Todd's Mischief Blog

Snippets from other conversations On obstructionist politics: The false assumption made when asking simply whether obstructionist politics really work is that any given tactic will have the same effect regardless who is using it and regardless of the conditions in which it is used. This isn't true in warfare. This isn't true in sports. Why should it be true in politics? It's not hard to see that obstructionist tactics are working for the Republican party right now . It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to question a tactic's efficacy while it is working. The real question should be why it is working and what might cause that to stop? On the purpose of laws: The law should provide certainty where it otherwise does not exist. When new uncertainties arise, new laws may be created to deal with said uncertainties. However, when the creation of law becomes itself the source of uncertainty, then there is a real problem. We have that problem now. More on obstruction...

Is JoePa guilty of being too human? I would like a little help understanding something. Joe Paterno did a) nothing wrong, b) not nothing, c) not too little, but d) exactly what he was supposed to do and still has been fired. What am I missing? I'm not saying Joe shouldn't have retired years ago--he should have--but his ousting yesterday strikes me as having more to do with finding a scapegoat than anything to do with misconduct. Shouldn't it be Jerry Sandusky receiving everyone's ire? Yet I hardly hear his name. And how does Mike McQueary keep his job if he is held to anything resembling a similar standard that which Joe is being held to? I don't even care about Penn State except for next weekend's matchup with Nebraska— Go Big Red! — but this sorta throws a pall over that. I just can't help but see JoePa as a fall guy.  First, I take issue with the notion that we have rules we are expected to follow, but when those rules prove insufficient for w...