Gays in Iran

From the Washington Post today. Copied here in full:

I'm one of those people Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says don't exist. I'm a 25-year-old Iranian, and I'm gay.

I live in Tehran with my parents and younger brother and am studying to be a computer software engineer. I've known that I was different from my brother and other boys for as long as I can remember.

I was born in 1982, two years after the start of the Iran-Iraq War, and when I was growing up, most boys loved to play with toy guns, pretending to be soldiers in the war. I liked painting, and playing with dolls. My brother preferred to play with the other boys, so most of the time I was lonely.

I was 16 when I first realized that I was sexually attracted to some of the boys in my high school classes. I had no idea what I could do with that feeling. All I knew about homosexuals were the jokes and negative stories that people told about them. I thought a homosexual was someone who sexually abused children -- until I saw the word "homosexual" for the first time in an English encyclopedia, and found a definition of myself.

After that, I started searching the Internet for information about homosexuality. Eventually I came across two Iranian Web sites where I could communicate with other gays. I was 17. At first, I didn't want to give anyone my e-mail address because I was afraid that I could be abused or that my parents might find out, or that people on the site could be government spies. But I finally decided to exchange e-mails with one person, and after some correspondence, we spoke on the phone. I'll never forget the first time I heard the voice of another gay man. We arranged to meet at the home of a friend of his, and the three of us talked for hours. I felt so comfortable with them. The next day I learned that the friend was interested in me. His name was Omid, and we became boyfriends.

I also became interested in the gay social movement that started in 2000. Around that time, Iranian society became more open under President Mohammad Khatami's reformist government. The Internet became common, and everybody started talking about issues they couldn't even have thought about before.

Until then, the gay world had been underground and secret. Under the Islamic Republic, gays could face the death penalty; they could also lose their jobs and family support. Meetings and parties took place only in the most trusted private homes. Heterosexuals were almost never seen at these gatherings. Even fellow gays were only slowly accepted. It could take years for a homosexual to become known and trusted. Most older gays were married and even had children, and their family and friends had no idea of their sexuality.

There was a handful of gathering places for outcast homosexuals in Tehran, people who couldn't hide their sexuality and had lost their jobs, or people whose families had disowned them, and who had turned to selling sex for money. Those places were always being attacked by the paramilitaries.

My generation was the first to start the coming-out process. I decided to come out when I was 20. I thought that if I just talked to my parents about it, they would accept my reasoning. I was totally wrong. Their reaction was horrible. They started to restrict me -- I couldn't use the phone or invite any of my friends over, and they cut back on financial support. Part of their reaction was religious; part was their concern that I couldn't survive as a homosexual in Iran. They were also ashamed to tell the rest of our family and wanted to see me married to a woman.

We argued constantly; they insisted that I wasn't gay, that I only thought I was. It took me years to calm them down, but over time, they lost any hope of changing me, and they started to change themselves. Now they accept that I'm gay, but they're not happy about it.

Meanwhile, the gay community has worked to educate people via Web sites and dialogue with our friends and families. But we've found that the most effective way of changing people's minds is coming out. When people see us as reasonable humans, their negative views of homosexuality are shattered. I can honestly say there's been a change in the way Iranians view us now. Gay life in Iran isn't as underground as it used to be. We have gay parties with heterosexual guests -- and even our parents! We have places where we can congregate -- in coffee shops, special park areas and even certain offices. Many more homosexuals are willing to come out these days. Activists estimate that .5 percent of the Iranian population is homosexual, bisexual or transsexual.

But we weren't surprised by Ahmadinejad's comments about gays at Columbia University. What else could he say? We stone homosexuals in Iran because that's what God wants? It was a joke, but he gave the only answer he could.

I wish our president could learn to respect gays instead of denying us. But I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, my only response to his remarks is this: Whatever he says, Ahmadinejad can't change the fact that we exist.

Amir is an activist in Tehran whose name is being withheld for his safety.

This isn't about marriage

By this, I mean this post. Surely, at this point, you are all familiar with my position on gay marriage (indifferent) as opposed to civil unions (support).* However, I find this video encouraging:



Why do I find it encouraging? Not because I care that much about marriage, but because Mayor Sanders is a Republican. Another Republican who is more amenable to gay rights is someone everyone loves to compare to Emperor Palpatine, the Vice President. What do these two men have in common? Gay daughters.

These kinds of things show that while it may easy for some people to think of gays and lesbians as "the others," proximity and experience causes second thoughts. This isn't the case of "we're queer, we're here, get used to it" being shouted from outside their homes. Rather, the proximity comes from inside the home, the office, the country club. It's not a question of numbers or visibility, per se. The experience comes from the happy times they spend with people before realizing they are gay. It's about people learning that gays and lesbians are their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc.

It's quite difficult to be gay and then get close to someone who is a homophobe. Instead it seems to be more effective to be close first and then come out as gay. Sure there are still cases of "no son of mine," and I personally dread coming out to my old-guard Republican family, but seeing things like Mayor Sanders have a change of heart because he realized he loves his daughter more than the party line gives me great hope.

On a grander scale that's why I still refuse to leave the Republican Party. If I leave and become an elephant hunter, it's like my shouting gay pride slogans right outside their home. Republicans won't change their minds from angry outside opposition, instead they will get defensive and even more steadfast in their homophobia. I honestly think that well within my lifetime we are going to see the Republican fear of gays and lesbians go the way of opposition to fear of interracial marriage. But that it's only going to happen through relationship and bridge building; it's positive experience with gays and lesbians that will make the difference.

P.S. This isn't the post I can't remember. I fear that one may have evaporated forever.

(H/T: Richard J. Rosendall at Independent Gay Forum)

* According to Towleroad, some New Jersey same-sex couples are reporting that civil unions as opposed to marriage are not enough. An excerpt:

Craig Ross, of Somerset, said his employer refused to give health coverage to his partner, Richard Cash, after the two formed a civil union in April. They were one of several couples who described how business have cited federal laws that refer to 'marriage' or 'spouses' in order to deny health coverage to gay and lesbian employees who have tried to obtain benefits for their partners under New Jersey's civil union law. "They're looking at it as a ceremony, not even a relationship or a legal status," Ross said. "It's just words."

This seems like a) poor drafting of the New Jersey law or b) poor lawyering by the businesses. I don't have a copy (and am too lazy to find one) of the New Jersey law, so I cannot say for sure. Simply creating a ceremony recognized by the state called a civil union but does not afford that union equal legal status with a marriage, is as Craig Ross argues, "just words."

If, however, it does afford civil unions the same legal status as a marriage, then I am not sure how citing Federal statutes that refer to "marriage" and "spouse" will help these businesses. State law may (usually) afford more rights to its citizens than does federal law. I doubt that any judge is going to accept the argument "regardless of what the state of New Jersey says about health coverage by companies doing business in New Jersey, since Federal law requires no more than to recognize opposite sex spouses, our business must only meet that standard."

Before you worry about the cost of litigating the issue, let me assure you that this would be ripe for a non-profit gay law group to do pro-bono.

Another, whinier excerpt:

Tom Walton, of East Brunswick, said the difference in name — civil unions versus marriage — sends a message that gay couples are inferior. "Having to explain it automatically devalues it," Walton said. "Even if it gives us the same rights marriage, it doesn't give us the respect."

The government can't make people respect you (and whining like this won't help either). If people don't respect same-sex unions, they probably won't respect them if you call them marriages either. The minute a male talks about his "husband" instead of his "wife," people are going to hear "partner." Whether they respect the coupling has nothing to do with what it's called.

memory

Yesterday I was driving and had a great idea for a post. I recall thinking it was both poignant and clever. Now for the life of me I can remember what the hell it was about.

I am annoyed.

Burma

Like Andrew Sullivan I have decided to longer recognize the name change of Burma brought about by it's violent and authoritarian dictators.

Things are getting tragic over there:

Shots were fired to clear crowds defying a brutal crackdown in Myanmar Friday as authorities reportedly cut Internet connections and graphic new video footage showed troops using deadly force.

***

A day earlier, troops with automatic rifles fired into crowds of anti-government demonstrators, reportedly killing at least nine people in the bloodiest day in more than a month of protests demanding an end to military rule.

By shutting down the Internet, the dictators are trying to prevent images of the bloody struggle from escaping the country.

Tough as it is over there, let me make clear that I am not advocating a Wilsonian Crusade to free the Burmese people. Nonetheless, things like this are both hard to watch and perversely encouraging. The reasons it is hard to watch are obvious, but I am glad to see a people standing up to its oppressive government. I wish the people success.

The Leviticus Strawman

Many are quite fond of the following clip:



I am not. I see it as a strawman argument that if anything only weakens the position of homosexuals who still consider themselves Christians (like me).

Humorous yes. Persuasive, no. The big problem is that the whole argument relies on the Old Testament.

Even the Fundies recognize that the Old Covenant was broken, and Jesus created a new one. That's why Paul goes to such great lengths to show that Gentiles may be Christians and that many of the old laws are just not important (in particular I am thinking of a time when Paul argued that it's okay for Christians to eat meat that had been sacrificed). The big problem for homosexuality in the eyes of the Fundies is that while Paul argued that many of the old laws about works were unimportant, he still lumped homosexuality as one of those things that is still bad.

That's why any defense of Christian homosexuality must be functional as opposed to formalist, i.e. consider the themes of Christ's message, such as love and the way that religious legalism ruins faith. The problem is that for the Fundies, that just doesn't cut it. In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan argues that one appeal of fundamentalism is that it is that it is easy to apply: the Bible says that this is bad, so it always is, and we don't have to think any more about it. That means that functional arguments aren't enough. It might be if the New Testament were silent on the issue, but it is not. Case closed: this satisfies prong one of Chevron. (I can't believe I just made an administrative law joke)

The best that homosexuals can do with the Fundies right now is a "love the sinner, hate the sin" + "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" kind of relationship.

Fun times

I still email occasionally with one of my old econ professors. He was a Republican Academic, an even rarer species than the gay Republican. He sent me this cute little thing. You may have to click on it to read it.

Myanmar & China

The military dictators of Myanmar imposed a strict curfew after Buddhist monks staged pro-democracy protests. I hope the monks defy the curfew and restrictions on assembly, because that would put the government in an awkward position:

If monks who are leading the protests are mistreated, that could outrage the predominantly Buddhist country, where clerics are revered. But if the junta backs down, it risks appearing weak and emboldening protesters, which could escalate the tension.

Although, that is not to say that the monks have the upper hand. Generally speaking, pacifists don't fare to well in armed confrontations and the Burmese government has dealt with this before:

When faced with a similar crisis in 1988, the [Burmese] government harshly put down a student-led democracy uprising. Security forces fired into crowds of peaceful demonstrators and killed thousands, traumatizing the nation.

If the people of Myanmar are lucky, this little skirmish my lead to the beginnings of freedom.

What is interesting about this story has been China's reaction to the protests:

China has quietly shifted gears, the diplomats said, jettisoning its noninterventionist line for behind-the-scenes diplomacy. A senior Chinese official asked junta envoys this month to reconcile with opposition democratic forces. And China arranged a low-key meeting in Beijing between Myanmar and State Department envoys to discuss the release of the leading opposition figure.

The government that committed the Tiananmen Square atrocity is now quietly telling the Burmese government to cool its jets. Why? After all, almost two decades after their own massacre of pro-democracy protesters China is still an oppressive authoritarian state. The cynic in me wonders if China just wants to look good for next summer.

Regardless, the Burmese monks are in my thoughts and prayers and I hope they have even mild success.

Fun things to hear

My trip to visit Karen's family was delightful! Her parents are perfectly hospitable. Although on Sunday we decided to stay an extra night in a hotel and not tell them, just to be spontaneous.

Anyway, to summarize my trip let me list things that are fun to hear:

"I hope you like steak"

"We can replace your phone for free"

"Those jeans make your ass look good. You should get them."

"Of course we should get more wine"

"Here's your swordfish"

"I'd love to sing showtunes with you both"

"That's enough football, let's get in the hot tub"

"No, sir, it isn't a problem to cancel your 6am wake up call"

Back to cranky

Just a short little post at Cato-at-Liberty raised my blood pressure or caused me mild depression, I can tell which. Thrust of the post:

But while we’ve still got a moribund and bloated government postal service, Germany’s privatized Deutsche Post seems to be at the leading edge in global shipping and business services. We’ve got congested, government-owned, and union-dominated seaports, while Dubai will be host to a huge and efficient intermodal system.

Who'd have thought that we would be looking at Germany as an example of less bureaucracy?

I truly, TRULY believe that the best thing our government can do for our economy is to get out of the way. We can argue all day long (and we would, since we never seemed to get anywhere) about whether government should subsidize our health care, and I will concede that the nature of that good makes it a complicated debate. However, why do we have a transportation bill where the question is not how much will we subsidize an industry (or really, a single company) instead of why should we be subsidizing it?

I get it!

So at lunch the other day with Karen (over glasses of wine, because let's face it: we can drink at lunch), she was describing how Sean doesn't understand how she makes money by buying on sale. Karen's rationale goes like this: If the handbag costs $900, and I get it on a great sale for $500, I have made $400 dollars. Sean counters: No, you spent $500, so you lost $500. The truth is, they are both wrong, but Karen is closer to right.

Karen's wrong only because she hasn't made money, but she has increased her utility.

Say Karen values the handbag at the full price (meaning she would buy it for $900). If she pays $900, her utility is the same. She has lost $900, but gained the handbag which she values at $900.

Now, say the handbag is on sale for $500, and Karen buys it. Out of Karen's $900 she has lost $500, and in exchange she got something she values at $900 and still has $400 of her money left. Her total utility (as measured by dollars) is $1300, a gain of $400.

Happy bargain hunting!

I'm not cranky

At least I don't think so. In an effort to provide a bit of mood diversity I am going to describe my afternoon. I don't usually do this because, I really don't think people are all that interested in the details of my day to day life instead of the big moments or my (admittedly cynical) views on politics or policy.

I went to professional responsibility class this morning (an unnecessary requirement in the training of lawyers), afterwards I got some work done, and then went to lunch with Karen and Alan.

We sat outside on a patio for two hours eating our lunch and drinking wine. We just relaxed, enjoyed the sun, and had a good time talking. I'll be visiting Karen's family this weekend so we discussed what we wanted to do (oh that reminds me, I might be MIA this weekend: I'm not sure if blogging will be a priority when I am visiting Karen's family). All in all, it was a pleasant, leisurely lunch.

The best thing is we do this at least three times a week now! Like I said before, for third year law students with jobs, school is only a minimal commitment.

Now, don't you wish you were me? ;-)

The Right to be a Jerk

I support it. I know I am a jerk sometimes. You are too. Until my jerkitude causes me to commit a battery or infringe the property rights of another, I want to be able to be as offensive as I want. Similarly, I am allowed to associate with people and patronize businesses as I please, so if one offends me, I can move on. You can do that too. If I am so much of jerk that no one want to talk to me, they shouldn't have to.

All this brings me to Blue Joe's in San Antonio. The owner of the bar refused to allow an artist to show his photographs because they depicted the artist's boyfriend dressed in Victorian costume and wearing make-up. According to the artist:

[The bar owner] just said they looked too much like drag queens, and he didn't want to attract that type of clientele to the establishment. Of course, right then and there, I felt really offended.

In response, the bar owner has been accused of homophobia and a myspace campaign started to spread the word. The bar owner tried to defend his decision because the photos might give an impression that they cater exclusively to gay customers, which they do not. The owner has a valid point: in a commercial setting, artwork needs to appeal to the broadest customer base. Chances are, though, Joe Blues won't have to worry about any gay customers for a while now. (Though if the owner really is homophobic, a boycott by gays might be the very thing he wants)

So far the response has been perfectly appropriate. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: Joe Blues being sued for anything other than breach of contract. They may have a perfectly appropriate breach of contract cause of action, but if I know lawyers, and I do, that won't be the only claim if a complaint is filed. Since this is Texas we probably don't have to worry about any legislation flowing out of this little tiff.

My point: using market power and information to punish businesses that offend = okay; using the power of the state to force them not to offend or to punish after they have = bad.

Meteorite Suspected Cause Illness

A meteorite that crashed in Peru is being blamed for nausea, headaches, and respiratory problems.

We have seen this kind of thing before. Notably in the 1950s and 1960s. One terrifying example below:

A real fiscal conservative

Now, readers may know that I am quite disappointed with the Bush administration, first for its kowtowing to the religious right, and second for being real RINOs when it comes to limited government and fiscal conservatism (I know the War on Terror, especially the Iraq war, figures prominently in many critiques, and although it was clearly handled poorly, it is not one of my makes-me-so-angry-I-can't-see-straight issues).*

Seems, I am not alone in my fiscal policy disappointment. In his new memoir Alan Greenspan criticizes the Bush administration on deficits and spending. Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman (for what, 70 years?) and devotee to Ayn Rand's ideas on the glories of capitalism, has a bit of credibility when it comes to economic policies. According to the review in the NY Times,

Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

The bulk of the bulk is devoted to his views on markets, globalization and the American economy. I will be excited to read it.

*In fact, one could (and many, including me, do) argue that the abandonment of the limited government and fiscally responsible principles that Republicans still pay lip service to (sometimes) is what led to the dominance of the religious right within the party--a classic example of selling out.

The plan

This is not about coming out.

In order to avoid dealing with certain things (especially if they might provoke strong emotion) I often try make myself too busy to think about them. I do this by giving myself goals and projects. (For anyone who puts any stock into the enneagram, this is classic type 3 behavior).

Currently there are two competing situations in my personal life--one good and one bad (and again, I am not talking about coming out). The good is that in about a month I may have a boy visiting me. To avoid the bad one, I am going to focus entirely on the good and getting in good physical shape in time for the visit.

This, my last year of school, is perfect for finally seeing my abs (I've felt them, just never seen them). I have a well equipped gym at my disposal for no extra charge, and because I have a job, school takes up only minimal time (meaning enough preparation not to be embarrassed, and then taking a long lunch).

I have a couple of hurdles, though too. I have several friends who love to cook and do it well. And though they'll cook fairly healthily (using ground turkey instead of beef, making sure we have vegetables, etc.), the quantities completely blow everything to hell. Also, I am a moderate party guy (meaning I love to drink when someone else is paying for it). Though I have considerably limited my beer intake (preferring wine instead), I'd probably see better results if I went off both entirely. I'm just not quite willing to commit social suicide my last year of goofing off before the real world sets in with a vengeance.

So with that background, here's the plan:

1. Weather permitting walk to school. I go to school in a small college town and live less than a mile from campus. Walking is not that strenuous, so why not? Also, I'll save money on gas and maintenance (what do you mean by "environment?").
   
2. Work out at least three times a week. I warm up by running a mile, do weight machine circuits, and then cool down by running another mile. When I run I use the interval method. Maybe after a couple weeks I'll add a cardio day to my workout schedule.
   
3. Eat more than three times a day. Make my biggest meal lunch.
   
4. Increase my protein, green vegetables, and fiber. Limit my fried foods (a toughie for this southern boy!)
5. No more carbonated beverages (though I make exceptions when it's used as a mixer--not that it's healthier, but otherwise I'd have the mixed drinks plus the Cokes throughout the day. I'm still decreasing my Coke intake).

These are small adjustments, and it's not like I am trying to lose 30 lbs in a month (5 would be fine). I'm starting from a good position, and hopefully if I can keep up this regimen, I could look like this :)

Evolution of Dance

I just found this, and thought I'd share.

Gay marriage in NY + Arthur Branch

A New York Supreme Court determined that it is unconstitutional (under the state constitution) for New York not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

People familiar with the courts in New York will immediately recognize why this isn't terribly exciting: unlike other states and federal courts, In New York the "Supreme Court" is the trial level. Still appealable.

It's interesting that in just a couple weeks two big trial decisions regarding gay marriage came down in separate states.

In similar news, I am aware of Arthur Branch's, um, disappointing statements regarding gay marriage. The self-described Federalist is uncomfortable with just this type of thing: A state judge determining that a state has to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. He supports (or at least used to support) civil unions at the state level. I'm curious to know what he thinks about the Department of the Treasury or Social Security Administration recognizing them as well.

Like I have always said, whether it's called marriage by the state is irrelevant, it's the recognition of civil benefits for same sex partners that matters.

Further, I find it interesting that some people think that civil unions would hurt the push for marriage. I realize that having a separate but equal institution seems unpleasant, but with the progress we have seen in just 10 years, do we really think that it would stop with civil unions anyway?

Update: Mea Cupla, I forgot to link to the news story about the NY court ruling. You can read about it here.

Just Be Me

I've owned this song for about a year now, and it seems perfectly suited for coming out. First of all, it has a stereotypically gay electronic dance beat. But more importantly, the song speaks so perfectly to coming out that I suspect it was intended to be a coming out song (I'm not trying to imply that Kirsty Hawkshaw is a lesbian, just perhaps that she is sensitive to what we gay folks go through sometimes). Indeed, I sort of consider Just Be Me to be my personal coming out anthem and often listen to it to remind myself what this whole thing is about.

Six years later

I know everyone is doing it, but I want to say a few words about 9/11.

I still remember that clear morning. It was my first semester of college and I only had one class on Tuesdays, which wasn't until 11 AM. Tuesdays were my sleep in morning. My roommate, Jim, was an athlete (had a crush on him, buts that's a story for another day) and he got up early to work out on Tuesday mornings.

Blissfully asleep, I am awakened by Jim practically breaking the door down shouting "we're being attacked!" I tended to be the calmer head between us, and still annoyed at being awakened I asked him, "what the hell are you talking about"

He said that he saw on the TVs in the gym that a plane had crashed into the world trade center. Not being one to jump to conclusions, I suggested that it was probably just a tragic accident. Then he told me about the second plane. We turned on the TV in the dorm room just in time to learn about the pentagon.

It was a terrible day. Luckily, I was very fortunate. I didn't know anyone in Manhattan, and no one my parents knew were killed or even injured. But even so, I won't ever forget that.

By the way, I chose a picture of a memorial for flight 93 because the passengers on that flight are my heroes. Just typing this makes me tear up.

Arthur Branch d/b/a Fred Thompson

I'm sure he's a dear man, but I've said before, I think it would be a mistake for Republicans to nominate him.

So what if Rudy or Mitt appear too liberal to the base? We don't need to worry about the base voting, because liberal as Rudy and Romney appear, Hills [pictured below] seems more liberal. She will get the Republican base out in November 2008. But if Fred appears too conservative, the moderates and swingers (not that kind of swingers) won't want him.

I'm also getting a little annoyed by the Reagan comparisons. I certainly understand why the Thompson capaign is invoking the name of our 40th president, but I wish they wouldn't. I do not mean to sound derisive, but Fred is not Ron. Apart from both being relatively conservative Republicans and having acting experience, the comparison seems a bit superficial. The issues facing us today are quite different than those facing us almost 30 years ago.

Further, although I may be, our nation is probably not looking for a Reagan. I may not have been paying much attention to politics (or even alive) when RR was elected, but it seems to me as though 1980 was a response to Carter. We don't have a Carter; we have Bush II. Any backlash/response is not going to be in the direction of "more conservative." My only hope is that the response is not so severe in the direction of "less conservative" that it pushes into, well, you know. (Of course, certain factors outside the presidential election can make me a little more comfortable with a party shift in the executive branch).

Elections for me are always depressing; it's never about whom I want, it's about avoiding the one[s] I don't.

Sen. Craig...still

You'd think that when he resigned, Sen. Craig would have drifted off into the sunset, or at least into the rest stop bathroom of his choice. Not so. He is apparently trying to withdraw his guilty plea.

Note further, that he is trying to withdraw his resignation as well:

He announced Sept. 1 that he would resign at the end of the month, but told Senate leaders last week that he would remain in office if he was able to get the plea overturned.

Does he really think he still has a career either way?

I'm Not Dead

Okay Okay, I have been remiss the past many days. Mea Culpa. This is because I have been very busy doing things like catching up on Bravo (new motto: who needs Logo when you have Bravo) and trying new cocktails (what is this "schoolwork" you speak of?). I don't yet have wireless at home, so I have been leaving my computer at school. Further I have been leaving school almost immediately after finishing classes.

Anyway, the little break gave me some ideas for a few posts, which should be forthcoming this week. Right now, I have to eat breakfast. I wonder if Flipping Out is on (Ryan, the business partner and ex-boyfriend of the main investor guy, is sooo pretty).

The situation

Tim noticed that I have been rather doctrinaire lately. He posits that it is because some left wing boy broke my heart. It's true that my mind has been elsewhere lately, but actually it's quite the opposite: people seem to fall in love with me too easily. I know it sounds a bit conceited, and I, of course, say it with tongue in cheek (this time my own), but really I am not used to this.

Back in my "straight" days, I was basically asexual. I ignored girls sexually, and was oblivious and indifferent as to whether they ignored me. Sexual attraction was largely a non-issue.

All of a sudden, I spent a summer out of the closet, and went, admittedly, a little wild. Now I can't seem to leave the summer in the summer. Not a day seems to go by without a text from some guy I met last summer (thankfully, David got the message. Though I doubt he reads the blog). One guy even offered to fly me back to the city for a long weekend. I'm not saying we're in stalker land, but then again I don't really know where that line is.

Here's the odd part, while I consider myself above average on looks, intelligence and personality, I don't think I am enough on any measure to warrant the kind of attention I am getting. It's not that I don't like the attention, it just confuses me. I like the attention; I want people to want me, but I feel a little guilty about leading the boys on.

Happy Marxism Day

Apart from being a school boy with a three day weekend (my school year always started in mid-August), I never much cared for this holiday. It sounds Marxist. It's basically our softer and older version of the International May Labor Day (which incidentally commemorates events that took place in the U.S., but I suppose we didn't need two labor days in this country)

It really doesn't affect my life too much now that automatic and internet banking are so pervasive and I often forget to get my snail-mail for days. Also many, if not most, retail stores still open their doors, and even have sales. As a student I can still do my work on Federal holidays (and often have to). When I graduate, I can bill for work on weekends and holidays just the same as work done on other days. So all in all, my only complaint is that it just leaves a bad ideological taste in my mouth.

Tangent: the discussion Matt had about capitalism with some Yugoslavian youths made me sad inside.

In other news: time to put away those white dinner jackets and linen suits. I don't care who says the rules have changed.

Note to the World

Unless I am close enough to kiss you, I do not want to smell you. This is true whether you smell good or bad.

Please take note.