Of course facts mean nothing without interpretations, that is, without opinions. This statement (this fact?) is, arguably, the basis of the American criminal justice system: The idea that motive is everything, that two people caught in the midst of the same criminal action could have been acting for entirely different reasons and should be therefore punished differently. It's an admirable kind of liberalism and critical for democracy. But it does give rise to a curious kind of preempting as we put our political candidate's characters on trial against crimes which they may, in the future, commit.

It's understandable that we should want to ferret out the deepest motives and incongruities of the people we choose to represent the nation. But the public search for intangibles has led not to intangibility at all, and instead, to a series of soft "facts"--a tearful hug, a passionate kiss, a supporter who has traveled the country to be here tonight--meant to stand in its stead.

Facts are nothing without opinions. But this should not mean that opinions, molded and sufficiently hardened, should be allowed to substitute for facts. Nor should any serious democrat allow "character" to be transmitted ineffably from podium across the smog-ridden cities and cornfields of America and directly into the voting booths without so much as a piece of evidence to help its way.

What is important to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as evidence of character: There is simply evidence, and there will always be more. Were there an act whose performance would provide irrefutable evidence of impeccable character, you can be sure that every New York parent would have their child on a waiting list to do it. Until then, verify.

Maryanthe E. Malliaris '01 is a mathematics concentrator in Lowell House. Her column appears on alternate Mondays.