Everything you say can and will be used against you.

Sunday, August 18, 2019

Books by Barrett Tillman


The Dauntless Dive Bomber of WW II (1976), Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD. 

Hellcat: the F6F in WW II (1979), Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD. 


Corsair: the F4U in WW II & Korea (1979), Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD. 


TBF-TBM Avenger at War (1979)Ian Allan Ltd. Re-released by USNI, 1991. 


MiG Master: Story of the F-8 Crusader (1980)Nautical & Aviation, Baltimore. 2nd edition by USNI, 1990. 


Wildcat: the F4F in WW II (1983)Nautical & Aviation, Baltimore. 2nd edition by USNI, 1990. 


History of U.S. Naval Air Power (1985)Aerospace Publishers, UK (R.L. Lawson, ed.) Out of print. 


Sundowners: VF-11 in WW II (1993)Phalanx Publishing, St. Paul, MN. 


Carrier Battle in the Philippine Sea (1994)Phalanx Publishing, St. Paul, MN. 


Wildcat Aces of WW 2 (1995)Osprey Publishing, UK. 


Hellcat Aces of WW 2 (1996)Osprey Publishing, UK. 


Carrier Air War in Original WW II Color (1996)Motorbooks, Osceola, WI. (With R. L. Lawson). 


Vought F4U Corsair: Warbird Tech Series, Vol. 4 (1996)Specialty Press, North Branch, MN. 


U.S. Navy Fighter Squadrons in WW II (1997)Specialty Press, North Branch, MN. 


SB2C Helldiver Units of WW 2 (1997)Osprey Publishing, UK.  


SBD Dauntless Units of WW 2 (1998)Osprey Publishing, UK.  


TBF-TBM Avenger Units of WW 2 (1999)Osprey Publishing, UK. 


TBD Devastator Units of the US Navy (2000)Osprey Publishing, UK. 


The Complete Guide to AR-15 Accuracy (2000), Precision Shooting, Manchester CT (with Derrick Martin). 

Above and Beyond: the Aviation Medals of Honor (2002), Smithsonian Press, D.C. 

The Alpha-Bravo-Delta Guide to the U. S. Air Force (2003), Penguin, NY. 

Brassey's D-Day Encyclopedia (2004), Brassey's, Inc., Dulles, VA. 

Clash of the Carriers: The True Story of the Marianas Turkey Shoot (2005), Caliber, NY. 

What We Need: Extravagance and Shortages in America's Military (2007), Zenith, MN. 

Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan 1942-1945. (2010)  Simon & Schuster, NY. 

NASA's Contributions to Aeronautics, Vol. 2.  "Coping with Lightning" (2010) (With John L. Tillman).  NASA, Washington, D.C. 

Enterprise: America's Fightingest Ship and the Men Who Helped Win World War II. (2012) Simon & Schuster, NY. 

Forgotten Fifteenth: The Daring Airmen Who Crippled Hitler's War Machine. Regnery History, 2014. 

U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Squadrons of World War II. Osprey, 2014. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Books by Barrett Tillman, New Reform Club (Aug. 18, 2019,  1:28 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/08/books-by-barrett-tillman.html>; 


Irishman Attends Conservative Conference in the United States: Newsworthy?



Letter to the Editor
<lettersed@irishtimes.com>

August 18, 2019

Re: Kathy Sheridan, Op. Ed., ‘Young FG president should follow the money’ The Irish Times, Aug. 14, 2019, page 12, <https://tinyurl.com/y4ekfh9a>

Kathy Sheridan’s advice is “just shut up and listen.” But that is what Killian Foley-Walsh did: he attended a conservative conference in the United States to listen, not to speak. He is now being criticised by Sheridan (and others) for doing precisely what she advises. The reality is that Sheridan (and others) do not want Foley-Walsh to listen; they want him (and the other politically incorrect) to disappear.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Irishman Attends Conservative Conference in the United States: Newsworthy?, New Reform Club (Aug. 18, 2019, 8:32 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/08/irishman-attends-conservative.html>;


Thursday, August 15, 2019

When will the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Decide CREW v. Trump & Why has it Already Taken Over 9 Months?




CREW v. Trump (2d Cir) is one of three so-called Emoluments Clauses cases brought against the President. This suit (like the other two actions) poses a number of challenging legal issues for the courts to adjudicate. Judge Daniels, the federal trial court judge who first heard CREW, dismissed the plaintiffs’ action for lack of standing—for that reason, he reached no other legal issues. Plaintiffs appealed. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument was held on October 30, 2018. The median time between argument and a decision in a Second Circuit civil case is 7/10ths of a month. Nevertheless, it has been over 9 months, but no decision from the Second Circuit has emerged. Some (count me among them) are puzzled (if not astounded) by the length of time that has already elapsed, and we wonder when the Second Circuit will announce a decision.

I am going to posit a theory why this case has taken as long as it has, and why it might take yet a significant amount of more time. What I put forward here is just a theory.

I think the panel is divided—and not a mere 2-to-1 division between a majority and dissent. Instead, I think there is one majority in regard to standing, in which the panel divides 2-to-1, and finds for the plaintiffs, and another majority in regard to the merits, in which the panel again divides 2-to-1, but here it will find for the defendant. Thus the court will ultimately dismiss, but the reasoning and precedential value of that reasoning will be murky. (Indeed, one or both of the two separate majorities may be divided in regard to their reasoning, although voting the same way on that particular issue.) Such divisions in a panel decision are rare. Given that the Second Circuit has a long-standing and unusual policy of farming out all panel opinions to the other members of the entire en banc court for comments, an opinion divided along the lines set out above might take more time to go through full internal review prior to publication than the run-of-the-mill Second Circuit opinion, even when compared to other opinions with strong dissents. Such a fractured appellate panel opinion (akin to some of the Supreme Court’s church-state rulings) might also be somewhat more lengthy than is customary, and this too will slow down internal review prior to publication.

We have all waited over 9 months—we might have to wait some significant more time still.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, When will the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Decide CREW v. Trump & Why has it Already Taken Over 9 Months?, New Reform Club (Aug. 15, 2019, 11:01 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/08/when-will-united-states-court-of.html>. 



Friday, August 09, 2019

Letter to The Irish Examiner on Young America’s Foundation



Letter to the Editor
letters@examiner.ie,
digitaldesk@examiner.ie



Aug. 8, 2019



Re: ‘Rise of the right built on hate and fear’ Irish Examiner, Aug. 7, 2019, 12:00 AM, <https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/ourview/rise-of-the-right-built-on-hate-and-fear-942195.html>.

Your author attempted to link attending a Young America’s Foundation conference to recent shootings in the United States—and asserted that there was a “commonality” rooted in “growing intolerance morphing into hate.” This is not only unfair, but quite untrue. YAF and its sister organization with a similar name, Young Americans for Freedom, go back to 1960, with the publication of the famous Sharon Statement.

YAF had and has three core missions; they relate to supporting and educating the American public—particularly on college campuses—in regard to: [1] individual liberty / limited government; [2] the free-market economy; and [3] a strong national defence / anti-communism. These are mainstream American political positions, and the people who have and continue to advocate for these views have not engaged in anything but normal democratic politics.

For a good history of YAF and other similar American right-of-centre organisations, which like so much of American conservatism is misunderstood in Ireland and in wider Europe, see George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American since 1945 (1976). It is a short book, and so very helpful for the beginner.

Seth Barrett Tillman

YAF website link: <https://www.yaf.org/about/>; and,

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to The Irish Examiner on Young America’s Foundation, New Reform Club (Aug 9, 2019, 10:22 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/08/letter-to-irish-examiner-on-young.html>. 



Letter to The Irish Times on Young America’s Foundation



Letter to the Editor
<lettersed@irishtimes.com>


August 9, 2019

Re: Jennifer Bray, ‘Young Fine Gael president criticised for attending conservative conference in US’ The Irish Times, Aug. 8, 2019, 2:18 AM <https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/young-fine-gael-president-criticised-for-attending-conservative-conference-in-us-1.3979996>; and,

Re: Jennifer Bray, ‘Split in Young Fine Gael after president attends right-wing US conference’ The Irish Times, Aug. 8, 2019, 12:13 AM <https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/split-in-young-fine-gael-after-president-attends-right-wing-us-conference-1.3980549>.

Your reporter consistently characterizes Young America’s Foundation as “right-wing.” This is not only unfair, but quite untrue. YAF and its sister organization with a similar name, Young Americans for Freedom, go back to 1960, with the publication of the famous Sharon Statement.

YAF had and has three core missions; they relate to supporting and educating the American public—particularly on college campuses—in regard to: [1] individual liberty / limited government; [2] the free-market economy; and, [3] a strong national defence / anti-communism. These are mainstream American political positions, and the people who have and continue to advocate for these views have not engaged in anything but normal democratic politics.

For a good history of YAF and other similar American right-of-centre organisations, which like so much of American conservatism is misunderstood in Ireland and in wider Europe, see George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American since 1945 (1976). It is a short book, and so very helpful for the beginner.

Seth Barrett Tillman

YAF website link: <https://www.yaf.org/about/>; and,

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to The Irish Times on Young Americas Foundation, New Reform Club (Aug. 9, 2019, 10:17 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/08/letter-to-irish-times-on-young-americas.html>. 

Thursday, August 08, 2019

The Divine Right of Judges

Federal courts get all the attention in the press. But over 39 million people look to the courts of the state of California as their primary source of justice under the law. The California court system is the largest in the nation. You might be interested to know how the jurists and practitioners approach the law within that system.

Roughly half of the litigants in the trial court come away feeling justice has not been done. Their remedy is to appeal the decision of the trial court in the Court of Appeal. So how does the Court of Appeal determine whether the trial court has given that person justice under the law?

The excerpt below comes from the Rutter Guide, probably the most prominent and authoritative practice guide used in California, and routinely cited in court opinions. This excerpt discusses the most "relevant factors" that appellate courts evaluate when reviewing decisions of the trial courts:
a. [1:50] Did the “right party” win? This fundamental question should be asked in every case. Whether the “right party” won requires an objective factual inquiry, and is one of the most difficult threshold issues trial counsel must confront (especially since, as a practical matter, trial counsel's judgment may be less than objective after years of “living with” the case).

If an independent and objective observer, after reviewing all the facts, is likely to conclude that the “right party” won at trial, the judgment will probably be affirmed. If the appellate court judges feel comfortable with the result, the odds are that any error at trial will be deemed “harmless,” because there was no “miscarriage of justice” (¶8:285 ff.).

Jon B. Eisenberg, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. App. & Writs (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 1:50.

Let us recapitulate so far:
  1. The law will decide each case.
  2. If you lose your case and you believe it is against the law, you may appeal.
  3. The first step of the appeal is to determine whether the decision was against the law. If it is against the law, we go to the next step. 
  4. The next step of the appeal is to determine whether we like you. Objectively! Objectively! If we don't like you -- objectively! -- then you lose, the law be hanged.

I attended a talk years ago given by a justice of the California Court of Appeal who expressed, with approval, the same approach articulated in the excerpt above. Addressing a roomful of appellate attorneys, this justice said, in paraphrase, that in many cases, putting legal arguments aside, you know your client shouldn't win.

The principle of the rule of law is that it is the law that tells us who the "right party" is, that it is only the law that tells us if a client should or should not win. Is this the principle being expressed in the excerpt from a prominent and authoritative practice guide written for the largest court system in the United States, and in the above referenced remarks of a prominent appellate justice in that system?

The Myth of the Rule of Law is a 1995 law review article written by John Hasnas,  a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and a professor of business at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business. In that article, Prof. Hasnas wrote -- cynically, I once thought -- that "the law is made up of contradictory rules that can generate any conclusion, what conclusion one finds will be determined by what conclusion one looks for." He also wrote -- hyperbolically, I had hoped -- that "the law is always open to interpretation and there is no such thing as a normatively neutral interpretation." And he concluded -- merely theorizing, I prayed -- that:
The observation that the legal system is highly stable is, of course,correct, but it is a mistake to believe that this is because the law is determinate. The stability of the law derives not from any feature of the law itself, but from the overwhelming uniformity of ideological background among those empowered to make legal decisions. Consider who the judges are in this country. Typically, they are people from a solid middle- to upper-class background who performed well at an appropriately prestigious undergraduate institution; demonstrated the ability to engage in the type of analytical reasoning that is measured by the standardized Law School Admissions Test; passed through the crucible of law school, complete with its methodological and political indoctrination; and went on to high-profile careers as attorneys, probably with a prestigious Wall Street-style law firm. To have been appointed to the bench, it is virtually certain that they were both politically moderate and well-connected, and, until recently, white males of the correct ethnic and religious pedigree. It should be clear that, culturally speaking, such a group will tend to be quite homogeneous, sharing a great many moral, spiritual, and political beliefs and values. Given this, it can hardly be surprising that there will be a high degree of agreement among judges as to how cases ought to be decided. But this agreement is due to the common set of normative presuppositions the judges share, not some immanent, objective meaning that exists within the rules of law.
Long before we suspected a "deep state" in our executive bureaucracy, there has been a "deep state" of legal elites in our judiciary all along. 

How can I resist Prof. Hasnas's conclusion any longer?

The Rule of Law is a "myth," then, conjured and sustained for the same reasons as the Divine Right of Kings: "to enlist the emotions of the public in support of society's political power structure." The Rule of Law is merely its successor, a modern upgrade of the earlier myth. "The myth of impersonal government is simply the most effective means of social control available to the state."

But recall that, under the Divine Right of Kings, the King is the head; he is supreme; he is above every thing, and there is no power by which he can be tried. If the Rule of Law be a myth, and no different from the Divine Right of Kings, then we have merely replaced one King with a thousand, finding our royalty not in Windsor but in every executive office and every judge's chambers.

But the logic is no different than as Samuel Johnson had found it: "Therefore, it is, Sir, that we hold the King can do no wrong; that whatever may happen to be wrong in government may not be above our reach, by being ascribed to Majesty. Redress is always to be had against oppression, by punishing the immediate agents. The King, though he should command, cannot force a Judge to condemn a man unjustly; therefore it is the Judge whom we prosecute and punish."

Making the necessary adjustments, under the Rule of Law we are to have our relief, not in law, which we have established is inaccessible to us, nor against Judges, which we have established are supreme and beyond our power to try, but "by punishing the immediate agents." This means, I take it, that we are to take up our writs against... the clerks of the court?

I fail to see we have improved matters.

Monday, August 05, 2019

Letter to The Irish Independent on Young America’s Foundation



Letter to the Editor
The Irish Independent
<independent.letters@independent.ie>


Aug. 5, 2019


Re: Hugh O’Connell, ‘Anger as Fine Gael Youth leader attends US right-wing conference’ The Irish Independent, Aug. 5, 2019, 2:30 AM, <https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/anger-as-fine-gael-youth-leader-attends-us-rightwing-conference-38374027.html>.                                                  

Hugh O’Connell tells the reader that the “mission” of Young America’s Foundation (“YAF”) is “to groom future conservative leaders.” He cites The New York Times. But there is no good reason to look to the NYT for a statement of YAF’s mission—any more than one would inquire from YAF as to the Times’ mission. YAF’s mission statement is right on its website, and has its roots in the famous Sharon Statement from 1960.

Contrary to what Hugh O’Connell and his sources at the Times believe, YAF has little to do with abortion or same-sex marriage—issues which, in the United States, are generally left to the states. Historically, YAF had three core missions; they related to supporting and educating the American public—particularly on college campuses—in regard to: [1] individual liberty / limited government; [2] the free-market economy; and [3] a strong national defence / anti-communism.

For a good history of YAF and other similar American right-of-centre organisations, which like so much of American conservatism is misunderstood in Ireland and in wider Europe, see George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American since 1945 (1976). It is a short book, and so very helpful for the beginner.

Seth Barrett Tillman

YAF website link: <https://www.yaf.org/about/>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to The Irish Independent on Young Americas Foundation, New Reform Club (Aug. 5, 2019, 6:06 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/08/letter-to-irish-independent-on-young.html>. 

Sunday, August 04, 2019

Social Science Research Network: Rankings of IRISH (including Northern Ireland) law faculties


Social Science Research Network: Rankings of IRISH (including Northern Ireland) law faculties








Seth Barrett Tillman, Social Science Research Network: Rankings of IRISH (including Northern Ireland) law facultiesNew Reform Club (Aug. 4, 2019, 5:31 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/08/social-science-research-network.html>. 

Friday, August 02, 2019

Heterosexuality is NOT a joke

I have been informed that some people think this is a joke:


Allow me to remind you:

According to the American Psychological Association: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." The only correct explanation for the first is patriarchy. The only correct explanation for the latter is enlightenment. Let us see who is laughing once Science catches up to the Right Side of History.


This woman had the correct enlightened idea: “Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement, so in the search for recognition of my struggle, with each day that passed, I deconstructed my heterosexuality and was substituting it with an artificial bisexuality.”

Alas, the patriarchy dragged her back with its sweaty man claws, hence the risible modifier "artificial" bisexuality. Before her backslide she was correct: there is no "heterosexual" trait that is not also a LGBT trait. It is a spectrum. There is room for everyone. There is no need for made up patriarchal fantasies like "heterosexuals."

Finally, recall that science cannot find a difference in the brains between heterosexuals and transsexuals. (The fact they are even looking proves the lasting hateful effects of the patriarchy.)

Hence there is only one reason to use a label like "heterosexuality": patriarchy.
Q.E.D.

This needs to go on the back of the tee.

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

What Is Equitable Jurisdiction? What Is Equitable Relief? Old Questions Answered!

Please see:

Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, What is the Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action in the Wall Litigation?Reason—Volokh Conspiracy (July 31, 2019, 10:46 AM), <https://reason.com/2019/07/31/what-is-the-plaintiffs-cause-of-action-in-the-wall-litigation/>.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, What Is Equitable Jurisdiction? What Is Equitable Relief? Old Questions Answered!, New Reform Club (July 31, 2019, 11:39 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-is-equitable-jurisdiction-what-is.html>. 

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Teaching the Queen’s English


Letter to the Editor
The Spectator 
22 Old Queen Street
London, SW1H 9HP
England (UK)
<letters@spectator.co.uk>

Re: James Forsyth, ‘The Boris Show’ The Spectator, 27 July 2019, pp.10 –11

Your columnist wrote: “There are plenty of Boris fans and plenty of enemies, but even the latter see an upside in him becoming Prime Minister.” becoming Prime Minister is a gerund; therefore, the pronoun preceding it should be in the possessive case: his, not him. I struggle to teach my students this. Please, don’t make my life more difficult. 

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Teaching the Queens English, New Reform Club (July 30, 2019, 11:45 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/07/teaching-queens-english.html>. 




Saturday, July 27, 2019

“I Am Important,” She Said Sadly: The Unexpectedly Depressing State of Being Liberated

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects"
--Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
The modern era has been marked by specialization. Workers have been drained from the broadness of the countryside to the narrowness of the cities, where they found factories offering long hours doing highly specific tasks. In the process, the rest of human life, too, became more specific. No one accustomed to agrarian life would have suggested that women -- sharing many of the duties on the family farms -- were dependent upon men any more than the reverse was likewise true. 

But the specialization of urban life took its toll. Economic viability now depends on one’s ability to devote nearly every waking hour to a specific skill. As early as the 18th century Adam Smith noticed that city workers were being deprived of “subject(s) for thought and speculation," and in the process were losing the “power of judgment, even as regards ordinary matters.” If there is not an app to attend to each of life's particular labors, in time perhaps there will be a government bureau. 

On the other side of the equation, the value of the generalist -- almost universally, the woman -- decreased. As G.K. Chesterton noted, “Women were not kept at home in order to keep them narrow; on the contrary, they were kept at home in order to keep them broad. The world outside the home was one mass of narrowness, a maze of cramped paths, a madhouse of monomaniacs.” 

Even human sexuality has been specialized, with the gratification and procreative functions becoming separated in the public mind even by the early 20th century (and probably much sooner than that). In the first part of that century, every Christian denomination still officially taught against contraception. By the 1930s, however, the Anglicans first started to allow it, and even the Washington Post expressed concern that this would lead to the collapse of traditional sexual morality. 

Marriage, too, became specialized -- so specialized, in fact, that not just each couple but the couple’s individual constituents could determine its significance. And, if that determination should change, either spouse was empowered to end the marriage unilaterally, regardless of the impact to the community or the children of the marriage. There were 639,000 divorces in California in 1969, the year of the first No-Fault law; there were 1,036,000 by 1975. 

According to developmental psychologist Hilary Towers, the upshot of this policy, now near-universal in the Western world, is that “[a]n unfaithful spouse can single-handedly—and with the court’s stamp of approval and aid—end a marriage and swiftly “move on” with the adultery partner and half or more of all the family income and assets—pulling the children along with him or her (at least part-time).” 

This liberation was assisted by the 1972 Supreme Court decision in Baird v. Eisenstadt, expanding the right to legalized birth control, first announced in the watershed case of Griswold v. Connecticut applicable to married citizens, to all citizens irrespective of marital status. 

Eminent sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in a book called The American Sex Revolution, had predicted in 1956 that “sex freedom” and “sex anarchy” would lead to critical social ills, including rising rates of divorce and illegitimacy, abandoned and neglected children, a coarsening of the arts high and low, and much more. “Sex obsession”, argued Sorokin, now “bombards us continuously, from cradle to grave, from all points of our living space, at almost every step of our activity, feeling, and thinking.”

As Pope Pius XII would put it two years later, "History is not mistaken when it indicates the alteration of the laws of marriage and procreation as the primary cause of the decadence of peoples.” 

Another Harvard sociologist, Carle Zimmerman, would likewise write around the time in Family and Civilization that modern contraception would lead to “the atomistic family type,” including rising divorce rates, increasing promiscuity, juvenile delinquency, and neglect of children and other family responsibilities. “The United States”, Zimmerman concluded, “will reach the final phases of a great family crisis between now [1947] and the last of this century”—one “identical in nature to the two previous crises in Greece and Rome.” 

The cranks have been proven right. Liberation has been depressing. 

In recent decades, “women’s happiness has fallen both absolutely and relative to men’s in a pervasive way among groups, such that women no longer report being happier than men and, in many instances, now report happiness that is below that of men.” Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 1, no. 2 (2009): 190. Moreover, “this shift has occurred through much of the industrialized world.” Id. 

An interesting paradox surfaced in a 2009 "narcissism index." Psychologist Jean Twenge published her findings from a personality test based on research collected from 16,000 college students. Twenge reported a sharp rise of young women's self-affirmations. Jean W. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (New York: Free Press, 2009). 

The index indicates that only 12% of students in the 1950s agreed with the statement “I am an important person”; that percentage exploded to 80% by the late 1980s. 

Yet around the same time in 2006, Psychiatrist Miriam Grossman reported that psychiatric-consultation hours among 2,000 UCLA students had doubled within a few years, coupled with a 90% increase in serious psychiatric problems. Her own cases reflected many students afflicted with excessive drinking, drugging, one-night sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and other accoutrements of hookup-culture. Miriam Grossman, Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student (New York: Sentinel Trade, 2007).
The kids are not alright. 

Married, monogamous people are more likely to be happy. Divorced men, in particular, face health risks—including heightened drug use and alcoholism—that married men do not. The Rand Corporation reported that, based on about 140 years of demographic evidence: 

“The health benefits obtained by men who stay married or remarry stem from a variety of related factors, including care in times of illness, improved nutrition, and a home atmosphere that reduces stress and stress-related illnesses, encourages healthy behaviors, and discourages unhealthy ones such as smoking and excessive drinking. Influences of this type tend to enhance a man’s immediate health status and may often improve his chances for a longer life.” 
Lee A. Lillard and Constantijn (Stan) Panis, "Health, Marriage,, and Longer Life for Men," Research Brief 5018, Rand Corporation, 1998.

Sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox also agrees traditional marital norms confer benefits: “[C]hildren who grow up in intact, married families are significantly more likely to graduate from high school, finish college, become gainfully employed, and enjoy a stable family life themselves, compared to their peers who grow up in nonintact families.” W. Bradford Wilcox, ed., Whene Marriage Disappears: The Retreat from Marriage in Middle America (Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia, National Marriage Project; New York: Institute for American Values, 2010).

Nobel Prize-winning economist George Akerlof explained in 1996 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics that the sexual revolution -- contrary to common prediction -- had led to an increase in both illegitimacy and abortion. Akerlof wrote again in 1998 that decrease in marriage and married fatherhood for men led to a simultaneous increase in substance abuse, incarceration, and arrests, among others.

Raquel Fernandez and Joyce Cheng Wong, writing in Free to Leave? A Welfare Analysis of Divorce Regimes, NBER Working Paper (June 2014), posit that unilateral divorce, rather than liberating women, actually disproportionately benefits men: “Conditioning solely on gender, our ex ante welfare analysis finds that women would fare better under mutual consent whereas men would prefer a unilateral system.” 

To the contrary, women would be happier under traditional norms: "How many unhappy couples turn their marriages around?" ask Dr. Waite and Maggie Gallagher in their book, The Case for Marriage. "The truth is stunning: 86 percent of unhappily married people who stick it out find that, five years later, their marriages are happier, according to an analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households by Linda Waite. . . ."

Can we, or can we not, "have it all"? Certain of mankind's ancient burdens we should like to wear more lightly, but throwing them off entirely has proved harmful. Sexual and family norms are among the demolished walls that we are now beginning to understand were load-bearing. “A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women,” predicted C.S. Lewis in “Have We No Right to Happiness,” published shortly following his death in 1963. Women tend to value domestic happiness more than men, and men tend to value their mate’s looks more than do women. “Thus,” concluded Lewis, “in the ruthless war of promiscuity women are at a double disadvantage. They play for higher stakes and are also more likely to lose. I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provocativeness. These signs of desperate competition fill me with pity.”

And yet still in these dark hues do we paint the visions of women’s new roles in modern society. When the progressive liberal genius Bertrand Russell agitated for women’s suffrage, no points did he award to marriage, no credit to raising families, for producing happy and meaningful lives. Russell earned a considerable fortune as a public intellectual, turning in prolific comments on human affairs and civic order. But if ever it did occur to Lord Russell that the family was the basic unit of civil society, the addled 20th century version of it proved unequal to his sexual appetites: Bertie left his devout wife, Alys, for a tryst with a married woman, before taking up with yet another mistress. Gaunt and bookish as he was, Lord Russell more than made up for his homeliness with high self-regard. "I am important," he might have thought to himself while stepping out on Alys. 

To paraphrase Sir Compton Mackenzie, women will find it no more difficult than Sir Russell to behave like men, but they will find it extremely difficult to behave like gentlemen.

One cannot expect any better treatment from elites like Russell who advocate for the individual’s political rights to more college degrees, more employment, and more divorce, and more birth control. In their purely political world, an individual is not protected by a society of families, communities, husbands and fathers, wives and mothers; rather they are pursued by CEOs and Bertrand Russells. 

To the modern elite, the individual is reduced to constituent parts. The individual is specialized. The individual is an insect.

Thursday, July 25, 2019

If You Thought HRC’s “Deplorable” Comments Were Bad—Come Visit My Bailiwick: CONLAWPROF

Today (July 25, 2019) on Conlawprof:


Professor AAA: I understand that there are people out there who will help Trump get re-elected if Democrats are not as vigorously anti-Trump as they are, or more accurately, if Democrats are more realistic about what can be accomplished than they are. I dont know how many such voters there are, but even one is too many. They are nuts, and complicit in evil. It was this kind of voter, those who stayed home or voted for Jill Stein, who gave us Trump in the first place. (emphasis added)

Seth Barrett Tillman, If You Thought HRCs “Deplorable” Comments Were Bad—Come Visit My Bailiwick: CONLAWPROF, New Reform Club (July 25, 2019, 2:01 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/07/if-you-thought-hrcs-deplorable-comments.html>. 


Letter to The Irish Times: Responding to ‘Plenty of blame to go around for Johnson’s ascent’

Letter to the Editor
The Irish Times
<lettersed@irishtimes.com>

25 July 2019


Re: Una Mullally, ‘Plenty of blame to go around for Johnson’s ascent’ The Irish Times, (July 24, 2019, 4:13 PM), <https://tinyurl.com/yydbw6yp>    

Despite a host of furious insults, Una Mullaly’s diatribe is not really so much directed against the new British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as it is directed against Brexit and the British societal “structures” which she believes made it all possible. But she is wrong. The societal “structures” and the so-called establishment were uniformly (if not universally) lined up against Brexit. Let’s have a good, hard look, shall we, at precisely: “Who, in the Brexit referendum, was on the Remain side?”

Her Majesty’s Government was for Remain.
The leading opposition parties were for Remain.
All the primary regional parties (DUP excepted) in Scotland (SNP), Wales (Plaid Cymru), and Northern Ireland (Sinn Fein) were for Remain.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was for Remain.
The EU, its diplomats, and the wider diplomatic community, including Ireland’s government and diplomats, were all in for Remain.
Cameron, the then incumbent Prime Minister, along with all his living predecessors, were for Remain.
George Osborne, the then incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer, was for Remain, and he even threatened the votersvia his next proposed budgetshould they have the temerity to vote Leave.
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, then and now was for Remain.
The majority of members of Parliament were for Remain.
President Obama was for Remain.
The Bank of England and the bureaucracy were for Remain.
The labour unions were for Remain.
Academia was overwhelmingly for Remain.
Industry (eg, the Confederation of British Industry) was for Remain.
The BBC and the largest part of both the new and old media (Murdoch’s broadsheets excepted) were for Remain.
All the highbrow magazines were for RemainThe Spectator excepted.
The actors & arts communities were for Remain.
The vast majority of student activists were for Remain.
Owen Jones and all the other wannabe student activists were for Remain.
The vast majority of the bar and the legal profession were for remain ... but I repeat myself.

Now ask yourself, precisely: “Who, in the Brexit referendum, was on the Leave side?”

Just some voters. And Una Mullaly’s position, simply put, is: “Voters—what do they know?”

Seth Barrett Tillman

Seth Barrett Tillman, Letter to The Irish Times: Responding to ‘Plenty of blame to go around for Johnson’s ascent’, New Reform Club (July 25, 2019, 8:28 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/07/letter-to-irish-times-responding-to.html>.