Sex In Space?

Sex in Space
November 11th, 2006


As some avid campaigners say, ‘life begins at conception’. And except for a few farm yard animals, this means sex. The book ‘Sex in Space’, by Laura Woodmansee, moves this sensitive topic into a place without appreciable gravity and provides some weighty thoughts. For, of course, it was sex that brought us into this world and it may be a significant reason for our departure.

Sex in Space by Laura S. Woodmansee


Many young adults take frivolous ‘tests’ that assign numerical ranks for variations in sexual encounters. Books have been written that describe, in great detail, hundreds of coupling positions. The fact that well over six billion people now cover our Earth’s globe gives testament to the success of our method of procreation. Yet, for all we know, all of humanity’s sexual encounters have occurred on Earth. This isn’t necessarily a perpetual restriction.Woodmansee acknowledges early in her book that talking about sex raises most people’s emotions. In anticipation, she prepares the reader by being as straightforward and factual as possible in the early going. Effectively this means telling about opportunity and desirability that has or might have already occurred. With hundreds of people having been in space, many for long durations, this makes for interesting reading and speculation.

But this book isn’t all tabloid, though there is some resemblance in the early going. The next section in the book considers the physicist’s approach to sex. This is the ol’ action-reaction issue. This section is likely the cause of the note on the book’s cover which reads “Warning: Contains explicit content that may be unsuitable for young readers”. Suffice it to say that pictures of Barbarella and Buck dolls, together with some interesting rubber constraints, add some novel images. With this, the book concludes the more sensational side of its contents.

After these sections, the book pursues more ‘hard science’ issues with respect to sex. It touches on radiation effects for the mature adult and new conceptions. Also inside is the psychological issues about single-sexed or mixed crews on multi-year missions, such as to Mars. Most of these topics aren’t new, however, Woodmansee tackles them mainly from the viewpoint of sex, which is original. Her writing style with this information is similar to a dry technical paper where particular topics are enlarged upon.

The book’s final sections associate sex with the potential space tourism industry. There’s design thoughts for space bedrooms and space hotels. These point at an underlying perception that sex in space is somehow different. Yet, perhaps unknowingly, Woodmansee shows that sex is as natural as humans and the location doesn’t change the action, much. Further, people have a strong sexual drive that shouldn’t and really can’t be ignored. Rather, sex, such as with space tourism, may actually be a benefit to the space industry.

With the book considering both the ‘giggle factor’ and some hard science, these two usually disparate considerations get joined. It acknowledges the sensuous nature of humans, together with the harshness and unnatural attributes of the space environment. By bringing these together into one book, Woodmansee may be able to bridge gaps amongst people of various backgrounds, whether softening some of the hard science types or bestowing information to the more sensual. Other than this, little is new in this book. The technical stances are well known and the coupling descriptions would likely to come to anyone with a bit of imagination. Yet, putting a copy of this book on the edge of the office desk could spark some lively and worthwhile conversation to help continue our species into space.

Where would we be without sex? Evolution would decidedly have come to an end for us. Yet we are amazing creatures, as Laura Woodmansee shows in her book “Sex in Space”. Whether travelling on a multi-year mission to Mars or a quick jaunt into low-earth orbit, she shows sex is a consideration for the future.

__________________________________

Well, well, well, some good news for a change. You know, maybe sex is even good for ending wars and nasty divorces..Just Kidding...

Screenstar Jack Palance Has Died

Associated Press
Actor Jack Palance Dies in California

Jack Palance, the craggy-faced menace in "Shane," "Sudden Fear" and other films who turned to comedy at 70 with his Oscar-winning self-parody in "City Slickers," died Friday.

Palance died of natural causes at his home in Montecito, Calif., surrounded by family, said spokesman Dick Guttman. He was 85, according to Associated Press records, but his family gave his age as 87.

When Palance accepted his Oscar for best supporting actor he delighted viewers of the 1992 Academy Awards by dropping to the stage and performing one-armed push-ups to demonstrate his physical prowess.

"That's nothing, really," he said slyly. "As far as two-handed push-ups, you can do that all night, and it doesn't make a difference whether she's there or not."

That year's Oscar host, Billy Crystal, turned the moment into a running joke, making increasingly outlandish remarks about Palance's accomplishments throughout the show.

It was a magic moment that epitomized the actor's 40 years in films. Always the iconoclast, Palance had scorned most of his movie roles.

"Most of the stuff I do is garbage," he once told a reporter, adding that most of the directors he worked with were incompetent, too.

"Most of them shouldn't even be directing traffic," he said.

Movie audiences, though, were electrified by the actor's chiseled face, hulking presence and the calm, low voice that made his screen presence all the more intimidating.

His film debut came in 1950, playing a murderer named Blackie in "Panic in the Streets."

After a war picture, "Halls of Montezuma," he portrayed the ardent lover who stalks the terrified Joan Crawford in 1952's "Sudden Fear." The role earned him his first Academy Award nomination for supporting actor.

The following year brought his second nomination when he portrayed Jack Wilson, the swaggering gunslinger who bullies peace-loving Alan Ladd into a barroom duel in the Western classic "Shane."

That role cemented Palance's reputation as Hollywood's favorite menace, and he went on to appear in such films as "Arrowhead" (as a renegade Apache (nyse: APA - news - people )), "Man in the Attic" (as Jack the Ripper), "Sign of the Pagan" (as Attila the Hun) and "The Silver Chalice" (as a fictional challenger to Jesus).

Other prominent films included "Kiss of Fire," "The Big Knife," "I Died a Thousand Deaths," "Attack!" "The Lonely Man" and "House of Numbers."

______________________________________

Goodbye, Mr. Palance. Rest assured you and your work will be remembered for generations to come. Jack was perhaps the most famous major character actor and leading man ever to grace the filmlot. I don't beleieve I have ever heard any other actor or director say a bad word about Jack palance.Goodnight sweet prince. Your rest is earned. My best wishes to your family.

Will Michael Jackson's Return Be A "Freakshow"?

Will Michael Jackson's comeback performance become a “freak show”?


That's what some worried when the singer announced that he will perform next week at the World Music Awards in London next week.

Jacko has told organizers he is planning to do a live recreation of the graveyard scene from his “Thriller” video to close out the show — his first performance since his messy child abuse case last year.


He was acquitted of those charges, but the trial had dire consequences for his career. He has appeared publicly only one time since the trial, at the MTV Video Music Awards in Tokyo, but has spent most of his time in seclusion in Bahrain and, more recently, in Ireland, where he’s said to be working on his comeback CD.

“He looks dreadful and hasn’t performed for years — I fear it’s going to be a humiliating freak show which he will regret,” a commentator wrote in the London Sun.

Jackson is scheduled to start rehearsals early next week, but some music industry insiders are betting that rehearsals won't go well and Jackson will come down with a case of that old standby — “dehydration."
____________________________

Know I have to say about this tidbit? Who will care? Michael Jackson's career has been destroyed. Even if he wasn't guilty of any of the charges the authorities brought against him (and, in his defense,I really think he might be)he will never be cleared by public opinion. You know, the backyard fence mentality thing. There will always be at least doubt. Too bad, because Jacko was a major talent. I wish him luck on the comeback trail.

Daniel Baldwin Arrested

One of the Baldwin Brothers Charged With Stealing Car





It seems one of the Baldwin brothers has had a lot of bad luck when it comes to cops and alleged drug use.

No, not Stephen Baldwin, that world-saving Jesus freak.

No, not Alec Baldwin, that talented, but incorrigible, pompous ass and occasional Saddam Hussein-esque tyrant.

No, not William Baldwin, the lesser-known but moderately successful actor who pretended to have sex on film with Cindy Crawford and Sharon Stone.

We’re talking about Daniel Baldwin. Yes, apparently there is a Daniel Baldwin. You learn something every day in this line of work.

Law enforcement sources arrested Daniel Tuesday in Santa Monica, Calif., after he allegedly stole a car. The owner of the vehicle called OnStar, reporting it car stolen, and a rep from OnStar in turn called the Santa Monica P.D. to report the theft.

Cops found the car at a local motel and saw Baldwin getting inside the vehicle.

A disheveled Baldwin was taken into custody for grand theft auto. Officers conducted a search of the motel room where Baldwin was staying and found narcotics and paraphernalia. He was booked on charges of possessing illegal drugs before being sprung on $20,000 bail. Pete Doherty smiled from afar.

Man, looks like Tom Cruise isn’t the only guy Stephen Baldwin needs to save. This is the second time Baldwin has been busted in Santa Monica for drugs. Last April, he was arrested at another Santa Monica hotel after a woman called the cops claiming she had been threatened there. Cops claim when they arrived, they found cocaine on Baldwin.

___________________

What could I possibly say? It just looks like we now have twoBaldwin brothers with substance abuse problems. You heard it right here, first.

Britney and K-Fed Getting A Divorce

TMZ obtained the legal papers, filed today in Los Angeles County Superior Court, citing "irreconcilable differences." In her petition, Spears asks for both legal and physical custody of the couple's two children, one-year old Sean Preston and two-month old Jayden James, with Federline getting reasonable visitation rights.

As for money, sources tell TMZ the couple, who married in Oct. 2004, has an iron-clad prenup. Not surprisingly, Spears is waiving her right to spousal support. She's also asking the judge to make each party pay their own attorney's fees.





Spears gives the date of separation as yesterday, the same day she flaunted her incredible revamped physique during a surprise appearance on David Letterman's show. Sources tell TMZ there was no single reason for Britney pulling the plug, rather, it was "a string of events."

Spears has hired powerhouse celebrity divorce lawyer Laura Wasser, who has repped a number of celebs, including Angelina Jolie, Nick Lachey and Kiefer Sutherland. We're told Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe asked Wasser to rep both of them in their split, but Wasser declined for personal reasons.





Significantly, Britney lists the date of her marriage as October 6, 2004. There was an uproar around the time of the wedding because the highly publicized "secret" ceremony was held on Sept. 18th, leading many to question the validity of the ceremony. Now the divorce documents indicate that the lavish ceremony was not the official wedding.

_______________________________

Well, well, well. I noticed in this article that the reporter stated that Britney and Kevin had ,indeed, signed a prenuptial agreement. Wait a second, I distinctly remember Miz Spears stating to the press and media that she refused to sign a prenupt because it would jinx her marriage!

I'll wait and see on this report. Really, it wouldn't matter to me about a minor talent singer and wannabe rapper/dancer getting a divorce, but it appears so many Hollywood couples are parting company lately. Remember Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey? How about Liza and David? Or Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe Or Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston

Oh well, it must be so tough being that rich and famous. Get your divorce and move on, just please spare the public your drama and dirty laundry. We really don't care if you have "irreconcilable differences".

I Told You So!

Resurgent Democrats Win Control of House



WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats won control of the House early Wednesday after a dozen years of Republican rule in a resounding repudiation of a war, a president and a scandal-scarred Congress.

"From sea to shining sea, the American people voted for change," declared Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the hard-charging California Democrat in line to become the nation's first female House speaker.

"Today we have made history," she said, "now let us make progress."

The White House made plans for President Bush to call Pelosi first thing in the morning; he will enter his final two years in office with at least half of Congress in the opposition party's hands.

"It's been kind of tough out there," conceded House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who won a 11th term.

By early Wednesday, Democrats had won 221 seats, enough to control the House, and were leading for another 13, which would give them 234. Republicans, who hold 229 seats in the current House, won 181 and were leading in another 20, which would give them 201.

Democrats had won 25 Republican-controlled seats, and no Democratic incumbent had lost by early Wednesday. Races were too close to call in more than a dozen seats, making it impossible to know how large the Democratic margin would be.

Still, it already was an eerie reversal of 1994, when the GOP gained 54 seats in a wave that toppled Democrats after four decades. No Republican incumbent lost that year.

This time, Republicans fell from power in nearly every region of the country - conservative, liberal and moderate - as well as in every type of district - urban, rural and suburban. Middle class voters who fled to the GOP a dozen years ago appeared to return to the Democrats, according to exit polls.

Casualties of a Democratic call for change, three GOP congressmen lost in Indiana, three more in Pennsylvania, two in New Hampshire, one in North Carolina and one in Kansas. Democrats won open seats in New York, Arizona, Iowa and elsewhere.

Scandals that have dogged Republicans appeared to hurt GOP incumbents even more than Bush's unpopularity and the nearly four-year-old war in Iraq.

Republicans surrendered the Texas seat of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who resigned from the House after being charged in a campaign finance scheme, the Ohio seat once held by Bob Ney, who resigned after pleading guilty in a lobbying scandal, and the Florida district of Mark Foley, who stepped down after the disclosure that he sent sexually explicit messages to male congressional pages.

In Pennsylvania, Democrats defeated Curt Weldon in the fallout from a federal corruption investigation and Don Sherwood who admitted to a long-term affair with a much younger woman who says he choked her.

Midway through the evening, Pelosi, a grandmother five times over, briefly addressed a crowd of party faithful at an election-night fete at a Washington hotel.

"I thank all of you for taking us to where we are tonight," said Pelosi, who won an 11th term. As she left the stage, half the crowd started chanting "Madam Speaker" and the other shouting "Nancy, Nancy."

Ethics woes, the war and overall anger toward Bush appeared to drive voters to the Democrats, according to surveys by The Associated Press and the television networks of voters as they left voting places. Several traditionally hard-fought demographic groups were choosing Democrats, including independents, moderates, and suburban women.

Those exit polls also showed that three in four voters said corruption was very important to their vote, and they tended to vote Democratic. In a sign of a dispirited GOP base, most white evangelicals said corruption was very important to their vote - and almost a third of them turned to the Democrats.

Two out of three voters called the war very important to them and said they leaned toward the Democrats, while six in ten voters said they disapproved of the war. About the same number said they were dissatisfied with the president - and they were far more likely to vote Democratic.

Additionally, eight in ten voters called the economy very important to their House vote, and those who said it was extremely important - about four in ten voters - turned to Democrats.

All 435 House seats were on the ballot, and most incumbents won easy re-election. The current lineup: 229 Republicans, 201 Democrats, one independent who lines up with the Democrats for organizational purposes, and four vacancies, three of them in seats formerly held by Republicans.

The fight for control came down to 50 or so seats, nearly half of them in a string stretching from Connecticut through New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky. All were in Republican hands, a blend of seats coming open and incumbents in trouble.

For months, national surveys have showed Democrats favored over Republicans by margins unseen since 1990 as voters have grown restless with the Bush administration and seemingly more ready for an end to one-party rule on Capitol Hill.

American casualties and costs have climbed in Iraq, and public support for the war has fallen, as have approval ratings for Congress along with the president.

In addition, DeLay, R-Texas, was charged with participating in a campaign finance scheme and resigned from the House. Ney, R-Ohio, resigned, too, after pleading guilty in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling investigation. A month before the election, Foley, R-Fla., stepped down when it was disclosed that he had sent sexually explicit electronic communications to former congressional pages.

Through it all, Democrats cast the race as a national referendum on Bush and Iraq, accusing Republicans of walking in lockstep with the president and rubber stamping his policies.

Republicans insisted the elections came down to choices between individual candidates from coast to coast - and that Democrats were liberals who would raise taxes, flee from Iraq and be soft on terrorists.

Initially, Democrats targeted GOP-held seats left open by retiring Republicans as well as districts where Bush won by close margins in 2004 - many in the Northeast and Midwest. In recent weeks, Democrats have been able to expand the battlefield, making plays for seats long in Republican hands, such as in Wyoming and Idaho.

The GOP, defending its majority, made serious bids for only a handful of Democratic-held seats, including two districts in Georgia that the Republican legislature redrew to make more hospitable to the GOP. The only two endangered Democrats appeared to be in those Georgia districts, where the vote totals were so close that the races appeared to be headed to recounts.

As the 2006 midterm election cycle began, Republicans were optimistic that they would be able to extend their reign because they had limited the number of GOP retirements, leaving fewer open seats that would be targets for Democrats.

Then violence increased in Iraq and scandals erupted in the House - knocking the GOP off course.



Copyright 2006 Associated Press.

___________________

Well, I hate to say I told you so, but my prophesy came true. It's time for a big change. One that the GOP cannot or will not give the American people. Hence, they lost their butts. Remember you heard it here on this blog.

Election Day Prophecy

The backwoods folk are beginning to doubt Bush

The American humourist Will Rogers once described his political position thus: “I belong to no organised party. I am a Democrat.” It captured the undisciplined, chaotic, often hilarious internecine battles that have plagued the party.

The astonishing aspect of the current intense election campaign in the United States is that this time the roles are reversed. On the eve of an election it is the usually disciplined, on-message, obedient Republican party that is at war with itself. The polls don’t help. They suggest an imminent drubbing, and the newspapers and blogosphere have been full of what are termed “pre-mortems” or “precriminations”.

***

The intellectual titan of American conservatism, William F Buckley, has called the Iraq war a failure, and attributed it to the lack of a coherent conservative governing philosophy in the Bush White House.

***

Most critically, it is the rural heartland that is beginning to question Bush and the war:

* First, they trusted him as a man of God. Then they blamed the media for distorting reality in Iraq.

* Then their patriotism kicked in as the president urged them to “stay the course”.

* But now this segment of the population, people who have disproportionately sent their sons and daughters to fight in the bloodsoaked
streets of Ramadi and Falluja and Baghdad, show signs of revolt. If Bush loses these voters — or if they are too demoralised to vote at all — the omens are truly dark for the Republicans.

The party’s strategy, after all, has long been not to persuade moderate, suburban America, but to register, organise and mobilise millions of rural evangelical voters who had not voted in large numbers since the 1920s. Issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage brought these voters to the polls and made the difference. Without them in Ohio in 2004, John Kerry would now be president. The Republicans also gerrymandered their constituencies to ensure these voters were spread around enough to provide narrow margins of victories across the country. The victories were always close ones, nonetheless.

Until recently the rural evangelicals have stuck with the president, in part to honour the fallen, and out of admirable patriotism and trust.

It is hard to believe that your son or daughter died or is permanently crippled for a bungled cause. But if the facade cracks, if these rural voters begin to believe they have been misled, then the rock-solid patriotic support could become something else. It would not, in my judgment, fade into indifference. It could turn into rage.

That hasn’t happened yet. But you can feel it beginning. When you add to it the libertarian Republicans, alienated by the religious right, the worries for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney mount. Then there are the fiscal conservatives appalled by the massive spending and borrowing, and the social conservatives who suspect the Republican leadership of covering up pederasty in its own ranks in the Mark

Foley affair, and the neoconservatives who believe that their war was never given enough troops or resources to succeed. Put it all together and you have a party that is beginning to resemble a circular firing squad nine days before critical mid-terms.

***

There is, of course, a great justice in this. In many ways the Bush administration and Republican Congress have abandoned principled conservatism and deserve to be punished by conservatives more than liberals. When they took over in 2000, the long-term fiscal liability of the federal government was $20 trillion. It now stands at $43 trillion. They have increased government spending at a faster rate than any Democratic Congress since the 1930s. They have generated deficits after four years of strong growth. This kind of spending has made sleaze and de facto bribery inevitable.

The number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled in five years. As for pork barrel spending, a simple comparison tells the tale. In 1985, Ronald Reagan vetoed a motorway-construction bill because lawmakers had stuffed into it 150 pet projects for their constituencies.

Reagan thought that was unconservative. Last year George W Bush eagerly signed a similar bill with 6,000 such projects. In plain English, they are bribing the voters with the public purse.

***

It is premature to predict a huge change in the Congress on November 7. Republican discipline could still hold on by a squeak. But a big Democratic victory could happen. And if it does, it will be Republican and conservative voters who deliver it.

The Times Online Article In Full

What else is there left to say? Get out there and vote. Make a difference. America needs your vote. Put these characters out on their ear. They are not Christians, and they don't care about you or your loved ones. They only used you to get your vote. It's time to take control of our destiny away from these madmen. However you feel, get out and vote!

Science Versus God...Is This The Beginning of the Godless End Time?

God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?
POSTED: 10:01 a.m. EST, November 5, 2006


(Time.com) -- It's a debate that long predates Darwin, but the anti-religion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience.

Brain imaging illustrates -- in color -- the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus.

Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview and a touchstone.

It is not an epithet that fits everyone wielding a test tube. But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on Bush administration science policy, to the fanatic faith of the 9/11 terrorists, to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick an ancient scab -- the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at utter odds.

Finding a spokesman for this side of the question was not hard, since Richard Dawkins, perhaps its foremost polemicist, has just come out with "The God Delusion" (Houghton Mifflin), the rare volume whose position is so clear it forgoes a subtitle.

The five-week New York Times best seller (now at No. 8) attacks faith philosophically and historically as well as scientifically, but leans heavily on Darwinian theory, which was Dawkins' expertise as a young scientist and more recently as an explicator of evolutionary psychology.

Dawkins and his peers have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far.

Most Americans occupy the middle ground: We want it all. We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath. We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless.

Informed conciliators have recently become more vocal, and foremost among them is Francis Collins. Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'.

Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then-President Bill Clinton honored in a 2000 White House ceremony, comparing the genome chart to Meriwether Lewis' map of his fateful continental exploration. Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs.

He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches.

His summer best seller, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" (Free Press), laid out some of the arguments he brought to bear in the 90-minute debate Time arranged between Dawkins and Collins in our offices at the Time & Life Building on September 30.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Science says there is no God. Just what proofs are they offering? None, None, and None.
Don't get me wrong, I think science is a wonderful thing, but, like a Hollywood actor doing ads for politicians...it just doesn't cut the mustard. They do not belong in the field of faith.
I happen to know a scientist who is well known in government circles. he's the son of a fellow parishoner. He says that "off the record" all the research he has done has simply made him believe that all of creation is guided by a higher authority with a higher level of intelligence. He also says that it is arrogance on man's part for any scientist to deny this basic fact, when if he would simply look at the overall plan of the physical world, it becomes apparent that there is, indeed, a God.
Personally, I love and know God very well. He is always there when I need a shoulder or a helping hand. I may not always get what I want, but He's always there. God is my science and my faith. I feel that science gives us proofs of how God works, but cannot disprove something it is apparently blind to. Have a great week, and God bless!

RNC Chief Ken Mehlman accepted political contributions from gay porn king?

October 28, 2006 -- 11:41 PM EDT


Last week, you'll remember, the RNC, headed by Ken Mehlman, was running that race-baiting 'bimbo' ad against Rep. Harold Ford (D) down in Tennessee. One of the barbs in that ad was the claim that Ford had taken political contributions from "porn movie producers."

But it seems there is plenty of porn movie producer money to go around.

It turns out that the Republican National Committee is a regular recipient of political contributions from Nicholas T. Boyias, the owner and CEO of Marina Pacific Distributors, one of the largest producers and distributors of gay porn in the United States. This recent article on Marina Pacific's new marketing campaign form XBiz, a porn industry trade sheet, notes that, in addition to producing its own material, the "company acts as a distribution house to hundreds of lines, mostly gay, 40 of which can be purchased only through MPD."

The company actually seems to be a trendsetter in the industry. As Boyias recently noted, "We have always modeled ourselves after a Fortune-style company. They are the models of exceptional customer service. We have formed strategic alliances with our vendors and customers alike, offering them tools and marketing to assist them in succeeding with their business models. Our one-on-one interpersonal relationships have never been duplicated in the distribution industry."

Some recent releases include "Fire in the Hole", "Flesh and Boners", even a "Velvet Mafia" series.

FEC.gov lists Boyias as contributing to the RNC three times in 2004 and two times in 2005. The NRCC got a little too. But only $250.

The FEC records list Boyias as either "self employed" or as owner and CEO of NTB Inc. But the California Secretary of State's website lists Boyias' NTB, Inc as located at 7077 Vineland Ave, which turns out to be the same address where Marina Pacific is located. So I'm pretty sure we're dealing with the same guy.

So, Ken Mehlman, for porn producer money before he was against it, I guess.

Let me say, for the record, that I consider pornography not only a legal but a morally unobjectionable product. People in that industry have as much right to participate in the political process as anyone else. And it's difficult for the head of a political committee or a candidate in a political campaign to know the background of every contributor. But hypocrisy blows. And on this issue, as on others, Ken Mehlman's a hypocrite. A real Republican example of how the entire GOP party blows chunks. It's another example of just why America needs Democrats in the Senate and The House of Representatives to blow these crooks, hypocrites, and pedophiles out on their ear.

And brother is this a big one...

Super-Massive Black Hole Discovered



The Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the National Radio Astronomical Observatory teamed up to produce this composite image of galaxy cluster MS0735.6+7421, located about 2.5 billion light-years from Earth. The cluster contains dozens of galaxies held together by gravity. A truly supermassive black hole lurks at the heart of this cluster, containing more than a billion solar masses. The red areas are twin jets of material streaming away from the black hole.





Galaxy cluster MS0735.6+7421. Image credit: NASA, ESA, CXC, STScI, and B. McNamara
Click to enlarge
November 2nd, 2006



Wow, well I thought we could all use a little scientific information to round out our knowledge. It is just beyond me to understand how the Hubble telescope can find all these things. Can you just imagine how BIG this thing is? Think about how small we are in comparison.