“Wow, you really do not understand evangelicals - a lot of us really don't like any of those shows, movies, or musicians. Could gladly live without everything on your list of things you assume everyone else "enjoys." And are you planning to give up every single technology that was developed by devout Christians and Muslims who believed in biblical morality?”
Mary2NOLA on Nov 4, 2012 at 08:01:47
“You're right. Many people do not understand Evangelicals.
Is your god the jealous cruel god of the old testament? If so, homosexuality is no worse than not observing the Sabbath, a child talking back to his parents, or eating pork.
If your god is the loving god of the new testament, he is silent on homosexuality and openly advocates loving your neighbor and helping the poor.
In a sense we understand you very well. You pick and choose which words of god you want to follow.
And that's why we don't respect you.”
b4pangea on Nov 4, 2012 at 00:23:30
“No, I do not understand evangelicals.
Managing one’s own soul, done right, is a full-time job. So no, I do not understand people who have the time or inclination to incessantly meddle with other people’s- invariably they have plenty of work they ought to be doing on themselves, first.”
Darr Sandberg on Nov 3, 2012 at 22:49:57
“"And are you planning to give up every single technology that was developed by devout Christians and Muslims who believed in biblical morality? "
Which has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality, because there is nothing moral about anti-gay prejudice. Oh, and Houston, we have a problem, Muslims do not use the Bible and do not believe in "biblical" morality.
But as an evangelical, just give up computers (Alan Turing) and the art of Michelangelo and probably Da Vinci, Caravaggio, and the music of Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, Pierre Boulez, Aaron Copland (No "Fanfair for the Common Man, score for "Our Town"), Ned Rorem, Franz Schubert, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Virgil Thomson, to name a few. And to be ethical, you'll need to abandon all of the music and art derived from the work of these people as well.
And most of all - nothing by Anonymous.
Historically, many GLBTQ people had to hide both their sexuality and their identity, and you'll have no way of ever knowing of that hymn by anonymous that you love, wasn't written by a gay composer.”
Devin DeWeil on Nov 3, 2012 at 21:03:40
“Seems like you own and operate a computer, name a technology you speak of that wasn't complemented by the work of a gay person? You can't.”
Jim Brown seattle on Nov 3, 2012 at 20:55:07
“Wow, you know Houston Law Prof...I have no problem with Christians and Muslims, or their beliefs, only when they believe that I should also believe their beliefs. That is the difference...So you bigot, I and a lot of people in the USA, don't like you pushing your beliefs on us, and please don't think that we 'enjoy' all your preaching, or that all Christians believe as you do either.”
Syl 13 on Nov 3, 2012 at 20:36:09
“You understand the irony of that statement being posted on a computer, right?
Or that so much of "Christian" thought is really just Greek philosophy? Or how about ancient, gay sex loving Rome, without whose continent-wide peace, roads, and civil structures, and eventual adoption and promotion by Caesar, Christianity would not have been able to spread far beyond the Levant?
Also, you just demonstrated that evangelicals are joyless and out of touch...like that needed restating.”
goboinouterspace on Nov 3, 2012 at 20:00:57
“I would gladly give up the technology that brought us Twilight.”
Isaac Equality Brown on Nov 3, 2012 at 19:23:43
“Yet your still using the computer and I am sure you have an Apple device....”
Utopian Sky on Nov 3, 2012 at 18:20:35
“Technology developed by devoutly religious people? Since when?
What on earth gave you the idea that technology is a Fundamentalist arena?
Apple, Microsoft, HP, Google, Amazon, and just about every single other Tech company all strongly support equal rights for GLBT people.
All you have is a fried chicken restaurant, which I will gladly give up.”
cwebster on Nov 3, 2012 at 17:55:40
“You can be devout AND gay...”
ccselkie on Nov 3, 2012 at 17:43:57
“You must be a real hoot at parties.
And, by the way Muslims don't believe in "biblical morality" . They have thier own book of silly fairy tales..”
“Finally, a well-thought, balanced response to the election results. The "out-of-touch" effect was evident again in Obama's comments that the results were not a referendum on his policies, but on the economy. That's partly true, but it certainly wasn't a vote of confidence for his policies, either. In contrast, when Clinton had this problem in 1994, at least he had (or feigned) the humility to acknowledge on TV that the Republican takeover was at least partly a reflection on his administration, and he listened to the public sentiment. Apart from the scandals, he had a relatively effective administration after that.”
Derrik Oates on Nov 4, 2010 at 04:12:48
“Your just echoing a talking point. Maybe you want him to be more humble or empathetic, i can kinda understand..kinda. But the issue is Jobs!! E.g. Not a word about the war, guns, or abortion this cycle, wonder why. People don't care about anything else if they can't feed their family.
Honestly what can be done to speed up job growth without spending more money, or something else the repubs won't agree with, nothing!! Nothing short of privatizing all gov works causing every greedy company to hire people to get their piece of the pie. The problem is, that is a shortterm solution, longterm that would be disastrous on the country. The next bubble will be education if they have their way
Just curious... What policy did you not like? Healthcare (preventing lack of coverage), TARP (which saved 401K's from completely drying up, american car industry, etc), Stimulus (mostly tax cuts or money to save teachers,police, and local gov) Or is it more you think he should have prioritized them different, which he acknowledged.
If people were employed it would have been a different result. 1.The youth woulda been more enthusiastic and showed up to vote. 2.If people actually voted on the candidates and not feelings it would have been different. and 3 you underestimate the power of desperation on the votes and the power of special interest money with their fingers all in this election drumming up fear”
“When one party controls both houses of Congress AND the White House, from a game theory perspective, neither party has anything to lose by rebuffing the other side at every turn. This happened when the Republicans were in complete control (ignored the Democrats, and Democrats fought everything), and now while Democrats have had complete control. It was unavoidable in this situation that Republicans would feel they had nothing to lose by resisting/obstructing EVERYTHING, and Democrats in turn could simply ignore the Republicans.
The new scenario might not create gridlock - both parties actually have more incentive to cooperate and compromise now than they did before, because both have something to lose if they are perceived as the main problem when the next election comes.
Of course, most commentators here seem to think we should end the two party system and let their side run things unchecked.”
RetributionNow on Nov 4, 2010 at 02:25:44
“Law Prof, I think you're right that now, both parties have much to lose if they are perceived as being the Party of No in the midst of our nation's dire economic straits. This is the one good thing that might come of Tuesday's elections.
Neither the Reps nor the Dems nor even the TeaPs want to be blamed if things stay stagnant or get worse; therefore, they each have the intrinsic motivation to put us on a prosperous course soon.
Maybe for once we'll see them all actually working together like adults and not blathering endlessly and making silly pie charts and childish graphs like a bunch of 4th graders!”
“A lot of these are good points, BUT - I think eliminating corporate person-hood (I assume you mean legal status as a "person") could make it impossible to SUE corporations as well, leaving people injured by the corporation without recourse in the courts.
I'm not sure you're right about the Fed being "private banks," and I think the recent legislation for banking reform created the type of regulatory watchdog you want already.
I like all your other points, and wish you'd add "stop taxpayer funding for abortion doctors exploiting women's predicament as a way to get rich"”
JackRusselTerrier on Oct 25, 2010 at 01:30:22
“It sounds like you need to do more research on the Fed.
If I changed the legal status for corporations, I would take lawsuits into account. I would hold both the corporation liable for costs and executives criminally liable for what happens on their watch.
I'm not sure if you're anti-abortion or what, but from your writing - I can tell you're a man. Therefore - you have zero say in abortions.”
“Huh? I don't tell my students how to vote. I don't see how you got that from my comments. I was criticizing Maher's well-publicized, highly partisan attacks on a candidate who would otherwise be fairly irrelevant.”
“I think you're wrong on all these points. Taxing it would involve the same problems with tax evasion efforts that we have with tobacco and other products, except worse. You think the current pot-smoking population will dutifully pay taxes on their weed and not try to avoid it? Tax enforcement expenditures would offset the savings in drug enforcement. It is not clear that it will bring billions in revenue, sorry. It's also not clear that the Mexican drug cartels would not shift into other types of contraband or alternative sources of illegal revenue. Criminal gangs have always existed, and will always exist, even if you legalize one of their current lines of revenue. Regarding non-criminals in jail, empirical studies have shown that violent crime rates drop significantly when petty drug offenders are incarcerated - the evidence shows that these often ARE the same people committing unrelated violent crimes. Sorry, I think your conclusions are misinformed.
But my original point was not whether legalization is a good or bad idea - it's just not politically popular enough to have as a campaign promise.”
People like you make Christine matter. Democrats have made her a superstar by dog-piling on her as an easy target. If you weren't obsessed with her, she would probably (according to the polls) have lost to her Democratic opponent. She won the primary only because the incumbent Republican voted so often with Democrats that he did not fairly represent the views of most conservatives (who, as you said, are all nutcases, but they still vote in large numbers, and have their own primary - maybe you should try winning them over instead of ridiculing them).
Liberals naturally liked the other Republican contender better - since he voted with them when it counted most - but should have been happy that Christine's win gave their Democratic candidate a huge boost. She would have faded into political obscurity, but the Democrats decided to make her a national figure. Now, like Sarah Palin, she is a rallying point for conservatives, or anyone who might honestly disagree with you. More and more people you now must dismiss as "nutcases."
The biggest favor you could do for Republicans - and Tea Party attendees - is to keep talking about drug legalization as a central part of the Democratic platform, instead of the truly pressing issues of our time. You'll get snickers from the adolescents in your audience, but they don't vote. Your position will not get traction outside California and Vermont.
You're a major, driving force for the Tea Party movement. Which is sad,”
Xyppy on Oct 24, 2010 at 00:03:47
“So you're telling your law students, who are the politicians of the future, that it's more important to vote strictly along partisan party lines, that it is to vote for what's best for their constituents or for their country. And we wonder why the system's broken!”
tbrnotb on Oct 24, 2010 at 00:03:18
“Pot legalization would bring BILLIONS into the public treasury, woudl put a big dent in the Mexican drug cartels and keep non-criminals out of jail.
The only place you could be a "Law Prof" (which we all doubt) is Texas.”
dawlishgal on Oct 23, 2010 at 22:59:34
“The tea baggers have been taken over by the big money corporate regulation-loathing crooked polluting thugs like the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter what the Democats say because the continuous sliming Karlrovean commercials are outshouting anything and everything that is decent or sensible. When one party gets limitless money from wealthy crooks and spends it to brainwash the terminally gullible and proudly ignorant into voting against their own best interests, we little ordinary people are doomed. And, thanks to the partisans on our Supreme Court, that is exactly the place we are in now.
The Swiftboaters are back too, and this time they are sliming everybody who wants to do anything to help the little guy. Easy for plutocrats with big open wallets to call somebody who wants justice and decency "socialists." When a coalition of pals of Poppy Bush, and a PR woman whose specialty is wallpapering over corporate malfeasance (and who just happens to be the widow of GWB's first Texas running mater) enlist the dregs of the military to lie about a combat hero for the benefit of a combat evader and it works to drive votes away from the hero, there is no turning back. Apparently, 7 wealthy guys have billions to contribute to the downfall of our democracy, and silly people are volunteering to give it away for a pile of dirty commercials bought with dirty money.”
maribelles on Oct 23, 2010 at 19:44:55
“Hey, you- (I'm not you)- guess you're missing that this is a comedy column and not a political fundraiser?”
“$133 seems very high for an average amount, but they must mean for entire family units. When I was working as a Legal Aid lawyer, helping clients sort out their public benefits (termination hearings), most of the unmarried/no-kids recipients were getting around $17 per month, barely worth the hassle for them of completing reams of paperwork every few weeks to continue on the program. Historically, it was one of the most underused welfare programs, and in many years, a lot of the funds were never disbursed because the amounts were too low to outweigh the hassles of staying enrolled. I'm glad the program is there during a time of high unemployment. Conservatives are mistaken to think these paltry amounts would create a disincentive for people to look for jobs. The food stamps program is one welfare endeavor that both parties can support.
That being said, I would have thought a single party controlling Congress could get more done to foster job growth and job retention. I know the Republicans have resisted everything possible, but they're still outnumbered, and do not have the power to keep ANYTHING from being done. There will always be a second political party holding a minority of seats that puts up a fight about everything - part of effective governance is working around that, winning people over, or having the majority party vote coherently enough to make the other irrelevant. I'm disappointed that the incumbents in Congress have not been more effective in governance.”
ErnestineBass on Oct 23, 2010 at 18:11:44
“You must have been a legal aid attorney back in what...the seventies?”
spinns17 on Oct 23, 2010 at 17:53:14
“fanned .so tell us please how ,and what they should have done.plus what things that the supreme court would have stopped.or what we could have done to bea/t them.”
alongst on Oct 23, 2010 at 17:52:42
“How's that Third Ward working out for ya? Afraid to go thru the parking lot at night at UH ? That's what your and my tax dollars have created.”
“I'm disappointed that our President has not articulated a clear enough position on this important issue. Also disappointed that relations with China have not been featured more in the Senate and House campaigns this Fall. It's just as important as the latest bailout package or the military's latest position about welcoming gays into its ranks. Too bad this issue is backburner for most incumbents right now.”
MichaelTurton on Oct 23, 2010 at 20:07:03
“The Obama Administration is divided. A number of its most important Asia people, including its Asia advisor, Jeff Bader, come out of firms that do business with China. They want to kowtow. A second group is slowly coming to realize that business can't be done with China. A few lone voices are already ahead of the curve and realize we're heading for war thanks to China's expansionist policies, which now threaten all its neighbors. See Bill Geertz's Inside the Ring for some details. Unfortunately China's expansion seems to have vanished from the liberal and progressive websites, which is why someone like Lezner can write as if it is not the most important geopolitical issue facing the US.
“I understand that you may strongly disagree with Republicans and attendees at the Tea Bag events, but considering they garner enough votes to win elections frequently, do you really think it is reasonable to say that HALF THE COUNTRY is committing "treason"?!? Isn't that just as ridiculous as Ann Coulter accusing ALL liberals of "treason"? Does "treason" mean nothing more than "disagreeing with you"? You've lowered yourself to the level of your opponents, to the point where your comments are counterproductive to your own cause.”
Bigleague on Oct 23, 2010 at 23:24:12
“True. But it is really hard not to react that way when they threaten our very country.
Why there are those that vote for them? Especially this cycle? I couldn't honestly wrap my brain around that one.
I'm not really talking about the "casual" republican (I have a few in my family). I'm talking about the politicians. People who vote for those that are actually advocating abolishing the Constitution and inciting bloody revolutionary war are voting in favor of that are are therefore, IMO, as guilty and it would be treason.”
marco01 on Oct 23, 2010 at 17:35:51
“It is, and the left should not allow themselves to fall into the same trap.”
“How can a single senator (Coburn) prevent a Democrat-controlled Congress from taking action? Are the rest that powerless? When Republicans control Congress, with equally narrow margins, they cram all sorts of stuff through that takes years to undo. Why can't Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi work around one lone obstructionist? It's very disappointing.
If a lone senator truly CAN hijack the entire federal legislative branch (incredible), why can't President Obama find a workaround? The Executive Branch has its own resources for foreign policy, foreign aid, and emergency relief. I wish this was more important to our government. A lot of people are dying.
Maybe Hugo Chavez will step in and save the Haitians, if we're not going to do it.”
Diplomacy on Oct 23, 2010 at 17:10:25
“The Cuban government is willing to build a healthcare system in Haiti but is BLOCKED by the USA, Bill Clinton & Partners in Health.”
“Why does she matter so much to people here?!? I don't get it. The less credible someone is to me, the less I think about them. The more someone in politics reminds me of Paris Hilton, the more I ignore the person.
And Levi Johnston? Would anyone be talking to him if 1) he wasn't so good-looking, and 2) he wasn't constantly trashing the one Republican that liberals obsess over more than conservatives do? Has Levi Johnston ever read a book? He's like the sequel to "Almost Famous."”
TORAHTID on Oct 23, 2010 at 17:43:51
“She doesnt matter. Because she is a whole heap o nothing. Paris Hilton has demonstrated no capability of arousing the reptillian brain of an ignorant, hostile, gun-owning pack of hate-filled lemmings, so there is no comparison there.
What this mercenary has shown, however, is that she is capable of leading a pack of lemmings straight into armed insurrection, which would cause death and destruction for a lot of innocent people. As such, she is no better (and even less educated) than many third world despots who have wreaked havoc in their respective countries throughout the 20th century and in which the US has had to intervene too many times.
We therefore have to keep our eye on her. At all times.”
MunyaBuddya on Oct 23, 2010 at 17:08:01
“I think Democrats obsess so much over Sarah Palin because she's such a great straw dog. Likewise, they like Levi Johnston because he's someone from the inside who isn't afraid to knock her down. I agree with you that they aren't worth paying attention to, but this kind of political subterfuge is par for the course for both major parties in the US.”
cheesecat on Oct 23, 2010 at 16:50:07
“Just because she lacks credibility doesn't mean she has no influence. A sad percentage of the country still think she should be president and, as we saw in the Delaware primary, when the electorate isn't paying attention, this is exactly the sort of person who winds up way too close to holding national offices. As mayor of Wasilla, you're absolutely right and I wouldn't give her a second thought. As a potential President, I'm definitely going to pay attention and make sure people know how unqualified she is.”
“I'm really disappointed that the Democrat-controlled Congress has not done more to address this, to make sure the cleanup happens, to take measures to keep it from happening again. With a majority in both houses, they had a window of opportunity to get things done, but this issue was seemingly not a priority. I also wish Obama had done more but the Chief Executive can carry out only what Congress authorizes. Maybe it will be for the best to have a few of the incumbents lose their seats so the rest recognize that they need to work for our support. Very disappointed with how Congress failed on this one.
It's a shame that so many people merely use this as an opportunity to heckle Sarah Palin (why does she even matter to so many people here?!?) rather than actually addressing the worst environmental catastrophe in our country's history.”
PeppermintPatty08 on Oct 23, 2010 at 16:33:42
“I think it's ironic that the past administration, that was so steeped in oil, did not make it a priority to make sure that safety measures were in place so this disaster may have avoided. Afterall, they knew/know the industry best and have been made wealthy as a result. Shameful.”
“The last three points are where you lost me. Just because someone disagrees with legislation that you support makes them "anti-women"? Don't you think reasonable people could have OTHER reasons for thinking a particularly drastic regulatory reform is not the best proposal? This is really silly, not different than Republicans calling you "anti-American" if you don't support THEIR proposals.
I think it is fine to highlight the scandalous things that politicians in either party say or do. But your point about Christine O'Donnell was merely a cheap shot. Lots of reasonable people have questions about women in combat duty positions. She may be wrong on this point (and many others), but you undermine your own credibility when you call her "anti-woman" for questioning your position on this issue.”
bccmeteorites on Oct 22, 2010 at 23:57:44
“So. Lilly Ledbetter must have been a real disappointment for you.”
hershala on Oct 22, 2010 at 21:32:07
“As for Chrissy. The people a West Point did not reduce standads when women started attending. As for how ineffective woment are in combat, Lot of women have effectively served in combat, without the pay. Ask Tammy Duckworth about combat. Hint they do as well as men in combat in some foelds they do better.”
hershala on Oct 22, 2010 at 21:28:54
“The GOP was against the lily Ledbetter law. A law that made it clear that men and womend doing the same job as to be paid the same. And the reason to be against it? Because woment should be paid less? And that isn't anti woman? Don't like the excwss regulation demanding you pay employees doing the same job the same? Sorry but that isn't excess regulation that is simple fairness. It is funny that the anti regulation crowd always it so inconvenient to do the right thing, so much easier to just pay the woman less. Hint you do the right thing and the regulations are no problem. Do find it excess regulation not to steal? Not to murder? Not to sexually assault people? Paying people the same regardless of gender is just right, and the GOP is against it.”
been2there on Oct 22, 2010 at 18:55:14
“Not when they have no better ideas and the legislation in question aims to address some of a woman's most pressing needs.”
“Very disappointed that President Obama hasn't done more to correct this, that we are still having these problems two years into his term. And even more disappointed that the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't already addressed this or kept it from recurring. Are they complicit in this? I don't get it.”
EricBlair84 on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:35:59
“The Democrats and Republicans are both controlled by the Corporations. The megabanks and world's elite simply play one party against another to keep us divided. That way, we always blame the politicans on the other side of the aisle instead of realizing that it is the corporations that are pulling the strings.
Check out the documentary "Fall of the Republic" on youtube. It exposes left-right paradigm as a corporate scam.”
poosh on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:35:02
“Yes, they have become complicit. It is bi-partisan corruption/complacency. And until we get money out of campaigns and stop the endemic lobbying in our government, there will be little change.”
1Woman4Obama on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:33:33
“To correct it, you'd have to understand the whole issue. The issue here is not with fraudulent foreclosures (which are state law issues that need to be handled by the states).
The issue is with guarantees/ warrants being called by the end owners of fraudulent mortgages. BOA is exposed to significant liability because of the Countrywide purchase.
Are the democrats in Congress partially responsible? Absolutely -- no doubt about that. They went along with the Bush administrations plan to get us out of the 2001 recession but allowing a bubble in the housing crisis. Part of that plan included subprime and predatory lending. Anyone paying attention and not blinded by the "good times" knew what was happening.”
Cookie100 on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:32:49
“Do you really think O has the power over the banksters and the power elite? I don't. No more than he can end a w ar either. Doubt Dubya could do much about any of it either, that's the problem. The new world order must implode soon!”
“Peter DeFazio obviously didn't go to law school - this is just ridiculous. He completely misunderstood Stevens' dissenting opinion about a matter not being "properly before the court," which dissenters say in a large number of cases when they think the matter could have been resolved on procedural grounds instead of the merits. You can disagree with the majority of the Court on this decision, but the Justice Roberts clearly believed that he was honoring the Constitution and sticking to established legal precedent. Impeaching a Supreme Court justice merely because you disagree with a decision, on a case where many reasonable legal scholars hold differing opinions, is silly. It's like suing your gerontologist (DeFazio's original occupation) for not keeping you from getting older every year.
The current party lines of the Supreme Court reflect the viewpoints of the American public amazingly well - 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, one unpredictable swing vote. (The American public is about equally divided between conservatives and liberals right now, with a few moderate voices in the middle). Obviously the shrill radicals on each side think ALL the justices should reflect one party's viewpoint, but we actually have a nice balance right now on the Court.”
IllinoisObama on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:53:27
“it is perjury about not being and activist job"
do you not teach reading in law school”
spazimodo on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:39:36
“I read the dissent and the decision. I don't think Roberts cares anything about precedent. He is a pure agendist. He has one objective and that is to remake the laws in his image.
He chooses cases based on that objective. He decides beyond the scope of the complaint.
If you are Conservative, you have be happy to have him on your side. If you are not, he is the Devil and his powers are immense.”
baileywick on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:31:13
“Disagreement of a decision that overturns 100 years of precedence in a case which fundamentally changes the way elections are run is "silly?" Of course, that's the way they do it in Houston.”
slowuncle on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:30:00
“for a supposed "law prof" , you don't read very carefully: impeachment for lying about not being an activist judge is the topic. "Roberts clearly believed...."?
LincolnBrigader on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:29:50
“The law is nothing but a club to beat working people over the head. The ruling class is exempt.”
A Meat Beetle on Oct 22, 2010 at 17:29:04
“Yeah, the perfect representation of the two (no more, please) facets of the American citizenry.”
“How so? We'll just have to pay their Democrat-appointed replacements, right?”
marecek on Oct 23, 2010 at 01:37:01
“Huh? There are and will be nine Justices getting the pay. So how would paying their replacements change anything? The OP was talking about saving money in having a dual impeachment trial. A silly notion, of course, as their is not going to be even one impeachment trial, but still, there is no reason for you to purposely distort his meaning. And if you are a law professon, I would like to know the law school, so as to warn people not to attend it.”