1.  

    This is part of the reason that the future is not looking good in the short term. Apply what happened to the 20th Century Motor Co., to Santa Clara University. This intellectual cannibalism will have victims beyond the campus. And soon, the intellectual professions themselves will become a hated brand.

      1. 1

        Yep, the most likely answer to your original question (“what conclusions can we draw?”) is that socialists want to replicate the authority that parents have over their young children. Clean up your room or get punished! Instant verdicts, immediate penalties. No appeals.

        To respond to the family metaphor point, I’d say (some of) the left is applauding the demise of the family, and the decrease in the U.S. birthrate, so that metaphor may roll off their tongues a bit awkwardly. Here’s one warning:

        Harvard sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman’s 1947 classic Family And Civilization (available on Kindle for only $9.99) will knock you off your chair. In brief, Zimmerman examines the role family structure played in Greco-Roman civilization, as well as the medieval period, up until today.

        He shows that in ancient Greece and Rome, a collapse of “familism” — a worldview that placed the family at the core of society’s self-understanding — preceded a more general civilizational collapse. Zimmerman explains how and why this works. Signs of the ongoing and future collapse include declining fertility rates, abandonment of marital norms, widespread divorce, and the normalization of aberrant forms of sexuality. For contemporary readers, one striking aspect of the book is that Zimmerman published it in 1947, and saw all these things rising in the West in his day — and indeed, had been rising for centuries. Any conservative today who thinks this all began in the 1960s should read Zimmerman.

        1. 1

          I don’t think it’s the family that socialists admire. What they seek is the unquestioned leadership of a parental figure in a system where the participants know their place. Children don’t know better. They mostly accept the beneficence and rules of their parents because it is offered for innocent purposes, love. The healthy ones grow into slightly rebellious teenagers who want and seek independence. How many times do we hear the progressives lament the stubbornness of the plebes who vote against their interests. Shouldn’t we all want free college, free healthcare, managed resources and markets, guided by the parental figure who just wants what best for his/her children. The benefits of childhood morph into the legally binding entitlement when they become adults. But the power structure remains the same. A grateful beneficiary obedient to a wise pater-familias.

          1. 1

            More generally, the family is often used as a metaphor for how government ought to work. You’ll find this across the political spectrum and even in some religious circles but it seems that leftists are most enamored with it, in contrast with the rough and tumble of the free market. Ironically, while wishing to model society on the family they are busy undermining the family that they so admire.

            1. 1
              • That should read “open TO the libertarian limited government argument….
              1. 1

                When you subsidize something, you get… wait, was that more of that something, or less of it?

                1. 1

                  This is well written, and nicely argued. But it strikes me as overly optimistic. In this case the university (through possible negligence on the part of counsel), the definition of a deep-pocketed institution, exposed itself to legal liability. And it will, reasonably, pay the price. This will be part of the 2020 Case Handbook sent to university GCs, and, at the margin, university administrators will be a bit more careful in this area.

                  But David French is (if you’ll forgive me) engaging in a bit of David French-ism to argue that it goes any further than that, or makes any broader point. There was an “online shame mob,” he correctly writes. But its members are facing no punishment; Mr. French doesn’t even include their names. If the university administrators had lawyered up a bit more carefully, they would have escaped liability (and, given that there’s no mention of them being fired, they’ve escaped punishment as well).

                  Holding the university liable is the correct result, IMHO. But it would be incorrect to draw sweeping conclusions, at least ones that apply outside the 2020 Case Handbook, here.

                  1. 1

                    This is insidious. I have personally observed people, who were open the libertarian limited government argument, maintain loyalty to mixed-economy statism because they personally benefited, or had a relative who personally benefited from some entitlement program. (E.g., social security disability, special ed, food stamps, Medi-Cal, etc…) This is pre-loaded bribery of potential voters, or the children of illegal immigrants who will be granted citizenship and thus become voters. Maybe we need a category for “bread & circuses.”

                    1. 1

                      If that is an answer, it’s only a good one if you have strength in numbers!

                      1. 1

                        So in the final analysis the Bundy response is the correct response? When the gubmint’ comes a calling, take down the shotgun from over the fireplace and tell them to stay off your land, or someone is going to get killed. [Of course that isn’t what actually happened to Bundy, but “When the legend become fact, print the legend.”]

                        1. 1

                          Today’s order list:

                          https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061019zor_3dq4.pdf

                          CERTIORARI DENIED
                          18-936 KETTLER, JEREMY V. UNITED STATES
                          18-7451 COX, SHANE V. UNITED STATES
                          

                          Documents for case No. 18-936 (Kettler v. U.S.):

                          https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-936.html

                          Excerpt from the cert petition:

                          Petitioner was convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm sound suppressor in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C § 5861(d). He challenged whether the NFA continues to be a proper exercise of Congress’s taxing power due to changed circumstances, and if so, whether it imposes an impermissible tax on the exercise of a constitutional right. The Tenth Circuit concluded that it was bound by this Court’s decision in United States v. Sonzinsky, 300 U.S. 506 (1937), upholding the NFA, and that only this Court could overturn its own decisions. The Tenth Circuit also concluded that the Second Amendment protects only “bearable arms,” not including firearm accessories such as sound suppressors. The questions presented are:

                          1. Whether the National Firearms Act of 1934, upheld in Sonzinsky, continues to be a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power when the justifications for that decision have significantly eroded over the last 82 years.
                          1. Whether the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories such as sound suppressors.
                          1. Whether the tax imposed by the National Firearms Act, targeting the exercise of a Second Amendment right, violates the rule of Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) and Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 669 (1941).
                          1. 1

                            The ballot measure from BAWN (Ban Assault Weapons NOW) is here: https://bawnfl.org/amendment.html

                            It looks like existing owners of “assault weapons” must register them with the government or face mandatory third-degree felony charges for mere possession. No “assault weapons” may be sold or transferred after the date on which the prohibition takes effect. “Assault weapons” are defined as:

                            Definitions - a) Assault Weapons - For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.

                            This seems fairly broad.

                            1. 1

                              Not a bad idea! It’s actually pretty easy to do this already.

                              First, pick which Talki.ng RSS feed you want. Here’s the one for the whole site: https://talki.ng/rss Or an RSS feed for just a single tag, like gunrights: https://talki.ng/t/gunrights.rss

                              Second, go to a site like this one: https://www.rssinclude.com/my_rssboxes/create_new_box It lets you pick options like the width of your widget, the height, the padding, the color, and generate PHP or Javascript code you can include on your own. There’s an option for Wordpress as well.

                              Third, include that code in your blog or Wordpress site.

                              1. 1

                                Merge appears to be successful!

                                1. 1

                                  Testing comment post on the Mercury News thread before attempted merge to prior thread (about same court opinion).

                                  1. 1

                                    Why not expand to webpage software like Wordpress. I know they have a widget that you can install on your personal webpage that has something like a twitter scroll/update.

                                    1. 1

                                      By way of background, here’s NR’s David French’s reply to the original “Against David French-ism” essay written by Sohrab Ahmari: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/david-french-response-sohrab-ahmari/

                                      And another reply from Friday: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-cruelty-is-the-point/

                                      Also on Friday, here’s Mr. French tweeting that he has become “a hate object for the gutter right”: https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1137104673440182272

                                      I haven’t read everything that’s been written about this, and I don’t know exactly who the “gutter right” includes. But it certainly wasn’t true of the original essay by Mr. Ahmari, which called Mr. French “nice,” “insistently polite,” with a “guileless public mien,” and someone who has been “admirably and passionately advocating for Christians” and has “done yeoman’s work in defense of Christians and other people of faith.”

                                      1. 1

                                        Thanks for posting. This is a long piece and worth reading in full. Two excerpts:

                                        Naturally, the left is committed to the idea that gun control is the single most important factor in reducing homicide rates in the United States. Gun control activists often insist — or at least strongly imply — that a lack of more strict gun control laws is all that lies between the status quo and Swiss-style ultra-low homicide rates. Moreover, the left is committed to identity politics and strives to reduce feelings of solidarity between racial and ethnic groups. The suggestion that this strategy could worsen violent crime runs afoul of the identity-politics narrative.

                                        The fact that the root causes of homicide lie far deeper than guns, however, would force gun-control advocates to prove that reducing access to legal guns would actually make Americans less homicidal. If Americans really are more homicidal due to deep-seated cultural and historical factors, then homicide may persist at similar rates even in the absence of legal guns. The result, it seems, would be continued feelings among the population that government institutions cannot be trusted to reduce homicides and provide judicial fairness. Consequently, the population would be likely to conclude guns — including illegal ones — are necessary for self-defense and to execute true justice. Indeed, if a lack of legitimacy is the problem, this would suggest tighter gun control laws would not push the US in the direction of high-legitimacy Canada; but instead in the direction of low-legitimacy Mexico.

                                        1. 1

                                          This seems like a worthwhile proposal. Here’s the heart of it:

                                          Create at least one (could be many competing) browser plugins that enable you to (a) select feeds and then (b) display them alongside a user’s Twitter, Facebook, etc., feeds. (This could be an adaptation of Greasemonkey.) In other words, once this feature were available, you could tell your friends: “I’m not on Twitter. But if you want to see my Tweet-like posts appear in your Twitter feed, then simply install this plugin and input my feed address. You’ll see my posts pop up just as if they were on Twitter. But they’re not! And we can do this because you can control how any website appears to you from your own browser. It’s totally legal and it’s actually a really good idea.” In this way, while you might never look at Twitter or Facebook, you can stay in contact with your friends who are still there—but on your own terms.

                                          A browser plug-in may be a good start. But even better would be to have this functionality embedded in the browser.

                                          It strikes me that there are some very large organizations that (a) make browsers, (b) do not have significant social media revenue/exposure, and (c) therefore might not object to this functionality: Google’s Chrome, Microsoft IE/Edge, Apple’s Safari, and Mozilla’s Firefox.

                                          Even if it were only Microsoft, that would still cover about 14% of the desktop browser market, though of course Google would be the one to convince. The initial objection you’d have to overcome, I think, would be the potential negative impact on YouTube as a discussion platform (of sorts, I know). But presumably that would be balanced out by its impact on Twitter and Facebook…