a “great” lawyer understands both elements and points. awesome legal writers comprehensively address these two items for “winning” briefs. omissions expose weakness to one’s case.
crimes or torts have specific elements. competent legal writers explain and address each and every element. in case briefing, judges often lay out issues to discuss. not discussing an issue often reveals a problem.
this advice comes from someone who has judged trial advocacy and moot court. further, this comes from someone who had over three decades of published legal decisions which are available online.
mr. dennis prager, a well-respected political and religious commentator, addressed the kanye west controversy. while he did so as a columnist, his offering is troubling. his article was not at prageru, the social media platform, he founded, but was posted as part of his weekly column on his own website.
the column was problematic. while mr. prager condemn’s mr. west’s statements as anti-semitic, he does not discuss mr. west’s apparent use of hebrew israelite beliefs. this is a disappointment as mr. prager may be qualified to explain the problem to his followers and the public with respect to those statements. within that belief system, there are those who assert that jews are “fake jews.”
mr. prager takes the time to offer a defense of ms. candice owens. ms. owen’s, unlike mr. prager, has gone on her platform, the dailywire, and expressed her views over the controversy. whether you agree with her or not, she made her expressed her opinions. she allows others to discuss her views and positions. her clarity was wonderful. she is a courageous individual.
mr. prager, however, has a huge problem. while he has admitted to mr. west’s anti-semitic statements, he has not, however, address the fact that prageru hosts many kanye west videos. further, there are videos addressing the kanye west controversy head-on.
it is my contention that mr. prager confronts this deep and moral troubling issue by simply ignoring it.
how are kanye west prageru video’s to be presented post his anti-semitic tirade? should there be disclaimers? should there be censorship?
mr. prager’s silence on this issue is tantamount to an endorsement. it is not unreasonable to contend that prageru is willing to endorse an individual with well publicized anti-semitic statements. there was an obligation to address this matter. prageru followers deserve a dialogue. prageru wants people to think. their handling of this matter, ironically, is not well thought. i implore prageru to address this matter.
if you enjoyed this post, please “like”
if you would like to read more posts, click here
if you find this post meaningful, please share
if you would like to receive posts, please “follow”