Hi, interested observer...
Well played, sir or madam. It is a beautiful rhetorical move to attack the opponent's arguments for the weaknesses in your own. You are the one who had a "main point" which I demonstrated was unsupported, and yet you criticize me for avoiding it. I did not. I showed that your main point was not justified based on your evidence. If you want to assert that Levesque "wants all the criminals to have the same rights as non criminals," then YOU need to provide some facts to support it.

I have no problem agreeing that undocumented immigrants are not, in fact, citizens. But I would suggest that the way we discuss their status — the words we use — matters. By calling someone an "illegal X" we jump from describing a person who may have on an occasion committed some infraction to fusing the notion of lawbreaking with their identity. Should all people who have broken a law be denied drivers licenses? Have you ever driven faster than the speed limit? Are you an "illegal driver" who should have all governmental protections stripped from you?

Can you rebut my argument that the State has an overwhelming interest in protecting all the people who use our roads, and that requiring drivers to go through licensing would ensure minimal competence and enhance safety?

No? I thought not. Instead, you choose to attack my "impartiality," which is a straw person. I have never said I was impartial. If the big honking ad banners for Democratic candidates up there in the top right column didn't tip you off, you certainly can't read this blog for very long without encountering my editorial stance.

But I do object to your attempt to equate being impartial with owning the high ground on the facts. There are two answers to that, one practical, and one philosophical. Practically, this is a local blog about Portsmouth, and I am willing to match my record on reporting "facts" against any other source. I go to the meetings — and if you do too, as I assume you must as an interested observer — you can judge my accuracy for yourself. I am always open to correction if I get things wrong. And when I'm blogging about things where I have no direct experience, I try to provide sufficient citations and links to allow readers to check things out on their own.

Because, on a philosophical note, I don't believe that there are any "facts" that come magically free from all observer bias. Politicians have agendas. Scientists have hypotheses. Journalists make choices in what they write about, what agenda item should be the lede from that Council meeting, who should they approach for a balancing quote. And that is not a bad thing, rather, it is unavoidable since the bare "facts" of the world only have significance because of their implications for people. Reporting that RI DOT has posted a weight limit of 10 tons for the Escape Bridge is a fact. Where a journalist chooses to go from there will always, necessarily, take some perspective or point of view about what the "story" is. But that doesn't make it an opinion. That's what makes the difference between journalism and a security camera.

Indeed, one of the central discoveries of the New Journalism, almost 40 years ago, was that to penetrate to the essence of a story, to get to what the "facts" really are, it was necessary to discard the illusory goal of fake objectivity. When you hear newscasters cue up a 20-second clip that purports to convey what happened at a public meeting, do you really imagine that could be more "objective" than a written story that tries to set the scene, illuminate the characters, and provide the actual dialog? You may disagree with my perspective, you may argue that my interpretations are incorrect, or that I suck as a writer, but I reject your characterization of my work as "just opinions." Even if you put it in ALL CAPS.

Cheers.
-j

The more you know: Check out General Semantics, and George Lakoff's work on framing.