"Jury gives 4 cents to show black lives still don't matter"?

The title of an editorial in the Austin American-Statesman by Leonard Pitts Jr. in the Sunday, June 10, 2018 edition was "Jury gives 4 cents to show black lives still don't matter."

Maybe they don't, and maybe that's why the jury gave 4 cents to the family of a black man for his wrongful death at the hands of a St. Lucie County Sheriff's deputy.

But, Leonard Pitts saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Nothing in the editorial indicates that the jury gave 4 cents as a judgement because the dead man was black.  Could have been, but nothing in the editorial goes toward proving it.  Mr. Pitts doesn't even tell his readers what the racial make-up of the jury was.

I once supervised a case that went to trial where the jury gave one dollar to a woman because she was raped.  She was white.  Did the jury do it because she was white?  No.  They did it because the law required that they find in the woman's favor, but they didn't think she had been damaged.

It is possible that the jury in Mr. Pitts' editorial case felt the same way, and they would have felt exactly the same way if the deceased had been white.

So, all I'm saying is that we, Mr. Pitts included, should not leap to conclusions.  We should not assume that every bad thing that happens to someone black is because they are or were black.  Many times it's the case, but many times it's not.  There has to be some evidence, and Mr. Pitts offered none.

Has the #MeToo Movement Gone Too Far?

My answer to the question of the title is, yes.

Here's my explanation of why.

On Sunday, May6, 2018, the Austin American-Statesman ran an article on the front page headlined "Judge axed for remark sparks #MeToo debate."  If the article is to be believed, an administrative law judge who heard a medical occupational license dispute between a doctor and two female patients who accused him of becoming "... visibly aroused while performing tests on them.  He moved uncomfortably close, they added, and pressed up against them."

The judge ruled against the women and for the doctor, concluding "... the medical board lawyers hadn't proved the charges, citing 'many implausibilities and issues of doubt raised by the evidence.'"

The judge wrote an opinion in which he used a phrase the medical board lawyers found particularly galling.  He wrote that the doctor's office assistant was an "attractive" woman who had nothing bad to say about him and never saw him act inappropriately, sexually or otherwise.

The judge was fired. (In Texas, administrative law judges are hired.)

He was fired despite the fact that many lawyers, some of whom had lost cases before him and some of whom were women, spoke up for him.

Then there is the matter of Morgan Freeman.  It was reported by CNN that Mr. Freeman was accused by several women of treating them inappropriately.  Upon careful examination, however, it was found that none of the women accused Mr. Freeman of doing anything overt.  They accused him of doing things which they interpreted as bad behavior:  standing too close to them, looking at them in the wrong way, or saying things which were not overtly sexual, but which could be interpreted in a sexual way.

This is too far.  Perhaps the judge needed to be fired.  Perhaps Mr. Freeman said and did things that were inappropriate.  But, neither of them did anything that was overtly inappropriate.  It was only inappropriate in the minds of some of those who heard them or saw them.  This is too far.

Let's get some things straight.  There is some behavior that is criminal.  Rape is a crime.  Sexual assault is a crime.  Having sex with a child is a crime.  These things are always criminal and they should be, no matter where or when they happen.

There is some behavior that can make one civilly liable.  When it come to sex, primarily when an employer (or supervisor) treats someone differently because they are a particular sex than they would or do treat people of the other sex.  (This can happen even if the employee is a male or both the employer and the employee are the same sex.)  This is wrong.  It should always be wrong and there should always be a penalty for it.

But, boorish behavior generally is not illegal.  Men can act as crudely as the want (or have to) toward women, as long as it's not a crime and it's not in the workplace.  Catcalls, stares, looks, words.  They can all be inappropriate, but as long as they are not a crime or in the workplace, they are not illegal.

I recently heard a woman, supposedly part of the #MeToo movement, say that "we" will not stop until all statutes of limitations are removed from sexual crimes or workplace sexual behavior lawsuits.

There is either a lack of knowledge or a certain craziness involved in such a statement.  There are reasons for statutes of limitations.  The memories of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses all grow dimmer as time passes.  Memories even change.  Documents become progressively harder to find.  It becomes all but impossible to defend against a claim, even a false claim, if the claimed behavior is old enough.

Let me give you an example.  I am absolutely committed to the idea that everyone who applies for a job should be judged strictly according to their abilities, not their sex, race, nationality, or anything else.  It is difficult for me to imagine how I could be more committed to that concept.

I started hiring people for the Travis Count Attorney's Office about thirty-five years ago.  I gave everyone I ever interviewed the chance for a private interview.  They came into my office, sat down, and talked with me, sometimes for over an hour.  I have interviewed literally hundreds of people.

If someone who I interviewed thirty-five years ago made a claim against me, a claim that I had done something inappropriate to or with them because they were female, I would have no way to disprove it, no way to defend against it.  It would be totally wrong, but there wouldn't be any way I could prove it!

Yes, the #MeToo movement has gone too far.  When it makes men like me, who are absolutely committed to the concept of treating people in the workplace the same regardless of their sex, worried that someone may make a claim against me, when it supports women who make claims based on their perception of behavior, when judges get fired because they described a woman as "attractive" in an opinion, it has gone too far.

A good movement.  A needed movement.  But, it needs to be kept within boundaries, and it's starting to leak out of those boundaries.

Abortion

I have wanted to write about this for some time, but never ... what? ... never gotten around to it?  Maybe I was afraid of the topic.  But, now, here it is.

People who support the right of a woman to have an abortion and people who think abortion should be illegal have not thought the issue through.  Maybe I haven't.  But, here's my thinking as of now.

I am morally opposed to abortions generally, but opposed to making them illegal.

A criminal law ought to be based on logic or be an attempt to protect the values of a society.

So, the first question is, can a law making abortions illegal be supported by logic?

Any logical argument must be based on a self-evident truth.  We hold these truths to be self-evident:  that all men (and women) are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.  That among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Thomas Jefferson wrote those words in our declaration of independence and I believe them to be true.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jefferson didn't say which one of those unalienable rights was self-evidently the most important.

The argument over whether abortion should be illegal is, logically, an argument over which of these unalienable rights is most important.  Is the right to life most important?  If so, then those who want to make abortion illegal ought to prevail.  Is the right to liberty most important?  If so, then those who want a woman to have the right to do what she wants with her own body, even if it involves the death of someone else, ought to prevail.

I believe the right to life is most important.  More important than the right to liberty.  But, unfortunately, I can't make a logical argument that it should be.  It is a feeling, an emotion.  But, laws cannot be based on feelings or emotions.  They have to be based on logic.

Even those who agree with me that life is a more important right than liberty are conflicted on the subject.  "Give me liberty or give me death," said one of our founding fathers.  One of our states has a slogan:  "Live Free or Die."  We routinely ask our soldiers to kill and to die for our liberty.  Even many who claim that they hold life as a more important right that liberty support the death penalty.

So, the other question is, can a law making abortion illegal be supported as an attempt to protect the values of our society.

All the polls on the subject put us, as a society, nearly evenly divided on the issue of abortion.  Some polls show us to slightly favor a woman's right to an abortion, others show us slightly against abortions.  Part of the difference depends on how one words the questions that are asked.

With every other law of which I can think, if that law is based on protecting our values, we, as a society, are overwhelmingly in favor of the law.  Take murder, as an example.  There are a few - a very few - people who don't think murder is wrong.  But, overwhelmingly, we agree, as a society, that murder is wrong.  The same for hitting people, or stealing things, or abusing one's children.  Some people think they're okay, but overwhelmingly we think, as a society, that they are wrong.  So, we make laws making them illegal.

But, abortion - whether it is wrong or right - is not something on which we are overwhelmingly, as a society, in agreement.  We are very divided on the issue.  We might wish that we weren't so divided.  Those who support a woman's right to an abortion probably want everyone to agree with them.  Those who believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder probably want everyone to agree with them.  But, as a society, we are not in agreement.  I don't think that a society should base a law on its right to protect the values of the society when the society is fundamentally divided on the issue.

So, a law making abortions illegal must be made on the basis of logic.  I can't make a logical argument that abortions should be illegal.  I can make what I perceive to be a very strong emotional argument that they ought to be illegal, but I can't make a logical argument.

Which leaves me believing that those who think the issue is easy, that it is black and white, that it is cut and dried, are wrong.  It is emotional.  But, we can't make laws based on emotions when we, as a society, are not in agreement on those emotions.

So, I am personally against abortions, but I don't think that we, as a society, ought to make a law against them.

James Comey's book, "A Higher Loyalty"

I have just finished reading James Comey's book, "A Higher Loyalty."

Unlike, it seems, some of the commentators and pundits, I actually read every word of it.

Those who claim it is a book about Donald Trump either haven't read the whole book, don't understand it, or are lying.  It is not a book about Donald Trump.  It is a book about leadership.

I don't know if he made the right decisions about the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails.  I'm actually not sure.  But, I know that, according to his book, he had reasons for the decisions he made.  He discussed those reasons with the staff working on the case(s).  And he accepts responsibility for those decisions.

I remember something someone said about James Comey.  I disagree with many of the policy decisions he has made, but I have never known James Comey to lie.

I was struck by two things he says near the end of the book.

"I am writing in a time of great anxiety in my country.  I understand the anxiety, but also believe America is going to be fine.  I choose to see opportunity as well as danger."

"... I choose to be optimistic.  Yes, the current president will do significant damage in the short term.  Important norms and traditions will be damaged by the flames.  But forest fires, as painful as they can be, bring growth.  They spur growth that was impossible before the fire, when old trees crowded out new plants on the forest floor.  I already see new life - young people engaged as never before, and the media, the courts, academics, non-profits, and all other parts of civil society finding reason to bloom."

Now, I don't assume that America is going to be fine.  It depends on the decisions we make going forward.  It has in the past.  It always has.  In the past, we have made decisions that kept America progressing.  There is no guarantee that we will continue to make those kinds of decisions.  But, don't count us out.

I will try to be as optimistic as James Comey.

If You Can't Trust CNN ...

A few minutes ago I finished watching Jake Tapper's interview of James Comey on CNN.  I didn't care for the interview.  It was as if Mr. Tapper was trying to get Mr. Comey to say something that would be sensational, something Mr. Comey had not before said.  Mr. Comey responded to all of Mr. Tapper's questions in a way that seemed thoughtful and careful.

Immediately after the interview, Mr. Tapper had a discussion with a panel of "experts."  Almost all of the experts, including Mr. Tapper, quoted Mr. Comey incorrectly from the interview.  Mr. Tapper rarely corrected them.

Then, Wolf Blitzer came on the air and told Mr. Tapper what a "powerful" interview it had been.

I could not disagree more.  It had, in my opinion, not been a "powerful" interview.  On the contrary, it seemed to me a weak interview on the part of Mr. Tapper.

So, I am left wondering what, if anything, I can believe from CNN, "the most trusted name in news."

I don't watch Fox news, because they are obviously right-leaning.  I don't watch MSNBC anymore, because they are obviously left-leaning and I have heard them say things that I know not to be true.

For many years, I have watched CNN because I considered them to be "down-the-middle," truly "fair and balanced."

I understand the difference between factual reporting and opinions.  That's why in an earlier post on this blog I didn't recommend CNN as one's initial source for sorting out the news.

However, this was not just opinion.  This was factually incorrect reporting by a reporter who was there.  This was a failure to correct the opinion "experts" when they said things that the "reporter" should have known were incorrect, because the reporter was there.  This was one hand of the network washing the other hand of the network when it didn't deserve washing (Mr. Blitzer complimenting Mr. Tapper on his "powerful" interview).

Recently, my son argued that CNN was not to be trusted.  I didn't believe him.  In fact, I was a little hurt by what he said, because I trusted CNN.  Now, I think he spoke the truth.

So, that brings me to my question.  If you can't trust CNN - which I cannot - who can you trust?  I guess the local news and local the newspaper.  We are back where we began, years ago.

How Does One Make Sense of the News?

I am often asked - (unlike George Foreman, I'm not paid to say that) - "How do you make sense of the news?

The unspoken question nowadays is, "how does one tell the fake news from the real news?"

Part of the answer is, it takes effort.

It's like a jigsaw puzzle.

When one first opens the box and pours out all the pieces, they're just in a big pile.  None of it fits, none of it makes sense.

So, the first thing one does is turn them all right-side-up and spread them out.  Then, at least one can see them all.

But, they still don't make any sense.  The shapes mean nothing.  The colors are all mixed up.  So, one separates out the pieces that seem to have straight edges:  the edge pieces.  Not because there's anything magic about the edges, but because they're easy.  Then, gradually, one can start connecting them, either because the shape fits into another piece or because the colors match or by sheer trial and error.

Once the edge pieces are all connected, that forms the outline of the puzzle.  All the other pieces have to fit in that outline somewhere.

So, one begins to sort them by color.  Some are all blue.  One knows that's the sky, though one may not yet know how the sky pieces fit together.  Nonetheless, one knows they're generally at the top.  One can't fit many of them together, yet, but one knows they're going to fit, eventually, and one puts them together.

Maybe there is some other distinctive feature - a fence line or a wall or a window.  One can tell by looking at the pieces that they are part of that feature, so one puts them together.  A few of them, to one's surprise, actually fit with each other.

Little by little, the picture starts to take shape.  Some parts actually go fast.  Other parts just don't seem to fit and one has to go back to them over and over before one begins to discover the connections.

Finally, it all starts to make sense.  One can pick up a piece and just tell where it goes.  Sometimes, one is surprised by one piece or another.  It fits where one did not expect it to.  But, finally, all the pieces fit and are in place.

The news is exactly like that.  The first time one looks at it, it's like those puzzle pieces that are just dumped out of the box - all mixed up and seemingly nonsensical.

But, with patience, trial and error, and diligence, it can all come together.  Just don't expect it all at once or even quickly.

Telling the fake from the real news is a little harder.  It's like opening a puzzle box and some of the pieces one pours out don't have anything to do with the puzzle.  They are fake.

Start by finding a news source in which one has confidence.  I suggest a reputable news paper or the nightly news.  Read or listen to it faithfully.  Then, if one hears an item of news that contradicts that source, one may be suspicious of that item.

Don't be afraid to discard a piece of the puzzle.  If it's real, one will probably read or hear it again from the news source one trusts.

Finally, learn to tell the difference between fact and opinion.  Often, one finds opinion masquerading as fact, even in reputable news sources.  Sometimes, the reporter doesn't even recognize the difference him or herself.

For example, when a reporter reports that someone said something, that's a fact.  The reporter may get it wrong, but the person actually said something.  However, when a reporter reports that someone believes something, that's an opinion, based on the person's behavior.  The reporter cannot actually know what anyone besides the reporter believes.  Insist on finding out what the behavior was or is, then form one's own opinions about what the person believes.