on wednesday my "summer" concert line up begins to make up for the lack of shows last summer. last year as a result of the continued sars feeling, the world thought there was people laying dead in the streets of toronto and so no band wanted to come to little ole township of ours. depends where you go but the odds of stepping on a sars related corpses is slim. drug and/or booze induced corpses are more probable but what urban centre doesn't go through that right? this year the bands feel guilty and came back to soothe my aural habit. and i am happy for that. still have my fingers crossed for pearl jam to announce dates so i can pack the gang into mommy's caravan and head out on the usual 5 city road trip. we're such groupies yo. here's the gig lineup as of tonight:

March 30th: Queens of the Stone Age*
April 8th & 9th: The Weakerthans
four sweeeeeet shows...smack in the middle of exams:
April 23rd: Hot Hot Heat
April 26th: Audioslave*
April 27 & 28th: The Arcade Fire
May 30th: The Killers
June 17th: Oasis
Sept. 12th, 14th, 16th or 18th: U2**

thus far, the concert tab is more than i'd liked to admit but too many decents acts have decided to swing their tour bus through these parts of the planet to pass up. now i know, if you live in the LA area, this kinda line up is short of a joke. you'd expect that lineup with a single week as according tony's weekly LA concert listings. but we've been deprived over the past two summers. it's high time to break that. god dammit, i sounded excited no?

*will probably have to suck mad scalpers' penis but will get in. by sucking dick, i mean, paying a lot more than i should. hence, it's almost as bad as sucking scalper penis. whatever, shut up, it's a good analogy.
**if by some miraculous chance i make millions over the summer and can afford to see u2, i will.

so this morning that supreme court of the united states refused to hear the case effectively putting an end this all. well, hopefully, that is unless bush & co find a new clever way to wipe their nose with the law of the land as they have over the weekend. i've paid more attention to this than i should have but the legal side of this was inheritely intriguing as it charted into unprecendented territories. and watching this played out on television was equally striking as the amercian version of conservative philosophy in more than one ways was unravelling. i've learned a few things about this case that are worth mentioning

1) politicians are more qualified to diagnose medical conditions than doctors. so some doctor watching his television screen and reading medical notes about it says terri isn't a vegetable. and so dubya's equally wacky brother, jeb, orders the court to look into that. armchair quarterbacking takes on a new meaning. and of course, there was the congress politicians over the weekend giving their own diagnosis

2)the sanctity of marriage means nothing to bible thumpers. i haven't read the bible since grade school religion class but somewhere in there i remember marriage being mentioned in less than flatteriing ways: the woman becomes property of the man. marriage is "taking" someone as your wife. so according to religious views, the husband's acts are justified by your laws according to god. look this up if you're that damned studious note: the link is not to be taken seriously but you'll get the gist

3) jesus was wrong when he said that a man and wife bond takes precedence over parental rights. again, back to point 2: the man "takes" his wife and he's the say. you want to use biblical and godly arguments, well, so can the husband. hallelujah! lemme hear a couple of hallelujahs!

4) bible thumpbers think the 23 court cases that sided with the husband was all the result of a big conspiracy. activits judges my ass! the law was respected in that judges had no right to get involved. the judges that did get involved all said the same thing if take into account the bible: the hubby has the final word. again, back to point 2 & 3

5)heavily editted videotapes made by people with an agenda are more useful as medical tools than CAT scans and direct observation. these clips on television are beginning to disgust me and more disgusting is people making arguments against science based on a clip of terri supposedly following a ballon! yes, those five second clips are credible evidence that she's going to get better in the next year when no progress has been made in the last fifteen years. good luck with that one. i'm guessing that bible throws in a word or two about CAT scans but i can't seem to find the appropriate term. note: check out fox new's framing on these clips and you'll see what i mean. i mean, i too, look at the shots and sentimentally have my own reservations but that's the power of some video editors getting paid a handsome coin to make me feel like that. think about that and what kind of "monster" the media is in all this by sticking its nose into the husband's "property"

6)the brain is a magical thing that allows a person with no cortex to be totally aware and sentient (and even follow ballons). the cerebral spinal fluid is like pixie water that makes up the difference in having a functioning cortex. here science gets a bit conflicted, i know. but that's the beauty of it all. science isn't the end the all, however, it is a powerful tool. and it's taught us a lot in the past and continues to do so. some of it gets debated, rejected, amendment and stuff like that, so we can make better sense of our brains. it's still a confusing area but super smart scientists are working on it. and these super smart scientists all agreed mrs. schiavo isn't going to get better. but some wacky people who quote the bible try to pervert science. they call it.... get this, faith based science. again, back to lesson #5 above. oh yeah, and doctors who watch five second television clips use their "scientific knowledge" to side with bible quoters. then bible quoters qet all excited and suddently embrace science as saying schiavo is just like every other person! interesting but sorry, not valid. i don't think the super smart scientists will ever figure out how these people's brains work.

so that's basically what i learned in this all; and some other equally cool things about how laws actually work! america isn't sliding into a christian theocracy, far from it. sure, some wacky people have sabotaged the system and permeated politics, and i quote tom delay, the republican majority house leader, a man of law:

• One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo to elevate the visibility of what's going on in America

yeah, that's pretty scary but not of immediate effect. as long as the laws are in tact, reasonable thoughts and rationality will prevail such as they did earlier this morning. of course, the problematic aspect is whether those interpreting the laws in the future will act the way they did this morning. because if you stick bible quoters into positions of law interpretation, future decisions may not end up like they did today. that's what people should be most concerned about that.

so the drama that unfolded thanks to satelittes and then into my television and then into my blog has come to a closure. i've invested more time into this than i shouldve but what played out over the past week is better than anything you'll see hollywood ever put together. speaking of which, forbid some ambitious director right now from scheming of making this into a horrible analysis through a made for tv. everything in this was intermeshed: nuclear family, extended family, courts, science vs religion, law vs god, life vs choice, politicians, media, bloggers, and me. but i promise not to mention the name schiavo again and promptly plan to return to drug induced incoherencies.

On a side note, the "democracy is spreading without the need of bush to drop bombs" tour is expanding into Kyrgyzstan with news of the Palace being stormed after a recent rigged elections. the president has reportedly fled. isn't liberation beautiful when it takes places internally and without foreign bombs killing innoncent citizens along the way? not to mention foreign soldiers. i sure think so.

The supreme court ruled 15 years ago that a ill patient has a constitutional right to decline medical treatment. but it also said that right was not absolute, holding that a state may impose a high legal burden on a family to to consent for them. in this case the family is the husband if the patient is unable to make that decline. because terri didn't leave a living will, the husband is given authority to make all decisions for his wife from this point. under the constitution the husband is legally protected to refuse terri's tube from being put in. the constitution, the law of the land, takes precedence to all laws in US. it has no regard for your religious views, your personal morals, what the politician says, what the priest says or what you think. and it has no regard if terri is or isn't in a vegetative state. if she wants to die, her husband legally allowed to let her.

cased closed honey. but i love you nonetheless.

Lindsay Beyerstein over at Alternet has a wonderful argument in regards to Schiavo from a legal standpoint.

The federal legislation is remarkable because it gives Terri Schiavo's parents the right to demand a new trial in federal court. The bill states explicitly that the new trial would disregard the findings of all of the state courts who have ruled on the issue over the years. A new trial would have allowed Terri's parents to reopen the question of Terri's wishes. No Florida court has ever found in favor of Terri's parents. No principle of law in Florida gives them legal standing to sue on behalf of their daughter. Terri's parents had no legal standing until it was granted to them by the legislation. They are not Terri's legal guardians. They have not convinced a court to revoke Michael Schiavo's guardianship of his wife.

read it all, it's pretty good

last night misty queen and i visited the fine food establishment known as subway. on my budget, i consider it to be a fine establishment so keep your high brow talk to yourself of how you can afford to take your lady to swiss chalet. i'm poor dammit!

then it came it to pay, i realized my tangible money wasn't enough to cover the bill and had to rely on the intangible money that exists on a piece of plastic known as a debit card. which is only one letter off from being known as the debt card.

but in my wallet find something of more relevance and ties in with the schiavo story we all know about. you'll also find a donor card i got when the ontario government said i am competent enough to get behind the wheel of a car. that's the trade off in this province; they'll let you drive but they'll voluntarily ask you to sign over your organs if you crash. this proves you actually cannot drive at all. those organs then will go to a person in need of a heart, kidney, or whatever is needed for that person to live. meh, i thought. what good is my liver going to do me if i do die of a horrible death in the car? so i gave the government full permission to carve out my inside when my time will come. i carry the card to prove it. consider it my "living will."

then i got thinking about terri schiavo, because, let's face it, who isn't talking about it. few nights prior, my father and i got into a heated debated that almost lead to a fist fight. well at least girly girl slapping. it's really a touchy case and to actually debate on her condition is awfully sensitive. the government's involvement in it is fair game for debate because well, questioning what governments due is our enshrined right. i may not be an american citizen but their foreign policy has an effect on us all and on that level, the world has every right to take their own position on the white house is doing.

but about schiavo and her parents. for days now, her parents have vehemently argued this is about life, and the right of a person to live. granted, it's a valid argument based on your moral principles and your views on life, be it swayed by the Bible, your pastor, personal take on it. i fully argee life is the most precious thing any of us can recieve and make the most of it because it doesn't last forever. but i also recognize life isn't worth it if you don't make the most of it and well, terri schiavo's condition has been like this for 15 years and medical evidence is stacked against that she'll get better. i'm no doctor, but in fifteen yeas, her condition hasn't improved at all. more importantly, she doesn't have the mental cognition to recognize the state she is in. if you've seen the clips of her eyes following that ballon, that's just reflexes because her organs are fully functional.

here's where i get confused: the parents are fighting saying this a right to life in its generality, while terri's life is being artificially perserved and yet, her organs are fully functional. if the parents are that adamant about the right to life, why not use terri's organs and donate them to individuals who have the capability to improve their condition? she's got a heart, kidney, lungs, liver, & pancreas. those five organs potentially could save up to five lives.

i'm not suggesting terri's insides should be carved out the way mine are going to be one day, i'm just confused by the arguments put forth by those saying schiavo's feeding tube should stay in. supposedly, all life is important and i can't argue against that. but at some point, your permanently static life has the potential to save five lives who are equally important, according to the view that all life is equally important. not just your own. to me, that's the importance of the "right to live": when i or no one else cant do anything to repair my condition, i give someone the opportunity who can get better to and repair their situation. they want to go on living and desperately waiting on organ donor lists for that chance. i, on the other hand, probably don't even know i am alive. and even if i did, what good what it do me if i can't get better at all? i think it's my responsibility to fulfill their wish if i think life is the greatest gift anyone can have.

By Kevin Maney, USA TODAY

In 1999, Ted Leonsis, an America Online officer worth hundreds of millions of dollars, knowingly made the stupidest investment of his life.

He put his money into the National Hockey League, buying the Washington Capitals for $85 million - "cash, because it was unfinance-able," Leonsis says. The league's business model was already so broken that Leonsis planned to lose $15 million a year for the next five years. "And we've lost more, so we're ahead of plan," he says with gallows humor.

In the postmortems to the NHL's canceled season, the story of how the NHL has come unraveled as a business has gone largely untold. Understanding that history - and avoiding the same errors - could be crucial if the NHL hopes to re-emerge as a healthy sports league.

The NHL under Commissioner Gary Bettman - in office since 1993 - provides a lesson for any business about the pitfalls of growing too fast and getting painted into a strategic corner. In short, the NHL is an 88-year-old league that wound up like a dot-com disaster.

Bettman ultimately lost the entire 2004-05 season - the equivalent of, say, United Airlines shutting down for a year to try to get its costs in line. The NHL canceled its season in February, after talks with the players' union broke down. Bettman and the owners felt it was the only way to fix the league's financial system. It's the only time in history that a major sports league has shut down a whole season.

The league acknowledges that owners have lost $1.8 billion in the past decade. The market value of teams - the closest the NHL has to a stock price - is deteriorating. After this season was called off, one team, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (Calif.), was sold for a reported $75 million. Five years ago, Forbes estimated the team to be worth $118 million.

The players' union refused to renegotiate its collective-bargaining agreement once the league's finances spiraled downward. That's put the union in a position similar to what unions face at major airlines, which, like the NHL, have an unsustainable cost structure, say academics who've studied the league.

Just as airline unions eventually had to give in to wage cuts to keep the airlines alive, the NHL players' union will probably have to do the same. The union has offered a 24% rollback in existing contracts, though that's now off the table.

"On the owners' side, their economic decisions have not been solid ones," says Ralph Anzivino, sports law professor at Marquette University. At the same time, he says, the players' union "is going to ruin hockey if it continues down the path" of refusing to accept a new salary system.

There are some surprises in the business and financial reasons why the NHL wound up in turmoil. For instance, the NHL has claimed that player salaries quadrupled during Bettman's reign. In fact, the salary burden for NHL teams is even harsher. To remain competitive, top teams paid up to seven times as much in salaries in 2003 as in 1993. The gap between rich and poor teams, and between top-earning and lesser players, has widened considerably in the past 12 years. By contrast, the NFL and NBA enacted salary caps that prevented such outcomes.

Team owners, who are essentially the NHL's shareholders, don't seem to blame Bettman. "There are a lot of people who messed this thing up," says Kevin Compton, an ownership partner in the San Jose Sharks and a top Silicon Valley venture capitalist. He spreads the culpability among the NHL front office, owners and the players' union.

But others who look at the business side are less forgiving of the commissioner. "A lot of people are complicit, but Bettman is the lightning rod for everything that's wrong with the sport - as a CEO should be," says David Carter, professor of sports business at the University of Southern California. "That's what happened to (ousted Hewlett-Packard CEO) Carly Fiorina."

The NHL declined requests to interview Bettman for this story. But in news conferences, the commissioner has defended his actions and has not avoided responsibility for the health of the NHL.

"We are, on all sides of hockey, accountable for where we are," Bettman told a roomful of reporters in 2004. "The issue is going to be, do we fix it? If we don't fix this, I want you to hold me accountable."

A look back

In 1993, Bill Clinton (news - web sites) took office in the White House, Intel made its first Pentium chip, and companies were getting excited about the "information superhighway" - a precursor to the Internet boom.

Hopes swelled in the NHL. The league had two superstars: Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky. It had two new superstar owners. Walt Disney committed to create the Mighty Ducks, and Wayne Huizenga, who built Blockbuster, would launch the Florida Panthers.

That February, the NHL got a new chief executive: Bettman, who had been the No. 3 at the NBA. He wasn't a hockey guy - he was a businessman.

"If you run the business aspect well, the game will take care of itself," he told The New York Times, referring to hockey as an "entertainment product." Attendance was solid, averaging about 14,000 a game. Players made an average $467,000, and those salaries ate up about 57% of league revenue - in line with other major sports leagues. By the end of 1993, the NHL had its first national TV contract in decades, a deal with Fox for $31 million over five years. The Fox deal brought the promise of winning millions of new fans. In June 1994, Sports Illustrated ran a cover story headlined: "Why the NHL is hot and the NBA is not."

The one cloud on the NHL's otherwise-glowing horizon: The league's contract with the NHL Players Association had run out. Bettman, on behalf of the owners, had to negotiate a new one.

That didn't happen. The owners and players found themselves in a stand-off, then in a lockout. The 1994-95 season - Bettman's second full season with the NHL - was shut down for 103 days until a deal was struck. The NHL played a shortened season.

Those 103 days were a killer - a precursor to all that would go wrong in the next 10 years.

"We thought the NHL was poised for growth - nothing but upside," says Fox Sports Senior Vice President Lou D'Ermilio. "Then, right out of the chute, they had the lockout. It took all the wind out of the sails."

Once the season resumed, Fox tried to make the game look better on TV: robotic cameras, graphics, even the infamous technology that made the puck glow on screen.

While core fans apparently forgave the lockout and returned to watch games live, Fox's TV ratings were a tepid 2 that first year, or about one-fifth the rating of NFL games on CBS and Fox on Sunday afternoons.

At the end of the Fox contract, Fox's hockey ratings averaged 1.4. Since then, ratings for hockey on other networks have only worsened.

The new union contract Bettman negotiated on behalf of the owners would come to haunt him. The owners, fearing a lost season, caved on issues that would lead to runaway salary inflation - which the owners would worsen with their spending practices.

A not unexpected development

NHL players and their agents have taken heat for seeming greedy, demanding big contracts. But the players' actions were predictable and utterly typical: They sold their services for as much as possible.

NHL teams had extra money from expansion. The Ducks and Panthers each paid $50 million in expansion fees; the money was split by the existing teams. In 1998, the expansion Nashville Predators would ante up $80 million. Teams also had money from the Fox contract. On top of that, the economy was booming. Arenas were full. Ticket prices could be raised. Corporations leapt in with sponsorship fees.

Teams got a burst of cash, and because of expansion, more teams competed for star players. The contract with the union left open the door to escalating salaries, which shot skyward.

Hockey insiders point to three deals that kicked salaries to a new level. In 1997, the New York Rangers tried to lure superstar Joe Sakic from the Colorado Avalanche with a three-year deal for $21 million. Sakic would get $17 million the first year, up from his $3.1 million the year before. Colorado matched the offer.

That same year, Joe Thornton, a first-round draft pick, signed with the Boston Bruins for the union-contract rookie salary of $925,000. But loopholes allowed for performance bonuses, which boosted the potential value of his contract to $2.4 million that year.

In 1998, the Carolina Hurricanes offered Sergei Fedorov $38 million over six years - a record sum in hockey - to try to lure him from the Detroit Red Wings. The Red Wings matched it and kept Fedorov.

There was no stopping the salary train. By 2003, the Red Wings' payroll would be seven times as much as in 1993, according to the salary database on Web site HockeyZonePlus. In that same period, payroll for Colorado would rise 7.5 times; Dallas, 6.5 times; and Philadelphia, St. Louis and Toronto, 6 times.

Moreover, the payroll gap widened between teams. In 1992-93, the gap between the highest payroll team (Pittsburgh Penguins, $15.2 million) and the lowest (San Jose and Tampa Bay, each $6.9 million) was about double, HockeyZonePlus figures show. In 2003-04, the gap between the highest (Detroit, $77.8 million) and lowest (Florida, $26.4 million) was triple.

The differences sowed discord among owners.

Capitals owner Leonsis says he felt pressure to stay competitive, so he shelled out more for top-tier players, piling up losses.

Officials at teams that couldn't afford to pay more grew angry. In 2003, Edmonton Oilers General Manager Kevin Lowe fumed: "There's a bunch of lunatics out there throwing money away. I'm sick and tired of it."

The discord made it harder for Bettman to fix problems. Top-tier owners, lower-tier owners and players all had conflicting agendas. Bettman approached the union in 1999, 2001 and 2002. Each time, he suggested that the collective bargaining pact be modified because it was hurting the league. Each time, the union spurned him.

"As we got closer to the end, it got more and more difficult, because the problems got worse and worse," Bettman said at a news conference.

"The NHL never unified around a collective definition of success the way the NFL did," says Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor and author. "When things get tough, the temptation is to call it someone else's fault. That starts a destructive downward spiral."

Things were about to get tougher.

Cash rich, for a time

At the end of the 1990s, as the economy roared, the TV deal with Fox ended, and the NHL signed a new one with ESPN for $600 million over five years. It was a fire hose of cash pumped into NHL teams. Add to that $80 million in expansion fees from the next new team, the Atlanta Thrashers. Teams used the money to drive player salaries still higher.

Something was amiss. Even though the NHL had more teams in more markets, hockey couldn't catch on with the mass market. Fox's TV ratings for hockey ended at an average 1.4. ESPN in 1999-00 averaged less than half that, at 0.6, barely a blip on the Nielson ratings. By 2003-04, ratings would slide to 0.5.

The problem, looked at through a business prism, was both the product and the marketing.

In 1999, the Dallas Stars won the Stanley Cup, hockey's championship. In 2000, the champs were the New Jersey Devils. Both teams got there by employing stifling defensive systems. By then, those systems had swept through the NHL.

The game lost the creativity and scoring of the Gretzky-Lemieux era. In 1987, the NHL averaged 7.4 goals per game; in 2003-04, the average was 5.1 goals per game. Even stars such as Brett Hull complained that the game had gotten dull. The league hasn't produced a Gretzky-type superstar with mass appeal since.

The TV networks saw other problems.

Hockey is the only major sport that has a sizable number of tie games.

"The U.S. audience doesn't buy into ties," says Mark Quenzel, ESPN senior vice president.

Beyond that, divisiveness among teams prevented ESPN from offering a consistent TV broadcast. In one team's arena, ESPN would, for instance, be allowed to put a wireless microphone on a player to pick up what he said on the ice. In another arena, the team wouldn't allow it.

"There needs to be more consistency from the league," Quenzel says. "The NHL has to look at the game and say, 'How can it be more saleable beyond our hard-core audience?' "

The league has been reluctant to tamper with the game. NHL hockey has seen few major changes under Bettman. In 1998, the league altered some of the lines on the rink and instituted two referees instead of one. The moves were intended to increase offense, but the changes had little effect on scoring.

"The NHL has to win the casual consumer - get them to try it and come back," says USC professor Carter. But that hasn't happened, he says.

Finally, a meltdown

The NHL's lines crossed in 2002.

Salaries and expenses were skyrocketing. The league was still expanding - to Columbus, Ohio, and Minnesota in 2000-01. Ticket prices kept rising. Teams built new arenas, often adding to their debt. Of 30 NHL teams, 22 have built new arenas since 1993.

Those are all things businesses do in good times: pay higher salaries, spend more, expand, raise prices. But the good times were ending.

By 2002, the Internet bubble had burst, the USA had suffered the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the economy was in a funk. Struggling companies cut expenses, giving up suites and sponsorships.

TV ratings weren't improving. That meant the NHL was heading toward a huge financial blow when the ESPN contract ran out in 2004. No other network wanted to pay for the rights to the games. The league ended up with a revenue-sharing deal with NBC: The NHL and NBC would split the take from a game broadcast, but the NHL would get no money upfront.

The $120 million a year from ESPN could vanish. ESPN has an option, which expires April 15, to pick up NHL hockey for about half what it previously paid. So far, ESPN has not picked up that option.

Revenue growth - fueled by expansion, rising ticket prices and TV income - was about to hit the skids. Though the league says total revenue rose 173% in the past decade, the NHL does not provide a year-by-year breakdown. Most growth probably came before 2002.

Meanwhile, costs kept rising. Salaries ate up 70% to 75% of revenue. "In other leagues, player costs run 55% to 62% of revenue," says Marquette's Anzivino.

According to Forbes, which annually publishes figures on sports finances, the NHL went into the red in 2002, losing $8.2 million in operating income on revenue of $2.1 billion. In 2003, Forbes reports, losses widened to $123.7 million on flat revenue of $2.1 billion.

Two once-vital NHL teams - the Buffalo Sabres and Ottawa Senators - filed for bankruptcy and had to be rescued by the league.

As the Sharks' Compton points out, no one buys a sports franchise for the year-to-year profits, which are minuscule by business standards. Owners are motivated by the prestige and fun of controlling a team, and their financial bet is on the market value of the team. The owners' exit strategy is selling a team for a lot more than it cost to buy. The real crisis for owners is the falling value of their teams. Compton and his partnership paid $147 million for the Sharks in 2002. The Ottawa Senators were sold in 2003 for $92 million. The Ducks just sold for $75 million.

Limited options

Bettman was unable to adjust when the NHL was hit by losses.

"The real world closes up factories if the business is not there," says Stan Kasten, former president of the NHL's Atlanta Thrashers. "The real world cuts workers. But in the world of the NHL - no, we can't do that."

Union contracts prevent cutting the number of players on rosters. If the league shuts down a team, it risks alienating fans in the affected city.

"How do you go in and change things like you do in a business?" Compton says. "There are so many fewer knobs to turn in the NHL, and one of them (the union contract) we don't control."

The NHL had no choice but to face down the union. Mistakes had piled up over a decade: the owners' spending spree in the 1990s; Bettman's inability to manage the league for changing circumstances; the league's inability to improve its product and expand its audience. About the only way out is to get control of player salaries - the league's biggest expense, by far.

Publicly, owners are not acting like unhappy shareholders ready to unseat the CEO. On March 1, the owners met and voted unanimously in support of Bettman.

"Obviously, there's some differences of opinions on different issues," Cal Nichols, part of the Edmonton Oilers' ownership group, said after the vote. "But at the end of it all, everyone understands that we have a job to do, and we've got a person (Bettman) who is very capable of negotiating and looking after our best interests."

The NHL is betting that the man who led them into crisis will lead them out.

"I wish it had been fixed through a better process," the Sharks' Compton says. "Now, it will get fixed."

i swear, this could be the greatest blog i've ever happened to come across. just read it's subtle hilarity in ever damn post. nothing but brilliance.

and it works as a perfect distraction from getting any productive work done.

ever since the schiavo case has exploded to just about every corner of the world i have taken steps to avoid this happening to me. now, whenever i encounter someone i immediately tell them i want to die if i'm ever to be a vegetable. i do not want my struggles to be the subject of political and social debate on 24 hours cable news networks. now, you blog know as well that i do not want to be vegetable, you have the right to pull the plug. i was going to make a living will but the little amount of possessions i have is totally pathetic. it's better that my will consist of telling people i want to be done with me if i am to become in the same state as schiavo.

the schiavo case has gotten insane in the country that iself appears to be spinning into insanity. basically the parents asked the president to be a put a tube in her daughter's stomach. and tonight; when everyone was peacefully sleeping, george w. bush, the president of the united states took time off from his vacation flew to DC and, said "yes, put the tube back in." he didn't do it in front of a camera but secretly behind closed doors and then flew quickly out of DC as cable news network swarmed around this monumental night and what it means.

the implication of this is rather frightening in a country made of 300 million people and only one president. the president, head of the state stuck his ass into family politics. now, every american can justifully claim they have a right to ask the president for help if they are fighting with family or whoever. now two brothers fighting over a right who should marry the girl they are both in love can ask bush to resolve the conflict? and the fact bush got involved is even more frightening. for years now, various courts said terri schiavo has a right to die0 and in the past indirectly confirmed that. because there isn't actual proof in writing and signature that these are her wishes on how she ought to die, is the reason you know the name terri schiavo to begin with.

so tonight, 203 american legislators said let terri live and 58 said this shouldn't be our business, and let the families deal with in the court. but the beauty of politics is that if your number of votes is bigger than the other, you are in the majority and win the debate at hand. and so because of the 203-58 vote and bush's endorsement of it, terri schiavo will continue to linger against her alleged wishes to die. my question is how many of these 203 supporters of schiavo's vegetative state actually give a shit and whether they are not trying to push forth a neo-conservative agenda using poor schiavo as the reference point. i'd like to know how many of these republicans could careless how this ends up getting resolved by the family. this is their opportunity to push something greater and have americans absorb it.

tonight the us government overstepped its boundaries when it directly stepped into a family dispute. they should've walked away and refused to even begin debate on this personal matter. bush is supposed to be the modern day epitome of freedom and liberty and starting wars to bring down overbearing governments, such as the case against the big bad saddam in iraq. we were told saddam was an evil leader oppressing the iraqi people where they held no freedoms at all. and so a war was had.

however, as bush is the freedom cheerleader in the middle east, his own nation is going the opposite direction with tonight's developments. the arm reach of the government is reaching unprecent levels. sure, ban on gay marriage applies to the whole population and makes more sense as to what a government can do, but dealing on a personal basis? i wonder in how many cases saddam directly intervened in disputes between private iraqi citizens? even i have my reservations of the overbearing saddam we were told about.

but to be honest, no one should know about this case; the president or everyday people. and neither should the media be talking about it. but the media is weird like that, a story that makes it big in the states is going to be picked up by the world media. last week i learned scott peterson is supposed to die by lethal injection (but will likely die of age) and this is something that happened in california courtroom. how is it that i even am learning about this?

now the same thing with mrs. schiavo and i think this represents something awfully sad about our culture. we hardly give a shit about each other, too selfish about our own existence and only to start pay attention to major miseries like this one. other's people troubles, struggles, "faults" become our fix. and thankfully the round-the-clock coverage of cnn and now fox news* i am a junkie for this sorta shit. i wonder how scott peterson feels tonight knowing a portion of the world watched his life go to waste when we learned that he killed his pregnant wife. you can be a celebrity too if you shock and awe us with the death of your sexy wife or if you're brain dead. only in america.

only in america and then the rest of the world when everyone gets interested in the fascinating private lives of us citizens.

now poor schiavo cant even defend herself when her face and story flashes on every television, computer monitors in the united states and other parts of the world. maybe that's even worse than the US government getting involved in the middle of this. we'll never have mrs. schiavo's take on all this and her response to millions of people stupidly interested in this case (i put myself into this as well because by blogging about it at 2am). millions of people are watching the story revolving around a brain dead person and what to do next.

but weirdness of america is not something that is permanent. i firmly believe the intelligence of americans, collectively, is second to none. it looks weird at this time, but i don't think i am getting the full story if my views of americans are based on what i learn on cnn or foxnews. they're just a little strange at this point in time: a funny president who thinks everything is going right (iraq, economy, world peace, yada yada yada) and he thinks he's made no errors since 9/11. then there's the religious right and who are no longer the wacky fringe social group. and together these two factors have made america appear less rational than they really are.

and the media cover these stories like schiavo and i've made my views already known about bush and the media. so as long as bush's presidency continues to fuck up, the media isn't going to get any better and we'll continue to hear about the scott peterson's and terri schiavo's to distract the americans from the real problems: iraq is a money pit for american taxpayers but the supposedly rich iraqi oils have not meant cheap gas prices at pump! in fact, they've gone up in recent times!

that's irony for you: bush went into war under the notion of peace and freedom for iraqis but really it was about the oil for the fuel thristy americans. he even got the lies wrong! now funding iraq rebuilding is getting more expensive and fuel is going up at the same time.

in certain ways, you can't help but relish the brilliance of bush's ability to completely and utterly fuck the americans and yet get re-elected.

so to distract americans from realizing how the paradox of the pillar of bush's presidency--freedom for all--is a complete fuck up in more than one way, the schiavos and petersons will not go away.

*(more on that another time) ... thanks to preview month i learned of the evilness of foxnews liberals speak of.

dr. bush image from the good folks at alternet.org

last night i dreamed of a time in the future, some time down the line where a date cannot be given. i had a job, in which i do not know what i did but it was a job. at the end of the day, all my co-workers would be heading to their cars to see their lovely supposes and children. on the other hand, i walked stealthily down the sidewalk and turned to the corner where i resided. it was nothing more than bush shrubs and a tree stump that appeared to serve as my only piece of furniture. it appeared that i was not too proud of my living arrangement and when people walked by my home, i did my best conceal that fact by acting like some lunatic that hangs out in the shrubs after a day's work. better to be a lunatic in the woods than someone that lives there no?

is my sub consciousness trying to tell me something or this merely neural networks firing random impulses? nonetheless, this is the first dream that vividly stood out in the last little while.

now if you excuse me, i have my "masters" thesis to finish prior to the 11am deadline.

the other day i contacted the necessary authorities at the vatican and told them to make sure john paul II dials onto prettypersuasion.blogspot.com when he gets the chance. i thought with his recent health struggles and all, maybe a few of my words would do some good. i do not know if it accomplished any good but certainly the photos affirms the pontiff has been getting onto the intranets. though hopefully his lap top isn't laced with horrible adware and firing out pop ups about horny eastern european teens desperate for cock. shit like that would make the pope claim national governments should ban the intranets based on "moral duties". this would go along with the vatican's already tough stance on condoms, abortion, gay marriage, surrogate mothers, ordaining women, planned parenthood, divorce, inter-faith marriage, sexual hedonism, cloning, stem-cell research, intimate touching (and i quote: Of course, married couples may touch one another in this way if it is an expression of true love), masturbation.... and the list drags forth. all these things i support, have nothing against and in some cases whole heartedly enjoy the church isn't entirely cool about. you let the pope onto the intranets and easy availability of porn, in no time would we hear about the "moral duty" of elected politicans to clamp down on what is available via our computers. of course, we'd go on ignoring it because well, all these things the vaticans has spoken out against are becoming accepted.

i have, however, taken one of vatican's "sins" and no longer commit it. although, to be honest, i'm not even sure whether the pope has beef against alcohol, but i don't do it anymore.

my drinking days began early on in high school and persisted up until recently. i started hanging out with a buncha of fellas who become the core of my high school friends and are so to this day, but i no longer share their passion for the battle. i guess i just grew out of it. this weekend is going to confirm that when many of us get together to mark the anniversary of the day i came into the world and have already volunteered to be the night's chafeur. maybe it is "pathetic" but drinking just doesn't do what it once did. i guess i am just getting old. typically birthdays a top notch excuse (among the billions) to get plastered beyond competency but i am going to restrain myself. i feel like i travelled the circle seeing its good, its bad to know that drinking ain't the same anymore.

drinking in high school was a lot of fun though. sometimes even literarily in high school. we'd cross the street to buy coffee, pour it out, fill it with booze and sit in the cafe looking like those cool kids that by 10th grade drank coffee. or that's what others thought. we also invented the "carry the water-bottle every where you go" technique. although, our bottles very rarely contained actual water. even today, when i see just about every person on my campus with their trusty bottle, i wonder how many of them have something stronger "to calm their nerves" due to the stress that accompanies our quest for a piece of paper.

sometime around late 10th grade i got my first part-time job. the amazing thing about having a job then was that such shitty jobs led to absolute selfish comsumption. no tuition fees, no bills, nothing but every dollar going towards you. majority of my dollars siphoned towards getting liquor.

by 11th grade, we had the distinct advantage that one of the fellas in our group had an older brother of legal age and provided the booze. he would hang out with us as well as he was a bit of loser. but as long as he delivered the goods, i would've called him my best friend for all i care.

and this drinking continued for the next few years: weekends became a blur, i can't remember much of our march breaks, christmas break is all foggy cept christmas day dinners with the family. then we all of us start getting licenses and cars, it got more messy. laws--of all sorts--were broken every time we got together. i witnessed everything: people sleeping in their puke, people sleeping in others' puke, people waking up besides peope they immediately regretted, people not knowing where they woke up and why they are there.

by oac year, i developed a hard-core tolerance. at parties, i'd drink the same amount as some and then i had to drive their passed out asses home. i was made of steel when it came to booze. seriously, large looking football jock types looked like children compared to what i was able to do. i know, it's due to being partly polish but i credit myself where credit was due.

then came university, where high school drinking is put to shame. unlike high school were selective parts of it are sketchy in memory, in university the first month became a blur. frosh week killed my belief university is a place of intelligent minds where ideas are debated, values rejected and all that fascinating stuff tv teen movies mentioned about university. let's face it, it's about drinking and whether you're just naturally bright off to pull a decent 10 page essay the night before it's due. it's about sitting completely hungover (or possibly still drunk) during a lecture and retaining enough knowledge to spew it out on an exam in 4 or 8 months. because, if you are, you must be fucking smart and the school needs you for it. i am not one of these bright individuals that can pull this off with a stroke of brillance. so i thought to myself i should make better use of this university and actually learn a thing or two instead of taking my booze tolerance to greater heights.

somehow, the innocence and carelessness of high school drinking had lost its charm. high school drinking had more of a rebellious, risky, novel, and empowering character to it. by university, drinking was looking too much as being just part of it. simply, it just got boring no matter how you looked it. i learned that within the first weeks and marvel that people till this find getting all excited about a keg and how more mere words of drinking are accompanied with pathetic enthusiasm.

this was met with something else and a bit more personal. by the time, first semester was coming to a close and the lure of drinking fading, my mother's own struggles with alcoholism became known. my mother had always been easily swayed by the temptation of alcohol and no one made much of it, but by this period, this "minor hitch" exploded in our faces. i came home on a particular evening to find my father yelling, my brother and sister crying and my mother sitting completely emotionless staring ahead into dead space. it was the most surreal image of my family i have. i don't remember any family picture, vacation photo, anything as vividly as i remember what i saw that evening.

apparently earlier that evening, my sister found mother hiding in the closet with a bottle of whiskey. in that closet were 3 other empty bottles from previous periods. this knowledge was overwhelming and almost impossible to wrap my head around it. but somehow i suspected there was more and a massive scavenger hunt went in the house over the next few days. in the end we uncovered more bottles cleverly hidden around the home. some already opened others hidden for future date. all of them from the liquor cabinet that was rapidly thinning. my father suspected it was me, but they didn't say anything as he too knows what university is about and wouldn't dare get in my way of a higher education. the truth is, i didn't even look at that cabinet anymore.

i'll gloss over the details of this all because it is getting late and i wish to sleep soon, but the discovery of my mom's struggles killed my once passionate love for alcohol. typically, these kinds of problems happen to the "brother of a guy you know from work" but this time it hit home and really shook up the foundations of the family. our previous hush-hush, sweep problems under the rug and smile of family relations could no longer sustain.

in some ways, this brought some good to the family as it changed the way we interact and behave towards each other. we started acting more like a family and that bottling everything inside or ignoring problems isn't wise for even your own mental health. eventually, i came about and started having a somewhat better relationship with my father. here was an opportunity to bury old hatchets. some deep thinking made me realize i do not hate my father after all but respect the shit out of him because of his strengths and fortitude. he may not exactly be the kinda of person i aspire to be, but his determination of his viewpoint is something that can't be messed with.

and most important of all, my mother has since then beaten the demons. now, she much better of a person and not as closed of. at the end of it all, she told me that i remind her too much of herself at her age: closed off, keeping everything buried and feeling dejected about one self. she told me to change my ways while i still can, before it is too late and have to fight the same battles as her. i took this to heart thinking if i am setting myself on the same path as her. except unlike her at my age, i was already drinking myself stupid. now, it was just a matter of the alcohol depency taking over my mind. so slowly and gradually, i have stopped drinking before potential problems could even arise. i also took into consideration what mother said about us being alike at this age. i am currently working on that and hope to change it as well.

so, that's basically the jist of my non-alcohol activities. granted, i occassionally let this slip and maybe this "moral duty" to not drink means nothing at all. however, comparing myself to those around me, i am a prune when it comes to the swanger of the bottle. and my ability to sacrifice drinking over driving on my birthday speaks volumes. beside, i am going to get a kick of my friends drinking uncomfortably when i'm sober.

this post was brought to you by the letter: b, g, and x.

two weeks ago our prime minister, paul martin, publicly spoke out against canada's participation in america's desire of a missile defence system guarding our north american skies. supporters applauded his decision saying he is merely affirming canada's sovereignty. critics opposed his decisions effectively stating canada is giving up its sovereignty by letting the states do as they please with what goes on up in the clouds. certainly a messy political situation has come about in all this.

but in reality, our participation in such a program is inevitable. it's been such since in the early days of the NORAD days. that joint program was created in a similar position to the one we have today. in those days, the big bad soviets were the enemy during the cold war. our continent airspace needed protection just in case the commies tried something funny. now that those guys who driven themselves to collapse, terrorists have emerged as the new threat to our way of life. it, too, requires a new form of protection.

in 1958, john diefenbaker had a minority government when the norad idea came into effect. however, everything about it was hush-hush until he won his majority the following year and formally signed on to the plan with eisenhower. he went down to washington to shake hands with the president and put his confidence behind the program.

today, paul martin is struggling to keep his minority afloat and left-of-centre NDP holding the balance of power, martin is playing itself. not only his missile defence publicly unpopular, had he said yes two weeks, we might have been gearing up for an election in the next few weeks. chretien scored some major political points by saying no to iraq and martin's learned a thing or two from it. certainy, martin's desire to restore american-canadain relations needs to be put second to protecting his political ass domestically.

speaking of norad, the renewal date for the alliance is set to expire may of 2006. few know about this, but it's significantly important how all of this is going to play out within the next year or so. unlike this missile defence scheme, norad is pretty popular among canadians and as the date nears, support of its renewal should be strong. that is, if it makes into the press. parallel to this is martin's rising popularity and near the "40% rule" needed for him to restore the Liberals' majority. as all the controversy surrounding the advertising scandal is fading (the reason for the Liberal minority) and martin's recent "no to weaponization of space", the potential for an election this fall is nearing. and let's face it, the liberals will quite likely restore their majority. the conservatives' thrust isn't gaining ground as their support peaked at something like 32% (well short of challenging majority status).

so all the PR about mr. martin standing up to the missile defence program is buying time until he can truly state what canada's role in this is. there's too much at stake by not complying. just think of the implications; trading wise, politically wise and of course, defence wise. we're united-at-the-hip and that's the reality. martin was able to reject it from the time being due to strong unpopularity of it here in canada and that he's always got european support on his back, where anything remotely american is tagged with "imperialist" stamp of rejection. this gives him a little bit of a cushion until winning his majority.

last week, the US ambassador said he was baffled as to why martin rejected the idea despite complying all along. because martin has been complying all along! one way or another, the current american scheme is going to be integrated within norad when its renewed next year.

which why i think martin's rejection of it is much to do about nothing. one or another, we've signed onto the plan by default.

want a gmail account? i'm sure 9/10 of the world already has one but in case you are one of the few remaing souls without one, tell you what, i'll make your day. i'm in a giving mood and a dickload to hand out. just write to: vivalavinyl@gmail.com

now some boring class awaits.

that superman sure can be a dick

over the past few nights some have thrown positive words my way. that i need to stop being so hard on myself and that from their point of view, they could see why misty queen is my life. it was no hypodermic needle to cure the pain but acted as a suitable pain killer for the time being. i know i mentioned before that i need to look out for #1 first and the rest will work itself out, but it's hard to avoid considering what is best for someone else other than yourself. i really do want what is best for misty queen and that's where my troubles arise.

however, it's so difficult not to get selfish around her and snuggle her entirely for myself without letting another guy lay an eye on her. because you know they'll fall in love with her the way i did the first time she uttered a word. and i keep falling in love everytime a word exits her mouth.

take today, for example. after class i give her a call to see if she wants me to drive up to her super smart university campus and spend some time together. she said that she was in a "sticky wicket." my first thoughts were of her gorgeous petite body in one of those dinky kiddy pools covered entirely in chocolate syrup awaiting my arrival and to make passionate love with. but no. for the british a "sticky wicket" is a difficult situation and/or problem. she needs the afternoon to be spent in the library researching super smart things for a super smart essay that's due later in the week. she wanted to see me, but that was the "sticky wicket" and no work would get done if i was to keep her company. needless to say, i felt silly but wanted to drive to her campus anyways for yet again melting my heart for her beautiful use of this language of ours. and pinch her cheeks just for being so fucking lovable. she made talking about school related resarch almost give me an erection because i had other ideas of what's a sticky wicket.

now off to do my own school-related work but knowing nothing will get accomplishment desperately awaiting the arrival of misty queen later tonight where i might put together my visual of a "sticky wicket".

in the past 4 nights i have slept ridiculously little to the point where as i'm about to write this, my cognitive thoughts are all scrambled into a single incoherent entity where nothing makes sense at all. it feels like the tailend of a weekend induced entirely by amphetamines. i wouldn't know exactly how that feels as i've never had such a weekend but i am sure it ain't pretty. it is at this time to fire up the ol' blog and spew the garable for the world wide web users to try and make sense of it.

several reasons have contributed to my lack of shut eye: "thriving" social life, school (hahahaha! no), job, late night channel surfing (mainly that re-enactment show of day's events in the wacko jacko trial on muchmoremusic at 2am.. best show on television right now) and the misty queen. all together these put together make me think that sleep is overrated and i am missing out on too much by wasting precious hours underneath a blankey.

take tomorrow for example. i have to be at my low-waged/unskilled job at the insane hour of 6am (eastern standard time) to prepare all the fancy displays (chunky soup for 1.49, marked down from 2.99--get it while it lasts!!). these are the same displays that customers managed to destroy earlier today. i cannot imagine how the thing looked by the time the store closed up. this afternoon i stood there almost weeping as customers went ape shit getting as much of this soup (not that great tasting mind you) that i had created hours earlier as the sun went up. the same thing will happen come tomorrow. the story of my life: whatever i create, put some effort into, almost immediately gets pummeled with little or no regard for the sacrifices i made.

okay, maybe instead of doing this i would rather be snuggled under a blankey, but hey, a man's gotta eat right?. judging by the time in the bottom right-hand corner of this screen i'm looking at, not much sleep is coming my way tonight either. i didn't do anything tonight in hopes of getting some needed rest but the glow of the computer screen drew me in to read a few blogs and and was inspiring enough to write a word or two myself. which means putting together the display in matter of hours is going to take more time than it should. a well-rested employee would do it quicker/prettier than the state i am going to be in. so my eight hours at work will be anything but productive. but their low-wages and my part-time status means they don't expect much out of me, so i won't do more than i deem appropriate.

though the destruction of my displays is always saddening when i walk by them. you should've seen my quaker oat's section last week. the thing was out of hand! apparently pepsi owns the quaker product line (who knew) and they gave our store a few dollars to make their products clearly visible. shh! don't tell anyone. i am not going to see a penny of that pepsi money but i had to put the thing together. i was given a blurry facsimile of what the pepsi folks wanted it to look like and rest was up to me. some minor changes were made but nothing that anyone would notice. it was probably was the greatest looking thing i've ever assembled and really put effort to make it look aesthetically pleasing and make you think you need this product. i marvelled at what i can do if give more than my typicall half-assed effort. the other night i glanced at it and it's a fragment of its former self. completely brutalized and raped by complete strangers unaware someone put the time and effort to actually make into something. it's like a parent looking at their child who is addicted to drugs, no future prospects but a continued downward spiral to the desolation row and wondering the parents where they went wrong. that's how i felt looking at my quaker display.

these are the reasons for low-waged jobs as whatever you do goes to waste almost immediately and in the long run doesn't make a licking difference. you are a cog in the machine filling space and formalities. i could type endless accounts of fellow employees that put decades into this type of work and have yet to uncover this economic truth and why their contribution is absolutely worthless. i kid you not. you want to tell them this but watching someone possibly have a nervous breakdown that they've accomplished nothing would be too much for my conscience to handle. besides, 3/4s of them are now in "managerial" positions and have learned to insulate their job dissatisfaction in some belief they are somebodies. their different coloured shirts are supposed to signify that they're better than me. HA! the only manager i appreciate there is the guy that knows he's means nothing and that head office suit boys with their MBAs scoff at him just like they scoff at any other employee. he's got ideas but no one listens to him till years after the university educated with their supposedly educated minds have admitted their plans failed. but they don't admit to failure, they simply restructure. having worked there a few years, ive got suggestions of my own but folks like me aren't paid to think. i just show up, put some things up on the shelf, steal their yogurts, chug milk drinks, dabble in fancy german ice cream, and call it a day.

criminologist call this pilfering. internal theft is so rampant in many organization that going after its staff seems impossible and impratical. it would be like the modern day salem witch hunt and also, if companies get serious about pilfering, so would insurance companies with higher premiums. so i do not complain that i am underpaid because my expenses are moderate and a portion of daily dairy intake is free of charge. sure, more money would be nice but for that to happen, i'd have to get a real job. i suppose this can apply beyond the low-wage/unskilled sector of labour, but that's beyond our scope for the time being.

what else has contributed to my lack of sleep? thoughts. thoughts of a girl. not necessarily good thoughts.

things with misty queen have gotten weird. a normal relationship.. well.. a normal boyfriend would handle the situation gracefully and with little energy. that isn't me. it appears the another male has been drawn to the beauty and wonders of my misty queen. according to what she has told me; on my recent excursion to ottawa (where i was good and faithful), some dude tried to make his move on her. she brushed the dirt off her shoulder but he appears to be a persistent little bugger. i appreciate her honesty and regard for my feelings, but it has brought me little comfort. what have i done about it since? nothing. absolutely nothing. i've kept silent about it but emotions are stirring i'd like to do without. because if history serves me right, here is how this story has played out countless times: boy meets girl, boy woos girl, girl gets tired of boy's charming stupidity and proceeds to eliminate him. there may some subtle discrepancies with each scenerio but the gist of it is bang on. it may not be this particular fella-- who goes about his business when the boyfriend is hours away--but whoever he is, he is out there awaiting in the wings to get his crack at misty queen. at that point i become relegated from boyfriend status to an obstacle. the point is, i come to realize that emotions of affection are temporal and that someone else may be better at this than i am.

i know it's not healthy to think this way and i keep telling myself to change my ways. but old habits die hard. it's safe to say these negativities stem from self-confidence levels bordering on non-existent. one day i'll get at the root of this but as of right now i'm still trying to fit all the pieces together. maybe it'll even require a few bucks on some professional advice while lying on a leather couch but at this point, i am sort of constrained from putting these sorts of expenditures into my already megre budget. i mean, for all i know, i may not be such a bad guy after all. but failing to recognize this thing myself makes doing anything successfully more difficult than it should be. more so, it makes it difficult to maintain a healthy relationship where i do not feel like a peg leg.

misty queen is a girl that has her shit together and has a solid self-image. that way she uses her physical beauty and her english charms makes it evident this girl knows she can do and get anything she wants. it's rather brilliant and usually these people disgust me but her ways are so brilliant that i maybe one of her sitting ducks without even having the slightest clue. she's in control, has the upperhand, has her poker face on.. whatever you want to call it.

i'm not saying this defines self-confidence but at least it's a step up from my patterns. you'd think i wouldn't be drawn to such a person but below her manipulative abilities is a sincere person is looking for a companion. based on what i know, her choice of fellas over the years has not been anything close i'd be associated with. maybe she's in search of something new and so am i where someone's positiveness flows my way. i'd like to think i've done an adequate job at being her companion over the past months but as doubts enter my head, my behaviour spirals into territorities i am not proud of. i mope, become more passive than usual and forget that my charming stupidity is what keeps this girl even talking to me. i begin to question my position in this relationship and as things proceed nicely, i begin to doubt i can be what she needs in the short term and the long run. i'm afraid of getting further involved out of painful fear she'll wake up one morning regretting everything that ever happened between us.

the amazing thing is that when my relationships are clear of negative thoughts i can make the most genuine connection. i can feel almost invincible; that i am exactly what she needs and this is the most empowering feeling in the world. feeling emotionally depended is almost as good as putting on a new pair of socks. i need to learn that i can be someone's emotional blanket better than anyone else. that i am their remedy for everything at any given point in time. because it is when this gets tinkered with, i lose belief in what i am capable of and start to feel how i am right now. that i'm nothing more than a footnote in people's lives. i figure the key to it all is just ridding my mind of these insecurities. that's where the fun really begins and to be saved for another place/time.

oh yes, i was going to write about this earlier but did not for whatever reason. the story that jay leno has other people making micheal jackson jokes for him because he can't say a word outside of the courtroom is fucking pathetic. first off, if the jokes were actually good, i'd understand. but they're not, they never were and never will be. micheal jackson jokes write themselves but leno can't even do that right. here's a sample: