Episode: The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Live from Tulsa!

This week the 3WHH podcast "went mobile people!", venturing to the University of Tulsa's College of Law for a live-taping before an enthusiastic audience of law students, faculty, and some loyal listeners. We departed slightly from our usual format, and focused on a single subject: the Declaration of Independence at 250.

John Yoo decided to be more obstreperous than usual with his utilitarian-positivist-pragmatism, but it made for a highly entertaining episode. We had a wonderful time visiting Tulsa.

Don't miss the YouTube version of the episode, which includes the "pre-game" introduction (not included in this audio episode) wherein Steve performed (an allegedy cheesy) magic trick illustrating the breakdown of the separation of powers.

And needless to say, exit music is "Ten Miles to Tulsa." We can't wait to go back.

And here's the video if you prefer to watch rather than listen:

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Nanocelt TheContrarian@NanoceltTheContrarian26w

ReplyingtoSteven Hayward

WilliamWarford (View Comment):
John was particularly obstreperous throughout this episode.

Steven Hayward (View Comment):
It was mostly schtick! Mostly.

And it was all schlock, to stay in the Yiddish. I am appalled. Never have I heard such an abhorrent podcast by so called "conservatives.' No one seems to know the answer to the original question, that John dodged, Steven bungled, and Lucretia never was able to articulate.

The answer, Lady and Gentlemen to "what is a self-evident truth": It is an AXIOM! A-X-I-O-M. Say if several times and don't forget it. If John knows the answer, he refuses to state it. In fact it seemed like he was laboring mightily to obfuscate to avoid answering the question. Since he doesn't know, or care to know the answer to that question, his claim to be an Originalist and wanting to know what was in the heads of the Founders, is completely specious. Franklin made a single correction to Jefferson's penultimate draft of the Declaration when he change the words: We hold these Trusths to be sacred and undeniable, etc. to We hold these truths to be self evident. If is self evident the Franklin, the scientist, the polymath who understood Euclid, was labelling those following phrases as Axioms. The synonym is Postulates. Like Euclid's. Euclid was the bible of the Scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, of modernity. And Euclid's geometry is logical complete and consistent as proven by Kurt Godel in the early 20th Century. The Founders bridged the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason, so called. Steven is close with Proposition, but no cigar. Lincoln made the same mistake. So did Coolidge. It seems that no one in America understands the Declaration. The second paragraph is a STATEMENT of AXIOMS. If you disagree with the Axioms (you have to understand them as such before you can even agree or disagree with them) you cannot accept the Constitution or understand it. The Constitution stands to the Declaration as Euclid's Theorems stand to his Axioms. They follow from the axioms and use the axioms to construct the proofs. Likewise the Constitution is structured (very finely and completely) as essentially a machine, in the context of a mechanical world view extant since Newton that formed the basis of the world view of the Western World at the time.

Yoo's interpretation of the law and the responsibility of lawyers seems suspend in the air, without a basis except a constitution that materialized out of thin air. His amoral view of the law (consistent with Oliver Wendell Holmes'degredation of British Common Law),into a position of 'calling balls and strikes' is truly egregious, and the fact that he shares the apparent view of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is an indication of how depraved we have become. John ignores the entire context of the Founding. To understand the Founding, he has to read the Bible, both Old and New Testament's. The American Founding was virtually an application of the Old Testament with a nod to Greece and Rome as examples of how not to establish a government (pure, or direct, Democracy, of Greece that the Founders took pains to avoid, for example, but that Teddy Roosevelt championed in his Charter of Democracy speech: "I believe in pure Democracy."). And John Adams was correct. The Constitution was made by and for a Judeo Christian nation, and is not applicable to any other (Doesn't work under Sharia law, although I'm sure John could conjure up some nonsense as to why if does). As Jergen Habermas acknowledged after his long interview with Pope Benedict, the entirety of Western philosophy is tinkering around the edges of the Judaic ethos of Justice and the Christian ethos of Love. John is apparently unable to understand any of this. As NOT in any way, shape, or form, apparently, of buying in to the Judeo Christian context of the Western World and America, he cannot understand either the moral milieu or the legal milieu that produced the Declaration and the Constitution.

Utilitarianism is hogwash. Maximum of pleasure for the most and minimal pain for the fewest> What about those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain. John's philosophy is best represented by the Marquise de Sade. One begins to understand how he could write that torture memo and warrantless wiretaps, etc. Rawlsian ideas of law and justice are likewise hogwash. John's Haavaad/Yale education is showing. Blatantly and dangerously.

And in his amoral view of the law, he obviates the need for lawyers; they can all right now be replaced by AI. And in his case, the joke about Mark Zuckerberg creating an AI image of himself to interact with employees is spot on: How could you tell the difference between an AI version of John and the real thing? The AI version might show human characteristics.

I would suggest some reading for John: The sermons of Whitefield. All the writings of Jonathan Edwards, in particular his Essay on the Nature of True Virtue. That will start to orient him to what was going on with the Founders. He seems oblivious. To have someone like this instructing law students is a guarantee of destruction of the Constitution. It barely exists now. And the inability of Steven and Lucretia to respond to him is profoundly disappointing.

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
WilliamWarford@WilliamWarford26w
John was particularly obstreperous throughout this episode.
PODCAST ORGANIZATION
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Steven Hayward@StevenHayward26w
ReplyingtoWilliamWarford
WilliamWarford (View Comment):
John was particularly obstreperous throughout this episode.
It was mostly schtick! Mostly.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Quintus Sertorius@BillGollier26w
Very much enjoyed the Podcast as always. Fascinating back and forth. This Podcast is always my Saturday morning go to!!
Also Professor Hayward thanks for mention Annika Niles and Rush; I’m a huge fan of Rush and thought their performance on the CBC the other night was outstanding…Geddy and Alex can still play and Annika did great. Ironic though that Finding My Way is actually a John Rutsey song when Rush was still a Zepplinisque band!!!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
WilliamWarford@WilliamWarford26w
ReplyingtoSteven Hayward
WilliamWarford (View Comment):
John was particularly obstreperous throughout this episode.
Steven Hayward (View Comment):
It was mostly schtick! Mostly.
I know. I love John, obstreperous as he is. lol
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Nanocelt TheContrarian@NanoceltTheContrarian26w
ReplyingtoSteven Hayward
WilliamWarford (View Comment):
John was particularly obstreperous throughout this episode.

Steven Hayward (View Comment):
It was mostly schtick! Mostly.

And it was all schlock, to stay in the Yiddish. I am appalled. Never have I heard such an abhorrent podcast by so called "conservatives.' No one seems to know the answer to the original question, that John dodged, Steven bungled, and Lucretia never was able to articulate.
The answer, Lady and Gentlemen to "what is a self-evident truth": It is an AXIOM! A-X-I-O-M. Say if several times and don't forget it. If John knows the answer, he refuses to state it. In fact it seemed like he was laboring mightily to obfuscate to avoid answering the question. Since he doesn't know, or care to know the answer to that question, his claim to be an Originalist and wanting to know what was in the heads of the Founders, is completely specious. Franklin made a single correction to Jefferson's penultimate draft of the Declaration when he change the words: We hold these Trusths to be sacred and undeniable, etc. to We hold these truths to be self evident. If is self evident the Franklin, the scientist, the polymath who understood Euclid, was labelling those following phrases as Axioms. The synonym is Postulates. Like Euclid's. Euclid was the bible of the Scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, of modernity. And Euclid's geometry is logical complete and consistent as proven by Kurt Godel in the early 20th Century. The Founders bridged the Age of Faith and the Age of Reason, so called. Steven is close with Proposition, but no cigar. Lincoln made the same mistake. So did Coolidge. It seems that no one in America understands the Declaration. The second paragraph is a STATEMENT of AXIOMS. If you disagree with the Axioms (you have to understand them as such before you can even agree or disagree with them) you cannot accept the Constitution or understand it. The Constitution stands to the Declaration as Euclid's Theorems stand to his Axioms. They follow from the axioms and use the axioms to construct the proofs. Likewise the Constitution is structured (very finely and completely) as essentially a machine, in the context of a mechanical world view extant since Newton that formed the basis of the world view of the Western World at the time.
Yoo's interpretation of the law and the responsibility of lawyers seems suspend in the air, without a basis except a constitution that materialized out of thin air. His amoral view of the law (consistent with Oliver Wendell Holmes'degredation of British Common Law),into a position of 'calling balls and strikes' is truly egregious, and the fact that he shares the apparent view of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is an indication of how depraved we have become. John ignores the entire context of the Founding. To understand the Founding, he has to read the Bible, both Old and New Testament's. The American Founding was virtually an application of the Old Testament with a nod to Greece and Rome as examples of how not to establish a government (pure, or direct, Democracy, of Greece that the Founders took pains to avoid, for example, but that Teddy Roosevelt championed in his Charter of Democracy speech: "I believe in pure Democracy."). And John Adams was correct. The Constitution was made by and for a Judeo Christian nation, and is not applicable to any other (Doesn't work under Sharia law, although I'm sure John could conjure up some nonsense as to why if does). As Jergen Habermas acknowledged after his long interview with Pope Benedict, the entirety of Western philosophy is tinkering around the edges of the Judaic ethos of Justice and the Christian ethos of Love. John is apparently unable to understand any of this. As NOT in any way, shape, or form, apparently, of buying in to the Judeo Christian context of the Western World and America, he cannot understand either the moral milieu or the legal milieu that produced the Declaration and the Constitution.
Utilitarianism is hogwash. Maximum of pleasure for the most and minimal pain for the fewest> What about those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain. John's philosophy is best represented by the Marquise de Sade. One begins to understand how he could write that torture memo and warrantless wiretaps, etc. Rawlsian ideas of law and justice are likewise hogwash. John's Haavaad/Yale education is showing. Blatantly and dangerously.
And in his amoral view of the law, he obviates the need for lawyers; they can all right now be replaced by AI. And in his case, the joke about Mark Zuckerberg creating an AI image of himself to interact with employees is spot on: How could you tell the difference between an AI version of John and the real thing? The AI version might show human characteristics.
I would suggest some reading for John: The sermons of Whitefield. All the writings of Jonathan Edwards, in particular his Essay on the Nature of True Virtue. That will start to orient him to what was going on with the Founders. He seems oblivious. To have someone like this instructing law students is a guarantee of destruction of the Constitution. It barely exists now. And the inability of Steven and Lucretia to respond to him is profoundly disappointing.

Get the Ricochet app

Become a member.

The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Live from Tulsa!

Discussion (5)