Demetz

Feedback is an essential part to any performance. When one finds a performer to be exceedingly boring, or politician to be unamuzingly nonsensical, it is to be expected that the unimpressed will voice that opinion. When it becomes clear that a comedian is unfunny, that an entertainer is unentertaining, or that a politician is without sensibility it is of no surprise when that negative feedback increases and forms into a consistent blowback. When that happens the performer should seriously consider reforming his performance or finding a new task to apply himself to. Being thick skinned is of importance as criticism should not necessarily be taken personally, but it is not the skin that is of concern so much as the mind which should be considering whether the criticism is valid and if so how to act on it. Failure to seriously consider the validity of criticism and subsequently to make changes where such criticism is found to be valid is tantamount to failure as a person as such an individual can no longer advance himself.

I found myself in a discussion with one of those adamantly believing Christians. Initially I merely expressed somewhat incoherently the failure of religion to support my mom. You see... every few years my mom starts going back to church because she feels she can not cope with life otherwise. For a while she'll feel great having been "forgiven" for her sins. Then she'll feel guilty for not imposing christian "values" upon myself and my brother and for not having consistently imposed them on herself. This has usually resulted in her enacting new restrictions on us, a big argument between her and my self, her and my brother, her vs me and my brother, and her vs my dad. Eventually we'll come to a compromise, her guilt will be assuaged and with time the retrictions will elapse as her spiritual crisis recedes. The most recent bout of this started some time last year when her grandmother died and she was reminded of how much of a spiritual inspiration her grandmother had been. The difference this time is that she could not exert control over me since I'm an adult, and what control she might think to exert over my brother is immediately rebuffed by his extremely defiant nature. She expressed concern that she never taught me or my brother christian religion well enough... I deflected that right away by recounting the basics of christian theology but didn't really assuage her concern because I still reject it. My brother on the other hand... well... lets just say that his knowledge of Christianity is limited to that such a thing as christianity exists and it must be right, but he has no interest in actually finding anything out about it. As the normal means for phasing out her spiritual woes is not going to work this time, I don't know how long it will take for her to get back to normal, or even if she will. One thing of great concern to me is her adherence to doctrine without any reasoning. I have discussed with her homosexuality and the bible, we went through the rounds of leviticus being overruled by the coming of Jesus, Jesus himself never discussing homosexuality at all, and the origins of those passages condemning homosexuality in the new testament being dubious as best. After all that I asked her why she would still have a problem with homosexuality if by her own admission there is not sound basis for opposition to it on biblical terms. It was like she'd forgotten the past hour of discussion, because her answer was "because I have faith in the bible." She is willing to allow her faith in a book whose messages in question are of dubious origin to supercede her relationship with her son, and here's the kicker, among the reasons she "needs" religion is because she's having difficulty with her relationship with her son. Is there something I'm missing here, some additional factor I'm not considering as to why blind reasonless faith should supercede real life family? In any case... I'm digressing from what I intended to talk about, which is the Christian concept of forgiveness. The Christian way as it was defined to me in that discussion was "knowing that we've been forgiven through the blood of Christ and we by God's grace we are able to become better people because of that." I took objection to that. Many, including myself, find it to be the epitome of immorality to let an innocent man take the blame and the punishment for one's own moral faults and would find a religion based on the idea of the perfectly moral jesus dying for their sins to be abhorrent and refuse to thrust their sins upon an innocent or anyone else, preferring instead to take personal responsibility for their moral failures to such an incredibly immoral action. I maintain that I was not a party to the death of jesus nor am I automatically subject to the covenant made by him suffer for the sins of those who would thrust them upon him, nor will I enter into such an arrangement even after the death itself has taken place as doing so would still be to reap rewards from an cowardly and artificial cession of responsibility. The other side of christian metaphyiscs presents a God whose duty is to punish the wicked and apparently anyone who doesn't beg him not to punish them is considered wicked, regardless of what or how many sins they have committed while those who do beg him to withold punishment are granted a complete amnesty. We are punished for our sins but not through divine torment. We are subject to the consequences of immoral behavior through earthly means (for example, a liar no longer being trusted) and spiritual means as our consciences demand better of us and demand that we rectify our misdeeds. No one can take away those consequences simply for the asking. No forgiveness from god will mean a thing to someone who has not forgiven himself, nor will forgiveness from god be of importance to one who has already forgiven himself. God is not necessary for forgiveness nor redemption. My mom never forgave herself for a number of things in her life, and all the prayer over the years, all the things she's thought god wanted her to do to make up for it never took away the fact that she did it and she has never gotten over it. God's forgiveness meant nothing to her because she never forgave herself; God's forgiveness means little to me because I know those wrongs which I have committed can never be assuaged by someone who was not a party to them and those wrongs which have already been rectified require nothing further. The contrary thesis, that it is God's divine right to exact spiritual punishment through eternal torment upon anyone who does not beg his forgiveness and his assistance in rectification of their wrongdoings is disgusting to me. If this approach to metaphysics is correct, I would sooner opt for eternal torment and lead a rebellion against the great oppressor that is god than to cower before and praise so unjust and unworthy a would-be redeemer.

I can't tell you how many countless times I have played a game on the computer instead of doing something far more important. Usually the something far more important has been studying. I'm strongly considering handing my computer to a roommate and asking him to hide it from me until the semester is over so I won't have the temptation anymore. I'm taking in five weeks a number of classes that would normally be taken over the course of four months. I should be studying instead of playing games. I know that. I think that even when I'm playing the games. I keep playing anyway. Does that make me an addict? As I understand addiction, its where one's habitual practice becomes detrimental and the person can't change even though they may want to. If there such a thing as being addicted to something other than drugs... for me it would seem to be these games. It doesn't even matter what games... I can delete every real game from my computer and I'll still play solitaire. I might be well away from my computer, and I'll pull out my phone and start playing tetris. I really don't know what to do... other than to work readjusting my willpower so that the will to not play can over take the will to lethargy.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were making light of the subject.

While its nice to think that those who have cared for you won't turn their backs on you because of your sexuality, and it certainly is something to celebrate when fears turn out to be for nothing, it is important to remember that there are many who have very good reason to fear how those closest to them will react. Teenagers, for instance, are largely dependent on their parents for their financial support, and beyond that are subject to their parents general will. If the parents decide to make the teenager's life into a perpetual hell, then the teenager has no resort but to endure that maltreatment. I love to hear about coming out stories where it turns out all the worry was for nothing, but I also hate it when I hear about some poor kid whose family rejects them and their life takes a major turn for the worse as a result. When it comes to coming out, if there is uncertainty as to how the family will react, I advise to wait until you're able to support yourself. Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. Now... as far as coming out to oneself, I'm all for that, its quite a liberating experience

I find myself unimpressed by the movement to refuse labels. Labels facilitate communications. We use adjectives and nouns to tell other people about ourselves. Its one thing to say "well... I'm happy having sex with women too so I'm not homosexual, but I do like having sex with men so I'm not strictly heterosexual either" what you do in a case where a label doesn't fit is create a new adjective or adopt one to your purposes. Conveniently there already is one for that case where one likes both men and women. Bisexual. Your friend isn't refusing labels, he just picked a different one, with the same meaning. Why "bisexual" was not good enough for him... I don't know. It doesn't degrade a person to acknowledge that they're gay, straight, or bi. Celebrating label refusal as though it makes a person better than those who do acknowledge what their sexuality is... other than creating an artificial area of contention... contributing to pointless conflict.

I... don't get it.... blame game with sexuality? I spent most of my life pretending I didn't have this sexuality, fearful, at some times even hateful of myself for it. The most obvious person to put blame on, my molestor, never occurred to me as someone to blame since I spent too much time fearing that I owed most of who I am to being molested, given how young I was when it happened. I was too busy being afraid that everything I am, was owed to a detestable act to think it should be used as a cop out for my faults. On the contrary I was faced with the problem of if I turn out well, then that could conceivably mean that child molestation was not bad - a premise that disgusted me. I eventually got out of that trap by realizing that although I was molested, it was having a stable family and nearly all the other events of my life that are responsible for who I am today, not one negative event. I suppose there are those who, as part of their evolving sense of self, blame their parents for genetics or blame the objects of their attraction, or as is very convenient in religious circles to blame the phantom "devil." If you mean to criticize people who blame others for their circumstances in general... understand that the "blame game" as you put it cuts both ways. There are people who take no personal responsibility and there are those who take too much personal responsibility and are taken advantage of by people ungrateful for anything more than a scapegoat. The artificial Martyr and the effective coward, two extremes, neither of which are good for an individual to take up as a character trait. Yet, people more often criticize for the 'blame game' than artificial martyrdom... why? I would posit that its because its far more convenient to the coward to have a martyr around to take responsibility for them than someone to absolutely refuse blame and force them to accept some of it. When something goes wrong, its not all one person's fault, and trying to take all the blame for everything that goes wrong in your life Will Kill You inside. Its much healthier and far more ethical to look at a situation and acknowledge fair responsibility for one's circumstances than to take all the blame, than to push it all off or take it all on as a personal burden. I would warn though, against rushing to judgment as to what the correct amount of blame is that another person should take on themselves. By our nature as human beings, our perspectives are limited and if you're not careful, it is easy to mistakenly criticize someone who far better knows and understands their own situation.

I've been okay, got depressed through much of last semester but I'm more or less out of it now. I really miss my boyfriend but I'm flying up to see him in another week. This semester I've got a really heavy academic load with four classes that would normally be taken over the course of four months condensed into about five weeks, but the good news is that because I'm doing this, by December I'll be able to graduate with my Bachelor's in Political Science and move in with my boyfriend in Philadelphia. If I can get As I may even get accepted into the University of Pennsylvania's Master's of Government Administration program.

I was referred to a video which supposedly justified the sactioned murder of homosexuals by Islamic law. Naturally I was skeptical. http://islamictube.net/view_video.php?view...dd8fe4e481144d8 My skepticism was well warranted. I do have to give the man credit for his discussion of the matter of homosexuality's naturalness. Indeed, humans are above the animal world because we have systems of morality and ethics and we can not govern our behavior by the idea that anything animals do is perfectly okay for us to do. One thing I like about his commentary on this matter is that the reasoning used discounts both the "homosexuality is natural and therefore okay" and the "homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad" arguments, even if he only mentions the arguments in support of the former proposition. I was also mildly amused at a religious person attacking what is in reality a counterargument to a religious proposition - that homosexuality is unnatural- by essentially arguing the original proposition had no merit in the first place. He then discusses biological causes for homosexuality since it would be incomprehensible that a loving god would pass divine condemnation on homosexuals for their homosexuality if it weren't their fault. First he addresses proposed biological causes, then argues against the second half of this very premise. In the first contention of this issue, the matter of glandular causes, he refers to a study showing that a certain gland in homosexuals was more like that in the opposite sex than those of their own sex, which would support the idea that their homosexuality was caused by their having a biologically different makeup. He makes what I consider to be a valid criticism in that since the study involved all postmortem examinations it could not be shown that the differences in glands were the cause of homosexual behavior or the effect of it. In the second contention on this issue he addresses a study which claimed to have identified a gay gene. Criticisms of this study included that there was no control group, results were not reproducible, someone working on the study later claimed to have fixed the results, and the head of the study was gay and this compromised his neutrality since he would presumably have a vested interest in the results. At this point he strays from the issue at hand to launch into a diatribe about AIDS being divine judgment upon homosexuals and anyone who engages in sexual behavior outside of marriage. Of course this ignores the fact that it can be acquired through blood transfusion or through needles used for vaccinations when proper sanitary procedures are not followed. He later launches into a valid argument that people, regardless of whatever their biological inclinations may be, are also subject to free will. They can decide not to engage in morally reprehensible behavior even if they have natural urges to engage in them. The task, then, is to demonstrate that homosexuality is such a morally reprehensible behavior, which he attempts to do (in a subtle compromise of intellectual integrity) by lumping it in with adultery and pedophilia as well as by declaring it to be a danger to the family. He does not actually defend the premise that homosexuality is a danger to the family. The closest thing to such a defense was his mentioning that Islam separates boys from girls as well as boys from boys and girls from girls when they near the age of puberty because incest is wrong, following this up by also saying that homosexuality is wrong and is brought about when that type of incest is engaged in and then homosexual behavior supported by children later exploring with other children at school. It is true that incestuous relationships are damaging to the family, but this unfounded assertion that homosexuality is derived from incestuous childhood relationships is garbage. The primary argument made in this video as justification for the murder of homosexuals is as follows: 1 Islam promotes the family above all else 2 Behaviors which threaten the family must be punished severely by death 3 Homosexuality threatens the family Therefore: Homosexuality must be punished with death There are various problems with this argument including that that the third premise is not proven nor is the second premise necessarily true. Concerning premise 2, the most obvious flaw is that by executing persons who engage in some of the behaviors one may be causing far more harm to the family than the behavior itself. An adulterous father, for instance, is of even less use to his family if he is deceased and unable to provide for them. Given the overall nature of this discussion, my approach to premise 3 will be more extensive as it more directly speaks to the issue of homosexuality.The typical arguments in support of this premise are as follows (please feel free to pose other arguments as to how homosexuality threatens the family, I'll be happy to address them or if I am unable to, to concede this point): 1 Homosexuals can not reproduce and are therefore unable to form families. - This argument fails because: A homosexual couple may adopt or otherwise make arrangements to procreate, maintaining custody of the child. There is no proof that homosexual couples are less capable of raising children than than heterosexuals and there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that homosexuals are capable of effectively raising children. 2 Homosexuality implies adultery, which is inherently damaging to the family. - This argument fails because: homosexuals are perfectly capable of maintaining fidelity to each other. The very fact that homosexuals are pursuing marriage rights is proof that homosexuals can be in long lasting stable loving relationships. What threat, then, does homosexuality actually pose to the family? None. Is it outside of the Islamic structure of a family, yes... but it does not inherently damage families. Rather, the fact that homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising families is a direct threat to the assertion of Islam that the Islamic family structure is the only success-able one and by extension a threat to Islam in general. Believing he had provided a sound argument that homosexuality is a threat to the family, he moves on to the punishment itself. There is no effort to hide the fact that Islam orders the murder of homosexuals. However, there is an attempt here to make such sanctioned murder seem less barbaric by mentioning that Islam requires 4 witnesses to a person's homosexual activity or a confession before the murder may be carried out. This is not unlike other arguments that "Its okay if you keep it discrete" but lets face it... if people being aware of it happening means you're subject to murder then no, its not okay. So in conclusion... there still is no sound argument for the murder of homosexuals as its sanctioned by Islam since -homosexuality is not the threat to the family that Islam claims it to be and -murdering homosexuals is an actual harm done to families. Also, concepts such as compassion for the sick are still beyond the ability of this brand of religious thinker to grasp. Signing out with great fatigue since its now 4:20am, Doubly Dead Deme (under sharia law)

So yesterday I took two exams, one in Management of information resources in the public sector, and the other in Contemporary political philosophy. I'm not sure how I did on the first one, but I'm not especially concerned either. I would have to get below a fifty in order to not get an A in that class. As for Contemporary Political Philosophy... that one I gambled on a bit, and my gamble worked great. You see, we were told that 6 questions would be on the exam, 3 in each of two sections. We were told we had to answer three, at least one from each section. Logically, if I knew four very well then I'd be guaranteed to do well on the exam. I didn't know four very well. I didn't even know one very well. So I gambled, studying three in hopes that I'd absorb enough information in two days to answer those three questions thoroughly. I'd be guaranteed that two of them would be in sections I could answer them from. The third would have a fifty/fifty chance. Well... it worked out and I'm pretty sure I aced the exam. I probably didn't get a 100, this is one of those professors (like most, it seems) who is extremely reluctant to give someone 100% credit, but I'm pretty sure I at least got an A. My next exam comes tomorrow, where I get to write an essay about how reorganizing the planet such that nations are all replaced by theocratic communities and the united nations is just as weak as ever but also the only place where secularity exists is a terrible horrible no good very bad idea. You know, its one thing for a book titled as a religion's social contract to espouse such ideas, but I'm extremely disappointed that a book entitled "The Liberal Conscience" would ever promote such a thing.

This is from last Summer... I really have to give my brother credit because that's some good photography work.

As many of you may already be aware, I am an ex-Muslim apostate. I converted to Islam in the summer of 2004, deserted it in late spring 2006. Among various other issues for my departure from that religion is the Islamic stance on homosexuality. I inquired about it on Islamonline.net, having been previously referred to that site as a legitimate site for the discussion of Islam. This was my post:

Absolutely disgusting. Among various reasons I am sincerely considering homeschooling my children.

The Day of Silence at USF coincided with a day when crazy christian fundamentalists were protesting the existence of gays (among other undesirables). Our day of silence event involved t-shirts with the slogan "sometime you have to be silent to be hears," little flyers explaining what the day of silence is, and a hate wall, on which people could write various things they'd been called to be symbolically torn down at a breaking the silence rally later in the day. Twice our people had to get the cops to intervene when the christian protestors were harrassing us. After the first time the police said if they started harassing us again they would be removed from campus, when called in the second time, the protestors told the police they were about to leave anyway. Two hours later they were still there. Two days ago they were out in force, carrying huge signs that said "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, Aids cures Gays" "Sodomites burn in hell" and various others. Had I not spent the past several days working constantly on my papers I might have lost it at seeing those and hearing their invective hate speech. We discussed this at the last PRIDE meeting and it seems they intend to bring this issue directly to University President Judy Genshaft, but I'm hesitant to expect her to actually do anything. University police certainly haven't done anything. And please, before someone initiates a lecture about the freedom of speech, I'm very familiar with the concept and believe it to be a generally good idea, but were it in my power to edit the constitution I would do so such that among our freedoms in this country existed also the freedom from unsolicited, unwanted proselytizing. Its already been established that freedom of speech is not absolute, that it does not give people the right to incite violence nor to conspire to various crimes, I'd like to see an additional limit such that blatant hate speech be likewise unprotected by the constitution.

Everything regarding college... which has landed me in a world of **** now. Oh well. I might still graduate by the end of the year v_v

Thanks Everybody!

On the financial side I'm looking at loans, loans loans. I'll be taking four courses this summer, and another five in the fall to complete my bachelor's by december. In January '08 I will start graduate school. I will be completing it as quickly as possible, since I'll be taking out loans to pay for it and live off of. Five courses in the spring, four over the summer, and five more in the fall will have all my coursework finished in one year. Spring of '09 will see me doing my thesis and my internship, as well as working full time. By may of '09 I'll have a master's in hand and be looking into starting a career. There is another, very slim possibility. I've looked at several colleges in the area where my boyfriend is currently living, working, and going to school. In doing so I found the closest one to Silven which offered a program that I would be interesed in was Princeton, of all places. I'm going to try between now and December to build up a record worth even applying to the school, my biggest hurdle is probably going to be coming up with a substantial professional reccomendation as I do not at this time have professional experience in my field of interest. Its a goal I'm going to shoot for, and if I do get accepted it would mean no fast-tracking through the program like I intend to do at USF, it would be a full two year program. If nothing else, I can shoot for Princeton with USF as my back up, because if I can even come close to getting accepted to Princeton I'll be sure to be accepted into the USF program. Another bonus is that Princeton has a philosophy of offering scholarships, not loans, so going there might actually be far cheaper in the long run since I wouldn't be borrowing so much money to get my education. Then of course there's the Ivy League aspect... I find it hard to believe I'd find it difficult to start a career with a hefty salary if I have a master's degree from Princeton University. Looking again at the pragmatic aspect, should I succeed at getting into Princeton, I would be approximately an hour away from Silven, rather than a $200-450 plane trip away from him I'd be looking at ~$50 round trip train tickets. A much better proposition than what I'm looking at now. Its a slim possibility, I know... but I think its worth it to try.

... that may forever remain so. Its not that I couldn't do the coursework, I could. Its not that I can't complete all the prerequisites... I can. Its not that I lack the ambition to try courses actually requiring thought, or that I lack the writing ability to do a master's thesis. I excel at analysis and have no problem writing. Its that I don't have the funds to sign the check to the school, nor is my credit history sufficient enough to merit borrowing against my soul. I would have to borrow someone else's soul to borrow against, a "cosigner" as they're called, because mine is not valuable enough. Great, fine... except no such cosigner exists. My parents are drawing the line at getting me to a bachelor's degree and apparently have no interest in helping any further. Perhaps I'm badly mistaken but I really don't see myself going anywhere with my bachelor's in political science. It fills the prerequisite for the Master's in Public Administration, my actual goal, and this may be my own misperception but beyond that I don't place much value on it. With a bachelor's in political science I can go back to my job at 7-Eleven cashiering my way to being able to eat and maybe live in a shack of an apartment instead of a homeless shelter. Gee. How fulfilling. The good news is that eventually the government will recognize that my parents aren't going to pay any more toward my college education... not for several years after I've completed my bachelor's and been wasting time living in poverty forgetting anything I learned in four years worth of college, also enough time for my professors to forget me or enough about me that it would not be right for them to sign letters of reccomendation for me to get into grad school. I can't even get married and evade those rules that way. Here's the really fun part... I've still got till december before my bachelor's is finished, but as I find myself with less and less hope for getting into grad school its also difficult to continue giving a damn about the bachelor's degree who's only purpose was to get me there. Yeah... I'm feeling crappy, disillusioned, frustrated etc. In a bad mood and feeling generally pessimistic. Hopefully I'll snap out of it and not completely kill my chances at grad school by ****ing up my GPA Cheers to the world, I'm about to go step outside of consciousness for a while and hope I feel better in the morning.

Maybe he though you were looking for prostitutes?

I guess I'll thrown my own opinion into the ring.... I'm willing to settle for the government calling it a civil union instead of marriage. Let all the backwater bigots have their sanctity of the word marriage, there's nothing stopping gays who get a civil union from having a ceremony or from calling it a wedding themselves. The rights are what is most important, not the word. When we've got the rights in every state we can reevaluate our position and decide from there rather pushing to legally call it what by de facto it already is, or pursue a more pressing cause. This is one queer boy who will be celebrating the day when all that's left for gays to fight for in terms of equality is the name of an institution. We should focus on the rights now and work on legally calling it the same thing its called for straight people when the time comes. Now I also recognize that continuing the fight in those states which have instituted civil unions, to call it marriage, may present a short cut to killing to birds with one stone, causing a legal situation where other states have to put it through the court systems... maybe this will work, maybe not... the short cut might turn out to be dead end though, or worse, turn out not to be a short cut and instead deposit us in a worse position than we were in before. I don't know which will be the case, no one can ahead of time. Democrats are facing a similar problem with gay marriage that Republicans face with abortion. For years republicans have campaigned on how much they despised the practice of abortion... they've packed the supreme court to their advantage... if they're going to outlaw abortion, now is the time to do it. They didn't though. Why? If they do they face a massive battle in every state, and numerous states which could go republican or democrat, including Florida, have polls showing that majorities don't want to see roe v wade reversed. They don't want to risk losing those states. Where's the similarity? GLBT groups face a fight like that in nearly every state, where the party which we turn to for support will take political hits for supporting us. Are the democrats brave enough to stand up for what's right? ... I'll give that a maybe. Are they strategic enough to make it work if they did... I'm sorry but what I've seen of the democratic party tells me they're near hopeless when it comes to strategic planning. I might be wrong, I hope I am... but I just don't see the democratic party rallying to our defense. In fact, what I have seen is a redevelopment of the old southern democrat style politics. I forget the man's name, but I watched a democrat running for office in Tenessee very adamantly declare he's not for anything remotely gay in nature. Honestly... I see both parties dissolving shortly. The republican party has managed to annoy everyone of its constiuency, and the democratic party as it finally have a chance to swoop in, take up the reigns of government and do some good is plagued by the fact that the senior members of the democratic party are the same ones who ran it into the ground and will do so again. I predict we'll see both parties collapse within the next ten years, and a major restructuring of the party system in this country... which is something the GLBT community will need to grab ahold of and work to its advantage in every way possible. There's no way to ally ourselves with the fundamentalist party thats bound to emerge, but we could have a good shot with the libertarians... I see a lot of political maneuvering in the future and a great deal of social change... we've just got to go one step at a time. There is somethingof a monument to Martin Luther King on campus at the University of South Florida, on a plaque are the words "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Perhaps a new development in the civil rights movement is in order. Hmm... I do believe I've babbled on long enough, later guys.

My god that scrawney little wizard got HAWT!

Lol, no problem.

Please note, I was not criticizing Dr Moss's policy, just complaining because it doesn't fit my schedule very well. And before someone babbles on about how I should have taken the class at a different time, the only other time the class was available would have displaced a course which actually counts toward my major and is not simply an exit requirement. I do have to hand it to Dr Moss though... she may be anal retentive about attendance but she offered this in return: anyone who attends regularly and keeps up with the reading material is guaranteed a C, so they can at least pass the class, since she knows this class is used mostly to fulfill the exit requirements. In addition, anyone who finds themselves in the unfortunate position of getting a grade which drops them just below the point of keeping their scholarships or allowing them on to grad school can bring up this circumstance with her and be given an additional assignment to boost the grade because as she says "I don't want to be the one to **** up your life by being an asshole" Also note... I was at class on time, hence my empty stomach, unshaved face, and barely tolerable breath. I am now armed with mints to deal with this event in the future. Oh, and while she is a total nutball, she does not make any claim to actually practice magick.

My professor of literature and the occult, Dr Heim, died this past weekend, may he rest in peace. He knows now the truth of what he spent most of his life seeking out. In the meantime, I have a new professor, with a very different attitude about how to run the class. Dr. Heim had an awesome policy: tardy? what is that? Attendance? -bleh, people come or they don't thats their business and what matters is if they know the material come exam time... which is also their business. My new professor, Dr Moss, insists that we attend every day and if we're not on in class by the time she takes attendance we're considered absent. Absence results in point deduction from either the paper or the (one) exam. This policy would be no big deal to except for the simple fact that the class is at 9:30am... and I'm lucky if I get to sleep by 2 most of the time. As a result of this policy... I woke up in time today to... take care of a personal problem, thrown on my clothes, gel my hair so I wouldn't appear as a mad man and go to class. Notice the lack of any mention of breakfast in there. Or a shower, something else I prefer to have before going to class. So Im making do for now with an empty stomach and deoderant. I can deal with no shower for a while, but damn it I need food! - this means I'll be dropping by the burger king and be late for my next class. Need... foooood.....

Happy 21st, my love