.
To All Great Eagles Up on High
To all great eagles up on high
I hope you hear my battle cry!
I have some plans I know you’ll love
While you are circling above.
There is a retailer to maul
That has a Target on its wall.
As if to kill, dive through the doors
And tear up clothing in those stores.
If you are parched and need a drink,
Your talons in some cans may sink.
Wherever you find marked “Bud Light,”
Pour rich libations on that site.
There are some flags unpatriotic
That make good people idiotic.
While tearing up their rainbow hue,
Save stars and stripes, red, white, and blue
There are parades families resent:
The local drag queen pride event.
Turn these parades to utter flopping
By bombing each with eagle dropping.
.
.
LTC Roy E. Peterson, US Army Military Intelligence and Russian Foreign Area Officer (Retired) has published more than 5,000 poems in 78 of his 101 books. He has been an Army Attaché in Moscow, Commander of INF Portal Monitoring in Votkinsk, first US Foreign Commercial Officer in Vladivostok, Russia and Regional Manager in the Russian Far East for IBM. He holds a BA, Hardin-Simmons University (Political Science); MA, University of Arizona (Political Science); MA, University of Southern California (Int. Relations) and MBA University of Phoenix. He taught at the University of Arizona, Western New Mexico University, University of Maryland, Travel University and the University of Phoenix.
When I started reading this poem, I couldn’t help but think that “I hope you hear my battle cry!” would inspire a spirit of violence in readers. However, I reserved judgement out of respect for the poet, hoping I would realize otherwise after reading the context of the rest of the poem. When I got to the bottom and read about “bombing each [pride parade] with eagle dropping,” I once again interpreted the aesthetic of this poem as being harsh and violent.
I then entered the comments section. As a new commenter, I read through the Comments Policy linked just below the poem. One thing the policy states is that “Personal attacks and condescension are not acceptable.”
With that fresh in my mind, I found it quite concerning that multiple commenters felt the need to attack another commenter’s character, using words like “misguided,” “simply wrong,” “hypocrisy,” “cesspool,” and “woke garbage,” among others. These words are accompanied by clearly condescending tones.
Furthermore, these attacks are based not on factual evidence, but on assumptions (i.e., logical fallacies) about a certain commenter’s political beliefs. On a fallacious basis, this commenter is associated with actions that other commenters find immoral. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a scapegoat is “a person who is blamed for something bad that somebody else has done or for some failure.” It seems clear to me that scapegoating is taking place against one commenter here.
I would just like to provide a friendly reminder that we are human beings behind our keyboards. It sounds like we commenters generally want to minimize violence; we can start here in the comments section, where the Comments Policy asks us “[t]o keep the dialogue respectful and stimulating.”
Thank you.
Anneka, read my comments below before casting judgement. We all have a right and duty to defend our positions, or lack thereof.
Anneka,
You’ll find that the comment rules are a bit flexible here. As the Comments Policy states, “The published poet is the master of his ‘living room’ where his poem is posted.” So, here, I take it Roy is in charge. Whatever he says goes. However, as you point out, the Policy also notes: “Personal attacks and condescension are not acceptable. No flaming.” Yet, reading some of these comments, it’s clear that personal attacks and condescension **are** acceptable. You’re not the only one who is confused about the rub here. I often wonder if the Comments Policy is a type of “virtue signaling,” because it often get ignored, especially when things get political (which is often). Obviously, I have no answers to this.
Best,
Talbot
Hi Talbot,
Thank you so much for this explanation and context, and for letting me know that others are also confused. I suppose life is full of such contradictions!
RESPONSES TO CHALLENGERS
As a former President of my university chapter of Pi Kappa Delta, the National Honorary Debate Fraternity, I have collected some of the miscues and misunderstandings as well as the presumed challenges to my July 4th satirical poem. I will post these points here and then will follow with a string of several poems I wrote over two days from the grist provided by a challenger. These are first drafts and are subject to additions and my own editing at a later date.
1. GREAT:
A. Challenger: The challenger makes a leap of logic. He believes the poet was referring to MAGA and President Trump.
B. Response: I never even thought of President Trump when writing this poem. Thus “Make America Great Again” was not part of my thought process. On the other hand, I have the challengers own thoughts and sensitivities on the subject for which I thank him in his addled brain. (FYI: “Addled” is a pejorative judgment, but fitting from my own perception of his problem.) “Great” as a term used by and about American Presidents, includes “Great Society” by LBJ and the fact Ronald Reagan was called “The Great Communicator.” I have used “great” in many of my poems with no political connections whatsoever.
2. VIOLENCE:
A. Challenger: This is a violent poem. To quote the challenger, “This poem normalizes ANTIFA-style tactics.” This was repeated ad nauseum.
B. Response In the poem there was no assault made on any person, unless one considers dropping of eagle violence. I challenge that image, since no one was intended to be injured in the process, only products dismantled and discomfort visited on those who have sworn to go after children. The charge does not even fit the definition of violence. I agree Antifa is violent, but never suggested that form of mugging and criminal behavior by any citizen.
3. CALL FOR ACTION:
A. Challenger: The challenger stated, “By definition, the poem is not satirical. It is a call to action.” He further elucidated, “This poem’s theme is morally wrong because it tries to normalize criminal behavior.” The challenger believes the eagles represent patriots.
B. Response: I take umbrage on both counts. Who made the challenger the moral police, when his own morality is called into question? There was nothing intimating that criminal actions should be performed by individuals, only an admiration for eagles and a satirical fantasy. I could have used vultures as a large bird, but on July 4th, eagles seemed more appropriate. I just like a large bird leaving their droppings. If I had called for action, I would have been explicit and the challenger would have a clear clarion call, but I did not do so. By the way, read Joseph Salemi’s comment on Juvenalian and Horatian satire. This certainly fits one or both of those definitions.
4. LABELS:
A. Challenger: The challenger mentioned labels, leaving me at a loss as to what he may be referring.
B. Response: I used no labels and did not brand anyone in the process in the poem. I did include the objects for attention by the eagles, but, as they say in police work and military intelligence, those are identifying characteristics. On the other hand the challenger without knowing me applied several labels to which I could take considerable umbrage, if I so chose. I do find labels useful though and could have expanded their use in this poem or in these remarks. By the way, I accept any label placed on me and consider it an honor. The problem is the challenger does not know me except from this poem. There is a fine line between label and libel. On the other hand, if the shoe fits, you get to wear it. You will find a poem on labels below.
5. HATE SPEECH:
A. Challenger: The term “hate speech” was used several times in challenger comments.
B. The challenger should go back and view my poem, “On Hate,” under my string of poems listed on this site. The final sentence of the poem is “I never hated anyone who did not hate me first.” As a poet and as an American, like Joseph Salemi, I reject the term “hate speech” as a liberal concoction intended to silence opposition. Like Joseph I will stand for the things in which I believe and know to be right. Besides that, the poem is best considered a satire and intended for entertainment.
6. INTENTIONS:
A. Challenger: On several occasions the challenger coopted the intentions of the author and attempted to decipher those intentions and then place one of his own labels on the poet and the poem.
B. I condemn the challenger with his own words, “As far as my political loyalties, beware of mind-reading. You don’t know what my political beliefs are and it is presumption on your part to believe that you do.” Can you believe that? Then he hypocritically turns around and applies that to me. As several of my colleagues have written, deciding on a poet’s intentions in the absence of knowledge is folly. As Joseph Salemi wrote, it might as well be glaze on a ceramic vase. I am fond of that brilliant expression.
7. CHRISTIAN FAMILIARITY:
A. Challenger: Frankly I do not know the background of the challenger and whether or not he is a Christian. I did note reference to some Christian thoughts. For one he stated, “The poem violates The Golden Rule.” I refer the challenger back to the point I made on hate speech that I never hated anyone who did not hate me first. On another comment he stated, “according to biblical principle, not all speech is noble or good.” The closest I can come to finding that is Ephesians 4:28 that through various translations means foul language, bad words, or bad communication that should be edifying. The debate will be over “edifying.” We will significantly disagree over whether this poem was edifying. I make no judgement of his Christian beliefs or background, but I am certain that he has not read the Old Testament regarding the destruction of the evil enemy, or has rejected God’s word that violence required against evil. Caution, read my point again on violence before telling me the poem is violent or encourages personal violence.
8. LEAVING:
A. Challenger: On more than one occasion the challenger claimed he was leaving the discussion, but then returned to play in the sandbox.
B. Response: Was that intended as a lie and deception, so that debaters would stop their commenting? You see, I can ascribe motives and intentions as well as the challenger. We did have hope that his repetitive drivel (again my own pejorative epithet) would simply stop and he would disappear, but we were not so fortunate and continued to be festooned and entertained.
THE ART OF PERSUASION
By Roy E. Peterson (July 4, 2023)
“The art of persuasion (is) beautiful and just.”
Learning from a leader creates a bond of trust.
Look at both sides from an objective point of view.
Weigh all the facts before deciding what to do.
“Know your opposition, “ I paraphrase Sun Tzu.
Come to a conclusion, make sure your facts are true.
When you crush their arguments, words are turned to dust.
“The art of persuasion (was) beautiful and just.”
Poet Note
1. “The Art of Persuasion Beautiful and Just” is the banner of Pi Kappa Delta, National Honorary Debate Fraternity. I was the chapter President of PKD, 1964-65.
2. “Know your enemy” is the paraphrased quote from The Art of War by Sun Tzu.
I PREFER DEBATE
By Roy E. Peterson (July 5, 2023)
I don’t like to argue. I prefer debate.
That focuses on facts and not upon the hate.
One must be objective, evaluate each side.
Then make a decision that cannot be denied.
To become educated once must do research.
Don’t call the other stupid, or their name besmirch.
The art of persuasion is selling points of view
While respecting others, as they should respect you.
STICKS AND STONES
By Roy E. Peterson (July 5, 2023)
“Sticks and stones may break my bones,
___but words shall never harm me.”
We may have a great debate
___with words that may alarm me.
Yet I promise not to harm you
___with any sticks or stones.
Nor destroy someone’s property
___or anything one owns.
WHAT IS WORSE THAN APATHY
By Roy E. Peterson (July 5, 2023)
The destruction of America is worse than apathy.
The agendas of our enemies engender empathy.
If we focus on diversity, we’ll all be blown away.
Evil issues of perversity will make our country pay.
The politicians of both parties participate each day
In our profligate spending woes and in their own pay for play–
Climate change, open borders, and their transgender queer support,
Corruption in the government falsifying each report.
Wasteful spending of tax payments like paying for abortion.
The lying of our leaders for political distortion.
Each day we are beset by pharmaceutical deceptions.
What is worse than apathy? It’s agendas misperceptions.
I cannot imagine what our forefathers might think.
Afterall, it was British taxes that raised the greatest stink.
LABELS HAVE THEIR USES
By Roy E. Peterson (July 5, 2023)
Labels have their uses. “If the shoe fits wear it.”
You may disagree, but I am going to swear it.
I know by your actions and by the things you write.
If you are a friend or foe I might have to fight.
When I was a farm boy, the labels on canned jars,
Told me what was in them like names placed on the cars.
A label’s like a brand that is placed on cattle.
“The enemy” label prepares me for battle.
OPERATING UNDER THE LAWS OF GOD
By Roy E. Peterson (July 5, 2023)
I am operating
___under the laws of God.
With temporal laws of men,
___I shall not be shod.
Thank goodness in our country
___they mostly are the same.
They were derived from God’s law.
___That’s from whence they came.
I BELIEVE IN HATE SPEECH
Religious Sonnet #26
By Roy E. Peterson (July 6, 2023)
There is nothing wrong with speech they call hate.
When one stands for something, that speech is great.
I believe in hate speech against all wrong.
On the side of right my speech will be strong.
What is hate for some, for others it’s love.
I will make my points when push comes to shove.
Hate speech is an epithet by the left
To silence the right, but they’re the bereft.
For all my life I called a spade a spade,
Despite new rules the liberals have made.
Hate speech is a label, they libel me.
I retain my right to speak views freely.
God said to hate evil. His will I preach.
I don’t care if someone calls it hate speech.
[Note: Also see my poem, “On Hate” under my name on this website.]
POETS WRITE IN 2 AND 3D
By Roy E. Peterson (July 6, 2023)
Poets write in 2 and 3D,
___dimensions in a shroud.
The mysteries of poetry
___are hidden from the crowd.
When someone reads a poem,
___ one should reread it again.
You may decipher more meanings
___are hidden with their pen.
Was the poet serious
___or was striving for satire?
Did it strike a spark in you
___and light your mental fire?
Was there wit and wisdom
___reflected in the fantasy?
Was there a poke at what
___has become our reality?
Never underestimate
___the poet nor his poem.
There are more things buzzing
___in the attic of his “home.”
I decided to set off “home”
___with quotation marks
In case you missed the meaning
___of one of my remarks.
MY POETIC INTENTIONS
By Roy E. Peterson (July 5, 2023)
Many things I leave
___to each imagination.
Your minds get an image
___from my stimulation.
Who is there to tell me
___what was my intention?
A puzzle is preferred
___to rivet attention.
Poets will hide thoughts
___called a double entendre.
I often write with triple
___meanings, one may say.
What would be the image
___if you could read my mind?
You may have a better one.
___Think and you will find.
Telling Chris ‘I assume you’re liberal and therefore (add in here anything Chris has not said that you have a bee in your bonnet about and comment on it as though he did say it),’ or telling him to ‘go somewhere else’ when, as everyone else purports here, he’s a fellow lover of classical-style poetry, or making sly personal insinuations, shows a failure on the part of those commenting, just as Aneeka has noted.
We also have the word ‘patriot’ being bandied about in the comments as though it’s a holy sword. I’m sure Samuel Johnson has something to say on that.
As for me, the funniest I’ve been labelled is a ‘snooty braggart’, in a satirical/hateful poem (I’m certain no one enjoys being attacked in such a fashion) in a comments thread. There are only so many verbal sticks and stone one can take, so I wish Chris and Aneeka well and will not be reading any further comments on this tread as I expect to get pillaried in the ensuing feeding frenzy, which does nothing for anyone’s mental well being.
Since you’re openly liberal, what I said to him applies to you as well. You don’t have the right to criticize anything on moral grounds for the exact same reason.
“How is it that thou canst see the speck of dust which is in thy brother’s eye, and art not aware of the beam which is in thy own? By what right wilt thou say to thy brother, Wait, let me rid thy eye of that speck, when there is a beam all the while in thy own? Thou hypocrite, take the beam out of thy own eye first, and so thou shalt have clear sight to rid thy brother’s of the speck.”
In this case, the beams in liberals’ eyes are the size of the General Sherman tree.
That’s the thing that gets me the most when things go pear-shaped here in the comments: the “go somewhere else” injunction. Put frankly, there aren’t that many places where one can read poetry of this kind. I’m of the opinion that differences of view are largely a good thing and that any group is enriched from argument (even heated). However, it is clear that the SCP would see one worldview dominate its pages to the exclusion of others — thus the flight of most liberals and lefties (and, I assume, many moderates and independents) from this site in the past. Of course, many have pointed this out before, but I still find it a shame. I would love to see political poetry published pointing out the faults and stupidities of all sides. How much more enjoyable that would be than the endless litany of anti-trans (insert whatever you want here) poems! (And no, I am not a leftist; and no again, I don’t think we can chalk this flight up merely to snowflake sensibilities.) Anyway, a two-cent comment for ya.
Such a thing sounds like a nice ideal on the surface, but in reality, the two sides are irreconcilable. Either it is morally acceptable to butcher children in whole (abortion) or in part (transgender surgery), or it is not. There is no middle ground. Things may have started out as a battle between Republicans and Democrats, but as both sides drifted left and the issues have changed, it’s become a battle between good and evil.
Experience teaches us that if leftists aren’t kept on a tight leash, they take over and ruin everything they touch. That’s why those of us who are on the side of good do what we do to keep them down. Every other writing group has been taken over by the left and has nothing but contempt for decent folk who stand up for children, for God, for their country; we have only this one stronghold in the poetry world to defend.
What, the left doesn’t have enough power? They have to take this away, too?
Talbot, the person who called for censorship here was not any of the conservative or rightist partakers in this discussion, but a leftist Canadian who made a stink about “hate speech,” and then refused to answer any objections to his views. He implicitly (and in the end explicitly) called for the SCP to censor or delete viewpoints in poems that he himself found immoral or offensive.
Is that what you’d like? That’s what you’d get if this website were colonized by left-liberals. The freedom of expression and style that you currently enjoy here comes at the price of vigilance.
Joshua, we’ll have to disagree about compromise on those issues, I suppose. I am not a leftist; nor am I trying to make the SCP a liberal stronghold (I would dislike that).
Joseph, I’m remembering back to our previous comment exchanges (which are, on the whole, pretty civil). We have two different views of the culture wars. And, as I said above: no, a leftie outlet is **not** what I’d like. In fact, a website entirely one way or another bores me to no end. Sadly, I think you’re correct in saying that, if leftists dominated this site, speech would be highly curtailed. That’s certainly true. We can debate what “vigilance” should look like, however.
While I don’t find the poem above offensive (even as one of the mocked), I also don’t find it particularly clever or funny. What I would hope, in the end, is that a right-critical poem submitted to the SCP would also be published. If nothing else to give a small break to the litany . . . .
“If ever you should, from afar,
Espy below a three-ton car,
And notice there a MAGA sticker,
Release at once your golden liquor.”
Talbot, to illustrate what I mean, let’s consider two things that I hope you find as horrible as I do: Nazi death camps and female genital mutilation in Africa. Do you agree with me that there can be no compromise on those issues, that one is either for those or against those? Do you agree that being for those things and being against them are viewpoints that can never be reconciled or have a middle ground?
Well, abortion is no better than the Nazi Holocaust, and transgender surgery is no better than the way they mutilate the genitalia of little girls in some countries. In fact, what we have in the modern Western world is worse, morally speaking—I know of no one in Germany who was sent to a concentration camp by his own mother, and a woman with certain external parts of her genitalia cut off can still have children.
Joshua, you can probably anticipate all my answers, but here goes. (And I won’t be replying to this. I didn’t come here to get in topical debate.) I agree that death camps and FGM are horrible things about which there should be no compromise. Although I don’t like closing myself off intellectually to possibilities, those things do seem to deserve a firm (non-middle-ground) stance. However, I don’t agree that abortion and transgender surgery are in the same category. I think you’re drawing a false equivalence. I’m guessing we don’t see fetuses from the same moral/metaphysical space, so I doubt you’ll convince me that abortion is akin to genocide. And as to transgender surgery, while I do think a lot of doctors are overly permissive/pushy with it (and that many kids are confused about many things), I also maintain that there are true cases when it is in the interest of a person’s well-being to undergo the surgery. As with all medical things, I think such a surgery should be the culmination of a long dialogue with doctors, psychologists, parents, and children (and not before the age of eighteen). A child willingly undergoing a surgery that a team of professionals has decided upon after careful consideration (this is optimal but not always the case, sadly) is decidedly not in the same moral category as FGM. Have a nice evening.
Yes, I anticipated your answers correctly. To those, I have more questions.
If human life doesn’t begin at conception for you, when does it begin? If you have an answer, how do you decide that whatever requirement you impose makes a person human, such that without it, he is not human? If you don’t have an answer, why is it okay to kill something that may or may not be human, when every hunter knows not to shoot at something in the bushes when he doesn’t know if it’s human or not?
Do you truly believe that children are capable of making decisions on something so major as cross-sex hormones and genital surgery, when we don’t let them drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, vote, have sex, watch R-rated movies, or any of those things? How can a child too young to consent to sex be old enough to consent to living in the role of the opposite sex and have his genitalia mutilated beyond repair?
A human being is a human being the moment he has his own unique genetic code. Therefore killing even a zygote is morally equivalent to killing an adult. Similarly, a child’s mind is not developed enough to consent to genital mutilation, making the distinction between consent and coercion a distinction without a difference. I think every person of sound mind knows both to be true deep down, whether he goes along with it or not.
I maintain that a person cannot maintain neutrality on these issues. Anyone who supports either in any circumstance is morally no different from one who supports death camps or FGM. Ignorance can mitigate this guilt in either case, but that doesn’t change the fact that these are inherently black-and-white moral issues.
Thank you, Anneka and Paul, for your comments and coming to my defense. I’ve stood alone against an onslaught of disrespectful commentators.
Joseph–thank you for interpreting the theme. There is a common ground in our interpretation, especially your final statement: “the expression of the writer’s imagined satisfaction if these actions were to take place.”
Many of the responses to my interpretation of the theme of poem are insulting, disrespectful, and condescending, which certainly violate the terms of this website for posting comments.
It is my experience that when people attack the person instead of their arguments, it is a signal they are out of rhetorical ammo.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Peterson admits in one of his own poems to hating people. His poem is by dictionary definition, hate speech. And hate is not a virtue. It is not something that Christians should defend or celebrate.
Peterson’s poem is a dark fantasy of acts of violence, mischief and cruelty to transgender persons and the corporations that support them.
Lindsay, is it your standard rhetorical procedure to ignore — utterly! — anything that is raised as an objection to your position? Your entire post just above this one is a laboratory example of complete recalcitrance, refusal to engage, and stubborn adherence to monotone arguments that have been more than answered — they have been exploded — by your opponents.
You remind me of those Moslem fanatics who answer every question or criticism with a single sentence: THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET!!! Do you really think that screaming the same thing over and over is rational?
Your argument is not a logical expression of a viewpoint. It is a goddamned mantra. You just keep on repeating it: “The poem is immoral, and encourages violence!”
And when historical, literary, stylistic, and aesthetic points are raised to question this mantra of yours, all you can do is repeat it, like a parrot.
You’re the one who’s out of ammo, pal. You only have one cartridge, and you’ve fired it twenty times. Is that the best you can do? You sound like Biden’s press secretary.
By the way, there is no “common ground in our interpretation” of the poem. None at all. Yours is a moralistic, sermonizing, politically correct, and prissy interpretation of the sort that I’d expect from a leftist undergraduate who is desperate to give virtue-signals. As for your pious bleats about Christianity, yours is nothing but a fake Christianity of accommodation, surrender and suicide-pacts.
Hows that for being insulting? That’s REALLY free speech in action. If you don’t like it, just leave.
Joseph — I don’t have to respond to every single thing you attack me on. You are disrespectful and condescending in your responses. I don’t have to attend every argument I’m invited to.
But I will respond to your earlier statement that this poem is satire. I read this article on Juvenalian satire: https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-is-juvenalian-satire.htm
My understanding of satire remains the same– that it is a form of criticism of a person or institution. Juvenalian satire is harsh in its criticism. But no one is actually being criticized in Petersen’s poem (except maybe good people).
The poem does criticize the rainbow flag. But a flag isn’t a person. The poem blames a rainbow flag for making good people “idiotic”. That is the closest the poem gets to satire by criticizing good people for embracing the rainbow flag. But I’m not sure if that is satirical.
There is no satire here of Bud Light, drag queens, or Target. You’ve shoehorned it into the category of satire when it doesn’t really fit.
Satire is about harming a person’s or company’s reputation, not harming them physically or destroying a company’s property.
Above all, the poem is a call to action, not a scathing critical piece. There is no exaggeration of any drag queen or company’s flaws to expose them to ridicule.
The poem has parallels to the violence of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds.
Calling it satire is just a way for the author to escape moral responsibility for its content.
Sadly, Peterson thinks that hate speech is a good thing. He even wrote a poem celebrating it.
Lindsay, maybe instead of reading an internet article on Juvenalian satire, you should read Juvenal himself. I assure you, his satires are so savage that they’ll curl your hair. Juvenal writes in the razor-sharp tradition of the Greek Archilochus and the early Roman Lucilius, and his satires are so robustly hate-filled that they would give your Canadian censors a psychic trauma. A colleague of mine recently called Juvenal “the Howard Stern of the ancient world.”
Check out his second satire on homosexuality and same-sex marriages. Here’s a brief comment on a pervert posturing as a philosopher:
“You there — have you the nerve to thunder at vice, who are
The most notorious dyke among all our Socratic fairies?
Your shaggy limbs and the bristling hair on your forearms
Suggest a fierce male virtue; but the surgeon called in
To lance your swollen piles dissolves in laughter
At the sight of that well-smoothed passage.”
And here’s one about gay marriage:
“…. But still they have one big problem
Of a painful kind: they can’t keep their marriage solvent
By producing babies. Nature knows best: their desires
Have no physical issue.”
Or how about the ninth satire, with an argument between a homosexual whore and his male client over prices:
“…. If your stars go against you
The fantastic size of your cock will get you precisely nowhere,
However much Virro may have drooled at the spectacle
Of your naked charms, though love-letters come by the dozen Imploring your favors, though “A man is attracted
By the very sight of a pansy.” Yet what could be lower
Than a close-fisted queer? “I paid you so much then,”
He says, “and a bit more later, and more that other time –”
Working it out by piece-rates. “Well,” I say, “fetch the accountant
With his reckoner and tables, tot up the total figure:
A miserable five thousand. Now list my services. Do you
Suppose it’s easy, or fun, this job of cramming
My cock up into your guts till I’m stopped by last night’s supper?
I could also quote from the fiercely misogynistic sixth satire, but I think you get the idea.
Can you honestly say that if anyone had posted material like this at the SCP, you wouldn’t have jumped up screaming about “hate speech”? And yet this is Juvenal, one of the prime satirists of the ancient world.
(Translations are by Peter Green, 1967)
1. I see that you, the challenger, proclaim yourself a debate winner by declaring me the loser. That must be left to those who are judges, the readers, and that will depend on logic, valid points, thrusts, and counterthrusts.
2. “Hate” and “hate speech” are two completely different animals. You either glossed over, failed to understand, or intentionally misrepresented what I said in my poem and responses earlier to your comments. Hate speech is a political concoction, as I recall stating, that is a liberal attempt to silence opposition.
3. Christianity certainly embraces hate for evil. Here are four quotes for you:
Proverbs 8:13
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil;
Pride and arrogance and the evil way
And the perverted mouth, I hate.
Psalm 97:10
Hate evil, you who love the Lord,
Who preserves the souls of His godly ones;
He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
Amos 5:15
Hate evil, love good,
And establish justice in the gate!
Perhaps the Lord God of hosts
May be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
Romans 12:9
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.
Dear Roy, satire is probably a very good way to deal with the ongoing disaster that this culture has been experiencing – it’s a self-defense mechanism, alike the jokes we needed in the Soviet Union to stay sane amidst the absurdity we lived through. I was going to write, “You can’t imagine how…” – but stopped knowing that you are well familiar with my Soviet frame of reference. Thank you for the fresh air.
Michael, I appreciate your comments and completely understand the suppression of independent thought, having operated in that environment myself. Thank you for providing the realities that await us should we become muzzled and incapable of free expression.
1. These discourses have been wildly entertaining for me and I hope for the readers of the comments.
2. I feel I should add a disclaimer like they do for ads and movies: Neither this poem, nor any of my poems resulted in harm or injury to any person or “animal.”
3. The comments above are the gift that keeps giving. It resulted in ten more poems, some of which I included in separate comments above.
4. Like a leaf floating in the breeze, there were few if any direct answers to my responses or those of others.
5. All the invective of the challenger was based on assumptions and presumed facts not in evidence.
6. Attempting to turn assumptions into facts was like a toothless person trying to eat a steak.
7. As a poet, I expect and accept numerous interpretations regardless of how hairy or far out they might be. That is part of the joy of publishing poetry.
8. I engaged in debate while challengers engaged in argumentative behavior which was like them bringing a knife to a gunfight (No violence intended. Just a common metaphor, in case those who twist things cannot understand that.)
9. The leaps of logic from imaginary cliffs of the pretender(s) was breathtaking.
10. Regarding site policy: a,) The level of tolerance for comments was appropriate given the fact that if a tight policy for respect were enforced here, it would have deleted the first comment of the challenger, since he tried to turn assumptions into my intentions by his own interpretation and attempted to label me. b.) It certainly fit the stimulating category. c.) There were no vulgarities involved which I primarily associate with disrespect. d.) Opinions on all sides were allowed free exchange and for that I am thankful.
Roy — You have misrepresented my point of view. This is called a “Straw Man Attack”. The debater misrepresents his opponent’s point of view, attacks it, and does a victory dance. I don’t know if I will respond to all of your notes, but I will respond to one.
You wrote: “He believes the poet was referring to MAGA and President Trump.”
What I actually said is that the poem can be interpreted a certain way. A very big difference than what you have accused me of.
A July 4 poem, with “Great” in the title, and an eagle (a symbol of patriotism) carrying out violence, mischief, and cruelty, is textual evidence that it symbolizes an ultra MAGA Trump supporter, even if it wasn’t your conscious intent.
I follow the literary theory that poems are separate and distinct things apart from their author. Author intent is important to consider, but it is not the final interpretation on a poem.
btw; Salemi has judged your intent when he interpreted the theme– “the expression of the writer’s imagined satisfaction if these actions were to take place.”
That is one point on which Salemi are in agreement (and there are others) but he is in denial that we agree on anything. This happens when people listen to reply instead of listening to understand.
One point re hate speech. What some Democrats get wrong about hate speech is calling simple disagreement a form of hate. That is an error. We can’t always know what is in a person’s heart when they disagree with someone.
But I do agree with Democrats that expressing hatred towards a group of people is hate speech and should not be tolerated. Hatred precedes acts of violence. The public declaration of hatred can inflame and move people to take violent actions.
Even though hate speech is legal in America, that doesn’t mean Christians should write it. My moral standards are higher than what the law allows.
The New Testament teaches us to love people, not hate them. The four Bible verses you quoted are not calls to hate persons, but to hate certain sins. Big difference.
It is my hope that SOCP will eventually have a policy not to publish hate speech.
Don’t deceive yourself. Democrats have no problem expressing hate speech toward believing Christians, toward Republicans, toward white people, toward men (especially fathers), toward stay-at-home mothers, toward large families… the list goes on. A Jewish friend of mine says the left has even gone anti-Semitic (when they used to consider Jews a protected class) because of their love for Muslims. I wonder how long their current pet protected groups will continue to enjoy protected status?
It is my hope that the SCP never implements a policy against hate speech. Once such a policy exists, in practice the person enforcing the rule, and he alone, decides what is and is not hate speech.
Joshua, there is a very powerful undercurrent of anti-Semitism in American academia that grows stronger every semester. And academia is the beating heart of left-liberalism in this country. This Jew-hatred is especially strong in the Political Science and History departments, and in the humanities.
Since the recent SCOTUS decision against the use of affirmative action in college admissions, there has been a ferocious leap in anti-Asian hatred among left-liberals, because an Asian group was instrumental in bringing the case to court.
For all their pious talk about “hate speech,” left-liberals are filled with acidic bile against any group that they see as an enemy to their political agenda.
Asian-Americans — an industrious, law-abiding, and productive minority — are now going to feel the vicious contempt and hatred of left-liberals. You can predict developments of this sort like clockwork.
I’ve had enough of Lindsay’s mealy-mouthed moralism and posturing Bible-thumping. This will be my last comment. How absolutely revelatory of the man’s agenda when he piously intones that “hate speech … should not be tolerated,” and that he hopes the SCP “will eventually have a policy not to publish hate speech.”
The typical liberal wet dream: something we dislike should not be tolerated, and official policies should be out in place to prohibit it. And he’s obviously here to be the thin edge of the wedge.
Dream on, Lindsay.
Joseph— thank you for sharing these examples of Juvenal satire. A few points to consider:
1) what I see here is harsh and severe criticism of individuals which is what I was saying is at the heart of satire.
Satire is a type of criticism whether harsh, exaggerated or playful.
My poem on this site — the tweeter strikes back— is a satire of trump.
2) I don’t view these Juvenal examples as hate speech because it isn’t directed at an entire group of people.
3) these examples reinforce my view that Peterson’s poem isn’t satire because he doesn’t criticize drag queens, target or bud light.
I still believe you have shoehorned his poem into the satire category.
You can believe whatever the hell you like.
But you have no power to tell us here at the SCP what we can or cannot say. This isn’t Canada.
An example of hate speech?
“The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail; thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.”
Henry Kissinger
Dear Chris Lindsay and others who have raised the issue of our comments policy (as well as some issues regarding our editorial process), the idea emphasized in the comments policy, as Talbot Hook pointed out, is that the featured poet, in this case Roy Peterson, has the room and he can have comments removed or turned off at will. It is I who select poems for publication on the website and it is I who labeled this satire. Your issue seems to be an issue with my editorial decisions. You are welcome to raise those, but the most appropriate place is an email to me at [email protected] (and it may take me over a week to respond). Your commenting from the beginning seemed due to this misunderstanding (I’m sure through no intentional fault of your own), so it seems this whole discussion got off on the wrong foot. Let’s take the “satire or not satire” question off this page and let the whole thing drop for now.
-Evan Mantyk
SCP Editor
Thank you, Evan, for your kind and respectful response, which is in sharp contrast to many of the insulting, mocking, and condescending replies I received.
I will comment no further on whether or not this poem fits the literal definition of Juvenalian satire.
Thank you very much for this clarification, Evan, and for providing it in such a respectful way, as Chris said.
I hope everyone has a nice weekend.