std’s and sexual (mis?)behavior

I originally had something in mind to say here, but the longer I go on, the less clear it is what I want to say. Partially I want to recap the whole of “Sexual Ecology” into a compressed memetic virus which will go forth, infect us all, and prevent future numbskull behavior. The basic prescriptive thesis of the book is that gay men need to try for more serial monogamy, and a lower rate of partner change, as the “condom code” isn’t terribly effective, particularly in an environment of frequent partner change. Another interesting point he makes is that, even if HIV is “cured”, the interactive patterns that men who have sex with men have makes way for more, similar nasty infectious diseases. I can’t remember if he explicitly makes the point, but I certainly got the point that effective HIV treatment meds will increase the incidence, both by keeping the HIV+ folks alive longer (good) and by allowing the irresponsible among them (a minority of a minority, but a damn dangerous one) to keep spreading it after they would otherwise have been incapacitated and died. (bad?) The gay guys who were going through their coming out in the 70’s and to a lesser extent in the 80’s, suffered a form of natural selection. Many of the reckless ones didn’t make it. Enter HIV meds, and you have where we are now. That’s excessively brief and entirely inadequate as a description, but it’ll do for now.

Another thing I wanted to do was talk a little bit more about the inside of my skull, both how I’m dealing with the current state of affairs and what led to the current state of affairs. Clearly I did some numbskull stuff myself. In the past I’ve been, not so much an advocate of, as a reliable practitioner of open relationships. I’ve broken the condom code (I have never had unprotected anal sex while in a relationship, either in or outside the context of that relationship. In fact, while in a relationship, I’ve never had anal sex outside it. Can I say that I was rationally calculating the risks, and weighing the risk of stds against the short term benefits of immediate buttsex? Not honestly.

Generally, in my case, it was an implicit undervaluation of the self. Desperate longing for affection. High stress. Resignation and passivity. An urge to make others happy. I never did it unconscious of the risk. I never initiated unsafe sex. But, by the same token I rarely stopped it. Damn stupid.

I’m trying not to judge myself too harshly on this one. But every time someone makes sympathy noises towards me, I reflexively do the verbal equivalent of batting their hands away, “Well, these things happen.”. I want to be strong, and I know I can get through life on my own, functionally with little problem. I fear how others will react (though no one I’ve told so far has reacted negatively). And at the same time I want somone to comfort me, tell me that I’m still a good and worthy person. That everything will be okay. They are tough urges to reconcile, even leaving aside.

I vascilate between believing “unpleasant surgery with a probable quick recovery, and some dude looking up my butt once every couple weeks for awhile. Sure, less than optimal, but not really a big deal,” and feeling like damaged goods that will contaminate everything it (I) come into contact with. Bleh!

Too tired to think clearly, bleh. Night, night.

California Francise Tax Board is on crack

They sent alot of mail to me at my former residence, which I only just got, declaring that I owe them nearly $900 in back taxes, about $550 of which they’re claiming I owed from 2001, a year in which I worked not a day in CA, and lived in chicago, il and pittsburgh, pa.

They’ve also declared their tax estimates “final” and have threatened major fiscal unfriendliness. All with deadlines in the past.

I just got it in the mail today. And now I have all weekend for the potential disastrousness, and their likely bureaucratic stonewalling, to prey on my mind. Just lovely.

mon(k)ey markets

Two of the 3 big courses I’m taking this semester are on Economic Development. One is just titled “economic development”. That one has been tremendously educational on a topic I’ve been thinking about for quite some time. Both times that I applied to Berkeley, I wrote on the essay topic relating to removing capital gains taxes, as an “economic stimulus”. I even presented it once to my political economy class, with . As soon as I’d finished my brief presentation, Aaron asked me a question that made no real sense to me then. It was something about using interest rates to control inflation.

I was baffled, grinned, shrugged, and professed ignorance. Professor Fong fielded the question and sorta took over in what turned into a group discussion on a topic unrelated that course, but which seems to be a major topic in this this course. What is the role of the interest rate in inflation. How do we control the value (and exchange rate) of currency? What is inflation? What are the consequences of overvaluing currency? How does it happen? Who benefits and who takes it on the chin? Ditto for undervaluing currency. What is the interaction between the stock of money, the rate of financial transfer, the production of things of value, and prices of those produced goods? What does changing one of those do to the others? What does this tell us about inflation?

It’s crazy stuff. I feel like an ignorant child watching him bat concepts back and forth with some of the other students in the class. Then there’s the occasional one I catch and toss to him. Very educational. I have to admit his sink or swim flatout lecture style is less than enchanting, but he’s teaching such fascinating stuff that he clearly knows like the back of his hand that I’m still enjoying the class … somewhat.

I’m feeling like I should write letters to my former profs (particularly Prof Fong from cmu and Prof Quigley from Berkeley), telling them about my current educational exploits, and thanking them for what they taught me as well as their letters of recommendation. Then I might have to write “thank you”s to Tom and Ro as well 😉

State of the union

Thanks to , I actually ended up watching the state of the union address, and ranting at about every other sentence out of bush’s mouth. It was entertaining for me, I hoped it “enhanced” his experience. Mostly it wasn’t about how incredibly wrong he was. More the dangerously deceptive simplifications which he promulgates, and frequently innaccurate.

For an example of what I point out, allow me to point out that Bush isn’t protecting straight marriage. While gay marriage is off limits, and homos are still regarded as somehow anathema in society, they’ll continue to fuck up the straight marriages they’ll get into because they can’t accept their own sexuality. Possibly their kids as well, who will learn what marital sanctity and stability mean from their parents. That is a far greater risk to stable, healthy, heterosexual marriages than the possibility that heteros will get seduced into gay marriage.

The real problem comes from what society sees and publishes all over the place, the brief, spectacular marriages and divorces of the people in the public eye. If you want to improve stability of marriages, either make sure that once together, they stay together (because we like abusive couples being forced to stay together) or make it harder for the fickle to get married in the first place (I’m sure a waiting period on marriage would be popular, especially compared to scapegoating). The final alternative is a cultural one, and thus not really within the power of political leadership: take away the splendor of the wedding ceremony. Quit weighing down marriage with impossible expectations of happily ever after. Make it a solemn declaration of mutual responsibility. No drunken bashes afterwards. No strippers at bachelor parties before (do people really do that?) The marriage ceremonies I’ve most admired were ‘s and ‘s and Virginia’s and . They were simple, respectful, and an affirmation of a commitment already demonstrated.

That’s the least in scope of his problems, but it is representative of his methodology. Hurting people and denying them freedom, for short term political gain, and hanging pretty words on it.

School segregation, desegregation, and resegregation

Yesterday I gave my presentation (along with a classmate) on the San Francisco school desegregation program, its tie-in to american segregation, desegregation, and resegregation. My professor thought it was good. Certainly a boost to the ego. As has everyone who’s talked to me about it. I’ve developed a new metric for whether one has properly prepared for a presentation as well. If you can think of a few different threads you didn’t pursue because you didn’t have time, then you’ve preparedd adequately.

In particular the ones that I didn’t get into were related to residential preferences, and whether segregated minorities are suffering under an imposed situation or whether segregation is the result of their preferences as well. And if so, what that implies about desegregation. I think it is, and it suggests to me that explicit desegregation programs works on something tangentially related to the problem, and exacerbates the problems of white flight.

It adds a (necessary) dimension of complexity to the problem. Desegregation will never be enough. And, to my mind, it will never be a huge benefit for the cost. The resources that would be applied to such a program can be better applied elsewhere.

“I’ll be short”

A few months ago, I finally got around to reading the book Robert Reich suggested we the audience read at his presentation at UC Berkeley, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. It was a good book, and it certainly added depth to my thoughts on do I stay or no, though it didn’t really change it, or make it easier. While I was checking that out, I figured I’d read something Reich wrote himself, and so it was that I started reading “I’ll be short.”

It’s a great outline of the liberal/democratic philosophy. It does a great job of providing statistics to outline the current problems. It also presents solutions to these problems. I didn’t find his presentation of the solutions to be as compelling as I would have liked, but he was, after all, being short. Each of his proposals could easily have been the subject of many articles examining its effectiveness, which is about what it would have taken for me to give them enthusiastic support. I’d give it a recommendation as an interesting, and engagingly written starting point for people who’d like to go a little deeper on policy issues

South Vietnam voting and the flaw in the analogy

Some have pointed out that the presentation of the voting in S Vietnam under US protection/occupation was very similar to the presentation of the voting in Iraq recently. They are definitely comparisons to be made. But I ask you, if Iraqi insurgents are comparable to the Vietcong, who do you compare to China and North Vietnam?