a letter of to mister teddy bear

dear teddy bear of wonderful college that is crazy,

my name is chellius and i want to write to you this letter that is actually a whiny letter about mister wayne morrison. im reading his book now and i dont believe that he wrote it. cause he sounds quite sane and sober.

wayne is never freaking sane and sober.

he actually explains what the hell is the pure theory in the textbook. wayne never freaking explained it even though he was right in front of us. actually, all he did was tear paper and made me want to cry.

oh ameera wanted to cry too, btw :p hahaa, but then its not our fault, cause we're not emo people that like to cry, cause we got through part one and we didn't cry (much in public). and we're not emo people cause we don't listen to deathcab for cutie. or at least i dont.

oh ya, so back to my whining of wayne. he contradicts his stupid subject guide (but i suspect that penner or some other whackjob wrote that part) cause in the first chapter it says that normative jurisprudence is one of ought. and then in kelsen part he defines normative as: a matter of rules. ok ya so maybe i misunderstood it.

but the fact if i misunderstood it is obviously cause they didn't define it accurately and put in them caveat. here's my list of suggestions for caveat:

1. students who are too dumb to count cards in blackjack, please dont take juris cause you wont understand shit. (ya, i know, i shouldn't have taken it right)
2. we will contradict ourselves, cause the best jurists in the world will contradict themselves, so you just have to figure out what we're talking about.
3. chances are if you pick the latter argument that contradicted the former, we will insist that the former argument was the proper correct, conscise one (con one more likely) cause we will want to contradict you too.
4. furthermore, i'll have all kinds of stupid cabang-cabangs that makes you refer to books that dont exist, so you'll get even more confused.

reasoning why they do such horrible things: so there will be no jurists after dworkin, then after that jurisprudence will die a slow death cause there will be no jurists only stupid students who contradict themselves and write rubbish and fail their juris.

my next whiny problem is: wayne is prone to angry tantrum outbursts. he can tear paper and throw them at classmates and mentally scarring/scaring them for life. he tore up malaya's constitution.

quote: "this is the constitution. its a piece of paper. ive torn it. now what will the country do?" (okay so i paraphrased it because my mental tape recorder was paralyzed in fear)

are you aware that if the ISA caught wind of this, if he were malaysian they'd totally chuck him there cause he threatened to tear up the constitution. he should understand that the grunnorm DOES NOT help malaysians understand the concept of law. we dont follow it cause we assume its real.

we follow it cause we dont get thrown into isa. seriously. i don assume the law is real. i mean ok i define real as valid lah ok.
i dont know and i really dont go on the assumption it is valid. cause i sometims wonder if there'll be these bunch of people who'll jump out and yell: SURPRISE YOU'RE IN THE MATRIX, THIS COUNTRY OF MALAYA IS NOT REAL, we just shoved in a bunch of racially discriminatory, sexist misogynistic laws and feed you this entire fabricated history in your sejarah textbook and you guys FREAKING BOUGHT IT.

so if you're malaysian. you cannot believe in the grundnorm. and wayne morrison, fully understanding that we have made many amazing appearances in wikipedia and knowing how our government works better than us (cause ang moh know more about our legal system than we do cause we like to pretend we ang moh), he should know that the grundnorm is not real in malaysia.

so its not our freaking fault we dont know how to explain the concept of a presupposed norm in aplication to our legal system. its not that we didn't read your big fat happening textbook (ok, its actually quite a chun textbok and ok, so i didn't but that's not the point cause hartbinder TOLD US not to read YOUR textbook wayne, btw. so you can blame hartbinder too but kesian him cause he's like blind or something..) ya, but the idea of imagining a legal system is actually valid in malaysia...

is something only orang bunian can do ok.
and im totally not orang bunian. so its not my fault.

mister teddy bear, now i have nightmares about wayne popping out of his textbook and telling me that i'm goin to fail juris u know? i actually dreamt that he yelled at me for not knowing about hume, kant, nietzsche and rawles. i dont even know if they're in the syllabus or not. but what i dont know is more apparent than what i know.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
i hate juris.

gaza and gay crying peoples

To have a country broken down into rubble was what made Mehmed in turkey cry. for that country was once great. sultan quite gay
now, the gaza people have no sultan to cry. so they make malaysians, indonesians and all muslim countries cry for them. perhaps we will cry, perhaps we will not.
those who do not cry, have this incredible faith in israel, why would one have faith in israel? is it because god's people leave there? the elohim, the yahweh has blessed them?
or is it because we have been brainwashed by the american propaganda that israel is blameless and can do no harm.

why would one question proportionality?
is that not the UN's way in paying lip service in somewhat turning a blind eye to wars that will inevitably occur? is that their manner to show that they do no condone any course of action that could potentially lead to the obliterating of one state? the question is is it even a practical concept?
in the practicality of it all....... isn't proportionality merely the UN protecting not those of weak soldiers and little resources but rather, weak minded? proportionality will always be in retaliation.
so isn't this vague theory just a way to protect the weak morons who decide to pick a fight with a giant that they soon realize they cannot possibly overthrow them. proportionality. heresy to any concept of war. tell the warmongerers of proportionality.
you'll be their breakfast. it is not that i condone sufferings of many... but the greatest of countries have fought the bloodiest of wars.

and the chickenshit countries have their kings run away to a place where there are many lizards and biawak when the enemy strikes. so in my opinion, yeah, great countries are based on bloodshed, regardless of wars won or lost . and countries that have fought wars like pansies soon show that only pansies live there.
proportionality? vague, fake, and hyped up concept that the un just came up with for people to think that they are doin their job. kesian them also right.

did the palestine truly deserve to burn to the ground?
accumulative punishment, some people say, they had it coming. if one would elect the hamas in 2006, branded terrorists by of course the very people that know exactly what terrorists look like eg: US, Israel and the EU (antichrist), so one would expect inevitable burning of the city run by them terrorists.
but what if hamas represented a hope to be liberated from western culture, from people attempting to impose their economic and social standards on people who are better defined by their culture and tribal sects? eg: how the vietnamese responded to viet cong?
would you say that a nation led by freedom fighters would deserve to be burnt to the ground?

but now people return to find their homes in rubble.
no people deserves that. perhaps we should at least cry for them a wee bit.
since they do not have sultan mehmed to cry for them. is it mehmed? dunno....

what about israel?
dunno.....
the un is quite gay.
the eu is quite gay.
gay antichrist...