1. There's More to Sex Than Orgasm

2. Spam Email Spreading Like Wildfire [Satire]

3. The Toxic Crisis of Capitalism

4. Katie Couric Savages Sarah Palin

5. McCain & Obama Bicker While Wall Street Burns

6. Scared Bush Addresses the Nation

Sex Is Not Just about 'Performance'

This is about the first time I had sex with a guy, after I'd finally started having sex with women.

And it's about how having sex with women radically changed the way I have sex. With everybody. Men, women, everybody.

Here's what happened. I was making out with this friend of mine. Male. And this was clearly not the "just fooling around" variety of making out. This was the "lead-up to having sex" variety.

We'd actually decamped from another friend's living room, where things had gotten started, and gone back to his place to keep things going. This was "making out, otherwise known as foreplay."

So we were making out on his sofa, getting increasingly hot and heavy ... when for no apparent reason, his momentum slowed down. Like, a lot.

Trying to figure out what the heck was happening, I asked if he wanted to get a condom and go into the bedroom ... and he said, with obvious embarrassment, that he'd already come, while we were making out.

(I think it had been a while since he'd had sex.)

And here's where the "having had sex with women" part comes in.

Before I'd started having sex with women, my reaction to a guy's premature ejaculation had been pretty traditional: disappointment, frustration, embarrassment on his behalf, attempts to soothe his ego, feeling like I'd done something wrong.

But this time, my reaction was to say, casually and matter-of-factly, "Oh. Well, is that any reason to stop?"

I wasn't trying to make a statement or anything. I honestly didn't even think about it. I certainly wasn't thinking of it in terms of, "this is the great lesson I have learned from having sex with women." It was just an automatic, instinctive reaction.

But it was an automatic, instinctive reaction that was the complete opposite of the one I would have had a year or two before.

It was an automatic, instinctive reaction that had been shaped by the sex I'd been having with women -- sex in which one person's orgasm didn't stop the whole train, but was simply one of many sights on a long and eventful excursion.

And here's the thing I found especially interesting:

When I said it, he was relieved.

He wasn't angry, or annoyed, or anything even remotely approaching angry or annoyed. He was relieved. He was happy.

He didn't want our encounter to be just about his orgasm, either. Especially since it had fired off before either of us was ready.

"Is that any reason to stop?" was a way we could do that. It was a way he could feel good about our encounter, like a sexy, sensitive, open-minded lover instead of a gawky klutz who couldn't control himself.

And it was a way we could keep on having sex. It was a way we could actually have sex that night, instead of an aborted make-out session.

Latest Spam Email Spreading LIke Wildfire [Satire]

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude. I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America.

My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars U.S. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January.

As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance.

My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction.

After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully,

Minister of Treasury Paulson

Explaining the Toxic Crisis of Capitalism

Why does capitalism go through cycles of booms and slumps?

The chaos that we see around us is only the latest crisis of capitalism. The global economy has undergone a series of recessions over the last 35 years, including in 1973, 1990-93, 1998 and 2001-2.

Profit rates have not recovered to the level they were at before the 1973 crisis. Each time a recession ends, the prophets of the free market tell us that all of the problems in the system have been fixed. But then they are thrown into panic by the next recession.

This cycle of booms and slumps is down to the competitive and anarchic nature of capitalism. Because there is no centralised plan for the economy, each company tries to grab the biggest share of the market by producing more of one or more goods.

This leads to more goods being produced than are needed and these pile up unsold – hitting profits, forcing companies to the wall and leading to workers being laid off.

Workers then have less money to buy goods, which makes the crisis worse and the system goes into slump.

The failings of some companies then helps with the revival of the system as their competitors buy up their technology and markets.

Underlying all of this is a fundamental problem with the system – the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Karl Marx identified this tendency over 100 years ago. It does not mean that actual profits fall – companies are still making billions and many are increasing their profits. But the rate of return on their investments, over time, tends to decrease.

This is because real value comes from workers’ labour. The value people create through work is greater than the amount they receive back in wages.

Therefore the capitalist is stealing some of the value workers’ labour has created. This “surplus value” forms the basis of profit.

But the pressure on bosses to compete means that they try to cut the amount that they have to invest in labour.

Instead they invest in new technologies that mean they will spend less on workers. They can produce the same or more with less people because of new technology or machinery.

It also means that they will try to increase the level of exploitation of workers – making people work harder for less.

Katie Couric Cuts Sarah Palin Down to Size

Sitting down for interview, the pink-suited Palin was placed in harshly bright light, while Couric seemed cooler in makeup that was better suited for the light and not as shiny.

Couric asked Palin about her unsupported statement that "Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal; They're not waiting what Barack is going to do" by pointing out, "polls have shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle this crisis better than John McCain."

(Palin was all "don't confuse me with the facts" in her reply, answering "I'm not lookin' at poll numbers").

It was then that Couric sprang: If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another Great Depression?

"Unfortunately, that is the road that America might find itself on," Palin answered.

Asking Palin whether she had considered a moratorium on foreclosures "to help average Americans keep their homes," Palin wouldn't quite answer. "That's something John McCain and I have both been discussing," she began. "It's going to be amultifaceted solution."

Couric pressed her, trying to determine how much she's actually thought or discussed the issue, ingeniously asking "What are the pros and cons of it, do you think?"

Palin stumbled a bit before reiterating that a comprehwnsive long term solution has to be found.

Couric called her on a statement that McCain would reform Wall Street. Other than supporting stricter regulations of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae two years ago, could she cite any examples?

Uh no. But those warnings two years ago was more "than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us," Palin claimed.

"But he's been in Congress 26 years, he's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee and he's almost always sided with less regulations, not more," Couric said.

"But he's also been known as the Maverick," said Palin.

"I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point," Couric said smiling. "But do you have any specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?"

Her voice got all folksy: "I'll try to find ya some and I'll bring 'em to ya."

Oh, score.

McCain & Obama Bicker While Wall Street Burns

They are different in so many ways: one Republican, one Democrat; one in his 70s, one in his 40s; one white, one black. But John McCain and Barack Obama share the genome of the alpha pol. Timing and instinct are among the dominant traits.

How else to explain the fact that both men chose precisely the same day — nearly the same hour — to field press questions for the first time about the collapsing financial sector and the government's proposed $700 billion bailout?

Like the cicada crawling up from the earth precisely 17 years after its mom lays her eggs, or the monarch butterfly fluttering a thousand miles to a particular spot, they were driven by something wired, not taught. And even more uncanny: they chose almost exactly the same words.

The lifeblood of the world's largest economy was clotting, but the men who would be President answered with shared simplifications:

Muttered prayers to the god of oversight, an idle hope that taxpayers might awaken one day to a windfall, and the timeless amusement of humble millionaires bashing arrogant millionaires on behalf of folks who may never breathe debt-free.

So the first thing the crisis revealed about the would-be Presidents is that they are Senators not just in name but also by disposition.

Americans were angry and confused about the crisis on Wall Street. The moment seemed to cry out for someone to make sense of it all.

Instead McCain and Obama explained how they would amend a draft of the bailout legislation. Then they got up the next morning and tried to negotiate a joint statement urging patriotic calm.

And being Senators in today's Washington, both took the stage while shadowed by dubious supporters.

Obama has ties to the men who pocketed fortunes while running Fannie Mae off a cliff. McCain's campaign manager was a high-priced adviser to, among others, the equally screwed-up Freddie Mac.

One of these two Senators is about to be thrust into the White House, however, where the gravest financial crisis since the Great Depression will shape his agenda and probably narrow his options for years to come.

Scared Bush Addresses the Nation

Herbert Hoover did not have the option of making a televised speech to the nation as the Great Depression unfolded.

That was, undoubtedly, a good thing--for Hoover and the nation.

Hoover was spared the responsibility of what George Bush took on Wednesday night--that of trying to explain a dramatic economic downtown without taking responsibility for the definitional role that his wrongheaded policies had in causing the crisis.

And the country was spared the painful image of scared president clutching a White House podium so tightly that his tension was audible.

"We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis," began Bush, who proceeded to tell America what it already knows: banks aren't making loans, credit markets are freezing up, businesses and families can no longer afford to borrow essential funds.

Grasp. Grasp. Rumble.

"The market is not functioning properly. There is a widespread loss of confidence," the lamest of lame ducks continued. "America could slip into a widespread financial panic."

Grab. Rattle. Grab.

"Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen," Bush went on.

Clutch. Clutch.

"Many Americans are asking: How would a rescues plan work?"

Squeak. Claw.

"The final question is: What does this mean for your economic future?"

Grasp. Grab. Clutch. Claw.