Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here is Ann Coulter's latest column.

This morning, at a Shell station in Fort Worth, Texas, I paid $2.279 per gallon for regular unleaded gasoline. With my Kroger card, it came to $2.179. What're y'all payin' in your neck o' the woods?

What possesses musicians to weigh in on politics? Bono's political views mean as much to me as those of any randomly selected person, which is to say, not at all.

Here.

Here.

To the editor:

President-elect Donald Trump has already managed to seriously undermine [sic] our national security. Before availing himself of full security briefings, he not only questioned the conclusions of our intelligence agencies on Russian meddling in the presidential campaign, he also publicly mocked the agencies. This undermines their credibility and effectiveness, eroding the safety of all Americans. (“Trump hurts himself and the nation by trashing the intelligence community,” editorial, Jan. 5)

Why would Trump do this? It seems clear that there are only two possible reasons: One is that he doesn’t want to jeopardize his business relationships in Russia (and since he has been so secretive regarding his tax returns and business relationships, this possibility cannot be discounted). The second (and more disturbing) reason could simply relate to Trump’s personal insecurity. It’s reasonable to believe that Trump’s attacks on our intelligence establishment are simply a result of the suggestion being made that Russian hacking may have influenced the results of the 2016 election in his favor.

A president whose personal business dealings or fragile ego jeopardize the safety of Americans is not fit to hold office.

Matthew Singerman, Newbury Park

Note from KBJ: This is paranoia. The intelligence agencies are politicized. Donald Trump is calling them out on it. End of story.

The Art of Tea (1975).

This essay is a perfect example of what philosopher Charles Leslie Stevenson called "persuasive definition." A word ("science") with a favorable connotation is extended to things to which it does not apply in order to fool people into thinking well of those things. Science has no values of its own. Its realm is the realm of fact—of how things are. So-called global warming is a mishmash of facts and values. The very most that science can tell us is that the globe is warming (and perhaps that human beings are causally responsible for a certain percentage of it). Science cannot tell us (1) whether this is good or bad, (2) how good or bad it is, or (3) what, if anything, should be done about it. These are evaluative questions concerning which scientists, as such, have no expertise.

What global-warming skeptics object to is not science, but politicized science, or politics masquerading as science. A true scientist would never hesitate to make all of his or her data public. A true scientist would never hesitate to engage skeptics (rather than demonize them as "deniers"). A true scientist would admit that there is a lot of money and status in global warming. Indeed, a true scientist would admit that there is a huge and lucrative industry known as "global warming." The author of the piece says that there are powerful forces behind climate skepticism, but conveniently ignores the fact that there are equally powerful forces behind so-called climate science. Why would only one side be improperly motivated? To use one of Jeremy Bentham's pet phrases, there are sinister interests at work on both sides.

Unless and until climate scientists comport themselves as scientists (rather than as progressive ideologues), they will be treated as the political agents they are. What I find particularly appalling is that philosophers (of all people!) have been co-opted by the global-warming lobby. Philosophers are supposed to subject all factual and evaluative claims to scrutiny. The presumption—a strong one—is against belief. What we find is just the opposite of skepticism, namely, gullibility. Philosophers act like science groupies. It goes to show you that philosophers, no less than anyone else, can be useful idiots. Socrates would be appalled.

Here.