lookin

TAN . . . don't burn . . . use COPPERTONE ®

I didn't hear it, but I read it last evening. It appeared he was appropriately framing the upcoming debate around the issue of what kind of nation we want to be, and what he himself stands for. Seems to me a very appropriate thing for a leader to be doing at this point. Especially glad that he's put defense spending squarely on the table. That budget is almost as big as Medicare and almost as big as Social Security. A 20% cut in 'defense' would be real money. I like Obama. If I have a beef, it's that he sometimes seems to compromise too early in the process. That could be my own inexperience speaking, however, as I'm not good at compromising on issues that really matter to me. It's why I'll never be a politician. For now, I'm willing to keep tagging along. I think he's delivered some good stuff to the country in twenty-seven months, and expect there's more where that came from.

Don't mean to speak for Hitoallusa, but I think he was referring to what we are doing by bringing the babies' lives into the public discussion. They may end up being tarnished by these accusations, and each of us has to decide whether or not to keep the conversation going. As long as the kids are getting plenty of love, that's good enough for me.

You caught me with my pants down, TY. I was in a rush and snatched the first limbo pic I saw. I do hope it will act as catnip for BBB.

GE's tax machinations were the subject of a hoax today when the Associated Press fell hook, line and sinker for a story that GE was going to give back the $3.2 billion refund they received on their 2010 taxes. The fake press release was issued by a group called US Uncut (not associated with MER's Pornification Forum) and supported by another group known as The Yes Men. GE acted quickly to disabuse everyone of the notion that they were planning to give anything back, and a retraction was issued within the hour. We can all rest easy tonight knowing that, if we do end up providing any kind of economic safety net to U. S. citizens, it won't be coming out of GE's corporate coffers. By the way, did you know that U. S. corporations covered 30% of all federal revenue in the 1950's but, in 2009, covered only 6.6%? Of course, corporate panties are still bunched in the nation's boardrooms, as they squeal it's still far too much. Wonder how low they're fixin' to go?

Your brother may be closer to the mark than you think. This NYT article explains how GE earned $14.2 billion in profits last year, and got a U.S. tax refund of $3.2 billion. Hint: Former Treasury Department official John Samuels heads up their 975 person tax department.

In full agreement, TY, and buoyed by your passion. With all that's going on in this country and in the world, for our legislative branch to be obsessing over the best way to cut health services to the elderly and poor is a disgrace. I don't see how these guys sleep at night. I expect that most have acid stomach.

I think he was responding to my post. Lookin is very close to Lucky. Lucky himself has been busy in another thread, covering his assets, and will perhaps join us here with a few lurid digs once he has successfully secured his vast holdings.

I should have noted it came from a Wikipedia article on Norman Lear. So true. She once famously said, " . . . I've done everything but rodeo and porn." Bet she'd have given both audiences their money's worth.

Norman Lear was definitely prolific. Other links in the All in the Family chain were Good Times (a spin-off of Maude) and Gloria (a spin-off of Archie Bunker's Place). I well remember the show where cousin Maude came to take care of the Bunkers when all had come down with the flu. Archie asked her what the awful stuff was in the bowl she handed him for breakfast. With her impeccable timing, Bea Arthur told him, "Cream of Wheat with cheese. It's light, but it binds." Good times.

Found myself wondering less about the guy in the picture and more about all the other guys fluttering over his decor. Something tells me there might be a few tacky interiors on the other side of the keyboard too. Well, gotta run. The Architectural Digest crew is due in half an hour, and I've got pillows to fluff!

Maybe not. I know they had just introduced a new smaller model, but don't recall the name. Thinking it over again today, another possibility is that they were a dealer transfer trying to avoid the freeways. But the convoy heading to Target is the explanation to beat. PS: Great pics!

A couple years ago, a friend and I were driving north on Highway 1, about twenty miles north of San Francisco. As I came around a curve, I saw a new Rolls Royce driving southbound towards us. I think it was a Ghost. As soon as I said to my friend, "Look at this pretty Rolls Royce coming at us.", another one came along behind it. Then a third. Then a fourth, fifth, and sixth. I rarely see a new Rolls Royce, and here were six of them traveling in a pack. They were different colors, but they were all identical models. My first thought was that they were shooting an ad, since Highway 1 curves along the Pacific and through beautiful hilly areas and picturesque fishing and farming communities. But it's been a long time since I recall seeing an ad for Rolls Royce. I think it was a new model at the time, and had a waiting list, so why advertise? Then I thought maybe it was an automotive magazine doing a feature story, but they're usually lucky to get one car from the manufacturer and here were six! Then I thought maybe it was an oil sheik and his convoy enjoying the sights, but why would they ship a half dozen cars here for a pleasure drive, or buy them here and ship them home? Prince Charles and Camilla had stayed nearby a year or so earlier, but surely a royal return would have been publicized. It was a rather amazing sight seeing six shiny new Rolls Royce bespoke automobiles passing by and, to this day, I wonder what they were doing there. Any ideas?

You're being far too kind. I would never have thought of tracking down an ardent lepidopterist to illustrate my modest sleuthing abilities, though delighted that you did. Notwithstanding the fact that my personal life's journey has encouraged me to make every effort to maintain an arm's length relationship with butterfly nets.

Yes it is. I can see why he's a good host.

Glad to hear it, MsGuy. While I was checking the other day to see where bottled Coke might be available in Mississippi, I ran across an interesting tidbit that the very first Coca Cola bottling plant was in Vicksburg. Asa Chandler himself made the pitch in 1894. Seems only fitting that it should still be available, albeit by a rather circuitous route.

Zipperzone, MsGuy has it exactly right. I can see your pictures just fine, but only when I'm logged in. Just as my pictures of Kaique required the user to be logged in to see them. But then one day Lucky linked to one of Kaique's pictures that I had uploaded and, lo and behold, I didn't have to be logged in to see it. That's what I was trying to explain, because I thought MsGuy had discovered that trick too. I didn't do a very good job of explaining it, though. So, bottom line, please keep doing that voodoo that you do so well! Anybody needs me, I'll be down here in the sandbox either losing myself by confusing myself or amusing myself by abusing myself. (MsGuy, I hope your JO smiley will make it into the MER Hall of Fame right alongside your Thumbs Up smiley. )

PPS: Although it's Zipperzone whose posts have given me recent experience with linking to uploads, I had forgotten that it was Lucky Himself who first taught me the trick, and with one of my very own posts no less! And, if that weren't enough, it was a link to Kaique he used to show me how. I know I'm at the stage of life where I forget things, but Kaique?!! Ay yi yi! What's even more remarkable about the Kaique images is that they were totally gone from the original site where I found them. Fortunately, I had saved them on my hard drive, and was able to upload them to MER as links. And then along came Lucky, and the rest is history! I'll have to think of some way to let him know what a bad boy I've been and thank him properly.

PS: I still don't understand all this stuff, so I think I'll just return the sandbox to Daddy and let him carry on from here.

Sorry for the confusion, MsGuy. I think I went down a slightly different rat hole, and didn't explain my trip very well. Starting from the top, an admission: I hate delivering red X's (or blue question marks for Mac users) to anyone who reads my posts. They usually arise when I use an image that, for one reason or another, does not like to be called up by using the MER 'insert image' button. I find an image I really like, it even shows up in the preview, and then Bam!, it turns into a red X as soon as I hit 'post'. Sometimes I can find the image on a different, friendlier, site and sometimes I have to start all over. That's what happened with the guy sitting on the flag in a post I made a few days ago. It was exactly the image I wanted, but the site where it was located did not want me to insert a call to the image itself, so all anyone could see was the dreaded red X. Here's what I got when I hit 'insert image': Sometimes the image shows up, and sometimes it's just a red X. I could have just hit the 'insert link' button but then the reader doesn't see the image itself, but rather a link that needs to be clicked. I prefer not to use those, as it requires the reader to be logged in to see the image. Someone may be kind enough to read my post in the first place, but I don't like to add to the burden by requiring him to log in. (It's different with Zipperzone's image links, as they're well worth logging in for, but I figure folks are likely to pass my stuff by unless I make it easy for them.) Here's what I got when I hit the 'insert link' button: (If you're logged in, you may see the image; if you're not, you won't.) Flag guy So I was delighted when I thought I had found a workaround. It was thanks to Zipperzone that I first discovered that I could call up one of his images after he had linked to it, and after I had right-clicked on it to find its URL. Apparently, when one links to an image, its original off-site URL is replaced by another URL which is hosted by the MER site itself. And that MER URL does not mind being inserted as an image that can be seen without logging in. So I first linked to the site with the flag-guy's image using the MER 'insert link' button; that caused a link to the image to be inserted in my post. I then clicked the link and opened the image. When the image was open, I right-clicked on it, found the new URL that MER had generated, and inserted that image into my post. Voila! I now had an image that someone could see without logging in. So it seems like a three-step process will do the trick: (1) 'insert link' to the URL of the unfriendly off-site image, (2) log in and right-click on the image to capture MER's friendly URL, and (3) 'insert image' using MER's friendly URL. Last thing I tried, now that I had MER's friendly URL, was to see if I could delete the link to the other site, and retain only the image. It turned out I couldn't. For some reason, the link to the other site still needs to be present, even if I'm using the image with the MER URL. Don't know why, but there it is. Something to ponder on a cold winter evening in front of the fire.

Music to my ears! However, it does seem that big business, whose interests are likely shared by the "top 1%", has a chokehold on the government and, as Hitoallusa says, is not about to give it up. While our politicians still need the votes of the hoi polloi, it seems the best way to get those votes is through ridiculously expensive campaigns that need to be funded by big business and the top 1%. Typically, the only choice voters have these days is between one beholden candidate and another beholden candidate. Until that pattern is broken, I think it's only going to get more pronounced. Democracy in this country appears to be drifting away from the one man-one vote model the country was founded on, and which we encourage other nations to adopt. Seems like we need to take care of our own knitting first. /rant

No, not exactly. I also learned something new the other day (how to post a picture that wouldn't permit linking and gave the dreaded red X), and I must have just been projecting. Thanks for letting me know what you learned. One of these days, I'll get around to reading the 'What You Need to Know About Photo Sharing' and will probably find the answers to a lot of stuff that's been eluding me.

Did somebody call?

If you're serious, you might be able to find Coke made with sugar. It comes in bottles from Mexico. In California, some Mexican grocery stores carry it, and I understand that Costco and (shudder) Walmart do too. Check the ingredient label to make sure It's the Real Thing ©. It's more expensive but I think it tastes much better, just like it did when I was growing up.

If you mean what I think, I tried that out the other day with the guy sitting on the flag. You can get the uploaded image to show, but you need to have the link showing too. If you erase the link, the image goes too, even though you have its URL. But you should be able to link to the image in another post, and have the image show without the link. That is what you learned, right? If not, please excuse the instrusion. I'll show myself out.