re: Judge orders $240,000 in sanctions against Louisiana AG’s office in Caddo Commission case

quote:

---

We are having a genuine disagreement about what constitutes a an official action. I’m correct. I’m sure you believe you are correct.

---

The difference is that I am correct and not have I proven it, but you've proven it as well (especially by exposng that the ratification happened after the presentation).

Another difference is that I'll admit when I'm wrong. Admitting being wrong isn't a crime, it's part of the learning process by reminding ourselves we aren't always going to get it right. Yet here you are, having proven that I was right that they violated open meeting laws through information you provided yet you still claim you are right.

quote:

---

It makes little sense that a judge would get to decide who wins being correct.

---

Judges, usually, are there to enforce how laws apply to the cases before them, not interpret laws to fit their biases or that of others. But... they're human just like the rest of us and that's why we have a written code of laws in the first place. It's important to call them out when they are wrong, but it's more important to be able to prove how they're wrong when calling them out.

quote:

---

Who agreed to this? Why? Maybe people should arm wrestle instead? Or play a game of scrabble? It makes just as much sense as relying on some judge.

---

This is what we define as a "civilized society". Other options are being run by the fanatical wing of a religious dogma (see Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), be run by a totalitarian central government which ruthlessly squashes any hint of opposition or wild anarchy where anyone is free to try to do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want. In other words, it's the best option we have because we are imperfect beings so our system for allowing an avenue of trying to correct mistakes is the best we are ever going to do (outside of a highly homogeneous society).

quote:

---

This is why everything is stupid. We are having a genuine disagreement about what constitutes a an official action. I’m correct.

---

You are not correct.

Everything isn’t stupid. YOU are stupid.

That is all.

Is “very liberal judge” just a reflex on your part?

quote:

---

That only means that we both proved an official act did not take place until the ratification, which is what I’ve been saying.

---

Okay, I think I see now. You seem to be getting confused on the difference between "official" and "legal". An official act done illegally moots the legality of it but it does not erase that the body's action happened.

And this is why I don't care for the court's stance of allowing the commission to go back and ratify it after the fact. This creates an environment where a board or commission could do pretty much anything outside of a public meeting, then ratify it in a later public meeting after the event is done. Eventually it would get to a point where courts would have to push back on it (taking land for "public use," for example) but until then it opens the door to abuse.

quote:

---

An elaborate game of make believe.

---

Which is why we have conflict. The more diverse the population, the more conflict (generally, there are deep weeds to get into once you start looking at populations comprised of a culture or cultures of violence and rigid classes).

quote:

---

A homogenous society would still be populated by people.

---

Absolutely, but not all people are the same. A population which is homogeneous on high trust, contemplativeness and violence-as-a-last-resort is going to be far more successful and content than those which are less homogeneous and/or homogeneous on more negative aspects. To that point, the less homogeneous groups will attempt to move into the population centers of the more homogeneous to look for similar success, almost as if they believe there's something magical about the geographic location instead of behaviors.

quote:

---

Am I correct in my understanding that you believe the creation of the document by someone amounts to the official act that would require an open meeting?

---

Only if that creation was precipitated by members of the Commission agreeing on it ahead of time outside of a public meeting (which is what I believe happened).

quote:

---

What is the legal standard designating an official act?

---

The nature of the act (tied to official duties/powers) determines its status more than whether it was lawful. The resolution would not have been created if it had not been first proposed, unless it was the proposal (ie: "hey folks look at this resolution I think we should present to the Senator"). Even then, you still need agreement for presentation in an open forum before presenting it and that never happened.

quote:

---

We have established that it was not a legal resolution at the time it was presented.

---

Yes, and -at the very least- that presentation was an official act thus it was a violation of the open meeting law as was the agreement held in a non-public meeting to present it on the Commission's behalf. And this is what the AG's office is investigating.

quote:

---

The reason diverse populations breed more conflict is because there are obvious indicators of perceived superiority and inferiority. This all boils down to man’s desire to be esteemed.

---

Disagree, to a point. The reason diverse populations breed more conflict is due to the depth of the disparity in their beliefs. The greater the disparity, the more conflict. The more groups of diversity you have, the more potential conflict as well. When that diversity delves into how conflict is handled, it usually intensifies the conflict as the desired methods of resolution compete.

Let's take religion for example. Methodists and Catholics aren't too diverse from one another and that diversity doesn't delve into disparate methods of conflict resolution. Because of this they can live together in relative harmony.

Now compare Islam and Catholics. Catholicism is by far the predominant religion in places like Italy, Portugal and Spain and those countries have bent over backwards to not only welcome Muslims in, but to chastise their own citizenry against even the appearance of negativity towards Islam. Now compare that to countries which are vastly predominantly Muslim and how they view and handle not only non-Muslims but also Muslims not of their specific sect (Shia/Sunni). That's a deep disparity in not just religion, but beliefs as well as methods of conflict resolution. When these two competing societies are placed amongst one another for too long, the more aggressive one (Islam, in this case) eventually begins disrupting society as it seeks to push out or assimilate the other group.