.... pretty much anything. Why do I write this blog post? Why do I write in this blog? Why did I write my book? Why do I intend to write more?
There are a couple things that I discovered, at least about myself, while writing. The first is that I like it. I may not be very good at it (yet) but I do like it. My mind moves fast, writing slows it down. Slowing down my thought process enables me to better order my thoughts. Look at it this way, if the reader (you) thinks what I write is crap, imagine what I would sound like if I was orally speaking extemporaneously!
Second, and I think this is true of any writer of any topic in any forum, I write for myself. I know, writing for myself and burdening others makes me sound like a selfish sot. That might be true, but there's a reason I write for myself: I have something to say. Occasionally, I have been told that I have any opinion about everything. That's probably true, except for math. I'm pretty neutral about math.
That being the case, lest I internally combust, I have to somehow communicate these thoughts/opinions/facts/truths in some fashion. I choose to do so on these pages.
All writers, at least to some extent, write for themselves. Unless you believe that Hemmingway just wrote a fish story, or Steinbeck wrote about the burgeoning California wine industry, you have to know that they, like many writers, communicated a basic truth as they saw it at the times that they wrote. At some point, the writer looks at the finished work and declares that he's done. And then hopefully gets it published.
Writers are like any other artist. Whatever the form of expression, the artist is attempting to communicate something to a broader audience - their truth. For example, in 1942 when Julius and Philip Epstein, along with Howard Koch, wrote the screenplay for Casablanca, they used the device of a love story to share a broader truth - the imperative that the United States (Humphrey Bogart - imagine the movie if Ronald Reagan hadn't passed on it) leave its neutrality and join Europe (Claude Raines) in common cause to defeat the Nazis (Conrad Veidt). As Rick Blaine and Captain Renault walk into the airport mist, they lay plans to marshal and combine their collective resources to fight the Germans - the start of a "beautiful friendship." One that endures to this day.
Or the movie High Noon, where the screenwriters Carl Foreman and John Cunningham used town Marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper), who having done his bit to protect his town, marries Amy Fowler (Grace Kelly). But on his wedding day, Kane is left with the choice stand against, alone as nobody in the town would stand with him, the four outlaws coming to trash the town and kill Kane. As the minutes tick down, Kane realizes that he has a duty to the town that overrides his personal needs, to stand and fight the four gun-thugs. Of course he prevails, with the assistance of his not so pacifist Quaker wife, and then rides out leaving the town safe but with the admonition to be vigilant.
In the context of the 1950s, High Noon is the allegorical tale of the United States confronting the immediate threat of an expansionist Soviet Union endangering a neutral Europe. The writers and actors of both movies sought to tell a broader truth about the times in which they lived. That they did so through the vehicle of a love story in the context of upheaval beginning to envelope them, and bad guys that had to be stopped for the good of all, both sets of writers foreshadowed the song from Mary Poppins, "that a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down."
Ultimately, the writer's truth is revealed and shared. It's up to the readers/viewers to decide on the merits of the revealed work.
Third, there's lots to be said, at least about our community, our state, and our country. Also the Red Sox, but I'll spare myself the agony of writing about them.
This sounds "political" and so it is, but only to the extent that everything is "political." When someone goes to the super market and complains about "high prices" in the produce section, that's "political." When someone comments on the state of public schools, that's "political." Roads need repair? That's "political" too.
While I really like low food prices, good schools (I used to teach in a couple), and smooth roads, my writing tends to focus broader, more existential themes about democracy, justice, equity in all forms, established law, equality for all, individual and community rights, the nature of rights, and the inclusion of all people into our common communities.
I try to make verifiable factual assertions to support what I write. Some may recall that a couple of months ago, when the Supreme Court "leaked" a draft opinion on what later became a much worse opinion in Dobbs, while horrified that the Court relegated one-half of the population to second class status, I attacked Alito's opinion on his basis for that opinion. As I said then and say now, the "facts" that he used to support his conclusions were either bent, fractured, or made up.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito is currently one of the nine paragons of American law. Imagine the power to determine and apply our Constitution to matters, both cosmic and mundane. There is an obligation on him to at least have a solid basis for whatever conclusion he comes to. Using Dobbs once again, he had a preconceived conclusion already drafted, in his mind if not on paper, when he was given the assignment to write the opinion in this matter. To arrive at his conclusion, he had to cherry-pick, misquote, and in many instance misrepresent much of the legal history of abortion.
In other words, as I said before in another post, if he couldn't befuddle his critics with brilliance, he baffled them with bullshit. And Alito, along with Thomas and Roberts, sought to marginalize and demean legitimate critics by calling them whiners.
I guess I was one of the whiners who called "bullshit." Given our relative positions in the legal hierarchy, Alito with the other gods on Olympus and me cruising down the River Styx, it was incumbent on me to factually present my opposition to his "sources" and history, thus discrediting his opinion. As I wrote, I had the complete works of Coke and Blackstone, two sources Alito heavily relies upon, in my library. I was able to correct his use of quotes with the correct, complete quotation which in turn blunted the meaning of his "sources." I had to use verifiable facts to refute Alito's "facts" in order to establish my own credibility.
And that's as it should be. Alito shouldn't be assumed to have expressed honest, factual, and verifiable opinions. It is incumbent on critics to factually, methodically, and respectfully (note: in the context that I used it, "Sam The Sham" wasn't disrespectful) use facts to support a position or an assertion. Too often facts are falsified, misrepresented, or just made up. There is no such thing as "alternative facts," they are either lies or gross mistakes.
In my book, Access to Justice on The Outskirts of Hope, (not s cheap book plug but if you went to my home page, saw the books and Amazon links, and were moved to buy the book - Volumes I and II - that's purely incidental) I attempted to write about the need for and dearth of legal services for the poor. I attempted to highlight the needs for these services, the reasons for reforming the justice system to meet those needs, and the opposition by vested interests to reforming the existing system of justice in Rhode Island.
Some may think I had a vested interest in telling this story and exposing its various aspects. Going back to something I indicated above, this is my truth so of course it's personal. But rather than rant, I explained, rather than assert I offered evidence, and rather than write in broad generalities I wrote in specifics. And in order for the reader to appreciate the events written about in the book, I went into great specificity.
Why did I write this book? Simple, to raise awareness of an issue that impacts our Rhode Island community, and by extension the nation as a whole. It goes to the issue of justice - who gets it, who doesn't, and the cost of that dynamic. It's goes to democracy and access to the promise of equal justice in our society. And it goes to the lethargy and opposition to change a legal system that is antithetical to any notion of equal justice for all.
Over the coming weeks, I will post on this blog excerpts from my book in an effort to raise awareness of an issue that is too often ignored. In the meantime, I will write about other issues to relevant to the law, either attenuated or direct. And yes, the law and delivery of legal services is "political." It's a community issue long ignored.
Comments