Let Me Clear the Air About a Few Things, Myself

I entered Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, In Conclusion... into this week's Carnival of the Vanities, hosted by Read My Lips.

It would seem that Tiger, proprietor of Read My Lips, was, well, underwhelmed:

Kevin Baker may have the worst timin' of this week's participants because he drew a lawyer that failed to buy his argument on his jury. The only apparent thing I discovered 'pon a thorough readin' of his submission, which, by the way, was, for me, somewhat akin to a poorly organized busman's holiday on steroids, is that Kevin post exhibits some unknown degree of disdain for judges, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys. From followin' the whole discourse that eventually resulted in this summation, it was completely apparent to me that our esteemed Mr. Baker lacks any meanin'ful ability to view an issue from both sides. Of course, that is just my take on it, and I do now 'spect you to go and make up your own mind.

Hmm...

Let's analyse, shall we?

I "drew a lawyer" this week. Gee, do you think that Tiger's being a lawyer might have some effect on how he views the legal system? Or the fact that he is running (or has run) for the job of Somervell (TX) County Attorney?

I'll ignore the "poorly organized busman's holiday" comment. That's his opinion, he's entitled.

"Kevin's post exhibits some unknown degree of disdain for judges, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys." Well, if you've read much in here, you can see that that's a valid point. I have said, more than once, that our "Justice System" is not interested in justice. It seems apparent to me that England's is, if anything, worse. I think perhaps that Tiger was offended by my disdain. Well, that disdain has been earned by a system more interested in convictions than in justice. I seem to have pricked his sense of honor.

Pardon the fuck out of me.

"...it was completely apparent to me that our esteemed Mr. Baker lacks any meanin'ful ability to view an issue from both sides." I've made it plain that I AM AN ADVOCATE. I've looked at "both sides" and decided which one I wanted to stand on. I could not be a lawyer because lawyers are not allowed to choose - they've got to advocate for their side whether they think their side is right or wrong.

I think Tiger misses the point of the piece, but that's not surprising from someone who could write - apparently in all seriousness:

Some things that favorably affect humanity in general may have a detrimental impact on specific individuals. Take for example the recent bombing in Spain. On one level, the world is so overpopulated that any massive reduction of people is good for humanity as a whole.

Read the whole thing for the context, but understand the basic flaw in the argument begins with "...the world is so overpopulated..."

Again, I rest my case.