My rating

I saw this on Dan's blog, then Jimmi's, then everywhere. So I had to check my rating.



My points came from saying "gay", "abortion", and "sex". I guess I'll have to say "gay" more often to get that coveted NC-17 (though I agree with my friends -- I'm not sure why saying gay should worsen your rating). Regardless, my blog is still more exciting than a Fantastic Four sequel.

All the good ones are...

(a)...gay?
(b)...married?
(c)...taken?
(d) a and b
(e) all of the above ?!?!?
(Here comes the foreshadowed venting!)

I made it through 5+ years of being gay without ever hooking-up with a married man. That includes 4+ years in San Francisco. Mostly I just had to hope for (a) and against (c). Except for a few days in San Francisco or a recent visit to Massachusetts, (b) and therefore (d) were rarely a problem with the boyz.

Until I moved to San Diego. I met a nice guy out, took him to Martini's for a date, and noticed a ring on his left index finger. Turned out he was military, and in a "marriage of convenience" to a colleague to get more money and better housing. Not much more to say about this one -- he just quit calling. (See The $25,000 Pyramid) I did run into him at Martini's a few weeks ago. He came up and acted like I hadn't called him. He wanted my number again. As Blondie would say, I'm still "Hangin' on the Telephone".

So I met another guy, this time at a bachelor auction at The Brass Rail (neither of us was on the block). Same story - military, married, not really together. He wasn't married to a random colleague, but to his best (female) friend. This one may have ended with more of a whimper -- we texted/emailed about getting together for a third date, but it never happened. Then we got busy with our own stuff. I say may have because I ran into him in LA, so we'll see.

On to my most recent crush. We hooked up once (a good story to which I'll be getting) and we've been messaging each other for about 6 weeks. He said he wanted to go out again, but was very busy. To his credit, he almost always returns texts or calls -- only it's a day later, usually combining an apology for the night before with a reason he's busy tonight. Two weeks into this, I saw him out. Under the influence of liquid courage, I flat out asked him, "Are you busy or not interested? Because if your not interested, just tell me and I'll leave you alone. If you're really interested but busy, I'll wait, because I know what it's like to be busy."

"I'm interested. Really!" he said.

4 weeks later we were still trading texts and messages. I ran into him the day I got back from LA. I asked him how things were going, and he launched into a monologue "I changing jobs...blah blah...I have to tell my roommate I'm moving...da dat da dat...it's taking me a long time to get over my cold...yada yada...and by the way, I'm getting MARRIED."

"To a man?" I asked, with what was likely a very odd expression.

"No, a woman" he said. "It's complicated."

I would guess so. Our hook-up made it pretty clear he likes the boyz, but I didn't feel I really had any clout to demand an explanation. Which does not mean I don't hope to get the story eventually. And, perhaps, him. He said he'd "catch up with me later".

Which brings us to the trifecta, AKA (e). I met a very sweet guy in LA (the friend of the guy I had seen in SD). We had drinks, made out a bit at Pride, and then had a very nice dinner at Hamburger Mary's, during which our blood alcohol levels went down, but the heat did not. He also had a ring on, and is married to his best female friend. We texted the next couple of days. I didn't hear from him Wed/Thurs, but figured he was busy. So Friday I texted him to say "Hi". Somehow we went from "Can't wait to see you again" to "I have to tell you that I am back with my ex" in 3 days. Gay, married, and taken. How do I find these guys?

Mostly, I think it's time to find those "romantic timing" lessons again. To finish the venting, another guy I met who was busy (with good reason) the next week went from texts of "most def" (Want to have dinner with me?) to fairly incommunicado in an 8 day period during which I didn't see him (so I couldn't have done anything that bad). I don't get it.

I guess I can't say that no one likes me -- they just seem not to like me for very long. Even if they haven't seen me again.

My hopes are currently riding on a good first date late Thursday. Unfortunately, he's not free again until next Thursday. Given the above, I'm already skeptical. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. My ass.


Note: I'm making no value judgments on marriages of convenience in the military. I've never had to deal with those issues. I'll just admit it makes me a little uncomfortable.

It's still a small, small, gay world

And sometimes cruel. But we'll get to the venting later.

About 5 months ago, I wrote about meeting people from SF in SD. (Cue the Disney...) It turns out this was NOTHING compared to LA Pride.


I'd already planned to stay in Burbank with a good friend of mine that I really wanted to see. As those plans were being made, one of my friends from SD moved to WeHo, so I met up with him Friday. I was an hour late because of traffic from a Morrissey concert, but like a sweetie, he waited.

When I got to the Abbey, I couldn't find my friend. I thought I heard someone yell "Doctor Joel". I spun around, but figured I needed my ears cleaned because none of the 4 people I know in LA call me that. So I found my friend JC, and while we were at the bar getting Mojitos I heard it again. "Doctor Joel!".

But this time it was followed by a stranger running up to me. It was Darin (1) from All Preparation and No H, who recognized me from pictures on the blogs of mutual friends. A little startling, but awesome, and I look forward to seeing him on my next trip to see Jimmi and his new digs.

After the Abbey, we went to Fiesta Cantina, where I ran into a guy I've gone out with a couple of times in SD (2). He seemed mad that we hadn't gone out in a while, then rather happy to see me.

Then we went to Mickey's and met some boys, one of whom was an MD. All seemed to be going well until they ditched us to go back to Long Beach.

Saturday was fairly uneventful -- I retrieved my car and went back to my friend's place in Burbank to sleep. We went out for dinner, then came back for a good night's sleep. The only real events were a waiter who ogled me and called me "sexy" and getting offerred a "bump" of coke. I left the waiter my digits on the check (I hadn't done that in a while, but hey, it's Pride). The coke offerer got a weird look and a "No thanks".

Sunday, I went out for the parade. I ran into two old friends from San Francisco who were in town from the AIDS vaccine bike ride. One was an old hook-up (still friendly)(3), and one was basically the boy I always liked but with whom I never got to square one(4). We did the usual -- Hi, hug, quick cheek kiss, good to see you, how ya been, gotta go.

After the parade we had a couple of drinks at a lesbian bar (they've gone boy hunting with me plenty of times). My friend was worried that her nipples were showing too much. I pointed out that my shirt was worse (and by that I mean better) because if a boy blew in my ear, everyone would see my nips. This led to a general chorus of "A boy, huh?" and a gorgeous lesbian (not one of the ladies in the picture, who are gorgeous, too) caressing my ear w/ her tongue and mouth in an attempt to get my nipples hard (and stamp my bi-card).


After that, we tried to go to the Abbey. Due to the line around the corner, we ended up back at the Cantina. First, I met a guy from Denver who is coming to SD soon. Then I saw a guy I was pretty sure I had seen at Mo's in SD. Turns out I did (5) -- he's from Long Beach, but comes down to visit. I also met his friend, who seemed to like me, and who had dinner with me as we soberred up well enough to drive.

So the tally: I knew 4 people in LA when I headed up there, and only saw 2 of them. I ran into 5 people that I knew from elsewhere. And I didn't even get to meet up with the guy I've been myspacing (he had a good reason, though) or the friend from SF I knew was down there (sorry, Tony). Small world.

Oh, and did I forget to mention Miss Potato Spud 1969?

Avandia, Tuberculosis, and Terrorism

Yes, I’m really going to pull all this together.

Let’s start with some basic chemistry. All processes are in an equilibrium.


www.informika.ru

You never get to 100% in any direction, because freedom and disorder (entropy) are the driving forces of the universe. Not surprisingly, the closer you get to 100%, the more effort you usually have to put in to take the next step. It may not be worth it.

We’ve learned this in medicine. If you read most medical studies, you’ll see something called a “p-value”. This is statistical lingo for how likely it is that your results were due to random chance, instead of whatever you were trying to do/prove. To put it in evangelist Republican terms: pretend someone is flipping a coin, and you’re “p”raying for heads everytime. And 90 out of 100 times, heads comes up. The p-value tells you how likely that result was due to the fact that "coins do that sometimes", versus the fact that your "p"rayers did it.

In medicine, we consider a “p-value” less than 0.05 “significant” Which basically means the chances are 5% or less that the results were just dumb luck rather than reflecting your “intervention”: a drug, a surgery, a diet. Flip it around, and it could mean that about 5% of things we consider “proven” in medicine could be wrong. It’s actually probably less than that, because we REALLY like p-values of <0.1%. style="font-style: italic;">

www.magiclickgames.com

Avandia is a drug for diabetes, and studies showed that it lowered blood sugar. It’s now under fire for increasing the risk of a heart attack. DISCLAIMER: I haven’t reviewed these papers recently. It seems that there were some data suggesting this, but it was thought that the benefit against diabetes would outweigh other risks. We MAY have been wrong.

There’s another issue here called surrogate endpoints, and I may address it later, but I don’t have a good example at the moment. Suffice it to say that we are forced to take a statistical chance that things that look good will be bad, and we MAY have lost on this one. I highlight MAY, because I don’t think all of the facts are in, and I dread the coming barrage of ads saying, “Did you take Avandia? Did you have a heart attack? Call me (lawyer) to sue you doctor.” I think FDA approval should insulate MDs, but again, another topic for another day.

Which brings us to tuberculosis. Let’s start with some honesty; when you heard that someone flew in a plane with extremely drug resistant tuberculosis, did you think he would look like this:


www.sciam.com

Me neither. But lay off Dr. Gerberding. She taught me (as did Dr. Leonard, who has been on TV), and I have an incredible amount of respect for her as a physician, a scientist, and a politician. Yes, politician -- ask me, and we'll talk, because I got to talk to her about it.

First, I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it is hard for the CDC to detain someone – actually is the job of the public health department of the city/county (though some things have changed since 9/11). Why do I know? As a training physician, we had to work on detaining someone who wanted to go home with TB. This is how you look at it.

Tb is contagious by respiratory particles. They do linger, but if you are NOT coughing, you are rarely infectious, though you still have the disease. From what I have read, Mr. Speaker was not coughing. In fact, sputum that he coughed up has been analyzed for TB, and 3 samples were negative. This is what a smear with TB [AKA acid-fast bacilli(AFB)] looks like:



www.bact.wisc.edu
On this stain, the tuberculosis organisms show up in red.

In a hospital, if you are (-) for AFB on 3 sputums, we take down the respiratory precautions. Is it 100% safe? No. We could, in fact, put everyone with a postivie PPD (that little bubble test on your skin) in quarantine. Or anyone from a country with a lot of TB. Why don’t we?

First of all, 3 negative cough samples suggests a less than 5% chance (estimate) that you are contagious, which, as discussed above, is about as good as we get in medicine. Second, the cost of quarantining the rest of the people, who are unlikely to be infectious, is HUGE. If you look at medicine in general, the money could be better spent. Finally, to take away the freedom of people who are so unlikely to be a problem is NOT (supposed) to be what we do in this country.

Which brings us to terrorism. For further information, read Fareed Zakaria’s piece in NewsWeek (that guy is awesome).

Benjamin Franklin said " The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor will he receive, either.” I agree. But we’ve gone way beyond sacrificing freedom. At the most recent Republican debate, someone asked “What is the most pressing moral issue facing this country today?” Most of the candidates discussed some version of the “sanctity of life”. (I’m going to address this quickly in another post.) Congressman Ron Paul, who is probably more of a Libertarian than a Republican, said "I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition." And it's all done in the name of "Homeland Security".

To recap – NOTHING can be 100%. Chemistry can’t. Drugs can’t. Medicine can’t. So guess what – security can’t be either.

Given the field of Republicans who hate gays and a woman’s right to privacy, there are things I like about Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Unfortunately, he is clearly this election cycle’s “fear-monger”. His alleged strength is “National Security”, and his best path to victory is to scare people about “Islamic Terrorists” and “what they want to do to us”.

I’m worried about terrorism, too. I’ll give President Bush some credit – we haven’t been attacked again. I’ll even admit that for security concerns, sometimes it takes a while to find out just what the dangers were. But we’ve probably gone a little overboard. Doubt me? I give you Bill Maher:"Nixon got in trouble for illegally wire-tapping Democratic headquarters. Bush is illegally wire-tapping the entire country."

We need to accept that a free society can never be 100% secure. 9/11 was a wake up call to get serious – as Europe has been for some time. It wasn’t a reason to pursue an isolationist, pre-emptive strategy that destroyed the world’s good-will for us (Senators Clinton, Obama, Edward -- this applies to you, too, despite your desire to seem "strong" on security.) I think we’re probably 99.0% safe. The money and liberty that would need to be sacrificed to get that last 1% would be better applied to re-building the European, Asian, and Islamic worlds’ opinion of us. Or on health care. Your choice.