Is the Constitution Dangerous?

The New York Times publishes a book review that asks the question.

The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?

One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document.

The content here is not going to surprise you; it turns out that the Constitution is uncomfortably difficult to amend (if you want to change things fundamentally, especially so). It tends to empower courts to resolve questions that the political branches find difficult (it doesn't, actually; that was a seizure of power during and following Marbury v. Madison). It has a lot of "compromises" that the NYT would like to track to slavery, especially the Electoral College, which is really not about slavery so much as the desire of the Founders not to concentrate power in the cities just as they sought the separation of powers elsewhere. (They were, after all, scholars of Greek and Roman history, and worried about exactly the transformations warned about by Aristotle and witnessed at the end of the Roman Republic.) 

The weirdness about these sorts of articles is how they don't seem to grasp that a very similar set of compromises would be necessary even if you were to renegotiate the terms today. You couldn't get the rural parts of America to give up the Electoral College, or the equal representation of states in the Senate (another regular bugaboo by those who resent that Wyoming gets equal representation with California or New York). You couldn't get them to give away the Second Amendment. If you sat down in a Convention of the States and asked the people to work out a deal they could agree to accept, it would look very similar to the deal that you have now. These so-called historical reviews just lament that compromise with the non-urbane and non-urban is a necessary feature of peace and stability. 

You could try to force the issue, just as the urban elites might have in 1787. Wise men and educated, though deeply divided on certain issues they elected to compromise rather than fight among themselves. 

Well, for a while.

You might think that such disputes would have been laid to rest by a bloody Civil War and the Reconstruction amendments, which outlawed slavery and granted all men the right to vote, regardless of race. Not to mention that the Constitution continued to change in the century after: Senators were to be directly elected; women were granted the right to vote.

You might well think so, since none of those items is in dispute. I would prefer to reverse the unmentioned 16th and the mentioned 17th Amendment, and the 18th we've already disposed of, but as far as I know there is no contest from anywhere to the 13th, 15th, or 19th. The 14th is argued about over its interpretation; very few ever suggest its repeal.

The clear tone of the article, though, is that the sweeping away by violent victory in the Civil War is the preferred mode; the continued compromises by courts interested in considering Originalism is as bad as having ever compromised at all. Victory and not peace is the desideratum. 

Sadly easy to find, the end of peace by those who seek violent victory over their opponents. Victory itself may prove to be more elusive. 

Do You Know Something I Don't Know?

It's a well-known fact that social media companies spy on you relentlessly. They use this information to pump ads in your direction that they believe are relevant to your life. I get lots of ads for motorcycle gloves and knives and camping equipment, but also some that are weirdly specific. 

For example, last week my doctor prescribed a new medicine for me she thought might be helpful, and noted out loud that it had a specific side effect she didn't think I'd find too bothersome. She prescribed the drug, and I ordered it from the Amazon pharmacy. By the time I got home, Facebook was offering up ads from numerous companies offering herbal remedies for the condition or else for the side effect.

Most likely Amazon sold me out as a customer; less likely, my iPhone is listening in and Apple is reporting it to Facebook. Somehow, however, they knew almost as soon as I did that I had a new hook for their advertisers.

I mention this because, in the last couple of days, I've received a similarly aggressive spur in ads for expunging my criminal records so that I can seek gainful employment again. Readers, I have never been arrested for anything nor charged with anything more serious than speeding or improper backing of a vehicle. Do you think they know something I don't know? 

The Ship-Knife

Many years ago, while I lived in China, a much younger version of me wrote but never published a novel about Vikings in the Byzantine Empire. This novel, The Ship-Knife, seemed appropriate to me to write at the time because I was like the Varangians present in an alien and ancient civilization, a foreigner enmired in strange architecture, food, culture, values. I was also writing my Master's (European history) thesis, and it was a pleasant break from the academic work while also being a way of exploring allied themes.

It involves among other things a retelling of the adventures of Harald Hardrada in Sicily, the original being in the Heimskringla by Snorri Sturluson. He was also the author of the Prose Edda, which was itself a retelling of older stories he had encountered and wanted to formalize. I had copies of both with me in China and was familiarizing myself with them at the same time.

I located a copy of the thing recently. Looking through it I realize how much I've changed in the ensuing 25 years. I don't know that I can even edit it now, or if it's worth bothering to edit. My thoughts as a younger man might not even be worth preserving (indeed, it predates even the oldest entries of Grim's Hall, which date to 2003 after the China expedition). 

If any of you would like to read it, and possibly help to edit it, please feel free to say so. I can't promise that it's great; it's probably not worse than most. It might at least be on a subject that interests some of you.

Evil Simpliciter Does Not Exist

Over at the Orthosphere, a propositional argument for the existence of God.

The syllogism is simple. Let P = God is ultimate; let Q = there is evil. Then:

1. ¬ P → ¬ Q
2. ¬ ¬ Q
3. ¬ ¬ P

In English:

1. If God is not ultimate, then there is no evil.
2. It is false that there is no evil.
3. It is false that God is not ultimate.

Clever, but wrong. It has been the position since St. Augustine that evil does not in fact exist because it cannot exist; and it cannot exist precisely because of God's ultimate status as creator of all, combined with God's goodness. Evil simpliciter would be a created thing that was not in any way good; but everything that follows from God must be good, because God is perfectly so (and in a way that is higher and better than things we encounter in the world are).

The orthodox position is that "evil is a privation," that is, a failure of the material to realize God's perfect design. Thus, all evil turns out to be is an imperfect realization of the good. Everything that exists must be good to some degree just because God created it.

[Even more emphatically in the later Aristotelian Christianity of Aquinas and his era, God's existence and his goodness are a mere prioritization of thought about the same quality. God's essence is existence: and as existence is the thing that all things desire, existence is just another name for the good (per Aristotle; because all things desire to continue to exist, to reproduce, to perfect their health and thus their existence, etc, 'the good' simpliciter is existence). Therefore, everything is good insofar as it has being; and evil thus cannot exist because it cannot have being, i.e. goodness.]

Then the syllogism doesn't work: 

1. ¬ P → ¬ Q
2. ¬ Q
3. ¬ P

That syllogism is a known fallacy, "Affirming the Consequent" or the "converse error." It doesn't prove anything because the form is invalid. For example, you could give the argument:

1. If she screams, someone pinched her.
2. She screamed.
3. Therefore, someone pinched her.

In fact it's obvious that there could have been several additional causes for the scream; she might have seen a dead body instead of being pinched.

Of course one can take the position that orthodoxy is wrong, and evil simpliciter does exist: that's the Manichaeist position, which in Christianity is traditionally considered a heresy. It doesn't work out logically to have two basic creative principles, as Avicenna explains: either one is really superior, or there must a third thing that holds them together and allows them to interact, in which case that thing is the ultimate creative principle (and you're back to one). Since this is the case, any syllogism that asserts that 'God is ultimate' but that evil simpliciter also exists as a countering force will prove to be illogical. 

One could further take the position that logic does not give you access to knowledge, but only preservation of knowledge, and that knowledge about God is ultimately ineffable at best (and thus inadmissible to logical forms). This is close to the Buddhist position, which might be true but won't be logical. At that point there's just no reason to even talk about syllogisms. 

Eyeball Numbers

We have fairly reliable Nielsen numbers, as that technology was invented in the golden age of America when television was the gold-standard of that golden age. It's had to adapt to changes since it was new, but it's had both time and resources to do so. So these figures are probably close:

The nearly 6 million viewers [of the Harris interview] is CNN’s best performance in the 9 p.m. ET hour since more than 9.5 million people tuned in for the June 27 debate between President Joe Biden and Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Internet numbers are wildly contested today, especially when the claim is made by a widely-detested figure like Elon Musk and the contest is coming from an outlet that is outright hostile to him. These figures are therefore not as reliable.

Later on in the interview, Trump appeared to be looking at the views on his post that shared the Space, which was at around 60 million views at the time. Post views on X function more like impressions, tracking each instance a post appears in front of a user, whether they actively clicked on it — or it just appeared on their feed as they scrolled.

The live audio Space itself between Trump and Musk peaked at around 1.4 million concurrent viewers.

Musk has leaned into Trump's inaccurate viewership references though.

"Combined views of the conversation with @realDonaldTrump and subsequent discussion by other accounts now ~1 billion," Musk said on X, calculating the total of all post views or impressions about the Space chat.

As of publishing time, the X Space between Trump and Musk has roughly 24 million views, which includes the live viewership numbers as well as replays. The post itself, however, claims 183 million views or impressions.

That's a pretty big delta, between a billion and 24 million. 

I notice, however, that even the lowest figure is four times the Nielsen figure. 

Does it matter? Who knows. The thing about the internet is people from everywhere could be watching it (making "a billion" more plausible than it would be if limited to the USA, while Nielsen numbers are localized to America). Most of those people don't vote; and anyway, just having an interest in what they have to say doesn't mean you're going to vote for them. I'd guess that most supporters of either candidate are planning to vote for them without regard to what they might say. 

Still, it's interesting to see how much more attention there is for the one candidate than the other.

A Soaking Rain

After two hot days, rain broke the heat and made it nice out. I decided to take an evening walk. Well, the rain came back and I was quite wet by the time I got back under shelter. 

That’s fine. In the late August, even a cooling soak is welcome. 

Chicken Killing Dog

Conan killed one of the chickens, for no apparent reason. Any of my grandparents, kind and gentle people though they were, would have shot him for that. Of course, they came up in the Great Depression when chicken-killing dogs were a life or death matter potentially. I didn't shoot him or hurt him at all, but it raises a dilemma about what ought to be done -- or how to teach him not to do it without harming him. 

My wife suggested the old folk trick of tying the dead bird around his neck and leaving it there until it rots, but that also seemed pretty horrible to me. 

What do you think should be done? Ultimately I would miss having the fresh eggs if he killed all the chickens, but it wouldn't hurt my family's prosperity much. On the other hand, I do think there's an issue about having a dog who kills for pleasure. Back on the first hand, though, my last dog killed cats whenever he could, and he was a great dog. I'm a little mystified about how to approach this problem, and would like your advice.

Heresy

Dad29, who is having a lot of trouble with the recent commenting problems from Google, would like to draw your attention to this article on Heresy.

The basic idea is that heresy is the removal of one of the planks of a systematic understanding of the world; Newtonian physics is an example. So too Euclidean geometry, which in fact we know is false. Well, and Newton's physics also. 

So on this model heresy isn't necessarily wrong or even a mistake; it could be a step forward towards a better system. Yet it isn't obviously so; it could just be a new error.

Selah, as they say.

They'd Do It Here Too

Black-clad agents from the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, Sebin, were seen smashing their way inside. They carried guns and a picture of the 19-year-old law student they had come to arrest. López was bundled into a vehicle as panicked relatives looked on. 

 “Neighbours came out to try and protect her but they pointed their weapons at them and took the girl,” said the witness, asking to remain anonymous for fear of suffering a similar fate.

Keep your rifle by your side. It's the only thing that keeps you free. Our politicians aren't any better than theirs.

High Stakes Gambling

FPC asks SCOTUS to explain whether there is or is not a 2A right to own an AR-15.

There is, according to the logic of all three major SCOTUS decisions on the subject. US v. Miller held that arms are protected insofar as they have a militia quality, and the AR-15 is the most suitable militia rifle due to its commonality in parts and ammunition with the military service rifle(s), as well as the ability of almost every Marine or Soldier to train citizens in its effective use. Heller holds that we have a right to common weapons used for legal purposes; the AR-15 is the most common of all rifles, and rifles account for only around 2% of gun crimes. Bruen holds that tradition matters, and the AR-15 has traditionally been lawful for citizens in most of the country.

It's high stakes, though. Thomas authored a concurring opinion holding that any ban of America's favorite rifle should draw Constitutional review; but he's the only one on the record.

An End to Night

I kind of like night, though. This project would let the rich decide if we get to have it.

“I had an interesting way to solve the real issue with solar power. It’s this unstoppable force,” Nowack said in the interview. “Everybody’s installing so many solar panels everywhere. It’s really a great candidate to power humanity. But sunlight turns off. It’s called nighttime. If you solve that fundamental problem, you fix solar everywhere.”

The company’s orbital mirror is set to launch in 2025, and you can “apply for sunlight” for the next few months. There’s “limited availability,” and already supposedly over 30,000 applications. It really just sounds like a one-time test, though: you only get four minutes for a diameter of 5km. No price is listed.

An Interesting Summary of Today's Division

Tom Klingenstein recently interviewed political philosopher* Glenn Ellmers about the state of the West today. In one of his responses, Ellmers gives what I think is a good summary of the current political division not only the in the US but in the West in general. I don't think there's much here that's new to the regulars here, but the clear summary of a division that is often put in more vague and ambiguous terms is worthwhile, I think.

There is a long and interesting story about how the Left got to this point, which can be traced to modern philosophy becoming more and more radical. Again, it is extremely useful, practically speaking, to study these matters. The point is that, apart from the apolitical or undecided people in the middle, we have two diametrically opposed factions in the United States today — whose differences are basically theological. One side still believes in traditional morality and the importance of the family, in the founder’s Constitution, and the idea that we are born into a world we didn’t create and can’t completely control. That is a world governed by the laws of nature and nature’s God, which means we are limited and guided by human nature, which is fixed. 

The woke Leftists reject all that in the name of complete individual freedom and total personal autonomy, without any limits imposed by God or nature or anything else. The role of the government, for them, is to facilitate the ability of everyone to meet their own subjective view of personal fulfillment. The whole architecture of racial grievances, group preferences, and white privilege is directed to removing the barriers imposed by racism, western colonialism, toxic masculinity, etc., which stand in the way of complete personal autonomy.

This deep, theological division is not confined to the United States. Look at the recent opening ceremony at the Paris Olympics. It included a mockery of the Last Supper, with drag queens and transvestites standing in for Jesus and the Apostles. And there was a rider “on a pale horse” — a clear celebration of death from the Book of Revelation. This had nothing to do with sports or athletics, so what was the point? Why do the Olympics have to become a celebration of radical sexual autonomy?

How you respond to this will depend on which basic view of the world you have. And this division — between the older morality and the new celebration of unbounded personal expression — can be seen all over the world. There is an emerging global elite, motivated by a radical ideology, that wants to eliminate the rule of the people in every nation. This is the great battle of our time. 

It's interesting that he sees it as a conflict between theologies. He doesn't explain what he means by that, and I wonder how he defines theology.

*Update: I tried to find an email address for Ellmer and discovered his PhD was in political science. I think I just inferred he was a philosopher from the topics he writes about.

Plato on Tyrants and the US Today

In a previous post we discussed how relevant Aristotle's Politics were today. In the following video on Plato's idea of the tyrant, I feel again that the professor is describing the US today to a striking degree.

The presenter is Daniel Bonevac, professor of philosophy at UT Austin.

Christmas

They saw the mighty angel of God coming toward them. He spoke to the guards face to face and told them they should not fear any harm from the light. "I am going to tell you," he said, "something very wonderful, something very deeply desired. I want to let you know something very powerful: Christ is now born, on this very night, God's holy child, the good Chieftain, at David's hill-fort. What happiness for the human race, a boon for all men! You can find Him, the most powerful Child, at Fort Bethlehem.

Beginning to Get It

Nice to see the light coming on. 

It Is Saturday

According to Military.com, the Navy has run out of pants.

Since we're here, Don McMillan seems like a comedian some of us can relate to.

Update: McMillan has a short skit on pi that's great.