Lest recent events lead you to think that all judges have taken leave of their senses, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled earlier in the week 4-1 that "A parent is privileged to apply such reasonable force or to impose such reasonable confinement upon his [or her] child as he [or she] reasonably believes to be necessary for its proper control, training, or education." It goes on to provide a list of factors for courts to consider in determining just what is "reasonable" in the circumstances. Professor Volokh has details on the factors, which I think are pretty straightforward.

Now, I personally think that if things have escalated to the point that violence is necessary to discipline a child, we are already talking about a serious failure of parenting. I don't mean an open-handed swat to the bottom of a very young child. Once the issue becomes older kids being hit with paddles, belts, or switches or just flat out beat down by a parent, no matter what the kid has done, the parent is as much a failure.

Now, crappy parents should be ridiculed and mocked whenever they show themselves in public. They should never be invited to dinner parties and always be subjected to uncomfortable silences when they show up at the church picnic. There should be special nursing homes for them where the jello has always already melted in the little plastic bowl and the urine smell actually comes from an additive they put in when they wash the sheets. But they should not be subject to felony convictions for reasonably disciplining their children.

What follows is an example of a parent who failed somewhere along the line. There will be no lime jello in her future. But are we supposed to take away the last means of straightening out her child, who had a history of lying and theft?

The February 2006 incident began when the boy took a bag of Willis' clothes to school and tried to give them to a classmate. A teacher caught him and contacted his mother.

Willis, a single mother, testified that grounding her son had failed the last time he was caught stealing. When he denied the new theft, she sent him to her sister's home for two days. She also decided to swat him with a belt.

"I thought about it over the entire weekend and I even tried to talk to him again," Willis said, according to the Supreme Court opinion. "And he continued to lie. . . . I didn't know what else to do."

According to court documents, Willis had her son remove his pants and then hit him five to seven times on the buttocks with an extension cord or belt, resulting in bruising. The boy showed the bruises to a school nurse, who contacted authorities. Willis was arrested and charged with a Class D felony.

A reasonable use of force? The Indiana Supremes think so. Abuse caseworkers in Indiana are wringing their hands even though they shouldn't be. They are required to report even the possibility of abuse. It is up to the prosecutor to make the right decision on whether to seek charges. This holding is directed to them far more than to the school nurse.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 01:48 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 554 words, total size 3 kb.

From Rachel Lucas.

Proper Credit: HTL notes that cartoon is from this site.

Posted by: Ace at 01:34 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Allah's headline demanded 500 comments or bust, and he's already at 300.

So I'll post it too.

Correlation is not causation, which the study asserts anyway, pretty stupidly.

The fact is that most higher-IQ folks will attend college and join the ranks of the secular liberal establishment, which is, of course, anti-religion and pro-atheism. It is hardly surprising that those who join a group dominated by an anti-religious impulse soon adopt that attitude themselves. Especially when so much as expressing a belief in God results in insult and ostracism from so many in that group.

Now, of course, I've bought into that impulse, myself, mostly; I'm not religious. But I can't really pat myself on the back too vigorously for merely adopting the dominant groupthink of my social cohort.

On the other hand, the "social scientists" offering this proof can, it seems, indulge in an awful lot of self-congratulations having the courage to believe what most other people they know believe.

I'll just never get over that -- the free-thinking brave-minds of the left constantly fawning over themselves for the courageous decision to never rock the boat and question the easy assumptions of their group.

Answering Allah's Question:

What exactly does Ace mean, though? Is he suggesting atheists are skeptical about God because of Â… peer pressure?

That's not exactly what I meant, though, having not meant it, I agree with it, basically. Of course most of one's cultural beliefs are due to the culture one exists in.

It's not cultural determinism, but it is a strong cultural influence. I mean, Cripes, most of New Jersey/New York is liberal on sexual issues like abortion and, as it turns out, I am mostly (relatively) liberal on sexual issues like abortion. I don't believe that's entirely a coincidence.

But what I meant was simple: It's not just what this study says, but the purpose of self-flattery it will be put to (as it was designed). Those who are atheists will say "Wow, IQ corresponds with atheism, so I must be even smarter than I thought!" Um, no. Your IQ is exactly the same. If you're dumb and don't believe in God, you're still dumb. If you're of a middling intellect and don't believe in God, you're still of a middling intellect.

But millions of secularist liberals will take great satisfaction in this survey, as if sharing a belief with a group the survey claims has a higher average IQ actually has some bearing on their own IQ.

Nope, it doesn't. You're just as smart as you were yesterday, or just as stupid. You haven't suddenly gotten bonus IQ points because you're an atheist and a study claims that atheists have some small average IQ advantage over believers.

The other point is that the notion of intelligence is often conflated with what we might call intellectual courage, that is, the "freethinking brave-mind" thing that all liberals are pretty sure they have.

My point on that is simple: It takes no bravery or free-thinking at all to accept the dominant mode of thought in one's social/cultural cohort. Accepting that dominant mode of thought doesn't make one weak, or stupid; a dominant mode of thought may be right, after all, and the acceptance of it may be well-considered rather than a demonstration of a lack of critical thinking or capacity to challenge the authority of group thinking.

However, certainly neither does it demonstrate any amount of intellectual courage or contrarian impulse to believe what the great majority of those around you also believe. You know, the whole Goth kids showing how much they hate conformity by every single one of them dressing like a vampire of indeterminate sexuality. Who all shop at the same store.

I may not be stupid or weak for agreeing with some of the dominant group think of my social cohort, but surely agreeing with everyone else does not make me especially bright, nor strong-willed, nor courageous, nor iconoclastic, nor "free-minded."

It's a rather easy thing to accept the cultural beliefs of the dominant culture one grew up in. It's not necessarily a bad thing to do that, but certainly neither is it praiseworthy or evidence of an unshackled mind, free of the biases and prejudices of the world it moves it.

Nope, Didn't Say That: ken writes (perhaps not in response to me, but I'm not sure)...

One flaw in all of your arguments: You're assuming all atheists are liberals. At least one of us isn't.

Not an argument I'm making, since I myself am agnostic, and by "agnostic" I mean pretty much atheist except that as a believer in empiricism I can't say God doesn't or can't exist. My belief and hunch says "no." My evidence says "can't say for sure." But obviously that is not what you would call a very strong belief in God.

At any rate, I don't argue or believe that "all atheists are liberals." That's silly. What I do say is that most atheists are liberals and vice versa, and we get up to the 99% level when we're talking about evangelical atheists who, God as my witness, spend more time talking about the nonexistence of God than any country preacher spends talking about his existence.*

And those are the sort of people who are, in the main, reading this study with deep satisfaction. Because, while they reject God, they don't really reject magic, and so they're pretty sure that their IQ just somehow magically went up 4 or 5 points due to this study.

* Seriously? How the hell can anyone spend this much time discussing something they don't believe in and has precious little effect on their lives?

I don't believe in the female orgasm. I don't need to argue the point.

I let my actions do my arguing for me.

The level of emotional investment evangelical atheists have in arguing incessantly in the nonexistence of God is something I just don't get. How can you be this emotionally invested in an abstraction you don't believe in?

The fascination with this by evangelical atheists makes me suspect they're not even really atheists. Are they arguing God doesn't exist, or that God is a big meanie who screwed them over?

If it's the latter, I understand the passion. If it's the former, I just don't get it.

I don't believe in magic or psychic powers or Scientology or... well, a whole bunch of things. Student loans. Stop lights. Sharing.

But I don't natter on about these things, either.

I exist, they don't. I win.

End of argument.

Posted by: Ace at 12:58 PM | Comments (261)
Post contains 1116 words, total size 7 kb.

Good post on on Congress' availing itself of the "Exceptions Clause" of the Constitution -- which permits the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases with such exceptions as Congress may decide -- and the terrorist habeas case.

The Constitution clearly permits just this -- it states clearly that Congress may create "exceptions" to the Court's general appellate jurisdiction.

Congress seems to have clearly done this.

The Supreme Court ignored this almost completely, except to assert that the Suspension Clause was the only way Congress might limit the Court's jurisdiction here.

But that's not what the Constitution says.

This being a troubling fact to argue against, the Court simply did not bother doing so, except by vague allusion.

A fairly strong case can be made that the Supreme Court has grossly overstepped its bounds and acted unlawfully here. And, having done so, its assertions of authority are null and void and without effect.

Posted by: Ace at 12:06 PM | Comments (80)
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Got it on a CBS Marketwatch alert; looking for a story now.

So far just this AP blip.

Commenter EC says Drudge linked this from the NY Post.

Only 58 years old. Very sad.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 11:33 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Fellow Taliban terrorists blew the gate with explosives.

Just about everyone's gone.

On point: Western patience with Karzai's corrupt and ineffectual government nears an end.

As usual, we have to strongly suspect that this "escape" was conducted with some amount of government assistance.

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Speaking of Congressmen and Senators getting special subsidized everything.

Senator Conrad borrowed $1.07 million in 2004 to refinance his vacation home with a balcony and wraparound porch in Bethany Beach, Delaware, a block from the ocean. Mozilo instructed a subordinate to “take off 1 point,” or $10,700, according to a March 17, 2004, email.

Later that year, Conrad refinanced an eight-unit apartment building that he and his brothers owned in Bismarck, North Dakota. According to the former employee, the loan violated Countrywide’s normal policy of providing loans for buildings of four units or fewer. In an April 23, 2004, email, Mozilo encouraged an employee to “make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator.”

He claims he had no idea he was receiving special treatment and claims he got a "competitive rate."

As to why he never disclosed the unit as required by law -- Hey, look over there, it's a bear in a scuba-suit!

Whoops! More Democrats involved, including Chris Dodd and Donna Shalala.

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

These aren't the droids you're looking for:

ANWR Exploration

House Republicans: 91% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

Although the media will of course refuse to report this, we can't get too depressed and imagine that's the end of the story. In big stories that attract lots of popular attention, the MSM's ability to play PR for the liberal Democrats becomes sharply limited.

Amnesty was the latest example of the MSM and Democrats realizing that simply lying consistently to America wouldn't work once America became sufficiently interested in a subject.

This will happen, I think. The outrage is there.

Make the fucking Democrats vote three times a week against expanding production.

Those fucking polls will shift quickly unless the Democrats do.

People are not going to put up with $5 and $6 gas when we have so much oil we could be producing ourselves, dropping the price down to (say) the blessed days of $3.25 a gallon.

People like caribou, but they don't like-like caribou.

Thanks to dri.

Some Phone Numbers: For those on the House subcommittee that just killed yet another drilling measure.

Call 'em up. Say hello.

Step One: I am 99% sure Congressmen have access to special subsidized Congressional gas. Either they have vouchers, or get generously reimbursed, or even have their own gas station, maybe available at a military PX.

I am 99% sure of this because Congressmen have access to a special subsidized everything.

End the subsidy there, and in fact add a $2.00 per gallon special surtax on Congressional gas. Sure, they'll just stop going there. Fine. Make them scout out the cheap private gas stations like the rest of us.

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.

A twenty-sided die made of Roman glass:

It sold for $18,000 at Christie's.

Several polyhedra in various materials with similar symbols are known from the Roman period. Modern scholarship has not yet established the game for which these dice were used.

The game was actually a sci-fi role-playing game set in the far future in which Roman gamers pretended to be mid-level workers in a modern industrial state called Cubicles & Computers. Sometimes "hardcore" players would dress up as such workers and make facsimilies of high-tech equipment in the game, such as "Blackberries" and "staplers."

The lucky bidder on this ancient die received a special warranty, the guarantee that he would die alone.

Via Hot Air's headines.

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Populist revolt.

How are Democrats reacting? By simply lying and claiming they're actually all in favor of domestic drilling. Despite, of course, all the votes they cast against it.

It's a real These Are Not the Droids You're Looking For tactic, and of course our weak-minded media will agree.

Gingrich talks up shale oil, meanwhile. And taking an action to punish speculators and make them wary of bidding up the price in the future -- releasing a large quantity of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Note, of course, he does not suggest drilling as one of the three ways to reduce the price of oil.

Norm Coleman, on the other hand, does.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.