Stuff I Like
live to rise
Apr 6th
So.
If you are not a ‘grunge’ or Soundgarden fan you may want to tune out now.
Oh. And while this is about Soundgarden I probably should have posted this yesterday. Because yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the death of another Pacific Northwest music icon – Layne Staley. Layne Staley the lead singer of my favorite Pacific Northwest band of this genre Alice in Chains. His distinctive voice and style of singing created the dark emotional sound that made Alice’s music the best of the west. So. Before I get to Soundgarden … in memory of Layne … here is what I would consider two of his finest musical moments:
Man in the Box -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAqZb52sgpU&feature=relmfu
Down in a Hole -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8hT3oDDf6c&feature=relmfu
Ok. Soundgarden.
They are here today because they are putting out their 1st new cd in umpteen years. And the first song, Live to Rise, is just making its way onto the airwaves.
If you like Soundgarden you are really going to like this:
Live to Rise: http://www.kisw.com/pages/12721576.php
It is everything I loved about Soundgarden in their first incarnation (big rolling bass riffs and deep chords) with a more mature sounding Chris Cornell (who I believe has one of the underrated voices of rock ‘n roll).
I am fairly sure I have written about Pacific Northwest music in the past but just in case … I was never a Nirvana fan. Just didn’t get the appeal <albeit I love Grohl & the Foos>.
Mudhoney, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Temple of the Dog. All better than Nirvana in my eyes <or ears>.
And, honestly, I don’t know what they put in the water up there but the new indie incarnation of that piece of geography <Decemberists, Death Cab for Cutie, Postal Service – which is Ben Gibbard 2.0 – Laura Veirs and with the Shins relocating there> is pretty amazing.
Anyway.
I love the new Soundgarden.
The song is also the first release from the new Avengers soundtrack which looks frickin’ amazing <the soundtrack … not the movie>.
On a completely random note … this version of The Avengers has nothing to do with the very old Avengers tv series and the horrendous movie version released several years ago. Slightly unfortunate it isn’t another try at the original 1960’s television Avengers … a quirky spy show of the adventures of an eccentrically suave British agent and his female partner. But, of course, nothing will ever match the campy original Ms. Emma Peel and Mr. John Steed.
Ok. Moving on.
This Marvel comics Avengers soundtrack which looks awesome …
The tracklisting for Avengers Assemble is as follows:
1. ‘Live to Rise’ – Soundgarden
2. ‘I’m Alive’ – Shinedown
3. ‘Dirt and Roses’ – Rise Against
4. ‘Even If I Could’ – Papa Roach
5. ‘Unbroken’ – Black Veil Brides
6. ‘Breath’ – Scott Weiland
7. ‘Comeback’ – Redlight King
8. ‘Into the Blue’ – Bush
9. ‘A New Way to Bleed (Photek Remix)’ – Evanescence
10. ‘Count Me Out’ – PUSHERJONES
11. ‘Shoot to Thrill’ – Theory of a Deadman
12. ‘Wherever I Go’ – Buckcherry
13. ‘From Out of Nowhere’ – Five Finger Death Punch
14. ‘Shake the Ground’ – Cherri Bomb
Additional track on the international release:
15. ‘Pistols At Dawn’ – Kasabian
Hope you enjoyed the new Soundgarden. If you like this kind of music this soundtrack looks awesome.
manifesto book end thinking (a series of two)
Apr 4th
Ok.
This is going to be a 2 part series discussing 2 incredibly well written and often misunderstood documents. These two documents are a reflection of two of the most important and influential political theories ever created. Both documents continue to influence and provoke discussion on ideology, capitalism and government. And mostly I wanted to write about the documents because if you have ever doubted the power of the written word … and how words can impact how people think & act … read these documents and your doubt will cease to exist.
I, being me, will highlight 2 seemingly opposite manifestos in the series (hence the reason I call this idea ‘bookends’).
The 2 documents? The American Constitution and the Communist Manifesto.
Yup. They are bookends to me.
And two bookends everyone should have on their shelf. I don’t care where you live or what ideology floats your boat or what, culturally, your manifesto may be … well … manifested in. If you believe in enlightened conflict and having an enlightened point of view both documents should be at your fingertips.
And bookends because the creators thought about similar things and evolved into extremely well articulated documents. In 1843 (the communist manifesto was actually completed in 1848) Marx was a young student and more committed to a more democratic form of republicanism. Eventually evolving into what he formed as a communist for of ideology. In the 1780′s America’s founding fathers sought an environment of a combination of pluralism, socialism and democracy ultimately ending up with what America is today – a republic. They didnt trust an unfettered democracy and therefore set up a relatively unique (components had been utilized in Rome, Scotland and Latvia in years past) system of democratic checks & balances within a Republic concept.
Regardless of what your current ideology both documents are beautifully crafted, most portions remain timeless in their thinking may be two of the shortest most impactful documents of all time. Ok. The two documents I will discuss.
This first will be the constitution.
As I have stated before it is one of the most well written forward thinking “white papers” of all time. It is the standard for democratic (or people government driven) rules of the road of all time.
The second will be the Communist Manifesto.
Now. This document is maybe one of the most concise, and well written, ‘power of the everyday people’ social documents of all time. It resonates today and parts of it are … well … relevant to many topics being discussing everywhere today.
Now.
I am not going to tear apart each document but rather try and take the parts that are being discussed today and … well … be enlightening.
Plus.
I get to discuss two documents I believe everyone should read.
And I get to discuss two documents I never tire of picking up and reviewing.
Some caveats.
I am fairly sure I got all the technical aspects correct. I am absolutely sure I got my opinions correct. And more than sure there are some grammatical and typing errors.
Enjoy.
bookend 1: american constitution
Apr 4th
“We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” – Daniel Webster 
Ok.
I begin the two part series with the American Constitution. With all the dizzying rhetoric wrapped around the constitution these days let’s begin with a fact.
No interpretation.
The American constitution is probably the best written, best though out, best forward thinking practical “ideological white paper” of all time.
Take a look. Read it. Maybe even reread it. The stuff <thoughts, ideas, words> that they had the foresight to build into the document is boggling to the mind if you think about it.
(this link is to the transcript but it also has images of the original document: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )
Anyway.
I began writing about the constitution because it is being so misused and abused by politicians it is making Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock and any forefather you want to name , who actually participated in the tea party, turn over in their grave.
And how it is being discussed (tearing it apart word by word) is frightening … because … well … while the writers were extremely thoughtful with regard to individual words <incredibly so> the document was written with the intent to be taken in its entirety.
As the sum of its parts.
Plus.
I let the people on the Supreme Court figure out any nuances … they get paid the big bucks and, frankly, they have bigger brains. They were given a job and similar to the guy who was given the job to supervise the jack hammer construction workers, who I assume knows jack hammers better than I ever could, they have better skills at their job than I would.
Ok.
With that rant being aired out let me take a minute and share some information about the Constitution.
We the People.
What an opening.
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, inure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And with that opening I interpret some personal responsibility. “Personal” being you & I. And a responsibility to know the Constitution.
Research continues to show that the vast majority of Americans cherish the U.S. Constitution … but do not know much about it. if this isn’t an example of “choiceful ignorance” I don’t know what it. Why do I say that?
The same research indicates that most of us believe that the health of our Constitutional democracy depends on active and informed citizenry.
some facts from a survey done by the National Constitution center:
- 91% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution is important to them
- 84% believe that to work as intended, our system of government depends on active and informed citizens
But.
- More than half of Americans don’t know the number of Senators <100 senators … 2 from each of the 50 states regardless of population … and as a bonus … The House of Representatives has 435 members … I think>
- About 1 out of 3 don’t know the number of branches of the Federal Government <ok. I admit. I am embarrassed to say that I didn’t know this off the top of my head … there are three branches of government: The Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch is Congress, Senate & House of Representatives, making laws. The Executive branch executes the laws made by the Legislative. Think the president as the Executive Branch. The Judicial branch big kahuna is the Supreme Court which is made up of nine justices. Each branch functions as a checks & balance for the system. Basically, the Legislative branch creates laws, the Judicial Branch interprets laws, and the Executive branch executes laws>
- 1 out of 6 believe that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation <not even close … freedom of religion, including islam, was encouraged and a number of documents from the founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Adams – support this belief>
- 20% believe that only lawyers can understand the Constitution <interpret portions maybe … but it is one of the most straightforward documents you will ever read>
- Almost one-quarter cannot name a single right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment <freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly & petition of grievances … I usually miss press, assembly and grievances>
- 84% believe that the U.S. Constitution is the document that states that “all men are created equal” <that is the Declaration of Independence>.
Next.
When asked to describe in their own words what the U.S. Constitution means to them, Americans refer to the Constitution as the bedrock upon which our society and laws are based.
Q.: What Does The U.S. Constitution Mean To You?
- Freedom (34%)
- Basis of our rights (20%)
- Our system of laws (11%)
- Established this country (7%)
- Established our government
- Determines our quality of life (3%)
- Everything (3%)
Yet, more than three quarters (83%) admit that they know only “some” or “very little” about the specifics of the document.
Ok.
So more people need to pay attention to the Constitution.
Reading & interpreting it.
People can generally agree on what the words of the Constitution says. Typically we struggle with interpretation.
Generally speaking, there are two main ways in which court justices, judges, and legal analysts interpret laws and constitutions:
- As living documents that evolve as the culture changes
- As fixed documents whose meaning never changes from the time that they were written until now.
Simplistically most who lean toward a more liberal perspective tend to think of it as a living document and a more conservative perspective thinks of it as a fixed document <note: that is a generalization>.
But I say that to help highlight why so much heated discussion takes place over a variety of issues important to America … and how the constitution is being used, and abused, to further people’s initiatives.
Anyway. If you are interested … there is an excellent paper written by Yale Law Review called “How To Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To) by Michael Stokes Paulsen which provides an excellent perspective with sources, of course, to aim you toward more reading if you would like. (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf)
It is interesting to note that he suggests the best book of all time explaining the constitution is actually The Federalist written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. I say interesting because it was written so long ago and yet a contemporary Yale Law Journal contributor believes it to be so.
Ok, moving on.
States, federal & balance
It seems one of the wackiest discussions happening today centers on federal government (or how big and what role it should play).
And the popular rhetoric surrounds states and state’s rights.
Ok. Let’s be clear. I am not a big government guy.
Nor am I a state’s guy.
I am a balance guy. And a guy who believes the balance today will be different from the balance tomorrow.
And actually our forefathers were also <I am not suggesting I am as smart as any of our forefathers>.
Let me discuss “states’ rights” first (then how politicians abuse this issue … how we permit them to abuse it … and then the whole ‘rights of individuals themselves’).
Ok. What about states’ rights. It is the hot topic du jour.
Many people suggest that The Tenth Amendment limits Congress to those areas in which the Constitution explicitly empowers it to act. And all other responsibility resides with the states.
But … well … no. <sorry … couldn’t figure out how else to say it>
The Constitution was actually written to provide balance (10th amendment included).
And the flexibility to provide different balance depending on different situations.
And it also has a variety of checks & balances with it (think of the Supreme Court decision making as the ultimate decision maker on balance).
All that said let’s take a minute to look at how balance between the Federal government and states is organized in the Constitution. The issue of states’ rights was very important to a key author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson. He was the main arguer for the amendments we know as ‘The Bill of Rights’ where the ‘Tenth Amendment’ strikes a crucial balance between State and Federal power.
- Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People – Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In addition, the powers of the Federal government were limited by design see ‘Section 8 Powers of Congress.’ The Federal government was intended to be the glue to hold the states into a nation.
The Federal government responsibilities?
According to the Constitution the Federal government should only handle things that must go into and between the state and national borders. Settle disputes between states, provide a unified defense, foreign and trade policy. War, immigration, postal system, currency and banking.
Oh. And the “biggie” … “promote the general Welfare.”
All other powers are reserved to the States or to the people.
Ok.
And before we start saying things like “the constitution suggests the government shouldn’t be in the business business (like car manufacturers).
Wrong.
In fact early forefather type governments recognized the government HAD to helps support some businesses until they got on their feet. Thankfully it was that attitude, and actions, that made America the global economic power that it is today.
Anyway.
States and people.
We the people.
Clearly stated. Clearly defined.
States are always stated as “United States” in some document we like to call the Constitution. Oh. And the constitution replaced the articles of confederation (which was basically a states driven government constitution) to strengthen a federal government to balance the states’ rights.
So.
Here’s the deal (number 1): States.
States. States have rights as long as the individual parts strengthen the whole (the United States).
Federal. The federal government has rights as long as it strengthens the whole (the United States).
And they have the ability to step in when they see individual parts harming, or weakening, the whole. Individual parts may not like that and they may shout and stamp their feet and have a temper tantrum but someone (the federal government) has to look at the bigger picture.
Sorry. That’s the <American> gig.
If you don’t like that … well …
Here’s the deal (part 2): politicians (elected officials)
Politicians need to step up to the plate. Because here is where our selected politicians are failing us. They are elected to balance our individual needs (their direct constituents) and the wholes needs (the USA). That means sometimes they need to tell the truth to their local constituents (the ones who voted them in).
Yeah. Something like “wow. It would be good for us but in the scheme of things what would be good for us may not represent the best for the whole (the USA). “
Whew. That doesn’t get you reelected (because it is not selfish enough).
But it is telling the truth.
Ok. Where am I going with this?
Here’s the deal (part 3): Us
We the people. Us. You and I. Because in the end it comes down to us. Seeking the truth and accepting the truth. We the people are not “I the people.”
“The people make the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”
John Marshall, Chief Justice of The Supreme Court
Do we care what happens to us as individuals? Surely. As we live eat and breathe.
Do we need to weigh government <national> decisions as we versus I? Surely <as much as it may pain us to do so sometimes>.
We need to remember that ‘We the people’ is the United States. And despite any despicable behavior of elected constituents we need to take responsibility for their behavior.
And seek to encourage the behavior that reflect honesty so we can truly judge what is best not just for I but for we (no matter how painful that may be).
And today more than ever this is truth because we are making important budget decisions that are inevitably going to hurt somewhere at a local level (it would be naïve to suggest budget cuts are cutting ‘big government’ and that isn’t really ‘local jobs/business’).
But truth be told … the decisions will hurt at a minority of the local level.
And these budget decisions help the whole.
Let me go back to the ‘does this hurt a minority’? Yup.
It is really easy to look at things that hurt your own wallet. And your own house. And your own family. And are you wrong? Well. No. And yes.
No in that your first consideration should be your own family and your own immediate needs.
Yes in that there is a bigger picture.
And what may hurt you today (and your family) may actually be okay in the end (several years from now).
And I imagine the reason I wrote about the constitution is that I believe not only has the everyday person (you & i) lost sight of what it meant when it was written but I also believe the politicians have lost sight of why we elect them.
We elect them to not only represent our personal needs but also to explain to us the greater needs. And this is maybe where we fail them.
Because all we seem to focus on is “me” (or I depending on your grammatical preference).
Because, frankly, what is an elected official to do? Tell us the truth or rather fight to do something to benefit us (even if it is not in the nest interest of “us” – we the people.).
And that is where they sometimes elect to bastardize the constitution.
They play us (and shame on us for permitting that to happen).
They play the ‘rights of the state’ card versus the federal government point of view card.
Look.
There is no “pick one side or the other.” It’s balance.
And the politicians who stand up and thump their chests and create some diatribe on one or the other is screwing with you.
It’s balance.
Sometimes the state carries the day and benefits what you need (and is right for the bigger picture). Sometime the federal government sees the bigger picture and it hurts people locally but is really good for the bigger picture.
So we , the people, need to get our heads out of our asses and see the bigger picture and quit shoving something up our local representations ass trying to get something done (so he/she gets re-elected) and let them do what they were elected to do.
And that is what our forefathers desired … fair state representation, all the time, keeping the USA in mind (the bigger picture) … all the time.
Ok.
Another thing (as we read the constitution).
Democracy, Republic, Socalism & Pluralism
We seem to forget some things.
We are a republic … not a democracy.
In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.
Yup. Our form of government is called a Republic, not a Democracy where a majority rules. Here is a factoid for you.
The Founding fathers kind of disliked the idea of a pure democracy.
Thus they set up a system of limited government that was a federation of states.
In addition.
We need to remember that the Constitution was not written to protect the principles of the majority. James Madison, key writer of the Constitution, understood that in a democratic republic the rights of the majority need no such protection. In fact Madison and his fellow founding fathers believed that the greatest threat to American liberty would be the tyranny of a majority – a tyranny in which “the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker.”
Think about this.
Because it is tricky.
Make sure the majority has the ability to live life to its fullest and yet insure the majority doesn’t ‘oppress the weak’ … oh … and not be a socialist or communist system.
It becomes easy to see how those who opine actually have something to opine about.
All that said.
The constitution is a brilliant document.
And it is brilliantly crafted to enable balance.
And it implies a governing with a lack of selfishness in mind.
Governing with a greater good in mind.
Because the constitution, whether states’ rights believers or federal government believers, clearly has America’s greater good in mind.
Read it.
Interpret it. Discuss it. And hold elected officials accountable to truth.
Ok.
That said.
On to the next post and the next document (and the last in this series).
The next document doesn’t have a country in mind as the ‘greater good.’ It goes completely to the other end of the spectrum and focuses almost solely on a completely different interpretation of ‘we the people.’ It focuses solely on the greater good of people almost in a ‘global community’ frame of reference as nation boundaries
The Communist Manifesto.
Yup.
Speaking of people driven rules of the road you would have to be silly to ignore the communist manifesto. Ignore all the trappings of “communist” and focus on the words.
It represents words of the people.
And it resonates as well today as did it then.
bookend 2: manifesto of the communist party
Apr 4th
This is the last of my “manifesto” series.
But it was maybe the first that I thought about. Because as I watch the news and see the pictures in Egypt and Sudan and the middle east <and everything else associated with a populace driven revolution> I thought about the manifesto of the communist party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto).
Now. I am not a communist. But all the things happening in the streets of … well … pretty much every city these days started thinking about the power of the common everyday people.
Or ‘every day people unite’ (which is actually the close to the manifesto).
So I plucked my copy of the manifesto off my shelf and reread it.
If you have never read it this comment may seem daunting. But The Communist Manifesto is only 53 pages long.
Less if you skip the Communist Literature section (which was outdated almost at first publishing).
It is an astonishing little read.
And it is also astonishing to think it was written by a 30 and 28 year old (Marx and Engel respectively). It is an amazingly concentrated brief document written with an intellectual stylishly personal perspective.
From its opening “a spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism” to the closing of “the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” the pamphlet is full of simplicity which still rings true today.
There are a couple of “truths” to think about before I get to the Manifesto.
- Truth 1. Communism is better as a theoretical model then as a day to day reality.
- Truth 2. Today’s world actually has nothing to do with the working class/common people … it is actually an uprising of the middle class who is losing what they had.
- Truth 3. Some of the building block thoughts and components of the Communist Manifesto are insightful and truthful and when looked at with vision explain much of what we see around us in today’s world.
Interestingly … in a truly academic point of view … if you look at today’s world … socialism is more a middle class movement and communism a working class movement.
And socialism <or at least aspects of it to those who truly understand what it is> has always been quasi-respectable and communism not.
Marx suggested that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Communism therefore is the same as that of all proletariat (working class) parties – formation of the workers into a class and ultimately the overthrow of the bourgeois (wealthy elite) supremacy. Therefore … communism is not based on ideas or principles but rather the rights of a “working class” of people.
Gosh.
When I type something like that … and think about today … well … it sure does make you think.
Anyway.
The Manifesto.
- Note: where appropriate I substituted worker/worker class for proletariat and wealthy elite for bourgeoisie.
Capitalism leads to exploitation. The wealthy elite has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers. It has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. – Manifesto
- Capitalism does lead to exploitation. However … capitalism also leads to innovation, improvement, increased standard of living as well as a variety of other positives. If I could have sat good ole Karl down I believe I would have suggested an additional word – “unfettered.” Unfettered (or un-managed) capitalism leads to exploitation. But. I am not as smart as Karl so I think I will leave it as is and suggest this is one of the few flaws in the Communist Manifesto. A big flaw but one of the few.
“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the working class; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests” – Manifesto
- “They defend their future interests.” Oh my. I believe something we tend to forget is that democracy and communism are both class based ideologies. And both are based on protecting the majority classes. I am not suggesting they are the same just have some basic ideological similarities. If you accept that, you can read the Communist Manifesto not as a communist but rather as someone interested in everyone getting a fair shake.
“soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of wealthy elite society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. – Manifesto
- This is Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. Schumpeter was not a Marxist, communist nor a Capitalist. He was simply an economist who believed that <simplistically> the new will destroy the old as it evolved into a better place. That destructive crises naturally occurred as a way to replace that which is with what will be.
“In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” – Manifesto
- Basically Marx outlines a global economy, nation’s interdependent upon each other, as well as intellectual collaboration, before there was ever the world wide web. Go figure.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. – Manifesto
- Marx did a nice job of providing historical reference for classes and, ultimately, class conflict. Civilization is almost always defined by the struggle between have and have-nots. And the belief by the have nots, realistic or not, that someday they can become a ‘have.’ That being said one of the major flaws in the Communist theory is that it overlooks this basic human attitude (leading to behavior). Have-nots or Have-somes are just fine with the Haves as long as they believe (a) opportunity exists, if they work hard enough, to enter into the Have group and (b) the Haves don’t have disproportionate wealth versus the Have-nots. People inherently like working toward something … even if it is just a dream. Marx designed a utopian ideology where all are equal. In theory it is an interesting concept. In practicality the majority of people don’t desire that.
Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. – Manifesto
- This is interesting to me because ultimately the concept of Communism is dependent upon a society bereft of a real & viable middle class. Just when communism could have taken hold worldwide capitalism permitted the working class to evolve into a viable thriving middle class. Today? The middle class feels threatened … as it is getting dragged down closer & closer to “proletariat” level. Therefore it is revolting (Occupy movement, Red Square protesters, Middle East upheaval, etc.)
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.” – Manifesto
- While components of this are dead on … where Marx/Engel got it wrong was that the development of industry actually increased the strength of the middle class. That doesn’t make this thinking any less thoughtful, or brilliant. That last sentence … makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes … summarizes exactly what is happening today.
“In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced …” – Manifesto
- Marx recognized the emerging middle class it is just that he never envisioned it gaining such a stronghold in developed societies. But, once again, I would like to point out that those who “had” <once part of the ‘haves’> start the slippery slope of having to ‘not have’ <note: just by ‘not having’ does not mean you become a “have not”> they begin to feel supplementary rather than essential. I imagine my real point here is that the economic situation is almost as much about attitudes as it is about real economic issues.
“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”- Manifesto
- Well. if there was ever a better written indictment against elitist driven governments I am not sure I have ever read one. The problem with any government in any country is the ability to do what is best for each constituent as well as the whole of the constituents. Unless there is a dictatorship the happiness <derived from some aspect of ‘what is best for me’> of the population dictates the overall success of not only the government but of the nation as a whole. Governments have to be careful they do not become a class in itself.
Ok.
I included this next portion not to really make any point other than many of us have a sense of the underpinnings of communism but they are typically tainted by our view of Communist Soviet Union. Marx/Engel had a vision. A complete vision. And while we may shiver at some aspects (those of us in a social democracy like America) there are other aspects which reflect the fact that Communism was viable on a number of levels:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
- Once again I say that aspects are too theoretical … and frightening to suggest that such power resides solely within “centralization” … and it is probably within that main flaw that communism was so wrongly implemented … but .. education, public transportation, equal opportunity employment, etc. All are aspects of which create a worthy society and economy. And, once again, I state that this little pamphlet, only 50+ pages, outline an entire ideology and economic and societal state. Pretty amazing stuff.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.
- Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … the popular American 1%/99% nomenclature of today … only stated at “the 10% at the expense of the 90%.”
So.
I just selected some passages from this incredibly well written pamphlet. Do I agree with everything in it? Absolutely not. But as far as ideological writing it is on par with the Constitution. Well articulated thoughts conducted in absolute brevity.
And.
One last thought.
“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” – Marx
In fairness to Marx, and in deference to the fact I call my site enlightened conflict always seeking to lessen hostility <or conflict> … Marx’s ultimate objective was ‘hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”
So ends my reflection on two of the best written ideological documents of all time. Heck. Two of the best written documents, of any type, of all time.
In this post the Communist Manifesto and the one before the American Constitution.
Depending on where you live you will … well … live by some of these words.
But. Wherever you live you should read these two documents and think.
suddenly it is evening
Mar 30th
“every one of us stands alone on the heart of the earth,
Transfixed by a beam of sun;
And suddenly it is evening.” – Salvatore Quasimodo
I don’t know where I read this but when I did I wrote it down.
I love it for its brevity. And its reminder of brevity … within its brevity.
It is a reminder that Life is brief.
It is a reminder you have an opportunity to do something meaningful … something that makes an impact (I believe that is that the ‘heart of the earth’ thing)
It’s a reminder that doing something meaningful permits you to bask, even if but briefly, in a spotlight and the warmth of sun.
It is also a reminder that death comes to us all … it is inevitable … so don’t waste time in the beam of sun.
For, in the end, the sun sets and it is evening.
But most of all I believe I like it for its positiveness.
That life is lived in light.
It’s a nice thought.
march mudness
Mar 27th
“A deer can run and jump too, but I wouldn’t put him on a basketball court.” – Charles Barkley
“I was 10-2 yesterday… 10-3 I think.”- Charles Barkley
“There were 16 games yesterday.” – Ernie Johnson
So.
March madness. Let me begin with what I believe is the highlight of this year’s NCAA tournament so far <which is part of the issue I guess>.
I know I am probably in a minority but adding Charles Barkley to the madness was brilliant.
He doesn’t follow college basketball but he knows basketball.
And he knows the every man’s perspective on college basketball.
He doesn’t go into stats and some meaningless analytical drivel … he just … well … talks. And among the really smart insightful stuff he says incredibly wacky fun stuff.
They aren’t paying him enough.
Ok.
Beyond that. Something seems to be missing this year. And that is my theme as I outline how I am doing versus my enlightened predictions a couple weeks ago.
First. Let me begin by saying I am consistent.
If I were to take the last 10 years of brackets I have filled out I would say I would have won every year … if you only judged me on one half of the bracket. I cannot figure out why but almost every year I go gangbusters on one half (this year picking Kansas and Ohio state) and the other half my mother could have chosen better than I.
So. The good news (glass is half full good news)?
I didn’t have Kentucky or Louisville but had Kansas and Ohio state.
My bracket busters were certainly bracketbusters (UConn and Duke losing early).
And if you had taken my advice on picking against the “states” you would have been fine in the end. Oh. Damn. Ohio State. But. Ohio could have <should have> won their game.
Anyway.
Whats missing in this year’s Madness that kind of make it more like mudness.
Missing ones.
I predicted no number one seeds in the final four. I got awful close (only one 1 in). and you would imagine that not having your number one seeds making the final four would create some buzz & excitement. Well. Nope. Maybe a 1, 2 2’s and a 4 seed is too expected … I don’t know …but even one 1 doesn’t really make it exciting beyond the 4 schools in it.
Hugh's Missing the Point
Missing twos.
This is kind of crazy when you think about it but I am not sure I have seen more missed layups at this level in my entire life. I am not going to suggest Baylor would have beaten Kentucky but there was a stretch where they could have put the squeeze on Kentucky and they missed like three layups in a row. Syracuse missed a bunch. Kansas could have put Carolina away early if they had made some of theirs. Ohio. Someone burn that game tape. No one on that team should watch the tape of the game they lost … make half of the missed layups they had and it wouldn’t have gone to overtime.
I don’t have any reason for this. No. I don’t think it’s because of the advent of the 3 point shot.
But it’s got to be something. Even high school kids make their layups.
Missing threes.
Maybe this is a corollary to the layups but the live & die by the three’s mentality has gotten a little crazy. Because I have a tip to every coach out there (just in case all the best of the best read my blog) … you cannot ride three’s all the way to the title. There will be a game <or two> where they just won’t fall. And then you gotta do something else. And even in a game when they do fall (see Wisconsin against Syracuse) you gotta do something else.
Look. I get that a 3 gets you back in the game really really fast … but if you want to list the top 3 momentum killers I have to imagine a missed three, when you have a break away and no one is under the basket, is gonna be close to numero uno.
Note. The only exception is Jimmer Fredette & BYU.
Oh.
Note followup. They lost also.
Missing four.
Michigan State, Syracuse, Duke, North Carolina … all teams were missing a key player in the tournament. I am not sure I can remember a March madness when several of the best teams were missing a key player from what actually got them there into the madness.
I am not sure anything would have been different in the end (because they all lost games that the other team did what they needed to do to win) but it does make you think ‘what if.’
Missing Charles
I am gonna miss Charles with college sports.
Everyone is so serious and then … well … there is Charles.
Right after a commercial to drive people to the new show Hardcore Pawn ?
“I know what I’m gonna watch tonight! Oh, sorry, wrong spelling… I saw four letters and got excited!” - Charles Barkley
Awesome.
Missing heroes … or … “the making of March Mudness”.
No Cinderella team (and, no, Rick Pitino will never qualify as a Cinderella). Only one overtime game <in ENTIRE tournament>. No heroes (like a Jimmer Fredette or a Kemba Walker last year). No one player one game heroics. No last second shots. No feel good story. No madness (except that one Friday).
And maybe it is because of all the other sports stuff … bountygate, tebow to NYC, or Tiger finaly winning and march madness is taking an unexpected backseat. Regardless. Its Mudness this year (unless you are a KY, OSU, Louisville or KU fan).
The Missing Final Pick.
Louisville figures out some way to beat Kentucky.
Ohio State beats Kansas.
And while I wouldn’t mind Louisville winning it all I just cannot see them doing it.
(note: these picks also semi-salvage my brackets)
Another Madness almost done.
Enjoy.
And I hope you did better in your pool then I did.
francesca and photography
Mar 19th
So.
A friend of mine was looking for a unique gift for a wedding present for an ‘artistic person in the movie industry who has everything.”
I had a couple of ideas and one was a fabulous coffee table book of Francesca Woodman’s photography. And I was a little surprised he didn’t know who Francesca Woodman was.
So … here we go (in case you don’t know who she is).
Francesca Woodman committed suicide at 22 (in 1981). She was a photographer. You would think at 22 she wouldn’t have produced anything worthwhile let alone had time to realize her full potential <of which she may have not which is scary when you see how good she was>.
But the images she created she was able to do things with the camera that haunts you and I believe every woman, young and old, should be familiar with her portfolio of work. Because of the camera she used it is almost all small photographs … pretty much all dealing with an interesting insight into an ordinary woman perspective into self-esteem and ordinariness. Using different, sometimes strange, poses she created with women models – including herself – you … well … feel something … which I believe is just about all any photographer ever really wants to create.
And within all her photographs there is a beautiful use of architectural space.
Most of her photos were taken in remote gothic like areas or in her own private studio. Here is another blogger who did a really nice overview of her work:
http://lefistnoir.com/2010/02/02/flower-in-the-attic-francesca-woodman-1958-1981/#
I have always loved the starkness and complexity of thought within a pretty simple photo … and her usage of the space <to me> is what truly differentiated her from an amateur. And the space itself was important to her:
“I am interested in the way people relate to space. The best way to do this to depict their interactions to the boundaries of these spaces.”
Woodman sometimes used models but most of the photos are herself (I hesitate to say self portraits … she had a nice way of using herself simply as a model for the idea she had in her head) … and she usually staged the person interacting in some way with the environment around her.
“Francesca was ashamed that she took so many pictures of herself and irritated by the simplistic self-portrait label attached to her work. She tried using models over and over – but the reality was she was her own best model because she alone knew what she was after.” – Betsy Berne (friend of Woodman)
Whew.
Her work really does tell what she was after … in my own non-critic experienced eye … a story of a young woman struggling to find herself. In my words … she captures the demons I believe every young woman probably faces in trying to find herself.
Her work brings up a lot of stuff mentally & psychologically.
The web today allows us to get many glimpses of the high school mind through tumblr & facebook & now pinterest.
Think of Francesca Woodman as having the ability to take the best of the best through the worldwide web and all by herself … creating a portfolio of beautifully photographed thoughtful images.
Me?
As one critic said (Robert Boyd) “…another thing many might feel looking at her work is jealousy. She was producing brilliant photos when she was still in high school.”
REM
Mar 18th
So. This is the first of two back-to-back ‘call outs’ to two musicians/groups that are older … but have created some timeless music.
This one began when I heard shiny happy people on the radio the other day. It reminded me of a great time in my life (those 90’s sure were good years and some good music).
In addition it reminded me how great a band REM is (was?) with such a varied repertoire.
Shiny Happy People was one of my favorites because not only was it an unusually poppy REM song but I have always loved Kate Pierson’s voice (b-52s singer, oh, and I may have had a crush on her anyway at that time). Oops. Different post.
So. Shiny happy people. Great fun song. Great melody and harmonies.
But it was pretty different from what they normally did. And it showcases the variety of REM.
Shiny Happy People (people focus on Losing my Religion … and rightfully so … an awesome song) … is from Out of Time which is a truly spectacular pop cd with well crafted songs and an unusual sound for REM.
Then there was Orange Crush (although “you are everything” is actually my favorite song on that cd). Green is an up and down cd but (to me) but it also seems the moment they … well … matured from a social consciousness standpoint. I admit, I hated the radio singles, but listen to everything but the singles and it is awesome … the cd really seemed to dial up the heavier sounding rock hooks. I also thought (despite its poppiness) it really stood up for their environmental & social consciousness … “I’m very scared of this world” are the words you hear lifting up over the marvelous mandolins on “You Are the Everything.”
Oh. And Driver 8 (my all time favorite REM song). Fables of Reconstruction is just an awesome cd strewn with awesome songs like Can’t get there from here (… I truly believe that if they had made this cd and Life’s Rich Pageant a double cd there may have never been a better cd release in all of music history).
These two cds marked REM as a unique sound in music. They may have actually truly defined alternative music as a genre at this time. These guys just write great sounding multi leveled well crafted distinct sounding music. And this cd (actually both of these) showed when they stepped up in song writing and their sound.
I sometimes believe we forget was an awesome multi faceted band REM is. I know they have a greatest hits cd but here would be my essential REM listen list (and I bet I have forgotten something):
Talk about the Passion
South Central Rain
Begin the Begin
Driver 8
Orange Crush
(Don’t Go Back To) Rockville
Fall on Me
Can’t Get There from Here
You Are the Everything
The One I Love
Man on the Moon
The Lion Sleeps Tonight
Losing My Religion
Although. I probably could have just listed the track list for their back to back albums:
Fables of the Reconstruction
Life’s Rich Pageant
I am not sure any band has put out two albums in a row as excellent top to bottom as these two. They are timeless. As good today as they were then.
Regardless. Thanks REM. You won’t remember me but I remember seeing you play at a bar called the Oak Cooler in Winston Salem in about 1981 … and you guys were horrible.
But South Central Rain hooked me and I forgave first impressions and I am glad I did.
Ziggy Stardust turns 40
Mar 18th
Ok.
If the ‘ode to REM’ dated me … this one is really going to show my age. But I have to because Ziggy Stardust turned 40 this year.
Yup. The album Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars <David Bowie> was released 40 years ago. For those of you who are not old enough … Ziggy Stardust was David Bowie at his best. And the album is just as good now as it was then. Just a reminder <so that the younguns reading don’t think I am blowing smoke up their ass> before I get to the album and David Bowie:
- In 1997, Ziggy Stardust was named the 20th greatest album of all time in a Music of the Millennium poll conducted by HMV Group, Channel 4, The Guardian and Classic FM. In 1998, Q magazine readers placed it at number 24 and Virgin All-time Top 1000 Albums ranked it at number 11, while in 2003 VH1 placed it at number 48. It was named the 35th best album ever made by Rolling Stone on their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. And Time magazine listed it in its top 100 albums of all time.
(yup … good album)
Bowie created the album as a concept album and after it was done the label, in typical fashion, said “hey, there is no single” and Bowie (probably after having a well deserved tantrum) went back, had a cocktail or two and cranked out ‘Starman” … still an awesome song today:
Live Starman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz0XIiIlATE&feature=related
Live Ziggy Stardust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8sdsW93ThQ
Anyway.
Ziggy Stardust was David Bowie (or was David Bowie Ziggy … geez … not sure). All I know is that The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars was advertised with the slogan “David Bowie is Ziggy Stardust”… while, in smaller type, the words “Ziggy Stardust is David Bowie” ran across the bottom of the ad.
Bowie has always brilliantly blurred who he is as a person and who he is on stage. We overlook how talented he was as a songwriter, singer & performer. He was cool before we even knew what cool was. In a way he was a male trendsetter version of Madonna (but a much better musician).
Ziggy Stardust was just one among a brilliant three album run he had – Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane, Hunky Dory – which may rank up with one of the best 3 album stretches of anyone of all time.
Here is Panic in Detroit from Aladdin Sane:
Panic in Detroit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf0fmqWS-kI
And his band at that time. Tight. Good. Drummer Mick Woodmansey, bassist Trevor Bolder, and guitarist Mick Ronson played with David Bowie from 1971 to 1973 on three albums – Hunky Dory, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, and Aladdin Sane. For all three albums they were Ziggy Stardust & the Spiders from Mars.
And Mick. Mick Ronson the band’s secret weapon … flashy, but solid, guitar. He was the perfect counterpoint to Bowie (he kind of brought a solid sanity to Bowie’s out-of-this-world character).
Regardless. Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars is packed to the gills with classic tunes.
Ok. Why Ziggy?
The character of Ziggy was initially inspired by British singer Vince Taylor whom Bowie met after Taylor had had a breakdown and believed himself to be a cross between a god and an alien (how awesome is that story). Other influences included the Legendary Stardust Cowboy and Kansai Yamamoto who designed the costumes Bowie wore during the tour (how awesome is that … where the heck are these types of stories today?).
Oh. And as Bowie told Rolling Stone, because Ziggy was “one of the few Christian names I could find beginning with the letter ‘Z’”.
Anyway.
Happy 40th to one of the albums that I probably wore out in my youth. One of my favorite albums of all time.
And, as a bonus, some David Bowie photos:
Sorry. Just some musical memories. And it is always good to remind people that good music remains good … even 40 years good.
the Ides of march
Mar 15th
Ah.
March 15th.
The ides of march.
Caesar to the seer: “The ides of March have come” < the prophecy had not been fulfilled>
The seer replied: “Ay, Caesar; but not gone.”
And we know the rest of the story.
By the way. Every month has an ides. Ides just means the 15th (or halfway).
It’s just that stabbing Caesar <23 times> has kind of marked the 15th of march as THE ides of ides (i just wanted to type ‘ides of ides’).
My lesson with this whole Caesar thing?
1. Don’t gloat before victory is assured <or count your chickens before they hatch>.
If it had been me I think I wouldn’t have wandered over to the seer and shoved his prophecy in his face until the 16th (just to be sure).
2. Nothing good ever happens when a group of men gather wearing togas (see Animal House as key source of proof).
3. Never wear white before Memorial Day (or whatever the Roman equivalent would have been). Bad things can happen.
Anyway.
March 15th is a big date (a lot happened).
Some examples …
1493 – Christopher Columbus returns to Spain after 1st new world voyage * this was the BIG trip ..
1869 – Cincinnati Red Stockings become the 1st pro baseball team
1937 – 1st state contraceptive clinic opens (Raleigh NC) * and now they want to get rid of them all
1946 – British premier Attlee agrees with India’s right to independence * now one of the biggest economies in the world
1985 – The first Internet domain name is registered (symbolics.com). * so this is where smartphones and texting and all the worldwideweb stuff hit the fan ….
Ah.
The biggie (although I have found several discrepancies on the specific date I am sticking with this one) … if Shakespeare, through his play, made the ides of march common knowledge to all … it was his own England that took a step toward freedom of religion (something that I think everyone could use a reminder about).
1672 – King Charles II of England enacts Declaration of Indulgence
Now.
While in today’s world indulgence may mean an extra scoop of double fudge chocolate chip in 1672 it had to do with the right to worship whatever it is you wanted to worship.
This declaration:
- suspended all penal laws in matters ecclesiastical for not attending the established Church of England or not receiving communion according to its rites;
- permitted people to worship other than in the established Church of England either in private houses or in chapels;
- ended the requirement that people take various religious oaths before advancement to civil or military office.
Oh.
The declaration applied to Catholics, Protestants, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, and people of any or even no faith.
The declaration closed with …
And although the freedom and assurance we have hereby given in relation to religion and property might be sufficient to remove from the minds of our loving subjects all fears and jealousies in relation to either, yet we have thought fit further to declare, that we will maintain them in all their properties and possessions, as well of church and abbey-lands as in any other their lands and properties whatsoever.
My oh my.
How forward thinking was this? <albeit they did it for a number of nefarious reasons>
“remove from minds all fears and jealousies in relation to …”
I honestly cannot figure out whether in today’s world we are becoming more religiously divisive or indifferent. What I mean is that almost every study I see seems to show a growing group of people who are just ‘seeking a path to God” regardless of one organized religion and yet those who actually decide to follow a particular organized direction are becoming even more entrenched in their beliefs (to some extraordinarily restrictive perspectives).
In the end … I don’t know that it really matters as long as there is respect for the freedom to worship. And maybe we could all use a good reminder of ‘remove fear & jealousy’ with regard to that respectfulness.
Maybe we should dedicate future Ides of March to rereading the Declaration of indulgence rather than Shakespeare (although both are worthwhile).
I mean what the heck.
St. Patrick’s Day is just around the corner and that is certainly indulgence.
