Leaderboard

I saw him tonight sitting down next to TeaLady on the bench in the foyer of 117. The picture does not do him justice. Unfortunate. The body, legs, scrotal sack and penis were quite marvelous and soft it was really pretty and quite inviting for a taste. In the above "action" it all looks a bit violent and not quite so tempting. And his skin in person was even prettier than the photos. You all should have been.

He's nice-looking. How did you meet and arrange your hotel-date?

one great week in Rio club 117 is as good as ever Hope to find Iphguy tonight at 117. on monday i skipped going to 117 and did hotel date. have yet to make it down to MM last night andra was back in town from now work in S.P. T

A BoyToy forum member e-mailed me some questions and asked me to answer them. So here goes: What is the cost of the cabine and how long do we rent them for? Are the cabines the same price all week long except free Tuesday? i understand the cabines/suites are for 45 min??? And on free Tuesday the suites are for 30min??? Cabines = The free small space at Meio Mundo - no bathroom Rooms/Quartos = The larger rooms that offer a sheet/lencol and condom/lube included Suites = At Clube 117 with toilet, sink and shower en-suite They go for one hour. That is what is posted and if one asks at the reception, that is the response. However, the free cabines at New Meio Mundo and the Tuesday freebie at Clube 117 are for either 40 or 45 minutes. My brain fails me for the difference. On nights other than Tuesday at Clube 117, the suites go for 25Reais for ONE hour. Each night at New Meio Mundo, the nicer rooms with sheets and condoms/lube included go for 15Reais, 20 Reais and 25Reais. Don't let the boys tell you differently that it is only 30 minutes on free nights and 40 or 45 minutes on other nights. They are just trying to do a fast turnaround. This past Tuesday night, after showering and going back to the locker room to dress, I passed by Lindomar, a beauty from Curitiba who has been around since 2005 or 2006. Very nice guy, brought him back to my home on a couple of occasions. He hugged me very tight and his long hard penis pressed quite forcefully into my abdomen. I told him that I needed to leave to make my boat but he was trying to make it very difficult for me. I then said to him "puro puto" or "pure whore". He just started to smile and nod his head and repeated the same back to me. In essence, I called him on it. Same difference with what the boys parrot to you about the time lengths for the cabines/rooms/suites. Are we supposed to tip the barmen and the cute waiters? Towel boy/toalhiero? I find the waiters lacking at Clube 117, so I never thought about it. I have once tipped the current good waiter at Meio Mundo. And in the past I have infrequently at Meio Mundo. It is a hassle to remember to carry a 5 Reais bill up the stairs from the locker. And after getting dressed, I hate to make the trek back up the stairs to the bar to leave a tip. Around Christmas, I do give my 2 or 3 favorites 20 Reais each. I never put money in the tip boxes. I doubt how much goes into the owners and managers pockets and doesn't reach the employee team. I normally do not tip the towel boy if he is only bringing me flip-flops/Havaianas/sandalias/chinelos when I arrive. However, if I am bringing in anything extra like a package or two or my shopping cart, I always give whoever is helping me 5Reais. On rare occasions, 10Reais. Now big question, this happened on Wednesday night. One of the boys late, came up to me, he did not know my name, and i did not know his name, he said he had no clients can could i give him 10R for his exit fee. what would you have done? If he had a cute smile, gave me a kiss and a hug, felt my dick, played with my nipples, Yep. Otherwise, Nope. There entry is not your responsibility. They know the requirements and you are not there caixa electronica/automatica. They can plead poor, having the crocodile tears, tell you all lies... NEXT! Now, if you have been with them in the past and you liked them and it was a good programa, I would. Last Tuesday, someone I have been with a few times at 117 but had told him that I wasn't interested that day, was a bit off as he hadn't shaved and supposedly didn't have the money to buy a disposable from the desk for 4Reais. He has brought enough to pay his entry and fare back home, but that was it. Whether it was true or not, have no clue. But he claimed the disposable cost 4Reais and he looked a bit sketchy with a three-day beard. The Bradley Cooper-look has not made it to Rio. Almost all shave almost everything. Anyway, I gave him 5Reais and "Desejos Por Bom Negocios" or "Wishes For Good Business."

We often hear the famous snippet of Jefferson's great pronouncement on why a free press is critical to the functioning of a democracy. Finally occurred to me to look it up in context. Illuminating; sharply relevant today: Document 8 Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington 16 Jan. 1787Papers 11:48--49 The tumults in America I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of those tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments. The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did any where. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs8.html

Whistleblowers, press reporters and Indians forever. Best regards, RA1

Then perhaps it's time for him to step aside and let someone more capable have a crack at it. If he thinks that setting aside the Fourth Amendment is appropriate in order to make his job easier, he's been in the position way too long. In fact, I think it's time for the Administration to come at this from a different direction and start thinking about how much security it can provide in the absence of the unfortunately-named Patriot Act, and in the presence of full respect for the Fourth Amendment. We should not be asked to decide between our civil rights and some undefined level of security. I think we need, and deserve, a better definition of the issue than that. It will require some heavy lifting, no doubt, and those who are not up to the task should think about making room for those who are.

Thanks for that added info. Before that a gig, to me, was a pronged fork on a pole or trident used for harvesting frogs, mosty at night.

Interesting perspective. Cloud computing is a trap, warns GNU founder Richard StallmanWeb-based programs like Google's Gmail will force people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that will cost more and more over time, according to the free software campaigner Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 September 2008 09.11 EDT Richard Stallman on cloud computing: "It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign." Photograph: www.stallman.org The concept of using web-based programs like Google's Gmail is "worse than stupidity", according to a leading advocate of free software. Cloud computing – where IT power is delivered over the internet as you need it, rather than drawn from a desktop computer – has gained currency in recent years. Large internet and technology companies including Google, Microsoft and Amazon are pushing forward their plans to deliver information and software over the net. But Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and creator of the computer operating system GNU, said that cloud computing was simply a trap aimed at forcing more people to buy into locked, proprietary systems that would cost them more and more over time. "It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he told The Guardian. "Somebody is saying this is inevitable – and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true." The 55-year-old New Yorker said that computer users should be keen to keep their information in their own hands, rather than hand it over to a third party. His comments echo those made last week by Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, who criticised the rash of cloud computing announcements as "fashion-driven" and "complete gibberish". "The interesting thing about cloud computing is that we've redefined cloud computing to include everything that we already do," he said. "The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" The growing number of people storing information on internet-accessible servers rather than on their own machines, has become a core part of the rise of Web 2.0 applications. Millions of people now upload personal data such as emails, photographs and, increasingly, their work, to sites owned by companies such as Google. Computer manufacturer Dell recently even tried to trademark the term "cloud computing", although its application was refused. But there has been growing concern that mainstream adoption of cloud computing could present a mixture of privacy and ownership issues, with users potentially being locked out of their own files. Stallman, who is a staunch privacy advocate, advised users to stay local and stick with their own computers. "One reason you should not use web applications to do your computing is that you lose control," he said. "It's just as bad as using a proprietary program. Do your own computing on your own computer with your copy of a freedom-respecting program. If you use a proprietary program or somebody else's web server, you're defenceless. You're putty in the hands of whoever developed that software." http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman

President Obama's let's-have-a-debate defense Obama could have chosen at any time to disclose the data-sifting program. | AP Photo By JOSH GERSTEIN | 6/7/13 5:04 AM EDT Updated: 6/7/13 1:27 PM EDT politico.com The Obama administration has a familiar refrain on the surveillance of Americans’ telephone records: the president and his team are eager to have the debate. Eager, that is, only after others have brought the tactics to light and the administration has spent years employing them. On Guantanamo and drone strikes, as well as his administration’s aggressive use of leak investigations into the telephone records and e-mails of journalists, President Barack Obama and his aides often seem to cast him as a detached analyst or law professor watching policies carried out, rather than the one actually directing or responsible for them. When it comes to surveillance, Obama has as president shown no sign of really wanting to have a robust debate. For years, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have been pleading with the administration to disclose more information about call-tracking tactics that they suggested would shock many Americans. The administration largely rebuffed those calls. Only after the leak Wednesday of a four-page “top secret” court order indicating that millions of Americans’ phone calls were tracked on a daily basis did officials begin to confirm the program’s details. But Obama could have chosen at any time to disclose the data-sifting program, or even its rough outlines. That fact leaves critics unimpressed with his latest round of let’s-talk-it-over. “Every time he gets into trouble, he wants to have a debate, he wants to have a discussion….I think it’s his way — a distortion field created by his own moral rectitude,” said Michael Meyers of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. “It’s the same thing with the reporters [and leaks], he wants to have a guy who violated their civil liberties to have a discussion with the media.” “This is [Obama’s] characteristic mode of discourse,” said Steven Aftergood, a classified information policy analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. “The public should have been notified and consulted and involved and it was not. That should have taken place years ago.” In explaining the administration’s reticence to offer details on surveillance, drones and similar issues, officials have often argued that disclosing details about such programs or in some cases even their existence, would endanger Americans by making the programs easier for terrorists to thwart. Even as he declassified some information about the phone call-tracking program Thursday night, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned that revelations about the program could have grave consequences. ”The unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation,” Clapper said. “Discussing programs like this publicly will have an impact on the behavior of our adversaries and make it more difficult for us to understand their intentions.” White House spokesman Josh Earnest struck a somewhat different tone earlier in the day, declaring that Obama and his aides were pleased to join in a vigorous public debate on the issue. “The president welcomes a discussion of the tradeoffs between security and civil liberties,” he told reporters. “There are people who have a genuine interest in protecting the United States and protecting constitutional liberties, constitutional rights and civil liberties, that may disagree about how to strike this balance. We welcome that debate.” The response perplexed analysts with varying perspectives on the government’s surveillance efforts. “If [Obama] welcomed the discussion, he would have disclosed the program,” Aftergood said. “There is going to be a discussion not because the president’s welcomed it, but because the information was leaked … The discussion is only taking place because his own policies were violated.” ... Cont. at http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/barack-obama-debate-defense-nsa-surveillance-92389.html?hp=r20

And they call me snoopy !

One of the problems is the US depends too much upon technology for its' intelligence gathering. Crunching numbers, spy in the sky, drones and computer analyzing all have their place but I have to agree with Tom Clancy (and others) who suggest that nothing really can take the place of human resources. Kind of anti-whistleblowers. In other ways the US takes the wrong tack. We do not permit profiling of airline passengers (and others) while we have an excellent example of how well this works as used by the Israelis. In the meantime the TSA strip searches babies and grandmothers while annoying everyone (except the terrorists). I, for one, am not willing to give up the rights and freedoms we already have given up (temporarily I hope) for so called security. Security is an illusion as is freedom without sacrifice and fighting for it. Best regards, RA1

Lawmakers rebut Obama's data defense By REID J. EPSTEIN | 6/7/13 9:40 PM EDT politico.com President Barack Obama’s chief defense of his administration’s wide-ranging data-gathering programs Friday: Congress authorized them, with “every member” well aware of the details. Not so, say many members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike. Typically, members of Congress “don’t receive this kind of briefing,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told POLITICO Friday. They wouldn’t have known about the programs unless they were on an intelligence committee, attended special sessions last held in 2011 or specifically asked to be briefed – something they would only know to do if they were clued in by an colleague who was already aware. Durbin said he learned about the two programs himself only after requesting a briefing under “classified circumstances” after being urged to do so by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Congressional leadership and intelligence committees had access to information about the programs, he said — but the “average member” of Congress likely wouldn’t have been aware of the breadth of the telephone and Internet surveillance. There’s no public record of who has attended any of these sessions — and even the Obama administration couldn’t confirm the president’s claim that “every member of Congress” had been briefed. The White House declined to comment for this story. And Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) told POLITICO that the classified intelligence briefing sessions he’s attended haven’t disclosed details on the two data-gathering programs as were unveiled this week. Schock, in Congress since 2009, said he had “no idea” about the phone data gathering, or any briefings for House members to discuss it, until news reports this week. Like other members who said they learned of the data-gathering efforts when they were revealed in the Guardian and the Washington Post, Schock said the administration classified briefings he’s attended have revealed very little information. “I can assure you the phone number tracking of non-criminal, non-terrorist suspects was not discussed,” he said. “Most members have stopped going to their classified briefings because they rarely tell us anything we don’t already know in the news. It really has become a charade.” President Obama’s explanation allows him to sound a nothing-to-see-here note that paints the programs as both prosaic and innocuous. After all, if all 535 members of Congress knew about them, how bad could they really be? “These are the folks you all vote for as your representatives in Congress, and they’re being fully briefed on these programs,” said Obama. “And if, in fact … there were abuses taking place, presumably those members of Congress could raise those issues very aggressively. They’re empowered to do so.” But as Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) complained to Attorney General Eric Holder during a Thursday hearing, the idea that Congress has been “fully briefed” on these programs is coming as news to many of the lawmakers themselves. “This ‘fully briefed’ is something that drives us up the wall, because often ‘fully briefed’ means a group of eight leadership; it does not necessarily mean relevant committees,” Mikulski said. In theory, briefings on the electronic surveillance programs were available — and offered — to every member of Congress. In practice, they were regularly given to those on the House and Senate Intelligence committees — and haven’t been offered all members of Congress for the past two years, except by request. Justice and intelligence officials conducted a dozen briefings for congressional committees and leadership between May 2009 and October 2011, and FBI Director Robert Mueller briefed the House GOP conference and House Democratic caucus in May 2011 ahead of the last the Patriot Act reauthorization. The administration also asked that classified white papers be made available to all members of the House and Senate in 2011, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was last re-authorized. So senators not on the intelligence committee would only have learned of the program had they attended one of those classified briefings in 2010 or 2011. Then, the committee invited all 100 senators to read a classified report on “roving authority for electronic surveillance” in a secure location in the Hart Senate Office Building. Asked Thursday if she knew how many senators had taken the time to read the report, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) responded: “I do not, certainly the Intelligence Committee should have.” Congress last reauthorized the FISA provision of the Patriot Act in in May 2011, with the Senate voting 72-23 in favor, and the House approving the measure by a 250-153 count. It is not known how many members reviewed the intelligence papers prior to those votes. And it’s not clear how many members of Congress have pursued classified briefings on their own. But it’s not hard to find members of Congress this week who say the latest reports are the first they’ve heard of these programs. There are now nine senators and 61 congressmen who were not in office during the 2010 and 2011 briefing sessions — new members of Congress like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who have never been personally informed of either program unless they asked about it. “Americans trusted President Obama when he came to office promising the most transparent administration in history,” Cruz said Friday. “But that trust has been broken and the only way to earn it back is to tell the truth.” Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) wrote “not quite” on Twitter in response to a reporter’s tweet about Obama’s remark that “every member” was aware of the data-gathering programs. Long wasn’t made available to explain his tweet Friday. And Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) told MSNBC Friday that he received a briefing only because he “sought it out,” not because the Obama administration had offered it to him. “I had to get special permission to find out about the program,” Merkley said. “It raised concerns for me. … When I saw what was being done, I felt it was so out of sync with the plain language of the law and that it merited full public examination, and that’s why I called for the declassification.” - Burgess Everett and Jake Sherman contributed to this report. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/congress-nsa-prism-intelligence-briefing-92438.html#ixzz2VdUN0qAX

What could possibly interest you in this blog!

Maybe not but the Soviets did advise the US government that at least one of these guys was up to no good. Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or me? Best regards, RA1

Not yet. Still on my to do list. Some pictures of the boys in the aquarium And of the cute barman

Pizza man! Reminds of somewhat similar discovery right after college that quiche is the perfect meal because you can throw in everything that's about to go bad in the back of the fridge.

You are going to hide his shoes and then bring up other things for consideration? Best regards, RA1

Perhaps he stumbled across my February post. Could Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the destruction of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law could all have occurred within a single generation?

Sounds liked he prefers to be buzzed. By a long shot, my favorite pizzas are the take 'n' bake ones. Cheaper too.

This editorial expounds just that point, in suitably blistering terms: NSA surveillance revelations: Osama bin Laden would love this http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/nsa-surveillance-osama-bin-laden

One way the Internet companies' denials of "direct access" might be technically true, while still giving the Feds huge chunks of data: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/direct-access-is-the-defining-phrase-of-the-nsa-scandal