This submission by Ethics Alarms intermittent guest columnist Curmie created a categorization problem. Is it another installment of “Curmie’s Conjectures” (They are all here) ? Should I call it On “the Truthful, Brief, 21-Point Biography of Kamala Harris”: Ten Ethics Observations, Part 2? Oh, I don’t know: I wrote and posted Part I before 5 am this morning when I woke up after a nightmare and such minutia is beyond me until I get at least two more cups of coffee in me.

Curmie’s analysis (he only stooped to “But Trump!” once) is enhanced in my eyes at least by Curmie’s mention of Christine Vole, the treacherous witness of the prosecution in the classic Billy Wilder film version of “Witness for the Prosecution.” Now, heeeeeeeeeeere’s Curmie!

***

Yesterday, in my first day of teaching (except as an invited guest) in over two years, I closed both my classes by urging skepticism, including of what I tell them. As an example of what I hope to get them to do, I used some of my current research: trying to determine who directed the production of a particular play. The play was staged before it was common practice to include the director’s name was on the program, in publicity materials, or in newspaper reviews.

Conventional wisdom, presented with only a single piece of evidence, suggests that the playwright directed his own play. Several prominent theatre historians all say so, most of them without citing any evidence at all. A couple of other scholars suggest, without explicitly arguing against the playwright as director, that the leading actress took over the function while the normal director for the company was ill and away from the city. They don’t provide much evidence, either.

Based on a number of factors, I think it’s about 98% certain that conventional wisdom is wrong, but 1). 98% is different from 100%, and 2). I’m not convinced of the counter-arguments, either. Maybe when I hear back from the company’s archivist my impressions will change. Maybe there isn’t enough primary source material to make a difference; maybe I’ll be able to prove (“beyond reasonable doubt”) that the playwright didn’t direct the play. Maybe I’ll be left with a speculative piece that claims “the preponderance of the evidence” is that he didn’t. Maybe I’ll end up agreeing with conventional wisdom. But I’m going to do everything I can to get all the evidence before finalizing my opinion, and I’m not going to say something is true if I only suspect that it might be.

CP, on the other hand, immediately loses all (and yes, I mean all) credibility by the claim that “you cannot deny the factual accuracy of what I am about to say.” Actually, yes, I can. Next.

Don’t make that claim, present your conjectures with phrases like “it appears that…” or “there’s no evidence that…,” and you might be considered trustworthy. Not this crap, though.

“Her father comes from a family of wealthy Jamaican slave plantation owners”? Seriously? Slavery was outlawed in Jamaica a couple of decades before it was in the US, over a century before Donald Harris was born. That’s an indictment of Kamala? And it’s a little ironic to accuse her of a privileged upbringing, given her opponent.

CP also indulges in a long-standing practice for partisan hacks at every point of the political spectrum. This strategy is known as “making shit up.” There is literally no evidence, for example, that any prospective VP nominee “spurned” her.

If anyone cared what he (I presume “he,” but cannot say for certain) has to say, CP would be a contender for a variation on what I have called the “Christine Vole Effect” status: commentary so profoundly incompetent (though in this case apparently unintentionally so) that even the true (or probable) parts of the screed are distrusted. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of or antagonistic towards a Harris candidacy; CP provides more ammunition to her supporters than to her detractors.