TotallyOz

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!

Heaven baby. Damm. He is hot!

Clarification: Daddyville. It is so far from Hooville that I can't even calculate. Again, we will agree to disagree.

I have great concern for his welfare. I do wish him well and when I get a chance to speak to him, I will offer him assistance in any way I can. I have met Scott and I liked him and yes, I have hired him. And, for those that give a shit, I would hire him again. I do not know what happened in this case and no one does but Scott. It could have been a set up. It could have belonged to someone else. I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is public news at this point and that is NOT what I wanted. It saddens me a great deal that the Village Voice took up the story and ran with it. I do believe that made it a newsworthy event. I fell caught in the middle and as admin it is a hard place to be. You can't just repress things that you want to repress when they are in the public domain. At the same time, I do wish this thread and others would just die. I don't think they are productive and I think that everyone that had something to say has said it. I do not believe in closing threads and locking them or deleting them. If someone has relevant things to say, please speak up. But, for those that have made their point over and over again, lets move on to more positive things. Lastly, it is pretty well known that I once owned an escort agency. I loved the job. I hated to watch boys I cared about go down the same road as Scott. It broke my heart then and it does now. When vast amounts of money are being given and life is a party it is the rare escort that is able to stay away from the scene. Scott is a nice guy. He is a good escort. Some may not hire him because of this mess. Others will. I won't let it stop me from hiring him should he go back to escorting one day. What he does in his personal life is his own business. When it affects me as a client it becomes mine. This situation won't affect my support for him, my genuine concern for him and my desire to see him rise above this situation and become an even better person. For me, allowing this thread and others makes me sick to my stomach. So, I guess I hope that I am able to also take the experience, learn from it and also become a better person. I have said my peace and now I will move on.

I must not have read this thoroughly either Lucky. Can you show me that quote? Please be specific as I am a little blond and may miss it again unless I see it clearly. I know you are not just trying to stir up shit Lucky and can show me where he warned others not to attend the gathering. Thank you in advance for your kindness.

We would certainly allow anyone who wanted to fly under the radar to opt out of the drawing. No problem at all for us and easy to do.

We are thinking of doing another contest in celebration of our new relaunch that relates to reviews. Possibly for each review submitted both the reviewer and the escort reviewed gets their name in a hat for a special prize. Any suggestions? What do you think?

Willie Nelson has tossed the satellite dish off the back of his corn-powered tour bus in favor of a little box that fuses wireless data cards from a variety of networks into a single connection. Which is to say Willie is on the net again, seeing things he may never see again. Satellite connections can be made anywhere, but they are expensive and have strict usage caps. Network data cards offer all-you-can eat broadband plans, but any given company’s — AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint — doesn’t work everywhere. The solution? Use an array of network data cards from several companies. What Nelson has done is to tie four wireless USB cards into a Mushroom Networks PortaBella 141, which makes them into a single, fast and robust connection that can power a roving or remote network. That means if Willie wants to see how well he played “Whiskey River” at Farm Aid 2009, the packets from YouTube flow through all of the cards at once. “Because of the diversity of the cards, you don’t get the patchy up and down of wireless cards,” Mushroom Networks CEO Cahit Akin said. “It smooths out the experience.” Run a single ethernet cable from the second-generation Portabella to a wireless router and you’ve got internet for an entire tour bus, construction site or outdoor concert. That means Willie’s friends Pancho and Lefty don’t have to worry about using too much bandwidth as they try to escape the police, and Willie Nelson doesn’t have bandwidth caps always on his mind if he’s listening to new music online. Willie’s a big catch for the upstart, San Diego-based company — and a heavy user. He averages 200 days a year on the road, including the just-finished Farm Aid concert. And that means his team is constantly uploading new media to his website, and keeping in touch with friends and family. And they seem happy, having ditched the satellite connection just like they ditched petroleum for bio-fuel. “We rarely lose connection even in rural areas or if one card goes down,” said David Anderson, Willie Nelson’s tour manager. Mushroom Networks makes a range of gadgets that turn many connections into a single. That’s different from load balancers which distribute users among multiple connections — but assigns each user to a given connection. The PortaBella’s advantage is that users don’t notice as one connection gets weak or slow, since their traffic is then handled by a less congested card. Most data cards now come with a 5Gb per month download cap, so bundling the cards together let’s users not worry as much about blowing through that cap. The unit weighs a bit more than a pound, fits in your palm and has a battery pack option — with about a claimed four-hour life. Mushroom Networks wouldn’t provide a price for the unit, but did say leasing options start at $50 a month. That’s just for the PortaBella, and currently wireless data cards run about $50 a month as well. That means a total cost nearing $300 a month for 20Gb of pretty fast, very mobile internet. Those who need short-term mobile internet can turn to re-sellers such as Internet Anywhere. Who else besides a traveling musician with an entourage would have need of such a thing? A small band could just use the Mifi 2200 which runs off Verizon’s wireless service. Well, companies that can’t get a wired connection, outdoor events, videographers streaming live video, and transportation services including commuter shuttles buses, ferries and passenger trains. And, hell, if it’s good enough for Willie Nelson, it’s gonna be good enough for you. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/willie-nelson-broadban/

We allow and welcome reviews from those who have had bad experiences with escorts and their career is not the same afterward. However, to link to a site that reveals someone's personal name and file case is a totally different matter and not one I am comfortable with. If the mainstream media picked up this, that would be a different story as well. But, as long it is in the gossip rags, I do not see the need to send traffic to any of them. Those that wanted to find them have already done so and those that are interested will. I won't be a part of it and it has nothing to do with protecting an escorts interest over that of a client. It has to do with privacy that we afford to everyone on this site.

Yes, I agree. Stu, please never feel bad about lecturing or debating any issue. We may not be on the same side of the argument on all cases but we always appreciate input and debate on any subject.

No way are we interested in going down that road. LOL. Out of your 5 posts, how many have been on this one subject? I'm just askin'.