In his Takimag column, the inquisitive doctor has a visit from the local beeman after discovering an impressive nest attached to his French country house.

Most years we have to call the local beeman, who comes with an artificial hive to recover the swarm. To our surprise, he wears no protection; he says that he is used to stings, and in any case if you make no sudden movements, bees do not often sting. Not having previously known much about bees, or having had any experience of them, I was surprised to discover that he was right: Watching him closely in his work, and in the midst of clouds of bees, I was not stung even once.

Back at Law & Liberty, our concerned doctor concludes—not for the first time—that in a post-modern world utterly lacking in transcendental meaning, it is power rather than truth that most of our so-called intellectuals strive for.

As with so much in the modern world, one is not sure whether to laugh or cry. Deep academic solemnity and utter intellectual frivolity are often combined in the same sentences; academics pore over propositions that no intelligent person could entertain for a moment, as if, with enough study, some valuable truth might emerge from them. Such academics are the alchemists of our times.

In this week’s Takimag column, the good doctor considers the ramifications of the new AI technology, especially the menace of the omnipresent ChatGPT.

With the AI that has got me covered, I will be able to “create presentations effortlessly”—which immediately put me in mind of Dr Johnson’s dictum that what is written without pain is rarely read with pleasure. But is the effortless life desirable?

In his City Journal column, our dubious doctor takes issue with the standard modern approach of the British police, who are a far cry from what Sir Robert Peel had intended back in the day at the founding.

The days of the friendly British bobby are long gone. British police now veer between the grossest sentimentality on the one hand, and ineffectual menace on the other, often without passing through much in between. When I was young, I was told, “If you want to know the time, ask a policeman.” I would now teach a young person, “If you see a policeman, cross the road.”

Over at The Epoch Times, our curious doctor analyzes what the type of products preferred by the typical, low-life looter in England and France says about their life aspirations.

The resentment is that of people who are members of a group that, on average, is worse off than the rest of society. They come to feel—and are politically encouraged to feel—that they’ve been deprived of something to which they’re entitled by the mere fact of drawing breath. They believe that what others have and they don’t have has in effect been taken from them, either directly or by exploitation.

In his Takimag column, our English doctor has the distinct displeasure of encountering some of his less flattering countrymen on vacation in the French countryside.

It was obvious, as I watched and listened to the English in this dead town in France, that the question of how they might appear to others did not cross their minds for an instant, or even a fraction of an instant. Such people have self-esteem but no self-respect. They have social rights but no social duties. They frequently stand on their dignity but have no dignity to stand on. They have all the charm of hyenas.

Back at City Journal, the concerned doctor addresses the mayhem and disorder that has gripped France since last week’s killing of an Arabic teenager by a French policeman.

It is as if France were not only two countries, but two continents, the one of beauty, prosperity, and contentment, the other of ugliness, poverty, and seething hatred. This is an oversimplification, of course, for intermediate layers exist between the two extremes; nevertheless, it is the contrast between them that is so startling.

In the July issue of The Critic, the skeptical doctor takes issue with the language chosen by the lefty the Guardian when describing drug addiction.

Like a cup of coffee, the Guardian newspaper acts on me in the morning like a tonic, increasing my alertness after sleep.

Over at City Journal, the alarmed doctor recounts an appalling and deeply disturbing case from France, which is is not recommended for the faint of heart.

There is a more general point, touching it on the rule of law and the role of punishment. Why, in a case like this, or indeed in any case, should a psychiatrist be asked to speculate on the dangerousness of a man, as if issuing a prognosis in the case of, say, pneumonia? Punishment is not therapy and should be proportional to what a man has done and not to what he might do in the future. The latter is pure speculation.