Photo of a bald eagleA July 4th Satire: ‘To All Great Eagles Up on High’ by Roy E. Peterson The Society July 4, 2023 Poetry, Satire 119 Comments . 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. NOTE TO READERS: If you enjoyed this poem or other content, please consider making a donation to the Society of Classical Poets. The Society of Classical Poets does not endorse any views expressed in individual poems or commentary. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Trending now: 119 Responses Brian A Yapko July 4, 2023 Great satire, Roy! You certainly don’t pull any punches and the eagle droppings is a particularly hilarious and unexpected touch. Happy Independence Day to you! Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 4, 2023 Bless you, Brian, for the kind words and support. Happy 4th of July back to you! Reply Cynthia Erlandson July 4, 2023 This hits the mark, and does it with the sort of humor that patriots (unlike leftist haters of our nation) still have. Thank you, Roy. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 4, 2023 Cynthia, that is a wonderful comment. I am concerned for all our children and the future of America. Reply Margaret Coats July 4, 2023 Roy, what strategy from a commanding officer! Some flag-and-placard skirmishes were reported from an event last month. Sounds like eagles are in readiness. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 4, 2023 Margaret, I love your comment about strategy! We need those with the heart of an eagle these days! Reply Phil S. Rogers July 4, 2023 Sir; Most excellent, humorous, but your message is easily understood. Time to push back and remember what Independence Day really means. Thank You! Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Great thoughts and comments. Indeed, it is time for us to take our stand for the sake of our children. Reply Chris Lindsay July 4, 2023 I don’t think this poem qualifies as satire. My understanding of satire is you exaggerate the flaw of a person or institution to expose them to ridicule. In this poem, nothing is exaggerated about Target, Bud Light, or drag queens. You are calling for eagles (perhaps symbolic of American patriots) to commit acts of violence and mischief. Calling the poem satire is a way to sidestep that problematic message. The poem violates The Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 4, 2023 And what would you have us do? Just sit back while drag queens and their corporate sponsors destroy our country while you keep on saying, “Peace, peace” when there is no peace? You wouldn’t like it if we told you that you should let people destroy your way of life. Therefore your comment violates the Golden Rule. Reply Christopher Lindsay July 4, 2023 Are you saying that acts of violence and mischief are justified against people and corporations you disagree with? That’s how I interpret the theme of this poem, and there is nothing funny about that. It violates the Golden rule to treat others in a way that we do not want to be treated. Joshua C. Frank July 4, 2023 That’s not how I understood the poem at all. It’s clearly intended as humor. If your sense of humor is different, then don’t criticize. It violated the Golden Rule. I think your real issue is that his poem speaks out against the transgender insanity, and that’s why I take issue with your comment. Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Mr. Lindsay, you don’t seem to realize that we are in the midst of a CULTURAL WAR. In war, both sides commit acts of violence. If you want to live in your dream world of polite, mild-mannered, and inoffensive faux conservatism, go right ahead. But there are some of us who want to win this war. We’ll just have to do it without your help. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I would never commit acts of violence against people I disagree with. But it appears that you think violence is justified in America’s culture war. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to support MAGA Republicans engaging in violence. This poem normalizes ANTIFA-style tactics. Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Chris, I think that, in the interest of full disclosure, you should reveal whether you own stock in Budweiser or Target, and also whether you have any involvement with the lucrative, affirming care of children or the Drag Queen business as a promoter or a performer. It’s only fair. Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Are you a Quaker pacifist, Mr. Lindsay? From your first sentence it seems clear that you would never fight against Nazis, crime syndicates, Communists, foreign invaders, or tyrants (all of whom I assume you disagree with). As a matter of fact. MAGA Republicans have committed no real acts of violence, as opposed to the savagery unleashed by BLM, Antifa, and the current lawlessness and looting in our major cities. The January 6 set-up was pure governmental fakery. Poems do not “normalize” things. Poems are simply fictive artifacts created out of words. They use imagination, fantasy, and figurative language to conjure up nonexistent scenarios. That is what is called FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION, and in our country it is completely unfettered. But since you live in a country where this no longer is permitted, you have swallowed the lie that “words are action” — the standard policy of all tyrannical governments that want to suppress speech they do not approve of. Joshua C. Frank July 4, 2023 Great one, Roy! I laughed out loud, especially at the last stanza. I, too, would love to see all those things happen, but sadly, our country mostly doesn’t want to be saved. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 I really appreciate your comments, Joshua, with your support and well-stated responses to a sickness that has infected our society. Nowhere did I mention mugging or killing anyone, which would fit into my personal definition of violence. I have written a book of essays and poetry, “Demolishing the Demons,” that does present the violence against evil that God intended and used in such “Old Testament” stories as Sodom and Gomorrah, David against Goliath, and battles against enemies such as the Philistines. The Golden Rule was intended for interpersonal relationships and how to act toward others in our daily walk through life. Returning kindness toward our enemies who despitefully use us applies until they attack or plan to attack us as Christians, then we are charged to fight the good fight. The definition of satire is, “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” (Source: “Oxford Dictionary.”) You are right. I used satire, whether some may find it offensive or aggressive. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 There is nothing “satirical” about the poem. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride Name one example in the poem where you exaggerate a flaw of the persons or institutions that you want the eagles to attack. Calling the poem “satire” allows you to avoid responsibility for its dark and disturbing theme. Your poem is a call to ANTIFA-style violence and mischief against Target, Bud Light, and drag queens. Your poem is a call for “eagles” to 1) Tear up clothing which is the property of Target 2) Pour Bud Light beer on the floor of a Target Store 3) Tear up a rainbow flag 4) Throw feces at drag queens If anyone did what you hope the “eagles” will do, they would be arrested. There is nothing morally right about this poem. It violates The Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Telling me I am “misguided” is not a counter-argument. It is a label. Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Oh, please. You wouldn’t object to people doing this to neo-Nazis. Yet the Abortion Holocaust alone, let alone every other atrocity committed by the left, makes the left worse than the Nazis. Evan Mantyk July 5, 2023 Dear Chris, I think someone may reasonably believe… 1. There are only two genders and any attempt by an establishment to say otherwise and furthermore to promote that view to children is stupid, harmful, and flawed. 2. Public events such as parades should not be focused on sexual topics that many families do not want to expose their children to. To do so is again stupid, harmful, and flawed. Paul Martin Freeman July 5, 2023 Well done, Roy. And if I may add in the humorous spirit you’ve engendered and without wishing harm to anyone: And many are the things we see That need a dose of eagle wee. But best of all, for their improvement, I recommend some eagle movement! Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Ooooo! I really love your verse and contribution! Especially what is perhaps a double entendre with the word “movement.” Reply Jeff Eardley July 5, 2023 A great piece of satirical comment Roy, with a killer punchline. We too over here seem to be on an endless festival of pride. I will be out eagle spotting today. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Great Jeff! Thank you. Good spotting! Reply Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Roy, your poem reminds me that there are evil people and evil corporations that are pushing the brainwashing and mutilation of children. Jesus said that those people are deserving of being tossed into the sea with millstones tied to their necks. I suppose someone needs to teach Jesus about the Golden Rule. I saw the eagles as angels of God’s justice, dropping fire and brimstone on the Poops (Perpetually Offended Obtuse Progressives), but what do I know… I’m just an old white man. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 You are spot on, Mike! Jesus said he did not come to change one jot or tittle of the law of Moses. You will see my Golden Rule response in a comment to Joshua above. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 The problem with this poem is the eagles (which to me, represent MAGA Trump supporters) are engaging in ANTIFA-style tactics of violence and mischief to bring about social change. By definition, the poem is not satirical. It is a call to action. This poem’s theme is morally wrong because it tries to normalize criminal behavior. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 “Normalize criminal behavior??” You mean like the left did by legalizing the murder of unborn children? You liberals have zero credibility on moral issues for that reason alone. Reply Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Josh, The real problem here is that some people live in reality while others accept the wisdom passed down by the tyrants of this world. The tyrants wish to destroy us all by dividing us along a million fault lines. While we see the reality of the spiritual realm, many believe that our overlords are the angels. We live within two diametrically opposed worlds with two different basic stories. In the end, of course, God Himself will settle the issues. Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 I appreciate your misguided comments, Chris, and have added you to my prayer list. The goal is not to bring about social change but to restore the norms and standards that made America morally great by pointing out those corporations and events that must be stopped from committing gross efforts to further a destructive abnormal environment for all involved. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Encyclopedia Britannica defines social change as “the alteration of mechanisms within the social structure, characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour, social organizations, or value systems.” This disturbing poem advocates ANTIFA-style tactics to bring about social change. It isn’t a satirical poem because you aren’t exaggerating or ridiculing the actions of Bud Light, Target, or drag queens. The poem is a call to action–to commit criminal acts against people you disagree with. If anyone does what you hope the eagles will do, they will get arrested. The eagles in the poem are symbolic of MAGA Trump supporters and the far right. Calling me “misguided” is a label, not an argument. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Repeating your argument over and over as if you wrote it with ChatGPT isn’t going to get you anywhere. You’re assuming eagles are far-right people (which to you means anyone to the right of Mao Tse-Tung), but I thought of them as angels (read the book of Revelation if you think angels aren’t capable of destruction). Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 The eagles are referred to as “Great” in the poem’s title. This is why they symbolize MAGA Trump supporters and the far right, not angels. I have a degree in English Literature. I do have “some” ability to interpret the theme of a poem. This poem is a call to violence. Reply Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Chris, See these poems that have “great” in the title: https://classicalpoets.org/?s=great I suppose they all refer to MAGA. I think it is rather naive of you to think that people who want their countries to be “great” must be violent right-wingers. As for your appeal to your credentials… aside from the fact that it is a logical fallacy, there are many here who have degrees in English Literature, so please don’t think that makes you something special. You are simply wrong. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Having “Great” in the title (associated with MAGA) and “Eagles” (associated with American patriotism) makes it clear the eagles are symbols of MAGA Trump supporters who can save America and restore it to to its former “greatness.” The poem is a wish fulfillment fantasy that acts of violence and mischief will be carried out against Target, Bud Light, and Drag Queens. Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Is it an act of violence to stop buying their products? That is the only consequences to these evil companies that I have heard about. You are living in some kind of dream world if you think patriots are guilty of the violence of antifa. The protests against this evil has been and will continue to be free of violence, not “mostly peaceful” but entirely peaceful. If ghouls see any violence against these mostly violent corporations, you can bet that antifa and other government goons will be involved. Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Or maybe he’s saying by those examples, “If LGBT etc. people feel violated by such acts, how do you think Christians, parents, patriots, etc. feel about what the LGBT agenda is doing to them?” Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 If you have a degree in English literature, perhaps you missed the class on types of satire. This poem by LTC Peterson is Juvenalian satire, which is harsh, bitter, contemptuous, and violent. It isn’t the lighthearted Horatian satire that is playful and amusing. It isn’t the comical satire of Pope in “The Rape of the Lock.” This is satire with brass knuckles. Why don’t you just come clean and admit your political loyalties, Mr. Lindsay, and stop pretending to be the voice of a moderate, even-handed virtue signaler? You’ve already slipped a bit, by demonstrating your dislike of MAGA Republicans and the far right. Your incidental condemnation of Antifa is strictly for show. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I’m not aware of Juvenalian satire, but I will read up on it. I think we are in agreement on one thing: this poem is violent. Violence is not a solution to the divisions in American society. This poem tries to normalize violence as a way to bring about social change. 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. Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 It’s ok for you to read LTC Peterson’s mind, though, right? Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Mr. Lindsay, I judge people on what they say. What you have said in this thread indicates to me that you are hostile to MAGA Republicans (all 75 million of us) and the “far right” (a mainstream-media phrase for anyone who isn’t subservient to leftist public orthodoxies). If I’m wrong, please correct me. As I requested above, please come clean and admit your political loyalties. On the other hand, if as a Canadian you are afraid of repercussions against yourself and your family from the leftist Trudeau government, all of us here fully understand that. Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I have never expressed any hostility towards MAGA Republicans in this thread. I work at a University, and I wish to keep my political beliefs private. I’ve only made a literary argument that the eagles in the poem are symbolic of MAGA Republicans because of the word “Great” in the title combined with the eagle being a symbol of American patriotism. MAGA Republicans see themselves as the ultimate American patriots. This poem is calling MAGA Republicans to carry out acts of violence and mischief. I think it is a reasonable interpretation and no professor of Literature would give me a failing grade if I submitted such an essay that did a close reading of this poem with that interpretation. Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Wow, what an adroit two-step! Congratulations on your dancing ability. The poem isn’t calling for violence. It is IMAGINING violence. Poems can imagine any bloody thing they want. You won’t make a clear statement of your political views out of fear of your University employers — but you have already made statements in this thread that are blatantly political. You clearly dislike MAGA Republicans, and you object to a poem that imagines them (as metaphorical “eagles”) acting violently. Those are the kind of political statements that will no doubt please your employer, so you had no problem stating them here publicly. Will you come out right now with an explicit condemnation of the violence of Antifa — not the oblique, offhand comments that you made above about it, but a direct condemnation of their vicious street violence, which is comparable to that of the Nazi Sturmabteilung? No, I don’t think you’ll do that. It won’t go over well with your employers, or the Trudeau thought-police. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Hi Joseph, Yes, I condemn the violence of ANTIFA. btw; this is a very condescending comment: “Wow, what an adroit two-step! Congratulations on your dancing ability.” I presented an argument and your response is mockery. I don’t want to comment further on the poem. I’ve spent enough creative energy on it and I must move on to other things. Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 I answered your arguments fully, whether with or without mockery. You’re the one who has not addressed the points that I and others have made about politics, satire, free speech, and aesthetics. But it’s very clear that you are now scared, and want to get free of this tar-baby before you are asked any more embarrassing questions that might cause your employers to wonder about your opinions. Cynthia Erlandson July 6, 2023 You are right to ask about Mr. Lindsay’s political views. I think, though, we have a good indication of them, even if only because it is clear that he has no sense of humor. I mean, not everyone who has no sense of humor is a leftist; but I’ve never met a leftist who has a sense of humor. Susan Jarvis Bryant July 5, 2023 Roy, this biting and humorous satirical poem, that I am sure will resonate with many, manages to highlight the horrors of the cultural war we are in the midst of with hilarity – the best defense against the cruel absurdities we are facing. It is of great concern to me that your words have been labeled “violent”, that you have been accused of a crime during times when people are arrested for “hate speech” – a label used to silence and imprison all who don’t agree with current political ideologies… yet in this war “silence is violence” according to the progressive powers that be. Oh, the hypocrisy! Oh, the irony! You’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t! I feel a satirical poem brewing… I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees! Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Susan, I admire and applaud, as well as appreciate. the views you so adeptly state. I remember one of my poems from a few years back published by SCP titled, “Silence is Not Golden.” We are given the freedom now on only a few venues to present our thoughts in classical poetic form without the intervention of thought police. For that I am forever thankful to SCP. Registering distaste is not tantamount to violence. On the bright side I have written some verses for three new poems from the grist provided. Thank you so much Susan for your comments and understanding. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I am not a pacifist. Nazis, crime syndicates, Communists, foreign invaders, or tyrants are NOT in the same category as Target, Bud Lght, and Drag Queens. The ones you listed are trying to kill people. The three mentioned in this poem are not trying to kill anyone. For good or ill, people get their values from culture. Poetry is one aspect of culture and what is repeated in culture has the power to change or reinforce people’s values. This poem is dangerous because it suggests that violence and mischief are justified against Budlight, Target and drag queens. It is a wish fulfillment fantasy. I think this will be my last comment. Reply Susan Jarvis Bryant July 5, 2023 “We’re here. We’re queer. We’re coming for your children!” I would love to hear what you think of this particular mantra, Mr. Lindsay? I’ve taken this threat at face value. Should we speak up for our children (being irreversibly neutered at an unprecedented rate) … or not? Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 hi Susan, I won’t be commenting any further on this poem. I’ve tried to make the argument that it advocates and normalizes violence against people and corporations that the author disagrees with. These are the tactics of ANTIFA. I hope there are other readers who will agree with me. Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 I’m not surprised you’ve ignored my wife and others. You have been exposed as the one proposing and supporting violence on those you disagree with and on the groomed, confused minors you refuse to defend. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Mike, I’ve tried to limit my comments to this poem, and not other topics. It is slander to accuse me of supporting violence against people I disagree with when my comments clearly state the exact opposite. That is a false accusation and it does not reflect well on your character. Reply Yael July 5, 2023 Lol, this poem complete with its comments section is crazy entertaining! I laughed so hard I nearly soiled my cross dressing camo pants. I am now caterwauling at my keyboard in righteous outrage because I’ve ascertained, using my advanced public university education, that the eagles clearly, exclusively, and most definitely represent WWII allied bomber planes and my German maternal grandfather who was a Nazi pilot in Hitler’s Luftwaffe was killed by one of those while flying on a mission near the end of that war. I am now gravely traumatized and injured by my interpretation of the reading of your poem and I will not budge from my position until I receive some reparations. And if anyone here wants to rain on my Rorschach ink blot parade I will play the perfect victim card, owing to the fact that my paternal grandfather was a German Jewish lawyer who had to flee to Palestine to survive said war. Tell me I don’t have all my bases covered. Where’s my mullah? Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Yael, that is a perfect rejoinder! You had me in stitches with your faux deciphering of my intentions in writing the poem. Reply Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, yes, you have mocked me which doesn’t reflect well on your character. However, I am glad we are in agreement on two things: this poem is violent and it imagines violence against individuals and groups the author disagrees with. In my view, poems like this only serve to normalize and encourage violence in America. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Even if you’re somehow right, so what? Is it really anywhere near as horrible as the Abortion Holocaust? Over 60 million dead since 1973 means more dead than if the KKK were to kill every black person in the United States living today. So don’t you dare claim to be against violence unless you renounce any ties to the left here and now. Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Maybe you should stop worrying about us here in America, and start worrying about your politically and intellectually enslaved country of Canada, and its deliquescence into a socialist cesspool. Your unwillingness to address the points made by me and others in this thread doesn’t reflect well on your honesty. But then again, I guess you have to worry about your job. For you, silence really is the Golden Rule. Reply Shaun C. Duncan July 6, 2023 Great stuff, Roy – witty and savage as satire should be. It’s a shame we live in such a wan and humourless era when people are spring-loaded to take offence at the slightest impropriety, but this only shows how urgent the demand for strong satire really is. I hope your next effort causes even more consternation. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Bless you, Shaun, and thank you. You hit the nail on the head, and I appreciate the encouragement! Reply Steve Todd July 6, 2023 Feelings running high on this one, it seems. This just goes to show how subjective comedy is! Let’s be honest, arguments over poetic form in this case are the reddest of herrings. It’s a proxy war skirmish of clashing world-views. In a broader sense, it also illustrates a sad but commonplace situation where people are primed to extract every iota of offence possible from whatever is placed in front of them. It never occurs to them that something can be simply what it is, an object of amusement rather than an exhortation of pure truth or a dog-whistle call to violence. Ascribing malicious intent to the author as a default position speaks more to the mindset of the critic than the creator. I guess everything’s a ‘problematic’ nail to a hammer. As perhaps another angle to this (and hear me out) it’s interesting to me (as a Brit) that in terms of satire, you *could* actually read this as a gentle lampooning of the stereotypical US ‘Patriot’ legacy media have done their best to perpetuate over the years. Rightly or wrongly, the eagle itself is almost a comedic trope at this point, rarely drawn without ferrying a ‘basket of deplorables’ about safely in its talons. I know full well that that is *not* the intent. However, given that *possible* interpretation, might harshly judging this not simply speak to confirmation bias wrapped around two-dimensional thinking..? Maybe it’s just…you know…brace yourself…a thoroughly and self-evidently tongue-in-cheek, funny poem that sadly didn’t land with you? And that’s OK. Regardless of what this piece is or isn’t, and notwithstanding the barbs being traded in the comments, it made me smile for a minute. As a reasonable human being (I hope?) I’m entirely comfortable in the assumption that Mr Peterson’s intention in writing this was entirely to that end, and thank him for it. Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 6, 2023 Mr. Todd, your comments are like a breath of fresh air. And nothing is truer than your judgment that this argument wasn’t about poetic forms, but rather “a proxy war skirmish of clashing world-views.” There is a major disability shared by almost all poets and critics working today, whether they are politically left, right, center, religious, or indifferent. It affects many here, as well as at left-liberal workshops and websites. And that is the notion that poems are always about ideas and feelings and beliefs and political-religious commitments, and the related notion that what a poet expresses in his poems is a sincere testament to his cherished opinions, like Luther’s theses nailed to the church door. When I try to explain to others that this is a misconception, I almost always get a quizzical and baffled look, for the simple reason that too many people believe poetry is merely a means of communicating ideas (usually “great” or “important” or “timeless” ones), and that the poet’s worth is naturally determined by the correctness of those ideas rather than the quality of his compositional skills. For what it’s worth, I’ll say it for the umpteenth time — poetry is fictive mimesis, and poems are fictive artifacts. They are either expertly crafted and beautiful, or amateurish and ugly. Raising moral objections to the things said in a poem is like raising moral objections to the glazing on a ceramic vase. The dispute in this thread started when someone raised a non-aesthetic objection to a poem, based on some categorical moral imperative in his mind. Quite naturally, this ignited the fireworks. Once you start “debating” what is said in a poem, you stir up opposition from those who agree with what was said. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Joseph, your words are wonderfully written and explicated by one of the great literary scholars of our time. I admire both your poetry and your comments, since I learn so much from them. I am both inspired and encouraged by your support. Thank you for your comments at various locations on this thread. Chris July 6, 2023 Joseph, you wrote: “Raising moral objections to the things said in a poem is like raising moral objections to the glazing on a ceramic vase.“ This is a false equivalency. Unlike the glazing on a vase, words and sentences have meaning. This is simply a way to shut down any criticism of the theme of the poem. Not all poems have a thematic message but this one clearly does. The author thinks it is funny to imagine violence against transgender persons and the corporations that support them. It is quite frankly a form of hate speech. He has the constitutional right to do it but according to biblical principle, not all speech is noble or good. Joseph S. Salemi July 6, 2023 I assume this is the same Chris Lindsay. Chris, once again, your categorical moral imperatives are showing. All literature is a licensed zone of hyper-reality, where all is permitted. And judging a poem by whether or not you agree with its content is a profoundly un-literary stance to take. I expect that only from my slower sophomores. Poems have appeared here at the SCP, the political or religious contents of which I disagree with. But if I critique a poem it is on the basis of its construction and success as a poem! I am a Roman Catholic. That doesn’t prevent me from appreciating the humor and skill and technical craft of Robert Browning’s satirical spoof of monastic life (“Soliloquy of a Spanish Cloister”), or Milton’s anti-hierarchical prose. I am an extreme right-wing reactionary. That doesn’t prevent me from being a dedicated fan of the poetry of Dorothy Parker, a hard leftist. I love Byron’s work, even though he was a political radical. This is why I always warn young poets against getting trapped in the quicksand of “the three miseries” (meaning, message, and moral). When you are obsessed with a poem’s ideas or theme (just code-words for the three miseries) you are reading the poem as a philistine, and not as a sophisticated adult. I’ve got news for you. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH. There is only free speech, and enslaved speech. “Hate speech” is a bogus category dreamt up by left-liberals, minority pressure groups, and their academic groupies as a convenient charge against any speech by conservatives that they dislike or fear. And that is why it is supremely hypocritical of you to charge that I am attempting to “shut down criticism.” You are the one (along with the vast support of mainstream media, governmental bureaucrats, and academics) who is trying to make all public and private speech liable to censorship and legal penalties. You, as a Canadian, are living under the thumb of Trudeau’s imposed speech codes, mandated pronoun usages, and open persecution of political opponents. And yet you have the sheer cheek to bring your damned categorical imperatives here to the SCP, to lecture us in the United States about how we should censor and edit our poems? I’ve got more news for you. We will say and write whatever the bloody hell we want. Got that? Joshua C. Frank July 6, 2023 Chris, get a life. Nobody’s falling for your spiel. You’re not going to change any of our minds with your woke garbage. Go somewhere else and quit wasting everybody’s time. Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Steve, you are the voice of reason in a dissonant world and make a compelling case. I am always fascinated by what one sees and interprets in a poem. Those who seek to label a product and libel the creator are often mistaken and misguided. Your points and arguments are well-stated and meaningful. Thank you. Reply Monika Cooper July 6, 2023 If the eagles are metaphorical in the poem, their actions are metaphorical too. They seem to be pranksters or trolls in the culture war, they might even be satirical poets themselves. They are not angels. But if you want to see how God and His angels will deal with people who mutilate, terrorize, and scandalize little ones, or harvest their organs and tissue, stick around. It won’t be pretty (for them) but, I promise, it will be beautiful. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Amen, Monika. Wonderful and fitting comments. Bless you and thank you for the images. Reply Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joseph– It is a well-established practice in Universities that poetry can be analyzed based on its theme. You wrote: “And judging a poem by whether or not you agree with its content is a profoundly un-literary stance to take.” You are not the final authority on how poems should or should not be judged. If you think you are the final authority, then you have a god complex. There is more than one way to judge the merit or value of a poem. Yes, its aesthetic qualities are important, but theme matters too. There are very few poems published by SOCP that don’t have a theme. It is what sets SOCP apart from countless literary journals. Your “categorical imperative” that that a poem should only be judged based on its aesthetic qualities is a convenient way to sidestep the problematic theme of Peterson’s poem. There is such a thing as hate speech despite your denial that it exists. You have the constitutional right in America to express hate and imagine violence against people you disagree with, but that does not mean it is noble or good. Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation” I would argue that by imagining violence against people he disagrees with, Peterson’s poem is encouraging violence, even if that wasn’t his conscious intent. It is bizarre that you accuse me of “categorical imperatives” while declaring categorical imperatives of your own. I have no problem with judging a poem based on its aesthetic qualities, but you seem to think it is the only way to judge a poem. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 6, 2023 I assume you’re liberal and therefore pro-choice. In that case, you have no more room to talk about hate speech than Hitler himself, since abortion is murder. To advocate for abortion is therefore hate speech in and of itself. I don’t believe anything you say, or anything any other liberal says, on right and wrong for that reason alone (and there are many other reasons, but that’s the most prominent). “Physician, heal thyself.” Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 6, 2023 Whenever I hear the word “theme” used in connection with poems, I get dyspepsia. Why? It reminds me of when I edited the journal Iambs and Trochees with Bill Carlson back in the 1990s. Every week Bill and I would get letters of inquiry from potential submitters asking us what the “theme” was for the next issue. These were usually from amateur poets who expected us to answer with words like “Friendship” or “Autumn Leaves” or “True Love” or “The Animal Kingdom” or some such stupid category. Bill always gave me the task of answering these people, and they got short shrift from me. I told them that we had no “themes,” and we simply chose the poems that were the very best of those submitted, regardless of their subject matter. We did not judge poems by their subject, but by how perfectly crafted they were. Many poets were shocked by this, and wrote back to complain about our “lack of human warmth.” After a while, however, potential submitters got the idea, and we weren’t troubled anymore with poems about the joys of spring, heartfelt romance, vapid coming-of-age tales, pet cats, or disguised sermons. Chris mentioned in an earlier post that poems are made of words and language, and that many of them have “themes” (by which he means the three miseries of message, meaning, and moral). Yes, of course. But those things are the armature on which the poem is built, not its primary purpose. The aim of the poet is to produce a dazzling artifact of language and syntax, and what it’s about is purely secondary. The poem is a mosaic of carefully fitted tesserae of multicolored words and phrases, linked into a magnificent whole which is perceived AS A WHOLE, and not as a list of propositions to be argued and debated. It could be a Christian mosaic of the Crucifixion, a Jewish mosaic of the Mogen David, or a pagan mosaic of a dying gladiator. This is not a categorical imperative imposed by me — this is the way all great poets have approached their work. If poems were about their “themes” (i.e. meaning or message), then there would be absolutely no need at all for poetry to exist! You can present a theme or a message is straight prose, with no ambiguities or stylistic fillips or verbal decor. The use of meter and rhyme and tropes and figures would be totally supererogatory and pointless! By the way, undergraduates see this IMMEDIATELY. If a professor is dumb enough to concentrate on a poem’s “meaning” or “message,” the sensible retort from many students is “Why the hell didn’t he just TELL us what he wanted to say?” When you think that poems are primarily about their ideas or themes, you have no answer whatsoever for those students. Chris Lindsay uses the word “problematic.” It’s a dead giveaway to his entire mindset. The word means nothing except that somebody, somewhere, has a “problem” with what is being discussed. The word is loved by left-liberals, who use it as an all-purpose condemnation of what they don’t like, without giving a specific explanation. Another sign of his worldview is his quotation from the Cambridge Dictionary, the prime left-liberal woke dictionary that refuses (out of deference to trannies) to give anything but a weasel-word definition of what a “woman” is. They were sure to give a definition for the fake political category of “hate speech.” Lindsay seems to have a lot of trouble with poetry that expresses or celebrates violence. I wonder if he has read the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Arthurian romances, Beowulf, El Cid, Gierusalemme Liberata, or the Song of Roland. Just askin’. Reply Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joseph — I have published three poems on this site, and two of them are violent. I have no problem with violence in a poem per se. What I have a problem with is the theme of Peterson’s poem, which imagines violence against people and corporations he disagrees with. These are the tactics of ANTIFA, a group that neither you nor Peterson admire. If a private citizen did what Peterson calls the eagles to do in his poem, they would be arrested. Hence, how can anyone with a properly functioning conscience approve of this poem? I greatly value the aesthetic qualities of a poem, but the theme of this poem moved me to take a stand and act according to my conscience. I don’t support citizens using violence, except in situations like self-defense, where it is a legal act. It is shocking to me that so many Christians on this site are supportive of a poem that images violence against people they disagree with. You’ve made many judgements about what you think my beliefs are. Beware of the sin of false accusation. I have chosen not to participate in an inquisition of what my beliefs are. My focus has been on the theme of this poem, which you don’t seem to care about because you only value a poem’s aesthetic qualities. If that is the lens in which you judge a poem, so be it. But don’t make yourself the final authority on how a poem is to be judged. I value both a poem’s theme and its aesthetic qualities. Reply Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joseph— I would be curious to know how you would interpret the theme of this poem. I know it isn’t something that interests you but as a highly educated academic I would like to know your interpretation. It is ironic that I’ve found more common ground with you than the other people who have responded to my comments. On many points you are a straight shooter and tell it like it is. You are the only person I recall who will admit the poem is violent and imagines violence. I believe in the biblical principal— do not imitate what is evil bit imitate what is good. The eagles in this poem are being called to imitate antifa, albeit with a different target. Joshua C. Frank July 6, 2023 I notice you’re not answering any of my questions, which tells me that you believe exactly as I assume and that my accusations of hate speech against you are warranted. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will go on assuming this. Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joshua — I am not going to participate in a Inquisition or an ideological values test to see if my beliefs are worthy of your respect. Beware of falsely accusing me of things I do not believe and mind-reading. I have criticized this poem for its theme and not fitting the traditional (or commonly known) definition of satire. If you want to analyze the theme of the poem–its moral meaning or main idea–I would love to hear it. “Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. ” 3 John 1:11 The eagles in this poem are being called to imitate the tactics of ANTIFA and commit acts that are illegal. Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 Lindsay, I really don’t know what else to say, since we seem to be speaking at cross purposes. You don’t seem to have listened to a single point I have made. I can only quote some of the things you have said or asked, and try to make a comment on them. Here goes: LINDSAY: “What I have a problem with is the theme of Peterson’s poem, which imagines violence against people and corporations he disagrees with.” MY RESPONSE: The operative word is “imagines.” He is talking about metaphorical eagles, and he is fantasizing about what kind of violence they could do. He has the right to do that. Period. I have mentioned eight major works of literature that do the same thing, and you have ignored them. When Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade against the Seljuk Turks who had seized the Holy Land, he called for violent action against them, and referred to these Turks as “an accursed race, wholly alienated from God.” Did the Pope give a bad sermon? Is that “hate speech”? Or is it what everybody says when they go to war? Good grief — calls for violence or hopes for violence are a part of human nature! LINDSAY: “If a private citizen did what Peterson calls the eagles to do in his poem, he would be arrested.” MY RESPONSE: Oh please! Are you that naive? Right now hoodlums and thugs all over the United States are looting and wrecking stores, stealing property, and attacking innocent persons. And our goddamned illegitimate government IS DOING NOTHING, and LETTING IT HAPPEN! Are you blind, Lindsay? No one is getting arrested, except those few brave persons who dare to fight back! And all you can do is whine about the metaphors that make you uncomfortable in LTC Peterson’s poem? LINDSAY: “You are the only person I recall who will admit the poem is violent and imagines violence.” MY RESPONSE: A poem cannot be “violent.” Only an active agent can be “violent.” A poem is just something on a page or a screen. This poem of Peterson IMAGINES violence, just as someone might IMAGINE raping a woman but not actually doing it. You simply cannot see the basic unexamined assumption in your language. It is the false left-liberal assumption that language can be an ACT, and therefore a legal offense. That is a completely untrue notion, and has been consciously designed by people of your ilk as a weapon against those who oppose you. LINDSAY: “I would be curious to know how you would interpret the theme of this poem.” MY RESPONSE: The word “theme” sickens me no end. It is petty, sophomoric, and un-literary. But here is what I would say as a brief explication de texte: Peterson’s poem is an extended metaphorical address, in which “great eagles” are urged to circle and dive in attack formation on certain hated enemies. Those enemies include a stupid retail store that enraged many of its customers with obnoxious pandering to perverts, a beer corporation that did the same thing, a disgusting parade of rainbow flags that represent the perverts in question, and publicly posturing drag queens marching in the parade. The imagined attacks, in proper order, are as follows: tearing up clothes in the retail store; breaking open and spilling the beer corporation’s products in said store; ripping up the hated rainbow flags; and dropping dung on the heads of the drag queen marchers. The whole thing is imagined with humor and relish, and it represents the feelings of millions of American citizens. There is no moral or message here, other than the expression of the writer’s imagined satisfaction if these actions were to take place. That’s it. No deep thoughts, no categorical imperatives, no clutching of pearls in shocked indignation. Just a playful and fanciful poem. Only self-appointed moralists and sentimental religionists will have a problem with the piece. Also, let me end with a bit of polemical advice. In a dispute of this nature, dealing with images and imaginative pictures of violence, it is utterly absurd for you to quote scriptural passages or refer to your “biblical” principles. Do you have any idea how violent and blood-drenched and vengeful the Bible can be? Reply Anneka Spice July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 Anneka, read my comments below before casting judgement. We all have a right and duty to defend our positions, or lack thereof. Reply Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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 Reply Anneka Spice July 8, 2023 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! Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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.] Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Paul Freeman July 7, 2023 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. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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. Reply Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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? Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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. Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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.” Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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. Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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. Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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. Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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. Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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. Reply Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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. Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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) Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Michael Vanyukov July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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. Reply Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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. Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 8, 2023 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. Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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. Reply Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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. Reply Joseph S. Salemi July 8, 2023 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. Reply mia July 8, 2023 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 Reply The Society July 8, 2023 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 Reply Chris Lindsay July 8, 2023 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. Reply Anneka Spice July 8, 2023 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. Reply Leave a Reply Cancel ReplyYour email address will not be published.CommentName* Email* Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Δ This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Brian A Yapko July 4, 2023 Great satire, Roy! You certainly don’t pull any punches and the eagle droppings is a particularly hilarious and unexpected touch. Happy Independence Day to you! Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 4, 2023 Bless you, Brian, for the kind words and support. Happy 4th of July back to you! Reply
Cynthia Erlandson July 4, 2023 This hits the mark, and does it with the sort of humor that patriots (unlike leftist haters of our nation) still have. Thank you, Roy. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 4, 2023 Cynthia, that is a wonderful comment. I am concerned for all our children and the future of America. Reply
Margaret Coats July 4, 2023 Roy, what strategy from a commanding officer! Some flag-and-placard skirmishes were reported from an event last month. Sounds like eagles are in readiness. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 4, 2023 Margaret, I love your comment about strategy! We need those with the heart of an eagle these days! Reply
Phil S. Rogers July 4, 2023 Sir; Most excellent, humorous, but your message is easily understood. Time to push back and remember what Independence Day really means. Thank You! Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Great thoughts and comments. Indeed, it is time for us to take our stand for the sake of our children. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 4, 2023 I don’t think this poem qualifies as satire. My understanding of satire is you exaggerate the flaw of a person or institution to expose them to ridicule. In this poem, nothing is exaggerated about Target, Bud Light, or drag queens. You are calling for eagles (perhaps symbolic of American patriots) to commit acts of violence and mischief. Calling the poem satire is a way to sidestep that problematic message. The poem violates The Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 4, 2023 And what would you have us do? Just sit back while drag queens and their corporate sponsors destroy our country while you keep on saying, “Peace, peace” when there is no peace? You wouldn’t like it if we told you that you should let people destroy your way of life. Therefore your comment violates the Golden Rule. Reply
Christopher Lindsay July 4, 2023 Are you saying that acts of violence and mischief are justified against people and corporations you disagree with? That’s how I interpret the theme of this poem, and there is nothing funny about that. It violates the Golden rule to treat others in a way that we do not want to be treated.
Joshua C. Frank July 4, 2023 That’s not how I understood the poem at all. It’s clearly intended as humor. If your sense of humor is different, then don’t criticize. It violated the Golden Rule. I think your real issue is that his poem speaks out against the transgender insanity, and that’s why I take issue with your comment.
Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Mr. Lindsay, you don’t seem to realize that we are in the midst of a CULTURAL WAR. In war, both sides commit acts of violence. If you want to live in your dream world of polite, mild-mannered, and inoffensive faux conservatism, go right ahead. But there are some of us who want to win this war. We’ll just have to do it without your help. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I would never commit acts of violence against people I disagree with. But it appears that you think violence is justified in America’s culture war. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to support MAGA Republicans engaging in violence. This poem normalizes ANTIFA-style tactics.
Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Chris, I think that, in the interest of full disclosure, you should reveal whether you own stock in Budweiser or Target, and also whether you have any involvement with the lucrative, affirming care of children or the Drag Queen business as a promoter or a performer. It’s only fair.
Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Are you a Quaker pacifist, Mr. Lindsay? From your first sentence it seems clear that you would never fight against Nazis, crime syndicates, Communists, foreign invaders, or tyrants (all of whom I assume you disagree with). As a matter of fact. MAGA Republicans have committed no real acts of violence, as opposed to the savagery unleashed by BLM, Antifa, and the current lawlessness and looting in our major cities. The January 6 set-up was pure governmental fakery. Poems do not “normalize” things. Poems are simply fictive artifacts created out of words. They use imagination, fantasy, and figurative language to conjure up nonexistent scenarios. That is what is called FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION, and in our country it is completely unfettered. But since you live in a country where this no longer is permitted, you have swallowed the lie that “words are action” — the standard policy of all tyrannical governments that want to suppress speech they do not approve of.
Joshua C. Frank July 4, 2023 Great one, Roy! I laughed out loud, especially at the last stanza. I, too, would love to see all those things happen, but sadly, our country mostly doesn’t want to be saved. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 I really appreciate your comments, Joshua, with your support and well-stated responses to a sickness that has infected our society. Nowhere did I mention mugging or killing anyone, which would fit into my personal definition of violence. I have written a book of essays and poetry, “Demolishing the Demons,” that does present the violence against evil that God intended and used in such “Old Testament” stories as Sodom and Gomorrah, David against Goliath, and battles against enemies such as the Philistines. The Golden Rule was intended for interpersonal relationships and how to act toward others in our daily walk through life. Returning kindness toward our enemies who despitefully use us applies until they attack or plan to attack us as Christians, then we are charged to fight the good fight. The definition of satire is, “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” (Source: “Oxford Dictionary.”) You are right. I used satire, whether some may find it offensive or aggressive. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 There is nothing “satirical” about the poem. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride Name one example in the poem where you exaggerate a flaw of the persons or institutions that you want the eagles to attack. Calling the poem “satire” allows you to avoid responsibility for its dark and disturbing theme. Your poem is a call to ANTIFA-style violence and mischief against Target, Bud Light, and drag queens. Your poem is a call for “eagles” to 1) Tear up clothing which is the property of Target 2) Pour Bud Light beer on the floor of a Target Store 3) Tear up a rainbow flag 4) Throw feces at drag queens If anyone did what you hope the “eagles” will do, they would be arrested. There is nothing morally right about this poem. It violates The Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Telling me I am “misguided” is not a counter-argument. It is a label.
Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Oh, please. You wouldn’t object to people doing this to neo-Nazis. Yet the Abortion Holocaust alone, let alone every other atrocity committed by the left, makes the left worse than the Nazis.
Evan Mantyk July 5, 2023 Dear Chris, I think someone may reasonably believe… 1. There are only two genders and any attempt by an establishment to say otherwise and furthermore to promote that view to children is stupid, harmful, and flawed. 2. Public events such as parades should not be focused on sexual topics that many families do not want to expose their children to. To do so is again stupid, harmful, and flawed.
Paul Martin Freeman July 5, 2023 Well done, Roy. And if I may add in the humorous spirit you’ve engendered and without wishing harm to anyone: And many are the things we see That need a dose of eagle wee. But best of all, for their improvement, I recommend some eagle movement! Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Ooooo! I really love your verse and contribution! Especially what is perhaps a double entendre with the word “movement.” Reply
Jeff Eardley July 5, 2023 A great piece of satirical comment Roy, with a killer punchline. We too over here seem to be on an endless festival of pride. I will be out eagle spotting today. Reply
Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Roy, your poem reminds me that there are evil people and evil corporations that are pushing the brainwashing and mutilation of children. Jesus said that those people are deserving of being tossed into the sea with millstones tied to their necks. I suppose someone needs to teach Jesus about the Golden Rule. I saw the eagles as angels of God’s justice, dropping fire and brimstone on the Poops (Perpetually Offended Obtuse Progressives), but what do I know… I’m just an old white man. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 You are spot on, Mike! Jesus said he did not come to change one jot or tittle of the law of Moses. You will see my Golden Rule response in a comment to Joshua above. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 The problem with this poem is the eagles (which to me, represent MAGA Trump supporters) are engaging in ANTIFA-style tactics of violence and mischief to bring about social change. By definition, the poem is not satirical. It is a call to action. This poem’s theme is morally wrong because it tries to normalize criminal behavior. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 “Normalize criminal behavior??” You mean like the left did by legalizing the murder of unborn children? You liberals have zero credibility on moral issues for that reason alone. Reply
Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Josh, The real problem here is that some people live in reality while others accept the wisdom passed down by the tyrants of this world. The tyrants wish to destroy us all by dividing us along a million fault lines. While we see the reality of the spiritual realm, many believe that our overlords are the angels. We live within two diametrically opposed worlds with two different basic stories. In the end, of course, God Himself will settle the issues.
Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 I appreciate your misguided comments, Chris, and have added you to my prayer list. The goal is not to bring about social change but to restore the norms and standards that made America morally great by pointing out those corporations and events that must be stopped from committing gross efforts to further a destructive abnormal environment for all involved. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Encyclopedia Britannica defines social change as “the alteration of mechanisms within the social structure, characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour, social organizations, or value systems.” This disturbing poem advocates ANTIFA-style tactics to bring about social change. It isn’t a satirical poem because you aren’t exaggerating or ridiculing the actions of Bud Light, Target, or drag queens. The poem is a call to action–to commit criminal acts against people you disagree with. If anyone does what you hope the eagles will do, they will get arrested. The eagles in the poem are symbolic of MAGA Trump supporters and the far right. Calling me “misguided” is a label, not an argument. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Repeating your argument over and over as if you wrote it with ChatGPT isn’t going to get you anywhere. You’re assuming eagles are far-right people (which to you means anyone to the right of Mao Tse-Tung), but I thought of them as angels (read the book of Revelation if you think angels aren’t capable of destruction).
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 The eagles are referred to as “Great” in the poem’s title. This is why they symbolize MAGA Trump supporters and the far right, not angels. I have a degree in English Literature. I do have “some” ability to interpret the theme of a poem. This poem is a call to violence. Reply
Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Chris, See these poems that have “great” in the title: https://classicalpoets.org/?s=great I suppose they all refer to MAGA. I think it is rather naive of you to think that people who want their countries to be “great” must be violent right-wingers. As for your appeal to your credentials… aside from the fact that it is a logical fallacy, there are many here who have degrees in English Literature, so please don’t think that makes you something special. You are simply wrong. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Having “Great” in the title (associated with MAGA) and “Eagles” (associated with American patriotism) makes it clear the eagles are symbols of MAGA Trump supporters who can save America and restore it to to its former “greatness.” The poem is a wish fulfillment fantasy that acts of violence and mischief will be carried out against Target, Bud Light, and Drag Queens.
Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 Is it an act of violence to stop buying their products? That is the only consequences to these evil companies that I have heard about. You are living in some kind of dream world if you think patriots are guilty of the violence of antifa. The protests against this evil has been and will continue to be free of violence, not “mostly peaceful” but entirely peaceful. If ghouls see any violence against these mostly violent corporations, you can bet that antifa and other government goons will be involved.
Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Or maybe he’s saying by those examples, “If LGBT etc. people feel violated by such acts, how do you think Christians, parents, patriots, etc. feel about what the LGBT agenda is doing to them?”
Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 If you have a degree in English literature, perhaps you missed the class on types of satire. This poem by LTC Peterson is Juvenalian satire, which is harsh, bitter, contemptuous, and violent. It isn’t the lighthearted Horatian satire that is playful and amusing. It isn’t the comical satire of Pope in “The Rape of the Lock.” This is satire with brass knuckles. Why don’t you just come clean and admit your political loyalties, Mr. Lindsay, and stop pretending to be the voice of a moderate, even-handed virtue signaler? You’ve already slipped a bit, by demonstrating your dislike of MAGA Republicans and the far right. Your incidental condemnation of Antifa is strictly for show. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I’m not aware of Juvenalian satire, but I will read up on it. I think we are in agreement on one thing: this poem is violent. Violence is not a solution to the divisions in American society. This poem tries to normalize violence as a way to bring about social change. 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.
Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Mr. Lindsay, I judge people on what they say. What you have said in this thread indicates to me that you are hostile to MAGA Republicans (all 75 million of us) and the “far right” (a mainstream-media phrase for anyone who isn’t subservient to leftist public orthodoxies). If I’m wrong, please correct me. As I requested above, please come clean and admit your political loyalties. On the other hand, if as a Canadian you are afraid of repercussions against yourself and your family from the leftist Trudeau government, all of us here fully understand that.
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I have never expressed any hostility towards MAGA Republicans in this thread. I work at a University, and I wish to keep my political beliefs private. I’ve only made a literary argument that the eagles in the poem are symbolic of MAGA Republicans because of the word “Great” in the title combined with the eagle being a symbol of American patriotism. MAGA Republicans see themselves as the ultimate American patriots. This poem is calling MAGA Republicans to carry out acts of violence and mischief. I think it is a reasonable interpretation and no professor of Literature would give me a failing grade if I submitted such an essay that did a close reading of this poem with that interpretation. Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Wow, what an adroit two-step! Congratulations on your dancing ability. The poem isn’t calling for violence. It is IMAGINING violence. Poems can imagine any bloody thing they want. You won’t make a clear statement of your political views out of fear of your University employers — but you have already made statements in this thread that are blatantly political. You clearly dislike MAGA Republicans, and you object to a poem that imagines them (as metaphorical “eagles”) acting violently. Those are the kind of political statements that will no doubt please your employer, so you had no problem stating them here publicly. Will you come out right now with an explicit condemnation of the violence of Antifa — not the oblique, offhand comments that you made above about it, but a direct condemnation of their vicious street violence, which is comparable to that of the Nazi Sturmabteilung? No, I don’t think you’ll do that. It won’t go over well with your employers, or the Trudeau thought-police. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Hi Joseph, Yes, I condemn the violence of ANTIFA. btw; this is a very condescending comment: “Wow, what an adroit two-step! Congratulations on your dancing ability.” I presented an argument and your response is mockery. I don’t want to comment further on the poem. I’ve spent enough creative energy on it and I must move on to other things.
Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 I answered your arguments fully, whether with or without mockery. You’re the one who has not addressed the points that I and others have made about politics, satire, free speech, and aesthetics. But it’s very clear that you are now scared, and want to get free of this tar-baby before you are asked any more embarrassing questions that might cause your employers to wonder about your opinions.
Cynthia Erlandson July 6, 2023 You are right to ask about Mr. Lindsay’s political views. I think, though, we have a good indication of them, even if only because it is clear that he has no sense of humor. I mean, not everyone who has no sense of humor is a leftist; but I’ve never met a leftist who has a sense of humor.
Susan Jarvis Bryant July 5, 2023 Roy, this biting and humorous satirical poem, that I am sure will resonate with many, manages to highlight the horrors of the cultural war we are in the midst of with hilarity – the best defense against the cruel absurdities we are facing. It is of great concern to me that your words have been labeled “violent”, that you have been accused of a crime during times when people are arrested for “hate speech” – a label used to silence and imprison all who don’t agree with current political ideologies… yet in this war “silence is violence” according to the progressive powers that be. Oh, the hypocrisy! Oh, the irony! You’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t! I feel a satirical poem brewing… I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees! Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Susan, I admire and applaud, as well as appreciate. the views you so adeptly state. I remember one of my poems from a few years back published by SCP titled, “Silence is Not Golden.” We are given the freedom now on only a few venues to present our thoughts in classical poetic form without the intervention of thought police. For that I am forever thankful to SCP. Registering distaste is not tantamount to violence. On the bright side I have written some verses for three new poems from the grist provided. Thank you so much Susan for your comments and understanding. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, I am not a pacifist. Nazis, crime syndicates, Communists, foreign invaders, or tyrants are NOT in the same category as Target, Bud Lght, and Drag Queens. The ones you listed are trying to kill people. The three mentioned in this poem are not trying to kill anyone. For good or ill, people get their values from culture. Poetry is one aspect of culture and what is repeated in culture has the power to change or reinforce people’s values. This poem is dangerous because it suggests that violence and mischief are justified against Budlight, Target and drag queens. It is a wish fulfillment fantasy. I think this will be my last comment. Reply
Susan Jarvis Bryant July 5, 2023 “We’re here. We’re queer. We’re coming for your children!” I would love to hear what you think of this particular mantra, Mr. Lindsay? I’ve taken this threat at face value. Should we speak up for our children (being irreversibly neutered at an unprecedented rate) … or not? Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 hi Susan, I won’t be commenting any further on this poem. I’ve tried to make the argument that it advocates and normalizes violence against people and corporations that the author disagrees with. These are the tactics of ANTIFA. I hope there are other readers who will agree with me.
Mike Bryant July 5, 2023 I’m not surprised you’ve ignored my wife and others. You have been exposed as the one proposing and supporting violence on those you disagree with and on the groomed, confused minors you refuse to defend. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Mike, I’ve tried to limit my comments to this poem, and not other topics. It is slander to accuse me of supporting violence against people I disagree with when my comments clearly state the exact opposite. That is a false accusation and it does not reflect well on your character. Reply
Yael July 5, 2023 Lol, this poem complete with its comments section is crazy entertaining! I laughed so hard I nearly soiled my cross dressing camo pants. I am now caterwauling at my keyboard in righteous outrage because I’ve ascertained, using my advanced public university education, that the eagles clearly, exclusively, and most definitely represent WWII allied bomber planes and my German maternal grandfather who was a Nazi pilot in Hitler’s Luftwaffe was killed by one of those while flying on a mission near the end of that war. I am now gravely traumatized and injured by my interpretation of the reading of your poem and I will not budge from my position until I receive some reparations. And if anyone here wants to rain on my Rorschach ink blot parade I will play the perfect victim card, owing to the fact that my paternal grandfather was a German Jewish lawyer who had to flee to Palestine to survive said war. Tell me I don’t have all my bases covered. Where’s my mullah? Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 5, 2023 Yael, that is a perfect rejoinder! You had me in stitches with your faux deciphering of my intentions in writing the poem. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 5, 2023 Joseph, yes, you have mocked me which doesn’t reflect well on your character. However, I am glad we are in agreement on two things: this poem is violent and it imagines violence against individuals and groups the author disagrees with. In my view, poems like this only serve to normalize and encourage violence in America. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 5, 2023 Even if you’re somehow right, so what? Is it really anywhere near as horrible as the Abortion Holocaust? Over 60 million dead since 1973 means more dead than if the KKK were to kill every black person in the United States living today. So don’t you dare claim to be against violence unless you renounce any ties to the left here and now. Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 5, 2023 Maybe you should stop worrying about us here in America, and start worrying about your politically and intellectually enslaved country of Canada, and its deliquescence into a socialist cesspool. Your unwillingness to address the points made by me and others in this thread doesn’t reflect well on your honesty. But then again, I guess you have to worry about your job. For you, silence really is the Golden Rule. Reply
Shaun C. Duncan July 6, 2023 Great stuff, Roy – witty and savage as satire should be. It’s a shame we live in such a wan and humourless era when people are spring-loaded to take offence at the slightest impropriety, but this only shows how urgent the demand for strong satire really is. I hope your next effort causes even more consternation. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Bless you, Shaun, and thank you. You hit the nail on the head, and I appreciate the encouragement! Reply
Steve Todd July 6, 2023 Feelings running high on this one, it seems. This just goes to show how subjective comedy is! Let’s be honest, arguments over poetic form in this case are the reddest of herrings. It’s a proxy war skirmish of clashing world-views. In a broader sense, it also illustrates a sad but commonplace situation where people are primed to extract every iota of offence possible from whatever is placed in front of them. It never occurs to them that something can be simply what it is, an object of amusement rather than an exhortation of pure truth or a dog-whistle call to violence. Ascribing malicious intent to the author as a default position speaks more to the mindset of the critic than the creator. I guess everything’s a ‘problematic’ nail to a hammer. As perhaps another angle to this (and hear me out) it’s interesting to me (as a Brit) that in terms of satire, you *could* actually read this as a gentle lampooning of the stereotypical US ‘Patriot’ legacy media have done their best to perpetuate over the years. Rightly or wrongly, the eagle itself is almost a comedic trope at this point, rarely drawn without ferrying a ‘basket of deplorables’ about safely in its talons. I know full well that that is *not* the intent. However, given that *possible* interpretation, might harshly judging this not simply speak to confirmation bias wrapped around two-dimensional thinking..? Maybe it’s just…you know…brace yourself…a thoroughly and self-evidently tongue-in-cheek, funny poem that sadly didn’t land with you? And that’s OK. Regardless of what this piece is or isn’t, and notwithstanding the barbs being traded in the comments, it made me smile for a minute. As a reasonable human being (I hope?) I’m entirely comfortable in the assumption that Mr Peterson’s intention in writing this was entirely to that end, and thank him for it. Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 6, 2023 Mr. Todd, your comments are like a breath of fresh air. And nothing is truer than your judgment that this argument wasn’t about poetic forms, but rather “a proxy war skirmish of clashing world-views.” There is a major disability shared by almost all poets and critics working today, whether they are politically left, right, center, religious, or indifferent. It affects many here, as well as at left-liberal workshops and websites. And that is the notion that poems are always about ideas and feelings and beliefs and political-religious commitments, and the related notion that what a poet expresses in his poems is a sincere testament to his cherished opinions, like Luther’s theses nailed to the church door. When I try to explain to others that this is a misconception, I almost always get a quizzical and baffled look, for the simple reason that too many people believe poetry is merely a means of communicating ideas (usually “great” or “important” or “timeless” ones), and that the poet’s worth is naturally determined by the correctness of those ideas rather than the quality of his compositional skills. For what it’s worth, I’ll say it for the umpteenth time — poetry is fictive mimesis, and poems are fictive artifacts. They are either expertly crafted and beautiful, or amateurish and ugly. Raising moral objections to the things said in a poem is like raising moral objections to the glazing on a ceramic vase. The dispute in this thread started when someone raised a non-aesthetic objection to a poem, based on some categorical moral imperative in his mind. Quite naturally, this ignited the fireworks. Once you start “debating” what is said in a poem, you stir up opposition from those who agree with what was said. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Joseph, your words are wonderfully written and explicated by one of the great literary scholars of our time. I admire both your poetry and your comments, since I learn so much from them. I am both inspired and encouraged by your support. Thank you for your comments at various locations on this thread.
Chris July 6, 2023 Joseph, you wrote: “Raising moral objections to the things said in a poem is like raising moral objections to the glazing on a ceramic vase.“ This is a false equivalency. Unlike the glazing on a vase, words and sentences have meaning. This is simply a way to shut down any criticism of the theme of the poem. Not all poems have a thematic message but this one clearly does. The author thinks it is funny to imagine violence against transgender persons and the corporations that support them. It is quite frankly a form of hate speech. He has the constitutional right to do it but according to biblical principle, not all speech is noble or good.
Joseph S. Salemi July 6, 2023 I assume this is the same Chris Lindsay. Chris, once again, your categorical moral imperatives are showing. All literature is a licensed zone of hyper-reality, where all is permitted. And judging a poem by whether or not you agree with its content is a profoundly un-literary stance to take. I expect that only from my slower sophomores. Poems have appeared here at the SCP, the political or religious contents of which I disagree with. But if I critique a poem it is on the basis of its construction and success as a poem! I am a Roman Catholic. That doesn’t prevent me from appreciating the humor and skill and technical craft of Robert Browning’s satirical spoof of monastic life (“Soliloquy of a Spanish Cloister”), or Milton’s anti-hierarchical prose. I am an extreme right-wing reactionary. That doesn’t prevent me from being a dedicated fan of the poetry of Dorothy Parker, a hard leftist. I love Byron’s work, even though he was a political radical. This is why I always warn young poets against getting trapped in the quicksand of “the three miseries” (meaning, message, and moral). When you are obsessed with a poem’s ideas or theme (just code-words for the three miseries) you are reading the poem as a philistine, and not as a sophisticated adult. I’ve got news for you. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH. There is only free speech, and enslaved speech. “Hate speech” is a bogus category dreamt up by left-liberals, minority pressure groups, and their academic groupies as a convenient charge against any speech by conservatives that they dislike or fear. And that is why it is supremely hypocritical of you to charge that I am attempting to “shut down criticism.” You are the one (along with the vast support of mainstream media, governmental bureaucrats, and academics) who is trying to make all public and private speech liable to censorship and legal penalties. You, as a Canadian, are living under the thumb of Trudeau’s imposed speech codes, mandated pronoun usages, and open persecution of political opponents. And yet you have the sheer cheek to bring your damned categorical imperatives here to the SCP, to lecture us in the United States about how we should censor and edit our poems? I’ve got more news for you. We will say and write whatever the bloody hell we want. Got that?
Joshua C. Frank July 6, 2023 Chris, get a life. Nobody’s falling for your spiel. You’re not going to change any of our minds with your woke garbage. Go somewhere else and quit wasting everybody’s time.
Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Steve, you are the voice of reason in a dissonant world and make a compelling case. I am always fascinated by what one sees and interprets in a poem. Those who seek to label a product and libel the creator are often mistaken and misguided. Your points and arguments are well-stated and meaningful. Thank you. Reply
Monika Cooper July 6, 2023 If the eagles are metaphorical in the poem, their actions are metaphorical too. They seem to be pranksters or trolls in the culture war, they might even be satirical poets themselves. They are not angels. But if you want to see how God and His angels will deal with people who mutilate, terrorize, and scandalize little ones, or harvest their organs and tissue, stick around. It won’t be pretty (for them) but, I promise, it will be beautiful. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 6, 2023 Amen, Monika. Wonderful and fitting comments. Bless you and thank you for the images. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joseph– It is a well-established practice in Universities that poetry can be analyzed based on its theme. You wrote: “And judging a poem by whether or not you agree with its content is a profoundly un-literary stance to take.” You are not the final authority on how poems should or should not be judged. If you think you are the final authority, then you have a god complex. There is more than one way to judge the merit or value of a poem. Yes, its aesthetic qualities are important, but theme matters too. There are very few poems published by SOCP that don’t have a theme. It is what sets SOCP apart from countless literary journals. Your “categorical imperative” that that a poem should only be judged based on its aesthetic qualities is a convenient way to sidestep the problematic theme of Peterson’s poem. There is such a thing as hate speech despite your denial that it exists. You have the constitutional right in America to express hate and imagine violence against people you disagree with, but that does not mean it is noble or good. Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation” I would argue that by imagining violence against people he disagrees with, Peterson’s poem is encouraging violence, even if that wasn’t his conscious intent. It is bizarre that you accuse me of “categorical imperatives” while declaring categorical imperatives of your own. I have no problem with judging a poem based on its aesthetic qualities, but you seem to think it is the only way to judge a poem. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 6, 2023 I assume you’re liberal and therefore pro-choice. In that case, you have no more room to talk about hate speech than Hitler himself, since abortion is murder. To advocate for abortion is therefore hate speech in and of itself. I don’t believe anything you say, or anything any other liberal says, on right and wrong for that reason alone (and there are many other reasons, but that’s the most prominent). “Physician, heal thyself.” Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 6, 2023 Whenever I hear the word “theme” used in connection with poems, I get dyspepsia. Why? It reminds me of when I edited the journal Iambs and Trochees with Bill Carlson back in the 1990s. Every week Bill and I would get letters of inquiry from potential submitters asking us what the “theme” was for the next issue. These were usually from amateur poets who expected us to answer with words like “Friendship” or “Autumn Leaves” or “True Love” or “The Animal Kingdom” or some such stupid category. Bill always gave me the task of answering these people, and they got short shrift from me. I told them that we had no “themes,” and we simply chose the poems that were the very best of those submitted, regardless of their subject matter. We did not judge poems by their subject, but by how perfectly crafted they were. Many poets were shocked by this, and wrote back to complain about our “lack of human warmth.” After a while, however, potential submitters got the idea, and we weren’t troubled anymore with poems about the joys of spring, heartfelt romance, vapid coming-of-age tales, pet cats, or disguised sermons. Chris mentioned in an earlier post that poems are made of words and language, and that many of them have “themes” (by which he means the three miseries of message, meaning, and moral). Yes, of course. But those things are the armature on which the poem is built, not its primary purpose. The aim of the poet is to produce a dazzling artifact of language and syntax, and what it’s about is purely secondary. The poem is a mosaic of carefully fitted tesserae of multicolored words and phrases, linked into a magnificent whole which is perceived AS A WHOLE, and not as a list of propositions to be argued and debated. It could be a Christian mosaic of the Crucifixion, a Jewish mosaic of the Mogen David, or a pagan mosaic of a dying gladiator. This is not a categorical imperative imposed by me — this is the way all great poets have approached their work. If poems were about their “themes” (i.e. meaning or message), then there would be absolutely no need at all for poetry to exist! You can present a theme or a message is straight prose, with no ambiguities or stylistic fillips or verbal decor. The use of meter and rhyme and tropes and figures would be totally supererogatory and pointless! By the way, undergraduates see this IMMEDIATELY. If a professor is dumb enough to concentrate on a poem’s “meaning” or “message,” the sensible retort from many students is “Why the hell didn’t he just TELL us what he wanted to say?” When you think that poems are primarily about their ideas or themes, you have no answer whatsoever for those students. Chris Lindsay uses the word “problematic.” It’s a dead giveaway to his entire mindset. The word means nothing except that somebody, somewhere, has a “problem” with what is being discussed. The word is loved by left-liberals, who use it as an all-purpose condemnation of what they don’t like, without giving a specific explanation. Another sign of his worldview is his quotation from the Cambridge Dictionary, the prime left-liberal woke dictionary that refuses (out of deference to trannies) to give anything but a weasel-word definition of what a “woman” is. They were sure to give a definition for the fake political category of “hate speech.” Lindsay seems to have a lot of trouble with poetry that expresses or celebrates violence. I wonder if he has read the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Arthurian romances, Beowulf, El Cid, Gierusalemme Liberata, or the Song of Roland. Just askin’. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joseph — I have published three poems on this site, and two of them are violent. I have no problem with violence in a poem per se. What I have a problem with is the theme of Peterson’s poem, which imagines violence against people and corporations he disagrees with. These are the tactics of ANTIFA, a group that neither you nor Peterson admire. If a private citizen did what Peterson calls the eagles to do in his poem, they would be arrested. Hence, how can anyone with a properly functioning conscience approve of this poem? I greatly value the aesthetic qualities of a poem, but the theme of this poem moved me to take a stand and act according to my conscience. I don’t support citizens using violence, except in situations like self-defense, where it is a legal act. It is shocking to me that so many Christians on this site are supportive of a poem that images violence against people they disagree with. You’ve made many judgements about what you think my beliefs are. Beware of the sin of false accusation. I have chosen not to participate in an inquisition of what my beliefs are. My focus has been on the theme of this poem, which you don’t seem to care about because you only value a poem’s aesthetic qualities. If that is the lens in which you judge a poem, so be it. But don’t make yourself the final authority on how a poem is to be judged. I value both a poem’s theme and its aesthetic qualities. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joseph— I would be curious to know how you would interpret the theme of this poem. I know it isn’t something that interests you but as a highly educated academic I would like to know your interpretation. It is ironic that I’ve found more common ground with you than the other people who have responded to my comments. On many points you are a straight shooter and tell it like it is. You are the only person I recall who will admit the poem is violent and imagines violence. I believe in the biblical principal— do not imitate what is evil bit imitate what is good. The eagles in this poem are being called to imitate antifa, albeit with a different target.
Joshua C. Frank July 6, 2023 I notice you’re not answering any of my questions, which tells me that you believe exactly as I assume and that my accusations of hate speech against you are warranted. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will go on assuming this.
Chris Lindsay July 6, 2023 Joshua — I am not going to participate in a Inquisition or an ideological values test to see if my beliefs are worthy of your respect. Beware of falsely accusing me of things I do not believe and mind-reading. I have criticized this poem for its theme and not fitting the traditional (or commonly known) definition of satire. If you want to analyze the theme of the poem–its moral meaning or main idea–I would love to hear it. “Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. ” 3 John 1:11 The eagles in this poem are being called to imitate the tactics of ANTIFA and commit acts that are illegal. Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 Lindsay, I really don’t know what else to say, since we seem to be speaking at cross purposes. You don’t seem to have listened to a single point I have made. I can only quote some of the things you have said or asked, and try to make a comment on them. Here goes: LINDSAY: “What I have a problem with is the theme of Peterson’s poem, which imagines violence against people and corporations he disagrees with.” MY RESPONSE: The operative word is “imagines.” He is talking about metaphorical eagles, and he is fantasizing about what kind of violence they could do. He has the right to do that. Period. I have mentioned eight major works of literature that do the same thing, and you have ignored them. When Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade against the Seljuk Turks who had seized the Holy Land, he called for violent action against them, and referred to these Turks as “an accursed race, wholly alienated from God.” Did the Pope give a bad sermon? Is that “hate speech”? Or is it what everybody says when they go to war? Good grief — calls for violence or hopes for violence are a part of human nature! LINDSAY: “If a private citizen did what Peterson calls the eagles to do in his poem, he would be arrested.” MY RESPONSE: Oh please! Are you that naive? Right now hoodlums and thugs all over the United States are looting and wrecking stores, stealing property, and attacking innocent persons. And our goddamned illegitimate government IS DOING NOTHING, and LETTING IT HAPPEN! Are you blind, Lindsay? No one is getting arrested, except those few brave persons who dare to fight back! And all you can do is whine about the metaphors that make you uncomfortable in LTC Peterson’s poem? LINDSAY: “You are the only person I recall who will admit the poem is violent and imagines violence.” MY RESPONSE: A poem cannot be “violent.” Only an active agent can be “violent.” A poem is just something on a page or a screen. This poem of Peterson IMAGINES violence, just as someone might IMAGINE raping a woman but not actually doing it. You simply cannot see the basic unexamined assumption in your language. It is the false left-liberal assumption that language can be an ACT, and therefore a legal offense. That is a completely untrue notion, and has been consciously designed by people of your ilk as a weapon against those who oppose you. LINDSAY: “I would be curious to know how you would interpret the theme of this poem.” MY RESPONSE: The word “theme” sickens me no end. It is petty, sophomoric, and un-literary. But here is what I would say as a brief explication de texte: Peterson’s poem is an extended metaphorical address, in which “great eagles” are urged to circle and dive in attack formation on certain hated enemies. Those enemies include a stupid retail store that enraged many of its customers with obnoxious pandering to perverts, a beer corporation that did the same thing, a disgusting parade of rainbow flags that represent the perverts in question, and publicly posturing drag queens marching in the parade. The imagined attacks, in proper order, are as follows: tearing up clothes in the retail store; breaking open and spilling the beer corporation’s products in said store; ripping up the hated rainbow flags; and dropping dung on the heads of the drag queen marchers. The whole thing is imagined with humor and relish, and it represents the feelings of millions of American citizens. There is no moral or message here, other than the expression of the writer’s imagined satisfaction if these actions were to take place. That’s it. No deep thoughts, no categorical imperatives, no clutching of pearls in shocked indignation. Just a playful and fanciful poem. Only self-appointed moralists and sentimental religionists will have a problem with the piece. Also, let me end with a bit of polemical advice. In a dispute of this nature, dealing with images and imaginative pictures of violence, it is utterly absurd for you to quote scriptural passages or refer to your “biblical” principles. Do you have any idea how violent and blood-drenched and vengeful the Bible can be? Reply
Anneka Spice July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 Anneka, read my comments below before casting judgement. We all have a right and duty to defend our positions, or lack thereof. Reply
Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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 Reply
Anneka Spice July 8, 2023 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!
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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.] Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Paul Freeman July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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?
Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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.
Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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.”
Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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.
Talbot Hook July 7, 2023 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.
Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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.
Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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.
Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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)
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Michael Vanyukov July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Roy Eugene Peterson July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Joshua C. Frank July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 8, 2023 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.
Joseph S. Salemi July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Chris Lindsay July 7, 2023 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. Reply
Joseph S. Salemi July 8, 2023 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. Reply
mia July 8, 2023 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 Reply
The Society July 8, 2023 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 Reply
Chris Lindsay July 8, 2023 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. Reply
Anneka Spice July 8, 2023 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. Reply
