lookin

Brandon Belt, the Baby Giraffe

Indeed he is and indeed he has. What a gem! Thanks!

Wonderful story. Thank you! Especially liked this part: I was wondering all the way through if you had done the translation. It must be wonderful to speak a second language so well. Thanks again for sharing it!

Ha! I saw that and emailed it to everybody I know. Well, almost everybody.

As it will be at least an eight thousand year round trip until he returns with your jewels, I hope you will keep in good shape with lots of exercise, eat healthy, and use plenty of moisturizer. You'll want to look your best with all those new baubles.

Consumer Watchdog, a California consumer rights group, is planning to put a healthcare measure on the 2012 ballot that would offer Californians a public option for healthcare insurance. That's been my goal all along, and I was disappointed that it was not a major component of the federal Affordable Care Act, although the 'insurance exchanges' in the ACA may well morph into the closest thing we can get to a national public option. In the meantime, I'm glad to see California stepping up. It won't be a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. According to this article, the insurance companies may spend $100 million to defeat the measure, and that is a lot of advertising in just one state. It surprises me that more folks aren't tuned in to the fact that so much of their insurance premiums go to this kind of lobbying, rather than being spent to improve their medical care. Or to lower their rates. For me, the elephant in the room has always been that U. S. health insurance companies spend 30 cents of every premium dollar on overhead and profits. If you compare that with the 1 - 2 cents spent by Canada on administering its health care plan, it's pretty easy to see why U. S. healthcare is so expensive relative to nations with a similar level of care. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for insurers in the system, but I don't think it's the same role they fill today. In my opinion, their current business model is simply a luxury than many consumers can no longer afford. The things I'm not sure I like about the California initiative is the proposed 20% premium rollback and the attempt to regulate rates. I think it just adds 'noise' to the debate. My preference would be to let the insurance companies be just as greedy as they like. As long as there's a public option available, side by side with the insurance companies' offerings, let the consumer make the choice. If folks want to pay $72,000,000 to the outgoing CEO of Aetna, who am I to stop them?

I'm a big fan. Even bigger after I returned two TV's. It took me less than two minutes to fill out the form on their website, and print the return form. They had UPS show up the next day with all the shipping forms already filled out. Easy, peasy, and they paid the return freight. I like their review sections too. Even when I don't buy from them, I check out what others have to say about the product. I do pay taxes though. At first, it was tempting to count it as savings, but I like the services my state provides and figured it was fair to kick in my share. When I'm doing my taxes, it's easy to go to Amazon's website and get a report of last year's purchases. I'm not sure why Amazon raises such a ruckus about collecting taxes, other than to gain what seems like an unfair pricing advantage. The only downside is that they do siphon off business from local retailers, but the big national retail chains have already done that anyway, so it's not a huge deterrent. I keep my fingers crossed that they're not funding any unjust causes or snarky politicians, as I would miss buying from them.

Personally, I enjoy being discreet. Folks sometimes share things they might not otherwise, since they know it won't go any further. As posted above, if I were an escort, discretion would be part of the package of services that I would offer. My only qualification would be to prevent violence or other serious crime. If I knew Hinkle's record, I'd have been tempted to give him a piece of my mind, but I don't think I'd have outed him. That said, I'd never tell an escort how to run his business or his life. All I'd hope for is an honest answer to the question, "Are you discreet?" (Assuming I ever asked it, which I haven't so far.) Doesn't mean I wouldn't hire an escort that answered, "No" or "Usually" or "Sometimes". It just means that I'd be less forthcoming. (Would that be fifthcoming? Or thirdcoming? ) Not to put any escorts on the spot, but how do you think you would answer the question: "Are you discreet?" Would you qualify your answer, even if it meant the possibility of losing a client? And if you didn't qualify your answer, would you stick to it?

Good gosh! With your gift for launching threads that are at once salacious, thought-provoking, and all-round entertaining, it would be a shanda to unplug your keyboard for fear of a little exposure. Imagine if William Shakespeare had decided to sheath his pen, or Pablo Picasso to return his brush to the linseed oil, or Pablo Casals to de-rosin his bow, or Ralph Woods to zip up his . . . Well, you get my drift. Some folks were just meant to light the way for the rest of us and I trust you will continue to bear your burden with customary grace and good humor.

Without exception, it's always my own better self I'm trying to reach through these sundry observations and musings. The reason I feel comfortable doing it in public amongst you all is that there are so many good souls here who are on a similar journey. All to the good, I think, if we rub off on one another along the way. You should pardon the expression.

A thought-provoking question, as always, RA1. One thought it provokes for me is that a society that needs enemies will find them, either inside or outside. When there is a clearly identifiable outside enemy, then, as you say, internal cohesiveness will build. We saw that here, just after 9-11. When outside threats subside, a society that's in the habit of looking for enemies will find them within itself. Another thought is that there have been, and are, societies that are able to function fairly well without enemies, either external enemies or internal ones. This website lists a few. Yet another thought is that societies can change as the years go by, sometimes adopting an 'us vs. them' approach and sometimes realizing that we're all in this together. A final thought is that, once again, 9-11 caused a sudden shift in the social dynamic of the U. S. The day after, we were more focused on enemies than we were the day before. In my opinion, even if we are able to reduce the threat of outside enemies, we will still be in the habit of looking around for enemies, and we will find them within. I believe that is happening now. With awareness of this dynamic, and with a bit of luck, my hope is that we can once again come to a realization that we're all in this together, and that the number of enemies we have may be fewer than we presently think. It will take time, of course, for this change to occur and some will lead the process and some will resist. Still, no reason not to get started.

I don't think we're as bad off as the Germans were in the 1920's when Hitler was building his power base, but things could always get worse. I'm currently reading a book on Germany between the wars and, as you might expect, there were some who knew Hitler was toxic, some who thought he was Germany's savior, and then the majority who tried to keep their heads down. For me, the turning point is when we start to lose compassion for one another. That's what allowed the Nazi's to take hold. I think there's still a lot of compassion in the U. S., but I do believe we need to make sure we all stay connected and do not allow our poor and infirm and powerless to be sacrificed in the name of lower taxes and 'smaller government'. When that kind of heartlessness makes it into the polling booth, as the Tea Party seems determined to have happen, I think we're on our way downhill. In my opinion, it's better to err on the side of too much compassion (if there is such a thing) than too little.

GIVEN how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics. But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea Party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think. Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent. Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like "atheists" and "Muslims." Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right. more: Crashing the Tea Party: NYTimes.com

. Sharing: The Secret of a Happy Marriage

You probably wouldn't hear much over the yowling anyway. As an aside, would any of you diehard fans switch team allegiance because of a hottie playing for the other side? Quite possibly I would, but my devotion doesn't run all that deep.

Why not boost your odds and try making a big entrance? Flying Down to Rio - RKO, 1933

I don't disagree with you, TY. In fact, after reading your response, I think I agree more with what you said than what I said. What I was trying to get across is that I think there may be escorts who are not 100% discreet, and they will still get hired. If Ralph Woods ever started escorting, I'd hire him even if he were an outright blabbermouth. I just wouldn't share any personal information. What would bug me is an escort who presents himself as discrete but really isn't. That would be the same hypocritical behavior we fault Hinkle for, and that would send me packing. Well, just as soon as my hour was up.

If you're going to be a hypocrite, I think you should at least be a sneaky, lying hypocrite. Brutally honest hypocrites don't usually have a very long shelf life. What I share with an escort depends on the escort. If it's a one-off with no personal connection, I just smile a lot and say "Thank You!" every once in a while. If I like the guy and feel connected over a period of time, my life is pretty much an open book, short of the recipe for my Special Brownies. As far as whether or not an escort should be discreet, I think that's up to each escort. If I personally were an escort, I'd be as discrete as I could possibly be. That would just be part of the package of services. I wouldn't cover up a serious crime though. Or violence. I'd sing like a canary. This Hinkle guy sounds like he became abusive, which borders on violence, so I won't second-guess the actions of the escort and his sister in blowing the whistle. They should never have been put in that position.

Perhaps he has a future in water sports.

47.

Boy, it sure sounds like these guys knew how to run a cabal! I could see visiting on weekends but with my luck I'd probably have got a room across the hall from the Ratzinger Brothers.

MsGuy got it, on the first try. Sent me off to learn more about image recognition technology, which I heard Google has been working on for several years. Tried all three of OZ's images using Google. It got Darwin, but not the other two. TinEye got all three. This is fun! Next?

I've been pondering the same thing. Running two wars without taxing ourselves to pay for them was, and continues to be, boneheaded. I'm no history expert, but I can't think of any country that managed to do it without either pulling riches out of the countries they invaded or going down the tubes themselves. Part of the problem, of course, was that the Bush administration was adamant that the wars would cost only a few billion dollars and we'd be in and out in no time. In the run-up to the Iraq war, they also swore that other countries would help foot the bill; and, of course, that never occurred in any meaningful way. By the time Obama came into office, it was clear that the wars would cost trillions and that, not only had we not raised taxes to pay for them, we had actually lowered taxes. Then came the decision to send in more troops. In fairness, I think Obama was between a rock and a hard place. He had three choices if he wanted to avoid running up the deficit: (1) bring the troops home at once, (2) raise taxes substantially, and/or (3) get other countries to kick in a trillion or two. Number 3 wasn't happening. Number 1 would have put the 'loss' of two wars on his doorstep, and number 2 would have labelled him and his party 'tax and spend liberals', without a chance of reelection. Furthermore, neither option 1 or 2 would have made it through Congress except, as you say, during a brief window with a filibuster-proof Senate. If his eye had been solely on the deficit-reduction ball, he could have immediately brought the troops home and raised taxes to pay for past misadventures. But he had made a commitment to working with Republicans and avoiding bipartisanship as much as possible. In hindsight, he may have made the wrong call. In fairness though, in 2009, was anyone truly expecting that Congress would soon reach levels of intransigence that would make even Roger Griswold blush?

Thanks, Lucky. I really appreciate it when someone provides factual info, and in a format that's easy to follow.

Seems like most are OK with combining them, as I was before reading this thread. I now realize that there are some valued posters who have strong feelings about keeping politics out of the main forum, and I would now vote for respecting their views. As one who has been pretty sloppy about where my political opinions get posted, I apologize to anyone who has stepped in one of mine without fair warning. I do enjoy the political discussions here, and rarely come across the kinds of abusive posts seen in other places, in other times. I'd encourage folks to give the Politics Forum another try, especially if you haven't stopped by for a year or two. For my part, I'll move my screeds down there as long as it's around. After all, anything that makes for strange bedfellows is OK in my book.