Dr. Purdom reviews “The Unbelievers”

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , , on April 11, 2014 by cavalier973

Her article is here.

 

“What discoveries are not being made in our modern world because so many scientists have decided that the universe and every living thing is just the result of random chance (e.g., consider the case of “junk” DNA“)?” ~Dr. Purdom

Free audio version of “Anatomy of the State” by Rothbard

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , , , , , on April 11, 2014 by cavalier973

Listen here.

The Gnostic elements in the movie “Noah”

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , on April 9, 2014 by cavalier973

 

This is an overview derived from this article by Dr. Brian Mattson.

Shaxper != Shakespeare

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , on April 6, 2014 by cavalier973

10 Reasons

Mark Twain on William Shaxper

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , , , on April 6, 2014 by cavalier973

Read his book, Is Shakespeare Dead?

 

An excerpt:

For the instruction of the ignorant I will make a list, now, of those details of Shakespeare’s history which are FACTS–verified facts, established facts, undisputed facts.

FACTS

He was born on the 23d of April, 1564.

Of good farmer-class parents who could not read, could not write, could not sign their names.

At Stratford, a small back settlement which in that day was shabby and unclean, and densely illiterate. Of the nineteen important men charged with the government of the town, thirteen had to “make their mark” in attesting important documents, because they could not write their names.

Of the first eighteen years of his life NOTHING is known. They are a blank.

On the 27th of November (1582) William Shakespeare took out a license to marry Anne Whateley.

Next day William Shakespeare took out a license to marry Anne Hathaway. She was eight years his senior.

William Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway. In a hurry. By grace of a reluctantly-granted dispensation there was but one publication of the banns.

Within six months the first child was born.

About two (blank) years followed, during which period NOTHING AT ALL HAPPENED TO SHAKESPEARE, so far as anybody knows.

Then came twins–1585. February.

Two blank years follow.

Then–1587–he makes a ten-year visit to London, leaving the family behind.

Five blank years follow. During this period NOTHING HAPPENED TO HIM, as far as anybody actually knows.

Then–1592–there is mention of him as an actor.

Next year–1593–his name appears in the official list of players.

Next year–1594–he played before the queen. A detail of no consequence: other obscurities did it every year of the forty-five of her reign. And remained obscure.

Three pretty full years follow. Full of play-acting. Then

In 1597 he bought New Place, Stratford.

Thirteen or fourteen busy years follow; years in which he accumulated money, and also reputation as actor and manager.

Meantime his name, liberally and variously spelt, had become associated with a number of great plays and poems, as (ostensibly) author of the same.

Some of these, in these years and later, were pirated, but he made no protest. Then–1610-11–he returned to Stratford and settled down for good and all, and busied himself in lending money, trading in tithes, trading in land and houses; shirking a debt of forty-one shillings, borrowed by his wife during his long desertion of his family; suing debtors for shillings and coppers; being sued himself for shillings and coppers; and acting as confederate to a neighbor who tried to rob the town of its rights in a certain common, and did not succeed.

He lived five or six years–till 1616–in the joy of these elevated pursuits. Then he made a will, and signed each of its three pages with his name.

A thoroughgoing business man’s will. It named in minute detail every item of property he owned in the world–houses, lands, sword, silver-gilt bowl, and so on–all the way down to his “second-best bed” and its furniture.

It carefully and calculatingly distributed his riches among the members of his family, overlooking no individual of it. Not even his wife: the wife he had been enabled to marry in a hurry by urgent grace of a special dispensation before he was nineteen; the wife whom he had left husbandless so many years; the wife who had had to borrow forty-one shillings in her need, and which the lender was never able to collect of the prosperous husband, but died at last with the money still lacking. No, even this wife was remembered in Shakespeare’s will.

He left her that “second-best bed.”

And NOT ANOTHER THING; not even a penny to bless her lucky widowhood with.

It was eminently and conspicuously a business man’s will, not a poet’s.

It mentioned NOT A SINGLE BOOK.

Books were much more precious than swords and silver-gilt bowls and second-best beds in those days, and when a departing person owned one he gave it a high place in his will.

The will mentioned NOT A PLAY, NOT A POEM, NOT AN UNFINISHED LITERARY WORK, NOT A SCRAP OF MANUSCRIPT OF ANY KIND.

Many poets have died poor, but this is the only one in history that has died THIS poor; the others all left literary remains behind. Also a book. Maybe two.

If Shakespeare had owned a dog–but we need not go into that: we know he would have mentioned it in his will. If a good dog, Susanna would have got it; if an inferior one his wife would have got a dower interest in it. I wish he had had a dog, just so we could see how painstakingly he would have divided that dog among the family, in his careful business way.

He signed the will in three places.

In earlier years he signed two other official documents.

These five signatures still exist.

There are NO OTHER SPECIMENS OF HIS PENMANSHIP IN EXISTENCE. Not a line.

Was he prejudiced against the art? His granddaughter, whom he loved, was eight years old when he died, yet she had had no teaching, he left no provision for her education although he was rich, and in her mature womanhood she couldn’t write and couldn’t tell her husband’s manuscript from anybody else’s–she thought it was Shakespeare’s.

When Shakespeare died in Stratford IT WAS NOT AN EVENT. It made no more stir in England than the death of any other forgotten theatre-actor would have made. Nobody came down from London; there were no lamenting poems, no eulogies, no national tears–there was merely silence, and nothing more. A striking contrast with what happened when Ben Jonson, and Francis Bacon, and Spenser, and Raleigh and the other distinguished literary folk of Shakespeare’s time passed from life! No praiseful voice was lifted for the lost Bard of Avon; even Ben Jonson waited seven years before he lifted his.

SO FAR AS ANYBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS AND CAN PROVE, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life.

SO FAR AS ANYBODY KNOWS AND CAN PROVE, he never wrote a letter to anybody in his life.

SO FAR AS ANY ONE KNOWS, HE RECEIVED ONLY ONE LETTER DURING HIS LIFE.

So far as any one KNOWS AND CAN PROVE, Shakespeare of Stratford wrote only one poem during his life. This one is authentic. He did write that one–a fact which stands undisputed; he wrote the whole of it; he wrote the whole of it out of his own head. He commanded that this work of art be engraved upon his tomb, and he was obeyed. There it abides to this day. This is it:

Good friend for Iesus sake forbeare
To digg the dust encloased heare:
Blest be ye man yt spares thes stones
And curst be he yt moves my bones.

In the list as above set down, will be found EVERY POSITIVELY KNOWN fact of Shakespeare’s life, lean and meagre as the invoice is. Beyond these details we know NOT A THING about him. All the rest of his vast history, as furnished by the biographers, is built up, course upon course, of guesses, inferences, theories, conjectures– an Eiffel Tower of artificialities rising sky-high from a very flat and very thin foundation of inconsequential facts.

Cheesy Atheist Preaching

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , on March 30, 2014 by cavalier973

Links to reviews of the movie Noah.

Matt Walsh

godawa.com

mennoknight

Ken Ham

Dr. Mohler

 Dr. Brian Mattson

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

About Frozen

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 29, 2014 by cavalier973

So, we purchased a copy of the Disney film Frozen.  Meh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, in addition to the above concise and thoroughly accurate review, I feel I should add that the songs were bland and/or annoying, the “plot twist” was predictable from the first scene, the stock villains were unbelievable, and the comic relief was mediocre.  Two things especially bothered me.  Number one was a missed opportunity to make the bad guy complex.  Spoilers follow, of course.  Hans, the prince, pretends to be in love with Anna so that he can become king of Arandelle.  When he does his Face-Heel turn, it feels really forced and awkward.  It would have been much better, in my opinion, to have him sort of sanguine about Elsa until she accidentally hurts Anna, and subsequently conceive of the idea that Elsa needs to die.  In other words, he didn’t have to be a secret jerk with an evil plan to be horribly wrong and villainous.  It was too unbelievable a change.  An alternative explanation for his turning into a bad guy could have been that Elsa shot him in the heart with an ice beam, and it made his heart go cold.  Too obvious?  Well, at least it would have made sense.

The other thing that bugged me was the treatment of the Duke of Weseltown.  He’s concerned with trade and business and money, so he’s automatically a ridiculous figure and something of a bad guy, amirite?  In the end, Queen Elsa declares that all trade with Weseltown is henceforth cut off.  For no reason, other than that he was a ridiculous figure who reached the absolutely correct conclusion that Elsa was dangerous, and that something should be done about her–even, perhaps, something drastic.  But we’re supposed to sympathise with Elsa, because she’s pretty, and scorn the Duke because he’s ridiculous, and only cares about money, I guess.  The thing that really bothers me about this aspect of the film is that Elsa hasn’t really punished the Duke at all; he can just get new trading partners, or secretly trade with Arendelle through some intermediary country, or commence to smuggling.  It is Elsa’s people who really suffer because of her capriciousness.  They have been cut off from a country that offered goods and services that they presumably found valuable.  Even if they could switch trading partners, the limitation of competition means that the Arandellians must endure higher prices and lower quality.  Their lives will be worse off going forward, with lower real incomes and a generally lower standard of living.  Seriously, even left-wing economists see the value of trade.  Thanks a lot, Elsa, you ninny.

One other thing;  Kristoff is declared the “Royal Deliverer of Ice” as some sort of reward or something.  Is this a cruel joke?  The queen freaking shoots ice out her hands.

 

Is there anything good about the film?  Yes.  The overall story arc is sort of an analogy of someone escaping Legalism into the equally oppressive state of Licentiousness, only to discover grace by the sacrifice of someone else–someone else to whom the protagonist had caused severe harm.  Kind of surprising, really.  One of the reasons some other reviewer declared that this might be the most Christian of the Disney films.

Also, Hans didn’t die by falling off a cliff.  No one died, except the parents, now that I think about it.  The animation was pretty good–the effects of Elsa shooting ice beams was cool and stuff.

But getting back to the trade, thing…what’s that?  Oh, all right; I’ll let it go…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers