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.