The Pre-Facebook Dark Age of Hotmail Correspondence

I often forget that I have a fully functional Hotmail account because I hardly ever use it. I've had the account since sixth or seventh grade, long before the days of MyBook or FaceSpace. Aside from ICQ, which was mostly nothing other than a means of killing time and/or starting drama, the Hotmail account was my way of staying in touch with my friends. Looking back through my e-mails from years ago (the earliest was from 1999, ha!) was highly entertaining. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that 90% (or more) of people in high school and middle school are idiots. I guess you can't really blame them, particularly when they live in a town like Pikeville where there are so few things to to keep one busy. And, obviously, maturity during the teen years is usually lacking. Things that seemed so important during high school are just hilarious in retrospect when you finally graduate and get the hell away from (most of) the stupidity.

Anyway, although I definitely discovered some drama-laden e-mails from friends, a lot of the e-mails were those surveys and quizzes that were wildly popular with the young'uns during the pre-MySpace days. Most of the surveys tended to ask the same questions, but every now and then I would encounter one that was slightly different from the rest and thus not nearly as mind-numbingly boring to complete. I myself rarely get creative but I do remember making my very own type of survey: it was a fake "will" that listed a bunch of my random personal possessions and the people to whom I wished to give them. Hey, I didn't want to die intestate; I also wanted to make sure that my enemies would receive the crappy stuff. Of course, after sending this e-mail to my friend Katy, she made one of her own to ensure that the following belongings of hers wouldn't give rise to any disputes amongst friends and foes if she died: window opener crank; used soap; broken towel racks; shower "poofs" that smell like ass; broken weedeater; toilet scrub brush; and her lawn mower, which she herself wanted to keep so she could mow around her own grave. Bravo, Katy. See--Pikeville really is that boring, people.

At any rate, I think I'll fill out one of these time-killing surveys for fun. My homework for the night has been completed, and tomorrow I will be up to my neck in Greek and Sanskrit and will not have the pleasure of wasting time. Stalkers, get your pen and paper ready...

1. What time is it? 12:42 AM.

2. Name: Shelby Layne Friend. It's not the name I was given at birth, but it's my legal name now.

3. Nicknames: Shebby, Shelbster, etc. Any stupid variations of my name, basically.

4. Number of candles that appeared on your last birthday cake: If I had been given a birthday cake, there would have been 23 candles on it. I had birthday booze instead.

5. Date that you regularly blow them out: December 3rd.

6. Pets: One cat named Chewy.

7. Height: 5'3''

8. Eye color: Blue-green.

9. Hair Color: It's naturally light brown. I sometimes color it dark brown, but for some reason this always fades into a lighter, red-tinted color. I was called a ginger a few months ago and was not happy about that.

10. Piercing: Ears.

11. Tattoos: None.

12. How much do you love your job? I don't have a job. I guess school is technically my job. I love so many things about college, despite the occasional aggravations.

13. Past Residence(s): Pikeville, KY; Waterbury, VT; Atlanta, GA.

14. Hometown: Pikeville, I guess.

15. Current Residence: Georgetown, KY.

16. Had the drink Calypso Breeze? Ah, the mandatory alcohol-related question. No, I haven't.

17. Been in love before? Once.

18. Been to Africa? No.

19. Been toilet-papering? No, although I've had plenty of evil thoughts in terms of doing bad things to my enemies. I never act on my urges, though.

20. Been drunk? Yes, but I rarely drink. My metabolism and the fact that I'm an incredible light-weight make for interesting post-alchohol consumption incidents. Oops.

21. Been toilet-papered? Nope, fortunately I have not.

22. Loved somebody so much it made you cry? I've cried over idiots in whom I misplaced my trust and feelings. I don't think I would call that "love". But I've had many wonderful experiences that have compensated for the bad ones.

23. Been in a car crash? Not a bad one, no. I have been hit from the rear three times since I began driving, but these were all tiny "wrecks" that did negligible damage to my vehicle.

24. Croutons or Bacon Bits? Croutons, in a chicken caesar salad. Yum.

25. 2 doors or 4? Quattuor ianuae!

26. Sprite or 7 Up? Sprite.

27. Blanket or Stuffed Animal? Blankie.

28. Dumper or Dumpee? Now that's just gross.

29. Salad Dressing: Italian, and that delicious ginger dressing on salads at hibachi grills.

30. Color of socks: White. I refuse to be a sock snob.

31. Lucky Number: 17.

32. Why? It was my soccer number in high school, and I was on the first ever varsity soccer team at Pikeville. For some reason I think this is slightly important, but it's probably not.

33. Place to be kissed: The lips. Unfortunately, there is a lack of good kissers, and I don't understand this.

34. Movie? There are so many great movies. Christmas Vacation has to be one of my favorites comedies, and Amadeus is great. Gran Torino and Boondock Saints are good vigilante justice picks for assholes like myself.

35. Quote from a movie? : "Merry Christmas! Shitter's full!"

36. Favorite Holiday: Christmas is wonderful. It's the one time of the year when I can truly relax, and by that I mean sit around and play my Nintendo DS, my Xbox 360 and virtual console games from the Wii. I get to reminisce, too.

37. Foods: Red beans and rice from Bourbon N' Toulouse makes my day about six days a week.

38. Day of the Week: Saturday.

39. Song at the moment: That's a secret.

40. Word or Phrase: I've been very frequently using the term "douche bag", not really because I like it, but because it's so applicable to certain individuals, particularly my overly-eager classmates whose single wish is to let others know how intelligent they are. Please, stop. I am from Eastern KY and can still compete with you on every level. How does that make you feel, rich kids?

41. Toothpaste: Crest Total Care in clean cinnamon flavor. Best. Toothpaste. Ever.

42. Restaurant: Bourbon N' Toulouse, Ramsey's, Joe Bologna's... The list could go on for quite awhile.

43. Flower: I don't have a favorite flower. This has become slightly problematic as of late.

44. Least Favorite Subject: Mathematics, particularly Calculus. Physics was okay, as was Geometry, but I'm not at all mathematically inclined. Why do you think I'm a Classics major?

45. Alcoholic Drink: Any mixed drink containing vodka, especially cosmopolitans.

46. Sport to Watch: Soccer.

47. Type of Ice Cream: Chocolate.

48. Sesame Street Character: Cookie Monster.

49. Disney/Warner Bros? I liked that talking blanket from The Brave Little Toaster.

50. Fast Food Restaurant: Fazoli's, Cane's, Zaxby's.

51. When was your last hospital visit: Aside from accompanying family members to the hospital, it was my senior year of high school. Having mono is not fun.

52. Favorite drink: Sweet tea.

53. What color is your bedroom carpet?: Cream.

54. What was the name of your childhood blanket? Blankie.

55. How many times did you fail your Permit and/or Drivers License? Zero.

56. Where do you see yourself in 10 yrs? Either practicing law or teaching at a university.

57. Which store would you choose to max your credit card? Probably Banana Republic, since I need to start buying some nicer clothes. Hooray.

58. What do you do most often when you are bored? Take surveys gotten from my rarely-used Hotmail account. Ha.

59. What words or phrases do you overuse? I overuse a wide variety of obscenities. I'm trying to cut back. Do they make something comparable to a nicotine patch for potty-mouthed individuals like myself?

60. Name the person that you are friends with that lives the farthest away from you: Kala.

61. Best thing(s): Being productive and successful.

62. Who will respond to this fastest? Nemo.

63. Who is the person you sent this to that is least likely to respond? This isn't really applicable.

64. What time is it now? 1:56 AM. I've taken some iPod breaks and completed some reading.

65. Favorite song/group of old times: The Village People? "Macho, macho man..."

66. The people who u can tell anything to: ...probably do not want me to list their names.

67. Vacation spot you want to go to someday: I'd like to go back to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. It was beautiful.

68. Something you hate: Only one thing? Wow, that's too restricted for me. I hate this question.

69. 5 friends you enjoy hanging with: Dicaeopolis, Philip, Horatia, Quintus and Scintilla.

70. Favorite body part on the opposite sex: Eyes and arms.

71. Something you have always wanted to tell but haven't? I'm actually 18.

Oh, that's a picture of downtown Pikeville made from the infamous overlook. I'd love to figure out how to make captions and do some more things with these posts. I have a book about HTML but I doubt I'll get to read it anytime soon. Boo. dormire debeo! Valete, amici!

There's a Story Behind This Dress...

While wandering around the mall two weeks ago, I came across a dress that I loved not only for the way it looked but for the way it fit. The fact that I actually wanted to purchase it was a exceptional because I infrequently buy formal clothing; I have very little need for dress pants, skirts or dresses. (Far in the future, after I get my degree, I'd like to make a trip to Brooks Brothers, though.) Anyway, the dress ended up being a little pricey and I restrained myself from buying it at that moment.

Later in the evening, I was on the store's website and found that the same dress was much cheaper online; I decided to go ahead and buy it. Aside from the protective cover that I ordered for my iPod a few months ago, this was the first thing I had purchased online the whole year. The order was placed quickly and I received a confirmation e-mail almost immediately. This e-mail had a link through which I could track the package. When I checked the link the following morning, it indicated that the package would arrive around Monday, August 3rd. Hooray.

Well, Monday the 3rd eventually arrived, and I didn't receive the package that day. This really didn't concern me at the time. However, when my dress didn't arrive the next day, I got a little frustrated. I checked the tracking link that evening (Tuesday night) only to discover that, apparently, the package had been delivered on the previous Friday around noon. WTF? There was definitely not a package at my apartment on Friday; in fact, I was at my residence shortly after the supposed arrival of the package. I was thoroughly confused. Thus began this ridiculous FedEx debacle that I've been dealing with for days. Here's what has happened:

1. When I learned that the dress had been delivered last Friday, I tried to get a delivery confirmation. The FedEx website told me that I couldn't get one on account of the type of shipping. Huh? At this point, I was really pissed off (ask my roommate), so I went to bed.
   
   
2. On Wednesday, I went back online to the FedEx website to submit a claim. In order to do so, I had to register on FedEx.com, which was a magnificent waste of time. The claim process took at least half an hour, as I had to gather all the information about the manufacturer, the cost of the dress, the shipping costs, etc., etc. Wonderful. The final part of the online claims process involved attaching the following supporting documents: the order confirmation e-mail from The Limited (company from which I ordered the dress), the tracking and shipping information from FedEx, and the claim confirmation. All of these had to be submitted before FedEx would even review the claim. Before I could attach the documents, the website logged me out because I had been idle for an entire three minutes or so. Fuck. At this point I was about to toss my Dell across the room, so I gave it up again for the day.
   
   
3. Thursday arrived. I had cooled down enough by that point to try the whole claims process one more time. When I logged into FedEx.com and found what I was looking for, I lost my patience rather quickly--it turned out that I had to resubmit all the information that I typed in the day before. I proceeded to do so, being extremely annoyed in the process. When I had finished and was yet again at the 'Attach Supporting Documents' stage, FedEx.com informed me that it had already received a claim under that tracking number. Grrrrrrr. I managed to somehow make it to the correct place on the website at which I could finally attach the docs. I needed only to input the tracking number and the shipping date, and the website would supposedly pull up the claim that I had submitted on the previous day. The tracking number was entered. The shipping date was entered. FedEx.com did not like this information, as it informed me that the entered tracking number was invalid. At this point, I decided that FedEx.com was about as useful as an able-bodied 20-year-old welfare recipient from Greasy Creek.
   
   
4. I called FedEx hoping to speak with someone with an IQ at least in the double digits who could inform me of what I needed to do to remedy the situation. The friendly lady on the phone asked for my first and last name along with the tracking number for the shipment. She told me that, because of the tracking number, there was nothing she could do for me; apparently, my type of shipment was dealt with through a separate entity of FedEx. "You need to call the FedEx SmartPost hotline," she said in her best sorority girl voice. I thanked her and ended the conversation despite my urge to unleash a violent string of obscenities upon her. After all, it wasn't her fault that FedEx was ruining my day.
   
   
5. I called the SmartPost hotline. Due to the high volume of customer calls (I can't possibly imagine why this would have been the case), I was unable to speak with anyone. I didn't even get the luxury of being able to listen to craptastic muzak while waiting to converse with (or yell at) an employee. Moreover, unless I pressed certain buttons on my phone while waiting, I would be automatically disconnected from the call. This happened four times. Unbelievable, right? It didn't stop there.
   
   
6. I sent a rather opinionated and lengthy (yet tame) e-mail to The Limited on Thursday evening informing them of everything that had happened since the dress order was placed. Friday rolled around and I received an e-mail back from the company. I was naive to think that putting time and effort into fully explaining the situation would earn me anything other than an unhelpful and aggravating cookie cutter response, which is exactly what I received. The e-mail informed me that I would have to deal with the issue at my local post office.
   

I did nothing about this matter today; I found it better for my peace of mind to devote my time to activities that, upon their completion, would actually result in some sort of evident benefit. I've cleaned, done several loads of laundry, and studied Latin and Greek at Starbucks. Yesterday, while walking by a boutique, I spotted a dress that really caught my eye primarily because of its design and bold colors. It was unlike anything I'd ever owned. I tried it on; surprisingly, I liked it even more than the one that I had been so eagerly expecting to arrive at my doorstep. I decided to buy this colorful dress and, as is evident from the above picture, I've already gotten some usage out of it. What a funny thing: I would have never considered buying this new dress if FedEx had delivered a certain package like it was supposed to do. I'll get more usage out of this new one, and I positively love it. I suppose good things can indeed come out of frustrating situations.

In other news, I've found an LSAT study partner. He's very intelligent and diligent, among other things. Although I usually prefer to study solo, I enjoy to occasionally have someone within close proximity who can offer not only motivation but good company; this makes the process of studying a little easier to bear. I certainly have enough work to do during the next two weeks before classes begin. It helps that I've been able to go to my coffee shops this week without being so uncomfortable that I have the urge to run out the door or vomit. With the exception of the dress debacle, this is the best week that I've had in quite awhile. I hope it stays that way.

On the off chance that my package was stolen from my doorstep, I have a message for the ladies of Saddlebrook: good luck fitting your asses in a size 0. Thanks.

My Palce in the Bioshpere Consist of Poluting Enviorment and Chatering Only to I

In order for this post to make much sense, it's necessary for me to give a little bit of background information. During my freshman year of college, I enrolled in a human ecology course. At the beginning of the same semester, I also signed up for astronomy and physics; it was a science-intensive four months, but I truly enjoyed it. For about three weeks during my freshman year, I even seriously considered taking the physics route for my degree before I realized that I just had an irrational fondness for the Chemistry-Physics Building and certain individuals within it.  Anyway, this ecology course was particularly interesting from day one on account of a few factors: first, there existed that class dynamic that's created only when students from all academic interests converge upon a single classroom; secondly, the professor, whom I'll just refer to as Dr. G, had never taught this course before, as he had been instructing only upper-level biology classes. The latter fact made it necessary for the unfortunate Dr. G to dumb down the course material, lest his inability to do so result in 200+ irate students with grades worthy of nothing more than a swift kick in the ass. Needless to say, BIO 103 in spring '05 was a bit of a clusterfuck. Hence the resulting moments of priceless entertainment.
A portion of each student's grade in the class was earned through the completion of four or five short writing assignments related to lecture materials. At this point it would be appropriate to remind my readers that, at the time of this biology class, I was still very insecure about my writing skills. I graduated from the (supposedly) best high school in eastern Kentucky; that's wonderful and everything, but the education standards in Pike-vuhl and surrounding locales are not exactly top-notch.  (Diane Sawyer, I'd still like you to spend some quality time floating down the Big Sandy River unarmed for a few days so that you'd get lucky and come across one of those Mountain Dew-drinking toothless rednecks whom you insulted in your documentary. Thanks for giving some befuddled, ignorant Yankees yet another reason to ask me how in the hell I escaped from the clutches of my incestuous family.)
Knowing that I would be competing with students from schools such as Lexington Catholic frightened me, and my assumption was that I would have lots of work to do before I could count myself among the ranks of gifted students. When time came for these writing assignments, however, I quickly learned that I didn't need to despair too much about my ability (or lack thereof) to construct logical sentences using decent grammar. Dr. G would always compile students' responses to the writing assignments in the form of a PDF document and post the documents on the course website for all to read. After being thoroughly amused and even shocked by some of the responses in these first PDFs, I decided to save the final writing assignment feedback onto my computer.  It was literary treasure, but I quickly forgot all about it.
...Until I rediscovered it earlier this week when transferring all the documents from my old computer. I think I got even more enjoyment from reading it the second time around. Let me get to the funny stuff here. The topic of the writing post was this: Identify the essence of the human species, and explain our place in the biosphere. If you care to, predict our fate. Brevity is a virtue, try for <100 words.

Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, here are some of the golden responses and my two cents about each one:

• [Excerpt] Brevity is the duration of time and is used to predict the brevity of human life. WTF? Dr. G just wanted you to keep your response short, fool. 
• Humans are the most primitive species in the biosphere. We are hunters and gatherers, we adapt to our environment. We are the only species that has a language. We are also the only species to use technology. If the speciation pattern of the past continues, it is likely that the Homo Sapiens will diverge into new species and possibly become extinct. This student obviously missed out on some basic ANT 101. If I'm not mistaken, human populations began slowly deserting the whole hunter-gatherer lifestyle about twelve thousand years ago when agriculture started developing independently in different parts of the world. Hunter-gatherers do still exist, yes, but in very small numbers. Perhaps this particular student hunted campus squirrels and maintained a self-sufficient lifestyle somewhere around the university, proudly displaying the severed heads of nutjob campus ministers outside his dwelling. That would be incredible. Also: we're the most primitive species but the only one with language and technology? Huh? And, no, Homo Sapiens will not diverge into a new species unless we completely isolate part of the population and let the processes of speciation occur over thousands upon thousands of years. Not likely. 
• The essence of the human species is a very complicated thing to explain. We were placed in the biosphere to serve God and spread his gospel. Many people nowdays remain faithful and religious, however, it was in ancient times that our true essence to follow Christ was revealed. That was a time when all people believed and were followers of the Lord. We are here in protect the words of the Lord and to inform all people of the right way of life. Our faith does not need to be predicted because it is written in the chapter of Revelations in the Bible. The people who believe in the Lord will spend eternity in heaven while the nonbelievers and sinners will go to hell. I'm going to hell. 
• The essence of the human species is that we can not be replicated. Other species cannot talk and go about doing the things that we can do. For example, we can use our thumb as a means to grasps objects and use our hands in ways that if we didn't have a thumb we couldn't do that. and without us in the biosphere, the world deteriorate. Because we keep the cycle of Conover and herbivores balanced.the fate of human beings lie with how we treat our universe for the next century if we don't respect it and we keep polluting it then our fate will be the same as our universes. Dr. G should have considered letting one of the astronomy professors lecture to his own BIO 103 students. The Omniores here on Earf are not really affecting much in the grand scheme of the universe. 
• [Excerpt] Since homosapiens are the oldest fossil, dating back 160,000 years I believe that humans have been around for along time and unless God does not want that anymore we will be around for a very long time. I iz not a fossil. 
• Out of all of the diverse organisms that live in the biosphere. Humans by far have the most dramatic effect on it. wether it be buring of fossil fuels, mining, or scarafication when farming, we greatly alter our biosphere. this is also very concerning because humans is one of the youngest species. As humans we are likely to cause our own extinction. I agree with the first statement (the initial two sentences were meant to be a single one, I assume), but the rest is funny. Humans is one of the youngest species; likewise, these crackers is good. 
• we are here to dominate the earth and have fun doing. ill be very mad if they do not let me drive my sports cars around (Nissan 240sx and MBG) due to air pollution. i predict we are gonna do something stupid and blow our selves up. If all world leaders had this student's mental capacity, I could see the whole self-destruction scenario being a totally legitimate possibility.

You get the idea. I may continue with this post at a later date, as I have many more hilarious responses to share, but I think this is enough for the time being. All jokes aside, the general lack of proper grammar and coherency exhibited in these statements is pretty bothersome to me. While I don't think it's necessary for all college students (particularly those who are not required to write much for their particular majors) to be superb writers, I think it's a little shameful that our education system can't seem to successfully inculcate even the most basic of grammar concepts into students who are rapidly approaching the time when they'll be thrown into the chaos that characterizes college and the "real world." To make the matter worse, it's obvious that the general public and even some institutions of higher education are way too lax and nonchalant when it comes to the utilization of proper English grammar and spelling. One word, America: IMPROVE!

Perfectionism: the Ability to Turn Any Item Within Reach into a Straightedge

I am somewhat of a perfectionist, and I've known this fact for quite awhile now. It has only been recently that my perfectionism seems to have taken a stronger hold than usual, to the point where it has interfered with my productivity and efficiency in general. It seems as if many people who aren't pefectionists look upon those who are with some kind of awe and fascination, while others just find it rather amusing. Numerous people have commented on my organizational skills, on my attention to detail, and even on my handwriting. While I appreciate these positive comments, I also sometimes wish people would realize that being a perfectionist does not guarantee infallibility. To the contrary, my personal experience with chasing perfection has led me to waste tons of time that should have been spent more wisely; in the worst cases it has resulted in idleness, as I became so overwhelmed and frustrated with getting things "just right" that I decided that nothing I accomplished would ever be as thorough, complete, or acceptable as it needed to be.

I've no clue as to why I'm a perfectionist, but I know that I've been this way since I was a young child. One vivid memory I have that is relevant to this post is from the few months during which I lived in Vermont; I must have been either 8 or 9 years old at the time. My third grade teacher had assigned a project that involved each student constructing his or her own board game. Initially, the idea was very exciting to me--what third grader wouldn't want to make a game? Once I had purchased some foam board and began working, however, I became frustrated quickly. I was using a ruler in an attempt to make my lines for the board spaces as straight as possible, but they always looked crooked to me after I had drawn them. I completely started over several times and distinctly remember not being satisfied with the final product, although I received many compliments on it. That's a key thing about my perfectionism--if I'm not satisfied with the end results of my undertakings, favorable feedback from others rarely makes me feel any better. My striving for flawlessness is not a conscious effort to appease everyone else or improve my reputation. Unattainable as it often has been, my main goal in all my endeavors is personal satisfaction; often, the only way to achieve this is through my completion of impeccable work.

I've developed some really peculiar habits related to my perfectionism. Some of them make some sense, while others are just rather laughable:

• I have a huge issue with mediocrity. Strangely enough, though, I'd rather hand in a complete piece of shit than something better yet still mediocre. The all-or-nothing stance I've adopted when it comes to course work in particular has sometimes been really beneficial in terms of grades, but it has had its share of negative effects. Over the course of my crap year of college (most definitely the bane of my existence at this point), I eventually got to the point where I could perform only at a mediocre level, so I opted to give up completely. What a horrid decision that was! This was particularly confusing for my professors; they had seen what I could accomplish while in class, but I suddenly dropped off the face of the planet. I wish I could get over this problem and realize that there will probably be points in my education (graduate school in particular) when it won't be practical or even possible to perform at 100%.

• Whenever I do homework that involves writing, I absolutely must have a ruler or some kind of straightedge close to me. There are about five rulers in my backback because everytime I would misplace one of them, I'd simply go buy a new one. By the way, I have an uncanny ability to turn just about anything into a straightedge--my favorite items include credit cards, bookmarks and CD holders. I underline lots of things in my notes, including exercise numbers, titles of grammar sections, and important points. The crookedness of a line drawn by hand makes me genuinely uncomfortable in a way that's hard to even describe. Also, since I write notes only with pens now (I used to write with mechanical pencils but am so heavy-handed that my writing would always smudge), I have to have corrector tape with me. Sloth will overcome me if these two things are not at hand. Pathetic, no? Funny, yes?
  
  
• I'm very much a perfectionist when it comes to writing, and I'm well aware that my writing skills are not nearly at the level that I ultimately wish them to be. I picked up a very good English grammar reference book sometime last summer and I intend to actually read through the whole thing (all-or-nothing, remember?). I feel as though good writing skills are nothing short of essential, particularly for people who are required to write as part of their careers. I view my writing as a true reflection of my ability, intelligence, and desire to produce works of reputable quality. In related news, I was driving on 75 the other day when a random thought entered my head: 'Did I misspell the word gentlemen in the context of my Kitteh post?!' For some reason, I thought I had spelled it with an a instead of an e, and it took everything in my power to not call one of my buddies and have him check it out immediately. Restraint, restraint....
  
  
• Index cards have always been a favorite organizational and educational tool of mine. Lately, I've taken a liking to colored cards (pastels and neons, yay). When I begin Intermediate Greek in the fall, I'm going to use one particular color for every chapter in the book; this will be really exciting for me. I'm immensely bothered by the fact that my index cards from last year often include two or three different colors of cards for every chapter. What in the world was I thinking? Sigh...

Anyone who actually reads this post now perhaps thinks I'm a little nutty; that's okay, I accepted that a long time ago. Enemies and assholes now possess new knowledge about how to make my life more difficult--I better guard my rulers and corrector tapes from now on. Oh well. The picture from the top, by the way, is part of a drawing I did for a geometry class during my sophomore year of high school. See, I always loved rulers!

One more note: I have the perfect topic for my next blog post, and it relates to a PDF document that I found on my old laptop. I won't disclose too much about it at this point other than to say that these 45 pages of unintended entertainment had me laughing quite hysterically for several minutes. It will take some time for me to scan through the whole thing and pick out the best material for a blog post. Get ready!

I've Alwayz Liked Kittehs: Kittehs R Better Than Most Hoomans!

I came across this picture a few weeks ago when, in a successful attempt to prolong my weekend and temporarily forget about Medieval Law paper #2 that had been looming over my head during days prior, I decided to rummage through my old photo box and scan some images onto my computer. This was one of only two or three pictures that were from my very early years; most were from high school and my first two years of college.

This photograph makes me smile for a few reasons: first, my outfit is hysterical, but rather cute, I suppose (turtlenecks were a favorite of mine, apparently); secondly, the cat that I'm petting in the picture belonged to my grandmother, who lived next door to me when I lived in Pikeville, and she was very fond of this calico cat named Patches; lastly, although I don't remember the photo being taken, I remember many things about the house that I lived in at the time, including the front deck and the slight amount of landscaping around it. My haircut was just funny-looking.

On a related note, although I've had minimal exposure to small children during my lifetime and tend to shy away from kids in general, I've always taken note of the carefree attitude that most children exhibit, and I think it's entertaining to observe. Many children seem fascinated by the smallest things and are eager to absorb knowledge about everything around them. I sometimes wish I were still that easily entertained and enthusiastic about life in general. My adult years have made me really appreciate my carefree childhood days of shaggy hair and turtlenecks; if only I could rekindle that youthful zeal for knowledge and apply it to my neglected Latin and Greek studies, perhaps I could successfully complete my upcoming semester without having a mental breakdown. A girl can wish, right?

I've had trouble thinking of a particular topic to write about, so I'm just going to ramble a little bit about various things on my mind. Maybe I'll elaborate upon one of the following points in a future post, dependent upon what my devoted readers (all five of you) have to say.

• I'm already very nervous about the upcoming semester. I'll be in third semester Greek, which shouldn't be too bad, but I'll also be in Latin Lit and/or Latin Prose. I think many people overestimate my fondness for Latin; it used to excite me, but I enjoy Greek so much more at this point that it has been very difficult to get my Latin back to any sort of reading fluency. I need to remedy this by the third week of August or so. Wonderful. On top of all this, I'll be working for my mother part-time, retaking the LSAT (screw you, June test) in September, and trying to fit in the GRE somewhere in the midst of the insanity. I just want to get the hell out of undergrad--I'm sick of it and irritated that I'm not already in graduate school.

• Career anxiety, round 3849427: although I've taken the LSAT, I have not decided 100% upon attending law school. I do not want to give up Classics completely; I'm trying to locate universities that could possibly work with me to set up a 4-year J.D./M.A. degree, which would be amazing. Duke is the only school that I know of in this region that directly offers a joint J.D./M.A in Classics, and I'm not exactly expecting to get into Duke. I've been told that I would hate it anyway.

• I've been having bouts of depression lately, which terrifies me. I've done so much to repair the damage done during my year-long depression while a junior at UK; I even got a 4.0 last semester. Regardless, by the final weeks of last semester, I felt like I was slipping back into that black place which I'll occasionally go for days or even weeks at a time. I've got some ideas as to why my melancholy state of mind returned at a most inopportune time, but those are wholly unnecessary to elaborate. I'll only say the following: I've accepted the fact that on-and-off depression is a problem that I'll probably have to deal with for many years, and I'll handle it as best I know how. I've also learned that I need to be more careful about whom I let into my life, as jerks who hurt my feelings can apparently trigger a lot of intense sadness for me. I often wish I were one of those rather ridiculous-sounding people who seem to radiate sunshine from every bodily orifice and who know no sadness. Then I remember that these "lucky" individuals are usually too delusional about the unfortunate realities of life, in my opinion. I think I'd rather stay occasionally depressed and chuckle at people who are blissfully ignorant and who tend to take their personal unfamiliarity with mental health issues for granted.

• As of late, I have really valued my alone time. Although I enjoy socializing every now and then, I tend to be pretty insular. This is actually a quality I've had for years. I've gotten into the habit of avoiding places that are insanely crowded. Walks have occupied a lot of my time lately; I took a 6-mile walk around the campus area this week when looking for a new apartment, and I really enjoyed myself. It was the perfect opportunity for me to sort out some issues in my head while taking advantage of a beautiful, sunny day (Lexington has seen too much rain lately). Now, if only I could learn how to glare at strangers in coffee shops so as to let them know that I am not interested in chatting about inconsequential things such as their "sick" freestyle rap ability or their night job as a part-time male exotic dancer. ...Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new blog topic, perhaps...

Can't We All Just Learn How to Drive?

I've been wanting to vent about horrible Lexington drivers (and drivers in general) for some time now. Why? First of all, I've lived here for 5 years, which has been a sufficient amount of time to familiarize myself with typical traffic conditions in many parts of town; I'm not just going to make a sweeping negative statement about Lexington drivers based solely on a particular area of the city or on limited driving exposure to the place in general. Secondly, although I really enjoy walking whenever I can, I still have to drive pretty much everyday; the frustrations involved with encountering terrible drivers cannot simply be avoided by my choosing to not use my vehicle. Lastly, my increasing impatience with those who can't seem to follow basic rules of the road or even properly operate an automobile seems to coincide partly with my decreasing tolerance for morons and all things asinine.

Is there any good way to organize a topic so broad in scope? I think I'll go with annoying tendencies of drivers and the stupid things that they do in general:

• Driving significantly under the speed limit or 30 MPH over the speed limit. Unless it's raining, snowing, or you're driving on a spare tire while trying to "share the road" with the biker who's oblivious to the fact that he's pretty much in the middle of the street, please drive at least the speed limit. I promise, you'll be okay. There's no good reason to slow the pace of traffic around you just because you're preoccupied with chattering away on your cell phone or because you're savoring the taste of that Whopper you just picked up through the drive-thru. Alternately, don't drive so fast that you put everyone within half a mile at risk for injury should you lose control of your vehicle. The fact that your car can indeed reach 90 MPH in a busy 55 MPH zone does not impress me; rather, it reveals to me that you're a jackass who has no problem endangering yourself and other people. Lexington in particular is not the best place to attempt to simulate the races in The Fast and the Furious. Sorry.
  
  
• Delayed responses to green lights. When you're sitting at a stoplight and the light turns green, it would be fantastic if you move your car quickly. Do this or face the wrath of many angry drivers behind you (that is, if they're even paying attention) via their blaring horns. I don't want to know how much time I've wasted at lights simply because cars in front of me have not responded quickly enough to green lights.
  
  
• Driving like an asshole. Okay, this one's kind of a catchall and could include both of the points mentioned above. It also includes the following: tailgating; slamming on your brakes for no apparent reason, thereby causing all the cars behind you to do the same; making very sudden turns or lane changes; not using your signals (it takes so much effort, after all); driving with your music turned up so loud that everyone within a mile radius can feel the vibrations; assuming the "cocky douche" position while driving (seat back as far as possible, right arm or left arm completely extended and holding the steering wheel while the other arm is nowhere to be found--usually accompanied by obnoxiously loud music and popped collars or other ridiculous "fashion" statements); texting or talking on your cell phone so much that you don't realize you're driving 20mph in a 40mph zone... the list goes on and on.
  
  
• Issue whores and those who feel the need to let other drivers know personal information such as their own names and family members' names via their automobiles. No. First of all, what's an issue whore, anyway? Thanks for asking. An issue whore is an individual who very enthusiastically informs those [unfortunate] drivers who end up behind them in traffic that they feel a certain way about political issues or politicians. "Marriage = A Man + A Woman." "I'm Already Against the Next War." "Sarah!" "Make Love, Not War." "NUKE 'EM ALL!" ....etc., etc. News flash: I don't care. A person is certainly entitled to his or her own opinion, but it baffles me that people feel the need to publicize these opinions by means of their vehicles. If you feel so strongly about a cause, why don't you go to a political rally or a peaceful protest or a violent demonstration or.... you get my point. Secondly, displaying your own name or your children's names on your vehicles makes no sense at all, and could even be a little dangerous. The immediate image that comes to my mind is the stick-figure decal on the back of some random car that includes all of the driver's family members along with their names underneath. Do you really want the world to know your 8-year-old daughter's name? Do you want to advertise the fact that young children live in your household? You may as well put up a neon sign in your yard that says, "Children Are Here--Pedophiles Welcome." Even if you don't have kids, why would you want to display your name on your car anyway? "Hey, that's Megan's truck. How many Megans are in Lexington?" Maybe I'm being too negative here, but I just always thought of a car as being a practical means of getting a driver to and from certain places; I have never considered an automobile to be a fast, shiny, overpriced thing manufactured primarily so that its owner can let others know his or her views on abortion or that they have three kids and two pets.

I was originally going to pick certain bad traffic spots in Lexington and complain about that, but I think this much will suffice. Discussing bad drivers is, in my opinion, kind of cliche anyway. It doesn't matter; I have a post, and this one has sparked an idea for something new!

The Trial of Joan of Arc

Since I promised my readers that I would occasionally post something of some substance, I decided to go ahead and add this to my blog before I publish my next post, which will surely be a bit more entertaining than this. What follows is the last paper that I wrote for my Medieval Law class. I've had an interesting experience with this paper; I have loved it one minute and hated it the next. It's often very hard for me to judge the quality of my own writing, and this paper is certainly no exception. Anyway, I only had two main sources for this paper: a translation of The Trial of Joan of Arc along with a scholarly article pertaining to some of the more controversial aspects of the trial. I enjoyed reading both of these, and if you're interested in them, they're cited all over the place in the footnotes for this paper. One more thing: although I'm posting this paper on the "intrawebs," that doesn't mean that I would want anybody to do something stupid like plagiarize. If anyone does this, I will hunt the person down and burn him or her at the stake. I loathe academic cheaters. If I ever become a professor, I will be the plagiarizers' worst nightmare. On to the paper...happy reading.


In 1431, while France was still under English rule, Joan of Arc was tried before an ecclesiastical court for crimes committed contrary to divine, canon and civil law. The notoriety of her deeds was widespread both in France and abroad: Joan, armed with men provided by the French king Charles VII, had lifted the English siege at Orléans on May 8, 1429, in a spectacular turn of events. More victories followed for Joan, and eventually Charles VII was crowned king at Reims Cathedral on July 17 in the same year. Unfortunately for Joan, who considered herself divinely commanded by God to expel the English from France, her string of victories came to an end when she launched an ultimately unsuccessful attack upon Paris. She was captured outside the walls of Compiègne on May 23, 1430. There ensued a custody battle for Joan between the Duke of Burgundy and the vice-inquisitor of France; although she was a prisoner of war, she was also accused of heresy, which resulted in the ecclesiastical authorities claiming a legitimate interest in her prosecution. Joan was captured within the diocese of Bishop Pierre Cauchon, thus Cauchon was to have jurisdiction over the infamous trial along with the Inquisitor of France.

The trial record was one of the most complete of its time, given that the church authorities who eventually prosecuted Joan recognized the need for a thorough transcript of the proceedings; this was no ordinary case, and these were no light accusations. When examined from the standpoint of the inquisitorial trial procedure set forth in the 13th century, the trial involved some significant violations of juridical conduct, some of which even Joan herself seemed to be vaguely aware of. Despite this fact, one can easily see that ecclesiastics offered Joan her only real hope of avoiding death.

Joan of Arc’s trial was a heresy investigation carried out under a legal procedure known in canon law as inquisition. Rather than a prosecuting attorney bringing charges against a defendant, an inquisition involved the judge himself bringing charges against the accused after he had observed certain other steps in the trial:

The essential feature of inquisition was that the accusation against the defendant came in the form of a public outcry or general belief that the accused had committed a crime. Unlike the earlier procedure of “accusation,” in which one or more persons functioned as the accuser, in an inquisition the accuser was the outcry itself. Once infamy had been established—this is, the existence of public outrage—the bishop or ecclesiastical judge could summon the defendant and investigate the truth of the accusations. The judge was to present the defendant with a list of charges in the form of chapter or articles. The judge could then require the defendant to swear an oath to tell the truth.[1]

At first glance, the trial record of Joan of Arc seems to indicate that the main judge, Bishop Cauchon, followed this correct procedure in his prosecution of Joan: by the end of all the proceedings, Joan had indeed been presented with the formal charges for which she was being tried; her infamy had been ‘established’; she had been offered counsel; and she had sworn numerous oaths. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes apparent that certain aspects of these procedures, particularly the order in which they were followed, were questionable. Perhaps these controversial elements of the trial would not be as significant if it were not for the fact that they actually strengthened the prosecution’s case against Joan.

One of the hotly debated issues surrounding the trial’s proceedings was the fact that Joan was not presented with formal charges until after she was extensively questioned by the ecclesiastical authorities. Moreover, the very manner in which the charges were drafted was open to question. According to the inquisitorial procedure set up in 1215 by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council, charges were to be generated largely on the basis of pre-trial investigation. This research was to be undertaken by the judge or his associates:

The pope envisaged that a judge would first be alerted by reports from afar and then go to the scene of the crime to see for himself. He modeled this procedure of “general inquisition” on Genesis 18.21, where God says of Sodom and Gomorrah, “I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me.”[2]

Rather than deriving the articles from an initial inquest, it was primarily from unconfirmed hearsay in addition to statements made by Joan herself subsequent to the trial’s commencement that the charges were eventually drafted by the court. All seventy of these charges were finally announced to Joan weeks after she had first been questioned. This substantial lapse in time between Joan’s summons and her receiving of formal charges was also contrary to Innocent III’s system, which required that the judge’s first obligation, when implicated persons were summoned to his court, was to give them, in writing, detailed points (chapters, or articles) of the charges against them and to explain the charges, thereby enabling them to defend themselves.[3]

Medieval canonical rules of due process required a judge to follow all the correct preliminary trial procedures. A defendant had the right to remain silent before being formally charged. If the judge proceeded unlawfully, a defendant could declare himself or herself aggrieved and enter an immediate appeal. This was particularly important for cases involving heresy, as one could be convicted not only for confessing a previously committed crime but also for expressing a belief that could be taken as a brand-new crime of false belief; it would become instantly notorious and require no further proof simply by being uttered in court.[4] Given the circumstances surrounding Joan’s case, it would seem as if Cauchon might have intentionally postponed giving the formal charges in order to trick Joan early into making heretical statements that otherwise would never have been included in the articles written against her later.

No articles were presented to Joan during her first court appearance, and she did not immediately make any sort of appeal on the basis of their absence. Procedurally, Cauchon seemed only to be concerned with requiring Joan to take an oath before the court, but he encountered reluctance. When Cauchon asked Joan to “swear to tell the truth about the things we ask you that concern the faith, and that you know,”[5] Joan replied that she would willingly tell those things which pertained to her mother and father and her activities in France. But she added that she would absolutely not disclose her revelations from God, even under pain of death. Cauchon’s oath,

much like the illegal oath of the heresy inquisitors, would undoubtedly have been enough to trap her into making dubious doctrinal statements, for instance about the precise meaning of her everyday prayers. But when Cauchon had quickly worked his way through questions about her parents and home and came to ask her to recite the Pasternoster and Ave Maria, she stymied him by saying that she would recite them only in confession. She thus showed that she was able to distinguish between the internal and external forums of the church.[6]

Evidently, Joan was aware that she could imperil her own situation by answering truthfully and unconditionally to every question asked by the court, and so she often withheld information. Her usual method of refusing to answer a question was to say, “Pass on,” as when she was asked whether she received the Eucharist at any other feasts other than Easter.[7] This wise and cautious attitude on Joan’s part proved to be persistent throughout the majority of the trial. She certainly did not divert all the potential damage of her own words, however, as proven later in many of the articles.

The problematic juridical procedures involved in the trial of Joan of Arc were thoroughly discussed and debated long after her death, but they did not go completely unnoticed and unquestioned during the trial itself. This is slightly surprising, given the fact that the trial was very politically charged; it was certainly not free from the influence of the English, who wished to see Joan prosecuted for challenging English claims in France. Regardless, a highly respected canonist of the day named John Lohier considered the proceedings to hold no validity:

Lohier objected that the trial lacked the form of an ordinary process; that it was held under constraint, so that the assessors were not really free to make unbiased decisions; that, though it dealt with the honor of the king of France, no one from that quarter had a voice in the trial; that no libellus or articles had been submitted; and that no counsel had been provided to the defendant, who was a simple girl, to help her respond to questions posed by learned masters and doctors on difficult subjects.[8]

William Manchon, a notary in the case, stated that Bishop Cauchon clearly believed that his handling of the trial up to the point of Lohier’s criticism had been flawless; Cauchon was therefore very annoyed by the negative criticisms from the canonist.

Cauchon made it known that, despite Lohier’s objections, he wished to proceed with the trial as it had begun. Despite this sentiment, the bishop’s actions would suggest otherwise, as he made some significant trial modifications; out of these procedural alterations came forth the long-overdue articles which were finally read to Joan weeks after she first arrived in Rouen. Cauchon remedied Lohier’s main objection to the lack of formal charges in the following way:

He professed to be opening a new phase of the trial: what had proceeded, he said, was an ex officio preparatory process; now he was opening an “ordinary process,” in which the promoter would present against Joan certain articles that Cauchon had ordered to be compiled.[9]

After Joan had responded to these seventy articles brought against her, Cauchon had them reduced in number to only twelve; these were sent to faculty members at the University of Paris for a formal opinion. Also, after Lohier’s feedback, Cauchon did indeed offer Joan counsel from among any of the assessors she wished to choose. She declined the offer, stating that she did not wish to abandon the counsel of the Lord himself. One can easily see from this evidence how Cauchon could legitimately claim that he had followed correct procedure; it is only under intense scrutiny that the trial proceedings fall into debate, namely in regards to the timing of the presentation of articles.

Some recent scholarship has suggested that the delaying of the presentation of articles was not intentionally overlooked by Cauchon, who in his ecclesiastical career was otherwise very meticulous in terms of proper procedure. In the bishop's defense, H. Ansgar Kelly argued that abuses in the inquisitorial system had taken place for so long by the time of Joan’s trial that to postpone (or neglect altogether) the writing of formal charges could not be labeled a perversion of law; evidence suggests that this was a commonplace practice among judges of the time. The general lack of procedural criticism during the trial itself led Daniel Hobbins to make the following suggestion: If contemporaries did not consider it a trespass not to present the articles at the beginning of the trial, then the problem seems one of our own making.[10] In light of this information, whether or not it was incorrect trial procedure to suspend the writing of formal charges becomes debatable; what is not so uncertain is the notion that this action had negative ramifications for Joan, who ended up providing more damning ammunition for the prosecution’s case during Bishop Cauchon’s aptly labeled ‘ex-officio preparatory process.’

When the ecclesiastical trial is examined in a much larger context, however, it becomes clear that these procedural errors, although significant, did in no way seal Joan’s fate. In fact, from the very beginning, this trial was Joan’s only real hope of evading death. The English authorities had handed Joan over to Bishop Cauchon upon the condition that she be convicted; if not, she would be returned to the English for prosecution. Considering that Joan’s ecclesiastical trial was conducted in France under undeniably biased conditions and within a highly-charged atmosphere, a trial by secular authorities in England would have only been even less conducive to proper procedure. Her English adversaries could in fact have put Joan to death without a trial.

It is obvious from the trial record that many of the law experts and theologians involved in the case earnestly wished for Joan to recant her heretical statements. Near the end of the trial, some faculty members at the University of Paris sent Bishop Cauchon a formal opinion regarding the revised twelve articles against Joan. This statement, which found her to be largely at fault, was read to Joan by a certain doctor. After this, the same doctor read a long letter to Joan that included a lengthy exhortation to abandon those beliefs that had caused her to stray so far from the Church militant:

…I warn, pray and entreat you by your devotion to the Passion of your creator, and by the love you bear for your body and soul, correct and amend all these things and come back to the path of the truth by obeying the Church and by submitting to its judgment and decision. By doing so, you will save your soul and, I believe, redeem your body from death. But if you do not, and should you persist, know that your soul will be utterly damned; your body, I fear, will also be destroyed. May Jesus Christ keep you from such a fate.[11]

Exhortations such as these were repeatedly made to Joan. Perhaps they were not undertaken completely in vain; during her first sentencing, Joan interrupted its reading in order to sign a formal abjuration. The ecclesiastics seemed to be genuinely elated that she had chosen to return to the “path of truth.” Joan would still face perpetual imprisonment under the Church’s supervision, but church authorities could also alter the verdict at any point. A punishment of life in prison proved that Cauchon and his associates were not solely concerned with seeing Joan killed for her heretical crimes. For a short period of time, in fact, it looked as if the Church had indeed spared her life, which was a truly miraculous thing when one considers the circumstances of the trial.

Only days after her abjuration was signed, Joan made it invalid when she donned men’s clothing once more and told certain ecclesiastics that she had abjured in error; in doing these things, Joan sealed her own fate. She was declared a lapsed heretic, handed over to the secular authorities, and burned at the stake for her crimes. The trial of Joan of Arc, despite its controversial proceedings, can still be viewed as a legitimate effort on behalf of the Church to spare Joan’s life. Had she not lapsed, Joan would have spent the remainder of her days living under church supervision; instead, she was killed at the hands of the English people whom she so vehemently detested.

[1] The Trial of Joan of Arc, trans. Daniel Hobbins (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005), 16.
[2] H Ansgar Kelly, “The Right to Remain Silent: Before and After Joan of Arc,” Speculum 68 (1993): 995.
[3] H. Ansgar Kelly, “The Right to Remain Silent: Before and After Joan of Arc,” Speculum 68 (1993): 995.
[4] Ibid., p. 994.
[5] The Trial of Joan of Arc, trans. Daniel Hobbins (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005), 49.
[6] H. Ansgar Kelly, “The Right to Remain Silent: Before and After Joan of Arc,” Speculum 68 (1993): 1014.
[7] Ibid., p. 1015.
[8] H. Ansgar Kelly, “The Right to Remain Silent: Before and After Joan of Arc,” Speculum 68 (1993): 1018.
[9] Ibid., p. 1020.
[10] The Trial of Joan of Arc, trans. Daniel Hobbins (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005), 23.
[11] The Trial of Joan of Arc, trans. Daniel Hobbins (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005), 189.

I Haz a Post... Will Dis Hungry Panda Eatz It?!

For whatever reason, I've decided to start writing in my un-emo blog yet again. Since my account had been inactive for about two years, I guessed that all of my blogs were probably long gone. Out of sheer boredom, I checked to see if they were still up; I was rather surprised to discover that they were.

I have actually spent part of the last week or so going back through many of my old posts and revising them a little bit. Typos bother me almost more than anything in the world; unfortunately, I found them to be pretty prevalent in my old writings. Yes, my corrections were probably a huge waste of time, considering I doubt very seriously that anyone would actually take much notice of a typo here and there. Regardless, if it's my writing, I want it to be free of errors. Maybe I'm just a weirdo. I'm much the same with papers I write for my college courses. If I find a typo in a paper, even if I've already turned it in, I'll go back and fix the error in the saved document on my computer. Okay, I'm definitely a weirdo.

Some things you may or may not care about:

• I have two other blogs, but only one of them is worth taking a look at: Journal/Journey Project 333, which I wrote to earn one credit hour (yeah) through the Honors Program back during the '06-'07 academic year. Coincidentally, this was also my horrible year in college, but I still managed to earn at least the one credit hour for writing that blog. Hooray. The Book Blog, the other one, was kind of an epic fail. I read many books the same summer I started writing the blog, but I only wrote about two of them. If you've ever read Animal Farm or The Reader (a horrible book, in my opinion), then you won't be missing out by not looking at the blog. Sadly, when I came back to class, I discovered that I didn't necessarily feel like blogging about books that I'd read for courses, particularly because I had to write papers on most of these books. To write a 10-page paper on a book and then immediately turn around and blog about it seems a little much for me.
• As far as post topics for this blog, there's only going to be one obvious restriction: no emo material. I do tend to go on random rants (those are everywhere in my earlier posts), and I'm sure I'll write plenty of those in the upcoming weeks. However, since the Journal/Journey Project blog won't be updated anymore, I'll probably use this blog to occasionally post something of some substance.
• I've enabled anonymous posts. I like for people who don't have Blogger accounts to still be able to give me feedback if they wish. However, the first time any jackass makes an immature comment, this will change.
• Along the same lines: if you don't like me, please don't read my blog; I promise you, you will only dislike me more after you read what I have to say.
• I'm taking the LSAT on June 8th, so my posts will probably be very limited until that time. Speaking of the LSAT, I should be studying. I certainly picked the worst month of the year to take this test.

Enjoy!

Mox Redibo!

After more than a two-year hiatus, the un-emo blog is back! I'm currently tweaking some old posts and writing the draft for my first new post. It will definitely be up within the next few days, so be patient. This is pretty exciting.

I Never Thought I'd Say This, But...

...please take me back to class! Can you tell I'm excited about Wednesday? After a basically uneventful summer, I'm definitely ready to hit the books again. Yes, it's nerdy to say, but there are a few elements of the campus/class environment that I really do enjoy when classes are in session. Additionally, I just need a change of scenery and something to really occupy my time. Although I work about 30 hours a week, my other hours are spent essentially being a complete waste, and I hate feeling like a lazy ass. This next semester will definitely be as difficult as the last, plus I really can't screw around with any of the classes--they're all pretty important.

Anyway, you readers should be excited for a completely different reason--hopefully, once class starts, I'll have more topics of some substance to write about as opposed to the irrelevant crap I've been posting on here lately. I feel like the subject matter has slowly deteriorated into something kind of like Livejournal (*hangs head*). My current mood is ashamed because of this. I hope to include on here some topics from class and maybe some experiences with a few of the extracurricular organizations I've applied to work with. I'm going to be an Honors Mentors for Dr. Tunberg's section of 101, and I've also applied to be an Honors Ambassador and a Peer Fellow. Those things could be interesting.

So I feel that this would be a pretty appropriate time to bitch a little bit about my current experiences in the retail business as a cashier. Before I go any farther with this, I should probably go ahead and state that this is only my 7th month in the retail business. I definitely haven't clocked enough hours to be considered a true veteran of retail; I'm not trying to give that impression, either. I'm merely going to discuss some of the most unbelievable and ridiculous incidents that have occurred within these seven months as evidence for my final point, which I'll get to later. Prepare to be amazed... or maybe not, if you've ever worked in retail:

While working as a grocery store cashier, I once gave a 15 cent refund to a furious foreigner who demanded to know why his Gatorade rang up as $1.00 instead of 85 cents. I can be a little understanding here, as this guy just might have not grasped the value of the American dollar yet. But 15 cents? Jesus. You could buy a pack of Wrigley gum for this... wait, no you couldn't.

This is the scenario: It's a busy as hell Friday night, and I have 15+ people in my line to check out. An older (60-something) couple comes through my line and buys about $60.00 (keep this number in mind) worth of merchandise. Three minutes later, the man is standing off to the side of my register with a ridiculous look of pissed on his faced, holding his receipt. I can see where this is heading. I ask him what the problem is. Apparently his swim trunks, which were on sale for $12.00, rang up incorrectly in the computer as $15.00. I proceed to explain to him that he will have to get back in line so that I can run a price adjustment in my computer, and he proceeds to bitch, bitch, bitch about how "unfair" it is that he has to get back in line for something that I "screwed up," making a scene all the while. The asshole apparently does not understand that cashiers are not in charge of everything involved in running the store and that I cannot simply take money out of my till then and there. The woman who is next in line overhears this exchange and offers to let said asshole get in line in front of her. He insists on getting in the back of the line (big surprise here) to continue his three-dollar-martyr routine. Of course, he treats me like shit when he finally gets back to me, as expected. Why the hell do some people act this way? I am completely understanding of the fact that people need to keep a close watch on their finances (everyone does to an extent), but considering that the... guy had already spent $60.00, was $3.00 really worth all that hassle and inconvenience to himself, myself, and everyone in my line? This jackass obviously just wanted to cause a problem and have an excuse to bitch at someone.

Another scenario: On an equally busy day, I overhear a squabble between a clothing associate and an apparently dissatisfied customer with a return. The clothing associate tells the upset customer that he has to get in a cashier's line in order for the return to be processed, and said customer begins to bitch about every aspect of our customer service and how ridiculous it is that he has to even stand in line for a return. Of course, by the grace of the good Lord, he gets in my line (would it be any other way?). When it's his turn, he proceeds to give me the same speech that he gave the clothing associate, only in a lot more detail. I tell him that if he'd like to speak to a manger, there is actually one right next to me in the opposite check-out lane. The customer of course does not do this after wasting all his breath on me--as if I could really do anything about his complaints other than apologize on everyone else's behalf. This was particularly interesting because the customer was from India. His attitude gave me the impression that customer service in India has relatively higher standards than in America. That's probably true, and I wouldn't mind to see customer service in America improve in certain areas, but that doesn't necessarily make this incident any less ridiculous from my perspective as a cashier with basically zero authority.

Here we go again: a dirty man enters my line to return three equally dirty shirts. He has no receipt and the shirts have no tags attached, so I have no UPC's for the shirts. He is already in violation of just about every aspect of our return policy, but we decide to be nice people and do the return for him despite the violations. We find two of the UPC's pretty quickly from merchandise currently on the floor, but one shirt is apparently so dated that our front end manager has to go in the caves of our warehouse to locate a book that would contain the UPC. The dirty man, in the meantime, is loitering around my register like a disoriented clown, making sure to occasionally complain about the inconvenience we're causing him while we search for the UPC's. "Uhhhhhh, I should just get this shit fuhr free, yall's tahkin' so long." The codes finally come out of the warehouse and I finally get the guy out the door. Here's a perfect example of a person who either (1) genuinely doesn't grasp the concepts related to products codes and how necessary they are for correct inventory and (more importantly) quick transactions, or (2) knows their importance and simply thinks that store policies don't apply to him/her and that he/she is entitled to whatever they want, when they want it. Based on his attitide, I'd like to think number 2 applied to this guy.

I have several other ridiculous, funny stories that I could post on here, but I think these will suffice for my point. A career in retail really requires a certain adeptness and tolerance level for dealing with people--moreso than many other jobs require. The face-to-face interaction in the retail business adds an interesting element that can often create more stress than one anticipates. So the next time you encounter a retail employee, be nice--he or she probably deals with the aforementioned types of situations daily.

Let's All Get Muhrried + UK Deficiency

I'll go ahead and warn you that you won't find anything of any real relevancy written here, just a few rather useless personal opinions of mine. How awesome is it that I can legitimately say that I've written TWO posts in one month? And hey, for you readers of mine who have blogs (you know who you are), you're lagging behind like hell and you need to update more frequently. I like reading other people's blogs too! Don't make me do all the work!

So, I guess I've reached that age (almost 21) when a few of my peers will inevitably decide to get married or have kids. I certainly can't complain about that, and I really hope that these people will be happy with their personal life decisions. I've talked with some people who discussed the fact that college simply wasn't for them, so they went ahead and found stable employment or started a business of their own; understandably, some of these same people started a family. Then there are those who are still in undergraduate or graduate school and married their high school sweetheart whom they'd dated for years. These seem to be exceptional circumstances, but I think they're perfectly legitimate.

I believe that the problems with getting "muhrried" and having children begin when circumstances between two individuals don't really warrant a marriage at all. People who date each other for 2-4 months and decide to tie the knot are some of my favorites; I'm going to go ahead and say that three months of dating before marriage is too quick. Is that enough time to live with a partner long enough to really know what they're like? Probably not. It it long enough that both people are going to have to deal with a substantial problem together and see if they can work it out? Nope. Is two months a long enough time to figure out if your partner has any really annoying tendencies or attitude issues that may potentially create conflict? No. Anyway, I'm not trying to say that one should have to date his or her partner for eight years before any very serious commitments are made. However, people who want to very quickly tie the knot should probably ask themselves if they could stand to be with this person they've know for four months for the rest of their life. The idea may be a little... sobering.

Yet another great category of marriages are those I'm-going-nowhere-so-I-better-find-someone-to-take-care-of-me unions. Ladies, I think we do this a little too frequently. Yes, the girls who come to college fresh out of high school and find out after a year that their 3.9 high school GPAs don't mean shit in terms of their academic performance in college are the ones who come to my mind. (I have personally seen this happen way too many times.) Before they piss away whatever remaining financial support from their parents they have left, they begin to loiter around the law school or medical school in hopes of finding a guy that has a lot of academic... I mean financial potential. I guess there's nothing inherently evil in this, but these girls just need to pray that their husbands don't ever divorce them; if so, then they'll be forced to actually work or remain totally dependent on alimony. That's a blast.

Babies are smelly and emo. Enough said.

Anyway, that's enough about marriage and babies.

So, I'm pretty sure that most of you reading this are UK students. If you're not, maybe you intentionally chose not to go to UK for the very thing I'm going to bitch about. Before I say anything negative, though, I should go ahead and say that I still absolutely love going to UK. I would far rather go here than any other institution in the state. I favor the bigger campus and larger student population at UK; I'm really not meant to be at a small school like Transylvania or Centre. (At this point, I just have to add that Transy occasionally sends little student shuttle buses over to William T. Young when classes are in session so that its students can mooch off our resources, which is funny as hell to me. I'm not the one paying an inordinate amount of money for tuition to NOT have immediate access to Willy T... Mwahahaha.)

Anyway, it's my belief that the University of Kentucky has a serious deficiency when it comes to scholarship funding for continuing students who didn't come there initially on a scholarship. I think UK probably allots so much of its scholarship money for awards like the Singletary Scholarhsip that it leaves the rest of us in the shitter. I applied for two scholarships through UK last spring--the Arts & Sciences Academic Scholarship and the Alumni Scholarship. I did actually get one of them, but the amount of money I received barely covered the costs of my textbooks, let alone helped me with my tuiton expenses. Because of this, I started applying for external scholarships; hopefully I'll have more luck with those. Blech.

Attack of the Prostitots!

So, have you ever gone through one of your old yearbooks and cringed when you saw your school picture? Yes, there's a good chance that you probably looked like a magnificent dork if you judge by the fashion standards you hold now. Don't worry. You're definitely not alone, as it's pretty much guaranteed that the majority of your fellow 7th graders didn't necessarily give a damn for being "in style" for their school pictures. Yeah, it's a guarantee that there were always at least a few of those individuals who woke up at some ungodly hour to put on their $200 outfits and spend half an hour putting layer after layer of makeup on their faces, but they were most likely the exception; let's pretend they don't exist. It's better for our egos.

Most of us are familiar with that hilarious I-just-grabbed-the-closest-thing-and-put-it-on look that is rampant in elementary and junior high yearbooks: the mismatched colors, the semi-greasy hair, the enormous scrunciis and headbands, brands of clothes we totally forgot existed, or (for the girls) even a little hint of some ridiculous color of eyeshadow or lipstick that you thought looked pretty incredible at the time.... thought being the operative word here. Anyway, despite how hilarious those old pictures might be to you now, I'd venture to say having a nonchalant attitude about fashion is the right mindset for one to have at that point in his or her life; it's not my belief that a 12-year-old needs to be overly concerned with his or her appearance and/or clothes. Looking back on my junior high years, I'm still glad that I wasn't worried about staying fashionable or looking "hott" or whatever the hell you call it these days. Those were some of the last years of my life that I could afford to be generally carefree. I didn't wear much makeup or buy clothes very often. I simply took showers in the morning, threw on some clean clothes and went off to "skoo" (Pike-VUHL vernacular) to waste another seven hours of my life.

Times are changing. Today, there is a new type of junior high girl emerging, one that actually gives a f*** about her public appearance. These "prostitots" are easily observable to the naked eye. A prostitot possesses, but is not limited to, the following qualities:

1. She wears Ugg boots; usually, her skinny jeans or Pink sweatpants are tucked into them. I won't even start on Ugg boots other than to say that certain varieties look like someone took a furry animal, beat it to death, and, from its fur, made some sort of monstrosity resembling boots. How fashionable. I for one have seen those Ugg boots with the two furry balls on strings attached to them. What are the manufacturers going for here? I can't fathom the answer to this question; perhaps it's simply beyond my fashion comprehension.
2. This girl is so damn orange... I mean tanned that I can barely differentiate between her nose/mouth area and the rest of her face, as everything just kind of blends in. Is she really Caucasian at all? By the way, this girl is in fact so crispy-burnt that she can actually emit cancerous UV rays.
3. She wears mini skirts and shorts so short that you can actually see her butt cheeks when she walks. This is definitely attractive to those hott college boys. Did I say that? I meant to say convicted child sex offenders.
4. Her $250 Dooney & Bourke purse looks as though it was decorated by someone on an acid trip. Oh well. She feels pretty cool about the whole situation because she knows the "LV LV LV LV" plastered repetitively across her best friend's purse indicates nothing other than genuine Louis Vuitton. I mean, c'mon, unless you have one of those really unique looking things, you just aren't cool enough to be spoken to.
5. She's in a competition with the ladies at the makeup counters in the mall to see how many layers of full makeup she can put on her face without it all sliding off into a pile of goo. Foundation, undereye concealer, concealer, lipstick, lipliner, eyeliner, mascara, eyeshadow, and bronzer are all piled on her face in a very scary manner that makes her look a little bit like a clown.
6. She's a regular fashion model, representin' for all the "cool" brands. Abercrombie, abercrombie (there's a damn difference people, c'mon!), Hoe-llister, Polo, etc...
7. If her cell phone rings, god forbid if everyone in a fifty foot vicinity can't hear about the life-or-death conversation between her and her boy toy about their respective plans to get rides to the movies that night. Parents will drive them, of course, since these spoiled brats still have a few years to go until driver's licenses. Before answering, the prostitot absolutely must let the phone ring a few times on the "loud" setting so that everyone will know that she owns a cell phone.

The absolute best thing about all this ridiculousness is that these girls aren't fooling anyone with a brain. Despite the makeup, the clothes, the purses, the Ugg boots, etc., etc., they still look like 12-year-olds who invaded their older sisters' wardrobes. I can't help but wonder about these girls' parents a little bit. Most of them obviously don't have a problem with blowing hundreds of dollars on their daughters' wardrobes to keep them "in style," but do they realize that some of these girls go out in public looking a little like child whores? Needless to say, there are some very perverted individuals roaming around out there. I would not for one second allow my young daughter to dress in such a way that would invite extra attention from weirdos.

I don't get it!

Aestas Denique Adest!

Yes, dammit, summer is finally here. I won't spend too much time elaborating on how much the last two weeks of my semester sucked; suffice to say that they were most definitely the hardest weeks of my college experience thus far. In a matter of 8 days, I wrote 5 papers, prepared a 10-minute presentation for my HON 102 class, and took 3 of my hardest finals (two of which were essays that combined easily to about 10 pages of my microscopic writing). I was very angry; I definitely had a minor mental breakdown a little more than halfway through the week after I'd slept an entire four hours in the matter of two and a half days. Oh well. All that is behind me now, and summer is finally here! It seems as if my hard work paid off, as I think I'll end up with 4 A's and 2 B's. As far ever taking another 18-credit-hour semester, I'll never do that again unless it's absolutely necessary! That shit was terrible.

A very random topic happened to come up in my HON 102 (Gender and Witchcraft in the Medieval World) class discussion a few weeks ago which I think would be pretty appropriate for this blog post. I don't think it will bore people to death, simply because it has a lot of modern applicability. Basically, we were discussing chivalry in the Middle Ages, and Dr. Holliday asked the gentlemen in our class if they felt pressure to live up to the standards of chivalry in their treatment of women. One of my male classmates blurted out something along the lines of "Hell no, I think women should open their own doors," and that comment of course produced a lot of feedback from other students. My Honors class was composed of markedly different personalities; the individual statements made by my peers in response tended to be either really subdued or pretty extremist.

On this particular issue of male chivalry, I found myself somewhere in the middle ground. No, I don't think my boyfriend needs to be at my beck and call at all hours of the day. I also certainly don't expect other men to treat me this way. However, I'll admit that I do really appreciate it when a guy holds the door open for me or does something "gentlemanly." I perceive it as an indication that a guy knows what common courtesy is, and I like that in a man. If my boyfriend were consistently doing courteous things for me, I would take it as a sign of his respect for me; I would also do similar things for him, as I'm just as capable of returning those favors.

What I didn't fully agree with as far as this particular issue was the perception that chivalry has an inherently female-degrading element in its practice, which is what some of my female classmates suggested. Their rationale was that if a man goes far out of his way to do something "chivalrous" for a woman then he obviously thinks that women need to be treated specially on account of their inability to do things on their own.

What's interesting is that I honestly don't ever think about our society as a whole being sexist or misogynist until I'm exposed to hardcore feminist viewpoints. Perhaps that's partly due to the fact that I was raised in a household with two older brothers and was never given "special" treatment on account of being a girl. Alternatively, maybe it's simply that I'm blind to the disparities between men and women in American society. Regardless, I never felt less capable than men. However, when exposed to feminist writings or feminists themselves, I'm much more aware of the perceived imbalance between the genders. To be honest, I feel like feminism is much more of a defense mechanism than a progressive means of correcting any imbalances that might exist. Women aren't ignorant. Women don't make sandwiches all day long. Women aren't all housewives: these are facts that are quite obvious to me and many others. However, it seems as if feminism chooses to focus more on the sad state of women's affairs than on supporting and motivating women to rid themselves of the negative stereotypes associated with them. If women are constantly the victim in this philosophy, how is it going to really help them shed a perceieved inequality?

Even the very positive light that feminism often puts women under can, in my opinion, have inadvertent negative effects. If followers of this philosophy aggressively try to reinforce positive ideas about women, will this not simply draw attention back to the very stereotyes they are trying to banish? It seems somewhat desperate to me. Extreme example: if an uber-feminist becomes angry at a guy for going out of his way to open a door for her and gets to show her "womanly power" by rejecting his effort to be courteous, is this same guy not going to be just really confused and perhaps a little annoyed? Either that or the dude may just think the woman is incredibly rude. Either way, I don't think it's helping the case for the equality of women.

I think some perceptions needs to change. Ladies, if a guy opens the door for you, don't get offended; it's more than likely just a simple gesture of courtesy. Don't assume that he thinks you're an incapable inferior and don't feel less "empowered" by the gentlemanly offer. I'm sure many men do these things completely unaware of any negative stereotype for women that are often associated with them.

Well, it's definitely 3:00 am, so I need the hit the sack.... Big expedition to the land of Pikeville tomorrow... hooray for me.

Carpe... Deez Nuts!

Are any of you still reading my blog, or have you decided that I've abandoned blog writing completely? I wouldn't blame you if you did, but I've been on a pretty long hiatus for any and all of these reasons: (1) I've been too lazy to update, (2) I've been too sleep-deprived to update, (3) I've been too up to my ass in work to update, and (4) I didn't want to do anything which required any semblance of mental effort over spring break!

The lovely picture on the left is actually a picture I took over spring break at Gettysburg, PA. The monument was erected sometime in the 1970's to commemorate the Louisana soldiers of the battle; it was one of many that I really liked. I was amazed by the sheer size of the battlefield and the huge number of monuments and memorials there. I definitely plan on going back eventually, preferably with the American history knowledge that I had back in high school (I passed the AP US history test--it was one of the only subjects I cared about at all). I had trouble putting things into context on the battlefield. Oh well. I'll brush up on it before I go back, and hopefully things will be even more informative.

The rest of my break was nice. I just basically sat on my ass, ate Dunkin' Donuts (they are amazing! I should have gained 20 lbs.), played old video games, and slept an ungodly amount. But, before I knew it, I was back in the hell that is class. I'm definitely feeling the pain. Oh yeah, "Carpe Deez Nuts" was a random team name that I heard at Mellow Mushroom at trivia night on Wednesday; I think it's hilarious as hell. Anyway, only 5 more weeks of class left! In other random ass news:

Priority registration: the only time of the year that I really appreciate being in the Honors Program. Getting to register before 90% of other students is certainly a privilege that outranks other aspects of the program.

18 credit hours--never again! What was I thinking? Only three more weeks until I'm out of this hell! In the meantime, your help in keeping me sane would be much appreciated.

It's still hard to believe that one of my favorite South Park characters ever (Chef) has left the show in the name of defending Scientology; the writers of South Park are apparently "too intolerant" of religion (did he not figure this out years ago?). Anyway, it seems as if Isaac's decision arose more out of pressure from some other Scientology followers (Tom Cruise, that jackass) than from his own dislike of the way the show portrays religious or philosophical beliefs in general. Kiss my ass, L. Ron Hubbard.

Random much?