posted by Curt, on July 21, 2008 08:05 am

OK, I'll admit right up front that I enjoy them, in a strange sort of way. One of the first things I do when I find an interesting article to read online is to browse through the comments that readers have posted. I even have commenting enabled on my own site . . . and I check for new comments regularly, even if it's always in vain. Rarely a source of any kind of wisdom, comment boards are generally a source of amusement. You can see what stupid, funny, offensive things people say about news. It's like a thousand mini-editorials without hardly any restriction on content. Many of the boards, while supposedly "moderated"e; by site administrators, are largely user patrolled--adding to the craziness. For me, comment boards are a source of amusement, much like the Opinion Section of BYU's student-run newspaper, The Daily Universe, was for me when I was a student at BYU (all of three months ago).

But lately, I've been thinking that perhaps comment boards aren't as harmless as I thought. In fact, I sometimes feel relieved when I read an online article from a site that doesn't all user comments. I don't feel compelled to browse through the comments and see how other people react to the piece. This surprises me a little bit, since I oft-times enjoy reading comments so much. My thoughts are so undefined at this point that they're probably better referred to as feelings. So, more accurately stated, I've got a feeling that comment boards are doing some damage and that we might be better off without them. Here's my attempt to put all this into words.

In the best worlds, comment boards exists so that a writer can get feedback on what they've written. Anyone who's ever been willing to go through the pain of letting someone else read what he's put down on paper knows how valuable another reader's perspective can be. But I rarely see any of this type of commenting on the stories of any large-scale publication or news source. Inevitably, it seems, when there are a large number of readers, the comments posted on online boards degenerate into tangential arguments (in the most childish sense) so rambling that they are impossible to follow, snide and offensive remarks, and personal rants/gloats by those to whom the issue involved has special significance. I'm not sure what's gained by it all. Although I'm sure it's something of an exaggeration, I can't remember the last time I saw any really valuable constructive criticism posted in the comments for a story on a major news site. It doesn't happen. People react to the news, not any analysis that happens to be in the posting. To me, there appears to be no benefit to it all.

Arrayed on the other side, I think there are some serious negative effects from comment boards. Not only are people using the anonymity of the Internet in order to engage in socially irresponsible behavior (as is the case with the creation of much Internet content), but there's something more wrong with it. I can't exactly put my own gut feeling into words, but it has something to do with the glorification of childish argument masquerading as legitimate debate. It's not a good thing, and I think that it does some harm to the people who post in that way and the people who read it. The apparent "e;thrill" that comes from posting comments results generally from tearing down someone else's work in a way that makes you look superior. This type of tear-down takes many forms . . . even (and perhaps especially) the self-righteous form: by criticizing other people for tearing down others (am I engaging in this type of tear-down right now?).

There's not much good that comes from all this. I'm not a Lincoln expert, by any means, but I've heard stories that he had a fairly large collection of letters he wrote but never sent. Generally, these were "angry" letters . . . ones in which he (usually justifiably) took another person to task for something they had done or failed to do. He wrote quite a few of them--but he didn't send most. Instead, he put his frustration down on paper, and then gathered his thoughts and responded again when he was more measured. This is the antithesis of the modern Internet commenter--who dashes off little more than an emotional response to what someone else has said, and hits the "send" or "post" button and then continuously reloads to page to see others' immediate responses. While his heart rate is still elevated, he finds that another has responded to him and dashes off a reply. Even better is when someone gives one of his responses a "quot;thumbs up." Before he knows it, an afternoon is wasted and the comments page is miles long.

While I've have seen good commenting on the internet, I've never seen it on a news site. It's generally found is small doses, and on small blogs, where an author writes about something with an uncertain and questioning attitude. Readers then respond with helpful feedback. But where an author takes a strong position on something, or simply reports a happening, commenting inevitably degenerates in ways that are no good for the author (because the response probably simply encourages him to stir up some more contention), the commentators, or the comment-readers. That's why I think that "reporting" or "position" sites should disable comments.

I think I'm going to be boycotting the comment boards of internet news sites, and any large-scale online publication, from now on. And feel free to laugh at my astounding hypocrisy as I leave the comments feature on my site enabled for now. It's really mainly so I know if anyone has even read what I've written. Perhaps I'll write in a disabling comments feature into my code for posts where I take a position.

posted by Curt, on March 25, 2008 05:42 am

Ever since first hearing a poem written by President Hinckley recited and sung at his funeral, it's been on my mind. Some recent events have made me think about it even more. It really is a beautiful sentiment. Here it is, titled, What is this thing that men call death:

What is this thing that men call death,
This quiet passing in the night?
'Tis not the end, but genesis
Of better worlds and greater light.

O God, touch thou my aching heart,
And calm my troubled, haunting fears.
Let hope and faith, transcendent, pure,
Give strength and peace beyond my tears.

There is no death, but only change,
With recompense for vict'ry won.
The gift of him who loved all men,
The Son of God, the Holy One.

As of March 25, you could still get a free download of the poem put to music by Janice Kapp Perry here. Please enjoy.

posted by Curt Bentley, on November 7, 2007 12:25 am

The voucher program passed by the Utah State Legislature has been defeated at the polls in a referendum vote today. While I was a supporter of the vouchers legislation I'm not all that discouraged by the defeat, and here's the reason: I did not think that the bill would have had much of an impact. I was for it primarily as a means of experimentation as a way to improve Utah's educational system. But, unfortunately, the Utah Education Association was successful in its all-out marketing blitz against the proposal. The thing that disappoints me most is that I think that most votes against the voucher legislation were based on non-legitimate concerns. So, in what may very well be the most useless post on a site full of useless posts, let me set out, post hoc, what I believe are the non-legitimate and legitimate reasons for voting against Referendum 1:

Non-Legitimate

(1) It takes $$ out of public schools. I thought that the Oreo Cookie commercial rebutted this concern rather effectively. I'll let it speak for itself.

(2) We should be investing in our public schools instead of providing vouchers to private schools. This may be a credible argument, but the political will simply isn't there. Investing in public schools is the status quo and it hasn't received enough support. Also, it seems to me that the ultimate concern should be with children rather than teachers or school. The only ones for whom the end-all be-all is to preserve the current public education system are those who derive their living from it. For the rest of us, the concern should be children, not the public schools. If a different system would serve our children better than the current one, why not try it? While we should be skeptical about proposals to replace public education with private, the vouchers legislation hardly does that, and is, if anything, overly cautious about displacing public education.

(3) The vouchers legislation doesn't require that the private schools receiving state money be accredited in the same way public schools are. I thought this argument was the most ridiculous of all. Since when have we been concerned about private schools being held to the same standard as public schools? On this one you've got to have some faith in parents. Parents will not send their child to a private school (at cost to themselves) where their child is not being taught as well as they would be in a public school. It's just not going to happen. Whether they want to say it or not, this argument boils down to a concern that parents will be duped by sham private schools set up to receive the huge grant of $3,000 per year that the vouchers legislation would provide . . . I just don't think that's a legitimate concern.

Legitimate

I saw two legitimate grounds for opposing the vouchers legislation, and since none of these was compelling to me, I chose to support it.

First, people who have an objection to state money being directed toward religious schools certainly have a legitimate grounds for objection. As a matter of constitutional law, this has been "settled" (or at least currently decided) by the Supreme Court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Still, I understand that there are many, even here in Utah, who have a principled objection to the state's funding of parochial education and I believe this is a perfectly reasonable reason to vote against Referendum 1 (it's just a reason that's not compelling to me).

Secondly (and what I think is the most compelling reason), is the concern that the vouchers program would just enable further social stratification of the educational system: comparatively rich religious children would attend private schools and everyone else would attend public schools. I think this is a real concern, and if this is the true impact of the vouchers legislation than one should really think hard before supporting it. On the other hand, we already have a great deal of that stratification in the public school system currently . . . our boundaries are set out geographically and often lead to some schools being classified as "rich" and others "poor" and parents make living choices based on these realities. I'm not convinced that the vouchers legislation would really do much to exacerbate this problem but there are others who disagree, I'm sure.

Anyway, those are my irrelevant thoughts. I think we'll see more of this type of legislation in the future. Give vouchers a little more time in the states that have adopted them and people will be able to see that it does not destroy public education and simply shows some faith in parents. Once the specters that the public education defenders used to defeat Referendum 1 are shown to be more apparent than real, this will come up again, and likely with a different result.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 23, 2007 03:57 pm

The Chief Justice put in a full days work here at BYU today. He spoke at a University Forum in the morning, held a campus-wide question and answer session immediately after that, and then held an hour-long question and answer session with about 1/2 of the BYU Law School from 2:30 - 3:30. That's a big time commitment out of the Chief Justice's schedule, and I'm not sure that many people outside of the law school understood what a big deal it was to have him there.

I attended the forum and the law school Q & A. I was impressed by the Chief Justice's speech and responses to questions, and, surprisingly, was generally impressed by the questions themselves. I have been at too many question and answer session with important speakers where the questions asked devalued the whole experience. At the law school Q & A I thought the questions were ones that prompted some insights about the Chief Justice himself, as well as life on the Court, that one doesn't get from reading opinions or biographies. The only thing I was disappointed in is that there were multiple people who asked the Chief Justice is his policy preferences ever influenced his decisions. One funny moment in the session was his response to that question . . . "do you really expect me to answer yes?" He was adamant that, at least for him, it did not. Indeed, he said that one of things that surprised him most about the federal judiciary was that--despite the academic criticisms of judges as policymakers--all of the judges that he worked with genuinely tried to ensure that the law, rather than their own policy preferences, were enforced.

Another funny moment of the session came in his response to the increasing length of judicial opinions: that he thought it was a problem, but one that he didn't contribute to (he later tempered this assertion). Everyone had a good laugh at that. I thought that the most interesting theme in his responses, however, was concern (although it was always expressed in jest) that cynical law professors and other academics were poisoning law students' (and others) attitudes toward the federal judiciary. While he urged us not to be naive in thinking that a judge's policy views never impacted their outlook and opinion on the law, he also counseled against subscribing to the academic view that a judge's efforts at neutrality are nothing more than a pretense and that the Supreme Court is nothing more than a political institution. Perhaps the Chief Justice's concern was that the academic critiques, coupled with increasing political polarization and pressure, might become a self-fulfilling prophecy within the next generation: if future judges believe that the federal judiciary is only a place where the policy preferences are enforced on society, than that's how they will treat it. If that happens, then, according to the Chief Justice, the great American innovation--judicial review--will be effectively lost.

All in all, the Chief Justice was a great ambassador for the Supreme Court and it made for a very interesting day to listen to him.

Oh, and I did ask a question during the question and answer period. My question dealt with the Chief Justice's attitude toward the increased media coverage of the Court . . . it was an unremarkable question and produced a rather unremarkable answer . . . but I tried!

posted by curt, on October 10, 2007 09:56 pm

I really enjoy listening to the song that is the background for the law school's recruiting video. The title of the song is actually My Home Beloved.

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 10, 2007 09:23 pm

We went out of our comfort zone a little bit today a took a trip all the way up to Bridal Veil Falls in Provo Canyon. The leaves have started to turn here and it was beautiful (and 70 degrees). The kiddos played around in the water at the base of the falls and all was well in the world (until they got cold, fell down, started feeling thirsty . . . well you get the picture).

One kind of crazy thing that I saw for the first time (whether it's new, I'm not sure) was a metal folding chair hanging from the wires that used to take the cable cars up to the restaurant at the top of the falls. I don't know how it got up there, but it was swinging precariously and I kept fearing that it would fall down. It didn't, though. It was actually an enjoyable trip, and a welcome break from all the research.

Speaking of research, I've got to get back to it. Ah, the life of the lawyer that I've looked forward to lo these many years . . . . Before I go, however, let me share with you some of Utah's fall splendor. Enjoy.

Bridal Veil Falls.

Walking in the fall.

posted by Curt, on October 8, 2007 08:11 am

Another General Conference has come and gone. It seems like it happens faster every year. I really enjoyed Conference, of course (even though I must admit to falling asleep during the Sunday Morning Session). I really enjoyed the talks of my usual favorites--Elder Holland, Elder Eyring, Elder Bednar, and Elder Oaks. I also enjoyed Elder Cook's, Elder Scott's and Elder Hallstrom's talk. I thought that the most poignant moment in the conference was when Elder Wirthlin struggled to finish his talk and Elder Nelson came to help him through it. As far as themes are conerned, I noticed quite a bit of caution against procrastination--especially in Priesthood Session. I also remember feeling that there was quite a bit of focus on being born again. Of course, until I go back and read through the conference talks, I can never be sure whether my characterization of themes is accurate, or just based on the strength of my feelings relating to one particular message.

In any event, it was a great conference weekend and strengthened my resolve to be a little better. Now, it's back to the contention of the law :).

posted by Curt Bentley, on October 6, 2007 03:30 pm

Check out this site I found when performing a google search for BYU Devotional talks: http://ldsapostlesighting.com. Does this seem a little crazy to anyone but me? It reminds of the time when Elder Oaks visited my mission in Johannesburg, and our Mission President had to remind the missionary that Elder Oaks was not a celebrity appearing for a photo-op. I suppose it might be nice to know where the general authorities are speaking so you could travel around and here them . . . but isn't one reason we have a decentralized church leadership so individuals can take counsel from neighborhood leaders who are personally acquainted with them and their situation? A site like this seems to just undermine this goal.

posted by Curt, on September 29, 2007 06:16 am

Here comes the first Fall 2007 storm. Apparently, the valleys here in Utah are supposed to get between a quarter and a half inch of rain! It's about time. I've been through some really dry summers here in Utah, but I don't ever remember things getting as dry as they did this time. Hopefully this is the start to a big winter of precipitation.

Now, I hate the snow as much as the next guy, but even I can acknowledge we need everything we can get. When I first left Washington for Utah, I never could understand why people said thank you for the rain in their prayers . . . now that I've come to the desert, I've joined them. Anyway, I'll be grateful for this storm, even if it is going to keep me from going out and getting some good photos.