So I think Jessica Simpson is missing an opportunity here...
In case you haven't heard, a few weeks ago in Rolling Stone John Mayer described their relationship as "sexual napalm."
Now I like John Mayer's music a great deal, but apparently he's not heard of that maxim about how gentlemen aren't supposed to kiss and tell. So I think he's got some bad karma heading his way in the future...
Still, Jessica then went on Oprah and said "I don't want people to know how I am in bed." Her right, for sure, but I think she's missing a golden opportunity.
Given that you cannot buy this sort of publicity, I think she should trademark the "Sexual Napalm" phrase, and start a new line of clothing around it. On top of that, should John ever bring it up again, she could send the lawyers after him for misappropriating her trademark. The ultimate vindication, if you will...
So, gentle readers, if you were rumored to be an incredible lover, would you own it, or run away from it?
The above rap video is one of the best and most entertaining summaries I've ever seen comparing Keynesian economics to Austrian economics. Currently, the U.S. Federal Government is following Keynesian economics - particularly, we are engaged in hefty fiscal spending which is driving up the U.S. Debt outstanding, and the Federal Reserve is engaged in unprecedented monetary stimulus in the form of an extremely low federal funds rate target (e.g. 0 to .25%) PLUS the direct purchase of U.S. Treasuries and Agency Debt.
Despite the above intervention in the economy by the government and Federal Reserve, unemployment remains high, any "so-called" economic recovery is tepid at best, and total liabilities of the U.S. government, including the Public Debt and Medicare, Social Security, etc continue to sky higher to unsustainable and unservicable levels. Plus, the U.S. banking sector remains completely immobilized, seized up by bad loans and commercial real estate that continues to deteriorate. One only needs to look to Japan to question whether or not Keynesian actions have done anything to pull that great industrial nation out of the protracted deflation and anemic growth it has suffered for the past 20 years on the whole.
In essence, it is my Austrian argument that there is simply too much debt (especially as a ratio to U.S. GDP) in the system, and that trying to transfer some of that debt off of the private household/banking balance sheets onto liabilities of the Federal Government will ultimately fail, postponing and deepening as opposed to preventing the inevitable Depression. I would argue that a better approach from the onset would have been to clear the debt out of the system first, forcing massive bankruptcies, nationalizing key "to big to fail" banks/financial institutions while obliterating bank shareholders and giving their bondholders pennies on the dollar. This would have certainly resulted in even higher unemployment and plenty of short term pain for all sorts of individuals and businesses, but it would have wiped out the debt that those same individuals and businesses have no hope of servicing. Then, as the private debt was being cleared out of the system, I would have borrowed 5 to 6 trillion (through U.S. Treasury issuance) for the direct support/aid of families affected by the job losses via housing and food support, created a mini-U.S. focused New Marshall Plan, PLUS backstopped the FDIC so that depositors were made whole despite the widespread banking failures. Then, the nationalized banks and private banks who had strong enough balance sheets to survive the fallout could start lending again and private industry could resume, unchained from its debt shackles.
fans joined facebook pages to lobby for it, media outlets wrote stories willing for it to happen..and now it has! the amazing, talented and wonderful betty white has confirmed that she will appear on snl this season. the 88-year-old legend gained fame in the roles of sue ann nivens and rose nylund, played password alongside her late husband and has now seen a resurgence in her popularity, thanks in part, to her snickers super bowl ad. her appearance will no doubt set up snl and nbc for a ratings bonanza they haven't seen in years! i am as big of a fan as any of this bawdy and sharp tongued octogenarian, which is why the i find the second half of this snl story so bothersome....
white's appearance will be part of snl's "women of comedy" night...so who, you may ask, will be the other comedy geniuses and legends to grace the stage that night? snl vets tina fey, amy poehler and molly shannon. ....REALLY? molly shannon? amy poehler? (i happen to like tina fey, so while i am unsure she fits either, i am not as outraged by her). to me this is an insult to white and her contribution to entertainment. snl being as self serving as they are, clearly only reached out to their own alums for consideration...but even so, they couldn't have had a recruited a laraine newman, jane curtin or candice bergen? or god forbid reach beyond their own little inbred pool fathered by lorne michales to a carol burnett, lily tomlin, marlo thomas or tracey ullman....or think to reunite white with rue mcclanahan or mary tyler moore?
my point, and i do have one....is that i am so excited to see anything and everything that betty white does, but i am completely and utterly disgusted by snl. what’s your point?
It's a bar of soap in the mouth for an entire state: California's lawmakers have approved a "Cuss-Free Week" to encourage Californians to watch their language.
The resolution can’t punish anyone for foul language, but the lawmaker who introduced the bill hopes Californians “act like you’re at your grandma’s house.”
The California resolution still has to be approved by the Senate, but if the chamber votes yes, “Cuss-Free Week” will start next Tuesday.
My point, and I do have one...California is in the middle of an historic budgetary crisis, people continue to lose their homes and has one the nations highest unemployment rates while the state assembly passes NO CUSSING week. %#*&^!
Governator couldn't be reached for comment because he is fighting childhood obesity this week.
Does our government even care anymore or is it our fault for not holding their feet to the first to solve REAL problems.
Excuse me while I go stick my head in the sand for awhile.
I just read a Reuters article about breaking-up in the digital age. It seems that while breaking up with someone face to face still holds the majority (38%), digital dumping is on the rise. According to the article, 34% of those surveyed said they ended a relationship via e-mail; 13% changed their status on Facebook without telling their partners; 8% used the phone, 6% sent out a tweet; and 2% broke up via text message!
Now, of course this is just a silly 2,000 people survey, and it's obviously not even totally accurate (the numbers add up to 101%), but the point is clear - digital dumping will soon be the new normal. Anyone who know me knows that I'm an advocate for doing things in a new and different way, but I think this is just wrong...
If you have a real relationship with someone, where most of your interactions are in person, then breaking-up should also be done in person. You owe that to them. However, If it's a digital relationship, then you can break up digitally! Some things are just too important and personal to be left to tweets and text messages. Would you e-mail you're husband to let him know you're pregnant? Should your doctor Facebook you to let you know that you have cancer?
Let me be clear, I'm not objecting to any of these technologies. As a matter of fact, I love all the new ways that we can now communicate! I just feel that people are generally lazy and would find any way to avoid confrontation. I think that's cowardly! If you're going to break-up with someone, then have the balls to do it face to face. I would rather be told in person than sent a Dear John text... wouldn't you?
That's my point, and if you disagree, come tell me in person ;)
There once was a time when the only rehab that was on the radar was for alcohol or drug abuse. Something has shifted over the years. People go to rehab for everything from overeating to sex, but there's a new addiction on the horizon. This week Chynna Phillips announced that she's in rehab for anxiety. I know that panic attacks & severe stress can wreck havoc on a person's body, mind and spirit. The solution used to be taking a yoga class or learning to mediate. Or going on a long vacation or getting a new job to help relieve some of the stress. Is anxiety really a disease that requires rehab? Now I'm curious about what actually takes place in this kind of facility. "Hi. My name is Chynna and I'm a stress monger..."
I'm not trying to make light of Ms. Phillips situation. She could be dealing with something very serious like a nervous breakdown for all we know. I do feel like there's some key information missing from her story. I'm just wondering why in the good ole USA are there rehabs for just about anything that ails you? And are these afflictions truly classified as a disease? Is having 27 mistresses at once really an ailment or the result of a sense of entitlement & power?
Turn on your TV and there are drugs on the market for all kinds of conditions now referred to as a "disease." Take acid reflux and dry eye. I had tons of both when I was pregnant. It was the result of hormones, having a very big belly and eating too many cannolis. Both magically disappeared after I gave birth and dropped 40 pounds.
My point, and I do have one is that it seems to me that many Americans are looking for the easy way out. Label my condition a disease or an addiction and suddenly, it's not my fault and I do not have to truly take responsibility for it. I can take a drug or go to rehab and it will all just go away or at least ease the pain. Am I being too harsh on this subject matter? What's your take on this subject? Thanks Robin for letting me guest blog!
this weekend actor/director kevin smith's flight from oakland to burbank hit turbulence. while booked on a late flight, smith wanted to see if he could get on an earlier one as a stand-by. sure enough a seat opened and he boarded and sat in his newly assigned seat, buckled up (without an extender) and was ready for his flight when according to smith: "a southwest attendant named suzanne told me captain leysath deemed me a 'safety risk." he was then escorted off. when he got off the plane he got right on twitter. (http://twitter.com/thatkevinsmith)
southwest airlines was inundated with people commenting on the situation prompting southwest to responded with the following blog (http://www.blogsouthwest.com/not-so-silent-bob.html?q=blog/not-so-silent-bob) where they stated: "our pilots are responsible for the safety and comfort of all customers on the aircraft and therefore, made the determination that mr. smith needed more than one seat to complete his flight. our employees explained why the decision was made, accommodated mr. smith on a later flight, and issued him a $100 southwest travel voucher for his inconvenience." southwest policy requires passengers whose girth makes them unable to fit into a seat with the armrests down, or whose bodies spill over into adjacent seats, to buy a second ticket. (for the record, smith said both the arm rests went down and the women on either side of him had no problem with him spilling over. additionally he said that he sat in just one seat, with no personal or airline problems on the flight he eventually flew back on).
today, smith threw down a challenge to southwest: “you bring that same row of seats to the daily show, and i’ll sit in ‘em for all to see on tv.” he said if he doesn’t fit, he’ll donate $10,000 to charity, but if he is able to get into the seats, he wants southwest to at “least re-train your staff to be a lot more human & a lot less corporate when they pull a poor girl off the plane & shame her.” southwest has rejected the challenge saying: “we most likely will be declining that request...obviously, whether or not he can fit into the seats is a matter of interpretation.”
my point, and i do have one...is that this has become a pr nightmare for southwest. they clearly didn't handle a situation with a high profile/social media savvy return customer well, and whether they are right or wrong, they the ones in the "thick" of it now. what is your point?
