Restorative Justice

Re: “A Meaty Philosophical Topic”

I think we might have something going between Father Ivan and The Lieutenant. Can you come in, Albert?

Albert, where are you? Do you want Monsieur to take over? Indicate, Albert. Get off your arse.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHERE’S ALBERT?

Albert seems to have funked (that’s with an “n”) the opportunity to referee the debate between Father Ivan and The Lieutenant. It seems Monsieur is the man for the job. So, lets get started. The Lieutenant was first up:

: The Lieutenant (June 20, 11:10AM) – “Nail ’em up I say. Nail some sense into ’em.” The Lieutenant is clearly against certain forms of restorative (retributive) justice. He’s being sarcastic. Are you going to take that Father Ivan? No, he’s not!

: Father Ivan (11:24AM) – In respect to restorative justice Father Ivan is in no doubt. He refers to those poor little misunderstoo0d “victims of post-industrial capitalism” (I think that was directed squarely at you, Lieutenant)… “sure as fucking shit cannot or will not restore to us what they have stolen, destroyed, fucked or otherwise shat upon.” Father Ivan sure has a way with words. He gets personal next, giving the Lieutenant a good shot to the gut when he refers to the “fucking, limp-wad apologists who still persist maintaining that it is somehow our ‘fault.'” Are you going to that that, Lieutenant? Are you a fucking limp-wad?

: The Lieutenant (2:15PM) – Ignores the shot and compares Father Ivan to the old Romans and their methods of justice. “If we didn’t have crucifixion the country would be in a right bloody mess I tell you. Terrific race, the Romans.” Are you going to take that Father Ivan? I mean, after all, comparing you to the bloody Romans?

: Father Ivan (7:34PM) – Appears to pull in his horns with a Monty Python reference. Is he frightened? Has Father Ivan folded? Is that all you have to say Father Ivan?

So far it looks like The Lieutenant is ahead. Here’s your chance, Ivan. Go ahead, kick some ass.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHERE’S ALBERT? (II)

The Lieutenant has Father Ivan in the corner and was giving it to him when, unbelievably, Ivan attacks Monsieur, the moderator:

Father Ivan (June 21, 10;30AM) – According to Ivan Monsieur “couldn’t moderate a circle jerk in Abu Ghraib night at a gay bar.” What is this “circle jerk” Ivan? It sounds to me something like a square dance that is popular in Burnside like,

“Got my dancin’ shoes on,
Goin’ to the Circle Jerk tonight!”

Am I right? But what does this have to do with restorative justice? Ivan is in the corner, being pummeled by The Lieutenant, and flailing about wildly. You’ve got to rally Ivan, or you’re down for the count!

: Kitty (12:12PM) – Comes on weakly on Ivan’s side, recommending a “soviet-style gulag” in the arctic for offenders in Bumfuck(?) but doesn’t attack The Lieutenant directly “Teach the little fuckers a lesson,” she writes. Now, Kitty, why not teach The Lieutenant a lesson? Go for it!

: Basil Brush (12:29) – Climbs through the ropes and begins pummelling The Lieutenant from the rear, claiming that an African-Canadian driving a new Lexus will play the race card if he’s pulled over by the police. He claims that the black will give no restorative justice. Not bad, Basil.

: The Lieutenant (2:33PM) Brushes off Brush, stating that this IS a case of racism – i.e. DWB (Driving While Black). Is Brush going to take that? Give him one, Basil!

The Lieutenant is looking good. Father Ivan is on his ass in the corner and Kitty and Basil have been given one up the keezer. Does the decision go to The Lieutenant or is there any comeback? Let’s hear it gang!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHERE’S ALBERT? (IV)

“Unctuous, a. Full of (esp. simulated) unction.”
“Unction, n. affected enthusiasm or gush; keen or lingering enjoyment in narration.” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)

In reply to Edward Cornwallis’ (June 21., 12:29PM) post about the African Canadian driving his new Escalade and getting pulled over by the police and playing the race card, the UA draws himself up and pronounces:

“That’s because pulling an Escalade-driving African Canadian male over and quizzing him about his financial means IS racist, unless of course you consider DWB a criminal offence.” (12:26PM)

Good going UA. You’ve tarred Cornwallis with the racist tag. But racism isn’t that simple. Neither, unfortunately, was Cornwallis’s example. He was a sitting duck. There are contextualizing factors which work to mitigate the simple fact of the cops pulling him over. I’m sure you can think of a few yourself. Your unctuousness relates to your purposeful dismissal of these factors while taking the moral high ground from which you pass slanderous judgement on Cornwallis and others. If you don’t like “unctuous,” try “pompous.”

: zZz (9:53AM) – “Drop dead, freak.” My God, that’s good Z. I can see that you’re a deep thinker. But no, I don’t want to meet your friends who, I assume, are like you.

Maybe this is not over after all.

: The UA (12:26PM) – After droning on about Monty Python, or more properly his deep knowledge of the topic, he makes reference to a certain type of the English working class who tips his hat to his superiors while professing his contempt for “foreign elementts (darkies).” It looks like the UA is saying Father Ivan has the mentality of a low-life English workie. The UA concludes, “That’s my take on it.”

: Father Ivan (1:40PM) – Takes exception to this -he writes that he doesn’t tip his hat to anyone – and appears to blow the UA off as an “affirmative action baby.” He concludes, “That’s my take on it.” This is getting good.

: The Turd (1:46PM) is back up complaining that I can’t seem to answer a direct question. He then gives a direct question – “How is it that I find you simplistic and pedanticat (sic) at the same time (retoric don’t answer).” Need I say more?

: Edward Cornwallis (1:52PM) – An interesting post. Perhaps you could explain your reference to Monty Python’s “looking backward.” Edward Bellamy wrote a book with the same title years ago, but something tells me that Monty Python was not channelling Bellamy.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHERE’S ALBERT? (V)

Sorry for the delay in getting back. Forgot to log in and my post was never reistered. Can you imaging my chagrin? Now, over to the mailbag. Who’e blowing kisses my way?

: The Turd (June 22, 5:25PM) – “Is lying in philosophy commonplace/accepted methodology?” Initially, I looked at this post with incomprehension since “lying” and “philosophy” are incommensurable concepts. However, on reflection, the penny dropped. The Turd is referring to an incident which I’ve long forgotten but wich, it seems, still burns in his consciousness. But what is required now is precisely what was required then: The Turd must DEMONSTRATE by reference to SPECIFIC QUOTATIONS to show that I was “lying” then and, by extension, “lying” now. But the point is theoretically (philosophically) interesting: Could a philosopher who, say, cheated on his taxes, be said to be a reputable philosopher? Think of Heidegger and Nazism. Anyway, Turd, work on the answer but remember, give REASONS for your assertions!

: Fr. Ivan (5:50PM) – A round of applause one assumes for The Turd’s cribbing a Monty Python skit about philosophers and drink. I preferred Paingirl’s (6:39PM) video showing the skit, but I’ve always preferred Eric Idle’s tourist bureau skit. Does anyone have it?

: The Unctuous Arse ((7:56PM) – Asserts that I make up my definitions as I go along without reference to the dictionary. Not true. My Concise Oxford is within reach as I write. But UA’s confusion might arise from my extended, metaphorical use of the term as in, “He’s an unctuous old bastard.” Such usage, of course, transcends the bean-counting version the EA champions. Yes, it’s true EA, I was under Jesuit tutelage up to (and including) the BA level (History and Philosophy) and it may well be that I argue “like one of the Brothers.” I take that as a compliment you UA, although I do wonder if it was offered in that spirit. Now, UA, please give a textual example of my Jesuitical reasoning. You might confer with the Turd if you so desire.

: The Turd (8:13PM) – See my reference to my metaphorical, extended usage above, Turd.

:: The UA (99:16PM) – Maintains that my “arrogance leads to my being called out on my OBVIOIUS deceptions and fabrications.” Note the italics UA – if they are so “obvious” then you should have no trouble quoting from the record to that effect. Do so now. While I’m talking to the UA, I might say that I was thinking of calling him “The Prig” but, in the interests of continuity, decided against it. The reason for this is that I detect a priggish “voice” behind his words which bespeaks – wait for it – the very arrogance you charge me with. You write well but lack nuance, irony, even self-mockery – all present when I speak of my “masterful analyses,” and so on. To improve your style UA, try to cultivate layered communication. There’s hope for you yet.

: Edward Cornwallis (June 23, 808AM; 8:09AM) – Excellent posts Ed. Good news from the Netherlands but one wonders, in view of the English track record, whether the “offender” will win against the murder charge in Manchester.

: The Turd (9:02AM) – “Remember, your lies and failures do not define you, they just define what everybody thinks of you.” Ah, the Turd’s failures are still burning in his consciuousness. Poor bugger. By the way, anyone see a little arrogance there? The Turd knows what “everyone thinks.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Where’s Albert? (VII)

As I predicted, “Restorative Justice” proved to be a “meaty” topic.

: The Bigot (June 23, 5:45PM) – “A Jesuit-trained Devil! I knew it. Apparently I can smell one 500 miles away.”

And I can “smell” a bigot from 500 miles away as well! The Bigot seized on the fact that I obtained my first degree under the instruction of the Jesuits and, unable to restrain his curdled Protestant choler and hatred of that Order, revealed his true colours. The fact that I have since become areligious – religion, Catholic or otherwise, plays no part in my life – is irrelevant to the Bigot’s fanaticism. Letting fall his mask of political correctness on all the issues discussed on this thread – global warming, support for the under-dog postal workers, racism (DWB) and so on, all of which were delivered in his habitual unctuous and priggish manner – the Bigot stands revealed for what he is. One doesn’t expect to see religious bigotry in this day and age – the thought never occurred to me – but this distasteful phenoenon is not unknown. My suggestion that he develop a sense of mild self-mockery, perhaps even of irony in his posts to make them less wooden was deluded since, of course, a bigot has no self-reflection, no concept of self-criticism out of which such irony and humour might emerge. Well, July 12 is coming up, Bigot, and things are heating up in Northern Ireland. You might think of putting on your black bowler and joining your fellow bigots on their march through the Catholic quarters of Belfast in honour of King Billy and the glorious Battle of the Boyne. Get lost, you bigot!

: Paingirl (5:56PM) – “Another profiler?” Would that be the Bigot, the Turd, or me?

: The Turd (6:37PM) – “You even repeated my question but no answer, more of your philosophical methodology?” Oh God, will the Turd’s stupidity never cease? Yes, Turd, I did repeat your question in order that you might be able to grasp my point (as contained in the previous paragraph). But apparently you were unable to do so. I’m beginning to think that your continual repetition is the result of your blank stupidity. I think it’s time to flush the Turd.
Don’t write back.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

WHERE’S ALBERT (VIII)

: Comandante Esposito (June 24, 11:54AM & 2:04PM)

I would like to apologize to Comandante Esposito for my “bigot” remarks (see “Where’s Albert? VII”). I sincerely believed that you were attacking the Catholic Church in general and the Jesuits in particular. However, after reading the two posts referred to above and believing them to be true, I discover that I was wrong. Not only were you not engaging in bigotry but, ironically, that you were at one time a Catholic yourself. So it is time to eat a little crow.

Indeed, our spiritual trajectories are quite similar even to the point of having a glamorous Grade VI female teacher – the red-haired Miss Macdonald in my case – with whom I was in love but, I hasten to add, it was purely Platonic. (She did, however, give me the strap for interfering with a pigtails of a girl who was sitting in the seat in front.) But it didn’t dim my infatuation.

In any case, the vigour of my reply to you revealed to me that, while no longer a doctrinal Catholic, I still seem to be a “psychological Catholic,” one given to bouts of introspection and a prickly sensitivity to any perceived attacks by Protestant apostates. (All Protestants are of course, by definition, apostates. A joke! A joke!) So please accept my apologies. As a gesture of reconciliation I will permit you to continue using the nickname, “The Unctuous Arse.”

: The Turd (4:27PM) – The Turd refuses to be flushed and refers to me as “you hypocritical racist bigot.” Hmm, I wonder where he got the “bigot” from. In any case Turd, while your introductory quotations were interesting – well, commonplace to philosophical adepts but, of course, you are just a beginner – you seem to be unaware of their function. I suppose it’s because of your lack of familiarity with the academic essay form, which is not suprising. The the purpose of the introductory quotation is to “set the stage” for the essay that follows which might, or might not, concur with its governing idea. For example, your reference to Rousseau’s rejection of an innate human nature should have set the stage for an examination – whether approving or critical is optional – on the question, i.e., does man (yes, yes, and woman) in fact have an innate human nature? As it happens, this is a live current philosophical topic from which quite specific consequences flow. So, academically speaking, your post should have consisted of three separate essays. I hope that these instructions will be helpful and that you will attempt to do better next time.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!