Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Posts

The execution of Major Hasan

As I write these words, the execution of the "Fort Hood shooter," Major Nidal Hasan, is set for December 3. By firing squad. It feels strange to write this, or for this to be news, but: it appears that the execution of Major Hasan will NOT be televised. Wise comments by Abe Greenwald of Commentary magazine: Arguments about capital punishment aside, turning it into a livestreaming event would have been a terrible, multifaceted mistake. For one thing, there’s the matter of public decency. For another, the footage would surely have ended up on the screens of minors. But there are more important considerations. Jihadists aren’t deterred by seeing one of their own put to death. It whets their appetite for terrorism—not because, as the left would have you think, they want vengeance but because they’re jealous of the martyr. For them, there’s no higher calling than to die in the service of killing infidels. All fine points. Another point: The non-televising of thi...

"Shaken not stirred"

I found the following online. I'm afraid I can't offer a named source. But I leave it here for any one of my readers who may wonder why James Bond demands that his martinis be shaken, not stirred. ---------------------------------------------- This specific preference wasn't a quirk of the cinematic Bond; it originated in Ian Fleming's 1953 debut novel, Casino Royale . When Bond orders his signature drink—later named the "Vesper"—he demands a highly specific recipe: "Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel." A traditional stirred Vesper is an incredibly potent, boozy concoction. By demanding it shaken, the ice violently shatters and melts into the drink, causing significant dilution. This waters down the alcohol content, allowing the spy to maintain his wits and keep a sharp edge while appearing to match his adversaries drink...

Pragmatism and the law

I was planning on writing something about pragmatism and the Suncor case here. But I won't. I'll start my inquiries further back. Let us begin with a notorious comment by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in "The Path of the Law" (1897). Holmes and the guiding spirit of this blog, William James, certainly knew each other well, in part because their fathers were friends. James and Holmes Jr. seem to me to have been frenemies. Still.... The comment I have in mind is a definition of law from the lawbreaker's point of view. Law is "the prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious." That is, indeed, what one usually means when asking a lawyer" what is the law about X?" One means "I have done X, or I am asking for a friend -- what will happen to me/my friend?" What does James say? Look to Lecture VI of Pragmatism and you find this: Common-Law judges sometimes talk about the law , and schoolmasters talk about...

More on James, Halzen, and the universe

I mentioned Tuesday of this week that Francis Halzen won the Nobel Prize this year for work capturing neutrinos at the South Pole. Why does that matter? As background, consider that neutrinos (unlike, say, electrons) have no electric charge and virtually no mass. They are everywhere, passing quickly through us and anything else with little interaction. This justifies the nickname "ghost particles". They exist because supermassive black holes (and certain other bodies) create them and fling them out. Again: what do we learn from catching such a ghost in polar ice? We learn in what direction and how quickly it is moving when it hits the ice. Furthermore, whatever line it has been moving on when it did so, we know that it has been on precisely that line, without any swerving or bouncing about, for a looooooong time. Detect one, as Astronomy mag says in its treatment of the Nobel, and it points right back to its origin. Scientists will often b...

Arguments in the matter of Suncor v. Boulder

Continuing my train of thought from yesterday. (Please look back at yesterday's post before telling me this one makes no sense.) So: Suncor wants the Supreme Court of The United States to find that climate change policy must be federal policy, so Boulder has no business bringing a state law based suit against Suncor or ExxonMobil. That understood: how did arguments go? Chief Justice Roberts expressed skepticism about the preemption argument. He said it is not uncommon to base state law litigation on actions taken in whole or part in other states. He wanted to know: what makes this case special? Sarah Harris, the solicitor general for the US (here because the administration is taking Suncor's side) replied that if Boulder prevails it would ban the production of fossil fuels anywhere in the country. Roberts appeared unpersuaded. "That's a question of relief" to be raised in the context of the lawsuit if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed, not an argument agai...

Supreme Court back in session

And on its very first day hearing arguments, the notorious "first Monday in October," the justices heard a potentially momentous case out of a Boulder, Colorado state court. Plaintiffs in the state court dispute want to hold two big hydrocarbon-marketing concerns (Suncor and ExxonMobil) liable for their role in climate change and for obscuring that fact that climate change is underway from the general public. Samuel Alito has recused himself from the case, apparently because he is heavily invested in the petroleum industry. It is worth observing here that the plaintiffs do have a right to move forward with this dispute, according to Colorado's own Supreme Court. That court ruled that Boulder's state-law claims were not preempted by any federal statute. If the US Supreme Court does not reverse that, the Colorado court's decision stands. In this case, that means "tie goes to the runner," a 4-4 split in Alito's absence, which seems quite possible, ...