Headcanon that Shakespeare was a muggle, but that he was so popular and influential that his plays grew to be an important part of wizarding culture too. Purebloods therefore usually just assume that he was a wizard and are absolutely flabbergasted when someone at Hogwarts informs them of the truth.
"BUT HE WROTE ABOUT WITCHES IN SCOTLAND, HOW WAS HE NOT A WIZARD?"
"I dunno, maybe he was just friends with a Hogwarts graduate?"
Oh man and it’s just like arguments in real life where people say that Shakespeare had to be a courtier because he wrote about court life even though his depiction of royal courts isn’t actually very accurate (there aren’t nearly enough people around, basically). There are probably wizarding historians who have pointed out that wizards from Shakespeare’s own time have pointed out all the places where his magic is inaccurate, with references to actual 16th-century magic books, but nobody bothers to read them because nobody likes History of Magic and related topics.
Lacking cooperation from the Pentagon in the making of the film, the set designers reconstructed the aircraft cockpit to the best of their ability by comparing the cockpit of a B-29 Superfortress and a single photograph of the cockpit of a B-52, and relating this to the geometry of the B-52’s fuselage. The B-52 was state-of-the-art in the 1960s, and its cockpit was off-limits to the film crew. When some United States Air Force personnel were invited to view the reconstructed B-52 cockpit, they said that “it was absolutely correct, even to the little black box which was the CRM.” It was so accurate that Kubrick was concerned whether Ken Adam’s production design team had done all of their research legally, fearing a possible investigation by the FBI.
I can not count the number of times this trick has saved my ass.
And people say Tumblr doesn’t teach you life skills…
this will come in handy one day
ATTENTION GRADUATING CLASS OF 2013: COLLEGE SURVIVAL 101
Reblogging for future reference..
Reblogging so my followers pester me every day until I find out how to detect this and release the information to the public.
raginrayguns said: No, it was clear you weren't justifying it. It sounded like you were trying to explain it, but I don't think you did. You can't explain the appeal of war with more war, that's like trying to explain why people get pet dogs by saying that sometimes dogs have puppies. You could just as easily use that as an "explanation" for why everyone really wants pet public lice
Okay, I see that.
Perhaps a better answer would be that the point of all that global hegemony is that the US is paranoid about keeping its own internal and external policy objectives secure from an international order which might hypothetically oppose them.
If you are wondering why it is so paranoid about this, well, the simple answer is that the US just doesn’t like internationalism, especially when it isn’t led by it. There are quite a few reasons for this, which go deep into the depths of American history and philosophy, which I have relatively small inferential distance from, which is why my previous answers were not well-formed.
raginrayguns said: "Unchallengeable global hegemony for the purpose of maintaining the ability of unilateral US action anywhere, anytime. Duh." That's circular. You're saying the military is there so that the military can always be used. Wars are fought so that later wars can be fought. What's the benefit of unilateral US action anywhere, anytime?
I wasn’t justifying it. Sorry if that was unclear.