lookin

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.

Who said this, and when did they say it? Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income. Answer Original signed letter (takes a few seconds to load)

Many thanks to those who took the time to respond. Must admit, I hadn't thought through the impact of a government-run jobs program on escort availability, and am grateful to those who did. Last Sunday, I saw a 60 Minutes segment on Brazil's economy and wondered if all the jobs being created presently might have some impact on the alleged paucity of hot guys in the Brazilian saunas these days. Definitely food for thought. RA1, as always, you ask some good questions and I'll take a shot at those I can. Not sure. But we could definitely find out. If the folks who believe our unemployed citizens like it that way are correct, no one would sign up for the program and it wouldn't cost anything. If they're wrong, we could at last put that argument to rest. I think that's true. Full disclosure, though, I'm one who doesn't cringe at the thought of tending to the welfare of all our citizens. I think there are similarities, although Hitler focused on improving Germany's military capacity and I'd focus on improving our country's health and nutrition. I also wouldn't bring in the Gestapo to boost productivity. VISTA is a much smaller program than the one I envision, and is not as focused on health and nutrition. It also doesn't offer the rather large payout I'm suggesting after two years of service. I think the idea of being able to leave with $12,000 after two years would be a draw for lots of folks. I'd also suggest the option of leaving after one year with $3,000. The $2500 was an estimate, and I'm open to better numbers if someone has them. Barracks-style living and communal food is what I had in mind. I really would start with something very similar to the way the CCC was run, except that it would be open to women as well as men. Not sure what you mean by "The military is unable to do that now." While "another government agency" does suffer from the "ick factor", so does the absence of jobs. Or so I am told. I would and do. The government option is merely something to do while we're waiting. Believe me, I'm not saying this way of creating 3.5 million jobs is an ideal solution. All I'm doing is putting a specific suggestion out there. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all for it. Where I think we keep going off the tracks is not having any plan to solve the problem. The 'national debate', if we can call it that, seems to have devolved into non-specific threats that any action someone doesn't like will cost us more jobs, without ever offering a specific proposal to create them. In my opinion, that approach is nothing more than a rat hole that won't ever get folks back to work, and a buzzkill to boot.

Watched a rerun on the Civilian Conservation Corps earlier this week. It got me wondering whether a similar program could be of any help today. If my calculations are correct, with a 9.2% unemployment rate, we currently have about 14 million people looking for jobs. I thought I heard that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would help put folks back to work, and I'm not done hoping yet. And I understand that the latest budget deal, with all the business tax loopholes still in place, is supposed to be a good thing too. In fact, I heard a few days ago that businesses are sitting on a record $1.2 trillion in cash! But they still don't seem to be hiring, at least in the U. S. So what would happen if the government started creating jobs directly? I know some politicians wouldn't be pleased, and would prophesy record unemployment, among other things. But I don't think they have any specific plans to create jobs, at least not any specific plans that they're willing to share with us at present. So I keep going back to the possibility of a government program that would actually give folks jobs right here, right now. When businesses decide to start hiring again, the government program could fold, just as the CCC did when the war economy kicked in. Conservation may not be the place to put people to work today, but I wonder if something like small organic farms throughout the U. S. would be. We certainly could benefit as a country from better nutrition, and if the products from these farms could go directly to local schools, we'd be helping kids, freeing up money for teachers, and improving our health nationwide, all while we're creating jobs. I was playing around with some numbers and tried figuring out what it would take to bring our unemployment rate down to 7%. That would mean creating jobs for 3.5 million people. I assumed that $2,000 a month per person would provide a worker with food, medical care, a place to sleep, and $500 a month in spending money. Another $500 a month would be put in a savings account that would give the worker $12,000 in cash after two years in the program. That $12,000 could be used for tuition, a car, or a weekend with a few favorite escorts. $2,500 a month for 3.5 million people would cost $105 billion a year. I know, I know, we're supposed to be saving money, not spending it. But a key reason we're saving money is to create jobs, no? And most of the money spent on the program would be finding its way directly into local businesses, communities, and schools. And that should further reduce unemployment for workers in those communities, while improving the health of the workers and the students who get cheap nourishing food. It could also start us down the path toward becoming a healthier country, reducing medical costs and improving quality of life. One of the things that struck me about the CCC alumni was the improvement in their mental and physical health while participating in the program. It also put them in touch with folks from other backgrounds, and taught them that we are much more alike than we are different. That seemed to be worth something too. Another benefit of the CCC was the fact that, when World War Two came along, there were millions of men who were physically fit, used to taking orders, and knew how to work as part of a team. I hope that we won't need those skills for war ever again, but the possibility may provide some comfort to Leon Panetta, who is worried that cuts to the Pentagon's budget will leave him in a bind. And, if the corporations who are sitting on $1.2 trillion in cash want to get in on the action, why not let them use some of their extra billions to get a little positive press? If they won't hire U. S. workers directly, let them donate some of their cash to the program in return for being able to declare "We Support Workers, Health, and Kids!" in their advertising and promotion. I'm sure there's a lot wrong with this idea, and I know I can count on the learned gents of MER to point out the flaws in my reasoning.

I think Obama's heart is in the right place, though he's still earning his political chops. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd rather have it that way than have a politically skilled president without a soul. So glad to be in the company of a fellow Carter fan. I think he came to Washington determined to steamroll through the system, and couldn't. But he always knew where he wanted to go and he got a lot done. I haven't given up on Obama yet. His steamroller was Rahm Emmanuel, who I suspect stirred up some unnecessary animus. But then maybe a president and his team really have to piss off a lot of folks to get things done. FDR sure did.

I'm feeling better already!

They're probabably not doing it right. Sounds like another opportunity for a little MER cultural outreach. How about declaring August Outreacharound Month?

. Sez who???