Maverick Philosopher

Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

  • Alligator Alcatraz

    Leftist environmentalists are bringing suit to block the construction of a detention center for illegal aliens in the heart of the Everglades. This should interest Sarasota resident and fellow philosopher Elliott Ruffin Crozat who paid me a visit over the last three days. You can imagine the 'orgy' of philosophizing that took place, both peripatetically (hiking in the Superstitions), aquatically (in the pool and hot tub) and automotively (as we meandered down to see Brian Bosse in Green Valley south of Tucson via the scenic route with a stop at the Tom Mix Monument on SR 79 south of Florence and before Oracle Junction.)
     
    We thereby honored Aristotle, Thales, Mix, and Kerouac. Here is Crozat looking cool as a cucumber after a five hour ankle-busting hike in 100 degree Fahrenheit weather. Hot, sunny, dry.  Just the way we like it in these parts.
     
    May be an image of 1 person and jeep
     
    And here is your humble correspondent:
     
    May be an image of 1 person and jeep
     
    What hypocrites these hate-America leftist scumbags are! Not a peep out of them re: the environmental damage to our beautiful deserts caused by their support of wide-open illegal immigration. The environmental impact on the Everglades will be minimal. The 'gators will see to that!
     
    Here, along with many other arguments,  is my Environmental Argument against illegal immigration:
     
    The Environmental Argument. Although there are 'green' conservatives, concern for the natural environment, and its preservation and protection from industrial exploitation, is more a liberal than a conservative issue. (By the way, I'm a 'green' conservative.) So liberals ought to be concerned about the environmental degradation caused by hordes of illegals crossing the border. It is not just that they degrade the lands they physically cross, it is that people whose main concern is economic survival are not likely to be concerned about environmental protection. They are unlikely to become Sierra Club members or to make contributions to the Nature Conservancy. Love of nature comes more easily to middle class white collar workers for whom nature is a scene of recreation than for those who must wrest a livelihood from it by hard toil.
    And you are still a Democrat? WTF are you thinking? ARE you thinking?
    Bill Vallicella

    11 responses to “Alligator Alcatraz”

  • Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

    Robert Kuttner, in a piece entitled Supreme Contempt for the Constitution, writes,

    The Supreme Court issued a shocking ruling today, making it easier for President Donald Trump to overturn birthright citizenship. The way the Court did it was in keeping with its disingenuous strategy of using technicalities that allow it to duck the underlying question.

    The substance of Friday’s 6-3 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, involved a challenge to Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. His order violated the 14th Amendment, which clearly holds that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of the circumstances.

    This Kuttner is obviously a leftist ideologue. 14A does not "clearly hold" what Kuttner says it "clearly holds." Section 1 begins:

    14A. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    The meaning of the amendment depends on how the clause I have set in italics is interpreted. Such interpretation is the office of SCOTUS the function of which is neither legislative nor executive. Its function is judicial.  Here is how  Stephen Miller and others read 14A.:

    Let's talk about birthright citizenship. After the Civil War, Congress and America came together to ensure freedom for the children of slaves, not the children of illegal aliens . . . .

    If you go to the UN today, the United Nations, [which is located in New York City] you have diplomats from all over the world. None of their babies become automatic American citizens. Why? 

    Because they're [the diplomats are] subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country. Their allegiance is to a foreign country. Their citizenship is to a foreign country.

    Illegal aliens are no different, in fact, worse, because illegal aliens are expressly forbidden from even being on our soil. Their allegiance is to a foreign land. They're under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.

    Their children are not U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court has now cleared the way for us to restore the actual meaning of the United States Constitution and the idea that this special privilege does not belong to illegal aliens and their children. 

    The interpretation of 14A depends on  who the referents are of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  Miller quite naturally takes the referents to be the parents of the illegal aliens.   Thus Miller et al. take 14A to be expressing the more explicit:

    14A*. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and WHOSE PARENTS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    On this reading birthright citizenship is ruled out. The actual formulation in the Constitution, however, is 14A.  The trouble is that  the actual formulation allows the following reading:

    14A**. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, whether or not their parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

    14A** is ruled out by the points Miller makes, one of them being that the children of foreign diplomats born to these diplomats while they are in the USA do not automatically become U.S. citizens.

    I have made two main points. The first is that Kuttner is either bullshitting or lying when he claims that the meaning of 14A in its actual formulation in the Constitution is transparently clear. No, it NOT clear.

    Second, and more importantly, the most plausible reading, is 14A* above, and NOT Kuttner's perverse hate-America leftist reading.

    Bill Vallicella

    12 responses to “Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment”

  • A Marital Memory from the ‘Nineties

    I had dropped her off at Sky Harbor on a Thursday.  She was headed to a conference. I said, "You'll miss Seinfeld." She said, "I'll miss you!" (Seinfeld episodes, the original series, were aired on Thursday nights.) As our 42nd anniversary approaches, I recall the incident with deep love and gratitude.  She has probably forgotten it.

    This miner for a heart of gold struck paydirt. The strike was lucky, the pursuit wise. In this life, there's no discounting luck.  For the unlucky.

    Bill Vallicella

  • I don’t live by the sword . . .

    . . . but I aim not to die by one either; so I need a sword.

    Bill Vallicella

  • The Danger of Appeasing the Intolerant

    A Stack post that draws upon the great Leszek Kolakowski.  Short, sweet, hard-hitting.

    Bill Vallicella

  • Is Trump Still the TACO Man? Or is he now THE HAMMER?

    VDH, Ten Iranian Questions:

    Trump had warned the Iranians on numerous occasions. They never got the message. They were apparently listening to the American Left’s smears of Trump as a “TACO” (“Trump Always Chickens Out”)—a silly slur phrase that just died Saturday night.

    And die it did. To hell with the American Left with its Tampon Timmies, its Joyless Behars, its cortically-challenged Cortezes, and its Kamalian clowns.   (It should be clear that I am no longer quoting my man Hanson.)

    Some fear that Midnight  Hammer will lead to a wider war. It might. The world, led by  the USA, will then have the opportunity to rid itself once and for all of the current Iranian Islamist theocracy. That would be a good thing, and easy to accomplish: destroy the oil refineries first, and see if that gets them to back off, and "build back better," to coin a phrase.  If they remain recalcitrant, destroy their power grid.  No more pussy-footing around with these evil-doers. It's not 1979 any more, or the Carter administration.

    Their  particular brand of Islamist insanity would then be finished forever. Do you doubt that? It would be finished in its concrete exemplification just as Nazi ideology was finished in its concrete exemplification in 1945. By 'concrete exemplification of an ideology' I mean its existence in an actual State.  Once the current Iranian Islamist theocracy is concretely at an end,  it is not likely to come back.  I will fire off two more points and you guys can have at me in the combox.

    First. A great power such as the USA cannot be wholly non-interventionist, although it ought to be as non-interventionist as it can be consistent with self-preservation and the defense of its allies.  No nation-building! Non-interventionism is good, but it has limits. One limit is reached when anti-civilizational savages pose an existential threat to we us  the (more or less) civilized.  I call our enemies 'anti-civilizational,' but you ought not call them  'medieval' as some pundits do unless you want to advertise your historical ignorance and slam an entire epoch.

    An existential threat is a threat not merely to one's physical existence or biological life, but to one's way of life.  The radical Islamist trilemma: conversion, dhimmitude, or death is radically unacceptable — which is why I call it a trilemma: three prongs, each of which is unacceptable.  If one has been nuked out of physical existence, then one has been 'nuked' out of cultural existence as well.   

    This is why Khamenei and the boys cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. We do not yet know the extent or efficacy of Trump's bunker-busting despite Trump's typical boasts and exaggerations. (Trump is a builder, a promoter, and a bit of a carnival barker, but still vastly superior to any of the electable Democrats.) The Iranian nuclear program has, however, surely suffered a major set-back.  If they get it going again the IDF and the USAF will kick the mullahs' collective ass one more time.

    Second. The Iranian people have a right to any system of government they choose so long as it poses no existential threat to any other State.  Who the hell are we to tell them how to live when our Western societies, dripping with decadence, are hanging by a thread?  (Leastways, until Trump came along.) If the Iranians want a theocracy, that is their business.  Is it objectively certain that our classically liberal system is better than a theocratic system?  No, or so say I, even though I firmly believe that our system is better than any theocracy. What if they want an Islamic theocracy? No problem with that either, so long as the Islam in question is moderate and wields no such trident as the one lately described.  I wish Zuhdi Jasser the best of luck in his quixotic quest to reform Islam.

    Ann Coulter a while back said that we should invade the Muslim lands and convert them to Christianity.

    We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.

    Convert Muslims? Sheer madness. Coulter is a very intelligent woman, but sometimes intelligent people say stupid things.  Of the Abrahamic religions, Islam is the worst. Schopenhauer describes it as "the saddest and poorest form of theism."  It is the religion of terror at the present time. An inferior religion, it gives rise to an inferior culture, downstream of which is a benighted politics.  But Islam is their religion and it is better than no religion. Try barging into people's lives to convince them to renounce their parents, their hometown, their region, their religion, their folkways.  Try that down in Hillbilly Holler or anywhere.

    Convert the benighted Muslims for the sake of their immortal souls because Jesus claimed to be via, veritas, vita? "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6, KJV. I was brought up on Douay-Rheims, but I love that old English.)   Why not make it more specific: extra ecclesiam salus non est, where the ecclesia in question is the Roman Catholic Church? That won't sit well with our Protestant or Eastern Orthodox pals, and it shouldn't. I go a step further: paths to salvation are many. I won't argue it out, leastways not now; I'll just refer you to the work of Frithjof Schuon. See, for example, The Transcendent Unity of Religions.

    How about converting the Jews? Another form of folly. Here is an instructive short piece by Rabbi Yehiel Poupko.

    Bill Vallicella

  • Saturday Night at the Oldies: Brian Wilson and Phil Spector

    Luis Sanchez:

    The drift of influence between Brian Wilson and Phil Spector was fraught with one-sided expectation and imbalance of respect. It played out to mortifying effect when Brian offered one of his own songs, “Don’t Hurt My Little Sister,” for the wall of sound treatment, pitching it as an arrangement for Darlene Love in the summer of 1964. Spector took the gesture as an opportunity to embarrass his eager admirer. At first he humored Brian by taking the time to record an instrumental backing track for the song, even coolly inviting him to participate in a recording session for it. Brian was somewhat taken aback by Spector’s acknowledgment, but he agreed to play piano for a number of takes, nervously, expectantly, before Spector cut him off abruptly and sent him on his way, thanks very much. Later, he told Brian that his piano playing just maybe wasn’t up to snuff and he had no plans to ever finish the record, so don’t ask. An official American Federation of Musicians paycheck was drawn and sent to Brian for the exact time he put into the session. If such a slight even fazed Brian, he didn’t acknowledge it publicly, and “Don’t Hurt My Little Sister” eventually wound up on The Beach Boys’ "Today!" album, sung from the perspective of a protective older brother.

    The force of Spector’s studio craft can be heard in the way it subsumes the materials of its process. For all of its magnificent impact, the music he envisioned, committed to tape and put out into the world, is possessed of self-aggrandizement, where a density of sound is dominated by the force of personality. A record like the 1963’s “Be My Baby” is practically impenetrable. The double boom, boom-boom, thwack! drum pattern that bursts the song open sounds like thick slabs of concrete stacking together, setting up a chamber with an opening just big enough for The Ronettes to sing from. Veronica Bennett pleads with such conviction and it seems like it has enough power to devastate Spector’s wall. But the architecture the song erects is too constrictive. As hard as Bennett’s wail pushes, it always echoes back on to itself; and when the music was no longer enough to keep it contained, Spector eventually made the song a grim fact, turning his marriage to Bennett into her real-life prison well into the 1970s.

    Of all of Spector’s work, “Be My Baby” etched itself the deepest into Brian’s mind. In its own way, this recording is a gaping enigma in the story of Brian’s journey as an artist. Throughout the years, it comes up again and again in interviews and biographies, variably calling up themes of deep admiration, a source of consolation, and a baleful haunting of the spirit. Author David Dalton tells a particularly evocative story about spending time at Brian and then-wife Marilyn’s Bel Air home in the late ’60s aftermath of "Smile." While the couple is away, he discovers a box of tapes inside their bedroom one day. “I assumed they were studio demos or reference tracks and threw one on the tape machine. It was the strangest thing,” he wrote. “All the tapes were of Brian talking into a tape recorder. Hour after hour of stoned ramblings on the meaning of life, color vibrations, fate, death, vegetarianism and Phil Spector.” Dalton sketches Brian’s preoccupation with “Be My Baby” in terms of a spiritual seeker assiduously attempting to penetrate the mysteries of an occulted object. Brian kept copies of the song available everywhere inside his home, in his car, at the studio, for constant immersive listening. The final result of the story and the variations of it that accumulate from an array of biographies and documentaries is an image of wretchedness: Brian locked in the bedroom of his Bel Air house in the early ’70s, alone, curtains drawn shut, catatonic, listening to “Be My Baby” over and over at aggressive volumes, for hours, as the rest of The Beach Boys record something in the home studio downstairs.

    The woeful irony here is that years before Brian retreated impetuously to the safety of a real or manufactured catatonia, he not only mastered the keyed-up instrument combinations and high-stakes Wagnerian sensation of Spector’s sensibility, but he also worked out a way to breach its ferocity. While putting together material for The Beach Boys’ spring 1964 album, the stupidly titled "Shut Down Vol. 2," Brian wrote “Don’t Worry Baby,” a song that he hoped would convince Spector after “Don’t Hurt My Little Sister” failed to. For Brian, the allure and power of creative proprietorship never compelled him the way it compelled Spector; the satisfaction of having one of Spector’s girl groups be the voice of one his songs was in itself more than enough of a reason to pursue collaboration. Fortunately or not, Spector never expressed an interest and Brian recorded “Don’t Worry Baby” with The Beach Boys and released it as the B-side on the single for “I Get Around.” Despite the title’s obvious reference to “By My Baby,” the overall effect of The Beach Boys record is radically different from anything Spector could have achieved with it.

    The lyrics of the Beach Boy songs were puerile and 'puellile' but the melodies, harmonies, and production job were outstanding.  Brian's "Wave of Sound" (a Mavphil coinage!) stacks up well against Phil's "Wall of Sound." 

    Compare Then I Kissed Her with Then He Kissed Me.

    Bill Vallicella

  • Are Catholics Christians?

    A fellow philosopher writes,

    While reading Clarence Thomas’s opinion in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (2025), I came across this sentence: “Americans have different views, for example, on whether Catholics are Christians.” I’ve heard it said, before, that Catholics aren’t Christians, but never knew what to make of it. (The same thing is said about Mormons.) Have you written about this (about whether Catholics are Christians)? What must one think Christianity is in order to believe that Catholics aren’t Christians? Strange.
    I haven't written about this topic because it is perfectly obvious that (Roman) Catholics are Christians.  Proof: The Catholic Apostle's Creed. Every Catholic is a Christian, but not conversely.  Calvinists, for example are Christians but not Catholics. Similarly for all the other Protestant sects. No Protestant is a Catholic. That too is obvious.  
     
    Did Justice Thomas, for whom I have great respect by the way, cite anyone who claimed that Catholics are not Christians?  Who would say such a thing?
     
    People say the damndest things. There are people who say that math is racist. Now that does not even begin to make sense, involving as it does a Rylean category mistake. Not making sense, it cannot have a truth value, that is, it cannot be either true or false. Mathematics does not belong to the category of items that could sensibly be said to be either racist or non-racist.  Compare: 'How prevalent is anorexia nervosa among basketballs? More prevalent than among footballs?' Those questions involve category mistakes.  Other examples: What is the volume of the average thought? What is the chemical composition of the number nine?  What size shoes does God wear?
     
    People who assertively utter 'Math is racist' are using those words to say something else, although it is not clear what. Perhaps they  mean to say that since blacks as a group are not good at mathematics, giving them math tests is a way of demeaning or oppressing them and can have no other purpose. Or something.  Speaker's meaning in this case strongly diverges from sentence meaning.
     
    Can this distinction help us explain what people mean when they say that Catholics are not Christians?  Going by sentence meaning, the claim is obviously false.  But one might use those words to express the proposition that Catholics are not true Christians, where a true Christian is defined in some narrow and tendentious way, as, for example, someone who refuses to accept the Hellenically-tainted doctrines emanating from a magisterium (teaching authority)  that interposes itself between the individual soul and God as revealed in Holy Writ.
     
    We are now in the vicinity of No True Scotsman.  Among the so-called informal fallacies is Antony Flew's No True Scotsman. Suppose A says, "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge." B replies, "But my uncle Angus puts sugar in his porridge." A responds, "Your Uncle Angus is no true Scotsman!"
     
    Similarly, A says, "No Christian is a Roman Catholic." B replies, "But my Uncle Patrick is a Roman Catholic."  A responds, "Your Uncle Patrick is no true Christian!"
    Bill Vallicella

    4 responses to “Are Catholics Christians?”

  • Noisome Newsom, Legal Know-Nothing, Rebuked

    California's obstructionist crapweasel and narcissistic pretty boy was handed a massive loss, to the delight of the sane and reasonable and to the dismay of hate-America Dementocrats. 

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom just got a brutal lesson: the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief, not the governor of California. Second, he doesn’t need your permission to federalize your state’s National Guard units. It’s insane that a district court even entertained this wacky notion. 

    President Trump federalized California National Guard units to be deployed in Los Angeles to quell the unrest from leftists upset over raids executed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The US Marines were also deployed. Newsom tried to block this move via emergency motion, which was denied. Then, Judge Charles Breyer decided to grant this motion, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later stayed. And even these judges were disturbed by how Breyer tried to usurp the powers of the executive in these matters, which are clearly defined. Another hearing was held on Breyer’s order, which is now indefinitely blocked; Newsom won’t get control of the Guard anytime soon. 

    I am a native Californian.  California once earned its descriptor, "Golden State." Leave it to leftists with their anti-Midas touch to transform what is golden not merely into something base, but into something feculent. 

    Bill Vallicella

    One response to “Noisome Newsom, Legal Know-Nothing, Rebuked”

  • Is God a being among beings or Being Itself? An Exchange with Dale Tuggy

    Top o' the Stack.

    One morning, just as Old Sol was peeping his ancient head over the magnificent and mysterious Superstition range, I embarked on a drive down old Arizona 79, past Florence, to a hash house near Oracle Junction where I had the pleasure of another nice long three and one half hour caffeine-fueled discussion with Dale Tuggy. For me, he is a perfect interlocutor: Dale is a serious truth-seeker, no mere academic gamesman, analytically sharp, historically well-informed, and personable. He also satisfies a necessary though not sufficient condition of fruitful dialog: he and I differ on some key points, but our differences play out over a wide field of agreement.

    I incline toward the view that God is not a being among beings, but Being itself. Dale rejects this view as incoherent. In this entry I will take some steps toward clarifying the issues that divide us. I will conclude in good old Platonic fashion, aporetically.

    Bill Vallicella

    4 responses to “Is God a being among beings or Being Itself? An Exchange with Dale Tuggy”

  • Trump, Nukes, and Nation-Building

    It is blindingly evident that Ayatollah Khamenei and the rest of the  radical Islamists in control of Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Donald Trump has been clear and consistent about this during the ten years he has been in the political spotlight.  He may speak of diplomacy and agreements but he understands that a piece of of paper will not deter such savages. 

    Unlike the feckless and demented Joe Biden, Trump has excellent threat-assessment skills. He understands that the greatest threat to humanity is not 'white supremacy' or 'climate change,' but nuclear war. And unlike his impotent predecessors Obama and Biden, he knows better than to make idle threats. He gave Khamenei 60 days. On the 61st all hell broke loose.

    So what DJT has to do is supply the Israelis with the bunker buster bombs and delivery systems (B-2s) to annihilate  the infrastructure needed to develop the nukes. [Corrigendum 6/19: I am assuming, probably falsely, that the USA can simply supply the Israelis with the bunker-busting GBU-57s and the B-2s so that the IDF can do the job.]

    But there is dissension in the MAGA ranks. I wonder if Tucker Carlson is aware of the distinction between preventing the present Iranian regime from acquiring nukes and forcing the Iranians to adopt a Western form of government. I am for the first, against the second. The Iranians have the right to any government of their choosing, including an Islamic theocracy as long as it does not support such  terrorist surrogates and proxies as  Hamas and Hezbollah, and as along as it does not develop nuclear weapons.

    As my respect for Carlson goes down, my assessment of Fetterman goes up. Funny world. 

    The Neo-Con mistake was to think that we can teach the peoples of the Middle East how to live by invasion, occupation, and nation-building. Utter folly.  But that is not what Trump is about.  Preventing Khamenei and his gang from acquiring nukes is entirely consistent with Trump's non-interventionist  foreign policy.  [On second thought, a great power such as the USA cannot be purely non-interventionist if it is to succeed in protecting its own interests. Here non-interventionism meets its limit. In the present emergency, an exception must be made: the USA must intervene to prevent the rogue state from acquiring nukes. The preceding sentence smacks of Schmitt: I am currently immersed, critically of course, in his works.] 

    "The Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others." (— Nicolo Machiavelli, in "The Prince.")

    Applying Machiavelli's point to the present: War to the death cannot be avoided with Khamenei's Iran. So let's get it it over with. Khamenei is stalling; he thinks he can survive the current Israeli onslaught, develop his nukes, and fight later.  (This is essentially General Jack Keane's analysis. Sounds right to me!) So what DJT has to do is supply the Israelis with the bunker buster bombs and delivery systems (B-2s) to annihilate  the infrastructure needed to develop the nukes. [Not right. See my first corrigendum supra.] This may  ignite a popular uprising against the clerical thugs, which could only be good. Trump and Netanyahu have made it clear that the Iranian people are not the enemy.

    Addendum 6/19. What I wrote above leaves something to be desired: political theory is not my wheelhouse. It takes a bloody long time to "study everything" as my masthead motto recommends. See the comment thread and in particular the linked articles for a nuanced overview of the entire geopolitical shit-scape.  

    Bill Vallicella

    48 responses to “Trump, Nukes, and Nation-Building”

  • Postmarked Utopia

    Ed Farrell, a long-time friend and reader of Maverick Philosopher since April 2010, tells me that he has a Substack up and running, entitled Postmarked Utopia.  Please do bring him some traffic. Here is the initial paragraph of his inaugural post:

    I've called this site "Postmarked Utopia" not because I live in Utopia but because I live in a wannabe utopia: the progressive western world, which has once again embarked on the great project of destroying its cultural foundations so that some sort of free-and-equal paradise might rise like a phoenix from the ashes. With variations, this is the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth try at this. At the moment we're stalled in populist uprisings. Will we get past this? I hope not. If the past is any guide, Utopia is a bitch and delivers only brain-death and servitude. 

     

    Bill Vallicella

  • The Lion and the Lamb

    Perhaps someday the lion will lie down with the lamb. Should that day come, I would still prefer to be the lion. (To repackage a remark I heard Tom Cotton make last night.)

    Netanyahu-Macron

     

    Bill Vallicella

    One response to “The Lion and the Lamb”

  • A Test for Marital Compatibility

    Sage Substack advice. Hit the road with your bride-to-be and see if she can take a little hard travelin'.

     

    Diner

     

    A reader comments:

    I tried something similar in the summer of '79. The girlfriend was Juanita, Sicilian by lineage and temperament, a Tae Kwon champion, and a commercial pilot. I proposed a drive to Florida from Pittsburgh. She said you drive, I'll fly and meet you there. You can guess how that relationship went.

    If the target mate won't take the bait and stand the test, hand her her walking papers on the spot.

    Bill Vallicella

  • Saturday Night at the Obituaries: 2025 So Far

    Contributors to the great Boomer soundtrack are dying on all  sides. Here are just some from 2025 so far.

    Brian Wilson, June 11th.  Sloop John B.

    Sly Stone, June 9th. Everyday People

    Rick Derringer, May 26th.  Memphis

    Nino Tempo, April 12th. Deep Purple

    Lenny Welch, April 8th. Since I Fell for You

    Johnny Tillotson, April 1st. Poetry in Motion

    Jesse Colin Young, March 16th. Get Together 

    Roberta Flack, February 24th. Killing Me Softly with his Song

    Marianne Faithfull, January 30th. As Tears Go By

    Gary Grier, January 26th, Do You Love Me?

    Barry Goldberg, January 22nd. Killing Floor

    Garth Hudson, January 21st. Chest Fever

    Peter Yarrow, January 7th. Blowin' in the Wind

    Bill Vallicella

Philosophy Weblogs

Other Websites