The photographs collected in this book are outstanding - as is the number and breadth of comedians who signed on to this endeavor.
Sure, there are som...moreThe photographs collected in this book are outstanding - as is the number and breadth of comedians who signed on to this endeavor.
Sure, there are some people missing, but geez - credit Matt Hoyle for getting as many as he did, and setting up fantastic shots that captured something of the comedian's personality and comedic genius.
He's got comedians from every generation - Mel Brooks, Tommy Smothers, Chevy Chase, Tim Allen, John Cleese, Tracy Morgan, Conan, Adam Sandler, Steve Carrell, Sarah Silverman, Andy Samberg, Tina Fey...
He's got comic giants along with some of the brilliant, yet esoteric fare.
He's got different styles: Dick Van Dyke is very different from Ricky Gervais. Todd Packer (I mean, David Koecher) is quite different from Bette Midler.
Speaking of which, there were quite a few people in here I didn't know. Call me crazy, but the only thing I knew about Bette Midler was "The Wind Beneath My Wings" and "The Rose." And, while I've sometimes heard people making fun of those songs -for instance, I just read the book If I Stay, where they pick on The Wind Beneath My Wings - I wouldn't call those songs "funny."
I also found out that Rhys Darby (who I LOVED in Flight of the Conchords created an 8-part mockumentary called Short Poppies which aired on Television New Zealand. Yeah, I'll be checking that out.
This is one of those books that I've showed to a lot of people, because most people like comedy every now and again. Or have at some point in their past. Everybody knows somebody who has loved Arrested Development, so with pictures of Jason Bateman, Jeffrey Tambor, and David Cross - you can't go wrong. Maybe you don't. Maybe you only know people who like Joan Rivers. Or Eddie Murphy. Well, they're in here too.
A couple last thoughts: this is a photography book. So if you're looking for a couple chapters by Mel Brooks, you should probably pick up The 2000 Year Old Man.
Also, like I said, I don't think there are any omissions in this book. Hoyle said he had a wishlist, and some of the comedians couldn't or wouldn't make it. Also, a lot of great comedians are dead. Yeah, I said it. So lets not hold that against Hoyle in the reviews.
...Ok... Honestly though, in the back of my mind, I like to think there was one honest-to-goodness, intentional omission: Larry the Cableguy. And that makes me smile a little bit.
Before we get going, some thoughts on the music (hidden behind spoiler tags, in case in case this sort of thing doesn't interest you): (view spoiler)[...moreBefore we get going, some thoughts on the music (hidden behind spoiler tags, in case in case this sort of thing doesn't interest you): (view spoiler)[This book is music heavy. A fun classical/punk mash-up. And I'm a sucker for mash-ups and remixes. I don't know what my favorite would be... Maybe Obadiah Parker's cover of Outkast's Hey Ya. Seriously, haunting. (More so if you're familiar with the original song, and how happy it is... Which you no doubt are - because everybody is.)
So, about halfway through the book, I started thinking it would be fun to write down all the music references and then link to the music videos in a review. So, I started taking copious notes. ...And then I got to the end, and Forman included a section entitled, "About the Music." And she said that there was a playlist on her website. ...Seriously?... Then why did I just take all those notes? Here it is, by the way.
It was still fun. I appreciated all the music. I'm somewhat eclectic in my tastes as well. I love Sigur Ros, and felt proud of the fact that I got that reference without having to be told in the back. I love Mozart's Requiem, and have listened to a couple different endings. I gave The Melvins a try, whence, at my conservative Christian college, a good friend of mine was given demerits for listening to them.
And I noticed in the back section, she didn't include all the bands she referenced throughout the book. For instance, Weezer was left out. Weezer. Love those guys.
Which brings me to the point of the cello. There's another Q & A section in the back, and someone asked: Why the cello? Forman's answer? I have no idea
Really? Cellos are THE instrument of the "sexy girl." ...At least according to the TV show, About a Boy. Also, Weezer: "She said she plays the cello, and I'm jello, baby."
The book made me think music, too. The whole time, music from The National's album, Trouble Will Find Me. No doubt, if it had been release while Forman was writing this book, it would have been included.
So, I didn't include links to all the songs in the book. But I got some stuff out.
One last note: the music of Sigur Ros is absolutely beautiful. But man, so are their music videos. Incredible.
I'm a celebrity! Well, a celebrity reader at school, anyway. Our media-center specialist asked teachers if they'd be willing to read a couple YA books over the summer, and then review them. We'd be her, "Celebrity Readers." We were allowed to choose from several different books that she had laid out. We're also competing: the teacher that reviewed the book with the most reads at the end of the year wins.
Books that were already always off the shelf were off limits - you know, The Hunger Games, The Fault in Our Stars, Twilight?... Is that still big?...
So, I went right for the one they were making into a movie. I knew nothing about the book, other than that it was realistic fiction in the vein of Fault in Our Stars, and that is was going to be a movie. I think I would win this competition without promoting the book at all. Once the movie comes out, the book will take itself off the shelf. ...If American Idol is all about "picking the right song," I think this competition is all about picking the right book. ...Maybe I'm over confident.
As for the review? Here goes: (I almost never come back and edit goodreads reviews. Seriously, never. At least, not major edits. This one is bound to change.)
You! Hey YOU! KID!!! Look, I know you're reading this, and you want to walk away. But stop. Read my review. No, better yet - read this book. It's good. Stop reading this review, and go pick up If I Stay - right now. Go get it from the librarian. If she doesn't have it, put it on hold.
Look kid. I understand that you're still reading this - and that's a mistake. Don't you realize that the movie is coming out? If there's anybody at the check-out desk, they're no doubt checking out this book. Now you'll have to wait 3 weeks because they're procrastinators. Don't know what the word means? Don't worry about it... you can look it up later.
I don't want to share too much about the book, because I don't want to give anything away: it's that good. I'll say this, though. We all have to make choices in our lives: date this kid? Date that kid? Skip dating all together, because the opposite sex are a bunch of jerks? And we know that our choices affect others - as much as we (at times) may want to believe they don't.
And sometimes, there are things that are out of our control - and we don't have a choice. And that's tough. What are we supposed to do in situations like that? What can we do?
The book is haunting, and painful, and beautiful. I'm not going to say I cried as I read it because well... Man, look at the time. You're still standing here reading this review? Uggg... Middle schoolers...
So, that was the end of my celebrity book review. Any thoughts?
I'm excited to see the movie. Although, I've been excited - SUPER-excited - to see the last several YA book-to-movie adaptations, but I never actually got around to seeing them... You know, The Fault in Our Stars, Divergent, etc... I did see Catching Fire.
Alright, off to listen to The Clash, or The Ramones. ...Maybe The Eels... dat dum right, it's a beautiful day. Uh huh.["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>(less)
This is the first book that Eleanor read to me. Well, maybe not... but it's the first book that she read that we're reviewing. (I think...) It's defin...moreThis is the first book that Eleanor read to me. Well, maybe not... but it's the first book that she read that we're reviewing. (I think...) It's definitely the longest book she's read thus far. It had words like, "suddenly" and "important" and "patient." Those are some tough words for someone who isn't yet in second grade, and she nailed them.
Eleanor suggested that since she read the book to me, she should ask the questions, and I should give the responses. ...I'm game. I'll still be the typist. Go ahead Eleanor, ask away:
Eleanor: How many stars would you like to give the book?
Dad: Hmmmmm... 4. Four stars, what do you think?
Eleanor: I think that's ok.
Gwennie (in the background): I wanted 5 stars.
Eleanor: Me too. Daddy, me and Gwennie disagree completely, but you can put 4 stars down since this is your review.
Dad: I was going back and forth between 3, 4, and 5 to tell you the truth.
Dad: Should I bump it up to 5?
Eleanor: Sure, do whatever you want.
Dad: Ok. It's got 5 stars now.
Eleanor: Ok. What was your favorite part of the book?
Gwen: I thought you said it was going to have 4 stars...
Dad: Gwen, you need to pay attention, I said I'm changing the review based on your recommendation. You guys said it deserved 5 stars, so I'm giving it 5 stars.
El: What was your favorite part of the book?
Dad: I liked the karmic justice.
El: That's cool. I would like something more kiddish, but you can put that in.
Dad: I also liked the crazy straw. And I liked when D.W. pretended to get chicken-pox.
El: How come? Hey dad, you and me sort of share a favorite part.
Dad: Oh yeah, what's that?
El: I like it when Arthur has all the fun - like when he had the crazy straw. It's fun to listen to when kids get to have all the fun. And when D.W. was naughty - that stuff makes books interesting. The worse kids are, the more interesting.
Dad: Yeah, I thought the part with D.W. was really funny. Although, I don't think Arthur got to have ALL the fun, since he had chicken pox. That's just what D.W. thought too. And let me tell you, chicken pox aren't really fun at all.
El: Yeah, D.W. thought it was fun: he got to drink out of a crazy straw, he got to get a back rub, he got to watch TV all day and take a soothing bath.
Dad: I guess D.W. learned in the end that chicken pox aren't that much fun after all, huh?
Gwennie: Is this review over?
Dad: Well, that depends on Eleanor. She can ask as many questions as she wants.
Eleanor: I don't think there are any more questions to ask, Dad.
Dad: You could ask if I'd recommend this book to anybody. ...If I think other people would like to read the book. I always try to end your reviews that way.
El: OH! Would you recommend this book to anybody?
Gwen is in the background screaming out the song, "Do Your Ears Hang Low" into Eleanor's recorder. She wanted to record this momentous interview. ...She records almost everything... you have to be on your guard in this house...
Well, this was a fantastic little update. My brother wrote a very clever piece about it already, and I don't think I'll be able to top it. So, I'll ju...moreWell, this was a fantastic little update. My brother wrote a very clever piece about it already, and I don't think I'll be able to top it. So, I'll just send you his way.
Harold Lee Miller is remarkable. He had to have won a blue ribbon in photography in whatever fair he entered as a kid.
Here's a sample (not in the book) from his website:
The book intros with a preface by Miller, a foreward by Philip Gulley, and a Profile/Introduction on Fairs by Gerald Waite - then, it gets right into the pictures. And they're magnificent.
It's crazy that Miller manages to make me nostalgic for something I've never completely embraced. Crazier still is that it's a nostalgia for a simpler time... You know: 2005-2008. (view spoiler)[Don't even get me started on the whole, "simpler time" fallacy. Miller doesn't get into this trap or anything... I mean it's a photography book... That's why I put it in the spoiler tag, so people looking at the review wouldn't see this big long rant. It drives me crazy to hear people longing for the past. Memories are great, and I'm all for them. But when people I grew up with start posting on facebook how, "when they were kids they never would have ________________" whereas "kids today are always _______________..." I want to point out the time they locked a kid in a port-a-potty and started rocking it. Or the time they were throwing rocks through the windows of an "abandoned" warehouse. I knew it would happen, and no doubt people will fall into the same trap... I just remember that when I was a kid, I got tired of hearing about how much better my parent's generation was when they were kids. (hide spoiler)]
But it's more than simple nostalgia. Miller does a good job of documenting his subjects: people, animals, carnies, mooches, cakes, corn dogs, cucumbers, etc... We seem them as they are, which at least for the people, is deeply humanizing. That each person is an individual, with an individual, unique beauty.
This leads to another interesting aside: Miller has pictures of the 2008 Miss Elkhart, Mekayla Diehl. I hadn't thought of this when I wrote the above paragraph, but you may recognize the name. She was in the Miss USA competition this year, and though I couldn't name the winner, I can name Miss Indiana - and not because I'm a Hoosier. It's because the internet lit up over-night due to her, "normal body." Because apparently, anorexia is the new normal or something, I don't know. As patronizing and insulting as the comments in the linked article are, Miss Diehl's body is NOT normal. But it's a step toward health and away from eating disorders, so kudos to her.
Anyway, fairs: I've never been a "Go to the Fair" person. I think I went to The Bloomsburg Fair twice as a kid. I liked it. (And I always appreciated funnel cakes. You can get them at High School Football games in Pennsylvania. I keep hoping that trend will make its way out here to Indiana soon. This year, please.) But crowds are harder to navigate with baby strollers. And I never really caught the appeal of the fair.
I hesitate to say this, because I'm writing from Elkhart, Indiana - home of the largest county fair in These United States. In fact, it's larger than many state fairs. (At the time the book was published, Elkhart was in 2nd place to Orange County, California. I remember I was in a crowd of people when it was revealed that Elkhart had passed them because they had some financial troubles. I'm not sure that cheering was appropriate, but whatever. It felt like winning by forfeit, but hey: a win is a win.) People here go CRAZY over the fair, and there's a chance I'll be looked down on by quite a few people for admitting I've only attended twice.
The book made me see it in a new light. It's not all deep-fried ________________ and carnies. (Every year they deep fry something new at the fair: Oreos, Snickers, butter - no joke... I'm not sure what it is this year.*) It's more than concessions - in fact, the book says the the term, "concessions," in this sense acquired its meaning as "concessions" were a concession to the lower class. I.e. some wanted to keep fairs strictly educational and agricultural, but they wouldn't be sustainable that way. Good move: again, I'm a huge fan of funnel cake.
But it's more than all that. It's community. Inter-generational. Educational. Head, hands, heart, health. This might be the first year I'm genuinely interested in going. For more than the funnel cakes. Maple/bacon funnel cakes with extra powdered sugar.
... ... ...I'll still get one of those, though. Let's be clear about that.
*Liz, my wife, told me this morning that it's supposedly peanut-butter wrapped in bacon, and then deep-fried. ...And why not?["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>(less)
"This man had once been led out with others to the scaffold and a sentence of death was read over him. He was to be shot for a political offence. Twen...more"This man had once been led out with others to the scaffold and a sentence of death was read over him. He was to be shot for a political offence. Twenty minutes later, a reprieve was read to them, and they were condemned to another punishment instead. Yet the interval between those two sentences, twenty minutes or at least a quarter of an hour, he passed in the fullest conviction that he would die in a few minutes. ...The priest went to each in turn with a cross. He had only five minutes more to live. He told me that those five minutes seemed to him an infinite time, a vast wealth; he felt that he had so many lives left in those five minutes that there was no need yet to think of the last moment, so much so that he divided his time up. He set aside time to take leave of his comrades, two minutes for that; then he kept another two minutes to think for the last time; and then a minute to look about him for the last time. He remembered very well having divided his time like that. He was dying at twenty-seven, strong and healthy... He said nothing was so dreadful at that time as the continual thought, 'What if I were not to die? What if I could go back to life - what eternity! And it would all be mine! I would turn every minute into an age; I would lose nothing, I would count every minute as it passed, I would not waste one!'" "You are very disconnected," observed Aglaia. "You probably meant to show, prince, that not one instant of life can be considered petty, and that sometimes five minutes is a precious treasure. That's all very laudable, but let me ask, how did that friend who told you such horrors... he was reprieved, so he was presented with that 'eternity of life.' What did he do with that wealth afterwards? Did he live counting each moment?" "Oh no, he told me himself. I asked him about that too. He didn't live like that at all; he wasted many, many minutes."
I know I can't embed Sam Harris's video "It's Always Now" in here, but I'd like to encourage you to click on the link and watch it before continuing the review. But do whatever you want: you're alive. You're free. Life is beautiful.
Myshkin could (correctly) identify the madness in others - but to all others he seems to be mad. Jesus Christ was the only one who could truly speak for God and called out the pharisees who were (claiming to) speak for God. To the pharisees, Christ seemed mad, but it was Christ who (correctly) identified their madness, and for this he was crucified.
I didn't love The Idiot until I got to the end of the book. It needed to be edited; a little bit more focused. I wish I could have figured out the characters a little earlier: that it really revolves around two families and Myshkin himself - the two families being the Ivolgins and the Epanchins. The Epanchins have the 3 daughters, and Lizaveta Prokofyevna Epanchin (the wife) is the cousin of Myshkin, and a princess, herself. She has much of his goodness, and many of his characteristics, although he is both more extreme and constant. (Indeed, it's Princess Myshkin who says early on, "I am like that sometimes; like a child... But it's nonsense. I am not quite such a fool as I seem and as my daughters would like to make me out. I have a will of my own and I am not easily put to shame." Is not the same true of our dear Prince?)
The Ivolgins, they're the other family. And what a family. Both the Epanchins and Ivolgins have a "General" at the helm - which made for a confusing 100-200 first pages. Here's how you keep them separate: if one is telling outlandish lies: it's General Ivolgin. And the lies embellishments are hilarious, from the cigar/lap dog story to seeing Napoleon out of Russia... and taking the credit for it... He's a piece of work. A hilarious piece of work.
I didn't even start to like the book until I understood the characters, and this took a while. I was in the unfortunate station of having purchased a book that didn't have a cast of characters in the front. I looked one up online, thinking a simple list wouldn't give anything away. WARNING: IT DOES! Seriously, it told the last page of the book. Which, for me wasn't all that big of a deal... But I intentionally avoided reading the intro for this very reason.
Even after I understood the characters and their nuances, I still had trouble with the book, because it lacked continuity. I was reading it as a series of vignettes - some I loved, some I hated. You know, like a soundwave:
Maybe it'd be more appropriate to say that I didn't realize the continuity as I read it, not, at least, until late in my reading.
There were episodes I loved: the woman with the children from the town. The lap dog (as I mentioned before). The proposal. I know... there are lots of proposals going on... I'm talking about (view spoiler)[when Myshkin proposes to Nastasya out of the blue. Just up and proposes to her. In front of everybody. And chaos. Sheer chaos follows. Loved it. (hide spoiler)] So many individual scenes that I loved, but I could't piece them together into a story.
And episodes I hated. Ippolit's "explanation," for one...
Dostoevsky was also saying so much: about life, death, killing, the death sentence (Dostoevsky had this very experience - of having his death sentence commuted at the last minute), being spiritually dead while physically alive ("It's so dark! You are living here in darkness..."), about beauty, and imbicility, and naivete, and innocence, and love. Above all else: love. And it's strange, he calls love to argue against love.
I am in love with my wife. Crazy in love. But Christ called us, (not "us" as in Christians, mind you, but "us" as in the whole world), to love everyone. Unconditionally. As we love ourselves. How can marriage work if I'm to do this? If I love my neighbors wife as much as I love my own wife? Or myself? The very idea is repulsive to me.
Therein lies Myshkin's dilemma. (view spoiler)[He loved Nastasya and Aglaia. Loved them. Not a base, selfish, sexual love. But a true, unconditional, selfless love. And he couldn't reconcile this love with the unspoken laws of society: the laws which the rest of us are generally so adept at navigating - for our very survival.
And sure, we all have our awkward moments, where we think something is ok when it's not. We all have a faux pas every now and again. Sometimes they're even committed out of naivete and a pure heart. But our hearts are darkened after each one. We won't make the same mistake again. Myshkin's remained pure, annoyingly so... "Hey Rogozhin, you tried to kill me, but hey... let's let bygones be bygones..." (hide spoiler)]
The characters, too, were not constant. One second Aglaia is sweet as a Georgia Peach, the next... well... you read the book. Ganya? Same thing. Rogozhin? Sure (view spoiler)[ he seems evil the entire time, but is he? There are times he seems truly decent. Repentant, even. Or at the very least, socially normal - which, I know, is NOT the same thing. (hide spoiler)]
I've wondered since reading this, if Dostoevsky was trying to say something about the human nature in all of us: we can be so good. Helpful and humble. Kind-hearted and jovial. And turn on a dime, and hurt or mock an innocent. And then pretend we didn't know better.
Maybe Dostoevsky was doing this, but if that's the case, made for a disjointed read. I'm not saying I like my good guys good, and my bad guys bad, but that there were times it didn't seem to follow. That acting so seemed out of the nature of the character he had previously portrayed.
While I couldn't find any continuity in the plot, or -often- in the characters, there was a continuity in the character of Myshkin that was far greater, and more important for what Dostoevsky was out to accomplish. It's clear upon completion, that Dostoevsky was successful. As always.
Sorry about that. That is about as detailed a synopsis as I want to give right now, without giving too much away.
I liked the book a lot. We read it for club. Discussed it, then promptly watched the movie.
It was exactly what I needed at the moment out of club. We read so many tomes, it was nice to have a quick read, which is also a classic in its own right.
The art is incredible. I've always been a little put off, because I thought it was a ventriloquist holding his dummy on the front cover. The cover art in no way does the book justice. (No disrespect to Richard Piers Rayner - the art inside is magnificent.) (less)
Should high school students (seniors) in an American Government course be required to read The Constitution of the United States of America?
...Or woul...moreShould high school students (seniors) in an American Government course be required to read The Constitution of the United States of America?
...Or would that be prohibited by the 8th Amendment?
I just re-read it because I taught a section of U.S. Government dealing with primary sources. We read a lot, and it was difficult for several students, but they persevered. During the course, there were four co-teachers, each with their own section. At the end, one of my colleagues asked students for some input. No surprise: some students thought they read too much in my section.
A couple comments stood out: "I wish we would have taken more time for the important documents, and less time for the less important ones." ...I agreed with that one whole-heartedly - which is why that's exactly what we did. True, we would often intro with a letter, or section of a speech - but those were to give perspective and clarity to whatever major document we were reading. For instance, we read part of William Lloyd Garrison's The Liberator during our days reading the Constitution. We looked at current maps showing what recently happened in Ukraine, and what is currently happening in Iraq with ISIS alongside of our reading of Federalist 10. We read a letter from George Pickett to La Salle Corbell (Pickett) dealing with his famous (infamous?) "Pickett's Charge" while discussing Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. (Incidentally, you can read the letter HERE, but you have to scroll down to page 101. It is probably the most heart-breaking letter I've ever read... Talk about survivor's guilt.)
...So, needless to say, I was confused by that one...
Another student said he wished we didn't do, "...all the reading in Mr. Habecker's class..." I'm not sure who should feel more insulted by that, me or the other teachers...
Honestly though, I felt a little apprehensive about reading these texts as well. Was I trying to tackle too much? Would high school students be able to handle them? In the end, I thought that it was worth it. The majority of the students were able to discuss and write about the texts, and as for the ones who ...well... couldn't... At least they could say they had read them - which is something. Something tangible, nonetheless, which we don't always receive in an education.
Not only that, but so often I hear people all over the political spectrum invoke The Constitution, and I wonder how many of them have even actually read the dang thing. The same is true of the Declaration of Independence... for instance, Indiana - like many/all other states - is trying to figure out what to do about marriage equality/traditional marriage/ even the way I word this is controversial. While the class was going on, a judge ruled that gay marriage was legal in Indiana. When our local paper wrote about it, the comment section went crazy with all sorts of claims about The Constitution, The Declaration, In God We Trust, Communists, The Gettysburg Address, etc... *Side note* Lots of people kept mentioning The Declaration of Independence while others intoned that that is NOT the basis of our government/country - The Constitution is.
In class, I had my students subtract Four score and 7 from 1863... So maybe The Declaration is a little bit important... At least according to good old Honest Abe.
At least my students can now say they've read them, and presumably, most have learned something (content, historical perspective, relation to today, etc...) about each as well.
I love The Constitution.
So, why the 3 stars? I really, REALLY hate slavery. I understand historical bias. And I get that I'm a product of my times as much as the founders were products of theirs. And I get preserving the union... But Garrison was a product of his times as well when he wrote, "It was compact formed at the sacrifice of the bodies and souls of millions of our race, for the sake of achieving a political object - an unblushing and monstrous coalition to do evil that good might come.
And, knowing what we know now, I wish for more clarity in the Bill of Rights - especially the 9th. We've seen throughout history, that unless we're specific in the rights we want, they'll be denied: racial, gender, et al...
Ruth Bader Ginsberg came under fire recently for saying that she would look to more recent Constitutions if she were drafting a new one. I understand that some people believe our Constitution to be sacred, but I also hear what she's saying. While the founders protected our privacy with the 4th amendment, they couldn't have predicted Facebook, or the NSA. ...Actually, I think they were predicting the NSA... but maybe we should have more privacy protections as well... Among the other ways the world has changed...
For all the legal (and government class) questions surrounding The Constitution of the United States of America, I was surprised that there were no questions on here.