Elderly former CIA officer beaten and arrested because he thought the First Amendment still applied during Hillary Clinton speech

I’m a little embarrassed that I just learned about the assault on former CIA officer turned anti-war activist Ray McGovern during a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As far as I can tell, no national mainstream news outlet has touched this story. Still, that is no excuse to have missed it.

Back on February 16th, the 72 year-old McGovern was standing with his back turned away from Clinton during her speech at George Washington University that included the usual homages to freedom and democracy. For his silent protest, he was blind-sided by two police goons and arrested, but not before they bruised his arms and made him bleed all over himself. Clinton never skipped a beat, totally unfazed by an elderly man getting assaulted and having his First Amendment rights stripped from him right before her cold, lifeless eyes.

Here’s McGovern talking about the ordeal on Democracy Now!, along with the footage of incident:

You might also remember that McGovern from this 2006 clip, in which he confronts then Secretary of Defense and unindicted war criminal Donald Rumsfeld:

Ron Paul vs. the Constitution?

Readers of this site know that I’m a Ron Paul fan. Even though I fundamentally disagree with him on fiscal policy, I appreciate the way he sticks up for the Bill of Rights, speaks out against American interventionism abroad, and votes his conscience. We need more honest people like him in politics.

That being said, the Texas Congressman has it totally wrong on the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the ridiculously named Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts. In announcing the decision Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that DOMA “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships—precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the [Fourteenth Amendment’s] Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Paul penned a response critical of the administration’s position, saying in part,

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States…I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.

I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state. I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

First off, what Paul is essentially saying is, “Big Government in Washington defined marriage to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the states.”

Apparently, Paul views DOMA as a preemptive strike against a future Congress that is run by gay-loving states’ rights haters who will define marriage as a union between any two persons. I don’t think he has much reason to worry about that happening in his lifetime.

Until today I did not know Paul’s position on DOMA, though I assumed he was against it because the legislation does two things that seem to be anathema to his principles. For one thing, DOMA defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Paul is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, but I had always figured that the idea of the federal government (Congress) defining marriage would thoroughly repulse him. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power—either expressly or implicitly—to define marriage, thus reserving it to the jurisdiction of the states.

But DOMA does something else, and this is the key to understanding Paul’s misguided position on the legislation. DOMA also declares:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

To say this provision is constitutionally on shaky ground is an understatement. Consider the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause which Paul mentioned above:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The purpose of this clause is clear. A legal contract entered into and legitimized in one state must be recognized as such in another. If you and your significant other get married in Massachusetts and move to Ohio, you don’t have to get married again, in Ohio, in order to get a another marriage license. The state of Ohio is obliged to recognize the license issued in Massachusetts. This much no one disputes. But DOMA tells states they can ignore the Full Faith and Credit Clause when it comes to marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples. Thus, under this law, Ohio does not have to recognize a legal same-sex marriage consummated in Massachusetts.

But can Congress simply deem certain state laws exempt from the FFCC? The Clause says that Congress “may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” I’m not sure there is anything here that gives Congress the power to tell the states that they may ignore one another’s laws altogether, thereby rendering the actual full faith and credit part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause a mere suggestion.

Paul asserts that Congress has “constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.” But if this is the case, then why doesn’t the FFCC just say so? The word “except” occurs eleven times in the original Constitution. The Framers were not afraid to utilize this word for the sake of specificity. Indeed, one can easily imagine a wording of the FFCC that leaves no doubt as to its intent. If Paul’s reading is correct, why doesn’t the Clause say something like,

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State [except those Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings expressly exempted by the Congress]. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Without additional wording of this kind, however, the FFCC is vague, and in such a manner that I don’t think can be construed as to allow Congress the authority to exempt certain acts which some states, or Congress itself, may find objectionable. The Clause only says that Congress may, but is not necessarily obligated to, prescribe how such acts and records are proved and what effects they have, not what if any acts and records are exempt from this provision altogether.

There are also Equal Protection implications of DOMA, as mentioned by Holder, but that is a whole other issue. Sufficeth to say conservatives hate the Equal Protection Clause, or at least the way in which it has been interpreted by federal judges for the last century, because states can no longer discriminate as freely as they once did against certain demographics. Perish the thought that federal government act as a guarantor of life, liberty, and property against the occasional anti-liberty machinations of the states.

Of course, all of this Constitution-parsing and legal wrangling—important though it is—takes away from one very fundamental fact: there is no good reason for opposing same-sex marriage. To be opposed to this is to be bigot. Ron Paul and millions of other Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves for their position on this issue.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

Obama administration blocks UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements

I’ve seen some convoluted explanations in my time, but this one from the American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, is at the top of the pile. Rice was on Al Jazeera (English) a few days ago trying to explain why the Obama administration last week had used its first veto at the UN Security Council to kill a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. The proposed resolution was defeated 14 to 1, or I should say 1 to 14 because being one of the five permanent members with veto power, the US was able to block its passage all by itself. The resolution, which you can read here, had more than 100 cosponsors.

Rice was clearly uncomfortable and occasionally hostile during the exchange. Asked why the Obama administration vetoed the resolution, Rice offered this:

Our goal is and must remain—as soon as possible—establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And we looked at the resolution in the light of whether it would advance that goal or harden positions and set it back. As I said today in the Security Council and as President Obama has said on many occasions, the United States strongly opposes continued Israeli settlement activity. So our objection was not on that point. On that point we were united with the rest of the Council. The question for us was, would this resolution and its adoption advance that goal of achieving an independent Palestinian state or cause one or both parties to dig in and make it even harder to resume the very necessary process of direct negotiations?

Rice then said that it is the administration’s position that the resolution would have encouraged the latter scenario, saying further,

We do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. There’s no question about that. We have been clear and unequivocal. But the question is, if you simply try to make declaratory statements, will that lead to the halt of settlement activity? No. In fact, it might even encourage increased settlement activity...I think perhaps there would have been more settlement activity had the resolution been adopted.

Rice went on to say that the resolution was an effort to “divert attention” from resolving the conflict.

Before I get into the substance of her explanation, I’d just like to point out to Ambassador Rice that a UN Security Council resolution is not a “declaratory statement,” but international law. Here’s the UN ambassador from the most powerful country in the world likening a binding international resolution to a mere “declaratory statement.” That tells us a lot about what the Obama administration thinks of the UN and international law. In fact, Rice said outright that passage of the resolution wouldn’t lead to a halt in Israeli settlement building (and might even increase it, but more on that in a moment), and this was the main reason she voted against it.

Now it’s probably true that passage would not have prompted Israel to halt its current settlement expansions. Indeed, Israel is currently violation of multiple UNSC resolutions, ignoring them with impunity. And the main reason is because it faces no negative consequences whatsoever. On this front, Obama is simply continuing the policy of his predecessors: pledge unwavering support to Israel with billions of dollars in annual foreign aid, block UNSC resolutions that are critical of Israel, and occasionally condemn Israeli settlement activity as “counterproductive” or “illegitimate” (but not illegal), while doing absolutely nothing about it.

Considered in light of these facts, Rice’s explanation is tautological: We vetoed the resolution because it would not have halted settlements and also because we refuse to encourage Israel to stop building them anyway. And one of the ways in which we refuse to do that is by vetoing resolutions critical of settlements.

But what about Rice’s other assertion that passage of the resolution would lead to an increase in settlement activity? What she’s essentially saying is, Israel has such contempt for international law and even its main ally, the US, that ratification of such an agreement would have prompted Israel to accelerate its settlement building just for the sake of defying the resolution. In other words, even if we voted in favor of it, Israel would have given us, and the international community, the middle finger by doing the exact opposite of what we called on them to do.

If that’s the case, then what the hell? If Israel is going to be unresponsive to US attempts to rein in its settlement building, then why continue supporting—politically and financially—this ally which clearly has no interest in heeding our calls to halt such activity?

Such a question is rendered inapplicable by the fact that the US does not really care about settlements or the Palestinian right to self-determination. For more than three decades, this has been made clear through America’s actions and inactions regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Obama administration’s veto is just the latest US enablement of illegal Israeli expansionism, which will surely continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of who occupies the White House.

– Max

max.canning@gmail.com

Allen West's sadly ironic take on progressivism

Newly minted Teabag Florida Congressman Allen West delivered a well-received harangue this weekend at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which featured more red meat than a slaughterhouse. His oratory contained the usual talking points required for any successful speech to a conservative audience: limited government, American Exceptionalism, and the evils of liberalism. As a bonus, West tossed in a completely ancillary quote from the Book of Isaiah. West’s speech was emblematic of the entire weekend hoedown there in Washington, where conservatives lied to themselves about wanting smaller government and more freedom. And anyone who thinks my cynicism on this front is unwarranted may examine other CPAC moments, such as the enthusiastic reception that Constitution-stepper-onner Dick Cheney received, as well as the hearty approbation heaped upon Ann Coulter when she insisted that more journalists should be in prison. Remember, the majority of self-described conservatives in this country are statists of the military/national security variety, and they don’t give a roaring rip about the Bill of Rights.

West, an African-American, had by far the most ironic remark of the weekend. As speaker number 4,318 to denounce the left at the conference, it wasn’t so much what he said, but the overall context in which his comments occurred:

The liberal progressive agenda offers no viable solutions for our republic…

Liberal progressivism evolved after our Constitution. It has been tried. It has repeatedly failed all over the world. So why would we think it can be successful here in our United States of America.

Here’s a black man, talking to a predominantly white audience, some of which no doubt have some sort of homage-to-the-confederacy bumper sticker on their Ford F-150s, and whose psychological constitution produces a conservative mindset—one that necessarily wishes to keep the status quo in principle, or return the society to an earlier and more idyllic epoch in American history. In either case, the conservatives throughout American history have been content to stand pat on a myriad of issues, while the liberal progressives against whom West is railing have sought to move the country forward politically, socially and economically. This is not to stay that conservatism has no merits, or that liberalism always fosters positive advancements, but for West to say that progressivism has failed “everywhere,” is to ignore that it was the progressives who had to drag his ideological predecessors, kicking and screaming, into ending slavery, desegregating public schools, and passing major pieces of civil rights legislation in the big bad federal government. “Liberal progressivism” has also done much more, such as enfranchising women, overhauling workplace standards for safety and wages, and providing social safety nets that most Americans will benefit from at some point in their lives, but I thought the achievements of progressivism vis-à-vis black rights might be particularly salient to West.

Or perhaps not. If we could send West back in time to a gathering of prominent conservatives in 1960, perhaps he would be glad to lecture that audience on the pernicious liberal progressivism of Martin Luther King Jr. and the burgeoning liberal judicial activism that has been ruling that states may not engage in racial discrimination. Perhaps West would also decry the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as an undue liberal progressive-inspired federal encroachment on states’ rights.

Or maybe we could send West further back in time to a gathering of conservatives in 1860. There he could slam the abolitionists and the liberal progressivism of Frederick Douglass and the threat represented by a candidate for president named Abraham Lincoln, whose sympathies clearly do not lie with the country’s well-established slaveholding gentry. West could cite the Tenth Amendment and the preachments of John Calhoun in justifying state nullification of federal law, despite that annoying little Supremacy Clause in Article VI in the Constitution.

Conservatives are free to cite Lincoln (as West did in his speech) and other patron saints of American politics, but this does not change the fact that many right-wingers—given their mindset that leads them to conservatism—surely would have hated Lincoln, MLK, and others who possessed untried ideas such as emancipation and equal rights for all. Indeed, both men were killed for this reason by people who preferred the status quo. Allen West insists that liberal progressivism has failed everywhere and that’s wrong. In a way, he represents how far we have come as a nation in the realm of race relations. I have no doubt that West has achieved what he has based on his own merits, but for him to assert that the same progressivism that knocked down the unjust racial barriers that stood in the way of him and his forbears, is a detriment and a failure, is sad and absurd.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

Congress is full of cowards and the Tea Party is full of shit

In a miscalculation yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner expedited a vote on three expiring provisions of the horrendous USA Patriot Act. Under the move, the renewals required a two-thirds vote (290 votes) to pass. They got 277. It will pass eventually because most of our congresspersons are gutless cowards who have no qualms about sacrificing liberty for merely the illusion of security. The Republican Party—supposedly the faction of “small government”—was the worst offender today, with 210 of them voting to grant Barack Obama’s wish of continued overreaching executive power.

Meanwhile, where the fuck is the Tea Party on this one? All we hear from those people is how government under the Obama administration is taking away our freedom, but they’re nowhere to be found on this issue. Show me a Tea Party rally against the Patriot Act, or the Afghan War, or the military-industrial complex. You can’t because there are none. And the reason there is none is because 90% of self-described Tea Partiers are statists. They’re the same people who rushed to line up behind Dubya and his military adventurism and Bill of Rights curtailments. They’re the same people who virulently trashed, as traitors, opponents of Bush’s “big government” policies. And they’re the same people, who right now, are doing jack shit while the Obama administration is about to be handed extensions on roving wiretaps, expansive surveillance powers, and warrants issued by secret courts. Why? Because they are authoritarians who simply don’t like the current Dear Leader in power. Sure, they’ll protest a health care plan or whatever, but anything that contributes to the security and glory of the State and it’s thank you sir, may they have another? One day, the Tea Party may very well get its dream president: a white man or woman who will return the Fatherland to the days of the Cold War and the nuclear family. And if the president has to start World War III to get there, so be it.

*****

Does Ron Paul ever not nail it when it comes to civil liberties? Guy’s like a one-man police state wrecking crew. Here he is before the vote to extend the three sunset provisions.

- Max max.canning@gmail.com

Mike Huckabee's indefensible position on Israel and Palestine

Dr. Grant tours Jurassic Park. Oh wait, that’s Mike Huckabee admiring the wall the Israelis built to dehumanize Palestinians in the West Bank.

Little noticed in a week of political upheaval in Egypt and climatic chaos across much of the United States, was former Arkansas Republican governor and ordained evangelical minister Mike Huckabee’s jaunt to Israel with the demented actor Jon Voight. The charming Huck has a curious take on Israeli-Palestinian relations, but only if we do not examine it through the lens of a deranged evangelical zealot who is rabidly pro-Israel while simultaneously believing that its Jewish inhabitants are doomed to Hell because they reject his messiah.

The relationship between the Israel and America’s evangelical Christian community is one of the most cynical and dangerous duos in the history of American politics. One would have to go back to the occasional alliances between Whig and Know-Nothing politicians in the 1840s and 50s to find something even remotely comparable. Though on those occasions, the arrangements were forged entirely by domestic factions. In our day, Israel has a well-oiled lobbying machine at its disposal in the form of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, but is also happy to accept the substantial financial contributions, resources, and public relations efforts of American evangelicals who help do its bidding on Capitol Hill. For their part in this lobbying 69, the evangelicals get to chase—and perhaps even facilitate—their wildest eschatological fantasy, which depends on the preservation and flourishing of the Israeli state.

During his trip Huckabee, who is still in Israel as of this writing, has already shown that his beliefs on the Israel-Palestine conflict are in lockstep with those of Israel’s ultra-nationalists.

Here’s Huckabee quoted in Israel Today:

“I think there probably should be [a Palestinian state], but it doesn’t necessarily have to be on the tiny postage-stamp-size piece of land that is Israel,” he said. “I’m not against a Palestinian state. I am against, and not really against, but I’m just being realistic - I don’t see how it works to put two people and two governments right on top of each other.”

I am sure the Palestinians felt much the same way in 1948.

Huckabee went on to blast the Arab position - which has been adopted by the rest of the world - that the Jews must stop building in Judea and Samaria, lands claimed by the Palestinians, in order for peace to be achieved.

“To tell Jewish people, ‘You cannot live here, you cannot raise your children here,’ this is the true racism, this is apartheid,” said Huckabee. “I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English.”

Huckabee’s position is one of the more blatantly ludicrous but increasingly common apologias for wanton Israeli settlement expansion in violation of international law. Here is a former and prospective presidential candidate announcing, for all intents and purposes, that yes, the Palestinians ought to have a state, but not one in Samaria (West Bank), or Judea, which is a name so vague it could conceivably encompass Israel proper, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. This begs the question, where exactly does Huckabee envision a future Palestinian state existing?

Furthermore, for him to call the de jure (but not certainly not de facto) prohibition of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem, apartheid, is outrageous. Apparently Huckabee does not know what the word “occupied” means, and so we could conclude that he would have a hard time grasping why it might have been bad form for German people to start moving into already occupied Paris.

Second, Huckabee has toured the Israeli-built West Bank wall that has been making life miserable for tens of thousands of Palestinians who have found it more difficult to access vital services. (But likely not from the Palestinian side.) In some instances, the wall juts into to Palestinian territory and has cut off some of them from their own land. Then again, this is probably of no concern to Huckabee, a man of god. His remarks make it clear that the West Bank is Israeli territory and the Palestinians are just living on it. For now.

Without question Huckabee is attempting to garner the support of the Israeli lobby for a possible presidential run in 2012. Worse, however, is the fact that Huck genuinely believes what he is saying, which in effect means that he would enable or outright aid any and all illegal settlement expansions and whatever other actions the Israeli government feels obliged to take. Not that this would be much different from current US policy, but Huckabee’s view is no doubt informed by divine sanction. Judea belongs to the Israelites as the bible says. And the governor is not going to quibble over details with the man upstairs.

Huckabee’s comments should give the Israelis pause. They ought to be skeptical of Huckabee for the same reason they ought to be skeptical of any other Christian Right zealot who becomes (meta)physically aroused at the prospect of the Rapture and End Times. The Book of Revelations appears to be the main bond holding together this strange relationship, and at least one side seems hell-bent on turning biblical prophecy into self-fulfilling prophecy.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

I was robbed!

There’s robbery. There’s highway robbery. And then there’s waking up shivering in a snowbank bruised and bloodied with no pants. Such is my situation after being snubbed by Matt Taibbi for his Supreme Court of Assholedom. I want to be clear, I hold no ill-will toward him or any of those appointed to this most esteemed high court which enjoys original jurisdiction, but Jesus was this a bitter pill to swallow after sending him a résumé complete with a killer sample court opinion for this pro bono position. See for yourself. (I’ve omitted some of my personal information.)

Dear Matt,

Please accept my “résumé” for consideration in your search for associate justices for the Supreme Court of Assholedom. I’m a college instructor who holds a Master’s degree in Political Science…I have studied constitutional and international law, and have extensive experience dealing with assholes. For one thing I live in Boston. For another I have held several existential crisis-inducing customer service jobs in which talking to assholes was more than 90% of the job. I also worked as a governmental administrative assistant; and in that capacity my chief responsibility was handling constituent issues, which much of the time simply meant, “troubleshooting with assholes.” Also, I have been known to be an asshole myself on occasion. Just the other day I told a snide customer service rep to go fuck herself. You’d think I’d have some empathy. Nope.

I also have a website, http://www.inebriateddiscourse.com/. (Recommended blog writing sample: http://www.inebriateddiscourse.com/2011/01/sarah-palins-justifiably-unjustified.html.)

Finally, maybe I can put a face to my name, but we briefly crossed paths at your Griftopia signing in Boston/Brookline in November. I think I made a Mapplethorpe joke. Anyway, I don’t know if that helps my case, but it certainly can’t hurt. Unless you thought I was an asshole. But in which case that would demonstrate I have experience in this field. (This position lends itself to some bizarre criteria.)

Even if I’m not selected for a judgeship, I’d be interested in the Solicitor General position, should there be one. Kind of like Elena Kagan was, but without the old-Jewish-man-in-drag look.

I have written a sample opinion from a hypothetical case, America minus Lower Manhattan v. Larry Kudlow. If you have any questions about my candidacy, please don’t hesitate to contact me at max.canning@gmail.com.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Max Canning

AMERICA MINUS LOWER MANHATTAN v. LARRY KUDLOW

Ruling: ASSHOLE

Asshole Gradient: 5,037

JUSTICE CANNING delivered the opinion of the Court:

Petitioners America minus Lower Manhattan (America) allege, inter alia, that Larry Kudlow (Kudlow) has engaged in Assholery on a regular basis via innumerable pro-oligarchy statements during the telecast of his show, The Kudlow Report on CNBC. For the purposes of this case, America has asked the Court to examine Kudlow’s September 23rd 2008 on-air remarks in support of the Trouble Assets Relief Program (TARP), and juxtapose them with Kudlow’s remarks on same program December 7th, 2009.

In championing the bailouts of Wall Street, specifically TARP, on 9/23/08, Kudlow alleged, “This is a bailout…of Main Street, of middle class folks who desperately need credit.” Kudlow was advocating the rescue of the financial services sector by the federal government in direct violation of the very free market principles he said he favored. His prediction that TARP was a bailout of Main Street was dubious then, and seems more preposterous now in light of subsequent developments.

Kudlow’s hypocrisy and deceit alone on this occasion fulfill the necessary criteria for Assholedom. However, the Court’s examination does not end there, being obliged as it is to consider Kudlow’s position on bank bailouts vis-à-vis statements he made on his program the following year. On December 7th 2009, in response to a story about possible money left over from TARP, Kudlow declared that the excess money should go to “pay down the debt” and not to bolster “social safety nets” for America. Thus, Kudlow favored spending $700 billion in taxpayer money on rescuing the nation’s largest financial institutions, but was against spending any leftover money on actual individual taxpayers.

As the Court noted in Working Stiffs v. Evan Newmark and Wall Street Journal, wealthy individuals can have no reasonable expectation of immunity from being deemed an Asshole by this Court (or by people in general) if they advocate, either directly or indirectly, oligarchy, plutocracy, aristocracy etc. However, the burden of proof for Assholedom for working class advocates of oligarchy etc. is greater given that they are more likely to be ignorant of the inevitable consequences of assenting to the principles espoused by such establishment media personalities. This is discussed further in Annoyed Coworkers v. Gomer McYokel. In that ruling, the Court rejected Coworkers’ contention that McYokel was an asshole because he made pro-oligarchy statements at work, having found that McYokel lacked the intellectual capacity necessary to understand the consequences of a flat-rate national income tax, which he advocated.

The Court did however, rule McYokel an asshole after examining the harsh and berating nature of his workplace pontifications. Continuously harping on a given topic, whatever the content and after others have made clear their total lack of interest, is grounds for a declaration of Assholedom, unless it can be shown the ranting is a byproduct of mental defect as defined in Canning Family v. Quasi-Retarded Uncle Phil.

Kudlow is both a well-to-do individual and one that is of reasonably sound mind. (Note that the Court rejected a motion to consider Kudlow’s substantial cocaine use in the 1980s as possible grounds for an Uncle Phil exemption.) The Court thus finds that Kudlow has indeed engaged in Assholedom on the occasions cited above. Therefore, Larry Kudlow is an Asshole, and with a gradient of 5,037.

DISSENT: None.