Health care will likely be a big topic today, now that the time for debate and discussion has passed. One blawger, who fortunately happens to be a professor of law on the side, hasn’t been particularly supportive. That would be Ann Althouse.
In a sad commentary on race relations, youth and penal-on-my-mind solutions, the story of a prank by a 16 year old at a Jersey Wal-Mart was the subject of a post, coincident with the date of the House vote on health care. The two bits have little in common, but for a sideshow to the health care debate about how members of the Congressional Black Caucus walking through tea partiers on their way into the capital were subjected to racial epithets and one member was spat upon.
Perhaps conflicted by the opposing Gestalt needs of the socially correct lawprof and the politically firm, Althouse decided to confront this news. Notably, her husband, former commentator at her blawg Meade, was there:
In a sad commentary on race relations, youth and penal-on-my-mind solutions, the story of a prank by a 16 year old at a Jersey Wal-Mart was the subject of a post, coincident with the date of the House vote on health care. The two bits have little in common, but for a sideshow to the health care debate about how members of the Congressional Black Caucus walking through tea partiers on their way into the capital were subjected to racial epithets and one member was spat upon.
Perhaps conflicted by the opposing Gestalt needs of the socially correct lawprof and the politically firm, Althouse decided to confront this news. Notably, her husband, former commentator at her blawg Meade, was there:
From what I heard — from Meade, who was there — the people at yesterday’s protest were unusually nice and friendly and well-behaved. Still, the Washington Post uses the term “angry protesters.” That’s a journalistic device to delegitimitize the demonstration by merging everyone into the few persons who said something racist/homophobic. That’s not fair and it’s not accurate, but it has been the stock MSM treatment of the Tea Party movement all along.
Starting from the “nice to Meade” perspective, and recognizing (as is no doubt true) that the media (denigratingly characterized as MSM by those who want to undermine its integrity ab initio) isn’t necessarily correct or perfect, Althouse makes the critical point that the entirety of the protesters did not call black congressmen names in unison. She does not discuss whether this is the nature of grass roots organization or a failure of proper rehearsal and/or adequate coordination.
Even if there were a few epithets tossed about, Althouse is nonplussed, per the greater evil defense:
There’s nothing wrong with showing anger at the thing that motivates you to protest. That’s what protests are for! The members of Congress have a lot of power, and they ought to have to hear the anger their exercise of that power is causing. It’s outrageous for them to pose as victims without very good cause. So what if some idiot said a bad word? That’s a trivial distraction compared to the power they are about to exercise in the face of such strong opposition to what they are about to do.
But it’s the spitting that gets her goat.
A member of Congress said he was spit on? Guards were right there. Was no one detained? Show me the person who was arrested. Otherwise, I’m assuming it’s a lie.
It would probably shock no one to learn that a member of Congress lied. It could happen. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. Whether or not a member of Congress was spat on isn’t the issue, at the moment, but rather the basis for Althouse’s decision to assume it’s a lie. If no one was arrested, then it didn’t happen.
One of her commenters makes an additional point that she should have been made.
One of her commenters makes an additional point that she should have been made.
Let’s see the video. In this day and age, just about everything is videoed. That way, those people can be singled out. If there’s no video of what was alleged, then I’ll have to call BS.
I can’t tell you how many of my clients have made the exact same argument. If there’s no video, then it never happened. And even if it did happen, it doesn’t mean that it reflects on the tea partiers.
There’s nothing new or surprising that this reflects the tone and depth of political argument, given that the earth has long been scorched beyond recognition by all partisans. But when the lawprofs simply manufacture their own reality, one has to wonder how they grade final examination answers which employ only logical fallacies to support their positions.
Althouse is, no doubt, a very smart lawprof, and I therefore must follow her lead. From now on, no wrong has occurred until someone is arrested, and no one can be proven guilty without a video. It works for me. And if anyone has an issue with this position, don’t tell me. Tell it to Althouse.
As for 16 year old with the big mouth and no brain in Wal-Mart, maybe Althouse would consider defending him pro bono. Given how it’s no biggie to call members of Congress bad names, this case should be a slam dunk for Ann.
I have no idea who was the source of any saliva and nasty words, but it’s important to realize how easy it is for someone who isn’t typical of the group or who is even its adversary to do things like this. It’s one of the oldest dirty tricks.It is indeed very important to realize this, because without irrefutable proof, if such a thing exists, then we are all entitled to craft our own reality and no counter-reality exists. And you can’t make us, because we’ve got an argument to prove that we’re right and your wrong. Or at least you can’t prove your right, which means we’re right.
There’s nothing new or surprising that this reflects the tone and depth of political argument, given that the earth has long been scorched beyond recognition by all partisans. But when the lawprofs simply manufacture their own reality, one has to wonder how they grade final examination answers which employ only logical fallacies to support their positions.
Althouse is, no doubt, a very smart lawprof, and I therefore must follow her lead. From now on, no wrong has occurred until someone is arrested, and no one can be proven guilty without a video. It works for me. And if anyone has an issue with this position, don’t tell me. Tell it to Althouse.
As for 16 year old with the big mouth and no brain in Wal-Mart, maybe Althouse would consider defending him pro bono. Given how it’s no biggie to call members of Congress bad names, this case should be a slam dunk for Ann.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The second paragraph of the WaPo story linked above:
“Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) issued a statement late Saturday saying that he was spit upon while walking to the Capitol to cast a vote, leading the Capitol Police to usher him into the building out of concern for his safety. Police detained the individual, who was then released because Cleaver declined to press charges.”
Since Cleaver didn’t hold a press conference to make that announcement, it didn’t occur either.
Can’t you tell the difference between detained and arrested (and if he was arrested, then the next requirement would have been convicted, then affirmed on appeal, then post appellate DNA testing and double-blind, sequential Rorschach tested). You naysayer, you,
Did you notice Althouse’s other suggestion? She says “it’s important to realize how easy it is for someone who isn’t typical of the group or who is even its adversary to do things like this. It’s one of the oldest dirty tricks.”
In summary, “It never happened, but if it happened it wasn’t a big deal, but if it was a big deal the other guys did it and framed us.”
I certainly agree with how aptly you summarized Althouse’s excuse.
I think that the day when lawyers and law professors think that hurling racial epithets at members of the congress is a sad day for the legal system. Since when is being a racist justifiable? Expressing one’s anger and frustration is certainly understandable but does it mean that you get to express it any way you want? People will always have different issues especially as topics as divisive as the healthcare bill and calling people and lawmakers out on their mistakes is one thing but calling them out on their race is another.
Got to disagree with some of your points, SHG.
Item: The so-called MSM, including the WaPo, have a verifiable record of cherry-picking, skewing, omitting and downright ignoring. It appears that when a story doesn’t fit their world view, they bend it until it fits or simply ignore it altogether. It is a fact that they have been supportive of “progressive” causes in their news reporting. Proof is readily available. This WaPo story is no exception.
They write that someone was detained, but according to the Huffington Post police say no one was arrested. Who is right? Purely semantic difference?
If someone, Congressman or not, makes accusations of wrongdoing which serve to help him politically, he needs to furnish proof.
Full disclosure: I was at the Capitol protest all day Saturday. It was a nice crowd. Just a handful of the usual strange characters among many thousand.
Detained and arrested are very different things.
Yes they are. My point was that had somebody been detained or arrested, 1 will get you 100 the HuffPo would have been all over it. That they aren’t is pretty good proof that nothing happened or should I say nobody was detained or arrested. Which would make Rep. Cleaver’s statement at least partially false since it specifically said someone was arrested. Should we believe the rest? Should Ann Althouse have believed it?
The WaPo story made clear that the person detained was not arrested. But the absence of an arrest isn’t proof of anything. The short answer to your questions is that you have it backward. You have Rep. Cleaver’s statement that it happened and nothing to disprove it. You (and Althouse) can assume he’s lying because that’s your preference, but it’s not a reasoned position, just a personal choice. Whether you or Althouse chose to believe isn’t the point. Facts exist or not whether any particular person without knowledge choses to accept it or not.
RanierK is saying that if the Huffington Post didn’t report it, it didn’t happen. This is a fact that you, SHG, should be able to use to the advantage of most, if not all, of those criminals you insist on defending. That is, assuming that a new interpretation of the Commerce Clause doesn’t doesn’t put you out of business by eliminating criminal offenses.
What a great idea, the HuffPo defense.
And if the commerce clause is reinterpreted to put an end to federal criminal prosecutions, I will be very happy, and very poor. I am considering the potential switch to a new legal niche, pizza law. It’s wide open at the moment, and I could corner the market.
Hmm, another one of those situations where the twain never shall meet? Last try.
SHG, respectfully, I have it backward? Huh? Who has the burden of proof? The accuser or the accused? Is it upon the accused to prove a negative? Mr. Cleaver is very obviously making political hay out of his accusation. Without having furnished any proof. He is playing the race card. So, you’re right, based upon the circumstantial evidence available, it is my personal choice to disbelieve him. Politeness keeps me from being more blunt. I call that a very well reasoned position.
Now my point re. the HuffPo which apparently is lost on some. The HuffPo is an extremely partisan supporter of Mr. Cleaver. If not even they run with the story, that is very indicative of its nonexistence, no? Conclusive proof? No. Not upon me or Ann Althouse to furnish.
Cleaver says it happened. That is proof. He was there. He says so. Does a robbery not happen because the victim says he was robbed but there’s no video? I fail to see what part of this present difficulty for you. Proof isn’t via the HuffPo. Videos aren’t necessary. Things happen even if no one is arrested. The word of a person actually present is proof. That’s how this whole burden thing works.
Funny thing is that I caught a bit of Bill O’Reilly last night, and some woman who was covering the protest argued as you do, but added that we know Cleaver is a liar because anyone who would trample the Constitution can’t be presumed to tell the truth. O’Reilly responded that he may well be trampling the Constitution, but that doesn’t make him a liar. If he says so, and there’s no evidence to the contrary, he had to assume he was telling the truth. Even O’Reilly, who some consider a tad partisan, couldn’t bring himself to call Cleaver a liar.