Asset Purchase Program Details
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS March 23,2009
The Obama administration's plan to finance purchases of as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets from banks will include programs supported by the Treasury Department's bailout fund, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Here is a look at how they will operate.
--Public-Private Investment Program: The umbrella organization that will support the effort to entice private investors to join with the government to purchase troubled assets. The administration plans to commit $75 billion to $100 billion from the government's $700 billion bailout program to support $500 billion in troubled asset purchases initially with the potential to expand to $1 trillion over time.
--Troubled Mortgage Loans: The FDIC, the agency that insures deposits at the nation's banks, would operate auctions of troubled mortgage loans and then provide financing to the winning bidders. Under an example provided by the administration, the FDIC loan would cover 86 percent of the purchase price of the troubled mortgages with the Treasury's bailout fund contributing 7 percent and the winning private investor bidder contributing the remaining 7 percent.
--Troubled Asset-Backed Securities: The Treasury and the Federal Reserve announced they were expanding the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, beyond its goal of boosting consumer debt in the area of credit cards, auto loans and student loans. The facility, which has the capacity of supporting $1 trillion in loans, will be expanded to cover securities backed by residential and commercial real estate and other types of asset-backed mortgages. Five asset managers will be chosen by Treasury to compete for purchases of troubled asset-backed securities with financial backing provided by Treasury and the TALF. The assets would be held in public-private investment funds.
Monday, March 23, 2009
OBAMA continues doing it right!
The Obama plan to solve the `toxic’ assets (?) of banks that has frozen the leading
of banks is a winner! It let’s the market value the toxics and take care of this problem which is a major piece in the overall finance problem.
The DOW jumped almost 500 (497.48) points on March 23/09 is first POSITIVE reaction proof. Plus there are other signs that the very complex steps taken by Obama administration are working in the record!
The GOP is consistent that NOTHING Obama is doing is right.
Again this problem is faled according to the GOP. How predictable!
They are wrong again! I wouldn't what to be these dummies when it WORKS!!
Like in 1993 when BILL CLINTON solved the deficit problem of another BUSH!
Some weird folks are reaction to BO laughing on `60 Minutes’ night.
I’v no problem withe Prez - What would be better sack cloth and ashes?
Program noy live and subject to CBS TV edit out of context!
Two weeks ago people were upset because BO was to sober!?
Forget the nit wits, who have a dammed if you do and dammed
if you don’t silliness!
AIG BONUS – The media, congress, and the people don’t get it!
The bonus was paid (155 million) to people who got rid of over a trillion and half dollars in bad business for AIG!!!
This makes the company less likely to fail and it’s bad ripple effect.
of banks is a winner! It let’s the market value the toxics and take care of this problem which is a major piece in the overall finance problem.
The DOW jumped almost 500 (497.48) points on March 23/09 is first POSITIVE reaction proof. Plus there are other signs that the very complex steps taken by Obama administration are working in the record!
The GOP is consistent that NOTHING Obama is doing is right.
Again this problem is faled according to the GOP. How predictable!
They are wrong again! I wouldn't what to be these dummies when it WORKS!!
Like in 1993 when BILL CLINTON solved the deficit problem of another BUSH!
Some weird folks are reaction to BO laughing on `60 Minutes’ night.
I’v no problem withe Prez - What would be better sack cloth and ashes?
Program noy live and subject to CBS TV edit out of context!
Two weeks ago people were upset because BO was to sober!?
Forget the nit wits, who have a dammed if you do and dammed
if you don’t silliness!
AIG BONUS – The media, congress, and the people don’t get it!
The bonus was paid (155 million) to people who got rid of over a trillion and half dollars in bad business for AIG!!!
This makes the company less likely to fail and it’s bad ripple effect.
March 23 2009 HIGHLIGHTS
E.J. Dionne, Jr.Washington Post 9-23-09
A deep narrative is taking root in the political class, and it goes something like this: Obama is biting off way more than he can chew, "overloading" the system and dealing with all sorts of "side issues," when he should be focusing solely on the broken economy. He is said to be asking Congress to do too much.
Note that anyone who makes an argument of this sort is freed from responsibility to mention any of the specific problems Obama is proposing to take on. Insisting the economy trumps everything means you don't have to say a thing about health-care reform, energy, education and taxes.
Meizhu Lui Washington Post 9-23-09
Every three years, the Federal Reserve, in its Survey of Consumer Finances, takes a look at how U.S. households are doing and reports on our assets and liabilities. The euphoria of our gambling spree is over. In the harsh glare of morning, the hangover is tough. And the latest data are from 2007, so they don't even capture the worst of the decline.
The net worth of the average American family is less than it was in 2001. We borrowed more for that trip to Vegas than we brought home. Everyone knows this now.
But here's something being talked about much less: The gap between the wealth of white Americans and African Americans has grown. According to the Fed, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family has only one dime. In 2004, it had 12 cents.
Obama Plan announced March 23-09 NYTimes
At the core of the financing package will be $75 billion to $100 billion in capital from the existing financial bailout known as TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, along with the share provided by private investors, which the government hopes will come to 5 percent or more. By leveraging this program through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve, huge amounts of bad loans can be acquired.
The private investors would be subsidized but could stand to lose their investments, while the taxpayers could share in prospective profits as the assets are eventually sold, the Treasury said. The administration said that it expected participation from pension funds to insurance companies and other long-term investors.
The plan calls for the government to put up most of the money for buying up troubled assets, and it would give private investors a clearly advantageous deal. In one program, the Treasury would match one-for-one every dollar of equity that private investors invest of their own money in each “Public Private Investment Fund.”
On top of that the F.D.I.C. — tapping its own credit lines with the Treasury — would lend six dollars for each dollar invested by the Treasury and private investors. If the mortgage pool turns bad and runs big losses, the private investors would be able to walk away from their F.D.I.C. loans and leave the government holding the soured mortgages and the bulk of the losses.
The Treasury Department offered this illustrative example of how the program would work: A pool of bad residential mortgage loans with a face value of, say, $100 is auctioned by the F.D.I.C. Private investors would submit bids. In the example, the top bidder, an investor offering $84, would win and purchase the pool. The F.D.I.C. would guarantee loans for $72 of that purchase price. The Treasury would then invest in half the $12 equity, with funds coming from the $700 billion bailout program; the private investor would contribute the remaining $6.
For a relatively small equity exposure, the private investor thus stands to make a considerable return if prices recover. The government will make a gain as well. In the worst case, the bulk of the risk would fall on the government. The presumption, of course, is that the auction will lead to realistic purchase prices.
A deep narrative is taking root in the political class, and it goes something like this: Obama is biting off way more than he can chew, "overloading" the system and dealing with all sorts of "side issues," when he should be focusing solely on the broken economy. He is said to be asking Congress to do too much.
Note that anyone who makes an argument of this sort is freed from responsibility to mention any of the specific problems Obama is proposing to take on. Insisting the economy trumps everything means you don't have to say a thing about health-care reform, energy, education and taxes.
Meizhu Lui Washington Post 9-23-09
Every three years, the Federal Reserve, in its Survey of Consumer Finances, takes a look at how U.S. households are doing and reports on our assets and liabilities. The euphoria of our gambling spree is over. In the harsh glare of morning, the hangover is tough. And the latest data are from 2007, so they don't even capture the worst of the decline.
The net worth of the average American family is less than it was in 2001. We borrowed more for that trip to Vegas than we brought home. Everyone knows this now.
But here's something being talked about much less: The gap between the wealth of white Americans and African Americans has grown. According to the Fed, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family has only one dime. In 2004, it had 12 cents.
Obama Plan announced March 23-09 NYTimes
At the core of the financing package will be $75 billion to $100 billion in capital from the existing financial bailout known as TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, along with the share provided by private investors, which the government hopes will come to 5 percent or more. By leveraging this program through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve, huge amounts of bad loans can be acquired.
The private investors would be subsidized but could stand to lose their investments, while the taxpayers could share in prospective profits as the assets are eventually sold, the Treasury said. The administration said that it expected participation from pension funds to insurance companies and other long-term investors.
The plan calls for the government to put up most of the money for buying up troubled assets, and it would give private investors a clearly advantageous deal. In one program, the Treasury would match one-for-one every dollar of equity that private investors invest of their own money in each “Public Private Investment Fund.”
On top of that the F.D.I.C. — tapping its own credit lines with the Treasury — would lend six dollars for each dollar invested by the Treasury and private investors. If the mortgage pool turns bad and runs big losses, the private investors would be able to walk away from their F.D.I.C. loans and leave the government holding the soured mortgages and the bulk of the losses.
The Treasury Department offered this illustrative example of how the program would work: A pool of bad residential mortgage loans with a face value of, say, $100 is auctioned by the F.D.I.C. Private investors would submit bids. In the example, the top bidder, an investor offering $84, would win and purchase the pool. The F.D.I.C. would guarantee loans for $72 of that purchase price. The Treasury would then invest in half the $12 equity, with funds coming from the $700 billion bailout program; the private investor would contribute the remaining $6.
For a relatively small equity exposure, the private investor thus stands to make a considerable return if prices recover. The government will make a gain as well. In the worst case, the bulk of the risk would fall on the government. The presumption, of course, is that the auction will lead to realistic purchase prices.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE FACTS & MYTHS
Chris Mooney
March 21, 2009
A recent controversy over claims about climate science by Post op-ed columnist George F. Will raises a critical question: Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?
Congress will soon consider global-warming legislation, and the debate comes as contradictory claims about climate science abound. Partisans of this issue often wield vastly different facts and sometimes seem to even live in different realities.
In this context, finding common ground will be very difficult. Perhaps the only hope involves taking a stand for a breed of journalism and commentary that is not permitted to simply say anything; that is constrained by standards of evidence, rigor and reproducibility that are similar to the canons of modern science itself.
Consider a few of Will's claims from his Feb. 15 column, "Dark Green Doomsayers": In a long paragraph quoting press sources from the 1970s, Will suggested that widespread scientific agreement existed at the time that the world faced potentially catastrophic cooling. Today, most climate scientists and climate journalists consider this a timeworn myth. Just last year, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a peer-reviewed study examining media coverage at the time and the contemporary scientific literature. While some media accounts did hype a cooling scare, others suggested more reasons to be concerned about warming. As for the published science? Reviewing studies between 1965 and 1979, the authors found that "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."
Yet there's a bigger issue: It's misleading to draw a parallel between "global cooling" concerns articulated in the 1970s and global warming concerns today. In the 1970s, the field of climate research was in a comparatively fledgling state, and scientific understanding of 20th-century temperature trends and their causes was far less settled. Today, in contrast, hundreds of scientists worldwide participate in assessments of the state of knowledge and have repeatedly ratified the conclusion that human activities are driving global warming -- through the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific academies of various nations (including our own), and leading scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
Will wrote that "according to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." It turns out to be a relatively meaningless comparison, though the Arctic Climate Research Center has clarified that global sea ice extent was "1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979." Again, though, there's a bigger issue: Will's focus on "global" sea ice at two arbitrarily selected points of time is a distraction. Scientists pay heed to long-term trends in sea ice, not snapshots in a noisy system. And while they expect global warming to reduce summer Arctic sea ice, the global picture is a more complicated matter; it's not as clear what ought to happen in the Southern Hemisphere. But summer Arctic sea ice is indeed trending downward, in line with climatologists' expectations -- according to the Arctic Climate Research Center.
Will also wrote that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming. Will probably meant that since 1998 was the warmest year on record according to the WMO -- NASA, in contrast, believes that that honor goes to 2005 -- we haven't had any global warming since. Yet such sleight of hand would lead to the conclusion that "global cooling" sets in immediately after every new record temperature year, no matter how frequently those hot years arrive or the hotness of the years surrounding them. Climate scientists, knowing that any single year may trend warmer or cooler for a variety of reasons -- 1998, for instance, featured an extremely strong El Niño -- study globally averaged temperatures over time. To them, it's far more relevant that out of the 10 warmest years on record, at least seven have occurred in the 2000s -- again, according to the WMO.
Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It's also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be -- now more than ever.
Chris Mooney is the author of "The Republican War on Science" and co-author of the forthcoming "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."
March 21, 2009
A recent controversy over claims about climate science by Post op-ed columnist George F. Will raises a critical question: Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?
Congress will soon consider global-warming legislation, and the debate comes as contradictory claims about climate science abound. Partisans of this issue often wield vastly different facts and sometimes seem to even live in different realities.
In this context, finding common ground will be very difficult. Perhaps the only hope involves taking a stand for a breed of journalism and commentary that is not permitted to simply say anything; that is constrained by standards of evidence, rigor and reproducibility that are similar to the canons of modern science itself.
Consider a few of Will's claims from his Feb. 15 column, "Dark Green Doomsayers": In a long paragraph quoting press sources from the 1970s, Will suggested that widespread scientific agreement existed at the time that the world faced potentially catastrophic cooling. Today, most climate scientists and climate journalists consider this a timeworn myth. Just last year, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a peer-reviewed study examining media coverage at the time and the contemporary scientific literature. While some media accounts did hype a cooling scare, others suggested more reasons to be concerned about warming. As for the published science? Reviewing studies between 1965 and 1979, the authors found that "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."
Yet there's a bigger issue: It's misleading to draw a parallel between "global cooling" concerns articulated in the 1970s and global warming concerns today. In the 1970s, the field of climate research was in a comparatively fledgling state, and scientific understanding of 20th-century temperature trends and their causes was far less settled. Today, in contrast, hundreds of scientists worldwide participate in assessments of the state of knowledge and have repeatedly ratified the conclusion that human activities are driving global warming -- through the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific academies of various nations (including our own), and leading scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
Will wrote that "according to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." It turns out to be a relatively meaningless comparison, though the Arctic Climate Research Center has clarified that global sea ice extent was "1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979." Again, though, there's a bigger issue: Will's focus on "global" sea ice at two arbitrarily selected points of time is a distraction. Scientists pay heed to long-term trends in sea ice, not snapshots in a noisy system. And while they expect global warming to reduce summer Arctic sea ice, the global picture is a more complicated matter; it's not as clear what ought to happen in the Southern Hemisphere. But summer Arctic sea ice is indeed trending downward, in line with climatologists' expectations -- according to the Arctic Climate Research Center.
Will also wrote that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming. Will probably meant that since 1998 was the warmest year on record according to the WMO -- NASA, in contrast, believes that that honor goes to 2005 -- we haven't had any global warming since. Yet such sleight of hand would lead to the conclusion that "global cooling" sets in immediately after every new record temperature year, no matter how frequently those hot years arrive or the hotness of the years surrounding them. Climate scientists, knowing that any single year may trend warmer or cooler for a variety of reasons -- 1998, for instance, featured an extremely strong El Niño -- study globally averaged temperatures over time. To them, it's far more relevant that out of the 10 warmest years on record, at least seven have occurred in the 2000s -- again, according to the WMO.
Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It's also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be -- now more than ever.
Chris Mooney is the author of "The Republican War on Science" and co-author of the forthcoming "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."
Friday, March 20, 2009
PERVERSE COSMIC MYOPIA - David Brooks
March 19,2009
You’d think if some tiger were lunging at your neck, your attention would be riveted on the tiger. But that’s apparently not how it works in the age of global A.D.D. As a tiger sinks its teeth into the world’s neck, we focus on the dust bunnies under the bed and the floorboards that need replacing on the deck. We live in the world of Perverse Cosmic Myopia, an inability to focus attention on the most perilous matter at hand.
The tiger, of course, is the collapsing world financial system. Americans actually have a falsely mild view of this crisis because the economy is worse abroad. The U.N.’s International Labor Organization projects between 30 million and 50 million job losses worldwide. Central European countries are teetering; Japan’s economy is horrifying; and the Chinese job creation machine is losing the race against its demographic pressures.
There have been riots in Greece and China as well as huge protest rallies in Dublin, Paris, London and beyond. So far, the protesters express anger without an agenda, but if the global economy continues to slide through 2010, they’ll discover one. A predictable result is a series of beggar-thy-neighbor exchange-rate policies, followed by rising trade barriers and the degradation of the entire global system.
In times like these, you’d expect prudent leaders to prepare for the worst. After all, the pessimists have recently been vindicated by events. But that’s apparently too painful to think about. In normal times, leaders like to focus on the short term at the expense of the long term. But now the short term is really confusing, so leaders take refuge in projects that are years or decades away.
The president of the United States has decided to address this crisis while simultaneously tackling the four most complicated problems facing the nation: health care, energy, immigration and education. Why he has not also decided to spend his evenings mastering quantum mechanics and discovering the origins of consciousness is beyond me.
The results of this overload are evident on Capitol Hill. The banking plan is incomplete, and there is zero political will to pay for it. The president’s budget is being nibbled to death. The revenue ideas are dying one by one, while the spending ideas expand. By the latest estimate, the health care approach will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years and the national debt will at least double, while the Chinese publicly complain about picking up the tab.
The Obama administration is at least distracted by important things. The Washington political class has spent the past week going into made-for-TV hysterics over $165 million in A.I.G. bonuses. We’re in the middle of a multitrillion-dollar crisis, and our political masters — always willing to throw themselves into any issue that is understandable on cable television — have decided to risk destroying the entire bank-rescue plan because of bonuses that account for 0.001 percent of the annual G.D.P.
Even this is not the most idiotic of the distractions. For that, you have to look abroad.
This is a global crisis, and a core lesson of the Great Depression is that a global crisis calls for a global response. As such, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are preparing for the upcoming G-20 summit with an agenda that has the merit of actually addressing the problem at hand: coordinate global stimulus, strengthen the International Monetary Fund, preserve open trade.
But the G-20 process is heading toward global impotence because the Europeans are dismissing this approach. Instead, they want to spend this moment of peril working on a long-term architecture to regulate global finance. The world is in flames and they want directorates and multilateral symposia and vague plans for a powerless “college of supervisors.” This is what Marie Antoinette would be for if she were an annual Davos attendee.
Why are they taking this position? First, many European leaders think the answer to every problem is more global architecture. They’ve got Jean Monnet on the brain. Second, they prefer to free-ride on the stimulus packages that the Americans and Chinese are already paying for. Third, the fiscally responsible European countries can’t commit to a policy that their debt-ridden partners can’t live up to. Fourth, some reject the idea of using fiscal policy to end recessions.
Some of these reasons have merit, especially the last one. But one thing is for sure: The American agenda might work to ease the immediate crisis, but efforts to build a long-range global architecture certainly will not. After all the pious talk about post-Bush international cooperation, the current approach will lead to a big multilateral zero.
Many people used to wonder how the world’s leaders could be so myopic at various points in history — like during the Versailles Treaty or the turmoil of the 1930s. We don’t have to wonder any more. We get to watch the cosmic myopia replay itself in our own times.
You’d think if some tiger were lunging at your neck, your attention would be riveted on the tiger. But that’s apparently not how it works in the age of global A.D.D. As a tiger sinks its teeth into the world’s neck, we focus on the dust bunnies under the bed and the floorboards that need replacing on the deck. We live in the world of Perverse Cosmic Myopia, an inability to focus attention on the most perilous matter at hand.
The tiger, of course, is the collapsing world financial system. Americans actually have a falsely mild view of this crisis because the economy is worse abroad. The U.N.’s International Labor Organization projects between 30 million and 50 million job losses worldwide. Central European countries are teetering; Japan’s economy is horrifying; and the Chinese job creation machine is losing the race against its demographic pressures.
There have been riots in Greece and China as well as huge protest rallies in Dublin, Paris, London and beyond. So far, the protesters express anger without an agenda, but if the global economy continues to slide through 2010, they’ll discover one. A predictable result is a series of beggar-thy-neighbor exchange-rate policies, followed by rising trade barriers and the degradation of the entire global system.
In times like these, you’d expect prudent leaders to prepare for the worst. After all, the pessimists have recently been vindicated by events. But that’s apparently too painful to think about. In normal times, leaders like to focus on the short term at the expense of the long term. But now the short term is really confusing, so leaders take refuge in projects that are years or decades away.
The president of the United States has decided to address this crisis while simultaneously tackling the four most complicated problems facing the nation: health care, energy, immigration and education. Why he has not also decided to spend his evenings mastering quantum mechanics and discovering the origins of consciousness is beyond me.
The results of this overload are evident on Capitol Hill. The banking plan is incomplete, and there is zero political will to pay for it. The president’s budget is being nibbled to death. The revenue ideas are dying one by one, while the spending ideas expand. By the latest estimate, the health care approach will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years and the national debt will at least double, while the Chinese publicly complain about picking up the tab.
The Obama administration is at least distracted by important things. The Washington political class has spent the past week going into made-for-TV hysterics over $165 million in A.I.G. bonuses. We’re in the middle of a multitrillion-dollar crisis, and our political masters — always willing to throw themselves into any issue that is understandable on cable television — have decided to risk destroying the entire bank-rescue plan because of bonuses that account for 0.001 percent of the annual G.D.P.
Even this is not the most idiotic of the distractions. For that, you have to look abroad.
This is a global crisis, and a core lesson of the Great Depression is that a global crisis calls for a global response. As such, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are preparing for the upcoming G-20 summit with an agenda that has the merit of actually addressing the problem at hand: coordinate global stimulus, strengthen the International Monetary Fund, preserve open trade.
But the G-20 process is heading toward global impotence because the Europeans are dismissing this approach. Instead, they want to spend this moment of peril working on a long-term architecture to regulate global finance. The world is in flames and they want directorates and multilateral symposia and vague plans for a powerless “college of supervisors.” This is what Marie Antoinette would be for if she were an annual Davos attendee.
Why are they taking this position? First, many European leaders think the answer to every problem is more global architecture. They’ve got Jean Monnet on the brain. Second, they prefer to free-ride on the stimulus packages that the Americans and Chinese are already paying for. Third, the fiscally responsible European countries can’t commit to a policy that their debt-ridden partners can’t live up to. Fourth, some reject the idea of using fiscal policy to end recessions.
Some of these reasons have merit, especially the last one. But one thing is for sure: The American agenda might work to ease the immediate crisis, but efforts to build a long-range global architecture certainly will not. After all the pious talk about post-Bush international cooperation, the current approach will lead to a big multilateral zero.
Many people used to wonder how the world’s leaders could be so myopic at various points in history — like during the Versailles Treaty or the turmoil of the 1930s. We don’t have to wonder any more. We get to watch the cosmic myopia replay itself in our own times.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
H I V epidemic is USA Capital
Tue Mar 17, 2009
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Who's next for testing?" Nathalie Boittin asked on Tuesday in a crowded waiting room at the Whitman-Walker Clinic in northwest Washington.
A young black man rose and Boittin, a community health educator, led him to get tested for the AIDS virus.
Testing has spiked at this clinic and others in the U.S. capital since an official report this week showed that 3 percent of the city's residents are infected with HIV. Officials believe the true figure is even higher.
"There are a lot of people who don't know they are HIV positive because they don't want to know or are afraid to know," said Edward Harris, a 55-year-old man who gets care at the clinic.
With a large poor and minority population, the District of Columbia has struggled with HIV for decades. Its report on Monday showed the number of people with HIV infections rose 22 percent from 2006 to 2007.
"I think the true prevalence rate could be 30 to 50 percent higher," Dr. Shannon Hader, the city's HIV/AIDS Administration director, said in a telephone interview. Many people are likely infected without knowing it.
The report showed that 6.5 percent of the city's black men were infected. Overall, there were 15,120 HIV-infected people. Blacks make up 53 percent of the population of just over half a million people, but account for 76 percent of infections.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Washington has one of the most severe epidemics in the nation.
"It's an epidemic across all aspects of District life," Whitman-Walker Clinic CEO Donald Blanchon said. "It's not an epidemic of one group. It's not just gay or black."
COMPLEX EPIDEMIC
Blanchon said people are being infected in three different ways, making it harder to target those at highest risk.
While sex between men was the top cause, accounting for 37 percent of cases, heterosexual sex led to 28 percent of cases and injection drug use to 18 percent, according to the report.
Hader said the city is stepping up its efforts. The city said it raised the number of people in its AIDS drug assistance program by 50 percent from 2007 to 2008, while the number of young people getting HIV tests doubled in the same period.
The city said it is one of two in the nation with a major condom distribution program, distributing 1.5 million in 2008.
"We want to make condoms widely available for free at a lot of easy-access points around the city," Hader said, including beauty parlors, barber shops, liquor stores and bars.
In 2007, the U.S. Congress, which under a special arrangement can control some of the district's operations, lifted a ban on a needle-exchange program, now under way.
"There's not a lack of qualified service providers or interesting or good programs in the city. But clearly it wasn't all coming together to satisfy the scale and the complexity of our needs here," Hader said.
The city also released survey data highlighting the fact that many heterosexuals do not use condoms and have multiple, overlapping sexual partners.
"At the end of the day, there's the need for individual responsibility. It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, where you come from, what your (sexual) orientation is," Blanchon said. "You need to practice safe sex."
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Who's next for testing?" Nathalie Boittin asked on Tuesday in a crowded waiting room at the Whitman-Walker Clinic in northwest Washington.
A young black man rose and Boittin, a community health educator, led him to get tested for the AIDS virus.
Testing has spiked at this clinic and others in the U.S. capital since an official report this week showed that 3 percent of the city's residents are infected with HIV. Officials believe the true figure is even higher.
"There are a lot of people who don't know they are HIV positive because they don't want to know or are afraid to know," said Edward Harris, a 55-year-old man who gets care at the clinic.
With a large poor and minority population, the District of Columbia has struggled with HIV for decades. Its report on Monday showed the number of people with HIV infections rose 22 percent from 2006 to 2007.
"I think the true prevalence rate could be 30 to 50 percent higher," Dr. Shannon Hader, the city's HIV/AIDS Administration director, said in a telephone interview. Many people are likely infected without knowing it.
The report showed that 6.5 percent of the city's black men were infected. Overall, there were 15,120 HIV-infected people. Blacks make up 53 percent of the population of just over half a million people, but account for 76 percent of infections.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Washington has one of the most severe epidemics in the nation.
"It's an epidemic across all aspects of District life," Whitman-Walker Clinic CEO Donald Blanchon said. "It's not an epidemic of one group. It's not just gay or black."
COMPLEX EPIDEMIC
Blanchon said people are being infected in three different ways, making it harder to target those at highest risk.
While sex between men was the top cause, accounting for 37 percent of cases, heterosexual sex led to 28 percent of cases and injection drug use to 18 percent, according to the report.
Hader said the city is stepping up its efforts. The city said it raised the number of people in its AIDS drug assistance program by 50 percent from 2007 to 2008, while the number of young people getting HIV tests doubled in the same period.
The city said it is one of two in the nation with a major condom distribution program, distributing 1.5 million in 2008.
"We want to make condoms widely available for free at a lot of easy-access points around the city," Hader said, including beauty parlors, barber shops, liquor stores and bars.
In 2007, the U.S. Congress, which under a special arrangement can control some of the district's operations, lifted a ban on a needle-exchange program, now under way.
"There's not a lack of qualified service providers or interesting or good programs in the city. But clearly it wasn't all coming together to satisfy the scale and the complexity of our needs here," Hader said.
The city also released survey data highlighting the fact that many heterosexuals do not use condoms and have multiple, overlapping sexual partners.
"At the end of the day, there's the need for individual responsibility. It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, where you come from, what your (sexual) orientation is," Blanchon said. "You need to practice safe sex."
Saturday, March 14, 2009
FUSION ENERGY - real or fiction?
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
San Francisco
If you hang around the renewable-energy business for long, you’ll hear a lot of tall tales. You’ll hear about someone who’s invented a process to convert coal into vegetable oil in his garage and someone else who has a duck in his basement that paddles a wheel, blows up a balloon, turns a turbine and creates enough electricity to power his doghouse.
Hang around long enough and you’ll even hear that in another 10 or 20 years hydrogen-powered cars or fusion energy will be a commercial reality. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard one of those stories, I could buy my own space shuttle. No wonder cynics often say that viable fusion energy or hydrogen-powered cars are “20 years away and always will be.”
But what if this time is different? What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer.
Are we there?
That is the tantalizing question I was left with after visiting the recently completed National Ignition Facility, or N.I.F., at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 50 miles east of San Francisco. The government-funded N.I.F. consists of 192 giant lasers — which can deliver 50 times more energy than any previous fusion laser system. They’re all housed in a 10-story building the size of three football fields — the rather dull cover to a vast internal steel forest of laser beams that must be what the engine room of Star Trek’s U.S.S. Enterprise space ship looked like.
I began my tour there with the N.I.F. director, Edward Moses. He was holding up a tiny gold can the size of a Tylenol tablet, and inside it was plastic pellet, the size of a single peppercorn, that would be filled with frozen hydrogen.
The way the N.I.F. works is that all 192 lasers pour their energy into a target chamber, which looks like a giant, spherical, steel bathysphere that you would normally use for deep-sea exploration. At the center of this target chamber is that gold can with its frozen hydrogen pellet. Once one of those pellets is heated and compressed by the lasers, it reaches temperatures over 800 million degrees Fahrenheit, “far greater than exists at the center of our sun,” said Moses.
More importantly, each crushed pellet gives off a burst of energy that can then be harnessed to heat up liquid salt and produce massive amounts of steam to drive a turbine and create electricity for your home — just like coal does today. Only this energy would be carbon-free, globally available, safe and secure and could be integrated seamlessly into our current electric grid.
Last Monday at 3 a.m., for the first time, all 192 lasers were fired at high energy precisely at once — no small feat — at the target chamber’s empty core. That was a major step toward “ignition” — turning that hydrogen pellet into a miniature sun on earth. The next step — which the N.I.F. expects to achieve some time in the next two to three years — is to prove that it can, under lab conditions, repeatedly fire its 192 lasers at multiple hydrogen pellets and produce more energy from the pellets than the laser energy that is injected. That’s called “energy gain.”
“That,” explained Moses, “is what Einstein meant when he declared that E=mc2. By using lasers, we can unleash tremendous amounts of energy from tiny amounts of mass.”
Once the lab proves that it can get energy gain from this laser-driven process, the next step (if it can secure government and private funding) would be to set up a pilot fusion energy power plant that would prove that any local power utility could have its own miniature sun — on a commercial basis. A pilot would cost about $10 billion — the same as a new nuclear power plant.
I don’t know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard. But here’s what I do know: President Obama’s stimulus package has given a terrific boost to renewable energy. It will pay lasting benefits. And we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.
But, in addition, we need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers. I am talking about systems that could give us abundant, clean, reliable electrons and drive massive innovation in big lasers, materials science, nuclear physics and chemistry that would benefit, energize and renew many U.S. industries.
At the pace we’re going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we’ll still need coal for some time. But let’s make sure that we aren’t just chasing the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.
San Francisco
If you hang around the renewable-energy business for long, you’ll hear a lot of tall tales. You’ll hear about someone who’s invented a process to convert coal into vegetable oil in his garage and someone else who has a duck in his basement that paddles a wheel, blows up a balloon, turns a turbine and creates enough electricity to power his doghouse.
Hang around long enough and you’ll even hear that in another 10 or 20 years hydrogen-powered cars or fusion energy will be a commercial reality. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard one of those stories, I could buy my own space shuttle. No wonder cynics often say that viable fusion energy or hydrogen-powered cars are “20 years away and always will be.”
But what if this time is different? What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer.
Are we there?
That is the tantalizing question I was left with after visiting the recently completed National Ignition Facility, or N.I.F., at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 50 miles east of San Francisco. The government-funded N.I.F. consists of 192 giant lasers — which can deliver 50 times more energy than any previous fusion laser system. They’re all housed in a 10-story building the size of three football fields — the rather dull cover to a vast internal steel forest of laser beams that must be what the engine room of Star Trek’s U.S.S. Enterprise space ship looked like.
I began my tour there with the N.I.F. director, Edward Moses. He was holding up a tiny gold can the size of a Tylenol tablet, and inside it was plastic pellet, the size of a single peppercorn, that would be filled with frozen hydrogen.
The way the N.I.F. works is that all 192 lasers pour their energy into a target chamber, which looks like a giant, spherical, steel bathysphere that you would normally use for deep-sea exploration. At the center of this target chamber is that gold can with its frozen hydrogen pellet. Once one of those pellets is heated and compressed by the lasers, it reaches temperatures over 800 million degrees Fahrenheit, “far greater than exists at the center of our sun,” said Moses.
More importantly, each crushed pellet gives off a burst of energy that can then be harnessed to heat up liquid salt and produce massive amounts of steam to drive a turbine and create electricity for your home — just like coal does today. Only this energy would be carbon-free, globally available, safe and secure and could be integrated seamlessly into our current electric grid.
Last Monday at 3 a.m., for the first time, all 192 lasers were fired at high energy precisely at once — no small feat — at the target chamber’s empty core. That was a major step toward “ignition” — turning that hydrogen pellet into a miniature sun on earth. The next step — which the N.I.F. expects to achieve some time in the next two to three years — is to prove that it can, under lab conditions, repeatedly fire its 192 lasers at multiple hydrogen pellets and produce more energy from the pellets than the laser energy that is injected. That’s called “energy gain.”
“That,” explained Moses, “is what Einstein meant when he declared that E=mc2. By using lasers, we can unleash tremendous amounts of energy from tiny amounts of mass.”
Once the lab proves that it can get energy gain from this laser-driven process, the next step (if it can secure government and private funding) would be to set up a pilot fusion energy power plant that would prove that any local power utility could have its own miniature sun — on a commercial basis. A pilot would cost about $10 billion — the same as a new nuclear power plant.
I don’t know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard. But here’s what I do know: President Obama’s stimulus package has given a terrific boost to renewable energy. It will pay lasting benefits. And we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.
But, in addition, we need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers. I am talking about systems that could give us abundant, clean, reliable electrons and drive massive innovation in big lasers, materials science, nuclear physics and chemistry that would benefit, energize and renew many U.S. industries.
At the pace we’re going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we’ll still need coal for some time. But let’s make sure that we aren’t just chasing the fantasy that we can “clean up” coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.
JUST MET SEX!
from "Redbook" Magazine
By Jennifer Benjamin
Miss that erotic charge you had when your love was brand-new? Reboot in the bedroom with these tips for turning up the heat on your old flame.
Long-term love brings all sorts of advantages: a shared history with the guy you love most, a partner who you know will always have your back, and a warm, satisfying sexual connection that can only come from years of intimacy. Still, as great as it is to know each other so well in bed, how could you not miss that crackle and spark you had when you and he first started having sex? Thing is, it doesn't take a lot of work to recapture that "just-met" excitement. Step back, reminisce, enjoy security and butterflies — and congratulate yourselves on really, truly having it all.
Create a Little Distance
Best friends, partners, soul mates — it's what many couples strive to be. But while that kind of emotional melding feels warm and secure, it's not always sexy. "The very things that love thrives on — familiarity, stability, and security — can kill passion and lust in a relationship," explains couples therapist Esther Perel, Ph.D., author of Mating in Captivity. "For desire to thrive, you need to maintain some of the elusiveness and independence you had when you were first together — if you're too available to your partner, too open with each other, you lose that edge."
That's why, for the sake of your sex life, it's a good idea to make some space. "A little bit of distance and separation, both physical and emotional, can actually fuel sexual excitement because it sets up a thrill-of-the-chase kind of dynamic, similar to what you had when you were first dating," says Los Angeles-based sex coach Patti Britton, Ph.D., co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Sensual Massage. "When you perceive a gap between you and your partner, you subconsciously feel challenged. And that perceived 'obstacle' can actually increase your desire for each other."
Maryanne, 31, an educator in Phoenix, travels a lot for work, as does her husband. While the time apart can be tough, they find that it winds up doing great things for their sex life. "After being gone for a while, it's like we can't get enough of each other," Maryanne says. "It really builds up the anticipation, so when we are together again, it's exciting and steamy and new." No business trip required: A regular girls' night out (and guys' night for him), a weekend away with your girlfriends every so often — all can create the kind of space you need to recharge those naughty feelings.
Another benefit of time apart is that it allows you to make a life for yourself outside of your relationship. "It's important to have an identity as an individual, to be involved in activities that take you away from the home and each other and give you something of your own," says Sharna L. Striar, Ph.D., a certified sex therapist and relationship counselor in private practice in New York City. Try revisiting some of the activities and personal passions you used to pursue before you two started dating but maybe haven't had time for since. It could be yoga, running, photography, or even just Thursday happy hours with friends. By feeding your soul this way, Striar adds, "you're likely to discover a few new things about yourself — things that your partner can then discover as well."
It's also okay — even good — to keep some corners of your life and mind all to yourself. "Many couples feel like the only way to bond is by sharing everything with each other," says Perel. "But it's mystery that really fuels desire and draws your partner to you. You might think that if you've been together for years, it's impossible, but the mystery is always there, if you allow it."
Rediscover Each Other
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sex with a new partner is thrilling largely because it's, well, new. "What makes just-met sex so exciting is that sense of the unknown and the anticipation of what might happen," says Georgia-based sex therapist Gloria Brame, Ph.D. "You're still discovering each other's bodies, finding new ways to turn each other on, and testing new waters." So in order to recapture that just-met sizzle, you have to snap out of the same-old sex routine.
A classic way to reboot your sexual relationship is to go away together — for a week, a few days, even just a night. Or send the kids on a sleepover and turn off the phones so you can have total alone time in your own home. "Call it a sex vacation," says Britton. "It's an opportunity to go back to the beginning, when you didn't have babies, shared bills, or a mortgage, and your relationship was just about the two of you, having fun."
Even if you can't get away, taking a trip down memory lane can bring back some of that new-relationship excitement. Consider reenacting your first meeting or date, maybe even returning to the scene of the crime. "Reliving that first introduction can give you both emotional and sexual recall," says Brame. "It can transport you to that moment — those butterfly feelings, the sexual buzz." And the sense that you're "strangers" can make the encounter feel illicit and naughty as well.
Take it a step further by tapping into some of your first sexual experiences with each other. "Think about what turned you on then and use that in your sex life now," Brame adds. Was it his smell? Having sex in the middle of the day? Showering together? Getting it on in the car? Although you may have been there, done that five years ago, re-creating those same naughty encounters will bring you back to the beginning. And focus on sexual activities that help you rediscover each other's bodies, making them new again. One suggestion: Blindfold yourselves and take turns lightly kissing each other's bodies or stroking your partner's skin with your fingertips. You may be surprised by how much you might have been missing all this time.
Shock Your System
Ah, the first flush of new love. The perma-smile plastered on your face, that tingling below the belt, the goose bumps you got when he touched you. Thank you, hormones! "The novelty and excitement of a new sexual partner triggers the production of dopamine and norepinephrine, neurotransmitters that are responsible for that love high," explains Helen Fisher, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University and author of Why We Love. "They also boost testosterone in your system, increasing your sex drive." As the newness wears off, though, all of those chemicals start to decline, making you less amped up romantically and sexually.
Shock Your System continued...
Here's the good news: You can actually trick your hormones into giving you that new-love glow again. Any kind of adrenaline-boosting activity, in the bedroom or out, drives up dopamine levels in the brain, bringing back some of that same heady excitement you had when you first met, says Fisher. So try something daring together, whether it's mountain biking, kickboxing, dancing, even seeing a thriller or horror movie. A high-octane endeavor is in itself an aphrodisiac, and it can help you rekindle some of that nervous excitement and stomach flip-flopping that you may have felt on your first few dates together.
Doing daring things in bed is another way to plug into that fear factor. Consider exploring something unexpected and a little scary for you sexually, whether it's hanging out around the house naked, getting into doggy-style position with the lights on, or being more vocal during sex. "Stepping out of your comfort zone will give you a rush of I can't believe I'm doing this, which can be equally as adrenaline-boosting as rock climbing," says Brame.
Another way to fire up that tear-each-other's-clothes-off desire: Put some feeling into it. "The reason make-up sex is often so intense is that anger and tension are sexually energizing emotions — they spark desire and excitement," says Britton. Just ask Anna, 41, a therapist in Oakland, CA: "My husband and I like to play fight. We'll spank each other, we'll wrestle, I'll teasingly pin him down during sex. After being together for eight years, we don't have as many emotional highs and lows, so getting aggressive, even in a playful way, brings some excitement to the surface. We get a rush from it, like a flashback to the fun, passionate intensity we felt when we first started dating."
Tune in to Your Sexy Side
When was the last time you did something purely for the sake of feeling sexy? "When you're dating, your appearance and sexual self-confidence are often a priority," says Britton. "But once you're married and have other things going on in your life, you don't always put as much focus into your sexuality." Think back to the times in your life when you've felt your sexiest — including when you and your guy first met. What did you wear? How did you walk, talk, act? What music did you like? What food did you crave? What did you do to pamper yourself? Can you re-create any of those sensations now?
Once you've connected with your sexiest self, think about how you used to express that sensuality with your guy and try those moves now — whether that means wearing low-cut tops, running your hand over his forearm, or giving him a sweet smile. When you let your inner sexiness shine out, he can't help but respond to that energy. "Forget that you've been together for years and get back to that place you were at in the beginning," says Striar. "You're stepping outside of the wife/mother role you're used to and tapping into that flirty, more sexually focused version of yourself that you both remember from your early days."
Take Sex Off the Table
Maybe you had a three-date rule or a one-month rule, or maybe you waited until you were committed or married. In any event, when you first got together, sex wasn't necessarily assumed. As a result, you probably spent a lot of time exploring all of the other ways to have fun without intercourse. And because that was all you were doing, it made the kissing and groping and fondling that much hotter. You can get back that urgency by instituting a temporary sex ban for a week, two weeks, a month — whatever feels like a long wait to you.
Of course, you'll have to get your partner on board. "Tell him that you want to have fun with all that making out and foreplay you did so much of back in the day. But, in order to do so, you have to take oral sex and intercourse off the table for a little while," says Brame. "Explain that the act of not having sex will make the sex even more intense and passionate when you finally do have it again." Plus, you'll be finding creative new ways to please each other. You can heighten the sexual anticipation by sending each other saucy emails or text messages, or talking about all the things you can't wait to do once the sex ban is lifted.
"My husband and I have a great sex life, but recently, I felt like we weren't spending enough time on foreplay," says Sloane, 33, a human resources manager from Boston. "So I told him I wanted to bring back the whole idea of having make-out sessions — just lying on the couch or in bed, kissing and touching each other, but without it leading to actual sex. At first he kind of balked, but once we started trying it, we both remembered how hot it was to tease each other like that." Not only does holding back actually increase your desire for sex, but it also re-creates those early days of your sexual relationship — when all you two could think about was finally, finally getting each other into bed. YOUR COMMENTS Please.
By Jennifer Benjamin
Miss that erotic charge you had when your love was brand-new? Reboot in the bedroom with these tips for turning up the heat on your old flame.
Long-term love brings all sorts of advantages: a shared history with the guy you love most, a partner who you know will always have your back, and a warm, satisfying sexual connection that can only come from years of intimacy. Still, as great as it is to know each other so well in bed, how could you not miss that crackle and spark you had when you and he first started having sex? Thing is, it doesn't take a lot of work to recapture that "just-met" excitement. Step back, reminisce, enjoy security and butterflies — and congratulate yourselves on really, truly having it all.
Create a Little Distance
Best friends, partners, soul mates — it's what many couples strive to be. But while that kind of emotional melding feels warm and secure, it's not always sexy. "The very things that love thrives on — familiarity, stability, and security — can kill passion and lust in a relationship," explains couples therapist Esther Perel, Ph.D., author of Mating in Captivity. "For desire to thrive, you need to maintain some of the elusiveness and independence you had when you were first together — if you're too available to your partner, too open with each other, you lose that edge."
That's why, for the sake of your sex life, it's a good idea to make some space. "A little bit of distance and separation, both physical and emotional, can actually fuel sexual excitement because it sets up a thrill-of-the-chase kind of dynamic, similar to what you had when you were first dating," says Los Angeles-based sex coach Patti Britton, Ph.D., co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Sensual Massage. "When you perceive a gap between you and your partner, you subconsciously feel challenged. And that perceived 'obstacle' can actually increase your desire for each other."
Maryanne, 31, an educator in Phoenix, travels a lot for work, as does her husband. While the time apart can be tough, they find that it winds up doing great things for their sex life. "After being gone for a while, it's like we can't get enough of each other," Maryanne says. "It really builds up the anticipation, so when we are together again, it's exciting and steamy and new." No business trip required: A regular girls' night out (and guys' night for him), a weekend away with your girlfriends every so often — all can create the kind of space you need to recharge those naughty feelings.
Another benefit of time apart is that it allows you to make a life for yourself outside of your relationship. "It's important to have an identity as an individual, to be involved in activities that take you away from the home and each other and give you something of your own," says Sharna L. Striar, Ph.D., a certified sex therapist and relationship counselor in private practice in New York City. Try revisiting some of the activities and personal passions you used to pursue before you two started dating but maybe haven't had time for since. It could be yoga, running, photography, or even just Thursday happy hours with friends. By feeding your soul this way, Striar adds, "you're likely to discover a few new things about yourself — things that your partner can then discover as well."
It's also okay — even good — to keep some corners of your life and mind all to yourself. "Many couples feel like the only way to bond is by sharing everything with each other," says Perel. "But it's mystery that really fuels desire and draws your partner to you. You might think that if you've been together for years, it's impossible, but the mystery is always there, if you allow it."
Rediscover Each Other
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sex with a new partner is thrilling largely because it's, well, new. "What makes just-met sex so exciting is that sense of the unknown and the anticipation of what might happen," says Georgia-based sex therapist Gloria Brame, Ph.D. "You're still discovering each other's bodies, finding new ways to turn each other on, and testing new waters." So in order to recapture that just-met sizzle, you have to snap out of the same-old sex routine.
A classic way to reboot your sexual relationship is to go away together — for a week, a few days, even just a night. Or send the kids on a sleepover and turn off the phones so you can have total alone time in your own home. "Call it a sex vacation," says Britton. "It's an opportunity to go back to the beginning, when you didn't have babies, shared bills, or a mortgage, and your relationship was just about the two of you, having fun."
Even if you can't get away, taking a trip down memory lane can bring back some of that new-relationship excitement. Consider reenacting your first meeting or date, maybe even returning to the scene of the crime. "Reliving that first introduction can give you both emotional and sexual recall," says Brame. "It can transport you to that moment — those butterfly feelings, the sexual buzz." And the sense that you're "strangers" can make the encounter feel illicit and naughty as well.
Take it a step further by tapping into some of your first sexual experiences with each other. "Think about what turned you on then and use that in your sex life now," Brame adds. Was it his smell? Having sex in the middle of the day? Showering together? Getting it on in the car? Although you may have been there, done that five years ago, re-creating those same naughty encounters will bring you back to the beginning. And focus on sexual activities that help you rediscover each other's bodies, making them new again. One suggestion: Blindfold yourselves and take turns lightly kissing each other's bodies or stroking your partner's skin with your fingertips. You may be surprised by how much you might have been missing all this time.
Shock Your System
Ah, the first flush of new love. The perma-smile plastered on your face, that tingling below the belt, the goose bumps you got when he touched you. Thank you, hormones! "The novelty and excitement of a new sexual partner triggers the production of dopamine and norepinephrine, neurotransmitters that are responsible for that love high," explains Helen Fisher, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University and author of Why We Love. "They also boost testosterone in your system, increasing your sex drive." As the newness wears off, though, all of those chemicals start to decline, making you less amped up romantically and sexually.
Shock Your System continued...
Here's the good news: You can actually trick your hormones into giving you that new-love glow again. Any kind of adrenaline-boosting activity, in the bedroom or out, drives up dopamine levels in the brain, bringing back some of that same heady excitement you had when you first met, says Fisher. So try something daring together, whether it's mountain biking, kickboxing, dancing, even seeing a thriller or horror movie. A high-octane endeavor is in itself an aphrodisiac, and it can help you rekindle some of that nervous excitement and stomach flip-flopping that you may have felt on your first few dates together.
Doing daring things in bed is another way to plug into that fear factor. Consider exploring something unexpected and a little scary for you sexually, whether it's hanging out around the house naked, getting into doggy-style position with the lights on, or being more vocal during sex. "Stepping out of your comfort zone will give you a rush of I can't believe I'm doing this, which can be equally as adrenaline-boosting as rock climbing," says Brame.
Another way to fire up that tear-each-other's-clothes-off desire: Put some feeling into it. "The reason make-up sex is often so intense is that anger and tension are sexually energizing emotions — they spark desire and excitement," says Britton. Just ask Anna, 41, a therapist in Oakland, CA: "My husband and I like to play fight. We'll spank each other, we'll wrestle, I'll teasingly pin him down during sex. After being together for eight years, we don't have as many emotional highs and lows, so getting aggressive, even in a playful way, brings some excitement to the surface. We get a rush from it, like a flashback to the fun, passionate intensity we felt when we first started dating."
Tune in to Your Sexy Side
When was the last time you did something purely for the sake of feeling sexy? "When you're dating, your appearance and sexual self-confidence are often a priority," says Britton. "But once you're married and have other things going on in your life, you don't always put as much focus into your sexuality." Think back to the times in your life when you've felt your sexiest — including when you and your guy first met. What did you wear? How did you walk, talk, act? What music did you like? What food did you crave? What did you do to pamper yourself? Can you re-create any of those sensations now?
Once you've connected with your sexiest self, think about how you used to express that sensuality with your guy and try those moves now — whether that means wearing low-cut tops, running your hand over his forearm, or giving him a sweet smile. When you let your inner sexiness shine out, he can't help but respond to that energy. "Forget that you've been together for years and get back to that place you were at in the beginning," says Striar. "You're stepping outside of the wife/mother role you're used to and tapping into that flirty, more sexually focused version of yourself that you both remember from your early days."
Take Sex Off the Table
Maybe you had a three-date rule or a one-month rule, or maybe you waited until you were committed or married. In any event, when you first got together, sex wasn't necessarily assumed. As a result, you probably spent a lot of time exploring all of the other ways to have fun without intercourse. And because that was all you were doing, it made the kissing and groping and fondling that much hotter. You can get back that urgency by instituting a temporary sex ban for a week, two weeks, a month — whatever feels like a long wait to you.
Of course, you'll have to get your partner on board. "Tell him that you want to have fun with all that making out and foreplay you did so much of back in the day. But, in order to do so, you have to take oral sex and intercourse off the table for a little while," says Brame. "Explain that the act of not having sex will make the sex even more intense and passionate when you finally do have it again." Plus, you'll be finding creative new ways to please each other. You can heighten the sexual anticipation by sending each other saucy emails or text messages, or talking about all the things you can't wait to do once the sex ban is lifted.
"My husband and I have a great sex life, but recently, I felt like we weren't spending enough time on foreplay," says Sloane, 33, a human resources manager from Boston. "So I told him I wanted to bring back the whole idea of having make-out sessions — just lying on the couch or in bed, kissing and touching each other, but without it leading to actual sex. At first he kind of balked, but once we started trying it, we both remembered how hot it was to tease each other like that." Not only does holding back actually increase your desire for sex, but it also re-creates those early days of your sexual relationship — when all you two could think about was finally, finally getting each other into bed. YOUR COMMENTS Please.
RULES you could use!
Do's and Dont's of 2009
Health:
1. Drink plenty of water.
2. Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a beggar.
3. Eat more foods that grow on trees and plants and eat less food that is manufactured in plants.
4. Live with the 3 E's -- Energy, Enthusiasm, and Empathy.
5. Make time to practice meditation, yoga, and prayer.
6. Play more games.
7. Read more books than you did in 2008.
8. Sit in silence for at least 10 minutes each day.
9. Sleep for 7 hours.
10. Take a 10-30 minutes walk every day. And while you walk,smile.
Personality:
11. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
12. Don't have negative thoughts or things you cannot control. Instead invest your energy in the positive present moment.
13. Don't over do. Keep your limits.
14. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
15. Don't waste your precious energy on gossip.
16. Dream more while you are awake.
17. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
18. Forget issues of the past. Don't remind your partner with his/her mistakes of the past.That will ruin your recent happiness.
19. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone. Don't hate others.
20. Make peace with your past so it won't spoil the present.
21. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
22. Realize that life is a school and you are here to learn. Problems are simply part of the curriculum that appear and fade away like algebra class but the lessons you learn will last a lifetime.
23. Smile and laugh more.
24. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
Society:
25. Call your family often.
26. Each day give something good to others.
27. Forgive everyone for everything.
28. Spend time with people over the age of 70 & under the age of 6.
29. Try to make at least three people smile each day.
30. What other people think of you is none of your business.
31. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch.
Life:
32. Do the right thing!
33. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
34. GOD heals everything.
35. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
36. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
37. The best is yet to come.
38. When you awake alive in the morning, thank GOD for it.
39. Your Inner most is always happy. So, be happy.
Health:
1. Drink plenty of water.
2. Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a beggar.
3. Eat more foods that grow on trees and plants and eat less food that is manufactured in plants.
4. Live with the 3 E's -- Energy, Enthusiasm, and Empathy.
5. Make time to practice meditation, yoga, and prayer.
6. Play more games.
7. Read more books than you did in 2008.
8. Sit in silence for at least 10 minutes each day.
9. Sleep for 7 hours.
10. Take a 10-30 minutes walk every day. And while you walk,smile.
Personality:
11. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
12. Don't have negative thoughts or things you cannot control. Instead invest your energy in the positive present moment.
13. Don't over do. Keep your limits.
14. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
15. Don't waste your precious energy on gossip.
16. Dream more while you are awake.
17. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
18. Forget issues of the past. Don't remind your partner with his/her mistakes of the past.That will ruin your recent happiness.
19. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone. Don't hate others.
20. Make peace with your past so it won't spoil the present.
21. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
22. Realize that life is a school and you are here to learn. Problems are simply part of the curriculum that appear and fade away like algebra class but the lessons you learn will last a lifetime.
23. Smile and laugh more.
24. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
Society:
25. Call your family often.
26. Each day give something good to others.
27. Forgive everyone for everything.
28. Spend time with people over the age of 70 & under the age of 6.
29. Try to make at least three people smile each day.
30. What other people think of you is none of your business.
31. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch.
Life:
32. Do the right thing!
33. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
34. GOD heals everything.
35. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
36. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
37. The best is yet to come.
38. When you awake alive in the morning, thank GOD for it.
39. Your Inner most is always happy. So, be happy.
Friday, March 13, 2009
BILL GATES says
Should be posted in all schools and work places:
Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this! Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good,politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
If you agree, pass it on.
If you can read this - Thank a teacher!
If you can read this in English Thank a soldier!!!
Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this! Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good,politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.
Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!
Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.
Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.
Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.
Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.
Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.
If you agree, pass it on.
If you can read this - Thank a teacher!
If you can read this in English Thank a soldier!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)