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.

The Heliand

Occasionally in this space I have cited "Lean Times in Lankhmar" by Fritz Leiber, a delightful story of how two companion heroes fall away from each other in hard times. One of them joins a religion, a lightly-fictionalized early Christianity. Being himself a heroic barbarian skaldic poet, he begins to adapt the story a bit.

As delivered over and over by Fafhrd, the History of Issek of the Jug gradually altered, by small steps which even Bwadres could hardly cavil at had he wished, into something considerably more like the saga of a Northern hero, though toned down in some respects. Issek had not slain dragons and other monsters as a child—that would have been against his Creed—he had only sported with them, swimming with leviathan, frisking with behemoth, and flying through the trackless spaces of air on the backs of wivern, griffin and hippogryph. Nor had Issek as a man scattered kings and emperors in battle, he had merely dumbfounded them and their quaking ministers by striding about on fields of poisoned sword-points, standing at attention in fiery furnaces, and treading water in tanks of boiling oil—all the while delivering majestic sermons on brotherly love in perfect, intricately rhymed stanzas.

Leiber was well-educated enough to know that such a translation had actually been performed by an ancient Saxon poet, and this volume is the result: the Heliand. I came across a copy today at a used scholarly bookstore, much to my delight, and purchased it immediately. I fell in love with the opening lines:

Song 1

The Creator's spell, by which the whole world is held together, is taught to four heroes. 

There were many whose hearts told them that they should begin to tell the secret runes, the word of God, the famous feats that the powerful Christ accomplished in words and deeds among human beings. There were many of the wise who wanted to praise the teaching of Christ, the holy Word of God, and wanted to write a bright-shining book with their own hands, telling how the sons of men should carry out His commands. Among all these, however, there were only four who had the power of God, help from heaven, the Holy Spirit, the strength from Christ to do it. They were chosen. They alone were to write down the evangelium in a book, and to write down the commands of God, the holy heavenly word. No one else among the heroic sons of men was to attempt it[.]

I am really going to enjoy reading this book.

UPDATE: Within a page, there's a tremendous insight given in a footnote. The four heroes -- Luke, Mark, Matthew and John -- have the Holy Spirit implanted in their hearts so they can "chant God's spell." The footnote to this reads, "godspell, God's speech, gospel," and notes that in the Anglo-Saxon this is naturally either "God's word" or "good speech" or "a good spell" or "God's spell." In the thought and the language of the heroic era of the poem, these concepts blend together naturally. 

UPDATE: This is so good. "In Jerusalem, Herod was chosen to be king over the Jewish people. Caesar, ruling the empire from the hill-fort Rome, placed him there -- among the warrior-companions -- even though Herod did not belong by clan to the noble and well-born descendants of Israel. He did not come from their kinsmen."

A White Stout

In spite of the light color, this is a stout. It’s the Whiteout Breakfast Stout Ale, with strong coffee flavors as well as maple and bacon. Delicious.

Kind of a dog-friendly place. 

Decolonizing: What Does it Mean?

A pair of articles consider the issue, via the always-valuable Arts & Letters Daily.

For those of you who liked Tom's videos the other day, they also have an article on Chaucer.

An Amusing Moment

Hot Air covers the withdrawal of RFK from swing states and his endorsement of Trump over the Democrats:

Kennedy accused American media outlets of colluding with both the DNC and government agencies on censorship. It's a "naked exercise of executive power" against its political opponents, and told reporters in the room that they and their employers are responsible for the decline of American democracy as a result. 

"Governments don't censor lies," Kennedy observed. "They don't fear lies. They censor the truth."...

Fun fact: almost all of the US media outlets cut their live coverage after he accused them of participating in government censorship. 

UPDATE: A transcript of his speech.  Sadly, some these words are important and momentous rather than the wild ravings they would have appeared even a few years ago.

President Biden mocked Vladimir Putin's 88% landslide in the Russian elections, observing that Putin and his party controlled the Russian press and that Putin prevented serious opponents from appearing on the ballot.

But here in America, the DNC also prevented opponents from appearing on the ballot, and our television networks exposed themselves as Democratic Party organs. Over the course of more than a year in a campaign where my poll numbers reached at times in the high twenties, the DNC-allied mainstream media networks maintained a near-perfect embargo on interviews with me.

During his 10-month presidential campaign in 1992, Ross Perot gave 34 interviews on mainstream networks. In contrast, during the 16 months since I declared, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN combined gave only two live interviews from me.

Those networks instead ran a continuous deluge of hit pieces with inaccurate, often vile pejoratives and defamatory smears. Some of those same networks then colluded with the DNC to keep me off the debate stage....

This week, a federal judge, Terry Doughty, upheld my injunction against President Biden, calling the White House's censorship project, quote, "The most egregious violation of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America."

Doughty’s previous 155-page decision details how just 37 hours after he took the oath of office, swearing to uphold the Constitution, President Biden and his White House opened up a portal and invited the CIA, the FBI, CISA—which is a censorship agency, it's the center of the censorship-industrial complex—DHS, the IRS, and other agencies to censor me and other political dissidents on social media.

Even today, users who try to post my campaign videos to Facebook or YouTube get messages that this content violates community standards. Two days after Judge Doughty rendered his decision this week, Facebook was still attaching warning labels to an online petition calling on ABC to include me in the upcoming debate.

If I fle out tomorowe

Fre Bird -- The first version I've ever actually liked.

Since we're here ...

Crest of the Pisgah Ridge

 

Unrealized Gains

Another item of economic instability under discussion is a tax on 'unrealized capital gains,' which is apparently in the Biden budgetary proposals that have been more or less uncritically adopted by the Harris campaign. 

It reminds me of the story about a poor student tenet in Paris who was sued by a nearby restaurant's chef because he had been subsisting on his poor food more comfortably because of the incredible smells from the restaurant, for which he had provided no compensation. The judge is supposed to have agreed that the chef deserved compensation, and had the student shake the coins in his pocket. "You have been paid for the smell of your food," he said to the chef, "with the sound of his money." 

That's the only way something like this could work. Markets go up and down. If my house is worth a lot more now than when I bought it, nevertheless I sunk money into it six years ago and have gotten no money out of it. I couldn't pay you for its appreciation, but even if I somehow managed to send the IRS a sufficient check to cover it, the market could crash next year. So now I've paid taxes on money I not only never received, but in fact will never receive. I should be able to pay these taxes with the sound of my money, since there's no actual money involved.

As the guy at the link points out, nobody seems to be trying to defend the idea; the ones on their side just laugh and say it'll never happen, so don't worry about it. This also reminds me of a joke, of sorts: the law of merited impossibility. "That'll never happen, and you'll deserve it when it does." 

Nicole Shanahan and Political Sabotage

This is part of a Twitter interview with RFK Jr's vice-presidential running mate Nicole Shanahan. Her description of the different ways the Democratic Party sabotaged their campaign is rather shocking, at least to me.

https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1825966620482683084

Elitist Philosophy

Here is a study of to what degree belonging to a wealthy family correlates with your likelihood of being cited in key academic journals. This is studied in two ways: whether you come from a family that has risen in wealth over recent generations or not ("intergenerational persistence"), and whether you were able to rise to the same rank within the profession as your mentor professor ("rank-rank correlation"). Those who went to Ivy League schools are much more likely, for example, to attain full professorships than those who went to state schools. In some fields, if you didn't go to one of the top schools (and thus probably come from a wealthier background) you really have little chance of ever obtaining tenure.

Unsurprisingly, it depends on your field, with harder sciences tending to cite papers from academics or give them good jobs regardless of whether they are also from the rich. 

There are some surprising lessons, though.

Philosophy is far and away the worst on both measures. If your terminal degree didn't come from one of those top schools, you probably will never have tenure; there's too much competition from those who did, and too few jobs in the field to exhaust the supply of Ivy Leaguers who want to teach. Likewise, the major philosophers as measured by citation form a sort of club, one that is sensitive to social class. 

Note that mathematics is not too far away. To some degree, this may reflect that the wealthy are more likely to choose a pure knowledge field rather than one that will improve their station in life -- mathematics you'd think would be a field like microbiology where hard, demonstrable results mattered most. But maybe you don't usually study pure math (or philosophy) if your family is struggling. You'd go into engineering of some sort if you were good at math and needed social mobility. 

I'm also surprised to see that Experimental Psychology falls where it does. I'm guessing that's a product of the replication crisis that is often tied to that field in particular: the ease of relative nobodies to get cited if they at least studied under somebody known suggests that the field is open to new ideas and ready to publish them. Since this study covers 2000-2013, when the crisis was in full effect, being positioned on that side of the graph may not always be an unalloyed good even if it's also a measure of relative equality of opportunity.

Heron on the Tuck

A Great Blue Heron joined us for tonight’s walk by the Tuckasegee River. 

They’re frequently seen on the Tuck. 

Undermining the Ground of Rebellion

This morning I was watching a short part of this video from a rally involving bikers in favor of Trump. Just below four minutes in, this guy plugs his new song: "It's about faith, family, and freedom."

Now that surprised me because I know that guy and his band from way back in 2003 when they were new. The band is called the Moonshine Bandits, and their first album is the only one I have ever  heard, because the fusion of hip-hop and country -- new back then and novel -- didn't prove to be interesting enough to me to continue with over time. That debut album was not about "faith" or "family," although it was about freedom in the sense of rebellion. Here's the new song if you want to hear it. Apparently the pressure against faith, freedom, and family has come to alarm the rebels and called them back to a defense of the flag.

The case isn't unique, though. I remember that a couple of years ago Sonny Barger of the Hells Angels had died at age 83. "Barger is less well known for his more recent life, but if you followed him more recently you'd have found that in his older years he became a devout Christian and helped to publish a series of charming children's books." Faith and family, again, as well as freedom.

I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that this mode of rebellion is ironically grounded in the culture against which it rebels. To be a Hells Angel is to be rooted in a universe that has both Hell and angels. Trying to sweep away their metaphysical world -- to imagine there's no heaven -- undermines even the rebel's view: indeed, it suggests that mode of rebellion is perhaps a safety valve of the culture, a way of making a home within itself for its outlaws, rather than an attempt to supplant or replace it. 

Or possibly it is the dynamic at play in Sir Walter Scott's "Harold the Dauntless," which has this most excellent opening passage: 

List to the valorous deeds that were done

By Harold the Dauntless, Count Witikind's son!

Count Witikind came of a regal strain,

And roved with his Norsemen the land and the main.

Woe to the realms which he coasted! for there

Was shedding of blood and rending of hair,

Rape of maiden and slaughter of priest,

Gathering of ravens and wolves to the feast:

When he hoisted his standard black,

Before him was battle, behind him wrack,

And he burned the churches, that heathen Dane,

To light his band to their barks again.

The poem's story is that Witikind grows old and converts from the heathen path to the Christian one, causing his son to disown him as cowardly; but then, over the course of six cantos, Harold in turn becomes mature enough to see the wisdom of it. What seemed right to Sonny Barger in 1969 and the Moonshine bandits in 2003 may have faded with age, and the spiritual promises seem brighter as the physical eye dims.

Or, perhaps, it is not that: even in 1980 when they were assembling a documentary involving a lawyer for the Angels, he and his lawyerly companions noted their conservative ethics. 

There was Hells Angels Forever on YouTube, and at 29 minutes in, there was my father.

He is seated with Herman Graber at a conference table in their office: soft, heavy men in wide ties and long sideburns. Herman explains to the camera not to be fooled by the swastikas and Nazi regalia, that the Angels are patriots, enthusiastic supporters of the Vietnam War, what you might in fact call right-wingers. He pauses, blinks, concerned that he might have gone too far. “But not fascists, no, I’m not saying they’re fascists.”

My father cuts in. “Perhaps best suited to the most conservative wing of the Republican party — the Goldwater wing.”

It is and always has been an interesting dynamic. I noticed it too growing up in the South in the '70s and early '80s, when the most ardent Confederate flag displayers and Outlaw Country listeners were also firm patriots who loved Ronald Reagan. Charlie Daniels went from long hair to distrusting Gorbachev in a few years' time. 

RFK

I don't listen to podcasts, but I did read in the paper that Joe Rogan got into some trouble with Trump over positive comments about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 

What he actually said was this:

“That’s politics. They do it on the left. They do it on the right. They gaslight you, they manipulate you. They promote narratives,” Rogan said on the podcast.

“The only one who’s not doing that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I am a fan [of RFK Jr]. He’s the only one that makes sense to me. He doesn’t attack people. He attacks actions and ideas. He’s much more reasonable and intelligent.”

That's very similar to my own thoughts on RFK. I've listened to him talk about several problems he thinks we need to address, and what I notice is that about half the time he is thoughtful, intelligent, and sincerely trying to solve the problem. (Sadly the other half of the time it's brain worms and dead bear cubs, but he's a Kennedy.)

It's also clear that he is enamored of his father's America, and his father's Democratic Party, which is doubtless why the current Democratic leadership had such a convulsive allergic reaction to him. They cannot praise JFK, hardly more than they can praise Jefferson or Jackson, because of his 'imperialism' and certainty that the American nation was a positive influence on the world, and capable of internal reform even in matters of race if only we would appeal to its inherent decency. RFK is a genuine patriot of the old America, and that's not welcome right now among Democrats.

RFK now says he's thinking of dropping out and endorsing Trump to prevent a Harris presidency -- perhaps due to the communism that JFK was himself so committed to opposing -- and Trump has signaled that he'd be open to brining RFK into his administration. (Also Elon Musk.)

I don't know if a restoration of mid-century solutions and ideas about what America is like and how it should proceed can actually improve things at this point. America was already committed to the managerial/administrative state by Kennedy's time, and dismantling all that should be the chief business of any attempt at reforming the United States. 

Still, it is nice to hear someone talk through problems, identify causal factors, and then propose solutions that might actually work. It certainly couldn't hurt to have someone like that around to talk things through with while trying to figure out the way. (Ditto for Musk.)

The Principle of Reproductive Freedom

In the comments to yesterday's post, I mentioned the reframing of the abortion debate with the term "reproductive freedom." It's distinct from both pro-life and pro-choice because it eliminates any mention of the child.

Abortion for Harris/Walz doesn't consider the existence of the child at all. They frame it as purely an issue of reproductive freedom, one into which the child and the child's life does not rightly come as any sort of consideration. It's a more unrestricted liberty for them than the first amendment's, which Walz says doesn't apply to people who are spreading 'hate speech or misinformation,' certainly more than the second's, and based on Ms. Harris' prosecutorial days, more than the fourth, fifth, sixth, or eighth. It's the only genuinely unrestricted Constitutional liberty in their opinion; I notice it's also the one the Constitution doesn't protect or mention at all.

Today Reason makes note of the striking contrast between a party which is espousing a pro-family agenda, and one that is featuring vasectomy and abortion vans outside its convention hall. (The schedules for those vans filled up well before the convention began, too.) 

Yet the principle of reproductive freedom doesn't have any enemies. The most devout Catholic agrees that no one should be forced into pregnancy; the Church opposes rape and teaches how to track ovulation cycles as a way of achieving that freedom.* This method may not be foolproof, but it is aligned with the principle that it's perfectly fine to want to be in control of one's reproduction or lack thereof. There is no group in America that opposes the principle being advocated.

What does concern some people is that business about the life of the child. That there is a living human being who is killed by an abortion is incontestably true as a matter of fact. That this killing is morally significant and shouldn't be excluded from the discussion of  how to exercise this right of reproductive freedom is apparently controversial; but it's surely a reasonable position that killing a living human being is morally significant, and therefore deserves consideration in constructing any relevant ethical position.

We are a long way from the 1990s, when abortion advocates appended a desire that abortion be rare to their desire that it should be safe and legal. We are at the point at which the debate threatens to slide past a recognition that there is any issue at all about the necessary killing here, pitting a principle that everyone accepts against... well, nothing. On this formulation there is really nothing to oppose the right, because even the strongest pro-life advocate doesn't reject the principle being asserted; they were only concerned about the life. If the life is no longer a consideration, there's really nothing to discuss. 

* The Church also teaches men reproductive freedom via chastity until marriage, which is in fact the most effective way for men to assert it. The principle of reproductive freedom doesn't extend to men on the left, as they have no parallel capacity to engender a child and then reject it in the way that abortion allows.

A Message from Harley-Davidson

So far most of the comments turn on the need to fire their CEO, who is outspoken about the usual leftist agenda among international corporations (he is, as I recall, German rather than American, itself a strange choice for such an iconic American company). There’s also an issue about shipping jobs overseas that needs addressing. 

Still, a start. 

Lunatic

That is what one of the NYT's top opinion authors is telling their readers about the new plan for price controls. Bret Stephens, in a conversation with Gail Collins:

The best thing that can be said about her promise to go after price “gouging” is that she knows it has no hope of passing and that she understands that every serious economist on the planet will warn her that the consequences of price controls would be shortages, hoarding and, soon enough, black markets. In fact, my only hope for Harris is that her agenda is for campaign purposes only and that she’ll become a normal Democrat once in office....

I just think that a vote needs to be earned, and so far Harris — unlike Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden — has done absolutely nothing to earn mine. She hasn’t won a primary. She hasn’t had a major legislative achievement of her own. She hasn’t had a distinguished vice presidency. Instead of moving to the center with her veep pick, she moved further to the left with Tim Walz. Her signature economic proposal isn’t liberal; it’s lunatic. 

Emphasis added. 

Long-time blogger Vodkapundit thinks the point of the proposal isn't to win with it, but to introduce the idea of a socialist takeover of the economy so that it won't seem so wild and strange later. That's possible, but the Times is not doing much to pad the idea here -- and as we saw last week, the other big establishment newspaper is heatedly against it.

The DNC is this week. We'll see how that goes.

"The Pro-Life Case for Kamala"

David French, performing the pro-Sauron maneuver.

Coyotes and Cowboys

McCoy

Most people have heard of Tom Mix, the cowboy movie star of the generation before John Wayne. You might not have heard of Tim McCoy, who did really cowboy in Wyoming before he was a star. He fled Jesuit school and hopped a train west, not knowing where he was going. 

It’s a great story. He cowboyed for eight years, including for the “Outlaw Train” that was reputed to steal and brand strays; met some of the remaining legends from the real Old West, including of the Hole in the Wall Gang; recruited cavalry for Teddy Roosevelt; and finally became a movie star. 

Almonds are much Bigger than you Expect

These things are the size of peaches, to which they are closely related. My wife and son planted some raw almonds and now we have a tree. 

The apples are doing well this year too. Not just ours; the other night at the concert I picked an apple off a nearby feral tree for my wife. She said it was delicious. 

Riding the Rain

Last night my wife and I rode over to a mountain town and heard a local band singing the old songs, then we rode back on the very edge of a severe thunderstorm. We made it home so close to the edge that while my wife got into the garage dry, I was soaked because I parked less than a minute after her. 

Tonight we just got caught in it. 

Sometimes you get rainbows out of these thunderstorms near dusk. That one last night was a visible double. 

The Conservative Case for Sauron

Conservative political thought can have limits, as when Aragon offered a revolutionary return of the king. It also seems to draw pretenders. 

We are the children of Numenor... but who truly brings us back to Numenor and its values? Is it the directionless Stewards? The absent kings? Or will it be the One who served directly under Ar-Pharazôn himself in Numenor’s Golden Age? Character matters: record matters too, and Sauron has one.

 One of each, as a matter of fact. 

On Temptation

I believe most of you regularly read AVI's page, but I would like to direct your attention to this post in particular. 

Progress!

We do now have a couple of economic proposals from the Harris campaign. The Washington Post was so upset about one of them that it attacked it in an editorial before she even gave the speech announcing it.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat....

If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls. 

Transparency and public criticism. That's nice to see in the papers for a change.

The other one is a help-first-time-housebuyers-with-free-money scheme, which is drawing a lesser degree of fire but still reminds people of the global financial crisis of 2007-8 that was fueled by the collapse of subprime mortgage securities. That likewise began with a government push to make the market work with people who really couldn't afford what they were buying.

They also included price controls, of course: 

The rent caps are the “ugly” part of Harris’ plan, said Lanhee Chen, director of domestic policy studies at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University and a past CNN opinion contributor who worked on campaigns for Republicans, including Utah Senator Mitt Romney.

“What is effectively a federal rent-control measure … was a bad idea when President Biden proposed it a few weeks ago,” said Chen. 

The pretty part? Repurposing public lands for housing. I wonder how well 'developing the national parks into cheap housing tracts' will poll? 

UPDATE: The W. Post follows up its pre-speech editorial by a single author with a full-fledged editorial from its entire board condemning the Kamala plan as unserious "gimmicks." 

More Scottish Geology

Around the time of "Snowball Earth," what is now Scotland was near the equator. As such, an outcropping of rocks from the Inner Hebrides may have the best surviving geological record of that period, after which animal life emerged.

Clues hidden in rocks about the freeze have been wiped out everywhere - except in the Garvellachs. Researchers hope the islands will tell us why Earth went into such an extreme icy state for so long and why it was necessary for complex life to emerge.

The relevant island is uninhabited except for researchers. 

Range War

Let's say your ancestors put up a fence 75 years ago, and your neighbors never said anything about it in all that time. So you put up a 'No hunting/trespassing' sign on the fence, some hunter comes by and sees it, and complains about it because he has permission to hunt on your neighbor's land and he thinks your fence is in the wrong place. You and your neighbor get together and agree to survey the land and determine where the boundary really is, and move the fence if necessary.

Then your neighbor sends an armed man to threaten you with ten years in prison.

A South Dakota ranch couple is fighting federal indictments served to them by a U.S. Forest Service agent who allegedly showed up unannounced on their front steps — armed and in tactical gear. The agent was there to serve them with indictments in a modern-day range war between the ranchers and feds.

“It’s is stressful, financially and mentally. It’s something nobody should have to go through,” rancher Charles Maude of Caputa, South Dakota, told Cowboy State Daily on Tuesday.

He and his wife Heather, who is a Wyoming native, were served with separate federal grand jury indictments June 24, for alleged theft of government property. The government claims the fence put up by the ranchers is over a boundary with federal grasslands.

The charges carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

If it sounded to you like they had a good-faith agreement that shouldn't be occasion for indictments, it sounds that way too to some retired rangers the paper interviewed about it. 

[T]he situation in South Dakota might have been one in which the old standard of a “common sense, reasonable interaction” would have been more effective — and not left the Forest Service looking bad, he said.

Brauneis said that in the wake of what happened in South Dakota, and similar incidents eroding the Forest Service’s relationship with the public, some soul-searching might be in order for the agency.

To illustrate how things used to work, he recalled an incident from his career... “I drove out to talk to the land owner who was an elderly lady. She invited me in and we had coffee. I explained what happened and she understood,” he said.

“We concluded that if we burned the slash on her property along with ours and planted trees the same as on forest that we were all good to go,” Brauneis said. “We shook hands and I left. Old-school community in a Christian culture.”

Another ranger they spoke to wasn't surprised, and said he would have expected the agency to send armored vehicles and a dozen agents to deliver the indictments. The culture of the agency has changed, he said.

Admission of Limits

There's only so much a man can do.

Orcadian Stonehenge

A fingerprint of the Altar stone proves that it came from Scotland, not Wales as long thought. 

Viking Age Costs

A new interpretation of a Viking Age runic inscription tells us some things about costs and fines.

The new interpretation shows that the Vikings had a system where both oxen and silver served as units of payment. This system allowed for multiple types of units of accounts to be used concurrently, reducing transaction complexity and making it easier for people to meet their financial obligations. The new interpretation also aligns better with how the system functioned later according to later regional laws and is, according to Rodney Edvinsson, significant for our understanding of both Scandinavian and European monetary history.

"As an economic historian, I particularly look for historical data to be economically logical, that is, to fit into other contemporary or historical economic systems. The valuation of an ox at two ore, or 50 grams of silver, in 10th-century Sweden resembles contemporary valuations in other parts of Europe, indicating a high degree of integration and exchange between different economies," says Rodney Edvinsson.

A human thrall was six times as expensive, if you're keeping score at home. 

Jealous

I’m not myself; I have complete faith in my wife of 25 years. Some are though. 

Faker Fake News

The news headlines you see may be written by political campaign operatives rather than editors. 

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign team has been quietly editing news headlines in Google search ads to make it seem like major news outlets are on her side, according to a report.

The altered headlines — appearing on Google ads and paired with a “Paid for by Harris for President” banner — were changed without the news outlets’ knowledge, Axios reported Tuesday.

Nearly a dozen publishers were swept up in the faux headline campaign, including major companies like the Guardian, Reuters, CBS News, the Associated Press and PBS.

This is an amazing scandal because the news is already so deeply on her side that there's no need for it. Let's do a quick review of Google News' headline aggregator. There are five stories about Trump, all of them negative, highlighting his weaknesses and losses; one of them compares his appeal to Harris', casting his as "old" and "White," while painting her vibrantly as youthful and energetic.

There are four stories about Harris, all of them either positive or actively defensive of her where she needs help. Two of them are 'fact checks' by the press intended to correct storylines they think are hurting her; one of them uncritically quotes her aides to defend her lack of specifics on her economic/climate plans. 

All of the major papers seem to be reporting on polls that show Harris tied or ahead; I dug into the crosstabs of the NYT poll that found her four points ahead and found that it assumed a +3 Democratic advantage was natural in those states, and the margin of error was +/-5.1. The assumption that Democratic turnout will beat Republican turnout by three points is doing almost all the work, in other words; and even then it's within the margin of error. But it turns it into a 'She's got momentum!' headline, so it's everywhere.

Yet in spite of this atmosphere of complete support and devotion, her campaign isn't satisfied until they actually get to rewrite media headlines to be even more in her favor. That seems like a lack of confidence to me, perhaps a sense that there's really nothing holding up the magic carpet they're floating upon.

An Edgy Joke

I heard an Australian comedian tell the following joke, and actually laughed out loud at the punchline. It's the sort of humor that's right on the edge of what we allow these days; I suspect many of the folks who object to humor that touches on protected racial/ethnic/sexual minorities would want you not to tell it. For that reason, I'll put it after the jump, so you only have to read the joke if you want to do so. Then I'm going to talk about why I think it's a good joke, and a joke that's reasonable to tell even in this environment.

Blogger Comments

Google is being a real pain. I can’t comment myself half the time. It really hates VPNs right now; if I turn mine off long enough to post the comments they usually work.

It also seems to hate Windows. My iPhone seems to work better. 

I checked for comments wrongly and automatically marked spam yesterday and didn’t find any new ones. 

Aristotle, Tyranny & Today Part I

Tom expressed several of Aristotle's political points on tyranny in the comments to a recent post. Thoughtful people on both sides of the political aisle are thinking about Aristotle's account of tyranny; the above video was posted on Facebook by a left-leaning retired academic I know, and generated a discussion of how well Trump fits the model Aristotle described. 

Imperfectly, actually, but there are some qualities that do apply. For example, Aristotle says that tyrants use 'the meanest group of people as leaders' to avoid challenges from within, and Trump historically has empowered some pretty low-class people like his former lawyer (the one who later confessed to perjury, but on whose sole testimony was Trump convicted of all those 'felonies'). He's also accepted leaders from within the group of his enemies, though, which was probably his single biggest mistake from his first term.

Perhaps he's learning on that score? Vance is a fairly strong choice with a genuine intellectual center (a point unrecognized by these left-leaning academics, for whom his intellectual influences are déclassé, a quality they confuse with stupidity). On the other hand, Trump outright rejected Heritage Foundation Project 2025's collection of cleared people who could work for his administration and had the right values and temperament. That could mean that he is rejecting qualified people in preference to ones he can control; or it could suggest he does not trust anyone in DC, even on the right. It will have to be seen if he is better on personnel choices than previously.

What is likely obvious to readers of this blog is how well Aristotle's account fits the establishment -- except that the establishment is definitely not a tyranny on Aristotle's terms, because there isn't a single ruler. It is an oligarchy, where even the President is now a figurehead (and that will certainly remain true if Ms. Harris should succeed to the office, as she has no accomplishments of her own: she will also be a puppet). Rule is being exercised extra-constitutionally by a group of people who were never elected to the relevant office. 

I am going to put further reading, from the left side of the conversation, after the jump. In a second post I will later do an analysis of both positions and try to summarize where I think they are right and wrong.

The Outlaw Saloon

This is a charming review of Dubois, Wyoming's best dive bar, as well as the other bar. I've been to the Outlaw Saloon and it is described much as I remember it. I liked the place. I never went in the other one. 

In just about a month I'll be back out West to visit my mother and sister, if any of you will be in the Wyoming/Idaho border region. Thos., I remember that you live out there. I'll be around for a couple of weeks. 

Killing Your Dogs

Police interacting with American citizens often kill their dogs as a precautionary practice -- indeed, not just 'often,' but at least 10,000 times a year and possibly into "six figures." DOJ itself admits the matter is now "epidemic."

While officers in this country kill far more people than any other highly developed democracy and are shielded by powerful police unions, dog shootings still receive extensive national attention. “Given that there’s no shortage of actual human beings getting shot by police officers, pointing these stories out can sometimes seem a bit callous,” says Radley Balko, a journalist who has done much to expose cops killing dogs. “But I think they’re worth noting."

A database project that hoped to document and give better statistics on this had to shut down its collection efforts because there were too many submissions. 

It shouldn't be a problem for you, since none of you should come into conflict with the law. Well, at least that's how things used to be. 

The Real Enemy is not Islam

This piece at PJ Media on the problems associated with radical Islam -- murders of children, sometimes on a grand scale, among those problems -- would like to make the case that we should all be much more concerned about it. Yet the thing we should really be concerned about is mentioned later in the piece: it is that our own governments are increasingly turning their force against the citizenry.

Indeed, the “Regime” believes that ordinary white citizens and working-class people are the problem—not jihadists, Pakistani groomers, rampaging Muslim mobs, “undocumented” refugees, Palestinian demonstrators, or foreign criminal gangs. Heritage citizens are, apparently, the greatest threat to the status quo, purveyors of “disinformation,” by which the social and political elite mean what Steve Sailer in an important book has called “Noticing”—that is, seeing what is happening around one and to the culture by using common sense and honest observation. 

Thus, to say what you have noticed—and suffered—is to be guilty of disinformation, racism, bigotry or hate speech. To look the reality of immigrant and refugee violence in the face, to confront visibly corrupt two-tier policing, media duplicity, and Regime hypocrisy, and to describe it accurately is to be tarred by the state as a far-right extremist, a hooligan, a fascist or a white supremacist. 

The British government has decided to release a lot of violent criminals from prison in order to free up prison spaces for ordinary people of this sort. Five hundred prison spaces are more of a threat than a real capacity to beat the issue: if the people rise up in their millions, that won't be a drop in the bucket. So, the government is cracking down on disapproved speech, even just a remark on Facebook or X, and they aren't alone. They are afraid of their own people far more than anything else. 

We all remember the way the Canadian trucker convoy was targeted in Canada -- in a manner later found unconstitutional by its courts -- to the tune of freezing the accounts of people who donated, even though the cause to which they donated was not a terrorists group but a 501(c)3 charity lawfully formed under Canadian laws. They arrested and put into solitary confinement a preacher who gave an inspiring benediction to that convoy -- hardly an act of violence. They did this because they realized that the ordinary people involved in the trucker movement could shut down Canada's economy if they chose, and they feared their own ordinary citizens more than they do anything else. 

Nor is our own government immune. This piece at Hot Air helpfully summarizes several of the recent affronts that have come to light, including the VP nominee declaring that there is "no right to free speech" if the speech is deemed hateful or misinformation by the government; placing Tulsi Gabbard, who served her country faithfully when called up by the National Guard (not to put too fine a point on it), under a terrorist air watch that has her followed by armed men onto airplanes; the security state burying any discussion of its failures (we hope they were failures!) leading to Trump's almost-assassination; a swing state announcing that it won't be prepared to count votes on election day, and that its expected changing vote totals "are not evidence" of cheating; and many more. Our media has taken to declaring that there 'is no evidence' on many controversial issues, rather than exploring the evidence for different propositions in order to help readers get to a good judgment. It has accepted a duty to oppose with hostility one side on this election, while doing everything it can to support the establishment side. 

What's with all this 'fortification'? It suggests that our establishment is likewise motivated by a fear, not of criminals or terrorists or invasions across the border, and certainly not of Islam, but of ordinary Americans. What sins are they trying to hide from our eyes that justifies such fear? What do they tremble to think we will learn if the levers of control pass out of their hands? 

Bee nails it as usual

I still can't embed images, but the caption is "Tim Walz backs out of VP nomination after learning VPs sometimes have to deploy to dangerous places overseas."

This Would Be Really Embarrassing if His Defenders Understood the Culture

One of the old milblog crew came up with this. This is a challenge coin made up by our Mr. Walz with a Command Sergeant Major insignia on it. 

His former battalion commander put out a statement affirming that "he did not earn the rank or successfully complete any assignment as an E-9. It is an affront to the Noncommissioned Officers Corps that he continues to glom onto the rank." He does express satisfaction with his performance at lower ranks, so it's not like he's 'denigrating military service' per se. Just this one little aspect of evading an assignment and yet pretending to the rank he didn't earn because of that evasion.

But remember, these claims are made "without evidence," a term of art meaning that there is clear evidence but we're all supposed to pretend otherwise. It's very important that we all make-believe very hard in cases of these claims made "without evidence." 

Brotherhood of Bikers

My wife's rear brake blew up near Waynesville today. I had just inspected it when I replaced her rear tire a couple of weeks ago and didn't see any metal fatigue, but obviously I missed something. Nobody was hurt, but she found herself with the brake locked and the axle locked by the parts of the exploded brake right in the middle of an intersection off US 276.

Her bike isn't that heavy, so I picked it up and moved it out of the road. Then my son and I worked at it with the tools we had in the tool bags until we managed to free the brake and axle so it could roll again. As befits the brotherhood of bikers, we had several people stop and offer additional tools. 

In addition, a guy driving a Budget rental truck asked if he couldn't just fit the thing into the back of his truck and take it to the nearest shop. Well, of course we would be very happy if you would do that! So we wheeled it up the ramp and tied it down, and he transported it to the cycle shop maybe twelve miles off where we left it. 

Possibly it'll get stolen before they open on Tuesday, but if so it's insured. I locked the forks and hid the key where nobody is likely to look, and left a message on the shop's answering machine so they'll know what's going on when they open Tuesday morning. Then we rode home with my wife in the passenger saddle, the way we used to before she decided she preferred to ride her own machine.

His what?

Walz's "manliness" is vewy scawy for Wepublicans. If a voter "doesn’t need traditional gender and racial hierarchies to validate his life choices, then what does he need Donald Trump and JD Vance for?"

That’s a terrifying question for a Republican ticket that offers little beyond resentment, rage and a promise to restrict the freedom and democratic power of its opponents. It explains why Vance immediately began smearing Walz’s military record, claiming — without evidence, of course — that Walz had “abandoned” his unit when he ran for Congress before the unit was deployed to Iraq.

I wish I could be more sure that voters will ever get a chance to hear the stolen-valor case about Walz, not to mention his positions on communism, COVID snitch lines, the benefits to schoolchildren of closing schools, genital mutilation of minors, full-term abortion, denial of care to babies who survive abortion, abandoning police stations to rioters who have their hearts in the right place and need space to vent, and raising taxes after quickly blowing through a large state budget surplus. Instead, Walz is a manly Mister Rogers! As the Bee said, Workers of the world, let's get together sometime for a potluck!

Without evidence, of course. In any case, the evidence might violate community standards. Which is lucky for Walz, because he's enjoyed full political cover for years from a compliant Minnesota press, so he's feared nothing from exposure, and most of these positions are extremely well preserved in print and on camera. Not that that will matter much if a now-compliant national press simply memory-holes them and concentrates on his Presbyterian green bean casserole recipe.

I've been reflecting on this. I'm fairly certain I don't need traditional gender and racial hierarchies to validate my life choices. Trump's family life isn't much like mine, but I'm still voting for him for the third time.

Lying

Remarkable interview:

J.D. Vance: I think it's a problem for Walz to have lied about having gone to war.

Dana Bash: They've corrected that.

J.D. Vance: They've corrected it by admitting that he lied.

Dana Bash: Let's move on.

And it's not as though he lied about it once. He's been dining out on stolen valor for a long time.

Magic

Arthur C. Clarke's Three Laws: The laws are:

(1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

(2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

(3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Apropos of Law 3, SpaceX’s new Raptor-3 methane-fueled engine is so advanced the CEO of ULA doesn’t understand it.

Our SpaceLink internet service continues to give us fantastic speed and zero problems, as well, while the Spectrum cable connection drives my neighbors up the wall. Long live Elon Musk, who has done more than anyone else I can think of lately to preserve free speech on Earth.

In Fairness, However...

She's just right about this. This point is completely correct.

Her classism is showing, because she’s talking in terms of dormitories; but it’s also exactly why the services use barracks until they get young soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines married off to someone else who will look after them.

The Incoherence of Joy

So there's a recession on, one that is likely to get worse for at least a year or two. What's the plan for that? There isn't one, a fact even the New York Times has begun to notice.

It is impossible to make a similar estimate for Vice President Kamala Harris, Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent this fall. She has not laid out any tax or spending plans, or other economic policy proposals, with enough detail to estimate whether they would add to deficits or reduce them.

In fact there aren't any plans at all, and all of the old positions are recanted.

Ms. Harris, who began seeking the Democratic nomination late last month immediately after Mr. Biden stepped aside and endorsed her, has no policy proposals posted on her campaign website — economic or otherwise.

The media has settled upon a new idea, whose unity of expression shows that it is clearly coordinated with her campaign: she is the candidate of joy!

But she was selling herself as a prosecutor, remember? There's nothing joyful about prosecution. Alongside executioners, prosecutors wield the hammer of the state against members of the public. It is to be hoped that this is done in the interest of justice (as it manifestly was not in her case, as Tulsi Gabbard pointed out). It is not a happy job, however.

I suppose this makes sense to the media because they feel joyful when contemplating four years of being governed by a prosecutor like her. Too, there's a kind of sense to the promise that if only she's elected the media will do its best to fill our screens with joy instead of the rage, bitterness, and anger that will be our daily bread from them if we don't listen.

Still, it's another astonishing maneuver, akin to the earlier attempt to sell us on the basis that she's a career professional politician -- akin to a practiced surgeon. 

Obviously the election isn't really about any of this, because none of this makes any sense. I can't decide if they're doing this because they can't think of anything better, or if they're so sure of the election's 'fortification' that they don't feel they need to run a real campaign. You'll find out what our economic policies are after the election, peasants. 

The Chaplain Speaks

It's pretty tough when your chaplain reads you out from the altar, as it were. 

The chaplain of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s field artillery regiment said there is no excuse for the Democratic VP pick to have abandoned his National Guard unit before a critical deployment — not even running for Congress.

“In our world, to drop out after a WARNORD [warning order] is issued is cowardly, especially for a senior enlisted guy,” retired Capt. Corey Bjertness, now a pastor in Horace, North Dakota, told The Post.

Bjertness, 61, was the chaplain for the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery, of which Walz was command sergeant major before retiring in 2005, two months before the unit deployed to Iraq....

“Running for Congress is not an excuse,” Bjertness said of Walz’s decision to quit. “I stopped everything and went to war. I left my wife with three teenagers and a 6-year-old and I was gone for 19 months.”

Several other of his unit mates have choice words as well, as does the mother of one of them who didn't come home.

Thomas Behrends, the command sergeant major who replaced Walz, previously told The Post of the Minnesota governor: “He had the opportunity to serve his country, and said ‘Screw you’ to the United States.”

...

Walz’s old unit, whose main job was running security for US convoys in Iraq, suffered three casualties during the deployment he missed — including Kyle Miller, 19, who joined the National Guard while still in high school, and David Berry, 37.... 

Miller’s mother told the Daily Mail this week that Walz had taken “the coward’s way out” by retiring before deployment....

“Honestly, I think we lucked out when we got Command Sergeant Behrends,” he said of the CMS who took over after Walz retired. “Maybe Walz resigned because he knew he wasn’t up to the job, that he didn’t have the confidence to lead.”

Behrends, who is from Brewster, Minn., called the Democratic vice presidential candidate “a traitor” for the timing of his retirement.

“When your country calls, you are supposed to run into battle — not the other way,” the retired command sergeant major told The Post Tuesday. “He ran away. It’s sad.”

Meanwhile his brigade says that they were was informed that they were selected to deploy during 2004, months earlier than first reported, and before he made any decisions about running for Congress.

Not How That Works

While discussing the CSM matter, a left-wing fellow said to me, "Well, he was against the Iraq War. He couldn't go serve in it, could he?"

For socialists, that's a remarkably egotistical view of the ethics of national service. What about your oath? What about the men you trained with, who were depending on you to look out for their interests as their CSM? Even if you were staunchly opposed to the war, don't you have duties to your word, to your comrades, to the country you swore to serve? 

Amazing.

A Pyramid of Falsehood

Picking up on yesterday's topic, an investigative reporter I've met decides to press on the Stolen Valor bit. He finds a couple of actual lies built upon the initial falsehoods about the CSM status.

The first falsehood might have an innocent explanation, but Waltz never appears to have attempted to correct the report:

Bloomberg’s Joshua Green, then employed at The Atlantic, was the first major reporter to profile Walz. In an interview with the then-congressional candidate, Green writes that in 2004, Walz left his hometown in Minnesota “to serve overseas in Operation Enduring Freedom.”

It’s unclear if this is Green, a veteran reporter, omitting major facts, or if Walz, the interviewee, is selling Green on a particular narrative. Nonetheless, the assertion is incredibly misleading, as it leaves the reader under the impression that Walz served as boots on the ground in the Global War on Terror, when in reality, he merely deployed to Italy in 2003 for a six month stint.

It gets much worse.

During a confrontation with the hated George W. Bush's team, Waltz engineered a claim that the Secret Service might "arrest" him over "opposing the president." He then challenged them in a way that made it into the press:

Green discusses a 2004 visit from former President George W. Bush to Gov. Walz’s hometown, in which a protesting Walz (who was still serving in the military) told the reporter about him supposedly demanding to speak to the then commander in chief.

“Walz thought for a moment and asked the Bush staffers if they really wanted to arrest a command sergeant major who'd just returned from fighting the war on terrorism,” Green writes.

This was before the Warning Order, so not only had he not "just returned from fighting the war on terrorism," he hadn't even been asked to fight the war on terrorism. We now know that, when asked, he found a way to evade his orders and responsibilities. 

The piece closes with another set of outright lies by Waltz, one intended to disarm fellow veterans of the rifle with which they can best defend their families:

On Tuesday, The X account for the Kamala Harris campaign posted a video of Governor Walz discussing the need to disarm American citizens.

“We can research the impacts of gun violence. We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war,” he tells the audience.

1) The AR-15 is not a 'weapon of war,' but a purpose-designed civilian rifle capable of only semi-automatic fire.

2) It is therefore not the same as the M-16 or M-4 carbines that Waltz's fellow servicemen carried in war.

3) Waltz never went to war, and therefore never carried any sort of rifle at war.

4) In fact, Waltz not only didn't go to war, he abandoned his unit and left them to go without him even though as the assigned CSM he was their senior enlisted advisor. In other words it was his job to defend the interests of the enlisted servicemembers in that battalion to the commanding officer.

Instead, he abandoned them. 

UPDATE: The National Guard officially disputes his claimed biography. 

As Governor, he’s ex officio their commander, and you might expect them to avoid embarrassment for their commander if they could find a way. Far from taking steps to protect him they’re out with their top PAO to officially state that his claim is false. That underlines that he doesn’t have the respect of those who serve under him.