Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
 
Tag:sex
Posted on: February 9, 2009 9:01 am
 

To come early or late.....

Is promptness a virtue or a curse? Some of us are inclined to be habitually late while our complements are tardy. Stereotypes paint women as creatures primping in an antechamber making their date wait. Torturing him with conversation with a father, mother, sibling or roommate.

Sometimes he is left alone to figit or snoop. If he is really interested he might even fantasize about what she is doing to prepare for this evening's fun.

Carefully she applies her lipstick, a daring new shade of luscious ruby red. Her make up is perfect. Her hair, once pulled back, is released to fall about her face providing a delicate shadow to her face adding to her allure. The bra is a push-up providing a beautiful decolletage, the lace just above her nipple. For tonight she will wear her new lace panties and matching garter belt. She slowly unrolls her stocking over her knee attaching the garters to each one, careful not to ruin the sexy silk. Her blouse is silk and barely there, offering a glimpse of the lace beneath. The skirt falls to just above her knee. Heels are added to show off the workouts she puts her legs through. She loves the way her foot glides into the shoe, carressing her arch and showing most of her foot. A touch of perfume to her neck and wrists and she is ready.

She finally arrives and his breath is audible as it expresses his disappointment. Jeans and a baggy sweater, at least the boot has a heel. What did you expect? Its a first date and you did say we were going to be outside and it is cold this time of year!

The truth is each of us is either late or on time to a fault. My mother continues to say, "If you cannot be on time, be early." As a result of 32 years of her programming I have become habitually early for every appointment, for every date, for every thing where time is involved to imply a beginning and an end. And I expect the same for those unlucky enough to have to work or play with me. Mother reminds me that it is out of respect for people that we should be early. It demonstrates we value their time. They are elevated by our respect which makes them more worthy of our attention.

What does it say when someone is habitually late? Do they disrespect me and my time? Or are they just arrogant, thinking themselves better than me? The answer is within me. How I choose to react is personal but it eventually does impact how I see the individual and will erode my respect for them. Right or wrong, that is the way it is.

I read this past week that Barack Obama is habitually late. In his almost three weeks in office he has been late for almost every event, every news conference, every signing, every photo op, every discussion with common people. He was late to explain to the families of the USS Cole bombing victims why the charges were dismissed (with prejudice) against the suspects. In fact, he skipped them altogether. He announced it to the world before he spoke with the families. He has been late throughout his campaign and now into his presidential infancy. Do you need a wristwatch, Mr. President? Or just a lesson in manners?

BTW it was my birthday Saturday and I dressed up for dinner as described above for a night out on the town with my two roommates. We three had a great time but that is another story not fit for this blog......

Posted on: February 5, 2009 10:59 am
 

Fear mongering? Or don't know what to do?

"Irreversible recession" Obama warned in his op ed piece in the Washington Post.  In all my schooling in Economics, macro and micro, I have never heard the term. 

What does it mean? I suppose it means Obama doesn't know what to do other than spend money to stimulate the economy with wish list pork spending and if he doesn't get his way we are doomed.  How can the Hope & Change candidate become so doom and gloom so quickly? 

Because there are myriad of ideas being floated that could stimulate the economy.  Things like tax cuts for individuals and business, you know, to let the people decide how to spend their money in their economy. This thing will take care of itself, you can bet on that.  When the government got involved in the Great Depression they prolonged it by 7 years by eliminating competition, instigating protectionism policy, granting sweeping power to Labor, legalizing collusion and anti-trust, wage fixing above market value, and the list goes on. Principles of Socialism, but I digress.

What gets me really irked by his Carter-esque gloom and doom was this comment:

He rejected the argument that more tax cuts are needed in the plan and that piecemeal measures would be sufficient, arguing that Americans made their intentions clear in the election. "I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change," he wrote. Talk about over reaching the results of the election.  Wow, the arrogance is astounding!  The people did not vote for a Pork Stimulus Package when they elected him president.  I am absolutely certain I did not see that plank in his platform when I vetted him all last fall on my blog.  I don't remember any Obama supporters chastizing me last fall that I had ommitted it either.

The honeymoon for Obama ended far sooner than I ever thought.  The media is now awake and will pick him apart.  I would now put his odds at re-election at 1 in 4.


On the bright side of the economy, consensual sex is still free! Thank goodness....

Category: NCAAF
Posted on: January 8, 2009 9:50 am
 

Felt up for 20 bucks....

Last week the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion article about what Obama's National Healthcare Plan might be like. The author took most of their points form Tom Daschle's book on the subject and for those that don't know he has been appointed to lead the effort in the new administration. The main point of the article was the almost certainty of metered health care. By metered, they mean there will be an oversight committee (appointed, not elected) that sets the treatment plans paid for under the plan and to which age groups the service will be provided. Sorry, grandma, you are too old for knee replacement surgery. The author was looking to put fear into her reader with these comments but there is truth to it none the less.

On Tuesday of this week, the WSJ printed several responses in the Letter's to the Editor page. These responses were from healthcare professionals (doctors and administrators). They brought up some great points. Like how is this any different from an insurance company today. They put limits on treatments today. True. But two such responders went on to write (paraphrasing) that many of the current treatments are marginal or only slightly better than cheaper treatments and, therefore, should not be used or more clearly, not covered under the plan. There is truth in this statement, but history shows that breakthrough invention is built on the backs of many failed attempts, marginal attempts and only slightly better attempts at improving whatever situation is at hand, be in medical or industrial or commercial. What this means to me is our healthcare system and the drive toward new cures and treatments may very well stagnate. We have to remember pharmaceutical companies are in the business to make money for their shareholders. It is that simple. If there is no money in new treatment options or the method of approval is too protracted, research will not happen. The regulations require a drug company to spend potentially hundreds of millions of dollars just to get it to market. If the National Healthcare System won't pay for the use or treatment, the drug companies will stop research and development. Progress in healthcare may cease or slow so greatly that twenty or forty years into the future we will have changed very little.

Think about the last 25 years with respect to heart by-pass surgery. It went from a radical surgery requiring many months of recovery to a ho hum procedure that sees the patient home in a few days. In those 25 years, the procedure has improved in small ways with better medicines and techniques. Each one slightly or significantly better than its predecessor. The result is what we have today. And those techniques and medicines have found their way into other procedures like joint repairs.

The root problem that causes a system to restrict the treatments is driven purely by cost. If it is too much, we will not do it. Eliminating treatments is one way to lower the cost. But what about lowering the cost of practicing medicine. I recently had my annual Ob-Gyn visit. The bill to the insurance company was $430 for one visit. Insurance paid $157. I paid $20 out of pocket. The doctor billed $430 and he received $177 (and was happy about it.) Does this make sense?

How about tort reform? You know, doctor screws up a procedure (they are human), sued for malpractice, settlement is for $5 million, lawyer gets $2 million, client gets $3 million. Oh, the patient is fine mind you, a little worse for the wear, deserves some compensation no doubt to make up for their loss. But the lawyer got how much!!! Doctor's insurance goes up. He passes the cost on to you and me.

So here is the rub. A National Healthcare System is probably a good idea. But how do we do it without killing our economy (cost) and still allowing the entrepreneurial drive that leads to innovation? How do we ensure that people want to be doctors in the future. If their hands are tied many may choose to do something else with their talents.  Caution is absolutely needed as we move forward.

Thoughts?

Category: NCAAF
Posted on: December 12, 2008 2:12 pm
Edited on: December 12, 2008 2:15 pm
 

It's just my way...

“What happened to your arm?”  “I, ah, fell against the dresser.  It’s no big deal.” “Hey, I’m your friend, don’t give me that.  Did he do that to you?  Was he drinking again?” “You just don’t understand. He works hard but never gets ahead and I put demands on him and he just snaps sometimes. That’s just his way.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Conversations like this happen everyday with regards to many different forms of abuse, be it alcoholism, domestic violence against a spouse or child, or any other sad situation where a person is abused. We have all been educated to look for signs of abuse and, hopefully, to report what we see to the authorities so that abuse can be stopped.  Medical professionals are now trained to look for signs of abuse. Teachers and others are also on the look out for forms of abuse and neglect.   By this time we are all paying attention or at least we should be.   That said I heard many discussions this week in the media where the punch line in each story was “that is just the way it is, the Chicago way.” Now this is different from physical or mental abuse of people since it is only politics.  Or is it? None of us can ignore physical or mental abuse when we come face to face with it.  But here we are using the same logic a victim of physical abuse uses to defend their tormentor.  That is just their way = that is the Chicago way.    Farfetched? I don’t think so. Our politicians are hired (elected) to do a job on our behalf.  When they abuse their power for personal gain we are being hurt by special interests or even criminal intent. If we choose to ignore it, to wash it away with a simple that’s just the way it is.  Then we are contributing to the problem. We are enabling them to continue their abusive behavior.  We are all so very cynical about politicians and their purported honesty.  We all know at least one joke where that is the punch line.  Yet we continue to fall for their promises and elect their selfish interests to represent us all.  We are all victims, victims of an abusive relationship where we hold the power to stop it but are either unwilling or afraid to act.   Americans – please stop enabling these abusive politicians or you will continue to play the part of victim.  When the Constitution was framed the founding fathers never dreamed anyone would want to serve multiple terms in any office because it took time away from the farm or their business.  They used words like civic and duty to describe the roles of office holders not bureaucrat or politician. It falls to the voter to invoke term limits on these life long politicians. But we don’t. We tolerate it. We re-elect them. We build statues and name streets for them.  We encourage them to abuse us more.   We are all victims. The Chicago way illustrates it for us. 
Posted on: November 15, 2008 10:28 am
Edited on: November 16, 2008 9:39 am
 

Take me! Both of you...Ravage me!

Her red dress was cut low revealing her ample breasts.  They were perfect and she was so sultry in comparison to the other Pelosi-esque women in the room.  Every eye was upon her and she knew it.   Even savored it.  She was fresh from Paris and her gown was from the finest couture on the Champs Elysses.  It had been custom cut to reveal her finest assets and she tingled the first time she put it on.  The silk slid enchantingly into place across her shoulders and torso.  Caressing her delicate skin as it fell to just above her knee.  She was excited and frightened at the prospects that may come that night.  She knew she would be impossible to miss and would attract the attention of every suitor in the ball room.

She was surprised to receive her invitation to the ball.  She did not know her hosts personally, only in name and reputation.  On a whim she decided to go and treat herself to the pleasures of being a desirable woman.  So she treated herself to a new dress, lingerie, and shoes.  A new clutch, a makeover....she was ready.

The eyes of everyone turned to her when she walked in unescorted.  The gentlemen failed to hide their delight and the ladies hissed under their breath.  The room was electric and a pang of regret twisted in her stomach.  Now she wasn't sure she wanted the focus of hundreds of pairs of eyes.

A waiter glided by to the sound of the string quartet with champagne, yielding a flute with a flirting smile. She could see the sharks positioning themselves for their passes, ever closer they circled. 

The first gentleman to introduce himself was Congressman George Miller from California.  He was a charming man though considerably older than her.  She indulged him as a harmless gentleman trying to rekindle his youth by flirting with a younger woman.  He exuded power and he made no attempt to hide it.

A second suitor inserted himself into the conversation.  He introduced himself as Jim McDermott also a Congressman but from Seattle.  The two gentlemen knew each other and exchanged a playful nod.

She was swept away by their charm as they talked and danced away the evening.  They both offered to escort her home in their limosines but then suggested they go for more drinks with a smaller group of friends from the ball.  She was having so much fun she decided to enjoy the evening and agreed.  Both Congressmen joined her in the car and off they went. 

She wasn't sure which one kissed her first but it was passionate and soft. And she felt another pair of hands caress her legs.  The passion increased and the two men began to ravage the beautiful woman.  She awoke the next morning to find her beautiful clothes were torn, her hair and makeup were ruined and the conquerors were gone.  She felt like so many things had happened and that something had been stolen from her.  She was bewildered and began to cry.

-----------------------------------
---------

No this is not an excerpt from a tawdry romance novel.   Sorry boys, back to half mast.

My last blog entry was about a lady named Teresa Ghilarducci from New York's New School for Social Research who suggested the 401K plan should be scrapped.  More on that subject appeared in the WSJ yesterday that I thought required sharing with you all. 

The Congressmen above are real and the lady in the red dress is your 401K.  Rep. Miller, D-California, chairs the House Education and Labor Committee.  While Rep. McDermott, D-Washington, chairs a House Ways and Means subcommittee on income security and family support.

"Before election day the congressmen began to target the $3 trillion in the 401(k) accounts held by 60% of Americans.  Mr. Miller called the system an inadequate vehicle that has not been terribly successful in encouraging retirement savings.  He wants a whole sale re-examination of the pensions."

"The Chairman has also signalled greater ambitions.  At a hearing last month, Mr. Miller put the 401(k) into play.  Under the current system, employers match employee contributions that aren't taxed until redeemed, an indirect subsidy worth $80 billion today.  'We have to start to think about in Congress...whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80,000,000,000 for a policy that is not generating what we now say it should.'  Mr. Miller said, ' For a taxpayer investment of this size, we must ensure that the structure of 401(k)s adequately potects the nesteggs of particpating workers.' "

 His committee listened to Ms. Ghilarducci's ultra left social policy discussion to scrap the 401(k) and let the government mind our money for us.  Yes folks it happened.

"The main liberal objection to the 401(k) seems to be that they let the average American control their own investment decisions for retirement.  As Shlomo Benartzi, a professor at UCLA's Anderson Business School, told Mr. Miller's committee, "Individuals have a tendency to buy at the peak, and then panic when the markets drop and sell at the bottom."  Better to have the government do it instead."

 For those of you reading this thinking, yeah, the government would give us a safe return, well Social Security earns between 1 and 2 percent since its inception which is losing to inflation bigtime.

People are attached to their 401(k)s because it is their property, which they can carry with them to new jobs, manage as they see fit and bequeath to their heirs.

Before entertaining dreams of state managed retirement accounts, Congresssional Democrats might ask why Europe and Latin America have tried so hard in recent years to move in the opposite direction.  Their pension systems are debt ridden, can't easily adjust for demographic shifts and show a  historically lower return.

If Democrats want a return to improve the prospects for American retirees, their first priority should be removing barriers to economic growth.  Anger over the drop in 401(k) balances is one reason that voters who belong to the investor class swung to Deomcrats in greater than usual numbers this year.  Their mandate is for policies that improve those returns, not strip them of tax benefits.

An intelligent discussion would be  - is Obama listening to these Democrats or not?  He has voted left every time as a Senator.

I think some of you nice fellows should have asked the beautiful lady in the red dress to the ball to keep her away from the sharks.  Anybody willing to do that?  Call your congressman and senator and tell them hands off your ladies  - 401(k).

I need a cold shower.....anyone want to join me.

Posted on: November 5, 2008 8:31 am
 

The Death of Aunt Fillamina Buster

My mean old Auntie Fillie Buster has died.  She was a crusty old lady who could stop a discussion cold with a steely stare.  She could impose her will on the family without so much as a peep of descent.  This wouldn't have been so bad if we ALL agreed with her but she tended to be a pretty far left thinker and took no pleasure in listening to other's points of view.

For those who cannot see through my prose.  I am speaking of the one great victory for America last night.  The Democrats were unable to secure the fillibuster proof majority they sought in the Senate.  This is huge otherwise there would have been no checks and balances on this Congress or Administration what so ever.  And given their somewhat radical tendencies to the left I believe this was an imperative.

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
------------

A final thought that really pissed me off as an American.  I wonder if I was the only one who picked up on it.  When it became apparent that Obama would win, the talking heads of the networks began to wonder out loud what kind of president he would be.  They began to make statements like:  Well, we don't really know where he stands on this issue or that issue and on and on. 

Wasn't that your job Media folks?  To find out by asking questions? 

The media is Dead along with Auntie Fillie Buster.

The fourth estate, guaranteed by the first amendment protecting free speech, failed to do its job through the primary season and throughout the election season. 

Most media outlets are bleeding cash, print media stock prices are one-fifth of their price a couple of years ago.  A correlation there?  I think so.

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-------------------

Peace.

 

Posted on: October 9, 2008 2:56 pm
Edited on: October 9, 2008 2:58 pm
 

You know what makes me HOT???

Sexy men sure do.  Sexy women absolutely.  People who lie to gain power makes me hot - but this under the collar not where I like it. But what really makes me HOT is when people are too blind to demand the truth and too stupid to ask the right questions.  If you have been paying attention you probably know there is a blame fest in Washington with regards to the credit and banking meltdown.  The other night I heard Obama blame McCain and Bush for the troubles.  I heard McCain blame Democrats.  Blame is not the answer folks.

In the banter and bickering the fourth estate, the press, has failed to ask the right questions.  Failed to get to the bottom of it.  In fact the New York Times has become a Democrat Rag regurgitating party doctrine as gospel and failing to perform any investigation into the mess. The New York Times is fast fading as a journalistic icon, a bastion on truth, they are less reliable than the National Enquirer!  But this is downright ridiculous.  The same paper that is ripping the Republicans for the mess ran this article in 1999.   Look it up, its there.

FANNIE MAE EASES CREDIT TO AID MORTGAGE LENDING By STEVEN A. HOLMES 
New York Times,September 30, 1999.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Now which is it New York Times?  Is it Bush's fault?  Is it the Republican's fault?  Is it the Democrat's fault?  You are irrelevant!! Americans- Stop expecting government to solve your problems.  Take responsibility for your actions.  Stop spending money you don't have.  Hold your politicians accountable for their spending. Vote them all out of office.  For everyone who added pork to the bailout bill - you should be recalled immediately for your reprehensible behavior and greed.  It was not that long ago when a poor person had too much pride to even ask for help.  In 2008 there is nothing a poor person is NOT entitled to and they have very little if any pride.  Work for your living. I think I am going to makes some love now. Smorgie
 
Posted on: June 17, 2008 4:01 pm
 

Ray Gunisms -

Ronald Reagan - Gotta love him even if you dislike him.  Great sayings....

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.'
  
'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
 
'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so'
 
'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.'
 
'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.'
 
'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.'
 
'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.'

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.'

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.'

 'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.’

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book'
 
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'
 
'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God , then we will be a nation gone under.'
- Ronald Reagan
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com