1.Female porn for a low libido

2. McCain & Obama Flounder in Financial Crisis

3. America's Stunning Fall from Power

4. American Depression: The End of Easy Credit

5. Conservatives See Capitalism in Retreat

6. The Bailout vs. the Defense Budget

Emily's Agony Column

Dear Emily,

My boyfriend and I are in our mid-twenties, love each other, and have been living together for two years. We have good sex once a week. I have a low libido, and I always have. But my sweet boyfriend needs more than once a week.

Every once in a while, he brings up the fact that he'd like to have more sex.

This conversation always goes the same way: He tells me, I start crying, he feels terrible for making me cry, we both wind up feeling like shit.

I'm pretty sure that the solution is for me to jump my sexy boyfriend more often. But I don't know how.

I fell I have an inner-beast buried somewhere inside me. Any suggestions on how to bring it out?

Yours, Chrissie

It may be something as simple as hormonal imbalance Check out your doctor.

Also, make sure that whatever birth-control method you're using isn't decimating your libido.

apart from that, your best bet is to accept that this is just the way you work for no. You may surprise yourself when you hit your sexual peak in a few years.Women often become sexual predators when they turn thirty.

Meantime...let's say your boyfriend wants it four times a week, and you can only "get into it" once a week. I'm not going to tell you that it's as simple as splitting the difference—have sex twice a week!

Everybody loses!—because that advice, which is pretty standard for couples in your situation, is fucking useless.

Inevitably, sex falls back to the frequency preferred by the person with the lower libido—just the boyfriend loses!—but having been promised more sex, the higher-libido partner's sense of resentment spikes, there are more tearful talks, and the relationship invariably ends.

Here's what you should do instead: You commit to great sex at least once a week. He deals. But you also commit to making sure your boyfriend is well and thoroughly milked—with your cheerful assistance—at least three additional times a week.

You commit to being his full-blown sex partner once a week and his life-size, ambulatory masturbatory aide at least three times a week.

How would that work? Well, let's say you're not up for sex on Wednesday because you had sex last Sunday. But he's horny. So you plop your twat down on his face and let him eat you out while he beats off. It'll take 10 minutes.

Then let's say he's horny again on Friday, but you're just not feeling it. So you treat him to a hand job while you rub your tits in his face. Another 10 minutes. And let's say he wakes up horny on Saturday morning.

So you sit on the edge of the bed, have him kneel between your open legs, and pull his face into your crotch while you tell him how thoroughly you're going to fuck the shit out of him tomorrow, on Sunday, when you're finally horny again.

You may find that once the pressure is off. Once you're not expected to have or want sex but just expected to help out your horny boyfriend your libido occasionally kicks in, and you're inspired to jump him. Or not.

Either way, the pressure is off, you're having great sex at least once a week, and he sees you making a sincere effort to keep his balls drained and him happy. Everybody wins.

Something else. Try playing with yourself. I have no idea whether you masturbate a lot, a little or not at all. Actually, two-thirds of women are more likely to have orgasms when they masturbate than when they have sex.

So, try it. don't automatically blame yourself for a low libido. It may be your boyfriend's fault. He just isn't pressing the right buttons.

Try some web porn for women. I've posted a taster at the top. Here's some more suggestions. Enjoy!

McCain & Obama Flounder in Financial Crisis

While the gravity of the crisis is clear, the prospects for transformation remain remote. The fact that this meltdown took place during a presidential election should be fortuitous.

It ought to provide the two candidates with an opportunity to lay out different visions of how they would tackle the situation at a moment when the nation is intently focused on politics.

If ever the country needed leadership, it is right now. And here are two men vying for it.

Yet the financial crisis has, for the most part, made the presidential campaign seem less relevant, not more. The credit crunch and the election are taking place as though on a split screen.

There is a connection between the two - Barack Obama has bounced back as a result of people's attention being refocused away from lipstick and pigs and back on to their mortgages, retirement accounts and jobs.

But it is not a substantive one. For while the crisis has changed the electoral conversation, nobody is seriously looking to this conversation for new ideas, let alone a solution.

The notion that there might be alternatives to rapacious capitalism have been all but banished from the public square. That limited discourse leaves us with limited options.

Those who claimed that the government was the problem now cast it as not just the ultimate, but the sole solution.

Good sense demands a thoroughgoing reappraisal of a system that's in a state of collapse; common sense requires we subsidise it in perpetuity for fear that it breaks down. That sounds like nonsense.

"If you beat your head against the wall," Gramsci once wrote, "it is your head which breaks, and not the wall."

Right now the American public has a terrible headache. And it doesn't seem as if this presidential race is going to cure it.

For this election to make any sense at this juncture it must challenge the assumptions of the past 30 years that have led America to this place.

America's Stunning Fall from Power

Our gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large.

Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over.

You can see it in the way America's dominion has slipped away in its own backyard, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez taunting and ridiculing the superpower with impunity.

Yet the setback of America's standing at the global level is even more striking.

With the nationalisation of crucial parts of the financial system, the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.

Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive American administrations have lectured other countries on the necessity of sound finance. Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina and several African states endured severe cuts in spending and deep recessions as the price of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which enforced the American orthodoxy.

China in particular was hectored relentlessly on the weakness of its banking system. But China's success has been based on its consistent contempt for Western advice and it is not Chinese banks that are currently going bust.

How symbolic yesterday that Chinese astronauts take a spacewalk while the US Treasury Secretary is on his knees.

Despite incessantly urging other countries to adopt its way of doing business, America has always had one economic policy for itself and another for the rest of the world.

Throughout the years in which the US was punishing countries that departed from fiscal prudence, it was borrowing on a colossal scale to finance tax cuts and fund its over-stretched military commitments.

Now, with federal finances critically dependent on continuing large inflows of foreign capital, it will be the countries that spurned the American model of capitalism that will shape America's economic future.

American Depression: The End of Easy Credit

The government’s planned financial bailout is a significant if costly step intended to avert economic calamity, but it may not be the last one, according to economists and finance experts.

The rescue plan would use taxpayer money — $350 billion initially, and up to $700 billion with Congressional approval — to buy mostly soured mortgage-backed securities from Wall Street firms and banks.

These arcane investment instruments, linked to home mortgages, have combined with falling housing prices to ignite the credit crisis, which in turn has dire potential for an economic contagion that threatens even sound businesses and secure jobs in industry after industry.

By taking these securities off the banks’ hands, the bailout plan seeks to restore confidence in the financial system and ensure that banks can still carry on their fundamental role of handling payments and offering credit to the masses.

“Maybe they can restore confidence with the program,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“It may work, and it could get us through the election in November,” he said.

But Mr. Johnson, a former senior researcher at the International Monetary Fund, said further steps might well be needed, with much work remaining for the next administration.

The list, he said, includes overseeing the workings of the rescue plan, helping to guide the contraction and recapitalization of the banking industry, assisting homeowners who face mortgage defaults, and in general shaping policy for a nation that will be less accustomed to easy credit and overspending.

Even the Conservatives See Capitalism in Retreat

NO MATTER WHAT deal is finally cut between Hank Paulson, the Democrats, and unhappy conservative Republicans, or even if no deal at all is finally worked out, market capitalism as practiced in the United States will never be the same.

Well, "never" might be too long, so let's say it won't be the same for a very, very long time.

We are witnessing a radical modification of capitalism. Some of this is obvious. We know that the old view that some banks are too big to fail has been augmented by the view that some financial institutions are too interconnected to fail.

So Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AIG and others are bailed out by one device or other, even though no depositors were directly threatened by the demise of these institutions.

Carnegie Mellon economist Allan Meltzer might be right when he says, "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." But it seems safe to say that our tolerance of failure is just not what it used be.

The great economist Joseph Schumpeter talked of capitalism's awesome power of creative destruction. Were he still around he would be unhappy to note that we are in for both less destruction and less creativity. There is a growing desire for shelter from the storms of market economics.

But the change in attitudes and policy towards failure - the greater willingness of policymakers to risk moral hazard in order to reduce risks of threat to the financial system - is only one of the changes reshaping market capitalism.

Another is increased dissatisfaction with the way incomes are distributed. The picture of executives of failed companies strolling off with multimillion dollar bonuses has made more and more people wonder whether what goes on in the nation's boardrooms is a search for ways to reward stellar performance, or a meeting of cronies to decide how to cut up the pie, far from the view of the shareholder-owners of the company.

The Bailout vs. the Defense Budget

There has been much moaning, air-sucking and outrage about the $700 billion that the U.S. government is thinking of throwing away on rich New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of ditches.

In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial complex, and powerful senators and representatives allied with the Pentagon.

On Wednesday, September 24th, right in the middle of the fight over billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful press comment at all.

The defense bill includes $68.6 billion to pursue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is only a down-payment on the full yearly cost of these wars. (The rest will be raised through future supplementary bills.)

It also included a 3.9% pay raise for military personnel, and $5 billion in pork-barrel projects not even requested by the administration or the secretary of defense.

It also fully funds the Pentagon’s request for a radar site in the Czech Republic, a hare-brained scheme sure to infuriate the Russians just as much as a Russian missile base in Cuba once infuriated us.

The whole bill passed by a vote of 392-39 and will fly through the Senate, where a similar bill has already been approved. And no one will even think to mention it in the same breath with the discussion of bailout funds for dying investment banks and the like.

This is pure waste. Our annual spending on “national security”—meaning the defense budget plus all military expenditures hidden in the budgets for the departments of Energy, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, the CIA, and numerous other places in the executive branch—already exceeds a trillion dollars, an amount larger than that of all other national defense budgets combined.

Not only was there no significant media coverage of this latest appropriation, there have been no signs of even the slightest urge to inquire into the relationship between our bloated military, our staggering weapons expenditures, our extravagantly expensive failed wars abroad, and the financial catastrophe on Wall Street.