Art, credible threats of legal action usually are (and should be) the last resort. In most high-profile cases they come only after negotiations fair or one side refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the other.

larry, at 7:55 am EDT on July 13, 2005

Common sense is my favorite rhetorical device

Let me ask you this question: Have you ever been sued without first being asked to settled the matter without judicial intervention? Have you ever sued someone without first asking nicely ? Despite having spent most of my professional life as a litigator (representing mostly institutions), I realize that lawsuits can cause great pain and expense – even when the clients are institutions (as employees must submit to depositions and often old wounds are opened). But, they are a necessary evil. Sometimes people just won’t budge. Sometimes colleges won’t voluntarily stop ripping down posters advertising religious or political events. Sometimes states won’t voluntarily stop searching people at random, let girls have abortions, or let mothers teach their children at home. Sometimes people who owe money won’t pay. (Though I will set aside for the moment bankruptcy issues that might require judicial intervention.)

I don’t see why it matters whether your niece is at Harvard Law School or not. Or whether you even have a niece. Is that supposed to make your argument more credible? Or, on balance, if your niece was never born, would my argument be more credible ?

I don’t quite see your point about “most of the working class puts the 1000s of pages of rules and regulations, into the circular file — and tries to conduct themselves professionally, with common sense, fairness, reasonability, and good manners.” Are you saying that you don’t abide by speed limits, pay your taxes (and take deductions), or insist that merchants and landlords treat you according to the way state and federal governments require that you be treated?

Of course, you don’t need to know the law of most subjects to exist in the country: only the law of the subjects that you choose to spend your life interacting with. For every day affairs, acting as your mother tells you to act will get you by (unless you think that the “law” as announced by the legislature is immoral or unconstitutional.)

Although you cited the Wall Street Journal’s report of an indictment (followed by unrelated editorializing), I fail to see what the heck that has to do with anything. While some people may engage in criminal activity, class action lawsuits are a way that some people go about seeking redress for harms when those harms were inflicted upon a large class of people. (They are also nothing new, and they date back about 900 years or so though they emerged from the chancery rather than the law courts.)

Calling things “shakedown” lawsuits (as my former firm would do as a matter of course) doesn’t change whether or not people have been harmed. In fact, at my old firm, we would only send out press releases when the merits of a case were against our clients, and the non-lawyers would, as Opinion Journal does in the article you cite, repeat it word for word.

Although it leaves me a bad taste in my mouth, I think it is a rather elegant move to get people who, themselves would never make more than $400,000/year to consider corporations (or LLCs) the “victim” of those who are claiming to have been wronged by them by claiming that it violates “common sense.”

So, here is my advice to you. Conduct your affairs according to the norms of society. If you want to engage in a business make sure and not only know the norms of that business, but also the way “society” as expressed via the legislature and administrative agencies expects you to act. If someone claims to have been injured by you, seriously consider their claim, and whether you really have harmed them. Don’t ignore them. I would suggest that if you ever are injured that you NOT sue anyone (especially my friends) because that would violate “common sense.”

Larry, at 9:27 am EDT on July 13, 2005

at the signpost ahead .. The Twilight Zone

Ol’ Lar makes me long for Kipling:

The captains and kings depart/The tumult and shouting dies/Yet stands thine ancient sacrifice/A humble and contrite heart

Will this tumult and shouting (except weekends and holidays) ever end? Will there ever stand, humbleness and contriteness?

Yeah — right after Mr. W.L. Churchill admits he suckered CU into hiring a fake Indian, no matter what the consequences to the university’s affirmative action program.

Art, at 11:11 am EDT on July 13, 2005

Dave, Thank you for your serious response to this issue. I have one question for you: How the heck do you know the truth when you see it ? If, as you seem to imply, what is going on in the south is various rhetorical battles in which one side or the other dredges up facts that are embarrassing to the other, and attaches various derogatory meanings to some words how can you ever be sure that you are getting “truth.”

Larry, at 2:39 pm EDT on July 13, 2005

Larry,

Sorry for the delay of this response. I hope you still see it. Thanks also to frenchistorian for the helpful suggestions.

Larry, you pose a great question. In fact, it is THE questions, isn’t it—one that has been asked at least as far back as Pontius Pilate. When I read that scriptural passage, I get the impression that he is not asking it in an entirely rhetorical context. I think he really wanted to know what truth is. For all his power and authority, it was one thing that eluded him.

We too are frustrated by that greased pig, of sorts, on which we seem never to be able to get a firm grip. For me, with regard to Civil War issues, I would settle for a sincere and considerate willingness by all parties to objectively accept facts as they really are, free of the vitriolic posturing that you so correctly describe. Of course, there is an undeniable abstract quality to truth that ultimately affects the way each of us treats fact. I suppose we commonly call that conscience. People of good conscience are those who approach interpersonal relationships with a selfless and humble attitude that allows fact to pass through the filter of conscience ultimately illuminating the knowledge of truth in one’s soul. Maybe that’s why Jesus didn’t answer Pilate when asked the question. He knew that Pilate, although desperate for an answer, was incapable of knowing “the truth.”

Truth is ultimately a spiritual function. Perhaps that is why we have so much combativeness and contention in our verbal wars these days. Trying to approach truth, as a worldly commodity, is futile. If the objective is to win a debate, one side will always find a way to counter the other’s point with a damaging blow. However, if the objective is to find solutions and resolve conflict for the common good, then truth is our ally.

Aside from spirituality, maybe we could make do with, if not truth, at least truthfulness. That standard should be easier to approach if we all look at facts with an amiable disposition that is respectful of opposing ideas and perspectives, seeking not to condemn each other but to fulfill an honorable mission, and always searching for common ground.

Boy have I taken the long way around! You’re so patient, that is if you’re still reading. Your question is probably still unanswered, but at least I’ve made an attempt. Of course, the really slippery thing about truth is that none of us can control anyone’s view of it but our own. My pledge is to treat a well-substantiated and documented fact as truth, regardless of whether or not it reinforces any preconceived notions I may have had. I’ve found that to be intellectually refreshing and, in and of itself, quite liberating.

Dave, at 1:41 pm EDT on July 14, 2005

Larry,

Thanks for your comments and attention to my ideas. You make some good points. I hope your view of my native South will change. I know for a “fact” that not everything there is froth with bigotry and ignorance. I suppose it’s about like anywhere else in that regard. Finding a way to allow others to see that is, perhaps, a first step on the search for truth on this subject and others.

Best wishes.

Dave, at 3:56 pm EDT on July 14, 2005

Repayment

VU should give the Daughters their money back and tear those words off its building.

The Confederate history can be adequately discussed as history without memorializing their actions — in defense of Slavery, extreme racism and treason against this nation.

While many undeserving Southerners were forcibly drafted and died fighting, their memory could be honored without the implicating of the support of what their “nation” fought for.

That said, if the university will not honor a donation, as they should not with this one, they should return the money.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 8:58 pm EDT on August 19, 2005