This is post #1025 for this blog, and I wanted to take the opportunity to say something of very little consequence that bothers me far more than it's worth. Occasionally I wonder what people might be searching for when they turn up my site. Sometimes I feel sorry that they didn't find what they were looking for. Sometimes I take great delight in the fact that they get this post when searching for something about moms having sex with their daughters (and this happens at least a few times a day, sometimes much more frequently). Sometimes the way a search is phrased, I can tell they're looking for confirmation of some controversial claim that I can't imagine any motivation to search for that isn't thoroughly immoral, e.g. the person who searched early this morning for vocabulary level of people who are against affirmative action. It saddens me that someone would even search for something like that, because the assumption seems to me to stem from complete idiocy, but I hope the person learned that the affirmative action issue isn't as clear-cut as they originally assumed, since it led to one of the most balanced posts I've written on the subject.
Sometimes, however, it just seems obvious to me that they should know better than to search for something. Sometimes there's just nothing to be found, because the nature of what they're searching for is such that there's no information on it. I got a hit from the following AOL search last night: john locke's view on gay marriage. I'm sure such a search might provide lots of nice information on the gay marriage debate, perhaps with some helpful principles from John Locke, who was a pretty good political philosopher (even though I think he was downright awful at metaphysics and not that great at epistemology, both of which he helped send in entirely the wrong direction for hundreds of years, despite Leibniz's attempts to retain the advances of the medievals that we've only in the last forty years recovered, e.g. their advanced modal logic and the de re/de dicto distinction that showed what was wrong with anti-essentialist arguments from Locke to Quine, all of which were in Leibniz's criticisms of Locke and which he'd gotten from the medievals).
Whatever you think of Locke's work, I don't see how it's even possible to find information about his view on gay marriage, at least not without also being able to discover what he thought about the United Nations or special relativity.