So far I'm not seeing any condescension. You're doing a great job of explaining complex and jargon-filled matters of law in clear, lay-friendly terms. No condescension, just blessed clarity. It's almost like you've studied it all and could do it for a living or something.
Natter 69: Practically names itself.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
(((MFNLaw)))
I love when JZ gets all Catholic.
me too. it is sexier than The Thorn Birds.
Hee!
Aww, thanks folks. In general, Scalzi's blog is a haven of sensibility--at least he does moderate his comments, but it's not precisely a progressive place.
And I do loathe the whole shell-game that goes on with the anti-marriage equality crowd. If a court requires it, it's "judicial activism"; if a legislature passes it, it's "against the will of the people", despite the fact that we live in a representative democracy. And (generally) the same folks who rant about judicial activists overriding the will of the people are perfectly happy with the Supreme Court striking down gun-control laws...
JZ's church is definitely of the awesome, as well as sexy.
sexier than The Thorn Birds.
Uhhh... thanks? (I must here confess to a totally irrational hatred for Richard Chamberlain.)
Hating Richard Chamberlain is totally rational.
He's been great on "leverage", but that's all I got.