Stories are like swords. Even if you’ve borrowed the sword, even if you didn’t forge it yourself from ore and fire, it’s still your body and your skill that makes use of it. It can still draw blood, it can strike down things that attack you, it can still defend something you hold dear. Don’t get me wrong, a sword you’ve made yourself is powerful. You know it down to its very molecules, are intimate with its heft and its reach. It is part of your own arm. But that can make you hesitate to use it sometimes, if you’re afraid that swinging it too recklessly will notch the blade. Is it strong enough, you think. Will it stand this? I worked so hard to make it. A blade you snatched up because you needed a weapon in your hand is not prey to such fears. You will use it to beat against your foes until it either saves you or it shatters.

But whether you made that sword yourself or picked it up from someone who fell on the field, the fight you fight with it is always yours.

@valnon

Originating from this post because it was too inspiring to leave it be. Bonus points for user’s @wrangletangle thoughts:

“We didn’t just borrow the sword. We remade it because we saw in it the potential for something better. And we did that together, all of us.”

This whole post was beautiful, but I just had to give special attention to these bits. Thank you so much for them. 

(via suzie-guru)

vastderp:

meanwhileonwednesday:

wetwareproblem:

mysharona1987:

grilleddolphin:

mysharona1987:

phinarei:

persepinecone:

writingmaniacnerd:

mysharona1987:

darthvatrix:

mysharona1987:

spanishg0ld:

mysharona1987:

herironess:

advanced-procrastination:

mdmshakespeare:

girlwithalessonplan:

hipsterenglishteacher:

mysharona1987:

waffletimewarp:

mysharona1987:

mysharona1987:

Oh, this was something else. He damn near destroyed the man.

All that was missing was the mic drop.

No, really. It’s like a scene out of a popular, critically-acclaimed HBO drama series that ends up winning all the emmys in the end.  

He fucking gutted the bastard.

That dude should run for President based solely on this video alone.

The rhetorical precision. 

oh that build

I would love to use this in class to demonstrate the effect of passive voice (it has been reported) and the blend of rhetorical strategies in the final statement. Too bad my County would see it as a skewed lesson.

Anybody else get a definite Socratic feel from this?

Obliterated

The horrified stare the wife gives when she clutches her pears and realizes how utterly fucked Jeff is.

watching this was a great start to my day

It’s a very uplifting video. Someone is finally being held accountable for their blatant lies and corruption. You don’t see that too often in politics.

And it’s not like the dude is even getting angry with Sessions. He is perfectly calm, cold and rational. He came incredibly well-prepared. 

I think the “You understand sir, that I get to ask the questions, you provide the answers in this capacity. You are no longer in the US senate” line was a little dramatic, but, you know, it was cool. 

So I like it. 

“Pearl clutching!” I’m screaming.

Every TV screenwriter and actor should study this.

It is better than anything you will see on House of Cards.

Holy green guacamole…

Decimated

I sat here vibrating with joy and it just kept getting better.

He’s POLITE. And Sessions is PANICKED and stuttering. A RACIST is being demolished by as black man who is being POLITE.

It literally doesn’t get more poetic than this. Shakespeare couldn’t have written this level of divine justice. The fucking classics wish they were this classic. The old gods are smirking down on this fucker right now, enjoying the human sacrifice that’s going down.

From now on, I will end every cool thing I ever say with: “I yield back.”

The most articulate version of “talk shit, get hit” I have ever heard

Provided that guy avoids any Al Franken-like scandals, he could be going places.

The charisma, sharpness and intelligence he displays here is truly something else.

The questioner is Congressman Hakeem Jeffries from the 8th district of New York.

(Begin transcript)
Jeffries: Uh, Mr. Sessions, I have a copy of the transcript of your testimony before the Senate judiciary committee in October. You stated under oath “I don’t recall” in some form or fashion some 29 times. Is that correct?
Sessions: I have no idea.
Jeffries: I have a copy of the transcript of your testimony before the Senate intelligence committee in June. You stated under oath “I don’t recall” in some form or fashion approximately 36 times. Is that correct?
Sessions: I don’t know.
Jeffries: In your testimony today, you have said “I don’t recall” at least 20 times. Is that fair to say?
Sessions: I have no idea.
Jeffries: Now, on October 4 2016, during a TV interview with Lou Dobbs, you criticized Hillary Clinton for telling FBI investigators “I can’t remember” approximately 35 times. You also stated during that Lou Dobbs interview that the intentional failure to remember can constitute perjury. Mr. Attorney General, do you still believe that the intentional failure to remember can constitute a criminal act?
Sessions: If it’s, uh, a, uh, act to deceive, yes.
Jeffries: K. Now you testified in January that you had no contact with Russian operatives during the Trump campaign. Earlier today, you testified that your story has, quote, “never changed.” Is that correct?
Sessions: (no response)
Jeffries: That was your testimony earlier today? That your story has never changed. Correct?
Sessions: I believe that’s, um, fair to say. We might-
Jeffries: (talking over) Okay-
Sessions: (talking over) -get, ehh, uh, we’ve added things that I did not recall at the time.
Jeffries: Right, but I’m not-
Sessions: (talking over) But my statement at the time was my best recollection of the circumstances, and, uh, I, as things are brought up, uh-
Jeffries: Reclaiming my time. I understand.
Sessions: All right.
Jeffries: Sir, you now acknowledge, uh, meeting with Ambassador Kislyak during the Republican National Convention. Correct?
Sessions: I remember I made a speech, he came up to me afterwards I was standing in front of the speaker (unintelligble) and, uh, did chat with him-
Jeffries: (talking over) Okay, thank you, and you also-
Sessions: (talking over) (unintelligible) not a meeting, it was just, uh, an, uh, encounter at that time.
Jeffries: Okay, and you also, uh, met with the ambassador in September of 2016 in your office as you’ve acknowledged. Correct?
Sessions: (talking over) Yes, for an appointment. I had two senior staffers, both full Colonels in United States Army, retired, in, in the meeting-
Jeffries: (talking over) Now you testified- I’m sorry. You testified in June before the Senate intelligence committee that you had not heard even a whisper about possible Russian involvement in the Trump campaign. Yet we understand you attended this March 31, uh, meeting with George Papadopoulos, talked about potential communications with Russian operatives, uh, but also, according to your third quarter 2016 FTC filing, you hosted a Trump campaign dinner meeting on June 30 2016 at the Capitol Hill Club, is that right?
Sessions: That’s correct. I was-
Jeffries: (talking over) And your Senate reelection campaign paid for that meeting, is that right?
Sessions: Uh, I, I think that may be so.
Jeffries: Okay, and Carter Page and George Papadopoulos both attended that June 30 meeting, correct?
Sessions: (hesitates) That has been reported.
Jeffries: And at that meeting, Carter Page told you that the- that he was going to Moscow in a few days, is that right?
Sessions: (hesitates) Yes.
Jeffries: Okay. At-
Sessions: (talking over) Uh, um, and he, um-
Jeffries: (talking over) Thank you, thank you-
Sessions: (talking over) He said it was a brief meeting as he was walking out the door, I don’t recall that conversation, but, uh, I’m not able to dispute it, and-
Jeffries: Understood. Reclaiming my time, I’ve got limited, uh, time available-
Sessions: (talking over) That is not, uh, did that establish a, uh, some sort of improper contact with Russians?
Jeffries: (talking over) I think you understand, I think you understand that-
Sessions: (talking over) He’s not Russian either, you know.
Jeffries: (talking over) You understand, sir, I get to ask the questions, you provide the answers. In this capacity you’re no longer in the United States Senate. Uh, you voted in 1999 to remove Bill Clinton from office on charges of perjury, correct?
Sessions: That is correct.
Jeffries: And connected-
Sessions: (talking over) Uh, there were other charges, I’m, I voted for impeachment, yes.
Jeffries: (talking over) Simple- Simple question. Yes, I understand. To remove him, actually; impeachment’s in the House. In connection with that vote to remove President Clinton from office, you gave this speech on the Senate floor on February 29, 1999, and in it, you acknowledge, uh, that while serving as U.S. Attorney, you once prosecuted a young police officer who lied in a deposition. And in that speech, you decided to prosecute that young police officer even though he corrected his testimony. Now you’ve testified under oath before the Senate judiciary committee in January. You subsequently corrected that testimony in a March 6 written submission, and have been forced repeatedly to come back to the Senate and now the House to clarify. When explaining your vote on the Senate floor to remove Bill Clinton from office, you stated that you refuse to hold a President accountable to a different standard than the young police officer who you prosecuted. Let me be clear: The Attorney General of the United States of America should not be held to a different standard than the young police officer whose life you ruined by prosecuting him for perjury. I yield back.

(End transcription)

In the wise words of Macklemore, its a murder scene, you’re gonna learn some things 

imagine the burning rubber stress shits that came after this massacre

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)

117–087:

veta-lopis:

veta-lopis:

Discussion question: Thoughts on the most emotive Spartan-II after Kurt?

I’m personally torn between Kelly and Fred. On the one hand, Kelly is very reactive to her environment (see: giving sentinels the finger), often cracks jokes and comforts her team mates, and acts as a translator of sorts to give voice to ideas and emotions that other Spartans have trouble expressing (John especially – there’s a quote in FOR about this but I can’t find it at the moment).

On the other hand, Fred has trouble hiding his emotions (as mentioned by Halsey in Glasslands), and seems particularly crummy at stopping his anxiety from spilling out when his team is in danger. He also has his own very dry brand of humour, comforts his family when they’re not doing well (see: the Gammas) and seems to be adept at dealing with non-Spartan personnel (which I bring up only to contrast him with someone like Linda, who is demonstrative in her own way, but only to close family who understand very nuanced and subtle body and verbal cues that most other people simply view as cold detachment).

I suppose you could make the argument that Kelly is intentionally demonstrative, as opposed to Fred’s often accidental outbursts, and is thefore the more emotive one out of the two. I don’t know how much of that agency/control factors into the “emotive” label, though, since they seem like different ways to come to the same end point.

#i’ve been thinking about this too #i think kelly is more emotive while fred is more emotional #though that might just be arguing semantics (via @equivalencept)

I think this is a good distinction. Kelly does it on purpose, whereas emotion just… happens to Fred and he’s confused as to how he’s supposed to deal with it

#fred: emotion. hmm. internalize? brain: sorry i cannot do that #get the jitters and yell into the wrong comm channel instead #im still undecided if that makes him more or less ‘emotive’ #since i dont know if controlled emotional outbursts should be a qualifier in deciding #im leaning towards kelly though for this reason #or perhaps its better to say shes more emotionally developed/mature #since she seems to be able to understand emotions as well as demonstrate them #which it seems like fred and john have a much harder time doing #john especially jesus christ #you’re a wreck son

Awesome meta!

(Putting the rest of my reply under a cut because it got a lot longer than I originally intended.)

Keep reading

wouldyoukindlymakeausername:

I can give you over forty thousand reasons why I know that sun isn’t real. I know it because the emitter’s Rayleigh Effect is disproportionate to its suggested size. I know it because its stellar cycle is more symmetrical than that of an actual star. But for all that, I’ll never actually know if it looks real. If it feels real.