it just doesn't feel like it. Damn I should have worked harder. And with doing nothing, I still carried a 3.4, but didn't get that crap recognized. It should have said "with honors." And what's bringing me down, stupid F's in p.e. of all courses. Some of those I can't even get off my transcript because they don't offer that particular # anymore, but it is essentially the same class. I can think of only one C, the rest A's and B's....without lifting a finger.

This Micro class I got one of the highest grades and didn't any work and didn't have the book. Still after ceremony she told me to come talk to her after I become a "famous immunologist," Dr. Wright that is. I came late to every class of Ms. Hovde and still was the best grade there, too! Only reason I know is because she told me and my counselor when I walked of the gym with a huge grin. I should have worked. In another Bio with Mr. Heyer I got the best grade and came late always there too, didn't have the book, and didn't do a whole lot of studying. Still, I didn't get recognized.

In the proceedings Dr. Valeau said that your disappointments should be "cremated, not embalmed" and that "it's not how high you get, but from how deep you came." Both will stick because,well, both apply. I didn't have books for most of my classes because I couldn't afford them. I didn't have a mom to help out and dad has never been there. Somehow tuituion got paid everysemester on time and I got my A or B. I only wonder what would be if I had a great platform to jump off of. I wonder how high, but then again, I'll forget where exactly I came.

"Oh the indignities I must endure to win distinction" I think at times, but how presumptuous. I know for fact that there are others in my family that would have just loved to graduated highschool. For me, I wanted it all, and now I'm getting to see a very selfish Justin. It shouldn't be, but I'm still a little angry.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I should have done chemistry from the beggining. A certain Lilly is prolly graduated with her double major in Bio and Chem from USCS right now, I just got by Hartnell. She's prolly moving on to med school and me... All that potential. I haven't met my equal yet...not yet. But what do I have to show for it.

I'll work harder this time around. For being such a great occasion it sure feels bitter. Not only work harder, but quit complaining, and worrying about what others think, and about what I think.

Really, I am graduating from a former way of thinking, and for that I am happy!

Really, I am graduating from a former way of thinking, and for that I am happy!

:)

well, congratulations on graduating. sorry you didn't receive your recognition, but you seem to have recognized something in yourself: graduating from a former way of thinking.

sometimes that is very hard for some people to do and even harder to recognize.

I now attend SDSU!

The “emotion of love” is a concept hard to understand and explain. Love has various definitions with different contexts and different degrees. Along with formal definitions that the Greeks recognized, each person seems also to have their own personal feelings on the emotion of love. In most cases, what they say differs from what the next has to say. I believe because of such a wide range of definitions, societies felt it necessary to make an official public document defining love.
The feeling of love is universal. Everyone longs for intimacy. Everyone also wants to have sex. I believe many wrestle with these two ideas and blur them unconsciously while using the universally accepted word “love” to categorize them.
Throughout history intimacy has been romanticized in literature and in art. Many surviving documents that have survived indicate that the ancients aspired to realize true intimacy. They convey an inner tension of that being. The writers, it seems, is trying to come to grips with attaining, maintaining, or getting over their feelings of intimacy; great poetry has been written in this light. Ancient writers also inevitable include sex as a part of their feelings, indicating an interesting dynamic between the two.
Sex is seen as the ultimate expression of intimacy. Many, who are involved in serious, long-term relationships, believe this is the ultimate indicator of love. Sex is no frivolous behavior and is a sign of commitment on the part of both partners. Sex also can be seen as pejoratively.
Sex has been seen as sinful, bad, or dangerous. Many have been warned about when, where, and with whom to have sex with. Some warn others of sex because of moral issues, but also because sex produces expensive offspring. Sex comes with and implicit understanding of commitment, though many do not adhere to it. So then with this fact and with the other caustic consequences, sex in ancient times and now is cautiously approached. So with intimacy and the dual view of sex blurred and jumbled, the ancients felt the need to make clear guidelines to establish order.
The ancients socially constructed love with questionable boundaries. Their aim was to make general parameters for the individual, but for the society as a whole it was to control them. In the readings, Socrates uses his rhetoric to convince the boy what love should be, but doesn’t give him concrete orders. On the other hand, the Bible uses its principles and rules to maintain order and an environment of morality for the people. They may not be accepted by the whole because everyone will it interpret them differently but nevertheless acquiesce. So then we are back where we started with everyone having their own opinion of what love is.

My Poet

“Whenever you commend, add reasons for doing so; it is this that distinguishes the approbation of a man of sense from the flattery of a sycophant and the admiration of a fool” said Sir Richard Steele once upon a time. I am a reader who is not so particular which writer is best, as much as the content of any one writer and how it is presented. It is in the rare case here where I am both marveled at the “form and function” of the poet. I am fascinated by the writer’s style and what the writer has to say, because they are thoughts I have thought, but never materialized: some for fear of others, others because I could not put my imagination onto paper. Charles Baudelaire writing qualities and the quality of his writing has placed him as one of my all-time favorite writers.
Baudelaire’s pieces are at first glance bland, crude, dark and simple. Contrary of other notable writers, Baudelaire does not garnish his work with literary jewels, that is, fancy words. He is simple because “simplicity is the fastest route between two points,” and his writings are set for easy assimilation. His work got him successfully prosecuted for the crude and scandalous words used therein. He is unapologetic in the manner in which he presents the world through his writing, because the world is no less shameful in its presentation of itself. Here is where he wins acclaim from many throughout history in that he was fearless condemning the world and those who live in it, and also skilled in not displaying it as mere ramblings of an ‘angry, old man.’ Many of his pieces have shock value, yet it is easily seen that his intent is not to be shocking, that is simply its affect.
Being a large portion to the Symbolic movement of the mid 19th century, Baudelaire’s writing follows the format. Symbolism has been said to exalt the ordinary or humble over the ideal, the mediocre over the brilliant and the poor over the prestigious. True to the sign of the times, much of his work take the often overlooked or scorned upon role, yet gave them social relevance. It is in this attempt to redeem the lowly, that one can argue he was in actuality redeeming himself from his social and financial situations. Another aspect of the Symbolism is use of metaphors and symbols as references, than to outright describe something.
The use of symbols as place holders and convenient objects of ambiguity is a method Baudelaire mightily exploited. At face value, each of his works has a wealth and wonderful meaning. It is when the reader delves a further into the poem that s/he is able to uncover those intended gems safely socketed away for the diligent and appreciative reader. Though the use of metaphors is common place (almost a writer’s given right), Baudelaire spear headed the movement toward the idea that a poet should evoke rather than to describe. This allows the reader to bring his or her own meaning, interpret the meaning or find unintended meaning in the passage. This kind of freedom is exactly what Baudelaire was seeking in his life and his work. His work is noticeably dark.
Much of his work is qualitatively dark. His themes are dark and the words work in unison to paint a cold and loathsome atmosphere for many of his poems. Baudelaire is simply describing the world in many of his poems as is, and the end result is somber and less than ideal. He believes that all humans are equally evil.
Baudelaire believed that humans all had the same potential to become evil or engage in activities that are not socially acceptable. In “To The Reader,” he gives us no better standing than the beasts of the world. In fact, we are worse for he says “how cheerfully we crawl back to the mire” towards “the things we loathed become the things we love.” It is in his indictment of the reader and thence the world that he willingly or unwillingly humbles. There is a universal feel you get from each of his poems that Baudelaire was disgusted by the pretentious who were just as fallible as he; by the rich who were just as feeble as the poor. This truth he felt needed to be stressed if not tightened around the neck of the reader so as not to forget, and yet after each piece in that like the reader gets the feeling that no matter how much imploring, he more than expects the reader to slip into the same foolhardy mentality he is warning to steer away from.
His work of beauty also has this evil theme to it. In his poems that read like odes, he calls to light the quality of evil in beauty, rather than the positive the binds all men in awe. He says “her garments writhe and glisten like long snakes” and “you walk on corpses, Beauty, undismayed.” Many of his idea I have thought of and pondered, I just could never get it put together. Her I am not only in admiration, but also grateful that, not only are there others like me, but another who assisted me solidify my own thinking and identity.
Charles Baudelaire was a revolutionary among revolutionaries in a revolutionary time. His work was not always flowery and did not always reflect the world as pristine and flawless as some poets of old made it out to be. He was offensive but not raw, simple and bland, but not plain. He wrote from his heart, he wrote what was on his mind. If truly he was thinking what I think, then I will delude myself and say that I, too, am great. If imitation is the greatest form of flattery, then at least here in this case, I am not wrong.