Lucky

Only 12 of MER's 18000 members were not watching American Idol tonight. Sometimes posting here is like shouting in an empty room.

Another shocking discharge story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aubrey-sarvi...5_b_205553.html

18 young men, some claiming to be bisexual, joined in on the first Mr. Gay Cambodia contest. The winner was a 19-year old high school student (a late bloomer?). Here's the article from the Phnom Penh Post, which includes a picture of some of the smiling contestants: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/200...ay-crowned.html

Happy birthday. Did you fuck a soldier for the occasion (a gay one)?

My reference reflects my own wonder at why someone would want to be in a military that doesn't want them, and there is no doubt some spillover from my pacifist days. Choi is a quite self-assured man, and he sure did wink. That's why I think he will be a great spokesman for his cause, and I wouldn't be surprised if the White House offered him a post where his skills could be used.

I can only tell you what show I want to see, and that is Terry Fator, I believe at the Mirage. He was on America's Got talent and is a ventriloquist who does singing impressions of famous singers. He's quite good...looks a little like jackhammer.

Okay, granted. But no one will claim that a significant amount of these funds, and an even higher amount of the TARP funds, will be stolen. They may not be delaying the expenditure of Obama's money to steal it, but they will ultimately find a lot of it going where it shouldn't have gone.

Given that only about 10% of the $787 billion dollars allocated for economic stimulus has been spent so far, am I too cynical for thinking that the hold-up is so the rest of the money can be stolen or otherwise allocated to the usual corporate pigs at the trough? Just asking.

I guess I should stop complaining about being stopped and robbed by 2 Tijuana cops. It kinda pales in comparison, but does serve to point out how corrupt Tijuana is. No more Club Exstasis for me.

Dan Choi is becoming the poster boy for gays in the military. He has been on several tv programs this week as he is being booted from the military after graduating from West Point and serving honorably for ten years. He is a nice-looking, well-spoken man, who actually winked at Anderson Cooper on the air. He claims to have studiously adhered to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for all of these years, only recently finding love and deciding to come out. I wonder why a guy would want to give up his sexuality for all of those years in order to learn to be, and then be, a killer for the military. He apparently performed well at his tasks and is respected by the men under his command who support his efforts to stay in the military. I like the idea that he claims present law doesn't respect the professionalism of the troops in that it assumes that they cannot handle working with gay men. In short, especially given that he has learned Arabic ( those smart Asians!), he seems well-suited for the military. I wouldn't want to cross him up on a date, though.

I thought the Katie Perry performance was dreadful...just dreadful. And she shouldn't have been allowed to do that endorsement, such as it was, it may have cost him votes. Identifying himself with Perez Hilton probably doesn't help either. Given that the vote difference was a million votes, your 250 goes down as A for effort, but ultimately not very effective. But maybe 40000 other guys like you were doing the same thing...

250 times? When does your Tiger Beat subscription run out?

From Huffington Post, it looks like 3 states attorneys won a battle with craigslist: CHICAGO — Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan says that Craigslist is getting rid of its "erotic services" ads and will create a new adult category that Web site employees will review. Madigan's office said Wednesday that such existing ads on Craigslist will expire in seven days. Madigan and the attorneys general for Connecticut and Missouri met with Craigslist officials last week seeking an end to ads they contend are advertisements for illegal sexual activities. An e-mail sent to Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster was not immediately returned Wednesday morning. Craigslist came under renewed pressure to remove the ads after a medical student in Boston was charged with the April killing of a masseuse he met on the site.

From Politico: Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday he had no problem supporting an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. “I can vote for a gay nominee – we’ll just have to see,†Sessions (R-Ala.) told reporters Monday afternoon. “That’s just not the test really; the thing that I’m concerned about is high legal quality.†Sessions’ comments were the most explicit to date on the subject of whether he could support a gay nominee. Sessions, whom the GOP has tapped as their primary voice on the Supreme Court nomination, also wouldn’t say whether a nominee’s support for the controversial Roe v. Wade decision upholding abortion rights would be a disqualifying factor. “I think the whole record needs to be analyzed on how they approach the law.†Sessions’ comments came after what appeared to be contradictory statements last week on the issue of a gay nominee. The Alabama Republican told MSNBC that he didn’t think a “person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job,†while later telling Fox News that Americans “might feel uneasy about that†and it could be a “big concern.†On Monday, Sessions said his comments were not meant to be conflicting, and that the real measure of his support will come from a thorough evaluation of the nominee’s record. “I think the primary thing is that a nominee show fidelity to the law and that they not have any agendas, personal, social, religious or otherwise that would keep them for being faithful to the legal system of America,†Sessions said. “So that would be my fundamental concern.†Confirmation of Obama’s upcoming nominee is highly likely given Democrats’ large majority in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee. But Sessions is now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and his position will be critical in determining how fierce of a battle the GOP will wage over Obama’s replacement for Justice David Souter. Sessions meets Wednesday with Obama, Senate leaders and Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to discuss the vacancy. Sessions declined to say whether he had any objections to the handful of names being discussed as possible nominees. Asked Monday if Republicans would focus on a nominee’s position on gay marriage, Sessions said, “I think people would want to inquire into that because … it may reflect the degree to which they think that they are not bound by the classical meaning of the constitution that they might want to let their own personal agenda go beyond what the law says.†He added that the issue of gay marriage is being debated in state legislatures across the country – “that’s probably where it should be.†Sessions said he had no issue if Obama considered gender or ethnic diversity in his choice, but said that Obama should primarily examine whether the nominee could be valuable to the court. “This is the Supreme Court – we need a great justice,†Sessions said. “A person should be selected who could really make a contribution to that court. And it shouldn’t be seen as a political patronage job. It’s more important than that.â€

From the New Republic, Yes We Can!: A Gay Supreme Court Justice? Politico notes that two of the people whose names are being tossed around as Supreme Court possibilities are lesbians: Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, both of Stanford Law School. (For more about Karlan, see this impassioned endorsement from Bill Stuntz, who has written some terrific pieces for TNR over the years.) Obviously, putting a lesbian on the court (or a gay man, for that matter, although none appear to be under consideration) would mark a wonderful step forward for the country. But is it politically possible? The obvious, first-glance answer is that it would be a political minefield. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it would be eminently doable. And not only doable: It's even plausible to envision a scenario where it ends up helping Democrats by damaging conservatives. First, history suggests that the country is willing to accept Supreme Court nominees from minority groups even at a relatively early stage in their integration into American political life. When Louis Brandeis was nominated to the court in 1916, anti-semitism was still pervasive. When Thurgood Marshall was nominated in 1967, the country was still in the throes of the civil rights struggle. Yet both men were confirmed. More significantly, though, nominating a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this distinction was a lie. (After all, could there be any more baldly anti-gay political maneuver than bashing a Supreme Court nominee because of her sexual orientation?) Given that most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade--and turns decisively in the other direction. Of course, conservatives could try to have it both ways, and argue that they oppose a gay nominee because of gay marriage--that is, because it would bias the justice's vote should gay marriage ever come before the court. But this is a patently absurd argument--equivalent to maintaining that no women should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on abortion, or that no blacks should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on civil rights--and I think voters would be quick to dismiss it as thinly veiled bigotry. Wishful thinking? Maybe, maybe not. Of one thing I am confident: If it doesn't happen this time, it will happen soon enough. --Richard Just

More on Obama and gay rights- we got to go to the White House Easter Egg Hunt!!: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/polit...07obama.html?hp

Knowing that I am not as articulate as Adam Smith, I hope at least one of the kids is alright, as I have tickets to see Chris Pine live next month in the Geffen Playhouse production of Farragut North, also starring the old guy Chris Noth. I'll be in row 3, so I hope that the young actor is in fine shape up close and personal. Then I can say God intercourse! Jesus farting Christ! Top of penis still erupting!

[ I sure know you have posted much about other issues that have hurt other peoples feelings including mine. Yet its not as if I or others went on a rant about it. No, you just used a whole website to rant, oops, "speak" about it!

"Bodily decrepitude is wisdom; young We loved each other and were ignorant."

It's a place for the carefree lifestyle! www.medvillagewh.com

Change can happen fast! White House reiterates its commitment to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/01/2009 06:12:00 PM It's been a disturbing 24 hours. But the White House has just updated its Web site to indicate that it continues to support the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. There was some concern that the Obama administration was backing off the President's repeated promise to lift the ban after the White House Web site yesterday changed its commitment to "repeal" DADT to a promise to only "change" the policy in a "sensible way." This led many observers, including the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, to worry whether the White House was backing off of its repeated commitment to, as President Obama himself promised, "fully repeal" the DADT policy. The White House Web site has now been updated, again, and the "repeal" language is back. And while it's couched in the same terms about being done in a "sensible way," I would assume that all administration policy is implemented in a "sensible way," so this should have no bearing on whether President Obama will keep his promise to fully repeal the ban.

Oz, this just isn't our night to agree. How about Adam Smith? He already won one contest this week...

"...the libido isn't always subject to the rational mind." That's exactly right. That's why we try to educate and sometimes the libido changes too. For example, if you said that you avoided anal sex with POZ guys, that would be one thing. It wouldn't be the same as saying that you avoided any sex with POZ guys. It's a given that anal sex is the primary means of transmitting the virus, so you'd be be thinking rationally. Some would take the risk of using condoms, and still having anal sex, others wouldn't.

Is Obama pulling a Bill Clinton and backing off on his promise to repeal the gays in the military policy? Ben Smith at Politico has caught a subtle shift in the language that they are using: Backing off 'Don't Ask' Aravosis has an interesting catch: The White House has subtly shifted from supporting repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to backing "changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

Well, I am glad that we could have a discussion on it. I'll take what I can get, but Oz's change doesn't help me much. The fact that someone is in the advances stages of AIDS doesn't make them any riskier as long as you play safe. A nice jack off could be fun for both. We do get to the point where someone's bad health makes them look unattractive. I can't say what you should do then, because attraction is an individual thing and completely different from the subject at hand.