TotallyOz

Anyone see the movie American Gun? It has just been offered on Itunes for Download and it has a great cast. Donald Sutherland Forest Whitaker Marcia Gay Harden Chris Marquette

The last election, I had friends who were very supportive of Dennis Kucinich. They were in NYC and a group of artist, models, escorts, etc. They were the most passionate group I had met about any candidate. They even stripped and made a photo with Kucinich bumper stickers on their backs. I sent it off to a few thousand people and they said that it spread from there. I understood their passion when I watched the guy speak. Perhaps more than most candidates, I do feel that he is honest and a straight talker. I am not sure he is a viable candidate. However, watch the link below and you will see why so many are drawn to him.

>If anything, this adminsitration will probably be remembered >best for assembling the Roberts Supreme Court, which has the >potential to be the most influential in the area of detainee >rights this century. I agree with you. I think the Court's makeup will have the most lasting effect on generations to come. But, I also think that the legacy of the Court will reflect poorly on the history of Bush. I said years ago that the last election was really about who is going to get to appoint the new justices to the Court. Unfortunately, most Americans do not see this as important enough to cast the right ballot.

I think it will be very interesting how history portrays this president and vice president. My main objection, other than my liberties being deprived over the years in office of these two guys, is that as a traveler around the world, I am ashamed to say I am American. Not only because of the reaction by others but honestly because of the possibility of harm from others. It was never like this 10 years ago. When I traveled, everyone opened their arms to Americans. Now, many people who once loved us hate us. I blame this not only on the guys in office but the entire government. I hope to see change but I don't see it soon and I am afraid that the repercussions of this administration will carry long after we are all gone.

Resolved, that Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that these articles of impeachment be submitted to the American people GQ, March 2007 When the Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to be sure that the president, vice president, and other ranking officials could be evicted more easily than the British monarchy. To ensure that the process would be swift and certain, they made it simple: Only two conditions must be met. First, a majority of the House of Representatives must agree on a set of charges; then, two-thirds of the Senate must agree to convict. After that, there is no legal wrangling, no appeal to a higher authority, no reversal on technical grounds. There is not even a limit on what the charges may be. As the Constitution describes it, the cause may be “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but even these were left deliberately vague; as Gerald Ford once pointed out while still serving in the House of Representatives, the only real definition of an “impeachable offense” is “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” To the credit of this nation, despite the relative ease of impeachment, only seventeen officials have sunk to such ignominious depths that the process has been invoked. The reasons for impeachment have ranged from the outrageous to the banal: from putting political enemies in jail (Judge James H. Peck, 1830) to cheating on taxes (Judge Harry E. Claiborne, 1986); from being rude to Congress (“unmindful of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches,” President Andrew Johnson, 1868) to being a drunkard (“a man of loose morals and intemperate habits,” Judge John Pickering, 1803). One president was even impeached for having the good taste to keep his sex life private (concealing “the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee,” President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998). In the case of George W. Bush, there may be any number of reasons not to add an eighteenth name to the list. These range from the moderate (that two consecutive presidential impeachments would do more harm than good to the nation) to the provocative (that while Bush has been wrong about a staggering number of issues, he is too hapless to be held accountable for it) to the pragmatic (that even if Bush were impeached, we would still be stuck with Vice President Cheney). There is even, for those inclined to such things, an argument by design: that the president is the president, and therefore God designed it that way. But none of these apply to Vice President Cheney, and not only because it was Cheney (and not God, or George W. Bush, or anybody else) who selected himself as vice president back in 2000. With Cheney, there are also no lingering questions about capacity, motive, or malice. Over the past six years, as the country has spiraled into military misadventure, fiscal madness, and environmental meltdown, the vice president has not merely been wrong about the issues; he has been duplicitous, deceitful, and deliberately destructive to the American democracy. These things can no longer be denied by rational minds: That in the buildup to war in Iraq, the vice president, lacking confidence in the true casus belli, conspired to invent additional ones, misrepresenting the available intelligence, crafting new “intelligence,” and then spreading these falsehoods to the public, perverting the democratic process that he is sworn to uphold. That as the war devolved into occupation, the vice president again sabotaged the democratic system, developing back channels into the Coalition Provisional Authority, a body not under his purview, to remove some of the most effective staff and replace them with his own loyal supplicants—undercutting America’s best effort at war in order to expand his own power. That in his domestic capacity, the vice president has been equally reckless with the trust of his office, converting the vice presidency into a de facto prime ministership, conducting secret meetings with secret policy boards to determine national policy and then refusing to share the details of those meetings with the other branches of government. Finally, that the vice president has repeatedly promoted the interests of a corporation, Halliburton, over the interests of the nation, causing untold harm to American economic, military, and public health. For these and other offenses against the nation, Vice President Cheney, clearly, is guilty of crimes against the state. Herewith, in the absence of action for the past six years by a timid Republican Congress and a refusal to act by the new Democratic leadership, we, the Fourth Estate, take the mantle of indictment unto ourselves and present these Articles of Impeachment, to be adopted by the United States House of Representatives and voted upon by the United States Senate, at their earliest possible leisure: Resolved That Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; that the evidence hereinafter set out sustains six articles of impeachment justifying immediate removal from office; that said articles shall be adopted by the House of Representatives; and that the same shall be endorsed by the Senate, to wit: ARTICLE I In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately obstructed the nation’s intelligence-gathering capacity, in that: (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president endeavored to bypass the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as the nation’s principal filter of raw intelligence, directing subordinates within the agency to “stovepipe” raw intelligence directly to his office. (2) As a result of this policy, the vice president became privy to unanalyzed, unverified data that should not have been available to him, including documents that seemed to indicate that Saddam Hussein may have attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger in February 1999. (3) Relying on these documents, and ignoring the CIA’s assessment that they were most likely fabrications, the vice president proceeded to publicize the Niger documents and encouraged the president to refer to them in his 2003 State of the Union address, deliberately obstructing the role of the CIA and promoting known forgeries to bolster his case for war. (4) At the same time, acting personally and through his subordinates, the vice president conspired with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to create a substitute intelligence agency within the Pentagon, known as the Office of Special Plans, with instructions to contradict unfavorable information emerging from the CIA. (5) Under this mandate, the Office of Special Plans sought to undermine the authority legally vested in the CIA, cultivating intelligence sources known to be discredited and embarking on extralegal “missions” to Iraq without consulting the nation’s legitimate intelligence services. (6) In these distortions of the nation’s intelligence-gathering process, the vice president, acting personally and through subordinates, has obstructed the democratic institutions of the nation and undermined the rule of law. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE II Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has personally deceived the American people, in that: (1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and thereafter, the vice president became aware that no certain evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a fact articulated in several official documents, including: (a) A report by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluding that “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has—or will—establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” ( A National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation’s intelligence agencies, admitting to “little speci?c information” about chemical weapons in Iraq. © A later section of the same NIE, admitting “low confidence” that Saddam Hussein “would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland,” and equally “low confidence” that he would “share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa’ida.” (d) An addendum by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asserting that Hussein’s quest for yellowcake uranium in Africa was “highly dubious” and that his acquisition of certain machine parts, considered by some to be evidence of a nuclear program, were “not clearly linked to a nuclear end use.” (e) A report by the United States Department of Energy, stating that the machinery in question was “poorly suited” for nuclear use. (2) Despite these questions and uncertainties, and having full awareness of them, the vice president nevertheless proceeded to misrepresent the facts in his public statements, claiming that there was no doubt about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and that a full-scale nuclear program was known to exist, including: (a) March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” ( March 19, 2002: “We know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.” © March 24, 2002: “He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.” (d) May 19, 2002: “We know he’s got chemical and biological…we know he’s working on nuclear.” (e) August 26, 2002: “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons… Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” (f) March 16, 2003: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (3) At the same time, despite overwhelming skepticism within the government of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda—resulting in the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that “no credible evidence” for such a link existed, and the CIA’s determination that Hussein “did not have a relationship” with Al Qaeda—the vice president continued to insist that the relationship had been confirmed, including: (a) December 2, 2002: “His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.” ( January 30, 2003: “His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.” © March 16, 2003: “We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.” (d) September 14, 2003: “We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons.” (e) October 10, 2003: “He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda—providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.” (f) January 9, 2004: “Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services…have worked together on a number of occasions.” (g) January 22, 2004: “There’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government” (h) June 18, 2004: “There clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.” (4) Through all of these misrepresentations, the vice president knowingly skewed the public’s perception of reality, clouded the nation’s ability to weigh evidence, and willfully disrupted the function of American democracy. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE III In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately embraced and sheltered a known criminal, to the great detriment of American policy, in that: (1) During the months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president, acting personally and through his subordinates, granted special access to the Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, relying on Chalabi for intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, despite an outstanding warrant for Chalabi’s arrest on charges of bank fraud in the nation of Jordan, grave concerns from the CIA about Chalabi’s credibility, and a 2002 British assessment that Chalabi was “a convicted fraudster.” (2) As the initial stage of the war concluded and Chalabi’s claims proved false, the vice president nevertheless continued privately to champion Chalabi as a leader for the new Iraqi government, ignoring a litany of troubling accusations and events, including: (a) May 19, 2004: The Department of Defense discontinues monthly payments to Chalabi, pending charges of fraud. ( May 20, 2004: U.S. troops, along with Iraqi forces, storm Chalabi’s home, seizing documents and computers for a criminal probe. © June 2004: The New York Times reports that Chalabi has disclosed U.S. secrets to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (3) When an employee of the Coalition Provisional Authority named Thomas Warrick voiced concerns about Chalabi to his superiors, the vice president intervened to demand that Warrick be fired, causing Warrick’s unique contributions to the occupation—including a series of prescient written warnings about the rise of insurgency—to be lost, and the nation’s ability to function at war compromised. (4) As late as November 2005, the vice president continued to offer public support and safe harbor to Chalabi, inviting him to visit the White House and providing personal welcome to a known criminal. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE IV In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people, in that: (1) In September 2003, the vice president claimed to have “severed all my ties with the company” and to have “no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind,” where in truth he did, at that time, continue to earn more than $150,000 per year in delayed compensation from Halliburton, as well as a portfolio in excess of 230,000 stock options of the company, worth more than $10 million. (2) Bolstered by this economic incentive to promote the interests of Halliburton, the vice president did choose to remain silent as the company was exposed in a series of financial scandals at the expense of the American people, including: (a) February 2002: Halliburton is forced to pay $2 million after being charged by the Justice Department for fraud committed against the Pentagon during the vice president’s tenure as CEO. ( May 2002: The company is investigated by the SEC for fraudulent accounting practices and inflation of its stock price during the vice president’s tenure as CEO. © March 2003: The company is investigated by a congressional committee for receiving favorable contracts from the Pentagon, outside normal review processes. (d) May 2003: The company admits to having bribed a Nigerian official with millions of dollars in exchange for tax exemptions. (e) December 2003: The company is found by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, a unit of the Pentagon, to have overcharged and defrauded the government of more than $100 million. (f) January 2004: The company admits that its employees have accepted $6 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti company in exchange for a portion of U.S. government contracts. (3) Through his silence on these and other scandals involving his former employer and source of several million dollars in assets, the vice president exhibited not only a failure of leadership but a lack of integrity that has tarnished the office of the vice president. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE V Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has granted improper and unlawful influence over national policy to an anonymous cabal of corporate lobbyists, in that: (1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy. (2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. ARTICLE VI In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: (1) On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the vice president did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. (2) In September 2002, and prior thereto, the vice president did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group. (3) In both of these cases, the requested names and documenting papers were deemed necessary to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to the vice president’s reliance on special interests and corporate lobbyists in the formation of national policy, and the release of said papers was ordered by the United States District Court and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals. (4) In refusing to produce said names, transcripts, and papers, and by continuing to keep the deliberations of the National Energy Policy Development Group secret, the vice president, substituting his judgment for the authority of the federal courts and ignoring the doctrine of congressional oversight, did assume to the office of the vice president authority, functions, and judgments forbidden by the United States Constitution. In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. Wil S. Hylton is a GQ correspondent.

He has given follow up statements to CBS News down in Florida that he still hates gays. http://cbs4.com/local/local_story_045205258.html

> you just have to look >realistically at your results and how big the file SHOULD be. My goodness Scott, I keep telling you it is not the size that is important it is what you do with it.

I have heard it was easy to pick up soldiers in Russia. However, it did not cross my mind this this was a forced organized system. http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickabi...sex.torture.cnn

This has been a great discussion but the thread is way too long. I am closing it. Please feel free to start a new one with additional information. Thanks. Oz

My goodness. He can eat my dog in one bite. Handsome dog Barry!

I am not sure what it is about Bad Boys but I have always fallen in love with them. If given a choice between 2 equally attractive guys and one is sweet and kind and the other one has a street Bad Boy edge to him, the Bad Boy wins out every time. My current longest boyfriend in Thailand is over 3 years. I met him when I was sitting in an outside café and he walks out with his girlfriend and they were fighting. They were going at it pretty bad when she says was going to kill him. He pulls a gun out of his pants and gives it to her. He holds up his hands and says, “You want to kill me, go ahead, kill me.” I looked at him, and said, “that is my new boyfriend.” He came home with me that night and has been with me ever since. He still has that edge. He still has the bad boy in him and it is that image that simply melts my heart when I see him. I did break up with him once. I found out all my boyfriends were doing some drugs. I sent them all packing. I left the country to return a few months later. All of them were back to working in the bars except the Bad Boy. He stayed in school and kept up with his classes. I wondered what he was doing for money as I knew he wasn't finished with school yet. He never called me or approached me and asked for anything. Every other boy did. When I finally had time to sit with him for a dinner I ask him what he has been doing. He said he was selling drugs to make it. I asked why he didn't start to work in a bar and make better money and less danger. He said, "I knew you would never take me back if I did that." He was right. And, to this day, he reads me better than anyone else. Anyone else into Bad Boys? Why? Why not?

I know we get a bum rap at time. Where are all those gay men who offered up great books last week. Why are they never interviewed? http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/117095...ry_in_the_World

Here is my baby. Anyone else got one to share? http://www.maleescortreview.com/dcscript/user_files/1.jpg

I agree with you KY. But, do you think this is atypical of sports athletes? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/bask...ex.html?cnn=yes NEW YORK (AP) -- Former NBA center John Amaechi, who disclosed last week he's gay, said anti-gay comments by another retired player "demonstrate the need to continue the conversation." Retired Miami Heat guard Tim Hardaway said on a radio show Wednesday that he hates gay people, then later apologized for his remarks. "I don't need Tim's comments to realize there's a problem," Amaechi told The Associated Press in a phone interview Thursday. "People said that I should just shut up and go away -- now they have to rethink that." Hardaway's comments were sparked by Amaechi's disclosure he's gay. "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people," Hardaway said while a guest on Sports Talk 790 The Ticket in Miami. "I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." The host asked Hardaway how he would interact with a gay teammate. "First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team. And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that is right. I don't think he should be in the locker room while we are in the locker room." If he did find out that a teammate was gay, Hardaway said he would ask for the player to be removed from the team. "Something has to give," Hardaway said. "If you have 12 other ballplayers in your locker room that's upset and can't concentrate and always worried about him in the locker room or on the court or whatever, it's going to be hard for your teammates to win and accept him as a teammate." Amaechi also detailed his life, in his autobiography Man in the Middle, which was released Wednesday. He hoped his coming out would be a catalyst for intelligent discourse. "His words pollute the atmosphere," Amaechi said. "It creates an atmosphere that allows young gays and lesbians to be harassed in school, creates an atmosphere where in 33 states you can lose your job, and where anti-gay and lesbian issues are used for political gain. It's an atmosphere that hurts all of us, not just gay people." Hardaway later apologized for the remarks during a telephone interview with Fox affiliate WSVN in Miami. "Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake." Hardaway has reportedly been removed from further league-related appearances. "It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity between his views and ours," NBA commissioner David Stern said in a statement to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "Famously, they're saying in 2007 that homophobia is not an issue," Amaechi said. "While [Hardaway] is not a representative of the NBA or of straight men, there's no point pretending it's not an opinion that is out there."

>The Cold War is back I agree with you and with Russia's vast reservers of Oil, it will be a different game this time.

I was thrilled for them. I have always enjoyed them but worried all that controversy was going to hurt them. Thankfully, it didn't.

When I was younger, I read the Tales of the City. I remember sneaking to bed each night and reading them when my family was asleep as I didn’t want to be caught with the books. I have no idea where I even got them or found them. There was no google back then and I think one of the covers appealed to me and I purchased the book and was instantly addicted. After that, I had always dreamed of living in San Francisco and having a group of gay men as close to me as that group was. The other book that I could not put down was Maurice. I just loved it from cover to cover and must have read it 10 times. I do remember that my English teach had mentioned it in class and there were snickers about a gay book. That was one of the few moments that she really had my attention all year. What got you reading when you were younger? What is your favorite modern gay books?

>If you really want a great young gay love story that will take >you about as long to read as it will to interpret its gaelic >prose, check out At Swim Two Boys I haven't read it but James Joyce is my favorite author and many critics compared this to him. I have ordered it and can't wait to read it. Thanks.

I am much more of a day person that a night guy so I don't really think being a vampire would work for me. I was once married to one and loved it. However, my favorite character was Marius. Have you read any of Rice's son's books? I read the first one and enjoyed it.

No message

An old law school buddy of mine was from the deep south. He was black, massive, sexy and former military. He was also queer as a three dollar bill. Anyway, growing up his father was a highly sought after exec. He would get offers from many companies. When they approached him his response to them was always, "when you get your money right, we'll talk." I think many escorts take the same approach. Why waste time when the money is not right? Get the money right and the talks will begin.

By THOM SHANKER and MARK LANDLER Published: February 11, 2007 MUNICH, Feb. 10 — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia accused the United States on Saturday of provoking a new nuclear arms race by developing ballistic missile defenses, undermining international institutions and making the Middle East more unstable through its clumsy handling of the Iraq war. In an address to an international security conference, Mr. Putin dropped all diplomatic gloss to recite a long list of complaints about American domination of global affairs, including many of the themes that have strained relations between the Kremlin and the United States during his seven-year administration. Among them were the expansion of NATO into the Baltics and the perception in Russia that the West has supported groups that have toppled other governments in Moscow’s former sphere of influence. “The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance,” Mr. Putin said. “We have the right to ask, ‘Against whom is this expansion directed?’ ” He said the United States had turned the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sends monitors to elections in the former Soviet sphere, “into a vulgar instrument of ensuring the foreign policy interests of one country.” The comments were the sternest yet from Mr. Putin, who has long bristled over criticism from the United States and its European allies as he and his cadre of former Soviet intelligence officials have consolidated their hold on Russia’s government, energy reserves and arms-manufacturing and trading complexes. Rubble from the Berlin Wall was “hauled away as souvenirs” to countries that praise openness and personal freedom, he said, but “now there are attempts to impose new dividing lines and rules, maybe virtual, but still dividing our mutual continent.” The world, he said, is now unipolar: “One single center of power. One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign.” With the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and a Congressional delegation sitting stone-faced, Mr. Putin warned that the power amassed by any nation that assumes this ultimate global role “destroys it from within. “It has nothing in common with democracy, of course,” he added. “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations — military force.” “Primarily the United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every area,” said Mr. Putin, who increasingly has tried to re-establish Russia’s once broad Soviet-era influence, using Russia’s natural resources as leverage and defending nations at odds with the United States, including Iran. American military actions, which he termed “unilateral” and “illegitimate,” also “have not been able to resolve any matters at all,” and, he said, have created only more instability and danger. “They bring us to the abyss of one conflict after another,” he said. “Political solutions are becoming impossible.” The comments irritated some European leaders and prompted sharp criticism from the Americans in attendance. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican widely expected to make a bid for the White House, made a rebuttal that began, “In today’s multipolar world, there is no place for needless confrontation.” He said that the United States won the cold war in partnership with powerful nations of Western Europe, and that “there are power centers on every continent today.” Mr. McCain then hit back at Mr. Putin more directly. “Will Russia’s autocratic turn become more pronounced, its foreign policy more opposed to the principles of the Western democracies and its energy policy used as a tool of intimidation?” he asked. “Moscow must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions, at home and abroad, conflict fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies.” In Washington, Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said in a statement: “We are surprised and disappointed with President Putin’s comments. His accusations are wrong. We expect to continue cooperation with Russia in areas important to the international community such as counterterrorism and reducing the spread and threat of weapons of mass destruction.” Russia has also faced criticism from the United States and other Western countries that believe it has used energy reserves and transport pipelines to reward friendly countries and to punish those seeking to distance themselves from Kremlin control. Some analysts saw the tone of the speech as evidence of how much oil and mineral revenues have strengthened Mr. Putin. The occasion of the speech was the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy — an event begun deep in the cold war, when Germany was divided and hundreds of thousands of American troops were stationed in Western Europe as a bulwark against Warsaw Pact forces. Mr. Putin began with an apology for the tough talk to come. But during a lively question and answer period full of challenges and rebukes, the Russian president indicated that he relished provoking the international audience of legislators, government leaders, political analysts and human rights advocates. “I love it,” Mr. Putin said as he reviewed a long list of questions. He has long enjoyed high and durable public approval ratings at home, in part for standing up to the West and for pursuing an assertive foreign policy with former Soviet states. He did offer at least two significant and conciliatory statements to the United States. President Bush “is a decent man, and one can do business with him,” he said. From their meetings and discussions, Mr. Putin said, he has heard the American president say, “I assume Russia and the United States will never be enemies, and I agree.” And while Mr. Putin denied that Russia had assisted the Iranian military with significant arms transfers, he also criticized the government in Tehran for not cooperating more with the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency or responding to questions about its nuclear program. Other American lawmakers offered measured criticism afterward. “He’s done more to bring Europe and the U.S. together than any single event in the last several years,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, described the speech as “confrontational,” saying, “some of the rhetoric takes us back to the cold war.” Iran’s top nuclear official, Ali Larijani, listened impassively from the back of the room. His attendance had become a sideshow in itself. After accepting an invitation to speak Sunday, he canceled, citing health reasons, after a tense meeting with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna that concluded with a decision to freeze technical cooperation projects. Mr. Putin joked that he worried the United States was “hiding extra warheads under the pillow” despite its treaties with Moscow to reduce strategic nuclear stockpiles. And he indicated obliquely that the new Russian ballistic missile, known as the Topol-M, was being developed at least in part in response to American efforts to field missile defenses. He expressed alarm that an effective antimissile shield over the United States would upset a system of mutual fear that kept the nuclear peace throughout the cold war. “That means the balance will be upset, completely upset,” he said. Addressing tensions between Europe and Russia over energy exports, Mr. Putin said 26 percent of Russian oil was extracted by foreign companies. While Russia is open to outside investment, he said, it has found its businessmen blocked from deals abroad. The Kremlin has been criticized for attempting to impose registration and taxation laws that could restrict the work of foreign nongovernmental organizations with offices in Russia to aid democratization. But Mr. Putin said his concerns about the work grew from the fact that they “are used as channels for funding, and those funds are provided by governments of other countries.” That flow of foreign money to assist opposition Russian political organizations, he said, is “hidden from our society. “What is democratic about this?” he asked. “This is not about democracy. This is about one country influencing another.” Mrs. Merkel, in her opening speech, struck a far more diplomatic tone than Mr. Putin, though she alluded to the tensions between Europe and Russia over energy shipments and the independence of Kosovo. Addressing herself to Mr. Putin, who was sitting in the front row, Mrs. Merkel said, “In my talks with you, I have sensed that Russia is going to be a reliable and predictable partner.” But she added, “We need to speak frankly with each other.” Mrs. Merkel had previously criticized in sharp terms Russia’s recent shutdown of oil shipments to Belarus, which followed a dispute over natural gas prices. She is pressing Russia to sign a charter with the European Union on energy, which Moscow has resisted. Mrs. Merkel alluded to another potential confrontation between Europe and Russia. The United Nations is weighing a proposal that would put Kosovo on the path to independence from Serbia, which Russia opposes because it fears that such a move could upset its own turbulent relations with ethnic groups in the Caucasus. Russia has crushed one separatist-minded people within its own borders, in Chechnya, but supports two breakaway regions in Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. “We’re going to come to the stage where we have to decide: does Serbia, does Kosovo want to move in the European direction?” Mrs. Merkel asked. “If that’s the route they choose, both will have to make compromises.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/eu...=rssnyt&emc=rss

I have all the Lost episodes on my computer but have yet to finish season 1. I save them for when I am stuck in hotels and have tons of time. From what I have seen, I do enjoy it. I love 24 and think it is one of the best things out there. I have never even heard of Deal or No Deal. TV certaintly has changed a great deal since I was a lad. I was so excited each year when Gone with the Wind came on TV. That was about as good as it got.

I don't think she is going to go sentimental. She just had her first orgasm in ages and he is spitting up blood. Not a good sign for her. I see her as falling for him and then him dying.

I have been watching Dirt and like the show. I have always liked the lead actress and I like her relationship with the photographer. I saw the lastest episodes with Pee Wee Herman. I think he did a nice job with the role he was given. But, it is very hard for me to take him seriously as an actor after watching Pee Wee's shows.