I've written, eloquently, about why we should execute teenagers who kill.

Years ago, I defended "under God" in the Pledge. I pleaded for the government to ban abortion, to ban euthanasia, to ban flag-burning. I'd even written in support of a six-day Judeo-Christian Creation. I wrote these papers because that is what I was assigned to do -- pick a topic and a viewpoint, write an essay to persuade the audience of my viewpoint, then try the same essay from the other side of the argument.

In my current job, I routinely write for an audience whose political beliefs do not mirror my own. They routinely despise taxes (of any kind), minimum-wage hikes, and government regulation. I write for this audience because that is what I am paid to do. It is my obligation to report the news that's relevant to them, in a way that's relevant to them; often, my own beliefs and what's relevant to them do not mesh. As much as I'd love to write about the negative effects of a stagnant minimum wage and government inaction on low-wage workers, my audience is those workers' managers, and so I write about the mostly positive (and some negative) effects of same on a company's bottom line.

I enjoy the exercise of writing both sides of an argument, as well as simply writing an argument in favor of a position I personally abhor. It keeps me aware of what the other side is thinking, and it keeps my own arguments fresh. I think it makes me a better writer. And it helps me see the world from eyes other than my own (which, last I checked, were quite myopic). Rarely will my mind change based on these exercises, but my mind does open.

I am planning to attend law school, LSAT score and finances pending. Should I be able to do so, I will be studying Constitutional and public law. And I'd like to think, whether I become a defense lawyer or a prosecutor or a lobbyist or a judge, I can approach my responsibilities with the same sense of pragmatism -- this is my job, this is the law, and while I'll try to be merciful, this is how it works. Especially if I'm a judge.

I know what you're thinking. "Of course you can, Stacie. You seem fair and reasonable." (Except for those of you who are either thinking "who's this yutz?" or "FREEEPER TROLL!") Well, even if you believe I am completely capable of setting aside my biases, you more than likely think so because I agree, for the most part, with your political views. What if I didn't?

I'm not saying that Harriet Miers or John Roberts (&etc.) are fair and reasonable people; I'm not saying they aren't. But people tend to automatically dismiss their capacity for being fair and reasonable because they're on the right-hand side of the political spectrum.

My question -- Can a person who holds strong views in one direction still be able to speak, write or adjudicate from a neutral or even opposing perspective?

While we like to rail about the emotional-reaction-based opinions of RW fanatics (oh no! those gays are trying to brainwash my son!), there are a lot of conservatives and RWers who have relatively well-reasoned arguments. We cannot counter those arguments without knowing what they are, and there is no better way to learn them than what you described.

It's called 'edgumakashun' :P

It's easy to discuss it in the abstract.

In the reality, the decisions have consequence. DO you expect a person to choose an alternative whose results violate their fundamental values.

Now not all questions are fundamental so their is room to make some compromises but I think there is a limit to that as the issues become more and more basic and related to moral values and less to procedure.

But so many here and elsewhere will automatically call for a filibuster of someone with strong conservative ideologies, when those with equally strong liberal ideologies would be praised as ideal jurists.

Or, for that matter, vilify people like Harry Reid because they label themselves pro-life (or even people like John Kerry because they express a personal discomfort with or opposition to abortion), even though these people have done nothing to suggest they'd overturn Roe v. Wade.

It's a judgement call, sure, as to whether someone will actually remain as neutral as they claim. I'm not even sure I will live up to my own standard -- I'd like to think and hope so. That is where experience comes in, and Miers' inexperience does give me pause for that reason (and others).

not the procedure. It is only lawyers and only some of them who will place the procedure above it.

You know the reasons why you held your original position, and you also know how to deflate those reasons, too. It shows that you can make a reasoned choice and that you can see both sides to an issue.

Posts and arguments by ex-right wingers usually make for the best reading-- and the most convincing, too.

bill bennett's latest bomb, that black fetuses should be aborted to reduce the crime rate. you're either a fucking hypocrite or someone in the midst of an identity crisis.

Way to miss the point.

That doesn't mean I agree. I'd be writing words I'd find to be reprehensible. But I could do it.

I could probably research abortion, poverty and crime statistics, and speak with a statistician (because I'd probably make some logical lapses otherwise), and perhaps be able to "prove" that fewer black babies could logically equal fewer crimes. Perhaps not.

If I couldn't prove it statistically, I'd probably try to write an appeal to emotion or even to base racist instincts. It would be hard for me to write, but I could do it. I'd be playing a part, just as an actor can play a monster without becoming that monster.

Not fully on topic, but i noticed that in your post. I can help in that regard. It's what i do.
The Professor

I am in sort of a similar situation. I am a copy editor for hunting and fishing magazines published throughout 48 states. I am an animal rights advocate, hate hunting and am also a vegetarian. But I read these stories and must edit them and stay totally objective. I condemn hunting and everyone in my company is aware of that, so I could hardly be called a hypocrite. I just feel like I'm sleeping with the enemy.

you edit what someone else wrote!The OP writes,what s/he says is not his/her view.
I my believe,it will catch up with the OP eventually.You cannot voice an opposite opinion without it entering you thought process and expect it not to have an affect.It might not happen over night,but it will happen.

Back in the days we called it'Weg durch die Instanzen',meaning you enter the system to change it from within.Most,I knew,got swallowed up in it,eventually.

It's a dangerous path!More power to the OP is s/he can do it.
Good luck!

maybe your convictions on your side aren't that strong to begin with.

Or, maybe the other side might have a point. No, I'm not going to convince myself that the moon landing was fake by writing a paper asserting such, but there are issues that aren't so black and white.

for some,but I'm thinking if you can write,convincingly about something you don't believe in and not be affected by it,then maybe you have no conviction to speak of.

Interesting dicussion overall.

examples like Scalia and Thomas it is evident that not all care to. I assume Bush is looking for similar characters..... whether they surprise Bush or us is the mystery

He never has, and he never will.

biases? Not one? Ever? I'm not buying that.

We really don't know what Roberts is going to do, or what Miers could do, should she get the job. (Which is why I think we can argue pretty forcefully in favor of selecting a SCOTUS judge with actual appellate-court experience, so the guessing game is a little clearer.)

I was referring to his more influential appointments, however. And there's no need for you to buy it, it was already purchased for you.

"Never" is a very limiting statement. "Never will," even more so. I'm not holding my breath for a balanced judicial portfolio, no. Circular logic doesn't help -- "Nobody nominated by Bush is or will be fair and reasonable because Bush doesn't nominate fair and reasonable people."

But we don't hear about the majority of his appointments, even the more influential ones, very often. Probably because they're not doing a lot of anything to piss off anyone.

I have yet to see him make an appointment who wasn't worthy of a place in prison. Not to his cabinet, the CIA, the FBI, the SCOTUS, the FCC, DOJ, SOS, FEMA, DHS, NASA, the various whitewash commissions he's appointed... you name it. Every one a monster, a fool or both. Don't overestimate your skills. Defending Bush isn't easy ;)

Though, it's just as possible they are as egregious as the more visible appointments since much could be accomplished away from oversight by nameless, faceless functionaries in key positions. People in intel throughout DC have been discussing this since he came into office, esp since 9/11.

complaining about Brownie before Katrina?

but if * didn't know exactly what he was getting, he'd never have nominated them.

You can take that to the bank.

I am not flaming you--or trying to be a smartass.

Do you feel that what you are doing (writing a paper on executing teens for instance) is morally wrong?

Stephanie

but saying for myself: If the ability and need to argue in favor of something you don't believe in is immoral, then every defense attorney in the country and in all of history is immoral...and everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

In the best campaigns during debate prep, they task the really smart staffers to write the opposition answers. That isn't immoral, either.

it doesn't really have anything to do with the question posed by the original post)

It's not so much the ability to argue both sides (remember I am trying to get into theological school)--that I understand completely. However, eyesroll sounds as if he is a professional writer, who is published regularly.

That's where my questions on morals comes to play--if he is an influential writer, with an audience, do his pieces lend credence to what the conservatives already think to be true? In this particular day and age, is this not a case of relative immorality?

Stephanie

I would think that a writer has much more freedom to choose what viewpoints he wants to express than a lawyer who must argue his clients' positions. So unless he can make a case that there are many more writing opportunities for the right then there are for the left then I think what he is doing is immoral.

And this opinion, mind you, comes from someone who has done the same thing as a lawyer. But even so, most lawyers have limits and I certainly would have serious problems arguing the opposite of what I believe in issues as important as abortion, etc.

There is also something wrong with his post that leads me to be suspicious about his sincerity. What well established writer calls his own writings "eloquent"?

eyesroll is one of the best people on this board, period. I have no doubts.

I thought she might be goofing on us. Oh sure, I know that has never, ever been done here before, but sometimes people get bored and, well, then, you know what can happen.

If I was presenting these as my own views and trying to get them published so I could influence people, I would find that morally wrong. I wouldn't give a speech about why abortion is murder, outside of a debate competition (where competitiors often argue a side with which they don't agree). But simply writing the words is not a moral problem for me, although it can disturb me a bit to see those words coming out of my pen or computer.

And my own job, I'm not trying to persuade anybody of anything -- I present facts. A minimum-wage increase is often more detrimental than helpful to small-business owners. I'll try to counter those facts, though, if I can and it's appropriate -- keeping your workers at minimum wage can negatively impact morale and turnover. (I'll cite statistics or experts; I won't present these as facts by themselves.) Opinions are quoted from others; my editorials are non-controversial and generally about the people in the industry or about an article.

I don't find that morally wrong, either, although I'm not thrilled by my audience. I would draw the line at presenting positions as my own that I find reprehensible -- I probably wouldn't take a job writing Focus on the Family's newsletter, for instance.

Thanks for your answer-

Stephanie

to your curricula.

That's where you'll find the answers to your questions.

whether anyone who asserts that they've written 'eloquently' is to be trusted with respect to their objectivity and judgment.

and poorly, and confusingly, and well.

This thread is a snark-fest.

I'm using it to make a point -- that it wasn't crap produced to satisfy an assignment.

And, hell, the capital-punishment-for-teens paper got an A...

(And, to echo Will's sentiment, I've written eloquently and confusingly and poorly and prize-winningly and, yes, I've created constructions like "prize-winningly...")

and I believe that claiming eloquence and asserting it in public as a credential crosses it.

But then that's just my humble opinion ....

who enjoy accusing others of ego-inflation.

Not sure what to make of it. It always struck me as a cheap low-blow and an easy out when faced with an argument they can't defeat or overcome.

"Oh yeah, well get off your high horse!"

"Such ego!"

Glass houses, methinks.

Try dealing with the argument instead of the person making it. Leave the personal assessments/judgments/insults aside.

When someone claims eloquence they are asserting their own special and superior qualifications (or is everyone eloquent ?) and therefore making themselves part of the discussion. Omit that and they are not.

The OP interjected herself as central with that characterization, not someone else.

I think she has good reason to toot that horn. Don't confuse confidence with ego.

They let the words and actions speak for themselves.

That she does so doesn't makes her less competent but it surely reflects a prideful self-presentation.

I am less trusting in the objectivity of people who exhibit that kind of behavior.

But then that's me.

It was deemed eloquent by a high-school English teacher, but unfortunately, nobody here will be able to form their own opinion.

It is unfortunate that people are focusing on one word, used as a rhetorical device, rather than on the content of the post.

Perhaps, when I refine this post into a longer piece for my own purposes (as I plan to do), I will use another word, lest other readers be distracted.

(I'm assuming that, in this part of the thread, you're referring to my comments about the self-described eloquence.)

People typically judge statements on more than just the dictionary definitions of the words. They also judge the credibility of the speaker. That's difficult to do in written form because the expressionistic cues people often use are absent.

So, perhaps, extra or even undue weight is given to some words.

Given that the self-evaluation seems unessential to the point of the post, it has an influence - at least for some - on the impression one forms about the 'speaker' and such things as credibility and objectivity - perhaps unfairly, but there it is.

Then again, why do you think you were motivated to interject it ?

If I'd said, "I wrote a half-assed paper making the case for executing teen murderers," it wouldn't really have punch. I think the fact that I did a good job on the paper is relevant -- it's not that hard to write a lousy defense of something with which you disagree. It's a lot harder to put your own opinions aside, consider the evidence and potential approaches/appeals on both sides, and write a decent argument with which you personally disagree.

Perhaps it weakened the overall effect -- obviously it did for you.

But, you're right in that my choice of phrase isn't the central focus of the original piece by any stretch, so perhaps we should turn our attention back to the main question.

In fact it is a distraction from the issue.

And I answered the question early in the thread.

And I think we're not going to see eye to eye on this, and this side discussion has run its course.

So I'm ending it.

:hi:

The OP wrote it. The OP is allowed. When one posts an opinion, one is usually at the center of the post. If you did a search here for the word "I" you would overwhelm the server.

I don't think I have ever witnessed anyone describe themself as "eloquent". I think for the writer this may be more of an ego problem then a moral problem.

I think the word "eloquent" did its job as an attention-getter, don't you? :D

I never said I was eloquent. I said the piece was eloquent. There's a difference.

I believe I am a good writer overall, although not everything I have produced has been closer to gold than turd (just ask my boss); I further believe was eloquent in that long-ago piece.

If it's egotistical to ever say you did a good (or even superlative) job on anything, well, touche.

You were goofing with us, LOL. Well, it worked.

totally missed by the self-esteem deficient. ;)

Actually, I think that it's a thought provoking post (I'm still thinking about it) and eloquent.

Be eloquent, now!

I'd be starting off with a premise that's provably false.

I could probably write a paper from the position that Bush is a brilliant man; I'd have to do some digging. (Probably appeal to emotion and authority rather than logic, I'd assume...)

i'm not gonna whitewash it for you, your point of view is for sale to the highest bidder

it certainly isn't something to be respected or to brag abt

sounds like the OP will be a successful lawyer, writer, politician, educator or any other field where being open-minded and willing to look at and understand all sides of an issue are important.

I don't change my point of view -- or what the public sees as my point of view -- based on dollar signs. If Jerry Falwell wants me to ghostwrite for him, I'll decline -- but I might try to write the piece anyway (for my eyes only) as an exercise.

Even in my job, I don't write opinions. I just write facts skewed for a group I don't agree with; it's called "editing a trade magazine." I don't like the fact that minimum-wage increases hurt some of my readers, but guess what? They do. And I report that. I also report that repetitive-stress injuries hurt their workers. And that fixing those injuries might cost them money. And sometimes, I report what my readers think about those injuries and the lost money. That's called "writing for a specific audience." It isn't high art.

I've done it myself.

I'm actually not particularly concerned with Miers' stand on the issues.

My concern with Miers is this: She is clearly a Bush family "insider" with long and deep ties to their "skeletons." The Texas Lottery incident which connects up with Ben Barnes is pretty clearly pointing in this direction. As does her law firm's connections with TRMPAC. IMO she is "Bush's candidate," first and foremost "his woman." I've read several articles that imply as much.

Now, if and when a case involving Shrub himself might possibly reach the Supreme Court -- how do you think she's going to rule?

Those position papers were not for money -- they were assigned. The assignments were deliberately constructed to force us to see the other side, and to write outside of our comfort zones. I happened to enjoy them, and I'll occasionally write a devil's advocate piece today, as an academic exercise.

I wouldn't take a job writing for Focus on the Family's newsletter, as I'd be presenting BS as facts and horrible opinions as mine. I probably couldn't be a PR person for Operation Rescue, either.

As for my current job -- I write for an audience I disagree with. I stick to facts and reported, sourced opinions (which are generally countered with other opinions). I am not presenting anyone's opinion as my own. I rarely present my opinion in my magazine, period, and when I do it's non-controversial...i.e. vendors should make sure their Web sites are readable by people who might not have the best/latest technology. I've never been asked to write a position for my magazine on electoral politics, immigration, minimum wage, or anything -- but I have reported on same. And I am willing to report opinions that differ from mine -- it's what a reporter does.

DU will be a much better place when its members get out of the disgusting habit of obnoxious, high-handed snap judgments, offered for no other reason than to make themselves feel superior.

I'm not holding my breath.

will always be the home of high-handedness. We are all commanded here to be on one side of the Big Questions, which automatically eliminates huge swaths of opinion on crucial matters.

We are the Choir, and we are preachin'.

Can a person who holds strong views in one direction still be able to speak, write or adjudicate from a neutral or even opposing perspective?

This depends entirely on a person's emotional IQ and intellectual ability. You are obviously much better off than many. I think it speaks volumes about you, all good.

Julie

there's a difference between taking a problem apart and looking at the constituent parts to find an answer and trying to "shoehorn" the problem into a preconceived right or left wing solution.

Those who hold stong views tend to see everything in terms of a challenge to that view and construct arguments and barriers to ward off that threat.

side of the spectrum, it's because of who appointed them. We forget, there is the republican party, then there is Chimp and cronies.

Perhaps the difference is quite astute, say Zell Miller compared to Barbara Boxer?

Chimp and Cronies are not for the republican party or those it claims to share some moral fiber with, it's for it's own self interest. You only need to look at what Bush appoints to see only his loyal friends get a share of the pie.

I have NO trust in this administrations conscience to do right by the people. I only have to see their record of Ashcrofts, Brownies, Roves to know there is nothing wholesome about those they appoint.

So if a more rational grounded republican party had appointed them, I might of been more relaxed about their nominations. But we are not dealing with a rational republican party any longer are we?

I admire your ability to understand the opposing perspectives. I myself would wish you to express who you are as a person vs repeating the ideology of a party you don't agree with. Be it conservative or liberal are you being true to your beliefs regurgitating someone else's? Then again perhaps we need people like yourself to bridge divides or give perspectives we are unwilling to see.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

Only because that is not the point of his nominees - to be fair and unbiased.

They are there to serve the "greater good" of the neocon agenda, plain & simple. I think they count on dems & libs being sensible and fair and that is how they have gotten as much as shoved past our noses as they have.

...but I'd feel icky. Perhaps I'd go deliberately over-the-top -- as if I was trolling FR or something.

And it's downright weird defending the Creation story when all you have is the Bible and that thing about eyes.

Like I said -- I wouldn't do it for publication or an opinion to stand by, just as an exercise.

If I became a judge or a defense lawyer, for instance, sometimes I'd have to write something independent of what I believe politically -- as do all judges and defense lawyers, or at least independent ones. Perhaps I could become general counsel for a good progressive organization and avoid the issue entirely...but those jobs are few and far between and I'll have loans to repay...

They don't think logically, or fairly--only alike. I don't hold out any hope that things will change as long as they are in power.

I like my steak medium rare, but I can tell you how great beef jerky is.

I just can't tell you I prefer beef jerky to medium rare steak.

There is always (or at least very often) merit in the opposing perspective. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be any logical reason to disagree.

Most positions are a balancing act between competing views such as freedom vs. security.

Typically we disagree over which competing view is more important, not whether the opposing view has any merit.

you asked: "Can a person who holds strong views in one direction still be able to speak, write or adjudicate from a neutral or even opposing perspective?"

the short answer is "it depends" ... the ultimate answer is "no" ...

here's why ...

imagine, since this kept coming up during the Roberts' hearings based on a moronic example about baseball umpires that Roberts himself raised, that you have a baseball umpire who grew up as a die-hard Yankee fan ... there he is in the last inning of "the big game" ... can we expect someone who has been trained to be objective even though he has a personal bias to be fair and make the right call? ... absolutely ... while there always is the possibility of bias, deciding whether a ball hit the ground or was caught is a fairly black or white situation ...

but often, especially on the SC, that is not the case (pun intended) ... suppose that in deciding whether to overturn a death sentence in a murder case, racism may have played a role in how the police and the prosecutors handled the case ... this is not a simple black or white case (no pun intended) ... now, the judge must make a highly subjective interpretation about the attitudes and mores of the police, the prosecutor and the community ... and here, the judge must deal with far more personal biases than just growing up as a Yankee fan ... perhaps the judge is not able to see his or her own biases ... perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with racial issues ... perhaps the community the judge grew up in helped shape him or her ... and perhaps that community is not reflective of mainstream America ...

"independent mind" is an ideal to be strived for ... it can be taught ... it can even be cherished and revered by a well-intentioned judge ... but to believe in the concept of absolute objectivity and the absence of bias where judgment and assessment are called for is naive ... ultimately, in real cases that are not black and white, there is no such thing as the absence of bias ... and perhaps those who think it exists are the most dangerous among us because they may fail to allow for the possibility that their own judgment is clouded ...

Tho a big reward insulates you somewhat. So when you act/write/argue against your beliefs, you are weakening those beliefs. Do it enough times, and you will be ethically rudderless, moved only by money and convinced that you're being 'realistic', unaware that you've become deeply impaired. Then you can be one of those who sees no problem in mass murder for money, because after all everyone must die eventually.

What you take into your hand, you take into your heart.

writing from the opposite viewpoint, but it bothers me how nonchalantly you seem to do--AND you make a living off of it.

"I write for this audience because that is what I am paid to do."

I'm very sorry, but I don't think I could ever do anything just for the money.