Jump to bottom

59 comments
1 wrenchwench  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:34:36pm

I’m glad only half of her nic is correct.

2 Four More Tears  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:34:52pm
So when terrorists blow themselves up and fly planes into buildings it has has more to do with crazy than with violent ideology and/or rhetoric, right? Because no one in their right mind would pull something like that.

No, that’s a result of being exposed to violent, hateful rhetoric, where one side is demonized and declared the enemy.

Oh wait…

3 Capitalist Tool  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:35:17pm

dang.
missed making the comment of the day yet again

4 Stanghazi  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:36:02pm

Thanks Charles for re-drawing attention to this most excellent comment.

5 uncah91  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:37:03pm

I really do think there is a difference though.

The most visible of the current right wing ideologues don’t actually WANT violence to occur. They want to keep the base rabid, fearful and motivated to act. Actual violence will actually detract from that, especially the worse it gets.

Where as the terrorist organizers really do want violence.

6 Obdicut  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:38:53pm

re: #5 uncah91

That is a good point— but mostly what it shows is the detachment from reality on the part of those on the right wing who are engaging in violent rhetoric. They’re pretending that you can spew it out without having it have any effect, that it won’t lead to violence.

The sincerity of the message is immaterial to how its received.

7 Killgore Trout  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:39:20pm

re: #5 uncah91

It’s not really different. Most Muslims don’t want to kill Jews or blow up airplanes. Yet they sit through the same sermons with violent rhetoric as the terrorists.

8 Sol Berdinowitz  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:39:22pm

re: #5 uncah91

I really do think there is a difference though.

The most visible of the current right wing ideologues don’t actually WANT violence to occur. They want to keep the base rabid, fearful and motivated to act. Actual violence will actually detract from that, especially the worse it gets.

playing with fire, they got burned and now they are screaming

9 Four More Tears  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:39:48pm

re: #5 uncah91

I really do think there is a difference though.

The most visible of the current right wing ideologues don’t actually WANT violence to occur. They want to keep the base rabid, fearful and motivated to act. Actual violence will actually detract from that, especially the worse it gets.

Where as the terrorist organizers really do want violence.

The words “careful what you wish for” come to mind.

10 Randall Gross  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:41:35pm

OT, but interesting developement

[Link: www.azcentral.com…]

I also loved the comment by Curious lurker, all of the things repeated ad infinitum by the right about these recent incidents of political violence attempt to diminish this to “lone nutball, these aren’t the droids you are looking for…”

11 uncah91  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:43:20pm

re: #7 Killgore Trout

It’s not really different. Most Muslims don’t want to kill Jews or blow up airplanes. Yet they sit through the same sermons with violent rhetoric as the terrorists.

That is a really good point. Although it is mostly the sermon givers we are having a debate about.

So, do most mullahs who talk about “The Great Satan” of America really not want violence? Something to think about…

12 Randall Gross  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:44:57pm

re: #5 uncah91

Glen Beck sermonizes daily on Fox…

13 prairiefire  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:45:20pm

re: #6 Obdicut

That is a good point— but mostly what it shows is the detachment from reality on the part of those on the right wing who are engaging in violent rhetoric. They’re pretending that you can spew it out without having it have any effect, that it won’t lead to violence.

The sincerity of the message is immaterial to how its received.

I think it shows the cynicism of the leaders on the right.

14 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:45:36pm

How do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the simultaneous hijacking of four airliners, as a team?

Also, how do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the mass murder of a whole bunch of random people at tourist hotels, train stations and a religious center?

15 S'latch  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:46:48pm

Yes, but it takes a very special kind of crazy to blow yourself up or fly a plane into a building.

16 jamesfirecat  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:47:02pm

*Meanwhile on the far far right*

DOUBLETHINK HARDER YOU BASTARDS HARDER!

17 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:47:12pm

re: #14 Alouette

How do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the simultaneous hijacking of four airliners, as a team?

Also, how do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the mass murder of a whole bunch of random people at tourist hotels, train stations and a religious center?

It’s like a twelve step program for terrorists.

18 Kragar  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:47:23pm

re: #14 Alouette

How do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the simultaneous hijacking of four airliners, as a team?

Also, how do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the mass murder of a whole bunch of random people at tourist hotels, train stations and a religious center?

Give them a unifying principle to base their beliefs on.

19 prairiefire  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:48:52pm

OT~Three years in the slammer for Tom Delay:[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

20 jamesfirecat  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:50:07pm

re: #18 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Give them a unifying principle to base their beliefs on.

And a reason not to fear their own deaths…

21 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:51:59pm

re: #19 prairiefire

OT~Three years in the slammer for Tom Delay:[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

Is it hammer time already?

22 Sol Berdinowitz  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:53:07pm

re: #15 Lawrence Schmerel

Yes, but it takes a very special kind of crazy to blow yourself up or fly a plane into a building.


From the sound of Laughner’s last postings, he did not expect to come away from this alive, either…

23 Stanghazi  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:53:32pm

re: #21 goddamnedfrank

Is it hammer time already?


[Video]

LOL Frank!

24 uncah91  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:53:41pm

re: #12 Thanos

Glen Beck sermonizes daily on Fox…

Well, I don’t really know who to compare Glenn Beck too, but I don’t think he wants actual violence. Does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want actual violence? Not that Beck is a President of anything

There definitely ARE organizations and leaders from the US right wing that really do want violence. And their rhetoric is what has become mainstreamed. Which is what is scary.

25 Fozzie Bear  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:53:50pm

re: #15 Lawrence Schmerel

Yes, but it takes a very special kind of crazy to blow yourself up or fly a plane into a building.

As opposed to shooting 20 people? No, I don’t see much of a difference.

26 tdg2112  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:54:08pm

That really puts it in perspective, doesn’t it?

Thank you Charles for highlighting that.

I was going to use the rope and hang themselves analogy, but that is sort of violent isn’t it? Still, they (conservatives) have enough rope, more rational people have to remind them they’ve hung themselves with it.

27 jamesfirecat  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:54:28pm

re: #21 goddamnedfrank

Is it hammer time already?


[Video]

More like “slammer” time…

28 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:57:31pm

re: #7 Killgore Trout

It’s not really different. Most Muslims don’t want to kill Jews or blow up airplanes. Yet they sit through the same sermons with violent rhetoric as the terrorists.

Not every muslim sits through the same sermons. But yes to everything else.

I wonder if O’Reilly will now adress the “conservative problem”?

29 CuriousLurker  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 12:59:25pm

Heh, just noticed this a couple of minutes ago. Thanks, Charles.

And thanks to the rest of you for your kind comments.

*blushing*

30 Lidane  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:00:26pm

re: #15 Lawrence Schmerel

Yes, but it takes a very special kind of crazy to blow yourself up or fly a plane into a building.

Yeah. Just like the asshole here in Austin who flew his plane into the IRS building.

31 offensive_username  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:03:37pm

If one person believes it, it’s insanity.

If several believe it, it’s religious ideology.

Metaphysical systems exist in which the most rational action is to commit political violence. Apparently this guy was the only believer in his system.

32 jamesfirecat  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:04:41pm

re: #31 offensive_username

Metaphysical systems exist in which the most rational action is to commit political violence. Apparently this guy was the only believer in his system.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that at the moment…

33 CuriousLurker  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:17:20pm

re: #14 Alouette

How do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the simultaneous hijacking of four airliners, as a team?

Also, how do you take a bunch of dysfunctional crazy people and coordinate them to accomplish the mass murder of a whole bunch of random people at tourist hotels, train stations and a religious center?

That was the point—I don’t think they’re crazy. I assume they must have personality disorders to be drawn to that sort of thing to begin with, and their trainers probably nurture those negative things. IOW, they may be brainwashed, but I don’t for a minute believe they’re dysfunctionally crazy. That’s precisely why violent ideologies, imagery, and literature are a real problem.

34 The Mongoose  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:17:22pm

In fairness, there’s not really any question as to what drives Islamic terrorism. They spell their goals out pretty clearly. Personally, I’m still waiting to hear what motivated Loughner in this attack.

It’s certainly possible (some would say probable) that he was influenced by the crazed rhetoric of the extreme right, but whether or not he was actually politically motivated, in my opinion, remains to be seen. This guy appears to be mentally ill in a way that Mohammed Atta was not. You can probably make the case that Islamic terrorists are brainwashed, but this particular lone terrorist appears to have been just flat out disturbed and unstable.

I think there’s a difference between a group of extremists calmly laying out an Islamic manifesto and then launching an attack on civilians, and a single individual who carries out a similarly horrible act without, to date, having laid out any reasons at all. His disjointed rantings don’t seem to point to any particular affiliation, at least not yet. I would guess more concrete evidence will emerge in the days to come.

35 elTito  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:19:10pm

This is really not at all analogous to the Arizona shooting.

Great spin tho.

36 jamesfirecat  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:21:03pm

re: #35 elTito

This is really not at all analogous to the Arizona shooting.

Great spin tho.

You must be new to LGF.

If you’re going to make a claim like that, please prove to us why it isn’t analogous to the Arizona shooting rather than leaving us to just have to take your word for it.

37 MinisterO  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:21:49pm

re: #11 uncah91

That is a really good point. Although it is mostly the sermon givers we are having a debate about.

So, do most mullahs who talk about “The Great Satan” of America really not want violence? Something to think about…

I believe they are motivated by desire for power. The rhetoric is just a means. Same as Sarah and Glen, actually.

38 elTito  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:25:03pm

re: #36 jamesfirecat

You must be new to LGF.

If you’re going to make a claim like that, please prove to us why it isn’t analogous to the Arizona shooting rather than leaving us to just have to take your word for it.

I am :).

Someone else already covered it though. At least the way I meant it.

uncah91:
I really do think there is a difference though.

The most visible of the current right wing ideologues don’t actually WANT violence to occur. They want to keep the base rabid, fearful and motivated to act. Actual violence will actually detract from that, especially the worse it gets.

Where as the terrorist organizers really do want violence.

Jihadis engage in open and explicit calls for actual violence. I don’t think that exists to any significant degree in the American right-wing BS machine.

39 Obdicut  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:28:08pm

re: #38 elTito

That’s not the point of this post, though. The argument has been made that the shooter’s actions were solely because he was crazy, and that rhetoric doesn’t matter to the insane.

In order to say that the rhetoric of radical Islamists can inspire people to kill, it’s necessary to admit that rhetoric can, in fact, inspire people to kill.

You can then, if you want, try to make the argument that only explicit calls to violence can drive people to kill, not implicit ones, but that would be rather easily disproved by the ‘lone wolf’ strategies of the white power movement.

40 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:28:48pm

re: #5 uncah91

I really do think there is a difference though.

The most visible of the current right wing ideologues don’t actually WANT violence to occur. They want to keep the base rabid, fearful and motivated to act. Actual violence will actually detract from that, especially the worse it gets.

Where as the terrorist organizers really do want violence.

As I said last thread or two, I do agree with this.

Bin Laden wants his rhetoric to get people killed.

I would argue that Randall Terry wants his rhetoric to get people killed.

Michelle Bachmann just wants her rhetoric to get her elected, and give her power, and lots of cool friends, and to be the most super person ever.

She doesn’t want anyone to be assassinated because of it.

My problem is when she refuses to see that that’s a real possibility, and also that the kind of language she is using is diminishing the country and our ability to govern ourselves well.

She’s not a terrorist.

But she’s doing some things that are damaging.

41 MinisterO  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:29:19pm

re: #38 elTito


Jihadis engage in open and explicit calls for actual violence. I don’t think that exists to any significant degree in the American right-wing BS machine.

The fact that the American right-wing BS machine has carefully maintained plausible deniability in no way diminishes the point.

42 CuriousLurker  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:31:10pm

Okay, I’ve made my point (several times, in several different ways) and I stand by it.

I’m not partial to repeatedly banging my head against the wall, so I’m moving on to other threads now. Carry on believing what you will.

43 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:31:46pm

re: #11 uncah91

That is a really good point. Although it is mostly the sermon givers we are having a debate about.

So, do most mullahs who talk about “The Great Satan” of America really not want violence? Something to think about…

In John Hockenberry’s memoir, he writes about chatting with an Iranian he met on the streets of Tehran at the Ayatollah’s funeral, chanting ‘Death to America’.

He seemed rather taken aback when Hockenberry told him most Americans thought Iranians hated them. He loved Americans! Americans are cool! When you say ‘Death to America’, it just means their government. Surely Americans get that?

Hockenberry suggested, as politely as he could, that they did not. The man found that surprising.

No point here, except that rhetoric sounds very different depending on which side of it you’re on, and what other ideas you bring to it.

44 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:32:40pm

re: #24 uncah91

Well, I don’t really know who to compare Glenn Beck too, but I don’t think he wants actual violence. Does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want actual violence? Not that Beck is a President of anything

There definitely ARE organizations and leaders from the US right wing that really do want violence. And their rhetoric is what has become mainstreamed. Which is what is scary.

I don’t think Becks cares who lives or dies as long as his ratings stay up.

45 Obdicut  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:33:43pm

re: #43 SanFranciscoZionist

It makes sense to me. I don’t think anyone here who says that we should bomb Iran means that they want a single Iranian citizen to die in that bombing.

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:34:30pm

re: #25 Fozzie Bear

As opposed to shooting 20 people? No, I don’t see much of a difference.

There’s a cultural and situational difference. There are places where an act like this is celebrated. Americans aren’t there. Loughner, regardless of who you blame him on, will be universally denounced. (Yes, some crazies, statistically small, move on.)

But part of what we’re talking about is AVOIDING going there.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:37:50pm

re: #38 elTito

I am :).

Someone else already covered it though. At least the way I meant it.

Jihadis engage in open and explicit calls for actual violence. I don’t think that exists to any significant degree in the American right-wing BS machine.

It is very different. And it’s not. That make any sense?

The degree of social disapproval of calls for violence, the way the enemy is identified—these make a difference. I think the actual degree of derangement needed for a young Yemeni guy to end up as a terrorist is probably much lower than that needed for a young American guy to end up shooting a Congresswoman, for a lot of reasons.

But the way political speech and ideology is used, and the effect it has on people is something of a human universal.

48 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:45:27pm

re: #33 CuriousLurker

IOW, they may be brainwashed, but I don’t for a minute believe they’re dysfunctionally crazy.

Brainwashing aka “mind control” is a bogus concept, pimped by a sensationalist media. Don’t buy into it. Whoever is using it has no clue what they are talking about in psychological matters.

49 offensive_username  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:45:40pm

In Pakistan, many people threw flowers at the bodyguard who killed the politician.

Here, everyone tries to portray anyone who assassinates a politician as a member of their opponent’s side. The right is saying this guy was a leftist, the left is saying he is a rightist.

50 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 1:46:25pm

re: #49 offensive_username

In Pakistan, many people threw flowers at the bodyguard who killed the politician.

Here, everyone tries to portray anyone who assassinates a politician as a member of their opponent’s side. The right is saying this guy was a leftist, the left is saying he is a rightist.

We’re a long way from Pakistan.

I think the point I’m trying to make through all this is that I’d like us not to move any closer to Pakistan on the Crazy Chart.

51 palomino  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 2:17:34pm

re: #38 elTito

I am :).

Someone else already covered it though. At least the way I meant it.

Jihadis engage in open and explicit calls for actual violence. I don’t think that exists to any significant degree in the American right-wing BS machine.

Agreed to some extent. Right wing leaders don’t want the sort of “actual violence” we saw Sat. in AZ; it puts them on the defensive. But since they peddle violent rhetoric and create a climate of resentment and fear, what’s the logical end game other than some violent acts by people already deranged and angry? In short, they’re playing with fire; someone is bound to get burned in such a context.

If you’re gonna repeat ad nauseum, as the TP leaders do, that Obama and the Dems represent a singular evil that is irrevocably destroying America the Beautiful, how can you realistically expect no violence?

52 CuriousLurker  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 2:24:54pm

re: #48 000G

Brainwashing aka “mind control” is a bogus concept, pimped by a sensationalist media. Don’t buy into it. Whoever is using it has no clue what they are talking about in psychological matters.

There’s too much info on that Wiki page for me to digest at the end of a looong day (I’ll revisit it tomorrow when my mind is fresh). I guess what I was really referring to was indoctrination or maybe conditioning—I don’t know the precise term.

I meant like when a woman who already has low self-esteem gets involved with an abusive man and he reinforces or magnifies it by telling her she’s stupid, worthless, no one else will love her, whatever. He ends up controling where she can go, who she can talk to, how she dresses, etc. She goes from simply being a woman with self-esteem issues who is still relatively “normal” and functional, to being a miserable, terrified participant in her own destruction. I’ve seen this happen with friends.

I’m no psychologist, but I think the same type of thing can be done to someone with a personality disorder, with the end result being much more sinister in the case of terrorism. I’ve never met an actual terrorist (at least not that I know of), but I have seen new converts go from one extreme to another—e.g. I’ve seen people who were previously wild “party animals”, unapologetic gang members, etc. become Muslim and get sucked into the hard-line Salafi mindset. It’s like they just exchanged one set of extremes for another, with only a temporary “moderate” period in the middle of the transition.

53 elTito  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 2:32:09pm

re: #39 Obdicut

That’s not the point of this post, though. The argument has been made that the shooter’s actions were solely because he was crazy, and that rhetoric doesn’t matter to the insane.

In order to say that the rhetoric of radical Islamists can inspire people to kill, it’s necessary to admit that rhetoric can, in fact, inspire people to kill.

You can then, if you want, try to make the argument that only explicit calls to violence can drive people to kill, not implicit ones, but that would be rather easily disproved by the ‘lone wolf’ strategies of the white power movement.

I’m not sure its fair to apply the same standard to both sets of people. There are profound cultural and environmental differences.

Not to say I disagree with you, per se - I just never really thought of it in that context :p.

54 What, me worry?  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 2:54:06pm

You rock, Ms. Curious :>

55 changomo  Mon, Jan 10, 2011 11:58:56pm

This is Intellectual dishonesty at its worse Charles. I’ve respected a lot of your views in the years I’ve been on this site. It greatly disappoints me whoever, that LGF has jumped on the “blame the right” bandwagon for this horrible tragedy.

A comparison to Islamic Facism, and the unilateral viewpoints of such (albeit misguided) is simply not valid. Jared Loughner was a person of contradictions that any person looking at his views would soon see is a product of madness across the political spectrum. He was a Nazi sympathizer, who also liked the communist manifesto… yet he also liked liaises faire capitalism, he was a truther, that also believed that the government was engaging in mind control. He is an atheist that used illegal drugs, and had mental problems according to classmates.

Charles, you often deride right-wing extremists as irrational creationists (yet he was an atheist)

He liked communism, does that make him right wing?

He used illegal drugs, yet most right wing positions are against easing of drug legalization

You can see a profile here with non-partisan sources:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]

I think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are idiots, but I never saw them say you should like Hitler, not believe in God, and say that you should like both capitalism and communism in some new strange economic system…

Again, I know people here think that (GB, Rush, Palin) were the reasons Jared Laoughner killed those people, but until I see Jared Loughner himself saying GB, Palin, etc are the reasons that inspired him, making that assumption is on par with assuming Ted Kaczynski did what he did because of (fill in the blank of some left wing source) Both irrational assumptions, and especially this early in this case.

56 boxhead  Tue, Jan 11, 2011 12:25:00am

re: #55 changomo

well reasoned post…. My take on this is that I not do attribute blame to either Dems nor GOP, I do blame the words used in our political discourse. The people with the loudest mics, TV signals, blogs, or ink, know full well that words matter. It is not necessary to quote the bile that has become part of the conversation. You know it as well as any other seeker of truth. I find it very disingenuous to hear these users of the various media outlets to claim words do not matter. They are not stupid. They only hope the listeners are. I tire of this…

The words I wish I heard are like these… “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” “One Nation, Under God, INDIVISIBLE, with Liberty and Justice, For All.” “We The People…”

we are better than this!!!!!!!!!!!!

57 Mark Winter  Tue, Jan 11, 2011 1:38:04am

re: #56 boxhead

well reasoned post… My take on this is that I not do attribute blame to either Dems nor GOP, I do blame the words used in our political discourse.

Who is using crosshairs, bulleyes and reloading in that discourse, remind me?

58 boxhead  Tue, Jan 11, 2011 1:49:11am

re: #57 Mark Winter

Who is using crosshairs, bulleyes and reloading in that discourse, remind me?

I am not disputing your reply, I am taking the path condemning all bile in hope that right minded people will agree to end all the hate. Blaming one side or another, and then asking for unity seems counter productive.

Ask me about my feelings while having a beer or five and I will tell you how I feel. Alas, feelings are not always the best motive to solve complex problems.

59 boxhead  Tue, Jan 11, 2011 2:04:05am

re: #57 Mark Winter

Who is using crosshairs, bulleyes and reloading in that discourse, remind me?

BTW Mark, your bio says you are in Deutschland. I have a lot of family in Baden-Württemberg. I love it there… My family is from all small villages where I had fresh bread every morning… ahhhhhhh


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 33 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 87 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1