Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Elok]

No. I'll stop using it however when someone explains how 'pro-life' people can support the death penalty.

Not all of them/us do. I sure as hell don't.

[kentonio]

Not all of them/us do. I sure as hell don't.

So at least you're in a consistent position. I may not agree with you, but I can respect you having a differing position. It's the people who scream 'baby killer!' while also screaming 'fry!' that I have no respect for.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, the only reason someone could possibly dislike national review online is that they don't accept anything that doesn't have a liberal bias. Great insight, HC. That's why imran thinks it used to be great reading, because I'm sure it used to have a liberal bias.

I probably should have figured that HC would jump to the defense of the NRO. He really does validate the whole young uber-conservative moron stereotype.

And yes, back in the Buckley days it was most definitly an intellectual conservative magazine. The problem with the National Review and the Weekly Standard for that matter is that neo-conservatives basically took over during the Bush era.

FWIW, I think the best conservative magazine these days is "The American Conservative". I even believe their goal was to be what The National Review used to be.

Though, yes, I guess some of the "Republican" voices I read, like Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Conor Friedersdorf, David Frum, Rod Dreher, Daniel Larison, etc., aren't your kneejerk Red State columnists.

That bit I think was a DanS. It originally just had a laughing face and mocked the idea of reading NRO.

You idiot, your quote of my statement HAS THAT BIT IN IT. Or are you saying you really didn't read what you quoted before you kneejerked?

[molly bloom]

.

Not so much Cromwell, but moreso with the Tudors. I'll see what I can find.

Thomas Cromwell, you idiot. Henry VIII's vicar general. As I said, out of your depth and taking on water fast...

By the way, if you say 'they raped the nunneries', I expect you to have the evidence at hand. Not to suggest you'll find it at some future unspecified date. Too late, too bad for you.

[molly bloom]

As I could with the vulgate. Your point being?

The point being to demonstrate, with examples, the proof of what I said. I understand that this is an unfamiliar concept for you (see my comment on your allegation 'they raped the nunneries') but if I suggest that Tyndale had a truly great (almost disproportionate) influence on the language (vocabulary and phraseology) of the Authorized Version, then I do this by offering two passages for comparison.

And what do we find ? Just what I said.

[kentonio]

He's banned till April Molly.

[molly bloom]

After the publication of the Folio, everyone who performed Shakespeare used the Folio on which to base their performances.
.

Really ? What evidence do you have for this ? Besides, you're not arguing, you're simply asserting. Two different things.

Your argument amounts to the following, that Shakespeare's public performances were the primary way in which English people encountered his work.

Did people go to see his plays performed ? Not just in theatres, but in the Inns of Court, at houses of aristocrats, in public inns, even on board a ship, as memory serves, as it was crossing the line. If you imagine that they all relied on a single folio (there's more than one text per play, by the way) you're bonkers.

Shakespeare wasn't the first playright.

Can't recall suggesting he was. He is however the only one in Tudor or Jacobean times to have a vocabulary of 30 000 words. John Bale is credited with writing the first English history play, and Thomas Kyd preceded Shakespeare with a Hamlet play, and was briefly famous for his 'Spanish Tragedy' and Hieronimo's mad scene. You see, for Tudor audiences, the play was the thing. Its perfomance came first, not the text.

A movement which didn't take off until AFTER, not before James VI/I came to the throne. Your thesis is too pat.

It's actually simply accurate with respect to dates:

Mulcaster: 1531-1611 Interested in education, grammar, language.

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19509 See in the sources : 'R. DeMolen, Richard Mulcaster (c. 1531�1611) and educational reform in the Renaissance '.

Kinda gives you a clue.

John Cheke 1514-1557

In his lectures he went over Sophocles twice, all Homer, all Euripides, and part of Herodotus.8 At this period Greek was little known in England, and the few scholars who had acquired a knowledge of the language pronounced it in a manner resembling that in vogue nowadays in the continental universities, which Cheke believed to be corrupt. Accordingly he and Thomas (afterwards Sir Thomas) Smith endeavoured to find out the true pronunciation; 'which at length they did, partly by considering the power of the letters themselves, and partly by consulting with Greek authors, Aristophanes and others; in some whereof they found footsteps to direct them how the ancient Greeks pronounced.'Cheke publicly taught the new mode of pronunciation, which was not unlike that now adopted in England, and this mode was vehemently opposed by a strong party in the university....

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/cheke.htm

John Florio 1553�1625 :

In 1580 Florio translated Cartier�s voyages out of Italian into English. From 1583 to 1585, he worked at the French Embassy for Michel Castelnau, lord of Mauvissi�re, until the latter�s hasty departure from England, and seems to have stayed on to work for the latter�s successor, during which time he became acquainted with Giordano Bruno.* It has been suggested that Florio was employed by the efficient Elizabethan spy system under Sir Frances Walsingham, and certainly his linguistic versatility and loyal Protestantism would have made him an excellent candidate for this sort of work. Mauvissi�re asked him to present his respects to a number of highly influential people in the English court, including Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, and his nephew, Sir Philip Sidney,* in whose literary circle he became active. He was later patronized by Henry Wriothesley, earl of Southhampton, to whom he dedicated his Worlde of Wordes in 1598 and through whom he probably became acquainted with William Shakespeare.* The year 1603 saw the publication of perhaps his most famous work, the translation of Montaigne�s* Essays , which he dedicated to Lucy, countess of Bedford, Lady Anne Harington, Lady Penelope Rich, the countess of Rutland, and two of his pupils, Lady Elizabeth Grey and Lady Mary Neville.

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/3802/Florio-John-c-1553-1625.html

Absolutely, but they were performed using the Folio.

You're suggesting that Shakespeare's history plays were a publicly available printed text before their first performance ? No, they weren't. Henry VI (part II) was performed two years before an unauthorized edition appeared. Bear in mind, even these editions would have relied on people's memories of the text as performed, or as learned for performing:

Printed from a manuscript believed to be of a memorial reconstruction of the play by actors. The actor who played the minor role of Marcellus is generally accepted as the principal source for the text. Despite its shortcomings, the �bad� quarto throws useful light on the theatrical and textual history of Hamlet.

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/playhamlet.html

Stick to bad history. Your knowledge of English Renaissance culture and drama is even worse.

[molly bloom]

He's banned till April Molly.

He can still read and enjoy my burying him.

[molly bloom]

Just for Ben's further edification, one of my many books is 'The Renaissance: An Illustrated Encyclopaedia' by Ilan Rachum. Its cover shows part of 'The Ambassadors' by Hans Holbein (The Younger- for Ben's benefit, in case he thinks I really mean his father) who came to depict the members of the court of Henry VIII and other Renaissance luminaries such as Erasmus.


Imagine, Ben, a painting from the 1530s, by a Renaissance painter, living and working in England, when according to you, the Renaissance appears not to have reached England until James I's day.

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/hans-holbein-the-younger-the-ambassadors

What larks. I can't be bothered going back through the rest of your replies, because it's

a) tedious, as you don't know how to argue- you simply assert, which is not and never has been the same thing

b) you're evidently clueless on dates, facts and figures with regards culture and literature.

And yet, you claim to be a teacher and an historian. Still, it's only Texas. Who'll notice ?

[dannubis]

Ben is a "teacher" of religeous history... aka the proof reading of history.

[Elok]

So at least you're in a consistent position. I may not agree with you, but I can respect you having a differing position. It's the people who scream 'baby killer!' while also screaming 'fry!' that I have no respect for.

See, I don't get this. I agree that being in favor of the death penalty is not consistent with the label of "pro-life," but opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty are two different things. One involves an entirely innocent life form (if you don't want to call it a person), the other one a person who has committed murder (assuming the justice system is infallible, which is of course not the case, but we're talking broad principles here). I don't see those positions as necessarily inconsistent, even though I think the DP is wrong.

With that said, I once heard a standup comic remark that being against abortion but for capital punishment was neither pro-life nor pro-choice..."it's just pro-crastinating." Clever fellow.

[loinburger]

It's less a question of inconsistency (after all, I don't think that toddlers should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces, but I have no problem with 18-year-olds enlisting in the armed forces, and I don't believe that these opinions are inconsistent), and more a question of the hypocrisy of being a self-styled member of the "culture of life" while wanting to execute people. (See also those who cheered at the Republican debates when the topic came up of pulling the plug on poor + ill patients.)

[Elok]

Ah. No argument there.

[kentonio]

See, I don't get this. I agree that being in favor of the death penalty is not consistent with the label of "pro-life," but opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty are two different things. One involves an entirely innocent life form (if you don't want to call it a person), the other one a person who has committed murder (assuming the justice system is infallible, which is of course not the case, but we're talking broad principles here). I don't see those positions as necessarily inconsistent, even though I think the DP is wrong.

The reasons given are almost never based around the innocence or guilt of the person/fetus, but around the sanctity of life, thus the hypocrisy.

Re me using 'anti-choice' its largely because I get really pissed off with the implication of 'pro-life' that people who support the right to abortion are anti-life. It's not like theres anyone out there who just loves the act of abortion, some of us just think the rational option is to leave that choice to the individual, not try and lay down a blanket ban which has been shown repeatedly not to work anyway.

[kentonio]

Yeah, what Loin said.