September 2016 – Page 6 – Maverick Philosopher

Saturday Night at the Oldies: The Eyes are the Windows of the Soul

Van Morrison, Brown Eyed Girl. This one goes out to Kathy H.

Ramblin' Jack Elliot, Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain. Thinking of you, Anne-Marie C. and the fabulous and far-off fall of '73.

In the twilight glow I see her
Blue eyes crying in the rain
When we kissed goodbye and parted
I knew we'd never meet again.

Love is like a dying ember
Only memories remain
Through the ages I'll remember
Blue eyes crying in the rain.

Now my hair has turned to silver
All my life I've loved in vain
But I can see her star in heaven
Blue eyes crying in the rain.

Someday when we meet up yonder
We'll stroll hand in hand again
In a land that knows no parting
Blue eyes crying in the rain.

Jackson Browne, Doctor My Eyes. Dedicated to Darci M. and our summer of '78.

Doctor, my eyes have seen the years
And the slow parade of fears without crying
Now I want to understand

I have done all that I could
To see the evil and the good without hiding
You must help me if you can

Doctor, my eyes
Tell me what is wrong
Was I unwise to leave them open for so long

'Cause I have wandered through this world
And as each moment has unfurled
I've been waiting to awaken from these dreams
People go just where they will
I never noticed them until I got this feeling
That it's later than it seems

Doctor, my eyes
Tell me what you see
I hear their cries
Just say if it's too late for me

Doctor, my eyes
Cannot see the sky
Is this the PRICE for having learned how not to cry?

Kim Carnes, Bette Davis Eyes

Four Seasons, Can't Take My Eyes Off of You (From Deer Hunter)

Crosby, Stills, and Nash, Judy Blue Eyes

Joan Baez, Tears in My Eyes

Joan Baez, Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands (Dylan)

Curtis Lee, Pretty Little Angel Eyes (the original!) This one goes out to wifey with love.

Pope Francis and Islam

Which of the following is true? Francis outright lies about Islam; he is naive about Islam; he is an appeaser and defeatist who thinks that by not telling the truth about Islam he prevents further radicalization of Muslims.

See The Church and Islam: The Next Cover-up Scandal

Ideological Certification

It ought to be obvious that anyone seeking entry into our country should be ideologically certified. We have no obligation to accept subversive elements. Now those who promote Shari'a are subversive elements. Therefore, we have no obligation to allow them in. Indeed we, or rather the government as representing us the people, has a moral obligation not to let them in.

This is just common sense. Trump, not Hillary, possesses this common sense as he made clear in his outstanding Phoenix immigration speech.

But you loathe Trump the man, don't you? And you have some good reasons. I suggest you make a distinction. There is the candidate and there is the candidate's ideological agenda. Both of the candidates have deeply flawed characters. But one supports a destructive leftist agenda and the other does not. And one or the other will be the next president. It won't be Jill Stein.

So, if you are a conservative, is it not obvious that you must vote for Trump?

Now I would like you to read William Kilpatrick, Western Self-Hatred Makes Jihad Possible. It includes commentary on Trump's immigration speech.

The One Chess Book a Player Should Have

I have been asked about this on several occasions, most recently by Kevin W. So here is a redacted repost from over six years ago.

………………………………….

Joe from New York writes:

I have a question about chess. Would you be kind enough to tell me in your opinion what is the one chess book a person should have? What is your favorite? I am presently reading [Irving Chervev's] Logical Chess Move by Move.

I am a patzer.

I think your blog is great.

Thanks for writing, Joe, and for the kind words. I too am a patzer, though on a really good day I am a GP, a Grand Patzer. Although there is no one book that one simply must have, for patzers I recommend Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate. This is a delightful old book written by a couple of French masters. It first appeared in English translation in 1953 and was reprinted by Dover Press in 1962. I believe it was International Master Calvin Blocker who recommended it to me. I am very fond of Dover paperbacks, which are inexpensive and made to last a lifetime. This particular volume is in descriptive notation which fact should gladden the heart of Ed Yetman. It is also full of Romantic old games, wild and swashbuckling, of the sort from which assiduous patzers can learn tactics.

Tactics, tactics, tactics. As important in chess as location, location, location in real estate.

The book is a study of the basic mating patterns. Since checkmate is the object of the game, a thorough study of the basic mates is a logical place to begin the systematic study of chess. That should be followed by work on tactics. The much-maligned Fred Reinfeld is useful here. After that, openings and endings. But the typical patzer — and I'm no exception to this rule — spends an inordinate amount of time swotting up openings. But what is the good of achieving a favorable middlegame position if one doesn't know what to do with it? To turn a favorable position into a win you need to know the basic mates, tactics, and at least the rudiments of endgame technique.

There is a lot to learn, and one can and should ask whether it is worth the effort. But patzers like us are unlikely to have our lives derailed by chess. We can sport with Caissa and her charms without too much harm. It is the very strong players, who yet fall short of the highest level, who run the greatest risk. Chess sucks them in then leaves them high and dry. The goddess Caissa becomes the bitch Impecunia. IM Blocker is one example among many.

Patrick Toner on Concealed Carry

Our friend the philosopher Patrick Toner has a very interesting and highly unusual article entitled Catholics, Chesterton, and Concealed Carry. If nothing else, it should infuriate liberals, which can't be a bad thing. I leave it to you to think it through.

Now some thoughts of my own.

Suppose a Christian lives alone, without a spouse to look after and without dependents. Should he defend with deadly force against a deadly attack, in a home invasion, say, or should he let himself be slaughtered? I go back and forth on this question.

But suppose you are pater familias with a wife and children to protect. Should you respond to a deadly attack with deadly force? Absolutely. I would argue that such is not only morally permissible but morally obligatory. But then you must prepare for such an eventuality by becoming proficient with firearms. Whence it follows that you must oppose Hillary the Gun Grabber and her destructive ilk.

This is another important reason to vote for Trump. If Miss Mendacity gets in, it could well be curtains for your Second Amendment rights.

The Catholic Case for Donald Trump

The following is by Chris Jackson. I found it at The Remnant and I reproduce the whole of it here. It receives the coveted MavPhil nihil obstat.

…………………………….

This is the most critical presidential election in the history of the United States. Hillary Clinton, a corrupt, radical pro-abortion, anti-Christian, career politician threatens to change the face of America forever. If elected, she will name three to four Supreme Court justices, cementing Roe v. Wade into the Constitution and losing the court for generations, if not forever. Hillary Clinton opposes home schooling and believes it is the government’s right to educate children and not the parents. She will restrict religious speech and persecute Christians who refuse to support her radical social agenda. She will promote illegal immigration and allow millions of unvettted illegal immigrants into our country. The illegal population will vote democrat far into the future so that no candidate with anything approximating Catholic positions will have a viable chance to be elected president. So despite obvious disagreements with him, I believe Catholics have the moral right to vote for the only viable alternative to Hillary Clinton in this election: Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is the first Republican candidate for president to publicly offer a list of Supreme Court justices he will select from. All of the names have been vetted by undeniable pro-life organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. Neither Mitt Romney nor John McCain offered such assurances. Donald Trump has also promised to ensure protections for religious free speech and against punitive governmental action for citizens acting out of religious conviction. In addition, he has just named Mike Pence, a pro-life leader and champion of religious rights as his running mate. There is absolutely no moral justification for any Catholic to vote for Hillary Clinton or to assist Clinton in wining the presidency through not voting or voting for a non-viable third party candidate. The stakes are too high. The price of defeat this November means an anti-Christian executive and judicial branch with no opposition party in congress to offer any effective resistance into the foreseeable future. In other words, not voting for Trump in this election is choosing to commit suicide for our nation and our families.

Continue reading “The Catholic Case for Donald Trump”

Avoid ‘Lesser of Two Evils’

If you say that Trump is the 'lesser of two evils,' you invite the riposte: why vote for anyone who is evil? Say this instead: "Despite Trump's manifest negatives, he is better than Hillary." And then go on to explain why he is better.

Politics here below is not about Good versus Evil. It is not so Manichean as all that. Politics here below is about better and worse.