sorry ive not been updatin other than the less than sorry scores of Newcastle. god, if u saw the match on sunday, you would wonder how in the hell they managed to stay in top 10. few wks ago, they were in comfortable situation to maintain at least a top 5 finish, more like could secure 4th n get tt last champs lg booth. lately, they've been playin like relegation-threatened teams. i felt so pissed at their performance on sunday n i bet those fans in St. James' Park felt the same. they booed O'Brien, when he was practically caught napping. had it not been for the heroics of Given, we would easily been thrashed 5-0.

i hate it when they put in couple of solid performances n fuck things up on those games that is an easy 3 pointers. if u're not gonna get the points from strugging opponents, how r u gonna command any challenge? but its quite clear there's 3 divisions within the premier league. the elites; i dont need to explain, manures, gooners and chelski. then comes the battle for the last champs league spot that is of equal competition to 6 teams; charlton, southampton, liverpool, birmingham, newcastle and fulham. its virtually impossible that there be any intrusion to the top 3. the difference between 3rd and 4th place stands at 12 pts comin into january. the other 9 (lets face it, wolves are gone and sad to say, most probably leeds. but they might just make it, like bradford did few seasons back) teams r jus playin and the lower ones r tryin to prevent itself from gettin involved in that last relegation spot. all this, within one league. the cut has never been this clear at halfseason, so much so, im amazed. n the top 3 will remain like tt for the couple of yrs. experience, money and reputation are things that cannot be built up quickly. (liverpool might be able to break into the club, but they need to replace houllier if theres any chance of it happening)

ok enuff of soccer.

aside from soccer, been doin some politics reading n watchin. yes, im talkin bt the us elections next yr. yes im bothered. things hav changed so much since the last election, and bush is partly to blame for all the prejudices we (ok, i) will face in the future. n im concerned coz pretty soon, i'll b livin there n most prob continue on to make a livin. i better b concerned. anyway, i want bush to go out, but considerin he pretty much fucked things up (one politician supposedly admitted he voted for bush knowin bush would fuck up, but he didnt expect bush to fuck up so badly... hahaha) and its better lettin the fucker continue handling the mess than get someone new to handle in a whole new way, which might backfire. but then again, there isnt any covincin candidate from the democratic party. the only two im havin in mind is clark or dean. but more to clark. i mean he's got it all, ex-NATO says it all. but yea, world politics is different issue. but i think he's got wat it takes to handle the white house. dean might hav gotten a massive boost by gettin endorsement from gore, but thats mainly coz gore backed out on the basis tt if he ran for next yr, ppl will think bout wat happened in the last election than focus on the current problems n issues. yea, gd decision, but does tt mean he'll try in 2008? supposin he does, its gonna b more interestin to watch the democratic debates than the actual presidential debates. coz its most likely gore vs hillary clinton head-on. that sounds very interesting. anyway, it pretty is clear bush will b re-elected, there isnt that strong candidate to take him on this time round, but who knows, things might change durin the course of next yr.

ive been watchin the BBC Timeline London and hardtalk lately. i juz love it when these guys argue among themselves to prove nothing. theres two sides to these discussion programs. they argue, present their points and talk a lot, but for wat? they can say all they want, sound real smart, etc, but nothin's changin. so wats the pt takin so much effort in convincin these ppl? on the otherhand, wat they say is true, sometimes some has real gd ideas n all. pity its not implemented. few days ago, this arab guy proposed a solution to the internal problems with the EU. he said that the members of EU should collectively form an alliance and let EU be the governing body to make up a new superpower that can counter the US. i was like starin at the TV n thinkin, wow, that's one terrific plan. like the US, which is made up of different states where each state has its own laws n governing body, so can the EU, most hav adopted the euro already, all thats needed is to dissolve the national governments to form one heading government. call it the united states of europe, or federation of european union, i think thats the best way to counter the growing powers of the only superpower left. then the EU n USA can discuss on equal terms n not be dominant over one, etc. i think if that happens, the other regions should follow. he hav way too many countries, we should form one gigantic union n deal wit world issues, things would b so much simpler n practical that way. i mean, i really think the arab countries should form one organisation or somethin. wat the hell r libya n iran gonna do by itself? its already handling itself so poorly, i think its better if the gulf nations all put their hands together n solve their own problems. that would really herald the new world. its only goin into 2004 now, would this be the defining moment for the 21st century? this would b really interesting.