This Is NOT About Charlie Kirk - - But It Is

 

Yes, the Charlie Kirk assassination (that is what it was) has sparked plenty of hot takes on various matters.  But let’s get more fundamental. 

In the past 75 years or so our society has bought into evolution without any consideration for the impact it would have on people’s minds.  Why does this matter?  Because no matter how you marinate in the sauce of evolution, you end up with humans being no more than sophisticated slime.  Our position at the top of the food chain is, if evolution is swallowed whole, simply a matter of random forces wafting around in the universe.  In other words, there would be no basis for suggesting humans have any sort of special status – we’re just one more cog in the cold, impersonal, and random reality of a non-thinking universe.  It’s been said that it’s cold in space.  Well, the sauce of evolution is equally cold. 

The implications here are profound.  If you learn from an early age that your existence is merely a feature of the universe and has no other inherent meaning or value (which meaning or value a non-thinking universe cannot provide), then you may reasonably conclude that being human is no more and no less meaningful than being a paramecium.  Sure, you function differently and you have capacities that go beyond paramecium-ism, but in the end you cannot reasonably or rationally conclude that being human means something about your place in the cosmos that truly and ultimately differentiates you from the paramecium.  Both of you will exist for some period of time, then die.  Your species may or may not continue on for any particular or specified period of time. 

Being bombarded with this message over and over and over for decades can only lead to de-humanization.  If humans have no special place on earth, let alone in the cosmos, then one can quickly determine there is a moral equivalency between animals and humans or even paramecium.  One need not come to this conclusion, but it is a perfectly acceptable conclusion in the evolutionary realm.  Human abilities to organize, to invent, to think, to love, to hate, to laugh are all merely outgrowths of some inevitable movement that may, or may not, lead anywhere.  Evolution has no specific end point in mind, since evolution is not a thinking entity.  Perhaps evolution has already reached its zenith and the only place to go now is backwards?  Why not?  Nothing at all, other than a desire to believe otherwise, compels the conclusion that human beings MUST move into some “higher” stage of existence.  Rather, there is simply movement.  One cannot reasonably claim it is toward or away from any fixed point. 

So we have “trans” humanism, “trans” genderism, and next is presumably “trans” speciesism (it’s already here in a primitive form).  Why?  Because people don’t actually believe there is anything special about being human.  So changing into something else has no moral or any other implications whatsoever. 

In fact, the inevitable grinding down of what it means to be human has made us more callous about human life, not more concerned  Since evolution can provide no special meaning, value, or purpose to human life, then why should we concern ourselves with placing any such moral boundaries on the changing or taking of human life?  Herein lies the bizarre and ironic world in which so many people live today.

People get very angry when Christians claim that human beings are made in the image of God and that this means human beings have definitive traits that, even if only dimly, nonetheless mirror the nature and being of their creator God.  For instance, the Bible proclaims that the outside time for human life will be 120 years. Yet transhumanists believe they can live forever.  The Bible says there are two sexes: male and female.  Yet transgenders believe they can morph into the other sex (or any of some other arbitrary number of so-called sexes) at will.  The Bible tells humans to take dominion over the earth, distinguishing them from animals, yet transspecies-ists will claim that humans can be some other species. 

Who in these situations genuinely sees human beings as special and who sees them as nothing more than a “construct?”  Which view establishes humanity as having real meaning and which treats humanity as a fungible good, to be rearranged like mere living room furniture? 

Moreover, the American love affair with abortion is part of the irony.  While claiming to uphold humanity, abortion strikes down the least able to defend themselves, children in the womb.  I know all the arguments pro-abortionists make about blobs of cells, and fetus means XYZ and life doesn’t begin at conception and so forth and so on. But who really cares more about fellow human beings - the person who callously calls a living being a blob of cells in order to singe their conscience to allow for killing that living being, or the person who says that’s a human being who deserves to be protected?  

Now to the cold hearted response of some to the death of Charlie Kirk – how is it “more human” and being a better human to conclude that because some other person said something you don’t want to hear it’s fine for them to be put to death?  The irony is, of course, the amount of self-righteousness indicated in this view is appallingly grotesque.  I’m a good person because I don’t say or like the “hateful” things Charlie Kirk said (or at least I don’t say or like the “hateful” things I was told he said or I assumed he said or I believe he said whether I actually know what he said or how he said it).  In this case “hateful” tends to mean something like “stuff with which I disagree” because it somehow, possibly hurts someone’s feelings (not necessarily mine).  Or, worse, “hateful” means, I’m so morally pure that I must take offense at words regardless of whether those to whom the words were directed actually take offense or not.  More importantly, I’m so morally pure I am in a position to judge who should live and who should die by saying such words. 

Yet, from where does such self-righteousness arise?  It can’t be an evolutionary response, since morals don’t really factor into evolution.  Morals are something we humans have that other animals don’t have – nature is red in tooth and claw as Alfred, Lord Tennyson noted.  Evolution isn’t an entity seeking to guide us on any particular path, right?  It can’t be or it crosses the line and becomes god-like and we can’t have that! 

One can argue that it’s a societal determination.  Fine, but doesn’t that mean I have the right to suggest society go another way, take another path?  If society can be swayed in my direction, does that now make my morals justified and yours not? Society only very recently concluded gay marriage was a meaningful concept.  What if I am able to convince society that gay marriage was a very bad idea?  Do you get to kill me now? 

All said, the Charlie Kirk situation has taught us there are very clear lines.  Those on the side of evolution believe human life matters only if they say so.  Those on the side of the Bible say all human lives matter because each one is an image bearer of God.  Charlie knew this and preached it.  Odd he was killed for saying something so profoundly kind.

 

Lawyers and Generative AI: To the AI pushers I say "get off my lawn."

  

I now regularly get emails from the Virginia Bar Association’s “Senior” section which I guess makes sense since my Virginia Board of Bar Examiners license is dated in October 1988.  So perhaps I’ve reached curmudgeon status and I’m just yelling at young lawyers to “get off my lawn.” 

With these qualifications out of the way, some quick history. When I started practicing law the secretaries at the firm where I worked had IBM Selectric typewriters that stored about a paragraph of information.  We had a word processing department where longer items were typed on PC’s by a staff that either read from legal pads or listened to those tiny dictation cassette tapes.  Nobody was connected to anybody else.  The peak of technology was Westlaw or Lexis searches.  None of our lawyers had a stand alone PC on their desk.  Fax machines had just come into vogue (we quickly learned you had to copy faxes or they would fade over time).  This was “state of the art.”  Within seven years (1995ish), I was at a job with a PC on my desk and we were all connected to each other.  Outlook was standard (I loved the calendar especially but still kept my paper calendars for a while as back up).  Obviously, email was becoming ubiquitous and, of course, by late 1999 we were all worried about the technological Armageddon that we might be facing with Y2K. 

My point is change always happens and I’m not a Luddite (although in my more retro moments a small cabin in the mountains with plenty of books and a nearby trout stream sounds inviting).  Yet . . . a recent report from Thompson Reuters tells me “the future isn’t just about whether organization should be adopting AI – it’s about how they can do so strategically to get the most benefit from advanced technology.”  Well, maybe, but can we ease off the gas pedal a moment?  Thompson Reuters and other similar ventures have a financial stake in pushing AI.  This is not to say their motives are purely mercenary but let’s not pretend they are exactly philanthropic, either.  Each outfit pushing the use of AI has a stake in getting lawyers to jump on board while proclaiming they are the firstest with the mostest at just $99.99 per user per month for the next forever number of years.  Another quote from Thompson Reuters:  “the most successful organizations are those deploying AI with a coherent strategic framework – one that acknowledges today’s challenges while building resilience for tomorrow’s competitive landscape.”  Oh, really?  I recently read a legal memorandum which shouted “AI” due to various features, for instance, improperly citing “not to be published” cases, and generally sounding banal and dull.  We can’t all be Ernest Hemingway (choose your favorite author) but a little personality wouldn’t kill our writing and improperly citing case law is first year associate level nonsense. 

Generative AI isn’t merely a new way to communicate or a new way to obtain copies of cases and statutes or a new way to store information.  It’s a way analyze and organize and create legal documents.  As someone involved (part-time) in education for the past 20 plus years at the law school, college, and high school levels, I can assure you AI is making unfortunate inroads on student behavior.  It’s an all too easy shortcut, especially in the get-it-done now society, to just let some form of AI do the heavy lifting.  Pushing this into the legal world as must have or you’ll be left behind sounds much more like marketing and less like sound advice.  

When faxes started dotting the landscape, suddenly clients believed that sending a 38 page document at 5:14 pm on a Friday afternoon somehow meant by 6:00 pm it would be completely and fully analyzed and a return letter making all the necessary changes, additions, and suggestions would be sitting on their fax machine.  Oddly enough, I don’t recall my brain being able to read, digest, and effectively review documents any more quickly after fax machines than before them.  AI promotes a similar but more disconcerting view that somehow plugging in a query will offer up acceptable answers on a virtually immediate basis.  I know that it will work with remarkable speed, accuracy, and precision with good queries but I also know from doing on-line legal research for several decades that a slight modification in a query can make all the difference.  If lawyers assume the first query does the trick, will they be lulled into thinking this is sufficient?  But what if it isn’t?  I get this runs into the Bee Watcher Watcher problem of Dr. Suess fame[1] but it does raise the question about how often lawyers will need to check AI results.  At what  point do AI results stand as sufficient?  How can we be sure?  How many queries meet best practices standards?  (See, I do know some current lingo despite my advanced age).  

Yes, one can point to computer assisted research as a forerunner of AI and that would be true.  Of course, the obvious difference is the attorney still reads the cases and statutes and regulations that get downloaded.  The attorney still has to analyze what the cases and statutes and regulations mean given the facts and circumstances of the situation. As needed, the attorney still has to write some kind of document commenting on the impact of cases, statutes, and regulations on the situation at hand.  If AI is doing this, and we can’t pretend this won’t happen, perhaps with great frequency, does practicing law ultimately devolve into practicing queries for AI?  Yes, this picture sounds a bit dismal and Brave New Worldish, but we can’t ignore the push being made to get everyone on board and on board sooner rather than later. 

Am I against AI?  If by that you mean am I against the current rush to jump headlong into AI without carefully weighing its use from all angles, then yes.  If by against AI you mean I see no value in it at all, then no.  I have used Chat GPT, for instance, to try to acclimate myself to AI and what it looks like.  On the whole, my experience has been moderately interesting and partially successful but certainly not transformative. 

If, as we lawyers really do stand in the gap for clients, making sure justice is done, wrongs are righted, language is used effectively and legally, and provide clients excellent legal support, then shouldn’t we at least take measured steps regarding generative AI?  Shouldn’t there be an air of caution and a willingness to put our foot on the brake for a moment?  Shouldn’t we be assuring ourselves precisely how well it truly works without relying on marketing from those who gain the most from its use?  

Will AI be transformative?  Maybe it will.  For right now, I will continue to say to the AI pushers: I can cut my own grass for now, thank you.

---

[1] https://www.schooleverywhere-elquds.com/lib/uploadbook/160841479105326Did_I_Ever_Tell_You_How_Lucky_You_Are%20%281%29.pdf accessed 8-25-2025 (p. 14 – 15) in case you want to remind yourself.

Kanye and the uncritical mind

 

I think I've put my finger on what galls me so much about the current atmosphere in which we live.

It's the casualness.

People are intellectually casual, socially casual, ideologically casual, philosophically casual.

Here's an example of what I mean.  Ye, or the star formerly known as Kanye West, was at one time the coolest guy on earth to many young people (anyone under 40).  Recently, Ye has said some rather atrocious things both via social media and in interviews which I am NOT defending.  He has clearly lost his way, assuming he was ever on anything other than a raw narcissistic and ego-driven course to begin with.  Of course, many who never once gave much thought to antisemitism suddenly think it's terrible and awful that Ye said the things he said and he MUST, of course, be and was, in fact, ‘canceled’.  Frankly, most of these folks aren't concerned about actually informing themselves about much of anything but simply see headlines and run with whatever is the latest cool rant.  Anti-Ye sentiment is cool and acceptable (for now) so as long as the wind is cooling off the finger they licked before sticking it in the air.  He must be stopped and crushed.  Because he hates Jews.

Ironically, many of these same people likely devolved into pro-Palestinians after the October 2024 massacre of Jews by Hamas and Israel’s retaliation because, well, the online mob said so.

What's frustrating about this is the absolute self-assurance such folks often have that they're right without any apparent concern for the irrationality and absurdity that almost inevitably accompanies their pronouncements.  The self-righteous loathing of any unfashionable opinion is mind-bending.  There is no principle in play here other than "today we are right."  Of course, the same people never once gave a thought about such things just five minutes ago.  They won't give it much thought in five more minutes.  It feels so good to be right in the moment (and, allegedly on the “right side of history”).  There is much hoopla surrounding their opinions but little or no action as their guiding principle offers no real guidance for what's next.  Never mind the harm it may cause others to treat them so loathsomely, as if any of us is so perfect we have a right to sneer.

As a Christian, I find much of this soul-crushing.  I see people who claim they "love" others because they have the right feelings about them, but don't do anything of substance to help others.  They don't volunteer in any way, their finances are completely self-absorbed (they might throw a dollar in the Salvation Army kettle at Christmas time although even that is doubtful), and they are so concerned about "me" and "my identity" and “my health” (physical and mental) that there is little room left in their minds for others, except as it makes them feel good.  They unironically believe that posting something in support of or to “bring awareness” of some cause, and in so doing getting their social do-gooder fix, is sufficiently socially and morally good to meet whatever their typically amorphous standard is.

This often includes their families and even children.  Why they get married and have children is beyond me, as there is no sense that it is good and right that one must frequently sacrifice their own wants and, even needs, for those of their spouse and children.  Rather, the sentiment, which is most often the driving motivator in these folks lives, seems almost always to be "am I getting what I want out of this?"  This, I think, goes a long way toward explaining the willingness to have children out of wedlock or the unwillingness to have any children at all, or the casual willingness to abort children, or the extent of casual divorce.  It’s always and ever about me and my “needs” when “needs” really usually means “desires.”

In the end there is nothing more than devotion to being on the right side of issues, which, in turn, is simply devotion to self.  There is little gainful action to help others and little concern for making changes in their own lives.  The only thing such folks are often free with is their advice, much of which comes from second-hand circumstances (I saw it on Twitter, Instagram, some website, someone told me, I read an article by an EXPERT), as opposed to any actual living, learning, or training.  Yet, frequently, these folks will tell you without any sense of irony just how absurd your views are, even when you gently suggest you might actually know a bit more because, well, you've actually lived more and seen more and experienced more and learned more regarding a particular issue, circumstance, or situation.  They don't care.  They're right because the fashionable opinionators say they're right.  It's just mob rule and the mob is always right until the mob isn't right anymore.  Then you just join the new mob and carry on!

Back to Ye. 

Yes, his recent pronouncements have been disturbingly unpleasant and peculiar.  But I must ask: so what?  He has staked out his position.  If that bothers you, don't buy his music or other assorted goods he has for sale.  If you want to talk about what a rotten scoundrel he is, do so.  If you want to convince others Ye is a horrible person, help yourself. 

But perhaps one ought to have a willingness to offer "there but for the grace of God go I."  I don't even mean this in the sense in which I say it as a Christian.  I mean this in the generic sense that one might choose to exercise a little bit of humility prior to pronouncing judgment on others for their beliefs and views.  Yet, as best I can tell, many in this crowd seem to have no clue about what irony even looks like.  They press forward and onward, leaving a garbage heap of silly, putrid, irrational, and philosophically absurd statements behind them, forever tossed into the recycle bin in their uncritical minds, where they can dump them out at their leisure, pretending or ignoring they ever said them, or claiming didn't mean it "that way,” or simply disengaging because they can’t handle the way the conversation is going.

Ye appears to be a mess. He appears to be profoundly narcissistic, utterly without shame, and disabled by an intelligence that he uses for profoundly bizarre means to ends that seem wholly ego driven.  The irony is that those who are now canceling him are the very same people who today will uncritically accept that men can pretend to be women and tomorrow will uncritically accept that transgenderism was really never a good thing.  The moment Ye returns to them by agreeing with them, or by saying something they like, they’ll love him again, even though now they’ll deny it as if their life depends on it. 

This won’t be about forgiveness, by the way; it’s about forgetfulness, it’s about casualness, it’s about frivolousness. People won’t forgive Ye, they just won’t care because they simply won’t choose to remember he was a bad guy eight minutes ago.

And the mob will move on to its latest victim, unaware that just 20 minutes ago, they loved the latest victim.