A little whataboutism (and more)

Whataboutism

The truths that must not be named

I’m not sure there’s anybody in the second Trump administration, save Marco Rubio, to which I would extend a defense on almost anything. But whataboutism isn’t a defense.

So long as Democrat nominees to high office cannot affirm that men do not become pregnant (a stock Republican gotcha question), they lack standing to criticize Trump nominees’ refusal to affirm that Joe Biden won the 2020 election (a stock Democrat gotcha question).

(Heck, in one sense, the Democrats are worse. I’m not sure I, who detest Trump, could affirm Biden’s victory in terms stronger than “I believe he won because it has been reported so, and certified so, and I know no credible evidence to the contrary.”)

Who’s the more partisan Justice?

Who’s more partisan:

  • Justice Samuel Alito, who on questions of central importance to Trump, votes with him 87% of the time? Or maybe it’s …
  • Ketanji Brown Jackson, who on questions of central importance to Trump, votes against him 98% of the time?

Somehow, the press just isn’t interested in the KBJ side of that. (H/T Sara Isgur)

Trump doesn’t give a rip about the GOP

The only thing good things to say about Trump’s speech Thursday night were that he reportedly kept it down to 25 minutes and didn’t harp on the supposed theft of the 2020 Election. Other than that, his party was almost certainly damaged badly:

In early 2021, Republicans were poised to win a majority in the U.S. Senate … All they had to do was win the two Senate seats in Georgia headed to a runoff in January.

Then Donald Trump opened his yap. He had just lost the presidency. To assuage his own ego injury, Trump attacked the election as fake and rigged. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the effect of this talk in Georgia … Trump had discouraged his own voters and energized his foes. His party lost both seats and any hope of retaining the Senate.

Tonight, Trump repeated …

If … you are pro-Trump, you heard a message of despair. Your president, in whom you trust, described a hopelessly compromised voting system, so broken that it fooled even Trump himself in his first presidency. Between the Chinese, the illegal aliens, and the hated liberal media, your vote will probably count for nothing. Plus, it’s crooked and unpatriotic to vote by mail. It’s all hopeless. Why bother?

… Trump’s message was one of futility, as if to say: It doesn’t matter how many of us show up, because of all the sinister plots against us. We’re doomed almost no matter what we do.

That message makes psychic sense for Trump. He’s probably going to lose at least one congressional chamber in November, perhaps two, and he desperately needs an explanation as to why it’s not his fault.

… among those who watched for sure—the hard-pressed Republican candidates begging for Trump to throw them a frickin’ bone on some issue of concern to voters—how mad are they tonight?

Trump is always about Trump first. Tonight was about Trump alone. He’s abandoned his allies because it’s his nature; he cannot help it. Soon he’ll discover what it’s like to be even more isolated and embattled than he needed to be, because he could not speak for—or about—anything other than himself.

David Frum, Trump Dooms His Own Party. See also Tom Nichols, Trump Just Did More Damage to American Elections Than China.

Someone wrote about this recently.

To every thing there is a season

If there is a season to everything, and a time to every purpose under heaven (Eccles. 3:1), then there are right and wrong ways to observe the landmarks of life. It simply does not make sense for secular authorities to use this extraordinary national birthday as the vehicle for eliciting waves of national guilt and launching a search for means of atonement. Compare this to, say, the way we characteristically observe a human birthday. When someone turns one hundred years old, do we see it as the opportunity for a struggle session, in which we browbeat that person into confessing the many misdeeds that have accumulated over the course of a long life? Or do we instead use it as an opportunity for the expression of love, and of our gratitude for the remarkable fact that this person is still among us? To what season does this occasion belong?

Wilfred M. McClay, A Nation’s Birthday

The End of Reading

My avoidance of reading The End of Reading is Here despite repeated recommendations (it’s so looooong!) reflected that even geezers can fall prey to the malady. Excerpts:

  • Ong cited case studies by the neuropsychologist Alexander Luria, who traveled to remote villages in Uzbekistan and Kirghizia in the 1930s, when peasants were starting to receive rudimentary reading and writing instruction. Luria met his subjects at teahouses, in field camps, and around evening fires. There, he posed a number of questions designed to elucidate differences in how illiterate and literate peasants thought. Luria told the peasants: “In the Far North, all bears are white. Novaya Zemlya is in the Far North.” He then asked them the color of bears in Novaya Zemlya. The literate peasants were able to complete the syllogism. But the illiterate ones refused to try, explaining that they had never been to the north and thus couldn’t answer. Achieving literacy seemed to have conveyed an ability to think logically and abstractly, not simply to read words.
  • [A]s writing eroded individuals’ memories, the media theorist Andrey Mir has observed, it improved society’s collective memory.
  • Trump is our first postliterate president. It is difficult to imagine him being elected leader of a country where information is primarily spread through text. Ahead of the 2024 election, an NBC News poll of 1,000 voters found that Joe Biden had a 49-point lead among respondents who read newspapers. Trump has pioneered a style of communication that exploits our distracted, disputatious age.
  • Politicians on the right and the left have figured out how to exploit these new platforms. Reihan Salam, the president of the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, described to me how this plays out. “You name an enemy and you polarize the public,” he said. “You don’t allow for nuance, because nuance is just a confusion when you’re in a struggle for power.” (Ironically, Salam is the boss of Christopher Rufo, who calculatedly used exactly this strategy to attack “critical race theory”.)

Don’t be like me. Read it. Reading something that long by itself begins the cure.

A linguistic curiosity

In Turkish we have a special tense that allows us to distinguish hearsay from what we’ve seen with our own eyes; when we are relating dreams, fairy tales, or past events we could not have witnessed, we use this tense.

Orhan Pamuk and Ara Guler, Istanbul

AI detection

Freddie de Boer has an interesting piece on the brittleness of AI-detector Pangram (which I hadn’t heard of by name, though I knew the concept).

I’m fortunate to be able to subscribe to many interesting things. But I still have only 24 hours in my day, like everyone else. I’m just not that interested in whether a human or a machine wrote a logical, even persuasive, argument; what matters is the truth, falsity, or fruitfulness of it in my situation. Only if I’m trying to decide whether the putative author is trustworthy would the AI question come up.

This is not to indict as foolish those who are interested in things like Pangram. I’m only saying that given my situation in life and reading habits, it’s not of interest to me — and that some of my readers might similarly be in a situation where the human or cyber source of a writing is irrelevant.

Luigi: The Musical

The hard part of selling liberalism or American conservatism (which seeks to conserve the liberal principles of the American founding) is not how we talk about the philosophy—the trouble is with the philosophy itself. Restraint is (barring some kink) unsexy. There is nothing thrilling about acknowledging the necessity of trade-offs, the role of prudence applied ad hoc to individual cases, or that the best-case scenario we are offering is a series of good-enough second-best settlements and accommodations. (Kevin D. Williamson)

I recently reviewed Luigi: The Musical, which closes with the titular antihero (Luigi Mangione is being tried for the murder of health insurance executive Brian Thompson) singing a song in which he proposes to keep murdering people until there is peace and justice upon the land while the chorus behind him sings about policy trade-offs, the complexity of health care as a social issue, and the necessities of compromise and negotiation. Of course, Luigi drowns out the chorus. That is how it goes. 

Kevin D. Williamson

How I use AI

AI is controversial in many ways, and I know a few people who consciously shun it completely. I, in contrast, use it while continuing to read about the dangers, horror stories, and other things to hone discernment.

I came across a list of recommendations for AI use that I agree with completely:

  • Avoid using AI chatbots for personal, spiritual, or emotional matters.
  • Restrict use strictly to non-personal tasks (e.g., recipes, summaries).
  • Do not seek consciousness, spiritual counsel, or relationship advice from AI.
  • Those with mental health issues or in vulnerable states should be warned against AI chatbot use.
  • Recognize that while most chatbot interactions are neutral, there is an elevated risk for spiritual deception.

(H/T Jordan, The AI Chatbot as Digital Oujia Board)

In addition, I just haven’t been comfortable with the thought of speaking directly to a chatbot. I’ll dictate questions, then cut-and-paste into it instead. I think I’m trying to avoid any faux-personal relationship.

So how does this cash out? Of what use is AI if those things are out of bounds?

Maybe this will help. Here are some questions I’ve posed to it or some requests I’ve made over about 14 months:

  • Why do so many organizations I give to send me membership cards? Is that supposed to create some special bond?
  • Is there any evidence that any of the Minneapolis protesters of ICE immigration enforcement were “paid agitators”?
  • Please compare English translations of The Brothers Karamazov, ranking them if there is a critical consensus.
  • Can you please summarize, in 1000 words or less, the change from Second-Temple Judaism to Rabbinic Judaism?
  • I’m trying first to recall and then to flesh out an assertion I heard or read in podcast, print or another “public-like” forum./The assertion was something along the lines that whether extraterrestrial intelligent life exists will never be definitively answered because it is impossible (as a matter of physics?) for such life to travel inter-galactically (or was it impossible from one solar system to another?)/Can you help me pin it down, and give a simplified not-too-scientifically-sophisticated explanation, not just the conclusion some have reached?
  • How prevalent is “birth tourism” in the United States?
  • How is the post-flood restoration of Asheville, NC coming along?

Then there were a couple of dialogs to get things done. Omitting those related to my work with some Boards of Directors, these include:

  • I used Claude AI to help me dress up my micro.blog posts with a custom CSS (since I don’t understand CSS it’s not worth the time it would take to learn).
  • My most ambitious use of an AI agent was to migrate a couple of years of Common Place Book entries from a run-on Markdown file, with date and time metadata for each separate entry, to DayOne, a Mac journaling app that just looks way nicer. I did the same with a run-on Markdown file of Diary entries.

My commonest AI use by far is a separate service, a browser plug-in called Voilá. I think it’s built on Chat GPT, and it has capabilities beyond my humble but time-saving use: Unless I know a writer as someone I read for the writing skill, not just for the opinion or other content, I repeatedly, multiple times per day, have Voilá summarize webpages for me to see if they’re worth reading. If I save the article, I typically prepend the Voilá summary to orient me if and when I come back to it.

Shorts on the Department of Justice

  • In 2019 Bill Barr, then Mr Trump’s pick for attorney-general, said that Americans “have to know that there are places in the government where the rule of law—not politics—holds sway” and that the Department of Justice “must be such a place”. Mr Trump has no time for that. Less than halfway through his second term, he has turned the DoJ from an arm of the law into a muscular limb of the presidency.(The Economist)
  • With warrants and subpoenas, the DoJ is pursuing Mr Trump’s critics and his hobby-horses, from political adversaries to election fraud to leaks in the press. The number of lawyers has dwindled by 20%; former prosecutors point to an incompatibility between the president’s agenda and the fair application of law. The DoJ is retreating from certain types of criminal enforcement. And, increasingly, judges are telling government lawyers that they cannot be taken at their word. (The Economist again)

Shorts

  • “It’s sad for Senator Lindsey Graham that the last person he spoke to on this earth was the president who stole his soul,” – Tina Brown. (Via Andrew Sullivan)
  • “14,000 Europeans died due to heat in June. This is the same continent that doesn’t believe in installing air-conditioning. For context, [14,000] is over 10 times the number of people who get murdered in America with a gun,” – Steve Guest. (Via Andrew Sullivan)
  • In The Atlantic, Helen Lewis processed Vice President JD Vance’s recent three-hour chat with Joe Rogan: “Watching Vance’s media appearances is uniquely painful. He lacks the authentic berserk of Kash Patel, or the pageant-queen polish of Karoline Leavitt, or his boss’s unique corkscrew approach to conversation. Like Stephen Miller, Vance desperately wants to be funny and cool. Like Stephen Miller, he is neither.” (Alex Gontscharow, Ashburn, Va., and Mike Marquard, Portland, Ore.) (Via Frank Bruni)
  • … “It’s not that nothing happens. It’s that the same thing almost happens, over and over, for two hours. A promising run, broken up. A cross to no one. A shot into the third row. Soccer isn’t really about scoring. It’s about the threat of scoring, endlessly deferred. It’s all foreplay, no sex.” (Sam Downing, Houston ) (Via Frank Bruni)
  • And in his newsletter, Ron Charles captured the vertical charms — and challenges — of Portugal’s capital: “We walked 24,000 steps, and somehow 23,000 of them were uphill. Lisbon, we’ve discovered, is basically an antique StairMaster tiled blue.” (Donna Peremes, Hyattsville, Md.) (Via Frank Bruni)
  • These are just horrible people, doing horrible things, on purpose. (David French regarding the Trump administration siccing their attack dogs on federal judges, and even on their law clerks).

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

Meandering through “Mere Christianity,” denominations, missions, and extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

I spent some time this week mulling over a blog that talked about some YouTube video dialogs across the lines of Christian traditions. The result seems kind of half-baked, but it’s what I’ve got this Sunday.

The point of “mere Christianity” for Lewis was not to minimize ecclesial distinctives, but rather to help people make useful distinctions as they think about their relationship to faith. Yet, and Scrivener himself develops this point in his own way in the video, to even conceive of such a project as being legitimate is itself to be committed in some limited way to Protestantism. It is not really possible for a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian to separate belief in “mere Christianity” from membership in and submission to the ecclesial life of Rome or Constantinople. To imagine that there is a set of cardinal doctrines that transcends ecclesial divisions and unites all people as “Christian” is inherently to speak and think as a Protestant.

So in that sense the best way to read what Scrivener calls the era of “mere christianity” is probably to regard it as a period of deficient Protestantism in which people presupposed Protestant conceptions of the church without understanding that they were doing that. They mistook their implicitly Protestant commitments for a kind of broadly Christian and ecclesially indifferent set of commitments. That is never what Lewis was trying to do in his own work, but it is how his work was received by highly democratic and anti-institutional American readers.

Jake Meador, Is the Era of Mere Christianity Over?.

Youngish Calvinist Jake Meador is too young to feel in his bones the weight of implicit “common-core Protestantism” in America. I felt it to a degree in the 50s as a fundamentalist/evangelical oddball in a public school that didn’t share our taboos but somehow was Christianish. Observant Catholics felt it to the extent that they really supported their parochial schools. I lived across the street from an empty field on which we watched a Catholic high school arise in the late 50s.

Meador rightly observes that “It is not really possible for a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian to separate belief in “mere Christianity” from membership in and submission to the ecclesial life of Rome or Constantinople.” To Protestants, that may be baffling, but Christ promised to build his church and, as I have noted before, there are Christians for whom belief in Christ and His Church is one act of faith, not two. I’m now one of them.

On the question of whether denominationalism is coming back, though, Meador is wise to distinguish the return of doctrinal particularity from the return of the denominations, each one instantiating those particularities, and to ask “how’s that going to work when most of the Christian action is taking place in non-denominational assemblies that have fancied that they were avoiding particularities?” (Spoiler alert: they weren’t avoiding partiuclarity. Try getting an infant baptized in one of these non-particular churches. They’re crypto-baptists.) Sociologist of Religion Ryan Burge has documented lavishly the decline of denominations relative to independent churches (religiopreneurs).

The video Meador is discussing features snippets of conversation between Protestant Gavin Ortlund and Orthodox Jonathan Pageau. Ortlund is kind of hurt that Pageau seemingly cannot univocally call him a brother in Christ. Pageau responds in part at the oddity of that hurt, inasmuch as Protestants have long sent missionaries to traditionally Orthodox lands, where they try to persuade Orthodox Christians that they’re not really Christians until they embrace some Protestant tradition or another.

Protestant prickliness about Orthodox Christians hesitating to greet them with unguarded bonhomie reminds me of Mormon complaints about Evangelicals (and others) not accepting them; why then, have the Mormons been sending pairs of young “Elders” throughout the land all my life to evangelize for their church? They’re asking for acceptance they don’t reciprocate.

I’m obviously on Team Pageau when it comes to repudiating “salvation by faith alone” and other aspects of Protestantism. I think it’s worth noting, too, that the Orthodox position that there’s no salvation outside the ark of the Church shouldn’t be taken anachronistically or out of context.

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” (G. Florovsky, “Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church”, in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.

Bp. Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church.

Catholics find it impossible to theologize without deductive reasoning—a characteristic shared by virtually all Western Christians

Dr. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox. I almost made this a separate item in my typical multipart collation, but it feels rather like an epilogue.

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

Friday, July 17 Political Potpourri

Department of Injustice

It’s over.

The Justice Department’s most significant case stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol — the seditious conspiracy convictions of high-ranking members of the far right Proud Boys — has officially been erased.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who presided over the six-month trial that led to the jury convictions, reluctantly granted a Justice Department motion to drop the case on Friday, concluding that he had no power to second-guess prosecutors once they decided to abandon it.

“In light of fundamental separation of powers principles … the proper course here is for the Court simply to grant the motion in full,” Kelly concluded, dismissing the case “with prejudice,” which means a future Justice Department is barred from revisiting the charges.

“No one should mistake the Court’s granting of the Government’s motion for its agreement with those decisions,” the judge added.

Politico (H/T John Ellis)

Grade inflation

Because I want my own students to stretch and because I want an A to make them robustly proud, I’m sparing with that mark, at least by today’s standards. I typically award A’s to no more than a quarter of the students in any class. But I give A- grades to too many of them, and I often feel obliged to tell students, at the start of the semester, that if they’re intent on a G.P.A. close to 4.0, I’m not a safe bet. A few drop the class, and I respect that. Most stay — but they stay knowing what’s what, which saves all of us awkwardness and bitterness.

I shouldn’t have to issue that warning. I shouldn’t be giving only a handful of B+ and B grades. I should be distributing a diversity of marks that speak to the many variations in student performance, even at Duke. It’s not that I want to be harsher; I want to be honest. Isn’t higher education about the pursuit of truth?

Frank Bruni

Ideology #FAIL (and success)

[Incorrigible narcissist and foulmouthed Pastor Douglas] Wilson has been hitting all these notes to a string of wide-eyed interviewers for some time now. But one point deserves scrutiny: his idea for household voting, in which the head of each household would be the sole voter. This is often characterized as the disenfranchisement of women because, for married couples, Wilson would have only the husband vote.

But here’s the funny thing: As marriage rates in America have declined, there are many single, female heads of households, and unmarried women lean ever more Democratic. If Wilson’s household voting plan were implemented, disenfranchising married women, it would empower the Democratic Party for decades and shut Republicans out of the White House.

Exit polling makes this unmistakable. In 2022, for example, scholars from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) summarize:

Fifty-eight percent of married voters supported GOP House candidates while 59 percent of unmarried respondents voted Democratic. Married men and women did not differ significantly from one another: 59 percent of married men and 56 percent of married women voted GOP. But there was a large gap in the unmarried category: A bare majority of unmarried men, 52 percent, voted for GOP candidates; only 31 percent of unmarried women did.

When the AEI scholars looked more closely at state-level races in Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas, the same pattern held. In all four states, they reported, “non-married women were the most Democratic group and married men the most Republican.”

Bonnie Kristian, Doug Wilson’s Household Voting Plan Could Empower Democrats for Decades (Christianity Today).

I paid a little bit of not unfavorable attention to Wilson prior to my entry into Christian Orthodoxy because he passed for some kind of Calvinist and was amusing. I think he has shifted more extremely to the right since then; I know I’ve changed, so his only interest to me now is as the leader of “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth’s chosen schismatic denomination and as having some affiliation with the current Christian-ish slice of the manosphere and other far-Right trollery.

Mainstream press has been giving a lot of “Be afraid. Be very afraid” attention to Wilson and his group. I don’t entirely buy it, but you really never know which crackpot cabals have the potential to take flight and which can be disregarded safely.

Sometimes, the press coverage itself helps launch things. Do you really think Donald Trump would be President if he hadn’t been broadcast into America’s living rooms as the masterful boss on Apprentice for a couple of decades?

Morally cleansing metal

Somehow, I gather, a $40K hybrid SUV getting 31 mpg, and the intercontinental energy and material flows that brought it into being, are more “green” than a ratty-looking old Volkswagen assembled from cast-off parts, foraged locally, that gets 32 mpg. There is a certain aesthetic of cleanliness that must be adhered to. Better yet, invisibility. To count as green, those ugly chunks of rusting 1970s steel would need to be removed and recycled: melted down in a coal-fired blast furnace and sent across an ocean to become raw material for, say, an electric (i.e., coal-powered) car, to be returned to the U.S. on a diesel-powered container ship. Such details are best kept out of mind; the main thing is that this journey accomplishes a moral cleansing of the metal.

Matthew B. Crawford, Why We Drive.

One of these ten is not like the others

  • A third man, 28, died Tuesday in St. Augustine, Florida, when a tractor-trailer struck him as he fled federal immigration agents.
  • Since Trump returned to office last year, at least 10 people have died during encounters with immigration agents.

The Morning Dispatch.

Please, Dispatch, do not confuse matters by including cases like the St. Augustine man in statistics about ICE lethality. It may be literally true that this was ”during” an encounter with ICE, but for once I’m having trouble seeing ICE culpability in that death.

The Game is Up

Dear MAGA America:

Just last night, your Lord, God and Savior Donald Trump made it clear yet again that the elections are rigged. He even released a tranche of documents that prove it.

So I don’t see much sense in you going out to vote any more.

Stay home, pop another cold one, turn on some Apprentice re-runs, and leave the voting to us fools who don’t know what time it is.

Yours,

Tipsy

Shorts

  • On Defector, David Roth nailed the president’s style of, um, oratory: “Things come out of Donald Trump’s mouth, then just keep on coming out of it.” And Trump has wed incontinent words to incoherent actions. “The sum of the wreckage this has made is staggering; fixing it will take a long time, or not happen at all. This is just one of those things you have to walk around knowing.” (Via Frank Bruni)
  • [F]or the first time, I’m contemplating the possibility of a Democratic Party that shares none of my values, which include empiricism, free speech, and being able to say words other than “oligarchy,” “Zionist,” and “don’t judge me by my old tweets.” (Jeff Maurer, Any Advice for the Soon-To-Be Politically Homeless?)
  • “Where is the line between opportunism and pragmatism? After January 6, 2021, Graham appeared to break with Trump, saying on the Senate floor, ‘Count me out. Enough is enough.’ A few months later, he acknowledged Trump’s continued hold over the Republican Party. ‘Can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no,’ he said. ‘I’ve determined we can’t grow without him.’” (Robert Reich)
  • “Graham’s career arc also showed why so many Republicans of so many different stripes were tempted to embrace Trump. The senator ultimately succeeded in steering an inexperienced, ideologically malleable, and easily flattered president toward many of his own lifelong priorities.” (Benjy Sarlin)
  • To call him “the quintessential politician of this era” is as much a compliment as an insult, recognizing his prodigious retail skill and genius for schmoozing. No wonder Donald Trump, a huckster’s huckster, liked him so much. (Nick Catoggio)
  • The New York Times noted that Trump held only 61 rallies before November 2024, about five times fewer than in 2016. (Persuasion) Grrrr! “five times fewer” is better than “five times less,” but it’s still innumerately incoherent.

Elsewhere in Tipsyworld

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.Frida

Sunday, July 12, 2026

I saw a theme trying to emerge from what I’m calling the main course, but I don’t think I teased it out successfully. Read with your heart and you may see it.

The main course

Road to Emmaus

Most Christians are presumably familiar with the account of Luke and Cleopas encountering Christ on the road to Emmaus. But I think I missed a lot about it in my years as a low-brow, then middle-brow, Protestant.

For one thing, the “between the lines” message of Luke 24:27, which is echoed in the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch:

  1. The Old Testament is full of Christ, but a lot of it is typological, and thus easily overlooked.
  2. We cannot rightly interpret scripture on our own, without a guide and without Christ as the interpretive key.
  3. The details of Christ’s explanation to Luke and Cleopas, and of Philip’s explanation to the Eunuch, are surely important but are not given in scripture; that, along with John 21:25 suggests an important tradition that was not enscripturated, but passed down (from Luke and Cleopas to Philip, perhaps) in the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Later, in Luke’s narrative, the double mention of Christ becoming know to the Apostles “in the breaking of bread” hints at the Eucharist. Perhaps Christ “broke bread” in a distinctive way both in the upper room and in Emmaus. I’m not now, and perhaps never, going to try to unpack that very far. Suffice that Roman Catholic and Orthodox teachers focus on different aspects of that in ways that feel complementary to me, but I sense treacherous ground here.

Orthodoxy and Syncretism

Being Orthodox in mind requires that one accept ambiguity, uncertainty, mystery, and paradox. Perhaps this encourages humility before God. We cannot rely on clever explanations or beloved definitions, and we must accept that we cannot completely explain or fully understand our faith. Therefore, we must rely solely on the grace and mercy of God. Perhaps this allows us to focus less on the mind and more on the heart, which is where we encounter God.

Dr. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox.

This is an amazing book, which captures better than I thought possible the experience of being Orthodox. I know that because I had been officially Orthodox for some 20 years when it came out, and had (because I’m my parish’s Cantor) attended more services that just about anyone besides Priests and Deacons, and thus was beginning to get the hang of things. But reading it and trying to think the way it describes will not make you Orthodox. Becoming Orthodox requires reception into a Parish and a lot of humble attention. Anything less will make you a syncretist.

One of the little mysteries

Yesterday I gave a friend a ride to church. She is a scholar in town this week to do some research. Because of a serious injury in a car accident last year, she can’t drive. Her ability to speak is greatly diminished, and I had to listen closely to understand what she said. After liturgy, though, her speaking was normal again. What?!

“This happens after I receive the Eucharist,” she said. “Everything is normal again, for a while.”

Rod Dreher

Propositional truth, practical results, efficiency

Discourses that could speak of the value of uncertainty and of belief as opposed to certainty, of the repetitive shaping of the self rather than a deterministic operation according to natural tendency, and of personal interaction with a God not operating according to predetermined, fixed laws-these were in a very real sense swallowed up by Western modernity’s esteem for propositional truth, practical results, and efficiency, and the languages in which these were valued.

Lori Branch, Rituals of Spontaneity.

“The repetitive shaping of the self” is why being parish Cantor, which requires my presence in services that are sparsely attended, is such a blessing.

A lay Orthodoxen encounters Calvinism

I had to make a long drive yesterday, and took my reading of historian Carlos Eire’s Reformations: The Early Modern World, 1450–1650 to audiobook.

…

The long chapters on Zwingli and Calvin were amazing — but they put a chill on me. Eire explains that the dispute between Luther and the Swiss Reformers had a lot to do with metaphysics. The Reformed were strongly anti-sacramental. They believed that there was no real correspondence between the realm of the spirit and the material realm. Listening to Eire’s explanation of Reformed theology, and its fruits, I thought that this is the Perfect System designed by brilliant men who don’t understand what it means to live in a body.

Rod Dreher

For what it’s worth

Context matters

Wives, therefore, are called to submit to their husbands—not that they had much choice within the Roman Empire. What is radical, however, about Paul’s statements on marriage for this era is his command that husbands love their wives and do so self-sacrificially.

Stephen De Young, Saint Paul the Pharisee

Everything matters

I was brought up in a Christian environment where, because God had to be given pre-eminence, nothing else was allowed to be important. I have broken through to the position that because God exists, everything has significance.

Poet Evangeline Paterson (H/T Mark Noll)

An antichrist

Niebuhr counseled in Christianity and Power Politics that the “man of power is always to a certain degree an anti-Christ.” Such a sentiment would be entirely alien to TheoBros, who want nothing more than to be men of power.

Ed Simon, Where Have All the Protestants Gone?.

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

July 10, 2026

Trump

Election tampering

It seems to me that the most sinister and calculated thing Trump is doing this time around is trying to override the constitutional control of elections by the states. I have little doubt that he’s trying to wring out more wins for MAGA candidates, starting this Fall and continuing to 2028.

But I hadn’t seen much evidence that there were court challenges or any other opposition to such dubious efforts.

Now I’ve see that there is opposition and it’s largely successful.

  1. Because he’s a stupid and impetuous man 99% of the time, Trump is getting some pushback from Republicans, especially in the Senate, at least partly on grounds that Trump’s shenanigans might actually suppress Republican voters as much or more than Democrats. The SAVE Act just may not make it across the finish line (the “prediction markets” say it won’t) despite Trump flogging Congress to get it there.
  2. I don’t know where the FBI got authority to impound anyone’s voting records, but the federal courts are (now?) virtually unanimous in knocking down such efforts — including federal courts presided over by Trump appointees.

I’m troubled by legal whores in the administration (e.g., John Eastman), but the larger story has been one of the legal profession’s steadfastness:

  1. Heavy downpours, not just scattered showers, of principled resignations from the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys’ offices, whenever Trump demanded something unethical. Trump has has to staff up with unprincipled Chuds who make fools of themselves — and of him — in court.
  2. Judges insisting on being impartial and following the law despite appointment by Trump.

It makes me proud of my former profession and delighted that we have a judiciary, unlike Congress, that’s still functioning.

“Sports Diplomacy”

The American government is giving its imprimatur — perhaps I should say lending its muscle — to the international expansion of human cockfighting. An earlier generation had the Marshall Plan. Ours has mixed martial arts.

The administration is calling the arrangement “sports diplomacy,” and there are images of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Dana White, U.F.C.’s chief executive officer, holding up a memorandum of understanding at the State Department on June 11. They’re smiling, as if they accomplished something important. As if there were a global barbarism deficit and the United States is nobly stepping up to fill the void. As if an important emblem of human civilization and expression of human culture will finally get the recognition it deserves. As if the torch of liberty can now shine brighter than ever, because it will be carried by warriors of such vision and valor that one of them, upon winning his South Lawn brawl, used his moment at the mic to crow a cuckoo credo: “Michelle Obama is a man!”

…

I cringe at our government’s advancement of such savagery while we’re retreating from the kinds of engagements that lessen hardship and relieve misery.

Frank Bruni. I cringe, too.

The Crypto President

Our Crypto President is fighting for the right of Americans to piss their retirement accounts away on stuff like, well, crypto:

Most Americans don’t look to their 401(k) plans for excitement or experimentation, instead relying on the promise that steady saving and sober planning will guarantee security in their golden years. The Trump administration wants to transform the well-worn patterns of retirement investing. To do so, it is moving to weaken the main protection workers have over their retirement money. The man in charge of the regulatory rollback is an industry insider whose former clients are among the large companies likely to benefit from his plan. Since taking office last year, President Donald Trump has loudly called for plans to include less-regulated — and often risky — investments like private equity and cryptocurrency. To achieve that goal, the administration is softening one of the strongest legal protections American workers have: the right to hold an employer accountable when retirement savings are mishandled. The change is designed to give employers cover if their workers’ 401(k)s are deflated by expensive, opaque or unproven investments. Backing this push are Wall Street firms, which want a bigger piece of the $10 trillion in America’s 401(k) plans, and America’s largest employers, who want to avoid class-action lawsuits from their employees. They have a powerful ally in Trump’s pick to lead the effort at the Department of Labor: Daniel Aronowitz, who previously ran a firm that helped large companies protect themselves against worker lawsuits. Now Aronowitz is the one driving changes to the rules those same companies play by. (Source: propublica.org)

John Ellis News Items. I’m glad to see this mentioned, but I wish that it was more prominent than ProPublica and the world’s greatest newsletter. This is the risk I immediately saw when Trump touted allowing private equity and cryptocurrency in retirement plans, though it gets a little further into the weeds than I did since I’m no expert on retirement plan law.

Mustafa Mond knew the score

I’m a little bit surprised that I haven’t heard people talking about how artificial intelligence will give us a four day work week. That’s the kind of prattle that usually accompanies labor-saving innovations.

But it’s just as well that people haven’t been saying that, because it isn’t going to happen this time just like it hasn’t happened the other times. Not in the USA anyway. Maybe in Europe, where they tend to see living as worthier than ever-rising “standard of living.”

The Inventions Office is stuffed with plans for labour-saving processes. Thousands of them.” Mustapha Mond made a lavish gesture. “And why don’t we put them into execution? For the sake of the labourers; it would be sheer cruelty to afflict them with excessive leisure.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World.

Cicero Society

The occasion was the monthly meeting of the Cicero Society, a parliamentary debating club committed, according to its terse website, to “developing excellence, preserving the Western intellectual tradition, and forming young leaders” — which in Washington is usually code for conservative job placement.

…

The evening’s debate was “Is Christianity Conservative?” I assumed the answer would be “Of course it is.” Conservatism is the political instinct that guards “permanent things” against the progressive urge to remake the world from scratch, to paraphrase one debater. But after several hours, the opposition carried the night with a different argument: Until Christian beliefs are fully enshrined in public policy, Christians will need to be radicals. One of the speakers on the winning side put the matter pithily: “Christian ends sometimes require progressive means.” If the existing order is decadent, corrupt, or hostile to Christian life, then conserving it is no virtue.

…

According to the Catholic writer and Vance-whisperer Sohrab Ahmari, Evangelical Protestantism may be more powerful as a mass political force, but Catholicism has “a deep theory of the world.”

Nate Weisberg, The Young Catholic Elite Poised to Take Over MAGA

I have never heard of the Cicero Society before. Although I care for the irreligious right even less, I’ll pass on Catholic Integralism’s right as well. I’m not yet to the point of choosing lesser evils with enthusiasm.

Genealogy by Bill of Sale

Carolyn Haliburton Carter, a descendant of slaves and a professional genealogist, tells of meeting with descendants of the people who had owned her ancestors, still living on the plantation where her family was enslaved:

What was clear is that absence exists on both sides of enslavement. My family inherited silence where records should have been. Their family inherited stories shaped by omission. Neither lineage was whole.

Scripture tells us that truth sets people free –  but it does not promise comfort in the telling. Witness, too, is costly. But it remains the only ground on which reconciliation can stand.

I wanted them to know that I had no animosity towards them. I was grateful for the opportunity, and felt compelled to say aloud what seemed necessary: “We cannot change the past, and neither you nor I were there, but we can tell the truth about it – for the future.”

Carolyn Haliburton Carter,The Price of a Name. That’s the kind of article I really value at Plough.

Shorts

  • Sonofagun! It’s true. I configured a 16” MacBook Pro with everything, and everything super-sized, and it priced out at $10,149.00! AI farms are buying so many processors and memory chips (terminology may be outdated) that the price is soaring and Apple has raised prices accordingly.
  • [A] nation united in pabulum is better than one divided into two tribal camps waging an “uncivil war” against each other about everything. (Andrew Sullivan, Biden’s Culture War Aggression)
  • A rule of good manners, perhaps good morals: those with options should not criticize those without them. (@jabel on micro.blog)
  • In 1534, papal authority was formally repudiated by act of parliament. Henry was declared ‘the only supreme head on Earth of the Church of England’. Anyone who disputed his right to this title was guilty of capital treason. (Tom Holland, Dominion)
  • In a policy analysis on the Brookings Institution’s website, Fiona Hill contrasted two world leaders: “Putin believes that things will go wrong in military and other operations — based on his own experience in the security services — but he also believes he will always find a way to fix them. Trump believes nothing will go wrong, and if it does, someone else is to blame.” (Via Frank Bruni)
  • [I]n The Atlantic, Alexandra Petri sought a final word on those iconically foul waters, which may bear some blame for a fowl fatality: “The Reflecting Pool is a metaphor so perfect, it feels almost valedictory, as though symbolism as a whole gave up and decided to sign off. On its way out, it killed a duck.” (Via Frank Bruni)
  • Block that metaphor! Of Graham Platner: “The red flag that led to his implosion was hiding in plain sight.” (Emma Tucker at the Wall Street Journal)
  • “Synergies is Latin for layoffs.” (Scott Galloway H/T John Ellis)
  • Communism is a system of government in which the ruling party controls major investment decisions while hoarding wealth for itself and suppressing all opposition. / Nevertheless, Donald Trump professes to dislike it. (Jonathan Chait)

Elsewhere in Tipsyworld

American Religion at 250

American Religion at 250

DBH’s take on American Religion

On the whole, religion inevitably fails in this country. We may have the greatest number of religious adherents, at least per capita, of any “developed” nation, but there is something about American culture that is relentlessly corrosive of genuinely spiritual values. Our indigenous forms of Christianity in particular are essentially shams and perversions, not only in the bizarre universe of white Evangelicalism, with its hospitality to blasphemous nationalism, diabolic militarism, and lunatic chiliasm, but also in many mainline Protestant denominations and increasingly in Catholic and Orthodox circles as well. America’s principal religion is America, and it tends to extinguish or subvert any rivals to its supremacy. One way or another, the myth of America insinuates itself into the sacred memories preserved in the faith and practices of Christian creeds and communities, and the sanguinary gods of patriotism manage to force their way into the company of Christ and the saints. Our civic pieties, moreover, are morasses of saccharine sentiment spiced with crass belligerence.

David Bentley Hart, Running in Circles

American Sketchbook

I regaled them with tales of Johnnie Lou, the rough-and-tumble lesbian from my hometown whose Facebook posts—which I followed in the last year of her life—were usually on one of three themes: female athletes and celebrities she thought were hot, inspirational verses from Scripture, and reasons why Hillary Clinton is a bitch. My mother loved Johnnie Lou. To this day, every time there’s bad news, especially when jihadists get up to something, Mama will remind me, “Johnnie Lou and I studied Revelations”—with an s—“for 30 years. I’m telling you, we in Revelations!” Translation: This news item was clearly predicted in the Book of Revelation, thus indicating that Jesus is coming soon, maybe the day after tomorrow.

Rod Dreher, My American Homecoming in the Free Press.

The fringe

In a real sense, the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on all represent a sort of “outer rim” of Protestantism.

Fr Andrew Stephen Damick, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

What to call American Religion

The deeper I get into Orthodox Christianity, the more alienated from American Christianity I tend to feel. I now realize that’s partly a problem with me.

But that aside, I struggle with how to characterize American Christianity. I very recently called it “heretic”. But despite its technical meaning, “heretic” connotes something too uncharitable.

Saturday morning, on America’s 250th birthday, I was reminded of an alternative adjective that I want to keep in front of mind as I write about America. It acknowledges that something’s more than a bit “off” about America’s religion without the lack of charity.

“Christ-haunted.” That’s the ticket. It acknowledges the good — a good that extends even to heretics who are quite thoroughly skewed in their Christology, like the JWs and LDSs — while alluding to the deficit.

I hope that writing this little item will facilitate my remembering of it until and unless I find something even better.

Against instrumental religion

Does the church exist for the world?

The problem I see in the idea of the Church as the catalyst for cultural and/or civilizational renewal — even if it should become that in our time — is the erroneous implication that the Church exists for the sake of the world. She doesn’t. She stands more often than not — as the Bride of Christ, wedded to one Bridegroom — as a counter to the world, marked as the world order is by transient powers, constant instability, “freedoms” that aren’t true freedom, dubious ethics (“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world”; 1 John 2:16), “wars and rumors of wars,” and all the rest.

Addison Hart, How I Wandered Into Orthodoxy: An Uncharacteristically Personal Reflection

Pride in the saddle

“From that day to this, the Christian religion has been made a stirrup to mount the steed of popularity, wealth and ambition.”

Paul Gutaker, The Old Faith in a New Nation. Gutaker is referring, of course, the Emperor Saint Constantine’s establishment of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. This is so standard a Protestant trope that it’s almost embarrassing, but Gutaker’s nice figure of speech elevates it ever so slightly.

Revealed preferences

Have you noticed how many people claim to respect gentleness, humility, forgiveness, service, and love as great ideals, while in practice they disdain these as ineffective? They reject such virtues in the day-to-day struggle of this world, being driven to win, bent on self-aggrandizement, and set on personal advancement. The truth is that the evangelical virtues require enormous spiritual reserves.

Dynamis devotional for June 29, 2026 (PDF), the feast of SS. Peter & Paul, reflecting on the Epistle reading, II Corinthians 11:21-12:9.

Final Judgment

The Final Judgment is not extrinsic and judicial, based on whether individuals broke certain rules of behavior and then are sentenced to various punishments; rather, it is revelatory.

Fr. Stephen De Young, Apocrypha

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

Semiquicentennial (and other things)

Semiquicentennial

Burnt-Over America

I thought it would be nice to limit this post to observations on the Semiquicentennial but, alas, it was not to be. Only this item and the next are so timely.

I’ve read quite a lot of religious history, including (maybe even disproportionately) the religious history of this nation of heretics. Among the most important influences of American religion is the revivalism and religious ferment of the so-called burnt-over district in New York state, where revival followed revival and where many of our most marginal Christian-ish groups, like Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists, were born amidst a seemingly unchallenged conviction that real Christianity had been lost and needed to be “restored.”

But my focus was on the ferment and spawning of group after group of restorationists. I sort of ignored that “burnt-over district” implies exhaustion of fuel with little left but ashes:

Charles Grandison Finney (1792–1875) popularized the term: his posthumous 1876 book Autobiography of Charles G. Finney referred to a “burnt district” to denote an area in central and western New York State during the Second Awakening:

I found that region of country what, in the western phrase, would be called, a “burnt district.” There had been, a few years previously, a wild excitement passing through that region, which they called a revival of religion, but which turned out to be spurious. … It was reported as having been a very extravagant excitement; and resulted in a reaction so extensive and profound, as to leave the impression on many minds that religion was a mere delusion. A great many men seemed to be settled in that conviction. Taking what they had seen as a specimen of a revival of religion, they felt justified in opposing anything looking toward the promoting of a revival.

Wikipedia

And indeed, I understand that the former burnt-over district is uncommonly disinterested in religion still today.

Leave it to David French to see this as metaphor for America as a political burnt-over district. People are so much of the mind “I just can’t even” that Trump is getting away with corruption on a scale unprecedented in our history. Meanwhile, antisemitic crypto-communists are ascendent in the Democrat party.

I can scarcely bear to bear to look any more, but through long habit (and a desire for topics readers might find interesting) it’s hard to look away, too.

I personally can’t imagine voting for the party of MAGA or the Democrats, who just when we need them most seem to be succumbing to extremely radical Democratic Socialists of America (i.e., they despise AOC, for instance, as too mainstream) that founder Michael Harrington wouldn’t recognize.

And I don’t even care that I don’t care. I’ve heard that I’m not alone in feeling that way.

In January the president was asked why members of his family had begun doing business overseas during his second term when they had sworn off doing so during his first. If perceptions of influence-peddling were enough to put them off the practice once before, why would he and they engage in it orgiastically now?

“I found out that nobody cared,” he replied, matter-of-factly.

That’s classic Trump. On the one hand, it’s a pristine vista onto a criminal mind. Moral misgivings about monetizing one’s public office are nowhere in sight, nor is there any interest in setting a good example or anxiety about the civic consequences of letting an appearance of impropriety go uncorrected. To him, the question is simply whether the crime, once committed, is likely to go unpunished. If so, proceed.

On the other hand, he’s right. For all intents and purposes, nobody cares.

Nick Catoggio, who first turned my mind to this morose thought. Then French added the metaphor and cemented it.

I’m burnt over on politics. Maybe you are, too.

Pray for America. I do so daily — not that God would Make America Great Again, but more along the lines that we’d repent, and become good for the long run.

Vive la France!

This is a time for thinking about the things we like and love best about these United States but there is a national shortcoming weighing on me that I feel compelled to mention: Of all the many regrettable political developments of the past dozen years, the most regrettable is the fact that the United States has become such a poor friend and a shabby ally, and not only to the French. Americans sneer at NATO, an alliance organized around a collective-defense provision that has been invoked precisely once in its history: rallying to the defense of the United States after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Americans lament—not without reason—the expense of what seems to many to have been a pointless war in Afghanistan, and we mourn the loss of American lives there. We are less likely to mention the 457 British soldiers who gave their lives in that conflict, the 159 Canadians, the 90 French, the 62 Germans, the 53 Italians, the 44 Poles, the 44 Danes, and the Australians, Spanish, Georgians, Romanians, Dutch, Turks, Czechs, New Zealanders, and Norwegians. When the United States under Joe Biden decided to suddenly quit Afghanistan, our government did so with hardly any consultation with the allies who had fought and died beside us there. It was a blunder and an insult. The same administration blindsided the French with the AUKUS agreement that, among other things, torpedoed a French-Australian submarine project–another blunder, another insult. The succeeding administration, it goes without saying, has done everything within its considerable power to make things worse with its childish displays of incompetence, ingratitude, and resentment. There is a certain horrifying symmetry at work: Donald Trump, a man without friends, presides over a nation without allies–or one that will be without allies if we continue on our current course.

…

We didn’t get to 250 by ourselves. There have been times when the United States has carried the world on its back—and times when the United States has been borne up by our friends and allies. We never forget when it’s been us doing the heavy lifting—but we are, at times, shamefully forgetful of what others have done for us.

…

God bless America, yes. We will need His blessing. 

But, also: God bless the friends and allies who have invested their own blood and treasure in the extraordinary project of liberty that we took up 250 years ago. Vive la France!

Kevin D. Williamson

The Other Stuff

SCOTUS

Right outcome, wrong rationale

It was a grievous disappointment to the sort of person whose interest in Republican politics is coextensive with their interest in “the Great Replacement,” which describes a lot of Trump voters. And it’s no answer to tell them that the decision did nothing more than uphold the law as it’s stood for ages. The point of the revolution is to overturn the law as it’s stood for ages. What do you think the word “postliberal” means, exactly?

…

Jonah Goldberg is correct that the new right’s difficulty with that language resembles the left’s difficulty with the Second Amendment more so than conservatives’ difficulty with abortion: “It can’t mean what it says because I really don’t want it to!”

…

Liberalism cares about process, postliberalism cares only about results … Conservatives wouldn’t want a court full of hacks and chuds but postliberals would welcome it.

Nick Catoggio

Because I’m a conservative (i.e., a “right-liberal”) who cares about process, I’m going to eat my words about a result I liked. I wrote: “I’m glad SCOTUS decided the birthright citizenship case as it did because I think the language of the citizenship clause is clear” (italics added). I now, reluctantly, retract that.

I’m reluctant because I think that the Citizenship clause of the 14th amendment is clear enough that we don’t need to look at its “legislative history.”

But there’s a canon besides that “textualist” one: avoid constitutional decisions if there’s a narrower basis. In this case, one or two twentieth-century statutes recognizing birthright citizenship would have trumped Trump’s Executive Order and disposed of the case, leaving the constitutional question for another day should our MAGA Congress repeal those statutes. This narrower statutory basis was what Justice Kavanaugh advocated in his concurrence.

My only excuses for this error are: (1) all the buzz was about the 14th amendment; (2) my perception of the clarity of that amendment’s citizenship clause riveted my attention.

I’m pretty happy with Justice Kavanaugh. I deplore his underage binge-drinking, but he’s not underage any more, and as another underappreciated public figure (not to mention sundry songsters) once said when asked to explain a blemish on his youthful record, “when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish.”

(David Post at the Volokh Conspiracy blog also commends Kavanaugh’s approach. Some Thoughts on the Court’s Opinion(s) in the Birthright Citizenship Case. I got there before he did, but I’ve been aggregating thing for another multi-topic blogpost.)

The timing couldn’t be worse

Speaking of SCOTUS decisions, I’ve lamented that the “Unitary Executive” theory is being so vigorously exercised by this particularly corrupt and personalist administration, but I sort of assumed the theory simpliciter was correct, probably because it’s pretty easy to understand and apply, partly because it has been supported even by my (non-MAGA) conservative tribe.

Now that it’s 11:59 on the Unitary Executive doomsday clock, I’m reconsidering my position.

[T]here is no question that the federal government needs to delegate authority to officials with the knowledge, skills, and expertise needed to run a complex modern state, and that Congress ought to be able to play a role in protecting that delegated authority.

Francis Fukuyama. See also George Will, Lawrence Lessig & Cass R. Sunstein, and Federalist Papers 51 (James Madison) (not all of which I’ve read as I write)

Donald Trump has demonstrated that he doesn’t really care about running our complex modern state so long as he’s serviced by Cabinet members and agency heads who will tongue-shine his shoes and he can line his pockets with impunity. Even if SCOTUS is right about this, the timing could hardly be worse.

Why the carve-out for the Fed?

For my money, one of the worst decisions of the term came (fittingly) on the same day as Slaughter, and it nicely illustrates the difference between ad hoc, bad-faith reasoning and its opposite. That was Trump v. Cook, the 5-4 decision in which Roberts, along with Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberals, held that Lisa Cook of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors could remain in her position while she fights Trump’s attempt to fire her. This, in effect, creates a carve out for the Federal Reserve from the presidential firing power enhanced by Slaughter. Why does the Fed alone receive such special protection? Because, Roberts argued, “the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design.” That’s true. But then how is an independent Fed compatible with the Constitution when the ostensible independence of other agencies is supposedly incompatible with the Constitution?

The argument appears to be that the consequences of undermining the appearance of Fed independence would be bad for American monetary policy and stability. No doubt it would be. But if it’s legitimate to think in terms of the consequences in the case of denying Fed independence, why not when it comes to denying the independence of other federal agencies? The distinction sounds arbitrary to me—unless one grants the Marxist premise that it’s perfectly “normal” for capital to warp the rules of the capitalist system around itself. (I hate granting Marxist premises, but when reality vindicates them, what else am I supposed to do?)

Damon Linker, Two Cheers for the SCOTUS Term.

It’s hard to argue with Linker on this. “Just an eensy-weensy fourth branch to protect money” has a foul odor to it.

Wooden Ships

(Song of my youth that I love)

If you smile at me, I will understand  
'Cause that is something everybody everywhere does  
In the same language  
   
I can see by your coat, my friend  
You're from the other side  
There's just one thing I got to know  
Can you tell me please, who won?  
   
Say, can I have some of your purple berries?  
Yes, I've been eating them for six or seven weeks now  
Haven't got sick once  
Probably keep us both alive  
  
Wooden ships on the water, very free and easy  
Easy, you know the way it's supposed to be  
Silver people on the shoreline, let us be  
Talkin' 'bout very free and easy  
   
Horror grips us as we watch you die  
All we can do is echo your anguished cries  
Stare as all human feelings die  
We are leaving, you don't need us  
  
Go, take your sister then, by the hand  
Lead her away from this foreign land  
Far away, where we might laugh again  
We are leaving, you don't need us  
  
And it's a fair wind blowin' warm  
Out of the south over my shoulder  
Guess I'll set a course and go

Crosby, Stills & Nash, or one of its reshufflings, Wooden Ships. Sorry that my stylesheet renders the lyrics monospaced, like a typewriter.

Buy Me a Coffee or Substack? Well, it depends.

I have never quite brought myself to the point of saying I will never move to Substack. The reason? Because I know I could make a lot more money on Substack than I make by using Buy Me a Coffee. Indeed, people remind me of this! My friend Freddie deBoer wrote to me recently to say that a post of mine would have done gangbusters on Substack — which would have meant a lot of people impulse-buying subscriptions. That’s the thing about being in that platform ecosystem: thanks to network effects, you get the impulse buyers. That does not happen on Buy Me a Coffee. You all have had to be really intentional about supporting me, which is a great thing. 

Why is it a great thing? Because by writing on the open web and merely asking for support, I have wholly escaped the pressures that come when people have paid money to see your writing and therefore have certain expectations for what you say and how you say it. Also escaped: that other kind of pressure that comes when people really like one particular post and show their liking with money — which plants the idea in the back of your head that you need to write more posts like that … whether you really want to or not. By contrast, y’all have supported me because you see what the whole package is, and know what you’re getting and are likely to continue to get. That’s really wonderful. So I have every reason to keep writing for the open web and merely requesting/hoping for your contributions.

Well, every reason but one, anyway. Why haven’t I forsworn Substack? Simple: I’m afraid that when I retire next year and take a big financial hit, I’ll be poor, or significantly poorer anyway, unless I hawk my wares on that platform. Which is pathetic. That attitude is unworthy of a mature Christian man.

So — taking a deep breath here — I solemnly affirm before God and my fellow humans that I will never write on Substack. There, I said it. If no one supports my writing I’ll work as a greeter at Walmart — but as for my personal online writing, I pledge my troth to the open web! You heard it here first.

Alan Jacobs. I’m glad I can write as I wish, not as readers might wish, and not for money.

Secularization ——> Anxious Religiosity

Whatever you heard in the early 2000s, reports of the death of transcendence have been greatly exaggerated. Secularization seems instead to provoke anxious religiosity, like a bird with no place to land. The hallowing of the sacred flame at Gettysburg is matched by an equally intense desacralizing instinct, yet even that zealous iconoclasm has a mystic quality of its own.

When I visited the Hudson Valley School painter Thomas Cole’s house in upstate New York, I noticed a tag informing me that an object had been “owned by an enslaver” (or words to that effect). I was struck by the implication that the object was stained somehow. We might not use the word “sin” anymore, but the concept is still there. The extreme scrupulosity, combined – naturally – with an Indigenous land acknowledgment, wasn’t even for Thomas Cole, but for the people who had owned the house before him. My goodness, I thought, how stressful it must be to live in a constant state of confession of an ancestor’s sins. The past is never dead. It’s not even past.

Hannah Long, Hallowed and Haunted

Shorts

  • The Republican Party worshiped the god of political expediency. Once political power became their idol, they lost control. (Nancy French, Ghosted)
  • I got a head start because my ancestors started practicing miscegenation before it was fashionable … In my symbolic family tree there’s a place for Mahatma Gandhi, Anna Akhmatova, Duke Ellington, Mister Rogers, Sappho, Anthony Bourdain, Julian of Norwich, Virginia Woolf, Miguel de Unamuno, Rainer Maria Rilke, Audrey Hepburn, Willa Cather, Cary Grant, Søren Kierkegaard, Frederick Douglass, Hannah Arendt, and many others. (Ted Gioia, reflecting on his identity as an American both in terms of physical inheritance and of chosen influences.)
  • Was Jeannie Gates right about America?
  • “If you invested $10,000 in Trump coin on January 20th, 2025, it would be worth $415 today. You lost everything. He made half a billion,” – Chris Mowrey via Andrew Sullivan.
  • “[Trump has] made more money in one year than his entire life combined. That’s not business, it’s corruption,” – Fred Wellman via Andrew Sullivan.
  • “Intel came in. They had a problem. I said, ‘I can solve your problem, but I want 10% of the company,’” – Donald Trump via Andrew Sullivan.
  • Facebook, Fox and MSNBC have done to our parents what they warned computer gaming would do to us. (Jonah Goldberg)

Elsewhere in Tipsyworld

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

UPDATE: Boy, that’s kind of embarrassing. I thought I had finally figured out what this big birthday was called, and I published this using the term “semisesquicentennial.” That was so wrong that I couldn’t bear leaving it – or pretending it never happened.

July 1

Times less

I have been asked to weigh in on this several times, but I don’t think I can improve on Evelyn Lamb writing in Scientific American:

There is a phrase, or a type of phrase, that instantly causes me to feel like I’ve stumbled into Wonderland or some other topsy-turvy dream world. “X is n times less than Y” is the basic formulation, where X and Y are quantities that can be compared and n is some number, usually (but not always) a whole number.

Most recently, I encountered it in an article that stated that Spain’s maternal mortality rate is five times less than that of the USA. I don’t want to pick on that article alone, both because I don’t want to trivialize the problem of maternal mortality and because I see similar phrases everywhere. Actual growth of energy demand is three times lower than Duke Energy estimates. Graphene paper is six times lighter than steel. Relative risk ratio for immunological graft rejection is 15 times lower than DSEK (whatever that means). YouTube runs five times slower on Chrome than on Firefox. When I read one of these phrases, I can almost feel my brain rejecting it like an ill-fated transplant, perhaps one that used DSEK instead of an immunological graft.

…

When I first noticed my negative reaction to this type of phrase, I thought I just needed to think through the situations carefully, but I’ve come to the conclusion that my rejection is wholly warranted. Please, stop writing “three times less than” or “six times lighter than” or “twenty times thinner than.” Think of your long-suffering, literal-minded math writer friends and rewrite! “Steel is six times as heavy as graphene paper.” Thank you. Now I can continue my day without a pesky brain reboot.

People get funny about numbers, particularly when trying to communicate relative scale or importance. The desire to write something that sounds dramatic leads the clumsy writer astray. For example, you’ll read about a car collector who “owned more than 28 cars.” More than 28? Like, 29? Or like 2,849,999,431,291, which also is more than 28. Check my English-major theoretical mathematics here, but I think there is a whole infinity of numbers more than 28.

Kevin D. Williamson. And here I thought I was all alone in this pet peeve. I literally don’t know what this “times less” means. If it’s five times less, is the five the numerator of a fraction? That’s called “a fifth,” not “five times less.”

And I could use a fifth of something about now.

Becket Fund

On a happier note, I felt like time another paean to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty:

[T]he Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and its annual Canterbury Medal dinner, [recall] the infamous 12th-century clash between King Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Becket. Their feud ended with Becket murdered by four knights of the king in Canterbury Cathedral. Becket thus became a martyr for the idea that you don’t render unto Caesar the things that are God’s.

“The constitutional order that Jefferson helped create has sustained a deeper and more diverse religious life than even the Founders themselves anticipated,” says Mark Rienzi, a law professor at Catholic University who serves as president and CEO of Becket.

As galas go, Becket’s is a doozy, with guests sporting kippahs, turbans and zucchettos.

William McGurn, What Real Diversity Looks Like (Wall Street Journal)

I’m pretty passionate about religious liberty, and I put a non-trivial amount of money where my mouth is. All of that money goes to Becket, none to ADF (the Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly Alliance Defense Fund).

I appreciate having gotten some religious liberty (and other) training from ADF, in exchange for which I gave sundry people 450 hours of pro bono legal services over three years. But (caveat: I do not follow ADF obsessively and my impressions may be skewed) it seems to me that ADF is and always was has been a servant of Evangelicalism and its political preoccupations much more broadly than a servant of religious freedom for all.

A visit to their website June 30 tends to confirm that, as it’s clickbaity homepage stories were:

  1. The State of Washington Let Males Wrestle Girls. She Paid the Price. Kallie Keeler was sexually assaulted by a male opponent during a girls wrestling match. School officials stayed silent about it for months. Will you give today to help Kallie receive the justice she deserves?
  2. Maryland teacher asks US Supreme Court to review gender policy requiring educators to lie.
  3. School District Coughs Up $95K After Censoring Student’s Charlie Kirk Memorial
  4. Professor Gregory Brown Explains Why Men Shouldn’t Compete in Women’s Sports
  5. He Invited Friends to Pray at Home. An Ohio City Called It an Illegal Synagogue.

Becket’s homepage is (ahem!) a marked contrast.

Becket is unbeaten (13-0) in the Supreme Court; ADF pushes the envelope harder and fails oftener. So far as I can tell superficially (I didn’t click through), I don’t disagree with ADF’s take on any of its featured cases, but my preoccupations are not theirs.

Your mileage may vary.

The limits of choice

I recently asked a waitress at a Paris restaurant for a medium-rare steak. She explained that the kitchen prepared its steaks only rare or medium. I asked politely if the cook could leave the steak on the grill for somewhere between the time it took to make it rare and the time it took to make it medium. She looked at me as though I had asked her to bring me the cow so I could introduce myself.

When it comes to politics, it’s the other way around. In Europe, you will get short shrift if you ask the barista for a nonfat, no-foam, vanilla-flavored double-shot latte. But if you want a similarly tailor-made representative in government, the choice is yours.

You can have your politics served Communist, nationalist, Social Democratic, Christian Democratic, Green, Socialist, conservative, liberal and anything in between. In Britain—which, as in most things, used to look a bit like America but now seems dysfunctional and weird—there’s a six-way contest: Labour, Conservative, Reform, Green, Liberal Democrat, plus nationalists in Scotland and Wales. That isn’t including those who think it’s time Count Binface or Howling Laud Hope was given his chance.

In America, political choice is binary: R or D. There’s no soy doppio macchiato on the ballot. You can have it black or white. Next customer.

…

Few things could induce me to vote for another four years of the sort of Republicanism we are enduring now. But one of them is definitely the alternative of Islamist-friendly, open-the-borders, defund-the-police, kill-the-billionaires socialists running the country. Out of America’s vast diversity we are somehow at risk of narrowing our choice to that between a rampantly corrupt, inept, ideologically and practically capricious personality cult of a party and a party of graduate student activists with terrorist sympathies and ideas about economics that were discredited half a century ago.

Gerard Baker in the Wall Street Journal

I hate sports gambling …

It feels like it has been too long since I petted my peeve about sports betting. Rick Reilly at the Washington Post tees it up for me perfectly since I’d rather have a root canal than watch golf:

the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen in golf was on Sunday at the U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills in New York: Bros with a live betting app on their phones, cold White Claws in their hands, tried to can-open his head.

I’ll drop $1,000 on Wyndham Clark to lose and then keep screaming at him until he does.

They heckled him all day, chirped at him, messed with his mind.

“Don’t choke, Wyndham!” they yelled. “The bogeyman’s coming!” they yelled. They rooted for his ball to go into the bunker or the rough or out of bounds. They cheered when his ball trundled off the greens. They yelled at him as he drew the club back. Some of the Jabronis got thrown out for it.

…

An Irish fan living in New York named Desmond McGoldrick posted online about the “horrible behavior” at Shinnecock on Saturday, with an “infestation of young men” who were “betting on players making putts, and when they missed, yelling obscenities at them.”

I’ve been working on a golf book for the past two years, and I can tell you the phone-app wrecking of the sport is getting worse. Jabronis have realized they can’t do anything at an NFL or NBA game to improve their chances of cashing in, but they sure can at a golf tournament, where the traditional cocoon of silence before a shot is just waiting to be trashed.

Heckling from app-wielding bettors is wrecking golf

… And I’m not too crazy about predatory “Prediction Markets”, either

In his videos, George Makihara appears to have a lucrative side hustle making bets on Polymarket.

In January, the college student posted a video that showed him winning $100,000 on a wager that President Trump would publicly say the word “McDonald’s” that month.  

The bet was one of 145 that Makihara appeared to place on Polymarket’s website between January and mid-May, based on his videos—bets adding up to almost $410,000. 

But none of those bets were real, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation.

Makihara, who declined to comment, is one of dozens of mostly college-age creators Polymarket paid to film themselves making fake trades and sometimes scoring fake wins, according to an analysis of more than 1,100 videos by the Journal, along with instructional materials and interviews with creators who have worked with the company.

On Polymarket’s actual site, more than 50 accounts made the McDonald’s bet in January, public data shows. All of them lost.

In its push to draw users to its unregulated platform, Polymarket has flooded social media with videos like Makihara’s, which appear genuine at first glance. In reality, Polymarket built near-perfect copies of its website, then instructed creators to make simulated trades on those dummy sites and hide that they were being paid by Polymarket.

Wall Street Journal, They Looked Like They Were Getting Rich on Polymarket—but None of It Was Real

DSA

Candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America are surging to victory on the claim that they are proponents of “a government by, for and of the working class” that will wrest power from both “far-right Republicans and corporate Democrats.”

Here’s the problem. Most of the leadership of the D.S.A. and a majority of voters who back its candidates are in no way working class. Instead, an elite made up of well-educated professionals dominates this insurgency.

The D.S.A.’s agenda, in turn, is packed with policies supported by left-wing liberals, white progressives in particular, but strongly opposed by both white and minority working-class (defined, in pollster shorthand, as non-college-educated) voters.

Thomas B. Edsall, New York Times (gift link)

That opening was your mic drop moment, Mr. Edsall. I’m not sure you needed the rest of the column (which I accordingly did not read)

Three readings of the book of JD

Despite being a relatively simple book, [J.D. Vance’s Communion] is susceptible to three distinct readings, none of them particularly Catholic. The first is that Communion is a book animated, despite its author’s conversion, by a particular kind of historical, political Protestantism, the faith of petty kings and princes always eager to bend faith in service of the crown. The second is that it is a book about Christianity as a secular force, a thin gruel of moralizing talk disconnected in all but name from the demands of real faith. The third, and perhaps most likely, is that it is what it plainly is: a book about how J.D. Vance would like to be the president of the United States.

Emmett Rensin, A Reading From the Book of J.D. Vance

What Do Americans Think When No One Is Watching?

I can’t quite shake What Do Americans Think When No One Is Watching?. It’s as if we’re relatively sane in private but we’re living a non-stop troll-a-thon in public, which even extends to the secret “public” of the voting booth.

Housing

Cities have largely lost the power to say yes to construction. To prevent officials from acting against the public interest, we have drained them of the power to act in the public interest. Every decision can be appealed, every complaint must be heard, every objection weighed. We are so committed to fairness that we have lost sight of the unfairness of doing nothing.

Binyamin Appelbaum via Frank Bruni

Shorts

  • … Donald Trump, the world’s most powerful man yet possibly the world’s smallest … (Bret Stephens)
  • New York Post: Trump Official Says US Control of Greenland Could Bring Back All-You-Can-Eat Shrimp at Red Lobster (TMD)
  • For at the end of the day, a church’s raison d’etre has to rest on more than just a lusty oaf of a king who couldn’t keep it in his pants. (Terry Cowan, explaining why the worldwide Anglican communion is of little interest to him.)
  • Although it may be true that nostalgia views the past through rose-colored glasses, such a criticism misses the point. To see the good while blinkered against evils is, nevertheless, to see the good. (Yuval Levin, The Fractured Republic)
  • No one is really working for peace unless he is working primarily for the restoration of wisdom. The assertion that “foul is useful and fair is not“ is the antithesis of wisdom. (E.F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful)
  • The modern West is said to be Christian, but this is untrue: the modern outlook is anti-Christian, because it is essentially anti-religious; and it is anti-religious because, still more generally, it is anti-traditional; this is its distinguishing characteristic and this is what makes it what it is. (René Guénon Guénon, The Crisis of the Modern World)
  • An AI use case: remembering the half-remembered, the “I seem to recall” stuff of life. (Tipsy)
  • No one hates like President Trump. He hates expansively, ornately, aerobically. He hates in sprawling speeches in the middle of crowds in the middle of the day. He hates in social media expectorations in lonely moments in the dead of night. Most of Trump’s talents are exaggerated or invented, usually by him. They’re his con. Hate is his core, and he’s an undisputed master at it. (Frank Bruni)
  • When someone reacts to yesterday’s birthright citizenship decision by saying there’s a calculated program of “birthright tourism,” remember they’re the same bastards who said Haitians were stealing and eating neighbors’ dogs and cats in Ohio.

Elsewhere in Tipsyworld

I offloaded a lot of Never Trumpery from this edition to elsewhere:

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

Are there any Jews in this house?

A difference between East and West

It has been a while since I did much more than curate some quotes here for Sunday. But the juices got going yesterday.

J Budziszewski, a Roman Catholic academic who has an avocation of studying and teaching Natural Law, fields a reader question about whether it’s always wrong to lie, and whether people aren’t sometimes forced into lying.

Budziszewski’s reply (I hesitate to call it an answer) includes the suggestion that one of the three questions the reader collapsed into one is:

What is the proper understanding of a lie? Is the classical definition right, so that a lie is saying what one knows to be false with the intention of deceiving? Or is a lie only speaking in such a way to someone who has a right to the truth? Or does anything which conceals the truth count as a lie, so that, for example, silences, disguises, ambushes, and polite equivocations are kinds of lie?

A test of one’s theory about lying is this fairly classic question, now mercifully hypothetical but not at all hypothetical 85 or so years ago in great swaths of Europe: “Are there any Jews in this house?”

I have tended to think that the right response to that is to look the Nazi in the eye and answer “No,”, even if you’re sheltering three families of Jews, and that doing so is not a lie because the Nazi has no right to the truth about whether you’re sheltering Jews (or perhaps are married to one).

But I’ve been leaning very recently toward a subtly different answer, one that I suspect would be relatively favored in the Christian East. Paradoxically, the right response is still “No” — but I’m inclined to think that so answering is a sin.

Let me explain. In the Christian East, sin is viewed consistently with the literal meaning of the Greek word for it: amartia or hamartia, literally “missing the mark.” It is not viewed primarily as rebellion against God.

I’ll elaborate. In a prayer all Orthodox Christians know, we ask “Lord, cleanse us of our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for Your Name’s sake.” This three-fold distinction of ways in which humans miss the mark (and what they need in each case) startled me when I first encountered it because it gave voice and vocabulary to an intuition I’d had for years but didn’t know how to articulate (it was a factor in my becoming Orthodox that they nicely articulated my intuition). And it implied that we need repentance even for our mere “infirmities” (see below).

Just this week, I heard a very erudite Orthodox Priest addressing an arguably analogous situation. In the Canons of the Church, the penance for murder is three years of excommunication. (Temporary excommunication in Orthodoxy can be a treatment, not a death sentence.) There’s not exactly an exception for killing in war, because that typically carries a penance of one year of excommunication. That is, there’s no ban on military service that might require killing in war, but if that befalls an Orthodox Christian, it is treated as a sin and given a penance — for the healing of the trauma of the soldier who killed if nothing else.

So we don’t say a soldier killing in war doesn’t sin thereby. We don’t say that he shouldn’t have done it, either.* It seems to me that the Church is treating some sins, some times, as necessary but still sin. And that seems consistent with the whole creation groaning for redemption. We live in a fallen world and cannot rise entirely above it. So maybe circumstances in this sorry world sometimes leave us spattered with the merde of doing the best we can when the best we can is bad.

So back to the Nazi jew-hunter at the door. I’m unequivocal that the right answer is ”No” and inclined to think that the right answer is still a sin. Treating it that way opens the door to confession, repentant, possibly a bit of penance (which I’ll bet wouldn’t include any period of excommunication these days), and thus the effectuation of healing the soul of the trauma of having been through that.

On a related note,

Orthodox often feel that Latin scholastic theology makes too much use of legal concepts, and relies too heavily on rational categories and syllogistic argumentation, while the Latins for their part have frequently found the more mystical approach of Orthodoxy too vague and ill-defined.

Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church.

After some 29 years as Orthodox, I feel as if the rational and syllogistic arguments are ways of keeping God at arms-length. In the context of the hypothetical I’ve been writing about, I feel that any approach that excludes the “No” as “sin” deters the person forced to utter it from an opportunity for needed spiritual healing.

Bear in mind that I’m not an expert on the Canons. That asterisk above is a reminder:

  • that St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom differed on war: Chrysostom essentially forbidding killing even in war; Basil allowing that violence may be required for the “defense of the weak and innocent,” that “it is never justifiable,” but that killings in war should not be “classifiable as murders.”
  • that Chrysostom seemingly held that beneficial deception isn’t really a lie at all, which is pretty close to Budziszewski’s second proferred definition of a lie.
  • that the Orthodox Church treats no single Church Father as the final word on things.

So if I were in a situation like the householder with the Nazi Jew-hunter at the door, you’d be right to think (a) I’m answering “No” but (b) I’m taking that “No” to the sacrament of confession next time, letting my Confessor sort it.

Repentance

Repentance is everything you do to get sin, those inborn passions, out of you. It’s reading, thinking, praying, weeding out disruptive influences in your life, sharing time with fellow Christians, following the guidance of the saints. Repentance is the renunciation of what harms us and the acquisition of what is beneficial to us, writes a holy counselor.

Dee Pennock, God’s Path to Sanity

Properly ordering things

Church leaders of a later age might have said, “Let’s admit them as they do their current jobs and eventually, when they have ‘heard the word,’ they will think their way into a new life.” The church of the Apostolic Tradition says in effect, “No, our approach is the opposite. We believe that people live their way into a new kind of thinking.

Alan Kreider, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church.

It came as a surprise to me that Catechesis in the Early Church consisted more of breaking the behavioral habits of life in a pagan setting than of imparting question-and-answer doctrinal orthodoxy, but Kreider isn’t the only one to allude to that.

Between the Revolution and the Civil War

American evangelicals never doubted that Christianity was the truth. They never doubted that Christian principles should illuminate every part of life. What they did do, however, in the years between the Revolution and the Civil War, was to make most questions of truth into questions of practicality. What message would be most effective? What do people most want to hear? What can we say that will both convert the people and draw them to our particular church? The heavy pressure for results meant that very little time or energy was available to think about God and nature, God and society, God and beauty, or God and the shape of the human mind.

Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

In my mind, after considerable reading over decades, this period, and particularly the early 19th Century revivalism, is the birth of what we call evangelicalism today. The evangelical tendency of earlier times (starting particularly around the first “Great Awakening”) was closer to historic Christianity.

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

June 23, 2026

Hypocrisy pandemic

[W]e find that Republicans who question the integrity of elections may not be doing so sincerely. In public, only 40 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of conservatives agree that U.S. elections are free and fair. Yet in private, the share rises to 61 percent among Republicans and 57 percent for conservatives.

What Do Americans Think When No One Is Watching?

This paradox keeps popping up in my reading

We did not downsize as a gesture of protest against consumer society. We simply found ourselves with a reduced income and set about discovering the things we could do without. We were helped by situating ourselves in a place where it is quite difficult to spend money in the ways we spent it before. Patmos did not have available the range of goods that eat up income at an expanding rate so that you never feel you have quite enough. And doing without them has the therapeutic effect of slowing you down. It takes time to hand-wash clothes or to jump up and down on sheets, rinse them, wring them out and hang them on a line between trees in the garden; to top and tail the beans; to mix, whip and grate by hand; to haul up buckets from a well. A life without gadgets develops a different, slower rhythm. And, oddly, more time seems to be available in a life without labor-saving devices.

Peter France, A Place of Healing for the Soul. See also The Abundance of Less and stories about AI like the one I referred to recently.

Free to say “no”

[I]f the future is inevitable, then there’s nothing for you or me to do about it. Writing in the 1940s, C. S. Lewis observed a similar dynamic in communist writers. He noted that “they tend, when all else fails, to tell me that I ought to forward the revolution because ‘it is bound to come.’ One dissuaded me from my own position on the shockingly irrelevant ground that if I continued to hold it I should, in good time, be ‘mown down’ — argued, as a cancer might argue if it could talk, that he must be right because he could kill me.”

The true believers in the AI gospel make a mistake eerily similar to that of the mid-century communists: Because they suppose themselves on the right side of history — because they imagine history has sides at all — they cannot abide even mild dissent.

But you remain free to say no.

Brad East, You Don’t Have to Use AI.

I haven’t hidden that I use AI and rather enjoy it. But a lot of serious people are raising questions, not about complicity in a possible doomsday but about how AI shapes its users.

Learning from the Plain Folk

When the Amish see an interesting new technology, they discuss where to ban or allow it in terms of its effects, particularly on the community.

We’re doing something like that with AI. Mercifully, most of the voices are sober, respectful, even a bit tentative, because the potential benefits are widely appreciated among the chattering class. I don’t expect the conversation to end soon, by which point habit may carry the day.

Meanwhile, Anton Barba-Kay is calling for caution, in the context of comments about Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical:

The document takes issue with “the technocratic paradigm” as one of its main foils. It defines that paradigm as “the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control, and profit alone shape personal, social, and economic decisions.”

…

The issue is not that these are evil thoughts to think; it is that we collectively don’t think and can’t agree on anything besides. The technocratic paradigm emerges as a background consensus for lack of other commitments held across institutions, markets, platforms, and nations. And yet this just is the transhumanist lingua franca of Babel: the very terms we all use to describe what we’re up to as we construct yonder tower.

For some reason, I find this formulation unusually clarifying, more helpful than most of what I’ve read on the subject.

Nailing Jello to the Wall

On imposing spurious rationality

At the beginning of the second Trump administration, I wrote that I wasn’t enjoying my job anymore, because it was at once too easy and too awful: the people in charge are evil, stupid, or both, and those who support them are either evil, stupid, or both. That’s all there is to say — over and over. Anything else strains the truth. Now, I find that the illogic and stupidity actually make it more difficult to provide a commentary. Analysis must necessarily impose some rational pattern on the world, but it feels like a fool’s errand or even potentially misleading to seek the whys and wherefores of how this regime makes its decisions. The “4D chess” approach to Trump punditry once imposed a spurious rationality on what was self-evidently chaos; now it feels like any attempt to understand what’s going on risks the same.

…

There is actually one predictable pattern in Trump’s behavior, and that’s that he’s completely unreliable and terrible to do business with. This looks like one of his business deals: a lot of noise, brutal recriminations, hair-raising threats, grandiose plans and promises, and then he walks away, leaving behind a mess, usually a much crappier version of what he claimed he was gonna do, and, of course, leaving his partners and creditors in the lurch.

John Ganz

And he doesn’t even kick enemies in the teeth very well

Commenting on this John Ganz post, which I partially quote, above, Damon Linker writes:

It’s good stuff—not least because Ganz is gesturing toward something I’ve been trying to wrap my head around and write about since at least May 2023. That’s when I wrote a two-part post titled “The Rise of the Anti-Ideological Right.” This was during the brief period when it looked like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis might successfully challenge Donald Trump for the Republican nomination for president in 2024. In that context, I pointed out the primary thing that separated these GOP rivals: DeSantis was a candidate of a harder-edged post-Reaganite ideology, while Trump was a post-ideological figure who promised little beyond serving as a vehicle for the enactment of a revenge fantasy. DeSantis would pursue a muscular policy agenda, but Trump would kick the right’s enemies in the teeth.

…

Trump decided he wanted to try kicking the shit out of Iran. He made the decision for no coherent strategic reason. It was all about optics and the possibility of repeating his great “victory” in Venezuela on a larger stage. But it didn’t work out as he wanted, so, as Ganz put it, Trump wants to walk away. He can always lie and say he achieved victory knowing his most credulously cultish supporters will believe the moronic deception. So that’s what he’s going to try to do.

It then falls to journalists and intellectuals to make sense of it—and we seek to do so in rational terms. Trump did X because he wanted to achieve A, but that didn’t work out, so he shifted to Y, which entailed B, etc. But this isn’t a description of what actually happened, of the actual decision-making in Trump’s head and within the administration. It’s a description by baffled observers trying to discern something coherent in what is actually just some know-nothing doofus impulsively ordering this and then that and then some other thing, based on his own mercurial sense in the moment of what’s best for him and him alone.

J.D. Vance

Robert P. George and Caitlin Flanagan, both writing at the Free Press on Monday, strike me as complementary:

  • George: J.D. Vance had himself a conversion.
  • Flanagan: It may have been a Christian conversion, but it wasn’t a full conversion to Catholicism.

Russian Conservatism

Tsymbursky rejected the aggressive geopolitical ideas of the Eurasianists, and instead proposed the idea of “Island Russia.” In Tsymbursky’s view, Russia would not benefit from challenging the US-dominated world order, as the disintegration of that order would bring chaos in its wake. Instead Russia should focus on being a regional power, and ensure peace with the West by means of a buffer zone in the form of “limitrophe states,” such as Ukraine.

Paul Robinson, Russian Conservatism

The honored few

The Kennedy Center’s name reminds Americans that honors are bestowed on those whom the nation believes especially worth remembering. By elevating an honored few, this egalitarian nation reminds itself that excellence is both real and rare. By slathering the building with the stench of self-praise, Trump proclaimed that honor is a mere bauble, a prerogative of power.

George Will

Shorts

  • “Second Circuit: FTX CEO SBF SOL.” That is an entire case summary from (Short Circuits). When it hit me, I couldn’t stop giggling.
  • He is willing to sacrifice national security in order to get a voting-security law that is intended to prevent a repeat of what did not happen in 2020. (George Will)
  • I feel obliged to point out that after several references to spiders in my homily I came home after Mass to find several spiders in our bathroom. My next homily will be featuring big piles of money. (James Quinby)
  • The content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. (Mashall McLuhan via L.M. Sacasas)
  • I have been playing with the idea that one way of framing AI is as a denial-of-service attack on the human psyche. (L.M. Sacasas)
  • We’ve turned Congress into a green room for Fox News and MSNBC. (Rep. Mike Gallagher in 2024, resigning from the House)
  • When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. (Thomas Sowell)

Elsewhere in Tipsyworld

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.