C James

That, Bob, is a very interesting question indeed!!! At a national level in the US, there are only three openly gay politicians, all members of congress (two Democrats and one Republican). One interesting statistic: No openly gay person has ever been elected to the US Senate. This is not, however, true of openly dead people (dead long before the election). In other words, the statistics indicate that it's easier to be elected to the US Senate if you are Dead than if you are Gay. Another way of saying it is that if you are running for the Senate, it's ok to come out of the casket, but not the closet. In State and local politics, there are many more, but I'm largely ignorant on state and local matter so I don't really know enough to have an opinion on those. So far, our one admittedly gay State Governor was a disaster. He was caught in a scandal: appointing his utterly unqualified (and not even a US citizen) gay love interest to head the State's Homeland Security department. His love interest was filing a sexual harassment suit against him, which would have exposed the Governor as being gay. He then resigned from office, citing his homosexuality as the reason for his resignation (to try and cover up the fact that it was the corruption and the harassment suit that was the real reason). Thus, he IMHO did a lot of damage IMHO to the GLBT cause. IMHO, GLBT people are not well organized here. IMHO. one reason for that is that many are in the closet, and would eschew "organization" of any sort.

Glad you are feeling better!!! Having looked at your picture, I can certainly see why pics of you are in demand.

Not too long ago, I came out to an acquaintance of mine, due to being asked why I wasn't married. He looked uncomfortable for a few seconds, shrugged, and said "At least now I know who to go to for fashion advice". Then, he did a bit of a double take, looked me over (I had been chopping wood, and was wearing long-sleeved flannel and basically looked like a lumberjack) and said "uhhhh, maybe not..." I couldn't agree more. One strong dislike I have is the practice of putting the manufacturer's name and symbol on the clothing. Frankly, if I was inclined to be a walking billboard for some company, I'd want to be paid for it. I agree with Kitty: It's the "small" (tight fitting), and not what the shirt said, that probably drew the attention. Very well said. I've definitely seen two guys wear the exact same outfit, and one looks spectacular, while the other looks atrocious. One example that comes to mind is that Speedos look great on some guys, but awful on others. My favorite literary example, though, of a great attitude pulling off a great look, has got to be Cody in a loincloth. (Yes, I really liked that scene, and I'm going to keep babbling about it...)

How does that make it "better to vote for a Democrat, period"? I fully agree that any politician, on any issue, who is willing to listen, learn, and make politically courageous choices is one worthy of enthusiastic support. I'd certainly support the aforementioned assemblymen. However, it certainly does not apply to all Democrats! Let's not forget that we have the head of the Democratic party appearing on Pat Roberson's TV show to proclaim that the Democratic Party position is that Marriage is between a man and a woman! It would also be well not to forget that it wasn't a Democrat who recently chided Republicans for making Gay Marriage a campaign issue, it was Laura Bush! It is always, always better to look at each candidate individually, and never generalize and assume that all of party X are superior to party Y. Credit where credit is due: The only Republican in Congress to vote against DOMA was Steve Gunderson, who at the time was the only openly Gay Republican in congress, and who was from a rural, conservative district. That was an act of great political courage, just like some of the Democrats Trebs mentioned. On the flip side, the one and only openly gay Republican currently in Congress did indeed vote for DOMA. It was that, in fact, that which resulted in his becoming an openly gay Republican: He was in the closet at the time, and was threatened with outing by some withing the gay community over his vote. I found that to be disgusting. I certainly wasn't happy with Jim Kolbe's (Arizona 8th) vote, but I despise "outing", especially when used as a form of blackmail. Yet, they aren't. Take a look at Democratic policy trends on gay issues over the past five years. More and more, they are putting Gay issues on the back burner, sacrificed to the alter of political expediency. The assume, wrongly, that they are guaranteed the support of the LGBT community, so feel free to "Triangulate" and move to the center on this issue. UNLESS their feet are held to the fire on this and other important issues, I can see Democrats returning to power, temporarily, and paying lip service at this and other important issues. All too soon, they will revert to being what got them rightfully thrown from power in the first place: Giving lip service at best to rights issues, robbing the taxpayers blind in order to buy votes through endless "social" programs, abd being utterly incompetent, at best, on national defense and security. In other words, the Democratic Party of the Carter Era. Then what happens? In a few years, perhaps as early as 2008, they are thrown out of power, again. This will lead to a resurgence of the PRESENT form of a the Republican party, not a reformed one. A resurgent Republican party that tramples on some of our rights (marriage, abortion, etc) while having embraced the bad old ways of the Democrats by using massive spending (and corruption) to secure incumbency. (The Republicans have the nerve to call themselves the party of smaller government? I'd love to see that rammed down their throats in November!) So, for the good of both the Party and the Country, the Democratic party must not be given a blank check of support, but rather a tentative and cautions chance to prove that they have learned from their history, and have changed, and are ready to move forward rather than back to the bad old days of their recent history.

Kudos to you for GETTING INVOLVED! I have no idea if this is even possible in your case (I don't know if the cantidate has held prior offices?), but I've found it very helpful to look up the candidates voting record for prior offices they may have held (or the one being contested, if they are the incumbent). Take a look at how they voted on*all* the issues that matter to you. Checking the policy statements (the website) is a good idea. Unfortunately, IMHO, one problem is that campaign promises (and thus website&policy statements) are often lies. I wish there was an easy answer to this, but the best I can suggest is to also check the candidates voting record in any prior office. I do strongly agree with your stance of holding both parties' feet to the fire in issues that matter. Personally, I'd like to see "none of the above" as a ballot option, as all too often there isn't an acceptable choice. I don't know whether the candidate that replied to Brax would fit the description, (The flip side of the coin is that Politics is the art of the possible) but it galls me when I see a candidate (And a great many from both parties do this) cherry-picking issues and stances just to get elected. It reminds me of one politician, who, though personally opposed to Socialism, pressed his newly-adopted party into embracing it due to political expediency (it was popular at the time.) This resulted in, amongst other things, a change of the parties' name. This maneuverer also enabled the politician to become the leader of the party. The year was 1921, and the new name was the National Socialist German Worker's party. The politician? Adolf Hitler. I certainly can't support a Republican (or anyone) who uses homophobia (or Racisim, as was the practice of many Southern Democrats not so long ago) in the same way that the German National Socialist party used Anti-semitism in the early 1920's: as both a wedge issues and as a distraction, and to engender an "us against them" mentality for political expediency. I see disquieting similarities between some on the right and the machinations of the German National Socialist Party circa 1925. The plethora of anti-gay ballot initiatives in 2004 (and now in 2006) concern me greatly, more for this reason than their actual content. I do not trust either of the two main US political parties (or for that matter any of the others) at this time and my reasons go far beyond gay issues. They also took the time to debate the anti-gay-marriage amendment, which all other considerations aside had no chance of passing, and thus was an utter waste of time (as well as being reprehensible). Wedge issues, unfortunately, are much loved by both parties. The Democrats, for example, have been using the minimum wage in this very way, in spite of the fact that, while it might sound like a good idea, it makes bad sense economically (most economists, who rarely agree on anything, do agree on this issue) and most harms those who it is intended to help. A willingness to trample on 2nd amendment rights when expedient to do so would be another. Sad, but true, and IMHO exacerbated by the nature of modern media, and its love of "sound bytes" at the expense of all else. IMHO, this discourages the electorate from looking at a candidate in toto, and instead to fixate upon a few hot-button issues. For all the marvels of modern communication technology, is there anyone who will seriously debate the statement that the average voter at the dawn of the 20th century had a better grasp of the issues than the average voter of today, the dawn of the 21st century? In the first decade of the 20th century, the proposed constitutional amendment was what became the 16th amendment, and the text was published far and wide, and debated in all walks of life. Debated, not merely rallied around or opposed, but actually discussed. But now, in the 21st century, we have a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage. This would, I would think, be of the greatest concern to Gay Americans? Yet, be honest, how many here actually know the wording of those two sentences without looking? Or the legal ramifications that go FAR beyond gay marriage? (such as the 2002 version that would have banned civil unions as well). Or that fact that many legal scholars believe that the current version (2004 wording) would also likely destroy existing civil union and domestic partnership rights? Than you very much for that inside view of the process. That, indeed, is what leadership is all about. Doing what is right often not the same as doing what is popular.

I'd certainly like to second that! Happy Birthday!!!

I believe LBTW's borrowing them right now, until his FABULOUS Versace glasses get fixed . "Fabulous"... When I saw that, for some reason I saw LB... As Liberace! But, I need my sunglasses back! I need them, because for some reason people just don't like the color of my eyes... Click the pic below and you will see what I mean... Versace, AND Armani? Why is it that I seem to be one of the few gay guys who missed out on getting a sense of style? (Yes, I DO have flannel in my wardrobe... ) I'm looking forward to the pre-release discussions!

Hey, um, John... Glad to meet you, but I need my sunglasses back now.. :2hands: Ahh, that's better! OK, now, on to business... Does anyone have any guesses as to what the next chapter title is? LB mentioned that it's important, so I thought it might be fun to try and figure it out.

Yep, and yep. It's crazy IMHO, especially when the person who initiated it was the babysitter (thus, in an adult role) and she was never charged with anything! Instead, they charged the victim! It does differ from state to state. I know that some states have different ages of consent, and also exceptions for couples who are close in age. Arizona, as far as I know, does not.

In the US, I know that they vary by state. In Arizona, there is no "age of consent" other than the age of 18. One strange ramification of this is that if you have two minors dating, and they are not the EXACT same age (to the day), then the relationship becomes a felony when the eldest turns 18. So, if you have a couple (gay or straight) that are only a month apart in age, and they start having sex at 17, the oldest one is looking at possible jail time if the relationship lasts past his or her 18th birthday. There are also gender variances in some states. For example, in some states any illegal sexual contact between a boy and a girl is legally presumed to be the fault of the boy. This can get bizarre in some cases. One example is where a 14 year old babysitter dared the 8 year old boy that she was babysitting to touch her bare breast. He did. Result? The 8 year old was charged with "an act of lewdness with a minor", a serious sex crime. Prosecutors claimed the boy was a willing participant. The Girl was not charged in spite of being much older, his babysitter, and initiating the situation. link

What about "Do Us, but Do It Right (and often)"? That would fit a college story in so many ways...

How about this idea: Bush realizes there is no benefit now in punishing Davey for his own mistakes pardons Davey in hopes of putting this all behind them. Here's the paragraph from chapter 17 that I got this idea from Conspiracy theorists of the original timeline had put forward the idea that the Bush Administration had known about 9/11 and let it happen. In this timeline, that was something made even stronger by the revelation of the information I had released, but the sad truth remained that they had just not paid attention to the warning signs available to them. They had thought the warnings were an attempt to move them off their agenda, nothing more than a distraction, and now they had paid a price for that hubris. Just to be clear, I am not now, nor have I ever been a supported of the Bush family (including the one who is govenor of my state), but I believe President Bush (both fictional and real) ISN'T a bad man. I don't think he plots to destroy people like some villan in a movie. I think he's just made some decisions that have turned out to be tragically flawed. Whether that is because he doesn't have the brains to be President or he has surrounded himself with advisors that led him down the wrong path is unclear. In the end, he too must live with himself and the decisions he's made. Could he have lived with leaving Davey in prison knowing his only crime was doing the right thing? I choose to believe he could not and so Davey quietly gets a pardon. That is a very interesting theory. I like it! It certainly would mesh with my own theory: That the story is from Davey's point of view, and Davey himself would be unlikely to know the reasons behind the pardon, so it's not in the text. Hmmmm... Another spin on what you proposed above might be the additional factor of "legacy", a last act to make the public happy and try and preserve some good image for his administration. He had just lost by an unprecedented landslide, and the pardon might help remove the taint of scandal. Or, it could be analogous to what happened at the end of the Clinton administration: An equally large flurry of pardons, many so inexplicable that they sparked no end of speculation as to their motives. And in that case, the reasoning was never revealed, either, then or in the time since. My hunch on Cheney would be the Palme leak case: A pardon can be to pre-empt possible future charges, and that would fit here. I hope DK will weigh in on these questions (the other one being Cheney's pardon) at some point. I'd love to know the reasoning behind all this. I also loved the way the story ended with the conversation interspersed with a sex scene, especially the "do it right". That was fantastic, and also darn hot! Speaking of conspiracy theories.. Let me float my own... First, the following text, from Davey's oval office discussion with his father:

It says: "This picture has been forcibly removed by the staff because it's too cute." ROFL!!! Cool! When I first saw it, I did a quick web search for an online Mandarin-English translator. I did find one, but it required text input. Your avatar is a graphic, so I found that I had no way to enter it. I didn't even bother trying to find a Mandarin OCR program! So, for all I know, it could read something like "Bring me the head of that stupid, obnoxious, sunglasses-wearing Goat, and get an early look at the next chapter of SOOTB!". On a serious note, though: trying to find a way to translate it made me realize just what a wise choice of languages you made when you picked Chinese. That pictographic alphabet (something like 5000 characters?) makes it far harder to deal with than any Western language. If you had chosen, say, Portuguese, you would have had a heck of a lot more competition, both human and electronic.

One of the things that makes SOOTB very special to me is the songs. I have to admit that when I first started reading SOOTB, I didn't pay too much attention to the lyrics. I've read a lot of stories where the songs themselves have little or no bearing on the story: they are just there. So, I made the very poor assumption that SOOTB was similar in that regard, and so I paid little attention to the lyrics. I can't remember where, exactly, but somewhere in the first few chapters I actually looked very closely at the lyrics, and realized that they were highly relevant to the story. I went back and did my first re-read of the (then) couple of published chapters and paid much closer attention. I'm sure glad I did! It must take a lot of work and effort to put in the level of detail that SOOTB has. I guess I'm just trying to say that it's deeply appreciated, and IMHO is one of the things that makes the story so excellent. Thank you, LB & Kitty!

LB, your new avatar has me very curious: What does it say?

Sorry to hear about your dog. That must be rough. It's often hard for people who don't have pets to understand that they become family.

I went back and looked, and the part I was remembering was this; My interpretation was that if the Police were asking those sort of questions, then they must still suspect (at that point) suicide (which would not rule out suspecting that is was an accident). However, this part (below) seems to lean the other way, but does it? That (above) does not rule out suspecting a suicide. In fact, in basically proclaims that they do suspect it might be a suicide as they are not sure if it was an accident (and an element of doubt is by definition a suspicion). For example, if the police are trying to solve a crime that they know was commited by a single individual, it would not be at all unusual for them to have multiple suspects. The fact that only one of them could have done it (or, in this case, having two mutually exclusive possibilities) does not exclude having multiple suspects. Generally, in a vehicle accident investigation, they look at the scene first (as indicated above). In a single-vehicle accident, they look for obvious signs such as the skid-mark patterns that would indicate a loss of control, etc. In the majority of cases, a suicide-by-impact shows no sudden loss of control (and thus no skid marks at all) except for those that are sometimes present immediately prior to impact (due to, in some cases, the driver hitting the brakes at the last second). When it comes to accidents such as Mikey's, it's often darn near impossible to tell a suicide from falling asleep at the wheel and drifting off the road, as both cases generally have a very similar physical profile. However, given his emotional state (leaving after a big argument) falling asleep at the wheel would IMHO be unlikely. Driving recklessly would be easier to determine as vehicle speed is usually fairly easy to estimate due to the physical dynamics of the crash, and resulting vehicle condition. My hunch was that for them to be asking questions at the hospital, they didn't find anything definitive at the accident scene such as skid marks indicating a loss of control, or swerving to avoid an animal, etc. It could still be an accident without them, but it's a major clue as the physics are fairly straightforward. In a great many cases, though, the detective's words "We may never know for sure." are the operative ones, so indeed, just like in real life, we may never know (unless you choose to tell us at some point, in the story or elsewhere). Heh, I just thought of something... One definition of "Zealot" is someone who would, upon meeting a Deity, proceed to tell the Deity what they Deity really meant to say. So, would my quibbling with a Buddha over the interpretations of his story make me fit that description? You two make one heck of a great team! Thanks for pointing out the sections, as I was very curious. Thank you also for the part where the detective mentioned the ongoing search for Connor's attacker. I'd been very curious if we would hear any more about that.

LB *STILL* has us twisting in the wind (in a good way)... We don't know whether Mikey's crash was an accident or suicide. The police seem to suspect suicide. Also, Toby... We need to bear in mind that his condition has nothing to do with Mikey's death. What I mean by that, just like in real life, it wasn't a "one or the other" situation, and he's not safe just because another character died. However, the fact that he's home is at least a positive sign. Also, I'm curious about something.. LB mentioned that some parts of this were done by Kitty. Just a hunch here, but is the quote below from Kitty's part? Excellently done, whoever wrote it, just like every other part of the chapter.

Been as no one has mentioned this yet, I will: DK left us with at least TWO BIG MYSTERIES The first is WHY, exactly, did Bush pardon Davey? It's definitly odd. It does not appear to be Davey's Father's doing (behind the scenes deal) so why would Bush pardon the guy who just torpedoed his re-election bid? The second question is what was Cheney pardoned for?

Don't blame me for being Evil, I was a saint before I came here.. DK has corrupted me.. Otherwise, DK would have had an excellent recreational opportunity: He could have used the ending I suggested. Then, the next day, after watching with evil amusement as his fans tear me into little pieces, he could have posted the real ending. As for giving him ideas... I wasn't worried. He had already mentioned sending the last chapter to Emoe, so I knew I was safe. Besides, when DK wants to be Evil, he's far better at it than anything I could think of.. Remember that beautiful, sweet rapprochement that Davey, after years of heartache, had with Brian in DOR? The Wonderful kiss, and then Brian taking a fatal bullet in the back. Nobody, but nobody, could top that one! Errr, ok, well, maybe the only way it could be topped was by keeping Brian's fate a mystery for a a few chapters, and then revealing that he had indeed died. Which is exactly what DK did. Now THAT was true evil!

Wow. That was poignant, heart-rending, and exceptionally well done. I'll come back with more once it's been up a bit longer, but for now I just wanted to say what a moving piece that was. It's certainly left a great many things unanswered, too. Great chapter, LB & Kitty.

I dare not start reading anything until after the weekend (I have a project I need to complete) but these will be the first on my agenda, thank you! I did glance at the "Dom's best friend" one, and my side is still aching! Thanks, Vic!

I think there might be a reason for this. I know that when I read a story, I often envision the characters as more in accord with my personal preferences than as they are actually described. In other stories that I have read, I tend to ignore descriptions that make the character less attractive to me. One example would be a hairy chest: Not something I happen to find attractive. So, I tend to "ignore" that fact and picture them otherwise. But, everyone is different, so I'm guessing that many people tend to "read in" their own preferences into an "attractive" character. Personally, I think that this is one of the advantages written fiction has over movies. Yes indeed! Tan, lithe, smooth, long blond hair.. And wearing a loincloth! HOT! I didn't see any mention that he put on clothes while Connor was there, so I pictured him that way for the whole song scene. Wow!

That's downright spooky... And all too plausable. The last chapter (20) was named "someone's final song". The only two people in that chapter who we actually see doing a song are Connor and Cody. I think you just might have something here... It does sound plausible that Cody might, indeed, think that way. He might also want to "go first", to "be there" when Toby "arrived". We don't know what Toby and Cody discussed (though I'm certain Toby would never have gone along with that!). Toby might pull through, and find that Cody is dead. That would be utterly heart-wrenching.

This was spectacular, no two ways about it. What an awesome finish! I really loved the insider's look at the final push before an election, and the election day itself. It was really well done, and to me powerfully conveyed the frenzy, and above all the dedication of the people who make our elections work. I began reading the aforementioned part of the story, fixated on the question of "where, exactly, is Davey, and what has happened?" However, by the time I'd reached the end of that, I was so intrigued that I did a double-take when Davey's location was alluded to. That was very well done indeed!! There is so much here that I want to discuss, but I'm about to keel over from lack of sleep, so I'll teturn to this later. I was left with one lingering question: (Spoiler blackout used below: highlight it to see the text) My interpretation is that Davey's father made arrangements behind the scenes, and that this was alluded to in the Oval Office conversation. The story is from Davey's point of view, and Davey would be very unlikely to know the details, hence neither do we. Did others get that impression too? Or did I miss something here? I promised yesterday that I wasn't going to read Ch 17 until I finished a project I'm working on, but although a chapter will "keep" this conversation won't, so after working on the project all through the night I did read Ch.17 (the long hours without sleep are why I'm even less cohenrent than usual in this post). I didn't want to miss out on any of the grand finale of the DO series. It's been one hell of a ride! Just like any other great novel or trilogy, I really hated to see it end. However, i don't think it's possible for it to have ended better. Thank you DK, for all the many times that this series has allowed me escape from my own tribulations, and for writing one of the finest stories I've ever seen.