Are you an asshole, or just suffering from some form of disinhibition effect?

By Joseph Walther

 

All of us run into people we consider chronically unreflective. Of course, loads of us use the more popular technical term: “assholes.” I realize that “asshole” is an offensive term and countless people object to its use; but it works. It works because describing someone as “chronically unreflective” is so… you know, scientific. It exudes social mitigation. It evokes a sense of clinical pity that makes us say, “Oh, poor soul!” Conversely, all of us know an “asshole,” when we run into one.

 

            This isn’t about assholes per se, since we’re all assholes. I know; it’s shocking. Each one of us is someone else’s asshole. No matter what any of us does, somewhere, someone, or perhaps many, will declare that we’re an “asshole!” On the other hand, several readers sent me items this past week that demonstrate how seemingly logical it is to label some people as “assholes.”

 

            New York City has banned the use of the N-word. The name-calling began before the ink dried on the proclamation. “Stupid”, “liberal bullshit”, “do-gooder crap”, and “politically correct jerk offs” are a few of the terms used to describe the action AND the people behind it.

 

            It’s a waste of time to go into the proponents’ collective motivation behind taking this action. People might say that it’s chronically unreflective. So, I’m not going to do it. I think it was well intentioned, aimed at trying to ease some of the tremendously negative social tensions resulting from using harmful words.

 

            Here’s the problem, though. As soon as anyone uses the term, “N-word,” we know what it means. Calling a black person “N-word” instead of what “N-word” means, doesn’t accomplish anything, unless we include making ourselves look stupid. If banning words actually helped solve our social problems, our national vocabulary could well disappear.

 

            When my children were young, 7 and 5-years respectively, my son, the 7-year-old, accused his 5-year-old sister of using the “F-word.” I came close to blowing a head gasket, even before I found out that the “F-word” he meant was fart! Do you see how silly it can become?

 

            The point is that banning words does not ban the associated meaning of the banned words. It’s just a “feel good” exercise in social foolishness. It’s condescending to those we are trying to protect; and it provides rock-solid instances when the term, “assholes” fits the bill quite appropriately.

 

            Another reader sent me an article dealing with growing inhospitable attitudes encountered when trying to discuss social issues over the Internet. Yep, I checked and it seems to be happening with increasing frequency. I lost the link he sent me, but a great place to find examples is www.delawareonline.com. I’m sure there are others, just as bad as this one, in your specific neighborhoods.

 

            Click on any of the news items that permit readers’ comments and you will see what I mean. Many of these posts are sweeping generalizations, full of illiterate, vulgar, and sometimes-profane opinions based on nothing more than ingrained misinformed ideology. These people rant and rave unintelligently about issues and they do it in a manner that they’d never consider if they had to do it face to face. They’d be too afraid that someone might “punch their lights out.”

 

            Rest easy, however, some well-meaning twit with a Psychology degree has developed an explanation for such behavior. He calls it “Online Disinhibition Effect.” I am sure this malady will eventually show up as an attempted courtroom defense on behalf of the inevitable defendant who finds a way of going beyond verbal assault.

 

            What a gem of a term! It’s clinical; has all of the elements of political correctness; sounds medically sophisticated; and its meaning is so conveniently expandable to other areas of equally wayward behavior. Besides, since being an “asshole” is not a valid legal defense, it’s positively brilliant!

 

            In retrospect, this fantastic term helps us to understand how much we so viciously maligned poor Mel Gibson when he went on his drunken tirade against the Jews. He was NOT, in view of this term’s meaning and expandability, a drunken “asshole.” The poor guy was sick, a misdiagnosed multimillionaire locked tightly in the coils of a terrible condition called “Alcohol-induced Disinhibition Effect.” I’m so sorry, Mel. Where are my damn Kleenex?

 

            Several readers sent me clips from the Glenn Beck TV program on CNN. I’m not much of cable channel talking heads watcher. I have nothing against Mr. Beck. So, don’t send me hate mail. I made it a point to watch his show. As these shows go, his is one of the better ones. Even though I think he’s every bit as irritating and self-aggrandizing as some of the others, he’s one of the more talented ones. He seems to have researched his diatribe.

 

            Mr. Beck’s concern hinges on the negative impact of Sharia law on the United States as an off spin of a growing Muslim population within our borders. He does not condemn Muslims in general, just the extremists who advocate strict adherence to Sharia law. He related a story about a number of Muslim retail employees in Massachusetts who have refused to scan items at the cash register that they consider “evil” according to Sharia law.

 

            I researched this and it’s true. I can’t comment on its degree of seriousness because I don’t know if it’s serious. Some of these folks have sued to get their jobs back, claiming religious discrimination. The matter shouldn’t amount to anything worth worrying about.

 

            People, race and ethnicity notwithstanding, apply for jobs constantly. Potential employers present applicants with job descriptions that explain the tasks involved in performing the respective jobs. Assuming that job candidates meet the qualifications, that the job functions are legal, and that the qualified applicants agree to perform all of the job functions, the employers hire the applicants.

 

            An employer/employee relationship carries specific performance requirements for both sides. As long as the product lines are socially acceptable and legal, for sale purposes, employees are not free to refuse to sell them on religious grounds. If they do so, employers have a legal right to discipline them, including dismissal. It’s not religious discrimination, either. It’s not complicated. They may continue to practice their religious beliefs, but in another job.

 

            There may well be growing serious problem over Sharia law. I have not had the chance to research it as a potential threat to our way of life. However, this particular concern of Mr. Beck’s isn’t something that compels me to start depression therapy.

 

            I’ve learned a lot from my readers this past week. For example, when I was in my mid to late twenties, I had an insatiable taste and desire for beer. I could drink the stuff by the case and, sometimes, I did. Even though I may have been, occasionally, chronically unreflective, I swear I don’t remember it.

 

            Yes, I had disagreements with people, especially after about my second six-pack. People just seemed to have lost the ability to understand what I was saying for some reason. These people were, simply put, confused about my positions. However, I knew exactly what I was saying. Yes, there were also a few late-night episodes of me, in a dark bedroom, trying to take my dress pants off… over my head. But drunken asshole? Never!

 

            I’m 64-years old, now. I can count, on two hands, the number of beers I’ve had over the past 30-years or so. The older we get, the more reflective we become. I’m even willing to admit, at this point, that perhaps there may have been a time or two when I was not very intellectually swift and that I may have popped too many beer caps occasionally.

 

            However, the revelations over the past week make me feel better about myself. Thankfully, I was not a hopelessly stupid, drunken asshole. I was sick, suffering from a combination of chronic unreflectiveness effect and alcohol-induced disinhibition effect. I feel so much better about it, too. I just know that the label, Online Disinhibition Effect, does not apply to me! That would make me an asshole, wouldn’t it?

 

            Have a great week. Taxes are due soon, but screw it. Have a few beers, but watch out for those disinhibition effects!

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

What's this "great weight" stuff about?

By Joseph Walther

 

I wrote about the James Cooke rape/murder trial a couple of weeks ago. Cooke broke into University of Delaware student Lindsay Bonistall’s apartment to rob her. He did that, but he also raped and murdered her. Afterward, he placed her body, clothes, and other personal items into the bathtub and set it on fire to destroy evidence. It didn’t work out the way he planned. DNA evidence, by an ever so slim margin of 671 quintillion to 1, concluded that he had raped her. Additional circumstantial evidence took care of the rest. The jury convicted Cooke on all counts.

 

            The same jury must now recommend to the judge whether Cooke should be executed or be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Afterward, the judge will set a sentencing date. While the judge is not obligated to follow the jury’s recommendation, he must give it “great weight.” I’m sure judges know what “great weight” means,” but lots of people are confused as hell about it.

 

            What? Do capital murder judges use some sort of judicial curve when figuring in “great weight?” Is it a mathematical thing? Is it like the ones college professors use? I mean, like, suppose a professor tells you that he’s going to calculate your final grade using your tests’ average. BUT, and here’s the interesting part, he’ll be assigning “great weight” to your classroom participation. However, he’ll not be obligated to adhere to it. Does this mean that if your tests average to a “C,” you could end up with an “A” after the “great weight” thing? Or, if your tests average is “B+,” might you end up with a final grade of “D-,” once the old prof does the “great weight” routine?

 

            So, would someone, ANYONE, please explain what “great weight” means in the judicial sense? A lot of people are just flat out confused over this!

 

            I’ve seen juries recommend life without parole by a vote of 11 to 1. The judge, after doing the “great weight” magic, handed down a death sentence. Other juries have recommended the death penalty by a vote of 7 to 5, while applying the same “great weight” routine, the judge agreed with the vote. A couple of years ago, a jury voted 10 to 2 for the death sentence, but, after the judge did the “great weight” routine, he handed down a life with no parole sentence. Seems confusing, wouldn’t you say?

 

            In the meantime, Cooke has devastated the Bonistalls on a personal level that is beyond anyone’s comprehension at the clinical level. Multitudes of illiterate legal neophytes have posted numerous vicious malignments about Cooke’s court-assigned lawyers. They’ve also accused the trial judge of everything from being a liberal pansy to conducting a circus act, “great weight” notwithstanding, of course.

 

            I take no moral stand on the death penalty. If society wants to impose it, go for it, as long as it passes Constitutional muster. But, I’d be just as comfortable with a life without parole sentence. I consider Cooke to be nothing more than a rogue, killer-mutation that society needs to deal with. Either execute him and be done with it, or put him in a maximum-security prison for the rest of his useless, miserable life. With any luck at all, Bubba will take a special liking to Mr. Cooke, if you get my drift. And, I’ve given the matter “great weight.”

 

            It’s a given that the “God” people are going to be very upset with my attitude. They think we humans are special. I don’t, but I guess it all depends on this “great weight” business. As I said, lots of people are confused. I think I know what this “great weight” thing is about, but I’m going to wait until the judge sentences Cooke to tell you what I think.

 

            I’ll be back next week. I hope your St. Patrick’s Day was happy and free from any DUI checkpoints. They were out in force in this neck of the woods. Here’s a joke sent to me by one of my readers. Enjoy!

 

            Gallagher opened the morning newspaper and was dumbfounded to read in the obituary column that he had died. He quickly phoned his best friend, Finney. “They say I died!!” “Yes, I saw it!” replied Finney. Where are ye callin’ from?”

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Oh, God! Not that DAMN Constitution again!

By Joseph Walther

 

It must be something in the drinking water. I received close to 30-emails last week about legal cases in various parts of the United States. What’s going on? The cases ranged from absurdly stupid to incredibly sad. I was able to research all but four of them. A common thread of the mails, though, seemed to be that our criminal justice system is falling apart. Of course, the emails were grossly short on proof. Mostly, they seemed to describe cases that didn’t turn out the way that the emailers thought that they should have. I can sympathize but… as Mortimer Snerd liked to say to Charlie McCarthy, “Hold on just a gol’ dern minute!”

 

            In this country, criminal accusation is not supposed to rise to the level of assumed guilt. Our Constitution obligates us to assume innocence until the state proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This sounds simple enough, but sometimes it just isn’t. When it isn’t, AND the appellate judges have to rule in favor of the “obvious” scum, all hell breaks loose. Judicial activist labels start ricocheting off the walls, not to mention labels like, “liberal bastards”, “wrist slappers,” and “do gooders.” Without going into specific cases, let’s look at how “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not always what it seems.

 

            A former colleague of mine used to kid around about his system of justice. Anytime that a subordinate broke a rule, he’d say, “We need to bring him in; give him a fair trial; and hang him!” He was always kidding, of course. Others, with whom I remain friends, will see this column and immediately know his identity. Some of them will disagree with the “kidding” part. So be it. Disagreeing is not a crime, so reasonable doubt does not apply.

 

            In criminal law, the burden of proof is ALWAYS “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In civil law, the burden is not as strict, requiring only a “preponderance of the evidence.” Preponderance is much easier to define. So, here’s a simple definition. Given the evidence presented, is it more likely than not that “X” was negligent or broke the terms of a contract, etc.? This always assumes, of course, that the evidence presented was according to long-established rules. If not, the appeals process will kick into gear and some people are NOT going to be happy about it.

 

            “Beyond a reasonable doubt” means that evidence establishes guilt (or a point) to a moral certainty and it is beyond argument that any reasonable alternative is possible. Note, however, that this does NOT mean that NO doubt exists. It simply means that such doubt would not sway the opinions of reasonable people.

 

            Here’s a prosecutorial slam-dunk. Four people, two across the street and two walking past the house, witness a car screech to a halt in the driveway; watch a man jump out and run into the house carrying a gun at his side. They hear a man’s voice shouting at a woman. The woman screams as two shots ring out. The man runs from the house, still carrying the gun. He jumps back into the car and speeds away. The police discover the woman’s body and apprehend the “alleged” killer the next day. He still has the murder weapon; his prints are all over it; and his shirt has some of the victim’s blood on it. In addition, they uncover the fact that he found out that she had been cheating on him and he had threatened to kill her two days before the shooting.

 

            This is a simple one. As my former colleague always chided, “We need to bring him in; give him a fair trial; and then hang—or, as is the case nowadays, inject him!” Absent any affective legal mistakes, there’s no reasonable doubt here. Not even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the undisputed champions of the liberal courts, would be able to reverse or remand this one. Although I suspect that they’d give it their best effort.

 

            Unfortunately for law enforcement, criminals rarely hand them a gift like this one. Much of the time, juries must decide not only whether a main fact of a case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but that other subordinate facts have also been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It isn’t that juries can’t do this. They can. More often than not, a trial judge fails to instruct a jury that it MUST do it. Here’s an example.

 

            A state prosecutor charged “A” with the first-degree assault of “B.” The state attempted to prove the actus reus element of the crime with two discrete subordinate facts: (1), that the victim identified “A” and, (2), that “A” had been similarly linked to other crimes using the same mode of operation, um, I mean modus operandi. (Judges love Latin terms. actus reus means “guilty act” and constitutes the main element of the crime.) The defense countered with two significant pieces of evidence: (1) the police used improper lineup procedures in that they suggested the outcome (a common law and order hotshot ploy), and (2) proof that their client was not specifically involved in any of those other crimes.

 

            When the trial judge instructed the jury, prior to deliberating, he instructed them to apply the burden of proof to the actus reus elements of the charge, but did not include the subordinate facts as requiring the same burden of proof. As such, the jury simply combined the subordinate facts with the actus reus elements and found the defendant guilty. The excrement hit the oscillating device when the defense appealed the verdict.

 

            The defense showed that the accuracy of both subordinate facts were essential to a guilty verdict. It showed that the trial judge had erred in his instructions to the jury, in that he did not instruct them to apply the same burden of proof to the subordinate facts of the case. The state appellate court agreed; and remanded the case back to superior court for a retrial. The appellate folks could have, just as easily, reversed the verdict, but didn’t.

 

            The defendant in this case was not a very likeable person. Many people described him as not very nice… “co*k-s&%king scumbag” was the most often used term of social endearment by those of, shall we say, a more direct method of communication. When the results of the appeal hit the newspapers, people accused the appellate judges of being “liberal pansies.” They didn’t actually say, “liberal pansies;” but I’m not going to print it.

 

            The defense lawyers did their jobs. They forced the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem was the trial judge’s legal mistake. He didn’t mean to make it; but he did. The defense lawyers called him on it. As I reread the entire transcript of the case, my gut continually screamed into my ears, “GUILTY AS HELL.” Unfortunately, we can’t base a guilty verdict on our haunches. It would be like a jury finding a defendant NOT guilty, but the judge giving a ten-year sentence “just to be safe.”

 

            Likewise, appellate judges shouldn’t let personality influence their decisions. Sometimes they do, though. This defendant was as bad and unlikeable as people claimed he was. Luckily, the trial judge’s legal error was not so egregious as to demand an outright reversal. Still, it would have been interesting to see the outcome (remand or reversal) had the defendant been a highly disgruntled but clean-cut, likeable, and literate family man getting his “pay backs.”

 

            A jury found the defendant guilty on retrial and the judge rendered an appropriate sentence. It will be a while before he gets out. Things have calmed down on the critique front, also. After all, the sleazebag got what he deserved in the end. However, here’s a reminder for all of you no nonsense, mandatory minimums, law and order, fry-the-bastard types. It’s OK to “bring him in; give him a fair trial; and then hang him.” You have to do it according to our constitutional mandates, though. If it were one of you, you’d want these requirements elevated to the same status as the Sacraments!

 

            I’ll be back next week. Stay safe and remember that daylight saving time begins this weekend. You’d better be at work, ON TIME, Monday morning. Otherwise, we’ll “bring you in; give you a fair trial, and then hang you!

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

If you're good, something bad may happen!

 

By Joseph Walther

 

Yesterday was a tragic day for some young people. A tornado killed eight high school students in Enterprise, Georgia; and a charter bus accident killed four college students on their way to a spring training baseball game in Florida. There were others elsewhere, every bit as tragic. Unfortunately, these constituted the tragedies du jour for some of cable TV’s less than stellar talking heads.

 

            As I channel surfed, anxiously searching for some substantive news, such as whether Anna Nicole Smith finally made it into a grave, or whether Britney Spears survived another day in rehab, or more details concerning the rumored upcoming Geico “Cave-Man” sitcom, I came upon CNN’s Anderson Cooper asking this question: “Why do bad things happen to good people?” Voila! This week’s column was born. I don’t have issues with Anderson Cooper, but I thought his use of this provocative question was less than sincere.

 

            Regardless, there is an answer. In fact, there are myriad answers. So, finding one is not difficult. Finding a universally accepted answer, however, seems to be impossible. Here’s mine. Your mileage may vary, but the only time that’s a problem for me is when you dogmatically deem to impose it on others.

 

            I’ve looked hard for someone, ANYONE, who can give me a solid definition for “good” relative to people. What makes us think of some people as good and others as bad? Is the distinction absolute? Who decides? Is there a standardized evaluation criterion? Does believing in God make a difference? Where does that put Atheists? How about those who don’t know if there’s a God? Or, perhaps Anderson’s question was purely rhetorical, to project a clinical compassion for the families of the victims.

 

            More people have told me that I’m a good person than those who have told me otherwise. In fact, I can’t recall anyone ever telling me to my face that I’m a bad person. So, is this the reason that my children were born free of birth defects? I’m confused! A good friend of mine has a granddaughter with Spina Bifida. He seems like a good person. Is this his bad happening? More importantly, what about the grandchild? She was born with Spina Bifida. Was there some kind of attempt to get even with someone?

 

            Good, bad, right, wrong, moral, immoral, reward, punishment! These are all human terms. They do not exist in nature. In nature, only actions and consequences exist. Humans continually insist on questioning this for some reason. Why? Is it because humans are capable of self-awareness? Is this why there MUST always be rhyme and reason for every human tragedy. If so, it complicates things and, in my opinion, makes a Deity look silly whenever we try to invoke one.

 

            Many of us listened in shock and sorrow as we learned of so many youthful deaths yesterday. For us listeners, our sorrow was sincere but clinical. For the families and friends of those young victims, it was devastating and personal. Preordained? Some sort of divine retribution? God’s will? I don’t think so. Bad luck? Yes, and terrible beyond imagination. Things happen to people. Good and bad are irrelevant labels.

 

            Some people think that I’m arrogant because I do not credit a supreme being for the good things that have happened in my life. I don’t think I’m arrogant, but they’re correct in so far as me not crediting God. On the other hand, I’ve never blamed God for the “bad” things that have happened to me, either. Hard work notwithstanding, I’ve had a good life because I’ve had more good luck than bad. Others haven’t.

 

            Regardless of human fault—and there will be plenty of it flying around once the lawyers get involved—these youngsters were unlucky. I wish their families the best in dealing with it.

 

            There’s something else, too, but it does not apply to these young people. Good luck and bad luck are not ALL there is to it. Let us NOT overlook the fact that some people are a lot dumber than others are. George Bush, Nancy Grace, Shawn Hannity, and two locals: Rick Jensen and Gerry Fulcher of WDEL’s Live and Local are just a few. I’m sure there are those who would include me, too.

 

            Many more people, less famous, also do stupid things that contribute to their bad luck. Right after 9/11, our government leaders established the Department of Homeland Security, which promptly instructed people to go buy duct tape to protect themselves from terroristic chemical and biological attacks. Many complied without considering that the risks of driving to buy the tape far outweighed the risks of not having it. Of course, it would have been a different story had sex been involved. Duct tape CAN be essential under certain circumstances.

 

            When life hands us lemons, they tell us to make lemonade. No problem. Sometimes, though, in addition to handing us lemons, life tears our pants off; exposes our naked butts; runs a power sander back and forth across it a few times; then pours lemon juice into the wounds. This happened to a friend of mine. Trust me; making lemonade never occurred to her. Boy, could she have used some duct tape, though!

 

            I’ll be back next week. In the meantime, stay good, or bad, depending on the circumstances. Bad can be a lot of fun if it’s done right; but, I have no direct knowledge of this. Either way, though, things might happen to you, especially if you’ve been good with that duct tape left over from the 9/11 business. If so, let Anderson Cooper know. I think he’s doing some kind of research.

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.