in love with strangers.…..

As I stared at that beauty on that evening of summer,
sitting over my bench I wrote a poem for her.
adjusting her lenses she asked queries of science,
and my crazy mind was pouring feelings in those lines.
I completed the poem; waited for sir to end,
and tried to pass her the poem when she did bend;
to pack her bag as we were about to leave,
and after class I saw her boyfriend named steve.
At the stand then I met two little eyes,
the pupils did bind me in invisible ties.
as I watched her face & down till her shoes,
those damn sexy eyes made my patience to loose.
when I was going to reach her she draged out her phone,
“honey I’ll be there u just wait at home”.
now at the market I saw her atthe archies shop,
no I won’t do it , its again gonna be flop.
it was her smile this time which made me to think,
my heart then gave me a reapproach hint.
Iwas staring when a boy appeared from crowd,
and got to his knees to ask her aloud.
he asked the beauty will u be my valentine,
and there I stood listening that ultra fucking line.
the girl agreed & the whole shop did clap,
ah never mind; better luck next time ol’ chap.
I realised my fault and I realised my crime,
loving a starnger has been my business of all time.
no regret do I bear no shame do I feel,
coz these wounds just need some seconds to heal.
I love everyone so i spread love to all’s life,
whether it be valentine of someone or someone’s waiting wife.

The beautiful continent of Australia features a lot to do for tourists from all over the world. Whether it is swimming at the Great Barrier Reef or taking in cultural events in the beautiful city of Sydney, Australia has a wealth of events that will keep the world traveler busy. However, travelers don’t just want to take in the natural beauty of Australia and may want to have some fun in a more social setting. Australia’s seventeen casinos and gaming facilities are some of the finest in the world and provide great gaming opportunities for Australians and visitors alike. These casinos are spread out over all the Australian states, and New South Wales, with four, has the most casinos in Australia.

One of the better Australian casinos is the Star City Casino in Sydney. With more than 1,500 gaming tables and slot machines, Star City is one of the larger casinos in Australia. For high rollers and others with a big bankroll, The Endeavor Room offers premium gaming and a party atmosphere that will make it all worthwhile. With luxury rooms, private suites, and fine dining, the Star City Casino is a fine example of Australia’s casinos.

For visitors in the area of Hobart, the Wrest Point Hotel Casino is the place to be. Wrest Point offers more than twenty gaming tables and 650 slot machines that provide many different opportunities to win money. In fact, more than 300 jackpots are won each month in this Australian casino, giving professional and casual gamblers many chances to win big. One of the best features of Wrest Point is that they offer a special nonsmoking slot area for those who want a cleaner environment in which to have fun and gamble. This beautiful Australian casino is both aesthetically pleasing and fun for all.

One final example of Australia’s fine casinos is the Sky City Adelaide, in the beautiful city of Adelaide. Sky City is a casino for those who want to win big fast, with regular cash and car jackpots on certain slot machines. With more than 800 slot machines and 70 tables for blackjack and craps, there is no shortage of opportunities for the casual gambler to make some money on their vacation. The best aspect of the Sky City Adelaide is their regular poker tournaments, including a major poker tournament. Visitors to Sky City Adelaide will not be disappointed with their choice of Australian casinos.

For more info get into Australia Casinos.

Enjoy Responibly.

by Dana Milbank:

Somewhere, in a secure, undisclosed location, John Ashcroft is chuckling.

President Obama campaigned on a promise to restore transparency to government. But now the time has come to renew the USA Patriot Act, the bete noire of civil libertarians. When the Obama administration’s point man on the legislation came to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, he sounded very much like his predecessors in the Bush administration.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked Assistant Attorney General David Kris whether the administration would support congressional oversight as part of the Patriot Act. “We don’t have a position on anything particularly yet,” Kris answered.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, asked whether the Democrats’ proposed changes to the Patriot Act would impede current investigations. “We’re not going to discuss classified matters here, and also there is this Justice Department policy about commenting on ongoing investigations,” the official commented.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) pointed out that of the several hundred “sneak and peek” search warrants issued under the Patriot Act, only three were for terrorism cases and most were for drugs. “I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases,” Kris replied.

Feingold was surprised by the witness’s lack of surprise. “As I recall, it was in something called the USA Patriot Act,” he said scornfully, “which was passed in a rush after an attack on 9/11 that had to do with terrorism.”

The performance must have been disheartening for Democrats, because Kris was supposed to be one of the good guys. Once a Clinton and Bush Justice Department official, he scolded his former Bush colleagues in 2006 for their “weak justification” of the warrant less wiretapping program.

But if disappointing, Kris’s guardedness was to be expected. Obama may

have promised new openness, but “so far, the continuities between the Obama and Bush administration overwhelm the differences,” says Steven Aftergood, who runs the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

Obama gets credit for making public a 2004 report on CIA interrogations and Justice Department torture memos, and for releasing more records of White House visitors. He restored news coverage of returning caskets of fallen soldiers. On Wednesday, he earned mixed reviews from civil libertarians when he signaled an intention to keep fewer things hidden under the “state secrets” policy.

But transparency advocates such as After good and Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center point to many more shortfalls: refusing to release information about detainees held at the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan, reneging on a decision to release photos of detainee abuse, using signing statements to undermine legislation, defending the granting of immunity to telecom companies that participated in the wiretap program, and opposing a request that all intelligence committee members be briefed on covert operations.

Of course, these moves could be evidence that Obama is being cautious and responsible as campaigning yields to governing. But whatever the reason, civil libertarians have reason to feel that Obama sold them a bill of goods — and Wednesday’s hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee was unlikely to change this feeling.

Kris began by requesting renewal of the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. Leahy has introduced a bill that would extend the provisions while also adding a few new protections, but Kris wasn’t at liberty to discuss these.

Leahy asked whether Kris would agree to an effort to stop the abuse of “national security letters,” which have been used to obtain bank and medical records without warrants. “We don’t have an official administration position on that element of your bill or the others,” the witness informed the chairman.

Feinstein fared no better when she asked whether the Justice Department would have a problem with requiring that there be “reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought is at least relevant to an authorized investigation.”

“That’s a position we’d like to work through in an orderly fashion,” Kris demurred. Feinstein asked another question, and Kris repeated his wish not to “get into anything classified or operational.”

The other committee members got similar answers: “I would be reluctant to discuss that in an open hearing.… I think I should defer getting into the possibly classified details of anything here.… I wouldn’t put it the way you’ve just put it, Senator.” When Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) pointed out a problem with one of the Patriot Act procedures, Kris labeled the senator “a very precise and careful technical lawyer to pick up on this.”

“It’s not something I just invented,” Whitehouse shot back.

Feingold, who has proposed legislation that would sharply curtail the Patriot Act, lectured Kris that “its quite extraordinary” to allow the government “to secretly break into Americans’ homes in criminal cases, and I think some Americans might be concerned that it’s been used hundreds of times in just a single year on non-terrorism cases.”

“Well,” the witness replied, “I don’t mean to quibble with you.” But he did anyway.

David Kris, left, was speaking for the Obama Justice Department this time, but he recycled some Bush-era arguments on the Patriot Act. (By Pablo Martinez Monsivais — Associated Press)

by Kathleen Parker

Not so long ago, Rep. Joe Wilson’s verbal assault on the president — “You lie!” — might have produced a much different outcome.

Instead of the U.S. House rebuking Wilson, we might be entertaining the prospect of a duel.

In early America, calling someone a liar wasn’t a childish insult but a direct challenge to one’s honor, an appropriate response to which varied by region. Where dueling was common — as in Wilson’s home state of South Carolina — so were insults.

Here’s how an 1882 New York Times article described the thinking of the time as it related to a Mr. John Goode, who had called a certain Mr. Bailey a liar.

Writing that “Nothing but blood can wipe out this insult,” the author noted that although the laws of chivalry were supposed to be dominant, “language used in attacking individuals is much more gross and insulting than in regions where the duel is not invoked as the final arbiter betwixt the man who has been insulted and the defamer.

“In the North, we are supposed to be a lily-livered and pusillanimous race. Yet we very much question if any legislator or public man would dare to denounce another as ‘a liar.’ Nevertheless, in the South, where the code of honor prevails, the exchange of such epithets is possible, and the men who fling these names at each other live and prosper.”

Indeed.

Last week, I spoke too soon when I wrote that Wilson might have lost his audience through his boorishness. Projection will get you in trouble every time. Instead, Wilson has become a cult hero, rolling in dough. Both he and his opponent for reelection, Rob Miller, reportedly have raised more than $1 million each since Wilson’s eruption.

Who would have thought that a congressional race in South Carolina could become a referendum on the Obama administration? Two relative unknowns suddenly personify two dueling worldviews: The You-Liars vs. The Truthers. Death-panelists vs. Hopers-Changers.

As Americans have picked their side of civilization’s breach the past few days, some have justified Wilson’s words because they think they were true. Sure, one can make a slim case that some of Obama’s assertions weren’t 100 percent accurate, but Wilson’s behavior can’t be justified. It isn’t done. Period.

And why not? Because civilization is a fragile and delicate idea, held together by a few mere threads, bound together by little more than a wisp of mutual consent. Frays in those threads are daily apparent — from the rude tantrum of Kanye West at the Video Music Awards to the profane threats of tennis star Serena Williams when she disagreed with a line call.

Across the spectrum of society, people are behaving badly. Even those at the very top of their games, who enjoy wealth and status, no longer can be relied upon to carry the standard of exemplary behavior. If ever there were one place we might hope to find people of respectful temperament, it would be where those elected to govern convene to hear the president.

Summation: People in positions of power and privilege have a duty to perform at a higher level. If not them, then who?

by Robert J Samuelson:

The first Labor Day, held in New York City in 1882, was less a celebration of the dignity of work than a demonstration in favor of the eight-hour day, down from the prevailing 10 to 12 hours. Compared with then, American workers have come a long way. Congress made Labor Day a national holiday in 1894, and over the years it evolved into a day off rather than a moment to reflect on the state of labor, broadly defined and extending beyond unions. Well, not this year.

It’s the bleakest Labor Day since at least the early 1980s (unemployment in September 1982: 10.1 percent). With the unemployment rate at 9.7 percent in August and expected to go higher, cheery news is scarce. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, has painted a statistical portrait of today’s labor market. Here are some lowlights:

– Since the recession’s start in December 2007, the number of lost payroll jobs totals 6.9 million. A third of today’s jobless have been unemployed more than six months, almost double the share a year ago and a post-World War II high.

– Wage growth has slowed dramatically. In the first half of 2007, all private wages and salaries rose at an annual rate of 3.7 percent; in the first half of 2009, the increase was 1.3 percent.

– The unemployment and “underemployment” rate is 16.8 percent — this includes the officially unemployed plus all part-time workers who’d prefer full-time jobs, as well as discouraged and demoralized job-seekers who have stopped looking for work.

Job anxiety has also increased sharply, according to opinion surveys compiled by Karlyn Bowman of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. A Gallup poll in August found that 31 percent of workers worried about being laid off, up from 15 percent a year earlier; 32 percent thought their wages might be cut, up from 16 percent; and 46 percent feared fringe benefits might be reduced, up from 27 percent.

What’s most ominous is not today’s job market; it’s the outlook. After the 1981–82 recession, unemployment dropped steadily from an annual average of 9.7 percent in 1982 to 7.5 percent in 1984 and 5.5 percent in 1988. The descent this time is expected to be much slower. In 2014, the unemployment rate will still average 7.6 percent, forecasts IHS Global Insight, which predicts a peak of 10 percent early next year. Reducing unemployment requires an economic expansion fast enough to absorb today’s jobless plus the natural growth of the labor force. Most forecasters expect a tepid recovery will only gradually dent unemployment, despite slowing labor force growth.

“The 1982 recession was largely caused by the desire to break the back of inflation,” says economist Nigel Gault of IHS. “Once the [Federal Reserve] was comfortable it had broken inflation, it lowered interest rates, and economic growth took off.” Interest-sensitive sectors — autos and housing — propelled recovery. By contrast, today’s slump results from financial crisis, Gault says. The Fed has already cut interest rates, which will probably go up. As overborrowed households repay debt, their spending will be sluggish. The weak recovery then retards new jobs.

The implications of prolonged high unemployment — should it materialize — haven’t been fully explored. People without work don’t acquire on-the-job skills. Young college graduates are already having trouble getting work. High unemployment could depress wage gains for years. It could foster protectionism and long-term poverty. “In a tight economy like the late 1990s, firms are more willing to take chances on more disadvantaged workers,” says Harvard economist Larry Katz. EPI’s Lawrence Mishel thinks that the effects on low-income families would be devastating; the child poverty rate could jump from 18 percent in 2007 to 27 percent, he says.

Of course, today’s bleak economic forecasts could be wrong — just as upbeat forecasts before the financial crisis were wrong. Some economists are warming to greater optimism. “Global manufacturers cut output too deeply,” says David Hensley of JPMorgan Chase. “People thought we might be headed into another Depression.” Here and abroad, he says, companies are reversing previous cutbacks. “Businesses overshot. They’ll snap back [in hiring]; that will fuel consumer spending.” One good omen: In August, an index of online job vacancies rose 5 percent, reports the Conference Board.

Job creation has been a historic strength of the American economy. Its capacity to remain so will increasingly frame the economic debate: between those who want more government and those who want less; between those who fear budget deficits and those who favor more economic “stimulus”; between those who see meager wage gains as impeding recovery and those who see them as encouraging hiring. On Labor Day 2009, future jobs are the nation’s gigantic question mark.

by Shakti Gawain

Often, we are so stuck in our old beliefs and patterns that we aren’t able to see the changes we need to make. Even when we feel frustrated about our problems, we may not recognize what we need to learn to change things. That is why we need to use the mirror of life.

Everything in our lives reflects where we are in the process of developing integration and balance. We can use everything that happens externally as a mirror to help us see the areas within us that need healing and development. Whenever we have a problem, especially a recurring or chronic problem, it is always an arrow pointing directly to some aspect of our psyche where we need more awareness.

If we accept that life is always trying to teach us exactly what we need to learn, we can view everything that happens to us as a gift. Even experiences that are uncomfortable or painful contain within them an important key to our healing, wholeness, and prosperity.

We may have difficulty understanding what the mirror of life is trying to show us, but if we sincerely ask for the learning and the gift in every experience, it will be revealed to us one way or another.

One of the clearest reflections we have to work with is the one provided by our relationships. Everyone we attract into our life is a mirror for us in certain ways. All of our relationships — our families, children, friends, co-workers, neighbors, pets, as well as our romantic partners — reflect certain parts of us. How we feel with someone is usually an indication of how we feel about the parts of us that they mirror.

We all attract certain people into our life who have developed qualities opposite to the ones we are most identified with. In other words, they mirror our disowned selves, and we mirror theirs. These are often the most highly emotionally charged relationships. We either love them, hate them, or both! We feel very attracted to them, and/or very uncomfortable, judgmental, annoyed, or frustrated with them. The stronger the feelings, the more important a mirror they are for us. We have drawn them into our reality to show us something about what we need to develop in ourselves. The fact that we have such strong feelings (one way or another) toward them means that they are showing us a part of ourselves we need to acknowledge, accept, and integrate.

This does not mean we have to be with them or hold onto a harmful or inappropriate relationship. It just means that as long as they are in our lives, or even in our thoughts and feelings, we can use the relationship as a learning experience. It also does not mean we are supposed to become like them. They may carry an energy we need more of, but they may be too far to the opposite extreme, or they may express that energy in a distorted way.

Still, we can look for the positive essence in the opposite qualities they carry. For example, if you have been taught never to express any anger, you will probably at some point find yourself in relationship with a person who expresses their anger frequently and vehemently. Life is giving you a strong message that it’s time for you to learn to acknowledge your own anger. It is not saying you have to become like this person and go around dumping your anger everywhere. Instead, you need to find the appropriate balance, learning how to assert yourself and stand up for yourself.

If you have strongly developed being energy but have difficulty taking action, you may find that someone important in your life is a compulsive doer who can’t relax. Naturally, you don’t want to go to that extreme, but this person is your teacher, to show you the energy of action that you need to develop. Of course, you are a teacher for them, as well, but it usually doesn’t work very well to try to show the other person what they need to learn from you — although we all succumb to this temptation. It works much better to concentrate on what we need to learn in the situation. Once we use the mirror to understand what we need, and actually do the work to develop a disowned self, the whole pattern of the relationship will shift.

If we are strongly identified with power, we will attract vulnerable, needy people. This mirror is reflecting our need to recognize and accept our own vulnerability. If and when we do that, the needy people in our lives will either become more empowered, or will move out of our lives. If we are overly vulnerable and disown power, we will find ourselves in a relationship with someone who uses power one way or another. We will feel overwhelmed, controlled, or victimized by them until we own our power, at which point the relationship will either dissolve or become more equal.

As I mentioned in the last chapter, we often seem to gravitate toward a romantic or business partner who has an opposite approach to financial management. If the difference is not too extreme, this can be a complementary and harmonious balance in which we appreciate and learn from each other’s strengths. If we are highly polarized, however, it can be painful and frustrating, leading to a great deal of conflict and stress.

Still, it is a gift — an opportunity to recognize how identified we are with one polarity and a chance to develop the opposite energy we need. Like any relationship issue, it requires that we communicate with one another, and be willing to listen and empathize with each other’s feelings and perspective. If we feel stuck in our ability to communicate, it may be an appropriate time to call in a skilled third party — a therapist, marriage counselor, or mediator — to help us through. Personally, I find that most of us need help at certain times to get through the deep issues that are reflected in our intimate relationships.

The topic of relationships is a complex and fascinating subject, which I can only begin to touch on. Still, if you grasp the basic idea of how our relationships show us the next steps we need to take in our personal growth, you can begin to use your relationships as powerful guides on your path to true prosperity.

Hey people its been a lot, going same hardrock and jazz. Wanna have a TRANCEfusion for a sudden soothing change . Have a Trance brunch for a new High.

Have trouble waking up in the morning? You won’t anymore with this ear-splitting alarm clock hack. It can wake up the dead! http://www.kipkay.com