for each age is a dream that is dying,

or one that is coming to birth

26,186 notes

The following quotations are taken from official court records across the nation, showing how funny and embarrassing it is that recorders operate at all times in courts of law, so that even the slightest inadvertence is preserved for posterity.

Lawyer:
"Was that the same nose you broke as a child?"
Witness:
"I only have one, you know."
-----
Lawyer:
"Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?"
Witness:
"By death."
Lawyer:
"And by whose death was it terminated?"
-----
Accused, Defending His Own Case:
"Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?"
The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to ten years in jail.
-----
Lawyer:
"What is your date of birth?"
Witness:
"July 15th."
Lawyer:
"What year?"
Witness:
"Every year."
-----
Lawyer:
"What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?"
Witness:
"Gucci sweats and Reeboks."
-----
Lawyer:
"Can you describe what the person who attacked you looked like?"
Witness:
"No. He was wearing a mask."
Lawyer:
"What was he wearing under the mask?"
Witness:
"Er...his face."
-----
Lawyer:
"This myasthenia gravis -- does it affect your memory at all?"
Witness:
"Yes."
Lawyer:
"And in what ways does it affect your memory?"
Witness:
"I forget."
Lawyer:
"You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?"
-----
Lawyer:
"How old is your son, the one living with you?"
Witness:
"Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which."
Lawyer:
"How long has he lived with you?"
Witness:
"Forty-five years."
-----
Lawyer:
"What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?"
Witness:
"He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'"
Lawyer:
"And why did that upset you?"
Witness:
"My name is Susan."
-----
Lawyer:
"Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
Witness:
"No."
Lawyer:
"Did you check for blood pressure?"
Witness:
"No."
Lawyer:
"Did you check for breathing?"
Witness:
"No."
Lawyer:
"So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
Witness:
"No."
Lawyer:
"How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
Witness:
"Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
Lawyer:
"But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
Witness:
"Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
-----
Lawyer:
"What happened then?"
Witness:
"He told me, he says, 'I have to kill you because you can identify me.'"
Lawyer:
"Did he kill you?"
Witness:
"No."
-----
Lawyer:
"Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
Witness:
"Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."
-----
Lawyer:
"You were there until the time you left, is that true?"
-----
Lawyer:
"So you were gone until you returned?"
-----
Lawyer:
"The youngest son, the 20 year old, how old is he?"
-----
Lawyer:
"Were you alone or by yourself?"
-----
Witness:
"He was about medium height and had a beard."
Lawyer:
"Was this a male or a female?"
-----
Lawyer:
"I show you Exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture."
Witness:
"That's me."
Lawyer:
"Were you present when that picture was taken?"
-----
Lawyer:
"Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?"
-----
Lawyer:
"Do you know how far pregnant you are now?"
Witness:
"I'll be three months on November 8."
Lawyer:
"Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?"
Witness:
"Yes."
Lawyer:
"What were you doing at that time?"
-----
Lawyer:
"She had three children, right?"
Witness:
"Yes."
Lawyer:
"How many were boys?"
Witness:
"None."
Lawyer:
"Were there girls?"
-----
Lawyer:
"You say that the stairs went down to the basement?"
Witness:
"Yes."
Lawyer:
"And these stairs, did they go up also?"
-----
Lawyer:
"What is your brother-in-law's name?"
Witness:
"Borofkin."
Lawyer:
"What's his first name?"
Witness:
"I can't remember."
Lawyer:
"He's been your brother-in-law for years, and you can't remember his first name?"
Witness:
"No. I tell you, I'm too excited." (rising and pointing to his brother-in-law) "Nathan, for heaven's sake, tell them your first name!"
-----
Lawyer:
"Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York?"
Witness:
"I refuse to answer that question.
Lawyer:
"Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago?"
Witness:
"I refuse to answer that question.
Lawyer:
"Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?"
Witness:
"No."
-----
Lawyer:
"Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?"
Witness:
"All my autopsies have been performed on dead people."
-----
Lawyer:
"Were you acquainted with the deceased?"
Witness:
"Yes sir."
Lawyer:
"Before or after he died?"
-----
Lawyer:
"When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?"
Other Lawyer:
"Objection. That question should be taken out and shot."
-----
Lawyer:
"And what did he do then?"
Witness:
"He came home, and next morning he was dead."
Lawyer:
"So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?"
-----
Lawyer:
"Could you see him from where you were standing?"
Witness:
"I could see his head."
Lawyer:
"And where was his head?"
Witness:
"Just above his shoulders."
-----
Lawyer:
"Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?"
Witness:
"The victim lived."

6,812 notes

postcardsfromspace:

genderqueer:

unfriendlyatheist:

Gender neutral pronouns, because it’s not always absolutely crucial to existence to continuously refer to one’s assigned gender or genitalia configuration. 

I am an editor and a writer, and when I bring up the subject of creating and popularizing gender-neutral personal pronouns, or using “they” as such, I’m almost inevitably met with bitchery, derision, and prescriptive entrenchment. If you’re one of those people who turns up their (see what I did there?) nose at “made-up” words, I’d encourage you to take a moment to peruse the essay “New Words,” in which George Orwell makes a damn compelling argument for just such a thing.

What it comes down to, oh linguistic purists, is that language is a tool for the communication of ideas. If existing language is insufficient for communicating an idea, we either repurpose obsolete terms or introduce new ones, just as we’d upgrade a machine that no longer served the needs of the time. Get over it.

“It is curious that when our knowledge, the complication of our lives and therefore (I think it must follow) our minds, develop so fast, language, the chief means of communication, should scarcely stir. For this reason I think that the idea of the deliberate invention of words is at least worth thinking over.” - George Orwell, “New Words”

(Footnote to the pronouns above - I’ve encountered “sie” as well as “zie” for the subjective form of “hir,” and the whole X set written with Z instead of X.)

(Source: alexthefab, via ragnell)

505 notes

Hope on Fire: pre-serum: squintyoureyes: {redacted} asked: So you know how Tumblr...

pre-serum:

squintyoureyes:

{redacted} asked: So you know how Tumblr enjoys portraying a romantic relationship between two straight men and turning their platonic friendship into their gay fetish fantasy right? Well I wanted to know, because I have seen you (rightfully so) speak out against this but then I have also seen you (mostly with animated shows) turn around and ship Azula/Mai or Artemis/M’gann or Korra/Asami. Isn’t that doing the same thing? Turning the platonic into a fetish fantasy? Genuinely curious.

I’m glad you asked me this,  because I’ve seen others pose this question/concern before and I think there’s a sort of disconnect or fallacy happening in terms of what is and what isn’t inherently problematic.

A few things, as I see it:

There’s an element of fantasy to ALL shipping whether it’s canon or not, whether it’s queer or not. At the end of the day it’s fun. Shipping same-sex couples isn’t automatically fetishistic any more than shipping heterosexual couples. This doesn’t mean I don’t have problems with the WAY some members of fandom go about it in discussions or in fiction, but that’s a case-by-case thing. And furthermore, not being a gay man I’m not qualified to speak on what is or isn’t fetishizing gay men.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with shipping canonically ‘straight’ people in queer relationships because a) non-canon ships happen all the time, and b) straightness in media is a default presumed position, which means VERY few characters actually bother to IDENTIFY as straight in canon, and in fact expressing interest in someone of the opposite gender does not necessarily mean someone is straight.

Which is to say, for example, shipping Artemis with Wally is no different than shipping her with Kaldur is no different than shipping her with M’Gann. And certainly one can’t even call a character like Azula straight with ANY degree of surety. It’s all about the things we assume or choose not to assume and there’s nothing wrong with that.

All this is to say: imagining platonic homosocial relationships as romantic is not the problem as I see it. Not on its own, neither with men nor with women. And I have actually never spoken out against that? Which is where I think the disconnect is.

My issue with fandom’s hyperfocus on white dudes fucking each other is not an issue with slash or with the queering of heteronormative narratives.

It’s an issue with the misogyny and racism that’s usually coupled with that. It’s ignoring, erasing, bashing female characters. It’s ignoring characters of color, even slashable men of color, in favor of white dudes. It’s LOSING THEIR SHIT every time a woman gets near one of their bromances. It’s appropriating queer rights rhetoric to claim that casting a woman of color in an iconic white male role equals a loss of queer representation that never existed in the first place. It’s conflating their porn with my liberation. Often while ignoring the existence of queer women and femslash. And more than that, it’s the fact that somehow, some way, it happens in every single fandom I’ve ever encountered and often on quite a large scale. It’s the trends that make me sad, that showmakers notice on the internet and at conventions, then cater to down the road when it comes time to write the next season or the next show, to the point it feels like a cycle of erasure and mind-numbing sameness that will never end.

is why I, personally, have little interest in white dudes fucking. So I guess it’s one of those fine distinctions, for me, but I wanted to make it clear.

“It’s conflating their porn with my liberation.”

4,429 notes

tiktokofoz:

favorite glee fandom cameos: season three.

Internet “fan”base, you are gross and entitled.

This gifset? Is known as plot and character development.

I daresay most of you don’t know what these things are. After all, you insist that Glee doesn’t possess them. Oh, that’s right, all these moments above are merely the writers echoing the Internet, that’s all it is, this professional team of writers are utterly incapable of crafting a good story about a ridiculous number of characters.

No writer should ever rely on what the fandom says, because a fandom wants nice things to happen, and you can’t base a story on nice things. That would be boring.

So Tina is neglected. Schue is awful. Rachel hogs the spotlight and Blaine is thrust into it because he can pass for straight and white. Brittany doesn’t talk for a while. Kurt twists what actually happened in the past because he’s upset.

The writers remember what’s happened on the show better than any of the fans. They know exactly who these characters are. They don’t have anything against any of their wonderful actors, their characters or the relationships of the characters.

Do not feel personally victimized by the fact that a television show didn’t go the way you wanted it to. It doesn’t make you the champion of a noble cause or a critic of media, it makes you a whining brat.

Why would you care so much about a fictional relationship that you hate on actual people because that relationship is experiencing drama? Admit it: no “fan”dom wants a good story. They want an absence of story where the status quo never changes. This is why Hannah Montana is allowed on television while Glee, of all shows, is accused of being terrible and pandering and lacking consistency.

(Source: jude)

Filed under glee