![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More on Sotomayor
May. 29th, 2009 12:07 amHere's a joke from a book on cross-examination I've read (that's somewhere in a box, so I don't have a better cite than that):
Seems there was a Rookie Cop. He ticketed someone for drunk driving. The Defense Lawyer lays into him:
DL: Is it true, officer, that this is your first year of service in the police?
RC: Yes, it is.
DL: Is it true this is among the first citations you've ever issued?
RC: Yes, it is.
{that's where the book suggests the DL should have left it. instead, he went on:}
DL: On what basis, then, did you assess my client's sobriety behind the wheel?
RC: Fifteen years' experience as a professional bartender.
Oops.
In a similar way, Glenn Greenwald has a few things to say about Ms. Sotomayor.
Unlike me, most likely you, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, though, he bases it on a case he argued before Judge Sotomayor.
*^*^*
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jaylake pointed to this piece at National Review by one Mark Krikorian where the poor writer complains about peer pressure to pronounce Ms. Sotomayor's name correctly, instead of mangling it the way he'd like. This is what I wrote to him:
---
"This may seem like carping, but it's not."
Wanna bet? If it comforts you to think so, fine. That's probably not true to your readers, though.
First off, you keep making a "natural"/"unnatural" distinction. There is no such thing in language. There is only trading off one set of unnatural rules against another.
Secondly, you appear to be saying that notwithstanding the implicitly assumed conservative commitment to freedom, citizens should only exercise that freedom in a way, "the rest of us can just ignore." If that's really your view, you should stop publishing your thoughts, so those of us who are genuinely conservative can just ignore you. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that's not what you meant.
Then there's the mildly faith-related argument. "(A)ll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." I wish others to pronounce my own name correctly. How then can I begrudge the desire of others for the same? (Don't get me started on lazy programmers and having an apostrophe in one's name.)
As for other, previous waves of immigrants not being willing to stick up for the things they believed in, so all subsequent waves should make the same craven concessions... "If Johnny were to jump off the Empire State Building, would you jump off the Empire State Building?"
Yours in freedom,
-- Hal O'Brien
---
He was kind enough to write back. Unfortunately, it didn't reflect well on Mr. Krikorian's judgment. I quote him here in italics:
---
"In a system of ordered liberty, you don't just get to do whatever you want -- you also have obligations to the community."
Indeed. And yet you continue to shirk yours. Your attitude as written continues to be, you personally are made uncomfortable by something, so the community can go hang.
"My point all along has been that there's been a reduction in the degree of social pressure from the community overall to conform to our ways."
Which means what you believe the obligations to the community are, and what the community itself believes those obligations to be, are two different things.
"Such pressure may well have been excessive in the past, but it's inadequate now."
According to yourself. Yet, by your own concession, the community disagrees with you.
This sounds very much like there's no actual sincerity in your writing, but mere posturing to gain attention. Mind you, I have no way to judge your actual sincerity -- I can only relay how your writing comes across.
-- Hal
---
{sigh} Yet another Dead Jackal.
Seems there was a Rookie Cop. He ticketed someone for drunk driving. The Defense Lawyer lays into him:
DL: Is it true, officer, that this is your first year of service in the police?
RC: Yes, it is.
DL: Is it true this is among the first citations you've ever issued?
RC: Yes, it is.
{that's where the book suggests the DL should have left it. instead, he went on:}
DL: On what basis, then, did you assess my client's sobriety behind the wheel?
RC: Fifteen years' experience as a professional bartender.
Oops.
In a similar way, Glenn Greenwald has a few things to say about Ms. Sotomayor.
Unlike me, most likely you, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, though, he bases it on a case he argued before Judge Sotomayor.
*^*^*
jaylake pointed to this piece at National Review by one Mark Krikorian where the poor writer complains about peer pressure to pronounce Ms. Sotomayor's name correctly, instead of mangling it the way he'd like. This is what I wrote to him:---
"This may seem like carping, but it's not."
Wanna bet? If it comforts you to think so, fine. That's probably not true to your readers, though.
First off, you keep making a "natural"/"unnatural" distinction. There is no such thing in language. There is only trading off one set of unnatural rules against another.
Secondly, you appear to be saying that notwithstanding the implicitly assumed conservative commitment to freedom, citizens should only exercise that freedom in a way, "the rest of us can just ignore." If that's really your view, you should stop publishing your thoughts, so those of us who are genuinely conservative can just ignore you. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that's not what you meant.
Then there's the mildly faith-related argument. "(A)ll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." I wish others to pronounce my own name correctly. How then can I begrudge the desire of others for the same? (Don't get me started on lazy programmers and having an apostrophe in one's name.)
As for other, previous waves of immigrants not being willing to stick up for the things they believed in, so all subsequent waves should make the same craven concessions... "If Johnny were to jump off the Empire State Building, would you jump off the Empire State Building?"
Yours in freedom,
-- Hal O'Brien
---
He was kind enough to write back. Unfortunately, it didn't reflect well on Mr. Krikorian's judgment. I quote him here in italics:
---
"In a system of ordered liberty, you don't just get to do whatever you want -- you also have obligations to the community."
Indeed. And yet you continue to shirk yours. Your attitude as written continues to be, you personally are made uncomfortable by something, so the community can go hang.
"My point all along has been that there's been a reduction in the degree of social pressure from the community overall to conform to our ways."
Which means what you believe the obligations to the community are, and what the community itself believes those obligations to be, are two different things.
"Such pressure may well have been excessive in the past, but it's inadequate now."
According to yourself. Yet, by your own concession, the community disagrees with you.
This sounds very much like there's no actual sincerity in your writing, but mere posturing to gain attention. Mind you, I have no way to judge your actual sincerity -- I can only relay how your writing comes across.
-- Hal
---
{sigh} Yet another Dead Jackal.
