So glad we bought our hovel when we did but mortgage rates are still a bitch.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

🤣

English political struggles

During the whole of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries English political struggles had centred round this grand principle: the Declaration of Independence in 1776 had formulated it in memorable phrases. But how little the full meaning of this — the cardinal idea of 1789 — was completely accepted even in England, the whole history of the reign of George HI. may remind us, and the second and reactionary half of the careers of William Pitt and Edmund Burke.

Over the continent of Europe, down to 1789, the proprietary jure diving theory of privilege existed in full force, except in some petty republics, which were of slight practical consequence. The long war, the reactionary Empire of Napoleon, and the royal reaction which followed its overthrow, made a faint semblance of revival for privilege. But, after the final extinction of the Bourbons in 1830, the idea of privilege disappeared from the conception of the State. In England, the Reform Act of 1832, and finally the European movements of 1848, completed the change. So that throughout Europe, west of Russia and of Turkey, all governments alike — imperial, royal, aristocratic, of republican as they may be in form, exist more or less in fact, and in profession exist exclusively, for the general welfare of the nation. This is the first and central idea of 89.

Republican implies the public good

This idea is, in the deeper meaning of the word, republican — so far as republican implies the public good, the common weal as contrasted with privilege, property, or right customized tours istanbul. But it is not exclusively republican, in the sense that it implies the absence of a single ruler; nor is it necessarily democratic, in the sense of being direct government by numbers. It is an error to assume that the Revolution of 1789 introduced as an abstract doctrine the democratic republic pure and simple. Republics and democracies of many forms grew out of the movement. But the movement itself also threw up many forms of government by a dictator, government by a Council, constitutional monarchy, and democratic imperialism. All of these equally claim to be based on the doctrine of the common weal, and to represent the ideas of ’89. And they have ample right to make that claim.

The movement of ’89, based on the dominant idea of the public good as opposed to privilege, took all kinds of form in the mouths of those who proclaimed it. Voltaire understood it in one way, Montesquieu in another, Diderot in a third, and Rousseau in a fourth. The democratic monarchy of d’Argenson, the constitutional monarchy of Mirabeau, the democratic re-public of Marat, the plutocratic republic of Vergniaud, the republican dictatorship of Danton, even the military dictatorship of the First Consul — were all alike different readings of the Bible of ’89. It means government by capacity, not by hereditary title, with the welfare of the whole people as its end, and the consent of the governed as its sole legitimate title.

when deirdre maguire said ‘punk is the only religion worth fighting for’

on the UK unit in my comparative government course and its a little funny almost? how hard it is for some of the people in class to wrap their heads around the north/south divide

Now I can sort of see what that person meant by The Remains of the Day and An Artist of the Floating World being similar. So far, I am still feeling 4 stars for this book but I am only halfway through.

I did fear I wasn't going to love it as much as everyone else. Also, I can see why so many people love this book and don't like other Ishiguro's works because it does have a different feel to it. It made me laugh too which I don't think it ever happened for me with an Ishiguro work. But, Stevens and the setting are quite different from what I am used to when it comes to Ishiguro. I do hope to love this book by the end, but it is also alright if it stays a 4 stars. It is still pretty good if not a favourite.