How are my kids?

Anselm reported to his submarine, the U.S.S. Hampton last Friday. (Today is Wednesday). He drove all the way to my house from Connecticut. He had a fun drive out. He drove by Ft. McHenry in Maryland to see where the battle that inspired the Star Spangled Banner was faught. He visited the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Bass Pro Shops pyramid in Tennessee. He visited the Petrefied Forest in Arizona. He camped in national parks and forests to sleep at night and pocketed the money the Navy gave him for hotels. He stayed with Kathleen and I for about 12 days. We went fishing and clay shooting. He served as the sponsor for Katheen's son when he was baptized. My sister and brother-in-law came over for dinner. He bought a surf board he found on craigslist.org for $50 and tried to learn to surf but the board is too small for him.

Basil is still very sick from covid. He has all the long covid symptoms and is miserable. I go over to his mom's house where we pray the hours and play chess. He beats me all the time now.

Repentance

Without comment I offer you these two stories.

News from the World

News from the Church

Judicial Review

It is June and that means the Supreme Court of the United States is announcing it's decisions. Another one was handed down this morning and that prompted one pundit I heard on the radio to opine that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court as much power as it currently exercizes, meaning the Court does not have the power to limit or abolish the legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. In short, according to the man on the radio, judical review is an unconstitutional agrandizement of the Supreme Court that began with Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Over the course of my life I have heard many people say the same thing, that Chief Justice John Marshal invented the power and foisted it on the American people in the Marbury vs. Madison decision, and that the Congress and the President should resist the Supreme Court's usurpation with patriotic vigor. Strangely, even the U.S. judiciary's official website goes with the Marbury vs. Madison origin story. I think this is wrong.

Just as I look to the authoress of the New Testament to expalin the New Testament, I look to the authors of the Constitution, reveranlty called "The Framers", to the Founding Fathers, and the Patriots to explain the Constitution. And among The Framers, Founders, and Patriots, three stand out as explainiers of the Constitution: John Jay, (Member of the Continental Congress, writer of the Olive Branch Petition, ambasador to Spain during the American Revolution, signer of the Treaty of Paris, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Governor of New York, and founding member and first Vice President of the American Bible Society), James Madison (colonel in the Orange County militia, drafter of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States, and respondent in the case of Marbury vs. Madison), and Alexander Hamilton (founding member of the Hearts of Oak militia, officer in the Continental Army, member of the Congress of the Confederation, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, founder of the Bank of New York which is now known as BNY Mellon Bank, founder of the New York Post, and first United States Secretary of the Treasury, and founder of the U.S. Coast Guard) After the Constitution was written, debated, and passed by the delegates it was sent to the 13 States for ratification. It was a touch and go thing as one State, Rhode Island was totally against the Constitution and several were on the fence. Many of the Founding Fathers and Patriots were opposed to ratification and lead a campaign against the ratification. But these three, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay gave themselves the task of convincing the people of New York to ratify the Constitution. They wrote a series of essays for publication in the various nwespapers in New York, that explained and defended the Constitution to the New Yorkers. The essays are now called Federalist Papers.

In Federalist Paper #78, published in the New York Packet 17-20 June 1788, Alexander Hamilton explained the judicial branch of the new Constitution, and was not ambiguous about the Supreme Court's power to define the limits of Congress's power to make laws, and that the Supreme Court is a buffer between the Congress and the People who have to live under the Congress's laws.

"If it is said that the legislative body is themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

Furthemore, that the Supreme Court is the final barrier to legilative tyrrany, interpretting the laws pased by the Congress and judging them according to the Constitution, the Constitution being superior to any act of Congress.

If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . [W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

Thus we see that the authors of the Constitution considered the doctrine of judicial review to be fundamental to the Supeme Court's role in our government, and, therfore judicial review should not be though of as an arrogancy of Chief Justice John Marshall only invented in 1803.

Teaching High School in the Age of Wokeness

The HR director in the the school district I work in the most has asked me to apply for one of their vacant social science positions. It would be a lot more money (and benefits!) than I get as a long-term sub. And I would LOVE to teach American history, U.S. government, and economics. In fact, because of all of the prep-work I've done for Kathleen over the past few years I've already written all the lectures and tests I'll need if I take the job. That part would be easy. So what is the hard part? Why don't I apply for the job?

There are two problems. The first is something called the Cal TPA. It is a tool the State of California uses to winnow out people who don't agree with the pedagogical philosophy and social mission of the system. I wrote a TPA a couple of years ago and it was rejected. I could do another one, I know what they want me to say, but I think it is wrong. I think, that for teaching history, especially, that reading history and writing history (with Chicago style footnotes and bibliography) is the best way. But the state wants teachers to embrace the idea that different people have different styles of learning and to use all those styles at once, to adapt each lesson every day to every student's imagined learning style, even though there is no evidence that that helps students learn more. But the woke mob doesn't want kids to read and write real history, such as those books written by Thucydides, Julius Caesar, James McPherson, SShelby Foote, Paul Johnson, David McCullough, and Winston Churchill. But the woke mob just sees white male opressors in that list of names. The woke mob only wants Howard Zinn the plagiarizer, the communist, the liar, the perverter of the minds of children. (I do think students need to know about Zinn, but not because he is right. They need to know about him because he is influential and wrong. Very extremely wrong.)

I think that for teaching U.S. Government one must start no later than the Mayflower Compact, but preferably with Moses and Plato for one,really, can't understand The Mayflower Compact without reference to the Bible and The Laws. and deal with the English Civil War, Separation of Powers (No, it did not start with Montesquieu, but with Moses and Isaiah. But I would still have my students read Montesquieu.), John Locke's Two Treatises on Government because they are the foundation of The Declaration of Independence, and the Declaration of Independence because it it is the foundation of the Constitution, and the Constitution (article by article with accomanying readngs from the Federalist Papers for who better to the explain the Constitution than the men who wrote it?) because the Constitution is the foundation of all our laws. But the woke mob only sees white male oppressors. They (according to a recent poll, more than 90% teachers in my area) think training studendents to "change the world" a la Paulo Freire, Saul Alinsky, and Angela Davis is what they ought to be doing, not teaching them what our civilization has learned over the millenia, which is what I think teachers ought to be doing.

My economics class would start with watching two movies. Yes, this is such an enormous departure from the book-based pedogogy of the history and government classes but these are such a good movies for introducing economics and illustrating why economics is important. The movies are I, Pencil and The Road to Serfdom. From there we would talk about the history of economics beginning with Sargon of Akkad, ancient Chinese economic philosophy (special attention to Confucious since he was and reamins so infuential) and coming up through the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith (with special atention given to the impact of coastal geography on the economies of Japan and Africa),William Bradford's diary of telling of the first communist expiriment in the New World, culminating with reading the The Law by Frederic Bastiat. That would all be in the first three weeks of the semester. Then we would read through Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, one chapter at a time, culminating with an assignment to read and criticize The Communist Manifesto in 10 to 15 pages. The woke mob would freak out at this because it deals with facts of how the world actually works; how people deal with scarcity, how people make decisions to allocate time and physical resources, and how people reckon costs and benefits of economic opportunities instead of the fantasy of a state-coerced collectivest utopia.

But why do I keep saying the "the woke mob"? Well, this brings me to the second reason why I am not going to apply for the job the HR department wants me to aply for. Like a mob they act as one are irrational and dangerous. While working in the distrct I see lots and lots of indicators that I, really, would not be welcome here as a full-time teacher. First there are all the social-justice activism signs, posters, flags, and murals. The people who put up all these eblems of anti-racism, and [insert oppressed group here] pride are a mob that shouts down disagreement, that looks at the ideas I hold as true and beautiful but sees oppression and hate; their reaction being one of attack and censor. I was only here a couple of days when another history teacher told me the classroom I am subbing in had a teacher but that teacher "was never on-board with the social-justice part of the job." They got rid of him. I know the same thing would happen to me. So there is no future for me as a history, government, and economics teacher in California.

But, maybe, you suggest, a private school would hire me. I've tried that but there are three problems I keep running into:
1. All the schools I have looked at require a state teaching credential and that puts me right back in the TPA problem. (See above.),
2. They are as woke as public schools, or
3. Or they require agreement with a non-Orthodox statement of faith.

But today I came across a school that is looking for a 3 month high school history substitute. I know a couple of the founders of the school, one since I was a little boy in the early 1970s. I know one of the teachers. They are all Fundamentalist Protestants but don't require adhearance to an Orthodox-excluding statement of faith, hmmm, at least, it is vague enough that I think I can sign it. It will pay less than I make working for the government schools but I will apply. Maybe, it will turn into something good.

Gun Laws

I used to sell guns. I know something about gun laws. I have refused to sell guns to people who were intoxicated, who failed back ground checks, or just seemed a little bit weird. I have sold guns to transvetites who feared for their safety, to brand new citizens thankful for freedom, old women who lived alone and were afraid at night, to hunters who traveled the world looking for trophies, and to collectors of specific brand names or designers. I know someting about what the American people think about guns.

Over the last few days I have heard politicians making absolutely crazy statements. I have heard bans proposed for guns that don't exist. I heard the President claim that a 9mm bullet can rip a lung out of a human body. (It is physically impossible) I heard the President say that when the Constitution was written a person couldn't buy a cannon. (In reality, up until the 19th century more cannons were owned by private citizens than by the United States government. Even the Washington Post knows this, and they pointed it out over a year ago but the President keeps lying.) I hard a lawmaker describe a gun that holds a 17 cartridges as having a "high magazine capacity clip" which tells me that the lawmaker has never held a gun or read a gun operator's manual. I've heard politicians call for increased and expanded background checks instead of just enforcing the laws already on the books, such as putting the President's son in prison for lying on his background check form. I heard a congresswoman call for the banning of 9mm pistols, as though they are more deadly than 10mm, .45 calibre, .44 calibre, and .38 calibre pistols. All of this does not mean that I am opposed to changing some laws to reduce the number of murders.

Here are some facts which inform my ideas for changes to the law:

1. According to the U.S. Department of Justice "Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record."

2. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinguency Prevention, the young are responsible for most violent and physically dangerous crime.
2a. 28% of vandalism is commited by people under the age of 21. 12% by poeople 21-24.
2b. 26% of arson is committed by people under the age of 21. 8% by people 21-24
2c. 26% of car theft is committed by people under the age of 21. 12% by people 21-24
2d. 24% of murder and non-negligent manslaughter is committed by people under the age of 21. 17% by people 21-24.
2e. 39% of robbery is committed by people under the age of 21. 14% by people 21-24.

3. I have observed that somewhere between 10% and 30% of teenage boys hate school. I do not mean they dislike it. I mean they utterly hate it. It does nothing but tell them that they are failures and treats them like they are in prison or a mental

hospital. School turns these boys into defeatist anti-social malignancies, who have no regard for their neighbors or larger society. I hear these boys talking about illegal car racing, sideshows, getting high, and vandalism. Many of them seem to be attracted to the apparant freedom and power of gangs, whether those gangs are the Nortenos, Crips, or the Aryan Nation one thing they all have in common is that they disregard the "system" the boys experience as oppressive, and, vicariously (none of my students are actually in the gangs) make the boys feel successful.

4. Because they are legally adults 18 year olds can buy any gun offered for sale. Though some States have recently passed laws reguiring people to be 21 before they can buy handguns, those laws are sure to be stuck down by the Supreme Court on 2nd and 14th Amendment grounds.

5. Most Americans who die from guns are suicides.

6. Most mass shootings in schools are committed by boys under the age of 21.

7. If you can trust the sample survey methodology (I am always a little skeptical of statistical extrapolations.), an estimated 4.6 million American children live in a home where at least one gun is kept loaded and unlocked.

8. According to the F.B.I.s Crime Data Explorer in 2020 there were 17,813 homicides. Of those, 662 were committed by people using only their hands and feet as weapons, and only 455 were commited by people using rifles of any kind.

So what changes would I make to our laws if I could?

1. I would do away with compulsory academic education. If kids can't stand sitting behind a desk and doing mind-numbing worksheets and struggling to learn how to do quadratic equations don't force them to. Let them train to be heavy equipment operators, electricians, farriers, or anything else that involves physical labor. The teacher unions will hate it, just like they hate vocational education in highschools now. (Just try being a master machinest and getting a job teaching high school students to be machinists. You have to stop earning money, for at least, three years and go to college to get a degree, then work six months as a student teacher for no pay, then put up with all the educational beaurocracy bullshit. This is why the school I work at has two vacant vocational education teacher position open since September.) This will help get a lot of kids out of the place that feels like prison and into a place where they can grow and achieve, and hopefully, forestall the building of resentment and desperation that results in school shootings.

2. I would ammend the Constitution of the United States to make the age of majority 21. This will free the states to outlaw the purchase of some guns or all guns by people under the age of 21. Merely keeping guns out of the hands of the young will lower the death by gun rate.

3. Require that guns be stored in a safe, even if there are no children in the house. This will keep guns out of the hands of people who do not own them.

4. Because the vast majority of murderers have a history of felony violence convictions and people under 25 make up such a lage percentage of murderers, I would sentence violent criminals to 20 years for the first offense, no matter the age. BUT (this is a big but.) change the way the prison works. Instead of just locking people into giant concrete warehouses like we do now, assign the young men 12 to 25 to prisoner brigades that live in the rough out in the deserts of Arizona or Utah. Work them hard everyday. Subject them to something similar to the harsh military life of the late 18th/early 19th century. After a few years, after the inclination to bad behavior is worked out of them, train them in more skilled jobs, such as forestry, soldiering, and construction. After 20 years, or longer if their sentence is for more than 20 years, they will will be set free, and with a good recommendation, maybe, they can stay in the prisoner brigades as cadre instead of as prisoners. And even those who do not stay in the prisoner brigades and return to freedom will be older than the prime age for committing murder.

6. Boys and girls distract each other and change their behavior to show off for each other which lowers academic performance. Also, boys and girls, on average, have different academic strengths that are displayed in divergent patters of academic success , with boys on the losing end. Therefore, to keep boys from feeling humiliated in front of girls, which is a factor in school mass shootings, I would make all K-12 schools single-sex.

7. Because an armed society is a polite society, follow the example of Kennesaw, Georgia and require every head of household to be armed. Actually, I am joking about this, kind of. It makes me wonder, why is Kennesaw so much safer than Detroit when the gun ownership rate in Kennsaw if much much higher in than in Detroit? I don't think it's because of guns. I think its because of the cultural differences between those places.

8. Though the evidence linking mental illness to violent crime is sketchy the link between mental illness and suicide is well established. Expedite hearings for temporary removal of firearms from people for mental health reasons, that they are a danger to themselves or others. But I would want them represented by a court appointed lawyer if they can't afford their own, and be able to require the government to prove within a reasonable amount of time (48 hours to a week) that they are not okay in the head. I would want that decsion made by a jury, not by judges and psychologists. And I'd require the government to prove again the danger from the person possessing guns every thirty days or return them to the owner.

These changes won't stop all homicides but it might stop a lot of them.