affected them, too, strengthening their political ideals. While I don't agree with everything they say, I'm glad they're out there speaking up.

Ann claims that her remarks are confined to these particular widows, & not 9/11 widows in general. I contend that Ann needs this to be true to somewhat mitigate the criticism she's received from the public, and particularly from other 9/11 widows. How true it actually is, depends on why Ann actually has a problem with these women. (The why is something I'm particularly fuzzy about...)
It can't be because these women "used" the murder of their husbands to attain money or fame or to advance a political position because, to whatever extent the Jersey Girls have done so, so have other 9/11 family members. A few quick examples:
Lisa Beamer wrote a book & had a hand in the movie.
Ashley Faulkner appeared in an election ad for Mr. Bush.
Debra Burlingame has repeatedly made speeches, testified before congress, and appeared on rightwing media programs advocating her political positions & beliefs.
The only thing that makes these women different from the Jersey girls is that these women have done these things in support of Bush & the Republican party.

Some have suggested that the Jersey Girls (& Cindy, Michael, ...) have no business dictating public policy, as they lack the know how. A fair point, which is why they are NOT dictating policy. Like the rightwing women above, along with MADD, Christopher Reeve, Carolyn McCarthy (before she got informed, ran for office & thus became one of those knowledgeable decisionmakers) they are advocating for a particular position, & trying to get those who DO have the requisite know how to take their positions into account.

So, what am I not getting? Am I misunderstanding Ann's point, or are there other facts about which I am not aware?

I'm really not looking for a "you suck" or "typical liberal" response... (I mean, if you really can't help yourself, go for it, but it's really not going to do much for (or to) anyone aside yourself... If that's the response you choose to give to my honest inquiries, your opinion of me isn't going to have me losing any sleep) I'm trying to get beyond "how she said it," and discuss "what she said," without inviting debate on "how I said it." I'd appreciate the same in return.

Amazon.com: Customer Discussions: Is Ann Correct? How so?

Friday, June 16, 2006

Crosswalk.com - Kevin McCullough's Weblog

Crosswalk.com - Kevin McCullough's Weblog

One thing Kevin neglects to say is that Larry Johnson is a registered Republican (oops!)

And even if Mr. Johnson WAS a part of the LEFT [sic], his comments would only reflect poorly on Mr. Johnson, unless Kevin could demonstrate that those on his evil left were defending those shameful comments about Rove's mother the way a fair portion of the rightwing has defended Miss Ann.

Larry was wrong. Miss Ann was wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right over here on the left... It seems that such justifications only come from the rightwing.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Henry Rollins: A Love Letter To Ann Coulter


Henry Rollins: A Love Letter To Ann Coulter


There are no words necessary... Watch (See yourself before sharing audio or video with children or cow orkers.)

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Kathleen Reardon: The Coulter-Far Right Concept of Consequence - Yahoo! News

Kathleen Reardon: The Coulter-Far Right Concept of Consequence - Yahoo! News

This is the best reaction piece to Ms. Coulter I've read thus far...
Coldhearted bitch of privilege...

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Book Revue & Bias

One of the best independent bookstores on Long Island has just lost my business...

A few years ago, I began to notice that they hosted more rightwing authors than leftwing ones. At first, I thought it was a fluke... Perhaps no liberal author wrote a book the same month Bernie Goldberg released Bias...
Maybe Jim Hightower wasn't doing a book tour for Theives in High Places...
But gradually, I came to realize that month after month, there were more rightwing authors showing up at Book Revue than those from the left.

So, about a year ago, I sent them an e-mail letting them know I'd noticed this trend, and requesting that they do something to set my mind at ease... Have more authors from across the social & political spectrum (preferable) or host less from the right. In short, show me that this wasn't intentional...

I got no response to my e-mail. Not only didn't they respond directly, nothing changed as regards the authors doing the appearances. Hannity has had a signing for every one of his books, and also shows up to help sell the books of others he supports, like Goldberg, above. O'Reilly. E.D. Hill. Pat Buchanan. And the final straw, at least for me, Ann Coulter (again, with Hannity, who even did a live broadcast from my formally beloved bookstore.)

So, with sadness in my heart, I bid farewell to my bookstore, by sending them this email last night:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In honor of yet another appearance by Fox News (Hannity, together with Ann Coulter, this time), I hereby revoke my patronage of your establishment.

I was a resident of Huntington from 1969 through 1996, and spent many hours and a good chunk of money in your store in the late 70s & throughout the 80s. One of my good friends, Jeff B, was an employee of yours. I worked in Chartiers, right behind your building. (I also spent a lot of time in Oscars, but preferred your store.) In the last few years, I've occasionally driven in from Mastic to shop in your store (it is among the best independent bookshops on Long Island, and my politics urges me to spend my money in line with my values--including my disdain for the big boxes that're slowly destroying our local main street businesses.) I even have a frequent buyer card, even though I don't spend nearly the time or money in your shop that I used to.

It was that history, along with your selection & status as an independent, that allowed me to forgive your seeming penchant for hosting right-wing authors a good deal more often than similarly prominent authors from the left. Hannity (HOW many times can this guy appear?), O'Reilly, ED Hill, The Bias guy, Pat Buchanan... ...and the list goes on, I'm sure... (I'm going from memory...)

In a similar period, you've had Amy Goodman, & (perhaps) Al Franken. I'm sure I'm missing a liberal or two from the last 5 years, but the number has got to be half that of conservative appearances in the same period.

The final straw was Ann Coulter. She is trash, and I will not continue to support any person or entity that gives her (& the Fauxes) a platform to spew that kind of bile. There are other independent bookstores that are more in line with my personal, political and social beliefs, and thus have earned my patronage. I will always value the books & the memories I have because of Book Revue, but I cannot continue to give money to an institution that allows the likes of Coulter & these creeps from the Murdoch/Moonie media to spew their harmful, hateful views, and then fails to present authors from the other side to rebut them.


W. James Casper

Mastic, NY 11950
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)