lookin

I'm one of those who doesn't stay logged in all the time, and sign in only when I'd like to see a photo or make a post. I like the fact that there's a sign-in button on every page, but run into a snag after I do sign in. It always brings me back to the main page, from which I have to navigate back to the thread I wanted to view or post in. It would be really nice if it would bring me back to the page from which I signed in. Of course, this is not the worst thing that ever happened to me and, if it can't be changed, I'm sure I'll get by. But it would be a nice-to-have if the programmers could manage it. I also like the fact that the site is looking a little better every day and would be delighted if I could say the same.

Every once in a while, I'll click on one of the models from the MER banner and lurk in the open chat room for a spell. Flirt4Free assigns me a generic screen name, always beginning with 'California' and ending with several numbers. I have never typed anything in to interact with a model, never participated in a private or group show, and never purchased credits. (brief pause for the boos and hisses to die down . . . ) One such model is Ryoichi O, a cutie who says he speaks English, Spanish, and Russian, and who fiddles with his hair incessantly. He's fun to watch and seems to always have a few fans chatting him up. The first time I watched the goings-on, nothing of note happened. But the second or third time, I was booted from the proceedings with a message along the lines of: You have been banned from this chat room. This is usually for bad behavior. The next day I can sign on again but, after a few minutes, banned . . . usually for bad behavior. As always, I had not typed anything. Tried again last week, from the East coast this time, and nothing happened. But last night, back in California this time, I got booted again. And, before posting this, I signed in again, with the same result. Never happens with any other model and almost always happens with this model. I tried Googling this message to see if anyone else had received it, but no luck. The only thing I can think of is that he's had a bad experience with someone from California and bans all of us indiscriminately. I had considered that he bans all lurkers, but it happens so quickly that he doesn't allow time for someone to un-lurk. I'd love to know what's going on, before I develop a complex. Any ideas from the Flirt4Free cognoscenti here at MER?

. . . and please make me as smart as MsGuy who almost got me praying that he would win instead of me.

And maybe put a little hotplate under the nest to keep them moving around.

Ready . . . Set . . . Blow! Happy Birthday!

MsGuy, I do believe we were separated at birth! I'm sure I'll get used to it too, though I do miss the old color scheme which I thought was elegant, warm, and tasteful, much like many of my favorite fellow-posters. Perhaps it will return over the coming days and weeks. I know I will.

I do think we should carefully consider the face we present to the world, just in case the world would like to sit on it.

Here he is enjoying himself at Madame Tussauds in London.

Sounds quite tempting, though I worry the campus police might take a dim view.

I noticed we were both logged in to the thread at the same time, MsGuy. I just didn't know which one of us would hit the 'post' button first.

I understand Mister Keister has returned forty-two times, always with the same result.

Thanks for the heads up! Apparently she will be touring with another of my favorite Ozzies, Sir Les Patterson.

TurboTax, but not the on-line version. The software CD for both Federal and State costs $45. I'm leery of putting my tax info on-line and probably needlessly so. I like the format of answering questions, and the instructions are pretty easy to follow, with a help button if I want more info about any of the questions. What's especially nice is the way it imports relevant info from last year's return, asking if I've donated to the same charities and such. So the second year is easier than the first. I get the feeling that it's always making sure I'm not overlooking anything. When I've answered the last question, it's ready to roll. It asks a few more questions for the State filing, gives me the Federal and State totals, and an assessment of my risk of being audited. Filing on line is probably super easy but, again, I'd rather not. So it prints out all the Federal and State forms for me to sign and mail, including a cover sheet with the proper mailing addresses. There's really nothing it doesn't do and I've been using it for about ten years with no beefs.

I was initially disappointed in the bill as it stopped short of a single-payer model. My hope was that they'd do something simple like gradually extend Medicare to more of the population until, after a decade or two, everyone would be covered. When they didn't do that, I lost interest. However, as I learn more, especially about the insurance exchanges and the possibility of increased government involvement if private insurers decide not to offer any acceptable plans, I think it may be possible that we could move gradually toward a single-payer option. Hard to say where it will lead. Especially hard to predict is what will happen if the Supreme Court decides that the government cannot mandate that everyone either buy insurance or pay a penalty. I don't think the Court is expected to strike down all the provisions of the AHA, so much of it will be left in place. If they decide to strike down the universal coverage part of the Act, it will cause problems for the insurance companies who were counting on thirty percent more customers. That means they will probably price their offerings higher, and I think that means there will be more of an opening for a government plan. It seems to me that another benefit of moving toward a single-payer system like Medicare is that employers could eventually get out of the healthcare business, and that should make them more competitive with other countries which have adopted government-run systems. Hard to see how this will all play out but, if I had to guess where things will end up ten years from now, I'd put my money on a greater role for the Federal government than we have today. I'm not sure my reasoning is valid, and would love to hear what others think.

Not till now. Funny!

These would come in handy in my social life as well.

Dark humor. I wonder, gcursor, if you are a fan of Edward Gorey, as I am. From the Gashlycrumb Tinies:

Jimmy Carter has always been the proudest vote I've ever cast. To this day, the man walks his talk.

AdamSmith invites RA1 for an evening spin through West Hollywood. Before long they spot a couple of twinks looking for some company.

You'd think they'd have the good sense to keep such incendiary programming out of drive-time hours.

What about poppers? Or prescription drugs? Or the giddiness that comes from just being high on life? If I understand correctly, the laws being considered would work to determine why a driver was unsafe, and then only after the fact. Tests to determine levels of alcohol in the blood are usually made only after a driver has caused an accident or has been observed driving erratically. And it sounds like tests for THC or prescription drugs or other chemicals that could cause impairment would also be made only after an impaired driver has taken to the road. And what if a driver has an impairment that does not have a measurable blood-based component? What if he has unusually slow reflexes related to age or some other factor? What if he forgets his glasses, or has just had his eyes dilated by his ophthalmologist? What if he's zoned out on a drug for which we don't yet have a test? There are probably millions of such folks on the road as we speak, and we'll hear about them only after they've crashed or been spotted zigzagging by the police. The ignition-interlock that some convicted drunk drivers are required to install and blow into before the car will start has the advantage of preventing an impaired driver from getting on the road, and it seems that a similar principle could be applied to prevent a driver who is impaired for any reason from starting the car in the first place. Perhaps the solution would be to define the basic criteria that indicate a driver - any driver - is safe to be behind the wheel and to use technology to determine if he meets those requirements before the car starts. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should probably be the ones to develop these requirements, I'll throw out a couple off the top of my head: response time and peripheral vision. The enabling technology might be as simple as projecting a half-inch symbol on a random spot on the far side of the windshield and requiring the driver to step on the brake and push a button on the steering wheel within two-tenths of a second. After repeating the process with a symbol on a random section of the rear window, the ignition would be unlocked and the car could be started. I'm sure there's plenty wrong with the criteria and the examples I've used, but there should be some experts out there who could come up with better ones, and require that they be implemented on all new cars. The critical component would be performance-related tests given to every driver before the car starts. I can hear the squeals coming from at least three directions: The car manufacturers would holler just as they did after seat belts were proposed and for all the same reasons. Is that a good enough reason to keep doing what we're doing, and just try to find more and better blood tests? Prescription drug users would point to the legality of their drugs and their right to drive whether or not they're impaired. Is that a good enough reason to let them loose in the neighborhood? Some may worry that a stoner still has good enough vision and fast enough reaction time to pass the objective tests and get the car started. Is that a good enough reason to keep him off the road even if he's still a safe driver by objective standards? Discuss, if you like.

Happy Birthday, CharliePS! I always enjoy checking the Famous Birthdays to see who shares a natal anniversary with those I admire. With the possible exceptions of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and Neville Chamberlain, you are easily the most famous person on today's list. Queen Latifah might also have made the cut, though I'm sure you have better legs. ( PS: I tried posting this on the other site, where's there's already a very active thread going on, but wasn't able to log in for some reason. )

Tomcal waits to see if Lucky will invite him up to take a few pictures

At last! Let's hope they (and we) follow through in dismantling this unchecked assault on our democratic values. Even the name gives me the willies. Who should ever be given the right to label some citizens "patriots" and exclude others at will. The problem with a word like "patriot" is that it has no objective meaning, and is far too subjective as a basis for enacting legislation. As far as I can tell, the only way such an act could ever have got through a thinking Congress is that Congress was not thinking in the aftermath of 9/11. The government was caught with its pants down and was determined to never again be in a position to be blamed for the series of failures that led to three thousand civilian deaths at the hands of amateurs. The easy solution was a new piece of legislation, rather than fixing the problems and failures that let the terrorists get through in the first place. No one wanted to say that "We screwed up, the legislation we have is plenty good enough to prevent this in the future, and we need to do a better job of working with what we have." Like TampaYankee, I believe that Cheney was the force behind getting this unjustifiable legislation passed. But the majority of Congress and the President went along with it ten years ago, just as they go along with it today. I believe that the average citizen is used to thinking that the government knows what it's doing and that our democracy hasn't really been hurt by this legislation. But it has, not only because of the specific laws that have sprung from it, but by the attitude it has fostered that the government can do any damned thing it pleases just by invoking the bogeyman of terrorism. Thank Heaven for the ACLU and for Congressmen like Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. I think it will take decades to undo this legislation and the attitudes it has fostered. It will also take involvement from ordinary citizens, beginning with a clear statement that we do not want a government with unlimited power. I thought we had made this clear a couple centuries ago, but apparently it's time for a reminder. /rant

Actually, he didn't. But Eric Wagner and Sharon Ma did. Here's how. Fun post. Thanks!