Here's the actual puppet show Nanners enjoyed:

Before you go, Nanners does have one political update! He found this video on Youtube today and thinks it's certainly interesting, if a little pointed, bias and maybe even racist. It claims that Barack Obama is NOT a natural born U.S. citizen. Seems like a rant from an old Hillary supporter, but who knows? Take a look: 

What do you all think of this? Discuss....

But do I regret what I learned about myself through my affair? Hell no with bells on!!

AP (affair partner) taught me so much about my sexuality and about asking for the things I wanted and needed sexually. These were all things that my husband simply refused to talk about and that left me so frustrated and rejected. In return, AP was a man who had also been dealt blows to his self confidence by his ex, and between us we built each other back up again. AP had never had a woman who felt so open and relaxed with him ... and I'd never had a man so totally focussed on MY needs. It was a sexual match made in heaven and to be honest it was a case of right place, right time. We met - we were attracted to each other and we filled a void that was missing in each other's lives.

The thing is - the sexual side dropped off after a few months, and AP and I became good friends. I was dealing with all of the hassle of a failing business as well as my marriage problems, bringing up children ... ohh plus I was MARRIED with CHILDREN and represented all of the things AP (a single guy my age) wanted - but could never have (ie a family) while he was seeing me. He on the other hand works from home with major stress, had his mother staying with him when her place got sold under her, so being intimate was out of the question anyway! We just got on well as human beings and although he has "guy friends" and I have "girl friends" ... I don't know ... there was just something that kept us in touch with each other.

AP and I TALK. I'm sometimes scared to tell him stuff because I know he will give me an honest answer, but that is what I respect about him and precisely WHY I tell him stuff! He makes me think about my decisions and choices instead of just merely nodding and agreeing that it is a good idea. He is also so INSANELY logical and IS always right. That irritates the crap out of me because I like to be right too! AP is Aquarius and could literally be a poster boy for the definition!

We both agreed a long time ago (we met just over 2 years ago and our sexual affair lasted about 4 months) that a "relationship" was out of the question because we were just too different. I can't go into the reasons publicly but that we were both attracted to each other and that both couldn't imagine a life without the other in it.

We kind of also agreed recently that "fuck-buddies" would be a good way to term it because I am going to be single ... he is single ... and there would be absolutely nothing to stop us enjoying a little bit of errr "fun" because damnit I have to admit, AP is the BEST sex I ever had!

I NEED to stay single! I NEED to not be in a "relationship" and sort my head out, work out what I want & need from my life ... but can I handle it and separate the sex from the emotion with AP without convincing myself it is anything other than just sex? I certainly couldn't the last time my husband and I slept together. Maybe AP is different ... because of our past sexual history and lack of "relationship" ... maybe it could work.

Grrrr I don't know. I like this guy a lot - on a physical level as well as a basic level, but he also drives me nuts on so many levels too!! Sometimes I really can see us together in the future, but other times I worry he would bore the crap out of me ... then reality kicks in and reminds me that I need to spend at LEAST SIX MONTHS in single-dom so it is irrelevant anyway!

Maybe that's a good thing ... we already know all of each other's faults ... we're definitely physically attracted to each other ... and he knows I come with a heck of a lot of baggage... and we are still here anyway! Maybe that is what scares me about him? Maybe he knows me too well? Maybe I need to completely start from scratch!

At any rate ... AP knows I need to be single for a long time ... and that is the way it's going to be. As I have said before I have my own pink toolbox and a stash of vibrators ... I'll be fine!!

No, really ... I will!

Hanya 2 orang temen chat ku yang berani aku temuin saat aku memulai affair di belakang dia. Terus terang, hal itu ku lakukan tanpa perasaan. Hanya untuk memuaskan ego ku yang terluka.

Suatu saat, setelah habis chatting penuh mesum dengan seorang pria. Dia pun mengajak untuk makan bareng, sekalian kenalan. Aku pun pamit diam2 dari teman hidupku itu untuk mengerjakan tugas kuliah di tempat teman. Oh ya, kami memang masih berstatus mahasiswa pada saat itu tapi telah tinggal bersama.

Ketemuan di sebuah warnet. Langsung mencari makanan yang panas2, sambil ngobrol2 bentar. Keasikan ngobrol membuat aku betah dengan pria itu. Setelah makan, kami kemudian berkeliling kota dengan menggunakan motor. Sesekali ku peluk dirinya dari belakang. Sampai akhirnya aku membuka helm masker yang menutupi muka dan kemudian mulai mencium belakang leher pria itu hingga akhirnya dia kegelian :D

Lalu, dia pun membalikkan mukanya, sambil tangannya tetap mengemudikan motor, dan kami berciuman dengan panasnya diatas motor yang sedang berjalan.

Rupanya pria ini lama2 tidak tahan juga. Kami pun menuju sebuah tempat yaitu sebuah jembatan yang cukup aman karena gelap untuk sekedar peluk2an disana menikmati malam.

Saking panasnya berciuman, tanpa sadar aku telah membuka celananya dan kemudian jongkok untuk melumat batang nikmatnya. Dia pun terkejut :)

Sehabis itu?

Ah aku cuma mengetesnya. Pertama ketemuan gak perlu sampai macam2. BIar cowok penasaran.
AKu pun sempat takut, karena daerah itu dekat dengan tempat tinggal ku bersama teman hidupku. Takut kepergok kalau lagi macem2 sama orang lain di jembatan.:D

Tapi ah, jembatan itu gak da kesan apa2 lagi bagiku terhadap cowok itu. Karena akhirnya aku pernah mengajak teman hidupku untuk kabur dari rumah dan menikmati seks alam terbuka di jembatan itu :D

****

Nanners has discovered the "true" list of books that Sarah Palin wanted to ban in Wasilla. In an effort to offend the crazed VP hopeful yet again, Nanners has taken it upon himself to find and read ALL of the books on that list, starting with Bill Clinton's "My Life."

It's gonna be a treacherous journey (have you read "My Life?" Ugh), but in the end, it's all for the sake of offending Sarah Palin. Morally, that is what is right.

Sarah Palin Video(s) of the Day --

Here's a rather funny swiftboat-inspired spoof ad:

And here's the story about the banned books, the true reason why Nanners fundamentally stands against Sarah Palin. This country does NOT ban books. Age restrict, yes. Outright ban, never:

The respectable suburban couple,

married 11 years,

Have two dark-haired girls,

Ages 5 and 7.

One day, a truck delivers a sofa and a loveseat for the living room.

Soft, gold velvet whose colors shift

when you rub your fingers against the grain.

Smooth to rough, rough to smooth.

A third girl is born.

The grandmother gets sick.

The family business goes bankrupt.

Re-upholstered,

teal green,

with flowers.

The dark-haired girls go off to college.

The family moves to the city,

bringing the sofa and the loveseat.

The little girl grows up.

Moves away.

Meets a boy

Graduates.

The girl and the boy rent an apartment

near the parents.

They take the loveseat,

no room for the sofa.

Sitting side by side on the loveseat they pay their first bills.

A few years pass.

A cat.

A new apartment with a brick courtyard and a garden.

And then, once, on a hot summer day,

they make love on that loveseat.

She notices the fabric of the couch starting to fray.

He notices the purple of her sundress against her tanned thigh.

He asks.

She says yes.

A wedding.

They move again.

New apartment, new couch.

The loveseat relegated to the porch.

One August evening, on that loveseat, a baby is conceived.

On that loveseat, on a rainy cool Sunday afternoon, the girl rests

pregnant, sick, eating dry cheerios, curled under an old blanket.

Spring, and on that loveseat

she sits, holding her sleeping baby girl,

wondering how the endless morning will pass in so much quiet.

Wondering if she’ll ever get to get up off the couch.

Wondering why she has never felt more alone.

Their first house, the loveseat, forgotten in the basement.

The girl looks around now to see the boy, this man,

except it seems,

she can’t find him anymore, even when he sits right next to her.

So, she looks less and less often.

He sits right next to her, less and less often.

And again, they move.

The loveseat, on the truck.

Then surrendered to the garage,

without a second glance.

A son is born.

She sits on the new couch, her sleeping baby boy on her chest.

Her daughter playing beside her.

So much she loves.

But it is hot.

She wonders how the endless summer will pass.

But, of course, it does.

Minutes slide in and out.

And then.

And then.

She meets another boy.

Springtime.

In a dark, moldy, cold basement of the building where they work,

she lets him trace his fingers up the back of her neck.

Chilled and thrilled.

She lets him kiss her

She wants him to kiss her.

She is consumed with wanting, longing, needing, feeling.

Finally,

feeling.

She is insatiable.

Unstoppable.

But, there is no place in that basement for lovers.

Just an old, ugly, green chair, paintings, brushes and old boxes.

They dig the loveseat out of her garage.

And move it to the dark basement.

And on this 34 year-old loveseat.

They make love.

They whisper.

They hold.

They laugh.

They plan.

They hope.

For moments, they sleep.

She makes up stories,

So many stories.

A year passes like this.

It ends, of course.

The husband finds out.

The wife finds out.

Everyone finds out.

The woman, who was the girl who rubbed her fingers against the velvety couch,

Moves out.

The woman and her lover say goodbye.

Her heart breaks.

Four hearts break.

Marriages,

Break.

The lover moves away.

The basement is cleared of his things.

Paintings, brushes, old boxes.

Swept up and tidied.

Empty.

Clean.

Bare.

Except the loveseat.

Standing,

Unbroken.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4085560107047921796]

This made me edit two of my old posts to accomodate this video since it makes better connection with readers if they read a poem and can relate to something they see.

Having seen this video, let me narrate a similar situation in the Sangam period which was 2000 years earlier. 

Talaivi(heroine) is in love with Talaivan. But unfortunately they are not able to meet any more. The Talaivi becomes pale and sick. This love sickness can be cured only with the embraces of her lover or physical contact with the lover(Unbearable passion). But this not known to any one other then Panki(her friend). The mother usually spots this sickness but dosent know the cause. She invites soothsaying women who finds the cause for the sickness. More often these women are no good and say Murugan has possesed the young girl. Then Velan(Velan is not Murugan - rather he is priest of Murugan in sangam Literature) arrives and sacrifices animals and tries to cure the young girl. Either the young girl or her friend mock/make fun of the priest/parents/god. There are many peoms based on this motif in Sangam poems.For more details on this theme you can read my previous post on Love sickness http://karkanirka.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/lovesickness/

I am just quoting one poem here on this motif , for all other poems see my pervious blog.

22.

அணங்குடை நெடுவரை உச்சியின் இழிதரும்

கணம்கொள் அருவிக் கான்கெழு நாடன்

மணம்கமழ் வியன்மார்பு அணங்கிய செல்லல்

இதுஎன அறியா மறுவரற் பொழுதில்

'படியோர்த் தேய்த்த பல்புகழ்த் தடக்கை

நெடுவேட் பேண தணிகுவள் இவள்' என,

முதுவாய்ப் பெண்டிர் அதுவாய் கூற,

களம் நன்கு இழைத்துக் கண்ணி சூட்டி,

வளநகர் சிலம்பப் பாடிப் பலி கொடுத்து,

உருவச் செந்தினை குருதியொடு தூஉய்,

முருகுஆற்றுப் படுத்த உருகெழு நடுநாள்,

ஆரம் நாற, அருவிடர்த் ததைந்த

சாரல் பல்பூ வண்டுபடச் சூடி,

களிற்று - இரை தெரீஇய பார்வல் ஒதுக்கின்

ஒளித்து இயங்கும் மரபின் வயப்புலி போல,

நல்மனை, நெடுநகர்க் காவலர் அறியாமை

தன்நசை உள்ளத்து நம்நசை வாய்ப்ப,

இன்உயிர் குழைய முயங்குதொறும் மெய்ம்மலிந்து,

நக்கனென் அல்லெனோ யானே - எய்த்த

நோய்தணி காதலர் வர, ஈண்டு 

ஏதில் வேலற்கு உலந்தமை கண்டே?

Akanaanuru 22

With his broad,sweet smelling chest,

the man from mountains

where massed waterfalls drop from high,demon-infested summit

"If we worship the long speared god

whose mighty hands are famed

for crushing all who do not bow to him,

she will recover,"

women who know the ancient arts said

as if it were the truth.

They arranged the place of worship,

garlanded the spear,

sang so the town resounded,

offered sacrifice,

spread lovely millet and blood,

and worshiped Murugan.

On the same fearful midnight,

my lover came fragrant with sandal paste,

wearing flowers swarming bees

that had blossomed thickly in remote mountain cave,

eluding the guards of the tall house like a strong tiger

that moves hidden,

its stealthy gaze searching for an elephant to kill.

His heart filled with desire,he did everything I wanted,

and each time he embraced me,

making my sweet life melt,

my whole body filled with laughter

as I thought

that while it was my lover who had come

to cure the pain he had caused,

they would say

the cure was from useless priest of Murugan.

Poet:Veripaatiya Kaamakkanniyar- A women poet.

Translated by George L Hart

This theme can be found in lot of Tamil movies, most of the times to fill in a song or some times for comedy.  Still it is very interesting to find such theme in oldest literature of Tamil as well as 2008 Tamil movie. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Please post your comments.

Link to my orkut community http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=49797549

Subscribe Karkanirka

Stumble It!

****

Nanners has decided to slight VP hopeful, and anti-abortionist, Sarah Palin once more by posing nude for 'Vanity Fair' magazine. Nanners is now nine months pregnant with Palin's unborn child. Here's a first look at that high-class photo shoot:

Nanners plans on keeping the child despite growing concerns that the child may, in fact, be "the spawn of some kind of moronic demon, possibly the anti-Christ," as one doctor stated.

Nanners had originally wanted to abort the unnatural humanzee child due to heath concerns, but he could not afford to do so after paying for his own rape kit (as you may recall, Palin raped Nanners silly in early January). Making matters worse, Palin insisted that Nanners and she be married, but in recent weeks, Nanners has backed out of the much-anticipated interspecies marriage.

Nanners is due in the coming weeks (probably the first week of November) and many decisions need to be made before that unholy day arrives. Wish Nanners the best of luck!

Sarah Palin Video(s) of the Day –

Here's a 'greatest hits' compilation of the all the recent Sarah Palin interviews!

...And because they are hysterical, another one of Sara Benincasa's 'Sarah Palin Vlogs'...this time, it's a post-debate vlog!!

Starring Anessa Ramsey, Justin Welborn, AJ Bowen, Matthew Stanton, Cheri Christian and Sahr Ngaujah

Produced by POP Films and Shoreline Entertainment

Written and Directed by David Bruckner, Dan Bush and Jacob Gentry

When The Signal came to New York, I desperately wanted to see it, but I left for a trip back home to Ohio shortly after and since Ohio pretty much sucks for anything aside from blockbusters, I missed out. I had a few hours to kill at work yesterday and decided to watch it and to be totally honest, it wasn't bad.

The Signal is about just that...a signal. Every T.V., cellphone and home phone is possessed by an unknown signal that somehow rewires people's brains and makes them naturally freak out and kill those around him/her. Mya (Anessa Ramsey) and Ben (Justin Welborn), after spending a wonderful night together, are awakened by a loud/bright signal on the television screen. Mya goes home to her husband, Lewis (AJ Bowen), but discovers the signal is there too. After a series of violent outbreaks, Mya is on a mission to go to Terminal 13, the terminal Ben suggests the two meet at the night before, but little does she know her lover as well as her now possessed husband are meeting her there too.

The movie is broken up into three parts: one about Ben and Mya, the second on the possessed Lewis and the third on all three characters. Episodes one and three are fantastic and even pretty outrageous to the point where it really weirded me out at times, but the second part really confused me at first. Once I realized all the characters in the scene were possessed by the signal and were hallucinating most of the events, it made sense, but at first it just came off as being really awkward and campy, which was not the tone set for the film at this point.

The acting, by mostly unknown actors, was pretty good and didn't seem forced in anyway. My favorite was by far AJ Bowen, who played Lewis. He's a pretty good crazy man, going from being hilarious to being truly terrifying.

I found the end sort of "meh," but other than that, this is one of the best horror movies to come out of the U.S. for quite a while...which is sort of sad being this was a hardly above average film.

I would check it out only if you're interested. It's definitley not a must-see.

****

In an effort to offer the American people one more choice, Nanners has decided, 'Hey, if Sarah Palin can get into office sporting a flag pin and glasses, and no experience, maybe I can too!'

So, from this day forward, Nanners has dedicated himself to being your third party VP candidate. If any of the third party folks want him, he's ready for the job. He DOES have his glasses and flag pin. That's all you need, right?* 

Plus, Nanners can debate like a motherf***er!!

*Please be aware that Nanners is, in fact, pregnant with Sarah Palin's child and may soon be giving birth to the humanzee antiChrist, but that shouldn't stop him from his duties--if Palin can poorly raise five children, so can he!!

Sarah Palin Video of the Day –

A classic spoof that melds the infamous 'Miss Teen USA' viral video with the Palin-Charlie Gibson interview...classic!

Plus, one more shout out to Sara Benincasa and her awesome parody, "Sarah Palin's Vlog!" Here's another installment:

Who does this guy Gary Neuman think he is??? And is it the same guy who did that song "Cars" back in the 80's???

In a nutshell, what I got from his schtick on emotional infidelity is that you can't have any close emotional ties other than those with your partner. Like that's not cultish. He indicates that the single most important thing you can do for your relationship is to limit outside friendships. As I recall from postings against abuse in womens' bathrooms, controlling your friendships is one of the top signs of emotional abuse.

According to the book, all this time I've been having affairs with my women friends, men friends, several family members and a therapist, not to mention this very blog. I've just been blithely working my way toward an affair merely by hangin' with my peeps. Conferring on my problems with my nearest and dearest, in spite of gender, puts chinks in the armor of a marriage. Apparently this dude thinks you should be everything for each other. Can we say, "codependent"? One opinion for everything. One account of the day. In my case, where I not only live with my husband but work with him, this makes for a very...Huis Clos kind of situation. Perhaps if one is married to a lighthouse keeper in the 1800's, this might be a more easily achieved, if no less tenable, stance.

I suppose it wouldn't have struck a nerve if my husband didn't make the same noises.

He gets irritated if I chat with my friends during the workday. Or in the evening. Weekends? FAMILY TIME. So in general, if I'm not focusing on him, it's out. But we all know that there are problems you discuss with the hubster, problems that you discuss with friends who are mothers, problems you discuss with friends who are any good with money at all. Frankly, I think a second opinion on all things should be the way to go. But I guess since I didn't confer with my husband on whether or not he had breakthrough bleeding on such and such a birth control pill, I am headed for splitsville.

For example, I was going to Boston. I called my friend Keith, who goes to Boston all the time, asked what was good as far as cheap places to eat. My husband? He'd been, once. Should I have asked him instead, merely to keep a happy marriage? I know this is probably one of the few exceptions allowed for; perhaps it would be better by good ol Gar if my husband called my male friends for me. Or if I wore a burka. Or something.

Let's see...where's the list...

You are withdrawing from your spouse.

If it means that I have to lock the bathroom door when having a private moment and he won't stop talking , I suppose yeah, I am withdrawing.   

You are preoccupied and daydream about your friend more and more.

Just one friend? I miss Pam. I have daydreams of going to her place in Corpus Christi and whooping it up for old times sake and yes, without my husband. Whoo hoo. Affair citay.

The amount of time you and your spouse spend together is less.

Less than what? Less than when we worked together all the time? Less than when I had the baby? Define LESS. Less than other people? This is a debatable point. Whatever happened to "absence makes the heart grow fonder"? Sheesh. I get accused of wanting to "distance myself" when I try and rid the living room of the clothes he's left laying over the furniture. PS: His closet is perhaps a few feet from the living room. And ditto used glassware and candy papers.

When confronted about the apparent emotional affair, you respond, "We're just friends."

He often accuses me of wanting to be with my friends more than with him, which is true from time to time. Everyone needs a night out. He got mad at me once because I was all excited that my sister in law, who I hadn't seen for a year, was coming to visit. Why? Because I didn't get that excited about HIM. I see him most of the day, every day. I don't understand the logic here. 

You find yourself anticipating when you can communicate or be with your friend again. Alone time together is important to you.

Not all of my conversations are necessarily husband-friendly. When his assistant and I started talking about lactation and he was in earshot, he'd merely make disgusted noises and not leave, wanting to make us change the subject merely because of his presence. And sometimes it's just plain FUN to go out with a friend. Remember how the teen magazines all said it was wrong of you to dump on your friends for some guy? I guess Gary didn't read any of that.

You are sharing your thoughts, feelings, and problems with your friend instead of your spouse.

Of COURSE. That's what friends are for. Certain thoughts and feelings are for friends, others for spouses. And sometimes your thoughts, feelings and problems have to do with your husband.

Your friend seems to understand you better than your spouse does.

Honey, they ALL do.

You are keeping your friendship a secret from your spouse.

Can't do that; he's always around!!! In fact, if I'm on the phone with one of my friends he makes a POINT of being around. I think from now on when I need him to do things I should pick up the phone and pretend I'm speaking to a friend. Then he'll be sure to give me his full attention.

Are you experiencing repetitive hostility and conflict in your marriage?

Isn't that what marriage is about?

Do you feel an emotional distance from your spouse?

When I'm pissed off at him.

Do you find it difficult to talk with your spouse?

Everyone finds it difficult to talk to my spouse.

Do you look forward to being with your friend more than being with your spouse?

Sometimes...

Forget this whole cutting you off from your friends and focusing totally on your husband stuff. I'd take a sister-wife, if anyone is asking. Sigh. Any takers?

Posted using ShareThis

While sitting and thinking, I felt this urge to go and check “that forum” to see if H had logged in. I hadn't checked the forum in weeks. Much to my surprise, he had not only logged in, but he also posted. I was upset to say the least. Part of the agreement we had made was that he was to leave the forum completely.

When I went onto “that forum”, H had not only returned, but done so on September 30. Now it makes sense as to why his sleeping pattern changed. I then logged in and went into his private messages where a couple of people sent him “welcome back” messages. There were also messages to and from a women. There should have been a total of eight but they were all deleted except for two. So he's definitely hiding something.

I knew H would return to “that forum” after summer. I predicted and I was right. He was only trying to buy time and wasn't really serious about working on us. I was just waiting around for something a little bit bigger then his emails with a woman from “that forum”. Now, all these proves he really doesn't care and never really did.

Upset as I was to learn of this new development, I wrote H an email thanking him for making my decision a lot easier:

One of the conditions for me staying here is that you stay away from ******(<--“that forum”). Looks like you have returned in full color. So power to you!

Another condition for me to stay was that you were not to have ANY contact with women via the Internet. I have watched you and know you are in contact with ***** via email and even possibly others through PM in yahoo.

I have nothing more to say about this. I will plan for my departure very carefully to make sure I do things right this time.

No need to respond to this email and no need to discuss this any further.

Peace..

A little while later, H comes home from work on break to make a coffee. He tells me "thank you?" and gives me the most hateful piercing look that I haven't seen in a very long time.

I replied, “Yes, you returned to the forum.”

“No, I didn't”, he replied as though he believed it himself.

“Yes you did. You posted,” I said while wondering to myself what his reason would be this time.

Well I may have posted, but I haven't returned to the forum,” he said it as though he were trying to convince himself what he believed to be true.

I couldn't believe he was playing the denial card again. What came to mind was a few months back when he was denying what was right in front of him. As a matter of fact, his pattern of denial has not changed all these months.

He knew that I would eventually find out. Why didn't he come up with a better reason as to why he returned to that forum? He was so upset knowing that he had messed up yet again, and told me I could leave, but our daughter is staying. I told him I will not leave my daughter behind. She is going with me and he can stop me at the airport on my way out of the country.

Once he returned back to work, my mind started racing. I realized, just as he does, that he has me right where he wants me. He did not only betray me, lie to me, put me through shit all these months, belittle me, blame shift on to me, but now, he can also get rid of me and keep his daughter. He knew what he was doing all along.

****

VP hopeful and genuine crazy woman, Sarah Palin, decided to fling some mud at Barack Obama this week (Nanners prefers poo, but that's another story) in an effort to boost support of her Palin-McCain, err, McCain-Palin, campaign. She claimed that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists." Harsh, misguided and disappointingly racist words.

Most thought Palin was referring to an old activist buddy Obama once met, a guy named Bill Ayers. In fact, Sarah Palin was actually speaking about Barack's PC tech-support relationship with Nanners, which is casual at best.

She has claimed 'off the record' that Nanners is nothing more than a "no good, two-timing towelhead--a true terrorist of America." Well, Nanners does like to wear a towel on his head, but that's just to be silly, or after a nice, hot shower. He hardly wears it for the deeply religious reasons various other cultures do.

As for being a terrorist, well, Nanners does support 'The Sea Shepherd,' which is widely considered a terrorist organization in some countries, but they fight to protect animals from extinction and to restore the balance of our unstable ecosystem. Perhaps being called a terrorist isn't always a bad thing?

Perhaps it depends on what the cause is--what's been done to determine such 'terrorist' action. Weren't our founding fathers considered 'terrorists' of Britain during our countries' volatile birthing pains? If Obama likes Paul Revere, does that mean he "likes terrorists?"

The way Nanners sees it, unless harm is done first by the organization, no harm should be caused. But he takes his 'terrorist' activities on a per-case basis, so Nanners suspects he won't be converting to any 'Extreme Islamic movements' in the foreseeable future. But if he sees eye-to-eye with a group that's hoping to restore balance, humanity and peace to our great nation, then he's all about being a 'terrorist.' 

Sarah Palin Video of the Day –

Comedian Sara Benincasa does an absolutely perfect imitation of Sarah Palin in "Sarah Palin's Vlog." Check them out, you won't be disappointed!

1. To live together in a sexual relationship, especially when not legally married.
2. To coexist, as animals of different species.

[Late Latin cohabitāre : Latin co-, co- + Latin habitāre, to dwell}

Executive Summary

Cohabitation is replacing marriage as the first living together experience for young men and women. When blushing brides walk down the aisle at the beginning of the new millennium, well over half have already lived together with a boyfriend.

For today’s young adults, the first generation to come of age during the divorce revolution, living together seems like a good way to achieve some of the benefits of marriage and avoid the risk of divorce. Couples who live together can share expenses and learn more about each other. They can find out if their partner has what it takes to be married. If things don’t work out, breaking up is easy to do. Cohabiting couples do not have to seek legal or religious permission to dissolve their union.

Not surprisingly, young adults favor cohabitation. According to surveys, most young people say it is a good idea to live with a person before marrying.

But a careful review of the available social science evidence suggests that living together is not a good way to prepare for marriage or to avoid divorce. What’s more, it shows that the rise in cohabitation is not a positive family trend. Cohabiting unions tend to weaken the institution of marriage and pose special risks for women and children. Specifically, the research indicates that:

· Living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage.

· Living together outside of marriage increases the risk of domestic violence for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children.

· Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples.

Because this generation of young adults is so keenly aware of the fragility of marriage, it is especially important for them to know what contributes to marital success and what may threaten it. Yet many young people do not know the basic facts about cohabitation and its risks. Nor are parents, teachers, clergy and others who instruct the young in matters of sex, love and marriage well acquainted with the social science evidence. Therefore, one purpose of this paper is to report on the available research.

Should We Live Together?

What Young Adults Need to Know about Cohabitation before Marriage

A Comprehensive Review of Recent Research

What makes cohabitation so significant is not only its prevalence but also its widespread popular acceptance. In recent representative national surveys nearly 66% of high school senior boys and 61% of the girls indicated that they "agreed" or "mostly agreed" with the statement "it is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along." And three quarters of the students stated that "a man and a woman who live together without being married" are either "experimenting with a worthwhile alternative lifestyle" or "doing their own thing and not affecting anyone else

Surprisingly, much of the accumulating social science research suggests otherwise. What most cohabiting couples don’t know, and what in fact few people know, are the conclusions of many recent studies on unmarried cohabitation and its implications for young people and for society. Living together before marriage may seem like a harmless or even a progressive family trend until one takes a careful look at the evidence.

How Living Together Before Marriage May Contribute to Marital Failure

The vast majority of young people today want to marry and have children. And many if not most see cohabitation as a way to test marital compatibility and improve the chances of long-lasting marriage. Their reasoning is as follows: Given the high levels of divorce, why be in a hurry to marry? Why not test marital compatibility by sharing a bed and a bathroom for a year or even longer? If it doesn’t work out, one can simply move out. According to this reasoning, cohabitation weeds out unsuitable partners through a process of natural de-selection. Over time, perhaps after several living-together relationships, a person will eventually find a marriageable mate.

The social science evidence challenges the popular idea that cohabiting ensures greater marital compatibility and thereby promotes stronger and more enduring marriages. Cohabitation does not reduce the likelihood of eventual divorce; in fact, it is associated with a higher divorce risk. Although the association was stronger a decade or two ago and has diminished in the younger generations, virtually all research on the topic has determined that the chances of divorce ending a marriage preceded by cohabitation are significantly greater than for a marriage not preceded by cohabitation. A 1992 study of 3,300 cases, for example, based on the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households, found that in their marriages prior cohabitors "are estimated to have a hazard of dissolution that is about 46% higher than for noncohabitors.This study concluded, after reviewing all previous studies, that the enhanced risk of marital disruption following cohabitation ,is beginning to take on the status of an empirical generalization

More in question within the research community is why the striking statistical association between cohabitation and divorce should exist. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is that those people willing to cohabit are more unconventional than others and less committed to the institution of marriage. These are the same people, then, who more easily will leave a marriage if it becomes troublesome. By this explanation, cohabitation doesn’t cause divorce but is merely associated with it because the same types of people are involved in both phenomena.

There is substantial empirical support for this position. Yet, in most studies, even when this "selection effect" is carefully controlled statistically, a negative effect of cohabitation on later marriage stability still remains.  And no positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has been ever been found.⁶

The reasons for a negative "cohabitation effect" are not fully understood. One may be that while marriages are held together largely by a strong ethic of commitment, cohabiting relationships by their very nature tend to undercut this ethic. Although cohabiting relationships are like marriages in many ways—shared dwelling, economic union (at least in part), sexual intimacy, often even children—they typically differ in the levels of commitment and autonomy involved. According to recent studies, cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples in their dedication to the continuation of the relationship and reluctance to terminate it, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy.⁷ It is reasonable to speculate, based on these studies, that once this low-commitment, high-autonomy pattern of relating is learned, it becomes hard to unlearn. One study found, for example, that "living with a romantic partner prior to marriage was associated with more negative and less positive problem solving support and behavior during marriage.A reason for this,and suggesation, is that because long-term commitment is less certain in cohabitation,there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills.

The results of several studies suggest that cohabitation may change partners’ attitudes toward the institution of marriage, contributing to either making marriage less likely, or if marriage takes place, less successful. A 1997 longitudinal study conducted by demographers at Pennsylvania State University concluded, for example, "cohabitation increased young people’s acceptance of divorce, but other independent living experiences did not." And "the more months of exposure to cohabitation that young people experienced, the less enthusiastic they were toward marriage and childbearing.
Particularly problematic is serial cohabitation. One study determined that the effect of cohabitation on later marital instability is found only when one or both partners had previously cohabited with someone other than their spouse
A reason for this could be that the experience of dissolving one cohabiting relationship generates a greater willingness to dissolve later relationships. People’s tolerance for unhappiness is diminished, and they will scrap a marriage that might otherwise be salvaged. This may be similar to the attitudinal effects of divorce; going through a divorce makes one more tolerant of divorce.

If the conclusions of these studies hold up under further investigation, they may contain the answer to the question of why premarital cohabitation should effect the stability of a later marriage. The act of cohabitation generates changes in people’s attitudes toward marriage that make the stability of marriage less likely. Society wide, therefore, the growth of cohabitation will tend to further weaken marriage as an institution.

An important caveat must be inserted here. There is a growing understanding among researchers that different types and life-patterns of cohabitation must be distinguished clearly from each other. Cohabitation that is an immediate prelude to marriage, or prenuptial cohabitation—both partners plan to marry each other in the near future—is different from other forms. There is some evidence to support the proposition that living together for a short period of time with the person one intends to marry has no adverse effects on the subsequent marriage. Cohabitation in this case appears to be very similar to marriage; it merely takes place during the engagement period.This proposition would appear to be less true, however, when one or both of the partners has had prior experience with cohabitation, or brings children into the relationship.

Percentage of High School Seniors Who "Agreed" or "Mostly Agreed" with the Statement that "It is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along," by Period, United States

Source: Monitoring the Future 2000, and earlier surveys conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan

Boys                               Girls

1976-1980                                44.9                                 32.3

1981-1985                               47.4                                  36.5

1986-1990                               57.8                                  45.2

1991-1995                               60.5                                  51.3

1996-2000                              66.0                                   61.3

Cohabitation as an Alternative to Marriage According to the latest information available, 46% of all cohabitations in a given year can be classified as precursors to marriage.Most of the remainder can be considered some form of alternative to marriage, including trial marriages, and their number is increasing. This should be of great national concern, not only for what the growth of cohabitation is doing to the institution of marriage but for what it is doing, or not doing, for the participants involved. In general, cohabiting relationships tend in many ways to be less satisfactory than marriage relationships. Except perhaps for the short term prenuptial type of cohabitation, and probably also for the post-marriage cohabiting relationships of seniors and retired people who typically cohabit rather than marry for economic reasons,cohabitation and marriage relationships are qualitatively different. Cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents.
It is easy to understand, therefore, why cohabiting is inherently much less stable than marriage and why, especially in view of the fact that it is easier to terminate, the break-up rate of cohabitors is far higher than for married partners. After 5 to 7 years, 39% of all cohabiting couples have broken their relationship, 40% have married (although the marriage might not have lasted), and only 21% are still cohabiting.
There is evidence that these benefits are diluted for couples who are not married but merely cohabiting.Among the probable reasons for the benefits of marriage, as summarized by University of Chicago demographer Linda Waite,
The long-term contract implicit in marriage. This facilitates emotional investment in the relationship, including the close monitoring of each other’s behavior. The longer time horizon also makes specialization more likely; working as a couple, individuals can develop those skills in which they excel, leaving others to their partner.

· The greater sharing of economic and social resources by married couples. In addition to economies of scale, this enables couples to act as a small insurance pool against life uncertainties, reducing each person’s need to protect themselves from unexpected events.

· The better connection of married couples to the larger community. This includes other individuals and groups (such as in-laws) as well as social institutions such as churches and synagogues. These can be important sources of social and emotional support and material benefits.

In addition to missing out on many of the benefits of marriage, cohabitors may face more serious difficulties. Annual rates of depression among cohabiting couples are more than three times what they are among married couples.And women in cohabiting relationships are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse. Some research has shown that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married partners.As one scholar summed up the relevant research, "regardless of methodology….cohabitors engage in more violence than spouses."

Why Cohabitation is Harmful for Children

Of all the types of cohabitation, that involving children is by far the most problematic. In 2000, 41% of all unmarried-couple households included a child under eighteen, up from only 21% in 1987.²⁴ For unmarried couples in the 25-34 age group the percentage with children is higher still, approaching half of all such households. By one recent estimate nearly half of all children today will spend some time in a cohabiting family before age
One of the greatest problems for children living with a cohabiting couple is the high risk that the couple will break up.Fully three quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born to married parents face a similar fate. One reason is that marriage rates for cohabiting couples have been plummeting. In the last decade, the proportion of cohabiting mothers who go on to eventually marry the child’s father declined from 57% to 44%.
For the children of a cohabiting couple these may come on top of a plethora of already existing problems. Several studies have found that children currently living with a mother and her unmarried partner have significantly more behavior problems and lower academic performance than children in intact families.
Child abuse has become a major national problem and has increased dramatically in recent years, by more than 10% a year according to one estimate.In general, the evidence suggests that the most unsafe of all family environments for children is that in which the mother is living with someone other than the child’s biological father.  This is the environment for the majority of children in cohabiting couple households.It is well known that children of single parents fare poorly economically when compared to the children of married parents. Not so well known is that cohabiting couples are economically more like single parents than like married couples. While the 1996 poverty rate for children living in married couple households was about 6%, it was 31% for children living in cohabiting households, much closer to the rate of 45% for children living in families headed by single mothers.

Who Cohabits and Why

Why has unmarried cohabitation become such a widespread practice throughout the modern world in such a short period of time? Demographic factors are surely involved. Puberty begins at an earlier age, as does the onset of sexual activity, and marriages take place at older ages mainly because of the longer time period spent getting educated and establishing careers. Thus there is an extended period of sexually active singlehood before first marriage. Also, our sustained material affluence enables many young people to live on their own for an extended time, apart from their parents. During those years of young adulthood, nonmarital cohabitation can be a cost-saver, a source of companionship, and an assurance of relatively safe sexual practice. For some, cohabitation is a prelude to marriage, for some, an alternative to it, and for yet others, simply an alternative to living alone.
Another important reason for cohabitation’s growth is that the institution of marriage has changed dramatically, leading to an erosion of confidence in its stability. From a tradition strongly buttressed by economics, religion, and the law, marriage has become a more personalized relationship, what one wag has referred to as a mere "notarized date." People used to marry not just for love but also for family and economic considerations, and if love died during the course of a marriage, this was not considered sufficient reason to break up an established union. A divorce was legally difficult if not impossible to get, and people who divorced faced enormous social stigma.Divorce is available to everyone, with little stigma attached. If either love or a sense of self-fulfillment disappear, the marriage is considered to be over and divorce is the logical outcome.
Underlying all of these trends is the broad cultural shift from a more religious society where marriage was considered the bedrock of civilization and people were imbued with a strong sense of social conformity and tradition, to a more secular society focused on individual autonomy and self invention. This cultural rejection of traditional institutional and moral authority, evident in all of the advanced, Western societies, often has had "freedom of choice" as its theme and the acceptance of "alternative lifestyles" as its message.
Cohabitation is also more common among those who are less religious than their peers. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the act of cohabitation actually diminishes religious participation, whereas marriage tends to increase it.
People who cohabit are much more likely to come from broken homes. Among young adults, those who experienced parental divorce, fatherlessness, or high levels of marital discord during childhood are more likely to form cohabiting unions than children who grew up in families with married parents who got along. They are also more likely to enter living-together relationships at younger ages. For young people who have already suffered the losses associated with parental divorce, cohabitation may provide an early escape from family turmoil, although unfortunately it increases the likelihood of new losses and turmoil. For these people, cohabitation often recapitulates the childhood experience of coming together and splitting apart with the additional possibility of more violent conflict. Finally, cohabitation is a much more likely experience for those who themselves have been divorced.

What Are the Main Arguments For and Against Living Together Before Marriage in Modern Societies?

To the degree that there is a scholarly debate about the growth of cohabitation, it is typically polarized into "for" and "against" without much concern for the nuances. On one side is the religiously inspired view that living with someone outside of marriage, indeed all premarital sex, represents an assault on the sanctity of marriage. If you are ready for sex, you are ready for marriage, the argument goes, and the two should always go together, following biblical injunction. This side is typically supportive of early marriage as an antidote to sexual promiscuity, and as worthwhile in its own right.

The other side, based in secular thought, holds that we can’t realistically expect people to remain sexually abstinent from today’s puberty at age eleven or twelve (even earlier for some) to marriage in the late twenties, which is empirically the most desirable age for insuring a lasting union. Therefore, it is better that they cohabit during that time with a few others than be promiscuous with many. This side also finds the idea of a trial marriage quite appealing. Modern societies in any event, the argument goes, have become so highly sexualized and the practice of cohabitation has become so widely accepted that there is no way to stop it.
Cohabitation was illegal in all states prior to about 1970 and, although the law is seldom enforced, it remains illegal in a number of states. No state has yet established cohabitation as a legal relationship for all of its citizens, but most states have now decriminalized "consensual sexual acts" among adults, which include cohabitation.

In the most famous case, Marvin vs. Marvin, what the news media labeled "palimony" in place of alimony was sought by a woman with whom Hollywood actor Lee Marvin lived for many years. The Supreme Court of California upheld the woman’s claim of an implied contract. Many states have not accepted key elements of the Marvin decision, and the financial award of palimony was eventually rejected on appeal. Yet the proposition that unmarried couples have the right to form contracts has come to be widely acknowledged.
Marriage-like fiscal and legal benefits are also beginning to come to cohabiting couples. In the attempt to provide for gay and lesbian couples, for whom marriage is forbidden, many corporations, universities, municipalities, and even some states now provide "domestic partnership" benefits ranging from health insurance and pensions to the right to inherit the lease of a rent controlled apartment. In the process, such benefits have commonly been offered to unmarried heterosexual couples as well, one reason being to avoid lawsuits charging "illegal discrimination." Although the legal issues have only begun to be considered, the courts are likely to hold that the withholding of benefits from heterosexual cohabitors when they are offered to same-sex couples is a violation of U. S. laws against sex discrimination.
Religions have also started to reconsider cohabitation.Religions like Saitanic Church,Christian,Hindu, have developed "commitment ceremonies" as an alternative to marriage ceremonies. So far these are mainly intended for same-sex couples and in some cases the elderly, but it seems only a matter of time before their purview is broadened.
Unlike in the United States, cohabitation has become an accepted new social institution in most northern European countries, and in several Scandinavian nations cohabitors have virtually the same legal rights as married couples. In Sweden and Denmark, for example, the world’s cohabitation leaders, cohabitors and married couples have the same rights and obligations in taxation, welfare benefits, inheritance, and child care. Only a few differences remain, such as the right to adopt children, but even that difference may soon disappear. Not incidentally, Sweden also has the lowest marriage rate ever recorded (and one of the highest divorce rates); an estimated 30% of all couples sharing a household in Sweden today are unmarried.For many Swedish and Danish couples cohabiting has become a substitute for, rather than a prelude to, marriage, and virtually all marriages in these nations are now preceded by cohabitation.
Is America moving toward the Scandinavian family model? Sweden and Denmark are the world’s most secular societies, and some argue that American religiosity will work against increasing levels of cohabitation. Yet few religions prohibit cohabitation or even actively attempt to discourage it, so the religious barrier may be quite weak. Others argue that most Americans draw a sharper distinction than Scandinavians do between cohabitation and marriage, viewing marriage as a higher and more serious form of commitment. But as the practice of cohabitation in America becomes increasingly common, popular distinctions between cohabitation and marriage are fading. In short, the legal, social and religious barriers to cohabitation are weak and likely to get weaker. Unless there is an unexpected turnaround, America and the other Anglo countries, plus the rest of northern Europe, do appear to be headed gradually in the direction of Scandinavia.

Some Principles to Guide the Practice of Cohabitation Before Marriage
The practice of cohabitation, far from being a friend of marriage, looks more and more like its enemy. As a goal of social change, therefore, perhaps the best that we can hope for is to contain cohabitation in ways that minimize its damage to marriage.

With that goal in mind, are there any principles that we might give to young adults to guide their thinking about living together before marriage? In developing such principles it is important to note that, because men and women differ somewhat in their sexual and mate-selection strategies, cohabitation often has a different meaning for each sex. Women tend to see it as a step toward eventual marriage, while men regard it more as a sexual opportunity without the ties of long-term commitment. A woman’s willingness to cohabit runs the risk of sending men precisely the wrong signal. What our grandmothers supposedly knew might well be true: If a woman truly wants a man to marry her, wisdom dictates a measure of playing hard to get.
Pulling together what we know from recent social science research about cohabitation and its effects.

After the research in all the Angles we can see the DISADVANTAGES more than Advantages in the Concept of Living Together.So basicly i dont like or agree with Living Together/Cohabit as its not logically healthy and good in-

Social Science Way

Religiously

Economacily

Spiritually

Medically

BUT

if you can show me with logical proof  to support your concept about Living Together which is healthy for most,then i will ofcourse agree with your concept without a word.AS I AM VERY NUTRAL KIND OF PERSON AND GOES WITH THE POINT WHICH IS GOOD FOR MOST.now plz dont ask me then why dont i follow everything like -Cigerate,buying daily products from a KILLER{coke,tooth brush,chemical fruits,chemical vegetables etc}plz dont ask me because for 2 resons which i dont want tell here,BUT i am quiting all these slowly slowly,and insha Allah i will quit everything in 2 years,but you dont need 2 years,you can start from now for your good and for your future good{CHILD}Now the only PROBLEM that stays is-Soulmate,look my dear friends,Soulmate=LOVE again LOVE=Soulmate,and as i belive that i can see the Creator of LOVE through my Soulmate,and the theme of LOVE is to see the Creator of LOVE,so it is very important to find out that Soulmate,and to find that Soulmate you dont need this HARMFUL Concept ,because as i belive that you can understand the presence of Lovely Soulmate that time,when you will feel something different when your Soulmate will enter in your life,you will see a magical Inspirational change in your life,ONLY IF you LOVE that Person,,and same magical thing will happen in the other person life too,and that is called LOVE.

i think i couldnt explain the base propperly,as i am never good in explanation in writing style and i was little bit worried with this,and that time Allah showed me something and did a spirtual miracle.see this blog which explain the basic of Soulmate,which is Perfect System  and appreciated by -

Social Science Way

Religiously

Economacily

Spiritually

Medically
plz visit-http://maryam070.multiply.com/journal/item/88/Do_you_believe_in_soulmates

she is my very very good friend,and i also recomend my those friends who tells there is no good people online and i tell those people  to make friendship with  this person and learn the meaning of friendship.thanks Maryam my dear and good friend to write a such blog.

****

Nanners, completely distraught by VP Hopeful Sarah Plain's wayward speeches that compare Barack Obama to a "terrorist," heads to the store "to get more patriotic." The result is a cross between a patriot, and a crazy-gay Elton John fan. Either way, it's bound to offend Mrs. Palin.

Sarah Palin Video of the Day --

Late-night talk show host David Letterman throws a few swings at the crazed potential veep:

I guess the internet is now the primary representation of the perennial struggle between our noble quest for knowledge and wisdom, and our hormonal quest for...porn?  Which, depending on whom you ask, makes up either 1% or 35% of all internet content (try googling the four words: percentage internet content porn).  It also depends on what your definition of porn is...are zoos porn? And isn't it appropriate that the article I'm mentioning is on display at gawker.com? By the way, yes that means this blog is a form of masturbation.  And you're watching.  Creepy.

Ok, but to be fair to myself, the reason why I clicked on the link is because it mentioned "love triangle" and "John McCain" together.  Apparently, I like my politics with a shot of gossip.  Or vice-versa.

The breast fixation is a fairly well-known phenomenon.  In this case, it has almost completely hijacked the comments section of an article that was supposed to be sex gossip about several whole people and a presidential campaign, not one person's body part.  Several comments also display a similar strange type of fascination/repulsion with Hal Sparks, who -- like the boob -- is also in the photo (partly), but has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story.  Do we just like pictures better than words?

Maybe it's my own breast fixation at play, but I gotta side with the (majority) of folks who couldn't get past the picture to make it to the actual substance of the article.  For your convenience, here are many of the 71 comments, divided into three categories:

• Hijacked and hilarious (all about the breast)
• Honorable mentions (not quite funny and/or not quite off-topic)
• In all seriousness... (for the annoying little sane person in all of us)

So, without further ado...

hijacked and hilarious

and the first comment of the story is...

1. That is the single largest breast I have ever seen in my life.

sparking a few direct replies:

2. It looks like a baby's head.

3. ...and it looks suspeciously [sic] like John McCain's head in profile! John, COME OUT FROM UNDER THERE! We're on to you, and it's time to run your campaign!

4. I know, it's angular. Like in shape, and size to a city block.

5. It appears to be a trapezoid.

6. Being a Republican Feminist, it represents the elephant's trunk. Only one, but hotdamn is it powerful.

Side note: If she had breast cancer at some point, everyone should feel really, really bad.

7. Can you imagine John McCain's face buried in there, shaking back and forth and shaying in his lishpy voish, "omomomahmohmahmahm!"? I know I can.

8. She's the Uni-Breaster the FBI has been looking for!

9. Seriously. It's freaking me the fuck out.

now we're at the second comment and the replies:

10. WHAT IS GOING ON WITH HER BOOB

11. I know, it's like a big square lego boob or something.

12. Makes me suddenly crave french toast.

and the third comment...

13. i mean i am sorry but i cannot read the article because i am too busy being freaked out by spongebob square boob! ack!

14. I think that weird chest thing might be a combination of giant breasts and very developed pectoral muscles.
Which, if a gal is going to make a habit of boning old dudes, will come in handy when she has to shove a corpse up off herself.

15. Word.

and so on and so forth...

16. Nice brisket!

17. [This picture in reply]

[skipping seven earnest, on-topic comments]

18. is she leaning against a window?

19. Her implant is a lunch box! I hope it is my old Transformers lunch box.

Boobies in disguise.

20. I just don't understand those breasts. I wish someone could explain them to me.

21. That breast was implanted by Adelbert Ames!

22. I've just spent five minutes trying to make my boobs look square. They really don't want to. I'd give up, but I'm kind of aroused now.

and the three replies:

23. Please tell me you did this at work!

24. Please tell me where you work!

25. I'm gonna give it a try at bedtime....cannot wait!

26. Great eyes... nice smile.... GOOD LORD WHAT IS THAT THING TRYING TO ESCAPE FROM HER BLOUSE!?!?!?!?

27. Saggy, Raggy and FunBaggy.

28. ! Her back must hurt so bad!

29. i remember when they give sidney lumet a big fancy award at the oscars and everybody kept commenting about the woman with enormous and distracting breasts who was sitting up the box and clapping wildly. i was at an oscar party and we all just assumed that she was sidney lumet's latest wife or whatever. we were wrong.

30. Holy, holy shit.

31. Is it me or are they sqare?

32. Yep, same square cleavage in the bottom photo.

33. [this image]

34. Uncanny.

35. McCain's new campaign slogan: "By the power of Greyskull!!!"

36. I loved He-Man...

37. Is that a loaf of bread?

38. Actually I was thinking it was the lid off a chafing dish.

39. Not just that. It's a loaf of bread, a container of milk and a stick of butter.

40. Awesome.

And that, folks, was just the first of four pages of comments.  A few more favorites...

42. And yeah, that breast occupies some heretofore unknown geometrical shape. Skeevy.

43. Her right breast is about to have a wardrobe malfunction.

44. Breast almighty! Did they implant a suitcase? A portable DVD? A box of cereal?

45. Real Bosoms don't have corners.

46. I can't wrap my head around why there isn't a single mention of her breast deformity. This woman clearly needs help.

47. i know it's hard to look away from square boob, but is cut-out-of-picture man hal sparks?

48. I like to think that the right third of Hal Sparks face is a significant part of this controversy

49. Correct me if I am wrong. But I will be damned if that is not Hal Sparks cropped out of that "booby trap" photo.

50. Looks like she didn't have enough weight on the left side of the bar when she was doing bench presses.

honorable mentions:

1. You'd think Republicans would be able to afford better implants. Or maybe hers are filled with LIQUID GOLD. That would explain the bolt-on effect.

2. Grossarooni, the Republican treat.

3. I used to know Amy in the '80's. She (and her sister Jenny) were "actresses" and then she took off for DC with P.J.

But the McCain thing...honestly, how--HOW I ASK YOU--can anyone fuck that guy? How??

and the three wise-ass replies:

4. They allow ingress to their vagina by his penis, I think.

5. It's called "pegging."

6. Easy. Go on CBS and babble through an interview with Katie Couric. That'll fuck him good!

and the rest of the HMs...

7. Oh, please, please, Jeezus, let this be true. I swear I'll never self-touch again, if only this would be true!

8. Ewwww! Ewwww! Mental image. Make. It. Stop. Get out of my head!

9. Now imagine PJ, McCain and that lady doing the "wobbly H."

10. Or even the "shuddering Z".

11. Or the "twitchy W."

12. This isn't what I had it mind for "Cocktober Surprise"

13. Her Boob is about as well placed as Palin's candidacy for VP and McCain's title as a Maverick. Perhaps her boob is metaphorical?

in all seriousness...

1. Jesus hold my Glock!! Beautiful women, STOP fucking yourselves over with appalling fake breasts! You are not fooling anyone and you are only making yourself cheaper! Why can't we fucking love ourselves enough to realize we don't need that kind of shit??? It doesn't take much!

2. The term "nice rack" has always offended. Nor could I ever get my head around the image.

But this is indeed a rack. An instrument of torture upon which the body is spread.

3. Ok, kids, how could you NOT have ever heard of Amy Lumet, daughter of Sidney, grandaughter of Lena, former wife of P.J.?? DAH. And you call yourselved plugged in to New York Everything.
What I can tell you is, nevermind the boob from Mars, that is Not The Same Face I knew in the 1980s when she and PJ lived in the Kennedy-Warren in Washington. What she has done to herself, well...she USED to look like her grandmother, and that was a compliment. This public self-mutilation must stop.
By the way, Tony Peck is Cheryl Tiegs' second ex, after Peter Beard, if you feel like getting Six Degrees-like.

4. Amy Lumet's breast implants (certainly the right one we can see here clearly) go up too high on her rib cage.

It's a clear case of wanting breasts that are at once too high, and too big. I'm presuming the choice was Amy's.

Mark me down for 'Team- Please Stop Doing This To Yourselves'.

If you've read this far, congratulations, because the final comment is the creepiest of them all...aliens from outer space!

Too bad, I wanted Governor Palin to fall flat in front of her Alaskan boots last night in the Vice-Presidential debate. Instead, she impressed me and I'd bet a lot of other viewers in America (about 80% felt she did better than expected). But no way did she beat Senator Biden. Biden was crisp, articulate and at times even strongly accentuated the important points. Palin, on the other hand, contributed a lot more cringe-worthy words and phrases, trying to play the please-all, do-harm-to-none mother from Alaska. This was sugar coating with a very bad taste.

Some of her hiccups you probably have already heard. "Drill baby drill?" And "My brother who I think is the best school teacher in the year?" "Say it isn't so, Joe!" Her arrogance is akin to the GOP convention some weeks back, but there's not a touch of reservation, more so appalling with her short track record in national politics. Alaska is an important state, but I don't doubt for a second that it's in its own world because of the huge geographical separation.

The biggest hoo-ha also came under Palin: "Policy ad partisanship all coming together at this time recognizing he (McCain) is the mean to leave... to lead." Maybe Palin isn't all that supportive of McCain? She also mentioned that running with McCain was simply "a nice thing." Talk about pleasantries.

And the misses just keep on coming. Calling General Petraeus a "great American hero" and John McCain "another hero" is in my mind a bad move to try and coax the American voter's hand into writing down McCain in the ballot form. McCain served his country with honor in the Vietnam war, but I believe his patriotic feelings are getting personal because of the way Vietnam turned out and hence he refuses to concede Iraq as a defeat. It's also not a very widely known fact that McCain had extra-marital affairs during his first marriage. Coupled with Bristol Palin's teen pregnancy, I don't see how they can take care of a country when they can't take care of their own family relationships.

Has anyone thought of the prospect that Palin will be President? I think it's a scary proposition. Matt Damon certainly does so:

Damon's reference to Putin wasn't a side remark. If you wondered where that came from, recall Palin's abysmal response to foreign policy questions when posed by CBS' Katie Couric:

Suddenly the visual image of Palin shying away from Putin's demeaning stare becomes all the more possible and frightening. Americans need to understand this when they vote. Can Palin deal with Maliki, Karzai and Kim Jong Il? This isn't an attack on a woman's capability to be president. I won't be blunt, this piece is all about Palin's capacity to lead the most rich and powerful nation in the world today. I'm not American so I don't have an electoral vote, but as an outsider I believe there are some dark days ahead if Republicans do win, nothing is changed, and Palin replaces McCain.