John C. Wright's Journal

Another favorable review; this one from SF-Crowsnest.

“John Wright has done a nice job of building from the original books, exploring a lot of the original threads and taking them much further with many of the original players back. “

I need not mention that NULL-A CONTINUUM was (a) written by your humble author and (b) has a space princess in it. The Space Princess Renaissance is poised, yes, poised I say, to take the literary world by storm! 

A signal victory for free men is won this day. Let the enemies of liberty snarl, whine and sulk; this day, by a narrow margin, the creeping totalitarianism of the modern age has been pushed back half  a step, and made to hesitate. Rejoice! The night still comes, but the twilight will last an hour longer, perhaps.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

 (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

 (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts  and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home..

 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

My comment:

I am pleased, not a little, that the ambiguous holding in Miller has been clarified. Miller is a curt and unhelpful case, and not a stellar piece of legal reasoning.

I notice with shock and surprise that the dissent by Justice Stephens lists no precedent aside from Miller for his militia-only interpretation. He cites dozens of cases holding that Miller does not support an individualist interpretation–a matter not in dispute. Miller neither said yea or nay– but offered not one case supporting his position regarding the actual argument before the court.

Had I offered a paper in a first year law course citing NOTHING in support of my position, I would have received an F. I contrast the windy void of logic unfavorably with the opinion in Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F. 3d 203 (2001), which affirmed the individualist interpretation, that had page after page of authority in support. If you have not read Emerson, please do, starting with paragraph V: the clarity and thoroughness are refreshing.

This dissent is the poorest piece of legal reasoning I have ever read. Roe v. Wade likewise did not present precedent in support of its conclusion. Would you write a proof in geometry without citing your axioms?

For those of you not familiar with the basics of legal reasoning, the reason why law is based on Stare Decisis is to allow reasonable men to use law as a guide to their conduct.

If  a reasonable man cannot, by examination of previous cases, know what is expected and what is forbidden in his current case, then the law is arbitrary, which is to say, no law at all.

Law without precedent, activist law, judge-made law, legislation from the bench, the law of a so-called Living Constitution, is like facing the Roulette Wheel of Justice in Mad Max’s Thunderdome: just a wild spin, and you get whatever consequences random chance throws up.

A reader asks, regarding my last post:  “Now, I’m no particular fan of deconstructionism, but part of your condemnation bothers me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to imply that we should never apply skepticism to first principles (or at least some subset of them). What justification do you have for this?”

Sorry, but no. I did not imply that one cannot apply skepticism to first principles.

First principles are statements which must be true because they cannot rationally be false. They cannot be investigated by rational deduction, because rational deduction presupposes them. They can be questioned, if at all, by induction, by seeing where and how they fit into the scheme of things. Something that purports to be a first principle, upon skeptical examination, might turn out not to be.

Here is the procedure. Apply skepticism to first principles. See if a manifest absurdity results. If is does, accept the first principle as confirmed. If it does not, draw out the logical implications of the universe that would exist were that first principle not the case. If that universe matches the universe, (including the part of the universe where rational ideas live) the first principle is no longer a first principle.

ADDED LATER: I talk often about the Four Causes of Aristotle, and I think my comments are nigh-incomprehensible without an understanding of what these Causes are. Here is a sum-up I found on the web: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

We post-Hume fellows tend only to think of efficient (also called mechanical) cause, and never to talk about the other three. This leads to perilous confusion.

A worthy essay by Mr. Geoffrey Miller is here.
The NY Times article he explodes is here.

My comment:

I have often wondered, sometimes with brain-whirling astonishment, how modern philosophers can persuade themselves, and persuade millions, of some proposition that any schoolboy with one semester of Logic 101 can see, if taken seriously, contradicts itself.

I conclude tentatively that the problem is the application of metaphors from empiricism to non-empirical ideas. An empiricist takes as his unquestioned axiom that no statement ABOUT A SENSE IMPRESSION can not be accepted as true until and unless a sense impression confirms it, or, to be more precise, fails to falsify it. This axiom is a metaphysical or epistemological one, not an empirical one. It is a conclusion of a theory of knowledge. It implies that all empirical statements must be held up to a skeptical test, doubted, and confirmed if they pass the test.

Imagine a fool with a pepper shaker, who discovers a little pepper makes his meat tastier. If a little pepper makes his meat taste better (so he reasons) a lot of pepper will make everything taste better: the fool proceeds to upend the whole pepper grinder into the ice cream, the mint tea, the toothpaste, the butter, the beer and the fluid he uses for cleaning his contact lenses. Likewise is our skeptic who takes a principle of skepticism from the empirical sciences, and applies it heedlessly to areas where skepticism about first principles will simply negate any conclusions whatsoever, including the conclusion that skepticism should be applied to first principles.

It is not a philosophy. It is madness. Let us coin the term “axiomophobia’ to refer to this peculiar and self-defeating form of applying empirical reasoning to non-empirical disciplines.

Today, ORPHANS OF CHAOS just went into a second paperback printing.

This is cause for celebration! Le the joyous news be spread!

I pass on without comment a work of the lyric muse, as manifested through our fellow artiste, Mother Wit:

Clerihew has the following properties:

• It has four lines of irregular length
• The rhyme structure is AABB; the subject matter and wording are often humorously contrived in order to achieve a rhyme
• The first line consists solely (or almost solely) of the subject’s name.

Clerihews are not satirical or abusive, but they target famous individuals and reposition them in an absurd or commonplace setting, often with an over-simplified and slightly garbled description.

I found these sitting around unfinished on my hard drive from I don’t know when.  A quick polish and here they are, in alphabetical order.

In the Pixar film THE INCREDIBLES, one of the themes, very lightly touched upon — it does not intrude into the plot — is that Mr. Incredible wants to use his incredible powers for good, wants his son to compete in sports, and wants to excel. The surrounding society does not want the Supers around, and pesters them out of work through lawsuits. Meanwhile Syndrome, the villain, wants to demonstrate that he with his inventions is more than equal to the Supers; and he laughingly says that he plans to release his technology to the world, “so that EVERYONE will be Super! And when everyone is Super (chuckle) no one is.”

This raises an interesting question. What is wrong with Syndrome’s plan? If being a Super is just a matter of having the right technology, if anyone who dons Iron Man’s armor can be Iron Man, if anyone who picks up a rifle can be a soldier, nay, a war hero, why not make everyone a war hero?

Well, the question answers itself. The film makes it perfectly clear that Syndrome’s tech cannot make him in to a hero. He is not even able to defeat the robot he built for the express purpose of defeating. The attempt to make everyone equal, equal in outcome, merely drives the able down to the level of the mediocre.

Giving away Syndrome’s technology will not “makes everyone Supers” the only thing it will do is make it so no one is super — which is exactly his plan and exactly the villain’s point.

Now, if you are reading the movie to be some sort of anti-technology rant, it is not. If you are reading it to be anti-egalitarian, it is.

My five-year-old son just got a trophy for soccer. I was as pleased as any father could be, and I pulled him on my lap, and praised him. Then I figured out everyone got a trophy. All my praise turned to lies in my mouth. I could not unsay what I had just said to a five-year-old. I could not tell him that this trophy was meaningless.

I could not tell him to try his best, either, because the reward was the same for his best as for his worst.

My other son quit the team before the season ended, and the coach wanted to give him a trophy in any case. I was revolted by the idea, deeply offended.

They are trying to make my sons into little, weak, selfish, puling nonentities: boys who will cry if they do not get the same reward for hard work as for goofing off. Boys who will grow up to think life is unfair unless they are handed everything they never earned on a silver platter. I cannot regard this attempt with anything but a deep mistrust, bordering on hatred. Who are these people, and what do they have against my boys? Why are they trying to spoil them?

As you might imagine, the theme in THE INCREDIBLES seems very poignant and pertinent to me. This movie is the same theme as “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut.

Equality means everyone gets to run the race. It does not mean everyone comes in first.

This ruling issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission, was a ruling that forbids him from saying anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, in any communication.

Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.

He also is ordered by the court to provide a written apology. The resemblance to a Soviet-style self-criticism is not accidental. There was no allegation made of damages to the court; no one was hurt, no one lost business or reputation.

The ruling did not enjoin speech that was hateful, or harmful, or illegal, or speech that might encourage violence or despite. The word “disparage” means criticize.

ADDENDUM: Meanwhile, Brigit Bardot has been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in France for “hate speech.” See here. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine the political ideology involved in this case.

Andrew Stanton of Pixar recently confirmed that he is writing the Pixar adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter of Mars. [via /Film]

Every clean-limbed fighting man of Virginia must rejoice! The South will rise again… to Mars!
I have yet to see a Pizar film, long or shot, that was not somewhere in the good-to-brilliant range of storytelling. This is fine news for all of us who were introduced to SF through visions of thoats crossing theocre-hued dead sea bottoms of Barsoom, of four-armed Green Men with their radium rifles, of the gigantic, doomed air-plant of Mars, the sky-pirates and the beautiful jewel-adorned space-princess Deja Thoris.

As a publicity stunt, my publisher for a limited time, is giving away an ebook version of ORPHANS OF CHAOS at no charge. Want to read it? You’ll have to buy the sequels to find out what happens, of course.

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/006746.html

Do you recall the famous tale of a King who thought he could command the waves to advance no further, and threatened the sea with his sword? Well, it turns out that the tale is the exact opposite of the way its told. Canute was proving to his courtiers that time and tide obey no man.

From Vikings-R-Us, the website for all your Viking needs:

“Let all men know how empty and worthless is the powerof kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey”.

So spoke King Canute the Great, the legend says, seated on his throne on the seashore, waves lapping round his feet. Canute had learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was “So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back”. Now Canute was not only a religious man, but also a clever politician. He knew his limitations – even if his courtiers did not – so he had his throne carried to the seashore and sat on it as the tide came in, commanding the waves to advance no further. When they didn’t, he had made his point that, though the deeds of kings might appear ‘great’ in the minds of men, they were as nothing in the face of God’s power.

Subterranean Press announces Songs of the Dying Earth, the Jack Vance Tribute anthology edited by George R. R. Martin and Gardner Dozois which includes stories from Robert Silverberg, Terry Dowling, Glen Cook, Tanith Lee, Liz Williams, Kage Baker, Elizabeth Moon, Neil Gaiman, Dan Simmons, Elizabeth Hand, Matt Hughes, Mike Resnick, Phyllis Eisenstein, Paula Volsky, Howard Waldrop, Tad Williams, Walter Jon Williams, John C. Wright, and Lucius Shepard.

Wait a sec. Who was that guy after Walter Jon Williams and before Lucius Shepard?

Well, no, not exactly, but the Mythopoeic Society is kind enough to to consider my work for an award.

Here is in part the notice I received:

Dear Mr. Wright,

I am very pleased to inform you that your publications, *Chronicles of Chaos: Orphans of Chaos*, *Fugitives of Chaos*, and *Titans of Chaos*, have been selected as finalists for the 2008 Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Adult Literature. The winners of this year’s awards will be announced at the banquet during Mythcon 39, to be held in New Britain, Connecticut, from August 15-18, 2008.

The Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Adult Literature is given to the fantasy novel, multi-volume, or single-author story collection for adults published during the previous year that best exemplifies the spirit of the Inklings.

Hmm. Far be it from me to have reservations about an honor someone might pay me, but modesty forces me to wonder if those books were really in the spirit of the Inklings? I seem to recall an undue amount of paganism, schoolgirl naughtiness, blasphemy, and so on. The only Christian I remember off the top of my head is a man-eating mermaid. On the other hand, Grendel Glum believes in matrimony, and Quentin believes in (and fears) the powers of the saintly relics, and Amelia clearly thinks that there is an innate moral order, a natural law, to the universe, so perhaps some Inkling influences are present after all.

Writers can never really see what their own works look like. We only see the mask from the inside.

An Article by Andre Klavan appearing in City Journal:

I visited a fourth-grade class in a slum school recently. Since I’m a storyteller by trade, the teacher asked me if I’d tell the kids a story. Now I’m a good storyteller and an all-around charming guy, no doubt, but I wasn’t prepared for the degree of fascination I inspired. Rambunctious mischief ceased on the instant and resolved itself into riveted attention and awestruck stares. I was awfully pleased with myself by the time I was done.

“Don’t take it personally,” the teacher told me brusquely. “It’s just that they’ve never seen anyone like you before. A man—obviously tough—who’s not a gangster.”

I don’t know how tough I am—they were fourth-graders; I guess I could’ve taken most of them in a fair fight one-on-one—but that’s not what she was getting at. Her point was that you have to take just one look at me to see what, in fact, I am: an unapologetic, because-I-said-so, head-of-household male. They used to call us “husbands” and “fathers” back in the day. That’s what these kids had never seen.

The teacher told me that she once had to explain to the class why her last name was the same as her father’s. She dusted off the whole ancient ritual of legitimacy for them—marriages, maiden names, and so on. When she was done, there was a short silence. Then one child piped up softly: “Yeah . . . I’ve heard of that.”

I’ve heard of that. It would break a heart of stone.

Here is the whole article:http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_diarist.html

The idea of chivalry, that a man can be tough toward his foes (or, even show military courtesy toward his foes) but will be gentle toward the weak, poor and wretched, is a Christian concept; it is a mystical concept, a concept difficult or impossible to explain to those who analyze all history and human relations as a power struggle between collectives of victim-groups.

The idea of fatherhood is also a concept, a concept that is wild, mythical, mystical, Romantic, that cannot be explained to someone whose gray mental universe contains only victims and exploiters. Their philosophy makes them better able to understand ideas like child abuse and children’s rights.

And again, the idea that children are dependent on Fathers and Mothers, owing them honor, and deserving from them protection and upbringing and love (fatherly love from the father, motherly love from the mother–let those who say the two loves are the same be anathema!)  is an idea that cannot be explained to a generation of selfish and irresponsible spoiled brats raised by the previous generation of irresponsible and selfish spoiled brats.