"star"

is it just me or is the word "star" used too liberally to describe people who have achieved a modicum of renown. for instance, a "reality-tv star" (and i think with very few exceptions, reality-tv personalities are not so star-like) is alleged to have killed his model (ex?)girlfriend (not model girlfriend as in best girlfriend, we should all attain to her level of girlfriend-y-ness, but model as in that's her profession) and then escaped across the porous border waters of canada / us. he's been found dead (apparently a suicide) in a hotel in hope, b.c. he's being described as a "star". his claim to fame is a dubious professional life in calgary, ab followed by a move to california where he "starred" on a show called "megan wants a millionaire" -- the fact that i never, ever heard of this program is telling (and frankly reflects on his lack of star-dom) since i watch a lot of tv.

anyway, that's my rant for the day. guy is not a star. he was a tv personality for a hot minute and is now renowned primarily (at least in these parts) for being allegedly a murderer. the details of his ex-girlfriend condition when found are particularly gruesome and worthy of a law & order SVU episode.

i'm sitting at esquire's coffee in surrey (am trying to find an amusing, mildly derogative word for surrey -- have heard both "sorry" and "slurry" both are good. maybe i'll set up a poll for the name once i have a few other entries) nursing a latte and abusing wifi.

c.h. is in town for a week or so, which is excellent news for my social life. already have plans to leave sorry / slurry tomorrow. woot-woot!