Civility

I had a long back and forth with a conservative friend on FB yesterday. For once this was not with the Professor. On a related note, I think I need to find some liberal friends some time - seems like everyone I know is conservative. Anyway, the discussion came up because the friend was going off on the Liberals and the Left about how they're blaming the Right for the shooting in Tucson. He especially defended Sarah Palin and her cross-hair map. So I chimed in to support the idea that there may be something to the accusation that inflammatory rhetoric and the current political climate have something to do with attacks like the one in Tucson. When my friend shot back (as some conservatives do) with the "both sides do it" rejoinder, I went off on my theory about how the, let's call it lack of civility for this post (since that's the title I used), stems more from the Right than the Left. My friend, of course, came back with the usual "hey, look at all this stuff people said about Bush." And I said, "dude, you miss the point - the Right has made these kind of unfriendly (and worse) words and acts much more mainstream." And by mainstream, I mean look at the elected officials, political party representatives and media mouthpieces and then tell me that what was said about Bush during his terrible, awful, no good, very bad reign, is anywhere near what conservatives and Republicans have said and done. It's easy to try and make the false equivalence when you're just comparing liberal and conservative blog commenters and people in the grassroots. But show me how it's anywhere near to equivalent among the big names on the Left. One Ward Churchill (not that I think he meets my criteria of elected officials, political party representatives and media mouthpieces) or Keith Olbermann just doesn't compare to the roster of such offenders on the Right (Beck, Hannity, Palin, Angle, Joe Wilson, et al).

So, I'm going to test out my theory of civility in the coming days and weeks (or until I find something else to focus on...squirrel?)

Masters but not Commanders?

Interesting note from Tom Ricks about how "so many eligible Air Force colonels were declining to be considered for command that the Air Force chief, Norton Schwartz, issued a letter in 2009 saying that henceforth everyone would be considered." Being a commander is a tough job, to be sure, but it's also a prerequisite to getting a star. I have no special insight into the reason behind the problem, but it may be because by the time you've made O-6, you probably know whether you still have a chance to be a General. If you don't, why put yourself through the heartache of being a commander?

Two Hour Delay

The weather really wasn't that bad here in the DC area, but my son's school ended up on a two hour delay this morning. Since the wife couldn't afford to miss school (she's a month from completing her program), it was left to me to stay home with the boy until school time. Tough job, I know, especially when it allowed me to watch the DVR'd game between UK and Auburn that I had missed last night due to band practice. Another bonus was that I had no traffic coming into work.

That's nice, you say, but why do you write? Well, since I was delayed two hours coming into school, I listened to the Diane Rehm Show, rather than my usual Morning Edition. Her show this morning was on gun control. I have some thoughts on the subject, but I'll share those another time maybe. Reason I'm writing is a comment from one of the guests. Not sure which one, but it was one of the pro-gun guys. He said something to the effect of President Obama is not in favor of 2nd Amendment rights. Now it was just a throw away line he used as he teed up some other pro-gun point, but it struck me as odd and kind of an example of the political spin that the folks on the Right use (effectively) and that my pals on the Left don't quite have the hang of.

Let me give you another example to show what I mean. There are those out there on the Right who have been known to say something along the lines of, "Obama is intentionally ruining the country." Now, you may believe that Obama and his policies are ruining the country. But do you really believe that Obama is advocating specific policies with the express intention of ruining the country? Or could it be, perhaps, that Obama actually believes that the policies he pursues will make the country better and you just don't happen to agree with those policies? There's a big difference. And I think, the same idea goes for the line I heard on the radio this morning. Does the guy think that Obama believes there are no 2nd amendment rights or is it just a matter of maybe Obama and this guy have a different view of how expansive or restrictive the rights of the 2nd amendment actually are?

But even beyond that, when I look at the line from the guy on the radio, I think he's not even thinking about what he's saying. It's so ingrained in the talking points and right-speak of guys like this to make assertions not just about the policy positions of the person they're referring to, but to actually personalize it and make it about his core beliefs. And since you're doing that, why not assert that your opponent has the most radical position possible? It's something the Right does well and that the Left should learn to adopt.

Thomas and Scalia Dissent from Cert Denial

Why am I talking about a denial of certiorari for a case to the Supreme Court? Because of two things. First, the denial yesterday of Alderman v. U.S. included a somewhat rare written dissent by Justice Thomas (who was joined by Justice Scalia). Justice Thomas "objected to the court’s refusal to hear a commerce clause challenge to a federal law that barred convicted felons from owning a bullet-proof vest. Scalia joined all but one footnote of Thomas' dissent."

Why is this important? As noted in the article,

"SCOTUSblog calls the opinion “an important dissent on the scope of Congress’ power under the Constitution’s commerce clause—an issue that is newly energized in the national debate over the new health reform law.”

This is the issue that is probably going to decide the number of cases that are making their way through the courts (to the Supremes) on the issue of the 2010 health care reform legislation. Just something to keep an eye on.

Addition to the Blog Roll

I've recently come across a pretty cool blog. It's called Law and the Multiverse. These guys take a look at legal issues in the context of superheroes, supervillains and other fictional SF characters and worlds. It's more than just a pop culture blog, because these guys do their homework and address the questions in a format that is more similar to an ABA article than a blog post. For a lawyer who digs comic books, it doesn't get much better than this. Good stuff.

Westboro Baptist Church

Westboro is evidently going to try and picket the funeral of the little girl killed in Tuscon. And the State of Arizona looks like it's going to try and pass a law to prevent the picketing. My take is they're a despicable bunch, but if they follow the local regulations for getting a permit, then they should be allowed to picket. I mean, after all, they're not attending a Republican President's rally where the intent is to handpick the audience and the "free speech" that emanates therefrom.

Law School Debts

My best friend and only reader tipped me off to an article in the NYT about the sad state of law students who have a ton of debt and how they got into that situation. Stories of lawyers carrying huge debts are nothing new to lawyers, even those, like me, who are in the JAG world where alumni from the super expensive schools are few and far between. It always induces a little "there, but for" cringe when I hear the stories about how much some young lawyers owe in student loans (wait, I said young lawyers...does that mean I'm an old lawyer?). I have my own law school debts too, but nothing on the scale with those described in the story. And this is a good thing, I guess, because based on this story and the fact that I'll be looking for a lawyerly job in about a year, I probably should worry about the fact that I went to one of the second (or lower) tier "sewer pits" referenced in the article. I think I'll be OK, though. I've got an interesting and varied background and I'm probably looking to go into a federal government position, where my military service gives me a leg up. Still, stories like this do cause me to worry just a bit about leaving the safe cocoon of military employment.