TampaYankee

Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times A Filibuster Fix By NORMAN ORNSTEIN Published: August 27, 2010 AFTER months of debate, Senate Democrats this summer broke a Republican filibuster against a bill to extend unemployment benefits. But the Republicans insisted on applying a technicality in the Senate rules that allowed for 30 more hours of floor time after a successful vote to end debate. As a result, the bill with its desperately needed and overdue benefits for more than 2 million unemployed Americans was pointlessly delayed a few days more. The Senate, once the place for slow and careful deliberation, has been overtaken by a culture of obstructionism. The filibuster, once rare, is now so common that it has inverted majority rule, allowing the minority party to block, or at least delay, whatever legislation it wants to oppose. Without reform, the filibuster threatens to bring the Senate to a halt. It is easy to forget that the widespread use of the filibuster is a recent development. From the 1920s to the 1950s, the average was about one vote to end debate, also known as a cloture motion, a year; even in the 1960s, at the height of the civil rights debates, there were only about three a year. The number of cloture motions jumped to three a month during the partisan battles of the 1990s. But it is the last decade that has seen the filibuster become a regular part of Senate life: there was about one cloture motion a week between 2000 and 2008, and in the current Congress there have been 117 more than two a week. Even though there might be several motions for cloture for each filibuster, there clearly has been a remarkable increase in the use of what is meant to be the Congressional equivalent of a nuclear weapon. Filibusters arent just more numerous; theyre more mundane, too. Consider an earlier bill to extend unemployment benefits, passed in late 2009. It faced two filibusters despite bipartisan backing and its eventual passage by a 98-0 margin. A bill that should have zipped through in a few days took four weeks, including seven days of floor debate. Or take the nomination of Judge Barbara Milano Keenan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: she, too, faced a filibuster, even though she was later confirmed 99 to 0. Part of the problem lies with todays partisan culture, in which blocking the other party takes priority over passing legislation or confirming candidates to key positions. And part of the problem lies with changes in Senate practices during the 1970s, which allowed the minority to filibuster a piece of legislation without holding up other items of business. But the biggest factor is the nature of the filibuster itself. Senate rules put the onus on the majority for ending a debate, regardless of how frivolous the filibuster might be. If the majority leader wants to end a debate, he or she first calls for unanimous consent for cloture, basically a voice vote from all the senators present in the chamber. But if even one member of the filibustering minority is present to object to the motion, the majority leader has to hold a roll call vote. If the majority leader cant round up the necessary 60 votes, the debate continues. Getting at least 60 senators on the floor several times a week is no mean feat given travel schedules, illnesses and campaign obligations. The most recent debate over extending unemployment benefits, for example, took so long in part because the death of Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, left the majority with only 59 votes for cloture. The filibuster was brought to an end only after West Virginias governor appointed a replacement. True, the filibuster has its benefits: it gives the minority party the power to block hasty legislation and force a debate on what it considers matters of national significance. So how can the Senate reform the filibuster to preserve its usefulness but prevent its abuse? For starters, the Senate could replace the majoritys responsibility to end debate with the minoritys responsibility to keep it going. It would work like this: for the first four weeks of debate, the Senate would operate under the old rules, in which the majority has to find enough senators to vote for cloture. Once that time has elapsed, the debate would automatically end unless the minority could assemble 40 senators to continue it. An even better step would be to return to the old Mr. Smith Goes to Washington model in which a filibuster means that the Senate has to stop everything and debate around the clock by allowing a motion requiring 40 votes to continue debate every three hours while the chamber is in continuous session. That way it is the minority that has to grab cots and mattresses and be prepared to take to the floor night and day to keep their filibuster alive. Under such a rule, a sufficiently passionate minority could still preserve the Senates traditions and force an extended debate on legislation. But frivolous and obstructionist misuse of the filibuster would be a thing of the past. Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a co-author of The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track. See orginal artcile at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/opinion/28ornstein.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1283011408-wGDY8c4kTcAmbzlb6zyeSQ

Just where do you guys hang out?

After observing the partys for a couple of days, a few thoughts strike me. 1. They have some really hot guys. 2. Some put on some really hot shows. Others seem to want to retain their virgin status or are semi reluctant at best. Are they saving it for marriage? 3. Many exclude unregistered peepers. (Me) 4. Mastra Blue -- hottest show for my money (figuratively speaking). Latino.Columbian I believe. He is hot and delivers every time, all the time, with heat, heat, heat. JO, finger fu,,king, precum eating. Service with a smile. 5. First Runner Up: Alphonso. 6. Most inportant observation: With the money this site charges for Pvt Shows, they owe the customer a lot better quality video cams than some of these guys have. If they really want to make money by selling video streaming service at those rates then they need to enforce cam upgrades, even if they have to kick in to help the performer obtain. All of above, my opinion FWIW.

Paul Allen Sues Apple, Google, Others Over Patents RACHEL METZ | 08/27/10 07:10 PM | AP SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft Corp. co-founder and billionaire Paul Allen is suing nearly a dozen major companies, including tech giants Google Inc. and Apple Inc., alleging they infringed on four Web technology patents held by his company Interval Licensing LLC. Interval said Friday it filed the suit in a U.S. District Court in Seattle against the companies. In addition to Google and Apple, the defendants named in the suit are: Facebook Inc., eBay Inc., Yahoo Inc., Netflix Inc., AOL Inc., Office Depot Inc., OfficeMax Inc., Staples Inc. and Google-owned YouTube LLC. Interval owns patents from Interval Research, which was a technology research and development company that Allen started with David Liddle in the early '90s. Interval said that the patents it believes are being violated are key to how e-commerce and search companies work. The patents described in the suit refer to technology used for things such as Web browsing and sending alerts over the Web. "This lawsuit is necessary to protect our investment in innovation," Allen's spokesman, David Postman, said in a statement. Interval is seeking unspecified damages for the alleged infringements, and an order that the defendants either stop infringing on its patents or pay royalties for doing so. Several companies named as defendants did not return requests for comment. Netflix, AOL, Yahoo and Office Depot had no comment. Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes called the suit "completely without merit," and eBay spokeswoman Johnna Hoff said the company is reviewing the suit. Google said the suit "reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace." Gerry J. Elman, founder of Swarthmore, Pa.-based Elman Technology Law PC, said the suit looks like one "that has to be taken seriously and not just blown away as a nonstarter." Still, the products and services offered by the companies named in the suit aren't immediately threatened. Patent cases can take months or years to resolve, and agreements over licensing and royalty payments often emerge. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/28/paul-allen-sues-apple-goo_n_697851.html

flguy, thanks for the feedback. Please pass along to Dane that I have sent him two responses to his two Contact Us inquires regarding his registration. He seems not to be receiving them. I also sent a separate email from admin@maleescortreview.com. I suspect that his email from our site is getting diverted by a SPAM filter on his end or by his provider. Sorry for the frustation he is experiencing but this is just the reason we need to verify email for escorts. THanks again.

It's a start. I like the free enterprise production of produce. It will show the power of private enterprise on a local scale. As for the 99 year leases, what the government giveth the government can taketh away at any time, without government laws backed up by institutions above the actions of the executive. In my mind that requires the free election of the executive to a limited term. I've seen that government in action before when it comes to private property. Like I said, it is a start.

I'm stuck on #1.

Never say never. While Macs have a lower probability of attack presently, that may not always be the case. If you use your computer for buiness and banking then I would be very circumspect where I'd go, even with a Mac. This is because the potential for damage is so very great. Just as one has separate identities for surfing the backstreets and alleys, one ought to have a separate computer too for those venues to really be safe. IMO

Turkey and Russia Feature the Worlds Riskiest Web Surfers AVG study looks at the safest and most dangerous places to surf the Internet - Australia No. 37th and New Zealand No. 63rd riskiest Melbourne and Amsterdam, 24 August 2010. Where in the world are you most likely to be hit by a malicious computer attack or virus? According to Internet Security company AVG Technologies, its the Caucasus region, with web surfers in Turkey, Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan all being the most likely to face threats while online. However, at the other end of the scale, some of the worlds safest surfers can be found in Japan and Taiwan, while seven of the 10 safest countries in which to surf the Internet are in Africa. As a continent, South America was safest, and North America riskiest. Meanwhile, globally your chances of being attacked while online on any given day are 1 in 73. By compiling data for 144 countries (including Australia and New Zealand), involving 127 million PCs, AVG was able to look at the incidence of security threats that its software had to deal with in the last week of July 2010. From these figures, AVG was able to average out the likelihood of the average web user facing a web security attack. Key results are as follows: Turkey leads the league table for the worlds riskiest web surfers, with AVGs software having to step in to protect one in 10 using the Internet. Web users in Russia (1 in 14 were hit), Armenia (1 in 24), and Azerbaijan (1 in 39) also suffer high rates of attacks. Other areas where web surfers are disproportionately at risk include Bangladesh (1 in 41), Pakistan (1 in 48) and in SE Asia, Vietnam and Laos (where the chances of facing an attack are both 1 in 42). Closer to home Australia ranked 37th (1 in 75 attack ratio), while New Zealand came in at 63rd (1 in 103). What about other major Western countries? The US is at number nine when it comes to the riskiest places to go online (1 in 48), UK is ranked 31st (1 in 63), while German web surfers come in at number 41 (1 in 83). However, other major developed nations fared much better with web surfers steering clear of suspicious websites. Though Sierra Leone (1 in 692) and Niger (1 in 442) were safer, if you look at broadband penetration in these countries as well as overall Internet use, surfing the web in Japan (1 in 404 attacked) arguably offers the safest experience. Meanwhile Taiwan (1 in 248 attacked), Argentina (1 in 241 attacked), and France (1 in 224 attacked) all came in the top 20 list of the worlds safest surfers. South America and Africa 'Safe' Analysing the data by continent, your chances of getting attacked while surfing the web in North America are 1 in 51. In Europe it is 1 in 72, while in Asia (including Asia Pacific) it is 1 in 102. The safest continents are Africa (1 in 108), and by a long way South America (1 in 164). While African countries make up seven of the top 10 safe surfing list, its noteworthy that the chances of being attacked in all South American countries is more than 1 in 100. The riskiest country in South America was Peru at 1 in 131, which globally still only ranks 78th out of 142 countries. AVG Urges Travellers to Keep Safe According to AVG spokesperson, Roger Thomson, "This research tells us a lot about the typical behaviour of web surfers worldwide. Internet users in Turkey, Russia and some Central Asian countries, the Caucasus, South-east Asian and Indian sub-continent states show disproportionately higher rates of being attacked than the global average of 1 in 73. "Some of this may be a tendency to access semi-legal or illegal download sites, while some of it probably is down to being less cautious when it comes to sharing links and files online. For example, its worth noting that in Japan where both Internet use and broadband penetration are high, AVG software only picked up a web attack for every 403rd user. Awareness levels in Japan about risky behaviour online are probably higher. "However, our research should also serve as a wake-up call to people going abroad. Very often you may access your files on a computer that doesnt belong to you, or you may access a shared network - neither of which incidentally are things we would ever recommend. "In those cases, we would urge that web users exercise caution, not only when it comes to going online in our top 50 risk list, but in general. "Finally the key point is that all these web attacks were successfully caught and stopped by AVG. Even the global average of facing a 1 in 133 attack on any given day does not present great odds if averaged out across a year. Hence the importance of making sure that your computer really does have the right anti-virus software installed," Thomson concluded. See original article at: http://www.avg.com.au/news/avg_turkey_and_russia_the_worlds_riskiest_web_surfers/#ixzz0xpGfcgYs

Yesterday was a remarkable day for free shows on Flirt. The number of free shows was amazing. These guys above (and probably some others I missed) were giving out these great cum-ons before the new 'Party' mode was introduced that officially sanctioned open shows as long as tips were coming in. I guess that mgmt had announced the new party mode idea to all models and some maybe felt it was ok to jump the gun? NOt sure but dont really care. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Will Partys continue? Will they be tightened up to only registered members? (There was some of that last night for individual models.) Time will tell. Anyway it was a great night for eye candy and a real insight into what goes on behind the pay curtain. IMO the Party idea is a pretty smart move for mgmt. It permits several customers to pool modest amounts of money (25 credits) to have guys put on shows. Hence opening up flirt particpation to he modest purse. It remains to be seen if it gets enough continuing customer support for it to be a regular part of the scene. I think limiting particpation with any model to registered members is a bad choice for mgmt. It may prompt some to register for access but it also limits the pool of prospective tippers. I suspect more are likely to register during the heat of the moment, during the show than there are left standing outside the show curtain.

oops... a late cummer, Nolant.

Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times This Is Not a Recovery By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: August 26, 2010 What will Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, say in his big speech Friday in Jackson Hole, Wyo.? Will he hint at new steps to boost the economy? Stay tuned. But we can safely predict what he and other officials will say about where we are right now: that the economy is continuing to recover, albeit more slowly than they would like. Unfortunately, that’s not true: this isn’t a recovery, in any sense that matters. And policy makers should be doing everything they can to change that fact. The small sliver of truth in claims of continuing recovery is the fact that G.D.P. is still rising: we’re not in a classic recession, in which everything goes down. But so what? The important question is whether growth is fast enough to bring down sky-high unemployment. We need about 2.5 percent growth just to keep unemployment from rising, and much faster growth to bring it significantly down. Yet growth is currently running somewhere between 1 and 2 percent, with a good chance that it will slow even further in the months ahead. Will the economy actually enter a double dip, with G.D.P. shrinking? Who cares? If unemployment rises for the rest of this year, which seems likely, it won’t matter whether the G.D.P. numbers are slightly positive or slightly negative. All of this is obvious. Yet policy makers are in denial. After its last monetary policy meeting, the Fed released a statement declaring that it “anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization” — Fedspeak for falling unemployment. Nothing in the data supports that kind of optimism. Meanwhile, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, says that “we’re on the road to recovery.” No, we aren’t. Why are people who know better sugar-coating economic reality? The answer, I’m sorry to say, is that it’s all about evading responsibility. In the case of the Fed, admitting that the economy isn’t recovering would put the institution under pressure to do more. And so far, at least, the Fed seems more afraid of the possible loss of face if it tries to help the economy and fails than it is of the costs to the American people if it does nothing, and settles for a recovery that isn’t. In the case of the Obama administration, officials seem loath to admit that the original stimulus was too small. True, it was enough to limit the depth of the slump — a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment would probably be well into double digits now without the stimulus — but it wasn’t big enough to bring unemployment down significantly. Now, it’s arguable that even in early 2009, when President Obama was at the peak of his popularity, he couldn’t have gotten a bigger plan through the Senate. And he certainly couldn’t pass a supplemental stimulus now. So officials could, with considerable justification, place the onus for the non-recovery on Republican obstructionism. But they’ve chosen, instead, to draw smiley faces on a grim picture, convincing nobody. And the likely result in November — big gains for the obstructionists — will paralyze policy for years to come. So what should officials be doing, aside from telling the truth about the economy? The Fed has a number of options. It can buy more long-term and private debt; it can push down long-term interest rates by announcing its intention to keep short-term rates low; it can raise its medium-term target for inflation, making it less attractive for businesses to simply sit on their cash. Nobody can be sure how well these measures would work, but it’s better to try something that might not work than to make excuses while workers suffer. The administration has less freedom of action, since it can’t get legislation past the Republican blockade. But it still has options. It can revamp its deeply unsuccessful attempt to aid troubled homeowners. It can use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored lenders, to engineer mortgage refinancing that puts money in the hands of American families — yes, Republicans will howl, but they’re doing that anyway. It can finally get serious about confronting China over its currency manipulation: how many times do the Chinese have to promise to change their policies, then renege, before the administration decides that it’s time to act? Which of these options should policy makers pursue? If I had my way, all of them. I know what some players both at the Fed and in the administration will say: they’ll warn about the risks of doing anything unconventional. But we’ve already seen the consequences of playing it safe, and waiting for recovery to happen all by itself: it’s landed us in what looks increasingly like a permanent state of stagnation and high unemployment. It’s time to admit that what we have now isn’t a recovery, and do whatever we can to change that situation. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

and last but not least, Zach the Twink.

RainerG, Ray, Stephon Stallion, and Tytus.

Luca, Mark, Martin Cobalt...

Jimmy Johnson...

Here is Cory Redd...

... and Joee's shower party.

Snaps from Ben & Sean's Party

Flirt has initiated a new 'Party' in the open where the model puts on a show as long as tips keep coming in. Only select models at any given time and only for a limtied time. Not sure if that limit is absolute or depends on the rate the tips come in. I caught several hot displays and screendumped for sharing/ below.

... and one more. For my money this guy has the hottest body on the site. But that is personal taste.

That forum was dedicate more to movies, porn models and news. This would be a photo album dedicated any and all types of (acceptable) photos.

Here is another one.

Great idea, let me clue in Oz. Now, are you any good at herding cats?

Whew!! That was long tough outtage. Tried out my new Flash player and stumbled across Chrisy who was working on a client for a private. I caught a couple of screen captures as he coaxed his client. Enjoy.