I saw a description of negotiations

Context
I'm reading The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. This book contends that the belief that more information, especially in the form of the internet, will somehow solve all our problems is at least premature, if not hopelessly naive. I've just finished a section where the authors talk about the intricacies of negotiation, pointing out that human beings makes thousands of implicit negotiations every day, and that we only resort to rule-based decision making, the kind computers are really good at, when those fail. As an example, they point out that committees often have to make rules about how to communicate, like who can talk for how long, but groups of friends usually do not.

Commentary
The idea of rule-based decision making and negotiation got me to thinking about the rule of law. Patriotism is a challenging concept for me. I like being an American because I think we have a kick-ass constitution, not because of any loyalty to a geographic or cultural entity. Does the U.S. even have a culture? Our embrace of multiculturalism maybe, but I digress. Anyway, I like the rule of law in this country.

On the other hand, I'm a Quaker, and as a matter of practice, we abjure some of the things the Constitution prescribes. For example, Quakers don't vote when doing church business. In my experience, Quakers vote like mad in the national elections, but that's a separate issue. Anyway, in our meetings for worship with attention to business (We're a simple people, but we like the names of things to be painfully precise.), we make decisions by "sense of the meeting." This means we work together until we find an answer that resonates with everyone participating in the process, rather than voting, which produces winners and losers.

If you ask a dozen Quakers why we do things this way, there's a good chance you'll get at least ten different answers. Christian Quakers often believe that a collective answer is more likely to reflect the will of God. In my case, I specifically hark back to the wrong turn the children of Israel made when they told God they no longer wanted their disputes settled and armies led by the itinerant judges He raised up among them. They wanted a permanent hereditary king, like all the other cool nations had. The extra level of remove from the Lord did not work out well for them.

Quakers who are not explicitly Christian sometimes still invoke the mystical aspect of collective decision-making, even if the mystery is not attributed to a particular deity. Even non-Quakers sometimes adopt the "sense of the meeting" language to their secular business dealings, in the belief that consensus (or in the case of the International Monetary Fund pretending to have consensus) serves better than conflict when expecting people to work together.

So I like the rule of law, but I avoid using it whenever I can. Brown and Duguid point out computers can't manage the slight change-of-course negotiations people navigate with ease because these depend on shared values and trust, which machines can neither create nor maintain. And there's the rub: the moment we turn to the rule of law, which is the set "If you cross this line, these consequences will happen," way of looking at the world, we give up human connection in order to take a chance on "being right." Which one is really more valuable?

What did you see today?

I saw a garden

Context
I was looking at pictures on the internet of people who have replaced their lawns with gardens and found a link to this story of a man who's been cited for having an educational garden instead of a lawn in front of his house because it's considered an eyesore. Wanting to see for myself, I found this picture of the garden in question.

Commentary
Does the garden in the link above look bad to you, like it would diminish property values in the neighborhood? It's OK; you can be honest. It does look a little odd, doesn't it? I mean, there's food growing right out there where everyone can see it!

It seems to me that Americans sometimes have a paradoxical relationship to work. Everyone is supposed to work hard, but when you return to your middle-class home in the suburbs no one is supposed to see the effort you put in. You go to an air-conditioned office in the city for eight hours a day to make enough money to buy food; you don't grow it yourself! It's not just food, either. You're not supposed to work on your car in your yard either, and you're not supposed to hang your clean laundry out to dry.

Pardon the digression, but having been raised in Mexico, that last one was quite a shock to me when I returned to the United States. I mean, line-dried laundry can be a little stiff, but it smells so much better and lasts so much longer than the dryer-processed version. Not to mention how much better it is for the environment.

Which brings me back to the garden, which is also more environmentally sensible than keeping a lawn. And it shouldn't be that difficult. After all, we used to all grow our own food and hang out our own laundry. But I think that's part of the problem. Americans are very fond of progress. We like to feel like we're starting at one point and constantly improving on our way to one goal or another. Going back to something we've already done feels like failure or surrender. In our culture "old-fashioned" and "traditional" are usually meant pejoratively. That's why the words "new" and "improved" so often go together.

Realistically, though, we have to recognize that some progress is not good. Like the constant upward climb of our average weight, which is considerably diminishing our quality of life. Increasingly sophisticated and efficient weaponry is not my favorite form of progress either. Mind you, I'm not advocating that we return to the good old days of beating each other up with rocks. I'm just saying that maybe growing a little food on your property is not a crime. Even if it is a little unusual-looking.

What did you see?

I saw a 3000-word rejection letter

Context
Someone on Help a Reporter Out made reference to a 3000-word rejection letter that was on the internet as an example of something job recruiters shouldn't do. When I sought out the actual contents of this letter, I found them on Gawker, which also included comments from the recipient who forwarded the letter, and two catchy titles.  

Commentary
OK, it's official. All of my inspiration comes from HARO now. Plus all that, I deliberately titled today's entry as search engine bait, because "3000 word rejection letter" has become an internet meme. I have lost all my morals.

Anyway, I was surprised at the amount of vitriol thrown at this this list of dos and don'ts from Shea Gunther. In particular, I don't understand the accusations of arrogance and condescension. Both of those terms imply to me, "This guy thinks he's better than his applicants." Perhaps I have too hierarchical a view of the world, but to me, the person who not only has a job but has a job to offer is, in fact, better than the applicants. At least in the job-hunting realm, which is where rejection letters come from. Moreover, I think we can all agree that Mr. Gunther is better at seeking employment than the people whom he apparently encountered who applied for a writing job without proofreading for spelling and punctuation!

I'd like to believe I would not have been offended if I had received this letter. After all, it's obvious from the first paragraph that it was sent to over 900 people. Which means that each of the criticisms contained in it belong to one of three categories:

1) Doesn't apply to me. Water off my back.

2) Might or does apply to me, but not something I want to change. Great, now I know I would not be a good fit at Shea Gunther's place of business.

 3) Might or does apply to me, and I didn't know it was a problem. Yippee, something I can fix before my next round of job applications.

So where's the down side to any of these three scenarios?

 Is it just considered rude to say, "Some of you are really bad at applying for jobs."? That can't be right, because career advice websites do it all the time. So then it looks like we're mad at Gunther because he actually has some interest in receiving good applications, as opposed to people who are spouting the same old cliches in order to create column inches.

Here's a scale of types of rejection letter I'd like to receive. OK, I don't like to receive any, but you know what I mean. From least-favorite to favorite:

1) Dead silence. Hello, is anybody there? Did you get my application? Does your company still exist?

2) Polite, meaningless form letter. By far the most common of rejections, it gives me no help whatsoever, except to know for sure I didn't get the job.

3) Something like what Shea Gunther wrote. It's like an extra 3000 words of job ad I can build on for the next time!

 4) A personalized rejection saying exactly why I didn't get the job. This would be golden, but according to most human resource offices, also actionable. Isn't that great? Someone takes the time to tell me why it wasn't a good fit, and I sue them!

What did you see today?

I saw some information about Trayvon Martin

Context
I was reading this article about the Trayvon Martin case on Slate. Until I watched the Daily Show last night, I hadn't realized he was shot over a month ago. I keep learning new things all the time, including the tidbit included in the Slate article about Martin's school suspension for marijuana possession.

Commentary
My husband and I differ on whether Trayvon Martin's death should be considered a lynching. We were in the park walking our dogs discussing it, so we didn't have a dictionary at hand, but it turns out we were pretty close to the correct definition. According to Merriam-Webster Online, to lynch is to to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction. So I will concede to my husband that this was not a mob action (unless you want to blame the entire Florida Legislature) and make the half-concession that it was not achieved by hanging. Nonetheless, very much without legal sanction. Or at least, without common sense sanction.

Departing from the formal definition, my husband made another argument that we think of lynching, at least the form that was practiced regularly down here where I live (check this data set if you want your hometown's scorecard), as being predicated on teaching someone a lesson. I remarked that it's hard to teach a corpse a lesson, but I understood the point he was trying to make.

And now, from hyperbole to trivializing. Lynching in this country is what white people do to black people who are bugging them. It's our way of saying, "The law of proportional response only applies to people who look like me. For others, I can react however I want." Remember, we used to use this form of capital punishment for offenses like speaking to white women, failing to yield the sidewalk, or looking someone in the eye. Which is why I don't find the continued investigation into Trayvon Martin's various misdemeanors helpful. It's like we keep trying to come up with a sum of offenses that make it OK that he's dead.

Well, maybe it is helpful. Decide for yourself, does walking around a gated community + hoodie + marijuana use + school problems = put him down like a rabid dog? I'm going to be even meaner and say that if Martin was beating George Zimmerman up he still shouldn't have been shot. If someone is punching you in a populated area, you yell. You or someone else calls the cops and the perp is taken to jail. Everybody survives the encounter. Even people who bug the crap out of each other.

What did you see today?

I saw a list of classroom rules

Context
There have been papers littered around the park next to my home for a while now, so I decided to go pick them up and dispose of them. Idly looking at some of them, I realized they were schoolwork for a freshman at our local high school, including a long set of rules for a math class. One of the rules was: don't criticize teachers or administrators.

Commentary
I taught high school for a year after I graduated from college, and discipline was my least favorite aspect of the endeavor. Some of that was surely because I don't like being told what to do and therefore don't like telling people what to do. This characteristic of mine is discussed in more detail in this post, if you'd like a blast from the past.

There was more to it than that, though. There was also the idealistic (and who isn't idealistic when they first get out of college) notion that what I was teaching should be interesting enough that the students wouldn't have to be forced to learn it, which is what classroom management sometimes felt like to me. Even then I realized this couldn't possibly be true all the time, and that even I was subject to discipline more than once from my favorite teacher in high school. To this day, though, it still seems like a good goal to keep in front of me when I teach. So if I concede that some classroom rules are necessary, I would like you to return the favor by understanding that the goals behind the rules are an important educational consideration.

A few weeks ago, I read Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough, which is a book about Geoffrey Canada's efforts to rescue kids in Harlem from the poverty cycle. One of the things the Harlem Children's Zone's Baby College tries to teach parents is to not shut their kids up when they ask questions. After all, as Canada puts it, that's what "rich white kids" do all the time, and it gives them an important step up in formal educational settings. This is a struggle for the parents, though, because they want to emphasize good, respectful behavior, which in their eyes includes not pestering people with questions. These goals are in conflict, but I'm foursquare with the Baby College in believing it's better to be smart and annoying than dumb and pleasant. I will confess to having more personal experience with one side of this equation than the other.

I believe that if you're trying to grow smart kids (and I concede this may or may not be the goal of any given educational institution), you have to be understand that all questions in between the poles of completely innocuous (How are you?) and completely obnoxious (Are you always this idiotic?) spring from a void or a conflict within a person. I ask why the sky is blue because I don't know, but also because it is a different color than the grass and because I know the sky is composed of air and air doesn't look blue when it's right in front of me. In other words, I'm trying to make sense of stuff. Answering my question, or at least acknowledging that it's OK to ask it, teaches me that sensemaking is an appropriate thing to do.

The same thing is true of questioning authority, or criticizing it, as the case may be. If someone's beliefs, experience and/or feelings don't mesh well with what they're being told by someone in charge, saying so is a way of making sense of how the world works. I'm not saying this means those in power always have to accommodate what we want or feel, but there's no reason to pretend we don't have those individual needs. That's why the U.S. Constitution protects our right to talk about these conflicts. I guess I'll just be grateful I was reading the rules for a math class instead of a civics one.

What did you see today?

I heard my husband say something wise

Context
One of ads on the Thanksgiving Day Classic was for the Visa card Super Bowl ticket giveaway. In the ad, they say the Super Bowl is the most epic day in America. My husband Mark said, "No it's not; that's Election Day."

Commentary
Well, Mark said it all, but it's my blog, so I'll just add this: every four years we agree to govern ourselves instead of being governed. Frequently on these occasions, a new party comes into power and no guns are fired, except in what I consider a bizarre form of celebration. This has gone on for over 230 years. If that's not worth giving thanks for, I don't know what is.

What did you hear today?

I saw a driver slow down

Context
When I drive to Texarkana on Saturdays to attend my Quaker meeting, I usually obey the posted speed limit. Since a great deal of my trip takes place on a two-lane highway, this means when people pass me, they then pull in front of me.

A gentleman driving an older sedan with cracks in the windshield did this today. Shortly thereafter we came upon three vehicles on the opposite shoulder, one of which belonged to the Caddo Parish Sheriff's office and had its lights flashing. Louisiana law requires us to move over or slow down for vehicles with flashing lights on our own shoulder, but there are no obligations pertaining to vehicles on the opposite side. Nevertheless, the guy who had just passed me slowed down considerably, even going a few MPH under the speed limit. I was tempted to pass him, but restrained myself.

Commentary
My first reaction to the driver slowing down ahead of me was, "My driving decisions make my life easier." Consider: except for the "move over or slow down" rule mentioned above, I never have to change how I'm driving when I see a member of law enforcement. Other people have to make numerous adjustments.

Not that my method is entirely stress-free. When people pass me on the two-lane, they sometimes express annoyance, and I'm not completely immune to that. Nonetheless, I'd have to say my method of driving is the one that brings me the most peace.

Making all our decisions according to which ones will bring us the most peace is not a bad way to go, although it is complicated by the need to predict how we'll feel in the future on a regular basis. If nothing else, we can evaluate our current path to see if it's bringing us peace and make adjustments accordingly. Who knows? Doing this often enough might improve our powers of prediction.

So what do we define as peace? I'll admit that for me it has the air of "I know it when I feel it," but I'll try to be more definite. I think we can all agree that peace is not worry or stress or guilt, but I would venture to say it's not necessarily happiness or satisfaction, either. As mentioned previously, I often get a great deal of visceral satisfaction when I do the wrong thing. There's always psychic damage to clean up afterwards, though.

Absence of conflict is a reasonably good definition of peace, but it depends on how you define conflict (wheels within wheels!). I often find that making a good decision for me causes opposition from other people. What really tears me up is when I make the right choice for myself and someone else makes the right choice for her/himself and we still end up in conflict! These disputes can usually be resolved by recognizing our differing needs and perspectives, but still!

I also can't really say that making good decisions means I won't be conflicted about them. Change, even good change, is often very stressful. However, I usually find that once I've made my initial commitment and taken the first few steps, most of the strain falls away. Peace manifests in the feeling that a way is opening up for me.

If peace is the revelation of a path we can follow, then I have to say that neither complacency nor resignation fits the bill. Complacency does its level best to never move at all, and resignation implies that one is not deciding where to go. I do, however, have to leave room for the radical resignation that says, "I'm giving up everything to follow God's will."

There, I did it. Stuck God into the middle of a perfectly good (psychological? philosophical?) treatise. I can't help it, though. For me, even seeking peace is related to my religious beliefs that there is a God, that He cares about me, and that He has a plan. When I say "a way is opening up," I mean God's way. Realistically, I don't believe it's actually possible for us to thwart God's will. On the other hand, I think we can cause ourselves a lot of stress and worry by trying to.

What did you see today?

I saw another bumper sticker

Context
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.

Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.

Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.

I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.

So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.

What did you see today?

I saw a TV show about politics

Context
I bought the entire run of The West Wing on DVD recently. Tonight I watched an episode called "Five Votes Down," which was about the West Wing staffers' attempts to get a gun control law passed by Congress.

Commentary
I love The West Wing, so now that I have this set you may be hearing me comment on it a lot!

I'm concerned about gun control. I'm also concerned about health care, the various wars taking place around the globe, and the environment. But after watching the beginning of this episode, which contains the great line "There are two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em - laws and sausages," I've decided to become a one-issue voter. At least for now.

The issue is decency. And I don't mean the "politicians have to adhere to a strict moral code that I can't uphold myself" variety. I mean treating people decently. Being respectful of people you disagree with. Agreeing with people because you believe what they're saying, not because of some potential personal gain in the future. Seeing a person who's been brought low and helping them, even if you warned them in advance that this was where their actions would lead. Not indulging the urge to tear down those who have some advantage over you because you're jealous of their good fortune. Decency.

It may just be that I think our tangible problems are intractable, so I've decided to concentrate on something more ephemeral, but I hope not. I think what's going on here is that I no longer believe we can solve any problems by treating our opponents badly. I'm a pacifist because I believe violence doesn't solve anything, and over time I've learned that violence can take a lot of subtle forms, like contempt and close-mindedness and fearmongering.

So when it comes time to vote I'm looking for problem-solvers, not naysayers and "I told you so"ers. I don't mind if you hold a strong opinion; I hold plenty of them myself. I'm just no longer willing to believe that my opinion or yours is the only one decent people can hold.

What did you see today?

I saw an older European-American man driving poorly

Context
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.

Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.

I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.

However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.

So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!

What did you see today?

I heard a loud motorcycle

Context
I heard a motorcycle while I was driving today that sounded like it had no muffler at all. I think the noise it was creating could be considered a violation of the Shreveport noise ordinance (Chapter 58, Article II at this link), but I can't be sure. Loud motorcycles are very common in Shreveport.

Commentary
Loud motorcycles bug me. I often feel like saying to the rider in question "yes, I get it. You have a motorcycle. Is it possible for you to enjoy the experience without imposing it on me?"

As I read the above I realize that I'm asking for someone to repress a very strong natural impulse: the sharing of joy. There are quiet pleasures, surely, but often when we're happy we want as many people as humanely possible to know about it. That's why we invite 300 people to watch us get married.

Or is it? Sometimes when I read about insane wedding extravaganzas, I feel like the couple in question is showing off. Or being insecure. Or possibly both. This may apply to the loud motorcyclists in question: "how can I really believe my motorcycle is cool if people don't look at me while I'm riding it?" Or maybe they're trying to be annoying as part of the bad-ass motorcycle experience.

Because we're talking about noise here, it's hard for me to communicate my response to the rider, which is roughly this:

1) That's a nice bike.

2) I would prefer to enjoy it visually, not audibly.

3) You're not bad-ass. You're annoying. There's a subtle but important difference.

4) Enjoy!

I'm going to try to come up with a series of gestures that communicate all of these things while I'm sitting at a stoplight.

What did you hear today?

I saw a man not vote

Context
There was a long line at my polling place today at 6:30 a.m., so while I was waiting I had a chance to see an African-American man talking with the European-American guy who was the only election commissioner with a cell phone. It appeared to be the latter's job to check for other possible polling locations for those not registered in my precinct. He apparently found nothing helpful, because he sent the petitioner away with phone numbers for the parish registrar of voters and the secretary of state.

Commentary
I could talk about voter fraud and racism today because I think both of those might have been at play in the situation I observed, but it seems only fair to note what my husband said, which is that the African-American man might have been just inquiring about his polling place, not actually attempting to vote at that time. So I think I'll just focus on perception.

My perception of the situation today was, "that's what happens when we're concerned about voter fraud. People get turned away from the polls." Which led me to think about ACORN.

I'm embarrassed to admit I believed the soundbites about ACORN (sample here). I believed that some members of the organization had been so rabid about recruiting new voters for Barack Obama that they had filed fraudulent registrations in the hopes of somehow turning those registrations into actual votes. I also believed that external institutions had unearthed those registrations before the scam went too far along. I wasn't concerned about the situation for two reasons: 1) I know that many legitimate registrations do not translate to votes, and 2) I know that every organization that tries to do some good ends up with some bad apples.

Now that I've done some research at factcheck.org, I've realized that even my relatively benign beliefs about ACORN were incorrect. Most of the bad registrations in question were flagged by ACORN itself because after collecting them by state law they were required to file them. That's actually how we keep organizations like this from becoming partisan machines. They're required to file every registration, even the ones they'd rather not. More important to me, as perceptions go, is the fact that the frauds weren't perpetrated by people trying to influence the elections. They were done by people trying to make money without doing the requisite work.

So as I said, I'm embarrassed. But I'm more angry. I only found these things out today after I got started thinking about voter fraud and started to do some research. And the only reason I was thinking about voter fraud was because of the ACORN soundbites. After reading up on the situation and talking with my incredibly intelligent husband, I realized that I should have been thinking about why we pay people to collect registrations in the first place. Have we been making voter registration too difficult? Have we made the results of voting insufficiently valuable to be worth people's while (I'm a liberal living in Louisiana. Due to the Electoral College, my presidential vote almost never counts. Why do I keep showing up at my crowded polling place? Hard to say . . .)?

The above are important questions for us to consider. But we never will if we keep letting the soundbites guide our thinking. If we keep thinking it's nice legitimate voters vs. evil fraudulent voters or rotten people who want to disenfranchise the poor vs. saintly volunteer registrars going door-to-door. We need to change our perceptions. We need to open our eyes.

What did you see today?

I saw a discussion about law enforcement

Context
Slashdot is a website that bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." Since I fancy myself a nerd, I have a space on my iGoogle page for an RSS feed from it. Today I was reading this story about the criminal prosecution of a woman who was caught creating fake profiles for herself on MySpace. A word of caution: the Slashdot summary is inoffensive, but the comments, including one I'll be discussing below contain some profanity.

Commentary
Slashdot uses tagging to describe various posts, just like I do on this blog. You see those things that say, variously, "index" or "labels"? Those are tags. You might notice that this particular story on Slashdot is tagged as "badsummary." That's because, as noted in the comments below the story, Lori Drew is not a simple "user" on MySpace. She's an adult woman who said such hurtful things while using a fake profile that portrayed her as a teenage boy that she appears to have induced a teenaged girl to kill herself.

I agree with some of the comments on this article that say things like, "this is a tragedy, but the specific offense (violating a website's Terms of Service) is a civil one, not criminal." I do not, however, agree with this one: "Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught f*****g someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam)." And it's not just the bad spelling and grammar that bother me, although they are egregious. It's the fact that no, everyone does not do it. For example, I don't.

From my perspective, if you're doing something (even, gasp, on the Internet!) you either believe it's right or wrong. I can see wanting to hide your identity if you believe you're doing wrong, but I can't see why other people get so up in arms about defending your right to do so. It's like we've added a new component to the Bill of Rights: the right to behave unethically without detection.

Am I against the right to privacy? No, although I think truly believing you can keep your actions secret in today's society is a pipe dream. But I don't think MySpace should be allowed to set up a hidden camera in my bedroom. However, if I set up a webcam in my bedroom and broadcast the contents on MySpace (which also violates their Terms of Service), I think the people providing the server space can reasonably insist that I identify myself. If I don't want to, maybe I shouldn't use their service.

The same goes for the spam consideration. If I believe that using a specific website is likely to get me on a junk e-mail list, I don't use the website! After all, free access to everything you want on your terms isn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights either.

What did you see today?

I saw an article about Nancy Grace

Context
The Shreveport Times had an article on Nancy Grace in the Living section this morning. I had never heard of this woman before, possibly because the only television news I watch is the Daily Show and that not regularly. The gist of the article is that the suicide of her prime suspect has not lessened Ms. Grace’s zeal for pursuing the case of a missing child.

Commentary
The article in question does not appear on the Times website, so if you want to read it for yourself, you'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.

I had a number of initial reactions to this article. The one that stuck with me was this: why is a prosecutor working for CNN instead of the courts? I think the answer emerges in Ms. Grace’s statement quoted in the fourth paragraph: “I remain dedicated to the ongoing fight for crime victims everywhere.” It’s possible that she got frustrated when she found out that in the United States, prosecutors are not supposed to be advocates for crime victims. That’s because in this country, we treat crime as an offense against society, not an individual person.

Think about it. A criminal trial is titled The State of Whatever vs. Whomever. It is often the case that district attorneys disregard the opinion of the crime victim when deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. Victims have no intrinsic right to be heard in a criminal trial, but if either side thinks their testimony will be useful, they can be compelled to appear against their will.

The paragraph above may lead you to think I’m opposed to the American judicial system. Quite the contrary, I’m its biggest fan, because I subscribe to the premise above: crime is an offense against society. Obviously rape damages a woman or man, but it also damages the threads that hold us together.

Nancy Grace and I are probably in complete agreement on the previous point, but the American judicial system says that persecuting people without due process also damages society. That’s why we have an adversarial criminal justice system. The prosecutor’s job is to speak for the “we have to punish criminals” societal interest and the defense attorney presents the interest in considering exonerating evidence and mitigating circumstances. Both of them are, therefore, “officers of the court.” Society, as represented by a jury, ideally decides which interest is more compelling in this particular case.

Nancy Grace circumvents this system. She’s an advocate for victims, so her job is to slam the people she considers to be perpetrators. OK, it’s only television, not an actual judicial proceeding, but am I the only one who thinks that suicide indicates there might be more than one victim here? Does our society have any interest we might possibly want to consider before unleashing a Nancy Grace on the world and calling it “entertainment?”

What did you see today?

I saw a book about political correctness

Context
Michael Smerconish, a talk-radio host in the Philadelphia area, has written a book titled Muzzled. Shreve Memorial Library owns this book, but it hasn’t been cataloged yet. I read the inside cover and some of the introduction and it appears to be about how “political correctness” is keeping us from expressing important truths. I plan to take a look at the rest of the book when it’s available for check out. I won’t commit to actually reading it, because I’m very picky about what I read.

Commentary
I understand some anti-political correctness sentiment. For example, I don’t think “we might get sued” is a good basis for decision-making. “We might get sued and lose, because what we’re contemplating is illegal” is fine, but frankly, anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s like deciding to not do something because “someone might get angry.” OK, but would they be justified in getting angry? There’s no percentage in indulging crybabies; they can get mad no matter what you do.

Also, I tend to favor equality of opportunity, not equality. I think some people do things better than others. Dolly Parton once said something to the effect of, “I couldn’t jump around like a ballerina. I’d black both my eyes!” There’s nothing wrong with keeping Dolly Parton out of the Metropolitan Ballet. She has other gifts.

On the other hand, I’m often leery of the term “political correctness.” Practices that are labeled as such are often those I was taught to call “niceness,” “sensitivity,” and “convincing the neighbors you were not reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia.” No offense intended to those of you who *were* reared by a pack of dingoes in Australia ;-). The First Amendment says, “you can express yourself, worship, and assemble any way you want.” Good breeding says you shouldn’t even want to insult, belittle or exclude people unnecessarily. So if you’re saying, “I don’t want to have be politically correct,” but you really mean, “I want free license to be rude,” I have no sympathy for you.

For this reason, I’m curious about the use of the title “Muzzled” for this book, rather than “Gagged” or “Silenced.” When my dog is at her vet’s office, she only gets muzzled after she’s raised her lip a time or two and proved she’s not fit for polite company. Is our society being muzzled for the same reason? Have we decided to legislate good manners because no one can practice self-control? If so, I’m pretty sure it’s not working. Have you ever listened to talk radio?

What did you see today?

I saw someone smile.

Context
I was trying to cross the street today and an off-duty policeman (wearing his uniform, not driving a police car) was trying to make what would have been a perfectly legal left turn if I hadn't been in the crosswalk. He had to stop pretty quickly and it was a slightly worrisome moment for me. He smiled, then I smiled, and I finished crossing the street. And he finished his turn.

Commentary
Another run-in with the police! There was potential for a lot of anger in this situation, and anyone who knows me knows I have anger to spare when it comes to yielding the right of way to pedestrians. And taking proper responsibility for your pets. But I digress.

The policeman also might have been angry at me for impeding his progress. But he smiled and I smiled. A split second of "OK, we had conflicting goals for a minute there, but it doesn't have to ruin anyone's day." And it didn't. In fact, it pretty much made mine, because apparently forgiving makes me happier than being angry. Who'd a thunk it?

What did you see today?

I saw a police car run a red light.

Context
Today is January 2, 2006. It’s a holiday for local and federal government, but I went to the bank and it was open and the library system I work for is also open. The streets of downtown Shreveport were not completely bare, but considerably less trafficked than usual.

Commentary
My adherence to the Quaker testimony of integrity requires me to say that I didn’t actually see the cop run a red light, in that I didn’t see her light. I saw her drive through a crosswalk that had a walk signal. It’s possible the traffic light was malfunctioning.

Traffic violations are a sore point for me, because this seems to be an entire body of law that most people consider optional. “It’s OK to cross against the light. Nobody’s coming anyway.” “Speed limits have a 5-10 mile-per-hour cushion to them.” It would be interesting if we treated other laws the same way. “Bigamy’s illegal, but we only get really upset on the third or fourth wife.” “It’s OK to kill this guy. Nobody’s going to find the body.”

I watch a lot of television. Now that we’re in the Tivo™ era, I can skip the commercials if I want. Sometimes I don’t want to, because I have favorites. All I remember from many commercials are the slogans, not the products, which must drive advertisers crazy. Anyway, one of my favorites was, “just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.” I think the idea behind the ad was a daredevil-type thing, as in “just because you are able to squeeze your body through the railing outside the window doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.”

I think of it on a more ethical level, as a matter of personal responsibility. Sometimes we are permitted to do things that would normally be considered wrong. Like when there aren’t enough law enforcement resources to punish us for minor infractions. OK, you can do it, but should you?

What about when we’re given the power to break the rules under certain circumstances? After all, we expect police cars to run red lights when they need to get to a crime scene quickly. The officer I saw today, on the other hand, had no lights flashing and looked pretty carefree about life (something I am normally happy to see in law enforcement). Was it OK for her to run the red light? Nobody coming, no harm, no foul? Or is it an abuse of power? Did she just do it because she could?

What did you see today?