GUARDLING Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Not on this thread, but I distinctly recall former marchers telling me that staff used to forrbid or agressively discourage marchers from even reading whats posted on here. I'm surprised that apparently you have not heard of this policy from Corps as well. Personally, I think its within the Corps legitimate authority to limit the ability of posters to post on here should such Corps decide to choose this policy. I do not however believe that it is in their domain to restrict in any manner what public forums a marcher chooses to select for their own personal viewing pleasure. Do you believe, as I do, that marchers should not be forced to give up their ability to access a public forum for their personal viewing pleasure simply by virtue of their Corps participation ? I would hope so, anyway. Edited March 25, 2014 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Stu, you and your absolutist philosophy are incorrigible... You get incredibly dramatic... when here we're talking about the definitons of the word "gay" you suddenly start talking something as complicated and nuanced as the interpretation of the constitution. They are incomparable. It's lunacy to even compare but you did... incorrigible! I hope that you will take a moment and take in the nuance of my post so as not to embarrass yourself when you jump of a cliff of irrationality and hyperbole. The constitution is called a "living document" because it can be amended and "living and breathing" is NOT a "philosophy" or judicial interpretation of the constitution. Ruth Ginsberg does not believe that "words contained in the document should be interpreted differently as the culture changes". She believes "Rather than regarding a judge as constrained by the original understanding (or original expect application) of a constitutional provision, she expressed her belief that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, as each generation of Americans seeks to perfect constitutional ideals that were originally articulated by Founders." It's extremely different than what you generalized as the "meaning of words". Her philosphy does not hinder on the meaning of a word but instead on the larger explicit and implicit constitutional ideals and how they play into the complicated social and cultural landscape of the United States. you asked "Is Ginsburg juvenile because she imposes modern definitions of words and values on the past?" Leading question. She does not impose "modern definitions of words" though she does impose modern values... though not on "the past" but on the constitution, a document though written on the past is a part of our modern government. No, she is not juvenile because she interprets the constitution in a progressive way but that is not what you were asking. Let's bring this back down to the original point and not go into archaic dramatic nonsense like in the last thread (I bet you cannot constrain yourself). A Bernstein piece has "gay" in the title. You should not assume that the song is about homosexuality because, 1. it wasn't socially used as term for homosexuality when the song was written and 2. gay has multiple meanings today. Therefore It would be juvenile to assume the song was about homosexuality because there is no indication that it could be about homosexuality. (Even though Bernstein was gay so I guess we'll never really know what the song was about..........) How does this relate to drum corps. "drum corps" in 1950's is different than "drum corps" in 2014. "gay" in 1950's is different than "gay" in 2014. Same word, different definitions. For drum corps I would say its the same word though different implications. Language is wonderful. When appealing to the words within a governing document, whether in DCI or in the US Constitution, it is not the job of any particular interpretive body to interpret and to then reinterpret changing meaning based upon current cultural desires; it is the responsibility of that body to seek out the interpretation of how it was originally meant by the authors of said words when conflict arises; even if they do not like the result of said search. And then to inform the governing body that a change in the wording, as in amend the document, would be necessary if there is the desire to change the meaning to adhere to the modern cultural customs. That is not an absolute philosophy but an 'origonalist' philosophy. And 'that' is what I beleve should be the case in determining the rules and regulations within DCI, and 'that' is what you find incorrigible. You quoted Ginsberg, I will quote Scalia: - “This is how people got to the belief in the so-called Living and Breathing documents which govern our society. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Around 50 years ago the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning the words didn’t have when they were adopted; mainly because they could not appeal to any of the Articles or Amendments to support their current position and it is very risky to bounce it back into the legislature for the amendment process like what is supposed to occur. So, the way to overcome that problem was with the modern extrapolation of giving it whatever meaning you want at that time based on your interpretation; not of the document but of the current cultural tide and, when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning of that meaning, and then when the need arises again change the meaning of that meaning. That is what is actually meant by a Living and Breathing document. Prior to the advent of this ascription, judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way — they lied about it. They just said the Constitution means such and such when it never meant such and such. A big difference today is that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the so-called evolving Living and Breathing ideology. And the judge can now simply say of course the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now because the cultural definitions and mores have changed. We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the meaning of the Constitution changes based on nothing more than changing culture. I have had grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: The Constitution is a Living Document. And what are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it — the notion that the Constitutional interpretation should grow and change based on changing moral principles. The major argument is that the Constitution is a living organism, and it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap. The worst thing about believing in the Living Constitution is that it will actually destroy the Constitution; because, as word definitions morph, and morph again, so they also become unstable as a bedrock. People tend to forget that I have given rulings in which I personally abhor the result of my ruling, but I based the ruling on the original intent of the law not on what I, or what current culture, feel should be based on the current tide of mores. This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked — When did you first become an originalist? — as though it is some kind of weird affliction.“ - Antonin Scalia Edited March 25, 2014 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) When appealing to the words within a governing document, whether in DCI or in the US Constitution, it is not the job of any particular interpretive body to interpret and to then reinterpret changing meaning based upon current cultural desires; it is the responsibility of that body to seek out the interpretation of how it was originally meant by the authors of said words when conflict arises; even if they do not like the result of said search. And then to inform the governing body that a change in the wording, as in amend the document, would be necessary if there is the desire to change the meaning to adhere to the modern cultural customs. That is not an absolute philosophy but an 'origonalist' philosophy. And 'that' is what I beleve should be the case in determining the rules and regulations within DCI, and 'that' is what you find incorrigible. You quoted Ginsberg, I will quote Scalia: - “This is how people got to the belief in the so-called Living and Breathing documents which govern our society. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Around 50 years ago the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning the words didn’t have when they were adopted; mainly because they could not appeal to any of the Articles or Amendments to support their current position and it is very risky to bounce it back into the legislature for the amendment process like what is supposed to occur. So, the way to overcome that problem was with the modern extrapolation of giving it whatever meaning you want at that time based on your interpretation; not of the document but of the current cultural tide and, when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning of that meaning, and then when the need arises again change the meaning of that meaning. That is what is actually meant by a Living and Breathing document. Prior to the advent of this ascription, judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way — they lied about it. They just said the Constitution means such and such when it never meant such and such. A big difference today is that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the so-called evolving Living and Breathing ideology. And the judge can now simply say of course the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now because the cultural definitions and mores have changed. We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the meaning of the Constitution changes based on nothing more than changing culture. I have had grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: The Constitution is a Living Document. And what are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it — the notion that the Constitutional interpretation should grow and change based on changing moral principles. The major argument is that the Constitution is a living organism, and it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap. The worst thing about believing in the Living Constitution is that it will actually destroy the Constitution; because, as word definitions morph, and morph again, so they also become unstable as a bedrock. People tend to forget that I have given rulings in which I personally abhor the result of my ruling, but I based the ruling on the original intent of the law not on what I, or what current culture, feel should be based on the current tide of mores. This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked — When did you first become an originalist? — as though it is some kind of weird affliction.“ - Antonin Scalia aaaaand... you couldn't help yourself. I'm going to do this thread and all of DCP a favor and not debate with you the merits of one interpretation of the constitution over the other. I will debate you on anything you'd like but not on DCP. Here, I'll debate you on things related more concretely to drum corps and not simply weakly tethered to drum corps (for the sake of the forum). But for the record I did not quote Ginsburg it was from an academic paper that detailed her judicial interpretation. Edited March 25, 2014 by charlie1223 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I answered your post...which was this... "You would have a point if you can point to another musical marching group that has exclusively used non-chromatic g horns in a drum corps circuit. If you can do that you have a point, otherwise you are grasping and deluding yourself." You can sit here and make personal attacks on me all you want; it doesn't change the fact that YOU are the one grasping here, not me. I gave facts to support my view...you make snide personal comments. Anything other than Canadian or one instance? You also failed the question, read slowly again. But thanks for quoting me. and making my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 aaaaand... you couldn't help yourself. I'm going to do this thread and all of DCP a favor and not debate with you the merits of one interpretation of the constitution over the other. I will debate you on anything you'd like but not on DCP. Here, I'll debate you on things related more concretely to drum corps and not simply weakly tethered to drum corps (for the sake of the forum). But for the record I did not quote Ginsburg it was from an academic paper that detailed her judicial interpretation. Ok; specifically to DCI. Words have meaning. Definitions of words can of course change over time based on cultural whims. However to adhere to consistent competitive fairness the words within the bylaws, rules, and regulations of any DCI document should be interpreted through the definitions of the person, or persons, who originally penned those words, not through the whims of the changing cultural tides of the morphing definitions of those words. And if the people who penned the words are not available due to death or other incapacitation, it is up to those interpreting the bylaws, rules, and regulations to research as much as possible to seek out original intent. That ‘origonalist’ as opposed to ‘absolute’ philosophy is what you, and Guardling, and some others, seem to find incorrigible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) That actually makes the most sense. Similar to WGI, no one calls it Winter Guard International anymore. It's just WGI. Just keep the logo and acronym, and move on from there. Of course, that won't make some people happy unless it's SMBI(Summer Marching Band International) Or like MTV dropping Music Television for the acronym. Kids these days don't have time to read full names, it's acronyms or nothing. Lately, that's all I've been trying to say really. Not directed at you specifically, but I'm only trying to give a little constructive criticism and provide some ideas on certain scenarios that come up here. Obviously 99% of us can not do anything about anything related to corps, but we "like" to talk about "Drum Corps"... In this specific thread with this whole name change tangent, my contribution was that I felt that DCI should simply change Drum Corps International to "DCI", which would then allow DCI to do whatever they wanted with their portion of the activity without some of the "...but it's not drum and bugle corps" banter that I've personally tried to avoid. Then I get some of this other silly stuff that really isn't logical to me or anyone who has ever taken a logic class, and I feel like it's a battle between the "touchy feely" crowd versus the "literal, logical, and analytical mob". I'm in the literal, logical, and analytical mob apparently... It really takes the enjoyment out of writing here. ...and it especially takes the enjoyment out of posting here when other posters sometimes feel the need to point out that it doesn't really matter what we think about anything... I mean, what's the point of posting here if that is always the final counter argument? Why does DCP exist, it doesn't matter what we say here because it becomes... Edited March 25, 2014 by jjeffeory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I disagree that not having woodwinds makes it "higher level"..just different. There should be no discussion with anyone with an IQ above a house plant. It's a brass marching band. No matter how you spin it, it's a brass marching band that competes on the DCI circuit. FWIW, anyone with a REAL music education and grasp on reality understands that instrumentation DOES define you as a musical group. It's so silly that this even needs to be discussed. Delusion is not reality. it's just performance art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Well then this is this little thing known as truth in advertising. As far as I have been able to determine no one has tried taking it to court. I can totally understand trying to keep the name, makes business sense but, I'm not sure if it's legal when you aren't putting out the product you are advertising. It's like a milk factory claiming a 2% gallon of milk is diet cola and having people actually believing it. Good luck with that in court. here's the problem with this....they can change the definition as they go. While many of the newer gimmicks don't appeal to me,I realize drum corps when my dad joined in 1963 was different than what it was when I joined up in 1989. most corps still didnt have contras....err tubas...in 1963. Mallet percussion? Penalty!! Color pres were standard in every show then...in 1989 it was a gimmick to get ##### out of the seats used by maybe 5 corps, dci or dca? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Tell you what...why don't we settle this by asking the young men and women who ride buses, sleep on gym floors, rehearse in sometimes un-godly conditions for anywhere between 6-12 hours a day, and criss-cross the country like directionless nomads for 3 months of the year what THEY wish to be known as being? We'll just disseminate a flyer to every member of all current corps, asking them to merely indicate whether they wish to be referred to as a "Marching Band," or a "Drum Corps." I'm sure that if the result of this poll indicates a strong preference for "Drum Corps," then the resulting answer from the adults who aren't even doing this anymore will simply say "Well, they've been indoctrinated to answer this way." Not a lot of credit we would be giving these young men and women, is it? except the adults have the power to make changes, not the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) jjeffeory: I get your point. It is sort of like the acronym NASCAR started out as National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing. However that sport has not used anything close to actual 'stock' cars in a very long time and that acronym has now become a word upon itself. So, the organization could just keep the word NASCAR, because that is the branding word and not descriptive the sport, and then they could just drop the phrase in which the acronym was constructed from. Hmmmmm… DCI could do that also. That makes sense to me. Edited March 25, 2014 by Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts