           Ú-Ä-ù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Ä-¿
           ³        welcome to damaged mind 'zine issue two        ³
           À-Ä-ù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Äù-Ä-Ù
                                                    
           "you made another?  why??"

           umm i didn't plan on continuing this trend of shitty mags..
           i didn't plan on continuing this at all, i just had so
           much fun with the first one (i wrote it in about 30 mins..
           a very rush rush job).  it was shit, but that was expected,
           i think.. or something like that.  anyway, in the last
           issue i had two articles..  they both probably sucked, and
           if that's what you think, write something for me.  i'll put
           it in here (no doubt).

           (note:  here's where all the articles start.  i had this
                   finished about a week ago, but about a week ago my
                   modem died.  it was struck by lightning while i
                   was out of town.  arrrrrrrrrrrrgh)

           =========================================================
           =========================================================
           why^i^envy^ohhhjay^simpson

        i just finished watching the movie "murder in the first" with an
  all-star cast consisting of christian slater and kevin bacon.  well, okay
  i'm lying.  kevin bacon hasn't been in a decent movie since "the breakfast
  club"--wait he wasn't even in that was he?  christian slater has only
  really made two movies that are "good" in my books.  they were 80's movies
  too.. ("pump up the volume" and "heathers")
        anyway, my point is not to put down these actor's careers, my point
  is to crack on the judicial branch of the united states.  the movie "murder
  in the first" was basically about a guy who got sent to alkatraz for 
  stealing $5 to feed his sister.  he attempted to escape so they locked him
  in solitary confinement or "the dungeons".  
        to me, solitary confinement wouldn't be so bad, because that's what
  i basically do in my room all day.  the warden of alkatraz's idea of
  solitary confinement was stripping the prisoner naked, throwing him in a
  pitch black closet-type-room, and constantly beating him.  the main
  character in the movie got three years of this with a 30 minute exercise
  time once a year.  the officials of alkatraz did this because he 
  jeopardized their jobs (alkatraz was known to be unescapable).
        anyway, they let this guy mingle with the other prisoners after three
  years because i guess they just realized that the maximum amount of time
  you're supposed to be in there is 19 days.  during the first hour of his
  social activity, he kills a guy with a spoon.  he wasn't homicidal before
  they put him in solitary confinement, he was actually a nice guy who just
  needed to provide for his family.  he came out of the confinement a psycho
  killer, which is what most of us would come out as too.  
        ok they go to trial and doesn't get murder in the first because he's
  a pretty rad guy.  they give him three more years of prison then they'll
  let him go.  the thing is, they send him BACK to alkatraz.  they find him
  i think 7 months later in a cell, dead, with the word "victory" scrawled
  above his head.  he put it there before he died, most likely killed by a
  prison official.

  this was based on a true story.

        i'm not going to rant and rave about how bad our judicial system is
  because of a damn movie.  nooo... i'm sure some of that was exagerated,
  though this is supposedly the case that brought alkatraz down.
        no.  not me.  i'm going to rant and rave because of another case.  a
  case which i'm completely sick of.  yes, you're thinking on the right track,
  the case of our favorite football turned actor o.j. simpson.

        here's a quick rundown of the facts against him:

        1.  he has no clear alibi.
        2.  he beat his wife (not all wife beaters are murderers, but this
                              eliminates some of the odds).
        3.  they found his blood at the crime scene.
        4.  they found the victim's blood at his home.
        5.  they found the murderer's glove on his property.
        6.  there's that funky shit about the shoe size and bruno mally (?)
            shoes (i understand it but not enough to explain it)
        7.  they found rare fibers of his upholestry from his car on nicole
            simpson's back.
        8.  they found nicole simpson's blood on o.j.'s socks.
        9.  a knife vendor remembers selling o.j. a knife (duh) before the
            killings (though he didn't testify cause he sold-out to national
            enquirer or something).

        here's what the defense says:

        1.  a spanish speaking woman who basically doesn't know where the
            fuck she is says that she saw o.j.'s car at his house around
            the times of the murders.
        2.  mark furman is a racist who really wants to supress black 
            football stars.
        3.  it's a police conspiracy.


        i mean... sure, the police fucked up on a couple things, they labelled
  some stuff incorrectly and calculated dna statistics a little wrong, but 
  we've known that the police force isn't made up of the brightest people in 
  the world for awhile.  
        the trial has gone on for 102 days so far and the prosecution hasn't
  finished its case yet.  the majority of evidence points the finger at o.j...
  to be honest, if he didn't do it, who did?  who would bother?  what would
  be their motive?  drug dealers?  ok i can buy that for maybe two seconds,
  why'd they kill goldman?  why didn't they take anything?
        the way things look, o.j.'s probably going to get off.  he won't have
  much money because of all the lawyers he's hired, but hey... a book deal,
  a movie... he'll have it made.  if he doesn't get an aquittal, there will
  be a hung jury.  i mean, sure lance ito is a damn funny judge, but he's
  fucked up when it comes to dismissing jurors.  
        it's pretty sad.  i think my point is clear.

           =========================================================
           =========================================================
           hugh^grant^ruined???

        since i really haven't written anything else decent, here's something
  most people don't care about...the british actor, hugh grant.  he has only
  been in two movies (to my knowledge), "sirens", "four weddings and a
  funeral", and "the englishman that went up a hill but came down a mountain".  
  i haven't seen "sirens", but i hear it has a bunch of naked women in it.  
  that's not the point though.. the other two movies were exceptionally good.
        two days ago, good boy hugh was caught "receiving head" from a 
  prostitute on sunset blvd. in los angelas.  now, i think this is pretty 
  uncharacteristic behavior of the man because a) he doesn't seem like the
  type and b) he has a model-girlfriend.  the prostitute looked ugly as shit.
  so why would he do that?  (my suspicion is that hugh wanted a blowjob and
  his model girlfriend wouldn't give him one.. so he got someone else to do
  it).  
        anyway, next week i think he has to go to court.  everyone is saying
  that his career is over, but i think that is a load of shit.  rob lowe's
  career went "bye-bye" cause he taped his "receivance" and he got it from
  a 16 year old.  hugh is calling his mistake "completely insane", and
  rightly so, but i don't think he'd do it again.  hell, even our good buddy
  arnold schwartzenager put in a good word for hugh.  
        
        damn that had no point.  

           =========================================================
           =========================================================
           bye^bye

           this issued sucked worse than the last.  tell me how bad
           it was by emailing disgust@vnet.net or catch me on #ansi
           or #zines.  if you want to contribute, contact me at the
           same places (no, really?)
