Eugene Volokh notes the dictionary's unhelpful definition of the number "two". I was briefly very preoccupied with this problem when I was considering trying to work my way through Russell's Principia Mathematica, but I do remember that Ted Cohen insisted that the best non-circular definition of two was "that which all pairs of things have in common."

In retrospect this is probably circular anyway, since it hinges on knowing that there are two things in a pair, but like almost everything else Cohen said, it certainly sounded undefeatably right at the time.

While I was dutifully attending my seminar, Angus Dwyer was fortunate enough to attend Judge McConnell's lecture at Yale yesterday. As he notes, the YDN's coverage was not error-free.

Then again, there was no sign of any sort of misquote as horrid as the Chicago Maroon's coverage of Justice Scalia's talk at Yale in 2003 (which along with later endless arguments with Jeff Wall did a lot to convert me to my current views about the legal status of constitutional text). Scalia had said that you could fire a round of grapeshot into the faculty lounge of any top law school, and still not hit an originalist. Somehow, this was rendered as "you could fire a grapefruit out of a cannon over the best law schools in the country . . ."

The image still makes me laugh, as I imagine David Currie deftly dodging the grapefruit sailing into the Laird Bell Quadrangle.

Nate Oman has a follow-up to my post on corporations, with a much more thorough discussion of early-20th century theories of the corporate form.

Meanwhile Paul Gowder takes the bait and argues that he really does hate the corporate form, complaining that it "relieves people of responsibility for their actions". Of course, lots of things, from bankruptcy laws to executive clemency to statutes of limitations to the basic structures of legal entitlements do that, so it is not entirely clear to me what it is about the corporate form (which corporate form? all corporate forms?) that has got Paul so upset.

Related only to the corporate form, the New London Development Corporation (the villain in Kelo) is a non-profit corporation that invites your tax-deductible contribution here. For some reason, I find this very funny.

A Friend of Crescat points out this amusing story in the New York Times about a Connecticut man who was denied the zoning permits to build an observatory in his house, and so substituted for it by building a stonehenge.

The land use angle is of course fascinating. Apparently Dr. Rothberg's defense of Stonehenge (for which he did not seek a permit) was that it was not a "structure" and therefore not within the zoning board's jurisdiction. The board appears to have convinced him to concede that it is a structure in return for their granting him an after-the-fact permit.

Given Rothberg's emphasis on making sure the thing lasts for a hundred centuries (it has been tested against hurricanes, earthquakes, and speeding dump trucks) this may be a mistake. I am not sure what limitations there are on the board's revoking the permit later, or changing the rules so that his structure no longer conforms without giving him a grandfather clause. From the point of view of durability, he might have done better to press his not-a-structure argument.

Then again, surviving the land use process is almost always about bargaining, not fighting City Hall.

Harold Pinter picks up the 2005 Nobel in literature. I've never read any Pinter, but unfortunately awarding the prize to an aging British playwright pretty much eradicates my dying hope that aging British playwright Tom Stoppard might someday get the Nobel he deserves.