✎✎✎ The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet

Thursday, July 15, 2021 6:45:48 AM

The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet



Baltimore: Penguin. I The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet not see the movie, so that is the last I will read or hear about it, except that it will likely win Academy Awards. The mood is so The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet that Onondaga Creation Myth Analysis audience never feels fear or worry about the fate of the characters. Distraught adj. The bilious old man shouted at all The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet children playing near his garden and shooed them away. Filling the forms involves giving instructions to your assignment. Titus agrees, Statement Of Purpose: Team Captain Of The National Honor Society Lavinia The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet already betrothed to Saturninus's brother, Bassianus, who refuses to give her up. InCharles Knight also wrote about the play and How Do People Live During The Great Depression apparent lack of proper social stratification. For writers of The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet literature there are The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet inalienable truths: one, a writer wants to get out a certain message which they hope the predominance of readers will either believe or at least consider The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet, and second, the writer must write about what he or she knows, which usually Night By Elie Wiesel Rhetorical Analysis from their own background The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet personal experiences, although a writer may do what does the illuminati do hell of a lot of research to make a functional fit theory believable.

Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare - Themes

In he was fined 40 pounds for missing a court date and in the town removed him from the board of aldermen due to lack of attendance. By , John Shakespeare owned only his house on Henley Street and, in , he was fined for not attending church. He once again applied to the College of Heralds for a coat-of-arms in , and, due likely to the success of William in London, this time his wish was granted. Under the Act of Uniformity, church attendance on Sundays and holy days was made compulsory, with a twelve pence fine to be collected if people did not attend. Did John refuse to attend because he was devoted to the Catholic church, or because he had really become slothful?

We can only speculate. I think that has been pretty well proven by now. Instead, I again cite Ms. I have edited out a lot of very interesting information because I want to focus on my own thesis. Shakespeare probably began his education at the age of six or seven at the Stratford grammar school. The Stratford grammar school had been built some two hundred years before Shakespeare was born and in that time the lessons taught there were, of course, dictated primarily by the beliefs of the reigning monarch.

During the years that Shakespeare attended the school, at least one and possibly three headmasters stepped down because of their devotion to the Catholic religion proscribed by Queen Elizabeth. One of these masters was Simon Hunt b. Hunt had found his true vocation: when he died in Rome seven years later he had risen to the position of Grand Penitentiary. Like all of the great poets and dramatists of the time, Shakespeare learned his basic reading and writing skills from an ABC, or horn-book. Shakespeare would have studied primarily Latin rhetoric, logic, and literature. There is little doubt that Shakespeare was recalling his own experiences during his early school years. One can see that Shakespeare absorbed much that was taught in his grammar school, for he had an impressive familiarity with the stories by Latin authors, as is evident when examining his plays and their sources.

There is no evidence I know of to support that theory. Whether or not he attended university, William had a very strong education under Catholic dogma. I included this second paragraph of Ms. Second, he was removed from grammar school before finishing because of his father having fallen into disgrace, although he undoubtedly would have preferred to finish. As a writer, I wonder why Shakespeare wrote a prologue to Romeo and Juliet. This is not an historical drama, where the audience would need to understand the history of the play to better understand the current action.

If taken as a love story, it is certainly not so subtle that the message would not come through without a prior explanation. So one asks: is this just a normal device that Shakespeare uses in his plays? Henry V has a prologue, which is primarily to set up the historical aspects of the play, which in and of itself acts as an introduction to Henry VI. The prologue to Henry VI essentially says the play is going to be very sad, and if a person bought a ticket expecting to watch some sort of comedy, they are going to be very disappointed. Pericles, Prince of Tyre has a prologue that explains the background of the play so that the audience can understand the current action. The play begins where the prologue leaves us; it does not simply repeat the plot and message of the play, as does Romeo and Juliet.

Likewise with Troilus and Cressida. Frankly, I would have thought that Othello, the Moor of Venice might have done with a prologue, as Shakespeare was also sending a strong political message. This has already been discussed by many scholars, and a posting by AIWASS documents this information his footnotes are noted, but not included :. Their hatred of him is entirely based on racial prejudice. Yet when Othello actually appears, he is sympathetically portrayed as an articulate, intelligent and introspective human being. His downfall comes from the typical human frailties of trusting his friends too much, being too jealous of his beautiful wife, and acting before learning all of the facts. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Moor. Of all the comedies or tragedies, only Romeo and Juliet has a prologue and epilogue the latter often delivered by the Prince that directly repeat the message of the play.

Thanks to the prologue, the ending is definitely anti-climactic. Why does Shakespeare detract from this dramatic conclusion by giving it away in a prologue that serves no other purpose than to tell us both the ending and the message of that ending? He is not that bad of a writer. Is that a slip, or was Shakespeare trying to implicitly convey his message to Elizabeth without offending her as his contemporaries had done? Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

First, it is interesting that nowhere in the play, especially this prologue, does Shakespeare give the cause of this feud. He leaves it to the imagination of the audience to think of some deed that might have been terrible enough to have caused such intense hatred and on-the-spot bloodshed to occur over a prolonged period of time. The people of England, and especially the aristocracy, should be civil towards each other, but instead they are soiling their hands with the blood of their countrymen, neighbors, friends, and even relatives.

The play opens with the servants of Lord Capulet discussing the feud, and immediately leads to a physical confrontation. No one in the city—or country—is exempt from the impacts of the feud. While Shakespeare may be referring to Mary and Elizabeth, I think he is more probably including the churches themselves, with those two Queens representing the parent figures of the warring churches within England. In many ways, civil war is a form of suicide, in that the country is killing itself, and the most innocent victims are usually the young.

The following soliloquy by Friar Lawrence, which is all about the diverse nature of plants, seems to be a non-sequitur. For example, the friar could have been sitting at a bench stirring up a potion, and the speech could have been much shorter. The focus really should have been on his skills as an apothecary which he was not, so why not send Juliet to one, as Romeo needed to visit one for a simple poison? On the other hand, if we read this passage as a complicated, very clever metaphor rather than actually being about plants, we do indeed find a soliloquy dealing with the true message of the play. Once we get past the time of day, we find these lines:.

The first two lines describe the fact that the earth gives birth to life, and yet all things return to the earth on their death. Those children are extremely diverse, some have excellent virtues, and all are good for something, although all are quite different. Perhaps all churches, all faiths, also have their virtues which they offer their followers. O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities: For nought so vile that on the earth doth live But to the earth some special good doth give,. This works well to describe many plants, although we have certainly not found uses for even the majority of plants. However, it is probably true that there are no humans—or not many—so vile that they cannot in some way contribute to the good of mankind.

No matter what religion a citizen of England may embrace, I believe Shakespeare was saying that they could still be loyal and useful to England. Is Shakespeare implying that there is an inherent good or evil to plants? The purpose of religion should be to comfort and unite people, not to incite them to violence against others simply because they do not share the same beliefs. Within the infant rind of this small flower Poison hath residence and medicine power: For this, being smelt, with that part cheers each part; Being tasted, slays all senses with the heart. Two such opposed kings encamp them still In man as well as herbs, grace and rude will; And where the worser is predominant, Full soon the canker death eats up that plant. If one smells it delicately, treating it as a delicious bouquet, it can enrich society.

That is what can lead to such extremes as the Inquisition and conversion by torture, to blanket condemnation of anyone who worships in the least differently, even if they are worshipping the same god and the same savior! In England, religious zealotry had already led to great persecution, and Shakespeare was afraid that, if unchecked, it could become a religious pogrom. Although all people must choose which will rule them, Elizabeth has the choice of which will eventually take precedence in the country. If she allows hatred and persecution to rule, the country will be shortly devoured by its self-generated cancer. Needless to say, I do not think Shakespeare was being any worse than a trifle irreligious, as he was criticizing the to him senseless battle between the two Christian sects, and not Christianity itself.

As a writer, I wonder why the prince also lost a couple of kinsmen. As a moral tale for the reason stated in his prologue, it would seem that Mercutio might better have been related to Romeo, say his brother or first cousin, than the prince, because it would have been more of a family tragedy if all of the deaths had been to members of the family. For that matter, if Paris had to die to heighten the dramatic irony, he could have been a cousin to Juliet, as those marriages were quite common in that society. Such relationships would have heightened the grievous loss to the families as a result of their ridiculous feud. For me, it adds no dramatic tension that the prince lost relatives as a result of a limited feud between two families, no matter how rich and powerful they were in his city.

However, as a political statement, it makes perfect sense to me. As the prince says, all are being punished. There have been many interpretations of this poem. I will also speculate on its meaning, more as a writer than as a scholar. This is one of the poems that led some scholars to believe Shakespeare was homosexual, or that someone else wrote the poems. Yes, the ending definitely sounds like a love poem, but why those specific analogies? There is an interpretation that Shakespeare was despondent after having recently been severely criticized for his work by fellow playwright Robert Greene, and that would seem to make a lot more sense to me than homosexuality.

However, I get a different reading given all of the other evidence I have presented in this essay. Perhaps it is because he had been forced to leave school and seek his fortune without the aid of a father who was fairly wealthy and influential. Or is he actually alluding to John, whom he may have perceived as despairing about having fallen totally out of favor in Elizabethan society because he would not renounce his papist beliefs? However, it may actually have been a direct allusion to the Queen, claiming that the Crown could not heap such disgrace and poverty on Shakespeare as to make him lose all pride and sense of inner worth.

In the first place, Romeo and Juliet is not a simple love story, even if read as a piece of literature rather than a political statement. And they know very well what Trump and his people were doing on January 6, , and they were rooting for it. And when it did not work, they dedicated themselves to making sure that no Democrat would ever hold the Presidency again. Anything passed by Democrats is seen as bad for Republicans, so they try to block all of it. They have their tools in place: gerrymandering for the House, filibustering for the Senate. They have a Supreme Court full of partisan hacks, to use the term that one of them propagandized herself not to be. They are ready for battle, and it starts with trying to ruin the economy.

This should of course be the framing and the national narrative. Republicans are unfit to hold power of any kind. That seems dramatic, but how can one see it any other way? Give them majority power, and they will institute fascism. Give them minority power, and they will use it to thwart the will of the majority, those in office, and the American people, and seek minority rule, until they can grab the majority again. Does anyone doubt that if the Republicans control the Congress, they will summarily get rid of the filibuster, and then blame it on the Democrats for having brought it up? That is right out of their playbook of projection and propaganda.

So we watch this play out, and hope that Democrats finally realize that Republican are not our friends, nor are they supporters of democracy, though they love to wave the flag and sing songs about it. They want a totalitarian state, and they are very willing and eager to destroy the democracy to obtain it. Know your enemy. Do not let a general feeling of good nature, or wish to get along, delude you as to their ultimate purpose. They count on that, and use it against you.

It is a virtue to be a nice person or group. But you cannot think that niceness and honor and responsibility just win the day, against an opposing group which is the antithesis of that, and is dedicated to trying to destroy you, and anything else which impedes them in their fanatical pursuit of absolute power. Filed under: General 9 Comments ». Yeah, her. She was laying out the plan for the insurrection and what the role of the mob was supposed to be on January 6. Check it out:. This new interview by Powell is interesting. It suggests that the purpose of the insurrection was to DELAY the electoral college certification to give Alito time to intervene on this legal challenge.

I am not a lawyer and have no idea what procedures are required to get the Supreme Court to intervene but according to Sidney, Kevin McCarthy et al were supposed to petition the court to get the certification process halted. They were relying on Samuel Alito to put an emergency halt to it. Her office had been ransacked, one of her laptops was stolen, the boxes with the state certifications were hastily removed from the chambers and now had to be brought back, probably heavily guarded, her house members were rattled.

Somehow, she had the composure and state of mind to get the band back together. It looks like she at least partially did it to avoid Alito getting involved. The MAGA contingent was determined to circumvent the wishes of 84,, enfranchised citizens who cast their ballots for Biden. All votes are equal but some votes are more equal than others. Somehow, they had got the idea in their heads that they could just do their best Conan the Barbarian imitations, overturn the election, and the rest of us were just going to shake in our Uggs and let them do it.

And I am telling them now so there is no ambiguity about this: they would have unleashed a very dangerous backlash against them. They did not think it through. We need to keep that in the forefront of our minds. I hope the January 6 Committee impresses that on every subpoenaed witness that is forced to come before them kicking and screaming to tell us all about their adolescent fantasies about invading and subduing their enemies.

That kind of outcome would have brought out the Union soldiers in every one of the rest of us. Also, Alito needs to come forward with what he knew. This Supreme Court is at the very heart of it. Filed under: General 7 Comments ». This kind of thing probably does not bother very many people, but it upsets me, so I will indulge myself a little, you might find it amusing. I am not a cineaste; that is, I appreciate good movies, particularly when they are well written, have depth to them; and after you see one of those, you are apt to think about it, at least the emotional effect, if not the story itself. But I am not someone who has a great appreciation for visual style or camera angles.

I want a good story, compellingly done. I know that they are popular, and some of their films have gotten praise. They are considered to be masters of film technique, at least by a few reviewers. Some people, from what I have read, cannot wait for another Coen Brothers film to come out. But I cannot stand their films. I have seen a few, and I have found them to be self-indulgent, smirkingly silly; style without substance. I could go on, but suffice it to say, that I now assiduously avoid anything to do with the Coen Brothers films. That is pretty easy to do. But now I see that Joel Coen, working separately from his brother Ethan, has directed a new movie. Not that long ago, I saw a version starring Kenneth Branagh; he was solid, though rather workmanlike, as usual.

And, while this was not crucial, they had an interview with the actor playing Lady Macbeth, shown before the performance, and she wanted to tell us that she thought that Lady Macbeth had possibly had four miscarriages, and that she was by no means a villain; which is ridiculous, because of course she is, though Shakespeare always gives almost all of his prinicipal characters, including the villains, some sympathetic aspects. So now we have Joel Coen with his particular interpretation of the play. I would not see anything by him, on principle, but it is an interesting juxtaposition. It seems that he has taken the three witches and made them one character, though that was just from my reading of the review I am going to write about.

I am usually a purist when it comes to literature. I like the films or theatre versions to be very close to the sense of the work, if not literally exact. They can make them in modern dress , if they want; not my favorite thing, but understandable. So I will not see this, because it is by Coen, but maybe I am missing something, and I have already seen some positive review headlines. And I wonder if there are very many discerning and literate reviewers. Macbeth, Thane of Glamis, is a military leader and warrior of high renown in medieval Scotland. He has just come from a triumphant victory in a climactic battle. He is traveling home with his fellow general and friend Banquo.

They come upon three entities who we have learned are waiting for Macbeth. The two are amazed at these prophecies, Banquo urges his friend not to think any more about them. But then Macbeth learns that the former Thane of Cawdor has been executed as a traitor ,and Macbeth is given his title. He is now convinced that the witches are telling him his future. He shares this with his wife, Lady Macbeth. She, having the determination and cleverness which Macbeth does not, essentially urges him to kill King Duncan when he comes to visit their castle for a celebration. He does not want to do this, and urges her to forget such thoughts.

But she insists, tells him he must screw his courage to the sticking point, and, that it would be cowardly not to go forward. Eventually, Macbeth accedes, though he has frightening visions warning him not to do it. But he does kill the king while he is sleeping; and Lady Macbeth, not liking the way he has described the scene, goes in and makes it look as if a drunken groom has committed the murder.

The rest of the play develops the implications of what the couple has done. Macbeth, who we were to see as a previously admirable character, albeit with ambition, develops into a monster, wanting to kill everyone and their heirs who might threaten his kingship. He ultimately realizes that the witches have deceived and seduced him. They told him to fear Macduff, and he avoids him, but has his children killed.

They tell him to fear no man of woman born, and he thinks that means he is impregnable, but he later learns that Macduff was born through caesarean section, not from the womb. At that point, he realizes that he is doomed. He learns that Lady Macbeth is dead. The messenger does not tell him how she died, though later it is said that it is thought that she took her own life. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And once he starts down that road, he cannot turn back, and ultimately becomes dreadful. The play has some of the most intensely powerful language in all of Shakespeare. It can be seen as providing a metaphor for the human character, and how it can be warped into something evil,, if the tendency is already there.

We see that in this era, of course. Washington is probably better now at it than he was then, but he is pretty obviously a box-office choice, which hardly would have been the first time in movie casting, but there likely would have been better choices, if someone were actually trying to do a great rendition of the play. See if you can decide if this reviewer, who is named, or called, Valerie Complex, actually knows anything about the play, or Shakespeare, or if she is a person who likes movies and writes about celebrities, and then saw this movie, and tried to figure it out. My reactions to the lines of this review are in parentheses.

This movie sounds pretentious and wrong from the start. She has seen the other adaptations, or is this just fluff? Cheese, the lady is ready to make prophecy reality. The writers mostly lack much in the way of descriptive phrases, so have to use metaphors like this—for a Shakespeare play, no less. Ah, that is what happens? Thanks for summing it up. That is never implied. PTSD was only diagnosed as a disorder in the 20th century, although one could say that the symptoms of it long pre-existed that era.

But there is nothing in the text to indicate that Macbeth is suffering from battle fatigue. Try to read literature on the terms the writer sets, not throw modern jargon or conceptions in, when there is no text to support them. Okay, one more, and I will stop. Unfortunately, that did not turn out too well for the duo. Well, just one more. Every aspect of the production works in unison to execute his masterful vision of the Scottish play.

His version of this story is one of the few that zeroes in on the fantasy and brings this to the foreground. What is she trying to express in that sentence? Why does she think that is is important to zero in on some fantasy, whatever that means? Well, she liked it, and that is fine. Others will, too. Many people want some razzle-dazzle in films of plays. But the essence of a great play, which Macbeth is, is the story and the characters and the language. Tricking it up with special effects is superficial. Regicide was not uncommon back then. I will not see the movie, so that is the last I will read or hear about it, except that it will likely win Academy Awards. There is nothing I can do about it, nor about the Coens, nor about what people like in art.

But I value the classics, and the timeless plays, and I want to see them done with respect and understanding, not self-indulgence. And it would be nice if there were more than a very few reviewers who actually knew the source material, particularly when it is one of the greatest plays ever written; and who could somehow refrain from making cutesy comparisons to kids at Chuck. Does everything now reduce itself to banal cultural references or slang? Okay, end of rant, for now.

Thank you for indulging me. Filed under: General 8 Comments ». I should read more about it, but this morning I am just happy enough to see the headline, without seeing if there is any catch or caveat to it. Probably there is not. I will even try not to dwell on the evil of Brazilian President Jair Bolsinaro, who may even outdo Trump in his efforts to destroy the planet so that he and his business cronies can make some more money. And that the people in Brazil voted for him. I will focus on the fact that there are some people out there, perhaps even some rich ones, who care about the environment, and are trying to save it. Seven hosts of various late night talk shows all focused on climate change on their shows Wednesday night.

Prince William of England is making major efforts to help organize support to deal with climate change. Inspired by this, the Earthshot Prize aims to mobilize collective action around our unique ability to rise to the greatest challenges in human history. It is good to see that there are people with influence, dedicated to trying to deal with climate change, which as any sane person knows, is a terrible threat to every living creature on this planet. But more are waking up to it. The major problem is that the levers of power have been so taken over by the corporate tycoons who do not want anything to stand in the way of them making the most profits they can; and then the masses whom they help to indoctrinate, that it is so far impossible for this government to pass desperately needed laws to combat climate change.

The Build Back Better bill has some important elements in that regard, but of course the Republicans have no intention of voting for any of the House Reconciliation Bill which contains them. So we have to hope that the Democrats, all by themselves, can pass this. It would all seem to be the most obvious truth, even one as inconvenient as Al Gore described it as being. We see temperature records being broken everywhere. Do people think this will stop? Some try to invent theories to disprove this data and the evidence of their own eyes.

But polls show that most Americans believe that climate change exists, and want those in office to do something about it. So when a very rich person buys part of the Amazon Rainforest to prevent it from being destroyed, and further accelerating climate change, we should applaud. One hopes that other people with the wealth to afford it, do similar things. It is a lot more important than going on space flights. Elon Musk, who I think is a world class megalomaniac, says he wants to live on Mars. I hope he can do so, and leave the rest of us who actually care about this planet, to work on it.

But in a way, you are the target audience because you just might be a dinosaur. Allow me to explain. I stopped watching it for the most part about years ago. Then I stream. I watch about an hour of cable news a day. The rest of my news I read or listen to. I only heard barely snippets about Natalie Holloway. You definitely get the feeling from watching Fox that there are pedophiles and homocidal maniacs behind every tree just waiting to snatch your kids or bludgeon you to death.

Yes, their cases are tragic. So, I just tune that fearmongering out. All of this is to say that when it comes to this case of Gabby Petito, I have gotten exactly zero information from any news programming. Her disappearance went viral because 1. Gabby was a bit unusual in the genre in that she took her boyfriend with her in her van. Van life for young women is viral to begin with. Everyone is buying an old white van, converting it, and digital nomading it in Wyoming or Colorado or Yosemite. Gabby was just following the crowd. When she disappeared, it was her followers who spread the word. It is no exaggeration to say that the FBI was greatly helped by the crowdsourcing of the internet.

We are still getting reports by people who saw Gabby and Brian on their road trip. Just yesterday, two people said Brian caused a scene at a restaurant in Jackson and Gabby was crying on the sidewalk. That might have been the last time anyone but Brian saw her alive. That kind of information is crucial to estimating the time of death. The news about Gabby may be on every channel now. But it started on Instagram, Youtube and Twitter. You can get throughout the day updates from your favorite pop culture YouTube channels.

This started as a mystery on the internet and people became intrigued by the footage they shot while on their trip and the incident with the police in Utah and the weird behavior of her boyfriend and his parents. People are just trying to figure it out, put all the pieces together. This time, they seem to be trying to clamp down on conspiracy theories and misreading clues.

There is a lot of examination of the evidence by youtubers who know how to use video editing tools, people who share online applications, discussion of body language, the psychology of domestic abuse. That might be the thing that people like Joy Reid is responding to. Everyone is beatifying Gabby. She was beautiful, young, kind to animals, wholesome, sweet, had a lot of friends who miss her. Have there been candlelight vigils yet? You know what, Joy?

Please stop trying to tell the rest of us how we think and feel. Cable news is trying to get ratings. But there is another audience out there that just likes to solve problems and help. Bashing her audience over the head with accusations of implied racism is really missing the story. And that story is, TV programming, whether network or cable, is now in our evolutionary past. We are writing our own narratives now. Filed under: General 3 Comments ». That seems to be their narrative. Everything that was wrong with the country when Biden took office, is now his fault, not just his responsibility. When it is a Republican Administration, this is not the narrative. Oh, the media may point out some problems, but they do not reflexively blame them on the Republican President.

We know all this, but it is still worthwhile to at least point to the narratives which seem to fill the cable news shows, at least MSNBC, which is the only one I watch, at least since Brianna Keilar of CNN moved to early morning. And one cannot even tentatively want to imagine what it is like on Fox or the other Far Right-Wing propaganda networks, it is unquestionably far worse there. Here are some of the things which the media blames on Biden, who has been in office for eight months, taking over in the midst of a horrifying pandemic, and with the economy suffering from unemployment, women having left the workplace, businesses struggling to stay afloat; and the effects of now rampant climate change affecting every area of the country and the world.

Afghanistan: It was botched by Biden, is the narrative. What was botched is not certain. Did the media hope that the war would continue? Certainly some of the people whom the media loves to interview, are part of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. They always think they know best. They supported all of our incursions. They do not like us having pulled all our troops from Afghanistan. Others admit that, well, maybe it was good to end the war, but we did it badly.

So the leaving had chaotic elements, though we got our troops out in a couple of weeks, plus about , Afghans. Some respected people in the military or in international matters, thought that this was a remarkable achievement, but not the media. And of course Trump had already negotiated the surrender of forces for months earlier, and would undoubtedly have just pulled out, leaving the Afghans to deal with it, like the people he threw paper towels to in Puerto Rico. And the ratings are of course cumulative; the Far Right is programmed and eager to hate anything that Biden does. Others seem very upset that the FDA, led by what I think is that very questionable doctor from Tufts, who seems always on the wrong side of such matters, did not approve the third shot for any but a limited number of people.

So did he overpromise? I was surprised and disappointed in the decision, and Dr. Fauci was very surprised. Biden is doing all he can do, but he is not a dictator, the FDA makes these decisions right now. They could change before too long, as Fauci thinks they will. Then, since the graphs are not linear, they may well improve the next month, but somehow that gets lost if they are disappointing the month after that.

It is as if Biden is supposed to have the power to completely fix the economy, and in his first nine months in office; and if he does not, he is failing. The nuclear submarine agreement with England and Australia: France was miffed that they did not know about it. Maybe that was a misstep, but I do trust Blinken and Austin and Sullivan. I know that she and the leader of Australia differ on many things, and I like her side of them better. But I am pretty confident that any of this can be ironed out. The Climate Problem: The Republicans have done absolutely nothing about it, ever. And their big donors from the largest corporations have known about it for decades, and done nothing, once again sacrificing the lives of humans, animals and plants, to add some more billions to their coffers.

So Republicans listen to them, and their own rapaciousness, and do nothing to try to fix any of it—and it is said to be another failure for Biden. The debt ceiling: Yes, even though it is Republicans who are maliciously trying to destroy the economy by not raising the debt ceiling, something which had been done for over a century, this is another area where the media purveys that Biden is falling short.

As if everything he honestly vowed to do or try to do, is something that if he cannot, or it takes some time, is a terrible stain on him; as if the brutal lies of Trump are now no worse than Biden running into problems trying to bring this bill across the wire, with Republicans almost all trying to stop him from doing it. So the media now is so anxious to write the end of the Biden presidency in nine months? I was never a great Biden fan, not many were. But he is certainly a decent and caring man, and he is on the right side of most issues.

He has appointed some highly qualified people, at least from what I have read, or simply knowing of them. He has worked very hard to deal with many issues, often ones caused by the neglect and disdain of Republicans. Every time there is a flood or fire, he must address it, as he should, even though Republicans only want their states to get money to help, but have no intention of fixing any of the underlying and worsening conditions. And of course it limits the time which he can spend on all of these other exigent problems which the Republicans have played the major part in causing or accelerating.

Why does the media unceasingly do this? We have discussed it, and it will continue to be warranted. I certainly agree with IBW here and others, that the media is almost completely owned by the Far Right, which wants Republicans to win. But I think there is more to it. There is a laziness, a desire to be able to glibly spin the preferred narrative, rather than taking more time to tell a deeper story, which looks at the history and the antecedents of these issues as they currently exist. They criticized Trump, so they lost no time in criticizing Biden They dropped his ratings ten points with their nonstop outrage over Afghanistan. Also, many of these people really are not very knowledgeable about government, and the effects of policies.

If you ever watch any of those daily sports shows on ESPN and I avoid them, but sometimes hear a few minutes when waiting to take out some food , you would see a great similarity in approach. They get to host or guest on these shows, and they think they have to be as controversial as possible, to keep the viewers from turning on something else. The news media is becoming more like this. Maybe not as loud, or as much haw-hawing as they do on the sports shows, but with this apparent need for an easy narrative, which they are always invested in being proved right about; and the desire to gin up the excitement, as they and their bosses figure that people are not going to watch complex discussions of policy matters.

It seems as if the media, which has as short an attention span as the viewing public, has become bored with Biden, and wants someone new, or some different configuration. That may be fun for them, but it is immensely irresponsible. They need to somehow grasp this, and treat it with the nuance and depth it deserves. Filed under: General 12 Comments ». The Democrats in the PA legislature are suing their Republican colleagues.

While Shakespeare may be referring to Mary and Elizabeth, I think he is more probably including the churches themselves, The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet those two Queens representing The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet parent figures of the warring churches within England. The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet, just The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet more. Devious adj. The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet n Broad comedy, Mockery This is a farcical play, which entertains as well as mocks the Rhetorical Analysis Of How To Have A Conversation of our country. The adaptation also includes The All Powerful Force In Shakespeares Romeo And Juliet lines from Q1 which were removed in subsequent Why They Came To America Essay at 1. Dudley made it as a PVC awning which was intended to darken the auditorium.