Inept

who has too many thoughts

39 notes

shredsandpatches:

poorshadowspaintedqueens:

From the paper I gave for the Societas Fontibus Historiae Medii Aevi Inveniendis, vulgo dicta, “The Pseudo Society” at this year’s International Medieval Congress in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

The abstract I sent in last September is as follows:

In light of the recent archaeological excitement surrounding the possibly exhumed remains of King Richard III, it seems an appropriate time to settle the question once and for all: What happened to the Princes in the Tower?

            This paper proposes a new theory—based on several peculiar bits of marginalia found in copies of Robert Fabyan’s Newe Chronicles of England and France and several other annals from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries—that fully exonerates the late, lamented Richard and explains how two young boys were able to vanish into thin air from the Tower of London. It also explains why, some thirty years later, the also late lamented Saint Thomas More found himself unable to complete his History of King Richard III; in short, what he discovered was too dangerous to reveal to the world, and he chose instead to leave his satirical masterpiece forever paused in the middle of a sentence.

             They say the greatest trick the Devil played was convincing the world he did not exist. It turns out aliens work the same way.

The marginalia is the work of the wonderfully talented toadvineandtaylor. (She has an Etsy shop! You should buy her stuff!)

This was an awesome, awesome paper. :D

Filed under really useful scholarship

3 notes

What follows are the highlights from Hansardon the 14thof May 2013, when the skywhale was brought up during Question Time.

1. “MRS JONES: My question is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, in regard to the Skywhale balloon, referred to in some parts as Hindenboob-”

It is no exageration to say that this is pretty much the best thing a politican has said or will say or is currently saying.

Ten wonderful things committed to Hansard as a result of the Skywhale.

9 notes

The standard liberal feminist or egalitarian stance here is that it is patriarchy that genders war. Sexism decrees that women are too weak, too delicate for the battlefield so it must be left to the bigger, stronger, braver men. The solution, they argue, is for equal combat roles, equal conscription, equal numbers of women and men doing the killing and dying. I find that obscene. In what moral universe is it a better to have as many women slaughtered on the front line as men? As a culture we have always tended towards casual indifference to the deaths of ordinary men, and been comparatively sensitive to the loss of ‘innocent’ women and children. It’s the first value that needs changing, not the second.
We don’t call this sexism, we call it, err… » Heteronormative Patriarchy for Men (via brute-reason)

(via brute-reason)

Filed under yes this