The Predicament of St. Paul's School - Caught Up In Unwanted Controversy Over Its "Senior Salute"

Owen Labrie - next to his lawyer - hangs his head during part of the court  proceedings.

Former salon.com writer Tracy Clark- Flory reported on my FB page that:

"Students and graduates of St. Paul’s School, which is embroiled in a high-profile rape case, are passionately defending the elite institution on social media with spectacular levels of arrogance and tone-deafness. They're dissing “haters,” implying that criticism of the school is inspired by jealousy and essentially giving the media the middle finger"

This is in the midst of the trial of Owen Labrie, a recent St. Paul’s graduate charged with raping a girl who was 15 at the time on the roof of a campus building. The first full day of testimony was Wednesday, when the accuser took the stand, tearfully describing how she told Labrie “no, no, no” before he allegedly penetrated her.

Labrie's lawyer, Jay Carney,  described Labrie's and the girl's rendezvous as part of a ritual known as the "senior salute" - a St. Paul's tradition.. The lawyer  actually intimated that  girls were generally honored to have such attention visited on them since it's a venerable tradition and right of passage.. Even as the clip played on CBS News I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Seriously?

At the same time there is the vigorous defense - aggressive and preemptive I would say - of so many seeking to defend this elite bastion. But this is understandable. The school has a long and venerable history - since 1856 (not as long as Harrison College, f. 1733) and has turned out some fine people. If one checks its website one will find a place packed with high end resources for its boarding students. It is a high caliber academic venue every bit as impressive as Harrison College in Barbados or Choate, JFK's prep school (now Choate- Rosemary Hall following a 1971 merger). Hence, its associates - past and present students as well as teachers- would be vexed to behold so much negative attention in the media. No elite bastion, educational or other,  wants to see its good name dragged through the mud of unproven allegations.

The problem inheres in all places of educational and social privilege which also bear proportionate levels of accountability, and responsibility. I would also add to that,  a proportional sense of noblesse oblige, i.e. 'Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly' . That means even when under fire - or when one's beloved institution is under fire- one conducts himself with grace and class.

Sadly, what Flory- Clark references is more an ignoble,  knee jerk response  that is undignified for the residents and graduates of St. Paul's.  I.e. that the reactions hitherto are  all part of a media-driven feeding frenzy fed by a bunch of vipers and jealous proles who couldn't get into such an esteemed school if their lives depended on it. Maybe that explains  some small subset of the reaction,  but surely not all.

But anyway, St. Paul's is not unheard of in my own history. I actually have fond memories of a St. Paul's science teacher - Walter Hawley (and his wife Lenore)  who would sail his yacht 'Cordelay' into the Bridgetown Careenage in the 1970s and invite my wife Janice and myself aboard for great food, conversation and wine. Walter and I would  also smoke a cigar or two while discussing our respective interests in astronomy - me, solar flares and sunspot morphology, and him, variable stars. . Best of all, it would always be under pristine starry skies before light pollution and Sahara dust diminished the night sky quality in Barbados. We'd  treasure such interludes because it provided us the opportunity to talk serious astronomy - especially of variable stars - which was one of Walter's abiding interests. We'd often stay on his yacht until the wee hours picking out naked eye variables and estimating their magnitudes - at least until wifey began to get seasick from the yacht's yawing and pitching.

We'd also invite him and Lenore to our own Harry Bayley Observatory to  see assorted nebulae, open and globular star clusters, as well as planets (and variables), in our 12 1/2 " (at the time) reflector.  He'd be speechless at the sights and on some occasions we'd be able to set up to do some spontaneous astrophotography.

Let me say Walter was the embodiment of a true gentleman and scholar and how I used to picture a St. Paul's person - whether teacher or student. (He also directed the school's Astronomy Club at the time) . He was a person of class, keen intelligence and ethical quality and I am sure - if any  foul deed had allegedly taken place in his era to expose the school to a jaundiced media eye- would not have reacted with the sort of comical and pathetic “Looking down on the haters #spsfam,” nonsense we behold now.

No, he'd have been too much of a gentleman with judicious temperament to do that and would've advised rising above it.. He'd have exhorted the school's faithful not to give vent to their baser emotions, but to 'ride it out' and take the high road, as befitting a noble institution.  He'd have surely advised against lowering oneself to the level of one's detractors - whatever the stimulus.

A pity that more "St. Paulians" don't seem to grasp that now, allowing false privilege and a sense of exaggerated entitlement to trump that precious attribute of noblesse oblige. Because, in the end, it's the demonstration of noblesse oblige in trying times that defines the truly elite institution.

Edward Snowden Vindicated by Judge's Ruling That NSA Dragnet Program is Unconstitutional

"I have little doubt the author of our Constitution, James Madison,  would be aghast"

"The government does not cite a single instance where the program actually stopped an imminent attack"

 - Federal Circuit Judge Richard Leon ruling against NSA super dragnet spying yesterday.

Richard Leon is another hero and defender of the Constitution irrespective of whether or not his momentous ruling on the NSA monster spy programs are overturned on appeal. We know it only takes one voice, even in the minority, to espouse truth and constitutional principles even if liars, reprobates and traitors are arrayed against them - to the extent of re-doing earlier laws (like the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to render the illegal, legal.

Judge Leon, in a 68 -page ruling issued in Washington on Monday, argued that the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency is likely to violate the US constitution, in the most significant legal setback for the agency since the publication of the first surveillance disclosures by whistleblower  and constitutional hero, Edward Snowden.

Judge Leon declared that the mass collection of metadata probably violates the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and was "almost Orwellian" in its scope. In a judgment replete with literary swipes against the NSA, he said James Madison, the architect of the US constitution, would be "aghast" at the scope of the agency’s collection of Americans' communications data.

You have nailed it, Judge Leon, and I already noted this in many previous posts. The 4th amendment is VERY clear that specific warrants must be issued, not mass warrants! I don't give a fuck how "inconvenient" it is or how long and arduous that process might be. Tough shit! Either adhere to the principles or admit you're traitors to your constitutional oaths. People can read the words of the Fourth for themselves below:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Read it slowly and carefully, especially the emphasized portions over again. Clearly, the NSA MASS-grabbing of data violates directly the 4th amendment, and yeah, I'm as much a stickler about the 4th as the gun people are about the 2nd.

As I noted before, "secure in one’s person, house, papers, effects” implies PRIVACY! These are after all MY private papers, my private effects, my house, etc. If an inherent right to privacy was a myth then by all accounts being secure in one’s person, papers, effects wouldn’t matter. Hell, let the whole freakin’ world see ‘em! This is why in a fascist dictatorship “personal effects” don’t exist. “Personal papers” has no meaning. The state has full monopoly, de facto ownership on whatever the person has, even his own body. Hence, in fascist dictatorships, such as existed in Nazi Germany, all personal effects, papers could be seized by the Nazis on a whim or remote suspicion - under the Reich Laws. A fundamental right to privacy, meanwhile, insists there exist bona fide entities that one can uniquely own, e.g. papers, effects – including photos or what not- that are private. Without this fundamental right, then, “personal papers, effects” has no meaning hence the 4th amendment is meaningless.

It is clear to me that Judge Leon recognizes this, even if neoliberal coward and administration mouthpiece Jay Carney (calling for Snowden's return and prosecution) doesn't. Will Carney ever pull his head out of his ass? Probably never!

But what do you expect from Carney? The ruling, by the US district court for the District of Columbia, is a blow to the Obama administration, and sets up a legal battle that will drag on for months, almost certainly destined to end up in the Supreme Court. It was welcomed by campaigners pressing to rein in the NSA, and by Snowden, who issued a rare public statement saying it had vindicated his disclosures. It is also likely to influence other legal challenges to the NSA, currently working their way through federal courts.

Judge Leon expressed doubt about the central rationale for the program cited by the NSA: that it is necessary for preventing terrorist attacks. “The government does not cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack".

Leon added:

“Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation – most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics – I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.”

If such instances  of actual success - based specifically on the dragnet programs - are not cited, then obviously we can't ascertain if the protection of the program is all based on some BS smokescreen  or not. Telling us that to provide the information would "risk national security" is horse patootey and insults our intelligence. It also gives cover to the spooks to do whatever the hell they want.

Leon’s opinion also contained stern and repeated warnings that he was inclined to rule that the metadata collection performed by the NSA – and defended vigorously by the NSA director Keith Alexander on CBS on Sunday night – was unconstitutional. (Alexander, treating us all like untutored children or idiots insisted he saw no other way to do the collection other than by mass dragnet - as one cheeky Denver Post letter writer put it, he could as well "put us all in prison then he can see and hear what we're doing and when any time he wants.")

Leon added:

“Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the government’s interest in collecting and analysing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment,”

Leon also said that the mass collection of phone metadata, revealed by the Guardian in June, was "indiscriminate" and "arbitrary" in its scope.  He also wrote:

"The almost-Orwellian technology that enables the government to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user in the United States is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979,"

Referring to the year in which the US Supreme Court ruled on a fourth amendment case upon which the NSA now relies to justify the bulk records program. But he also implied that the later revision of that law was the main outrage: since it was done after the Bushies perpetrated warrantless wiretaps after 2005.  The pusillanimous punk traitor congress- instead of holding Bush to account and impeaching his sorry ass - let him get away with it by changing the 1978 FISA law to make mass warrantless wiretapping legal. It is amazing how few know about this and that all appeals to the later revised "law" are bogus.

Meanwhile, in a statement released subsequent to the ruling (related to Glenn Greenwald), Snowden said:

“I acted on my belief that the NSA's mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”

We can only hope and trust this is the case, and that if and when it ends up at the Supreme Court they will perform their constitutional duty irrespective of their ideology.

Lastly, I was delighted to see Colorado Senator Mark Udall, a leading critic of the dragnet collection, welcomed the judgment.  In his words:

"The ruling underscores what I have argued for years: [that] the bulk collection of Americans' phone records conflicts with Americans' privacy rights under the US constitution and has failed to make us safer,"


Maybe one of these days, Mr. Obama - a  constitutional scholar at one time - will begin to see that.

IMF Warns of "Debt Catastrophe" if Debt Ceiling Isn't Raised - As Obama Takes the 14th Off the Table

Depiction of Obama from two years ago when he basically allowed the country to be extorted by the Reepo Economic Terrorists. This time he needs to approve the debt ceiling limit increase under Executive order- under the 14th amendment - even if brings on a constitutional crisis. The nation's interest must trump political interests and elections next year!

Incredibly, it appears that - despite strong advice from former Clinton aides- Obama does not have any intention of using the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling limit unilaterally, if the Tea Bagger driven Reepos continue their shutdown foolishness into the debt ceiling deadline of October 17th.  This despite the fact that according to a Financial Times article yesterday, the IMF has warned of a "debt catastrophe" if the U.S. doesn't pay its bills.

Let's be clear of the impact if the debt ceiling isn't raised by the due date. First, we may have about two weeks 'grace period' but then on Nov. 1st the Treasury must make a $25 billion payment to Social Security. This cannot be made if the ceiling isn't raised and that means that Social Security payments likely will be seriously delayed or not go out at all. Next, the Treasury must make a bond interest payment (on Treasury securities) of $30 billion by November 15th.  This payment assures creditors that the U.S. claim that bonds are "protected by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" is honored. If it is not, and it won't be if the money isn't available via debt ceiling being raised, the markets will freak out. That includes the bond markets and the stock market. Two years ago, the latter dropped 17% as a result of GOP terrorism. What will it be like this time? Who knows?

Meanwhile, The Treasury Department has stated in a report:  "A default would be unprecedented and has the potential to be catastrophic. The negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse."

As I noted in a previous blog (last month) The Constitution (Amendment XIV, Section 4),  is clear on the U.S. debt responsibilities:

The validity of the Public Debt of the United States, authorized by law, includes debts incurred for payment of pensions ....and shall not be questioned.

It is clear to me that if the Republican Congress refuses to act to raise the debt ceiling (and thereby honor the validity of paying the Public Debt) then President Obama can certainly issue an Executive Order to override a putatively derelict Congress and invoke Article 4 of Amendment XIV to raise the debt ceiling himself. 

But according to a UK Guardian article, Obama has no intention of doing so, thereby taking his most potent 'weapon' off the table. According to the Guardian:

" 'Using the 14th would show the Republicans he means business,' one former aide to Bill Clinton told the Guardian last week.

But the White House ruled out the option on Thursday, ending days of Washington debate about whether this obscure legal authority might provide a way out for Obama – at least from one half of Republicans' fiscal pincer movement.

 'The administration does not believe the 14th amendment gives power to the president to ignore the debt ceiling,' said spokesman Jay Carney.

'The fact that there is significant controversy around the president's authority to act unilaterally means that it would not be a credible alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling and would not be taken seriously by the market.' "


But this is nonsense, and Carney's blather doesn't even pass a basic laugh test. Is Carney serious?  First, the President would not be "ignoring the debt ceiling"  - but rather respecting it given that a dysfunctional element in congress has obstructed its being raised!  Second, Carney's excuse that, 'There is significant controversy around the president's authority to act unilaterally'  is codswallop given  this is a prez who regularly (and unilaterally) orders drone strikes on targets from Yemen to Pakistan to Afghanistan - without any "approval" from congress.

While his drone strikes putatively address American security compromised by terrorists, clearly invoking the 14th would address Americans' domestic financial security compromised by the GOP and the incipient threat to the economic stability of the nation. Certainly, if Yemen merits a drone strike owing to incipient terrorist threats, the Repuke congress merits the 14th landing on their asses, given the Constitution clearly states. debts incurred for payment of pensions ....and shall not be questioned

So is Obama not obliged to uphold the Constitution, and in WHATEVER manner is required? I believe he is, given that the refusal to honor the nation's debts is a basis for intervention by an adult - and making specious arguments to avoid taking that responsibility  (to probably avoid political repercussions in the mid-terms next year) does not cut it. Not one bit!

Those who encourage Obama to grow some cojones believe 100% - contrary to Carney's PR blatherskite - that the power to use the 14th does inhere in the Executive if congress forfeits its own responsibilities.  In that case, Obama is obliged as the last adult in gov't to step in and seize the power to use the 14th. So yes, the power to use it  DOES EXIST IF Obama takes it. If he projects authority, and goes on the air to make clear the reasons for this extreme action, he will be as legit as JFK when he faced down U.S. Steel in 1962 and stopped them from raising steel prices.  Many in the corporate world at that time believed he "didn't have the authority to interfere in the markets" - but he did. Because he had balls, and he knew the national interest trumped petty political concerns.

Make no mistake also that the markets, contrary to Carney's nonsense, would definitely take such a move seriously, given what the alternative is!   Does Carney,  or whatever advisor is feeding Obama this foolishness,  really believe the markets would rather see a credit meltdown, default and a drop as big as the one in 2008? Puh---leeze! Do Carney and his clique really believe the markets would rather see a credit downgrade and the country's image damaged irreparably?

Will Obama have the balls to act, or will he allow the Repuke anarchists and terrorists to get the better of him again? We have to wait and see! In the meantime let's hope there are no further smokescreens giving BS reasons not to act, and more intelligent justifications for doing so. To give the Reeps a shot over the bow and show them the WH isn't going to come to a gunfight with a sling shot this time around.