Today on BBC News Hour there was a piece about a letter that was published in Harper's Magazine. The substance of the letter was that we, as a society, had gone too far in "canceling" the speech of people with whose views we disagreed. The example that was given was a person who simply re-tweeted some research that was pertinent to their job without comment and lost his job because of it. There was a campaign to "cancel" his "freedom" of speech.
The two people interviewed were a co-signer of the letter and someone supposedly opposing him.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to say almost anything one wants to say without government interference. It is without government interference. It is not without any interference.
It has nothing to do with private people's responses to one's speech. Private people are, and always have been, free to do or say whatever they want in response to one's speech, as long as it's not illegal. They are free to turn away. They are free to speak up in response. They are free to shout the speaker down. They are free to refuse to buy the speaker's product, regardless of whether the speech is about that product. They are free to try to get others not to buy the speaker's product.
The fact that this has become easier because of organizing tactics (on line or otherwise) does not diminish the hearer's right to respond to the speaker's rhetoric.
That is not to say that I agree with every campaign to "cancel" the speech of anyone with whom I disagree. Some campaigns are, in my opinion, ill-advised and some are just wrong. Many. Maybe most. But, it is to say that everyone has the right to try to "cancel" any speech. Any at all.
Take, for example, if someone used the "n" word. Many, if not most, of us would shun that person. If that person persisted, we would turn away, or speak up in opposition, or shout the speaker down, or refuse to buy their product, or attempt to get others to refuse to buy their product. That would be considered by many, if not most, of us as proper and within our rights.
The fact that we happen to agree with the speaker's rhetoric does not matter. It doesn't even matter if we think that the speaker's rhetoric is minor and not very hurtful or not worthy of the efforts to which others are going to "cancel" his speech. Others still have the right to try to "cancel" that speech if they can. It is their right.
Freedom of speech as guaranteed in the United States Constitution is freedom from government interference with our speech. It is not freedom from any, even private, especially private, interference with our speech.
That said, none of this is going to matter soon if we don't solve climate change.
Friday, July 17, 2020
Monday, September 2, 2019
Global Climate Change and the Ship at Sea
There was a cruise ship at sea. It was sailing directly toward a whirlpool, but most of the passengers don't know it. The few who do, couldn't prove it. But, it was.
This cruise ship has\d a lot of people on board. Thousands. Maybe millions. Goodness, maybe billions. But, lots.
It was captained by Cap'n Bill. A few of the passengers, very few, came to him. They told him, "We're concerned. From the measurements we've taken, it looks like there's a whirlpool out there and we're headed straight for it." Cap'n Bill responded, "Well, can you prove it?" "No," the few passengers that have come to Cap'n Bill with their concerns responded. "We can't. But, all our measurements indicate that there is one out there and we're heading straight for it. All our measurements are getting stronger."
"Well," Cap'n Bill said as he thought. He could hear the other passengers partying. "Okay, we'll keep an eye out and if we need to do something, we will. We'll definitely do something if we can get the other cruise lines to do something, too."
Cap'n Bill got most of the other cruise lines to agree to do something, but he couldn't get his passengers to agree to the agreement. So, he kept his course.
Now, on this particular cruise liner, the captaincy changed every so often, based on the vote of all the passengers. Cap'n Bill came to the end of his time as captain, and Cap'n Dubya was elected to be captain of the cruise liner. During Cap'n Dubya's campaign to be captain of the cruise liner, he acknowledged that the liner was headed for a whirlpool. He promised to change the course of the liner, at least a little.
But, when he was elected as captain of the liner, he didn't keep that promise. During his time as captain, he maintained course, directly for the whirlpool.
More of the passengers became concerned. Those passengers on the liner who were taking measurements became even more concerned. Their measurements showed that the whirlpool was getting closer, even faster than they expected. They went to Cap'n Dubya and shared their concerns. Cap'n Dubya heard most of the passengers partying, most of whom had voted for him to be captain. He said to those passengers who were taking measurements, "We won't get to port nearly as fast if we change our course to avoid this whirlpool that y'all imagine is out there!" "But," said the passengers who were taking measurements, "we won't get to port at all unless you change course to go around the whirlpool!"
Cap'n Dubya could see through the open door that there were some concerned passengers gathered in the hallway, waiting for his response, but he could hear the majority of the passengers, many of whom had voted for him, partying as if there were no tomorrow. He thought, then he stuck out his jaw, looked forward toward the whirlpool that those passengers who were taking measurements knew was there, and said, "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" He had heard this in a movie somewhere, since he didn't read.
So, all during Cap'n Dubya's time as captain, the liner moved on toward the whirlpool. Finally, his time came to an end, and Cap'n B was elected to be captain of the cruise liner.
By this time, those passengers who were taking measurements were sure there was a whirlpool in the ocean and the cruise liner was heading straight for it. The majority of the passengers were now concerned, but many of them didn't know who to believe. Some of the passengers were still partying like there was no tomorrow. But, most of those had not voted for Cap'n B.
Those passengers who had been taking measurements went to Cap'n B and told him, "Almost all our measurements have been increasing much faster that we expected! You have to change course, or this ship is going down the drain! Soon!" Cap'n B heard them, but he didn't hear their urgency. He said, "Okay, we'll change course, and we'll try to get the other cruise lines to change their course." And he did. But, unfortunately, he didn't change course much. Just a little. Not enough. And, he couldn't persuade the other cruise lines to change their courses much. But, at least he changed course a little. The liner was no longer headed directly toward the whirlpool. It just wasn't headed far enough away to avoid being sucked down into the whirlpool. Not now.
There was one passenger who was watching all this: Crazy Don. Crazy Don thought to himself, "I'll bet this whole whirlpool thing is just a bunch of nonsense dreamed up by the other cruise lines to try to get us to change course so we won't get into port as fast." He began saying that out loud to all the passengers who were still partying. Then Crazy Don thought, "I'll get myself elected captain of this ship!" And he did!
When Crazy Don assumed captaincy, those passengers who had been taking measurements went to him and said, "Cap'n Crazy Don, can't you see that whirlpool on the horizon? All our measurements have been increasing much, much, much faster than we anticipated, and now we can see the whirlpool on the horizon!"
Cap'n Crazy Don looked where those passengers who had been taking measurements pointed. Whether he couldn't see the whirlpool, or whether he thought it was a mirage, or whether he heard the minority of passengers who were still partying and refused to acknowledge the whirlpool that he saw, or whether he thought to himself "I'll probably be dead before we reach that whirlpool. I don't need to worry!" will never be known. But, it was one of those things.
And Cap'n Crazy Don turned the ship directly toward the whirlpool and said, "I don't care what all the other cruise lines think or what they've promised to do! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" He must have heard that line in a movie, since he didn't read, either.
The cruise liner went over the edge, into the whirlpool, and was never seen again. Those passengers who had been taking measurements went to their deaths with mouths hanging open in disbelief. Those passengers who were concerned watched horrified as the ship went over the edge, with Cap'n Crazy Don at the helm, cackling "It's just a hoax!"
Those passengers who had been partying like there was no tomorrow, most of whom had voted for Cap'n Crazy Don, turned at the last minute to see the ship careen over the edge of the whirlpool and go down, their faces marked with surprise.
Those who had been taking measurements last thought was "It was probably too late to save the ship anyway, but why didn't the captain try?"
This cruise ship has\d a lot of people on board. Thousands. Maybe millions. Goodness, maybe billions. But, lots.
It was captained by Cap'n Bill. A few of the passengers, very few, came to him. They told him, "We're concerned. From the measurements we've taken, it looks like there's a whirlpool out there and we're headed straight for it." Cap'n Bill responded, "Well, can you prove it?" "No," the few passengers that have come to Cap'n Bill with their concerns responded. "We can't. But, all our measurements indicate that there is one out there and we're heading straight for it. All our measurements are getting stronger."
"Well," Cap'n Bill said as he thought. He could hear the other passengers partying. "Okay, we'll keep an eye out and if we need to do something, we will. We'll definitely do something if we can get the other cruise lines to do something, too."
Cap'n Bill got most of the other cruise lines to agree to do something, but he couldn't get his passengers to agree to the agreement. So, he kept his course.
Now, on this particular cruise liner, the captaincy changed every so often, based on the vote of all the passengers. Cap'n Bill came to the end of his time as captain, and Cap'n Dubya was elected to be captain of the cruise liner. During Cap'n Dubya's campaign to be captain of the cruise liner, he acknowledged that the liner was headed for a whirlpool. He promised to change the course of the liner, at least a little.
But, when he was elected as captain of the liner, he didn't keep that promise. During his time as captain, he maintained course, directly for the whirlpool.
More of the passengers became concerned. Those passengers on the liner who were taking measurements became even more concerned. Their measurements showed that the whirlpool was getting closer, even faster than they expected. They went to Cap'n Dubya and shared their concerns. Cap'n Dubya heard most of the passengers partying, most of whom had voted for him to be captain. He said to those passengers who were taking measurements, "We won't get to port nearly as fast if we change our course to avoid this whirlpool that y'all imagine is out there!" "But," said the passengers who were taking measurements, "we won't get to port at all unless you change course to go around the whirlpool!"
Cap'n Dubya could see through the open door that there were some concerned passengers gathered in the hallway, waiting for his response, but he could hear the majority of the passengers, many of whom had voted for him, partying as if there were no tomorrow. He thought, then he stuck out his jaw, looked forward toward the whirlpool that those passengers who were taking measurements knew was there, and said, "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" He had heard this in a movie somewhere, since he didn't read.
So, all during Cap'n Dubya's time as captain, the liner moved on toward the whirlpool. Finally, his time came to an end, and Cap'n B was elected to be captain of the cruise liner.
By this time, those passengers who were taking measurements were sure there was a whirlpool in the ocean and the cruise liner was heading straight for it. The majority of the passengers were now concerned, but many of them didn't know who to believe. Some of the passengers were still partying like there was no tomorrow. But, most of those had not voted for Cap'n B.
Those passengers who had been taking measurements went to Cap'n B and told him, "Almost all our measurements have been increasing much faster that we expected! You have to change course, or this ship is going down the drain! Soon!" Cap'n B heard them, but he didn't hear their urgency. He said, "Okay, we'll change course, and we'll try to get the other cruise lines to change their course." And he did. But, unfortunately, he didn't change course much. Just a little. Not enough. And, he couldn't persuade the other cruise lines to change their courses much. But, at least he changed course a little. The liner was no longer headed directly toward the whirlpool. It just wasn't headed far enough away to avoid being sucked down into the whirlpool. Not now.
There was one passenger who was watching all this: Crazy Don. Crazy Don thought to himself, "I'll bet this whole whirlpool thing is just a bunch of nonsense dreamed up by the other cruise lines to try to get us to change course so we won't get into port as fast." He began saying that out loud to all the passengers who were still partying. Then Crazy Don thought, "I'll get myself elected captain of this ship!" And he did!
When Crazy Don assumed captaincy, those passengers who had been taking measurements went to him and said, "Cap'n Crazy Don, can't you see that whirlpool on the horizon? All our measurements have been increasing much, much, much faster than we anticipated, and now we can see the whirlpool on the horizon!"
Cap'n Crazy Don looked where those passengers who had been taking measurements pointed. Whether he couldn't see the whirlpool, or whether he thought it was a mirage, or whether he heard the minority of passengers who were still partying and refused to acknowledge the whirlpool that he saw, or whether he thought to himself "I'll probably be dead before we reach that whirlpool. I don't need to worry!" will never be known. But, it was one of those things.
And Cap'n Crazy Don turned the ship directly toward the whirlpool and said, "I don't care what all the other cruise lines think or what they've promised to do! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" He must have heard that line in a movie, since he didn't read, either.
The cruise liner went over the edge, into the whirlpool, and was never seen again. Those passengers who had been taking measurements went to their deaths with mouths hanging open in disbelief. Those passengers who were concerned watched horrified as the ship went over the edge, with Cap'n Crazy Don at the helm, cackling "It's just a hoax!"
Those passengers who had been partying like there was no tomorrow, most of whom had voted for Cap'n Crazy Don, turned at the last minute to see the ship careen over the edge of the whirlpool and go down, their faces marked with surprise.
Those who had been taking measurements last thought was "It was probably too late to save the ship anyway, but why didn't the captain try?"
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Global Climate Change and the Shooting in El Paso
If we don't solve global climate change, none of our other problems will matter.
That said, the shootings in El Paso were terrible. They were devastating. They were horrifying. For the people involved, they will never recover. For the people killed … well … they were killed. Everything that they had was taken from them. Everything.
But, something my son said got me to thinking. He said, "I don't want to go into another Walmart."
Twenty-two people were killed in that Walmart. Out of 3,000 shoppers in the store at the time. That's a little over .7%. The population of El Paso is estimated to be 682,699. That's a little over .003%. The population of El Paso County was estimated to be 840,758 in 2018. That's about .0026%. The population of Texas is estimated to be 29,090,000 in 2019. That's close to .0000008%. The population of the United States is estimated to be 329,119,567 in 2019. That's about .00000007%.
The chances of being shot in a Walmart store are very low.
That's not to say we shouldn't do something about gun violence in the United States. We should. But, we shouldn't be afraid of being shot in a Walmart store.
The chances of our children and our grandchildren being affected adversely by global climate change approach 100%.
That said, the shootings in El Paso were terrible. They were devastating. They were horrifying. For the people involved, they will never recover. For the people killed … well … they were killed. Everything that they had was taken from them. Everything.
But, something my son said got me to thinking. He said, "I don't want to go into another Walmart."
Twenty-two people were killed in that Walmart. Out of 3,000 shoppers in the store at the time. That's a little over .7%. The population of El Paso is estimated to be 682,699. That's a little over .003%. The population of El Paso County was estimated to be 840,758 in 2018. That's about .0026%. The population of Texas is estimated to be 29,090,000 in 2019. That's close to .0000008%. The population of the United States is estimated to be 329,119,567 in 2019. That's about .00000007%.
The chances of being shot in a Walmart store are very low.
That's not to say we shouldn't do something about gun violence in the United States. We should. But, we shouldn't be afraid of being shot in a Walmart store.
The chances of our children and our grandchildren being affected adversely by global climate change approach 100%.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
"The crisis at the border: Do we have the courage to act?"
Okay, so I haven't written here in a long time. Part of the reason was laziness. Part of it was that other things got in the way. Part of it was I just didn't think what I wrote here mattered. That's probably why I let other things get in the way.
But, an editorial in this morning's Austin American-Statesman by U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, entitled "The crisis at the border: Do we have the courage to act?," was so bad that it has motivated me to write here again.
First, let me say, and emphasize, that Crazy Don's campaign promise was not that he was going to build a fence. It wasn't that he was going to build a wall. It was that he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it.
All his turning and twisting to try to claim that money that comes from Mexico into the United States is what he meant by "Mexico will pay for it" is just that: turning and twisting. It isn't true. It's a lie. Mexico is not paying for the wall. Period. Everybody knows that. And everyone who heard him make the promise knows that's not what he meant. He's lying.
Not that it should surprise anyone that Crazy Don lies, even if you're part of the "take him seriously, but don't take him literally" crowd. He lies. Many of the words that come out of his mouth aren't true, literally or seriously, and many of them he knows when he says them that they aren't true, and many of them he intends his listeners to believe. That's lying.
However, whether Crazy Don is lying or not, his campaign promise was not just that he was going to build a wall, it was that he was going to build a wall and Mexico would pay for it. The idea that now he is just trying to keep a campaign promise is a lie, Rep. Williams. It isn't true.
Furthermore, Crazy Don made it clear that he wasn't talking about a fence. He was talking about a wall. Everyone except those that don't speak English well knows the difference between a fence and a wall. I have a fence in my backyard. I have walls in my house. Only a fool or an apologist for Crazy Don (are they the same thing?) would confuse the two.
The American-Statesman showed a picture of border fencing the other day. They called it a wall. It was not a wall. It was a fence. To call it a wall was a lie.
Rep. Williams asks in his article "how can Democrats actively oppose the president's request to provide adequate funding to secure the southern border?" They don't and they haven't. They have opposed Crazy Don's request for funding for a wall.
Rep. Williams says in his article that "[t]he Nancys and Chucks [referring, I think, to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all those who agree with them] of the world would rather watch countless immigrants attempt to illegally cross out southern border and put American lives in danger, than help the president do what is right and what he promised." Putting aside whether Crazy Don is actually trying to do what he promised (he's not), putting aside whether illegal immigrants put American lives in danger more than Americans do (they don't), the statement is still not true. It's a lie. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have both made clear that they are not opposed to securing the southern border. They have both made it clear that they are not opposed to funding border security. But, they have also made clear that they don't think a wall is the best way to secure the border. That's what's true. The statement is a lie, Rep. Williams.
Rep. Williams says he will support a wall through Big Ben National Park along the Rio Grande if that's what the "security professionals" advise him to do. He won't even support building a wall along the north side of the park. Never mind that the only "security professional" he can cite is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Never mind that he is unable to point to a single instance of an illegal immigrant trying to cross the Big Bend country. ("Google it," his aide said. I did. No instances.) Never mind that the history of the Big Bend country is that the Spanish were unable to find a way across it from the south to north and the American settlers were unable to find a way across it from east to west. He's going to support building a wall through Big Bend National Park along the Rio Grande if that's what the "security professionals" advise him to do.
Rep. Williams, we didn't elect you to do whatever the "security professionals" advised you. We elected you to represent us. We don't want a wall through Big Bend National Park along the Rio Grande. Do what we elected you to do.
But, an editorial in this morning's Austin American-Statesman by U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, entitled "The crisis at the border: Do we have the courage to act?," was so bad that it has motivated me to write here again.
First, let me say, and emphasize, that Crazy Don's campaign promise was not that he was going to build a fence. It wasn't that he was going to build a wall. It was that he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it.
All his turning and twisting to try to claim that money that comes from Mexico into the United States is what he meant by "Mexico will pay for it" is just that: turning and twisting. It isn't true. It's a lie. Mexico is not paying for the wall. Period. Everybody knows that. And everyone who heard him make the promise knows that's not what he meant. He's lying.
Not that it should surprise anyone that Crazy Don lies, even if you're part of the "take him seriously, but don't take him literally" crowd. He lies. Many of the words that come out of his mouth aren't true, literally or seriously, and many of them he knows when he says them that they aren't true, and many of them he intends his listeners to believe. That's lying.
However, whether Crazy Don is lying or not, his campaign promise was not just that he was going to build a wall, it was that he was going to build a wall and Mexico would pay for it. The idea that now he is just trying to keep a campaign promise is a lie, Rep. Williams. It isn't true.
Furthermore, Crazy Don made it clear that he wasn't talking about a fence. He was talking about a wall. Everyone except those that don't speak English well knows the difference between a fence and a wall. I have a fence in my backyard. I have walls in my house. Only a fool or an apologist for Crazy Don (are they the same thing?) would confuse the two.
The American-Statesman showed a picture of border fencing the other day. They called it a wall. It was not a wall. It was a fence. To call it a wall was a lie.
Rep. Williams asks in his article "how can Democrats actively oppose the president's request to provide adequate funding to secure the southern border?" They don't and they haven't. They have opposed Crazy Don's request for funding for a wall.
Rep. Williams says in his article that "[t]he Nancys and Chucks [referring, I think, to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all those who agree with them] of the world would rather watch countless immigrants attempt to illegally cross out southern border and put American lives in danger, than help the president do what is right and what he promised." Putting aside whether Crazy Don is actually trying to do what he promised (he's not), putting aside whether illegal immigrants put American lives in danger more than Americans do (they don't), the statement is still not true. It's a lie. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have both made clear that they are not opposed to securing the southern border. They have both made it clear that they are not opposed to funding border security. But, they have also made clear that they don't think a wall is the best way to secure the border. That's what's true. The statement is a lie, Rep. Williams.
Rep. Williams says he will support a wall through Big Ben National Park along the Rio Grande if that's what the "security professionals" advise him to do. He won't even support building a wall along the north side of the park. Never mind that the only "security professional" he can cite is the Secretary of Homeland Security. Never mind that he is unable to point to a single instance of an illegal immigrant trying to cross the Big Bend country. ("Google it," his aide said. I did. No instances.) Never mind that the history of the Big Bend country is that the Spanish were unable to find a way across it from the south to north and the American settlers were unable to find a way across it from east to west. He's going to support building a wall through Big Bend National Park along the Rio Grande if that's what the "security professionals" advise him to do.
Rep. Williams, we didn't elect you to do whatever the "security professionals" advised you. We elected you to represent us. We don't want a wall through Big Bend National Park along the Rio Grande. Do what we elected you to do.
Monday, June 11, 2018
"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.
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.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)