Chief Justice Berger, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944.

The Congressional Republicans and the President are framing the debate in terms of the right to life. The President has said, and I must say that I agree (all other things being equal), that in matters of such complexity as the Schiavo case we should err on the side of life.

This question of life provided rich material for part of our discussion. What characterizes life? What level of life is necessary before one can be presumed to possess rights? Is our conscious ability to appreciate rights a necessary precondition to either our exercise of them, or their protection for us by someone else? These are not easy questions, and frankly the amount of information that we are receiving from the media does little to prepare us for the national debate on this issue that the President seems to desire.

Another fundamental question is whether Terri Schiavo’s case is one that is appropriate for federal review? There is precious little, at first blush, in the Constitution that would lead one to believe that the federal government is empowered to overrule the state in issues such as these. Where is the federal question? I do not see it. Making this a state issue is much easier. The state’s police power comes into play, which power is understood to be:

Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order - these are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not delimit it (see BERMAN v. PARKER, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)).

Florida is in the best position to deal in law with the Schiavo case. Good and noble intentions notwithstanding of the Congress, Florida should remain the only entity to deal with the case. Otherwise, we must all be willing to accept a federal incursion into yet another aspect of our lives.

As always, information is our friend, and can help us understand at least the circumstances, if not arrive at an answer to vexing questions. An excellent resource for information about the Schiavo case is the Abstract Appeal blog by Matt Conigliaro.

All is not lost. There are a number of kind-hearted hackers who have prepared WAMP distributions for those of us using Windows XP Home, or those who don’t care to learn IIS. Two distributions that are under current development are:

• WAMP5, and
• Apache2triad

Both provide Apache, MySQL, and PHP. WAMP5 provides PHP version 5, but has an add-on that provides PHP 4.3.10. This is important, because some well-known and useful PHP applications have issues with PHP 5.

These are questions that Lawrence Lessig has struggled with for some time. His post of 15 March 2005 indicates the extent to which he will go to ensure his control over the information he creates. This is not to keep the information bottled up, but rather to guarantee that the information remain freely available. Professor Lessig says that he will never again submit to publication agreements in which he is forced to surrender all rights to his work.

As an academic kinda-wannabe, the question of who controls the knowledge I create is of particular importance. I wish, of course, for some benefit to accrue to me. I don’t think this is unusual, nor do I think it’s wrong. But if I am creating knowledge for the exclusive purpose of acquiring some personal benefit, then I think I am missing the mark. The creation of knowledge is a social enterprise, one that cannot occur in isolation. Even the most brilliant of luminaries relies in some measure upon current or past work, either as a foundation or as something to challenge in search of a better way of understanding. A social enterprise is of little value if its fruits are controlled by the very few.

The purpose of knowledge creation is to better the human condition, or so I believe. Intellectual exercises are interesting, but ultimately their worth is measured by their effect on humanity. I agree with this statement by Nelson and Sklar:

…[S]cholarship should be problem-oriented and critical of existing institutions…When you question the foundations of institutions and go to the roots of things, the implications for rational change become clear.

…[T]he present need is for a scientific approach that is firmly based upon humanistic foundations. (Toward a Humanistic Science of Politics: Essays in Honor of Francis Dunham Wormuth, p. 3)

Scholarship, science, knowledge creation are for the express purpose of bettering the human condition, of asserting human dignity and maintaining it. The control of scholarship, the assertion of “exclusive rights” are, I think, destructive of these ends. Perhaps I’ll change my mind when trying to get tenure. But for now, that’s what I believe. I congratulate Professor Lessig.

I particularly enjoy brass music. The best known brass group is, of course, the Canadian Brass. There is also the Empire Brass.

Another group has caught my attention. They’re called the Synergy Quintet. They have a very clean sound, and play a wide variety of music. Synergy gave an interview at KUHF Radio in Houston on February 14, 2005, in which they demonstrate how wide their range is. The interview can be heard at the KUHF website.

Of course, the fact that my brother is the trombonist has nothing to do with this plug.

The old content isn’t gone; it’s just hiding right now, but will reappear soon.

History’s lessons …

The site also provides an ideological quiz of sorts by which you can evaluate either the candidate, or yourself … (now, what was I? Bleeding heart liberal? Reactionary conservative? Oh, the labels, the labels!)

See Tracking News that Oozes, at The Campaign Desk.