I firmly believe that one must become at peace with their actions. If, either by error or weakness, one commits an act s/he regrets, self-redemption and reaffirmation of one’s self must be achieved. The sad fact of human nature is that the focus is more often on the negative actions than the positive. One must come to terms with the negative repercussions and accept judgment, rightful or not, as part of other’s natural reaction. Redemption in the eyes of others, as a goal, is useless and often seen as grovelling, rightfully so. Balance must be sought, and peace established within one-self. Act as one’s true self. In the case of weakness, demonstrate to prove to the self that it was isolated and move on. In the case of error, one must strive to learn how to avoid such a mistake. In the case of both, one must learn from the error and maintain the moment of weakness as the exception to one’s character that it is. And if others never judge the one by the majority, but solely by the minority of one’s actions, those individuals do not belong in one’s life.

Hatebreed/Winds of Plague

I am sorry for my break (Talking to myself again), I've been uninspired. But someone told me that Hatebreed and Winds of Plague share similar messages...and that the songs Destroy Everything and Decimate the Weak exemplify this claim. I got angry, and decided to collect my thoughts here and link them my page.

First, the lyrics for Decimate the Weak:
Decimate the weak.
I am sent from hell, your worst fears brought to life.
I am sent from hell.
The fields will turn into flesh.
Now cross the planks of the burning bridge this time I'll lead you to death.
I'll find peace within your cries for help.
It won't be quick.
I am sent from hell.
The fields will turn into flesh.
I am sent from hell, your time is up when I say it's up.
From the depths I've risen.
I've come to take your lives, another step closer to death.
Only the strong survive.
With each breath I take another takes his last.
I've made an example out of an army.
I've shattered an empire, brought kings to their knees.

And Hatebreed Destroy Everything: (try to find why people think they are the same)

Destroy Everything! (x3)
Obliterate what makes us weak,
Destroy Everything! (x3)
Decimate what threatens me.

Cleanse this world with flame
End this, cleanse this
Rebuild and start again
Obliterate what makes us weak
End this and embrace the destruction
End this to embrace new life (new life!)
Even a nothing threat, deserves a response you won't soon forget,
I must destroy everything that tries to infect.
Even a nothing threat, deserves a response you won't soon forget,
I must destroy everything that tries to infect.

Destroy Everything! (x3)
Obliterate what makes us weak,
Destroy Everything! (x3)
Decimate what threatens me.

Cleanse this world with flame
End this, cleanse this
Rebuild and start again
Obliterate what makes us weak
End this and embrace the destruction
End this to embrace new life (new life!)
Even a nothing threat, deserves a response you won't soon forget,
I must destroy everything that tries to infect.
Even a nothing threat, deserves a response you won't soon forget,
I must destroy everything that tries to infect.

A new life begins!

Destroy Everything! (x2)
Obliterate what makes us weak,
Destroy Everything! (x3)
Decimate what threatens me.
Destroy Everything! (x3)
So a new life can begin,
Destroy Everything! (x3)
Rebuild this start again,
AGAIN!

Guess which I prefer.

Politics? Another one?

Several friends of mine are part of the 'classical right winged', while I am apparently part of the 'classical left wing'. I dislike the classical spectrum since I find it too simplistic, but that is not the purpose of this rambling. My issue is with the misconception of what both sides truly mean.

Let me simplify this: at its core, the left is about charity and altruism. The right is, at its core, is to opposite. Where the left would be less restrictive with allowing immigrants, the right would be more restrictive. Where the left would want everyone to have a doctor, the right would want only those worthy (e.g. can afford it). The left is about treating everyone equally, the right is about entitlement and separation. There is a reason why nationalism works well with right winged politics, and is difficult to incorporate into left wing. To say "Canada is the best country!" or "Canadians rule!" the subtext it "Everyone else is inferior to Canadians!" That's not to say I am not happy to have been lucky enough that my parents had kids in this country. I have it easy. But those who dream about having what I have should not be penalized to wanting to live here, because they are not from here..right? Oh yes, there are a few bad apples. A minority will abuse the system, but so do natural born citizens. Yes some are criminals, but that doesn't mean they will commit the same crimes here, and if so we should have faith in their capture. Yes, some who loathe western nations. But nationalism is at the core of this hatred. Nationalism on both sides. Let me be frank, what is nationalism? It is the separation of one group from another. This breeds hatred. And in the left side, hatred has no place. We are all equal, even if that person thinks they are better then others.

rabble rabble rabble.... so on and so forth. I guess I am a hippy. I think we should all just get along, be friends, and not worry about race, language, culture and all the other unimportant things that separates us.

Gay marriage

Something bothers me about the same-sex marriage debate. The arguments against it seem almost entirely based on ‘Well god doesn’t like it.’ Which is weird since I never heard of someone claiming God told them he hates gays. Historical bases, Natural Law and even the negative social implications seem weak.

I know a lot of the bad blood between Monotheistic religions and homosexuality stems from ancient Judaism and their quest (or God’s quest) to be different from all the other religions. Though homosexuality was common place in the ancient world, and certain customs of hunter-gatherers may indicate that it was common in pre-history as well, the Ancient Greeks remain the most infamous for their homosexuality (and pederasty). And yes, Spartans engaged in man-love and their concept of a man began at about 13 years old. The Roman Empire extended a tolerance towards homosexuality, but never fully embraced it like the Ancient Greeks. Despite that, no one ever really believed them that they weren’t all for the man-love. So, at the beginning of Christianity, early Christians wanted to separate themselves from the decadent romans as possible. Thus, where they were indulgent, Christians were chaste.

That homosexuality goes against nature is very odd. Firstly, same-sex bonding happens in the natural world all the time. Some stags mount younger ones because they cannot find a female, while love birds have been known to cutely bond with others of the same-sex. Even your pet dog would mount you if he was in heat and you gave him the chance. Natural Law is like French grammar: the exceptions make the rule. Yes, MOST animals pair-bond with the opposite sex. Yes, MOST mate with the desire to reproduce. But there are and will always be exception, and humans are no different.

Procreation cannot be the purpose of marriage. Would you deny the right of marriage to the middle-aged? How about the infertile? Perhaps since they already have children, will adopt, or would have had children this would be acceptable? Yet, same-sex partners can and do fall under those three categories? Perhaps one would think that a child requires a male and a female parent? Or, the child would ‘turn-gay’? Studies show quite the opposite. Same-sex parents are shown to love their children equally to opposite-sex parents; children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to be homosexual and that children raised by single parents or same-sex parents find the ‘missing role model’ in grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, friends of the family. Besides, human procreation is quite fine without having to go through the rituals of marriage. Hell, I could go out and procreate now if I wished.

There is no evidence that extending the right to marry to homosexuals would create more homosexuals. There will not be a homosexual take over and no horrific apocalypse will occur as a direct result. Now, if they are not allowed to marry, this disenfranchised group may begin to cause issues. So long as they are not treated as full equals, they will demand it. So long as they demand it, everyone will have to see and hear about it. The negative social implications are if they are not equals. No human is superior to the other.

Horde or Alliance, what seat do I take?

Much debate amongst my world of Warcraft friends have been about why the races chose to be with either the Horde or the Alliance. The primary races of either faction are Orcs for horde and Humans for alliance, but the issue of what drives the races to join one or the other requires an analysis of both the general structure of the races, their ideologies and the history.

Alliance:

Humans are fundamentally opposed to orcs due to prejudice. Many humans, especially their king Varian Wrynn, have a seething loathing for all things orc. This stems from their long history of war. Orcs invaded Azeroth while under demonic influences. They ravaged the country side, pillaged innocent folks, and slaughtered thousands. Thus, humans are opposed to Orcs due to the events of the first two wars. Also, afterwards, they equate any aggressive action by an orc as reflective of the Horde as a whole.

Dwarves during the second war came under attack from the Orc Horde and humans and dwarves had been friendly for a while at that point. Thus, it was natural for them to side with their friends.

The Gnomish reasoning is much like that of the dwarves, especially since both races are near symbiotic. Also, Orcs have a history working with goblins, the gnome’s racial enemy.

The Worgen siding with the alliance is simple as well. First, they were members of the Alliance during the second war (when they were all humans). Second, the Night elves have, despite being the cause of their affliction, made amends by giving control over their curse. Last, after refusing to join the Forsaken, the latter decided to exterminate them seeing them as a threat to both their existence and their supremacy of Lorderon.

The Draenei is also very easy. When they first arrived on the Orc home world, the orcs embraced the newcomers and taught them their ways. Draenei did not share their abilities. Eventually orcs resented them for this. When they became corrupt, the Draenei were the first victims of the horde’s demonic rage. Afterwards, Bloodelves under the influence of Illidan, the Burning Legion and Prince Kael’thas attempted to exterminate the remainder of their race. Also, humans, dwarves and high elves all worship the light, of whom the Dranei are the chosen people.

The High Elves, though not a player race, remain with the Alliance simply because they wish to separate themselves from the bloodelves as much as possible.

The Night Elves, on the surface, seem odd. They worship and respect natures, their fellow members of the Cenarian Circle the Tauren are part of the horde, and when they first met humans and orcs they attempted to eradicate both peoples. At first it would seem a simple game mechanic. The alliance needed a race in Kalimdor, to not make it a “East v.s. West” battle (though it seems to be anyways.) Also, in the three Warcraft games elves took part of the Alliance. But, there is also the issue of order v.s. chaos. Humans live in a very rigid class based society similar to the Feudal system. The Night elves live in an even more rigid society. They killed and exiled their own people for using magic. The primary religious order is only accessible to women. Their laws on nature preservation are strict and harsh. Thus, they would do well with rigid law abiding societies like the Humans and Dwarves. There is also the belief amongst certain people (myself included) that a factor in the Night Elves decision in choosing Humans over Orcs is both Orcs were tainted by demons and Orcs are ugly.

                Two things seem to unite the Alliance, a dislike or hatred for Orcs and their allies, and the belief of rigid social structures.

Horde

Orcs have a strong hatred for humans. The fact that they lost the wars against humans is not the reason for their hatred. Orcs understand and accept the horrors of war, and death in battle is seen as an honour. But, after the second war, Humans enslaved the majority of orcs. Used in slave labour and gladiatorial battles, they lived in cages and had absolutely no freedoms. When Thrall liberated them, many orcs could never forgive the humans for enslaving them. Thus, despite Thrall’s desire for universal peace, most Orcs would never trust a human.

The Trolls of the Darkspear tribe joined the horde because the orcs saved them from annihilation at the hands of the Naga they dubbed ‘the Sea Witch’ and her murloc slaves. Thus, as a people, they are indebted to the orcs and Thrall especially. Also, orcs have fought alongside trolls before in the second war, making it not odd for them.

The Goblins have always preferred being neutral since it is more profitable. But, during the second war many fought alongside the horde. The Bilgewater Cartel, though, has joined the orcs because after their home was destroyed by Deathwing the orcs and they banded together against a force of humans aiming to kill everyone and capture Thrall.  There is also the issue of Orcs never mistreating Goblins due to prejudice (unlike humans who think they are ugly crazy being that wish only to swindle everyone and explode things.) On the contrary, Orcs have always valued their invention and friendship. Goblins also have a dislike for their engineering rivals the Gnomes.

The Tauren who chose to join the Horde did so much for the same reasons than the Trolls. The Orcs saved their clans and escorted them to their new home of Mulgore. Tauren also have much respect for the Orc’s shamanistic traditions and reverence for the Earth whom they worship.

The Forsaken joined the Horde simply because they Alliance would love nothing better than to kill every undead just because they are undead. It was a decision of survival. The Orcs accepted them because they desired a foothold in the Eastern Kingdoms. The Forsaken’s tendency of ‘winning at all costs’, which has included using plagues and blighting the land making it unliveable for anyone except for themselves, has made many of their allies weary of them. Despite that, they remain loyal to the Horde.

Bloodelves have chosen the Horde also for necessity. Before the demonic taint, the Humans treated the weakened elves with contempt. Not being able to stand the mistreatment the Bloodelf leader decided to join Illidan and the Burning Legion, whilst the remainder of them requested to side with the Horde in hopes of a fairer treatment, which they received. One of the reasons why the orcs accepted the bloodelves is sympathetic suffering. Like the orcs, the Bloodelves were tricked into consuming demonic energies. The Bloodelves became too desperate to satiate their addiction to magic and not de-evolve as a result, thus when a solution was presented most took it without question. This is much like the orc’s desire to be as powerful as the dranei and was thus tricked into serving the demons.

                One thing seems to join the Horde together: survival. The Forsaken’s crime is to exist. The Bloodelves is attempting to not de-evolve at any cost and making a tragic mistake only orcs would forgive. Trolls and Tauren is that without the orcs their people would no longer be.

**As a side note, despite the fact that Tauren and Night Elves are members of the Druidic order of the Cenarian circle, this is against the desire of the elves. Taurens have not been allies with the Night Elves since the first Demonic Invasion and have always been regarded as savages and animals.

Elven Supremacy, Fascism and Vengeance.

In the game of World of Warcraft there are two primary elven races. The Nature oriented Nightelves and the Arcane Magic oriented Bloodelves. The latter race is the progeny of former members of the former race when the arcane was outlawed for fear of demonic interventions. The logic was that overuse of magic attracted their attention the first time and druidism (a form of nature magic) saved them, thus the new must replace the old. The group of Arcane elite, called Highborne, refused to give up their livelihood and were thus exiled. A large portion fled across the ocean to recreate a ‘magic utopia’ and eventually transformed into highelves. Therefore, when the eventual return of the demonic forces arrived, the nightelves blamed the use of magic by ‘younger races’. After the demonic forces and their undead allies had laid waste to the Highelves home and corrupted the Sunwell, their fount of magic, they highelves realized that they were horribly addicted to the permeating Arcane energies emanating from it. Thus, when their last remaining member of royal blood declared them ‘Bloodelves’ in memory of the large number of fallen and that he had a ‘cure’ for the addiction most flocked to him. The said cure turned out to be demonic energy, and their Prince was simply attempting garner favour from the Half-Demon Illidan and their demonic master Kil'jaeden. Now loathed by their former allies who already mistrusted them, Blood elves found allies in their former enemies: the orcs, trolls and Freewilled Undead. (Though as now members of the Horde they were now allied with the Tauren, both races were never truly at war with each other.) Nightelven society, on the other-hand, had been left untouched by time. The only change came when the second demonic invasion ended with the destruction of their source for immortality, the World Tree. Nightelves when presented the choice of allying with the two dominant factions.  The shamanistic Orcs, whom their fellow druids the Tauren had already joined for saving their race from extinction, or Humans whom worship an abstact notion of ‘Light’ as an embodiment of good and whose allies had not even a passing similarity with them, except for not being grotesque.  The nature and moon worshipping Nightelves chose the latter. Now my bias as to the possible reason of their choosing humans over orcs is evident but I am not arguing that point. The other debate my social circle has is whether the Nightelves and/or Bloodelves are fascist.

First, let us look at what scholars agree on fascism. According to Wikipedia’s section on ‘Definitions of Fascism’ “Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.” Nightelves’ acknowledged ruler is Tyrande Whisperwind. She is also the leader of the Church of Elune, their primary faith. Her husband, Malfurion Stormrage, is as respected as her and is also the most powerful of the Druids, priest of the Nature-worshipping cult. Nightelves would be considered Authoritarian since the ancestors of the Bloodelves and Highelves were exiled for not conforming to the Church of Elune and Druidic elite’s vision. Bloodelves follow a Hereditary Monarchy, and the society is ruled primarily by the Nobility and certain individuals who’ve set themselves above the rabble in their chosen field. Thus, both fall under this criterion but an authoritarian government is not the only aspect.

One of the most respected documents on the definition of fascism is "Eternal Fascism" by Umberto Eco. The features of fascism he lists are as follows:

• "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).

The first aspect is found in nightelf tradition and not in bloodelf. Bloodelves embrace any method that will allow them to achieve a higher level of power. Personal, national and person power is the goal of every bloodelf. Nightelves focus on maintaining things as much as possible the way they were before the arrival of the second demonic invasion. They reject Arcane magic and new technology. Syncretism was found in the nightelven meshing of druidism into their society, but bloodelves also syncretisised the ‘Church of the Light’ with arcane magic and even demonic magic.  

• "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.

The second point is found equally in both, but not to the point of wholly destruction of Intellectual pursuits. Though, nightelves are far more restrictive in what exactly one may pursue.

• "Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.

Both races have elements of the third. The rejection of the Highborne for disobeying the prohibition of the use of arcane magic is the case of Nightelves element of the next point. The ejection of the Highelves for refusing to take demonic energies is the instance for the bloodelves.

• "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

Both races believe that they are inherently superior to all other races, though boodelves also believe in pan-elven superiority. Also, when the nightelves first met orcs and humans their reaction was to attack. Instead of attempting to parley with these new peoples, they tried to annihilate them until they had no choice but to ally with them or risk the Apocalypse.

• "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

The Highborne were the upper class of Nightelven society, so their current of government is run by the middle class. Bloodelves still work with the upper class in mind.

• "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

Nightelves are obsessed with inciting demonic invasion. Bloodelves believe all other races are out to get them, save perhaps the Forsaken (free willed undead) whom are ruled by a former High Elven Hero.  

• "Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.

Nightelven constant vigilance against demonic and foreign invasion and Bloodelven’s belief in never be defeated or caught weak again.

• "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.

Only bloodelves follow this criterion. Bloodelves look down upon any and all forms of weakness.

• "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".

Neither race ever had democracy. That said, since Nightelves are run by their religious leader it could be seen as a form of selective populism. But only loosely so.

•             "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Both races have intense pride in their languages. Thus, they would never impoverish it.

            My conclusion based on this is that either both are not fascist, or both are equally fascist. Personally I feel both are simply Xenophobic elitists that associate themselves with ‘lesser races’ out of sheer convenience and necessity. So, if you wish to decide which race is better for you to play lore-wise, the choice is: do you prefer a society that when the universe said “Hey, you can worship the light, but you will get none of the Priestly and Paladin magics that come with it.” They responded “Watch me.” and used magic to force it. Alternatively, nightelves are a race that worships Nature, dreams of a world covered in trees, and wants nothing else but to live forever.

Glargle fargle?

Next week I begin a rough week of school, but the prospect of non-stop school and work overwhelming my entire life seems both daunting and exciting. It's time to see what I can do.

Three courses or subject matters I suggest people to study:
1. Women's Studies
2. Religious Studies
3. Human Sexuality

The reason I suggest them is simple. Women's studies touches gender issues and the power dynamic in society. Religious studies touches the interplay of religions with society and various religions with one another. Human Sexuality is simply due to most people will have sex eventually.

Three movies I suggest people to see:
1.Hobo With a Shotgun
2.True Grit
3.Barney's Version

Barney's Version is a film based of the book of the same name by Mordecai Richler. It stars Paul Giamatti and  Dustin Hoffman. It takes place mostly in Montreal and is about Barney as an older man looking back at the history of his three wives. It is at times annoying and heartfelt. The actors all succeeded in making me feel exactly how I was supposed to.

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed True Grit. Matt Damon played his part of an awkward, stuck up Texas Ranger very well. Jeff Bridges was utilized to his full potential, as only the Cohen Brothers seem to be able to do, and the most impressive display of acting skills by Hailee Steinfeld. When you watch it, keep in mind that she is actually 14 at the time of the filming.

Take purposeful low production with excess gore and violence. Mix it with a loosely tied plot and add  Rutger Hauer. Have it directed by a rookie Canadian director that was one of the writers for Grindhouse. What do you get? Hobo with a shotgun! Watch it and beware of the awesomeness.

That's all. Here's a youtube link: http://youtu.be/3wflPGQG0l0

On May 2nd 2011 VOTE! or not..

Canadian Federal elections will be held on May 2nd, 2011. Many of my acquaintances have asked me about the political situation and to make things easier I decided to write it out.

Canada has four primary parties. Three "Left"(New Democratic Party, Green Party and Bloc Québecois), one "Centre" (the Liberal Party of Canada) and one "Right" (the Conservative Party of Canada).
Let me explain the quotation marks. In the classical model of politics a right-winged group is those that place the needs of the State above those of the people. Left winged groups obviously put the needs of the people above the needs of the State and centre groups are a balance between both.

As a whole, and historically, Canada's 'Right winged' groups tend to fall close to the level of the Democratic Party in the USA. But there are those within  the Conservative Party of Canada that fall close to the Republicans, and others even further right. Most of these individuals come from the Western Provinces, namely Alberta. So to say the conservative Party is like the Republicans in their views is partially correct, especially since the current Prime Minister (conservative party) is from the west and harbours several views that are quite within the realm of the right (belief that universal health care should be abolished in favour of privatized health care).

To continue with the conservative Party, I will explain the vague term 'conservative'. As a rule of thumb, a political conservative is a group or an individual who either desires to maintain the status-quo, shift to a previous state or accept change at a very slow pace. So, a conservative right wing party (like the Conservative Party of Canada) has no intention of ever doing anything drastic, except to remove newer 'progressions'.

  Now to elaborate on the notion of putting the needs of the State before the needs of the people. When a right winged government is faced with deficit, its first reaction will be to cut social programs. The logic is that if the country is able to lessen or eliminate debt the quality of life will eventually improve for people to a point of those programs being less needed. Right winged followers also believe in a top to bottom system. To help the nation as a whole those on top (the government itself and the wealthiest individuals/groups/corporations) should be able to keep more of their money because they are the ones who will be hiring the poorer people.

The left wing groups will put the needs of the many before the needs of the few. The logic is that if the poorest people's quality of life improves, everything else will follow. "A happy and healthy citizen is a productive one." So left wing governments tend to focus more on health care, education, and employment insurance. Also, they believe more money should be in the hands of the poor instead of the wealthy.

So who should people be voting for? Well that is a personal question. But here are examples of ideal situations. Jack who lives in a big house, has lots of money and has a nice car should vote Conservative. the Conservatives will not only make sure he maintains his wealth, they may even try to make him wealthier.

Joe the independent farmer should not vote conservative. The conservatives would give preference to the larger corporate farms. The other parties have a larger chance of attempting to help you out.

If you are simply sick and tired of both Liberal and conservative parties, but feel like voting for the other three is a waste of your vote? It isn't. Every time you vote for a party, you are saying that every other party cannot represent your desires and beliefs. That is the joy of having more then two parties, you are not being forced to choose between two people who you disagree with like in the USA. Chances are one of the five parties will meet you desires.

Here is a rundown of the three other parties:
Bloc Québecois: Sole goal is the better the lives of people who live in Québec.
Green Party: Primary goal is the betterment of the Environement, then improvement of the lives of all people within the borders of Canada.
NDP: Primary goal is the improvement of the lives of all people within the borders of Canada, then the betterment of the Environement.

Liberals are simply in between  those three parties and the conservatives.

(if I came across as biased, I apologize.)

Komm in mein Boot

Things seem to be on the mend. I am being forced to start completely anew. My computer was wiped, pictures, poems, stories, music, games, porn, all gone. I have to find my CD for office, or I may be in a little issue with writing school papers. I love my netbook, but a 10 inch screen gives me headaches. But I shall persevere, I live for this adversity(can you tell Hatebreed is playing right now?). One of my mottos is: "Chaos and adversity makes us appreciate everything more, especially boredom."

I've also been making friends... More and more of my new acquaintances are of the fairer sex, almost with with boyfriends of course. I find it odd being surrounded by women, of course surprisingly it seems to me that more women in my classes then men (women like medieval literature and medieval Celtic literature?Whaaa?)

On school I dropped my Latin class to not fail it horribly. I may have to fight for my right to remain in my program since they want me to get 24 credits this year, and I'll be 3 short now.Slowly learning how to motivate myself again. Score for self-reliance. And I have yet to choose a minor. Celtic studies, English, Linguistics, and recently Philosophy since I bought "World of Warcraft and Philosophy" and enjoy it... but we'll see.

I bought a total war package that came with a pre-order of Shogun 2 off steam. I must admit, when steam came out I was nervous and disliked the idea. But, I've had the same account since, and it turned into something VERY VERY useful. Amazing sales.I also bought three CDs. Belphegor - Bondage Goat Zombie, Kingdom of Sorrow- Behind the Blackest Tears, and Otep - Smash the control Machine. Otep is making me happy.

I've also lately been feeling more and more happy. Been going to class slowly. I actually had my best week since Ice Fishing. I've been chatting a lot with someone pretty interesting and awesome, makes me feel fantastic to find someone i love conversing with.

This is my hatred, this is my vow: Never to be broken.


(I love hatebreed)

Bitches love moats

Build the bitch a moat, bitches love moats

I find myself like the serpent, slithering towards the innocent. Tempting them with the fruit of pleasure and knowledge.

super sexy swinging sounds

I have this odd obsession with hopeless causes, and I always fear that I go for them in order to fail.

I tend to fall for women who are lesbians, taken, or too high maintenance. Why must I?

I spent the evening with my best friend. She continuously drove that I need two things to make my life better. A new wardrobe (classy clothes), and this new perfume she dubbed "Sexy Rich Man". I might take her up on the wardrobe thing. Spend 5 consecutive pay checks on clothes? I shudder at the thought! But she does have great fashion taste. And I could keep my crappy clothes for D&D and at home. Since I am presently wearing a shirt my ex whom-left-me-5-years-ago bought me.... certain changes could be made? We'll see. I wonder what the rest of the world thinks..not that anyone reads this.

Tomorrow I have an Ice fishing trip. I am excited and apprehensive. Excited for the 'fishing', but nervous because I'll have to interact with people whom most are not common in my life.

Maybe Trish and I are developing the same thing?

I also found out that the ex that tore my heart soul and self-worth to shreds which resulted in a mild misogynistic, and phobia of being confined, bit, scratched, and hit by women has a genetic condition in which results in partial or complete blindness. I don't know if what I feel is pity for the ruined woman, or elation for karma...

Perhaps there is a Hell, and I'll meet her there... where we'll be in a relationship for the rest of eternity...

Am I a bad person if I hope my two friends break-up, both become hurt and estranged just so I can attempt to date her? I think I may be.

Contemplating the priesthood? not again!

I cannot do this again. At least I know the outcome of this book. The King dies, we all die.

Rambling on 'the Romantics', marriage and romance.

I just finished watching the Romantics. I enjoyed two things from it. First Malin Akerman and Katies Holmes in their underwear alot (odd for me to see Anne Paquin not undress all the time, I guess she needs a vampire for that). And secondly the acting is actually decent. The rest leaves to be desired. Essentially, what I got from it is: Romantic period should be called slut period, Never date within a circle of best friends, and don't marry because "it makes sense" or "it is the next step" etc... I must admit, the concept of 20-somethings getting married and become miserable is nothing new, but i guess some people still near to hear it.

Besides the decision based on "stages of life", romance is the dumbest reason to want to be with someone. Call me a cynic, but it has been documented that divorce rates have sky rocketed with the new concept of getting married solely on the premise of love and romance.

Marriage is a simple legal and religious agreement to be 'faithful' and stick together. It was used as a tool of segregation (rich marrying rich, poor marrying poor...) for centuries and even ended making the whole blue blood idiocy during the modern age.

To make any relationship work the best key is getting and giving what is expected of you. Simple, yet it can be so difficult.

The problem is when someone actually thinks the entire thing is non-stop passion and crazy stalkerish feelings. So, when things get settled and stable they panic and think they are out of love and then a whole shitstorm of pain and resentment ensues and more often then not does not survive when everyone realises that even if the passion is not a conflagration, embers still burn and can ignite again.

Of course, it is oddly safer to be married. Women are most likely to be abused while in cohabitation, even if they marry afterwards. And instances of infidelity are higher as well. I presume the legality frightens people.

Life is not a book or a movie (especially nothing by Nicholas Sparks), romance is misleading.

Marry your best friend, because a relationship should be sleeping with your best friend exclusively.

Oh and if I hear one more woman "seeking her knight in shinning armour" or "What happened to chivalry?" I will explode. 'Chivalrous behaviour' is about infidelity, misogyny, and objectification of women. It never went away.