Friday, March 25, 2016

Outside Mullingar – A Lyrical Irish Love Story at Dramaworks



Having recently concluded its run of Long Day’s Journey Into Night, Dramaworks turns to a moving romantic comedy, John Patrick Shanley’s Outside Mullingar.  It is a well chosen change of pace which will be warmly greeted by Dramaworks’ audience.

On the surface, it’s a familiar formula of two star-crossed lovers who initially don’t seem to like each other or can’t get together because of some obstacle.  All we have to do is to find out how love finally prevails.  It worked well in one of John Patrick Shanley’s best known works, a movie, Moonstruck.  His Tony award-winning drama Doubt: A Parable was something quite different though, about possible sexual misconduct in the Priesthood leaving the audience in “doubt” about the resolution.  An excellent production of that play was put on by the Maltz Jupiter Theatre three years ago, directed by none other than J. Barry Lewis, the director of Outside Mullingar.

This is a delicate but sometimes melodramatic tale of unrequited love.  And what do we have in Ireland?  Rain.  Lots of it.  As well as loneliness, isolation and repressed feelings.  Plus we have old family farms in the Midlands, one owned by the Reilly’s and the other by the Muldoon’s.  They are side by side, but there is frontage between the two which old man Reilly, Tony, sold to old man Chris Muldoon almost thirty years ago, Reilly considering it a loan and Muldoon considering it a sale.  Reilly wanted the money at the time for a particular purpose which we later discover is an important turning point in the play.

Muldoon promptly deeded the frontage to his daughter, Rosemary.  Why?  Because she asked for it.  It is where Tony’s son, Anthony, pushed her over when she was seven and he was thirteen and she wanted the land to ultimately hold it out, seemingly as revenge (although we later find out it is for love). Very prescient for a young girl.  Time has come to cash in her chip.

Alex Wipf & Nick Hetherington
Her father’s funeral was just held, and dreamy-eyed Anthony invites Chris Muldoon’s widow Aoife and Rosemary over to the Reilly home afterwards, at the objection of his father who says, “Ah you’re half woman.”  Rosemary at first does not show, enjoying her cigarette outside in the rain. Instead there is a humorous but sometimes confrontational discussion between Tony and Aoife about their inevitable demise and how they will leave their farms. 

Alex Wipf compellingly and comically plays Anthony's father, Tony, with a stubborn pride in the land and of his dominion over it.  He’s a cantankerous old man, hardly acknowledging he has not done most of the work on the farm for years and his days are numbered with breathing difficulties.  Rosemary's mother, Aoife, is played by Patricia Kilgarriff who carries her role with a deadpan hilarity at times, hoping her pacemaker can keep up with the conflict.  She is a perfect foil for Tony. 

Nick Hetherington & Patricia Kilgarriff
Rosemary is in line for the Muldoon farm but Tony does not feel Anthony is a true “Reilly,” someone who loves the farm and land as he should.  No, he thinks he takes after his deceased wife’s family, the Kelly’s - a little daft in the head (“John Kelly put his dog on trail for slander”). He has already thought of selling the farm to an American cousin (a Reilly of course), hoping to leave money to Anthony so he doesn’t feel slighted. But he needs the frontage to sell the farm. And now Rosemary’s owns it!

But Anthony always seems to be out in the fields, either meditatively walking or working hard.  One would think this is where he belongs.  Except Anthony has a secret, which he once revealed to his one and only past love, Fiona, long ago.  But when “I opened my heart to her she ran like the wind.”  “She ran like fire.”  What kind of a terrible secret could it be?  Might he be a morphodite Rosemary wonders? It is yet another dramatic element that John Patrick Shanley holds out for the end.

Although Rosemary doesn’t appear in the first scene, you already have the sense that she is feisty, a real Irish lass; but the flip side of her anger is romantic longings.  She’s loved Anthony all those years.  Will they ever get together?  

She furiously turns upon Tony in the third scene, castigating and shaming him to such a degree about his plan to turn over the farm to anyone but Anthony that he finally relents.  It is just one of Rosemary’s several intense moments in the play, which Kathy McCafferty portrays with a full range of emotions, passion, pain, humor, and prideful joy.  McCafferty shines in the role.

Kathy McCafferty & Patricia Kilgarriff

It is several months later and Anthony is nursing his father in his bedroom.  He is dying and his son now knows he is inheriting the farm (not aware of Rosemary’s role in the decision).   Nick Hetherington’s Anthony has a hang-dog look most of the time but his sullen soulfulness reveals he’s more poet than daft.  It’s a difficult role to play and Hetherington carries it with a certain amount of humorous naiveté, often puzzled by Rosemary’s reactions to much of what he says.

Three years pass after the death of both Tony and Aoife, but Anthony still doesn’t seem to have a clue about Rosemary’s feelings – or be willing to follow his own in fact.  They hardly see each other except across the frontage, until one day Rosemary spies Tony in the rain with a metal detector, something she’s seen him with before.  She insists he come into her house, out of the rain, and it is there that Shanley works his way towards a fiery denouement, when the “secret,” along with a coincidence -- a “sign” so typical in Irish mythology – are both revealed.  One could say it is a contrived ending but if you give yourself over to the play, it is amusing and satisfying, as “the pain of love” emerges.  The sun shines.  We all want happy endings and this one is wrapped in feel-good four leaf clover and delivered with the lyricism of the Irish theatre.

As a born and bred New Yorker, Shanley didn’t want to be thought of as an “Irish writer” but lovingly wrote this play after having accompanied his father to the Irish Midlands on a visit, where his “Da” grew up and still has relatives.  "When I sat with my father in that farm kitchen, the one that he had grown up in, and listened to my Irish family talk, I recognized that this was my Atlantis, the lost and beautiful world of my poet's heart. There was no way to write about the farm, yet I had to write about it…I had held back much for a long time, and I kind of erupted with language. I felt free suddenly, free to be Irish…I had turned 60, and the knife at my throat woke me to the beauty of my own people, the fleeting opportunities of life, the farce of caution.…”  And while poetic, thematically Shanley’s play has a hint of Sean O’Casey’s strong women and clueless men. (Rosemary: “…men are beasts and need height to balance the truth and goodness of women.”)

Shanley’s deep affection for his flawed but real characters comes through in a very crisply crafted script.  It is elegant, threadbare writing with the comedic elements woven in its romantic and dramatic undercurrent.  The director, J. Barry Lewis, seamlessly orchestrates this delicate play so it can leap to life before our eyes.

We love Shanley’s characters too.  Our hearts go out to Anthony when he hears of his father’s plan to leave the farm to a cousin:  “Don’t criticize me, Daddy.  Some of us don’t have joy.  But we do what we must.  Is a man who does what he must though he feels no pleasure less of a man than one who’s happy?....Living as I do here with nothing but the rain and cold, and Mammy gone?....You know I’ll tell ya.  Sometimes lately I can’t breathe in this house.  You’d hold back the farm, would ya?  You stun me.”

He confesses to Rosemary that “My life is fixed down with a rock on each corner.”  She asks “by what?”  He replies: “There’s the green fields, and the animals living off them.  And over that there’s us, living off the animals.  And over that there’s that which tends to us and lives off us.  Whatever that is, it holds me here.  No.  The voice I hear in the fields wants me in the fields.”  It sums up hundreds of years of Irish misery and history.  The lyricism of the language lives, and the wonderful cast makes this seem like a slice of real life.

In spite of this being only a four person play, it is complicated to stage as there is the passage of some four years during the play and there are five specific locations which challenges any production company, having to make the choice between a representational set, or frequent set changes with darkened interruptions, or, as in the case of Dramaworks a rotating stage.  This enables the play to maintain its pace, with well defined sets for each scene, and for a representational depiction of the three year interval before the last scene. 

Scenic and lighting design by Paul Black takes full advantage of the Dramaworks’ stage (as well as its limitations, it being much wider than deep, the outdoor scenes being performed down stage left and right). The land and the sky are prominent and those are weighty themes in the play itself.  Although this is a contemporary play, the props are straight out of the 1950s, conveying the multigenerational nature of the farms.

Sound design by Steve Shapiro is yet another element enhancing the art of presentation.  There are the requisite occasional barking dogs and a train in the distance.  But most noticeable is the omnipresent rain, in various pitches that add to the gloom and then with the rarely blazing sun, a residual rain falling off the trees or from gutters.  There are also the well timed claps of thunder and lightning, or ominous rumbling thunder.  And the music Shanley chooses for some of the play’s intervals and for the background as the play closes is a beloved Irish/Scottish song, “The Wild Mountain Thyme.”  Some of the characters occasionally sing verses from it.

    And we'll all go together,
    To pull wild mountain thyme,
    All around the purple heather.
    Will you go, lassie, go?

Costume design is by Leslye Menshouse, reflecting what these contemporary working people of Ireland wear, and having to connote the passage of time from the beginning of the play to the end.  Costumes also have to reflect the inevitably of inclement weather.  There are several quick changes (including one on stage).

And as this is Irish theatre there is the notable work of dialect coach Ben Furey.  The brogue spoken here is undeniably Irish (and more reflective of the Midlands) but thankfully clear to the audience.

But not enough praise can be heaped upon one of South Florida’s leading directors, J. Barry Lewis, and the cast, all professional actors from New York City, making their Dramaworks debuts.  One can tell that his is a tight knit group, “singing” Shanley’s vision of his Irish roots in perfect harmony.  The last Irish play put on by Dramaworks was The Beauty Queen of Leenane, which was a straight forward tragedy. Outside Mullingar although arising out of Irish sadness is a successful romantic comedy and another high-quality achievement by Dramaworks. 

Outside Mullingar Opening Set
  Love is never defeated, and I could add, the history of Ireland proves it
---- Pope John Paul II from a speech to the people of Galway, September 1979.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Be-twitched Bothered Bewildered



I’m still recoiling from Meet the Press last Sunday, in particular Chuck Todd’s brief interview with Ted Cruz.  If Donald Trump is a symptom of a malignancy in American politics, Cruz is part of the disease itself. Here’s a brief except from that interview:

CHUCK TODD:
I want you to react to something here that President Obama said at a fundraiser, responding to the tone of Donald Trump rallies. Here it is, sir.
(BEGIN TAPE)
PRESIDENT OBAMA:
And what's been happening in our politics lately is not an accident. For years, we've been told we should be angry about America and that the economy's a disaster. And that we're weak. And that compromise is weakness. And that you can ignore science and you could ignore facts and say whatever you want about the president. And feed suspicion about immigrants and Muslims and poor people and people who aren't like us.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
That's the president essentially saying, "This has been happening for years," before most of his term.
SEN. TED CRUZ:
You know, Chuck, Barack Obama's a world class demagogue. That language there is designed to divide us. No, Mr. President, we're not angry at that. We're angry at politicians in Washington, including you, who ignore the men and women who elected you. Who have been presiding over our jobs going overseas for seven years?
Who have been cutting deals that are enriching the rich and powerful, the special interests and the big corporations, while working men and women are seeing their wages stagnating?  And he talks about immigrants and Muslims. Mr. President, we're mad at a president who wants to bring in Syrian refugees who may be infiltrated by ISIS. And you're unwilling to be commander in chief and keep us safe. So don't engage in attacking the people, like the president did.

Wow, it takes a demagogue to call someone a demagogue.  Psittacisms for the masses, from both Cruz and Trump.


This brought Mr. Cruz into power as a leading Tea Party advocate. His obstructionist voice has been a leading one during his Senate occupancy, effectively shutting down any hope of compromise.   No wonder the President had to resort to his much criticized use of Executive Orders, although his use of such orders has averaged less than George Bush’s.
 
And, yet, there is the whiff of truth in some of what he says, no, not about Obama being the cause, but about a long-building anger, much longer than Mr. Cruz et al would like it to be known.  Bernie Sanders taps into similar angst.  At the heart of that fury is the American socio-economic landscape which has changed over the years, but you could count them in decades.  The last seven years were more of the same for the disenfranchised middle class, watching their earning power and employability decline in relation to better educated, higher income families. Consequently, wage inequality has grown, but this has been going on for thirty five years, well documented by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)
 
Unfortunately, there is no easy panacea for this other than for our country to come to grips with the reality of today’s world.  The industrial revolution has morphed into a cyber revolution, where geographic borders do not exist.  Workers are being displaced by technology, robotics.  It is not a question of bringing manufacturing jobs home any more; it’s the challenge of educating workers in new skills.  Any politician who holds out the trade war card is delusional, playing a simplistic card to get elected.  We’re a country after a quick fix and it sounds good, make “tough” deals with China, tax their goods sky high.  Wait until the quick fixers see the new prices at Walmart.  None of them will like that either (unless a President Trump makes Walmart reduce their prices! :-)

Many of the recommendations suggested by the EPI for turning the tide of income inequality were also advocated by the Obama administration but have been cut off at the knees by the Party of No, one for example enacting public investments in infrastructure to create jobs.  And there are others.

But nothing rings truer for the disenfranchised than the Trumperian throwaway that in 15 minutes he’d solve the trade deficit.  Our trade agreements have evolved over years of negotiations and it’s not that simple Donald (or Ted).  Admittedly the currency manipulations on the part of governments all over the world throw aspects of trade agreements under the bus, each region fighting for a larger piece of a pie that is growing only oh-so-very-slowly.  We have the “advantage” of having (at least seemingly) the currency of last resort, and this is yet another factor in the strong dollar, but that further contributes to making foreign goods cheaper and our exports more expensive.  It is the inverse of the early 1980’s when the dollar was cheap and interest rates were double digits, inflationary fears running amuck.  Today there is little inflation with whiffs of deflation.

This is all in the wake of the most dangerous economic crisis we have faced since the Great Depression.  In the absence of Congress being able to agree upon fiscal policy the temporary fix was radical monetary policy engineered by the Federal Reserve.  Someone had to act.  But the Fed now is blamed by the Party of No.

Nonetheless we are left with debt; it could have been less with sounder fiscal policy, but that was not to be.  Where would Ted Cruz’s flat tax plan and tying the dollar to the Gold Standard leave us?  And the Trump solution?  “Trust me, I make good deals.”  Whatever that means.

For anyone who has read thus far, I leave the reader with an “out-of-the-box” review on the subject (hat tip to my son, Chris).  It is the most cynical analysis I’ve ever read, authored by “Cognitive Dissonance,” Down the Trump Rabbit Hole - Manufacturing Consent. 

It attempts to explain Trump in light of the “system” which “Cognitive Dissonance” equates to “The Empire,” its purpose to always move forward, to consume. Everyone within the empire serves the Empire, including its individual and corporate ‘citizens’. This especially holds true for its upper level civil ‘servants’, political appointees, elected office holders, state and federal judges, the military at all levels including ‘civilian police officers, the oligarchs and elites. And most importantly, the President of the United States. All are beholden to the Empire and constitute the court of the Empire. While the president may be considered the Chief Executive Officer, the president works for the Empire and is controlled by the Empire’s court. The power of the president flows up from the Empire’s court, not down from the president

So how does this relate to The Donald?  When your credibility is suddenly called into question and people begin to seek alternative ‘authorities’, give the people what they want…though not exactly what they want, just what you have conditioned them to believe they want. Or as is the case with our current situation, since anyone who is presently an authority is not to be trusted, give people the antithesis of the existing authority structure.  The Donald.

“Cognitive Dissonance” goes on to argue that as Clinton is a “child of the court,” she cannot deliver what the Empire’s subjects perceive to be needed for the Empire’s very survival.  Only the anti-establishment holds that power but expect Trump to concoct some mighty reforms which will bleed and permanently weaken the middle class even further. You didn’t expect the elite and court to actually pay for the reforms…did you?

I would like to believe that this cynicism is merely an exaggeration of the truth, that we’re better than that, and reasonable people can come to long term solutions.   Yes, more and more time will be needed as the can is kicked further down the road.  To deal with the national debt we first have to work towards a balanced budget.  A tall order in today’s world, one that will exact pain, particularly for the Plutocracy, but in the end for us all.  We’ve lived long enough by borrowing against the future.  Do we have the fortitude, the patience, and above all the willingness to make compromises? 

If not, “Cognitive Dissonance” might be right on the mark.

On the other hand, “Stonekettle” has hit it out of the ballpark once again.  I’ve mentioned this blog before.  Its views are compelling, brutally honest, no holding back for Jim Wright, the blog's author.  His take on the topic was published in two parts, the latest being his The Latter Days of a Better Nation, Part II.
 
Far too many Americans still think of Trump’s campaign as a joke and they keep waiting for the laugh ... but somehow the punch line never comes.

It never comes because, you see, the joke is on us. All of us, conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats and the independents.

In effect, to understand Trumpism, look in a mirror.  We’ve given rise to him.  As Wright concludes, if you want a better nation, be better citizens.

I thought I was done with this.  In the process of posting this entry President Obama was delivering an eloquent speech, nominating Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.  Mitch McConnell now responding in the background, with “let the people decide.”  We did in 2012.  So, the beat goes on….

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Pat Conroy and My Own Reading Life



The passing of Pat Conroy is yet another loss in my reading life.  He touched a lyrical nerve in that life, and the magnetism of his dysfunctional family years brought me into his writings.  Although a southerner, he was a kindred spirit.  Even his college basketball days chronicled in his My Losing Season resonated on a personal basis. He was a point guard in college, one of my dreams when I was much younger, although unrealized.

He died of pancreatic cancer.  The worst kind I can think of, my own father having wasted away from the same. And now a dear friend of mine, after successful Whipple surgery five years ago, fighting the unrelenting return of that dreaded disease.

One by one, the writers I grew up with, Richard Yates, John Cheever, John Updike, and now Pat Conroy, passing.  There are other writers taking their place.  Literature is alive and well even in this 140 character world, thanks to luminaries such as Conroy.

In his very personal memoir, My Reading Life, the dedication cried out for being reunited with his estranged daughter: This book is dedicated to my lost daughter, Susannah Ansley Conroy.  Know this. I love you with my heart and always will.  Your return to my life would be one of the happiest moments I could imagine.

My entry on that book, written soon after I emerged from the hospital following complicated open heart surgery, also noted that dedication and expressed my hope that it might lead to reconciliation.  I wonder whether it happened, as much for her sake as her father’s.

Goodbye Pat Conroy.  You brought beautiful fiction into my world, a Phoenix rising from the ashes of a sorrowful childhood.

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

The More things Change



The more they stay the same.  Well, not exactly.

I’ve been winnowing my old files.  The stuff I come across sometimes amazes me, things I wrote that I don’t remember or don’t remember saving or why.  Two recent discoveries remind me that over the decades I have witnessed an amazing span of history, technological developments, a world that has evolved with increasing complexity and interconnectiveness.  Yet, still, some of the old political issues are not old at all.  They have merely festered and changed their spots.

I found copies of two letters I wrote in my salad days, the first to the New York Times commenting on their editorial on Barry Goldwater’s nomination, a man who, in retrospect, seems tame by today’s conservative / tea party crowd. However, at the time of his presidential candidacy in 1964, he had not ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weaponry against our Cold War nemesis, the Soviet Union, and anyplace where communism was being supported.  Johnson beat him badly in 1964.  Interestingly Goldwater moderated in his later years as a statesman, and in my mind redeemed himself, although always a staunch conservative in the classic intellectual sense, not the bible-thumping variety of today.

In any case, at the height of Goldwater’s rise to the nomination in 1964, the twenty one year old me wrote the following to the New York Times:

                                                                July 19, 1964

The Editor
New York Times
New York, New York

To the Editor:

“Disaster at San Francisco,” indeed, may yet become a disaster for America.  Your firm editorial stand against Senator Barry Goldwater must be continued to help defeat this dangerous radical, so that we may prove to ourselves and to the rest of the world that “it can’t happen here.”
As Hitler made use of Germany’s post-World War One frustrations, Senator Goldwater is a political demagogue who similarly, but more subtly, intends to capitalize on the frustrations of many Americans, frustrations that have arisen in the ashes of domestic racial problems and the tensions of the Cold War.  Goldwater tells us, as Hitler told Germany, that we are the strongest country in the world and we should stand up to the opposition (who he vaguely refers to as “the Commies”).  This simple, but realistically absurd suggestion, appeals to those who are unable to bear the responsibility of living in these modern times.  Unfortunately, there are still many “good citizens” of America who believe that if we act as if it is still the “good old days,” we will recreate those days.
If we are to preserve democracy in our country and continue to encourage democracy abroad, we must condemn political extremists who present oversimplified, irresponsible, and inherently contradictory solutions to complex issues, solutions which would isolate us from our friends abroad and which, conceivably, could destroy the world as we know it.
Sincerely,


Its contents mention some of the same issues Americans face today, particularly as espoused by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.  The latter of course bills himself as a true conservative, but he is the very kind of conservative who I think Goldwater himself would have condemned.  In fact where is Barry Goldwater when we need him : -)?  Here is something Goldwater said to John Dean in 1994: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”  How profound is that, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Cruz?

And my files coughed up a letter I wrote three years later to Senator J. William Fulbright during the height of the Vietnam War.  Again, different times, different war, but still relevant in many ways:

                                                                                August 6, 1967

Senator J. William Fulbright
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
United States Senate
Washington D.C.

Dear Senator Fulbright:

I am just finishing your book THE ARROGANCE OF POWER and I felt obligated to immediately express my support of your thesis.
The Vietnam situation is truly tragic.  The noble ideals of our great country are belied by our actions.  How can we expect the world community to look to America for leadership while we drop millions of tons of bombs on a small country of mostly peasants, support dictatorships, even as we seem incapable of resolving many of our own domestic problems?
                While I do not feel that we can just abandon our Asian commitments, we need to discard our military’s “search and destroy” philosophy in favor of seeking a solution over a conference table – which may demand compromise, but ones also compatible with democracy.
                In addition, I believe that the United States has more to lose by endeavoring to become the world’s policeman.  An Asian conflict should be resolved, in the most part, by the Asians and/or the United Nations, with the encouragement of the world’s great powers.  Our military involvement in the affairs of other nations only tends to weaken the fabric of the U.N. and secures the animosity of other nations toward us.
                I encourage continuing your efforts to reestablish the system of checks and balances provided for in the Constitution so a more realistic foreign policy can be devised and implemented.
                With great admiration of the courageous and sensible stand which you have taken, I am,
                                Sincerely yours,

So, there you have it: the “mini- me” of some five decades ago writing about some of the same issues of today. 

And now the present brings us into a political environment ripe for extremism, as evidenced by the unexpectedly strong primary showings of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, polar opposites but in many ways playing to the same base, the disenfranchised. In early December I wrote a piece It Can’t Happen Here? (the very words I wrote to the NYT fifty two years earlier) suggesting that Trump was merely a Trojan horse for Ted Cruz.  Still might be (or for Rubio), but now two plus months later Trump is not only still in the Republican race, he’s in command of it, and in fact could be much closer to becoming the Republican nominee after today’s primaries. 

And who knows where Hillary might be if her email morass deepens, but assuming she is the nominee, what if some of Sanders’ supporters, particularly the disenfranchised young, join up with the Trump crowd (who Trump now likes to celebrate as being the short, the tall, the skinny, the fat, the rich. the poor, the highly educated and the poorly educated – making a particular point that he LOVES the poorly educated). Those two groups could become a potent base.

Trying to connect all the dots in my mind – how can a phenomena such as a Trump come into being?  An epiphany: I remembered my long-ago reading of Eric Hoffer’s classic The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements.  For a more detailed recollection, I went to Wikipedia’s description.  Hoffer is eerily on the mark.  It could serve as a textbook explanation of Trump’s appeal, other than the merger of “reality TV” and the presidential primaries. From Wikipedia…..

Hoffer states that mass movements begin with a widespread "desire for change" from discontented people who place their locus of control outside their power and who also have no confidence in existing culture or traditions. Feeling their lives are "irredeemably spoiled" and believing there is no hope for advancement or satisfaction as an individual, true believers seek "self-renunciation." Thus, such people are ripe to participate in a movement that offers the option of subsuming their individual lives in a larger collective. Leaders are vital in the growth of a mass movement, as outlined below, but for the leader to find any success, the seeds of the mass movement must already exist in people's hearts.

While mass movements are usually some blend of nationalist, political and religious ideas, Hoffer argues there are two important commonalities: "All mass movements are competitive" and perceive the supply of converts as zero-sum; and "all mass movements are interchangeable." As examples of the interchangeable nature of mass movements, Hoffer cites how almost 2000 years ago Saul, a fanatical opponent of Christianity, became Paul, a fanatical apologist and promoter of Christianity. Another example occurred in Germany during the 1920s and the 1930s, when Communists and Fascists were ostensibly bitter enemies but in fact competed for the same type of angry, marginalized people; Nazis Adolf Hitler and Ernst Röhm, and Communist Karl Radek, all boasted of their prowess in converting their rivals

It is unlike any presidential election cycle I’ve ever known, even the Goldwater era which from this point in the future looks placid, even sane.   The macho trash talking of the Republican “debates” leaves me bewildered, but that testosterone also extends into policy – make America “great again” by building up the military (we should be building our infrastructure instead).  A highly recommended read on the topic is written by an ex-military man himself, Jim Wright: The Latter Days of a Better Nation

An afterthought, the relevancy of art as expressed in Your Beliefs by Jani Leinonen -- displayed at the recent Palm Beach Jewelry, Art & Antique Show.


                                           Your beliefs become your thoughts,
                                           Your thoughts become your words,
                                           Your words become your actions,
                                           Your actions become your habits,
                                           Your habits become your values,
                                           Your values become your destiny.
                                                             ― Mahatma Gandhi