The Crowhill Journal

Ben Shapiro had a good podcast yesterday on the origins of the epidemic of depression the country is going through. It’s episode 1699.

He doesn’t believe the solution is political. It’s social and cultural. It’s a combination of a loss of meaning, a lack of connectedness with other real people, and connection with fellow complainers online.

He also spoke about the computer revolution as the third major change in human history. (The first being agriculture, the second being industry.)

It’s worth your time.

A lot of people think that would be a good use of time travel. If you could kill Hitler before he came to power, you could (they say) stop WWII, the Holocaust, etc.

I’m not so convinced. I’m afraid that if someone went back and killed Hitler, somebody more competent would have taken his place, and he would have taken the world down a similar path — but the Nazis would have won.

I want somebody to go back in time and find the person who turned the wedding toast into a speech, and convince him out of it. Or maybe just tie him up for a few hours to prevent it from happening.

When I was a kid, I asked for a cast of a Neanderthal skull for my birthday. And I got it. My parents encouraged intellectual pursuits.

You might guess that I’ve always been interested in primitive man, and so does Google, because I get a lot of stories about it in my newsfeed.

When I see these articles, I often imagine how other people would react to them. E.g., my fundamentalist friends, my overly “scientific” friends, etc.

Leaving aside the 6-day creationist POV, I chiefly imagine these three views of early man.

1. They knew things that we’ve forgotten.

They understood ancient mysteries and were closer to nature. They didn’t need medicines and therapy. If only we could talk to a Druid, or to someone from Atlantis, we’d be so much better off.

2. They were little more than talking apes.

Who cares what they thought? They didn’t know the most basic realities of their surroundings. They were superstitious and ignorant, and while they may have known some crafts that we’ve forgotten, they really couldn’t teach us much.

3. They “knew” things that we’ve suppressed.

Our overly scientific, rationalist approach to the world has caused us to ignore and suppress things that ancient man accepted, even though he might not have understood exactly why. As a consequence, we’ve lost some of what it means to be human.

I tend to prefer views 2 and 3. Our ancestors were certainly ignorant and superstitious, but because they didn’t experience the distortion of post-Enlightenment epistemological worries, their cultures and beliefs can give us insights into human psychology.

Having said that, it still might be fun to talk to a Druid. Especially Merlin.

Innovation happens on a scale of weeks while legal wrangling happens on a scale of decades.

The court may finally come to the right conclusion, but hundreds of businesses may have closed down in the meanwhile.

In a Swift Decision, Judge Eviscerates Internet Archive’s Scanning and Lending Program

Although in this case, the slowness seems to be on the part of the copyright owners, who should have filed this suit long ago.

Let’s dispense with the obvious. If Trump committed a crime, he should be punished for it.

But “no one is above the law” doesn’t justify going after Trump harder than they would normally do with someone else. E.g., if a particular crime is usually not prosecuted, it should not be prosecuted in Trump’s case simply to make a point. Unless this is a crime that should be prosecuted more, and a high-status case will send a message.

I don’t think that’s the case here.

Also, if a crime is usually not prosecuted, they should either start prosecuting it or take it off the books. Having lots of crimes that are prosecutable at someone’s discretion is not a good thing.

I’m only discussing broad issues because I don’t know the specifics, and it wouldn’t matter if I did. The specifics don’t matter. This case is not a matter of equal justice, or any of the bumper-sticker slogans people use to describe it. It’s two things: a political battle, and a chance for someone to make a name for himself.

If we were to appeal to general principles, I would say you don’t arrest a former president unless you have a very strong case, and my understanding is that this is not a very strong case. But general principles really don’t matter here, and anyone who says differently is being naive.

My prediction is that he will not be arrested. I don’t think the left wants to turn Trump into even more of a martyr than Trump already encourages himself.