Sign of the Apocalypse #75: Kids being sued for "negligence"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We all know American society is becoming increasingly litigious, with everyone seemingly suing everyone else, but I'm not sure we knew it was quite this bad:

Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.

The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both 4, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street. At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was "seriously and severely injured," suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes.

Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Juliet's lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not "engaged in an adult activity" at the time of the accident — "She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother" — and was too young to be held liable for negligence.

In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, "Courts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence." (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)

But Justice Wooten declined to stretch that rule to children over 4. On Oct. 1, he rejected a motion to dismiss the case because of Juliet's age, noting that she was three months shy of turning 5 when Ms. Menagh was struck, and thus old enough to be sued.

*****

Mr. Tyrie had also argued that Juliet should not be held liable because her mother was present; Justice Wooten disagreed.

"A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," the judge wrote. He added that any "reasonably prudent child," who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.

So this isn't about the mother being sued, this is about the child being sued. A four-year-old child. (And how is even a five-year-old capable of negligence?)

This is insane. And a sure sign that the Apocalypse is just around the bend.

**********

Eugene Volokh, analyzing the decision, writes:

I also suspect that the whole inquiry into how reasonably prudent four-year-olds behave is unlikely to yield any meaningful result. Most four-year-olds are prudent sometimes and imprudent at other times, and I quite doubt that one can identify even in one's head what sort of care a reasonably prudent four-year-old would likely take. Naturally, this is a matter of degree, and at some age the question becomes more meaningful, even given that fourteen-year-olds and for that matter twenty-four-year-olds will often act rashly.

But I'm inclined to say that the wiser move for a state legal system would be to set the absolute bar to liability for the child (setting aside the possibility of the parent's being liable for negligent supervision) at a considerably higher age — maybe seven, or maybe even older. Otherwise, the result is more litigation with no real likelihood that we'll have any sensible jury decisions in such litigation.

Yes -- considerably higher. And certainly higher than four.

Simply put, children should allowed to be children, and not taken to court whenever they do something that, in adult terms, may be imprudent and possibly negligent.

In what kind of a sick society is this allowed to happen?

Grasping at strawmen

By Mustang Bobby

Following up on Michael's post below...

As the Prop 8 trial begins today, Edwin Meese III, who was an Attorney General in the Reagan administration, leaps to the end of the story and assumes that the plaintiffs have several unfair advantages and therefore will prevail. He bases his presumption of verdict on several factors:

- The trial is taking place in San Francisco. "More than 75 percent of San Francisco voters opposed Proposition 8. That’s quite a home-court advantage for same-sex marriage advocates." Well, unless the trial is taking place in the middle of Castro Street, I would hope that the court will be able to maintain an air of impartiality, and one would hope that the outcome would be the same if it took place in Fresno.

- The judge has issued a series of pre-trial rulings that Mr. Meese thinks stacks the deck against the defendants. "The judge went so far as to order the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He has even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.

"Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8. They’ll argue that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination." If that was the basis of the campaign for the sponsors of Prop 8, then their motives are relevant to the case. After all, it's hard to make the case for depriving an entire class of people a right without bringing up something other than equal protection under the law, and the plaintiffs have the right to explore them.

- The judge will let the proceedings be shown on YouTube. "This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition." Assuming that some people will do bad things because of what they see on TV would carry a little more weight if just such an argument wasn't usually dismissed by conservatives when a right-wing nut shoots up a church based on what he saw on TV as just fingerpointing.

Mr. Meese then goes on to state that the supporters of Prop 8 "will work hard to demonstrate that it was rational for voters to conclude that marriage is a unique institution that promotes the interests of child-rearing, and that those interests are broader than the personal special interests of the adults involved. And they’ll make the case that voters were very much within their rights, when casting their ballots, to consider their own moral and religious views about marriage — or any other subject." I find it interesting that a conservative who presumably believes in smaller and limited government would come to the defense of a government-sanctioned institution such as marriage over the rights of individuals. That sort of turns conservative orthodoxy on its head. But it must also be remembered that conservatives turn to that argument when an institution they believe in is in the dock; after all, they made the same case for maintaining segregation in the military and in the public schools, and no doubt it was also argued thus in opposition to the case of Loving v. Virginia that ultimately banned interracial marriage. Fortunately, the Constitution speaks only of the rights of the citizens, not religious traditions or morality.

Mr. Meese concludes,

It remains to be seen whether traditional marriage, and the rights of the voters who approved Proposition 8, will prevail in Judge Walker’s courtroom. Most likely, no matter how the judge rules, the Perry case is destined for appeals and a final decision in the United States Supreme Court. But it is during the present trial that the facts in the case will be determined, and it is there that the two sides should be able to present their cases on a level playing field.

First, the rights of the voters are not on trial here: they got their chance to vote on the issue. We have a long tradition, however, of the courts overturning the votes of the people based on the fact that sometimes they vote for things that go counter to the intention, if not the letter, of the federal law. I assume Mr. Meese is in favor of the federal Justice Department rulings that have held that medical marijuana or assisted suicide laws -- approved by voters in several states -- are illegal.

Second, Mr. Meese does not define what "traditional marriage" is, but I presume he's referring to the relatively new concept that a man and a woman are the only parties to a marriage and they get married for the sake of love alone and to have children. That's not how it's defined in the Bible or in some of the traditions in other countries and faiths, but we'll give him that for the sake of argument.

Finally, if any group has the deck stacked against them, it is the plaintiffs. Prop 8 won in November 2008. Not only did it win, but the California Supreme Court, the court that initially ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in the state in May 2008, upheld the election results in favor of Prop 8 last year. There is a vocal and well-financed lobby of religious and conservative groups who are vehemently opposed to granting equal rights to all people on this issue, and they have made their case quite clearly. However, the fact remains that they won based on fear, bigotry, and religious intolerance and have yet to put forth a reasonable case as to why providing an entire group of citizens with the same rights as everyone else either harms the rest of the citizens or deprives them of their rights. If they can do that, then we'll have a level playing field.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Exceptional circumstances: A Canadian couple and their premature baby, currently receiving care in the U.S., must be reunited ASAP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A sad, troubling, rage-inducing story from The Canadian Press:

A critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton is all alone in a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital after she was turned away for treatment at local facility and transferred across the border without her parents, who don't have passports.

Ava Stinson was born Thursday at St. Joseph's Hospital, 14 weeks premature.

A provincewide search for an open neonatal intensive care unit bed came up empty, leaving no choice but to send the two pound, four ounce baby to Buffalo.

Her parents Natalie Paquette and Richard Stinson couldn't follow their child because as of June 1, a passport is required to cross the border into the United States.

They're having to approve medical procedures over the phone and are terrified something will happen to their baby before they get there.

The Canadian Consulate in Buffalo is providing advice and guidance to the first-time parents, and their local MP, New Democrat David Christopherson, is working to arrange emergency passports.

But that will take until at least Monday afternoon and the situation is complicated by the fact the baby's dad has a criminal record.

"I just want to be with her," said Paquette.

"She only knows my heartbeat, my voice and her daddy's voice. It's all I can think about. I feel so helpless."

I won't get into the relative merits of the American and Canadian health-care systems here. Suffice it to say that there obviously need to be more neo-natal intensive care unit beds up here. Thankfully -- and this doesn't mean that the American system is better (after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it's not perfect) -- there was an opening south of the border.

That aside -- now that the baby is in Buffalo -- isn't this a clear case where the law must allow for an exception? No, the parents don't have passports, which are now needed (a rule that recently came into effect), and, yes, the father has a criminal record (I don't know for what, but I doubt he's a threat to American society), but surely the demands of the moment, the exceptional circumstances of this individual case (and the need for the parents to be with their baby at this difficult time, with so much uncertain) trump all other considerations, including the unfeeling application of the law.

It is likely, I suppose, that the couple will get their emergency passports. But will the U.S. then let them in? And will they get there in time, should the baby take a turn for the worse?

This story is simply heartbreaking. The powers-that-be on both sides of the border ought to work something out, quickly, that makes this happen, passports or no passports, criminal record or no criminal record.

This family must be reunited. Now.

As bad as they are

Guest post by Boatboy

Christopher Buckley wants us to remember that terrorists still don't have our morals:

It is, yes, good that the U.S.A. is not doing this anymore, but let’s not get too sanctimonious about how awful it was that we indulged in these techniques after watching nearly 3000 innocent Americans endure god-awful deaths at the hands of religious fanatics who would happily have detonated a nuclear bomb if they had gotten their mitts on one. And let us move on. There is pressing business...

The operative question becomes: What do we do now with captive bad guys who possess information that could prevent another 9/11? We may have moved on. They, assuredly, have not.

I'll leave issues as to his arithmetic aside for the moment.

Buckley's article speaks loudly of two double standards: that of calling terrorists out as monsters whilst employing their own methods against them, and that of the assumption that torture of detainees is productive for US intelligence services but indoctrinating and corrupting for US citizens subjected to the same treatment. His attempt at levity, first at dismissing the severity of the treatment meted out to detainees at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other sites, then by spotlighting Monty Python ("bring out the Comfy Chair!") and Mel Brooks for their deliberately light-hearted discussion of the Inquisition (exceedingly dark subject matter) as somehow comparative, then by proposing new alternate "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as subjecting detainees to four-hour commute conditions, touch-tone telephone exercises with a rotary phoneset, and exercises with frustrating television programming, are eerily tone-deaf to the current situation.

The problem is not that the U.S. tortured people. The problem is that the U.S. tortured people while insisting it did not, fabricated legal justifications for actions clearly illegal on the U.S.'s own books as well as in violation of multiple international treaties and conventions, and continued to claim the high moral ground in world affairs just as its own morality was being systematically destroyed by those same claimants.

Were the U.S. willing to admit that some people just need to be waterboarded on principle, disavowed the conventions, habeus corpus, reasonable search and seizure, trial by jury, and the countless other conventions of U.S., Parliamentary and Napoleonic law on which its modern jurisprudence is based, the outcry against that particular programme would be much smaller; however, doing so would invalidate whole sections of the Constitution, reams of legal precedent, and a plurality of the concepts on which the nation was built and to which it claims to continue to cling.

Minimising the treatment of detainees does not serve a nation founded on the principles outlined in the formative documents the U.S. has long used, and frequently cited, as reason for the way it deals with foreign powers based on their accpetance of those ideals.

Buckley's counter-assumption, that non-coercive interrogation does not yield actionable intelligence, has equally been found false, and prominent figures within the military and intelligence communities have already made statements to precisely that effect.

Somehow, though, Buckley continues to cling to the assumption that pursuit of international criminals without the ability to employ their methods is unproductive; that recognising that those methods, if used by U.S. questioners, as immoral and illegal is a pointless exercise; and that interrogation, as a practice, needs to be somehow offensive to the senses taken out of the context of intelligence gathering.

His question "What do we do now with captive bad guys who possess information that could prevent another 9/11?" is deliberately misleading in that it assumes a need to do something unpleasant to obtain their cooperation. Information coerced from a detainee may well be of value, but assuming there is no other way to obtain such, and that we must needs behave in borderline inhuman ways towards those we capture, is both contrary to the history of Western law and ethics and the founding principles as elucidated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and countless other documents that have shaped the U.S.

**********

UPDATE: Wolfrum has his own take here.

Leaving Bush behind

By J. Thomas Duffy

It will probably take a few years, maybe longer, to truly root out, shower, and scrub our education system from the abuse it received from the Bush Grindhouse.

You remember its "No Child Left Behind" abomination.



Well, there is a start ...

Rename Law? No Wisecrack Is Left Behind

Two years ago, an effort to fix No Child Left Behind, the main federal law on public schools, provoked a grueling slugfest in Congress, leading Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, to say the law had become “the most negative brand in America.”

Education Secretary Arne Duncan agrees. “Let’s rebrand it,” he said in an interview. “Give it a new name.”

And before Mr. Duncan has had time to float a single name, scores of educators, policy wonks and assorted rabble-rousers have rushed in with an outpouring of proposals.

[Snip]

The law dates to 1965, when Congress passed it to channel federal money to poor children in the war on poverty, calling it the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

By the early 1990s, a school accountability movement was gaining momentum. In the 1994 reauthorization, the Clinton administration required states to develop new math and reading standards, use more tests, and adopt a benchmark for school improvement known as “adequate yearly progress.” And it gave the law a new name: the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.

Most people clung to the original name, however, until Mr. Bush signed No Child Left Behind.

The phrase appears to be borrowed from Ms. Edelman, the founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, who throughout the 1990s seasoned speeches with the phrase “leave no child behind.” In 1994, the organization registered “Leave No Child Behind” as a trademark.

But as early as the mid-1990s, Mr. Bush, then the Texas governor, was routinely using similar phrases.

In 2000, the organization reminded the Bush campaign about its trademark, but those complaints were brushed aside. After Mr. Bush’s inauguration as president, he sent Congress a thick packet of education proposals to guide the law’s 2001 rewriting, titled No Child Left Behind.

Interesting to see that the Bush Grindhouse was ignoring laws even before it stole the election.

And what names are being generated?

Alternatives are popping up every day on the Eduwonk.com blog, where Andrew Rotherham, a former Clinton administration official, is sponsoring a rename-the-law contest.

One entry, alluding to the bank bailout program, suggests that it be called the Mental Asset Recovery Plan. Another proposal: the Act to Help Children Read Gooder.

[Snip]

Since Mr. Rotherham announced his contest last week, Eduwonk has received 41 entries, including: the Double Back Around to Pick Up the Children We Left Behind Act, the Rearranging the Deck Chairs Act, the Teach to the Test Act and the Could We Start Again Please Act.

You can visit Eduwonk.com, and their A Contest! Name That Law!, to throw in your suggestions.

The Garlic offered these:

-- Leave Bush Behind Act
-- Clear Bush Policies Act
-- All Children To The Front Act
-- Clean Minds Act
-- Compassionate Education Act
-- He's Gone, Now We Can Learn Act

And, in homage to former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, the Flashcards with Buster Act.

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

George, the Worst

By Carol Gee

Was George W. Bush the "Worst. President. Ever?" asks civil liberties blogger, Tom Head at About.com. He concludes, mildly, to quote:

. . . there are some things we do know about Bush. If the Bush record turns out to be exactly what it appears to be, he was primarily a president who panicked when confronted with a national crisis, declared multiple elective wars, and implemented measures that threatened, but did not permanently weaken, the rule of law. He wouldn't be the first president who did this, and he probably won't be the last, but history might remember him as the most banal.

"Restore the Constitution" (image by Wordle.net) -- What of that lofty phrase under the incoming Obama administration? Glenn Greenwald's very important New Year's message to us at Salon.Com is this: "2008: The Year That Was Another brutal year for liberty." In summary, "The good news is that it's clear what the Obama administration must do to end the decade-long war on the Constitution." Greenwald's conclusion, to quote:

For the last seven years, Democrats have repeatedly cited GOP political dominance to excuse their wholesale failures to limit, let alone reverse, the devastating war waged by the Bush administration on America's core liberties and form of government. With a new Democratic president and large majorities in both Congressional houses, those excuses will no longer be so expedient. As dark and depressing as these last seven years have been for civil libertarians, culminating in an almost entirely grim 2008, there is no question that the Obama administration and the Democrats generally now possess the power to reverse these abuses and restore our national political values. But as the events of the last 12 months conclusively demonstrate, there are substantial questions as to whether they have the will to do so.

President-elect Barack Obama was educated to the rule of law at Harvard, and later taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. We get some hints about what could be coming legally from a (12/29/08) Politico.com story headlined, "Liberal legal group comes to the fore." The mostly Democratic organization was founded at the beginning of the Bush regime, and was modeled after the conservative Federalist Society. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy takes no position on individual cases or specific policy proposals but has a broad legal philosophy that is not "constitutionalism." The guiding phrase could be the“lived circumstances of the law, ” and would include the consideration of outside factors in constitutional law cases. Several of its board members are advising the Obama Transition Team. To quote:

Sixteen appointees and advisers helping president-elect Barack Obama's Justice Department transition efforts all recently sat on the board of an organization little known outside legal circles: The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

The liberal legal network, which blossomed during eight years of Democratic exile, counts as its veterans Obama’s choice for attorney general, Eric Holder: Vice President-elect Joe Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain; and future White House Staff Secretary Lisa Brown.

. . . In recent months, the society has become an informal Justice Department in waiting, laying out what some Washington lawyers expect will be the broad contours of the next administration’s legal policy. In his June address before the group, Holder described his vision for reversing what he called the “the disastrous course” set by the Bush administration, advising the next administration to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison, declare that the U.S. does not torture, and end warrantless domestic surveillance - all positions backed by Obama.

The President-elect's legal portfolio remains an important advantage for the future. Given the widespread inquiries into the Blagojevich appointment of the President-elect's Senate successor, it is clear that we expect that OBama and his people will have followed the spirit and the letter of the law in this scandalous matter. Politico.com published "Obama's five rules of scandal response" associated with the 12/23/08 Obama report detailing contacts with the embattled Governor's office. To list them in Politico's words:

"1 - Be transparent, to an extent, 2 - Don't let the news cycle dictate response, 3 - No freelancing, 4 - Aides take hits to protect the boss, and 5 – Shy away from even justified fights."

"Gitmo" is an even more significant legal scandal waiting to be confronted. The full story is here (12/23/08) at ProPublica. In a surprising earlier related matter, the September 11 defendants asked to confess# at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, according to a Yahoo! News (12/8/08) story, from which I quote:

The judge said he would question the five, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has already said he planned the September 11 attacks "from A to Z," to ensure they understood the impact of their decision. All five could face the death penalty.

The judge, Army Col. Steven Henley, said he would not accept any guilty pleas during the hearings scheduled this week but did not explain why.

He read from the defendants' note, which began: "We all five have reached an agreement to request from the commission an immediate hearing session in order to announce our confessions ... with our earnest desire in this regard without being under any kind of pressure, threat, intimidations or promise from any party."

The note said all five wished to plead guilty and withdraw all pending motions filed by their military-appointed lawyers, whom they do not trust and have tried to fire.

There are a huge number of issues that just will not go away. What is the legal fallout that remains with the government's warrantless wiretapping program? The Director of National Intelligence is yet to be nominated, though it could still be Adm. Dennis Blair. CQ Behind the Lines David C. Morrison lists a few more that will come up again in the future:

A federal judge who earlier rejected Bush administration claims of exemption from domestic surveillance laws, has been asked to strike down an act of Congress retroactively immunizing illegal wiretappers, the Los Angeles Times’ Carol J. Williams recounts. Speaking of immunity, The New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau has A.G. Michael Mukasey seeing no need for President Bush to issue blanket pardons of officials implicated in controversial counter-terror tactics.

Our current president (OCP) is in office for 15 more days and 11 hours. The Constitution is in place in our nation's capitol. Obama transition team members are spread out all over Washington. Scandals brew. Congress is coming back to town tomorrow. Gitmo is still open for business. And the Obama family is moving to Washington today, so the girls can start to school on time. Things are definitely moving along.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Return to the rule of law? The horizon is yet obscure.

By Carol Gee

President-elect Barack Obama is a lawyer. He was for several years a popular teacher (rising to senior lecturer level), of constitutional law at The University of Chicago, and was also a community organizer. He has a good resume. What will that mean to his transition into the presidency, and subsequent efforts (we all absolutely assume) to restore the rule of law to his administration? McClatchy has the whole story.

• Department of Justice -- There will be a bevy of great candidates suggested for the Attorney General's position. In the meantime David Ogden, a Clinton administration veteran, is heading the DOJ transition team, according to TPM Muckraker. The post quotes the WaPo:
  
  

  "Democrats and interest groups have been developing "to do" lists for Justice, which had deemphasized antitrust, civil rights and environmental enforcement work under President Bush."
  
  

  Ogden's deputy on the transition will be Thomas Perelli, who, according to the Post, "supervised the government team suing cigarette makers and oversaw the Justice unit that defends federal agencies in complex legal disputes."

• "Confronting the other 'third rail' of politics -- Criminal Justice Reform" is from the ACLU blog. We have heard President-elect Obama talk about the huge numbers of people incarcerated in the United States. Can it be high on his agenda, given the economic crisis? To quote:
  
  

  . . . released this week . . . "Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress." This transition guide for the Obama administration and the 111th Congress lays out in great detail all of the reforms, both major and minor, that should be undertaken to have a criminal justice system that protects public safety, but also honors our commitments to fairness and equality under the law for all. A coalition of more than 20 organizations (including the ACLU) comprised the 2009 Criminal Justice Transition Coalition that compiled these excellent, workable recommendations.



• Copyright czar -- In October, our current president Bush (OCP) signed a new law creating a cabinet-level position who is to be, to quote Wired-Threat Level, "charged with implementing a nationwide plan to combat piracy and "report directly to the president and Congress regarding domestic international intellectual property enforcement programs." Our next president (ONP) will no doubt make the first appointment.

What will an Obama administration be able to do to restore the rule of law in the face of extremely high expectations? How are we to feel about the bizarre news that there was a run to buy guns yesterday? Will OCP Bush close Guantanamo before he leaves office? Will ONP Obama seek to restore the right of Habeas Corpus if the question comes before the Supreme Court? We all have our own ideas. Looking to my civil liberties guru, Glenn Greenwald, who has often been skeptical of Obama's willingness to vote as a true liberal, says in his Saturday post:

(3). . . people [ ] start pressuring Obama now to pay attention to their political principles and agendas. And it's certainly likely that Obama will end up doing many, many things that warrant and provoke intense criticism. I have no doubt about that. But he's entitled to actually start doing things -- on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, civil liberties, the economy, and otherwise -- before judgments are formed.

"Like Lincoln and FDR, Obama faces nation in crisis," Yahoo! News headlined today (Sunday). To quote the article's conclusion, about which I wrote the night of the election:

Obama supporters who spontaneously flocked to the White House into the wee hours after his election Tuesday night were anxious for Obama to move forward. Gazing at the illuminated Executive Mansion where Bush slept, one waved signs that said: "Why wait? Evict Bush now."

For some, jubilation was tempered by recognition of the enormity of the tasks Obama faces.

"It's not just about him," said Rachel Reclam, of Olympia, Wash., an international affairs student at George Washington University. "He inspired people, but I'm not expecting miracles. The financial crisis, the war in Iraq, the health care crisis are not going to be over tomorrow."

Thousands -- or millions -- of us were moved to tears this past week. It happened to me when I realized that the people on the TV screen in the shadows were on Pennsylvania Avenue. That is where I would have chosen to be if I could have traveled last Tuesday. And my anger is not yet completely gone. Regret for the lost years is what the tears were about, that and utter relief that this era has come to an end and a new one has begun. As I have said before, it is a sea change. And, at the moment on this Sunday, it is entirely enough.

References:

1. Michael Rattner at Dandelion Salad -- video on Obama and civil liberties.
2. ACLU transition plan for the Obama administration: "Actions for restoring America."
3. Rising Hegemon posted a neat cartoon of Lincoln. H/T to "betmo" for this.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Totalitarian religion, abusive polygamy, and illiberal Texas

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard:

A Texas appeals court ruled Thursday that state authorities and a lower court judge abused their authority by illegally seizing up to 468 children from their homes at a polygamist ranch in West Texas last month.

*****

According to the court, the state did not establish proper grounds to remove the children from their families, who belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or F.L.D.S.

*****

The unanimous ruling by three judges of the Third Court of Appeals in Austin revoked the state’s custody over a large group of the children and by extension almost certainly the rest, for what it called a lack of evidence that they were in immediate danger of sexual or physical abuse.

The appeals court said the record “does not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation would have eliminated the risk.” It also said the evidence of danger to the children “was legally and factually insufficient” to justify their removal and it said the lower court “abused its discretion” in failing to return seized children to their families.

It could very well be that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services could have done better in making its case. And, for all I know, there may not have been any "immediate" risk according to the law. Perhaps the evidence was "legally and factually insufficient" according to the law, and perhaps the department did "[abuse] its discretion" according to the law. But, then, the problem is with the law -- or, at least, the law is part of the problem, and, in this case, it seems that the law is at odds with justice.

On this, I agree with Echidne: "I disagree with the way abuse is defined as only physical one, and with the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to groom young girls to accept abuse until the moment of the abuse comes. I also wonder whether it really is true that the sect appeared to have an unusually small number of teenage boys, and if it is true, what happened to the missing boys. I would think abandoning them somewhere would constitute abuse... In general, I'm worried about any children who are brought up in isolation from the rest of the society. They may 'stay safe' that way or 'stay religious' or whatever, but their isolation also means that they cannot learn alternative ways of living and cannot get help if they indeed are abused."

If "immediate" and "abuse" are defined narrowly, as they were by the court, then, yes, the ruling may be the correct one -- the correct legal one, that is.

But from a liberal perspective, one that recognizes the preeminence of the individual, of his or her sovereign and inalienable rights, how is such a ruling in any way correct? Yes, liberalism is related to the rule of law, and, indeed, is inseparable from it. But when the law is wrong? Or when it defines, say, abuse too narrowly?

And we all know -- do we not? -- that this sort of lifestyle, the polygamy of a totalitarian religious cult, is inherently abusive. Indeed, it would not exist without abuse. Abuse is what keeps it going, what enables and supports it.

The women -- that is, the wives -- may defend it, and may say that they are there freely, that it is a choice, but there is a little something called false consciousness. How are these women in any way free? How are they in a position to choose freely? They have lived lives of totalitarian abuse. Their minds have been shaped by that abuse. Everything they say is a reflection of that abuse. They may think they are free and that what they are saying is a reflection of free will, but there is nothing free about them or their lives.

Similarly, the men -- that is, the husbands, including the totalitarian leaders of the cult -- may defend it along lines of religious freedom, but should one or a community ever be free to abuse? Is that what our "liberalism" has become?

Now, I admit, it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish the line between free will and false consciousness. And, obviously, questions persist: Is is possible to enter freely into an abusive relationship? From a legal perspective, should it be allowed to give up one's freedom? In a liberal society, how much liberty is permissible? What "alternative" lifestyles are permitted? What of "alternative" lifestyles or communities that are, in essence, illiberal?

To me, liberalism has lost much of its ability to stand up for itself. It has decayed into libertarianism, into permissiveness of the sort that leads to the inability to combat the forces of illiberalism both internal and external.

But let me be clear: This is not to say that liberalism requires a narrow moral code, a narrow definition of liberty. Rather, it is to say that liberalism must be able to stand up to and against those forces of illiberalism in the name of liberty itself. If it is unable to do so, it is no longer liberalism.

Just as there is illiberalism abroad, so is there illiberalism at home. And much of the illiberalism at home -- and, in this case, I'm talking about the United States -- is religious in nature. The christian fascists of the evangelical right are illiberal, for example -- the most obvious and pernicious example. And so is the totalitarian cult known as the FLDS, an isolated community of abuse.

Texas's Third Court of Appeals may have issued a ruling based on its interpretation of the law, but the law, in this case, allows for the perpetuation of abuse and for the persistence of noxious illiberalism.

Toleration of difference is one of the key aspects of a liberal society, including the United States, but no liberal society worth its name should tolerate the FLDS or anything like it.

California Supreme Court issues historic ruling on same-sex marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Fantastic news from California. Here's the L.A. Times (see also the S.F. Chronicle):

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

I have long been a proponent of the legalization of same-sex marriage and have celebrated recent moves here in Canada and elsewhere to that end. And now, in California, the people, the state's highest court, and even the governor are on board.

There is still much to be done in the U.S., of course -- and the bigoted opposition, much of it on the christianist right, is both organized and powerful -- but there is no doubt that this decision is a major victory for the forces of justice.

Make sure to read Glenn Greenwald on this: "Critically, the Court emphasized at the outset that its ruling had nothing to do with the political views of the judges with regard to gay marriage, but rather, was based solely on its legal analysis of past precedent interpreting the relevant provisions of the state Constitution." Glenn anticipates opposition to the ruling, and refutes it soundly.

And Andrew Sullivan: "[O]n the deeper question, the court is unequivocal in arguing that our modern understanding of sexual orientation -- that it is an orientation, not a choice, an identity and not an act -- makes the equal protection of gay families a core value."

And Melissa McEwan: "[B]ecause California already offers domestic partnership which afford same-sex couples the same legal rights as opposite-sex married couples, it doesn't leave opponents of this decision much wiggle-room: If domestic partnerships already guaranteeing the same legal rights are not good enough, there's not a hell of a lot of space to provide yet another alternative to fully. equal. marriage."

And Digby: "It's fitting that in an election year where we are dealing head on with all these issues of race and sex that we're going to have a showdown on gay marriage in the most populous state in the union. The chances have never been greater to defeat the forces of bigotry and discrimination. It's a risk, but there will probably never be a better time to take it. Bring it on."

(Find more reaction at Memeorandum.)

And just to be clear, Obama supports the ruling, as does Hillary, and McCain doesn't. (Although I wish Obama were a supporter of marriage and not just equal civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Like Pam and Melissa, I think they're wrong to fall back on states' rights and "marriage equality." Couldn't they -- shouldn't they -- be more excited about this historic ruling?) Ben Smith has their statements here.

Orgasms for everyone!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Today's constitutional curiosity, from the BBC:

A woman from the governing party in Ecuador has proposed that a women's right to enjoy sexual happiness should be enshrined in the country's law.

Her suggestion has provoked a lively debate in conservative Ecuador.

Maria Soledad Vela, who is helping to rewrite the constitution, says women have traditionally been seen as mere sexual objects or child bearers.

Now, she says, women should have the right to make free, responsible and informed decisions about sex lives.

I'm all for that, but it's not clear to me what exactly such a right would entail.

Needless to say, "her comments have provoked a lively response -- mostly, unsurprisingly, from men," with one of her male colleagues snarkily "[accusing] her of trying to decree orgasm by law."

"Vela [has] responded to the criticism, saying she had never requested the right to an orgasm -- merely the right to enjoy sex in a free, fair and more open society. She explained that sex was a difficult subject to discuss in Ecuador and that what she wanted were clearer laws covering life, health and sexual education."

I'm all for that, too -- and that's a bit clearer. I'm not sure sex and sexuality should ever be a constitutional matter, but, in general, laws liberating women from sexual oppression -- in this case, historical oppression that continues to the present day -- ought to be welcomed.

Goodbye, Deborah Jeane

By Carl

One can imagine all sorts of possible alternate explanations for this story:

Florida police are investigating the apparent suicide of a woman they believe to be the so-called D.C. Madam, who was found dead in the Florida mobile home of the madam's mother Thursday.

The madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, was recently convicted on federal charges stemming from operating a prostitution service in the Washington, D.C. area with a number of high-profile clients. She was scheduled to be sentenced July 24.

Palfrey told ABC News last year she would never return to prison, after serving time in the 1990s for other prostitution-related charges. "I sure as heck am not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone, you know, four to eight years."

Local police responding to a call late Thursday morning discovered the woman's body in a storage shed to the side of the home, according to a statement released by the Tarpon Springs, Fla. Police. Hand-written notes were found nearby which "describes the victim's intention to take her life," according to the statement.

Our good friends over at Agitprop have been all over this scandal involving Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, as well as other high profile Washingtonians, such as Randall L. Tobias, the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and Harlan Ullman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who brought you the war you are currently tuned into.

Ironically, Tobias was Bush's first AIDS czar...

Now, notes are fine, but given that Palfrey was convicted and likely to be sentenced to jail just ahead of the Republican National Convention (not to mention the Democratic National Convention) in an election year, can you really rule out the potential for, well, a liquidation?

The rumours at the time of the Vitter revelations was that Palfrey's black book contained some pretty heavy hitting DC types, which sure sounds a bit higher on the food chain than a Presidential appointee, a Senator barely clinging to his job, and a conservative think-tanker.

The timing is more than suspicious, to say the least, although in fairness to Palfrey, her conviction was within the last fourteen days. It's possible that overwhelmed her.

Yea. A madam. Convicted of prostitution... she'd never experience that!

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Bye bye Deborah Jeane

By Capt. Fogg

(For more on the D.C. Madam's apparent suicide, see the AP and ABC. -- MJWS)

Many people believe the Comedian Lenny Bruce who died in 1960 of a drug overdose, was hounded to death for telling dirty jokes and creating biting social satire. His history of arrests for indecency is voluminous. Of course his humor is far less "dirty" than one hears on TV today and nobody was ever harmed by hearing "dirty words."

Some would like to believe that the rampant prudery of the 1950's, a time when one couldn't say "pregnant" or "hell" on TV and married couples like Ozzie and Harriet Nelson had to be shown sleeping in separate beds, is no longer with us in our era of rampant vulgarity, but of course the Values Vermin are as durable as cockroaches and still have plenty to say about wardrobe malfunctions, academic discussions of sexuality and about who may do what and with whom.

The arguments against prostitution are far too many to list or to argue against here. Suffice it to say that in America one can ask for a diamond ring, a steak dinner, or a night at the opera in return for amorous favors, but not 20 bucks, not 4,000 bucks, not a dollar. I won't even try to explain. I won't try to explain why someone like Deborah Jeane Palfrey could be sentenced to 55 years in jail for putting couples together to pursue their own further interests, sexual or otherwise, while Neil Clark Warren is above reproach for doing the very same thing. The answer would lead us directly into the foetid swamp of Christian morality where the light of reason, decency, and respect for humanity never shines.

Palfrey has been, since April 15th, awaiting sentence for various crimes stemming from the illegality of putting together consenting adults who might be expected to have a mutual interest in exchanging money for sex. The maximum sentence of 55 years is, for someone of 52 years, a life sentence and the life expectancy of a convict is less than that of a free person. Need I mention the quality of life in prison? It's no surprise that she seems to have killed herself; another sacrifice to the ravenous God we created; another victim of Christian love of punishment and contempt for freedom.

Meanwhile, people who rob and defraud others of billions, serve far lighter sentences. People caught frequenting prostitutes face disgrace -- sometimes. Sometimes they lose their jobs; sometimes their job of preaching morality is only enhanced. People who murder innocent people in their beds get to make a fortune, get to write and enforce laws that make us the largest jail-keepers in the world, and get to be president.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Clemens and McCready; or, Rocket Roger and the teenage country music starlet

By Michael J.W. Stickings

An update to my post from last night, at the end of which I said I was looking forward to what McCready had to say about her relationship with Clemens. Well, here you go:

**********

From today's Daily News:

"I cannot refute anything in the story," a tearful but resolute McCready told the Daily News…

"Yes, I have known Roger Clemens for a long time," McCready said, reading from a prepared statement. "He's a kind and caring man. He's also a legendary athlete."

Well, okay, fine. Maybe he is "kind and caring," maybe he isn't. And he's certainly been one of the greatest pitchers ever -- though it's a bit early to start calling him a legend.

To get back to the matter at hand, though, have I mentioned she was 15 years old when the affair started?

Not good.

Clemens and McCready: Do you think he injected her in the ass with steroids?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm no Bill Simmons, but both as a Jays fan and as a baseball lover, not to mention as a human being, I despise Roger Clemens. His record may show him as one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but, well, his record, not to mention his character, is tainted. And so, when he finds himself in trouble, whether it involves steroids or sex with an underage girl, I experience deep, profound Schadenfreude.

Many of you, I'm sure, know about the steroids issue. Did he or didn't he? Well, he probably did. (For more, see my post on his ridicule-worthy appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a couple of months ago.) Seven Cy Youngs, zero credibility. That's pretty much where he stands now -- in terms of baseball history, his reputation, and the law.

But don't put your Schadenfreude away just yet. There's more -- and it's juicy. Here's the Daily News:

Roger Clemens carried on a decade-long affair with country star Mindy McCready, a romance that began when McCready was a 15-year-old aspiring singer performing in a karaoke bar and Clemens was a 28-year-old Red Sox ace and married father of two, several sources have told the Daily News.

Now, look, what two consenting adults do, well, that's their business (most of the time -- there are exceptions, of course). But, in this case, McCready was 15 years old.

Marcus Dixon, a good and decent young man, gets sent to prison in Georgia for statutory rape and child molestation for having consensual sex with a 15-year old -- but he was 18 at the time (and, in the end, he was freed following a favourable ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court and the law that put him in prison was changed).

So if this is true about Clemens -- and, of course, he is denying it (she's just "a close family friend," according to his lawyer) -- then what?

(For more, see ESPN, Yahoo's Big League Stew, as well as loads of reaction over at Ballbug.)

**********

And poor Mindy McCready, who has been through a rough time of it in recent years, falling from the top of the country charts into drug use, various brushes with the law (including DUI, fraud, identity theft, and unlawful imprisonment), a suicide attempt, probation violation, resisting arrest, and jail time (she was released in December).

She is now, apparently, attempting a comeback. And, well, good luck with that.

As for me and my Schadenfreude, we're just looking forward to what she has to say about her relationship with Clemens. And to how this sordid story will play out.

Marcus Dixon, the Steelers, and the 2008 NFL Draft

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Update 1: Marcus Dixon was not drafted. Scouts Inc. ranks him seventh among undrafted DEs. As expected, then, he could get an invitation to a pre-season camp as a rookie free agent. Hopefully some team is willing to give him a shot -- preferably more than one. He deserves it.

Update 2: Dixon has signed as an undrafted free agent with the Cowboys, one of the Steelers' arch-nemeses. I wish him the very best (even as I don't wish the very best for the 'Boys). For more, see his Wikipedia entry. For more on the Cowboys' draft and related news, see The Dallas Morning News.

Update 3: For more, see Todd Archer at the DMN's Cowboys blog. It's good to hear that the team was "aggressive" in trying to acquire Dixon (and that it would have drafted him in the seventh round if it had had a pick left).

**********

I'm not a huge college football fan, but I'll be paying close attention to the 2008 NFL Draft today. Specifically, I'll be paying close attention to what the Steelers do. I've read far too many mock drafts and far too many player analyses and far too many pre-draft articles for my own good, and I'm a frequent visitor to the Steelers pages at the Post-Gazette and, to a lesser extent, the Tribune-Review (even if it is Dick Scaife's rag).

Prediction for the Steelers in Round 1: Gosder Cherilus, (OT - Boston College).

Although the PG's Ed Bouchette thinks it'll be Kentwan Balmer (DT - North Carolina).

Other possibilities: Jerod Mayo (LB - Tennessee), Calais Campbell (DE - Miami), and Jonathan Stewart (RB - Oregon).

However, Stewart will likely be gone by the time the Steelers pick at #23. So, too, others, all O-linemen, I'd love to see in black and gold: Branden Albert (G/T - Virginia), Jeff Otah (OT - Pittsburgh), Ryan Clady, (OT - Boise State), and Chris Williams (OT - Vanderbilt).

I know the NFL Draft is overhyped and overdramatized, but it's still an exciting event.

Update: Well, no Cherilus or Balmer, but... wow! Rashard Mendenhall (RB - Illinois) and Limus Sweed (WR - Texas) with their first two picks. Two awesome offensive weapons. Sure, they still need help on the DL and, to a lesser extent, on the OL, but there was no way they could pass up these guys (both of whom fell into their lap). And they ended up with some solid players in later rounds, too: Bruce Davis (LB - UCLA), Tony Hills (OT - Texas), Dennis Dixon (QB - Oregon), Mike Humpal (LB - Iowa), and Ryan Mundy (S - West Virginia).

See Ed Bouchette's Q&A here.

**********

Anyway, regardless of what the Steelers do today, one player I'll be rooting for is Marcus Dixon, a DE from Hampton. He may not be drafted, either Saturday or Sunday, and, if not, he may end up a rookie free agent.

He's a solid, if unexceptional, player. But his story is incredible.

Dixon spent 15 months in prison for aggravated child molestation and statutory rape. Actually, though, he didn't do anything wrong. When he was 18, he had sex with a 15-year old. It was consensual, but the girl, likely pressured by her racist father (in a small racist town in Georgia), claimed he had raped her. He was acquitted of rape and other charges -- the jury determined it was consensual sex -- but the prosecutors (also racist?), seeking a major conviction, got him on child molestation, which they had added to the list of charges only to ensure that he would be handed a long prison sentence.

The rest is a long story, but one that ends with justice triumphant.

His story became a cause célèbre in the media, and, at long last, in May 2004, upon a favourable ruling by the George Supreme Court, he was released from prison.

And he went to Hampton to study and play football.

For more, read Greg Garber's fantastic piece on Dixon at ESPN.com -- seriously, read it.

Is there a happy ending to Dixon's story? Yes -- regardless of what happens this weekend, regardless of whether he makes it to the NFL or not.

Marcus Dixon is a good and admirable young man -- and, with all that he's been through, the victim of injustice, one wishes for him only the best.

Maybe he'll even end up with the Steelers.

The United Police State of America

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Things are getting worse under our right-wing government here in Canada, to be sure, but what's going on south of the border, in "the land of free," the active rolling back of liberty, is truly appalling (and deeply worrying). And here's the latest, a SCOTUS-sanctioned expansion of police powers:

The Supreme Court offered unanimous support for police Wednesday by allowing drug evidence gathered after an arrest that violated state law to be used at trial, an important search-and-seizure case turning on the constitutional limits of "probable cause."

"When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

David Lee Moore was stopped by Portsmouth, Virginia, officers five years ago for driving his vehicle on a suspended license. Under state law in such incidents, only a summons is to be issued and the motorist is to be allowed to go. Instead, detectives detained Moore for almost an hour, arrested him, then searched him and found cocaine.

At trial, Moore's lawyers tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it, even though the court noted the arrest violated state law. A police detective, asked why the man was arrested, replied, "Just our prerogative."

While some of the justices expressed concern about that level of discretion at oral arguments in January, their 9-0 ruling raised few such doubts.

A unanimous ruling. Even the so-called liberals went along with this.

Now, the ruling was technical insofar as the case involved the relationship of state law to the Fourth Amendment, a relationship that is muddled. Still, what is clear is that the Supreme Court has pushed the United States ever closer to being an authoritarian state in which the police, and those who rule, have the "prerogative" to search and seize as they please.

(For more, see DWT.)

Crimes of Yoo

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Must-read Greenwald:

The fact that John Yoo is a Professor of Law at Berkeley and is treated as a respectable, serious expert by our media institutions, reflects the complete destruction over the last eight years of whatever moral authority the United States possessed. Comporting with long-held stereotypes of two-bit tyrannies, we're now a country that literally exempts our highest political officials from the rule of law, and have decided that there should be no consequences when they commit serious felonies.

John Yoo's Memorandum, as intended, directly led to -- caused -- a whole series of war crimes at both Guantanamo and in Iraq. The reason such a relatively low-level DOJ official was able to issue such influential and extraordinary opinions was because he was working directly with, and at the behest of, the two most important legal officials in the administration: George Bush's White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney's counsel (and current Chief of Staff) David Addington. Together, they deliberately created and authorized a regime of torture and other brutal interrogation methods that are, by all measures, very serious war crimes.

In short, the Bush Administration committed war crimes. Needless to say, a demand for justice is in order.

Make sure to read Glenn's entire post. And see also Scott Horton at Harper's, Phillippe Sands at Vanity Fair, and the ACLU.

Sands: "The abuse, rising to the level of torture, of those captured and detained in the war on terror is a defining feature of the presidency of George W. Bush."

The glennbeckery of Glenn Beck

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The mega-assholery of Glenn Beck has been the subject of much attention from those who bother to pay attention to him, and thankfully there are those who do, because he needs to be exposed for what he is, and I have at least twice posted on him here at The Reaction -- see here and here. Why not more frequently? First, tracking Beck's mega-assholery -- and it is very much his essence -- requires a great deal of time and energy. I simply don't have either the time or the energy to waste on him. Second, I don't want to pollute my blog with too much of him. And even mentioning his name seems like too much of him. Third, we have the invaluable Media Matters, which has thankfully devoted a good deal of time and energy to tracking his mega-assholery, as you can see here.

But I began to wonder, as I sat down to write this third post on yet another of the many outbursts of his mega-assholery, what do I have against the asshole that I would liken it to Glenn Beck? After all, where would we be without our assholes? Call them what you will, they serve a useful and essential service -- and not just in one way, I might add (and leave it at that). As with the pussy, of which you can learn more here, the asshole needn't be used as a bad and insulting word. On the contrary, it ought to be liberated from such uses. It may have a bad reputation, but how can such a useful and essential thing really be so bad?

And so I will speak no more of the mega-assholery of Glenn Beck, nor of the assholery of his ilk.

But, then, what word to use? How to describe the essence of the Glenn Becks of the world?

Allow me to coin a new word: glennbeckery. As in, the glennbeckery of Glenn Beck. Does that make sense? Perhaps this will: the glennbeckery of Bill O'Reilly, the glennbeckery of Sean Hannity, the glennbeckery of Ann Coulter.

Or this: Today on Fox News, Michelle Malkin was even more of a glennbeck than usual.

Or this: John Gibson spewed glennbeckism after glennbeckism.

Or this: Rush Limbaugh exhibited his characteristic glennbeckitude.

Is this giving Beck too much credit? Does he really deserve his own neologism? Do we need to remind ourselves of him with a new word, with new words, in our vocabulary? No, maybe not. And this may be the one and only post in which I use them...

...until the next time I find the time and energy to blog about his essential glennbeckery.

(All I ask is this: Use these words yourselves. Try them out. Just remember to give credit where credit is due. Deal?)

**********

Do you all know the story of Debbie Shank? If not, here's Think Progress:

In 2000, then-Wal-Mart employee Debbie Shank was hit by a semi-truck, leaving her seriously brain-damaged and confined to a wheelchair. Wal-Mart covered her medical expenses until she won a settlement from the trucking company that left her $417,000 after legal fees.

Invoking a little-noticed clause in Shank’s contract that kicked in once she won a settlement with the trucking company, Wal-Mart sued the Shank family to recoup the medical expenses it had spent on her care, all $470,000.

Thankfully, if only because it was the target of intense criticism, including from the great Keith Olbermann, Wal-Mart dropped its lawsuit: "Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times... Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank’s care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care."

Wal-Mart is mostly evil, in my view, and was so here, but at least, at the very least, it did the right thing in the end. And we're all happy about that, right?

Wrong. Here's what Glenn Beck, exhibiting characteristic glennbeckery, said on his radio show yesterday:

This is blackmail. And yet Wal-Mart folds. You don't deal with terrorists? Really? You just did. You just dealt with economic blackmailers.

Yes, that's right, as evil as Wal-Mart may be, it's no match for Glenn "fuck the brain-damaged handicapped woman" Beck. And just who are these "terrorists"? The Shanks, of course, but even more so the media, and especially MSNBC. We all know there are some pretty dangerous (and genuine) terrorists out there, but Beck just lumps the Shanks right in there with them. Nice, eh?

Just another glennbeckinous glennbeckism from the glennbeckiest glennbeck of them all.