Curiouser and Curiouser

Well, it has indeed been a good week so far. I have mostly been revive from a weekend worth of gay-fun. Its nice to be back to the real world, getting some of my real work done. I got one project done on Monday, and looking to finish another today. Im heading to the Court of Appeals today just for fun, so got all dressed-up nice for that.

Havent really seen Nebraska in the last couple of days. Not worried about that though, as we did spend the entire friggin weekend together. I have social/work/networking engagements for the next two nights, but I think he and I plan on getting together for Happy Hour on Friday, which should prove to be fun. I gotta say, its smart of him to give me my space right now. Most guys would "move in" at this point and I would get to feeling overwhelmed and under-interested. Well played... "Your move, holy man..."

Went out last night for a couple of friends birthdays. They went to dinner first, which I didnt join since I am as broke as I have ever been in my life (is it sad that I had a dream last night that my grandparents died and left me a ton of money?) and felt a little queasy about dropping a bunch of money on a nice meal. But I joined later and really enjoyed catching up, as I havent seen the two friends I was there for in a couple of weeks. We went out, got shafted by Brothers (I always hated that shitty bar) and went somewhere with $2 taps. Sweet!

Anyway, after staying out till about 11pm with those girls, I took the bus home and say these two guys at my entrance. I dont know how to properly preface this story without going too far into the history of the thing but I'll try: one guy I met while he was visiting campus and he just smelled gay. I approached him, and now he's coming to UST Law next fall. He lives with a roommate who I met at the 19 one night and have kinda developed a mild crush on. As 19 is a gay bar, and they live together, and they both seem pretty gay, and they live in the "gay neighborhood," I always presumed that they were both gay.

So, I come home last night, see them smoking and decide to join them (mostly cause I have a crush on the one guy). We start chatting and after a little while, I ask them how they enjoyed Pride, things of that nature... then the one going to UST Law mentions his wife. What? You're married? I was very confused. Apparently he wasnt playing with me. Okay... Cool. I can roll with that, I wasnt interested in him anyway. Then they insist that I go up to their place and have a drink, and I try to be coy and then give in. We go up and have a drink, and it is now getting very late for me, and then the one I think is cute mentions something about being straight. Huh? Say again? Yep. Straight.

I have always known that I go for straight-ish guys (Nebraska being a good example) but apparently I need to truly realign my gaydar. Holy shit, I used to be spot on accurate with that stuff... I have been bumping into these guys for 6 months now, (in fact I was still with (Mitchell) when I first met the UST-bound one) and I could have sworn they were gayer than a box o' leprechauns. Where does one go to get their gaydar re-aligned?

On the political front, anyone who loves reading Scalia's raging, abusive opinions may appreciate the first day of dialogue referring to it on Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2144476/entry/0/
Someday when I am truly bored at work I want to look up some of Scalia's writing before he was a justice. I wonder when his writing style turned so un-Godly hateful. Oh, and the other thing I like about the Slate article is the mention of Justice Thomas' use of italics. It is pretty funny.

Moving on to the executive branch, I, funnily enough, actually appreciate the line-item veto that Bush is trying to get passed. I have always liked the idea that the President (or morelike his staff) can cut through the pork that inevitably gets attached to a bill. Two arguments can be made as far as the legislative effect: a) it will either allow legislators to save face by being able to say, "Hey, I tried..." or b) it will relieve legislators of any sense of duty to responsible spending in their state. Perhaps argument (b) only exists in an idealized world. Anyway, Bush's veto plan would get around the New York v. Clinton because it allows Congress to override the specific item vetoed with a simple majority vote. (Besides, given the dissents on New York v. Clinton and the changes in the Court since then, it wouldn't rule the same now anyhow.) My only concern with the thing is whether it will lead to partisan abuse: ie. allowing pork projects that help Congressmen from your party while disabling spending for those opposition party members who are vulnerable... I guess we'll have to see.

Funny though that the only President to never veto ANYTHING out of Congress, but to use more "signing statements" (essentially "Fuck Yous, Im going to do what I want") than any president before him is pushing for this line-item power....

Enough for now.