judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the month “March, 2021”

Famed Economist Slams Claims Of American ‘Systemic Racism’: ‘It Just Doesn’t Cut The Mustard’

On Tuesday, famed economist Walter Williams, speaking with Daily Wire Editor-In-Chief Ben Shapiro, slammed the idea that there is “systemic racism” in the United States, asserting, “The civil rights struggle is over, and it’s won.” Commenting on the charge that the police are “systemically racist,” Williams stated that in Chicago, “There’s a person shot every three hours and a person killed every 14 hours, and so far this year there have been about 280 people shot and killed, and most of them are black and by blacks. In Chicago, the police have killed three people. So if you’re concerned about black lives, who should you pay most attention to?”

Williams offered a salient example of how some inequalities were “unavoidable” by using the example of students granted high school diplomas in Baltimore without proficiency in math or reading, then later citing racism for their failure to advance in their jobs without realizing that they had been given a “fraudulent” high school diploma.

The conversation began with Williams asked about the concept that America harbors “systemic racism” and that inequality between racial groups is primarily due to inequity.  Williams responded:

I don’t think you can get very far. You can’t offer a lot of evidence that we’re “systemically racist’ or there’s “institutional racism” in our country. I think one of the things that people need to know is that at least for black Americans, the civil rights struggle is over, and it’s won. That is, at one time black Americans didn’t have the same constitutional guarantees as everybody else, but now we do.

Now that in fact the civil rights struggle is over and won does not mean that there are not major problems, but they’re not civil rights problems. They don’t have anything to do with  racial discrimination — which is not to deny the existence of residual racial discrimination.

Williams commented about the notion that the police were “systemically racist,” “There are policemen who do not do their jobs, do not take their oath of office seriously enough, but the problems that policemen have, particularly with black people, is just the crime rate; slightly over 50% of the homicide victims in the United States are black and it turns out that the perpetrators, 90-some percent are black. So the problems with police pale small in comparison.”

He continued, “Just take the case of Chicago. Chicago, there’s a person shot every three hours and a person killed every 14 hours, and so far this year there have been about 280 people shot and killed, and most of them are black and by blacks. In Chicago, the police have killed three people. So if you’re concerned about black lives, who should you pay most attention to? It seems to be not what the police are doing in Chicago, but what other black people are doing in Chicago.”

Shapiro asked, “What do you make of the argument that racism can be blamed as the cause for today’s inequality?”

Williams answered:

I think for a lot of young people, they just don’t have the historical background, but I’m in my eighty-fifth year of life, and I grew up in the slums of North Philadelphia. At that time we did not go to bed with the sounds of gunshots. Most people left their doors open until the last person was in. I had a number of friends, I’d just knock on the door and somebody’d holler, “Come in!”

And there were no bars at the window; and other attributes about the black community is that my father deserted my mother and sister and I when I was three and she was two. We lived in Richard Allen Housing project … and we were the only kids in the neighborhood who did not have a mother and father in the house. Today it would be exactly the opposite.

And you can look at the black family structure; in 1880, 85 to 95 percent of black kids lived in two-parent families. Today, we’re much further away from slavery and less than a third live in two-parent families. You look at illegitimacy rates: today, illegitimacy rate among blacks is 75% and among whites it’s slightly over 30%, but if you go back to 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 11% and among whites it was 3%.

And so it turns out that on a lot of measures of socioeconomic characteristics, blacks were better off in terms of family structure and violence in earlier times. Which is not to say I want to go back to the old days where was gross racial discrimination in our country, but I think that a lot of things that people are blaming on slavery and discrimination, it just doesn’t cut the mustard, unless you say that this stuff skips a generation or two.

Williams noted:

If you look at some of the inequalities, they’re unavoidable. For example, in Baltimore, in the city of Baltimore, and this is a feature in other major cities as well, in 13 out of the 39 in Baltimore, not a single student tested proficient in mathematics and only 3% tested proficient in reading. And if you look at six other schools only 1% tested proficient in math and across the city only 15% tested proficient in reading.

Now these kids graduating from high school are getting a diploma which is fraudulent in the first instance, but here’s what a kid will say. He’ll graduate from, let’s say, Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore, and he’ll try to get a job, and he’ll say, “Well, look, this white guy, he’s moving along faster and he’s being promoted faster that I am, and I have a high school diploma and he has a high school diploma. So the reason why we’re treated differently is because of race.”

But see, the black kid doesn’t realize that is high school diploma is fraudulent, that his training is highly deficient, but he doesn’t realize that and he’ll blame any difference in treatment on racial discrimination.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that if you look at black people as a group, you’ll find that as a group, black Americans have made the greatest gains over the shortest period of time over some of the highest hurdles than any other racial group in the history of mankind — and here’s the evidence for that: in 1865,at the end of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slaveowner would have believed that blacks could make the kind of progress that we’ve made in a little bit less than a century and a half.  And the progress is that if you added up the income and spending of black Americans and just though of us as having our own GDP, we would be in the top twenty nations in terms of the top 20 richest nations.

 
Published in The Daily Wire by Hank Berrien on June 16, 2020 and can be found here.

A RUN ON THE COURTS

I recently heard on the radio a story about a woman and her young child who were kicked off of a bus because the child had a seriously smelly diaper. They were on the way to see the pediatrician because the child had a stomach virus. The bus company defended the driver’s actions, stating that he acted in the interest of the safety and comfort of the other passengers, who had complained about the odor.

                Although I can sympathize with both sides in this tale, and with the mother’s comments that being tossed off the bus made her feel like crap (appropriately said), I don’t sympathize with the mother’s next statement that she was going to sue.  Of course she is going to sue.  Every day lawyers hear from people who want to sue some person, company, school, government entity, etc., etc.  The rallying cry for these people is that something is unfair and that someone or some institution should be sued. Some of these people promise that the lawyer will make millions of dollars on their case, if the lawyers first provide their services for free and assume huge costs.

                Aside from the substantial costs to bring and defend a lawsuit, which is one of the main reasons most cases are settled before a trial, there is also the strong possibility that one side will lose. Regardless of how wonderful it seems one’s case is, there is still only a 50% chance of winning.  And sometimes, if one loses, filing fees and legal fees of the opposing party’s lawyer are tacked on. Even if one wins, the other side can appeal 1, 2, or 3 levels higher in the legal system, leading to even higher costs and a lengthier time for a decision. This can often span years. The justice system is not for the weak of heart or the poor of coin. But, even more important, everything that happens doesn’t always have a legal remedy, and even if it has a legal remedy, that remedy often requires that specific elements must be proven. And even if the specific elements are proven, it doesn’t mean that there are valid damages. Unless the mother above can prove that her child’s illness worsened after they were kicked off the bus, or that she couldn’t take another bus or find other means of transportation she could take to see the doctor, I think that she will have a hard time providing that she suffered damages. That doesn’t mean that the bus company won’t pay her something to avoid the unwanted media attention and for her inconvenience.

                But, I don’t get the feeling that her main interest is proving her case; instead her main interest is calling the news media to express her outrage about her situation which she obviously feels outweighs the rights of the other passengers to enjoy their ride and not be exposed to illness.

                There have been several cases which I have turned down where large verdicts were decided after other lawyers accepted the cases. But, all of these verdicts were either substantially reduced or overturned after 5-10 years of litigation.  Lawyers generally trust their guts on which cases they will succeed with, and despite some people criticizing lawyers for discouraging them from going heading into a disastrous legal battle, after they have fallen over the legal cliff, hopefully they will learn to respect the opinion of people who fight in the legal fields daily.

By: Faye Riva Cohen, Esquire on her blog “Toughlawyerlady.”

Massachusetts City Council Recognizes Polyamorous Domestic Partnerships

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

On March 8, Cambridge, Massachusetts City Council adopted amendments to the city’s Domestic Partnership Ordinance allowing polyamorous domestic partnership.  The ordinance now provides that

“Domestic partnership” means the entity formed by two or more persons who meet the following criteria and jointly file a registration statement proclaiming that: 1. They are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship; … 5. They consider themselves to be a family.

CNA reporting on the amendment points out that Cambridge becomes the second town, after Somerville, to legally recognize such domestic partnerships.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Templeton Project: Religious vs. Spiritual

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Religious vs. Spiritual.”

See also:

_____________________________

When I was visiting a dying parishioner in the middle of the night, I spoke in the hallway with an orderly about religion  I don’t remember how this conversation got started.

He said to me that he was spiritual rather than religious.  What he meant was that he had invented his own spirituality, his own conception of God, and his own theological confession ansd system, as far as it goes, probably with a lot of help from various religious traditions. He sees religion and religious as words that describe “organized religion.” A public religion like Christianity must be organized to exist.  Only private beliefs need no organization, and yet they are dependent on the religious traditions from which they borrow. Apparently, the spiritual do not need a community to be spiritual.  One can walk in the woods on Sunday while the church is at worship.

To claim being spiritual rather than religious means that one did not need to go to church or share the Christian confession in any of its forms from Roman Catholic, to Orthodox to Anglican, to Lutheran, to Pentecostal, to Baptist.  The orderly chose his beliefs from Columns A, B, C, D, and so on.  I assume that he thought that his foundational choice of spiritual over religious was superior.  The religious would be Christians who share together church life and a common confession.

You will meet people who think like this.  Be aware of the challenges of defending the faith and witnessing in these situations.  What are they?  Among them are a disdain for the church; a freewheeling view on doctrinal matters; and a demotion of Christ from his true status of Son of God and second person of the Holy Trinity.  Eastern religious elements may be part of  this private religious opinion unconnected to the church.  The irony is that a religion like Buddhism for which I have respect may be part of someone’s private belief, but it exists only in institutions.  The Three Jewels of Buddhism are Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. Buddhism has a body of teaching and is embedded in religious community that is the Sangha, or monastery in whose life Buddhists, monks and laity, participate.

I suppose, what is believed by the spiritual can be easily changed whenever such masters of religious traditions desire.  There is no stability or firm commitment to confess a certain body of teachings.

One must be patient with those who regard their spirituality to be superior to the Christian religious tradition.  One must have respect for their seeking, but be clear that Christ is the end of the search.  We witness to the fact that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14), as Jesus tells us in the Gospel of John.  Home-made religions do not share with Christianity, and for that matter, other historical religious traditions, a continuity in time or a universality of place.

What tips may be helpful when talking to “the spiritual?”

  1. Listen
  2. Clarify one’s own religious commitment.
  3. Listen
  4. Respond and then let be
  5. Depart amicably, if possible.

Michael G. Tavella

May 11, 2020

Why are sitcom dads still so inept?

By Erica Scharrer and published on Yahoo on June 16, 2020 and can be found here.
From Homer Simpson to Phil Dunphy, sitcom dads have long been known for being bumbling and inept.

But it wasn’t always this way. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, sitcom dads tended to be serious, calm and wise, if a bit detached. In a shift that media scholars have documented, only in later decades did fathers start to become foolish and incompetent.

And yet the real-world roles and expectations of fathers have changed in recent years. Today’s dads are putting more time into caring for their children and see that role as more central to their identity.

Have today’s sitcoms kept up?

I study gender and the media, and I specialize in depictions of masculinity. In a new study, my co-authors and I systematically look at the ways in which portrayals of sitcom fathers have and haven’t changed.

Why sitcom portrayals matter

Fictional entertainment can shape our views of ourselves and others. To appeal to broad audiences, sitcoms often rely on the shorthand assumptions that form the basis of stereotypes. Whether it’s the way they portray gay masculinity in “Will and Grace” or the working class in “Roseanne,” sitcoms often mine humor from certain norms and expectations associated with gender, sexual identity and class.

When sitcoms stereotype fathers, they seem to suggest that men are somehow inherently ill-suited for parenting. That sells actual fathers short and, in heterosexual, two-parent contexts, it reinforces the idea that mothers should take on the lion’s share of parenting responsibilities.

It was Tim Allen’s role as Tim “the Tool Man” Taylor of the 1990s series “Home Improvement” that inspired my initial interest in sitcom dads. Tim was goofy and childish, whereas Jill, his wife, was always ready – with a disapproving scowl, a snappy remark and seemingly endless stores of patience – to bring him back in line. The pattern matched an observation made by TV Guide television critic Matt Roush, who, in 2010, wrote, “It used to be that father knew best, and then we started to wonder if he knew anything at all.”

I published my first quantitative study on the depiction of sitcom fathers in 2001, focusing on jokes involving the father. I found that, compared with older sitcoms, dads in more recent sitcoms were the butt of the joke more frequently. Mothers, on the other hand, became less frequent targets of mockery over time. I viewed this as evidence of increasingly feminist portrayals of women that coincided with their growing presence in the workforce.

Studying the disparaged dad

In our new study, we wanted to focus on sitcom dads’ interactions with their children, given how fatherhood has changed in American culture.

We used what’s called “quantitative content analysis,” a common research method in communication studies. To conduct this sort of analysis, researchers develop definitions of key concepts to apply to a large set of media content. Researchers employ multiple people as coders who observe the content and individually track whether a particular concept appears.

For example, researchers might study the racial and ethnic diversity of recurring characters on Netflix original programs. Or they might try to see whether demonstrations are described as “protests” or “riots” in national news.

For our study, we identified 34 top-rated, family-centered sitcoms that aired from 1980 to 2017 and randomly selected two episodes from each. Next, we isolated 578 scenes in which the fathers were involved in “disparagement humor,” which meant the dads either made fun of another character or were made fun of themselves.

Then we studied how often sitcom dads were shown together with their kids within these scenes in three key parenting interactions: giving advice, setting rules or positively or negatively reinforcing their kids’ behavior. We wanted to see whether the interaction made the father look “humorously foolish” – showing poor judgment, being incompetent or acting childishly.

Interestingly, fathers were shown in fewer parenting situations in more recent sitcoms. And when fathers were parenting, it was depicted as humorously foolish in just over 50% of the relevant scenes in the 2000s and 2010s, compared with 18% in the 1980s and 31% in the 1990s sitcoms.

At least within scenes featuring disparagement humor, sitcom audiences, more often than not, are still being encouraged to laugh at dads’ parenting missteps and mistakes.

Fueling an inferiority complex?

The degree to which entertainment media reflect or distort reality is an enduring question in communication and media studies. In order to answer that question, it’s important to take a look at the data.

National polls by Pew Research Center show that from 1965 to 2016, the amount of time fathers reported spending on care for their children nearly tripled. These days, dads constitute 17% of all stay-at-home parents, up from 10% in 1989. Today, fathers are just as likely as mothers to say that being a parent is “extremely important to their identity.” They are also just as likely to describe parenting as rewarding.

Yet, there is evidence in the Pew data that these changes present challenges, as well. The majority of dads feel they do not spend enough time with their children, often citing work responsibilities as the primary reason. Only 39% of fathers feel they are doing “a very good job” raising their children.

Perhaps this sort of self-criticism is being reinforced by foolish and failing father portrayals in sitcom content.

Of course, not all sitcoms depict fathers as incompetent parents. The sample we examined stalled out in 2017, whereas TV Guide presented “7 Sitcom Dads Changing How we Think about Fatherhood Now” in 2019. In our study, the moments of problematic parenting often took place in a wider context of a generally quite loving depiction.

Still, while television portrayals will likely never match the range and complexity of fatherhood, sitcom writers can do better by dads by moving on from the increasingly outdated foolish father trope.

PHILANTHROPISTS OF TIME

The word “philanthropist” was formerly reserved for a very few wealthy people like Walter Annenberg who donated to charitable or civic causes. Yet, every day I read or hear about someone who is referred to as a philanthropist by the media, or often refers to him/herself as a philanthropist.

So, how much does one have to contribute financially to charities or causes to become a legitimate philanthropist? Obviously there is not a set amount. Is someone who gives half of their income of $50,000 to charitable causes considered a philanthropist, and, if so, are they placed in the same category as someone who gives $1 million and earns a salary of $10 million? If that is the case, than the person earning less is a more generous philanthropist than the person who earns substantially more. Other considerations are whether one is donating money they have inherited or whether they are donating money they would have to pay toward taxes instead. If that is the case, perhaps we should consider the more sincere philanthropist to be the person who really wants to donate, and doesn’t do so just to save taxes. 

I read the other day that young people donate twice as much of their time to charitable causes as their elders. I think that has something to do with their elders having to spend most of their time earning money to support their children.

Another form of philanthropy is giving of one’s time, and in the case of lawyers, their time and advice. Although I contribute financially to charities, and the colleges I have attended will receive funds from my estate when I die, most of my philanthropy is and has been that of giving freely of my time and expertise to thousands of callers over the years.  If I were to place a monetary amount on my time and advice it would amount to many millions of dollars. Every day I listen to people’s stories and problems and try to guide them in a certain direction, educate them about their legal rights and possibilities, and open their eyes and minds so they can reach the best decisions for themselves based on their circumstances. Although I never give legal advice unless someone becomes a client, I do try and educate anyone who calls me about the law in general and their choices.   Sometimes people are in denial and don’t want to hear that their choices are limited under the law, that their choices are often limited by their finances, and that justice has limitations.

Iam not alone in time philanthropy.  Most lawyers provide this service, and it is a service that many people think should be provided for free.  However, As Abraham Lincoln said, “a lawyer’s time and advice are his stock in trade.”  I think lawyers are unique as they are giving of their time and expertise, quite often initially for free. Can you think of a doctor, dentist, accountant, or other professional who will listen to your story for free, at least for any length of time? Yet, people expect lawyers to give freely of their time. So, let’s applaud lawyers, many of whom are major time philanthropists, as they give of their time for the common good without charge.

By: Faye Riva Cohen, Esquire on her blog “Toughlawyerlady.”

8th Circuit: Street Preacher Did Not Show Entitlement To Preliminary Injunction

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Sessler v. City of Davenport, (8th Cir., March 18, 2021), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to a street preacher who in 2018 had been required by police to leave the Street Fest area in Davenport. He was limited to preaching across the street from one of the festival entrances. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the city’s Special Events Policy against him through December 2022. The court held:

Although Sessler possesses a First Amendment right to communicate his messages in a public forum, he does not have the wholesale right to disrupt an event covered by a permit….

Even if we assume for purposes of this appeal, without deciding, that Sessler has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, we find Sessler’s inability to demonstrate a threat of irreparable harm heavily weighs against granting preliminary injunctive relief….

The facts as alleged by Sessler show that he was allowed to continue preaching in the City’s public sidewalks and streets, just not those demarcated and secured for use by Street Fest in July 2018. And, although Sessler’s Complaint is based on his removal from a festival governed by the City’s Policy, Sessler does not provide any concrete plans to share his messages at future festivals in the City.

You can learn more about this issue here.

YesSource: Live in Yokohama, 3/4/92

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

Templeton Project: The Great Revolution

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled The Great Revolution.”

See also:

_____________________________

Neither the French nor the Russian revolution was beneficial to the people.  While the French revolution provided some benefit, it also established a reign of terror in which many people were killed and provided a platform for Napoleon and the Napoleonic wars. The Russian revolution provided little or nothing for the Russian people.  Terror, especially under Stalin, was the name of the game.

But, the Christian revolution established on earth the beginnings of the Kingdom of God to be consummated in the future with the return of Christ.  It is true that people have used the Church for their own evil designs (see the story of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov by Feodor Dostoevsky), but their actions have not been according to the will of Christ and will be judged at the end of time.

Christ’s will is clearly expressed in the New Testament.  His message is one of peace; reconciliation; and, most of all, love.  It is the love of the Father through Christ that grace has come to each one of us through the workings of the Holy Spirit.  We are God’s children and heirs of the Kingdom.  The new society was not produced by either the French or Russian revolution, but rather Christ Himself in the bringing into the midst of human society the Kingdom of God.   In the history of the world, the Church represents Christ’s Kingdom until the end of time.  It too is under judgment for its failures, but it is also the realm of the justified and saved, the chosen people of God.

We Christians are not to be captivated by the world’s ideologies.  We are not to be misled by the promise of utopias that can only become dystopian.  We must never assent to world- maufactured promises of well-being that can only become engines of destruction.

The Christian witness stands with Christ.  He is the measure of all worldly philosophies.  We evaluate them according to His will.  Most of all, we pray that Christ’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Michael G. Tavella

May 11, 2020

YesSource: Live in East Troy, 7/26/91

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

Post Navigation