I cant see number 4 sorry..
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Answer:
Being primarily a playwright, Cervantes’ one great novel was at its core about the Battle Between Reality and Illusion, the same eternal tension of the theatre, and the most central tension of musical theatre in particular. Just as Quixote must navigate the fine line between illusion and reality, so too do all musicals have to maintain the same balancing act. Though they may present entirely – even painfully – realistic emotions, issues, people, and worlds, the act of breaking into song will always belong solely to the world of illusion.
Man of La Mancha is not a musicalization of Don Quixote; it is instead a show about a few hours in the life of Miguel de Cervantes, using Quixote as a storytelling device. As the show’s bookwriter Dale Wasserman has written, “My man of La Mancha is not Don Quixote; he is Miguel de Cervantes.” In fact, only a tiny part of the novel is dramatized in the show; after all, there are more than four hundred characters in the novel. When Wasserman originally set out to write the first, non-musical version of his play, he remembers, “In theory the answer seemed simple. I’d write a play about Miguel de Cervantes in which his creation, Don Quixote, would be played by Cervantes himself. The two would progressively blend in spirit until the creator and his creation would be understood as one and the same.”
(Me doing all that for you should guarantee me a date with u lol)
