C James

Hi, Bob! Personally, I've been hoping that DK will take the DIR timeline out past the present day, say, up until 2020, but keep the same level of historical and political detail, such as who the candidates are in 2008, how they do, what natural disasters occur in 2007, etc, etc, etc. I'd also be exceedingly grateful if DK would include stock and commodity quotes for future years and other market trends. The date, time, and magnitude of future major earthquakes (and other natural disasters) would be great, too... I have a feeling that DK would be more than 80% right.. Unless he's having memory trouble...

I'll try to answer those questions, but bear in mind that I'm only giving my opinion, and that Politics is subjective so opinions may differ widely. Also, please remember that I'm NOT (unlike DK) a professional in this field. I've only ever worked in politics as a volunteer, and only on local ballot initiative campaigns here in Arizona. The highest position I've ever had was that of communications director for the "No" side for a city ballot measure (it was a very small city, and we lost, bigtime). Basically, all I did was the websites, press releases, the graphics (designs of buttons, signs, etc) and come up with slogans. I'm also originally from California, but haven't lived there in over ten years and no longer follow California politics, so I know very little about it (California politics). The the best of my knowledge, just about every campaign for any major office has candidate handlers who do basically that. In many cases, though, a candidate will say something unscripted, and cause themselves major trouble with a mis-statement or worse. The opposition is always on the lookout for such gaffs, and will often feature them in their own campaigns adds. It's is very possible indeed that a single phrase or line can kill a candidate's chances. Usually it's a major mis-statement shortly before an election, which the opposition then beats them over the head with. This is especially true if it's a really bad gaffe, such as Francine Busby being on camera and (seemingly) encouraging voter fraud to steal the election. Personally, I doubt she was stupid enough to actually intend to say that, but it's so darn easy when speaking to say something the wrong way. I know there are far better example, but I can't think of any. Hmmm, another example of a candidate being hounded by his own words would be the father of the current president, George H.W. Bush. He said, in a speech, "Read my lips: No new taxes!". He, shortly thereafter, agreed to a tax increase. "Read my lips" came back to haunt him in his campaign in a major way. Some analysts think it might have cost him a second term as President. I myself agree with that view, as his opponent, Bill Clinton, got less than 50% of the vote, and Bush (the elder) lost due to losing votes to a third party candidate (Ross Perot) who largely attracted disaffected voters from Bush's own party. As for how a campaign is organized and led, the organizational system seems to vary from campaign to campaign, and a great deal depends upon the office being run for. A campaign for President will be nationwide, and thus be vastly different from a campaign for the US senate (statewide) the house (a single district) or various state offices. The size of the campaign will depend on funding, which can run into the hundreds of millions for a Presidential campaign. As for the campaign structure, it does vary widely, and in general you usually have a campaign director in overall charge. I'm not really qualified to get into detail here, as it varies so widely, and due to my very limited experience. Personally, I'd be very interested to hear about Swiss politics.

LB, just concentrate on recovering from your injured arm. (for those who don't know what I mean, read LB's blog post about hit-and-run drivers). I hope it's just a minor bruise...

Hey, I've been nuts for a long time!

I thought her name rang a bell... And I finally remembered who she is. Francine Busby is the congressional candidate who was ahead in the polls, and on the weekend before the election torpedoed her own campaign by saying, to an audience, on camera,

As Chapter 19 will probably be appearing sometime soon (this weekend or thereafter), would anyone care to join me in some speculation? My guess is that it will be a "build-up" chapter, as the strain in Ryan and Connor's relationship builds (due to Ryan's problem, whatever it is). I'll even hazard a guess that the chapter will end with a Ryan-Connor relationship cliffhanger.

It always amazes (and disgusts) me when a member of the same party is elected to replace one who was thrown from office for corruption. I don't care which party is which at the time (and both have their share of corrupt politicians) but I do like to see political consequnces for the party of the corrupt sleazebag, to give the party (whichever one it is at the time) more incentive to not turn a blind eye to the activities of some members. Frankly, I'm disgusted with Congress at the moment, as it seems that members congress (both parties!) have found something that they can agree on: Both are outraged that the FBI nailed a corrupt congressman, due to technical issues (separation of powers) and ignoring the fact that the scumbag had huge amounts of cash from bribes stashed in his office. Regarding the California election, I'm very sorry to report that the candidate Dan flew down to help was defeated.

As you might guess from my comments, I'm a bit odd politically. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, and I freely attack both sides when I think they deserve it (and that's quite often). As for the upcoming (2008) presidential race, it promises to be interesting! Bush is ineligible to run again, and the "normal" nominee in such a situation, the Vice President, has a serious heart condition. So, I'm fairly sure that Cheney (the VP) won't run. And that is what makes this so interesting to me! In 2008, BOTH major parties will have a truly wide-open race for their nominations, without a sitting President or Vice-president on the ballot. That will be the first time in over half a century that this has happened. (Last time was in 1952, Stevenson Vs. Eisenhower) Incidentally, what you say about a Female President is a big possibility in 2008. Actually, in 2008, it's quite possible that BOTH parties will nominate a woman. (Condoleeza Rice on the Republican side). If that happens, I have no clue who I would vote for, as I both like and dislike aspects of both. I also don't know enough about either one to really have a firm opinion, but that's what a campaign is for! What I'm really hoping for (and a wide-open race like this should deliver) is decent choices, unlike the 2004 choice between bad and worse.

Yipes!!! LB, glad you weren't hurt worse! I hope your arm heals fast. I agree with you about hit-and-run drivers... I've been hit by one, but that only damaged my car, not me (I wasn't even in it) so not a big deal, and I'd have still liked to hunt the SOB down. Too bad your kick didn't connect!

I was wondering if it was for the anthology, too. But, it's just over double the maximum, so I think you are right in your guess. Well, I wonder what Luc will make of that fact that so far, his story is very popular... with Goats! (this is a not-so-subtle hint for other people to join this thread!)

I don't have any trouble with Metresexuals, as they don't ping my gaydar.. (then again, neither do gays). One good thing in my opinion: I've yet to meet a homophobic Metrosexual. So, I don't worry too much about "misidentifying". I might be wrong (if, indeed, there are homophobic metrosexuals) but as the ones I've encountered (very few, as the norm in my area is "redneck") seem gay-friendly, I'm delighted with this trend. Good luck with the gaydar-finding!

If you haven't read this yet, do yourself a favor and do so! The Summer of Aaron I won't give away the plot, so I won't say much right now, except that it's one heck of a good story, and I really loved it! It's by Luc, and so I'm now off to browse and see if he has anything else in the archives. Way to go, Luc!

I'm a guy, and I don't get it either... I don't believe you! I couldn't agree more! The omnipotent third-person perspective can often be used well, but for a story like this that focuses on interpersonal relationships, I doubt that it would work anywhere near as well. The above is one of the best analysis I've ever seen. I don't really have anything to add, other than that I think you have quite a way with words yourself. This certainly is good drama... And I'm really eager to see what happens in 19... Just a hunch, but I think the issue with Ryan will continue to be exacerbated in 19, but I doubt it will be resolved or even explained in 19. I suspect that we are building up to some major happenings.

Hi, Bob! You, as usual, raise some interesting questions. I think, though, that this aspect of politics is largely subjective, as so many people see it in different ways. IMHO, Money is a vital ingredient, as, indeed, is being in the right place at the right time. In the case of the current President, he has a Father who was President (which was vital to him both in business, and in politics) However, as I said, there are differing points of view about Bush. Obviously, as the winner of a Presidential election, and receiving over 62 million votes in that election, there are plenty of people who voted for him. So, to help give you some insights into differing political opinions, I thought I'd comment on Emoe's post. I respectfully disagree with Emoe in some aspects here, as I find the dynamics of the 2004 election to be much more complex. I do completely agree that the Republicans used gay marriage as a shameful wedge issue, and more to the point introduced anti-gay measures in many key states that appeared on the same ballot. This did indeed increase right-wing voter turnout and gave Bush and the Republicans a lot of extra votes. However, it did not, IMHO, hand bush the election, as no analysis that I have seen claims that it garnered Bush enough votes in critical states to change the course of the election. Therefor, I feel it was just one factor of many (though perhaps the most odious). I suspect that the Republicans are making it an issue again this year, and frankly, I hope they do: Much of their own base is disgusted with such tactics, which combined with their abject failures (such as with spending) has caused this issue to be seen by many Republican voters as a smokescreen and a sham. For one thing, there is zero chance of getting the proposed amendment through the ratification process, let alone through both houses of Congress. It's a red herring, and many Republican supporters are disgusted by that. So, yes, I'd like nothing better than to see the Republicans use this issue, and get bitten by it, hard. There were other reasons for the Bush victory in 2004, and I'd like to mention my own opinions on what some of them are. The first, IMHO, was that the Democrats not-so-cleverly nominated as their candidate perhaps the only man capable of running against Bush and losing. There were many aspects to John Kerry, but he ran a truly bad campaign, had a very poor public image, and his record in the United States Senate was, for me, the thing that made him utterly unacceptable and someone for whom I could never vote. Had the Democrats nominated just about anyone else besides John Kerry or Howard Dean, I'd have almost certainly voted for them in 2004. As it was, I, for the first time in my life, went to the voting booth seriously considering leaving the Presidential choice blank. I've voted in every presidential election since I've been of age, and there were other things on the ballot, so I did vote. I even, finally, decided to vote in the Presidential race, as I felt skipping it would be a bit of a cop-out. The problem for me was that I could not stand any of the third-party candidates. I also detested the Democratic candidate, and I loathed Bush in some areas. Hobson's choice. There was also the factor that many in the political center in this country (the majority) do not fully trust the Democrats of foreign policy. For some examples of how and why, re-read the DO series. This is especially critical since 9-11, and some public policy statements by leading Democrats during the election were not taken well by the public. Thus, the Republicans were able, in some ways, to paint the Democrats as a party of loony leftists (which is far from the truth in most, but not all, cases) who can't be trusted with the nation's security. There is also the point that many, such as myself, support Bush on many aspects of foreign policy. In fact, on foreign policy, Bush is a bit to my left. As for Iraq, I was opposed to it during the run-up, but not for the usual reasons. I felt that the troop levels Rumsfeld was planning in (fairly obvious for publicly available information) was nothing less than insane. I felt that it left us open to disaster if the defending forces proved stronger than we expected (which did not happen) and also would leave Iraq a breeding ground for Vietnam-style insurgency driven by outside forces (which certainly has happened). I also opposed Iraq on the grounds that Iran was the more pressing danger (clearly, given the lack of Iraqi WMD's, and the admitted Iranian nuclear program, Iran was the more pressing danger). I've also been utterly disgusted with the mismanagement of the occupation, and more to the point, the lack of preparation (and sufficient initial force) for the occupation itself. My opposition to Iraq, though, stopped the day the war started. At that point, and certainly after the fall of Saddam, we didn't have the option of retreat. A geopolitical issue of this magnitude simply can't be undone by retreat, and it was the implication that it could that gave me further cause to reject John Kerry. His insistence on a Timetable for withdrawal was strategic suicide, a stance he has not backed away from, and hence, for me, made him utterly unacceptable in that regard. As for Bush's lack of intellectual ability: that is a controversial subject. It's all too easy to tar the man with that brush, yet most of those that do so certainly don't with to discuss the fact that Bush had better grades in college (he attended both Yale and Harvard, very top-notch schools) than did his opponent, the supposedly "intellectual" John Kerry. To many intellectuals, Kerry came across as a blatant fake, and dense as a post. So, both sides essentially like to take pot-shots a the IQ of the other. My personal opinion is that Bush isn't stupid, but is something even more dangerous: a man of average intellect with an unshakable (and unfounded) confidence in his own judgement. As for party obfuscation: Both parties seem to have a penchant for this. This is combined with another reason the Democrats lost in 2004: they were perceived as being too far to the left. They took this electoral liability and enhanced it by installing Howard Dean (the original front-runner for the 2004 democratic nomination) as party chairman. Dean had lost, in part, because the party elite felt he was too far to the left to be electable. If that perception is accurate, it makes the wisdom of making him party chairman even more dubious, and does not IMHO bode well for the future hopes of the Democratic party. Dean's party chairmanship was received with great glee by Republicans, and Dean's continuing gaffes have proven them correct in that regard to many observers. One key problem IMHO is the role of the media in US elections. I'm not talking about Media bias here, but rather the format. The TV news format has seen the rise of the "sound byte", where a policy or stance needs to be summed up in a few words. This is often not possible for a complex position, and has resulted in (IMHO) candidates of both parties going for appearance over substance. It has also IMHO resulted in a massive "dumbing down" of political discourse, and the ascendancy of rhetoric and spin over substance. In my opinion, this is the most dangerous trend in American politics. To try and get back on topic, I'd like to mention the politics in recent chapters of DIR. I consider it to be an excellent inside look into political maneuvering, especially the way Davey's father (in chapter 14) was in effect sabotaged by his own party, with them seeking to end his career.

Happy Birthday, Snowdog! :king: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

Thank you, LB. I'm looking forward to that! I'm especially curious as to the different writing processes for SN and SOOTB, asthey are different in so many ways (aside from length). BTW, to anyone reading this who hasn't read Seeking Nirvana, do yourself a big favor and do so now!

If this is off-topic or not wanted, please delete this post. I've been wondering, for a long time, about certain details of how SOOTB and other stories are written, specifically the deeper meanings aspect. This quote from LB in the Seeking Nirvana thread sums it up best: Seeking Nirvana and SOOTB certainly have a lot of deeper meanings, such as the whole dealing with an attack and aftermath aspect, Ryan's psychology, etc, etc. What I would like to ask LB is this: do you plan out what issues and meanings you want the story to have, and then write the story to illustrate them, or do you write the story and let the meanings and deeper issues sort themselves out? Or neither?

That's a good point. Also, like anything told from the first person point of view (or from any point of view) there is a great deal left out. For example, we don't see ever second of Connor's every day. If we did, it would get boring in a hurry (several paragraphs about him brushing his teeth, basically the same way every day, or a description of each and every traffic light he went through on a drive, etc, etc, etc). If the story had that level of detail, we wouldn't even be at the point of him getting hit by the lacrosse ball yet, and probably wouldn't be for several hundred more chapters. I'm very curious indeed to see where the next chapter takes up. One thing about SOOTB, every chapter radically alters the story! I suspect you may be right about that. Or not. ROFL! I think I am quite right! I dare anyone to prove me wrong on this one! What? You admit that you were thinking like me!?!?! That's very strange, especially in light of the fact that you still won't admit that Eleanor Van Epps was your Cameo... I'd have thought that admitting to thinking like me would be far more embarrassing than that!

I certainly do!! Preferably after hiking in for miles, and at least twenty miles from pavement! Hmmm.. Now my turn.. What to say.. The person below me is as crazy as I am!

Could you be more specific about what you mean? I guess if the person were malicious and tried to "out" the person, or otherwise take advantage ... The way I could see that working is just my knowing the truth, if they're trying to hide it, either from others or themselves. Knowledge and awareness are very powerful things. (Not that I could ever "know" 100% for sure, unless and until it was confirmed.) I should have been more clear, as my statement, as written, could certainly be read in differing ways. OK, my first thought was of a homophobic gay-basher with gaydar. That would certainly not be a pleasant thing for a closeted gay person to contemplate. My other thought was that for the deeply closeted, ANY threat to their "secret" is often viewed with fear. I well remember myself, in my first months after I'd finally admitted to myself that I was gay, taking pains to avoid being around any gay guys, out of fear that they, being like me, might "figure me out". It wasn't rational, of course, but it was very real to me. In fact, it was only after a few times being around gay guys, and having them not "figure me out", that I became comfortable being around them. I'm glad I hadn't really heard of Gaydar back then, or I'd have probably been even more skittish! I've had that happen, plenty of times! There was even one guy who "pinged" my gaydar, because he had a rainbow sticker on his car bumper! (yep, one of those very subbtle clues...) So, one day, I came out to him (this was back when I was in the closet) and was rather horrified to have him reply that he was stright! Turned out that it was on the car when he bought it, and once he figured out what it was, he thought it was funny how people reacted to it (both gay and stright) so left it on! He sure wasn't a homophobe (as it turned out), so that was great, but that was the first time I'd ever outed myself to a stright male, and it was a bit of a confusing shock! :wacko: Please don't take offence, but you sound a lot like me in some regards when I was your age. I'd only very recently accepted that I was gay, and the few gay guys I'd encountered made me exceedingly nervous, but in my case it was to the point of me taking pains to hide my sexuality from them. Basically, they seemed, as you say, to want one thing only: sex. Promiscuity has never been my thing, so that was a huge turn-off to me. I have nothing against those who are promiscuous, but it's just not for me. Nothing to do with "morality", just not something I'm into. The first gay guys I encountered seemed to fall into two categories: closeted, and only interested in hooking up for sex, or out, and promiscuous. Sure, I'd see a hot guy and fantasize, but even if they were gay I doubt I'd have done anything about it. Then (and now), really hot guys make me nervous, and even moreso if they are gay! I was exceedingly fortunate that I'd ended up being the roommate of the guy I mentioned early in this thread. As things turned out, he was gay, and absolutely fit my definition of hot, and by the time we got physical I knew him well as a friend. It also probably helped that I had no clue that he was gay. As it happened, he was relationship-oriented too, and he not only became my boyfriend but also my "tutor" regarding the "gay world". He had been out for several years (I just didn't know) and in many ways shared my opinions about gay guys who were out for nothing but sex. That, however, hadn't stopped him from making a move on a guy (me) he thought was straight! I am sure glad he did though! After we broke up (amicably, due to him moving and us having figured out that we weren't really in love) I did have a different attitude. I was much more willing to actually meet gay guys, and was ok with them knowing that I was gay. I just learned to be very up-front about the fact that I wasn't looking to hook up. Just a suggestion from one who learned the hard way: Keep doing only what you want to do, but try and keep an eye open in case you meet up with a guy you could really click with. Although in my case the guy I mentioned didn't work out long term, I wouldn't trade those months as a couple for anything in the world.

In my opinion, I'd say that yes, the only thing we (gay men in this case) have in common is an attraction to the same sex. Individual tastes and preferences seem to vary as to what specific members of the same sex we are attracted to, and how, and of course personality traits vary from individual to individual. Thank you, Etienne. That's what I was looking for. I'd never expected to see it occur in straight people though! I think a straight person with Gaydar is many closeted gay folks' potential worst nightmare.

I think I hear the whistle of that particular train, too. Ryan IMHO is on darn thin ice. I sure hope he comes out of whatever-it-is as he was really great before. I also share your curiosity regarding why we didn't see Ryan comment on the fight. However, I think the key words here might be "didn't see". I might be wrong, but I think one of the things LB is doing in the story is he's intentionally limiting our (readers) view in some cases by omitting a few things when they actually happen, for dramatic effect. So, theoretically, the conversation may well have occurred, but we, theoretically, might not hear about it until later in the story. Just a wild hunch. Or, given how withdrawn Ryan is, he indeed might not have said anything. Or, he might have, and it might have been included under "friends" in the paragraph where Connor recounts his friends reaction to the fight. I am quite positive of one thing though: whether we get to "see" it or not, I'm absolutely sure that Ryan either did, or did not, discuss the fight with Connor. Regarding the "Ethan" change... Hmmm.. I was wondering why, when the issue first came up, LB and Kitty didn't just explain that it's very common for boys that age to experiment with different first names, hence the discrepancy wasn't a discrepancy at all.

Hi, Eddy! Maybe LB just needs some persuasion.. But, LB, it would just be between you, your loyal fans (who want to see more of you), and the internet.. Besides, if you look at my profile pic, you won't see a shirt... Just sunglasses... So, don't be shy!

Congratulations, Viv! I've long been a FBTE fan, and I'm so glad that you have your own forum now!

Looking back on my own denial, I can only say that, however obvious it may appear in retrospect, denial can cloud the issue. Sorry that worked out the way it did. It's things like that (lost relationships due to the fear of homophobia) that make me most hate the modern (as opposed to pre-christian era times) sexual mores and taboos. Note: My reference to pre-christian era times was not a slam against Christianity, just a convenient chronological demarcation. That is great! I really love to see things work out like that. Mine isn't exactly great, either, so I know how you feel, sort of. Fortunately, mine is bad enough that I am far more inclined to assume that a gay guy is straight than visa-versa. As someone else pointed out, though: a deeply closeted guy who gets "gaydared" might certainly act like a homophobe. I was so deep in the cloest in high school that I wasn't even out to myself, so I know all too well how I reacted if I even thought someone had implied I was gay: I denied it, and made a few mildly homophobic comments to make sure I left no doubt. Looking back, I know of course that it was truly dumb of me, but back then, I couldn't even accept myself. Had I been "gaydared", I'm pretty sure (as much as it pains me now to admit it) I'd have come across like a homophobic jock (not violent, but just verbal). Mine works about as well in stories as it does in real life. I think you are referring to Desert Dropping? I'll avoid being specific in case anyone here hasn't read it (If so, go read it, it's great!) but the only thing I can remember that even comes close to "gaydaring" the characters was thinking something along the lines of "wouldn't it be cool if..." When I finally started reading the forums, long after that time, I was astounded to see that some people had clued in right away. After years of practice, I can indeed, finally, pick up on very subtle signs. One sign is if I see a guy kissing another guy... Another would be if he mentions his current or ex boyfriend. Then, I do get a ping, but other than that, I mis-read no matter how much I watch. Then again, around here, there just aren't hardly any gay people, or, for that matter, hot guys, so seeing who they watch doesn't work too well.