archives

philosophy

This tag is associated with 12 posts

Hugh Hefner, RIP

Perhaps I should have posted this yesterday.

(Perhaps not)

Like him or not, the man opened the door to The Sexual Revolution (at least as defined by him) and things continued the same.

Sadly, he supported many rights, but ignored The Second Amendment as a primary Freedom.

Libertine, YES, Libertarian, no.

And, he certainly didn’t support the Woman’s Movement, as least as defined by Steinem and other leftists.

He did spend much of his LIFE in bedwear and robes.

Perhaps there IS a message there.  He did pass at 91.

Thank you Hef, for the wonderful jokes, cartoons, The Playboy Advisor, and, or course, the airbrushed nudes (including Marilyn!).

Gahan Wilson was a genius!

RIP, Mr. Hefner!

Parsing The Constitution

I always thought my public school education from the 50s and 60s was enough to get me by.  Certainly more learned than the folks who deliberately misunderstand the three-fifths compromise and the electoral college. And forget those college professors lecturers who taught communism in Constitution classes! (Who could I mean?)

I have often used the argument of the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’ as an argument against both welfare and enforcement thereof.

Thought I was pretty smart in so doing.

Now, here comes (or rather came) Judge Story’s interpretation regarding ‘the general welfare’.

From long before most of us were born!

“Thus we find in our conclusion that there is no general welfare clause in the Constitution;

that the power of Congress to legislate for every object which in their opinion might be for the benefit of the people, pressed by Mr. Hamilton in the Convention, was six times, directly or indirectly, rejected by that body; and, in spite of that, his followers have sought to con­strue these words as meaning what the authors of the Constitution had six times successively rejected; while Judge Story’s construction lands us in the same morass, a government of unlimited power, though he reaches it by a different road.

These facts show that a large majority of the Com­mittee of Eleven that reported these words to be in­corporated into the first clause of §8 Art. I were strongly opposed to the views of Mr. Hamilton and those of Judge Story that lead to the same end, tho’ by different routes, a government of unlimited pow­ers!”

**************************************************

This speech was delivered before the annual meeting of the Georgia Bar Association at Tybee Island on June 2, 3, and 4, 1927.Mr. PRESIDENT and gentlemen of the Geor­gia Bar Association: I make no apology for presenting to you today as the subject of my address a technical and abstruse question, be cause it involves the foundation stone of our form of Government.

The subject to which I invite your attention may be put in this form, “Judge Story’s position on the so-called General Welfare Clause of the Con­stitution of the United States.”

The words “the general welfare” are to be found in two places in the Constitution—in the preamble thereto and in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. All reputable writers concur in the statement that the words of the preamble to the Constitution consti­tute no grants of power, and therefore our investigation is confined to the words as found in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. which reads,

“The Congress shall have power lo lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Apparently, lots of wisdom existed before I was born!  😛

courtesy of Free North Carolina
______________________________________________________
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
I would ask all of you bloggers out there to at least make the effort to post a link to www.projectwelcomehometroops.org/#22kill

22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY

Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #6 of 22)

THIS Quote Takes The Internets!

My friend Tin Can Assassin of NINE POUND SLEDGEHAMMER took the Internet with this one:

Trash is trash, doesn’t matter what color you are. Quality is quality, doesn’t matter what color you are.

This is the middle of an analysis of the recent unpleasantness in Baltimore and elsewhere, wherein it seems people are responding to real and imagined wrongs by violence and destruction.

You really should go and read the whole essay!

The Social Contract

I mentioned John Locke (author of The Social Contract, philosopher extraordinaire, and unwitting mentor to Thomas Jefferson) in this blog the other day.

Then, quite serendipitously, I took note on an early blog post by Joel

I haven’t read this blog, The Art of Not Being Governed, very extensively so if it turns out to be a neonazi or everytown front, don’t blame me, okay? But so far I’m enjoying it.

It’s got a recurring feature called Statist Fallacies, basic stuff but pretty good so far. Here’s a lovely take-down on the mossy old “social contract,” which TUAK readers probably know is a particular bugaboo of mine.
spooner-didnt-sign-shit
Enjoy. I’m going out to play now.

I’d forgotten about Joel’s distaste for ‘the concept of The Social Contract’.  So I thought WTH?

Libertarian, statist and sovereign citizen alike – what do you gentle readers think about this?

Bueller, Bueller?

The Quote About PROGRESSIVES, Of The Day!

Or perhaps the decade!

The goal of progressivism is not to make the world rational; it’s to make the world Portland.”

Would that that were true; their ultimate goal is really to make the world Leningrad.

(Cold Fury – Mike)

The post continues to be quotable.

Progressivism, especially in its well-heeled coastal expressions, is not a philosophy — it’s a lifestyle.

The difference (from conservatives) is that progressives, blazing with self-righteousness, believe themselves entitled to make their preferences a matter of law.

And that’s the Left in short: A lifestyle so good, it’s mandatory.

Perhaps YOU SHOULD GO AND READ THE WHOLE THING?

(No, I’m not requiring you do so…)

Robert Welch Was NOT George Lincoln Rockwell!*

welchrockwell

 

not this guy  – – – ->

 

 

 

“I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party John Birch Society, “concealed” or otherwise. Moreover, I have never been a supporter of that party society.” – Guffaw

Funny, growing up in a white-bread liberal college town as I did, I heard mostly that Robert Welch (of the Welch Candy Company(Sugar Babies) and the John Birch Society) was nothing more than an ignorant, fascistic, fear-monger, as were the members of his society.

Then I listened to the words in the video above…

It appears as though he has been characterized erroneously.

He was actually a libertarian (of some variety)!

(I’m NOT saying I believe in everything the man stood for, and I am NOT a Bircher, but it appears character assassination of non-liberal individuals has been going on for generations!)

I’m guessing none of the members of the current administration (or their parents) were present in the audience to hear Mr. Welch speak.  Unless, of course, they were outside agitators community organizers bent on disrupting the proceedings…

(not unlike the guy on the right)

*If you youngsters suffer from a failed public education, here’s the Wikilinks – Robert Welch, George Lincoln Rockwell

APHORISMS

The Art of Manliness (my go-to place for classic wisdom on the Web) recent posted 20 aphorisms, abhored (or ignored) in youth, but appreciated as I got older.  (Sometimes)

An aphorism is a short, pithy statement that conveys a principle or contains a pearl of wisdom. Part of what makes them so powerful is that they can stand on their own without context; as the philologist Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel put it, “An aphorism ought to be entirely isolated from the surrounding world like a little work of art and complete in itself like a hedgehog.”

Indeed!

Here is one.  CLICK on it to link to the remaining 19.

be kindI always thought it should end in rewind.  Obviously, I’m old.

Integrity Diminishes…on little cat feet.

moral compassThe Art of Manliness does it AGAIN.  This time with an essay about Integrity.

I’m convinced a significant percentage of our adult population never (or rarely) considers the moral and ethical implications of their words and actions.  And we are the worse off because of this.  Most moral compasses have the needle missing.  And we’re passing this lackadaisical attitude to our children.

What Strengthens and Weakens Our Integrity – Part I: Why Small Choices Count

A segment:

It’s not too difficult to discuss this quality in a general way and offer advice on maintaining one’s integrity of the “just do it” variety. But a quick glance at the never-ending news headlines trumpeting the latest scandal and tale of corruption shows that that’s not always the most effective approach. While the foundation of integrity is having a firm moral code of right and wrong, it can also be enormously helpful, even crucial, to understand the psychological and environmental factors that can tempt us to stray from that code. What’s at the root of our decision to sometimes compromise our principles? What kinds of things lead us to be less honest and what kinds of things help us to be more upright? What are some practical ways we can check our temptations to be immoral or unethical? How can we strengthen not only our own integrity, but the integrity of society as well?

You should go and read the whole essay.  And watch for the remaining three follows-up.  Hell, you should be checking out TAOM on a regular basis, regardless!

The True Believer

I watched and listened in amusement, disdain and horror as the 17th President to achieve reelection took again the oath of office.  His discussion of upholding rights for all…WE the People, failing to acknowledge the individual rights we hold (or rather held) in this country; speaking of the collective.  And never stating that those rights are natural rights, not something issued or taken away by government.

Constantly referring to our founding documents, as though saying those wise words would make his statements go down easier.  Because the speech was about his agenda, not upholding a Constitutional vision for the Nation.

And the camera shots of the audience, obviously fans of the President, alternately staring enraptured and bored, speaking to one another during the National Anthem and the Benediction.  No respect.  Even one of his daughters was not paying attention and talking to her mom.

In 1951, Eric Hoffer wrote The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements.

The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam. Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differed.  (Wikipedia)

I fear most of the persons in the audience were such people.  True Believers.  Folks who either love the man because he’s Black, or because he’s not George W. Bush.  Or because he gives them stuff or money.  Or who voted for him as an agent of change, out of white guilt.  Hardly thoughtful reasons to vote for a chief executive.  Many who now have taken note that the government is more powerful than any previous in American History.  Not militarily, but in a domestic police role.

It was especially telling to have Senator Charles Schumer introduce the President.  A man who needs no introduction to most of my blog readers.  An individual rights bigot and hypocrite.  Another True Believer.

The President did as he did last time.  Instead of making an historic speech, he made a campaign speech, trying to sound inclusive, but ignoring the individual.

This was not unexpected.

Back In The Saddle, Again

One of my favorites from childhood (WAY back in the 1950s) was Gene Autry.  Along with Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers, he embodied much of the Western mythos that was presented to we children.  In later life, he contributed heavily to charity, and even owned a baseball team.  Obviously, Capitalism was good to him.

But, Mr. Autry wasn’t just a capitalist, film, radio and TV star.  He set forth in his radio show a set of rules to live by.  The Cowboy Code.  Granted, they may seem trite by today’s standards, but in their simplicity and directness really aren’t a bad way to conduct oneself.

A Cowboy Must:

  1. Never shoot first, hit a smaller man, or take unfair advantage;
  2. Never go back on his word, or a trust confided in him;
  3. Always tell the truth;
  4. Be gentle with children, the elderly and animals;
  5. Not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant ideas;
  6. Help people in distress;
  7. Be a good worker;
  8. Keep himself clean in thought, speech, action and personal habits;
  9. Respect women, parents and his nation’s laws;
  10. Be a patriot.

I don’t recall having any toys attributed to him (I still have my Hopalong Cassidy watch, somewhere!) but finding these rules in my Internet travels is a better remembrance.

My question is this – what values are being presented to today’s children steeped in popular culture?  From the Kardashians to the Octomom…what are their rules to live by?

(I DO apologize for mentioning them – Guffaw)

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…