I'm Negative

And that's positive.

I considered titling this post "My Results are Positive," and then saying I am HIV negative. I am classy enough not to do that, but boorish enough to tell you about it anyway.

Not that I was really, really worried, but still it's nice to know for sure.

No News is Good News...Right?

Getting an HIV test always makes me nervous. I don't engage in high risk behaviors (intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex), but being a gay man, I naturally worry. I stupidly timed this one so that the weekend would fall within the 2-3 day period they give. Well, today is day 3, and I am checking my phone every 6 minutes.

If I haven't heard by noon, I am going to call them.

Gay Republicans at Disney!

Back in 1941.



Of course this was back when a Pink Elephant merely suggested drunkenness.

It gets kind of creepy...

Dirty Sexy Boy

Soo, the show is getting okay reviews, but one highlight is Seth Gabel as Jeremy Darling.


It took me forever to figure out who he is until Wikipedia came to the rescue: he was Adrian, Eva Moore's adopted son during the Second Season of Nip/Tuck (new season start in just a a few weeks!). Below is a picture of what he looked like on that show.


Seth's character on Nip/Tuck was delightfully wicked. Apart from being a sociopath, drug dealer, and emotionally abusive, he tried on several occasions to seduce Matt McNamara (who was sleeping with the woman Adrian though was his mother). Oh, and Adrian was also sleeping with the woman he thought was his mother (but Eva was a transsexual, and not actually a blood relative of Adrian's. Apart from the sometimes unnecessary (though no less enjoyable) ass shots (Seth has a couple!), can there be any question why I love this show?

Anyway, I'm over Zac now (we broke up since neither of us are really out yet). Seth is on my list instead. I'll be watching him on Wednesday nights on ABC (Project Runway will have to be Tivo-ed).

PS, I am writing this post in class, so I can post no shirtless pictures. Sorry :(

We need to disengage!

In regards to my own debt woes, Jonathan aptly pointed out that I should consider the disastrous tax effects of the upcoming Clinton II administration (does it bother anyone else that her presidency would mean that two families occupied the White House for a quarter century?). Tim, chimed in noting that we have to find some way to pay for the war (the legality or illegality of which I am not prepared to discuss).

And while the cost of the war is considerable and causes me great worry (not least of all because of the proposal to impose a War Surtax), but there is an even bigger monkey on our fiscal backs: The elderly.

Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post today notes that

From 2000 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will roughly double, from 35 million to 72 million, or from about 12 percent of the population to nearly 20 percent. Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- three big programs that serve the elderly -- already represents more than 40 percent of the federal budget. In 2006, these three programs cost $1.1 trillion, more than twice defense spending. Left on automatic pilot, these programs are plausibly projected to grow to about 75 percent of the present budget by 2030. [emphasis added]

So forget about the paltry War on Terror, our War on Death is costing us more than twice as much, and it is exepected only to get more expensive. Add to that the drive for Universal Health Care, and we can expect those elderly to live even longer. Once the Death tax comes back, these longer living seniors are going to use up their estates instead of leave it to us younger, better looking descendants. The picture is dire indeed.

Analogizing from our dear Speaker's remarks regarding the war on terror, we have only three choices to avoid these staggering deficits:

1. Institute a draft. It is politically inviable to force people to be nursing home attendants. I have always opposed this measure
2. Tax our people to support this program, so the true cost hits home. I always and with all my might oppose any tax increases whatsoever
3. End our engagement with the War on Death because it is too costly.

As I am sure you can guess, I support the third option with regard to Social Security just like Nanny Pelosi supports it with regard to the war. We must systematically stop spending money on extending the lives of these far less productive members of our society. No more Social Security (you didn't save to eat in your retirement, too bad!), nor more Medicare or Medicaid (you are old and about to die anyway).*

Oh you aren't willing to do that to save on our deficit problems? Then please don't use the rhetoric of the fiscal conservative as a rationale to end the war.

*Please note: my actual suggestions for Social Security are not so draconian as those above, but I suggest them to make a point.

Note further: I do actually see the distinction between funding a campaign that creates death and has little to do with national interests anymore and a program that purportedly enhances the quality of life of certain citizens of this country. But you will forgive me if I am a little resentful at the prospect spending most of my working career funding the retirement of a generation that perfected the art of living beyond their means. I'll gladly stop whining once I am allowed opt out, which I promptly will.

Ain't gonna happen--though I wouldn't mind if it did

Seems if Rudy gets the nomination, a group of evangelical Christians has threatened to back a third party candidate.

It might be nice to clear them out of the Party, but they will vote Rudy if he gets the nomination. Three words why: Madam President Clinton.

I'm hemorrhaging money!

I will have significant educational debt (we're talking six figures) when I graduate. I plan to live like a student another couple of years and pay off my loans within 5 years. The plan is ambitious but possible. When I start work I will earn a lawyer's salary, but work a lawyer's hours, which will mean not a lot of time to go out and spend. So if I can live off less than half of my income (I should be able to, some people raise families on that), I will be able to meet my debt repayment goals.

The big problem will be keeping my focus whilst working among lawyers, who are notorious for consuming. Unlike many of my peers I will not be buying a brand new fancy car upon commencement of my career. My own car is still pretty new (about 5 years) and has been quite reliable. Not dropping 35,000+ on a rapidly depreciating asset that I won't be using much (public transportation is good in my city and will be my method of commuting) is pretty easy. What will be hard is not running into an upscale store and buying a pair of jeans (on sale for only $200!) as a reward for a stressful week, or not spending three times as much on meal because it's just easier to eat out than to cook for myself.

I plan to keep a leash on my spending by putting only a portion of my income into my checking account and the rest into harder to touch savings or investment accounts. I can't trust myself, I need the external enforcement. I'm a little concerned about having a credit card. I wish to build up a credit history, but worry that without close monitoring I will get careless. Perhaps the early payment of my student loans will be enough without having an actual credit card, but I'm not sure.

These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that I've been living a little fast and loose lately (my trip a couple weekends ago was rather expensive). I haven't been thinking too much about the money going out. Last week I ate lunch out every day but one. I would prefer not to burn through my loans so that I can return some of the money at the end of the year. With that in mind I have decided to make two changes:

1. Start using cash. Right now I use a debit check card to pay for everything. It's a whole lot easier to put down a piece of plastic than to count out bills, so this would reign in my spending.
2. Limit meals out to three a week, total. That may sound like a lot, but I am not talking about three dinners. Eating out would include paying for the meal in the school cafeteria, so I will be bringing most of my lunches to school.

It feels good to set up a plan. Now to execute!

Tangent:

I ran across a blog about money issues for GLBT people: Queercents. I've read a couple articles, some of which have a sort of sanctimonious anti-materialistic bent (particularly the article on Board Games), but I am going to poke around to see if there is some useful information.