Lucky

Once in a world far, far away, and in a time that seems so remote as to have never been, I went to law school. It was hard work, but I graduated without getting a dime in aid. How did I do it? I worked full-time while I went to school. Lucky for me I had a job that allowed me time to study. Nowadays I see that law schools are begging for students. A few years ago, a former law school dean told me that law schools were seeing a rush of students because when people graduated from college, they couldn't find jobs, so they went to law school. But now law school graduates cannot find jobs and the law schools are fighting for students. Fighting so hard that they are paying students to attend their schools. And I am not talking about the small schools. Big universities are offering to be competitive with other schools that might have accepted an applicant. Every student at the University of Illinois College of Law's class of 2014 received a scholarship.This cost the school $3.6 million. That's paying kids to attend. The American Bar Association reports that scholarship dollars awarded to students has tripled in the last ten years. To be fair, tuition costs are also up, averaging $22,000 a year. I paid a hell of a lot less than that. But students are now in a position to bargain with schools. One student claimed to have been wait-listed at another school, so the original school accepting him doubled his scholarship offer. While some schools are even extending deadlines to apply, others are trying to hold fast to the older traditions. They are either not offering scholarships, or are refusing to negotiate the offers. But, if I didn't already have a law degree, I might be tempted to get paid to go to law school. Or I could be a teacher, teaching students who didn't pay for their education and probably feel less invested in it. An article in today's Wall Street Journal provided much of the information here: http://online.wsj.co...J_WSJ_US_News_6

The Second Amendment is not unlimited, conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said yesterday. In reining in what is considered by the NRA to be an unlimited right, Scalia says no: “We’ll see,” he answered. “I mean, obviously the (Second) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear — so it doesn’t apply to cannons. “But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be … decided.” Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-bear-arms-unlimited-noted-future-limitations-decided-future-cases-article-1.1124408#ixzz226vZhNdT

Finding the definition of "boytoy" is easy! Just Google it: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=boy+toy+meaning&oq=boytoy&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i10j0j0i10j0l2j0i10l3j0j0i10.1873.4142.0.7634.6.6.0.0.0.0.98.531.6.6.0...0.0...1c.PamK9su3qp4

Saturday, August 11th, is the only day I will be in LA. I don't expect to win, but I would love to see the tears of joy when the real winner is announced. Expat has 7 or 8 tickets in the drawing compared to about 2 for me. Plus, I would so love to see townie again!

Oz, surely you don't see me a a person who is so rigid that he cannot change his mind over the years or when new facts are presented. No one said that changing the name would be easy, and no one said it would be cheap. Just because you like the boytoy name, and perhaps have paid good money for it, does not mean that it is the right choice for this site. I appreciated your input on what is going on behind the scenes. But please don't dig your heels in just because you bought a name that you like. A good name will pay for itself over time,right?

I voted!

I had heard that you bought a lot of names with Hooboy in them. So how about just Hooboy's, or Hooboy House. Boys to Men, Maletoy or Malemen, Men of Oz- probably already taken- maleescorts.com, menundressed,com or even Luckymen.com!

The story has been picked up all over the world. i didn't read them all, but the Times of India notes that he was adjusting his jeans as he departed the peep show. Poor guy.

"Of course we have considered other names as well but I jumped the gun and wanted a logo design for the site anyway." I think Oz prefers Boytoy, but is still open to other names.

I am truly surprised that this thread did not get more traction. It's some pretty surprising stuff...

"And that's why people like you are always in the cross-hairs of others. Yet, when you are there, by your very actions, you cry for the help of others to come to your whinning aid to then defend you. Good luck to you." My "whinning" ways endear me to many. I cannot help that you don't get a boner from them. But I -and people "like me"-appreciate the good wishes.

Maybe Louise wasn't getting any! Gawker discusses the gay rumors: http://gawker.com/5929102/gay-or-not-gay-sherman-hemsley

“I had no idea that the U.S. government had been captured by the banks,” So says the man appointed to watch over the US bailout- the Special Inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky. Barofsky has written a book about his experience, and he is not kind to Treasurer Timothy Geithner. (NYTimes) Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he is "deeply offended" by an assertion in a new book that he is too cozy with some of the country's biggest financial institutions and mishandled the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout fund. Barofsky argues in his book that TARP was supposed to be a program that was to help Main Street and bolster the economy but was ultimately hijacked by the interests of Wall Street. As President Obama aides designed the financial rescue plan early in the administration, Geithner opposed imposing tough conditions on financial institutions that received bailout funds. Barofsky charges that Geithner oversaw and shaped a policy that saw the nation's largest banks get bigger and even more powerful. (USA Today) “Helping banks, not home owners, did in fact seem to be Treasury’s biggest concern,” Barofsky writes in “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.” (Politico) "Prior to coming to Washington to head SIGTARP, Barofsky was a highly regarded prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, where he built big cases against FARC drug traffickers in Colombia and mortgage fraudsters at home. His diligence in pursuing the latter scofflaws put him on the radar of the Bush administration when it came time to establish SIGTARP, an appointment that came despite the fact that Barofsky was a lifelong Democrat and an Obama supporter." (Huffington Post) Huffington Post's Jason Linkins summarizes the highlights of the book: IN WASHINGTON, IT IS JUST ASSUMED THAT YOU ASPIRE TO BE A SELL-OUT IN WASHINGTON, EVERYONE IS OBSESSED WITH THEIR PERKS WHEN WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS LEARN OF A WELL-FUNDED OFFICE, THEY START ANGLING FOR THAT CASH MOST REGULATORS VIEW SUCCESS AS "GETTING ALONG TO GO ALONG" ON THE OTHER HAND, REGULATORS WHO PURSUE OVERSIGHT WITH DOGGED DETERMINATION ARE DISDAINED WASHINGTON'S MAIN PASTIME IS USING THE MEDIA TO 'RUIN PEOPLE FOR SPORT' IN WASHINGTON, THE BIGGEST COCK-UPS NATURALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO FIX THE MESSES THEY CREATED IN WASHINGTON, REGULATORY CAPTURE IS SEEN AS A CARDINAL VIRTUE IN WASHINGTON, HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS ARE TREATED AS DEMIGODS IN WASHINGTON, THE FIRST RESPONSE TO UNPOPULAR INITIATIVES IS TO 'REBRAND' THEM IN WASHINGTON, THE SORT OF GOSSIPY BULLSHIT YOU THOUGHT YOU LEFT BEHIND WHEN YOU GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL IS COMMONPLACE ... AND ON A LONG ENOUGH TIMELINE, EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON EVENTUALLY BECOMES A LITTLE BIT DESPICABLE Linkins elaborates on these points: http://www.huffingto..._n_1702751.html

The Judds give me a boner!

That's true. So the editorial side must be aghast today. Good!

Some may have come here to talk about the other site. I wonder what else they have in mind if we exclude that. So I am not asking them to talk about that site, I am asking them to say what they want from this site. So, I don't agree with you!

We know that threads about the Daddy's Reviews website get much participation. As Totally Oz encourages us to focus elsewhere, and rightly so, I think, it leads to the question of why you post here if it is not to speak about another website. For me, the reason is that I like the interaction, I like the things I learn, I like to provoke and be provoked, and I like the eroticism of the pictures and the stories about time spent with escorts. Fights are not of particular interest to me, although I don't shy from one if needed. It seems that most boards end up with some negative interaction. And the fact is that the more participants, the more fun I get out of it. So, it is in my interest to encourage others to post here. I am happy to see the new posters here this week. I ask of them, if you can not post about Daddy's, then what would you like to talk about? (Granted, we are not banned from talking about Daddy's. But a website has to be more than that.) And for those who post here without regard to the other site, what brings you here and what keeps you here? And finally, since a picture dresses (and maybe even sums up) up a post so nicely:

Reading on, I found an article above the fold on the front page of the Marketplace section about gay CEOs; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443295404577547043705374610.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks (I didn't know the former CEO of BP was gay!) (So I think the Journal is on board with gay rights to some rather prominent extent, if not all the way. This means Romney can't go too far in support of the anti-gay bigots, doesn't it?)

The Wall Street Journal, the Rupert Murdoch-owned financial newspaper, is generally considered quite conservative, which means that its readers might be among the legions of folks who oppose gay marriage. So, it was a surprise when I saw a picture in an article about cell phones. Two men looked pretty cozy. Closer inspection revealed that they were married- to each other- and slept together! This, in the Wall Street Journal? Times are indeed changing! From the online Journal: (I couldn't get rid of the white space.) For the fashion-conscious, sleek iPhone and Samsung phones are unlikely to raise eyebrows the way the often-bulky BlackBerry does. Stephen Matyasfalvi Business consultant Stephen Matyasfalvi and husband Matti Gidilevich have four phones between them. "I hide my BlackBerry unless I actually need to use it," says Stephen Matyasfalvi, 38, a Toronto business consultant. "If I am choosing what device to have out for browsing, calling, etc., it's the iPhone and not the BlackBerry. It's not even about being cooler with the iPhone, they just look so much better!" The same goes for Mr. Matyasfalvi's husband, Matti Gidilevich, who also uses both an iPhone and a BlackBerry, after switching back and forth between the two for several years. Mr. Gidilevich, 35, a director at the Toronto office of Elite Model Management, splits his time between Toronto and New York, and splits his tasks between the two phones. He uses his BlackBerry for email, and takes pictures and checks out social media sites with the iPhone. For a couple with four phones, there are multiple annoyances. When a phone rings they have to check all four. Their bedside table is piled high with devices and chargers.

Secret surveillance orders from federal magistrates are on the rise: http://www.sfgate.co...ise-3731617.php

I am perfectly happy to let the matter drop. It has been said that some things are so, but when I asked for facts, they said they couldn't give them since the site was down. I would think that they had the facts before they made the allegations, but no. If the management is sincere in wanting the subject to be closed, then it has to be closed for everyone. We have 66 replies and some 1000 views, so the horses have left the barn, but we can still close the door.

Well, it's your money, and your body, so spend it as you will. I like the 80% agreement and am happy to leave it at that.

You give the moderators credit for having more power than they do. How about citing some real instances of this happening? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands...

Okay, I read the article. It is really scary but I know it is just some kind of a joke because our country would never tolerate such a thing. But, just in the case it is for real, I am going to encrypt my opinion of it so that they won't figure out what I think...at least right away! Lucky's opinion: tiusksc! (I see that the NY Times covered this in much less detail last month. Hopefully they are researching ti further and not just relying on one man to tell the whole story.) http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/13/did-any-good-come-of-watergate/since-watergate-government-surveillance-is-more-sophisticated