first reason; "in all my years, this is possibly the worst handwritting i have ever attempted to grade. i couldn't even attempt to grade it. "

and with that professor albonetti handed me my exam back. my question is; how am i supposed to feel? im pissed. lets get that out there. but still. come on, shes had me before, shes read it before, and she was forewarned that my penmanship is terrible. im not going to make any excuses for it when she expects multiple essay questions to be written in "the fullest detail possible" in a 1 hour setting... in addition to 40 multiple choice [ multiples of 2, mind you] to be completed with in the same time frame. nor will i consent to the fairness of the questions of multiple guess [ a or b; thats the extent of the multiplicity ], when the questions are a paragraph long, and contain value judgement statements. proposterous. so not only did she take off half my points on the [non]multiple choice section, shes refused to grade my essays. at this point in time i sit with something like a 20% on the exam. she didnt even attempt to read it. im quite pissed. so now what? i get to come in, in person, outside of class hours, when convenient to her, to READ her my fucking exam. something someone with a phD appearantly can not do on her own. rediculous. my handwritting isnt as bad as it could have been. i made sure she understood that.

second reason. shes pretty biased.

for the third week in a row she has taken to arguing about the US/Iraq situation. in quite negative light. this is not a political course, or a paid lecture, its a class on the sociology of law. instead shes feeding us comments about how its so terrible what we did to this country, and how mr. bush [not even dignifying him as President], ought not to think the voters would excuse this violation on world rights. utter slop. regardless of the god damned opinion, it does not belong in the classroom. on several occasions i felt obligated to defent the course of actions that im not even certain i truely support; out of respect! she continually revists how the coming iraqi government will not be seen as legitimate, how the US intervention will not end, and will further alienate the iraqi populace. then she just cuts loose on a host of other things, about autonomy, sovernigty and such. my reply; when in the history of the world has this ever occured? really? when has one country been invaded, occupied and its own system of government totally aboloished; and no form was given by the occupying country to replace it!! never! in fact the rule of law says if you take it, its yours! while i do admit that chances are quite strong of a democratic, free republic with a constitution in place for them; i doubt that it had to be that way. i suppose if they wanted a true marxian approach to government [which really, probably isnt a bad idea for them... if you disagree, then you dont understand marx...], if it would settle problems of political strife, civil unrest and end the state fostered terrorism. but seriously? when in history has this been done, like how its preceding? never. this is history. eradicating a villanous government is one step. but replacing the government is a totally fresh idea--- in the way its happening. ie- we stand watch over the country, fix problems of security and infrastructure, and allow the people of iraq to fully consider the ideas of political sovernigty that they wisht to exhibit. not the ones desired by the baath party, nor the republican party, nor the chineese government. whatever they want. we stand by to protect them and prop them up until they can fend for themselves; this, according to my knowledge has never been done. always, in the history of the world a conquering force has replaced an existing government with something similar to their own, or of their own decision. never has it been done like this. so why are we so critical? id be critical if we established it as the 51st state... or like the chineese do, by calling it another property of the mainlaind, or the brittish empire did, by calling it part fo the kingdom. no. never. yet it turns into leftist rag time. and i hate it. every minute of it. no fairness to the issue. no objectivity. no sense of necessary reason for our discussion at hand.

or she can back these two assholes from berkley and wisconsin, stanford and other places... namely Selznick and Nonet. two authors, highly critical of the development of legal structure in society; and how wonderful and enrapturing their ideas are. "doesnt this excite you all????" "doesnt this make you feel better" "dont they write so well?" "arent you thinking differently about government now?" all are phrases used to protest the goodness of these assholes. my answers were: nope. not really. it proves monkeys can hold pencils. i wouldnt say about government... published authors maybe. and she wasnt happy with my comments. see the two authors, in over 100 pages are trying to detail how society progresses, from a legal standpoint. but weve read this from better sources already, now we read the leftist-short-of-pissing-our-marxist-underroos version of it. things like repressive governments are baaaaad. stuff like legitimacy [freely used in 4 contexts resulting in 4 interpretations of the term] is how we grade this change. how good it is that responsive law societys find all these problems. crap like that. not only that, but when i argue against the points from the reading... explicitly the floating definition of LEGITIMACY [which she used in to ways; either as in the eyes of the governed; or as a legal system with separate legal facets from political ones] im cut off, told no, and moved on. i bring it back again. now shes angry, cuts me off, says no way. i argue exactly what she thinks... we can infact have a legitimate government, that is repressive! asshole S and asshole N, say we cant. its not possible. using their definitions i arrive at very plausible circumstances for it. im told to speak with her after class. i hate undergraduate courses. even more so when 4 of the law students, who openly told me they oppose the idea of insurging into iraq, told me that my arguments were quite sound and have alot of merit. not to a professor. one thats too lazy read my writings; but not selznick and nonet.

i hate this university. deeply.