I have an embarassing number of unfinished Substacks, and this last week of math teaching is pretty busy, so I thought I’d disclose my draft titles. These are in varying degrees of completion. First, here is a list of Substacks I am definitely going to finish and publish before the end of the summer:
MAYBE: Con law. It depends on the focus really. I'm a skeptic of written constitutions. They appear to be accomplices of populist rabble rousing, Capitalism, Inc., democracy, and Genesis 49:8-12. Perhaps you could write about a particular con, esp. its most important establishment clause. Notice that Article VII pretends to tell the reader all about "Ratification" and "Establishment" before both [drum roll, please] ratification and establishment. After any establishment, assuming that it's possible, Art VII would be superfluous. So there's no justifcation for having incuded it. The relevant source of law needs to be outside the holiest constitution in populist history.
The "Militia" amendment, too, is great fun to think about. I suspect that it could be used as a license for a sweeping reorg of the USA's militia system on the pretext of fighting "white supremacy". After all, the right to the centrally controlled militia mentioned in Art. I and Art. II shall not be infringed, esp. when doing dirty work for the "free State", i.e. the ruling class.
It so happens that the USA has millions of new, low status inhabitants with mediocre prospects. And are not males overrepresented among the flood of migrants? Some of these—and many citizens—coud be recruited to fight the fictitious "white supremacy". So in practice this militia reorg would produce death squads. Any such plans, however, could be subverted with an amendment to cancel the militia clauses of Art. I & II. White gun nuts would resist this furiously, of course, which is one reason that I find the Militia amendment so amusing.
NAH: The duty to warn. There is none if you're not an outlaw and not contemplating a criminal act about which it would be helpful to have a warning. I doubt that you hold this view.
NAH: Are women ruining academia? Ruination is accomplished fact, I think. At some schools, like the one at which I earned an econ deg., it was very far advanced 30 yrs ago. Silly, effete men helped to do it.
YEAH: St. Paul’s cancelling in Jerusalem. It's not clear that he was ever a Trinitarian, and I'd not be the least bit surprised to learn that Saul's conversion was a hoax cooked up in advance with other Pharisees. Their chauvinism and malevolence are well known. So which is the more plausible explanation of his career? Was Saul truthful, or did he wage war against SPQR by subterfuge, as alleged in the article "Commissary to the Gentiles" by Maurice Eli Ravage? The subtitle of the article, published long ago, is "The First to See the Possibilities of War by Propaganda".
Other topic: The alleged necessity of a creative deity. Suppose that the "Creator" (Decl. of Indep.) is real and necessary. In other words, it must be. Well, this is a way of affirming a law of existence which no willpower can override, just as no willpower can override the proof of irrationaity of √2. Therefore the god of Islam is imaginary, for "allahu akbar" (god is greater) asserts that the Creator's willpower is paramount. Moe's god, if it were real, could annihilate itself. This extreme fetish for willpower is interesting since "our democracy" and all other totalitarian regimes adhere to the same principle, more or less.
All of the Old Man's Stories--the letter of condemnation in particular, Con Law, homeschooling, Hexagram and Faust. The last first. Anything frankly.
MAYBE: Con law. It depends on the focus really. I'm a skeptic of written constitutions. They appear to be accomplices of populist rabble rousing, Capitalism, Inc., democracy, and Genesis 49:8-12. Perhaps you could write about a particular con, esp. its most important establishment clause. Notice that Article VII pretends to tell the reader all about "Ratification" and "Establishment" before both [drum roll, please] ratification and establishment. After any establishment, assuming that it's possible, Art VII would be superfluous. So there's no justifcation for having incuded it. The relevant source of law needs to be outside the holiest constitution in populist history.
The "Militia" amendment, too, is great fun to think about. I suspect that it could be used as a license for a sweeping reorg of the USA's militia system on the pretext of fighting "white supremacy". After all, the right to the centrally controlled militia mentioned in Art. I and Art. II shall not be infringed, esp. when doing dirty work for the "free State", i.e. the ruling class.
It so happens that the USA has millions of new, low status inhabitants with mediocre prospects. And are not males overrepresented among the flood of migrants? Some of these—and many citizens—coud be recruited to fight the fictitious "white supremacy". So in practice this militia reorg would produce death squads. Any such plans, however, could be subverted with an amendment to cancel the militia clauses of Art. I & II. White gun nuts would resist this furiously, of course, which is one reason that I find the Militia amendment so amusing.
NAH: The duty to warn. There is none if you're not an outlaw and not contemplating a criminal act about which it would be helpful to have a warning. I doubt that you hold this view.
NAH: Are women ruining academia? Ruination is accomplished fact, I think. At some schools, like the one at which I earned an econ deg., it was very far advanced 30 yrs ago. Silly, effete men helped to do it.
YEAH: St. Paul’s cancelling in Jerusalem. It's not clear that he was ever a Trinitarian, and I'd not be the least bit surprised to learn that Saul's conversion was a hoax cooked up in advance with other Pharisees. Their chauvinism and malevolence are well known. So which is the more plausible explanation of his career? Was Saul truthful, or did he wage war against SPQR by subterfuge, as alleged in the article "Commissary to the Gentiles" by Maurice Eli Ravage? The subtitle of the article, published long ago, is "The First to See the Possibilities of War by Propaganda".
Other topic: The alleged necessity of a creative deity. Suppose that the "Creator" (Decl. of Indep.) is real and necessary. In other words, it must be. Well, this is a way of affirming a law of existence which no willpower can override, just as no willpower can override the proof of irrationaity of √2. Therefore the god of Islam is imaginary, for "allahu akbar" (god is greater) asserts that the Creator's willpower is paramount. Moe's god, if it were real, could annihilate itself. This extreme fetish for willpower is interesting since "our democracy" and all other totalitarian regimes adhere to the same principle, more or less.