Internal and external aspects of Heller

A Democrat sees positive signs in Heller:

Justice Scalia’s opinion, if one cuts through some of the bluster, is really quite moderate—he goes out of his way to support the legitimacy of much current federal regulation—and could easily be endorsed by Sen. Obama without political cost, save for those who wish him to continue down the politically fatal path of endorsing extremely restrictive gun control….

If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens was a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages they write. But they are not. Both opinions exhibit the worst kind of “law-office history,” in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are pre-determined positions.

The latter paragraph is directly related to what we were discussing yesterday. Lawyers and those in the legal industry are obsessed with the “internal” aspects. They’re constantly quibbling over irrelevant minutiae when it is usually the “external” factors that drive the actual judicial process and create the inconsistencies that are subsequently interpreted and spun into the minutiae of tomorrow. Meanwhile, the former paragraph should give pause to those conservatives inclined to celebrate the decision. As one commenter mentioned, this is a decision that says: “You have the right to own a gun today. But we have laid the groundwork for taking away that right tomorrow.”

Posted by Vox Day.

The OC in a Strange Land

The Original Cyberpunk hosts a book discussion on Robert Heinlein’s SF classic Stranger in a Strange Land.

My own thoughts later…. In the meantime, Sean gets even stranger with this hilarious Heinlein parody.

Posted by Vox Day.

Euro 2008 semis

The two semifinal games were two of the better games played in what has been a surprisingly lackluster tournament. The problem, I think, is that none of the more skilled teams has a reliable back four, which has caused most of the managers to play their midfielders in a predominantly defensive position. With a few notable exceptions – such as Lang’s game-winning goal for Germany – we haven’t seen many attacking runs forward by the defenders on the wings. Of course, it probably didn’t help that Greece managed to win the previous tournament with little more than solid defending and an in-form keeper.

1. Pre-tournament favorite Germany still looks shaky, but they’re in the finals. If Podolski and Schweinsteiger didn’t combine for that surprise first goal in quick response to Turkey’s – Germany was under non-stop assault for the first 20 minutes and hadn’t generated a single serious attack before their first score – they might have lost 4-0. But they did and kept Germany in the game long enough to get them past the point of potential collapse, proving that it’s always dangerous to count out the Germans no matter how average they appear.

2. Russia under Hiddink was definitely the most exciting team in the tournament. As in the Holland game, they threw everything they had at the Spanish, but the Spanish defense was more solid than the Dutch. Italy showed that you can shut down Villa, Torres, Fabregas and Silva by playing ten men back, but playing not to lose is foolish, especially against a squad with plenty of ace penalty-takers. Russia’s defense isn’t that good, so once it became apparent that the Spanish defense wasn’t overly bothered by the pressure, it was clear that the Russians were doomed even before the first Spanish goal in the second half. You have to respect Hiddink, though. I think he would be a very interesting coach for the US team to consider for the next World Cup.

3. Donadoni got fired, and deservedly so. He’s a great player, a good-looking clotheshorse, and a terrible manager. I seriously think I could have gotten Italy past the group stage, counting on Luca Toni in the attack was simply stupid.

4. One of the English announcers has a rather peculiar tendency towards the redundant. Is it really necessary to declare “Now it’s Torres for Spain” or “On the ball is Schweinsteiger for Germany”? Sure, in some situations clarifying any potential ambiguity would be desirable, but I’m confident that most people can figure out which side Li Yao or Marco Matterazi are playing for when China is up against Italy.

5. Spain looks very, very good. My predictions have been pretty bad, but I’ve talked up Spain all along and I think this is the year they win it all. Casillas hasn’t been asked to do much, but he’s risen to the occasion when required; for example, his save on Camoranesi’s shot in the Italy game turned out to be crucial. With the exception of the dread Italian catenaccio, Cesc and the other midfielders have had little trouble opening up and carving apart opposing defenses and the ease with which Turkey scored on Germany – to say nothing of the customary blunders of Jens Lehman with which every Arsenal fan is all too familiar – I see no reason to believe that Spain will have too much trouble with an overmatched Germany. 3-1 Spain.

Posted by Vox Day.

Plagiarism or Two Great Minds?

Brainbiter considers some suspicious similarities between Gray and Day:

I am not seeking to promote [British philosopher John] Gray’s point of view here, but rather to provoke questions about Vox Day’s point of view. On a particular range of subjects, Day seems almost to have cribbed from Gray. Since Day’s opinions on a wide range of subjects are, by his own admission, not expert opinions but merely intelligent observations, it is reasonable to assume that his similarities to Gray are due to having read Gray or being indebted to the same sources.

Reasonable, but incorrect. This is easy. I’ve never heard of this British John Gray. I don’t know him. While I’ve been in London every so often, I’ve never heard him speak and I’ve never read anything that he’s written. The only John Gray I’ve ever heard of is the “Mars/Venus” guy, but I haven’t read any of his stuff either. That being said, he sounds incredibly brilliant! I suggest that the reason for the similarities between our conclusions about the New Atheists probably rests heavily on the fact that those conclusions are completely freaking obvious to anyone who has read the New Atheist literature, possesses a reasonable knowledge of history, is sufficiently observant, and is capable of logical analysis.

It’s kind of funny. On the one hand, atheists like to assert that I’m crazy, I’m incredibly stupid, and have no idea what I’m talking about. Then, on the other, they leap hungrily at the suggestion that I must be PLAGIARIZING from a well-respected academic philosopher. Now, how those two things add up? But then, as I chronicled so copiously in The Irrational Atheist, logic is not exactly a strong point for most of these fellows.

UPDATE – In a different post, Brainbiter managed to crack me up. While his first surmise is true, I suppose some might consider the latter to be equally relevant. “It could be that the atheists in question don’t go into the detailed reasons for their anxiety…. However, it is also possible that Vox is just too arrogant to bother.”

Well, kind of. Had they given any coherent reasons, I would have attacked them. But they didn’t, probably because they’re groundless.

Posted by Vox Day.

Heller: a frightful perspective

We all know that the Original Cyberpunk is a visionary of particular accuracy, so if he’s concerned for the fate of humanity, you probably should be too:

My pleasure this morning at the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case — that there is in fact an individual, not collective, right to own guns — is soured by a correlating announcement from Spain: that, like humans, Great Apes now also have equal rights to life and liberty.

Posted by Vox Day.

On Heller

The supposedly big Supreme Court decision on the Washington D.C. gun law is today, and while it has the potential to be a landmark decision in defense of the Second Amendment, I fully expect the Supreme Court to pull one of their patented weasel jobs. The Court has a much greater tendency to get expansive in its interpretations when extending Federal power, not when limiting it. They’re not going to uphold the DC law because it’s too much of an obvious reach, but neither are they going to defend the Constitution as written and underline the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The most likely result is the overturning of the DC law on some meaningless technicality that will allow them to safely ignore the 20,000+ unconstitutional gun laws on the books and leave things in that nebulous state that requires more of the “interpretation” that lawyers find so profitable. I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong on this, but I’ll be very surprised if the Heller decision provides any clarification of the Second Amendment.

UPDATE – yes, we appear to have the full weasel in effect. Although perhaps that judgment is a bit too harsh since they did at least destroy the “collective right” argument. I should give them some credit for that. Ed Whelan of Bench Memos posts from the syllabus:

(a) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.

(b) The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. The Court’s opinion should not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms.

(c) D.C.’s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession prohibits an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any standard of scrutiny, that ban falls. The trigger-lock requirement makes self-defense impossible. D.C. may use a licensing scheme.

UPDATE II – It may be worse than I expected. Scalia is apparently denying a military purpose to militia weapons in the majority opinion. That’s both ahistorical and insane.

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

I’m guessing that a confrontation with the government is not going to fall within the aegis of this protected right, despite the historical context of the Constitution’s authors having very recently confronted their own lawful government with arms.

Posted by Vox Day.

Lexicological confusion

The BBC compiles an office lexicon:

At my old company (a US multinational), anyone involved with a particular product was encouraged to be a product evangelist. And software users these days, so we hear, want to be platform atheists so that their computers will run programs from any manufacturer.”

Speaking as a onetime “Transdimensional Evangelist” – yes, that was my actual title on the business card – I find this bit of office jargon to be very amusing. Coherently speaking, a platform atheist is in the business of denying the observable fact that platforms exist, all of the copious testimonial and documentary evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Rather like a real atheist, or around eighty percent of them, anyhow.

It seems to me that “platform polytheist” would not only be a more accurate analogy, but a more melodious apellation.

Posted by Vox Day.

These dicks stand tall

It’s like Air America all over again as the Fraters see off a challenger to their porcelain throne:

That was then: “The battle has been joined. Let the Fraters Libertas and the Powerline conjure the old and tired patriotic tropes, while this new patriotic battalion forms and fires….”

“A new death star is born. Chuck Olsen and friends have started what will no doubt be an awesome new Minnesota lefty blog; our answer to the Fraters dicks.”

This is now: “Silly kids. They shouldn’t have underestimated the staying power of the Fraters dicks.”

The Fraters Libertas: Keeping it up like adenosine junkies.

Posted by Vox Day.

Bugs, dogs, and the man

Rachel has an amusing story about her reaction to discovering that one of her precious pups is a carnivore. But even the most civilized dog is a killer at heart; you can’t get much more effete than my Viszla and yet he is pure death on squirrels. When he was younger and we’d go running around the lake, he’d suddenly dash to the side and hit a squirrel without breaking stride. I always called him off, however, so he learned to make that one free strike count. Once, however, we ran right through a line of ducklings and he must have been more curious than lethally inclined, because when I ordered him to “Drop” it, he spat the little fuzzball out and it staggered off towards the mama duck, apparently no worse for wear.

I don’t quite understand the fear of spiders and such expressed by both men and women in the comments to her post, though. It’s not as if I like spiders or anything, but I find it amusing, to be honest, when I answer the call to arms and see Spacebunny pointing silently and accusatorily at an arachnid hanging out on the ceiling or wall. Two nights ago, I was typing away in the darkness when I felt something crawl over my fingers and saw a flash of movement in the light of the screen; I was pretty sure it was a spider. Sure enough, when I reached over to turn on the light, there was a decent-sized one standing just to the left of the laptop. I’m not sure if I felt more annoyed or disgusted, either way, I made a fist and crushed it, then went for a paper towel to clean up the mess. Mankind 1, Arachnids 0. Don’t interrupt me when I’m writing.

That being said, I doubt I ever moved faster than when I felt something crawling over my shoulder one night just as Spacebunny said “Did you feel something?” She went one way, I went the other, and if there was an Olympic event for “getting out of bed and turning on the light”, we would have tied for the gold.

Posted by Vox Day.

The short answer

Ellis has lots of questions, all of which can be answered in the first two:

Why put man into a position where you know he’s going to disobey without understanding that it is evil until after he has disobeyed? Why punish the descendants of that man for his crime instead of allowing each to choose? Why the 10 arbitrary rules? Why not 20? How does breaking off a piece of yourself and having it killed horribly somehow allow forgiveness of those made-up sins? No judge in the world would allow one person to take the death sentence for another’s crime. How is that justice? How does it make sense to condemn tens of millions of people to eternal torment simply because they had never heard of you? Why did he even bother in the first place? To amuse himself?

Is there something I’m missing?

Starting with the last question first, yes. And then, yes. That’s all you need to know in order to begin thinking rationally about the situation. I recommend kicking this around with pretty much any game designer, or even a significantly experienced gamer, for a perspective that will render all of the obvious answers to these questions perfectly comprehensible if not necessarily credible. Once you understand that you’re in the position of one of the little orcs in Warcraft trying to understand not only the purpose of the player, but the Blizzard designer, you will cease being so confused about the universe in which you presently find yourself.

That little orc can no more begin to understand the ambition of the Blizzard designer to buy a nice sports car in order to impress a certain girl and how that factors into the designer’s motivate to create the little orc than you can imagine the purpose for your creation. Amusement almost surely factors in – we are created in His image, after all – but is unlikely to be the sole motivation. Remember, it was only the Earth that was formless and void; a Christian multiverse concept presents possibilities that are far more interesting to contemplate than those provided by a mere defensive mathematical bulwark against the anthropic principle.

Posted by Vox Day.