Is O’Donnell the face of the Tea Party?

Actually that seems almost self-evident doesn’t it. She is all over the news at least.

But isn’t that really a result of the press’ focus on her? Perhaps a better question would be, is she really representative of the tea party? I started to wonder about this after a write-up about O’Donnell on The Legal Satyricon. basically had a bit of a disagreement with how one commenter was portraying O’Donnell and it led me to that question. By the way, I agree with most of what Tatiana has to say about O’Donnell’s positions. I don’t believe O’Donnell was trying to make any kinds of points about exact phrasing in the Constitution, I think she simply disagrees with the principle behind that particular exchange and was being a bit pig-headed in what she was saying. In short, her (O’Donnell’s) stock didn’t go up by my accounting.

Continue reading

Panem et circenses

Over on BL1Y, The life and adventures of a defunct big law associate, there is a post about Nancy Pelosi and her stance on debating John Dennis.

I have to say I agree with BL1Y’s comments on political debate in this country. But I want to go a step further. I think even if we had any debate among candidates we would not be any the better for it in the vast majority of cases. Even if we did have debate, would it matter…..

Continue reading

Having a beer with Bob

For those of you who have never had the pleasure of “Drinking with Bob” allow me to offer you a brief introduction.

Check the video: (click it  twice to open in a new window and check his other vids)

Continue reading

Climate Change Criminals

We live in a very interesting world. A few days ago Ken Lammers over on CrimLaw posted a piece discussing the internet meme of that moment “You have no Quran“-Man. Mr. Lammers brought up the excellent point that one should not be granted nobility for their actions if there is no risk of punishment.

I disagreed with Ken a little on the particulars of this incident, but otherwise I agree 100% with Mr. Lammers on what makes an act of civil disobedience noble.

Now we have a similar situation (at least some will find it similar) which you can read my opinion about after the jump…

Continue reading

Questions we have to ask

Having been deployed to overseas locations a few times there are some questions I have to ask in the whole movement to eliminate the congressional ban on homosexual service.

Yes, it is a congressional ban. Don’t ask, Don’t tell was the military’s way of complying with an order from the President to find a policy which would allow homosexuals to serve, even though Congress wrote a law which he signed saying they couldn’t. The best the military could come up with was DADT, a compromise between not actively enforcing a law, but not just ignoring it either.

For those who doubt that I refer you to Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10. You can read it here. In short Congress, and the President decided a few things. Continue reading

And thus it ends…

Todd Henderson has announced he is leaving blogging, at least for now. I have written him and wished him well and that I wish he was making a different choice. His response was short, to the point and respectful. I hope to see him return.

I can understand where he is coming from. I value my family more than my blog also. However, I will not try to sugarcoat the issue. I had thought of editing some previous posts, but I can’t in good conscience. I think my critique may be biting, caustic, and very blunt. But I would rather someone tell me they think I am wrong AND why (without the why whats is the point after all) than try to sugarcoat it. I think the worst I have said is some of his facts were disingenuous.

I will say the idea of his sleeping on the sofa was meant in jest, if this issue is actually reaching that kind of disagreement over this I hope it resolves quickly.

I mainly think he picked a really bad way to frame his argument. But he picked a method and stuck with it, I do admire tenacity sometimes.

Having said that, I think those who tried to use name calling to make their point, or harassment are deployable. And yes, they were on both sides. Those in agreement with him were quick to claim any of his detractors were simply engaging in class warfare, regardless of what they were saying.

I will say I stand by my assessments, Prof. Henderson made errors of judgement in his presentation, I believe he misrepresented certain facts making things sound one way when they are considerably different. In neither case would he have deserved threats. Condemnation though, yes.

That being said, I hope he will reframe his argument, strip it of the styling he used, and repost it. Perhaps under a pseudonym. The discussion needs voices of disagreement and dissent.

Discussions in echo chambers get us nowhere.

Feeling very torn here

It seems Prof. Henderson got in a bit of trouble with his spouse.

He made his previous posts, which included some vaguely personal details about his wife, without verifying it was okay to do so first.

He relates that she does not share in his opinions and objected to his inclusion of those details after he received the response that he did.

Continue reading