Leaderboard

He's the newest teen Heartthrob. At 16, the cutie patootie is starring on Teen Wolf He can SPRAY his BERRY all over Grandma anytime he wants !

Grandma Loves YOU All ! (And, she's Single, and Looking to mingle)

He was hired to just be an occasional player on Teen Wolf last year. But he fit in so well with the featured actors, they greatly increased his role.

Jgoo, underlying all the legal reasoning (both for and against marriage equality) lies a fundamentally different perception of homosexuality. If you see Gays pretty much as regular people trying to get on with their lives, then the equal protection arguments will make intuitive sense to you. If you see queers as ridiculous & kinda creepy perverts, then it's obvious to you that their lives are subject to regulation at the whim of normal people. Maybe I'll get some guys here pissed off with me for saying this but a perfectly sound legal argument can be constructed both for and against equal protection for gay people. Which argument will appeal to you depends largely on how you think about gays on a much more fundamental level than legal rationalizations. And yes, RA1, that's the way legal reasoning really works. Because that's the way the human reasoning process works. If you don't buy this, just go back and actually read Plessy vs. Ferguson or the Dred Scott decision. They're both actually fairly readable.

I just got an e-mail advising me that American Airlines is selling tickets from Los Angeles to Sao Paulo for $574.00 - round trip - including all taxes. The taxes usually are around one hundred dollars, considering the Brazil exit tax. This means that the fare to the airline, round-trip, is only about $474. Can it be the fares to Brazil are cheap because the airlines got so many cancellations for Brazil and there are lots of empty seats? There has to be a reason for the fares to drop like they never before were. Here is a link to the latest fare discussed above - http://www.theflightdeal.com/2015/06/25/american-574-los-angeles-sao-paulo-brazil-roundtrip-including-all-taxes/?utm_source=The+Flight+Deal+Daily+DealsLetter&utm_campaign=495d0a17e0-The_Flight_Deal_Daily_Deals_Letter3_2_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_eb7686b6a9-495d0a17e0-174829325 -

Also to know when simply to hold them in readiness.

Did you skip over the T-12 Cloud Maker? Regardless of this and other weapons, the will to use them is definitive. Best regards, RA1

Nice discussions today on SCOTUSblog.com. From one of them: ...The other fundamental disagreement [between the majority and the dissenters] is over whether constitutional protections for liberty are entirely static or whether, instead, they evolve as human understanding and social conditions evolve. In Obergefell, as in Lawrence and Windsor, Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed the latter position. As he put it, “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to further generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” In one sense you can read this as a flat rejection of constitutional “originalism.” That is what has the dissenters so exercised. They want to continue to operate under the Washington v. Glucksberg principle that the Due Process Clause does not protect any form of liberty that was not already protected at the time the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment were ratified. They see the alternative of an evolving Constitution as anathema because it allows recognition of new forms of liberty like the right of a gay couple to live together and be treated equally. But Justice Kennedy in fact makes the claim that his view is more consistent with the actual original intent of the Framers – that they drafted our basic constitutional protections broadly so that they would be interpreted differently over time as the world, and our understanding of it, evolve. In his view, the war between originalists and advocates of the “living Constitution” misses the point: evolving protections for basic rights were the original intent. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-a-fair-and-proper-application-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/#more-229703

I DO ! Hmmmm, Gimme a Moment ! I'm READY ......

I'm off to the Sand Dunes of Marenhao for a week, but I plan on seeing it when I return. I was at the Picasso Museum in Barcelona this past March and then visiting the Guernica in Madrid at the Reina Sofia, and also after the terrible Kandinsky show, my hopes are few for anything interesting. When I passed by the CCBB after Meio Mundo on Friday, there were very few visitors in line for the exhibit, even if it was opening day. I can remember when the Impressionists from Paris were on display and from Day 1, the waiting line was around the block circling to the the back of the CCBB

OMFG ...and best name since Chord Overstreet.

I went to Cafe Felicce on Rua Gomes Carnero in Ipa with TeaLady on Tuesday afternoon. Another TomCal spot. Very nice food and service, Portions were okay, Prices were a bit on the high side to me (but then I normally lunch at 28-40Reais/kilo places) but used quality ingredients.

Day 1 after returning to the US and I regret not going to Thermas earlier in my trip, instead of waiting to the last day. Am definitely hooked by the cornocopia of friendly and hot muscle boys and twinks who seemed all very eager to play. Will definitely be back to Barcelona.