Tag Archives: Shakespeare

Tennessee Fire-Non-Fighters and the Bible

Leave a reply

The language used by the fire-non-fighter is heavily ingrained indoctrination. There’s a movement with some familiar names on the letterheads, spokesfreaks not leaders, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Malkin… people whose ambitions are to create an American Sha’ariah based on their own interpretation of the Word.
Or more importantly how the words of the Word get translated into English. They believe that somehow King James was a Liberal. Rather than the really vicious killer he was, and point to speculations on his sexuality, which really doesn’t make three quarters of a fat rats ass. The dude was a killer, that trumps any other social or moral consideration you could think of. But the contention is that the Shakespearian English, and they toss in the “Shakespeare was queer, you know” wink wink nudge nudge low-flying canard as evidence, used in the KJV 1611 was “effeminate”. Oh, he’s a lumberjack, he’s okay. (so gay?)
And they’re actually Re-Writing the Bible to reflect what they think it should be. Nothing new there. Even by their own admission.
Many of them cite the “Thou shalt not Kill” commandment, saying that “They” meaning, not the person speaking who is as ignorant of who “They” are as he is of the actual grammatical structure of Classical Hebrew, BUT “They” Apocryphally proved that it really should have said “Thou shalt not Murder” and thus place a distinction among the concepts of Killings not authorized by the King-du-jour and those which are authorized.

AND then make the silly ass demand that WE, the “peasants”, never question “Their” word on it. Does Hannity or Malkin or Beck or Jack van Impe or any single one of their Demented Demonic Disciples actually speak Classical Hebrew fluently?
I’ve never met one who does and I’ve been in fundamentalist churches all my life.
The same way the Lying Freaks say that They, and only They, can possibly know the Original Intent of the “Founding Fathers” who just by a coincidence aren’t the ones who actually FOUGHT the revolution, but those Wealthy Landed Aristocrats who commanded it. And the sources of their Arcane-yet-Unquestionable Knowledge of the Constitution are the sources of the Religious Revisionists. Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are also in their sorry lying ChickenHawk lot.

But they’re going to, just like the Fire-Non-Fighter, claim that somehow They have been given the revelation that Thou Shalt Not Kill is a grammatical error in a language none of Them even speaks.
Apparently the concept has been sold to more than a few individuals.

And it’s Mighty Convenient if those who seek to rule over everybody else offer up their version of the Word of God as being the unquestionable basis of their so-called “Authority”.

God Himself hath verily told us through secret Revelation that we of course are not obligated to prove in any way, that YOU must bow down before us, and accept our Mighty Rule as surely as you would His, without question or dissent

Nothing new there either. The contention against “bad” kings as opposed to “good” kings has always centered on the “bad” kings somehow usurping the authority of Kingship.

They put in little disclaimers to their otherwise Iron-Clad commandment of “Honor God and OBEY the King” like “unless WE don’t accept the King as legitimate, then you sorry-ass PEASANTS better help us overthrow the one and worship OUR “True King”.

In other words, follow Saddam Hussein, Very Bad.
Follow the American-British installed Puppet King al Maliki, Very Good.

Follow President Obama, Very Bad.
Follow the Godly and Anointed Leader Queen Sarah, Very Good.

The “Anointed and True King” horseshit isn’t an exclusively Judeo-Christian-Islam concept either, it shows up in blatantly pagan literature like The Lord of the Rings.

Or, to quote the heathen-rewritten-as-Christian-rewritten-as Monty Python tale of King Arthur:

“Strange ladies lying in puddles distributing swords is no basis for Kingship. True executive authority comes by a mandate from the Masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony. If I were to go about saying I’m the Emperor simply because some moistened Bint lobbed a scimitar at me they’d lock me away, hadn’t they”?

And I thought it couldn’t possibly get worse.

2 Replies

I thought for a long time that some of Shakespeares classic works, those of which are so tragic in scope that it’s worse than dating a Goth on downers, couldn’t possibly be given the Disney Treatment.
Then, they popped off with “Gnomeo and Juliet”.
If there’s any small mercy to be had there, it’s that somebody sobered up enough to refrain from making it “Julielf”.
But then, they’ve given the Disney Treatment to such wonderful objects of literature as Grimms’ Fairy Tales and anything by Hans Christian Andersen. “The Little Mermaid” they even made a sequel to it. HOW? In the book, Ariel’s prince charming got killed in a war and she couldn’t go around anywhere on land because (like all good fairy-tale spells) her enchantment that changed her fins to feet didn’t go far enough, and it hurt to walk. So she sits on a rock in Copenhagen harbor looking out to the sea to which she can never return, and the land that causes her excruciating pain, then she dies the end.

And that’s one of the nicer ones. What next, Hamlet starring Porky Pig? Oh, wait, that’s Warner Brothers.
Imperial culture degenerating before our eyes.

Hooters in time honored fashion

3 Replies

ritz bar and grill
COLORADO SPRINGS- At the Ritz Bar and Grill on Tejon St. downtown, waitresses have to bend over the counter to convey drink orders to the bartenders. There’s a raised platform to assist them in their short skirts. If the show outside is too tame for you.

I remember learning in high school that all the roles in Shakespeare’s plays, even the female characters, were portrayed by male actors. We were left to assume that women in Elizabethan England were not permitted on stage for the usual discriminatory reasons. But that was a simplification, which obscured the origins of sexism like the Burqa.

In Old England it was not that their gender was not talented enough, nor, directly, that women’s power challenged the men. Elizabethan rulers deemed it imprudent to let women advertise their wares on public stages. Women who were not at home with families, serving the domestic sex trade let’s say, were free-agent professionals. Inn keepers and barmaids had job descriptions not far removed from prostitutes, and a stage gave them too much marketing visibility. No doubt, obviously power.

I suppose sex also threatened to obscure the art of the theater. A favorite author once wrote he could only aspire to create a poem as immediately compelling as a pornographic photograph.

A friend of mine used to work at the Ritz, and assured me the skirt length was voluntary. Likewise the bar step at the center of everyone’s attention. Both great for tips she said.

Uh, t’be or not t’be well spoken enough

3 Replies

Barack Obama does it. So does Sarah Palin. On the national stage before millions of TV viewers. I think it’s time t’make it official. The word “to” has become an apostrophe’d “tuh.” Americans should have t’spell it that way if we’re going t’let our most prominent panderers put it forth in speeches for our schoolchildren t’emulate. Murcan, as some linguists call it, differentiates itself from British English by adapting common usage, taking the shtreet most traveled, basically. Americans consider it a shtrength t’be unshod mustangs, uh, mavericks.

Obama also contracts “y’know” to a back of the throat extreme I can’t even spell. “Yghn?” is how he prefaces every informal aside. He seems to rely on “you know” like teenagers use “like.” But is it an affectation meant to make him seem more pedestrian?

On the other hand, Sarah Palin shows herself to be the poor-mannered plain girl with “ya know” and ceaseless, unadorned YAs. “Ya gotta” love it apparently.