Why Are You So Angry? – A Blast From The Past from July 2015

Why Are You So Angry? – A Blast From The Past from July 2015


It never fails, at the end of a trollish attack, (btw even when there’s no evidence of anger anywhere) we get the question “Why are you so angry?”

Part of this is that our opponents seek to home in on a “feeling” they can use to discredit our thoughts, and when they can find no feelings in the writing, they presume “anger.”

Remember, there’s absolutely no reason to disagree with the holy writ of Marx and Engels, unless you’re angry. Or stupid. But when one admits to membership in Mensa (long since lapsed, mind, since well… the local chapter is not about beer and bad puns as was the one I joined for) it’s hard to use stupid. So we get “angry.” Mind you, some precious snow flakes also accused me of not knowing enough US history to “understand.” Yeah. It’s true that US history only became a topic of interest about five years ago (before that I was studying other areas/times) but that just means I haven’t delved into the details available only in doctoral dissertations. I would still stake my knowledge of history against theirs any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I actually am not angry. Sometimes I am mightily irritated, but the only time I was even vaguely angry was when someone took my publisher’s words and twisted them to rally his drooling followers who couldn’t carry reading comprehension in a microscopic bucket. Oh, and before that when the Middle School carried on a full court covering up for the harassment of younger son by making him clinically depressed. Note both are specific and the precipitating incidents involve people I care a great deal about and in my publisher’s case respect immensely. (Oh, I respect the boy too, but he’s my son. The main emotion is protective.)

In fact, most of the people I know on this side of the fence aren’t angry. Anger is a very specific emotion that clouds the mind and in my case causes a berserker attack (you really don’t want to test that in person. No. Seriously. At least not without my husband nearby, because he can hold me back. He’s the only person who can. Every other time, if I start crying and my voice gets really high, and particularly if I’m trembling, you want to clear the area. This is not a brag. It’s a fricking nuisance. Holding those back hurts. D*mn the great great (etc.) grand who arranged to trip when the Vikings raided.)

Normally I don’t rise above “peeved.” This is on purpose, because if I go over “peeved” I’m in territory where it’s hard to control myself. The circumstances in which I lost control either were very sudden and without warning, or where I couldn’t get idiots to stop pushing after I started shaking and crying. Some idiots think this means “easy prey” and not “I’m fighting like h*ll not to kill you.” And peeved might look very scary because I’m a Latin female, yes, and frankly just a little annoyed can lead to yelling and screaming and peeved can lead to throwing things (usually books, usually at my sons who btw tower over me by a head and besides I’ve got lousy aim.)

But I think the trolls who as “Why are you so angry?” though it’s mostly an invalidating technique are also aware that we have reason to be angry. H*ll, they’d be angry if they were us, right?

And so… and so, I’ll give the reasons we have to be angry.

  • We’ve been lied to since we were born. I’m fifty and all through my education, in Portugal and here, I was told that government could fix everything, that I shouldn’t trust private individuals, that having the “best men” in charge would lead to paradise.
  • Evidence of the mendacious nature of the above has been hidden. The cesspool of corruption and evil that was the Soviet Union, not to mention its satellites gave the lie to all such notions that if government were all powerful life would be perfect. However, the news media in most of the world never reported it, and chose instead to continue with the lie.
  • The lies were pervasive, all encompassing and utterly divorced from reality, and media, entertainment and government still cling to them.
  • They do this because they want power over us. The socialist and communist regimes always end in total and pervasive control over everyone. A sort of neo-feudalism, but, unless history really lies, less effective and more hellish than the real feudalism. Possibly because devoid of noblesse oblige. When communists, socialists or the democratic party say “we care for the little people” and “we’re against the rich” what they really mean is “we want to own you. We want to control your every decision.” That makes everything they do and everything they say a scabrous lie. It doesn’t even matter which of them are in on the lie and which are stupid enough to believe it. The whole fiction is a stomach-churning horror.
  • Their mucking around with the world as if their lies could be made into truths by being repeated often enough have caused not just the 100 million deaths of communism, but probably the same number from lost wealth (turns out, yeah, a rising tide raises all boats. Or in other words, no, you economic illiterates, our poor are NOT worse off than medieval poor, and let’s not consider further back), lost scientific advancement, lost medical advancement, lost opportunities. The one thing socialist regimes, from the pinkoish fringe to the deepest red are good at is creating stagnation. And stagnation kills and prevents the saving of lives that could have been saved. It also casts a greyish patina of dreck over everyday life. I’m not sure that ranks up there with death, but it does create a lot of miserable lives. I know that adherence to socialist poison has destroyed a lot of arts. A minor ill? Perhaps. But man doesn’t live by bread alone.
  • Anyone who goes against the Marxist line and points out that they’re lying gets persecuted and there are attempts to destroy them, ranging from professional to real destruction. Peter Grant and I should be grateful all they did was tar us with racist, sexist, homophobic and neo-nazi, particularly when those accusations are risible to anyone not deep in koolaid guzzling territory.
  • They’ve taught lies to children. I remember vividly when my younger son – then 6 – on a grocery trip broached the difficult question “Mom, how come none of the girls I know are like girls in shows and movies? They don’t want to have adventures, and they don’t want to play rough.” Um… yes. That was the beginning of explaining the “big lie” to him. He’s smart. He tumbled on to the economic and ecological and all other sides of the lie on his own. (He owes me posts, but he’s worse than I. His post on the engineering of climate is 7k long. I promised to help him shorten it. Ah!)
    Not all kids see through the lies. So you end up with a generation that thinks communism is a really good idea and just never had a chance. (And for the record, communism is a good IDEA. As a thought experiment, it’s just about perfect. Who wouldn’t want to end poverty and strife. It’s just that in practical life it would need angels to administer it. We don’t have angels. Fresh out (idiots in my future history try to CREATE them) so what you end up with is corrupt bureaucrats pretending to be angels and acting like the other sort of angels. The charred ones who smell of sulfur.)
  • They point out the flaws of the system we live under, not to fix them but to invalidate the whole system. This while hiding the giant flaws of their proposed system.
  • They will attack us while protecting horrors like Isis and the Cuban dictatorship whose systems are a million times worse, because their intent is not to improve the world but to bring us down, so they can have power.
  • They keep acting like their intentions are pure and this makes them untouchable. This might have been believable before the fall of the USSR, but now? All I see through their smug “purity” is their hands dripping blood.

“Why are you so angry?” Well, I’m not. I’m righteously indignant. The difference between the two might escape you, if you’ve never had righteous principles that are non-negotiable and not subjugated to the party line.

But here, in the place where there is right and wrong and where a system (and its subsystems) that has brought nothing but death, suffering and oppression to the human race definitely should NOT be given another try, no matter how much you like the shiny power it would give you, there is such a thing as indignation as injustice, oppression and most of all d*mned stupid waste.

I have children. I want them and their children to inherit the stars, not the dull stagnation of the system that allows apparatchiks to lord it over all other human beings.

You should wish I was angry. That boils over and passes. It’s just an emotion after all.

Instead, I’m coldly, rationally indignant at your lies, your boorish disregard for others, your piggish greed for power.

And I tell you that you shall not pass.

235 thoughts on “Why Are You So Angry? – A Blast From The Past from July 2015

      1. Did you take that from “I Love Lucy”? It’s been nagging at me since yesterday. In my mind, I could hear a rough cowboy voice say “smile when you say that!” And I just remembered where I know it from. Fred said it in an episode where they try to make a movie behind Ricky’s back, and it turns into some whacky messed up cowboy skit.

        1. It’s pre-“I Love Lucy”. There was a Cowboy movie where the “bad guy” called the hero a nasty name.

          The hero pointed a gun at the bad guy’s stomach and said “Smile when you call me that”.

          Oh, the bad guy’s response (besides hold up his hands) was “I always smile when somebody points a gun at me”. 😉

          1. There was a novel called The Virginian, IIRC published in the early 1900s, which the movie was probably based on.

              1. From Wiki:
                The Virginian (otherwise titled The Virginian: A Horseman of the Plains) is a 1902 novel set in the Wild West by the American author Owen Wister, (1860-1938). It describes the life of a cowboy on a cattle ranch in Wyoming and was the first true fictional western ever written, aside from short stories and pulp dime novels.”

                The source of that quote is most easily depicted in this scene between Gary Cooper and Walter Houston. This is from the third and best cinematic adaptation.

                Loosely (to be charitable) adapted as a popular Sixties TV series, the novel remains highly readable today.

  1. I try not to get beyond irritated.

    Too much Welsh, Irish, English, and German in my background that probably make me prone to blow right through the angry stage to all out berserker rage. Heh. Maybe one of my ancestors was also one of your ancestors on an Iberian Peninsula working ‘vacation.’ Not nice, but it did result in the two of us so there’s a silver lining in what was a very dark time hundreds of years ago.

    It’s holiday time and all those wonderful social occasions where you run into and are stuck with those of differing political persuasion for sometimes what seems like forever. I prefer writing to keep my thought processes straight. Never went out for HS debate team; so verbal debate/argument is especially difficult. Unfortunately, I dislike leaving a progressive monologue unanswered; so I’ll try my best to remember your main points when the inevitable happens.

    1. Hm … you sure there isn’t also some Scottish in there? Certain clans went back and forth with Ireland some. That berserker rage powered the infamous Highland Charge as well. Also like the Irish, Scotland fielded more than its share of mercenaries over time…

      1. Pretty certain. There are over 24 branches on my tree that break off before I can find the immigration point of those family members. Thought for years I was a Scottish Lewis descendant until the records got posted that allowed me to trace them back to, !SUPRISE!, Wales, about 15 to 16 generations ago.

  2. Angry is quiet. Dreadfully calm. Cold. That’s angry. Then hot. Once I get to hot, I cannot vouch for what happens to the object of my ire. As long as I control the tiger, I’m the only one hurting. Once the tiger gets loose… I scare myself.

    I’m very, very ticked off with the Legions of Marx. They have gotten more innocent and otherwise decent people killed, and have so twisted so many others that it’s a wonder Western Civilization – or other civilizations for that matter – have lasted this long. I don’t enjoy having to explain to teenagers how an idea can cause so much horror, and then show them glimpses of that horror.

    So yes, if I get angry there’s a d*mn good reason. And the Marx-fans and their ideological offspring just don’t understand that no, they won’t get it right this time.

    1. Angry is quiet.

      I know (of) someone who regularly cusses up a storm at this, that, the other, and just because besides. Some have made the mistake of thinking that when the cussing stopped, they won something. They seldom make that mistake again.

    2. You may not enjoy having to explain it, but thank you for doing so. Maybe it will inoculate some of them so that they’re not infected with Marxism in college.

      1. I appear to have an entire section that is vehemently anti-Communist. I’ll be curious to see why. I also have a student whose family may have fled here from someplace Slavic (based on the language the student spoke to a grandparent). That could be interesting when we get to 1917 and after.

    3. And this is the scary bit for me. One item that seems to be a common conflict flashpoint is mistaking patience for acquiescence. But you never know what will come of it. And since we are now trying to enforce orthodoxy through social or governmental force there will be much more ill will I fear.

    4. I’m the reverse. Anger it hot, and fleeting; I shout, cry, cuss like a pirate. Cold, quiet, deadly, purposeful rage is where I get scary – the few times that someone’s ignited that in me, they’ve ended up in the hospital. Usually because they attacked me first – tried throwing me down stairs, tried attacking in a gang, and I’m put to ‘fight for my life, kill or be killed.’ Things slow down, I don’t talk and this does not go away for a long while.

    5. I discovered some decades ago that I inherited my father’s temper … that is, mild, polite, increasingly annoyed but suppressing it almost infinitely. Almost. And then … thermonuclear blast, annihilating anyone and anything within a certain radius, without any warning. Doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, katy bar the door.

      1. I have my father’s temper. The story is we’ve “always” been that way, which likely just means within living memory and unconfirmed beyond the late 1800s It’s quick but smolders on for a long time. His father died of a cerebral hemorrhage, and it may have been associated with anger. I’ve also inherited both of my mother’s parents’ tempers, though it supposedly is more like her father’s. And yes, it appears genetic.

        My wife has a temper as well, except her’s is initially more quiet. You really don’t want to make her angry.

        1. I have a utterly calm temperament, never get angry and never, ever, lose my temper. And there’s no one alive can claim otherwise.

      2. I’ve worked very hard on bypassing anger. Not suppressing it—that’s like blocking the vent of a pressure cooker—but routing around it. I really do not like what anger does to me, and I suspect major health issues if I let it run free. This does not, of course, rule out irritation, frustration, or philosophical horror, but I try not to let the anger part come to the fore.

        1. As a side note, anger doesn’t allow me to think clearly. So people should take that into account as well. I may not get angry because it’s not useful in planning necessary destruction.

    6. “The lies were pervasive, all encompassing and utterly divorced from reality, and media, entertainment and government still cling to them.”
      For evidence, see the recent articles in NYT and others brimming with nostalgia for the Good Old Days of Communist Rule.
      And now this:
      “Berlin Film Review: ‘The Young Karl Marx’
      Raoul Peck’s biopic about the philosopher-muse of Communism is a drama so old school that it tames the radicalism of its subject.”

      “Raoul Peck is the Haitian film-maker who has an Oscar nomination this year with his James Baldwin documentary I Am Not Your Negro. Now he comes to Berlin with this sinewy and intensely focused, uncompromisingly cerebral period drama, co-written with Pascal Bonitzer, about the birth of communism in the mid-19th century. It gives you a real sense of what radical politics was about: talk. There is talk, talk and more talk. It should be dull, but it isn’t. Somehow the spectacle of fiercely angry people talking about ideas becomes absorbing and even gripping.

      Despite the title, it is not exactly about the young Karl Marx, more about Marx’s bromance with the young Friedrich Engels. Given the potent presence of his wife Jenny, they for a microsecond almost threaten to become the Jules et Jim of the Revolutionary left. Peck saves up his biggest joke, or coup de cinéma, for the very end. After an austere movie featuring men in top hats and mutton chop whiskers, the closing credits explode in a boisterous and even euphoric montage of political events in the 20th century – Che, the Berlin Wall, Ronnie and Maggie, Nelson Mandela, the Occupy movement – to the accompaniment of Bob Dylan. No Stalin or Lenin or gulags or Erich Honecker in the montage, though.”

  3. Anger is a strong motivator. It rouses us to action. Indeed, it’s the only thing that can rouse a deceived, looted, oppressed people to action. Therefore, the Left must deny us the use of our anger. They’ll do anything to get us to lie to ourselves — to tell ourselves that “we mustn’t be angry.” It’s exactly the other way around, and we in the Right must not forget it!

    1. OK, hard turn and hyperspace jump of thread drift, but here we go…

      This is what creeps me out the most about the whole Jedi-Sith thing in George Lucas’ work: The whole “Don’t give in to anger” for the good guy Jedis. So basically, sit there in your observation hide, young Jedi, and watch the men, women and children of the town you have under observation get raped, tortured and killed one by one – oh look, that’s your cousin and her kids getting the chop – but for gosh sake, whatever you do, don’t get angry about it. That would be the worst.

      Reach out with your feelings, but don’t actually have any.

      As the new (thankfully post-Lucas) Star Wars comes out in a few weeks, ponder the inhuman monsters that are Lucases Jedi.

      1. Eh, there is a large space between giving in to uncontrolled rage (which for a psychic telekinetic who is essentially unstoppable when armed with his chosen weapon means a ton of damage all around) and not doing what is needful.

      2. My (long past, *sigh*) gaming group once staged a Star Wars RPG for a guy who usually got stck being GM and wanted to play a Jedi at least once. The GM for this new game came to me and asked me if I had any ideas that would mess with the guy’s head. I said that, when you look at it, the whole light/dark thing is a very Western-New-Age misinterpretation of the Oriental yin-yang concept. While I probably didn’t ‘get’ it either, I suggested that I play somebody who followed a path of balance. “There is no light, there is no dark, there is only performing your actions properly.” The character’s background in Force use was familial. When the guy’s young Jedi character offered to teach my character the ‘right’ way I gently told him “I don’t think Sensei would approve. And he’s my uncle.” I didn’t use a lightsabre; I used a boken which I surrounded with a field of The Force (Think DEMON CITY). Startled the hell out of the occasional Sith that way.

        The game collapsed after about a half dozen sessions. To the credit of the guy we did it for, he LOVED the way we messed with his head. His Jedi character was sometime reduced to sputtering incoherence, but HE was laughing.

        1. Western-New-Age misinterpretation of the Oriental yin-yang concept? I thought it owed more to Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.

          As for that Oriental thing, I thought unrequested dangling of his yin-yang was what got Weinstein in trouble?

            1. Well, the classical Western languages already did that. After all, doesn’t “Mea maxima culpa” mean “Somebody stole my Nissan”?

                1. Once a time, back in the 1980’s, family had a well-used ’84 Mazda B2000 (I think) pickup. Nothing fancy at all (but everything in the Right Place, unlike the horrible awful no good PoS Silver T-bird replete with annoyances such as the digital speedometer and power seat controls one had to contort to adjust, and steering wheel SMACK in the field of view of the instrumentation. Ergonomics? Ford had a “Better Idea”! Looked great.. on the outside). It was fun or at least not painful to drive. Only two issues. One was the lack of air conditioning – but that was still a rarity anyway, and it eventually had a vapor-lock issue that meant a warm start wasn’t going to happen. Fortunately it was manual and I found a gas station on enough of a hill that I could roll away, pop the clutch and be properly underway. Cold, even frigid, start was not a problem. Well below zero (F yes) it did make a sound very much like: Ohhhhhh…nooooo….Ptung! Tung! Tung! *RUN*

      3. This is actually that kind of fine distinction that I was complaining tends to go deliberately (or delinquently at best) elided from how we use the word “anger”: there’s a big difference between not getting angry and not losing control while angry.

        If Yoda had been just a little more forthcoming with his instructions to Luke I can see an exchange going something like this:

        LUKE; Then … anger is evil? All anger?

        YODA: Evil. Hmph. Is wine evil? It can make those already happy, joyful … and those already sad, miserable. And those who are angry — dangerous.

        LUKE: I thought that was the job of a Jedi. To be dangerous, to the right people.

        YODA: The right people? Feh. So certain are you, that you will always know who deserves your anger? Even while that anger blinds you?

        LUKE: Are you telling me a Jedi can’t get angry about anything?! Even at things like — like what happened to Alderaan?!

        YODA: Alderaan … was an act of depthless darkness. And those responsible were made to pay — at your hand, Luke. Angry, were you, at that moment? When the torpedo you did fire, to kill thousands upon thousands of your enemies … just as the Empire did?
        (LUKE doesn’t answer)
        YODA: It is true. Anger may be turned as easily against the evil as the good. But anger itself cares nothing for either. Seen it yourself, have you not, in other Rebels? Those who start by hating evil, and end by calling evil all they hate? Anger is a weapon that wounds the hand which wields it.

        LUKE (long pause): Maybe I’m not cut out to be a Jedi, then. Not if it means I can’t be angry.

        YODA: Be angry, if you must, Luke. Know it for truth. But do not let it govern you. Not from anger at a wrong does a Jedi act! No; a Jedi acts to do what he knows is right: in calmness. Certainty. Peace. Only then can you truly be one with the Force.

        1. That is exactly where I would hope canonical Star Wars goes – “Look, everyone gets angry, just don’t let your anger decide what you do” makes a lot more sense than what Lucas wrote originally.

          But then, much does.

          1. In fairness, weren’t most of the lines from Episode V Leigh Brackett’s?

            And even as they stand I can understand pretty much what they must mean. It’s the overliteral reading of them by millions of fans that’s caused all the fooferah, I think.

              1. Well, Kasdan and Brackett, then — I have to admit I’ve never had quite the archivist’s fascination with proto-drafts that the real literary scholar needs (which is in large part why I stopped my English Lit academic career with my M.A. and never went on to the Ph.D.).

                Either way, the idea that anger is a passion that causes its user more harm than good, whatever the user’s intent or the anger’s subject, isn’t original to Lucas and isn’t even wholly wrong, I think.

                And as far as Yoda goes, it must be conceded that we have no evidence he wasn’t Rigellian…. Was his species ever named in any of the SW works?

                1. The thing is that anger can mean a lot of different things. I think it’s safe to say that when Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the Temple, he was angry. But it wasn’t “go berserk and lose control” anger. It was righteous indignation at things that weren’t appropriate for that sacred place.

                  Wrath is the term that we have for pure, unbridled, berserk rage. That’s why Wrath, and not Anger, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

              2. I just read that Brackett first draft – She definitely defined the pacing and most of the major beats in the final story, but there’s nothing explicit about “don’t give in to anger” at all; just some stuff about Luke being warned not to use the dark side, and then, during the big fight with Vader, driven by feelings of revenge and hatred because Vader killed his Father, accidentally reaching out and using the dark side, but justa little bit. Then he stops himself, so it’s OK.

                And obviously there’s no “I am your Father” in the Brackett draft – Lucas came up with that during the rewrites after Leigh Brackett passed away, some sources say it was thought up in conference with Kasdan, others say he came up with it on his own.

                Kasdan has proven to be an excellent screenwriter, and it’s clear from what I’ve seen that he added a lot of the humanity and humor in the TESB shooting script. My guess is the Lucas overlaid the “anger” pseudo-oriental philosophy stuff in his rewrites, but as I read the Brackett script, the main sequence, much of the action, and a lot of the development in the final movie is already there.

                It’s too bad Lucas ended up with such deep disdain for the fans. My guess is he sees his success with Star Wars as the thing that prevented him from doing Serious Cinema like his buddies Spielberg and Coppola, and I think that shows through in the prequels.

        2. Anyone can become angry – that is easy, , but to be angry with the right man, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy. Aristotle

      4. We lost this in the expulsion of the Extended Universe after the Mouse took over Lucasfilm, but the Sith Code in Knights of the Old Republic was actually better than the Jedi Code, IMO:

        Peace is a lie, there is only passion
        Through passion, I gain strength
        Through strength, I gain power
        Through power, I gain victory
        Through victory, my chains are broken
        The Force shall free me.

        1. The end result is that Sith come across as better at channeling and controlling their passion than the Jedi.
          As the book “Darth Plagieus” has the eponymous Sith Lord explain: “Remember why the Sith are more powerful than the Jedi, Sidious: because we are not afraid to feel. We embrace the spectrum of emotions, from the heights of transcendent joy to the depths of hatred and despair. Fearless, we welcome whatever paths the dark side sets us on, and whatever destiny it lays out for us.”

        2. They ditched the “all our books are authorized” thing before the prequels– way ahead of Disney.

          I know of several Star Wars fans who didn’t go to the second three movies in theater for that exact reason.

        3. Or as the EarthMasters put it in The RiddleMaster of Hed: “Not compassion, but passion….”

      5. I suspect that is why Luke says it is time for the Jedi to end. Suppression of emotion, and the sexual drive, at least in humans, is detrimental in the long run. Control of emotions is something else entirely. I’d really love to be able to call on an adrenaline rush, and put myself in the zone, on demand. It would certainly improve the top end of my athletic performance.

        1. I really miss the Corellian Jedi from the Expanded Universe. From what little the books showed, they had a lot more realistic view of the Force and life in the Real World.

  4. The proper response might be:

    I believe you must suffer from alexithymia. You misidentify our deep disdain of your entire world view as anger. We’re not angry at you for being so fundamentally wrong about pretty much everything, we just have absolutely no respect for you because of it.

    1. OOoo. That’s good. So an alexithymic wouldn’t know they’ve pissed me off until I punched them in the snot locker?

  5. I know this was written before our current spate of “antifa” tantruming (and some portion of the BLM/Fergusoning crap). It’s much harder to not be angry with spoiled brats doing things like blocking highways or rioting or entering a restaurant and loudly interrupting everyone’s meal and accosting customers.

    You really don’t want to “make me care”. Trust me on this.
    (Years ago I managed to raise my German blood slightly above my Scots/Welsh/Irish. All that means is I’m cold and calculating now, instead of flying into a blind rage and ripping your head off and using your entrails to decorate my rear-view mirror.)

    1. True – most people aren’t involved enough to care. What these idiots think is that they are so self-evidently correct that the vast majority of people who come to care will agree with them.

      That… may not work out well.

      1. In some ways, they’re right- the Man is holding back the anger of the Proletariat. What they don’t understand is that the anger of the Proletariat is not the stuff Marx says it is- it’s towards those on the Left.
        To paraphrase Rorschach, “…they’re locked in here with us”, and we have more guns.

    2. No, no, no, you tie their entrails to your radio antenna, not drape them over the rear-view mirror! Those things are full of crap, man!

      1. If you enact your berserker rage properly, everything that WAS in them is now on the floor. Also, it helps if you properly dry and cure them.

        But, tying them to your radio antenna does have a certain nostalgic feel for a slightly different era. I could be persuaded.
        (I think the modern trend would be to get one of those flag mounts for your pickup…………….)

    3. (Nods) I come from Dutch merchants and English farmers. We don’t like fighting.
      So when you make us, we make sure we never have to fight you again.

      1. I seem to recall an episode when the Dutch, some other Hansa members, and the Teutonic Knights decided to remove a small pirate problem from the Baltic. Things were very quiet for several decades.

  6. Drawing is a nasty way to go. Not that there’s any really good way to die, or be killed that is. But cutting a hole in someone and slowly pulling their guts out? Hanging or beheading is much faster and has got to be less painful.

          1. Short stake or long stake?
            He was responsible for the intentional suffering and death of innocents.
            Short stake it is.

  7. Socialism is not and never has been a good idea. A seductive idea that plays to compassion and envy yes but never a good idea. Why you ask is it not a good idea? Because even if administered by the saintliest of people with the very best intentions unaffected by human fragility, there remains as Ludwig von Mises pointed out in his book “Socialism” has no means to calculate, no market no means to value anything beyond the administrators personal preference. The Soviet Union fell not because Reagen frightened them into submission but because the people revolted at things like not enough toilet paper.

    1. In pure socialism*, though, there’s not a need for a market/prices, because everything is shared equally. If there is scarcity of something, it becomes self-evident, and the community as a whole adjusts to reduce that scarcity.

      (* In Sarah’s spirit of “as an IDEA”, assuming angels administering it, angels living in it, angels all around, angels everywhere. Humans tend to muck it all up.)

      This relates to why socialism can work on a small scale, and if there is some self-driven moral compulsion involved (like a religious commune), for at least some period of time. All those things help provide for some greater level of accountability to the ideal. As human nature asserts itself, however, it will eventually fail.

      1. It’s not just scarcity though. Unless of course you assume that all peoples everywhere all desire the same things and that all that is needed is equitable distribution. But you may want pickled plums while I desire candied plums and Joe wants prunes. The calculation is how much of what not just how much.

        1. But, in that small community (and in the ideal whatever-size community, full of angels), all of those decisions can be worked out by mutual agreement.

          I think there is an argument, as well, whether an ideal “socialist” community allows individual trading. I think it would, based on my view of the difference between socialism and communism. I know others would argue differently. I think -isms are seldom as cut and dried as the theorists and their adherents believe them to be.

        2. No, I don’t want prunes. My IBS is bad enough.
          But prunes is what the State has today, so I’d better eat them and smile, lest I be denounced for counter-revolutionary thought.

        3. Fortunately, if you were good as angels, you would be Prudent and Wise and know how to calculate it, and since you were all Just, you would all agree to adhere to the calculations.

      2. Pure socialism? “From each according to his ability, to each according to her need” socialism?

        The mechanisms for determination of ability and need represent huge loopholes easily exploited questions waiting to be answered. Advocates of such systems rarely get into the details of how those questions are to be resolved.

        1. Now that I think on it, “from each according to his ability” sounds like the basis for a free market economy, doesn’t it? It is only when you incorporate the socialist compulsion that it develops problems.

          “To each according to her need” equally sounds like the basis for free markets, assuming that you define “need” as willingness to pay.

          1. Indeed; the fatal flaw is the assumption that because my need is constant, your output is obliged to be likewise constant, and obliged to be always sustained at the maximum of your ability.

            1. Or as the Soviet proles said in their famous, wryly painful joke, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”

        2. Well, that’s the dispute I point out about “socialism”. What you quote is from Marx. And “socialism” – communal sharing of all things – existed long before Marx came along. I think there’s an argument to be made that “pure socialism” could mean “without all the crap of Marx”.

          As distinguished from communism, which is explicitly based on the writings of that idiot.

          But, I’m not a deep student of the -isms, and that’s the extent of my ‘argument’.

      3. The Kaiser issued a Rescript on the subject:


        “Now this is the tale of the Council the German Kaiser decreed,
        To ease the strong of their burden, to help the weak in their need,
        He sent a word to the peoples, who struggle, and pant, and sweat,
        That the straw might be counted fairly and the tally of bricks be set.

        The Lords of Their Hands assembled; from the East and the West they drew —
        Baltimore, Lille, and Essen, Brummagem, Clyde, and Crewe.
        And some were black from the furnace, and some were brown from the soil,
        And some were blue from the dye-vat; but all were wearied of toil.

        And the young King said: — “I have found it, the road to the rest ye seek:
        The strong shall wait for the weary, the hale shall halt for the weak:
        With the even tramp of an army where no man breaks from the line,
        Ye shall march to peace and plenty in the bond of brotherhood — sign!””

    2. “Because even if administered by the saintliest of people with the very best intentions unaffected by human fragility, there remains as Ludwig von Mises pointed out in his book “Socialism” has no means to calculate, no market no means to value anything beyond the administrators personal preference.”

      See also Freidrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” which details the excruciating inevitability of tyranny whenever socialism is tried.

      “F. A. Hayek (1899–1992) is undoubtedly the most eminent of the modern Austrian economists, and a founding board member of the Mises Institute. Student of Friedrich von Wieser, protégé and colleague of Ludwig von Mises, and foremost representative of an outstanding generation of Austrian School theorists, “

            1. In mine too, though we tend to be REALLY DARK redheads, where you only see the red when we’re in the sun, and suddenly it looks like our heads caught fire. Or as a son said looking at an old picture of mine “Why did you dye your hair bozo red?” Me “I’d never dyed my hair at that age.” Him “Oh.”

                1. That was my original hair color, before all the coloring. (Mostly coloring because it went white starting at 28. Now it’s pure white, but since my husband has only a few white hairs, I have to keep coloring my hair, or I’ll get asked if I’m out with my son. No.

  8. The same kind of people tend to go for power. Some are perhaps idealists, but idealists can be really bad because they tend to have problems admitting that they are wrong and instead will keep on trying to get the square pegs into round holes or other way around, unable to see that they holes and the pegs just aren’t compatible. Others just want power, and don’t really care about anything else than fixing things that they a) get that power, and b) keep it once they have managed to get it.

    Both in feudalism and in communism the system can be fixed so that once they get into power they can stay there.

    1. Those idealists often insist on pounding said pegs when they suddenly don’t meet their ideal expectations. Or breaking out their pocketknife to whittle those corners off.

    2. Regarding “idealists”.

      See what Heinlein had to say about “reform” vs. “business” politicians. Both are crooks, but the “Business” politician recognizes that the only commodity he has to sell is keeping promises. The “reform” politician (the “idealists”) will do anything, anything at all no matter how reprehensible, if you convince them it’s for the “greater good”–and do it with a clear conscience because he truly believes.

        1. Idealists are something always admirable. It’s those damned zealots who are deplorable.

          Idealists are people who agree with me; zealots those who agree with you.

        2. Probably because idealism can be hacked– and Christianity, AKA the thing that most liberalism kinda assumes is baseline human nature, uses most of those hacks…..

  9. The word “anger” is like the word “love”; both suffer from the fact they are fallback, overused common referents for entire spectra of emotional, moral and evaluative responses varying by subject and circumstance.

    This makes them particularly vulnerable to what I am, as I get older, more and more coming to consider the worst possible form of dishonesty: the deliberate vagueness of terminology that allows one to evoke emotional responses appropriate to one situation and then exploit them in order to manipulate another. Cf., for example, the rhetoric which takes the natural indignation of the young, goodhearted and enthusiastic upon seeing the sufferings of the poor and turns it towards building systems that promise to alleviate this suffering permanently here and now (or at least within a foreseeable future), without letting them stop to consider or test if those promises are at all justified.

    1. [X] LIKE

      And, your second para describes what’s been called the “motte-and-bailey” method of argument. Spot on.

  10. Sarah,
    I’d be very interested in your son’s analysis on the climate hoax. As a test engineer who regularly crunches through reams of plant data to find lost efficiencies, I spotted the main fallacy of the globull warming hoax very quickly back in the early 1990’s when it really got going. That fallacy was their hiding the uncertainties of their data and acting like there is no such thing as measurement error, or at best assuming totally unrealistic values for measurement error.
    Let me know if he’d like a professional critique of his paper on this. I’d be very interested in reading his thought on this.

    1. acting like there is no such thing as measurement error, or at best assuming totally unrealistic values for measurement error.

      Oh, you poor naive innocent! They’ve corrected for measurement error by [redacted], just as illusionists correct for perspective, persistence of vision and sleight of hand.

  11. Why am I angry? Because ‘you’ (the Progressive/Liberal Left) have taken so many real issues and good causes and turned them into train wrecks.

    There are real and serious environmental problems. Climate change ain’t one of them. Depletion of aquifers? Sometimes mentioned, seldom addressed.

    We are losing species we could save, like the rhino, because the Progressive Left doesn’t want to try anything but doubling down on failed policies. There’s a man in South Africa who farms rhinos. Their horns re-grow. You can harvest them, making the animals non-targets. And if the international laws would change, he could sell,themhorns to the market that’s paying for the poachers. Needless to say the animal activists HATE the idea.

    There are sooooooo many other examples.

    1. Anger is justified when you recognize that they are not about solving problems, they are about leveraging problems to empower (and enrich) themselves.

      I have recently mentioned that I am listening to the audiobook of Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Built the Arsenal of Democracy That Won World War II by Arthur Herman.

      A recurring theme is how the New Dealers wanted to use the crisis of the war’s demands on industry to establish czars to dictate production even though permitting the free market to work its spontaneous order magic* resulted in far greater (and far better) production. Time and again experts were proven wrong about what could be produced, confounded by the practical expertise of plant engineers for auto companies, construction firms and mills. For the New Dealers and Labor bosses this war was a crisis too great to waste, but happily American industry blocked their take-over.

      *Magic because the bureaucrats, labor organizers and news columnists had no grasp of how it worked.

      1. Contrast the sloppy Americans with the ordered and orderly German system under the Nazi party.
        The Americans would get consistently good equipment, while the Germans got promises of superior equipment.

        1. To be fair, it has been said by men in responsible positions that the war would not have been won nearly as quickly without a certain piece of superior German equipment….the jerry can.

          Which probably was too insignificant for the high ranking Nutzis to meddle with.

        2. I’ll take issue with part of that statement. The American equipment frequently started off really horrible (See Brewster Buffalo for instance), but without the Herr Doktor Schmidt syndrome, the awful equipment got improved until it was consistently good. (Case in point: the P51 Mustang went from contract to airframe in 102 days. It was OK to begin with, but when the Merlin engine was substituted for the Allison, it became a world-beater.)
          A further nit: German tanks were individually better than the American ones. However, we could build a bunch more of them. Misquoting: “Quantity has a quality of its own.”
          I’ve seen engineers fall in love with what they created, and lose sight of the fact that it’s not what’s needed. I suspect some of this was Germany’s problem. Thank God.

          1. Nit 1- America was coming out of decades of military neglect. Once experience was gained, stuff improved without having FDR throw in his irrelevant opinions on how things were supposed to work.
            Nit 2- The Germans had far more practical tank experience against the Russians, where the US had it’s first experiences against the poorly equipped Africa Corp.

            1. I don’t know much about tank warfare; strongly suspect you have it nailed.
              Agreed on Nit 1. Lots of rebuilding was needed; not unlike the current situation after 8 years of, er, peculiar policies.

          2. As to German tanks being better than American ones, that’s sort of true. German tanks had better cannon and better armor, and we’re generally more technically advanced.
            They were also utter nightmares to maintain, unlike their opposing counterparts, and were also more prone to breakdowns on top of that. A good chunk of the reason that Citadel didn’t work out was because the German tanks kept having crippling mechanical problems.

          3. This. It wasn’t that the Shermans were all that good (under-gunned, under armored, and earning the nickname “Ronsons” because they “lit up the first time” they were hit), but they were reasonably reliable, serviceable under field conditions, and we made enough of them that a 3-1 loss ratio was something we could take..

        3. The US War Department decided what it would take to do the job, then concentrated on making it happen. Technology was advancing rapidly, but they only changed their plans after careful consideration. It took two years for Ford’s Willow Run plant to come online and another year to get things running properly; then they were rolling a shiny-new B-25 bomber off the assembly line every hour, 24/7. Things had moved rapidly during those years and the B-24s were technically obsolete, but they were good enough.

          The War Department was a single authority, with partial Congressional oversight. There was waste and inefficiency, but it still managed to get things done in a timely fashion.

          The Germans, on the other hand, had multiple industrial operations, some umbrella’d under Todt and Speer, plus Goering’s own independent organization. All fought for resources with the gau leaders. Priority went to whoever got the nod from Hitler last. Vast projects were begun, factories built, assembly lines created… only to be scrapped when some other project became the new hotness. “German efficiency” consisted of trying to get *something* done before their workers and equipment were taken away and given to some other project.

          American and British engineers were just a sharp as the German ones. NASA has the NACA archives online; you can see how development on piston engines essentially stopped around the time of Pearl Harbor and every experienced engineer moved on to jets. But the War Department had decided – correctly – that we didn’t *need* jets to do the job, so the engineers had to wait until the war was over before they could see their designs produced. Which is why the Jet Age seemed to pop into existence so suddenly; all of the basic research had been done already.

        4. Crappy American equipment in WW2 was a direct result of government (specifically the Army/Navy) intervention. Left alone American companies came up with very good equipment, like the P-51, P-47, B-25, B-29, the M-1 rifle, M-2 machine gun, 90mm cannon. The M-4 Sherman tank was a direct result of one general deciding in it’s favor instead of a heavier tank with a bigger cannon. The Sherman was a good tank when it was introduced in 1942, but the Germans and Russians soon had better ones and the US was left producing huge numbers of inferior tanks.

      2. There’s a wonderful scene in one of W. E. B. Griffin’s books, set just before the outbreak of WWII; an intelligence operation has been tapping the German embassy’s communications, and is translating a telegraph message sent by the German ambassador to a relative in the Fatherland, after a brief tour of American factories and shipyards.

        I’m paraphrasing here, but the decoded telegraph boils down to “Putzi, you have to get that ridiculous Austrian under control! The Americans are producing A SHIP A DAY. They’ll BURY us!”

          1. The chief problem is that we simply haven’t had the right cooks.

            Claims that setting the griddle to 1000 degrees is our problem are clearly reactionary.

    2. There’s a man in South Africa who farms rhinos. Their horns re-grow.

      I’d wondered about that, in idle moments.

      ‘Course, it also makes me wonder why the poachers don’t try something similar…

      1. Not part of their mindset. Also, doing things aboveboard is impossible, due to various sale bans.

        1. I’d guess rifle bullets, even of a caliber guaranteed to bring down a rifle, are cheaper and easier to get than tranq darts.

          1. Well, that, and tranq darts don’t work like on TV where they hit the target and the target instantly falls over unconscious.

            If you wanted to adopt the “shoot the rhino with a tranquilizer, then cut off its horn while its asleep” strategy, you need to find some place to hide from a really, really pissed off rhino while the dart takes effect, then make sure you’re able to find it again later.

            1. For animals up to boar hog size: A narrow confine and someone with a “nose grabber” can be sufficient. A “nose grabber” is a device with a handle; a cable loop; and a simple locking mechanism. My job was to straddle the narrow space leading to the loading chute, grab the hog by the nose, and hold it steady enough for my father to cut off the tusks or to apply nose rings, or administer shots. In a pinch,. a corner of a pen would do, but wouldn’t work nearly as well.

              For animals up to cattle and horse side, a device that clamps around the body and secures the neck works really well. We didn’t have one, and since they cost money, we made do with a rope. The purpose was to hold the head steady to give pink eye shots – in the area around the eye. We used the stall in an old barn, but more often than not it was get the noose around the neck and secure to the nearest tree. Yep, it was my job to secure the cows and bulls, too.

              For something like a rhino, I imagine a beefed up version of the device that clamps around cattle and horses could be uses. I just wouldn’t want to be in the way when they let it go.

      2. The thing that get me is that the horns are used in ‘traditional Chinese medicine’. The myth is that they are for erectile disfunction, but that isn’t true. I read that they are used to combat fevers.

        So, how bad is official Communist Chinese healthcare if this crap can drive the price of rhino horn up so high?

        1. ‘Injecting with chicken blood’ is now a Chinese idiom because that was a real official government medical practice under Mao.

          1. That is scary on a couple of levels and may explain why bird flus tend to first jump to humans in China.

            1. That’s from humans, swine, and fowl living in very close proximity. Influenza can act like tinker toys, and three different species living so close together in such numbers increases the chance of something dangerously interesting mixing together.

            2. Oh, the practice seems to have been stopped. Just if you read the translations of, say, a dozen Chinese webnovels, you will almost certainly read ‘like being injected with Chicken blood’ at least once. There’s other evidence from webnovels that is perhaps suggestive of issues in modern practice, but it is hard to overstate how much less conclusive it is.

              1. Do they use it in a context like how bleeding a patient would be used in a Western novel, e.g. a practice that shows how silly and backward* our ancestors used to be? Or do they use it in a context that implies, “We really should return to the traditional practices of our forefathers?”

                * Now, some authors do manage to depict doctors bleeding patients without getting in that chronological-snobbery dig, so this is not a blanket condemnation. But too many authors see it as a chance for a little chronological snobbery, which speaks ill of their character.

                1. Funny thing is “bleeding” patients is still a thing. My mom went in for her quarterly bleeding the other day. Some health conditions require it to keep things in check. In her case it’s too much iron in the blood.

                  1. I believe I’ve also heard of some modern doctors actually using leeches for something (can’t remember the details), too. So although our theories of medicine are quite different* from what they were a couple hundred years ago when they were trying to balance out the humours in the body, we still end up using some of the same practices.

                    * And from the evidence of much-decreased mortality rates from most diseases, our modern theories of medicine are quite a bit closer to reality than what we were working with a couple hundred years ago. Not that we’ve completely understood the reality of how the human body works yet, of course.

                    1. Restarting blood circulation to re-attached limbs and digits is one use of leeches. There are others. You get the leeches from medical supply companies, and they are guaranteed free of most pathogens.

                    2. We are also finding maggots useful for treating burn patients as they eat necrotic skin while leaving living tissue unharmed. This reduces scarring and incidence of gangrene, IIRC.

                    3. That treatment was described in use at Bellevue in the 60s by Dr Nolen in “The Making of a Surgeon.”

                    4. A great book about the real usefulness of some pretty bizarre old “medical practices” is called “Honey, Mud, and Maggots.”

                  2. It could also help with diseases it’s no longer used for. TB, for instance. It relieves strain on the heart because first, the blood volume is decreased, adn second, as it recovers, the liquidy parts recover first, and so blood is less viscous.

                2. The chicken blood thing? I’ve never seen it used in stories as a legitimate medical practice.

                  The Chinese stories I’ve read use a lot of idioms based on historic or literary usage. “Had eyes and could not see Mt. Tai”, “Pulling up trouble by the roots”, etc.

                  As an idiom? “Like being injected with Chicken blood” is used to describe an event that causes a short term energy boost.

                  So no real reason to think it reflects current practice, only historic.

                  The other evidence is only slightly suggestive, especially because of the difficultly of sorting out worldbuilding, worldbuilding based on historic, traditional or literary sources, and actual unconscious influence from contemporary society.

            1. ?!? Did Postwar Britain have a lot of men with monkey testicles? I can only imagine the face of the first doctor to discern the condition.

        2. Well, apparently they were used for a fair number of things. Rhino horn and buffalo horn were both seen as “cooling” ingredients. (Which would be the opposite of an aphrodisiac.)

          The expensive thing was to use rhino horns for poison-detecting chopsticks (or ivory, or jade), because the idea was that they would change color if they touched anything toxic. That used a lot more material than grinding up tiny bits of rhino horn. (And it suggests that a lot of Red Chinese ministers were very worried about their colleagues, if that really was a big part of the poaching market.)

          1. Rhino horn cups were used for the same purpose and supposedly made their way to Europe. It’s possible that the horns, being made of essentially fused hair, would react where other materials wouldn’t.

        3. Truthfully, I’m not sure it would matter. Here in Plano, we have a large Chinese community that fled the Communists (I’d never encountered the Formosan Baptist Church before). Traditional medicine and acupuncture shops are on every corner, even though excellent medical care is everywhere too.

  12. Now we’re “hateful.”

    Well, actually now you are hateful, I was already “hateful” at the time because I’m rather less socially liberal than you are, but now they’ve gone full potato.

    1. New potato is OK, but beware the industrial-sized cans of “candied yams.”

      Yes, we started Thanksgiving cooking at Redquarters today, why do you ask? 🙂

    2. Or, as I’ve come to realize over the years, we’ve been declared “hateful” and “haters” for a very specific reason. It lets the progs hate us with a clean conscience.

      1. And one of the results is that they are giving real haters legitimacy. I read a lot of conservative to libertarian blogs and one reaction to the Charlston mess was “were they rocking the car before he went apeshit.” Because we’ve all see ‘peaceful’ Lefty protesters doing dumb shit like attacking a moving car, as if they think they are so many Clark Kents.

        It doesn’t seem to have been the case in Charlston, but we all know that sooner or later a bunch of Antifa idiots are going to get run over because they scared the driver. And nobody who follows this is going to be surprised.

        Congratualtions, morons, by going full on Brownshirt you are manag8ng to be as despicable as the Klan.

  13. I don’t hate you.

    I’m not angry at you.

    If there is a good way to describe the emotion that I have for you, it’s disappointed.

    You want to create new jailers because you cannot trust yourself. Call them by their true name, they’re jailers-the whole panoply of gaolers and wardens and guards and snitches and executioners. You have found new names for your prison-and, it’s not even a NEW name, just a name recycled over and over and over again from Marx and the rest of his self-loathing, self-hating friends that believe that they are so much smarter than everyone else. That because you can’t succeed, others are the thieves and liars and robbers of what is “yours”.

    Grow up.

    The world doesn’t owe you a living. You have to make a living of the world.

    And, if people don’t like you…maybe it’s not everybody else that’s an asshole, but it’s you. The first step in getting resolution is learning what’s wrong and what you can do to fix it.

  14. Another reason the trolls play the “You sound angry” card so often is because they mistake rational debate for anger. They themselves feel outraged when someone disagrees with them, so they project that feeling onto others. Thus, when your response is, “No, you’re wrong, and here is a logical argument explaining why you’re wrong,” they think you’re angry.

    There are also some who are just plain liars, of course. But in many cases, the “why are you angry?” question is genuine, because the poor things can’t tell reasoned disagreement apart from anger. Bless their hearts.

      1. It can be very difficult to determine emotional state from the written word* alone, and I wonder at the temerity of those who imagine themselves so discerning.

        *A circumstance often experienced by would-be humourists, I understand.

      2. I’d be more inclined to think that the proper response is “And you sound like you’re projecting.”

        Then “Tits or GTFO” “Engage my actual argument or go home.”

    1. That and trolls like getting angry remarks. It’s part of why they troll people.

      Which is amusing when you can get them angry when you don’t respond the way they want you to.

  15. The question about anger was a favorite tactic of my ex-wife, a truly and sadly irrevocably mentally disturbed women with what was best described as borderline personality disorder by several psychiatrists and psychologists working independently over the years. Its just part of project your feelings and fears onto others instead of dealing with them. There is no way to reach this kind of madness and drag it into reality.

  16. Oh my gods! From the two posts of yours that I’ve read, I love you already! (In a strictly plutonic sort of way. 😉)
    And here I was thinking there was no hope for humanity, a voice of reason appears!

    1. Go back and read some of the archive of Sarah’s previous posts: just keep clicking the “previous post” link. (It’s not labeled “previous post”, it’s labeled with the title of the previous post — i.e., the “previous post” link from this article is the “But I Want!” link, just above and left of the article). Boy, are you in for a treat!

      1. Haha! I type from my tablet-phone, so I get a lot of funny typos. At least this time, my meaning was pretty obvious. Lol!

        1. Manny f us tyep baldly, so commints on typos are permitted only for jocular purposes. As this lut can make a joek of almist anythin, pleeze accept are condolences.

          Typographical errors in Sarah’s posts are the price we pay for free reading. We aren’t paying enough for copy editing.

        1. There’s minotars (hat tip to Orvan), dragons, kitsune, even some nekogami. And a wallaby.

              1. Let me be more precise: alfár, the elves of Norse mythology, upon whom, incidentally, Tolkien based his elves.

              2. We had one of those and had to get shed of him. He kept getting into the liquor cabinet.

                At least, that was what Beloved Spouse said.

                1. I’m not sure what kind of elf you had… I certainly don’t have a drinking problem.

              1. Nah, I’m an elf reincarnated in human form. That’s why I’m tall, lean, quick and agile, and catlike. I read something in a silly faery court fantasy book, forget what it’s called. But the one thing the author got right was her description of how elves always seem to lounge like a cat.

                1. For a start, you don’t look the least bit mythical, not even the least bit invisible. And believe you me, I know a myth when I don’t see one.

                    1. When rescuing the princess:
                      Princess: “I am Princess Vespa, daughter of Roland, King of the Druids!”
                      Lonestar: “Oh great. That’s all we needed. A Druish princess.”
                      Barf: “Funny, she doesn’t look Druish.”

                    2. “Funny, you don’t look $GROUP” has been around a while. In Yellow Submarine (1968) it shows up as a ‘Blue Meanie’ is told “Funny, you don’t look blueish.” which is rather close to the canonical form of the line.

                  1. Elves aren’t invisible. They are just shy, most anyway. You probably wouldn’t even notice if they were living amongst you. 😉

                    1. Of course, Elves are masters of illusion.

                      A human can see them but Not see them as they truly are.

                      It’s amusing to watch a Elven warrior walk down the street in full battle gear and humans only see a tall human in a three-piece suit. 😉

                    2. Haha! Funny mental image! According to the Harry Potter series, muggles don’t notice anything anyway, so a warrior elf walking the streets dressed for battle might go completely overlooked without any glamour at all. Any the few who do notice, are either witches/wizards or would just think it’s someone going to a convention or something.

        2. Well, Orvan Taurus is a mythical being similar (nicer) to the Minotaur.

          I am the Book Loving Dragon. 😉

            1. Also there’s Fluffy (when the fire-breathing and scaly dragon wants to be called Fluffy, you call him Fluffy. He’ll sulk otherwise when you want BBQ.)

              And the sea serpent. She’s in the minion pool. Yes, there is gold down there. No, I don’t recommend going after it.

  17. Once upon a time I was an active member of Mensa, served in several responsible regional official positions. I am compelled to say that stupid and unintelligent are two very different things. Highly intelligent folks are quite capable of embracing very stupid ideas. Left the organization when the local chapter turned hard left. Membership stopped being enjoyable and became a constant argument.
    Saw Her Highness really angry just one time. I was front and center in the audience of a panel at LC several years ago. Topic had something to do with new authors and their options for getting their work published, indie vs traditional. A very well known and highly predatory author/editor was sitting center stage. to her left was Dan, with Sarah on his other side. A very young first time author was sitting to Sarah’s left.
    The predator, let’s call her JM simply for this discussion, was castigating the newbie for asking a very valid question. Really laying it on.
    I was close enough to see Dan’s hand holding Sarah’s arm down to the table with some force. When Sarah started to speak in defense of the victim her voice was slow, measured, with the accent just a smidge thicker than normal.
    It is my considered opinion that Dan saved that miserable ungrateful wretch of a woman’s life that day. As gratifying as it would have been to see her ripped asunder, there were just too many witnesses and hiding a body is such a pain in the butt.

    1. Yeah, but at LC the problem would have been the arguments over just the proper sort of way to dispose of the body, and the fight over who gets the privilege of demonstrating techniques. 🙂

      1. Alas, even Hannibal Lector would have better taste than to dispose of such a person by consumption. Probably would poison the water before sharks or piranha could eat the body. I’m afraid the only thing that would gleefully put the munch on would be corrupt lawyers.

      2. I remain in favor of flesh eating beetles over boiling. It is so much more sanitary. Bone, once dried, why there are a plethora of possibilities…

    2. “I am compelled to say that stupid and unintelligent are two very different things.”

      Yeah. The stupidest person I ever worked with was dumber than a box of hammers, but wasn’t much below average intelligence. Int 8, Wis 2. I’ve been around people with intellectual disabilities who were much smarter than than guy.

  18. ​”It was that kind of vacuous sentimentality which had allowed the powers of the jungle to grow strong–that perverse broadmindedness which insisted on acknowledging every argument for the other side while discounting all the irrefutable evidence on its own side, which strained every nerve to make excuses for a murderer while it pigeonholed the sufferings of the victims who did not need any excuse.”
    ~The Saint in Miami (1940)

Comments are closed.