lookin

Where to, Cutie Pie?

Thanks for posting but, Lord, is it heartbreaking.

'Fascinating' is one word, for sure. It doesn't take much for the human mind to distance itself from the thought that its owner just killed a hundred thousand people. I think I found about a half-dozen rationalizations, but it sounds like any one of them would have been sufficient. 'it's war' 'it saved lives' 'we didn't have to invade Japan' 'duty' 'defend the United States' 'following orders' Not singling out this individual, as I believe that nearly all of us are capable of the same kind of rationalization and distancing from our fellow human beings. That's the scary part.

Oz, thanks for your insight and suggestions. I don't have any immediate plans to head to Thailand but you've brought me one step closer.

I've had the Harmony 890* for a couple of years, and will soon upgrade to the Harmony One with the IR extender, as I need to control devices in another room. I think these remotes are really worth it for three kinds of folks: 1. Those who have to turn on two or more pieces of equipment to do one thing, like watch a DVD on your TV and listen to the sound on your stereo. Actually, I've got two stereos in the living room for movie surround and the 890 turns on all four components and sets them to the right input. I was like a one-armed paper hanger when I was using four remotes. 2. Those who have to control equipment in another room. When I'm watching TV in bed, I have two speakers hooked up to an amplifier in the living room and the cable box is in there too. The Harmony One needs an extra $50 gizmo to do this. 3. Those who have strangers use their equipment. (You should pardon the expression. ) Or who never become completely familiar with their own equipment. (Pardon, encore. ) If you push the button for watching a DVD and things don't come on as they should, there's a "Help" button that tries different things until you tell it you're happy. It's what they call a babysitter-friendly remote. Just watching my niece smile every time she was able to finally watch a DVD without my nephew's help was worth the price at a dollar a smile. On the other hand, I have a friend who is very content without one and enjoys sitting in his TV chair looking like the Captain of the Enterprise. * Just noticed my two-year-old remote is selling for two-and-a-half times what I paid for it. Maybe I should hang on to it!

Axiom, could you, or others, give some more detail on specifically what you didn't like about such a place. I have a pretty high tolerance for imperfection, so maybe it would work for me. I also have a pretty high tolerance for saving money. This place looks like it goes for about twenty bucks a night, leaving a bit more left in the entertainment budget. Thanks.

Hell, I'll even bend a little on the 'clean' part. I really enjoy places where locals would stay. Anyone ever try anything like this?

And there is precedent.

Algorithm Makin' music In Malaga Who could ask for anything more?

He is said to be worth $270 million, much of it obtained by playing straight guys on screen and maintaining a traditional family life. If someone offered you $270 million, would you go back in the closet? Would you look for a beard? Who would it be? I'd probably look for an old-fashioned girl, who was comfortable around money and who liked to have a good time.

Sometimes a thread will leave me speechless, and this was one of those times. I must have missed this one the first time around and have just now finished kicking myself. Are there any more like these at home? So nice to see your new avatar! He seems to have nice large feet. Is it true what they say?

Brava! Bravo! Well done! I miss Stu Cotts. When he and Adam Smith started riffing, we knew we were in for a fun ride! I always learned something too. If he's only available via through old posts, it's better than nothing. Lucky, as you also have experience in finding old posts, I wonder if you'd do me the kindness of pulling up one of yours where you're sporting an avatar. Any one'll do. I know it's very hot to be putting on a face, but you've been looking a little pale lately and you always clean up so nicely!

Once the health insurance exchanges are in place, I think competition will provide an incentive to make plans more affordable. Then, there's the availability of subsidies for folks who still can't afford them. And, finally, while the public option was eliminated during the horse-trading leading up to passage, I believe it will make a comeback one day. If private insurers offer nothing but plans priced at triple the cost of Medicare, for example, there will be strong pressure to make a public plan like Medicare available to more folks. Which is what I was hoping for from the get-go. I think there's a lot more to the ACA than most folks realize at this point, and I think it could take a decade for it to play out in full. At the end of that time, I hope that we will join the rest of the developed countries who have figured out how to provide high-quality healthcare to all of their citizens. Those who say it's impossible just aren't looking around.

As posted on the other site, I'd be surprised if the law were upheld in its entirety or struck down in its entirety. But I do think that when the dust settles, we'll be closer to universal health care than we were a year ago. Perhaps that's all we can hope for and perhaps that's all Obama intended. Getting over the hurdle of universal opposition by the insurance companies, who torpedoed Clinton almost two decades ago, was, in my opinion, a major achievment by the Obama administration. I think he used the individual mandate as a carrot to bring them along. If that's struck down, and everything else is upheld, the insurance companies will have to start changing their business model to put more premium dollars toward improved health outcomes. As well they should. Here's an interesting article, out today, that discusses possible rulings and implications: Possible outcomes in pending health care law case Jun 27, 4:02 AM (ET) By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and MARK SHERMAN ​ WASHINGTON (AP) Saving its biggest case for last, the Supreme Court is expected to announce its verdict Thursday on President Barack Obama's health care law. The outcome is likely to be a factor in the presidential campaign and help define John Roberts' legacy as chief justice. But the court's ruling almost certainly will not be the last word on America's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality. A look at potential outcomes: --- Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty? A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle. The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million. Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would have to scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens. Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect likely presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court's endorsement. Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he's re-elected. The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama's law acknowledge it was only a first installment: Get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs. --- Q: On the other hand, what if the court strikes down the entire law? A: Many people would applaud, polls suggest. Taking down the law would kill a costly new federal entitlement before it has a chance to take root and develop a clamoring constituency, but that still would leave the problems of high costs, waste and millions uninsured. Some Republicans in Congress already are talking about passing anew the more popular pieces of the health law. But the major GOP alternatives to Obama's law would not cover nearly as many uninsured, and it's unclear how much of a dent they would make in costs. Some liberals say Medicare-for-all, or government-run health insurance, will emerge as the only viable answer if Obama's public-private approach fails. People with health insurance could lose some ground as well. Employers and insurance companies would have no obligation to keep providing popular new benefits such as preventive care with no copayments and coverage for young adults until age 26 on a parent's plan. Medicare recipients with high prescription drug costs could lose discounts averaging about $600. --- Q: What happens if the court strikes down the individual insurance requirement, but leaves the rest of the Affordable Care Act in place? A: Individuals would have no obligation to carry insurance, but insurers would remain bound by the law to accept applicants regardless of medical condition and limit what they charge their oldest and sickest customers. Studies suggest premiums in the individual health insurance market would jump by 10 percent to 30 percent. Experts debate whether or not that would trigger the collapse of the market for individuals and small businesses, or just make coverage even harder to afford than it is now. In any event, there would be risks to the health care system. Fewer people would sign up for coverage. The insurance mandate was primarily a means to an end, a way to create a big pool of customers and allow premiums to remain affordable. Other forms of arm-twisting could be found, including limited enrollment periods and penalties for late sign-up, but such approaches probably would require congressional cooperation. Unless there's a political deal to fix it, the complicated legislation would get more difficult to carry out. Congressional Republicans say they will keep pushing for repeal. Without the mandate, millions of uninsured low-income people still would get coverage through the law's Medicaid expansion. The problem would be the 10 million to 15 million middle-class people expected to gain private insurance under the law. They would be eligible for federal subsidies, but premiums would get more expensive. Taxes, Medicare cuts and penalties on employers not offering coverage would stay in place. --- Q: What if the court strikes down the mandate and also invalidates the parts of the law that require insurance companies to cover people regardless of medical problems and that limit what they can charge older people? A: Many fewer people would get covered, but the health insurance industry would avoid a dire financial hit. Insurers could continue screening out people with a history of medical problems - diabetes patients or cancer survivors, for example. That would prevent a sudden jump in premiums. But it would leave consumers with no assurance that they can get health insurance when they need it, which is a major problem that the law was intended to fix. Obama administration lawyers say the insurance requirement goes hand in hand with the coverage guarantee and cap on premiums, and they have asked the court to get rid of both if it finds the mandate to be unconstitutional. One scenario sends shivers through the health care industry: The Supreme Court strikes down the mandate only, and delegates other courts to determine what else stays or goes. --- Q: What happens if the court throws out only the expansion of the Medicaid program? A: That would limit the law's impact severely because roughly half of the more than 30 million people expected to gain insurance under the law would get it through the expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. But a potentially sizable number of those low-income people still might be eligible for government-subsidized private insurance under other provisions. Private coverage is more expensive to subsidize than Medicaid. States suing to overturn the federal law argue that the Medicaid expansion comes with so many strings attached it amounts to an unconstitutional power grab by Washington. The administration says the federal government will pay virtually all the cost and says the expansion is no different from ones that states have accepted in the past. --- Q: What happens if the court decides that the constitutional challenge is premature? A: The wild card, and least conclusive outcome in the case, probably also is the most unlikely, based on what justices said during oral arguments. No justice seemed inclined to take this path, which involves the court's consideration of a technical issue. The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., held that the challenge to the insurance requirement has to wait until people start paying the penalty for not purchasing insurance. The appeals court said it was bound by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which says federal courts may not hear challenges to taxes, or anything that looks like a tax, until after the taxes are paid. So if the justices have trouble coming together on any of the other options they could simply punt. The administration says it doesn't want this result. Yet such a decision would allow it to continue putting the law in place, postponing any challenge until more of the benefits are being received. On the other hand, it might give Republicans more ammunition to press for repeal in the meantime.

Love 'em!

Always surprises me how much analysis is done on food intake, and how little on energy output. When I was a young 'un, we rarely sat still, and the only heavy kid in our neighborhood had two overweight parents. Eating was a time waster and, when dinner was over, we were outside burning it off. We had one car and my father took it to work every day. If I needed to go somewhere, I walked or rode my bike. So did everybody else. My stepdad worked on a farm in the Pennsylvania Dutch country. For breakfast, they had ham, bacon, eggs, scrapple, shoe fly pie, apie cake, and sticky buns. Every day. And lunch was just as big. But they worked it all off before supper, which was a much lighter meal. I was visiting a hospital in that neck of the woods several years ago, and noticed the younger girls who were working as nurses' aides. Many of them were huge. I'd pass them waiting for the elevator and never once did I see them walk the two or three flights to the top floor. Yet the biggest displays in the local supermarkets were always potato chips, at least a half-dozen local brands, and one was made with lard. The food was just like the old days, but the exercise was almost nil. I'm not suggesting we'll go back to the days of hard physical labor, and I'll count on evolution to winnow out those who can't adjust their metabolism to balance energy intake and output. But evolution takes time. I'd bet on five generations at least until we start seeing lots of folks who can eat what they like, enjoy a sedentary lifestyle, and not be overweight. There are a few who can do that now, but I think they are a small minority. In time, I expect we'll see many more. In the meantime, I believe we're in an evolutionary transition period where we are still eating like our grandparents who worked their butts off, and yet burning a fraction of the calories they did. By the way, the potato chips back there were excellent! Especially the ones made with lard. I'll be thinking of them during my walk.

Work on the new Thessoloniki subway ground to a temporary halt today when workers found an ancient underground road dating back 1800 years. Paved in marble, the road lies atop a second road that is 500 years older and is believed to mark the route of the first Greek Gay Pride parade held in 300 BC. The Grand Marshall is shown below with his boyfriend, Anthimos the Amenable.

6'2" Marlon Teixeira, here hanging out with BFF Francisco Lachowski: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G5iC97kp158

Thanks for the vote of confidence, MsGuy, but I don't have a clue how the Google Toolbar works, other than what I just read on this page. If I'm reading it right, the user (you) has to choose to install buttons. Here's a link that tells a website owner how to build a custom button for the user to click on and install on his Google Toolbar but, again, it looks like the user has to take the initiative and choose to click on it before it's installed. Haven't yet come across anything that suggests websites are 'pushing' hot links onto unwitting users via the Toolbar, and you just may be the canary in the coal mine. If the practice becomes widespread, I can definitely see the potential for low comedy to ensue.

There were gays in Greece long before there were clerics. I think he should shut his big fat pierogi.

And the company that I worked for forty years ago is today one of the gay-friendliest companies in the U. S. But that was then and this is now, a divide that many of the younger folks among us did not experience firsthand. Not that I'm not sympathetic to the argument that we all have a calling to be pioneers and make things better for those who follow. And Harry Hay is a god. I wasn't ready though. I was still in the process of proving to myself that a gay boy such as myself could beat the straight boys on their home turf. I wasn't born knowing that, and needed to learn it. Equally important was the knowledge that being gay is only part of who I am. There were other things I believed in too and most of my efforts went in those directions. When I moved to San Francisco in the early seventies, there were a number of men who seemed to have much of their identity revolve around being gay. Had I been one of them, I expect I'd have given more to that cause. Have I shared too much? Well, my point is that we all have our stories, and our reasons for making the decisions we do. Some are complex, as others have said. So I plan to work getting my own act together and let Chace Crawford work on his. If there's a small role for me in his little production, I'd be only too happy. Well, first, you don't get around nearly enough. Second, it has been well over a year since you laid eyes on me and the intervening months have not been kind.

I heard that picture of Prince William sneaking a whiz was photoshopped. He was actually taking a dump.

Good questions, Lucky. When I was in my twenties, even though it was after Stonewall (just barely), I was happy being gay. But those responsible for deciding whether I'd be successful in climbing the corporate ladder in the Fortune-500 company I had just joined would not have been happy. No doubt I'd have been sidelined. Far from an opportunity to be a corporate trailblazer, I'd have thrown away a career I was anxious to build. I came out to family and a few close friends. But I wanted to be successful in the workplace based on what I could do, rather than who I slept with. So my choice, forty years ago, was to keep my life compartmentalized. I don't walk in Chace Crawford's shoes, or anyone else's. I don't know what his advisors are telling him about the career effect of coming out versus letting his preference remain a topic of conjecture. Only he knows that. So, personally, I'm content to let him make his own decision. If he wants my advice, he knows where to find me.

Fine by me. I'll just snuggle behind the lines with my Kashmiri sweater.

Apropos of nothing, I learned today that Pakistan does not let gays into the military, a policy which may one day bring the generals to grief. Personally, I wouldn't care to tangle with the two hijras below, and feel confident that they would be a match for any terrorist who got in their way. They would certainly know how to put a working coalition together and keep it together.