lookin

I believe it's possible for a businessman to select the products and industries he will help build. My own experiences include brand development and, in the nineties, we knew enough about the health implications of smoking that I would not have used any of my own modest abilities to help hook tobacco users. It's not impossible to choose where to put one's efforts, even if one has to sometimes make a personal choice between earning a bit more money and causing harm to others. It's possible, as you say, that Romney could have separated his business decisions from his moral convictions. But he didn't. In the article ihpguy cited, Romney has put himself forward as a morally upstanding businessman by linking himself with children shopping for school supplies: "The back-to-school season is here, and as parents take their children to shop for school supplies, I suspect that many of them will be visiting a Staples store," Romney wrote in an Aug. 23 Wall Street Journal op-ed. "I'm very familiar with those stores because Staples is one of many businesses we helped create and expand at Bain Capital, a firm that my colleagues and I built." Is it not fair then to tell another side of his story?

As TY and others have said, and with the caveats mentioned, it does seem likely we'll have an Obama Presidency and the continuation of a Democratic Senate. A couple of weeks ago, Obama was asked on 60 Minutes what would be different in a second term with the same Congressional lineup we have today. He responded that the Republicans would no longer have their number one goal of seeing him defeated for a second term and his hope was that, without that priority, they would turn their efforts to something more productive. But he didn't seem to say it with much conviction, and I couldn't blame him. I'd also love to see the momentum build for a Democratic House and hope that more campaign money will find its way into those races. But, even then, in the absence of an unlikely Democratic supermajority in both Houses, there's nothing to guarantee that Republican obstructionism won't continue for the foreseeable future. I do find myself wondering why Obama himself seems to be doing nearly all of the heavy lifting in terms of calling out the Republicans on their destructive behavior and I wish the Democratic members of Congress would take on a much larger responsibility for that necessary action. I'm stumped as to why they seem so reticent to do so, and rather ineffective when they try. So the only thing I can think of, in order to get more accomplished in Obama's second term, is for him to take the discussion directly to the American people. In my opinion, it's silly to think that four years of bad economic data and a terrorist attack a decade ago should undo a set of values that the country has spent a couple centuries crafting and two world wars defending. I think the majority of clear thinking folks understand this now, and there's no reason that the rest of us should fail to understand this eventually. It just takes a few leaders who are capable of articulating the facts clearly. Obama has exceptional skills as a communicator, and positioning the fundamental strengths of long-held American values against the temporarily mean-spirited and selfish values of a minority-of-a-minority party should be child's play for him. I hope he'll take it on.

Intelligence effort named citizens, not terrorists WASHINGTON (AP) - A multibillion-dollar information-sharing program created in the aftermath of 9/11 has improperly collected information about innocent Americans and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism, a Senate report concludes. It portrays an effort that ballooned far beyond anyone's ability to control. What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found. . . . Congress is unlikely to pull the plug. That's because, whether or not it stops terrorists, the program means politically important money for state and local governments. . . . "The subcommittee investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot," the report said. When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters and advocates of gun rights. One fusion center cited in the Senate investigation wrote a report about a Muslim community group's list of book recommendations. Others discussed American citizens speaking at mosques or talking to Muslim groups about parenting. No evidence of criminal activity was contained in those reports. The government did not circulate them, but it kept them on government computers. The federal government is prohibited from storing information about First Amendment activities not related to crimes. . . . following the release of the report, Homeland Security officials indicated their continued strong support for the program. Quelle surprise! I can't imagine who in our own government will actually have the courage to step up and defend our civil liberties. Certainly no one has done so yet. I wonder if it will take someone from across the pond to remind us that we still have civil rights on the books in this country.

I think different credit unions have different rules for signing up. I found one open to residents and businesses in the area where I live. My plan was to join as soon as my current bank, Wells Fargo, followed Bank of America in adding a five dollar debit card fee last year. Since both banks backed down, I've stayed put. But I'm ready to make the move the instant Wells Fargo tries any more funny business.

I'm sure I'd have gone on looks too. So how could you tell he was bored? Did he yawn a lot? Or keep looking at his watch?

Thanks! I'll be singing it in the shower.

Indeed it was and inspired an image that tickles me still. I hope it will tickle Lucky.

Wouldn't mind getting hold of a Shoney's Big Boy Toy.

As if that's gonna stop us.

While the OP's post focused more on the friends and families of addicts, this Time article focuses more on the process of addiction itself. Not too surprisingly, the brain plays a major part in both the process of becoming addicted and perhaps one day in the process of managing the addiction. Also not too surprisingly, there seem to be as many subtleties in addictions themselves as there are subtleties in the brains of different folks and in the substances and behaviors to which they become addicted. And, once again, black or white thinking is not likely to capture the full range of behaviors that may, or may not, define an addiction. "Addictions," says Joseph Frascella, director of the division of clinical neuroscience at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), "are repetitive behaviors in the face of negative consequences, the desire to continue something you know is bad for you." One can easily find a range in the individual meanings of "repetitive behaviors", "negative consequences", "desire", and "bad for you". And there's certainly a range in the workings of the individual parts of the brain responsible for forming an addiction, as well as in the various substances and behaviors that can lead to an addiction. So it's no surprise, to me anyway, that many of us can see ourselves as addicts when the lower boundaries of the ranges are applied and that few of us may see ourselves as addicts when the upper boundaries of the ranges are applied. What was a surprise, again possibly only to me, was the level of understanding that was in place, even five years ago when the article was written, about the way the various parts of the brain interact and change in the development of an addiction and the possibility that some, though not all, of these interactions and changes may be one day be reversed. If I had known a half-century ago how strong a hold nicotine would have on me, I'd never have started smoking in the first place. Same with caffeine. But I didn't. So I began using both, and went through near-torture to finally quit. And, had I known many years ago how strong a hold an anonymous message board would have on me, I wonder if I'd have started posting in the first place. Oh, probably. I'm sure I can give it up any time I like.

I'll say! Also in the cast: Rob Lowe, Debbie Reynolds, Dan Aykroyd, Scott Bakula and Cheyenne Jackson.

I think one of the possible fallouts of a non-specific post about personal frailties is that some of us with personal frailties may come to believe that the post is directed at us. As I myself have a rather broad and deep portfolio of personal frailties, I find I'm continually muttering "Who, me?" Perhaps we could get a smiley for such occasions.

The jewels are hidden in a man's trousers. He is waiting in the lap-dance area. - I. K.

I think both candidates are hewing to a strategy of under-promise and over-deliver. Makes sense to me. Here's an interesting article from The Daily Beast that focuses on the "big lines" that clinched previous presidential and vice-presidential debates, lines like "There you go again." (Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter) and "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." (Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle). The article suggests that there's more to these debates than just the talking points; there's the strategy of goading your opponent into handing you a "gotcha" line. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Obama will scorch Romney, three out of three. Obama's a deep thinker and he's got a good head on his shoulders. I have no doubt that Romney will hew to a few well-worn factoids that will resonate with his base, but I doubt he'll have the depth of reason behind him that Obama has. And since the debates will likely have the most impact on the undecideds who, I believe, are more likely to be thoughtful voters looking for additional insights, I think Obama will put more points on the board.

As long as you remember to keep your hands off your hips, you should be OK.

It was the first time I could put together a bunch of songs that I wanted to hear, recording just the ones I wanted and in just the order I wanted. Probably still have an old party mix laying around somewhere.

Sez you!

I think you've nailed it MsGuy. Lest we forget, Tom of Finland was head of the Art Department at McCann-Erickson's Helsinki office for more than a decade. I'll bet he could have moved a few towels for the good folks at Cannon.

Actually, SIRI turns me off, so I just returned the favor. I realize I'm the only person in this whole wide world who still gets creeped out by everything I say and do ending up on Apple's servers till the end of time, but there you have it. Funny thing is, among my friends, and most acquaintances, I'm probably the most forthcoming person you'll ever meet. Ask me anything and, unless you're the love child of J. Edgar Hoover and Yenta Telebenta, I'll share all you ask and more. But that's only if I know with whom I'm confiding. Until I learn a lot more about what's likely to become of my personal information in these days of unfettered and persistent data storage, I prefer to be a bit less forthcoming.

AdamSmith invented dance, With talons sharp as needles. He sometimes gave The Buggs a chance, But he preferred The Beatles.

After dithering for a few years, I finally got the iPhone 5 today. Just a short line at the Apple store and, other than the hassle of changing my AT&T account from a business account to a personal account, the whole process was pretty easy. My first smart phone and, so far, it's considerably smarter than I am. By the time I figure out what all those apps are for, it will probably be time for an upgrade.

Great letter from a very articulate 12-year-old! The greed of the insurance companies is getting a little bit of a trimming, thanks to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). They're now required to spend at least 80% of their premiums on the actual delivery of health care. The other 20% can go to overhead, advertising, lobbying, and profits. This is still far in excess of the 5% or so spent by most countries with single-payer health care, but it's a step in the right direction. Those companies that violate the 80% rule are being forced to issue rebates, and 13 million of us are due to receive over a billion dollars in rebates this year. Of course, this is almost certainly one of the provisions that the Romney-Ryan ticket would seek to roll back, so their cuts in the health care budget will likely come from reductions in health care itself.

They may not be as far behind as you think. While direct corporate donations to Super PACs can be spotted through timely disclosure rules, such rules do not apply to trade associations which must identify contributions only once a year, long after their influence has been felt. The disclosure rules do apply to trade unions, however, so the trade associations enjoy a level of opacity available to few U. S. citizens or organizations. So much for free and fair elections. If you have the stomach for another article, try this one. It documents how the American Petroleum Institute scuttled any hope of passing climate legislation, even as the world endured unprecedented weather events. The API, only one of many trade groups flexing its muscle across the country, represents not only U. S. corporations but also outside interests like Saudi Arabia, whose Saudi Refining Inc. chief executive sat on the Board of the API as it was funneling money into Washington in 2010. In fact, 2010 was the first year in which spending by outside interests overshadowed spending by all political parties combined. The sources of the trade-group spending did not become apparent until well after the 2010 elections and legislative actions, just as we will not see who contributed to this year's elections and legislation until 2013. Another article in The Nation estimates that, since the Citizens United ruling, these 'trade associations' have increased their spending ten-fold and will reach nearly $800 million this year. And, as you say, these are the early days of the shift to a corporate plutocracy. What Bill Moyers characterizes as 'seeing it in spades' is not inconsistent, in my opinion, with the likelihood that we will be seeing it in steam-shovelfuls if we don't find a way to intercede.

OK, one of my faves from the '90's, Barry Watson. And he doesn't look too shabby today either. . . .

Agree completely, and will add the Supreme Court to the rout necessary to begin bringing the federal government back into the hands of the people. Not "persons", which the Court has redefined to include corporations, but actual people - the 'government by, for, and of' kind of people who used to be the ones who got to decide elections. If you can spare a half-hour or so, watch the recent Bill Moyers segment on 'The 1% Court' and/or read the article of the same name in The Nation. If Moyers' opening lines don't concern us, the war may already be lost: When five conservative members of the Supreme Court handed corporations and the super-rich the right to overwhelm our elections with tsunamis of cash, they moved America further from representative government toward outright plutocracy, where political power derived from wealth is devoted to protecting wealth. We saw it first in the mid-term elections of 2010, and we’re seeing it in spades in this year’s elections – organized money, much of it dark money, given secretly So it can’t be traced, enveloping the campaign for president, Congressional campaigns, and state legislative and judicial races. There’s never been anything like it in our history – not on this scale, and not this sinister.