Because it's been a while

Hello all. I've been so effing busy, what with trying to have a strong finish with my internship, trying to get moved in to my apartment in austin in a single day (and before 4:20), having a week of student life orientations and then trying to juggle supplemental instruction, the divided we fall program, and my classes once school started... I haven't had a whole lot of time to be struck by burning questions/inspired to write any angry diatribes but, here we are.

Things that have pissed me the fuck off since I've been back at school:

• the sudden realization that, because the dorms cost different amounts of money relative to when they were built (and subsequently relative to their nearness to the central part of campus), we have reinforced a class system on campus. I mean, seriously. What the fuck else do they think is going to happen? The Duj and Moreau parking lots are full of Lexuses (Lexi?), BMW's, Mustangs, and other shiny new cars of note, and as you go down the list (and down the hill) you can see the socio-economic norms change by looking at the parking lots. No joke. On campus apartments are different, I think, because they're the only option upper for all upperclassmen trying to live on campus but NOT in a dorm (or semi-dorm, think casas and casitas). But, how much does it matter how mixed up people are sophomore year when during the year that basically defines your circle of friends for the next four, you are only really introduced to people of a certain class as designated by your ability to afford the "nice" dorm?
  
• the idea that some people "just don't like politics." bull shit. this leads to the ever present second part of this falsity... some people don't like politics, so those of us who do should learn to control our urge to speak out. BULL SHIT. firstly, the idea that anyone "likes" politics is founded, i think, in ignorance. the thing that spurs me on, that has me caring about barack obama and john mccain, that makes me talk a million miles a minute about the implications of bills like the PATRIOT Act and the MCA of 06, that has me reading Al Jazeera and BBC, is the fact that i have recognized the impact that politics have on my life and on the lives of everyone around me. when people tell me they don't like to talk about politics, i can't help but want to scream, what else is worth talking about? what else matters enough to merit your breath and your time? people have been socialized to think that politics are boring, that they don't matter, and that the only things people should care about are tv shows and magazines and facebook and fashion and video games and pop music and celebrities... i could go on... but the truth is, or at least it seems to me, when the government (and those supporting them) can lull the populace into political apathy by distracting them with a million things that don't matter, they don't have any opposition to worry about. Which (kind of) brings me to my next point.
• the two party system. this pisses me off because it turns, truly, into a vote for the lesser evil. I sit here, and i'm afraid to criticize the democratic party and barack obama because i'm afraid that i'll push someone to vote for john mccain, because he's the only other feasible option. the democrats have a stranglehold on the progressive vote, because they're a little more left than the republicans. you shouldn't have to vote for someone because they're one of two options. you should vote for someone because they represent what you really believe in.
  

in other news... today was a brilliant, brilliant day. beautiful blue sky, perfectly green trees, and wind. ich liebe austin!!

until a later date...
-me

George W. Bush, Georgia, and other things that don't make sense.

Saturday morning, President Dubya made a nice, short, statement about the conflict unfolding in S. Ossetia. S. Ossetia claimed autonomy from Georgia in 1990, because of their remaining loyalty to Moscow (under the Soviet Union, they had been "semi-autonomous" [BBC]). This has been a source of tension between Russia and Georgia, and on the 7th (friday), Georgian troops rolled into the region to try to regain sovereignty. Russian troops then responded by coming to the defense of the people of S. Ossetia, the result of which (updated on Al-Jazeera at 11:15 this morning http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/20088982119734993.html) is 1500 dead, and counting. When I got onto BBC and saw that our wonderous president had spoken this morning about the conflict, I was curious to see how he would respond. You can see the entire speech on BBC.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7551375.stm)

First, he addressed what he called the "escalating conflict," pointing out the ""violence has endangered regional peace, civilian lives have been lost, [and] others are endangered," though he believes that "the situation can be resolved peacefully." He also commented on Russia's presence "Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected." As a result, "...we request an immediate halt to the violence, and a stand down of all troops... [and]we call for an end of the russian bombings and a return to the status quo." In an effort to expediate the process "...the united states is working with our european partners to launch international mediation [and] to [get the] countries to restart their dialogue," and he believes that "...Russia needs to support these efforts, so that peace can be restored as quickly as possible."

So, a little recap. The conflict is escalating, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 1500 civilian residents of S. Ossetia. Because of the continuing conflict, many other civilians are in danger of injury or death, but Dubya is hopeful that, through diplomatic dialogue, Russia and Georgia can solve this conflict peacefully. The United States is working with our European partners (the ones we have managed to maintain) to facilitate a return to normalcy for those civilians. The United States also recognizes the sovereignty of Georgia, and expects Russia to respect said sovereignty and remove their military from within Georgia's borders. Also, Russia should listen to this international mediation force and cooperate in the efforts towards peace.

All of this makes sense to me. The conflict endangers civilians, as all military engagements do, and the 1500 civilians who have died in the last three days deserve to be honored and should be recognized as a sign of the human cost of the conflict in S. Ossetia. I also believe in diplomacy and dialogue, and in using force only as the last possible option. I can understand the emphasis on national autonomy, especially after having so many conversations with so many libertarians for whom respect of autonomy was the biggest concern. I agree the the two of them can find a peaceable resolution (even though they may not both be happy with what S. Ossetia is looking for). This is why I am so angered by his comments.

Where is his concern for the 86,522 – 94,403 civilian deaths in Iraq, and the thousands of similar casualties in Afghanistan (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/) ? Why does he seem to think that increases in conflict (through "surges") is OK for us but not for them? Where was his concern for diplomacy and our "European partners" when we entered Iraq against the wishes of US citizens and the UN? And how can he possibly request that Russia should respect the autonomy of Georgia, when we have ignored the autonomy of countless countries within his time in office? His speech on the situation in S. Ossetia was just another example of the hypocrisy of the current administration, and also the hypocrisy inherent in our diplomatic policy as a country. Throughout our history, we have appointed ourselves as capable of discerning which sovereign nations deserve to be respected and which countries we, and other nations similar to ourselves, can completely disregard as sovereign.

You cannot give advice that is in direct opposition to what you yourself have done, on an international scale, and expect your words to be taken seriously.
Dear George W. Bush...
please, shut the FUCK up.

Loooove,
me

[For more information on the situation in S. Ossetia, check out these links.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550780.stm

http://news.smh.com.au/world/bush-calls-to-end-russian-bombing-in-sossetia-20080809-3squ.html

This is how it feels to be suddenly aware of ones own ignorance. ouch.

So. I have recently realized that no matter how informed I believed myself to be, I was not. No matter how anti-establishment I believed myself to be, I couldn't have been. No matter how up-to-date and aware of international issues I believed myself to be, it was impossible. I was acting just as every other American acts: as if the news media is reporting in a way that is truly unbiased, as if the history we learned in high school was fact, as if we truly live in a democracy where every vote counts.

I have since learned this may not be true, and it has been incredibly difficult for me to do so. From books, from new friends with new perspectives, and from a new self-awareness of how blind a lot of my faith continues to be, I am slowly (and painfully) starting the process of breaking down my identity as an American consumer and building up an arsenal of information to base... well... myself on.

Example one: Cuba. [As if the history I learned in school was fact]
At training for my internship this summer, I confronted for the first time my totally blind acceptance of Cuba and its leader as "bad." I thought he was an awful dictator who was just hurting his people for the sake of... I don't know what... and I had that cute little kid who got sent back to Cuba (what was his name? I forget) to back up my assumptions about how bad it really was. I mean, if people were literally dying to escape, then it had to be awful, and that had to be the fault of the evil dictator (not any kind of trade embargo we may have been imposing on the Cuban people, or terrorist organizations that we support and train).

Then I found out, from someone I met in Chicago, that Cuba (and Castro) were quite different than I had originally thought. They have a 99.8% literacy rate as a result of the revolution's emphasis on public education. I did not know that. [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/cu.html]

Something I also didn't know is that, since 1959, the USA has been funding and training Cuban exiles as terrorists against the revolutionary forces and, possibly by default, Cuban citizens. In 1976, some of those exiles blew up a plane carrying 73 Cuban civilians. What is that, other than terrorism? And why hasn't the media brought this to the attention of American citizens at any time during the brainwashing campaign of the "War On Terror"? How can we claim to fight it when we fund it ourselves? George Bush Sr. pardoned a man who, in the rest of the world, is considered a mass-murderer.

And then there is the "Cuban Five." Having not been able to obtain enough information on either side to really decide how I feel, I will say that I do not trust the information given to me by the news media or the government. Why? I'm not saying that Cuba is some amazingly wonderful place with no problems and the US is falsifying everything they say against it. I'm not. If there are people trying to leave, and if Amnesty has articles about them hindering civil rights in their country, then I must assume that they have problems. But I am saying that the US has painted a totally biased picture that vilifies them and completely erases our involvement with their current conditions, and therefore I do not trust the information that they see fit to give me.
But, anywho, a snapshot of two sides of the story:
http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2008/June/20070712120209atlahtnevel0.7962915.html
http://www.freethefive.org/

So that's Cuba.

Now on to electronic voting [As if every vote really did count]

I assumed that the reason we used electronic voting was because it was the best, most foolproof, most efficient way to vote. It got rid of those stupid, god damned chads, and it seemed to take away any mechanical malfunction that could get in the way of the validity of the vote count. It seems that I was wrong.

Electronic voting actually provides a way to vote that leaves no hardcopy evidence as to what your vote really was, and some electronic voting machines are actually highly susceptible to voting manipulation, even in some cases allowing multiple votes to be recorded when only one person is voting, and the selection of one candidate on the screen to record for a different candidate in the results (Censored 2008). Not only do these theoretical problems exist, but there is evidence that electronic voting manipulation put W in the white house for his second term (disregarding the 2000 voting debacle that unfairly put him there in the first place). If the voting system is prey to corruption, then what kind of democratic republic are we?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1970/

Then, there's Al-Jazeera. [As if the news media reported in a way that was truly unbiased]
Maybe this one is my fault. Maybe this time, it's really on me for not pursuing and following up on the mentions of Al-Jazeera in the news, but the only things I ever heard mentioned by Al-Jazeera in the main-stream media were terrorists and their plots. Therefore, I assumed an association between the news organization and terrorism in the middle east. Imagine my surprise, then, when reading Censored 2008, Al-Jazeera is mentioned as a great alternative to our news media. So, I checked it out.

What I found was an international wealth of news information, from a viewpoint I had (up until now) not been exposed to. What I found was a forum for citizens of all nations around the world to take in information and then discuss it in comment forums. I have to admit that the comments were almost more enlightening than the news articles, but this enlightenment was focused on the perceptions of American people around the world as opposed to the real content of the news article.

This is where I found how badly we are perceived around the globe. People believe that we are incredibly uneducated to the point where political satire is way to complicated for us to understand. They also believe that we voted Bush into office for a second time, thus rendering us the stupidest nation on the planet. One person, from Afghanistan, believes that the only hope for America is that we have a second civil war and end up divided, with our states as our new countries. They think we are racist, they think we don't care about the rest of the world, and they think we do this knowingly (or that our ignorance reflects our culture, and us as a people, and not the intentions of those controlling us).

Because of the corporate, government-controlled news media's influence on our awareness of every day issues, we have become the stereotype that those comments portray. It isn't our fault, I don't think, because we are presented from the moment we are born with the assumption that news is true, voting is equal, and history is a fair and accurate report of what really happened. We are not given this information that the rest of the world sees, and the people we count on to inform us, the news media, are failing us at every turn.

Unless we want to remain the stupid, ignorant populace under a global tyrant, something has to change. I hate to admit that I do not know what that change should be, but it's true. Some people believe that it is the socialist revolution that will save us, some of us (up until now, including me) believe that electing Barack Obama will change things. I think, if it is the latter, then we have to take a much greater role upon ourselves to actively communicate what we expect and immediately call him out to hold him responsible when he starts changing his formerly left campaign promises. Maybe he really is just playing the political game to get into office so that, once secured, he can use his position to enact change, and I do hope that's the truth. It is our responsibility as informed citizens to make sure that he is aware that we are watching him, and we are holding him accountable. As for the revolution, I can't say what I think just yet. I'm still trying to deal with my long-maintained ignorance of our system, and I don't feel informed enough to support any alternative (or even the need for one). But, whatever the case, you know I'll keep you updated.

Until next time...

J-Mac and the culture of destruction

It occurred to me, whilst listening to the slammin beats of Jesse McCartney's new song on the way home yesterday, how completely right on Inga Muscio's observation of our "culture of destruction" is.

When I mentioned to a friend that I had no idea that this song was written by the afore-mentioned J-Mac, his response was one of quite surprising vehemence. He told me, immediately, that my one true love (I do hope you realize that is sarcasm.. a little..) was "just trying to be Sean Kingston."
Ahem.
My response to him was at first to be offended, because I knew that Jesse had taken two years off of his music career to really connect and try to grow up with his music and his style in a way that reflected the personal growth he had experienced, going from a teenager to a guy in his 20's (with which I most certainly identify. Except the male part). I tried to explain it, but he said that you could HEAR Jesse's (obviously) futile attempt to be the Caribbean R&B singer in sections throughout the song. Honestly, I didn't care. What I like about this song has nothing to do with whether or not Jesse McCartney wants to BE a black R&B singer. It has to do with a fun, smooth song that's easy to listen to and basically talks about a guy saying he could treat a girl better than the guy she's with who, one can assume from the chorus and bridge, makes her cry. I've been in that relationship, and if J-Mac came up to me and sang this song, I would have been leavin' fo sho.

So. On the way home from my friend's house last night, I heard the intro to the song and cranked it up, windows down, in the dark. It was fantastic. As I listened to the music, I actually did try to detect Sean Kingston-isms in his singing style, and I didn't notice any. But, it was as I was doing this that I realized where my friend's response came from. He was breaking Jesse down to build Sean up. Culture of destruction. Why, I thought, can't Jesse McCartney just have this new song that's really fun, that people who listen to Sean Kingston can also enjoy? Why was it such a personal offense to my friend for this pop singer to decide to try on a new style? Why are people so pissed off that Barack Obama might LEARN FROM HIS OPPOSITION and change a few things? Isn't that called an informed decision? Why can't Jesse McCartney's new song just be fun?

Because. If our culture is built upon success, which seems to be socially defined as being the best, then we cannot allow others to share in our good fortune. We must break them down to remain on top, in our lives, in our music, in our politics. In our culture, today, we must destroy others to be the only one standing.

I don't know about you, but that is NOT what I want governing my life and the world around me. A culture of destruction leaves no room for diversity, or this is how it seems to me. And then, like a lightbulb coming on in a darkened closet, I suddenly understood how it got to be this way... in a white, male, heterosexual dominated society.

i'll start out with some feminism and then i'll get to whats really bothering me

So. I looked at the moon tonight and, thanks to Inga Muscio's masterpiece, "Cunt," I thought immediately about how amazing my body is, how it moves in a cycle that puts me at one with the forces that dictate the moon's phases, which in turn dictate the tide. I took a moment to revel in the fact that every month, I am a living reminder of the interconnectedness of this whole crazy thing, and that really comforted me. Atheist that I am, I don't always have the comfort I used to take for granted as a Christian. It awes and inspires me that my body is now my source of comfort in the universe, and the only reason that is true is because I lucked out and was born female.

Thank goodness I am a woman.

*******************************************
new thought:
how amazing is it that there can be secret-even-to-myself places in my mind? i am constantly and consistently in awe of my body and what it does with no need for my conscious self. the only things that truly astound me, ever so much more than man-created, patriarchy-reflecting savior centered religion, are the things that exist without my thinking them into existence. my cells that fight infection with no brain to spur them onward, they simply are, and do, and what they are and do allows me, my conscious self, to be. i don't even understand myself, and its because i didn't make me. my body would function without my conscious thought propelling it forward. do you ever need to think to breathe? (ok, when you aren't scared shitless for one reason or another?) no. and, do you ever need to really think to walk? no! my body, as afore mentioned, is in tune with the movements of the MOON and i don't have to think one second to make it so. this is what amazes me, this is what i choose to worship. if there is anything worth worshipping, it is what we really and truly will never understand, because it makes US. this whole idea of me existing without the need for conscious thought is somehow incredibly comforting, which is good because i am TIRED.

Next on the agenda (i am writing this here not as a promise, but as a hopeful reminder to my future self to get down to the cuntlovin already): the Starbucks: Exposed! guerilla movement.

don't blame high fructose, blame disproportionate victimization of women by the news media.

I work from about 9 AM to around 8PM every day, with weekends pending (and 8 PM is on a good day). I am not about to get up earlier, and make myself more exhausted, to try and get to the early morning hot yoga class offered at 6:00 AM in the Village. It isn't that I'm lazy, it's that I work 10 hour days (on average) and I am NOT a morning person. Also, for some sad reason, hot yoga is not a 24 hour sport. Those who like to run on treadmills, lift weights, and use machines have the happy advantage of gyms such as 24 hour fitness, but what about those of us who prefer getting in tune with the world to tuning it out?
When my favorite, hot, stretchy exercise option opts out, the next best thing for me is a late night run. I love to be in the cool night air after a hot summer day, and it is a lot more inspiring to be running somewhere, with the grass whizzing by, than working like a gerbil in an air conditioned gym. Here is the problem: I get off at 8, am hungry but try not to eat anything too full of sodium and preservatives so dinner takes until around 9 to be cooked, eaten, and stored. Everyone who runs knows that you should NOT run on a recently filled stomach (unless cramps and stomach aches are your style). This puts me ready to run at around 9:30 or 9:45, 10:00 PM to be safe.
But it is this preoccupation with "safe" that ends up being my problem! I have been reminded my entire life that, as a young girl and now a young woman, everywhere is dangerous. When I'm alone, when I'm on my phone, when I'm listening to music, when it's dark, when it's light, in parking garages, in parks, at gas stations, in hotels, anywhere (it seems) where I am alone is a threat to my safety. Awareness, and an eye critical of ones surroundings, is important no matter who or where you are. Despite the goodness at the center of every human, there is a darkness that sometimes prevails. I'm not saying that a good, healthy sense of caution is bad! I am saying that a media-induced paranoia isn't healthy for anyone, especially not someone as prone to reality-based anxiety as myself.
So, I decided to check out the National Bureau of Justice Statistics to see if my fear was supported by evidence, and this is what I learned:
There is an obvious disparity between genders as the victims of violent crime (a category that includes rape and murder). From graphs who start in the seventies with a dramatic divide, I can see that men are more likely to be the victims of such crimes. As recently as 2005, men were 4 times more likely to be said victims than women. Also, the United State Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)'s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program showed that 78.7% of the known victims of murders were male. Seventy-eight percent is an overwhelming number in a culture where women are supposed to be the main targets of murder and violent crime. So, if men are statisticly more likely to be the victims of murder and violent crime, why is it that our culture tells women that they are the ones who should be afraid? Why should I cower on my couch, feeling lazy and itching for some night air at a park, in fear of something that is unsupported by historical and recent evidence?
The BJS and FBI do, however, note that the only area where women are more likely to be victims than men is in cases of sexual assault. No surprise there. It seems the media was actually being helpful on this one. So, even if I am statistically less likely to be murdered whilst out for my midnight jog, I am more likely to be raped, still providing reason for me to stay indoors, right? According to RAINN, the Rape Incest & Abuse National Network, 73% of of rapes are "perpetrated by a non-stranger." Hm. Assuming that my acquaintances, friends, and family aren't lurking in the shadows at the neighborhood park, it seems to me that this is another false fear that the media feeds us "post-feminist" (just ask Ginia Bellafante) females.
Before I continue, I want to make perfectly clear that I am not trying to treat the subjects of rape or murder, lightly. Both are serious, incredibly violent, disgusting crimes and should always be treated as such. What I am trying to say here is that, according to these sources, we are paying too much attention to the wrong factors, and we are being pushed to do so by mass media. Nightly news reports consistently reinforce the female as the victim. Men are not being sufficiently informed of their susceptibility to such crimes, and who knows what effect this is having on their safety. Women are being told that strangers far from home are the culprits that need to be watched, when really they are in much more danger from the people they already know, and this is all part of a long running conversation that the media has yet to acknowledge and take part in.
Being alert to real danger is good, but being held back by unrealistic fear isn't. I may be nervous, (after being brought up in our culture, how could I not?) but I plan on running when I want, and where I want from now on. I will also try to be more aware of the real dangers posed much closer to home, so I can more effectively protect myself.

Libidoism, or: Why we define gender based on sex drive

Guys do it, girls do it and, it turns out, even biologists do it. Take the fruit fly, for example: Evolutionary biology says that the reason that the fruit fly's sperm are so small and the eggs are so big is directly related to each sex's view on sex. The female fruit fly is programmed to value reproduction highly and be invested in picking the right mate, where the male fruit fly just wants to get it off as much as he can. Hence, smaller sperm. This theory can be applied to a vast number of species including, ahem, humans. But, how does that explain an experiment where female and male fruit flies were shown to be similarly choosy when deciding with whom to get it on?
Girls are brought up, from the moment we are taught about boys and their boners, to believe that guys are mostly indiscriminate in their search for booty. And by the same token, men are taught to believe that sex will always be emotional for women, and that they will have to jack off for days once married because she'll be too stressed/tired/emotional/frustrated/angry to want to do it that night. And haven't you ever heard the "boys will be boys" "men can't help but cheat" crap? Yes, crap. Its always bothered me, this double standard that expects men to be having sex as often as they can while women wait, or are at least much more choosy and emotional about their sexual partners. My question, and I'm sure every other woman's question when first introduced to that idea, was simple: "Who, exactly, do you think these guys are supposed to have sex with, then?"
So, women have a double standard despite three waves of feminism and a sexual revolution. The really annoying thing, though, is that sometimes we put this standard on ourselves. Even those of us who are "sexually active" and not yet married/engaged thus defying traditional standards seem to have certain expectations of what our and our fellow female's sex drives should be. We are all expected to laugh at and understand the old "He wants it all the time, I'm fucking tired!" joke and be able to commiserate about our unfailingly horny husbands/boyfriends/"friends"/partners. But, what about those of us who aren't? What about those of us who find ourselves in that person's bed one morning faced with a seemingly astounding realization: that we, in fact, have higher sex drives than our partners. What does this mean for our femininity? And, more so, for his masculinity? I have been guilty of complaining about my ex boyfriend's lower sex drive, using the phrase, "It's like I'm dating a girl!"And hearing back, "Are you really, really sure he's not gay?" If a man is too tired/stressed/emotional/frustrated/angry to have sex, why do we suddenly assume that something must be wrong with him when we expect ourselves to follow that standard? If a woman wants to have a lot of sex that doesn't necessarily (or too often) need to involved emotion to be satisfied why do we think she has some underlying problem?
If we take a step back and remember the fruit flies, we'll see that they, too defy these gender standards, so why can't we? Why do we feel the need to generalize something that is so complex? I know that I have felt less feminine as a result of my high sex drive, and felt that maybe something was wrong, and I assume that there have been men in the past who felt less masculine as a result of their emotional connection with/lower need for sex. So, if we know these exceptions to the rule exist both socially and scientifically, why do we continue to define the genders this way?
I don't know, but I do know that I'd like to tell that ex boyfriend that I'm sorry. I'm sorry I called you a girl, because the truth is I thought it was impossible for you just not to want it and felt offended when you wanted to sleep. I took it as a reflection of my attractive...ness... in your eyes, and thought that if you, a man, didn't try to sleep with me every time we were in the same space you must not want me. I'm sorry I held you to a standard that didn't reflect who you were at all, and I'm sorry I gossiped instead of telling you that I wasn't satisfied. I will try in the future to judge a man by who he is, not by how well he matches up to the socially constructed masculine identity, in hopes that he will not see me as less of a woman for wanting more (less emotional) sex. And, you know, my insufferable "guy nod" habit. :)

Mr. Sundar and my palm

The story of how this came to pass is long, but the point of it is that in the midst of squeezing and then straightening my palm, he said that I was still "hung up on that old boyfriend. The man who got away." It was at this point that I realized, he can't be talking about me. I mean, he's just making this as generic as possible and trying to flirtish with me. You want to know HOW I knew?

It was at this point that I had my revelation. My first reaction was to say "Oh. Yeah. That guy..." but then I realized, WHAT guy? I have never let a man "get away." If they left, granted it was painful, but there is a point in every dumpee's recovery process where the realization of their self-worth causes them to finally see that they don't want someone back who doesn't see them as good enough to hold on to. Not just to hold on to, to adore. And I never leave someone without serious thought and heartfelt contemplation, and numerous sobbing phone calls and conversations with best friends. There hasn't been one relationship in which I let a guy "get away," not in the long, long, long... long line of them. If there's anything I do pride myself on in my relationships, its my ability to give it the good St. Edward's try.

So, there Mr. Indian Man! I may miss certain things about certain guys, and I may sometimes wonder if they will one day appear again, magically changed to fit my personal relationship needs. But I do not sit around pining about the man who got away, because if he was worth leaving, then he was worth leaving, and if he left me then I'm better off alone.

This is probably also brought on a little bit by the midnight premiere that I just saw with the lovely Brandon (no fear Maryann, we shall see it together if you want to!!), and the theme that (I think) runs through that show all the way from first episode to movie... whenever relationships fail, and you are pining for the good parts of the man you left behind, your friends are the constant. Its easier to spend time on guys, but I think its more important to work on friends.

Anywho. I'm going to finish my Ultimate Cheeseburger (yes, it deserved caps) and go to bed. I just felt like sharing with you ladies... my girls.