caeron

Unfortunately, I think it's just honest. most actors and actresses are sexual fantasy material for a sexually repressed majority who won't just get over themselves and watch porn They want their fantasies straight and clean.

Looks like some kind of continuation I'd guess. Using the link given above, his new court date is 12/03, and his status hasn't changed, still no bail, still no visitors.

I do PR, and I can tell you that publications are dying like flies everywhere. The internet is killing them. Nobody wants to do traditional print advertisement anymore, and if print doesn't have ad dollars, it can't survive.

No idea. I admit I was pretty shocked that they would jack my rate through the roof and not even see reason when we talked to them.

Early this year, I'd run a balance when my wife went out of town to take care of her sick mother. We missed a payment because she normally pays the bills. They jacked my rate, without telling me, to near 30%. It was a BofA alaska airlines card that I'd had for nearly 10 years. They were snotty as shit about it. I paid them off and cut the card up. Screw 'em. I'd paid them plenty over the years, they got greedy and lost my business.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102903.html I thought you must be wrong, but after googling apparently one of the doctors who invented it thinks it is being oversold and may be more dangerous than the harm it prevents. good numbers in the article above. 90% of HPV infections resolve themselves within 2 years. of the remaining 10% half lead to cervical cancer. So 5% of infections, 1 in 20 lead to cancer... But, cervical cancer is one of the most treatable cancers with a death rate of 1.6 to 3.7 per 100,000 cases. So your odds of getting cancer from an infection is 1 in 20. Assuming the worst case numbers above, your odds of dying from it are one in about 27,000, which means the odds of dying of cancer from an HPV infection is about 1 in 550,000. I'm a big fan of vaccines, but even I'd pass on that at those odds. Particularly since in another 20 years when the infection you prevent today would turn into a a cancer, death rates should be much, much lower still. If we do no more than halve the mortality rate in 20 years, the odds would be less then 1 in a million for the vaccine.

I clearly don't run in the right circles, because I admit the drama of all this just baffles me. Scott seemed a bit full of himself when he posted, but no more than a lot of kids that age I guess, and rarely offensive. So I don't get all the excitement about this and the apparent glee. I enjoy watching people who deserve if fall on their face, but I just don't see it here. I never hired Scott (if you don't quote prices, you're too expensive for my tastes), but I wish him well. I think most of us at that age did a lot of stupid things we survived to regret. I know I did.

I understand the obsession with the word marriage, and the desire to win it all at once, but I'm more of Conway's school. Get civil unions, and then just don't call them that. Call it marriage. You can take the word back by doing that.

I take some comfort in the fact that the vote was close, and on an issue like this, the right is going to get better turn out than we do. Still, it is a disappointment. So close to getting voter support.

And I think you're arguing for prohibition. People are still using. Nothing has changed in 40 years except that we're paying a metric shitload to pay to have various drug users and dealers locked up. We're living with the criminal consequences of creating murderous gangs that are killing lots of innocents in mexico. Frankly, I'd rather those who wish to use drugs die, than innocents. Prohibition didn't work then, and it isn't working now. Staring at the reality of the evils of drink and drug addiction doesn't mean that society has the power to make that go away. You may _want_ prohibition to work very badly, but it doesn't. Short of totalitarianism, I don't think it can ever work, and I don't want to live in that society. By process of elimination, that leads to some form of legalization. I think many labor under the belief that the problem is fixable by society somehow. I don't think it is. Society used to think homosexuality was fixable. It wasn't. People will drink and do drugs as they have since we came down out of trees. Head in the sand doesn't change our fundamental impulses. Science may find a way to rewire our impulses some day, but threat of jail clearly doesn't work.

Emotion makes good rhetoric, but poor policy, I think. Alchohol and drugs have been with us since near the dawn of man and telling people they can't by force of law might only work if you are willing to execute everyone caught with drugs within 48 hours without appeal. I think we don't need to explore whether that cure is worse than the drugs. All these horrors you talk about happen even though they're illegal, so how then is making them illegal having any apparent effect? Anybody here who hasn't tried drugs because they were illegal? I didn't think so. Legalizing might well cause more people to use. But it would allow honest, open, true communications about the drugs. Taxation, treatment, quality control. Outlawing liquor didn't cure our human need for booze. Talking about alchoholism and treatment openly did. A lot of things about booze have changed in the last 40 years. Making all these drugs illegal criminalizes the sickness of drug addiction and vastly complicates the the treatment and public discussion of addiction. It feeds a vast criminal network that is murderous. What we are doing is failing, and has created a new mafia. It has been failing for 40 years since Nixon first talked about the war on drugs in 1969. We need a new approach.

I gave generously to the No on 1 campaign, I hope others have as well.

It might inspire me to get off my ass and write the couple of review I should have written last month

I liked Thomas Friedman of the NY Times' take on it. I think it is worth a look.

He's apparently spending a month+ getting ripped. I won't pay for it, but I will check it out.

My guess is given the street crime in Rio, that this won't even hit their radar. They'll be focused on making the city safe for all the dumb tourists who will come :-)

I always come in from the home page to see what new reviews are up, and who the boys of the day are before heading to the forums. Now, I keep having to click the "yes, I know this is a dirty website" screen. It doesn't remember that I've clicked it, and the homepage URL isn't different so I can't bookmark my way past that.

No, I don't. France won't stop cooperating with us on Iran over this incident. I don't care how old he is. He doesn't become innocent because time has passed. If this was a 30 year old murder, would you say the same? He did the crime. The victim said it was not consensual. Are you really suggesting he not be punished because he's successfully evaded the law for 30 years? Or that because he's famous and popular that he be let off?

I read the WSJ daily. It's opinion section for at least the last ~10 years or so has been pretty traditional social conservative. Which is too bad, because I think they'd have a much more useful perspective if their perspective was business fiscal conservative. I think everyone should be required to have coverage which addresses the point they raise.

I don't really care if the EU is upset that a guy who drugged and fucked a 13 year old is finally going to face justice.

I think for profiles this is great, and agree that a email last verified time would be useful for reviews.

The big benefit of the trust in my parents' case was that if one pre-deceases the other, that would normally consume their exemption amount for estate purposes. The trust effectively ensured that when the second parent dies, we kids get the benefit of both parents exemptions, not just one. Not sure how it would apply in your case, but I think it bears a second look.

I'm not a lawyer, but like conway said, my own parents estate planning involved a trust to ensure that the government didn't take what my folks worked for. I don't see why a similar approach wouldn't work for your family.

I think you need a second opinion.

As others have said, estate planning is your friend. Ask the questions now. There are ways to manage it if you do it before your parents die. After they die, not so much.