One of the most fun things I get to do is post on various political blogs. I seem to have the most fun on the conservative ones. Here’s a recent exchange with a 49-year-old conservative Christian on RedState.org

What the various multi-dimensional maps (available at beldar.org, for one) really show is that the divide is between large cities and everybody else. The point that social pathology is certainly more VISIBLE in large cities is beyond dispute. There aren’t a lot of pimps in fuzzy hats or XXX bookstores in small town America.

From a more esoteric investigation, what suggests itself is that denizens of large cities are under a lot of pressure. Psychological studies have shown repeatedly that rats living in a densely populated environment are more hostile/aggressive than rats with some space. The apparently opposite phenomenon is also true, that the anonymity of a large city offers individuals opportunities to behave in ways they wouldn’t if the natural accountaility of a smaller community was in effect. Also, something called diffusion of responsibility takes place in which individuals feel no need to react to a crisis, in the assumption that someone else will. (Remember the woman raped and murdered in front of her apartment bldg in NYC and, although they heard her cries for several minutes, no one came to or called for help.) This mentality also obtains when big city dwellers (involuntarily) encounter daily the swarms of “homeless” people who inhabit such places. Even if they toss them a few dollars, they are likely to come away feeling guilty to some degree. And finally, a melting pot exists there, not only of races, but of beliefs and values (read morality) as well. In order to simply get along, do business, negotiate the practicalities of big city life, one must suspend one’s beliefs long enough to, say, deal with a militant environmentalist shouting “Share the earth with the squirrels!” and demanding you take a leaflet on the street. (Ed. this is a somewhat bland example, since I don’t want to get banned, but you get the idea.)

So, we have an aggressive, unaccountable, guilty, and necessarily non-judgemental population of millions voting for President (as well as myriad other offices and things.) How will they vote? Well, they would be aggressively non-judgemental and anonymous with feelings of non-specific guilt and anxiety. A perfect formula for electing a value-free, feel-good, social reformer who will “take care” of those poor people whom they try desparately to ignore every day. Further, the huge disparity of wealth existing in most big cities not only exacerbates the guilt of the “haves”, but heightens the sense of entitlement in the “have nots”. Something must be done(!) to correct these inequities, which must always be seen as injustices as well. In such a fashion are the four dilemmas of urban life resolved: aggression – in the form of self-righteous anger at apparent injustices; unaccountability – “well, I can’t solve it, but the gubment can”; guilt – assuaged by activism for the “less fortunate”; and non-judgementalism – towards the individuals who likely are as responsible for their lot as not, but judgemental towards the substitute object of their wrath, which is some abstract (and fantastical) idea of “conservatives” as unfeeling, selfish, rascist, hyper-religious, etc., etc.

So there you have it. The average small town dweller knows he or she must get up, go to work, pay his own way, and be accountable to the community. Sure, charity is available, but she or he knows that someone, nearby, is paying for it and expects some effort in return. This clearly demonstrates the counter-productive, even destructive, effects of welfare and other “services” offered by the federal government. It’s open-ended, it’s unaccountable, it makes dependents (basically, children suseptible to the demagouery of Slick Willie, for instace) out of recipients, it depersonalizes, etc., etc.

I’ve only touched on the psycho/sociological features of blue population center (big city) dwellers and their motivations to vote for such ideological misfits like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al. What shapes their views on other issues can’t be addressed adequately in this forum. However, I do have one question from one of those other areas. If we can fight a war to liberate Europeans from a brutal dictator, why is it “immoral” or “unjust” to fight a war to liberate Southeast Asians (or Middle Easterners) from one?

Why is it that the cities vote overwhelmingly blue and the small towns go red? Why do the people in the areas with the most cultural diversity and higher education tend to think liberally, whereas the areas where herd animals outnumber people tend to think conservatively? Why do the citizens in cities who must live closely together with people of all faiths, races, languages, cultures, and economic backgrounds vote Democratic, but the citizens in rural areas who are geographically separated into homogeneic enclaves vote Republican?

Maybe higher education and the day-to-day interaction in close quarters with people who aren’t just like you forces people in cities to have a more enlightened view of society.

Now, as far as the “fuzzy pimp hats” and “XXX bookstores” that supposedly dominate the urban landscape, may I warn you that people who live in glass houses should dress in the basement.

You want to trot out the the easily debunked urban legend of the girl raped in NYC whose cries went unheeded (never happened)? Should I respond with the reprehensible scum in Texas who dragged James Byrd to death, or the subhuman reprobates in Wyoming who lashed Matthew Shepard to a fencepost to die, or the frighteningly degenerate woman in South Carolina who drowned her kids in a lake and blamed it on a black bogeyman? These three incidents, though disgutingly immoral, racist, and homophobic are not meant to indict the moral terpitude of the Red States (there’s more than enough of that for states of all color), rather I add them to remind you that anecdotal depravity proves nothing.

If you are going to characterize Blue Cities as being inhabited by lazy guilt-ridden goldbrickers in search of the next “gubment” fix, then I’ll take the liberty of characterizing Red Small Towns as being inhabited by reactionary sanctimonious xenophobes in search of the next “them” to blame.

[I know a lot about both sides. I grew up a Reagan Republican in a small town in the third reddest state (Idaho), and now I live in a fairly big blue city (Portland, OR).]

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

Well, I guess the only thing I’m going the get here is name-calling and fevered rhetoric. It may be worthwhile to refute this drivel though, just so an innocent reader won’t be mislead.

1. Why do big city Liberals promote homosexuality and abortion while living in such a diverse atmosphere with all their “higher” education? Because they think they know better than everyone else, i.e. they’re arrogant, that’s why. And, as I pointed out in my original post, because they have to – they have no choice – that’s where they live. Duh.

2. Yes, your “enlightened view of society” has promoted and encouraged NAMBLA, the CPUSA, and the ACLU, to name but a few. You won’t see any S&M Clubs in small town America. And you certainly won’t be offered a university course in Bondage at any RedState Colleges. Boy, now that’s enlightenment!

3. If you want to argue about glass houses, at least most Redstate jurisdictions don’t allow aggressive panhandling and urinating in public, to name only two. Look at the flack Rudi Guiliani took when he tried to (and did) clean up NYC by actually enforcing the law. What a Concept! Redstates have been doing it all along, despite cries of “Jackboots” and “small town corruption” from pedantic big city liberals.

4. I swore I wasn’t going to do your research for you (and I mean real research, not just a string of hyperlinks), but you’ve forced my hand. Check out Rosenthal, A.M., (1964). Thirty-eight witnesses. New York:McGraw-Hill. A good summation is quoted in Baron, R.A. & Byrne, D., (2000). Social Psychology, 9th ed. Boston:Allyn&Bacon. Esp. Ch.10, pg. 397: “It took place in the early morning hours of March 13, 1964. In New York City, Catherine (Kitty) Genovese was returning home from her job as manager of a bar. As she crossed the street from he car to the building where she lived, a man armed with a knife approached her. She began running in an effort to avoid him, but he ran in pursuit, caught up to Ms. Genovese, and then stabbed her. She screamed for help, and numerous people apparently heard her, because lights quickly came on in several of the apartment windows that overlooked the street. The attacker retreated briefly, but when no one came to help his bleeding victim, he returned to finish the job. She screamed again, but he stabbed her repeatedly until she lay dead. It was later determined that this horrifying forty-five minute interaction was seen and heard by thirty-eight witnesses, but no one took direct action or even bothered to call the police.”

Sorry. Not an urban legend. And it wasn’t an example of “anecdotal depravity” anyway, it was an illustration of diffusion of responsibility, a well known concept in psych. research circles, as I’ve already said in my original post. The huge difference between this incident and the Byrd, Sheppard, and S.C. murders is that the latter three were not perpetrated in front of witnesses. And BTW, every time I hear the mention of the Matt Sheppard atrocity, I feel the strong urge to ask if anyone has heard of Jesse Durkensing. He was a 13 year-old boy abducted by two openly homosexual men, tied face down on a bed, and repeatedly raped over several hours with foreign objects. The boy died of positional asphyxiation. This occured about the same time as the Sheppard incident. Now you see how ugly media bias can be. Also BTW, if you’re going to spout off about my post, you really ought to try reading it first.

5. Still again you mischaracterized or misunderstood my remarks vis public assistance. I wasn’t accusing big cities of being the exclusive realm of the welfare mentality. I was comparing the advantages of local, faith-based charity with the unaccountable gubment welfare system. I may not have made that clear, but, alas, even if I had, you would likely have mangled the concept as badly as you have all the others.

6. I’ve lived in large and small cities as well, nonetheless, I’m not basing my discussion on anecdotal observation. Study and reserch buddy, that’s how you learn things. You ought to try it sometime – it imparts wisdom and understanding, rather than simply facts and information.

7. The quote at the bottom of your post box is quite revealing. It explains very well why you can’t understand my post in particular or the larger issues either. Contrary to your quote, God “must” not “approve” of anything man does. He is the ALmighty. Duh. In fact, quite the contrary is true : “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Psalms 111:10

I should first respond to your Point #4. You are correct; the Kitty Genovese murder was not an urban legend. I was recalling a different story that was legend and in my haste I made the mistake. This is how it looks when a person confronted with the facts admits to making a mistake, Mr. President…

Point #1) Why do you equate the acceptance of homosexuality and the support of a woman’s right to not be forced by government to bear offspring as “promoting homosexuality and abortion?” Gay people and abortion have always existed, exist now, and will always exist. It’s not as if anyone is running a sophisticated marketing campaign to recruit queers and terminate pregnancies.

I find it odd that people like you who hate abortions also hate gays. If you hate abortion, you should love gays! Who has less abortions than gay people?

Your point seems to be that we big city liberals are forced to accept gays because “that’s where they live.” Newsflash: gay people live everywhere. It’s not like they immigrated from Homoslavia. And no one forced us to accept them; we just happen to have an enlightened view of the world that presumes that personality, character, integrity, and morality tell more about a person than the method of slippery genital friction they employ for sexual satisfaction. You’ve got it backwards: we don’t accept openly gay people because they live here, openly gay people live here because we accept them.

As for abortion, I’ll remind the innocent reader that no liberal “promotes” abortions. We are so concerned about that procedure that we work very hard to create conditions that reduce abortions, like reproductive education, birth control, family planning, and economic policies that assist the poor and disenfranchised. These ideas worked so well that abortions decreased during the eight years of Clinton but have increased during the four years of Bush.

Remember, the most extreme pro-life position means that any woman who has sex (since no birth control is 100% effective) bears the risk of government forcing her to bear children, even if the sex was not consensual, even if childbirth endangers her life. We big city liberals believe a woman’s freedom should not be abridged by government forcing her to choose between only celibacy and procreation.

Point #2) Please provide the source for your accusation that liberals supported NAMBLA. The liberals I know hate that organization as much as you do. I do not know the demographics of the members of NAMBLA, but even supposing unlikely idea that all NAMBLA’ers support liberals, it does not follow that all liberals support NAMBLA. Also, while I don’t have NAMBLA’s membership lists in front of me, I’ll bet there’s members scattered in red and blue states alike; pedophilia doesn’t discriminate based on politics.

I assume you included NAMBLA in the list with the CPUSA and ACLU to paint them all with the broad brush of disgusting anti-American organizations, even though NAMBLA’s stated purpose is completely illegal and reprehensible to conservatives and liberals alike, whereas the other two support completely legal agendas. It’s telling that you compare one organization’s support of pedophilia with two other organizations’ support of the rights of workers and support of the First Amendment.

Point #3) I don’t know why you bring up public urination. As far as I’m aware, this is illegal in every city in America. It’s also illegal in the deserted backcountry stretches of the red states, but I’m sure many red staters are out there pissing all over sagebrush.

I for one am one liberal who agrees with the agressive enforcement of “quality of life” laws against public urination, graffiti, vandalism, and aggressive panhandling. That’s why I was so happy to see Clinton put 100,000 more cops on our streets and saddened to see Bush let that program expire. Also, I only took to criticizing Guiliani when his police forces were shooting unarmed black people and sodomizing them with broom handles.

Point #4) I understood your reference to diffusion of responsibility, and I agree that it is a dynamic that affects our city dwellers. But depravity comes in many forms and with many explanations from the psych. research circles. Fundamentalism, cultism, mob mentality, and plain old crazy also lead to antisocial depravity, as the Byrd, Shepard, and Smith cases attest. Whether the atrocity happens in the presence of witnesses is irrelevant.

It also seems as if you think I didn’t read your post. Some of your comments insinuate that if only I had the brainpower to understand your line of reasoning, I’d automatically agree with you. But I did read your post, understood it fully, and still manage to disagree, primarily because your analyis assumes that the liberal mentality fostered in big cities is somehow a moral failing that requires explanation through pseudo-science mumbo jumbo.

Now, regarding ugly media bias vis a vis Shepard vs. Dirkhising. Do you really hold Dirkhising to be the depravity equivalent of Shepard? Men, women, boys, and girls throughout history have been raped and killed by sociopathic criminals both gay and straight. The sexuality of the criminals and victim played no part in this crime; they were sickos and he was innocent. But Shepard was lynched by sociopathic criminals specifically because he was gay. You are only able to equate the crimes in your mind because you start with the mindset that gay is somehow equal to morally depraved in the first place, so it is only a matter of time before a depraved gay man rapes and kills little boys. The Dirkhising case received no more or less attention in the media than any case of child rape and murder, and the fact that you think it should receive more attention than rapes and murders by heterosexuals further illustrates the mindset that leads to cases like Shepard.

Points #5 & #6) You accuse us big city liberals of arrogance, thinking we know better than anyone else, then you insult me, telling me that I “mangle concepts” and only you have “wisdom and understanding”. Pot, meet kettle…

Point #7) Yeah, the quote at the bottom of my article is quite revealing. I’ve always been a big fan of Thomas Jefferson. Maybe the reason I can’t understand your post or the larger issues is because I prefer the wisdom of the Founders — particularly that “all men are created equal” part, even if they’re gay — to the fundamentalist misinterpretation of millenia-old mistranslated political text you get your quotes from. It’s very revealing that you think I need a fear of your Christian deity to approach wisdom. I’ll be sure to pass that on to my Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Sikh, Shinto, Scientologist, Agnostic, Humanist, and Atheist friends, who, by your measure must all be terribly unwise and amoral.

You’re forgiven for your mistake, my son (see post way below.)

Point #1) Acceptance of homosexuals is one thing, but changing the def of marriage is another. We all “accept” homosexuality as a reality. What’s the big deal about that. And no one is “forcing” women to bear children. They chose to get pregnant (in most cases) by choosing to have sex. Society has every right to prevent them from killing their offspring for convenience sake, which is why 98%+ of the abortions are performed. Christians are more than willing to help out. Just look up a local church in your phonebook and ask them if they can put you in touch with a pregnanct counseling center. Indeed, a sophisticated campaign is underway to terminate prgnancies – abortion is a Billion Dollar Industry with plenty of heavy weight lobbying groups, i.e. NARAL, for instance.

Yes, I do hate convenience abortions, but I love the women who are contemplating them. That’s why I want to spare them the increased risk of breast cancer, the higher incidence of depression and anxiety, the pain, the regret, etc. I, as a Christian, also love homosexuals, just as Jesus loved them. I can’t condone their behavior, however. Jesus not only saved the life of the woman at the well, he also forgave her, but not with a carte blanche to continue behaving as she pleased: Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” I want to spare homosexuals gay bowel syndrome, increased incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse, HIV, AIDS, etc.

My point on both issues was that blue voters tend to support gay marriage and abortion on demand. It has nothing to do with “acceptance”, as you obviously define it, i.e. that you are morally superior to redsaters because you support both issues. As for gays living (in blue areas) because of what you call acceptance, I submit that they are only more vocal and more visible in large cities, not that more gays per capita live there. Got any substantiated evidence for the rates of abortion uder Clinton and Bush?

Again, and it bears repeating, the vast, overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with the instances you describe, rape,incest, health of the mother, etc. 98%+ of abortions are because “I just bought a new dress”, “I won’t be able to wear this size any more”, “My grades will suffer”, “I won’t get that big promotion”, “I’ve got other plans.” Sorry, we all have choices to make. Killing the results of a bad one is not an option.

Point #2) Yes, I’m sure all NAMBLA members are gun-toting, Bible-thumping, conservatives. But leaving that silliness aside for the nonce, again we’re not talking about incidence of pedophilia here. Examples of abnormal psychology abound in every zip code. The point is, it wouldn’t be tolerated in most (or any) Redstates, like it is in big blue cities. Intolerance is not always a bad thing, which is exactly the point.

Communism could only be equated with the “rights of the workers” in the fetid imagination of a screaming liberal. Communism has caused more death, destruction, and poverty than any other philosophy of government in modern history. You ought to read Radical Son by David Horowitz if you really want to see the workers rights party in action. Similarly, the ACLU has done more damage to the cultural fabric of this nation than any other single entity. It has practically outlawed Christianity in the public square (while defending mightily any expression of Mohammedism, for instance.) Look at the decline wrought by ACLU meddling: / No prayer in public schools, but knifings, shootings, incompetent teachers, declining scores – O.K. / No Ten Commandments in the courthouse, but: taxes imposed by judges, forced busing, abortion on demand, gay marriage, no nativity scenes, quotas, no prayer before ballgames – O.K. / No cussin’ by ball players or NASCAR drivers on TV, but: plenty of cussin’ and filth on networks, movies, 1st amendment protection for kiddie porn, but not the U.S. flag , etc, etc. etc. You get the idea.

Point #3) The actions of a few police officers, in a force of tens of thousands, are hardly representative. Besides, let’s see you out there in some slum at 3am looking for an armed rapist, I bet you’d be shooting everything that moved (not to mention pissing in your pants.)

Clinton’s 100,000 police was nothing but a cheap political ploy. Another unfunded mandate to bolster the career of “The Man From Hope.” It only funded the new cops for a year. After that, it was up to local and state governments to pick up the tab. Here’s a news flash for you, IF THEY COULD HAVE AFFORDED IT, THEY WOULD HAVE HIRED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Duh.

Point #4) If you think “the presence of witnesses is irrevelant,” then you most assuredly did not understand my reference to diffusion of responsibility. And for the LAST TIME, the concept was NOT cited as an example of “anti-social depravity” (BTW, ther are no examles of pro-social depravity that I know of.)

Obviously, from my last paragraph you either did not read or did not understand my original post. I’m not going to rehash it again. Psychologists are consulted during the design of nuclear submarines, space shuttles, and the space station – talk to them about “pseudo science mumbo jumbo.” Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it invalid.

I “insinuated” nothing. If I think you’re an idiot, I’ll tell you.

I can only attribute moral failing to a group of people who support killing innocent babies for convenience, destroying the foundation of society (marriage) to accomodate the demands of a group anal sex affecionados, and who supported the administration of an intern-molesting, draft-dodging, peculating, prevaricating, skirt- chasing adulterer, not to mention the candidacy of a fake medal getting, fake testimony giving, fake “ribbon” throwing, millionheiress marrying, Vietnam Vet smearing, opportunistic, pusilanimous mediocrity. Silly me.

Are you kidding? Nobody outside of a 30 mile radius would have ever heard of the Shepard incident had Shepard not been gay. You are naive to think otherwise. So now, re your comments about “mindset”, you suddenly think psychology is important. Good boy, maybe you’re learning something. I simply believe that if homosexals are going to be in the news all the time, we should get the whole picture, not just half of it. Shepard was “lynched” because he came on sexually to a couple of drunken rednecks, wrong – yes, smart – no. And if you don’t think the “sexuality” of Dirkhising’s attackers is relevant, you’re in a dangerous state of denial – get to a 12-Step meeting quick!

Points #5 & #6) I never said I have “wisdom and understanding” to the exclusion of anyone else, only that they are acquired by research and study, not by shooting one’s mouth off on the internet concerning things about which one knows nothing. And, case in point, you’ve mangled the concept of diffusion of responsibility at least twice now – care to make it three?

Point #7) That we are not willing to change the definition of a word, not to mention a millenia- old institution does not mean gays get poor treatment is this country. On the contrary, they are practically deified in this country. BTW, over half the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees signifying that they were expert in the intepretation of “millenia-old, mistranslated political texts.” Subsequently, they created the greatest country on the face of the earth. You know, the one in which you and your friends (you left out Wiccans) live so safely and so comfortably. If you (or they) don’t like it, you can go live in countries founded on those religions: Israel (be sure to pack a gun), India (be sure to pack a lunch), China (be sure to pack a passport), Iran (be sure to pack a Koran and be prepared to swear by it or die), or, well, I don’t believe Agnostics, Atheists, or any of the rest ever founded a country. Good Luck and Bon Voyage!

And then somehow my last response never got posted to the blog. Oh well, there’ll be another fight for another day.

    ____________________________________________________________________

   |                                                                    

_  | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/  

  | Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this      

  | © 2004 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.