TotallyOz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOhf3OvRXKg

Well, I am not Lucky but your post made me laugh over and over!

OK guys. Last call before a TY and I make a decision this weekend!

Some very interesting insights on your post. Thanks. I'm glad you don't hold grudges too long. I don't either. I have even tried to make up with Daddy over the years but he doesn't like me too much I guess. You not holding grudges is the best thing on earth for a healthy well being. However, the 3way idea you posted in another thread is a no go at this point. That is going too far in the make up department.

Thank you for bringing this up. I have met so many people that I love to talk to, travel with and spend time with that are on the forums. I first met Hooboy years ago and he was my travel buddy for a while until his death. I have not met someone that can keep up with me or vice versa since, but I keep looking. What I loved about Hoo was that he would venture to Thailand, Brazil, Canada, Amsterdam or anywhere fun led him. I have tried to emulate this over the past few years and I meet up with great guys who love the above mentioned places but very few who like them all as I do. My motto in life has always been: ---Life is here, life is now. Life is soooo short... and sex is just to delicious! Life should NOT be a journey to the grave wit the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Champagne and Strawberries in one hand, Diet Coke and Godiva Chocolate in the other, a personal bottle of Eros, A BOX OF TROJAN MAGNUMS, and a good Cuban cigar in the your pockets (ALL partially used), a wallet ALMOST empty of currency but noticeably used from the rainbow colors of THE SEVERAL bills THAT REMAIN from a multitude of countries and cards charged to the max from the joys of life, body thoroughly used up, OLD AS TIME ITSELF, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO - what a ride!--- I'll be in LA for a few months and hope to meet up with many of you out there. Then off to Brazil and then to Thailand again.

We all know that Rio can be dangerous and it is important to take advise from those of us who love going there and spending time there. I wonder how this story will affect the perception for the Olympics? I doubt none at all. But, I do hope the city has plans to keep things safe during the festivities. From CNN: Some 2,000 police officers patrolled the streets of Rio de Janeiro Sunday after a bloody confrontation between rival drug gangs and authorities that killed 14 over the weekend, including two police officers. Two suspected drug traffickers were killed and four were arrested in Sunday's operations by Rio de Janeiro's military police, the official news agency Agencia Brasil reported. But the atmosphere in general appeared calm in the slum known Morro dos Macacos in northern Rio, where the day before crossfire between two gangs left 12 dead, including two police officers who died when their helicopter was shot out of the sky. Residents had also set eight buses on fire during the clashes in an attempt to divert the attention of police. "This was truly one of the worst incidents of this type," one local resident told CNN en Español, who declined to give his name for fear of his safety. "It was like a scene from a real war. It was like the world would end, lots of bullets, lots of noise." The violence comes two weeks after Rio, Brazil's second largest city, celebrated winning the 2016 Olympic Games. The slain officers, Ednei Canavarro and Marcos Stader were buried Sunday, Agencia Brasil reported. Rio's secretary of public security, Jose Mariano Beltrame, said the helicopter was likely brought down by .30- and .50-caliber machine gunfire, the news agency said. Four other police officers onboard were injured. Beltrame on Sunday said that despite the city's crime, there is no reason for people to doubt the government's ability to host the Olympics. "What I say to the (International Olympic Committee) and the public is this: we have historic problems. But we also have projects and proposals. We have security policies both to fight and to pacify," he said. Last year, a wave of violence in Rio led to protests in December by a group called Rio de Paz. The group said 9,000 people had been slain since January 2007. Many of the deaths were caused by clashes among drug traffickers fighting for territory in Rio's slums and poor neighborhoods, said the group's president, Antonio Carlos Costa. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/10/18/brazil.drug.violence/index.html

I had him in a few 3ways and he did what was expected. One one one, he was just not for me. But, had my favorite boy who had like a 10 incher fuck him a few times and it was hot to watch.

That is called insanity. You can't let your personal stresses affect your business decisions. It is not smart and poor judgment. It must be more to the story than that.

The guy in the first photo on the right, I have been with a few times. Bad first time. Bad second. And, bad third. I guess I never learn. But, he is very sexy and his best side is now showing. His ass is simply yummy!

What a cute lad! Great performance as well. Yes, my Gaydar went off the roof!

Thanks Tomcal ! Much appreciated. I have spent most of my time on the beaches of Ipanema and little on Copa. I much prefer the ones on Ipanema. Tons of eye candy and everything is just too perfect. I would say the largest gathering is in Ipanema. Right? Have I been missing out all these years? What about Barra? Any gay beach there our outside the city that is worth visiting?

Lucky, on many occasions I agree with you and on many I disagree. But, your above statement is one I highly respect. You have posted on that board and are a large part of the success it has and the money it makes and you are right, your contributions should not be taken lightly. Nor should anyone's. Your money. Your dime. Not my business. My money. My dime. Looking for a good time. Any suggestions from LA?

As much as things change, they seem to never move forward. I do have hope that something different is on the horizon but road to hell of paved with good intentions.

True. I honestly doubt that. He owns a very successful site with paid ads and high rankings. I doubt that as well. We have seen it several times in the past and it does not seem to faze the membership there. I doubt this is a big deal to the majority of them. IMHO No surprise to anyone but for goodness sake, lets not hold back on their ability to pay for his mortgage and pay off his credit cards. jk I know Lucky will have a nice go at me for this one but I could not resist. sorry.

I have a friend looking for an apartment in Rio for a year lease. He is looking for something nice, clean, in a safe area and fully furnished and not expensive. Any suggestions?

The Stonewall Democrats have identified the following twenty-two Democratic Members of Congress voted to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill: 1. Robert Berry (AR-1) 2. Dan Boren (OK-2) 3. Bobby Bright (AL-2) 4. Travis Childers (MS-1) 5. Artur Davis (AL-7) 6. Lincoln Davis (TN-4) 7. Joe Donnelly (IN-2) 8. Chet Edwards (TX-17) 9. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) 10. Bart Gordon (TN-6) 11. Parker Griffith (AL-5) 12. Frank Kratovil (MD-1) 13. Jim Marshall (GA-8) 14. Mike McIntyre (NC-7) 15. Scott Murphy (NY-20)* 16. Collin Peterson (MN-7) 17. Mike Ross (AR-4) 18. Bobby Scott (VA-3)* 19. Heath Shuler (NC-11) 20. John Tanner (TN-8) 21. Gene Taylor (MS-4) 22. Harry Teague (NM-2) Click on the link to go directly to govtrack to find additional information on this congressman. The measure and vote referenced here, called a “motion to instruct” and offered up by House Republicans, would have instructed the conferees to remove the Matthew Shepard Act from the Defense Authorization bill. These twenty-two Democrats sided with the Republicans to remove the hate crimes provision, which would have effectively continued the decade-long gridlock over passage of the Matthew Shepard Act. It is the opinion of the board of directors of the National Stonewall Democrats Political Action Committee that Members of Congress who vote against the expansion of basic fairness and equal opportunity have not earned your vote or your financial support. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the board that such Members of Congress should not receive support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or state coordinated campaigns in their re-election bids to the U.S. House. If a representative is in your area, contact them immediately regarding their vote on this measure. Report back on this blog any significant information you find. UPDATE AND NOTES 1. Stonewall Democrats has been contacted by the office of Representative Scott Murphy, who wishes our members and supporters to know that he supports the expansion of hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation and gender identity and is a co-sponsor of both the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation. His vote on this measure was strictly procedural. 2. Representative Bobby Scott, who is a co-sponsor of ENDA, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and DOMA repeal, released the following statement in explanation of his vote to strip the hate crimes bill from the Defense Authorization issued October 6, 2009: Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Chairman of Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on the House Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding his Yea vote on the Republican Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010: “I am a supporter of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The House passed a version of the Act that I not only voted for, but spoke in favor of through committee and Floor proceedings. I also supported the similar version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed both the House and Senate last Congress, but was taken out of the military authorization bill during the Conference process. “The version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that was the subject of the Motion to Instruct Conferees today is a version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed by the Senate that I cannot support. Not only does that version contain a gratuitous death penalty, but also a superfluous mandatory minimum sentence, and what I believe to be unconstitutional infringements upon freedoms of expression and association. “I am an opponent of the death penalty as a matter of moral principle, and because death penalty administration in this country has been shown to be applied in an arbitrary manner and to be irrevocably fraught with mistake, racism, classicism, and other problems. I am also an opponent of mandatory minimum sentences, as a matter of principle. Mandatory minimum sentences have been rigorously studied and have been consistently found to distort rational sentencing principles, to be applied in a racially discriminatory manner and to violate commonsense – even when everyone agrees a mandatory sentence is inappropriate to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the mandatory sentence still has to be applied as a matter of law. “Finally, I am a strong supporter of our First Amendment freedoms, including the freedoms of belief, expression and association. By allowing evidence of belief, expression and association to be admitted to prove that a hate crime was committed, without requiring that the belief, expression or association be shown to have a specific connection to the offense charged, is an impermissible infringement upon those freedoms, I believe. “For these reasons, I voted for the motion to remove the version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, considered today.” http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?p=6042

The Obama administration, which would seem to have its hands full with a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, opened up a third front last week, this time with Fox News. Until this point, the conflict had been mostly a one-sided affair, with Fox News hosts promoting tax day “tea parties” that focused protest on the new president, and more recently bringing down the presidential adviser Van Jones through rugged coverage that caught the administration, and other news organizations, off guard. During the health care debate, Fox News has put a megaphone to opponents, some of whom have advanced far-fetched theories about the impact of reform. And even farther out on the edge, the network’s most visible star of the moment, Glenn Beck, has said the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Administration officials seemed to have decided that they had had enough. “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” Ah, but pretending has traditionally been a valuable part of the presidential playbook. Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence. Not that they haven’t tried. In his second Inaugural Address, Ulysses S. Grant said he had “been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history.” President William McKinley labeled a gathering of the press a “congress of inventors,” and President Franklin D. Roosevelt assigned less favored press members to his “Dunce Club.” Sometimes the strategy worked — or caused no lasting damage. McKinley, like Grant, was elected to a second term. Roosevelt also won a third and fourth. As Americans turned to TV for news, enmity from presidents soon followed. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said “self-appointed analysts” at the Big Three networks exhibited undisguised “hostility” toward President Richard M. Nixon, subjecting his speeches to “instant analysis and querulous criticism.” Later, in the dispute with The Times over the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, accused the newspaper of treason. Neither of the Bush presidents had a particularly cozy relationship with the press. George H.W. Bush finished the campaign in 1992 with a bumper sticker that suggested, “Annoy the Media. Vote Bush.” And George W. Bush, in the words of ABC’s Mark Halperin, viewed “the media as a special interest rather than as guardians of the public interest.” Bill Clinton, too, distrusted the press, as did others in his administration. When Vincent Foster, Mr. Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, committed suicide in 1993, he left behind a note accusing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page of lying. Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.” Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party.” The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. But Fox News, as many have pointed out, is not in the access business. They are in the agitation business. And the administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight. Tactics aside, something more fundamental is at risk. Even the president’s most avid critics admit he exudes a certain cool confidence. The public impression of him is that if anyone were to, say, talk trash on the basketball court with Mr. Obama, he would not find much space for rent in Mr. Obama’s head. Mr. Obama has also shown a consistent ability to disarm or at least engage his critics. When he eventually sat for an interview with the Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly two months before the election, it made for great television. But for the time being, détente seems very far away and the gap seems to be widening. On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.” People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue. The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html

I for one would be be thrilled to get to travel there legally! Is there a list somewhere to go for Humanitarian reasons? WASHINGTON -- A powerful campaign to allow all Americans to travel to Cuba is rumbling through Congress, with both backers and opponents predicting eventual victory and a Cuban-American senator promising a key vote against the effort. Approval of the measures would have a profound impact on U.S.-Cuba relations, unleashing an estimated one million American tourists to visit the island and undermining White House control of policy toward Havana. ``There would be an explosion of contacts between Americans and Cubans . . . that would almost overshadow what the two governments are doing,'' said Phil Peters, a Cuba expert with the Lexington Institute think tank in suburban Washington. Cuban officials have told recent U.S. visitors that while President Barack Obama's policy changes so far have been too timid to require a Havana reply, ending the U.S. travel ban would be significant enough to require some sort of Havana concession. Many Cuba-watchers on Capitol Hill say the effort is likely to fail. But even opponents of the free-travel bills in the House and Senate admit the campaign for approval is powerful. ``I have never seen a stronger effort,'' said Mauricio Claver-Carone of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy political action committee. Backing the change has been the U.S. travel industry -- Orbitz says it has 100,000 signatures on a petition -- and dozens of newspaper editorials, large agricultural companies, former Secretary of State George Shultz, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and groups that traditionally oppose U.S. sanctions on the island. ``Our goals should be to get rid of the travel ban in the next six months,'' Richardson said Friday during a speech to the National Democratic Network in Washington. ``This is a step in the right direction,'' Shultz declared last month. Polls show 60-70 percent of all Americans favor lifting the travel restrictions, and one House bill championed by Massachusetts Democrat Bill Delahunt has gathered 180 sponsors -- 38 short of the 218 votes required for passage. Obama ended all restrictions on Cuban-Americans' travel to the island on Sept. 3. But other U.S. citizens and residents can travel only under special permits for groups such as churches, academics and business -- not for tourism. That was allowed, however, from 1977 to 1982 under former President Jimmy Carter's efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. Most of the public attention has been focused on the House bill backed by Delahunt and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif. Farr, noting that U.S agricultural sales to Cuba are allowed but not tourism, has repeated several variations of the line that ``We can send American potatoes to Cuba, but not American people.'' But a lesser-known version has a better chance of passing because it also eases restrictions on U.S. agricultural and medical sales to Cuba, in hopes of gathering support from those lobbies, said a Senate Republican staffer monitoring the progress of the travel bills. The main Senate version of the measure -- with 25 co-sponsors from both parties at last count -- is being championed by Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Michael Enzi, R-Wyo. and Richard Lugar, R-Ind. But backers of the changes say the bills have not moved forward through the congressional maze so far because of the lack of active support from the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership in both chambers. ``The Obama people are showing timidity. They are sitting on their hands,'' said a Senate aide whose Democratic boss favors lifting all travel restrictions. He asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue. Administration officials say lifting all travel restrictions would be too drastic and perhaps chaotic, and the the president prefers a more measured warming of relations. They stop short of saying whether Obama would sign or veto the bill if passed by Congress. ``At the end of the day this is a leadership issue,'' said the Senate Republican aide, who also asked for anonymity. ``Do the Democrats have the will to bring this up [for a vote] with all the other issues -- healthcare, Afghanistan, etc.'' Most of Washington's Cuba watchers agree the full Congress is probably going to pass some bills easing Cuba sanctions, most likely one re-defining the requirement that Havana pay ``cash in advance'' for U.S. food purchases. The change would allow Cuba to pay when the shipments reach Havana, not before they leave U.S. ports as now required. But the future of the ``Free Travel to Cuba'' initiatives is far more uncertain, with most of those monitoring the struggle saying that some version will likely pass the House, but all will almost certainly die in the Senate. Delahunt ``has a pretty impressive list of sponsors. That bill looks good in the House,'' said a former Bush administration Cuba expert. ``Delahunt will pass the House,'' added an Obama administration official. Both asked for anonymity so they could speak frankly about the topic. But most supporters as well as opponents say the travel measures are unlikely to pass the Senate, where the Democrats have a smaller majority and the bills face stiff opposition from Bob Menendez, a powerful Cuban American Democrat from New Jersey and Florida's Bill Nelson, a Democrat, and George LeMieux, a Republican. Menendez and Nelson have strongly opposed easing the ban on U.S. tourism. LeMieux, who replaced Sen. Mel Martinez, is expected to also oppose easing the travel restrictions. ``This is a battle of perceptions. The pro-travel groups are claiming they will win, in the hope of creating the sense of movement and victory,'' said Claver-Carone. ``But in the end, the Senate will be tough, if not impossible.''

LOS ANGELES — There are more marijuana stores here than public schools. Signs emblazoned with cannabis plants or green crosses sit next to dry cleaners, gas stations and restaurants. The dispensaries range from Hollywood-day-spa fabulous to shoddy-looking storefronts with hand-painted billboards. Absolute Herbal Pain Solutions, Grateful Meds, Farmacopeia Organica. Cannabis advocates claim that more than 800 dispensaries have sprouted here since 2002; some law enforcement officials say it is closer to 1,000. Whatever the real number, everyone agrees it is too high. And so this, too, is taken for granted: Crackdowns on cannabis clubs will soon come in this city, which has more dispensaries than any other. For the first time, law enforcement officials in Los Angeles have vowed to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries that turn a profit, with police officials saying they expect to conduct raids. Their efforts are widely seen as a campaign to sway the City Council into adopting strict regulations after two years of debate. It appears to be working. Carmen A. Trutanich, the newly elected city attorney, recently persuaded the Council to put aside a proposed ordinance negotiated with medical marijuana supporters for one drafted by his office. The new proposal calls for dispensaries to have renewable permits, submit to criminal record checks, register the names of members with the police and operate on a nonprofit basis. If enacted, it is likely to result in the closing of hundreds of marijuana dispensaries. Mr. Trutanich argued that state law permits the exchange of marijuana between growers and patients on a nonprofit and noncash basis only. Marijuana advocates say that interpretation would regulate dispensaries out of existence and thwart the will of voters who approved medical cannabis in 1996. Whatever happens here will be closely watched by law enforcement officials and marijuana advocates across the country who are threading their way through federal laws that still treat marijuana as an illegal drug and state laws that are increasingly allowing medicinal use. Thirteen states have laws supporting medical marijuana, and others are considering new legislation. No state has gone further than California, often described by drug enforcement agents as a “source nation” because of the vast quantities of marijuana grown here. And no city in the state has gone further than Los Angeles. This has alarmed local officials, who say that dispensary owners here took unfair advantage of vague state laws intended to create exceptions to marijuana prohibitions for a limited number of ill people. “About 100 percent of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally,” said Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles County district attorney, who is up for re-election next year. “The time is right to deal with this problem.” Mr. Cooley, speaking last week at a training luncheon for regional narcotics officers titled “The Eradication of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County,” said that state law did not allow dispensaries to be for-profit enterprises. Mr. Trutanich, the city attorney, went further, saying dispensaries were prohibited from accepting cash even to reimburse growers for labor and supplies. He said that a recent California Supreme Court decision, People v. Mentch, banned all over-the-counter sales of marijuana; other officials and marijuana advocates disagree. So far, prosecutions of marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles have been limited to about a dozen in the last year, said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cooley. But Police Department officials said they were expecting to be called on soon to raid collectives. “I don’t think this is a law that we’ll have to enforce 800 times,” said one police official, who declined to speak on the record before the marijuana ordinance was completed. “This is just like anything else. You don’t have to arrest everyone who is speeding to make people slow down.” For the rest of the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/18enforce.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Thanks. Looking forward to meeting up again. If we have a get together, where could we have it at with no more Numbers?

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- An all-male college in Atlanta, Georgia, has banned the wearing of women's clothes, makeup, high heels and purses as part of a new crackdown on what the institution calls inappropriate attire. William Bynum says he discussed the new dress-wearing ban policy with Morehouse's campus gay organization. No dress-wearing is part of a larger dress code launched this week that Morehouse College is calling its "Appropriate Attire Policy." The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus. However, it is the ban on cross-dressing that has brought national attention to the small historically African-American college. The dress-wearing ban is aimed at a small part of the private college's 2,700-member student body, said Dr. William Bynum, vice president for Student Services. "We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men," he said. Before the school released the policy, Bynum said, he met with Morehouse Safe Space, the campus' gay organization. "We talked about it and then they took a vote," he said. "Of the 27 people in the room, only three were against it." There has been a positive response along with some criticism throughout the campus, he said. Senior Devon Watson said he disagrees with parts of the new policy, especially those that tell students what they should wear in free time outside of the classroom. "I feel that there will be a lot of resentment and backlash," Watson said. "It infringes on the student's freedom of expression. I matriculated successfully for three-and-half years dressing so how is this a problem?" Senior Tyrone McGowan said he has mixed feelings about parts of the policy. "But I have been inspired by the conversation it has created," he said. "We have to find a way to create diverse leaders from this college. I don't want this to place all of us in one box." Those breaking the policy will not be allowed to go to class unless they change. Chronic dress-code offenders could be suspended from the college. Bynum said the policy comes from the vision of the college's president, who wants the institution to create leaders like notable graduates Martin Luther King Jr., actor Samuel Jackson and film director Spike Lee. Senior Cameron Titus applauds the change. "The policy is just saying that you have to show more respect in how you dress and there are things that are just not acceptable at Morehouse," Titus said. "We have a legacy that we are trying to uphold." http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/college.dress.code/index.html

I am headed to LA for a bit. I know Numbers closed. Anything else out there? Other places close to LA? The beach areas?

We found spots offering good health care, culture and affordability. Forbes cannot promise retirees "paradise on $30 a day." Quite the opposite. We promise seniors wishing to move out of the U.S. that they will not find paradise anywhere. Each country is unique--with assets and liabilities--and the key to successful retirement as an ex-pat is carefully matching your own personal priorities and finances to the country that has caught your eye. To help matters along, Forbes has compiled its own list of the 10 best retirement havens, based on a wide variety of criteria ranging from safety to retiree-friendly visa requirements to decent medical care. The countries on our hit list: Austria, Thailand, Italy, Panama, Ireland, Australia, France, Malaysia, Spain and Canada. No place is perfect. Some countries rank high in one area but lower in others. Australia is by one well-regarded rating, the Country Brand Index, the most livable place in the world. (For the Country Brand and other rankings, see "Retire At Home Or Abroad?")But if you plan to return to the U.S. frequently, Australia makes for a long slog. Canada is No. 2 in the Country Brand ratings and certainly convenient for Americans, but its harsh winters are well-known. Italy scores high on quality of life, medical care, and even cost of living and climate for retirees residing in the Southern parts of the country. But its complicated taxes and bureaucracy require patience. So, the key to any decision: Know yourself and do your homework. For the full article: http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/15/ten-best-retirement-havens-personal-finance-retire-abroad.html

LOL. He must have been a stunner to have captivated you so much!