Is It Better to Trust the ‘Process,’ or to Change It?

This article is naive to the point of lunacy. Process is amoral. American courts have a process to protect the innocent. Nazi Germany had a process to exterminate Jews (& Communists & gypsies & homosexuals). The American legal process relies on written rules and step-by-step procedures to ensure an optimum outcome--that everyone gets a fair trial. This process has given us Sacco & Vanzetti, Ethel Rosenberg, the Hollywood Ten--and O.J. Simpson & Ernest Medina and the killers of Emmett Till. The Nazi genocidal process relied on strict written rules & step-by-step procedures to ensure an optimum outcome--that the enemies of Germany would be annihilated. This process gave us the camps, millions of civilian deaths--and the state of Israel. To talk about process in the abstract is to babble.

The author states that ‘due process of law’ is one of the United States’ “most cherished processes” offering a “litany of protections”, and is a “source of national pride”. If only! For instance, see the article also on today's NYT website: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-police-perjury-ne.... It describes and documents police "testilying", or giving false testimony in court. This is only one egregious example of the legal system being tilted against defendants. There are also the practices of charging for offenses with the longest jail terms and then pressuring defendants into plea bargains, or of setting bail that is out of reach for defendants. Then there is another characteristic of our legal system that I read elsewhere today: ‘Equal protection for those with equal wealth.’ 'Due process' in our court system may be claimed by the legal profession, but it is one process that is in reality not a process that is followed. Instead of a source of national pride, in some cases it should be a source of national shame.

Process improvement needs to be built into systems because stagnation can be dangerous ("we've always done it that way"). There needs to be a viable way to evaluate the current process and based on results, make appropriate changes to the current methodology. The results with the new process then get evaluated and either stay or get changed again. In a healthy system, it never stops. Otherwise the system is heading to its death. Note that changes are not made willy-nilly (or because "I say so.") They are made because there are opportunities for improvement. And the best changes are determined by and made by the people who actually perform the process as they have to live with the results. It takes a certain level of emotional maturity and sophistication to do all this and too often, that's not who ends up tasked with teh responsibility.

So - is appointing a special prosecutor... > Part of the process > Mistrust of the process > A change to the process ...now realize that none of this (really) matters much to anyone What matters far more is does one like... > The special prosecutor themself > The direction we think they're going to head The thing everyone could trust until now was that... > Primary candidates lied enough to get over their primary opponents out of the game - but not so much that their opponents' supporters left the stadium... > Election candidates lied enough to get their election opponents out of the game - but not so much that their opponents' supporters left the country... How many Senators have talked about abolishing the Electoral College... Now - how many have talked about abolishing the US Senate... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment

As a long time fan of the Philadelphia 76ers, it has been interesting to watch "The Process" in action for the last few seasons. It may not lead to a championship, but after years of mediocre crowds, every home game has been sold out this season. I'm sure management sees that result as a success.

Interesting that the journalist mentions the superdelegates and the Sanders’ supporters feeling that that process unduly influenced the selection of the Democratic nominee, however failed to include even a mention of the Electoral College process which took the Presidency from the majority elected candidate and handed it to someone who a minority of the American people voted for. As my eighth grade taught us, the first bias is omission. How do we fix our processes if our journalists omit the most anachronistic and dangerous to our democracy one? And one wonders why the omission?

Courtesy of "the Process" developed by Nick Saban and his staff at Michigan State while brainstorming a challenging football game in Columbus, Ohio,

Sure, we'd like to make a few tweaks here and there to change the system. Yet, the lessons of history are clear enough--disfunctional systems generally have to die. Once dead, their remaining dismembered parts can be used to construct a new system. It's all part of the rise and fall of civilizations and species.

Ironic that in light of the calls for 'one person one vote' in elections by Democrats they do not abide by it with their use of superdelegates.

The development of a successful process can have lasting beneficial effects. In 1998, faced with the daunting task of playing top-ranked Ohio State at Columbus, Michigan State football coach Nick Saban and his staff decided to take a new approach. They directed the MSU players to ignore the outcome of the game and instead to concentrate on giving their utmost effort to defeat the opposing player on each individual play. The Spartans won and what has become known as "The Process" was born. Saban has since processed six national titles, five at Alabama to go with his first, at LSU in 2003. I respect Buddhism and the quest for inner peace. I am also impressed with the efforts of anyone who strives, as coach Saban has, to find a better way to approach recurring challenges.