I admit to watching porn movies. Almost all are exactly as described in the article. I wished the movies were more erotic and less "porno". Why can't they make movies that show seduction before copulation or other sexual acts? Is it that the industry forces these kinds of films on the public or does the public demand them or does the industry believe the public demands them? It seems to me there ought to be a market for films that build up slowly to coupling. Nobody ever gets undressed in porno films. They either get started fully dressed or they are already in the full act when the film starts. The act of disrobing can be very erotic, and I don't mean the way they show it in the old burlesque shows. And why so much anal intercourse? Does that really bring men, much less women to a climax? So what is the point? And why do they have to shave the pubic hair? After all, that's what differentiates women from young girls. Perhaps it feeds the fantasy that these are little girls getting laid. I am certain there are all kinds of psychological explanations for what's going on with the way the greatest activity in the world is being presented in pornography. Most films have less to do with making love than with aggression.

What struck me as significant are these two sentences in the article:

"The Wall Street bailout, meanwhile, has saved Wall Street but left most regional banks in deep distress. Almost nothing has trickled down. Small businesses still can't get loans."

Why is that the case? Wasn't the bailout supposed to ensure that credit would again flow? In the meantime stock prices are rising and big banks are reaping huge profits. Could it be that big banks are using the tax money to again gamble on the stock market?

Or could it even be that certain circles are deliberately withholding money to ensure that Obama will fail? Now, who could have an interest in such an outcome?

You should read what Newsmax has to say. Obama is finished! Even the 23rd District in NY was a success even though the Democrats won the district for the first time in several decades (120 years is, after all, a few decades!) because Hoffman came close.

They are pretty good at tweaking the facts.

This article is right on the money. I especially liked the comments about the Age of Paranoia. President Bush capitalized on and fed the paranoia to strengthen his hold on the country. Concerning ckgilbertson's remark about Communist China, he misunderstands what Communism really means. They call themselves by that name, and we do the same, but the Soviet Union and all that followed were anything but communists. Look up the definition of Communism. In essence it is an economic system wherein everybody works according to his/her capabilities and is rewarded according to their needs. A great utopia, practiced by small groups throughout history, most recently by the Kibbutzim in Israel. None lasted very long and it has never worked on a large scale. The only way to suppress the human drive to excel (and be rewarded accordingly) is through brute suppression. And pretty soon those in power take the place of the powerful whom they drove out or killed. These are dictatorships just like Fascist dictatorships, only by a different name. China and a few others have managed to keep the "Communist" party in power and paying off everybody else with money. There are many rich people in China while the government brutally suppresses any political dissent. Whatever it is, the Chinese are not Communist.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not in favor of communism, as it is an unworkable utopia.

Fact is, between at the latest 2003 (but probably earlier) and 2008 the Bush Administration woefully neglected Afghanistan in order to go after Iraq. Of course we had no combat units to commit. We even needed the National Guard and Reserves to fight in Iraq. I am curious to see whether some of the retired Generals will come out of the woodwork to tell us about their frustration having to fight the Taliban with inadequate resources.