Chemerinsky's back.

I really didn't expect this at all, but Erwin Chemerinsky has accepted the rescission of the rescission of his contract, and will be the Dean of UCI School of Law come 2009. It's not clear to me how it happened. Did he want the job that badly? Did he get guarantees of non-interference from Chancellor Drake, so that the next time Drake pees in his pants from fear of what others say, he doesn't have to bring Drake the diaper?

In any case, both of them have agreed not to bring up embarrassing questions like: What was Drake thinking when he gave his story to the Times? How can Drake claim that his decision was independent when he told both Chemerinsky and a whole committee that someone had scared the crap out of him? Why would Chemerinsky's editorial about Gonzales be at all relevant for Drake in making a decision to rescind the contract when Drake made the decision to hire him in the first place after the article had come out?

Who was the mysterious frightener? Was it Donald Bren, evil billionaire whose donations brought the law school into being? Was it a gaggle of Orange County Republican politicians with Drake's celll phone number? Was it the UC Regents threatening a confirmation battle? Unless the LA Times, which has a history of putting the screws to UCI, does some further investigating, we will probably never know.

Analytic philosophy

After my work was done today, I went on a JSTOR jag and read some Benacerraf, Nagel, and Davidson. The experience reminds me of how powerful and yet how sterile analytic philosophy is. Is it possible for someone to enunciate a truth without denouncing everyone else who has thought about it as wrong? (I mean, an aporematic review is one thing, but Aristotle didn't whale on Parmenides for missing the boat the way Benacerraf gloats over his predecessor, Thomson.)