archenemy

Blurpy *is* a fancy-sounding title.

How izzit that you're aware of Malibu court operations? archenemy is omniscient I think her company does online perv-ware.....perhaps expert witness cancellation? You are close. We support the legal industry.

It looks like the group that sings "YMCA" but more homogenous.

If so, you'd probably hear the same thing, "Get your hands off me"

I am sick of the comparisons between the fire and Katrina. The magnitude of Katrina was so much bigger that it is on a whole different scale. How can FEMA, the President, et al be so proud of themselves for their quick response to this fire when so many places still sit fallow and people are still without homes in the wake of Katrina? Shamefull.

At least it keeps the "where to go for Xmas" questions to a minimum.

Actually, pole/pier foundations are often less expensive than conventional continuous-footing/stem-wall foundations. My home is built on pier foundations even though I am above the 100 year flood plain. Good thing though, the place would probably rot or spall away with all the friggen rain up there.

On first read, I totally agreed with the full text of your post. Re-reading it, I'm not sure about the sentence quoted above. In male-dominated cultures, perhaps the men are satisfied, and 50% is not bad. This has probably changed as women play a greater role, but I bet in parts of Asia a while back the men WERE happy, because women accepted that their role was what it was. I was in Japan a couple years ago. The best meal I have ever had was served by a 55-year old woman at her home (we visited her and her husband for an evening). I said, "You are a wonderful hostess. Do you enjoy cooking and entertaining?" Her response: "No. It's my duty." But she never complained about it. I guess my point is that is possible that there are cultures where 50% of the people are happy (even if it's one gender) at the expense of the other 50%. I'm not sure that 50% of the people in the US are happy. That said, I am happy in my monogamous relationship. But, I think I was happy in college when partners were more varied. I would not want to be single now (in my mid-30s). Anyways, it's a complex subject. The other problem with the quoted statement is that this is drawn from mostly one-man multi-women relationship histories. We have very few examples and very little experience where women get to have the multiple partners (with impunity).

Statistics show that polyamory is practised in our culture at a pretty high rate as well.

holding...

All courts in Malibu are closed for the rest of the week. I assume lots of stuff is going to be slowed down or burned up.

That depends on the overlap, doesn't it?

Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy) I think to put the expectation of fidelity/monogamy on a relationship is great in theory, but it doesn't reflect the reality.

especially the copsical on the right.

Cool thing about contracts is that sometimes they can be re-negotiated. Sometimes not.

it was the dog that really made it a winner.

Hey, wasn't Reagan an actor?

I am not complaining about people being compensated after they were screwed by insurance companies. I am bitching about people WHO DONT GET INSURANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE and then expect the gov't to carry them. That's it.

I'm more of a multi-tasker. But hey, whatever works.

I been called worse.

More like why buy the pig when I can get the sausage for free.

I don't think having a single partner is natural.

Oh, is this obvious to you? Why don't you read my Index flood TR. I not only got introduced into the insurance world, but also the world of FEMA and tax aftermaths of disasters. I am quite familiar with the system, thanks.

Three million bucks for other people's chimneys.

I check all my insurance--it is my second largest expense behind mortgages. I was pissed when people who did not get earthquake insurance here in Seattle got money from the gov't when their chimneys fell off their homes during the last quake. That's fucked. You want someone else to pay to fix your house? Buy insurance. Don't charge the taxpayers--we are not responsible for your home's upkeep. Earthquake insurance is expensive and has huge deductibles. I don't think anyone got paid for chimmney damage - data? Rather than sinking money into a policy that will not pay to replance your house, and that you will likely never use - best bet is to just retro-fit your house. I consider that the best investment. Mixed emotions about the fire thing - normal homeowners insurance can cover that, for relatively low costs. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=7059 Olympia, WA -- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials report today that 50 percent of the homes inspected by FEMA so far sustained chimney damage in the Nisqually Earthquake. Most of the chimney damage found is in King, Pierce and Thurston counties. To date, of the $5.1 million provided by FEMA through its temporary disaster housing program, $3 million has been distributed to homeowners for chimney repairs. "FEMA is providing funds for essential repairs for one damaged chimney per residence," said Bill Lokey, federal coordinating officer for the earthquake recovery operations. "Funds may be made available from FEMA for work on additional chimneys that pose a safety hazard." http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/stellent/groups/pan/@pan/@emergprep/documents/web_informational/dpds_005987.pdf http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/3/1143 http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:8zK2-lyLUr0J:crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/24-08/24-08-4.pdf+seattle+nisqually+quake+damage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us