lookin

A pretty well-documented phenomenon: folks tend to like what they grew up with. Good cooks were often confounded that their kids preferred a can of Campbell's tomato soup to something made fresh from natural ingredients. Even that old standby has morphed through the years as the good folks at Campbell's tinkered with the formula to save a penny here and a penny there. I just noticed they don't call it Cream of Tomato any more. > Small wonder. The current ingredient list looks pretty minimal: tomato puree (which is made from water and tomato paste), water, high fructose corn syrup, wheat flour, salt, vegetable oil, flavoring, ascorbic acid and citric acid. Note that Campbell's has also discovered the joy of cooking with high fructose corn syrup. And why won't they even name the specific "flavoring" that buttresses their flagship product? Do they think we're better off not knowing? Lucky, once again mille pardons for highjacking one of your most estimable threads. They so often seem to be foundational threads that just beg to be built upon and taken in new directions. I couldn't resist.

This also explains why South-of-the-Border theme parties are such festive affairs, albeit with frequent trips to the bathroom.

According to this article, there are millions of species alive today. I believe that most, if not all, have assholes. But it seems that only modern homo sapiens are at all concerned with keeping theirs out of public view. Not all of us mind, and those who do mind have ancestors who didn't give it a second thought. Or so I am given to understand. Another oddity is that humans seem to be one of a very few, if not the only, species for whom the asshole, properly nurtured, can be the source of intense sexual pleasure. I can't recall ever hearing of a camel, as just one example, getting rimmed or taking it up the wazoo. These human singularities can't be coincidences, can they? Is there a lesson to be learned here?

Love the hat! Must do lunch!!

Well, thanks to this thread, I'm planning to start kissing a lot more frogs. The ones that don't turn into a prince will at least have a shot at a nice settlement from the ADA.

Perhaps an old flame is trying to get in touch with you. Try singing a happy tune and see what happens. If that fails, you could always borrow Lucky's cat.

Me too. I think there are still a goodly number of committed and compassionate politicians in DC, but their voices seem to be getting drowned out by the mean-spirited ones. Not sure why.

They weren't actually bad. The Samsung had a shiny screen that reflected too much light, so back it went. The Sony had a slightly washed out picture, so back it went too. I realized that I was being a bit finicky, but Amazon didn't kick up the slightest fuss about taking them back and paying the return freight. Had I continued to 'audition' TV's, their patience may have eventually worn thin. I ended up joining Costco and getting a 3D Sony there. But that's another thread.

Brandon Belt, the Baby Giraffe

Indeed he is and indeed he has. What a gem! Thanks!

Wonderful story. Thank you! Especially liked this part: I was wondering all the way through if you had done the translation. It must be wonderful to speak a second language so well. Thanks again for sharing it!

Ha! I saw that and emailed it to everybody I know. Well, almost everybody.

As it will be at least an eight thousand year round trip until he returns with your jewels, I hope you will keep in good shape with lots of exercise, eat healthy, and use plenty of moisturizer. You'll want to look your best with all those new baubles.

Consumer Watchdog, a California consumer rights group, is planning to put a healthcare measure on the 2012 ballot that would offer Californians a public option for healthcare insurance. That's been my goal all along, and I was disappointed that it was not a major component of the federal Affordable Care Act, although the 'insurance exchanges' in the ACA may well morph into the closest thing we can get to a national public option. In the meantime, I'm glad to see California stepping up. It won't be a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. According to this article, the insurance companies may spend $100 million to defeat the measure, and that is a lot of advertising in just one state. It surprises me that more folks aren't tuned in to the fact that so much of their insurance premiums go to this kind of lobbying, rather than being spent to improve their medical care. Or to lower their rates. For me, the elephant in the room has always been that U. S. health insurance companies spend 30 cents of every premium dollar on overhead and profits. If you compare that with the 1 - 2 cents spent by Canada on administering its health care plan, it's pretty easy to see why U. S. healthcare is so expensive relative to nations with a similar level of care. I'm not saying that there isn't a role for insurers in the system, but I don't think it's the same role they fill today. In my opinion, their current business model is simply a luxury than many consumers can no longer afford. The things I'm not sure I like about the California initiative is the proposed 20% premium rollback and the attempt to regulate rates. I think it just adds 'noise' to the debate. My preference would be to let the insurance companies be just as greedy as they like. As long as there's a public option available, side by side with the insurance companies' offerings, let the consumer make the choice. If folks want to pay $72,000,000 to the outgoing CEO of Aetna, who am I to stop them?

I'm a big fan. Even bigger after I returned two TV's. It took me less than two minutes to fill out the form on their website, and print the return form. They had UPS show up the next day with all the shipping forms already filled out. Easy, peasy, and they paid the return freight. I like their review sections too. Even when I don't buy from them, I check out what others have to say about the product. I do pay taxes though. At first, it was tempting to count it as savings, but I like the services my state provides and figured it was fair to kick in my share. When I'm doing my taxes, it's easy to go to Amazon's website and get a report of last year's purchases. I'm not sure why Amazon raises such a ruckus about collecting taxes, other than to gain what seems like an unfair pricing advantage. The only downside is that they do siphon off business from local retailers, but the big national retail chains have already done that anyway, so it's not a huge deterrent. I keep my fingers crossed that they're not funding any unjust causes or snarky politicians, as I would miss buying from them.

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.