Archive for November 4th, 2012

“Revenge is a confession of pain.”Latin proverb

“Revenge is an act of passion; vengeance of justice. Injuries are revenged; crimes are avenged.”  –Samuel Johnson

“Revenge is sweeter than life itself. So think fools. [Lat., At vindicta bonum vita jucundius ipsa nempe hoc indocti.]” – Decimus Junius Juvenal

“Revenge is always the weak pleasure of a little and narrow mind. [Lat., Semper et infirmi est animi exiguique voluptas Ultio.]”Decimus Junius Jivenal

“By taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing over it, he is superior.”Unknown

Just when I think that he can’t debase the office any further, President Obama manages to get another stain on the image of the Presidency.  In a speech to followers in New Hampshire, the President stated “No, no, no — don’t boo, vote. Vote! Voting is the best revenge.”

Since then, I have watched the Obama faithful attempt to spin this into another erudite utterance from the 21st Century’s First “Smart Like Spock” President, including this claim that it was actually a brilliant allusion that the doddering idiot Mitt Romney was just too thick to understand.   Having observed the President for four long years now, I find this claim dubious at best, if only because I have a tough time swallowing the idea that a man with such strong anti-colonialist tendencies is such an astute student of English poets. (Although something in the back of my head says “Maybe, but drawing a mental parallel between “lying” and “voting” doesn’t seem like such a leap for him.”)

Instead, I find it more in keeping with the kind of imagery that he has generally used throughout his career…imagery that invokes violent images, and that reveals a base contempt not just for his opponents, but what it means to be American. 

Admittedly, he has occasionally hit the right note in his rhetoric, and this has been enough to influence those who were not already paying attention, or those who chose to see only what they wanted to.  For those people, words like these offered inspiration, and the illusion that the President was a figure of reconciliation in a country with some divisions.  Words like :

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”>”But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

I can admit that this was the speech that would have DEFINED other Presidents.  The problem is that it was spoken by someone who had already “damaged his witness” with things said in moments when he didn’t believe that everyone would hear him, or when he was not scripted, and spoke from the heart.  They were spoken by a man who had already expressed his disappointment with people who embraced the First and Second Amendments, and were thus “Bitter clingers, clinging to their guns and their religion”.  They were words spoken by a man who spoke of “getting in people’s faces”, and “bringing a gun to a knife fight”.  They were the words spoken by a man who refused to listen to other ideas, because “Elections have consequences” and ” I won”. 

The great miracle of American politics has always been the acceptance of the decision of the electorate by those who would lead them.  Power is a the strongest combination aphrodisiac and narcotic that there is, and it takes a strong man to walk away from it, with the greatest portion of that strength being the knowledge and complete belief that the Republic can only continue if the choice its people makes is accepted with humility, and the good grace to turn the reins over and walk away if told to do so by the voters.  This trait seems to be lacking more and more in the President’s party, and if his rhetoric is any indication, in him himself.  From Gore v. Bush, to the constant admonitions about people “voting against their interests” because the reject the notion that they have to be represented by identities rooted in sex organs, skin colors, ethnicities, and income status, to a rhetorically violent demonization of their opponents, the Democrats seem to be willing to divide, and play the part of Janus, with the words of derision flowing freely from one mouth, and a song of reconciliation flowing from the other.  And the more they talk, the more they reveal.

It really doesn’t matter if the President was trying to use a literary device, or if he really was nursing a grudge against a campaign that offers something he can’t.  Revenge is a word that has no place in American politics, because it fosters a division in the country’s soul that cannot be overcome by competent leadership alone.  This is something understood by another President that Mr. Obama would love to be compared with.

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Of course, the assassination of Lincoln put the government on a much different course, and as a result, after a brief respite, the blessing of liberty were denied to the people for whom so much blood was shed to bring to them for nearly another 100 years.  That is something for the President to consider as he faces the prospect of a resounding loss on Tuesday next.

Read Full Post »

I spent Friday afternoon in the auditorium of the Washington State Historical Museum in downtown Tacoma in a CLE (Continuing Legal Education) course on Electronic Records Management.  It wasn’t just an academic exercise. 

The course had three components.  The first was on “the cloud” and its ramifications not just for data storage, but for the way that we do business over all.  It was less about the practicality and uses tied specifically to how attorneys practice law, and more about the importance of having a plan on how it should be used, a serious examination of the question if the collaborative capabilities it presents are something that we can use in our profession to increase efficiency and efficacy, understanding how the service provider works, how long the information should be preserved, and whether or not the limitations and strictures of how the cloud is operated can be reconciled with the requirements of our profession.  The sheer amount of uncertainty regarding many of these issues is one of the reasons why I’m not gung-ho on this idea and ready to buy into it just yet, as much as I like the idea of being able to log in from anywhere, read any file our office maintains, and use our software without having to have it loaded on whatever device I might be using. 

The second portion dealt with some of the emerging social media case-law.  It is an area with many worthy questions, but few concrete answers yet.  It an area of life where technology has made a lot of things possible that previously weren’t.  Questions include what data can and should be able to be subpoenaed from social media outlets in discovery, as well as the more obvious admissibility and authentication issues.  It isn’t as simple as you might think at first blush, and branches out to cover other electronic media such as emails and text messages.  Probably one of the most alarming moments came when the presenter reminded us that under Washington law, there are a number of questions that a prospective employer can’t ask of a potential employee in an interview.  This is something that isn’t considered especially controversial by those in the profession, for obvious reasons.  But, he pointed out that much of this information can be discovered by nosing around in someone’s Facebook profile, if it isn’t limited or locked down.  Suddenly, with a few keystrokes, you can find out that the young woman you were interviewing is part of a fertility support group and is trying to get pregnant, or the applicant’s religion, or that they are politically vocal, and have a viewpoint that opposes yours.  Now discrimination on the basis of any of these facts is generally illegal, which is why they can’t ask, but now they can tell anyway, and the only way to avoid this is avoid exercising the right of freely associating with others across this medium.  There was also some discussion about how a Facebook posting with comments can meet the criteria of a public meeting, and how that creates unique governmental challenges for those charged with preserving such information.  The other major shock was how the NLRB has actually intervened in some social media/employment cases on behalf of non-union employees, ruling that employer’ actions against employees for violating social media policies, even those drawn up at great expense by law firms who carefully consider the limitations and prohibitions written into these policies, have been held to violate these workers’ rights.  I imagine that the law will be interesting as it develops over the next few decades, but I think for better or worse, it will have a noticeable impact on the notion of privacy that many people have.

The final segment was a Q and A session with the presenters, and some records management professionals.  In many ways, I found this to be the most alarming portion of the entire afternoon.  Of particular interest was a story relayed about how one lawyer had really been dragged in to cloud management of their practice by a client, who was convinced that it would be more efficient, and refused to pay for the attorney to do it their own way.  While he clearly told a tale which he believed had a happy ending (in the end, the attorney liked it, and wanted to do it with all of their clients), I looked around and realized that many of my peers did not recognize the obvious ethical issues raised by the story he told.   Then he went on to say that the implications of cloud computing would change the culture.  He pointed out that there is an entire generation which has lived its life in online social media, and how it was unavoidable that they would end up have very different notions of privacy than we would, and how that fact was probably going to end up having the biggest impact on law as we move forward.  I admit, I’m not comfortable with the notion, but this is in part due to the inherent impermanence of electronic data.  I don’t like the idea of a society that is so reliant on technology that knowledge can be lost with a blackout, EMP, or other interruption.  And yet this is the world we are already moving to occupy.   We can carry an entire library in a small tablet, but without power, you have nothing but an attractive paperweight.  But there is also the lack of hard documentation.   I can’t help but wonder what future generations will think of us, as there will be no paper records as there have been in the past.  No reams of correspondence between average people.   Fewer newspapers.  No habit of written journals.  Heck, even more and more textbooks are electronic in nature.  And being part of a profession that requires records and redundancies, I find that I think about this more and more.  Especially when, like after a storm, our internet connection became annoyingly intermittent.

Something to think about when the center of our center of economic commerce knocked out for two days last week due to weather.


Read Full Post »