Saturday, October 14, 2017
"The planet has enough food for all, but it seems that there is a lack of willingness to share it with everyone." --Pope Francis, homily for the general assembly of Caritas Internationalis.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
"We think that, in a system where a (more social) conception of property would be in force, this axiom ('nothing for nothing') would not be able to survive. Quite to the contrary, the law of usus communis would lead us to establish that, at least and foremost, what regards the basic material and spiritual needs of the human person, it is proper for people to get, for nothing, as many things as possible... The human person being served in his basic necessities is only, after all, the first condition of an economy which does not deserve to be called barbarous.
"The principles of such an economy would lead to a better understanding of the profound meaning and the essentially human roots of the idea of inheritance, in such a way that... all men, upon entering into the world, could effectively enjoy, in some way, the condition of being a heir of the preceding generations." --Jacques Maritain, Integral Humanism
"Finally, it is this equal condition of being coheirs of everyone's efforts which makes it feasible for all people to get, as much as possible and at no cost, a share of the basic material and spiritual goods that are required for human existence." --Jacques Maritain, Principles of a Humanistic Economy
Thursday, September 21, 2017
The squirrels in the morning flew
from the fence top to the sunflowers,
ripe were the seeds, striped with white.
They gorged from the down-turned platters
slanted at maturity, chewing away
even the plate's pith matter.
Tail to nose ran their seasoned fur:
the black squirrels and the grey squirrels
started no war; each occupied
having fresh, fattening seeds
from a penitential sunflower.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Monday, September 18, 2017
I finally got around to reading Titus Andronicus, and finished it last night. Not that I was saying to myself these years, "You know, you really need to read Titus Andronicus".
Because whenever I would read about the play, the consensus was always 1. it's Shakespeare's least good play - flat as a board, and 2. it's so very violent and did we mention the violence?
The second point would only help to redound the first point. And then I would say to the consensus, "Surely it's not that violent, and because you are looking at it in light of Shakespeare's other plays, perhaps you people are rather exaggerating what is quantitatively only a few more corpses?"
Having now read the play, I take that back.
And certainly it is flat, but yet there are inspired passages that crackle out here and there with that cap gun smell you knew as a kid after you shot off the entire round in two seconds.