Ben Archer

There we go. That's certainly and ambitious use of her voice...extending low hums to those cries. She really gets into it too heh...she makes it look agonizing at the end. I like her phrasing, the key change, and especially how it ended (as it started). I don't know exactly why but I have to admit I like her music. I don't think I could listen to her all the time, just because I'm more easy going. But she definitely has a place in the epic playlist.

I think I'll have to listen to a bit more before I write off her singing...I'd be curious to hear how she can belt

That's actually a good point. I have a close relative who's a cognitive behavioral therapist. One of her more interesting treatments was for a man who was extremely anxious about speaking to women, for fear of being caught staring at her boobs. They brought in beautiful women with cleavage to challenge his perceptions, and he was cured within 3 days. Fair enough. I suppose the premise of the question and his forum name didn't encourage me to take it seriously. I actually came to this forum myself when I was going through the dilemma of dating a stripper. As far as attraction...maybe what Rand says about the "deepest vision of ourselves" applies to those who we choose to engage romantically, or have sex with. I think our views on sexuality are a bit rigid (you can just see the difference if you go to Italy, in their men). I've had plenty of sex that wasn't necessarily meaningful, but nothing to be ashamed of. So drawing the line between deciding if someone is worthy of "meaningful sex" and simply having casual sex, seems tricky to me. This almost works counter to my point about advising him not to seek an escort for his first boob touch, but only because I think a first time for something like that is meaningful, or at least significant enough that he'd never forget it. If the OP views it simply as a business transaction for the purposes of tactile discovery, then I can see how he'd have no regrets about it later in life....but otherwise I think one would always blush at the memory. However I suppose there's no reason to assume he'd do the same. Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic. I can relate to the embarrassments anxiety brings. What's encouraging is personally learning that no matter how severe and prolonging they are, they can be utterly defeated given the right mindset and application. (I recently kicked 15+ years of social phobia, through a a one-year effort in 2012) I just can't relate to a debilitating anxiety that is caused by not touching boobs. I'd think it'd stem from simply lack of confidence, self-esteem, or social phobia, and that those should be addressed first, as they could be aggravated by the situation/transaction. If it were a phobia, say of ineptitude with women for lack of even touching a boob, then maybe I'd say go for it.I'm not a behavioral therapist so I can't guess at how effective it'd be at challenging the fear. If he's a rational man, it's not encouraging tho, as he'd just be thinking "She's only letting me do this because i'm paying her...this does nothing to imply I'll be good in bed."

Hmmm...I wasn't too in to the first video but I actually liked Desire. I like her intensity. I wouldn't say she's an extroidinary singer but she's got a neat low tone, and with her intense eyes and that lipstick it's pretty sexy. I dunno what the visuals were about. I try not to dissect that too much, or the lyrics. But like her replacing desire as being the devil in her, to rather the fire. It's got a sort of triumphant chorus at that notion too.

Correct

Well I should say, they believe it sends a powerful message. The most common ones were "Live life to the fullest because you never know when something could happen". And that the surprise ending was just like the surprise and shock that the actual event gave them. I think my least favorite was that it gave them a deeper understanding into the suffering of that day. And regarding Pattison...I know...I expected it to be bad, I just was not prepared for that ending.

You missed the fun I had with it though, apparently. Aren't you a mod? Look up the ISP if you'd like. What do you mean? It's like a psychoanalyst does when they believe something to be the projecting handle of some important but buried reality, and seek for meanings which are often strange and sometimes repugnant to common sense.

I googled to see if this was discussed but I didn't find anything. Has anyone seen this movie? I'm finding that 3+ years later, there's still debate going on about its ending. I saw it in theaters so I got to see this trash on big screen. The ending completely blindsided me though. It's a very underwhelming "emo" melodrama that, out of nowhere, decides to end the life of its main character, like this: http://youtu.be/RPyd9J9kkJk I think the worst part in the theater was the sound of the oncoming plane. You cant hear it as well in that clip. As soon as that date showed on the chalkboard I was confused. Then when I started to see WTC I was just in disbelief. There's a bit more after this, but that's how they ended it. Nothing about the previews or the movie itself suggested it had any ties to 9/11. I recalled afterwards that it started in 1991 (at the very start of the movie, when Tyler was a kid, they showed the date), then jumped ahead 10 years. And I knew it was in new york. But that's it. You don't see the date again till it's written on the chalkboard. WTC is never in view. They carefully hide that it's where his dad works. The plot is basically this loner kid who falls for this girl. tries getting his life together, mending ties with his big-executive dad. That's where he heads up to in the scene above. Nothing about it had any ties to current events, or specific locations. Curious if anyone else saw this? I was personally outraged in the theater. My (ex) girlfriend couldn't understand why. (being a Pattison fan, she thought it was wonderful). What boggles my mind is when I was looking at this video, and its comments and those of blogs on the subject, there's a large majority of fans who loved the ending, and support its message...saying things like it gives them "greater understanding into the suffering of that day" ; and how it taught the lesson that anything could happen, even 9/11, so you should live life to the fullest. That was the most popular sentiment. Sometimes I feel like the world's going to hell in a handbag.

Oh wow, I didn't realize this post would be taken seriously...what a gem to come back to a few days later and find we're discussing the therapeutic values of breast play haha... I swear whoever made this account is just trolling the Objectivist enthusiasm for fastening on the smallest trivium. I always like Rand's idea that we are attracted to our deepest vision of ourselves. If the OP was actually so intent as to create a account to pose the question, and has already gotten the funds ready, I'd suspect that touching a boob would be very meaningful to him. Of course in a few years, it likely won't seem as meaningful, assuming—through sheer learned skill or proper Booby Budgeting—he's been able to grope regularly. But wouldn't it be slightly more embarrassing to know that you had to hire an escort? Maybe if it was a meaningless transaction, but again, it seems pretty important to the lad.

Buffet was the largest shareholder in Moody's. Moody's gave AAA ratings. I just think they knew they general public wouldn't be aware what was going on, and used it to their advantage. The amount of private equity redistributed in 2008 was 18 times that of 2003. Moody's and Buffet had huge respect and credibility, much more than the few economists of 2004 who say it coming, and were hoping for alarm, but largely ignored. I'm not try to cast blame, but I lost a lot of respect for him then. He was well poised to acquire the companies he did and avoid the most toxic of derivatives.

During the 2008 crisis. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/fcic-testimony-warren-buf_n_597355.html "Billionaire investor Warren Buffett on Wednesday defended credit rating agencies that gave overly positive grades to mortgage-related investments before the housing bust. He said the agencies were among many who missed warnings signs of the crisis. "They made the wrong call," Buffett acknowledged. But he said he counted himself among those who failed to foresee the collapse of the housing bubble. Buffett called it the "greatest bubble" he had ever seen. "The entire American public was caught up in a belief that housing prices could not fall dramatically," Buffett told a congressionally chartered panel investigating the financial crisis. Had he known how bad it would get, Buffett said he would have sold his company's stake in Moody's. Buffett is testifying before Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission alongside Moody's Corp. CEO Raymond McDaniel. Buffett's investment firm is Moody's largest shareholder."

Warren Buffet gave subprime mortgages AAA ratings, which he ought to be more infamous for.

I'm guessing evade account? Shouldn't be too hard to match the ISP and see if this is trolling. If you're serious...don't do it. I feel like I'd be embarrassed with myself anytime I thought about it, for the rest of my life. Just get your act together, use okcupid, date some girls...maybe you'll get to be super awkward around her boobs like you're describing. what if you're married one day and your wife asks about your first time? Or even jokingly asks if you've ever hired an escort. http://youtu.be/IlD08Rh6xa8

Stumbled across Atlas Shrugged at a library book sale (Age 24, 5 years ago) and I liked the cover art, heh. I adopted it immediately and bought most of her other books and ARI books within the next year. I was a bit of a zealot about it at first, and annoyed a lot of people in psychology class. I've learned to keep to myself.

This thread has some good insight on this topic. David Odden and Jake Ellison make some great points

I didn't expect my post to be reduced to a debate on this small point, but I'd disagree that this kind of transaction happens all the time. The last thing the Busch family wanted in 2008 was to sell their iconic brand. Their final deal came as a shock. InBev's timing was right at the hight of the financial meltdown, but right before credit dried up, so they had little political resistance. Again this was just one example that personally bothered me. The US is still selling off its assets today. As for making money on it, the most to be made was during this crisis (buying companies, shorting stocks)...now the fed is doing everything it can to avoid the bubble popping, so you just have to look to their policy. Looks like Yellen is going to follow in Bernanke's footsteps. There's not much else she can do (again I think it should be invested in innovation, but that's another story). I'm not "selling" anything, other than my views on why, yes, we're "teetering", and what the fed will likely do about it. In another post, I already talked about my ideas of how we could use this credit to our advantage, and what will eventually happen when this system breaks down. apropos...the cover of the last week's economist struck me as the perfect visual:

You missed the significance of why I brought up Budweiser. Its purchase was only possible because of the policies of Bernanke. Negative interest rates allowed the mega–rich incredible loans. The deals on the 654 companies bought out in 2006 were 18 times bigger than any deals (private equity) in 2003. So after the bubble, his policies had gotten so out of control it was possible for Brazilian entrepreneurs to borrow huge amounts of money and buy out iconic US brands....right around the same time China started buying out our oil fields. This is what I meant by out of whack. Where I'm "going with all this" is to make the argument that you can't apply the old rules of money and capitalism to the economy we're in right now, and I think it's because that people do that they don't realize we are teetering (and the question of teetering was in the OP). It's likely this can continue for maybe 5, 10 years...at most. I don't think we can sustain the debt to gdp ratio that Japan's at, partly because of their "inseki-jisatsu" culture of killing themselves before they accept failure.

I think what I should have said QE is a necessary part of what fuels our economy, and it's not the typical savings/investing cycle typical of capitalism. The economy is driven by expanding credit and consumption. And that there's no way to simply reverse this transition, and go back the way we've come from the 60's when money became credit. As for consumption, when the government spends less money, far less people have jobs, so consumption goes down, thus business investment would go down. Despite the stimulus, globalization is causing huge deflationary forces, offsetting our domestic inflationary pressures (medium income is where it was in 1989, adjusted for inflation). So right now we're in this "nirvanah" moment which allows us to borrow at the magnitude we are. Gains in productivity do not flow through the workers...they get hijacked by financiers. Consider that 20% of our income is generated by finance. (which is insane) Our monetary stimulus isn't declining while our fiscal stimulus is...which is hugely significant. QE is now more than a trillion; we have more than enough to finance our debt. So we're now printing money, not to finance a treasury in crisis, but to keep up pace with consumption (which is well over our production). With income where it's at, the only way to make our economy grow is to drive up asset prices to give Americans more money to spend. Proponents of austerity don't quite understand how dependant we are on credit expansion. So talks of cutting government spending should including the willingness to hunt squirrels for a living. A few charts to support this reliance on credit: ↑ Showing how in 43 years credit went up over 50 times to $57 trillion ↑ Went we switched to fiat and the start of the crisis indicated. You can see how we basically just put vietnam on a credit card, instead of raising taxes. And then you had Johnson's great society, where we started to really increase the social net. Both of these without substaintially increasing the tax burdens to go along with it. So the only way out was to increase credit available. ↑ Part of this trap we're in because of labor arbitrage, where we've dropped manufacturing costs, and keep costs in the US artificially low (cost of consumption items). So because of this, the goods and service per labor unit have been falling, along with real disposable income, and we're stalled for not enough aggregate demand. Because in this system, wealth creation is being consumed by the massive debt that the private sector can't bear. Capitalism can't work under these conditions. Although we've prospered under this credit system (especially China), we're reaching a point where it can't work much longer. We've got an eroding industrial base, 70% consumption, no savings, no investment. The fact that Brazilian entrepreneurs bought Budweiser should tell you somethings out of whack. So no, Nicky, I suppose I don't think Congress would default, you're right. In my other post I talked about some of the outcomes if it did. Either way though, it's unavoidable that this system will eventually collapse. When can you think of any case in history where a fiat system didn't? I talked about other things we could do with the money, but idealistic theories are generally regarded as bad table manners around here, heh.

"The last part is really false theory. Data and studies have not shown up: most consumer spending is not impacted by the so called "wealth effect". Studies show that consumers do take a long-term approach to spending. " Before I reply I'm going to do some homework and try to find the data to backup what I'm saying (and see if I misinterpreted)... I do love this comparison though, very true:

I don't watch TV, but thanks. Here's an example of something you could've said, which in fact, helped educated me on the subject He brought up some good points and history I hadn't considered (it's Softwarenerd's reply). Maybe you should criticise him for not reducing the discussion to the essentials, which in your mind is "failing to quantify." You seem to be interpreting the intent of my posts as the beginnings of a treatise By mentioning the 750+ oil spills, I was noting the lack of media attention, and the irony that the Keystone pipeline might have averted the train wreck. Again, a real charmer, thanks for reducing the conversation (one I was done with) to your trivial misinterpretations.

My so–called "angst" has nothing to do with it. All we have to do is look at Janet Yellen's views on quantitative easing , because QE is the most important driver of our economy right now. The Fed's creating $85 billion a month to buy bonds, which increases bond prices, drops interest rates and ups property prices. It also pushes more money into equities, fueling the stock market. Asset prices go up, Americans spend more, the economy grows. This isn't an argument on causality...it's on how we've gone from a system fueled by accumulating capital and investing (capitalism) to one fueled by credit and consumption, where the US gov is spending 23% of GDP. And based on what they said at the end of their FOMC on Oct 30, (QE will continue until labor market improves), it's unlikely they plan on stopping/tapering QE any time soon, especially since labor has steadily been getting worse. Whats somewhat encouraging is at least Yellen appears to have a real concern for unemployment. There was never a question of whether we could pay our debts. I think an easier way to see this is just look at the 2.6% interest rate of 10 year government bonds. It's well below their cost of borrowing over the last 50 years, so obviously they're nowhere near having a genuine debt crisis. The point was only a few weeks ago Congress was poised to not raise the debt ceiling, and it was an actual consideration of people who apparently don't realize how disastrous that would be.

I didn't realize my intent was on quantifying the " the cost of oil pipelines to surrounding property and human health" Same with Bangladesh btw, "tragedy after tragedy" is not an attempt to quantify something...it's acknowledging that they happened, and its a problem. (example, example) I'd love to see an example of how you'd "compare those risks to other risks, as well as to the cost of thwarting industrial activity in an attempt to prevent them." (I suggested boosting productivity in the existing larger, and better run factories to drive out the smaller, dodgier ones) Lovely condescending tone (I see it in a lot of your posts), picking apart a simple segway into further discussion. Relax.

I was mentioning what I'd talked about in another post, as to how disastrous it would be if the US defaults on their debt, which Congress could cause by refusing to lift the debt ceiling. Because if they force a default, we'll lose the precious "full faith and credit of the United States government", which is the only thing keeping us afloat and credible globally.

Well I originally read about the article in the Bloomberg Business week magazine, I just quickly googled and linked the first thing I could find.There's a similar article on their website, but the one in the magazine was more detailed. I think it's simplifying things to suggest that 200 years ago, the conditions in the textile factories in Bangladesh were observable here. Not only is the negligence towards safety much more extreme, but the situation with child labor. They even tried firing a large amount of kids but most of them ended up in prostitution or gangs. One solution could be to build a new, safer factory that was to such a scale that it could monopolize the industry and shut the other derelict ones down. I'm guessing the last bit about "innovation" was a jab at my other post, but I really don't see the relationship between the worrying of american voters and the global economic crisis I was addressing =P Regardless, I agree these types of accidents are going to happen. If you read the bloomberg article though, a lot of oil has spilled in N. Dakota, and I just expected a lot more media attention. I only mentioned the train–wreck because it might not have happened if they'd just let the Keystone pipe carry on, heh.