Now let's hope that the subsequent civil suit by the lacrosse players succeeds and is able to bankrupt former Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong for his attempted railroading of these players. Here is a great summary by Professor K.C. Johnson at the Durham in Wonderland blog of the perfectly justified end to a long and painful story for the players and an equally pathetic, sad story of greed and lust for power by an attorney low enough to exploit racial tensions in a dubious case to stay in office. I only wish the hysterical "Group of 88" professors at Duke suffered the same or worse fate than Mr. Nifong for their rush to judgment and slander of these young men in the media, but the ivory tower will protect them and likely settle with the players' attorneys out of court. Here's to hoping that every last one of them are fired and that the only job they can get is as a garbage hauler or something similarly distateful. And to close things out, this report by the North Carolina Attorney General's office regarding this case is as damning as it gets for a lawyer.
"Duff Wilson continued his slanted coverage of the case right up until the end. Covering an unprecedented event—the stripping of a sitting DA’s law license for misconduct in his highest-profile case ever—that culminated with a dramatic, eloquent, and extemporaneous address by Disciplinary Hearing Commission chairman Lane Williamson, who was the first person quoted in Wilson’s article?
Nifong attorney David Freedman.
Who was the second person quoted?
Nifong’s wife, Cy Gurney.
Then, almost as an afterthought, Wilson got around to Chairman Williamson’s remarks. In his statement, Williamson twice termed the case a “fiasco”—a comment that appropriately led the N&O, AP, and the Chronicle stories on the day’s events.
The quote never appeared in Wilson’s article.
What did Wilson quote?
We had a prosecutor who was faced with a very unusual situation in which the confluence of his self-interest collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex and class,” Mr. Williamson said of the media spectacle that accompanied the case in which a black woman who worked as a stripper accused three white lacrosse players.
For good measure, Wilson closed by misidentifying the attorney who delivered the closing argument for the State Bar. His name is Doug Brocker, not (as Wilson wrote) Doug Brock. Since Wilson spent so much time around the defense table at the hearing, perhaps he didn’t learn the name of the man who cross-examined Nifong.
---------
Brocker’s closing was a masterful performance—a highly organized summary of the case complete with visuals outlining Nifong’s myriad, mutually contradictory, excuses on why he didn’t turn over the exculpatory DNA evidence. Brocker’s PowerPoint slide with headshots of Nifong’s various media appearances was particularly effective.
He also delivered one of the best lines of the entire case, describing Nifong as a “minister of injustice.”
----------
Even for those who have followed the case closely, many new facts emerged from the hearing. A partial list:
The language in the non-testimonial order stating that the DNA tests would exonerate the innocent was written not by Nifong or his office but by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.
On March 27, the first business day after he had assumed personal control of the investigation of the case, Nifong met with Gottlieb and Ben Himan. After the two summarized the case, with its many holes, Nifong said, “You know, we’re fucked.”
According to his calendar, Nifong nonetheless had already scheduled interviews with the state and national media almost all the afternoon of March 27, in which he began his defamatory pre-primary publicity barrage.
Nifong sought indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty without watching the video presentation in which Crystal Mangum “identified” them—and probably without, he conceded, even reading the transcript of this presentation.
Nifong sought an indictment against Reade Seligmann without even knowing whether Seligmann attended the party.
In his deposition to the Bar, Gottlieb claimed that Nifong and Meehan went over the May 12 report line by line. Nifong said he never read the report.
The chief staffer for NC’s Innocence Inquiry Commission was willing to testify in Nifong’s defense.
One of Nifong’s predecessors as Durham DA, now-retired judge Anthony Brannon, openly admitted that he did his best to refrain from handing over discovery, of any type, to defense lawyers.
Two Durham judges, Marsha Morey and Elaine Bushfan, declared under oath that a man soon to be disciplined on 27 matters, many of them for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, has a reputation for truthfulness in Durham.
In his Friday testimony, Nifong eight times referred to Mangum as the victim.
According to Nifong, his behavior in this case was typical; he rarely reads files.
Even Himan was worried by the decision to ahead with indictments.
---------
Steven D. Michael, president of the North Carolina State Bar, issued the following statement on Nifong’s disbarment:
I am satisfied that justice was done in the Nifong case and am proud to say that our system of self-regulation worked well. Mr. Nifong received a fair trial. All interested parties – but especially the citizens of North Carolina – were finally able to see all the evidence relating to this extremely unfortunate case of professional misconduct.
.
I was very impressed with the effective and thoroughly professional presentation made by the State Bar’s lawyers, Katherine Jean, Doug Brocker and Carmen Hoyme. I also thought Mr. Nifong was well represented.
.
The members of the DHC’s Hearing Committee deserve thanks and commendation as well. They presided over a very difficult case in a fair and extremely competent fashion.
.
In my experience, misconduct of the sort Mr. Nifong engaged in is very rare and not at all typical of prosecutors in our state. We deeply regret the serious harm caused to these young men and their families. We hope the decision today will lessen the likelihood that anything like this will happen again.
.
The Bar’s strong response to this situation made clear that the ethical rules restricting pretrial public comment and requiring prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence will be strictly enforced. Those rules are important because they ensure the fundamental right to a fair trial that every citizen is guaranteed in our constitution."
Monday, August 27, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Danger of Welfare is the Lack of Incentives
As Mrs. DuToit so clearly and succinctly (as usual) points out in this post, even if it is what most people with any sense of pride, ambition, self-respect, etc. would consider to be a substandard, insulting, helpless form of existence, there are WAAAAYYYY too many people in this country who are content to sit on their worthless, ever-widening posteriors waiting for the government cheese to come. They care nothing about forcing others to pay their way in life, and it absolutely infuriates me. I'm not talking about people who are truly disabled physically or mentally...I'm talking about people who are on SSI, disability, food stamps, etc. ad nauseam because they happen to be: 1.) owners of an entitlement mentality roughly the size of Billary Clintons' collective ego; 2.) a member of a perpetually aggrieved ethnic minority; and/or 3.) lazier than the day is long and even more useless. Government assistance is allegedly supposed to be a helping hand to those who genuinely make an effort to support themselves and their families and fall on temporary hard times, but it is not supposed to be an excuse for those who fall on hard times to stay there and slop at the government trough at taxpayer expense, nor is it supposed to be simply another web woven in the grand cradle to grave government welfare hammock. I've said it before, but it bears repeating...when 50% plus one of the citizenry of this country are on the government dole, any chance for tax and/or welfare reform is over. If that ever happens, I think America as we know it will introduce itself to the now defunct, deceased Roman Empire in a most infamous, agonizing manner in a few short generations. This one is short but packed with goodies, so read the whole thing.
"If someone else pays my rent, buys me food, pays for my medical care, what is the incentive for me to do anything?
I keep hearing about how there are X million people without health insurance. Of course that’s big fat bait and switch. It doesn’t say how many of those millions of people don’t have access to health care. Like none. Oh, you mean they’d either qualify for Medicare or they’d have to pay for it. Yeah, OK. And? Like I did for 15 years? I couldn’t afford medical insurance either, because my taxes were too high, paying for the medical expenses of others!
Then we’re told that there are children who don’t have medical insurance.
I guess their parents should do something about that then. Or they should have thought about that before they decided to have children.
There are people who don’t have fur coats, too. I don’t lose sleep over that either.
Don’t get me wrong. I think giving other people a helping hand is a integral part of being a decent person. But people should have to ask for help, not collect a monthly check paid for by a bunch of anonymous people. That takes the sting out of it. It is too easy to forget that it did come from the pockets of others. It is money they could have spent on their own children or (heaven forbid) on themselves, if they had a say in it. They could have decided to give some of that extra money to someone they knew who needed it. Instead, we’re forced to give it to people we do not know, who may or may not be deserving of it.
Please excuse my foul mood. I looked at the total annual withholding for taxes on my last pay-stub. Considering that about 60% of what I’ve paid in goes towards entitlements, I’m not feeling terribly charitable about paying more of other people’s costs at the moment.
When is tax freedom day these days? I think mine will be sometime in November."
"If someone else pays my rent, buys me food, pays for my medical care, what is the incentive for me to do anything?
I keep hearing about how there are X million people without health insurance. Of course that’s big fat bait and switch. It doesn’t say how many of those millions of people don’t have access to health care. Like none. Oh, you mean they’d either qualify for Medicare or they’d have to pay for it. Yeah, OK. And? Like I did for 15 years? I couldn’t afford medical insurance either, because my taxes were too high, paying for the medical expenses of others!
Then we’re told that there are children who don’t have medical insurance.
I guess their parents should do something about that then. Or they should have thought about that before they decided to have children.
There are people who don’t have fur coats, too. I don’t lose sleep over that either.
Don’t get me wrong. I think giving other people a helping hand is a integral part of being a decent person. But people should have to ask for help, not collect a monthly check paid for by a bunch of anonymous people. That takes the sting out of it. It is too easy to forget that it did come from the pockets of others. It is money they could have spent on their own children or (heaven forbid) on themselves, if they had a say in it. They could have decided to give some of that extra money to someone they knew who needed it. Instead, we’re forced to give it to people we do not know, who may or may not be deserving of it.
Please excuse my foul mood. I looked at the total annual withholding for taxes on my last pay-stub. Considering that about 60% of what I’ve paid in goes towards entitlements, I’m not feeling terribly charitable about paying more of other people’s costs at the moment.
When is tax freedom day these days? I think mine will be sometime in November."
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Kender's Socialist Smackdown Manifesto
As Emperor Misha is fond of saying, I really don't have anything to add to what Kender over at Kender's Musings said about socialists right here. As someone once told me, "Yeah, what he said, in triplicate." I will never understand why a failed ideology that has brough about the deaths of over 100 million people since its inception worldwide still has such a cult following, but what I do know is that I will fight it at every turn with every fiber of my being. Read it all, and enjoy every minute of it...I know I did.
An Open Letter to Socialists
"I will keep this short and sweet.
I despise you.
Let's not mince words.
You disgust me.
Socialism takes away the greatness of the human spirit. Without the possibility of abject failure the possibility of true success cannot be possible.
Imagine a ladder. Imagine a wall that stretches for infinity and has ladders all along it.
In your system the ladders are ten feet tall, at a 45 degree angle and bolted to a wall and there are cushions beneath it. All but the most inept creatures make it up their ladder, to mingle with all of the others that have made it up their ladder.
Where is the glory? Where are the people that have conquered adversity to rise up and shine as an example for the rest of us?
In your system, they simply don't exist.
Now imagine that wall is now higher than you can see. It disappears into the clouds, and lining it are ladders leaning up close to the wall, not bolted on, and there are no cushions below to break your fall. Once you start climbing the ladder you find that every so often there is a level place where you can step off and stay if you wish. But you find that the higher you climb, the more enjoyable are the amenities.
Which ladder do you want to try to climb?
I want to climb that ladder into the clouds. Oh sure, I know I may fall, but the rewards are greater the higher I climb. I don't want to climb the little ladder and be mingling with the people that also made it up that ladder. Where is the glory in that?
Where is the greatness of the human spirit?
You folks that believe we should have a more equal outcome, and that life isn't fair, want to set up the system to give everyone short ladders on an easy climb.
And that is because you are cowards.
You are so scared of actually failing that you want to live in a system that takes away the possibility of failure, and to hide that cowardice you hide your intentions in alleged goals of "helping our fellow man."
Help them do what? Be mediocre? Be run of the mill? Help them be just like everyone else? Help them be cowardly like you?
You socialists are so craven that you cringe at the thought of anyone actually succeeding, and hide behind platitudes and feel good language all the while hoping that nobody realizes what weak creatures you really are, and you sit around with a smug air of superiority that deep down you know is a hypocritical lie, and you grow to hate yourselves for it.
I am ashamed to share a planet with you.
I am ashamed to share DNA with you.
To those of you in the U.S. I am doubly ashamed to share a country with you. Move to France.
I am ashamed that there are humans so scared of life, so terrified of actually being a human and failing, that you advocate a system to make failure the only possible outcome for all. I just wish you knew what it felt like to be ashamed, but you have no more shame. Your fear has overcome all of your other emotions, and you are leading us down a path that is going to make humanity much duller, less colorful and simply pointless.
Thanks for that.
Now hang your head and cry."
An Open Letter to Socialists
"I will keep this short and sweet.
I despise you.
Let's not mince words.
You disgust me.
Socialism takes away the greatness of the human spirit. Without the possibility of abject failure the possibility of true success cannot be possible.
Imagine a ladder. Imagine a wall that stretches for infinity and has ladders all along it.
In your system the ladders are ten feet tall, at a 45 degree angle and bolted to a wall and there are cushions beneath it. All but the most inept creatures make it up their ladder, to mingle with all of the others that have made it up their ladder.
Where is the glory? Where are the people that have conquered adversity to rise up and shine as an example for the rest of us?
In your system, they simply don't exist.
Now imagine that wall is now higher than you can see. It disappears into the clouds, and lining it are ladders leaning up close to the wall, not bolted on, and there are no cushions below to break your fall. Once you start climbing the ladder you find that every so often there is a level place where you can step off and stay if you wish. But you find that the higher you climb, the more enjoyable are the amenities.
Which ladder do you want to try to climb?
I want to climb that ladder into the clouds. Oh sure, I know I may fall, but the rewards are greater the higher I climb. I don't want to climb the little ladder and be mingling with the people that also made it up that ladder. Where is the glory in that?
Where is the greatness of the human spirit?
You folks that believe we should have a more equal outcome, and that life isn't fair, want to set up the system to give everyone short ladders on an easy climb.
And that is because you are cowards.
You are so scared of actually failing that you want to live in a system that takes away the possibility of failure, and to hide that cowardice you hide your intentions in alleged goals of "helping our fellow man."
Help them do what? Be mediocre? Be run of the mill? Help them be just like everyone else? Help them be cowardly like you?
You socialists are so craven that you cringe at the thought of anyone actually succeeding, and hide behind platitudes and feel good language all the while hoping that nobody realizes what weak creatures you really are, and you sit around with a smug air of superiority that deep down you know is a hypocritical lie, and you grow to hate yourselves for it.
I am ashamed to share a planet with you.
I am ashamed to share DNA with you.
To those of you in the U.S. I am doubly ashamed to share a country with you. Move to France.
I am ashamed that there are humans so scared of life, so terrified of actually being a human and failing, that you advocate a system to make failure the only possible outcome for all. I just wish you knew what it felt like to be ashamed, but you have no more shame. Your fear has overcome all of your other emotions, and you are leading us down a path that is going to make humanity much duller, less colorful and simply pointless.
Thanks for that.
Now hang your head and cry."
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Informed Opinions and Decisions
This post is one of the reasons I so enjoy reading a deep, thoughtful post by Mrs. DuToit. Quite simply, she breaks it down chapter and verse where almost anyone can understand it...you know, Forrest Gump style. In this case, she calls out in devastating fashion the childish behavior of anyone of any political or ideological stripe who engages in name-calling, fact-absent arguing, or relying on someone who has no knowledge of the subject matter about which they speak as an "authority" (i.e. Holly-weirdos thinking they should be in charge of foreign policy because they saw a starving kid from Africa on a TV once). I don't mind debating someone who may have a different opinion than I do, especially if they have insight, facts, or experience that I may not. That said, the ultimate decision of what facts to put stock in, what decisions to make, and what goals to pursue on the basis of those things stays with me even after the debate is done. I respect other folks' right to disagree, to be wrong, and to believe in what they believe, and I expect the same in return. Where that respect ends, however, is generally right around the place the other person's hand reaches into my family's pocketbook to support ideas with which I do not agree, and it only increases when the motivation for that money grab is based on dubious fact (i.e. glow-bull warming). Anyhow, read the whole thing...it's good stuff.
"Informed Opinion"
"Kim recently had a post on opinions, appropriately titled, Opinions. That post focused on the difference between personal tastes/preferences and fact-based opinions.
I want to expand on that a bit, because it appears to me that there are some folks who didn’t have this explained to them.
There is nothing wrong with having tastes and preferences, in fact, it should be encouraged. Developing preferences falls into the category of having a discriminating palate, as opposed to an ignorant palate. Experience leads to preferences and away from ignorance. If you’ve tried 50 different types of cheese you will broaden your palate. You might decide you prefer harder cheeses, or goat cheese, and then expand your experience within that category, but it is all part of the process of broadening your horizons. You might discover you don’t like cheese at all, or certain types of cheese (and that’s fine, too). The end result will be a honing of your preferences so you’ll end up narrowing your selection of categories, and narrow further the categories within.
This is not unlike the academic model. The purpose of grammar school is to provide the student with generalist knowledge. In college, the breadth of knowledge does not increase. The depth of knowledge does. An undergraduate degree is still very much like grammar school, to provide general knowledge of a wide variety of subjects. High school and college provides a greater depth of general knowledge, with only a little specialization by selecting a “major.” Graduate degrees are all about specialization and focus. You study one thing, and study one particular aspect of that thing in more detail. The purpose of graduate degrees is specialization, not to gain a breadth of knowledge. You learn more and more about less and less.
That doesn’t mean that learning stops and should focus only on specialty. It simply means that your formal general education is over and you are now the captain of your general education ship. If someone chooses to focus only on their specialty, that’s fine. That is their choice, too.
What seems to have been lost in this general education road, that all of us were put on when we were children, is the concept of an informed opinion. On some issues (as I illustrated above with personal tastes and preferences) the basis of the opinion is in your own head, and no one should challenge you for citations and sources for opinions in that arena. There are no citations outside of your head and taste buds for taste/preference based opinions.
It is when we stray outside of personal taste and preferences that informed, fact-based decisions come into play. To be blunt, it is what differentiates adults from children. Children have very little real knowledge--of facts and details, and few life experiences that enable adults to form reasonable judgments more quickly. They know they like Chuckee Cheese and stuffed animals, but they don’t have knowledge (or research abilities) sufficient to come to sound conclusions much beyond that. That’s why children are not given the right to vote or the full rights and privileges of adults. They are too easily swayed by fast talkers and snake oil salesmen.
One of the ways I deal with this is that I am adamantly opposed to children making promises or commitments that extend into adulthood. I do not believe it is appropriate, for example, for children to say the pledge of allegiance. They have no idea what the words mean, or what they are pledging, and until they do, I do not believe they should recite empty words and make false promises. What I want my children to know is that their promises must be kept and their commitments more so. I can’t tell them that and expect them to believe me, when I simultaneously encourage them to commit to things they don’t fully understand. Similarly, the fact-based opinions of children are going to tend to be less stable, as more information will come available to them, their opinions will be changed as a result. At least we HOPE so, as that is the goal of education and experience.
Making an informed decision requires that we are informed on the topic. [Yeah, I know, DUH!]
Being informed however, doesn’t mean that someone else informs you and you take what they say at face value, without verifying it. You might have experience with that person to trust their judgment, in a certain area, but on issues of public policy (or on voting, for instance) you have to do some homework. The news media is not a reliable source of information. It may have been better at some point in the past, but even then it wasn’t 100% reliable. A celebrity might know a great deal about acting or movie making, but what experience or specialty knowledge do they possess with International Affairs, Climate, or our rights as articulated in the Constitution? Unless they can be shown to have some expertise and knowledge of those subjects, they are not reliable sources for anything out of their area of expertise. Quoting what a celebrity says, who is not a universally accepted expert in the subject under discussion, is referred to as “an appeal to authority.” The person must demonstrate they are qualified to speak on a subject before what they say has any value.
On something like car repairs, I can go to people I trust and have expertise. That MIGHT be my mechanic. It might not be.
An informed opinion must be based on verifiable facts. The key word here is verifiable. Facts can be true or false, so facts alone aren’t enough.
I’ll illustrate:
It is my opinion that there is no evidence of man-made global warming. There might be global warming, or global cooling, or climate change, but it is my opinion that there is no evidence to suggest that man has anything to do with it. Therefore, I believe it would be inappropriate to take any actions or make public policies that inhibit what man may do in this arena. That doesn’t mean that global warming may not be occurring. Further, it would be appropriate to have plans/policies in place to deal with it, if it should create problems, but this does not include limiting any actions that are preventative in nature (trying to stop the trend). That would be foolish, because what we do has no impact on it at all.
The above is an informed opinion that has a public policy component.
In the statement of opinion above I used the words no evidence. Now some nincompoop is going to come along as say, Yes there is!! Here is a study that says blah blah blah. And since you said there was no evidence and I have just proven that there is, your entire opinion is false. Therefore, we get to tell man to lower his carbon footprint as sound public policy.
Evidence is not always factual. The fact that someone can pull a study out of their butt does not mean that the study is accurate. We have not yet determined if the facts are true or false simply by pulling papers out of the cabinet or pasting a link in a comment post on a blog. When someone includes in their opinion a statement such as there is no evidence to suggest, what they are stating is that there is no reliable evidence to suggest... I am perfectly aware, for example, that there are studies which suggest that man is influencing climate change. I have different studies and other facts which contradict those studies. That means that I have made a judgment. I have made a judgment about the reliability of those facts and have concluded that they are false.
Someone else can make a different determination on the reliability of the facts they have seen. If we can’t come to consensus on the reliability of the facts, then we can’t come to consensus on the soundness of our opinions. That’s OK, but we need to be aware of that.
You don’t argue with someone over their opinion, per se. You argue over the reliability of their facts, providing additional facts that contradict, or other information which demonstrates that their facts are faulty or false, and your facts are less faulty or true.
THAT is argument. Argument is not suggesting that someone is an idiot because they have formed an opinion you do not share. Argument is determining which facts they used to come to that conclusion and debating their reliability or validity. On what basis have you formed the opinion that this person is an idiot? Evidence please. Without evidence the opinion could be slander (if spoken) or libel (if written). And Free Speech does not cover slander or libel, so prepare to be sued in civil court for damages. There are consequences for stating opinions not based on reliable evidence.
If someone says, “because I say so” or “I have no facts. I just believe it” then no argument is possible. If they continue to hold the same fact-based opinion, when their facts have been shown to be false, then they are just being stubborn (and stupid). If there are no facts or there is no way to verify the facts, then NO ARGUMENT IS POSSIBLE. To continue to discuss it at that point isn’t argument. It is fighting. And only children or the willfully ignorant fight over silly things like that."
"Informed Opinion"
"Kim recently had a post on opinions, appropriately titled, Opinions. That post focused on the difference between personal tastes/preferences and fact-based opinions.
I want to expand on that a bit, because it appears to me that there are some folks who didn’t have this explained to them.
There is nothing wrong with having tastes and preferences, in fact, it should be encouraged. Developing preferences falls into the category of having a discriminating palate, as opposed to an ignorant palate. Experience leads to preferences and away from ignorance. If you’ve tried 50 different types of cheese you will broaden your palate. You might decide you prefer harder cheeses, or goat cheese, and then expand your experience within that category, but it is all part of the process of broadening your horizons. You might discover you don’t like cheese at all, or certain types of cheese (and that’s fine, too). The end result will be a honing of your preferences so you’ll end up narrowing your selection of categories, and narrow further the categories within.
This is not unlike the academic model. The purpose of grammar school is to provide the student with generalist knowledge. In college, the breadth of knowledge does not increase. The depth of knowledge does. An undergraduate degree is still very much like grammar school, to provide general knowledge of a wide variety of subjects. High school and college provides a greater depth of general knowledge, with only a little specialization by selecting a “major.” Graduate degrees are all about specialization and focus. You study one thing, and study one particular aspect of that thing in more detail. The purpose of graduate degrees is specialization, not to gain a breadth of knowledge. You learn more and more about less and less.
That doesn’t mean that learning stops and should focus only on specialty. It simply means that your formal general education is over and you are now the captain of your general education ship. If someone chooses to focus only on their specialty, that’s fine. That is their choice, too.
What seems to have been lost in this general education road, that all of us were put on when we were children, is the concept of an informed opinion. On some issues (as I illustrated above with personal tastes and preferences) the basis of the opinion is in your own head, and no one should challenge you for citations and sources for opinions in that arena. There are no citations outside of your head and taste buds for taste/preference based opinions.
It is when we stray outside of personal taste and preferences that informed, fact-based decisions come into play. To be blunt, it is what differentiates adults from children. Children have very little real knowledge--of facts and details, and few life experiences that enable adults to form reasonable judgments more quickly. They know they like Chuckee Cheese and stuffed animals, but they don’t have knowledge (or research abilities) sufficient to come to sound conclusions much beyond that. That’s why children are not given the right to vote or the full rights and privileges of adults. They are too easily swayed by fast talkers and snake oil salesmen.
One of the ways I deal with this is that I am adamantly opposed to children making promises or commitments that extend into adulthood. I do not believe it is appropriate, for example, for children to say the pledge of allegiance. They have no idea what the words mean, or what they are pledging, and until they do, I do not believe they should recite empty words and make false promises. What I want my children to know is that their promises must be kept and their commitments more so. I can’t tell them that and expect them to believe me, when I simultaneously encourage them to commit to things they don’t fully understand. Similarly, the fact-based opinions of children are going to tend to be less stable, as more information will come available to them, their opinions will be changed as a result. At least we HOPE so, as that is the goal of education and experience.
Making an informed decision requires that we are informed on the topic. [Yeah, I know, DUH!]
Being informed however, doesn’t mean that someone else informs you and you take what they say at face value, without verifying it. You might have experience with that person to trust their judgment, in a certain area, but on issues of public policy (or on voting, for instance) you have to do some homework. The news media is not a reliable source of information. It may have been better at some point in the past, but even then it wasn’t 100% reliable. A celebrity might know a great deal about acting or movie making, but what experience or specialty knowledge do they possess with International Affairs, Climate, or our rights as articulated in the Constitution? Unless they can be shown to have some expertise and knowledge of those subjects, they are not reliable sources for anything out of their area of expertise. Quoting what a celebrity says, who is not a universally accepted expert in the subject under discussion, is referred to as “an appeal to authority.” The person must demonstrate they are qualified to speak on a subject before what they say has any value.
On something like car repairs, I can go to people I trust and have expertise. That MIGHT be my mechanic. It might not be.
An informed opinion must be based on verifiable facts. The key word here is verifiable. Facts can be true or false, so facts alone aren’t enough.
I’ll illustrate:
It is my opinion that there is no evidence of man-made global warming. There might be global warming, or global cooling, or climate change, but it is my opinion that there is no evidence to suggest that man has anything to do with it. Therefore, I believe it would be inappropriate to take any actions or make public policies that inhibit what man may do in this arena. That doesn’t mean that global warming may not be occurring. Further, it would be appropriate to have plans/policies in place to deal with it, if it should create problems, but this does not include limiting any actions that are preventative in nature (trying to stop the trend). That would be foolish, because what we do has no impact on it at all.
The above is an informed opinion that has a public policy component.
In the statement of opinion above I used the words no evidence. Now some nincompoop is going to come along as say, Yes there is!! Here is a study that says blah blah blah. And since you said there was no evidence and I have just proven that there is, your entire opinion is false. Therefore, we get to tell man to lower his carbon footprint as sound public policy.
Evidence is not always factual. The fact that someone can pull a study out of their butt does not mean that the study is accurate. We have not yet determined if the facts are true or false simply by pulling papers out of the cabinet or pasting a link in a comment post on a blog. When someone includes in their opinion a statement such as there is no evidence to suggest, what they are stating is that there is no reliable evidence to suggest... I am perfectly aware, for example, that there are studies which suggest that man is influencing climate change. I have different studies and other facts which contradict those studies. That means that I have made a judgment. I have made a judgment about the reliability of those facts and have concluded that they are false.
Someone else can make a different determination on the reliability of the facts they have seen. If we can’t come to consensus on the reliability of the facts, then we can’t come to consensus on the soundness of our opinions. That’s OK, but we need to be aware of that.
You don’t argue with someone over their opinion, per se. You argue over the reliability of their facts, providing additional facts that contradict, or other information which demonstrates that their facts are faulty or false, and your facts are less faulty or true.
THAT is argument. Argument is not suggesting that someone is an idiot because they have formed an opinion you do not share. Argument is determining which facts they used to come to that conclusion and debating their reliability or validity. On what basis have you formed the opinion that this person is an idiot? Evidence please. Without evidence the opinion could be slander (if spoken) or libel (if written). And Free Speech does not cover slander or libel, so prepare to be sued in civil court for damages. There are consequences for stating opinions not based on reliable evidence.
If someone says, “because I say so” or “I have no facts. I just believe it” then no argument is possible. If they continue to hold the same fact-based opinion, when their facts have been shown to be false, then they are just being stubborn (and stupid). If there are no facts or there is no way to verify the facts, then NO ARGUMENT IS POSSIBLE. To continue to discuss it at that point isn’t argument. It is fighting. And only children or the willfully ignorant fight over silly things like that."
Monday, August 13, 2007
New Best Birthday Ever
Last year, I wrote that my birthday in 2006 was one of, if not the best birthdays ever. I got to see some of my best friends and had a rockin' good time for a whole weekend. Well, we got a new contender now...I give you Birthday, 2007!
My birthday is on August 10th, and Althea's is on August 12th, so I had a perfect excuse to make this an all weekend affair. Since I was first on deck, my best friend Mike came in from out of town with a couple of his friends. Despite some communications mix-ups along the way and decidedly sub par food at Red Lobster, Mike got to meet Althea and we had a lot of fun at the restaurant. Then I went back to my place to get ready, and I opened the door to find my entire living room full of presents from Althea, and a dozen of the nicest white roses I'd ever seen on the kitchen counter. It sounds corny, but no one had ever gotten me flowers, and I thought that was very sweet. Althea got me virtually an entire new summer wardrobe of clothes to wear, and they all fit right and matched well together. It was exactly what I needed. Still more surprisingly, we stopped back by Althea's place before heading out on the town for her to pick up a few more things, and I was surprised with still more presents and a very tasty cake...I must say, I felt like the man all night that night. After that, we got ready and went out on the town in downtown Nashville. Mike and his date were busy dancing the night away just as Althea and I were (and my girl can really move, man is she gorgeous...what another nice birthday surprise). We danced until the wee hours and then came home.
Since Sunday is a busy day for Althea and I, I decided to do her birthday stuff on Saturday the 11th, even though her actual birthday is on the 12th. We got up early and drove to Lewisburg so she could meet my Dad. We had a nice breakfast, and everything went well...I think she passed with flying colors and gained the old man's approval. Since I inherited my selectiveness from my Dad, that was no small feat she accomplished winning him over.
After that, I whisked her back to Brentwood for her first of two appointments. First, she spent three hours getting her hair done and receiving a facial. After that, I grabbed her a quick bite of lunch and dropped her off at her second appointment, where she got a deep massage, some hydrotherapy, and a manicure and pedicure. She told me she was floating in spoiled princess relaxation after that, so I think the mission was definitely accomplished there. After that, I told her she had to go home and get dressed nice, because we had one more surprise. I made us reservations at Ruth's Chris in downtown Nashville, and we had a great time. The food was amazing, the service was top-notch, and our waiter was hysterical...I could not have asked for a better dining experience. We took some pictures before dinner and throughout the evening, some of which may be coming to Myspace sometime soon. Then we went home and spent the rest of the night together (not that way you perverts, get your minds out of the gutter!).
The next day, we went to church in the morning, had lunch together, and then I played a kickball doubleheader, which we swept 10-4 and 5-2. All around, this was a weekend to remember, and I can only pray that all the birthdays we spend together in the future will be equal to or better than this one. :)
My birthday is on August 10th, and Althea's is on August 12th, so I had a perfect excuse to make this an all weekend affair. Since I was first on deck, my best friend Mike came in from out of town with a couple of his friends. Despite some communications mix-ups along the way and decidedly sub par food at Red Lobster, Mike got to meet Althea and we had a lot of fun at the restaurant. Then I went back to my place to get ready, and I opened the door to find my entire living room full of presents from Althea, and a dozen of the nicest white roses I'd ever seen on the kitchen counter. It sounds corny, but no one had ever gotten me flowers, and I thought that was very sweet. Althea got me virtually an entire new summer wardrobe of clothes to wear, and they all fit right and matched well together. It was exactly what I needed. Still more surprisingly, we stopped back by Althea's place before heading out on the town for her to pick up a few more things, and I was surprised with still more presents and a very tasty cake...I must say, I felt like the man all night that night. After that, we got ready and went out on the town in downtown Nashville. Mike and his date were busy dancing the night away just as Althea and I were (and my girl can really move, man is she gorgeous...what another nice birthday surprise). We danced until the wee hours and then came home.
Since Sunday is a busy day for Althea and I, I decided to do her birthday stuff on Saturday the 11th, even though her actual birthday is on the 12th. We got up early and drove to Lewisburg so she could meet my Dad. We had a nice breakfast, and everything went well...I think she passed with flying colors and gained the old man's approval. Since I inherited my selectiveness from my Dad, that was no small feat she accomplished winning him over.
After that, I whisked her back to Brentwood for her first of two appointments. First, she spent three hours getting her hair done and receiving a facial. After that, I grabbed her a quick bite of lunch and dropped her off at her second appointment, where she got a deep massage, some hydrotherapy, and a manicure and pedicure. She told me she was floating in spoiled princess relaxation after that, so I think the mission was definitely accomplished there. After that, I told her she had to go home and get dressed nice, because we had one more surprise. I made us reservations at Ruth's Chris in downtown Nashville, and we had a great time. The food was amazing, the service was top-notch, and our waiter was hysterical...I could not have asked for a better dining experience. We took some pictures before dinner and throughout the evening, some of which may be coming to Myspace sometime soon. Then we went home and spent the rest of the night together (not that way you perverts, get your minds out of the gutter!).
The next day, we went to church in the morning, had lunch together, and then I played a kickball doubleheader, which we swept 10-4 and 5-2. All around, this was a weekend to remember, and I can only pray that all the birthdays we spend together in the future will be equal to or better than this one. :)
Friday, August 3, 2007
This Joke Sounds Just Like my Grandmother...Too Funny :)
My brother sent me this joke, which I'd heard before and which does remind me a lot of what my late grandmother on my dad's side might say if she had been called to testify at a trial while she was still with us. It's even funnier to me now because I'm a lawyer myself, and because I deal with folks every day who might easily meet the description of the attorneys given by the little old lady here. I miss her and my grandfather both so much every single day. I think of them often, and can't wait to hug them again in heaven someday. Until then, this one's for you Granny.
"In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand.
He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?" She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you
manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died. The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you to the electric chair."
"In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand.
He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?" She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you
manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned! Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again replied, "Why, yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died. The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a very quiet voice, said, "If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I'll send you to the electric chair."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)