Colds in the (Sub)Tropics

I made it back safely from Chicago, but somewhere in the journey I caught a tremendous cold and have done little but sleep since my return.

It always seem to me particularly pathetic to have a cold in the (sub)tropics. It’s over 80° out, and I’m in here sniveling.

However, I’m delighted to learn that while I was snoring, both (all three?) wars ended, and we are now in ‘peacetime’. I suppose that explains why there is no war surtax.

This entry was posted in Personal. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Colds in the (Sub)Tropics

  1. Vic says:

    I’m not so sure a law prof who about a month ago wasn’t clear in his head about how laws are actually made should be crticising others’ gaffs.

  2. Posters are encouraged to read the comment policies.

  3. Vic says:

    Exhibit No. 876 in the case of Michael Froomkin Has No Sense of Humor.

    (Seriously, it was a joke. Lighten up, Francis.)

    Besides, it’s true. Go look at your posts from April 2nd. You went off on a misinformed rant about a bad Bill, acting as if the GOP were highjacking the Government. As I pointed out then, we can agree that the Bill was lousey, but you were simply incorrect in your statements that it violated the Constitution, AND that the GOP was behind all such actions – since it was started by Dems.

    I doubt reminding you of what YOU said a few weeks ago really violates any policy that has any legitimacy, but go ahead and tell me if it does.

    • Constant repetition of something does not make it true. Assertion is not argument. The bill in question is and was unconstitutional, and that post explained why. It did not merely assert but gave reasons. That Democrats were complicit was saddening, and was in fact news to me, but does not in any sense change the legal analysis. (See US Const. Article I, sect 1, para. 7, just for starters.)

      The logic-chopping in the comments to that post did not engage the real issues. You suggested, for example, that “a bill cannot be unconstitutional” because only enacted legislation can be unconstitutional and presented this as some great rhetorical triumph, now echoed in your insulting remarks above. This was and is in service of avoiding the substance of the issue: legislators should not vote for bills that would be unconstitutional if enacted (for which the phrase “is unconstitutional” serves as shorthand suitable for blogs, and oft used elsewhere too).

      Of course a bill — a proposed law — can be unconstitutional in the common and obvious sense that the law it would enact violates the constitution. That doesn’t cause the bill to self-destruct, but it does trigger, I argued then and now, an obligation on the part of member of Congress to vote against it. Why? Because once a bill leaves a chamber it is not possible for the members of that chamber to pull it back. The chamber is saying the bill is fit and proper to be signed into law. The obligation to preserve and protect the constitution attaches not later than the moment of voting, and is not avoided on the grounds that representatives have made a political calculation that their showboating antics will not make it into law because the other chamber or the President will act more responsibly.

      Many bloggers I know have closed their comments. Responding to is too tiresome, failing to respond risks being seen as acquiescence. On some days they look wise.

  4. Just me says:

    As undoubtedly annoying as some comments are to you, eliminating commenting on this blog would IMHO be a mistake. The comments and responses are what makes live up to it’s name.

  5. Vic says:

    Where on Earth did I insult you? Seriously?

    Clearly you really DON’T have a sense of humor! Maybe your cold has just made you crankier than usual.

  6. Vic says:

    I think when you are going to haughtily claim to be on the right side of etiquette, and publically air your wounds, you should not be one to accuse another of doing something rude and then refuse to clarify.

    • I really doubt many people would have trouble finding the rudeness in the following quote, just to take the most recent example:

      a law prof who about a month ago wasn’t clear in his head about how laws are actually made

      If you don’t get it, find someone to explain it to you.

      Now, how about turning to something a bit more productive?

  7. Vic says:

    You are really something. Your original post, by your above deffinition of rudeness, was “rude” in that it made light of someone’s brain gaff. You STARTED it! So someone makes light of your brain gaff and you get all huffy about it. It was a JOKE! It was snarky at worst. Lighten up a bit will ya!?

    Again, you really have NO sense of humor… And you are apparently about a thin skinned as an onion.

    Sorry if I offended you, it was never my intent.

    • *sigh*

      Among the many differences are

      1. Romney genuinely erred about something obvious (we are not in ‘peacetime’). My error was blaming Republicans uniquely for something it turned out people from both parties were doing — a mistake, for sure, but I think less obvious; and also different from what you kept harping on.

      2. He is running for President.

      3. He has a staff to write and check these things.

      I personally have always found the people who go around doing and saying mean things, and then when called on their behavior try to excuse themselves by claiming “It’s a joke” (as if this was their get out jail free card for normal manners) to be the sort of people I don’t want to be around.

      Anyway, I’m done with this uneddifying topic.

Comments are closed.