Better Conservative Columnists, Please

Ken AshfordElection 2008, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Jonah Goldberg starts his column in today’s L.A. Times this way:

Forced servitude in America?
The U.S. already has high rates of volunteerism, but that’s apparently not good enough for our presidential candidates.
There’s a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.
Ah, what wonderful irony Jonah seems to have stumbled upon.  America’s first black president bringing back the institution of slavery.
But what’s Goldberg talking about?  Why, it’s Obama’s plan for increased volunteerism among the young — you know, Peace Corps and Americorps and such — with the assistance of federal funds.
And toward the end of Goldberg’s column, we read this admission:
No, national service isn’t slavery.
Oh, okay.  Never mind then.  So much for the "weird irony".  I guess I was confused by the opening grafs suggesting that Obama’s plan for increased national service was tantamount to slavery.  But Goldberg’s thesis became befuddled when he reallized that McCain was basically calling for the same thing as Obama.
It’s about as honest as we’ll ever get to see Goldberg, who is tacitly admitting that he is full of shit, and unable to offer us anything more than incidiary headline-grabbing drivel and incoherent reasoning.
Rubber Hose quips:
jonah’s right. i remember my days of bondage that summer that i working at a school for austic children as part of my high school’s service requirement. then, a year or two later, i got myself enslaved again, working at a school for the deaf in the last month of my senior year.
UPDATE:  Hilzoy:

Minor point: about that "mandatory youth corps": in the piece Geraghty links to, he describes Obama’s proposal as "very close to echoing John Kerry’s Orwellian call for mandatory volunteerism." In NRO-speak, "very close to echoing" just means: he didn’t actually say it, but if I squinch my face up very hard, wish upon a star, and clap as loud as I can, I can pretend that he did. What Obama actually said:

"We’ll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we’ll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we’ll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you – that’s how we’re going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century."

That’s not a "mandatory youth corps" by any stretch of the imagination.

Jesse’s Grill

Ken AshfordIn Passing, Race, RepublicansLeave a Comment

You might wonder why I havent opined on the passing of Jesse Helms and his bigoted foul legacy.

It’s because I was taught not to speak ill of the dead.

Besides, we all know he’s in hell.

UPDATE:  But here’s a column from David Broder written in 2001 (when Helms was still alive), which pretty much sums it up with these words:

The New York Times described him as "a conservative stalwart for nearly 30 years," the Boston Globe as "an unyielding icon of conservatives and an archenemy of liberals." The Washington Post identified Helms as "one of the most powerful conservatives on Capitol Hill for three decades."

Those were accurate descriptions. But they skirted the point. There are plenty of powerful conservatives in government. A few, such as Don Rumsfeld and Henry Hyde, have been around as long as Helms and have their own significant roles in 20th century political history. What really sets Jesse Helms apart is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country — a title that one hopes will now be permanently retired. A few editorials and columns came close to saying that. But the squeamishness of much of the press in characterizing Helms for what he is suggests an unwillingness to confront the reality of race in our national life.

McCain = Bush

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

Interesting happenings yesterday at a public McCain rally.

Carole Kreck, a 61 year librarian was waiting in line at the Denver Center for Performing Arts to attend the John McCain town hall meeting. She held a sign that said "McCain = Bush."

McCain’s security detail told her to leave. The police were called. They issued her a ticket for trespassing and escorted her out.

The event was open to the public. They advised people to arrive a few hours early. How can you trespass on public property if you’ve been invited to the event being held on that property?

Kreck asks a poignant question at the end of the clip.  How exactly is her sign offensive to a Republican?

She’s right — one wonders if the McCain people would have asked her to leave if her sign had read "McCain = Reagan".

OTHER MCCAIN-RELATED STUFF.  I blogged about this yesterday, so here’s an interesting follow-up from Josh Marshall:

As I noted last night, one of McCain’s vague assertions was that he "would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit."

So what are the numbers behind that? We just asked the McCain campaign and the response we got was …

It’s pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction. It’s really the logical extension of Senator McCain’s position as articulated in the 2013 speech. Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort.

This is what’s behind McCain’s promise. I’ll do a lot of things that will get the deficit down. One of them is the the guarantee of victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and obviously that will save a lot of money.

As I said, this is the reductio ad absurdum of the mad pass John McCain gets on everything. He’s pledging to balance the budget in four years and when asked for details he says, ‘We’ll get back to you on that.’

Indeed.

War Powers

Ken AshfordCongress, Constitution, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

I know the Constitution is, in places, ambiguous, but this language seems pretty straightforward:

The Congress shall have power… to declare war…

That’s Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution.  It’s the "War Powers Clause".

The dirty little secret is that Congress, in all its history, has only declared war five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the Spanish-American War (1898), World War I, and World War II.

That’s right.  Congress never made a declaration of war for the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War ("Desert Storm"), or our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In some situations, Congress merely authorized military action, without a formal declaration of war.  This was the case with Vietnam, as well as our current situation.

On other occasions, the President merely committed armed forces on his own initiative.  Truman, for example, committed U.S. troops into the Korean War, citing the fact that we were bound by United Nations obligations.  But here’s the rub — this has happened on at least 125 occasions throughout American history.  Remember the invasion of Grenada under Reagan?

So what does the War Powers Clause mean when a President can commit troops to conflict without a formal congressional declaration of war — or indeed, even absent a mere "authorization" by Congress?

This problem was taken up by Congress following the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam in 1972.  Congress passed what is known as the "War Powers Resolution".  It stated that the President of The United States of America can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States of America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of force or a declaration of war.

That was all well and good, and the War Powers Resolution has generally been followed since its inception.  The problem, unfortunately, is that it arguably contradicts the Constitution’s War Powers Clause.  Or severely renders that clause virtually meaningless.

No court has passed judgment on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  It remains controversial.  Supporters of the law seem to bog themselves in silly semantics (e.g., "Well, we’re not really at war with al Qaeda, because the word ‘war’ means we’re fighting a recognized country, and AQ isn’t a country").

In my view, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional.  It is certainly not what the Framers envisioned.  Even though the Constitution says that the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the Framers clearly did not want one man to decide when to commit our nation’s troops to combat.

Granted, the Constitution’s War Powers clause is antiquated.  If, for example, nuclear missiles are literally flying over the ocean toward our cities, we simply don’t have time to convene Congress and have them pass a vote that military action on our part is required.  Congress itself would be vaporized before such a vote could take place.  Clearly, the Framers did not envision such a scenario, being only familiar with wars waged with muskets and bayonets.  So, in a sense, the War Powers Clause of the Constitution must be modified (or interpreted) to allow for such real-world realities.

But the War Powers Resolution of 1973 simply went too far.  It allowed for the President to commit troops to conflicts anywhere, anytime in the world, and then get after-the-fact approval from Congress.  Even when there is no imminent threat.

Enter James Baker III (Secretary of State under Bush 41) and Warren Christopher (Secretary of State under Clinton), who headed up a bipartisan committee to look at the War Powers Resolution of 1973, following the somewhat disastrous process of several years ago which resulted in the Iraq War quagmire we now find ourselves.  In today’s New York Times, they pen an op-ed detailing the conclusions and recommendations of that committee.  The headline: "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong"

Their findings?  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is "ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst".  Well, yes.  No duh.

They continue:

The statute has other problems as well: it too narrowly defines the president’s war powers to exclude the power to respond to sudden attacks on Americans abroad; it empowers Congress to terminate an armed conflict by simply doing nothing; and it fails to identify which of the 535 members of Congress the president should consult before going to war.

As a consequence, the 1973 statute has been regularly ignored — a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece of American democracy.

Rather than tweak the 1973 Resolution, Baker and Christopher recommend scrapping it in favor of what they call "The War Powers Consultation Act of 2009".  The general thrust?  The President and Congress should consult each other before committing troops to combat.

As usual, the devil is in the details, but already, I don’t see this as a vast improvement over the 1973 Resolution.  For one thing (as Baker and Christopher acknowledge), it still is probably unconstitutional, as it runs afoul of the War Powers Clause.

But let’s get into the details:

Our proposed statute would provide that the president must consult with Congress before ordering a “significant armed conflict” — defined as combat operations that last or are expected to last more than a week. To provide more clarity than the 1973 War Powers Resolution, our statute also defines what types of hostilities would not be considered significant armed conflicts — for example, training exercises, covert operations or missions to protect and rescue Americans abroad. If secrecy or other circumstances precluded prior consultation, then consultation — not just notification — would need to be undertaken within three days.

I don’t think they get it.  Their proposal is still too "executive-focused".  The President must consult with Congress before ordering an armed conflict?  How about the President ask Congress?  After all, as the Constitution clearly says, Congress shall make that determination.  Congress, not the president, holds the rubber stamp.

Baker and Christopher address this criticism:

Some may argue that Congress should have the dominant role in war powers debates. But it hasn’t played that role under the 1973 resolution. Rather than endorse any absolutist position, our statute would give Congress access to intelligence, a full-time staff for studying national security issues and a well-defined mechanism for consulting and voting on significant armed conflicts.

Yeah, "Some may argue that Congress should have the dominant role in war powers debate".  That "some" would include Madison, Jefferson, and all the other Founding Fathers.  Oh, and the American people, too: according to a Gallup Poll, 79% of us want the president to get Congress’s approval before sending our troops overseas.

So apparently, while their essay is entitled "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong" — apparently, Baker and Christopher, contra the Framers, believe that war powers "belong" primarily with the President.

No, no, no.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Baker and Christopher’s proposal is no better than the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  In fact, it’s arguably worse, because it takes the "bug" of the 1973 Resolution and turns it into a feature.  As the op-ed argues, their proposed statute is a good thing because it

[gives] the president the political benefit of forcing Congress to take a position on going to war. And it would do so without insisting that the president get the consent of Congress.

Well, gentlemen — if that’s the case, then your proposed statute fixes nothing, and clearly runs afoul of the Constitution.  If the President can commit troops to armed conflict without "consent of Congress", then we’re back to the same unconstitutional problem we have always had.

I’m glad that the general issue of war powers is being taken up by very important people, and this proposal may be serve as a good launching point for a national debate.  It’s nice that Baker and Christopher are talking about "increased Congressional responsibility" when it comes to war powers.  But they still appear to make Congress subservient to presidential military whims, and I strongly suggest a revisit to the drawing board for Baker and Christopher.

I’m No Economist, But….

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & Deficit, Election 2008, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

….this makes no sense to me.  From Mike Allen’s piece just out in The Politico …

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

What does that mean?  "Savings from victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Do we have a line in the budget for "victory"?

I mean, I understand we’ve earmarked money for a war with an indeterminate end.  But presumably, even if we stopped all military operations in the Middle East today, the money that we won’t be spending in the future isn’t "savings".  Nor will it come to close to covering the trillions we’ve already spent.  It’s kind of like cutting up a credit card and not using it, thinking that will somehow pay down the debt you’ve already racked up.

And besides, McCain has no intention of ending combat in the Middle East.  In fact, he’s talked about increasing military spending.

So what the hell is he talking about????

UPDATE:  Jason Furman is skeptical —

"McCain would have to pay for all of his new tax cuts and other proposals and then, on top of that, cut an additional $443 billion from the budget—which is 81 percent of Medicare spending or 78 percent of all discretionary spending outside of defense," Furman said.

Social security, too.

Convention Fight

Ken AshfordElection 2008Leave a Comment

Two months ago, Democrats were wringing their hands about the possibility of a party-rending convention battle between the Hillary minions and the Barack minions, with the superdelegates caought in the middle.

Remeber that?  Ahhhhh, good times.

But according to today’s Washington Post, the convention battle might be on the GOP side:

Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of September’s Republican National Convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party’s official declaration of principles.

McCain has not yet signaled the changes he plans to make in the GOP platform, but many conservatives say they fear wholesale revisions could emerge as candidate McCain seeks to put his stamp on a document that currently reflects the policies and principles of President Bush.

"There is just no way that you can avoid anticipating what is going to come. Everyone is aware that McCain is different on these issues," said Jessica Echard, executive director of the conservative Eagle Forum. "We’re all kind of waiting with anticipation because we just don’t know how he’s going to thread this needle."

Part of the problem?  The party’s 100 page platform…

…all but nine pages mention Bush’s name. Virtually the entire platform will have to be rewritten to lessen the imprint of the president, who has the highest disapproval rating of any White House occupant since Richard M. Nixon.

It is the prospect of a total rewrite that worries some.

Heh.  Kind of embarrassing that the party in power can’t ride on the coattails of their leader.

Another concern?  Ron Paul will be in town during the GOP convention, holding a mini counter-convention next door.

And what of the Democratic convention?  Obama will deliver a solid unifying speech to a crowd of 75,000 at Mile High Stadium on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s "I Have A Dream" speech.

Gotta like the tone of this election.

Meanwhile, Pollster (a conglomerate of all polls) shows Obama widening his national lead over McCain.

08uspresgemvo600_2

And here’s how it looks electorally…. Obama 320   McCain 218 

Jul07

Strong Dem (194) = Strong blue
Weak Dem (45) = Light blue
Barely Dem (81) = Outline blue
Exactly tied (0) = White
Barely GOP (23) = Outline red
Weak GOP (115) = Light red
Strong GOP (80) = Strong red
270 Electoral votes needed to win

How It All Started: A Reminder

Ken AshfordHistoryLeave a Comment

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Bush’s Wiretapping: Now 0-For-3 With The Courts

Ken AshfordWiretapping & SurveillanceLeave a Comment

Greenwald:

A Bush-41-appointed Federal District Judge yesterday became the third judge — out of three who have ruled on the issue — to reject the Bush administration’s claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA. Yesterday’s decision by Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California also guts the central claims for telecom immunity and gives the lie to the excuses coming from Congress as to why the new FISA bill is some sort of important "concession." More than anything else, this decision is but the most recent demonstration that, with this new FISA bill, our political establishment is doing what it now habitually does: namely, ensuring that the political and corporate elite who break our laws on purpose are immune from consequences.

Judge Walker’s decision (.pdf) was issued in the case of Al-Haramain v. Bush. That lawsuit was brought against the Bush administration by an Oregon-based Muslim charity and two of its American lawyers, alleging that the Government violated FISA — i.e., broke the law — by eavesdropping on their telephone conversations without the warrants required by law. The warrantless eavesdropping occurred as part of Bush’s NSA spying program, which entailed spying on Americans’ international communications without warrants (the lawyers were in London when they spoke on the telephone to their client in Oregon). What makes this case unique is that the lawyers and charity know for certain that they were spied on as part of the secret NSA program because the DOJ accidentally produced transcripts of those calls.

The Bush administration argued that the plaintiffs could not prove their case because, to do so, they would have to rely on documents and information that the President deemed to be "state secrets" (i.e., the Government’s eavesdropping activities) and which are, therefore, unusable in court. That is the argument the court rejected — holding instead that Congress, when it enacted FISA, established a procedure that allows even classified information to be considered by a court, and the President’s Article II powers cannot override the FISA statute. As the Court pointed out, Congress’ core purpose in enacting FISA in 1978 was to bar the President from exercising untrammeled, unchallenged power in the area of eavesdropping. Thus, presidential assertions of secrecy do not override the law.

He’s got a deeper analysis.  Read it.

UPDATE:  And yes, I am disappointed that Obama supported the new FISA bill which gives telecoms immunity.

More Nauseating Food

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

Introducing the bacon cheeseburger….

Lutherburger

… with a sliced Krispy Kreme donut serving as the bun.

Yes, this is a cultish delicacy.  It’s known as the Luther Burger, named (perhaps apocraphly) after Luther Vandross, who supposedly loved them or possibly invented them.

Wretched excess, yes?

Watermelon Is The New Oyster

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

118049785_d209f2fadd_mDoing my duty here, keeping you up to date on the latest sex advice:

Texas A&M scientists say watermelon contains ingredients that deliver Viagra-like effects to the body’s blood vessels and may even increase the libido.

Researchers from Texas A&M long have studied the fruit and found that it contains natural "enhancers" to the human body.

"We’ve always known that watermelon is good for you, but the list of its very important healthful benefits grows longer with each study," said Bhimu Patil, director of Texas A&M’s Fruit and Vegetable Improvement Center, in a news release from the university.

Read the whole thing (you know you want to).

UPDATE:  Lee Ann quips, "If you eat watermelon for more than four hours, consult a physician."

Modern Day Salem

Ken AshfordConstitution, Courts/Law, Godstuff1 Comment

Via Volokh, an interesting case (pdf) from Texas involving the exorcism of demons from a teenage girl:

On Friday evening, before her parents left town, Laura [Schubert, a 17-year-old congregant,] attended a youth group activity at Pleasant Glade in preparation for a garage sale the next day. The atmosphere during this event became spiritually charged after one of the youth announced he had seen a demon near the sanctuary. The youth minister, Rod Linzay, thereupon called the group together to hear the story, and after hearing it, agreed that demons were indeed present. Linzay instructed the youth to anoint everything in the church with holy oil and led a spirited effort throughout the night to cast out the demons. Finally, on Saturday morning at about 4:30 a.m., Linzay gathered the exhausted youth together to announce that he had seen a cloud of the presence of God fill the church and that God had revealed a vision to him. Although exhausted, the young people assisted with the garage sale later that morning.

At the Sunday morning worship service the next day, several young people gave testimonials about the spiritual events of the preceding day. At the conclusion of the service, the youth, including Laura and her brother, prayed at the altar. During these prayers, Laura’s brother became "slain in the spirit," collapsing to the floor where church members continued to pray into the early afternoon.

Later that afternoon, Laura returned to church for another youth activity and the Sunday evening worship service. During the evening service, Laura collapsed. After her collapse, several church members took Laura to a classroom where they "laid hands" on her and prayed. According to Laura, church members forcibly held her arms crossed over her chest, despite her demands to be freed. According to those present, Laura clenched her fists, gritted her teeth, foamed at the mouth, made guttural noises, cried, yelled, kicked, sweated, and hallucinated. The parties sharply dispute whether these actions were the cause or the result of her physical restraint.

Church members, moreover, disagreed about whether Laura’s actions were a ploy for attention or the result of spiritual activity. Laura stated during the episode that Satan or demons were trying to get her. After the episode, Laura also allegedly began telling other church members about a "vision." Yet, her collapse and subsequent reaction to being restrained may also have been the result of fatigue and hypoglycemia. Laura had not eaten anything substantive that day and had missed sleep because of the spiritual activities that weekend. Whatever the cause, Laura was eventually released after she calmed down and complied with requests to say the name "Jesus."

On Monday and Tuesday, Laura continued to participate in church-related activities without any problems, raising money for Vacation Bible School and preparing for youth drama productions. Her parents returned from their trip on Tuesday afternoon.

On Wednesday evening, Laura attended the weekly youth service presided by Rod Linzay. According to Linzay, Laura began to act in a manner similar to the Sunday evening episode. Laura testified that she curled up into a fetal position because she wanted to be left alone. Church members, however, took her unusual posture as a sign of distress. At some point, Laura collapsed and writhed on the floor. Again, there is conflicting evidence about whether Laura’s actions were the cause or result of being physically restrained by church members and about the duration and force of the restraint. According to Laura, the youth, under the direction of Linzay and his wife, Holly, held her down. Laura testified, moreover, that she was held in a "spread eagle" position with several youth members holding down her arms and legs. The church’s senior pastor, Lloyd McCutchen, was summoned to the youth hall where he played a tape of pacifying music, placed his hand on Laura’s forehead, and prayed. During the incident, Laura suffered carpet burns, a scrape on her back, and bruises on her wrists and shoulders. Laura’s parents were subsequently called to the church. After collecting their daughter, the Schuberts took her out for a meal and then home. Laura did not mention her scrapes and bruises to her parents that night.

The girl’s family eventually sued the church for false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress, and assault…

claiming that she was involuntarily restrained, and that this caused a wide range of emotional distress damages: "angry outbursts, weight loss, sleeplessness, nightmares, hallucinations, self-mutilation, fear of abandonment, and agoraphobia. Despite the psychiatric counseling, Laura became increasingly depressed and suicidal, eventually dropping out of her senior year of high school and abandoning her former plan to attend Bible College and pursue missionary work. Finally, in November 1996, Laura was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which the doctors associated with her physical restraint at the church in June 1996. One of the expert witnesses at trial testified that Laura would ‘require extensive time to recover trust in authorities, spiritual leaders, and her life-long religious faith.’ Ultimately, Laura was classified as disabled by the Social Security Administration and began drawing a monthly disability check."

The jury found found for the girl and awarded her $300,000 in damages.

But the Texas Supreme Court has reversed, on the grounds that emotional distress liability (as opposed to liability for physical injuries as such, which were apparently very slight, and for which Schubert apparently didn’t claim any damages) was unconstitutional.

Their problem?

The jury was given instructions by the trial court that they should view what happened through the lens of a secular act in a secular setting.  The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed, and said that the "laying of hands", the act upon which the lawsuit was predicated, was "normal" for that setting and that church, and therefore restraining the girl, even it was unwanted by her, was not actionable (at least as to emotional dammage).

Like Volokh, I disagree.  It’s quite simple.  She didn’t want to be restrained (or so the jury believed), and that’s false imprisonment.  End of story.

That aside, I’m startled to find this kind of thing still going on in the 21st century.