Briefly...

The following is a review that I wrote for the Sancho Panza Intro Sampler earlier in the year:


Highly Recommended
Apr 05, 2019

I discovered the Double Maduro Escudero to my delight years ago and it was a regular of mine for quite some time. Upon moving from the west coast to the east coast, I could not find them anywhere but finally, after running across this sampler, I have been reunited with the Double Maduro and made some new friends too. The Double Maduro Lancero of this pack is exactly like the Escudero, just a couple inches shorter and is my favourite of the pack. The Triple Anejo is possibly my second favourite of the group though at times the very potent Extra Fuerte swaps spots with it. And the Glorioso? I am not usually a fan of claros but the Glorioso is also a solid stick. I have ordered this sampler twice so far and will continue to.

Briefly...

The following is a review I wrote recently for a website called Cigars International for a cigar recently ordered from them which I have enjoyed in years past and was recently reacquainted with.

The Escudero is always worth the time to smoke!

Jul 27, 2019

I used to buy the Escuderos by the box years ago when on the west coast and thought they were a well kept secret because I never saw them in cigar stores in the New England area. I recently was reacquainted with it like an old friend courtesy of CI sample packs. All the 50+ ring Sanchos (Double Maduro, Triple Anejo, Extra Fuerte, and Glorioso) are good but the Double Maduro is my favourite -either in Escudero or Lancero which is the same blend, just a couple inches shorter. Its a very smooth tasting cigar that draws well and is better than many which cost a lot more

On Cobra Kai -My Thoughts Through Seven Episodes...

Cobra Kai is a homage in part to the original movies but the characters themselves are grown up and facing new challenges. Johnny's life has spiraled down since the pivotal crane kick while Daniel's has dramatically improved. There are all kinds of callbacks to the series either directly or in a sense of irony. At times I have seen through the first seven episodes thus far Daniel reflecting various characters of the first movies perhaps unconsciously (i.e. Kreese and Johnny from the first movie, Myagi's rival Sato from the second movie, etc) albeit in ways not perceivable to him. (He also comes off like Myagi in other contexts.) Meanwhile, Johnny is in the role of the underdog in this one and you see sides to him that you did not see previously including some back story that rounds out the character in ways you did not realize previously. Someone once did a video series on how Daniel was the real bully of the original movie and while I think that hypothesis is a stretch, its not entirely without merit and it seems the writers of this series went into this with that series hypothesis in mind at least in part.

Cobra Kai is not one of those later series specials they do of so many hit shows or movies which absolutely misses the point or does not have the magic of the original. This series echoes the magic of the original in spots, has flashbacks at key points, new character information one was not aware of which fleshes things out a bit. There are also new characters who have prominent roles in the series such as the bullied kid Johnny mentors, Daniel's family, Johnny's estranged son, etc. And of course the return of Cobra Kai and there is karate but like the Rocky films and boxing, the karate in the Karate Kid series has always been in a certain sense a secondary vehicle of sorts that teaches more valuable lessons than it would appear on the surface. I look forward to watching the last three episodes of the season tonight and hope they film a season two.

A Near-Finalized Draft of a Long Planned Amazon Book Review of David Armstrong's The Catholic Verses:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Originally I had planned a much more ambitious and detailed review of this book but time and subsequent circumstances scuttled that idea significantly. A few months ago though, I ran across some of my old notes from mid 2005 and decided to piece them together into a review which will also be posted to Amazon probably this month or next. I also did a quick subsequent review of the sections of the book referred to in my notes, reviewing previous observations and jotting down a few additional ones pertaining to it on a section by section basis. My intention with the finished product is that the combination of the two will make this as fair a review as possible.

But before tending to that, I want to note briefly something I wrote earlier this year on a semi-private correspondence when the subject of David Armstrong came up in a discussion list I was on and misperception was not wanting as to my views on the matter. (And considering some of what transpired in past years, these misunderstandings were to some extent understandable.) So to help set the stage for this review, here is part of what I wrote very early in the new year in another medium so that readers can see how my assessment of David Armstrong's overall approach in the areas he does well meshes well with the review of this book which will follow:

To ask him about me, I went from being "wonderful" and "brilliant" and all of that to the "son of satan" with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But I do not take that kind of absurd view of him -I do not view now as poorly done anything I previously praised or vice versa. (Though I tended before to make my views of Dave's poorer quality stuff very rarely known and almost never publicly.) That is what one who has the favour of friendship gets essentially: the benefit of the doubt. Here for your consideration (and the others on the list if they like) is my assessment of Dave's work as a whole apart from my view of him personally.

Starting with the good, Dave does very well to practically excellent on many aspects of bread and butter apologetics subjects particularly Catholic-Protestant stuff and on core Catholic doctrines. He does less well on ancillary subjects but that is the case for everyone really: by their nature they are harder to substantiate with the same degree of rock solidity as primary doctrinal matter. And on primary doctrinal subject matter, Dave's stuff is well worth reviewing. I said this years ago and my view on it has not in substance changed because (unlike Dave) I do not make personalities the criteria on how I view these matters.

Dave's work on Orthodox-Catholic stuff is not as good as his Catholic-Protestant stuff but it is still on the whole pretty good. On the subject of development of doctrine he is quite good -I now view him as perhaps overextending a bit on his application compared to previously as well as viewing Newman's theory as being more conclusive than it is. There are other areas he does well too but this suffices to show that I do not take a singular negative view of Dave's work. On balance his stuff in this area is well worth reading and my views on the above stuff now is no different than it was when he and I were on great terms (which was the case prior to September of 2005). I plan to review one of his books at some point in the new year -basically will take up a bare bones sketch of a draft from mid 2005 and my review of the work is not going to change now from what it was going to be then...

My problems with Dave on some issues do not detract from recognizing what he does that is good. [Excerpt from a Correspondence (circa January 1, 2008)]

There is more to it than just the above of course -the less positive parts of the above correspondence following that point and being heavily footnoted and perhaps worth going over at some point should I feel inclined to. I will simply note at this time on them that the major criticisms I have long had entail (i) his understanding of what is properly understood as "magisterial", (ii) his approach to what is called "general norms of interpretation" on theological matters in general, and (iii) his approach to moral theology in light of the previous two problematical areas. There has also been (iv) a tendency on his part at times towards fallacious forms of argumentation. However, in fairness I should note that the latter one is generally only a problem on ancillary subject matters.

But noting those things briefly at the outset is as far as I will take the critical element in this posting at least generally speaking -as it would not be honest of me to fail to disclose them at least briefly at the outset. But without further ado, here is a review of Mr. Armstrong's book The Catholic Verses which in substance was drafted nearly three years ago. The words of the review will be in red font.

The theme of this book is an interesting one -covering ninety-five biblical verses as a kind of symbolic response to Fr. Martin Luther's 95 Theses tacked by legend to the door of the Wittenburg cathedral in late 1517. And the manifested intention to demonstrate that there can be plausibly argued from a biblical standpoint for many of what Mr. Armstrong calls "Catholic distinctives" is amply sustained -though there is a variegated quality of his arguments in the book notwithstanding of course. This was unquestionably a very ambitious undertaking on the part of the author and for that fact alone he deserves some credit.

This book has a few weaknesses which affect the overall text. For one thing, it is very choppy in spots with the manuscript needing improvement by smoothing out some of the rough structural barbs. I should in fairness note in stating this criticism that part of that is perhaps inevitable if one looks at the pattern of the book and its intentions. For example, as the book is based on specific verses, there will be inexorably a greater degree of commentary interspersed with other sources. And of course the aforementioned commentary and use of sources will also bring to it certain unspoken and unsubstantiated presuppositions of the author no matter how one tries to avoid this -and the latter cannot be done justice in a volume such as this.

But that point noted, Mr. Armstrong is usually good at recognizing the principle that more formally developed concepts need not be present in later fullness in earlier periods of time: what Catholics refer to as development of doctrine. Mr. Armstrong understands the concept better than most but it is nonetheless one with its limits and not the magical "one size fits all" remedy that he at times appears to think it is. Mr. Armstrong also has a tendency to overplay his hand a bit through the use of statements of a more absolute nature where theologically there is more room than he appears to presume. But this criticism is one that is hardly applicable to him alone -I note it here nonetheless because it needs to be accounted for by the reader to receive a fuller picture of the author's work itself.

Despite the manifested intention to avoid triumphalist tonalities in the book, Mr. Armstrong while generally succeeding in this area nonetheless does involve a bit of sardonic phrasing in spots -seemingly at the points where either his arguments are the weakest or the internal contradictions of some of the sources he critically interacts with happen to be. John Calvin is a particular target in this area but considering the snide way Calvin approaches a number of subjects in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, it is hard to fault Mr. Armstrong for taking a bit of schadenfreude in puncturing the balloons of bombast common to Calvin's methodology even if in other areas one could find it easier for this criticism to have a bit more weight. (And I emphasize "a bit more" because on balance this book is light on explicit triumphalism: something which is to Mr. Armstrong's credit.)

On specific matters, to compile a detailed sketch would take more time than I have so I will note what is particularly well done section by section. The sections on The Church, Bible and Tradition, Papacy, Communion of Saints, and Prayers for the Dead are all despite the overall structural weaknesses noted earlier very solid in content and argumentation. (Likewise the sections on Baptism and Eucharist.) I could quibble with a few additional bits but they would not detract from my view of these sections at all so I will leave it be for now. The Communion of Saints section also possesses some nice nuances to it which someone familiar with the boilerplate elements of this subject could well appreciate -the same is the case for the section on Prayers for the Dead.

Other sections which are also good (albeit not to the extent the ones already noted are) include the ones on Penance and Relics/Sacramentals. The problem with these sections that I discerned most is brevity primarily: they require a lot more exposition due to being more implied in the scripture than the others noted thus far. It is also questionable in my mind if including these subjects in the book was a good idea for those reasons but what is there is good so I will leave it at that.

The section on Divisions/Denominationalism is on balance good but it has more weaknesses to it than the other sections noted thus far. For one thing, it needs to emphasize that the only divisions Mr. Armstrong intends to be critical of are ones that pertain to faith. In failing to do this, it leaves Mr. Armstrong open to those who point out areas of diversity in Catholic philosophy, theology, application of moral/ethical principles, geopolitical matters, etc. as a presumed "refutation" of his position in this section. If he were to in a subsequent edition make this delineation clearer, it would vindicate this section from the sort of criticism I noted above.

The last quarter of the book is of markedly less quality than the parts covered thus far -in part because the subjects move to more peripheral or controverted nature. For the sake of presenting a stronger product it would have been better to have either covered them in greater detail or passed these matters over completely. The section on Celibacy is written from a western perspective which gives the impression that there is one traditional approach to this matter instead of two. It would do Mr. Armstrong well in subsequent editions of this work to add a bit in there about the eastern tradition which allows for married clergy much as certain extraordinary provisions in the western church in recent decades does. In both traditions there is (albeit in differing ways) a recognition of the biblical principle of clerical celibacy so this revision would only strengthen the latter section of this book.

The section on Divorce suffers from a lack of completion akin to the one on Celibacy though not to the same extent. The main weakness here is the lack of distinguishing between the concepts of divorce and annulment. The latter is often called "Catholic divorce" but that expression is not accurate at all and failing to note the distinction in this section after the passages pertaining to divorce weakens the presentation here.

The section on Contraception is the weakest one in the book for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that it is a derivative concept which as I noted earlier is harder to cover than a primary subject. The second is that it is based on so little Scriptural reference and implied ones at that: making it by nature involving a lot more commentary. The third is that there are other objections raised against the OT passage he cited being interpreted as Mr. Armstrong does that he gives no credence whatsoever to. There are other factors too on this one but my guess is that this being an issue that was of particular resonance to Mr. Armstrong in his conversion is what prompted him to include a section in this book on the topic in question.

But to cover the latter subject with the detail required and accounting for all parameters (including certain presuppositions Mr. Armstrong unconsciously and uncritically accepts) would be to make the book a lot longer which is why it would have been better to have passed over it completely in this treatment.

To summarize this review, Mr. Armstrong attempts to cover an entire spectrum of ideas with this book. In doing this there will be a variegation of success and on the lions share of the topics covered as well as overall presentation, this book is a worthwhile read. But there are also some topics of which it would have been better to have a bit more material on to insure a more correct presentation. And there is exactly one subject which would have by the nature of the subject in question have benefited from being passed over with the idea of focusing on the ones where the greater strength of demonstration and argument can be made.

In closing, I with minimal reservation recommend this work for those who have questions as to the presumed "unbiblical" nature of certain Catholic beliefs and practices. It would serve well to help them realize that (whether they agree with them or not) there are arguments that can be made from Scripture for many "Catholic distinctives" which non-Catholics may have been led to believe did not exist.

Rating: ****

As today is the anniversary of the passing of former President Ronald Wilson Reagan, I want to commemorate this by reminding readers of a review I wrote three years ago for Dinesh D'Souza's 1997 book on President Ronald Reagan and recommend that the readers acquire and read it. God rest your soul Mr. President and may we see another of your kind soon.

Rough Draft of a Book Review on Young Patriots For Amazon:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This text was written last year and I though I had posted it. However, when doing an archive search for the text to consider revising it -something I noted in a recent posting that I planned to do- I found only a draft text version dated to June 30, 2006. Anyway, I will post it at this time and set about doing an abridged version for posting at Amazon sometime before spring time-willing. -ISM]


* * * * *

The Founding Fathers Live!!!

Charles Cerami deserves credit for doing something that is rare for a historian and something that is essential: making the characters he writes on come to life rather than read as a collection of stale hagiography. I certainly saw some minor problems with the work but I would be remiss in not noting that the pluses of this work by far outweigh the minuses.

First of all, I cannot emphasize enough the way he covers the characters of the Founding Fathers -particularly Alexander Hamilton and James Madison the two main characters of the book. The Founders were complex personalities and too often they are written of in a simplistic fashion, which speaks as much for the biases of the writers covering them as it does anything else. That is not to say that Cerami is free from bias: he definitely has a liberal bias but he is careful to not let it colour too much of his treatment on these complicated subject matters. For that reason as well as the quality of his writing and overall analysis of the Founders as men and the issues they faced, I give this book five stars. To briefly touch on some of the points that I found of particular interest:

---The main forces behind the Constitution either in the ideas presented in the document or in building consensus for the ideas of other Founders which they believed should be included but (without such a consensus approach) never would have seen the light of day.

---Though Hamilton and Madison were the main characters covered in the book, Cerami also touches on George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (the latter was not even involved in the pre-convention or convention proceedings) but also dealt to some extent with the important contributions of Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, George Mason, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, Rufus King, Patrick Henry, the Pinkney's of South Carolina, John Adams, and various others figures -including some who were practically invisible except for a key decision they were involved in at points where their decisions changed the course of history.

---While often getting a bad rap on the slavery issue, Cerami points out the truth of the matter which to touch on briefly (since this is often misunderstood): there was no consensus amongst the Founders on the slavery issue. If anything, the currents at the time did not favour it even among the more favourable of the Southern states. There were however different opinions as to how this was to be dealt with and Cerami astutely noted that most of the Founders (even many who had slaves) viewed the institution of slavery as an unfortunate reality of the time.

--Despite that general viewpoint, the Founders generally viewed the slavery issue as a thorny one that could best be dealt with from within the framework of a stable government structure. This is why a man like Madison (who abhorred slavery with every fiber of his being) could agree to the kind of compromises that he did. (Hamilton was not present at those preliminary meeting and who probably would have vigorously opposed such compromises not because he disagreed with Madison's view on slavery but because he was more analytical than practical on these kinds of points than Madison was.)

---If not for following a protocol of secrecy, there would be no Constitution and thus no United States of America. Those who think every proposal should be run by the masses (read: journalists and other sensationalist sorts) and who whine about "constitutional protections of free speech" when their irresponsibility is pointed out to them should be better aware of the way they contradict themselves in their words and activities.

---The proposal for a more stable union in the late eighteenth century was as well as the Constitutional Convention and the informed meetings that preceded it was a matter involving the security of the nation. Cerami himself seems to recognize the conundrum of sorts that his more liberal approaches involved (he later argues briefly in the book for an approach to the freedom of speech that is a fairly blanket approach) and how the Constitution he so evidently loves would not exist if his principles were followed around the time of its crafting by the Founders. It seems to this writer that a differentiation between what does not involve national security and what does involve it is the logical points of distinction that need to be made on this issue but enough on that point for now.

I noted that Cerami is a liberal and he certainly presents his views on certain issues in that vein. He also has a presuppositional thread common to the Whig historian in his take to some extent which should likewise be noted in this review. However, to his credit, he generally sticks to the issues and avoids editorial comment when writing on the persons involved in the creation of the Constitution and in commenting on the labyrinth of issues that had to be navigated. His portrayal of the various characters --particularly Madison and Hamilton but also to a lessor extent Washington and (from his Paris vantage point: Thomas Jefferson) is detailed.

Every indication is given that Cerami wanted to present as complete a portrait of the subjects he wrote, the debates that shaped the document's crafting, the clashes of personalities, differing ideas, major principles involved, etc. as reasonably as he could. That he gets it all in a volume of approximately 320 pages with a well-footnoted text (and in a way that brings the characters and the issues to life) is no small achievement.

That Cerami's work will hopefully shatter forever the common misperception of the Founders as a bunch of slave-endorsing graybeards is certainly something to hope for. This misperception applied to some of the Founders is certainly true but the two men most influential for the ideas that shaped the Constitution and the process that saw that achievement through to its final form (not to mention getting it ratified as the law of the land) were indeed very young men. Alexander Hamilton for example was only 32 and James Madison was 36. The average age in fact was 43 - 39 if the two oldest Founders (Benjamin Franklin and Roger Sherman) were factored out of the mix.

In summary, this is a most excellent book which I recommend that everyone obtain and read for their own edification. Madison and Hamilton were not the only characters among the Founders who had disagreements and even passionately disagreed with one another. The book highlights well how many men of varying temperaments were able to put aside petty differences and work together for the common good of the nation they loved and to save it. Would that many of today's belligerents develop this kind of approach to the complicated issues of our day and age but I digress.

First Draft of An Album Review:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Update: I made a few minor tweaks to this review dividing the larger paragraphs into smaller ones, adding some segues, and also some new stuff to two of the songs discussed -ISM]

[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]

*****

The Band’s Magnum Opus

Perhaps no musical group exemplified an anti-counter cultural approach to music better than The Band did in various ways. They influenced many people who were influential in their own right either at the time (Eric Clapton and George Harrison’s approach to music) or would be in years to come (i.e. Roger Waters’ approach to concept album writing with Pink Floyd) not to mention being one of the begetters of 1970’s style "folk country." And while more could be said about them than that, there is plenty to say about this album and that is where the review will be focused. But the mark of a memorable musician/group/thinker/writer, etc. is not only their influence on subsequent generations but also on their contemporaries. And in this area The Band definitely succeeded…a few examples of which were given above to illustrate this assertion in brief. But that is enough ado…let us get onto the songs themselves now.

The album opens with "Across the Great Divide" and it sets the tone for the very down home Americana feel of this album full of uniformly excellent songs. The latter song contains the story of a man who tries to explain himself to his woman and recounts to some extent the recklessness of his “younger days” as he tries to persuade her to not kill herself. It is not as grim as it sounds in words I assure you.

The second song is “Rag Mama Rag” which is a fun quirky song with fiddles, an offbeat drum pattern (played by Richard Manuel who usually plays piano: the multitalented Garth Hudson played piano on this one), Levon Helm eschewing his drums for mandolin, Rick Danko playing fiddle instead of bass, and John Simon (the co-producer) playing the bass parts on tuba. The lyrics of the song were about a woman who only wants to play ragtime music…there may be a sly message in that but whatever. That brings us to one of the best songs on the album.

“The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” is musically and lyrically a masterpiece. It is ironic a Canadian songwriter (Jaime Robbie Robertson) could write such an empathetic tune about the old South but it the power of the song cannot be denied. It was delivered with conviction by the only American in the group (the southerner Levon Helm) who was back on drums for this tune. (Levon also apparently persuaded Robbie not to mention Lincoln in the tune: Robbie more fittingly substituted in the narrative a story about Robert E. Lee instead and saved the song from being an affront to southerners unintentionally.) Garth Hudson gets some very textural sounds with a melodica overdubbed via his Lowrey organ, which sounds like a harmonica starting with the second verse of the song. It is an example of the multifaceted talents of the Band’s members –all of whom except Robbie Robertson played multiple instruments. I never get tired of hearing this song, singing it, or playing it on guitar. At this point, it seems fitting to touch on the genius of Robbie Robertson as a songwriter.

While the latter wrote only a few songs on the group’s very solid “Music From Big Pink” debut album (with band mate Richard Manuel and Bob Dylan contributing more in that area) on this album, that changed dramatically. Robertson solidified himself on this album as the chief songwriter of the group to the extent that he wrote eight of the songs by himself and has co-writing credit on the other four. One of the co-writing credits is “When You Awake” with Richard Manuel (who also sings the song) who was back behind the drum kit on this song with his frantic drumming style. Garth Hudson’s organ gives a nice backing to the song while Robertson’s lyrics are about family and remembering with grandfatherly advice being given.

From there the album moves to “Up on Cripple Creek” which is a song with a very “back porch” feel which is (I must say it) deliciously sleazy in a way. Garth Hudson is playing a clavinet through a wah wah pedal to create the sound of a jew’s harp. When mixed with Danko’s bass playing, it gives a significantly low range to the tune about a narrative of a man who wants to lookup an old girlfriend for “assistance” if you will and how in many areas she completes him. “Whispering Pines” follows, which Robertson co-wrote with Richard Manuel. The song has a completely different tempo than the one preceding it and Manuel delivers a very wrenching vocal performance vocally and on piano.

Following “Whispering Pines” is “Jemima Surrender” which has a heavier tempo with boogie-woogie piano (played not by Manuel but by Hudson), Manuel on drums, Levon Helm not on drums but rhythm guitar, and Robertson on lead guitar. (The alternate take –-half the songs on the album have an alternative take on this CD- has the members on their usual instruments for a completely different approach to the song.) The song is about the singer wanting a girl named Jemima to give in and...well...that is all I will tell you about it.

“Rocking Chair” is possibly my favourite song on the album. It is unconventional musically for the group in that there is no drums (Helm is on mandolin on this tune), Hudson plays accordion, Robertson is on acoustic guitar, and the timekeeping is done solely by Danko’s bass and that is adequate. The lyrics (Manuel on lead, Danko joining on the bridge) are about two old time sailors –one telling his first mate (and best friend) “don’t raise the sails anymore” because he has been at sea his whole life, he believes they have used up all the time they have in that endeavour and should spend the sunset years of their lives together “back in old Virginny” in rocking chairs. Having lost my oldest friend recently, this song really has an effect on me now…musically the song is quite excellent and the lyrics I find to be quite haunting for reasons already expressed and others not to be mentioned here.

“Look Out Cleveland” is a up tempo rocker sung by Danko with some aggressive lead fills by Robertson backed by Danko’s equally aggressive bass picking and is about “a storm coming through” which ends up devastating everything. (Compared to everything else on the album, this song stands out in its strident phrasing.)

From there the next song is “Jawbone” and it opens with a very slow start and alternates time signatures from verses to the pre-chorus to the chorus and back again with lyrics about a thief who is unrepentant. The album next moves into “Unfaithful Servant” which is sung by Danko and is a slow creeper about…well…exactly what the title says and the narrator tries to examine the reason for the faithlessness involved.

The album ends officially with “King Harvest” which is a frantic tune sung by Manuel. The song has an unusual sound even for an album of songs many of which are distinctive in that sense. The shifting tempos from verse to verse (a feature common to many of my favourite songwriters) gives a distinctive sound as does Robertson’s stinging lead playing which shows a pleasing restraint to it (another feature I like in lead guitar players). The lyrics show the tensions of paradoxical attachments (city and country, past and present, etc) and is a tale about a union man who is feeling the pinch ala Steinbeck's “Grapes of Wrath” and wraps up the album quite strongly. (It is also one of my favourites on the album.)

There are also alternate takes of six of the songs on the CD release as well as an outtake of a song that would appear on future albums (referring to “Get Up Jake"). They are all interesting for different approaches taken to songs in different takes…from instruments used to who played what, who sang the songs, some false starts, instructions given, etc. But the twelve songs on the album as originally released are the focus of this review and they all cohere well making this album a must have for anyone who likes good music.

The previously noted first draft of an album review (Roger Waters's Amused to Death) was posted to Amazon earlier today with minimal adjustments made. I have a few more items in mind for reviewing...though I am not sure any of them will be done before the end of the year.

First Draft of An Album Review:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]

*****

A Masterpiece of Music and Musings...

Roger Waters is given a giant share of the credit for Pink Floyd growing from the psychedelic brainchild of Syd Barrett in the mid to late 1960’s to attaining its status as a “super-group” in the early 1970’s by right-minded observers. Dark Side of the Moon (1973) was the first of a succession of blockbuster albums throughout the next ten years culminating with 1979’s The Wall and 1983’s The Final Cut. With each album since Barrett’s departure, there was some reflection of Waters’ growing influence within the group while he cultivated his songwriting talents. However, what is most evident from Dark Side on is Waters’ continuing focus on the struggles of modern society. And there are significant convergences between his view and my more ressourcement (read: authentically conservative) ones however strange that may seem on the surface. But this is not the time to go into the false dichotomies of “left” and “right” but instead to focus on this very moving (and profoundly under-appreciated) piece of work.

The horrors of war have long been a major theme of his writing along with the theme of alienation: of people from modern society, from modern technology, etc. Some of this is stuff that even amateur psychologists could discern: Roger’s father died in WWII when Roger was an infant. As a result of this tragedy, Waters grew up having no father present and no small degree of derision for government in general. This is a condition which was compounded as he came to view the promises of the postwar period (on which his fathers’ sacrifice along with that of countless others was to some extent initially justified) being betrayed by an increasingly materialistic, artificial existence. The album itself follows the pattern of every Waters project since Dark Side: having a concept to it that permeates the entire album. In the opening track The Ballad of Bill Hubbard, the album begins with a theme straight out of 1983’s The Final Cut: the sound a station being tuned in: with the latter it was a radio, on this album it is a TV.

The Ballad of Bill Hubbard is mostly instrumental and Jeff Beck plays some very stirring soloing guitar while from the “TV”, there is recollections being given by Alf Razzell about his last recollections of Bill Hubbard…having to leave him in No-Man’s Land on the western front in 1917 where he died. From there, the “TV” changes and the first part of the What God Wants trilogy of tunes on this album. Jeff Beck makes another appearance with some very strident playing while Roger sings about how God “wants” all the contrary things various people claim He “wants.” The metaphor of “the monkey” makes its debut in this along with a reference to “the alien prophet” and “the alien comic” which seem out of place but will make sense later on.

Perfect Sense (in two parts, the second is particularly striking) presents modern warfare as it is often utilized by the media” as a game. Waters underscores this by having Marv Albert “call the plays” as a submarine engages an oil rig and blows it up. The game fascination is summed up in the song The Bravery of Being Out of Range: an aggressive song, which underscores a scathing indictment of those cheer on each media exposure of war as if it is “entertainment.” The next two songs (Late Home Tonight in Parts I and II) are acoustic and look at families on both sides of the war divide -emphasizing the difference between engagement and detachment to some extent.

From there, the album moves into Too Much Rope -the weakest of the songs on the album but still containing more food for thought than anything in the so-called “pop music charts.” From there, the second part of the What God Wants set comes up and this time it opens with a tele-evangelist trying to raise funds and listing the various denominations of money that “God Wants” among other things (poverty, wealth, etc).

What God Wants in the third installment opens with musical and effects echoes from earlier Floyd songs (from 1975’s Shine On You Crazy Diamond and 1971’s Echoes respectively). Another mention of the “alien prophet” and several animals in the vicinity of money: some obvious and others not so. (Shades of 1977’s Animals in some respects here.) And that brings us to two of the best songs on an album of very good songs: Watching TV and Three Wishes.

Watching TV involves Tianinemon Square and how Roger was affected by it. It is acoustic and the duet (with Don Henley) is moving. Showing that history is not for fools, Roger recounts some Chinese history before moving into a list of people whom this Chinese girl is different from throughout history building up to a depressing indictment of modern soullessness. The conclusion is...well...I do not want to give it away but it really hits like a hammer to put it mildly.

Three Wishes builds to some extent on the latter by showing that the artist himself is not free of admitted selfishness. It is a testament of sorts to the human condition and how we say we want to be altruistic but (when the chips are down) we often seek our own self-interests first and then feel the guilt afterwards. Jeff Beck plays a Dave Gilmour-like solo, which eases the tension a little bit but not much. And from there, the album moves into It’s a Miracle recounting “achievements” of modern civilization by outlining the excesses in a somewhat sarcastic fashion.

The last song on the album is Amused to Death. The imagery is vivid and it is at that point where the alien figures referred to at times throughout the album are identified: they are alien anthropologists who found the remains of the human race around the TV sets and after trying to figure out why we died out conclude that “this species has amused itself to death.” The fadeout finishes with the voice of Alf Razzell again recognizing finally the humanity of his fallen comrade many decades ago: no longer a nightmarish image to him for reasons too numerous to deal with here.

The album as a whole as well as in its individual parts (the songs) paint a very vivid picture that provide plenty of food for musing. Much as Johnny Cash's final video Hurt showed vividly what an artist can do with pictures, Roger Waters with music, sound effects, and various spoken voices paints a similarly compelling picture with this album. I cannot recommend this album enough for those who like music to have some relevance to reality rather than being merely an escape from it. For those who do not fit the latter description, this album is not for you: go back to listening to your mindless Top 40 drivel and leave masterpieces such as this for those who can truly appreciate them.

The Conscience of a Conservative:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: Though I may make some edits to this text, the following is what is currently slated to appear as a book review at Amazon.com in a few days. - ISM]

*****

A Primer for Sound Reasoning and Historical Perspective...

...can be found in this short volume by the late Arizona Senator and former Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Though the present writer has read numerous works since coming across the volume by the late Senator currently being reviewed, this is the one that first begin impressing upon his (at the time quite youthful) mind the logic behind the authentically conservative view of the world, of mankind, and of the core differences between liberal socialism and authentic conservatism. In shorthand, the differences between those views can be well distinguished by noting what the Constitution actually allows for the federal government to do and and what it is not allowed to do.

The authentic conservative recognizes the restrictions (and if change is desired moves to do this through proper channels such as amending the Constitution) while the liberal socialist merely seeks to impose their views on others without respect for the rule of law in society. Whatever pretensions exist among those who think they are genuinely conservative in their outlooks but in varying ways are not (such as President Bush or Patrick Buchanan to name two examples), this is the book that for all intensive purposes ignited the modern conservative movement.

For it is The Conscience of a Conservative probably deserves a good share of the credit for Ronald Reagan (i) abandoning the Democratic Party in 1962 (ii) giving the defining speech "a time for choosing" in October of 1964 in support of Goldwater's candidacy for president and (iii) provided a solid foundation for Reagan to cultivate his own conservative outlook in his tenure as governor of California and in two major campaigns for president. (In 1976 and again in 1980 when he won the first of his two terms as president.)

It bears noting that while there is more to conservative philosophy than what is noted in this book, what is noted here is a good overview -showing the applicability of conservative principles to a host of issues outlined in chapters with titles such as States' Rights, Civil Rights, Freedom for the Farmer, Freedom for Labor, Taxes and Spending, The Welfare State, and Education. A previous reviewer quoted a part of the book which this writer wants to reproduce here with some brief comments as they pertain to events subsequent to this book's initial publication runs:

"While there is something to be said for the proposition that spending will never be reduced so long as there is money in the federal treasury, I believe that as a practical matter spending cuts must come before tax cuts. If we reduce taxes before firm, principled decisions are made about expenditures, we will court deficit spending and the inflationary effects that invariably follow." (p. 65)

This observation proved to be prophetic in what happened in the 1980's with the budget deficits. (Though not with inflation which came down dramatically in that decade.) Those who know their history are aware that President Reagan proposed a combination of across the board tax cuts. However, that was intended merely to spur on the economy in the short term and not as a long-term proposition in and of itself. The long term proposition for handling the deficit was raising taxes and cutting spending simultaneously -indeed President Reagan got Congress to agree to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes raised in 1982. Of course the Democrat controlled House of Representatives never followed through with the promised spending cuts. This caused no shortage of problems because when taxes are cut and spending is not reduced at the same time. For even when the dynamic (as opposed to static) effects that tax cuts have on an economy are considered, with evils such as "base line budgeting" in place long-term deficits are an inevitability.)

Senator Goldwater recognized the problems of not equating tax cuts with spending cuts decades ago -only one of the many areas where this book proves itself to be somewhat prophetic. And it is nearly impossible to see the late Senator Goldwater being at all be happy with how a Republican controlled Congress and Republican president are handling these matters in 2005. Indeed, Senator Goldwater would not recognize himself in the Republican Party of today anymore than his friend the late Senator Hubert Humphrey would recognize himself in the Democratic Party of today. And this book contains ample instruction on how far these parties have strayed from their original principles. (As Goldwater notes towards the beginning of the book) the discomforting tendency of the Republican Party to mimic the Democratic Party preceding the publication of this book by a few decades.)

It was said that President Reagan in his last years did not remember much but he did remember not receiving those $3 in spending cuts from Congress for every $1 in tax raises he agreed to in the early 1980's. In light of how the Democrats pulled the same screwjob on President Bush Sr., one would think at some point the Republicans would wise up. They were on the receiving end of tax cuts without spending cuts accompanying them on two different occasions. We have seen them in the past four years do precisely what the Democrats did in the 1980's and 1990's. And since they have complete control of the purse strings, there is no excuse for what they are doing.

Unfortunately, the Republicans only seem to fight for core conservative principles when they are in a congressional minority. This is a track record that had better change soon if they want to avoid losing control of Congress -particularly since attempts to get power back with running on conservative principles will backfire when their opponents point out just how unconservative the Republican congresses of the past four years (with a Republican president) have really been. (Though in truth they accomplished next to nothing of an authentically conservative agenda since taking control in 1994 -their rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.) However, as this is detracting from the purpose of this review and this writer is looking like the Libertarian he is not, a short summation is in order for the benefit of those who read this review and are considering acquiring this book.

In summary, this book is a good starting reference for the authentic conservative position on many subjects. And authentic conservatism is something that seems to escape most people today who refer to themselves as "conservatives." With the exception of the final chapter of the book (titled "The Soviet Menace": a good read for historical perspective in the post-USSR world if nothing else these days), the rest of the book with only the most minor of editing could be reissued and be as serviceable a work in 2005 as it was in 1960. The only question remaining is if those with pretensions towards being "conservative" are really ready to listen to these things in 2005 that they were (to a significant extent) unwilling to listen to in 1960, 1970, 1980, or 1990.

Ronald Reagan - How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This is the second and probably final third and final draft of a review I will be submitting to Amazon.com hopefully later in the week. President Reagan, may you rest in peace - ISM]

*****

One of history's greatest presidents...

...and definitely the best president of the second half of the twentieth century. Dinesh D' Souza would argue that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century. I would claim a bit less myself: second perhaps to President Roosevelt...and not the President Roosevelt that most people would presume I refer to. But that is neither here nor there.

This book is very compact and seeks to cover a lot of material in a reasonably economical manner. The prologue sets the tone, starting with the manner whereby the Soviet Union was viewed prior to its collapse by the establishment "experts." From there, D' Souza explains why the "wise men" were all wrong and the "dummy" (as the intellectuals viewed Reagan) was right. He also deals with the manner whereby revisionists have sought to paint the USSR's collapse as "inevitable" which is certainly not what these same people were saying at the time. It seems that the approach is say anything except give credit to Reagan for his foresight on this significant issue.

The aforementioned prologue ("The Wise Men and the Dummy") sets the table for the manner whereby the rest of the book unfolds. The topics covered in the work in sequential order are as follows with brief comments from yours truly:

---Why Reagan Gets No Respect.

This chapter outlines well the manner whereby not only the pseudo-"intellectual" elites of the left viewed Reagan but also many hard nosed conservatives of the right (including some of their recognized bigwigs such as George Will and Michael Novak).

---The Education of an Actor.

This chapter is a necessary look into the formation of Reagan's conservative political philosophy as well as the paradigm shift from Roosevelt New Deal supporter to conservative Goldwater-style in his philosophy.

It starts to some extent from his formative years because in order to hope to understand Reagan, one must understand those events which formed the environment which shaped his outlook and convictions. And as Reagan reached his conservative Republican outlook after being born into poverty and living through two world wars, the Great Depression, Korea, the McCarthy era, and the early 1960's, it is important to review this period where his philosophy -which he would refine and deepen in later years- was first set forth in its broad outlines. The chapter ends with Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republican convention: the speech that definitively put him "on the map" for a political career.

---Mr. Reagan Goes To Washington.

This chapter covers the period where Reagan's philosophy received greater deepening and refinement through two terms as governor of California and two significant challenges to the presidency (1976 and 1980). Some may refer to his campaign of 1968 but that was not a serious campaign and Reagan had no chance at the nomination then.

---A Walk on the Supply Side.

If no other chapter in this book was read, this one is essential because it debunks so much of the idiotic myths surrounding Reagan and his role in the increasing deficits of the 1980's.

This chapter outlines an integral part of Reagan's presidential economic plan. It is well worth a read due to the profound ignorance commonly expressed about supply-side policies by historical revisionists and economists too wedded to Keynesian policies: policies which were discredited in the 1970's economic climate by the way.

The reviewer who said that D'Souza "dismisses the massive budget deficits accumulated during the Reagan years" would do well to reread this chapter since the deficit subject is discussed in the context of the Democratic Congress not following through on their promise to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in taxes during the 1982 budget battle. Oliver North was criticized for lying to Congress during Iran-contra but the dishonour Congress brought on themselves in the interim -starting with their broken promises in 1982- made North's actions a venial sin at best.

Those who want to discuss the budget deficits need look no further than here for the reasons. But of course that reviewer is not about to do that because 75% or more of the federal budget is unconstitutional and they are certain to support a fair amount of it. At least Reagan's military spending was constitutional but I digress.

---They Don't Call it Reaganomics Anymore.

This chapter is a good follow-up to the one on supply side economics because it explains the truth behind Reagan's economic policies. In a short phrase: they worked.

---Confronting the Evil Empire.

Picks up and develops what was touched on in the prologue.

---Making the World Safe for Democracy.

In this chapter, D'Souza outlines the principles behind Reagan's approach to totalitarian dictatorships -and the success those policies had throughout the world as dictatorship after dictatorship fell in places such as Central America, South America, Asia, and the Philippines. In this context, Reagan's policy towards Nicaragua and supporting the contras stands out as the brilliant policy that it was. Even Grenada's invasion in 1983 is noted as a significant milestone in foreign policy in that it was the death-knell of the Breshnev Doctrine. Those who are unfamiliar with the latter would do well to read this chapter.

---And the Wall Came Tumbling Down.

Much as the Reagonomics chapter built on the preceding supply side chapter, this one builds on the one that precedes it in dealing with Reagan's skills in negotiating an end to the Cold War. (Through arms reduction treaties and also standing firm against Soviet demands.) This is all material "conveniently" overlooked by modern revisionists. But as "ninety five percent of what is published on all things is hogwash" (A. Jones), this should hardly surprise.

---The Man Behind the Mask.

After dealing with the external effects of Reagan's policies on America and throughout the world, this one seeks to go into the man himself and deal with the many paradoxes that were Reagan. This section is essential for coming close to understanding Ronald Reagan the man.

---Spirit of a Leader.

This chapter deals with Reagan as a leader and also highlights his responses to some of the administrative controversies that occurred in his Administration. Subjects such as PATCO, Lybian jets firing on the USS Nimitz in late 1981, the visiting of the Bitberg cemetery in Germany in 1985, the Lybian bombing of a West Berlin discoteque in 1986 and the US response to it, Iran-contra, and other examples are covered here.

With regards to the latter, D' Souza deals well with Iran-contra. Unfortunately, he did not touch on the 240 odd Marines who died in Lebanon in 1983 as a result of a suicide bomber. Despite the many fabrications and exaggerations often conjured up by Reagan-despising historical revisionists, this was a definite policy blunder and it would have been good to cover here along with some of the others that D'Souza does note. Despite the brevity of this tome, that is not asking too much as it would provide a bit more balance in a work that on the whole is quite vindicating of Reagan's legacy as president and as a man.

---Epilogue: The Road Not Taken.

The epilogue essentially explains why the Republicans have for the most part been floundering without a firm sense of purpose since Reagan left office.

One interesting par of this book is D'Souza's approach which is geared quite obviously to setting the record straight in areas where it is often anything but. To do this, he often follows a pattern of outlining what Reagan's opponents said about his ideas and policies -buttressed with source citations from newspapers and magazines as well as books written by critics or adversaries- and then recounts Reagan's uncanny ability to confute his adversaries again and again. In that sense it reads like an apologetic but, in light of the mountains of lies and distortions that are fed the populace about Reagan and his policies, perhaps that approach is the best way of cutting through the rubbish and focusing on what really happened. (As opposed to what Reagan's opponents wish had happened.)

The subtitle of the paperback is "how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader." Indeed that is what President Reagan was and no one who approaches the historical record who makes any pretense of objectivity can conclude otherwise. And this book well explains the many reasons why this was so.

New Amazon Book Review of George Weigel's 2002 book "The Courage to be Catholic":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is "hot off the presses" as it was posted to Amazon literally less than five minutes ago.

(5 Stars) The timeliness of this book could not have been better...

...and for that reason, I was worried that the quality of the work would not be up to par. Fortunately my concerns were ill-founded and the work being reviewed here can be given four and a half stars for content and a half a star for its timeliness. My only real criticism is that George Weigel almost seems to fall into the trap of equating "Catholic" with "Latin rite". Thus when he speaks of the celibacy of the Catholic priest - and while giving a cursory mention of the eastern tradition - he does not do full justice to the complexity of the eastern and western traditions on this subject. (He is right though that celibacy of the western clergy is not the problem that many of the contemporary ignorant portray it to be.) But I am getting a bit ahead of myself here.

George Weigel starts off by identifying the crisis under four headings:

1) The three-headed monster of pedophilia, priests having illicit sexual relations with women - including some minors, and "homosexually oriented priests, seemingly incapable of living the celibacy they had promised to God and the Church, and abusing teenagers and young men committed to their care" (cf. Weigel).

2) Crisis of Priestly Identity

3) Crisis of Episcopal Leadership

4) Crisis of Discipleship

He then goes on to highlight what the crisis is not and deals well with the red herrings of (i) Celibacy (ii) the "authoritarian Church" model (iii) a "failure to implement Vatican II" - according to its so-called "spirit" (iv) the crisis being "a pedophilia crisis" - as it is much more then that (v) the "problem" being the Catholic Sexual Ethic itself. From there he delves into the problems of dissent from magisterial teaching which started with Humanae Vitae in 1968 and continues today by both "liberals" as well as so-called "traditionalists" and how the Vatican ended up hamstringing American bishops in 1968. The fear of creating a schism was of course legitimate but the results of the policies to address the problems have created in essence an implicit schism in the American Church at many levels.

Weigel deals well with how the aforementioned dissent filtered down from not a few theologians to the faithful, influenced the seminary development of a generation of priests, problems with certain psychological attempts to fix the problem, and the Vatican's moves under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II to reverse this trend which started turning around in 1984. (And how more recent seminarians have benefitted from the changes made thus far.) Weigel also identifies well the culture of dissent that has developed and points out how it in all of its manifestations - from liberal to self-styled "traditionalist" - have played a role in the deepening of this problem. The lie of "faithful dissent" is not detailed as well as it could have been but Weigel sought to cover a lot of subjects so in that respect can be pardoned for only covering the above subject in a brief overview manner.

From there, the author goes on to examine in detail the reasons why the bishops failed in their ministry, the role of Rome in the Crisis, the beginning of reform in the Seminaries - starting with the 1985 Apostolic visitations, the elements that go into priestly reform (here he touches on the rich teaching of the Council and Pope John Paul II on the priesthood), and the selection of bishops - including an idea for some lay participation. (Hardly the "novelty" that many Catholics may presume that it is.) Weigel sums the work up with a call to renewal by being authentically Catholic and not "Catholic Lite" - the latter being what is sadly not uncommon today with the cafeteria Catholicism of picking and choosing what the individual likes and disregarding the rest: for it is that very element that was the genesis of this crisis and what has prolonged it. It therefore is a mentality that needs to be killed and buried and Weigel outlines in this book a good program for doing that that is in essence "back to basics".

In short, this is a good book that all Catholics concerned with the problems in the Church today should read. Crises after all are only cured by a renewed fidelity and that is of course what George Weigel means by "the courage to be Catholic" - and this is something that all Catholics need to take into account and strive to do.

Upcoming Amazon Review of Peter Hebblethwaithe's work "Paul VI: The First Modern Pope":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Amazon will probably publish it in about four days or so.

[Three Stars out of Five]

A Good Book But It Has Its Problems...

Reviewer: Shawn McElhinney from Seattle, WA United States

...theologically anyway. But before dealing with that it would be beneficial to review its strengths.

For one thing, it is a comprehensive work. There is evidence throughout that the author sought to write as complete a biography as possible and clocking in at around 750 pages, the detail is not lacking. The portrait of Giovanni Battista Montini the man is well sketched and his gifts made readily apparent to the reader. The author believes that Pope Paul was "the most naturally talented man to become pope in this century" and if he is referring to all around then I can certainly concur with him. The problem though is that the papacy requires more then that to properly function. Paul from the biographies I have read of him - and Hebblethwaithe follows suit with them - sketches a portrait of a man who on paper is almost overqualified to be pope (if that was at all possible) excelling in his knowledge of Canon Law, the history of the Ecumenical Councils, and Church history in general. (Not to mention being schooled in the field of journalism.) Physically frail in health from his earliest years Paul VI was still able to accomplish much more then it would seem task-wise. An excellent listener who enjoyed philosophical discourse and dialogue with the belief that the truth would ultimately win out. A dialoguist who could weigh the pros and cons of opposing sides and do so equitably. Adding to these the element of patience and sensitivity of allviewpoints and Paul had the makings of a great diplomat.

Hebblethwaithe documents well Paul's service to - and admiration of - Pius XII and treats the latter pope reasonably well: though he seems to think Pius XI was a diplomatic blunderer. (There is a clear preference shown to John XXIII over both of them.) He details well Pope Paul's meetings with Patriarch Athengoras and other leaders both religious and secular. I am trying to think of what else can be said in under 1,000 words about a 750 page book. (In these situations space constraints are not of assistance.)

It has been said in the Conclave that after the election the consensus of him was that he was "John with Pacelli's [Pius XII] brains". But even taking into account all of the relevant factors, it is difficult to see how anyone could say that his reign could be anything better then "average" historically. Hebblethwaithe's sketch reveals the human side of Paul through his successes and also his failings. (Not to mention the tremendous sufferings physically and spiritually that he underwent in the exercise of his ministry.)

It helps now to know that the author is an "ex-Jesuit" because it fills in several question marks that cropped up when I read the book. His treatment of the subject of the minority at the Second Vatican Council is not as balanced as it could be. (The author almost makes it seem that any concessions made by Paul VI to the minority party was the result of conspiracy and certain prelates "getting to Paul" rather then Paul acting as he did out of a sense of personal principle.) The treatment of the Council could have been more thorough as well since that was the defining event and constant reference point for the rest of Pope Paul's pontificate.

There were a few points of theology where the author showed his grasp of the issues as specious. He makes two theological blunders by presuming that the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church affiliation would have to "be overcome by Vatican II" - an absurd notion and one not sanctioned by the documents of Vatican II. (The second was the assertion that the treatment of the Mystical Body in the encyclical somehow did not account for the presence of sin: another superficial commentary on the encyclical's content.) He also shows almost a disdain for the encyclical letter Mysterium Fidei: seemingly any attempt of the Pope to not endorse the "newer and therefore better" whatever it happened to be (and regardless of its relative merits) permeates this work in various spots.

Two more encyclicals that do not meet with the authors approval are Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (on priestly celibacy) and Humanae Vitae. On the latter the author pulls out the kind of kook conspiracy theories that are common to fringe extremists to try and "justify" themselves. (Particularly when it comes to Cardinal Ottaviani in this instance.) It is pretty clear that he did not like Paul's teaching in the latter two encyclicals or the judgment Paul had the CDF issue on women priests. The author for the most part is pretty fair but on the examples above there is a clear bias. The sketch he makes of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was also not flattering but frankly Lefebvre brought a lot of his problems on himself. (In that context Hebblethwaithe details Pope Paul's patience with Lefebvre very well.) Throughout the ups and downs of the book (which technically is written well and reads well) we receive a detailed sketch of Paul the pope and Montini the man.

In short, this is a good book but it is not without its problems. Two biographies not used by Hebblethwaithe are in this writers opinion superior works page for page. One is Roy MacGregor-Hastie's 1964 biography on Paul VI (approx. 210 pages). Another is Alden Hatch's biography "Pope Paul VI" which is about 400 pages. Either work is better then this one but this one is still worth a read too if you have the time and if the deficiencies noted above are taken into account.

To go along with Amazon's recent posting of my review of bluesmaster Albert Collins' compilation "Collins Mix" (see September 3rd on this blog), my review of new age master Kitaro is finally up at Amazon. Here is the link to the latter - while I put Collins Mix into my stereo and get another bottle of water...

Review of Kitaro: An Enchanted Evening

"So many albums to critique, so little time" thinketh I as Albert 'the Iceman' Collins tears up his Telecaster on the tune "The Dream" from the Grammy winning album "Showdown". (Where he teams up with Johnny Copeland and Robert Cray: Cray sings this song while Collins plays soulful lead and a chilling solo.) Collins, Copeland, and Cray all sing and solo throughout an album where the banter of instruments and vocals is a very pleasing experience to listen to.

Speaking of the 'Iceman', I just finished a review for Amazon on one of his albums. (My second music review for Amazon and the first in nearly a year.) Here is the text of how it will read when I send it off to Amazon before nightcap time:

What separates a good player from a master is the little things. Albert Collins was a true master of the blues whose piercing playing could send chills down the spine. One of the few players who could rival the intensity of Albert King, Collins like King (who cited Collins as his favourite player) forged his own unique style that countless guitarists have tried to emulate (including yours truly) but none have successfully duplicated it.

Of course that was the idea as Albert saw it - create your own means of expressing yourself through the instrument. This album captured Collins in excellent form covering a retrospective of songs spanning thirty odd years of his career. Guests on the album include the great BB King (on one of Albert's signature instrumentals 'Frosty'), Gary Moore (on the slow burning 'Time is Money'), and old Tonight Show band frontman Branford Marsalis trades licks with Albert on 'Honey Hush'. Without prejudicing the other tracks on this album, some of the standouts to me include (other than the ones already listed) 'Tired Man' (a slow shuffle blues with harmonica accompanyment), 'The Moon is Full' (Albert's solid backing band is particularly funky on this one), Mastercharge (a funny song with possibly my favourite Collins guitar solo on this album), and 'Collins Mix': a musical mosaic of how to let one's guitar do the talking - few could compare to Collins in this area. I know some of the reviewers have personal album favourites of theirs but in my opinion this is the best Collins album because it is a solid retrospective. And unlike a lot of "greatest hits" compilations, this one lives up to its billing and showcases a legend who never received the degree of acclaim that he should have. For lovers of good music, 'Collins Mix' belongs on your music rack.