<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Gossip Rocks Forum</title>
		<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum</link>
		<description>Celebrity Gossip, Photos, and Plastic Surgery Forum</description>
		<language>en</language>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:51:46 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>vBulletin</generator>
		<ttl>60</ttl>
		
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Fatherhood Isn't in the Genes- Paying Support When the Kid Isn't Yours]]></title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/117774-fatherhood-isnt-genes-paying-support-when-kid-isnt-yours.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:37:27 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[*DNA tests are confirming men's suspicions of not being their kid's real dad -- but they're still made to pay up* 
 
 
A man is supposed to take care of his children. If he gets a woman pregnant, he's expected to step up and take responsibility. But what if that man discovers that the child he thought was his own -- the kid he read to, cuddled and tucked in at night -- is another man's? Then who is responsible for the kid -- the biological father or the nurturing adoptive dad? That is the quandary increasingly being raised by DNA tests. As Ruth Padawer writes in a fascinating cover story for the upcoming New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all), the rise of paternity tests -- bought on the cheap online or at local drug stores -- have revealed "just how murky society’s notions of fatherhood actually are." 
 
Mike L., the lead subject in Padawer's piece, found evidence of his wife's affair with a coworker and decided to have L., his 5-year-old daughter, take a DNA test. The results arrived in the mail: He was not the father. "I ran upstairs, locked myself in the bathroom and cried and dry-heaved for 45 minutes. I felt like my guts were being ripped out," he says. Mike separated from his wife, Stephanie, and began paying her child support because, he says, she claimed Rob, L.'s bio-dad, had refused. Things continued on this way for several years, until he got news that Stephanie would be marrying Rob, and that was too much to bear. He asked a Pennsylvania court to relieve him of parental responsibility, but a judge ruled that Mike was the legal father, not Rob.
 
Padawer explains, "Once a man has been deemed a father, either because of marriage or because he has acknowledged paternity (by agreeing to be on the birth certificate, say, or paying child support), most state courts say he cannot then abandon that child -- no matter what a DNA test subsequently reveals," she continues. "In Pennsylvania and many other states, the only way a non-biological father can rebut his legal status as father is if he can prove he was tricked into the role -- a showing of fraud -- and can demonstrate that upon learning the truth, he immediately stopped acting as the child’s father." In Mike's case, the judge ruled that he was the legal father because he stuck around even after the DNA test -- in other words, because of love, not fraud.
 
"I pay child support to a biologically intact family," Mike says. "How ridiculous is that?" Pretty ridiculous when you consider that Rob gets to live with L. and play the role of papa; and Mike only gets to see her on the weekend. As vexing as this case is, though, we hardly want courts to devalue the unbreakable bond that can develop even in relationships without genetic ties. At some point, DNA can become rather irrelevant. The truth is that Mike's utter adoration of L. jumps off the page; he is a doting, indulgent father. L., now 11 years old, still sees him as her daddy and he wants it to remain that way -- he just doesn't want to pay child support to the woman who cruelly cuckolded and defrauded him. As far as the law is concerned, though, he can't have it both ways. There are many different ideas for how to best address the issue -- from limiting paternity challenges to the first two years of the child's life to widespread DNA testing at birth (I picture Maury Povitch being wheeled from delivery room to delivery room: "You are not the father! You are the father!") -- but all are imperfect.
 
Paternal uncertainty is one of the many biological inequalities of reproduction (see also: pushing a human being out of your vagina) and, as evolutionary psychologists tell it (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/10/05/why_women_have_sex/), getting stuck raising some other schmo's kid is a hard-wired male nightmare. But if you had any doubt that we humans are more than our base evolutionary imperatives, this article should convince you: For all his rightful resentment, men like Mike show that family is thicker than blood.
 
 
 
 
Broadsheet - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/20/paternity/index.html)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><b>DNA tests are confirming men's suspicions of not being their kid's real dad -- but they're still made to pay up</b> <br />
 <br />
 <br />
A man is supposed to take care of his children. If he gets a woman pregnant, he's expected to step up and take responsibility. But what if that man discovers that the child he thought was his own -- the kid he read to, cuddled and tucked in at night -- is another man's? Then who is responsible for the kid -- the biological father or the nurturing adoptive dad? That is the quandary increasingly being raised by DNA tests. As Ruth Padawer writes in a fascinating cover story for the upcoming <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?_r=1&amp;pagewanted=all" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">New York Times Magazine</font></a>, the rise of paternity tests -- bought on the cheap online or at local drug stores -- have revealed &quot;just how murky society’s notions of fatherhood actually are.&quot; <br />
 <br />
Mike L., the lead subject in Padawer's piece, found evidence of his wife's affair with a coworker and decided to have L., his 5-year-old daughter, take a DNA test. The results arrived in the mail: He was not the father. &quot;I ran upstairs, locked myself in the bathroom and cried and dry-heaved for 45 minutes. I felt like my guts were being ripped out,&quot; he says. Mike separated from his wife, Stephanie, and began paying her child support because, he says, she claimed Rob, L.'s bio-dad, had refused. Things continued on this way for several years, until he got news that Stephanie would be marrying Rob, and that was too much to bear. He asked a Pennsylvania court to relieve him of parental responsibility, but a judge ruled that Mike was the legal father, not Rob.<br />
 <br />
Padawer explains, &quot;Once a man has been deemed a father, either because of marriage or because he has acknowledged paternity (by agreeing to be on the birth certificate, say, or paying child support), most state courts say he cannot then abandon that child -- no matter what a DNA test subsequently reveals,&quot; she continues. &quot;In Pennsylvania and many other states, the only way a non-biological father can rebut his legal status as father is if he can prove he was tricked into the role -- a showing of fraud -- and can demonstrate that upon learning the truth, he immediately stopped acting as the child’s father.&quot; In Mike's case, the judge ruled that he was the legal father because he stuck around even after the DNA test -- in other words, because of love, not fraud.<br />
 <br />
&quot;I pay child support to a biologically intact family,&quot; Mike says. &quot;How ridiculous is that?&quot; Pretty ridiculous when you consider that Rob gets to live with L. and play the role of papa; and Mike only gets to see her on the weekend. As vexing as this case is, though, we hardly want courts to devalue the unbreakable bond that can develop even in relationships without genetic ties. At some point, DNA can become rather irrelevant. The truth is that Mike's utter adoration of L. jumps off the page; he is a doting, indulgent father. L., now 11 years old, still sees him as her daddy and he wants it to remain that way -- he just doesn't want to pay child support to the woman who cruelly cuckolded and defrauded him. As far as the law is concerned, though, he can't have it both ways. There are many different ideas for how to best address the issue -- from limiting paternity challenges to the first two years of the child's life to widespread DNA testing at birth (I picture Maury Povitch being wheeled from delivery room to delivery room: &quot;You are <i>not</i> the father! You <i>are</i> the father!&quot;) -- but all are imperfect.<br />
 <br />
Paternal uncertainty is one of the many biological inequalities of reproduction (see also: pushing a human being <i>out of your vagina</i>) and, as evolutionary psychologists <a href="http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/10/05/why_women_have_sex/" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">tell it</font></a>, getting stuck raising some other schmo's kid is a hard-wired male nightmare. But if you had any doubt that we humans are more than our base evolutionary imperatives, this article should convince you: For all his rightful resentment, men like Mike show that family is thicker than blood.<br />
 <br />
 <br />
 <br />
 <br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/20/paternity/index.html" target="_blank">Broadsheet - Salon.com</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/">News</category>
			<dc:creator>witchcurlgirl</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/117774-fatherhood-isnt-genes-paying-support-when-kid-isnt-yours.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eye doc may lose license after calling patient fat</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/117773-eye-doc-may-lose-license-after-calling-patient-fat.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:19:37 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Eye doc may lose license after calling patient fat (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/20/national/a121710S39.DTL&tsp=1)
 

(11-20) 12:17 PST Raleigh, N.C. (AP) --
A North Carolina doctor could lose his medical license after a patient complained he made cutting criticisms, including telling her she was fat. The News & Observer of Raleigh reported the North Carolina Medical Board will decide if Dr. Earl Sunderhaus of Asheville overstepped the bounds of professional decency.
The eye doctor's patient complained Sunderhaus poked her thigh and told her she is fat, and also scolded her as irresponsible for being unemployed and relying on taxpayers to pay for another pregnancy.
Sunderhaus admitted he told the patient that her thick thighs and diabetes could cause her to go blind.
He made his points again by writing the patient, Gov. Beverly Perdue and blasting the medical board.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/20/national/a121710S39.DTL&amp;tsp=1" target="_blank">Eye doc may lose license after calling patient fat</a><br />
 <br />
<br />
(11-20) 12:17 PST Raleigh, N.C. (AP) --<br />
A North Carolina doctor could lose his medical license after a patient complained he made cutting criticisms, including telling her she was fat. The News &amp; Observer of Raleigh reported the North Carolina Medical Board will decide if Dr. Earl Sunderhaus of Asheville overstepped the bounds of professional decency.<br />
The eye doctor's patient complained Sunderhaus poked her thigh and told her she is fat, and also scolded her as irresponsible for being unemployed and relying on taxpayers to pay for another pregnancy.<br />
Sunderhaus admitted he told the patient that her thick thighs and diabetes could cause her to go blind.<br />
He made his points again by writing the patient, Gov. Beverly Perdue and blasting the medical board.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/">News</category>
			<dc:creator>celeb_2006</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/117773-eye-doc-may-lose-license-after-calling-patient-fat.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Pokerface, featuring Christopher Walken & Eric Cartmen]]></title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/laughs-oddities/117772-pokerface-featuring-christopher-walken-eric-cartmen.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:13:51 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>D4T_QtiepG8</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><table class="tborder" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" border="0" width="400" style="margin:10px 0">
<thead>
	<tr>
		<td class="tcat" colspan="2" style="text-align:center">
			<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4T_QtiepG8" title="View this video at YouTube in a new window or tab" target="_blank">YouTube Video</a>
		</td>
	</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
	<tr>
		<td class="panelsurround" align="center">
			<object width="425" height="340" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/D4T_QtiepG8">
				<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D4T_QtiepG8" />
				<param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
				<em><strong>ERROR:</strong> If you can see this, then <a href="http://www.youtube.com/">YouTube</a> is down or you don't have Flash installed.</em>
			</object>
		</td>
	</tr>
</tbody>
</table></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/laughs-oddities/">Laughs and Oddities</category>
			<dc:creator>NicoleWasHere</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/laughs-oddities/117772-pokerface-featuring-christopher-walken-eric-cartmen.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Heidi Klum "Excited" About Walking Runway Five Weeks After Baby!]]></title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/weight/117771-heidi-klum-excited-about-walking-runway-five-weeks-after-baby.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:02:15 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[(Let the fawning and butt kissing begin)
 
Heidi Klum "Excited" About Walking Runway Five Weeks After Baby! - omg! news on Yahoo! (http://omg.yahoo.com/news/heidi-klum-excited-about-walking-runway-five-weeks-after-baby/31556?nc)
 
Heidi Klum (http://omg.yahoo.com/celebs/heidi-klum/17), who was supposed to be acting as host of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, tells Usmagazine.com (http://www.usmagazine.com/) she was thrilled she actually got to walk down the runway Thursday night in New York City.
 
"I am excited," she told Us backstage shortly before walking out to cheers in a purple corset covered with a half gown with poufs of tulle. "I'm keeping it all together."
 
Just five weeks ago, Klum, 36, welcomed her fourth child, a girl named Lou, who is now in Los Angeles with the rest of her sibs (Klum's husband Seal (http://omg.yahoo.com/celebs/seal/155) is away in Australia performing).
"She's great," Klum told Us of her newborn. "I pre-pumped a lot of milk, left it in the freezer."
 
How has it been losing the baby weight?
"Every time it's the same," says Klum, who hopes to shed 20 more lbs. "You know, if you kind of gain 45 pounds, then it takes time to kind of go down again."
 
Former Project Runway champ Christian Siriano (http://omg.yahoo.com/celebs/christian-siriano/1066) tells Us he is impressed with Klum's post-baby bod.
"She looked amazing!" he tells Us at an after-party at the Penthouse at Hotel on Rivington.* "You're going to die. She looks -- oh my god! -- she looks so good!"*
 
The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show airs Dec. 1 at 10 p.m. on CBS.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>(Let the fawning and butt kissing begin)<br />
 <br />
<a href="http://omg.yahoo.com/news/heidi-klum-excited-about-walking-runway-five-weeks-after-baby/31556?nc" target="_blank">Heidi Klum &quot;Excited&quot; About Walking Runway Five Weeks After Baby! - omg! news on Yahoo!</a><br />
 <br />
<a href="http://omg.yahoo.com/celebs/heidi-klum/17" target="_blank"><font color="#ec147f">Heidi Klum</font></a>, who was supposed to be acting as host of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, tells <a href="http://www.usmagazine.com/" target="_blank"><font color="#ec147f">Usmagazine.com</font></a> she was thrilled she actually got to walk down the runway Thursday night in New York City.<br />
 <br />
&quot;I am excited,&quot; she told Us backstage shortly before walking out to cheers in a purple corset covered with a half gown with poufs of tulle. &quot;I'm keeping it all together.&quot;<br />
 <br />
Just five weeks ago, Klum, 36, welcomed her fourth child, a girl named Lou, who is now in Los Angeles with the rest of her sibs (Klum's husband <a href="http://omg.yahoo.com/celebs/seal/155" target="_blank"><font color="#ec147f">Seal</font></a> is away in Australia performing).<br />
&quot;She's great,&quot; Klum told Us of her newborn. &quot;I pre-pumped a lot of milk, left it in the freezer.&quot;<br />
 <br />
How has it been losing the baby weight?<br />
&quot;Every time it's the same,&quot; says Klum, who hopes to shed 20 more lbs. &quot;You know, if you kind of gain 45 pounds, then it takes time to kind of go down again.&quot;<br />
 <br />
Former Project Runway champ <a href="http://omg.yahoo.com/celebs/christian-siriano/1066" target="_blank"><font color="#ec147f">Christian Siriano</font></a> tells Us he is impressed with Klum's post-baby bod.<br />
&quot;She looked amazing!&quot; he tells Us at an after-party at the Penthouse at Hotel on Rivington.<b> &quot;You're going to die. She looks -- oh my god! -- she looks so good!&quot;</b><br />
 <br />
The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show airs Dec. 1 at 10 p.m. on CBS.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/weight/">Weight</category>
			<dc:creator>celeb_2006</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/weight/117771-heidi-klum-excited-about-walking-runway-five-weeks-after-baby.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Hadley CRU scammed global warming the entire time?</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/117770-hadley-cru-scammed-global-warming-entire-time.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:59:29 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[*Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails*
 
Friday, November 20, 2009 Image: http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif  
 
 
Image: http://www.foxnews.com/images/587359/2_62_tempest_NASA.jpg  (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#) 
 
 
*Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.*
The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/) (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.
Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#) the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."
In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition (http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/enter.html), Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.
"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#) the police about the data breach.
 
 
TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial *"hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999.* He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had *"no idea"* what he meant by those words.
"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.
The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/), which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#), though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.
Others suggest the comments are simply "scientists talking about science." In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists." 
 
Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:
*"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board&#8230;What do others think?"*
 
 
Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><b>Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails</b><br />
 <br />
Friday, November 20, 2009 <img src="http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /> <br />
 <br />
 <br />
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff"><img src="http://www.foxnews.com/images/587359/2_62_tempest_NASA.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /></font></a> <br />
 <br />
 <br />
<b>Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to &quot;hide the decline&quot; in data about temperatures.</b><br />
The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">Climate Research Unit</font></a> (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.<br />
Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a &quot;smoking gun,&quot; evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#" target="_blank">support</a> the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself &quot;FOIA.&quot;<br />
In an exclusive interview in <i>Investigate</i> magazine's <a href="http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/enter.html" target="_blank"><i><font color="#0000ff">TGIF Edition</font></i></a><i>,</i> Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.<br />
&quot;It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago,&quot; he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#" target="_blank">contact</a> the police about the data breach.<br />
 <br />
 <br />
<i>TGIF Edition</i> asked Jones about the controversial <b>&quot;hide the decline&quot; comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999.</b> He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had <b>&quot;no idea&quot;</b> what he meant by those words.<br />
&quot;That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?&quot; he said.<br />
<i>The Telegraph</i> has posted some of the more <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/" target="_blank"><font color="#810081">scathing excerpts from these emails</font></a>, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews#" target="_blank">global warming</a>, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.<br />
Others suggest the comments are simply &quot;scientists talking about science.&quot; In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that &quot;if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists.&quot; <br />
 <br />
Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:<br />
<b>&quot;I think we have to stop considering <i>Climate Research</i> as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board&#8230;What do others think?&quot;</b><br />
 <br />
 <br />
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html?test=latestnews" target="_blank">Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/">News</category>
			<dc:creator>xXull</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/117770-hadley-cru-scammed-global-warming-entire-time.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Does anyone do their own stock trading online?</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/life-living/117768-does-anyone-do-their-own-stock-trading-online.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:40:12 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[i'm planning on buying some stock in january but i don't know how to do it myself.  previously, i've invested in mutual funds (which my mom took care of) and through ESPPs at work (which HR took care of).
 
which service do you use and how much are the fees?  the only one i know of is e-trade but i'm not sure if they cater to people like me that would be making maybe 5 trades a year.
 
thanks for the help!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>i'm planning on buying some stock in january but i don't know how to do it myself.  previously, i've invested in mutual funds (which my mom took care of) and through ESPPs at work (which HR took care of).<br />
 <br />
which service do you use and how much are the fees?  the only one i know of is e-trade but i'm not sure if they cater to people like me that would be making maybe 5 trades a year.<br />
 <br />
thanks for the help!</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/life-living/">Life and Living</category>
			<dc:creator>fgg</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/life-living/117768-does-anyone-do-their-own-stock-trading-online.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Why the low pants Generation Y?</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/117767-why-low-pants-generation-y.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:36:48 GMT</pubDate>
			<description>Dear Miley, Avril, Abercrombie and/or Fitch, and the late Mr. Levi Strauss,
 
I call on you people because you are who dresses the Generation known as Y. I have a question for you and other clothes makers of today: Why do you make your clothes so our children’s butt crack sticks out even with the use of a belt? 
 
It’s hard to find a decent pair of jeans that will last for a junior-sized body. A tween and teenager of today is not going to shove their budding body into a pair of belly button-rise jeans that us mommies are more comfortable wearing. The youth of today prefer those tiny little hip-huggers that when I hold them up to me I wonder if I’d have to shave certain pieces and parts of me just to wear. All of the jeans built for a narrow-hipped junior these days are far too low. What’s so great about the butt crack that you people feel that kids these days should just let it all hang out? It’s a butt crack. It’s mere inches above their poopers. It is still a private part of their body. Couldn’t you add just a few inches to the butt part of the jeans so everything would be covered?
 
You know, back in my days of being a junior-sized person (and oh, those were the days) jean-makers would make the back of the jeans just slightly higher than the front so the jeans would still go below the naval. I have to admit that it is more comfortable to wear jeans that are lower in the front since it makes for better mobility. Having the knowledge that if I should happen to stoop over my butt will remain inside the jeans is a real plus in my book. Half the time, the jeans can be almost ugly but if my butt stays put, then I’m buying them. 
 
I’m tired of running around the house yelling, “Your ass sets are showing,” as a way to alert my girls that their bums are sticking out. I think my girls are adorable, but I really like to see them fully clothed. If my husband had his way the girls wouldn’t leave the house in anything less than a full turtleneck and ribcage high pants. I’m not about punishing the youth of the day, but am just trying to reach a compromise between the parents and Generation Y.
 
I know that times have greatly changed since I was a teenager but have they really changed this much that we’re making it okay for our girls to go around with their butts exposed. I remember my mother asking me if I was going to wear “that” out of the house. Usually “that” meant a baggy pair of jeans paired with an even baggier shirt. She used to tell me, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it.” Have the designers of those days finally taken my mother’s advice and ran with it? Things here are going a bit too far and way too low. Even a pair of pants that fit “properly” are showing too much rear cleavage. Are you making our kids the butt of some joke or something?
 
If you people are going to continue to make your jeans this way, could you at least reinforce the belt loops since this is how my girls pull their pants back up? Better yet, could you put a handle on the pants so the girls have something to hold on to while they walk around the mall and text their friends? I’m two steps away from sticking long-stemmed roses down the next butt crack I see.
 
 
 
Why Generation Y? - Jess D. Facts - Open Salon (http://open.salon.com/blog/jess_d_facts/2009/11/20/why_generation_y)</description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Dear Miley, Avril, Abercrombie and/or Fitch, and the late Mr. Levi Strauss,<br />
 <br />
I call on you people because you are who dresses the Generation known as Y. I have a question for you and other clothes makers of today: Why do you make your clothes so our children’s butt crack sticks out even with the use of a belt? <br />
 <br />
It’s hard to find a decent pair of jeans that will last for a junior-sized body. A tween and teenager of today is not going to shove their budding body into a pair of belly button-rise jeans that us mommies are more comfortable wearing. The youth of today prefer those tiny little hip-huggers that when I hold them up to me I wonder if I’d have to shave certain pieces and parts of me just to wear. All of the jeans built for a narrow-hipped junior these days are far too low. What’s so great about the butt crack that you people feel that kids these days should just let it all hang out? It’s a butt crack. It’s mere inches above their poopers. It is still a private part of their body. Couldn’t you add just a few inches to the butt part of the jeans so everything would be covered?<br />
 <br />
You know, back in my days of being a junior-sized person (and oh, those were the days) jean-makers would make the back of the jeans just slightly higher than the front so the jeans would still go below the naval. I have to admit that it is more comfortable to wear jeans that are lower in the front since it makes for better mobility. Having the knowledge that if I should happen to stoop over my butt will remain inside the jeans is a real plus in my book. Half the time, the jeans can be almost ugly but if my butt stays put, then I’m buying them. <br />
 <br />
I’m tired of running around the house yelling, “Your ass sets are showing,” as a way to alert my girls that their bums are sticking out. I think my girls are adorable, but I really like to see them fully clothed. If my husband had his way the girls wouldn’t leave the house in anything less than a full turtleneck and ribcage high pants. I’m not about punishing the youth of the day, but am just trying to reach a compromise between the parents and Generation Y.<br />
 <br />
I know that times have greatly changed since I was a teenager but have they really changed this much that we’re making it okay for our girls to go around with their butts exposed. I remember my mother asking me if I was going to wear “that” out of the house. Usually “that” meant a baggy pair of jeans paired with an even baggier shirt. She used to tell me, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it.” Have the designers of those days finally taken my mother’s advice and ran with it? Things here are going a bit too far and way too low. Even a pair of pants that fit “properly” are showing too much rear cleavage. Are you making our kids the butt of some joke or something?<br />
 <br />
If you people are going to continue to make your jeans this way, could you at least reinforce the belt loops since this is how my girls pull their pants back up? Better yet, could you put a handle on the pants so the girls have something to hold on to while they walk around the mall and text their friends? I’m two steps away from sticking long-stemmed roses down the next butt crack I see.<br />
 <br />
 <br />
 <br />
<a href="http://open.salon.com/blog/jess_d_facts/2009/11/20/why_generation_y" target="_blank">Why Generation Y? - Jess D. Facts - Open Salon</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/">Fashion</category>
			<dc:creator>witchcurlgirl</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/117767-why-low-pants-generation-y.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Golden Globes best dressed</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/117766-golden-globes-best-dressed.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:00:26 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[2009
Angelina Jolie
Image: http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/5ce1604788c919e2_angelina-jolie-02.preview.jpg 
Atelier Versace gown and Jimmy Choo heels
 
Olivia Wilde
Image: http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/f3b7df89700a44ba_olivia-wilde.preview.jpg 
In a lavender ruched Reem Acra ball gown
 
Eva Longoria Parker
Image: http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/feed2b7a190e3566_eva-longoria-06.preview.jpg 
In a red Reem Acra gown
 
Amy Adams
Image: http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/2a21e6f4222f907b_amy-adams-01.preview.jpg 
In Oscar de la Renta
 
Anna Paquin
Image: http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/0d7f47a1534bd10b_anna-paquin-03.preview.jpg 
In a purple Herve Leroux dress
Golden Globes-Best Dressed | golden globes 2009 | All About Celebrities (http://all-about-celebrities.popsugar.com/2687989)
 
2007
Image: http://www.stylebakery.com/celebstyle/293.cruz.penelope.011507.jpg 
I'm glad to see that Penelople Cruz totally rocked a dress that was unlike any other on the red carpet. I love the soft, romantic layers of this Spanish-inspired Chanel gown, and it's incredibly flattering on Penelope's body. 
 
Image: http://www.fabulousafter40.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/helen_mirren_300x400.jpg 
In my opinion, Helen Mirren was by far the best dressed woman last night. She radiated beauty, glamor and class, leaving actresses one third her age struggling for attention.
 
Image: http://access.nscpcdn.com/gallery/i/g/goldenglobe07bestdress/gg_crow.jpg 
Deep purple is one of my favorite colors, and I think it looks fabulous on Sheryl Crow here. This strapless gown is pretty and sophisticated, but the floral detail at the bust keeps it interesting. 
 
Image: http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/64th+Annual+Golden+Globe+Awards+Arrivals+zLFigvd-cG-l.jpg 
Angelina Jolie looked stunning in this charcoal gray strapless gown by St. John. Although many actresses wore flowy gowns, I thought that this one draped the most beautifully, and she looked graceful, elegant and understated. 
 
Image: http://www.pursepage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/ali_larter300.jpg 
Ali Larter was one of many starlets wearing white last night, but she was the only one who looked incredible.
Faking Good Breeding: Golden Globes 2007 Best and Worst Dressed List (http://fakinggoodbreeding.blogspot.com/2007/01/golden-globes-best-and-worst-dressed.html)
 
2006
Image: http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Year+Focus+06+Red+Carpet+Reverie+E8i40A2zo0Nl.jpg 
Evangeline Lilly wins the best dressed award. The Elie Saab empire waist emerald gown made her look like a goddess. Her makeup, hair, everything - flawless.
 
Image: http://www.style.com/slideshows/parties/011506GLBE/44m.jpg 
Natalie Portman finally decided to ditch the burlap sack, thank god! She looked fabulous in this vintage Chanel, perfect with her newly grown out pixie.
 
Image: http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Warner+Brothers+InStyle+Golden+Globe+Party+1AT4bWUb9Cxl.jpg 
Charlize Theron is lovely as always, we just love her. Her Galliano for Dior dress is gorgeous although I am not too sure about the see through looking but not really her skin thing.
 
Image: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/93508338_ae406b99dd.jpg?v=0 
I hate to say this because she is not one of my favorites, but Jessica Alba looked hot! She can&#8217;t act but her body is to die for.
 
Image: http://redcarpetstyle.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/keira-knightley-golden-globes1.jpg 
Keira Knightly always looks good even though her Valentino dress had a huge curtain tie on it.
2006 Golden Globes Fashion Review - The Bag Snob: Reviews of Designer Handbags, Authentic Designer Purses, and Leather Bags (http://www.bagsnob.com/2006/01/golden_globes_fashion_review.html)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div align="left">2009<br />
Angelina Jolie<br />
<img src="http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/5ce1604788c919e2_angelina-jolie-02.preview.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Atelier Versace gown and Jimmy Choo heels</div> <br />
<div align="left">Olivia Wilde<br />
<img src="http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/f3b7df89700a44ba_olivia-wilde.preview.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
In a lavender ruched Reem Acra ball gown</div> <br />
<div align="left">Eva Longoria Parker<br />
<img src="http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/feed2b7a190e3566_eva-longoria-06.preview.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
In a red Reem Acra gown</div> <br />
<div align="left">Amy Adams<br />
<img src="http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/2a21e6f4222f907b_amy-adams-01.preview.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
In Oscar de la Renta</div> <br />
<div align="left">Anna Paquin<br />
<img src="http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/4/49504/03_2009/0d7f47a1534bd10b_anna-paquin-03.preview.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
In a purple Herve Leroux dress</div><a href="http://all-about-celebrities.popsugar.com/2687989" target="_blank">Golden Globes-Best Dressed | golden globes 2009 | All About Celebrities</a><br />
 <br />
<div align="left">2007<br />
<img src="http://www.stylebakery.com/celebstyle/293.cruz.penelope.011507.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
I'm glad to see that Penelople Cruz totally rocked a dress that was unlike any other on the red carpet. I love the soft, romantic layers of this Spanish-inspired Chanel gown, and it's incredibly flattering on Penelope's body. </div> <br />
<div align="left"><img src="http://www.fabulousafter40.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/helen_mirren_300x400.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
In my opinion, Helen Mirren was by far the best dressed woman last night. She radiated beauty, glamor and class, leaving actresses one third her age struggling for attention.</div> <br />
<img src="http://access.nscpcdn.com/gallery/i/g/goldenglobe07bestdress/gg_crow.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Deep purple is one of my favorite colors, and I think it looks fabulous on Sheryl Crow here. This strapless gown is pretty and sophisticated, but the floral detail at the bust keeps it interesting. <br />
 <br />
<img src="http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/64th+Annual+Golden+Globe+Awards+Arrivals+zLFigvd-cG-l.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Angelina Jolie looked stunning in this charcoal gray strapless gown by St. John. Although many actresses wore flowy gowns, I thought that this one draped the most beautifully, and she looked graceful, elegant and understated. <br />
 <br />
<img src="http://www.pursepage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/ali_larter300.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Ali Larter was one of many starlets wearing white last night, but she was the only one who looked incredible.<br />
<a href="http://fakinggoodbreeding.blogspot.com/2007/01/golden-globes-best-and-worst-dressed.html" target="_blank">Faking Good Breeding: Golden Globes 2007 Best and Worst Dressed List</a><br />
 <br />
2006<br />
<img src="http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Year+Focus+06+Red+Carpet+Reverie+E8i40A2zo0Nl.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Evangeline Lilly wins the best dressed award. The Elie Saab empire waist emerald gown made her look like a goddess. Her makeup, <font color="#333333">hair</font>, everything - flawless.<br />
 <br />
<img src="http://www.style.com/slideshows/parties/011506GLBE/44m.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Natalie Portman finally decided to ditch the burlap sack, thank god! She looked fabulous in this vintage Chanel, perfect with her newly grown out pixie.<br />
 <br />
<img src="http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Warner+Brothers+InStyle+Golden+Globe+Party+1AT4bWUb9Cxl.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Charlize Theron is lovely as always, we just love her. Her Galliano for Dior dress is gorgeous although I am not too sure about the see through looking but not really her skin thing.<br />
 <br />
<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/93508338_ae406b99dd.jpg?v=0" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
I hate to say this because she is not one of my favorites, but Jessica Alba looked hot! She can&#8217;t act but her body is to die for.<br />
 <br />
<img src="http://redcarpetstyle.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/keira-knightley-golden-globes1.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
Keira Knightly always looks good even though her Valentino dress had a huge curtain tie on it.<br />
<a href="http://www.bagsnob.com/2006/01/golden_globes_fashion_review.html" target="_blank">2006 Golden Globes Fashion Review - The Bag Snob: Reviews of Designer Handbags, Authentic Designer Purses, and Leather Bags</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/">Fashion</category>
			<dc:creator>word</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/117766-golden-globes-best-dressed.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[beck & charotte gainsbourg - 'heaven can wait']]></title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/music-music-videos/117765-beck-charotte-gainsbourg-heaven-can-wait.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:33:41 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[fi20N3idp44

don't know how  long the youtube version will stay up so there's another link to the video here:  

http://www.booooooom.com/2009/11/20/charlotte-gainsbourg-heaven-can-wait-music-video/

director's cut here: 

http://keithschofield.com/charlotte-gainsbourg/charlotte-gainsbourg+beck-heaven-can-wait.mov]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><table class="tborder" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" border="0" width="400" style="margin:10px 0">
<thead>
	<tr>
		<td class="tcat" colspan="2" style="text-align:center">
			<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi20N3idp44" title="View this video at YouTube in a new window or tab" target="_blank">YouTube Video</a>
		</td>
	</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
	<tr>
		<td class="panelsurround" align="center">
			<object width="425" height="340" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/fi20N3idp44">
				<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fi20N3idp44" />
				<param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
				<em><strong>ERROR:</strong> If you can see this, then <a href="http://www.youtube.com/">YouTube</a> is down or you don't have Flash installed.</em>
			</object>
		</td>
	</tr>
</tbody>
</table><br />
<br />
don't know how  long the youtube version will stay up so there's another link to the video here:  <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.booooooom.com/2009/11/20/charlotte-gainsbourg-heaven-can-wait-music-video/" target="_blank">http://www.booooooom.com/2009/11/20/...t-music-video/</a><br />
<br />
director's cut here: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://keithschofield.com/charlotte-gainsbourg/charlotte-gainsbourg+beck-heaven-can-wait.mov" target="_blank">http://keithschofield.com/charlotte-...n-can-wait.mov</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/music-music-videos/">Music and Music Videos</category>
			<dc:creator>sputnik</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/music-music-videos/117765-beck-charotte-gainsbourg-heaven-can-wait.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Miley Cyrus Tour Bus Crash</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/latest-gossip/117764-miley-cyrus-tour-bus-crash.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:22:40 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[MILEY CYRUS TOUR BUS CRASH - Celebrity News | Gossip - National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/miley_cyrus_tour_bus_crash_kills_one/celebrity/67713)

Image: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/images/ne/209862/65508.jpg 

One person was killed as the Miley Cyrus tour bus crashed on Interstate 85 in Virgina.

Virginia State Police confirm one person was killed when a tour bus belonging to Miley Cyrus overturned.

The 16-year-old Hannah Montana star was not on board.

Sgt. Thomas Molnar says the bus overturned around 8:15 a.m. Friday on Interstate 85 in Dinwiddie, about 40 miles south of Richmond.

The bus driver was killed and nine others were injured.  Miley was in the fourth bus in the caravan . Members of her lighting crew are believed to have been on the deadly bus.

The pop princess was scheduled to perform Sunday in Greensboro, NC according to Miley's web site.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><a href="http://www.nationalenquirer.com/miley_cyrus_tour_bus_crash_kills_one/celebrity/67713" target="_blank">MILEY CYRUS TOUR BUS CRASH - Celebrity News | Gossip - National Enquirer</a><br />
<br />
<img src="http://www.nationalenquirer.com/images/ne/209862/65508.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
<br />
One person was killed as the Miley Cyrus tour bus crashed on Interstate 85 in Virgina.<br />
<br />
Virginia State Police confirm one person was killed when a tour bus belonging to Miley Cyrus overturned.<br />
<br />
The 16-year-old Hannah Montana star was not on board.<br />
<br />
Sgt. Thomas Molnar says the bus overturned around 8:15 a.m. Friday on Interstate 85 in Dinwiddie, about 40 miles south of Richmond.<br />
<br />
The bus driver was killed and nine others were injured.  Miley was in the fourth bus in the caravan . Members of her lighting crew are believed to have been on the deadly bus.<br />
<br />
The pop princess was scheduled to perform Sunday in Greensboro, NC according to Miley's web site.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/latest-gossip/">Latest Gossip</category>
			<dc:creator>AgentOrange</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/latest-gossip/117764-miley-cyrus-tour-bus-crash.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul-Grayson Bill To Audit Fed Passes Key Hurdle</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/117763-paul-grayson-bill-audit-fed-passes-key-hurdle.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:15:36 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[The most important legislation in ages......
 
 
Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/fed-beaten-bill-to-audit_n_364546.html)
 
 
In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.
 
The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal. 
 
The amendment expressly blocks Congress from interfering with the independence of monetary policy decision-making, but opponents of the measure said that the political pressure would inevitably follow. 
 
A desperate, last-minute attempt to thwart the move came in the form of an amendment championed by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and described by its supporters as more reasonable. On Tuesday, however, the Huffington Post reported  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/audit-the-fed-effort-unde_n_361389.html)that, on a close reading, his amendment would in fact decrease transparency at the Fed by adding additional restrictions. 
 
Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a "political cross section of prominent economists" backing a measure like Watt's. HuffPost reported, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/economists-opposing-fed-a_n_362287.html) however, that those economists might well have be prominent, but they certainly aren't a "political cross section." Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed -- and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.
 
The playbook in Washington often goes like this: When a measure that threatens the establishment builds enough momentum that it must be dealt with, it is labeled as "unserious." The Washington Post editorial board, true to the script, called (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303004.html) Paul's measure "an unserious answer to a serious question."
 
And it particularly rankles the center that a pair of "wingnuts"  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/grayson-called-wingnut-by_n_341982.html)are behind a successful effort to challenge the prevailing order.
 
Step Two is for a "serious" compromise to be offered. In this case, it was Watt's amendment. But by the time the vote was called Thursday afternoon, committee members had seen through his measure, recognizing that it was not a compromise effort to bring real transparency to the Fed but an attempt to further shut the the doors. 
 
The Watt amendment will fully obliterate everything 1207" -- Paul's measure -- "is intended to do," said Paul during Thursday's debate. 
For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt's, a member of Congress who asked for confidentiality told HuffPost.
 
Paul's opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed. 
 
As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt's amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul's. 
 
To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt's amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide. 
 
The GOP broadly backed the amendment, though Frank chided them for finding their love of Fed transparency only after they lost power, noting that Paul has been introducing some version of the measure since 1983. 
 
Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. "Perception is very important in monetary policy," said Frank.
 
He urged a no vote, yet 15 Democrats bucked him, voting with Paul. Key to winning Democratic support was a letter  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/audit-the-fed-effort-wins_n_363410.html)posted early Thursday from labor leaders and progressive economists. The letter, organized by the liberal blog FireDogLake.com, (http://firedoglake.com/) called for a rejection of the Watt substitute and support for Paul. 
 
Grayson was able to show Democratic colleagues that the liberal base was behind them. 
 
"Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy," a victorious Grayson said afterwards.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>The most important legislation in ages......<br />
 <br />
 <br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/fed-beaten-bill-to-audit_n_364546.html" target="_blank">Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle</a><br />
 <br />
 <br />
In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.<br />
 <br />
The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal. <br />
 <br />
The amendment expressly blocks Congress from interfering with the independence of monetary policy decision-making, but opponents of the measure said that the political pressure would inevitably follow. <br />
 <br />
A desperate, last-minute attempt to thwart the move came in the form of an amendment championed by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and described by its supporters as more reasonable. On Tuesday, however, the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/audit-the-fed-effort-unde_n_361389.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">Huffington Post reported </font></a>that, on a close reading, his amendment would in fact decrease transparency at the Fed by adding additional restrictions. <br />
 <br />
Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a &quot;political cross section of prominent economists&quot; backing a measure like Watt's. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/economists-opposing-fed-a_n_362287.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">HuffPost reported,</font></a> however, that those economists might well have be prominent, but they certainly aren't a &quot;political cross section.&quot; Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed -- and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.<br />
 <br />
The playbook in Washington often goes like this: When a measure that threatens the establishment builds enough momentum that it must be dealt with, it is labeled as &quot;unserious.&quot; The <i>Washington Post </i>editorial board, true to the script, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303004.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">called</font></a> Paul's measure &quot;an unserious answer to a serious question.&quot;<br />
 <br />
And it particularly rankles the center that a pair of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/grayson-called-wingnut-by_n_341982.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">&quot;wingnuts&quot; </font></a>are behind a successful effort to challenge the prevailing order.<br />
 <br />
Step Two is for a &quot;serious&quot; compromise to be offered. In this case, it was Watt's amendment. But by the time the vote was called Thursday afternoon, committee members had seen through his measure, recognizing that it was not a compromise effort to bring real transparency to the Fed but an attempt to further shut the the doors. <br />
 <br />
The Watt amendment will fully obliterate everything 1207&quot; -- Paul's measure -- &quot;is intended to do,&quot; said Paul during Thursday's debate. <br />
For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt's, a member of Congress who asked for confidentiality told HuffPost.<br />
 <br />
Paul's opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed. <br />
 <br />
As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt's amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul's. <br />
 <br />
To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt's amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide. <br />
 <br />
The GOP broadly backed the amendment, though Frank chided them for finding their love of Fed transparency only after they lost power, noting that Paul has been introducing some version of the measure since 1983. <br />
 <br />
Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. &quot;Perception is very important in monetary policy,&quot; said Frank.<br />
 <br />
He urged a no vote, yet 15 Democrats bucked him, voting with Paul. Key to winning Democratic support <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/audit-the-fed-effort-wins_n_363410.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">was a letter </font></a>posted early Thursday from labor leaders and progressive economists. The letter, organized by the liberal blog <a href="http://firedoglake.com/" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">FireDogLake.com,</font></a> called for a rejection of the Watt substitute and support for Paul. <br />
 <br />
Grayson was able to show Democratic colleagues that the liberal base was behind them. <br />
 <br />
&quot;Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy,&quot; a victorious Grayson said afterwards.</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/">U.S. Politics and Issues</category>
			<dc:creator>witchcurlgirl</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/117763-paul-grayson-bill-audit-fed-passes-key-hurdle.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul-Grayson Bill To Audit Fed Passes Key Hurdle</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/117762-paul-grayson-bill-audit-fed-passes-key-hurdle.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/fed-beaten-bill-to-audit_n_364546.html)
 
 
In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.
 
The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal. 
 
The amendment expressly blocks Congress from interfering with the independence of monetary policy decision-making, but opponents of the measure said that the political pressure would inevitably follow. 
 
A desperate, last-minute attempt to thwart the move came in the form of an amendment championed by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and described by its supporters as more reasonable. On Tuesday, however, the Huffington Post reported  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/audit-the-fed-effort-unde_n_361389.html)that, on a close reading, his amendment would in fact decrease transparency at the Fed by adding additional restrictions. 
 
Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a "political cross section of prominent economists" backing a measure like Watt's. HuffPost reported, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/economists-opposing-fed-a_n_362287.html) however, that those economists might well have be prominent, but they certainly aren't a "political cross section." Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed -- and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.
 
The playbook in Washington often goes like this: When a measure that threatens the establishment builds enough momentum that it must be dealt with, it is labeled as "unserious." The Washington Post editorial board, true to the script, called (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303004.html) Paul's measure "an unserious answer to a serious question."
 
And it particularly rankles the center that a pair of "wingnuts"  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/grayson-called-wingnut-by_n_341982.html)are behind a successful effort to challenge the prevailing order.
 
Step Two is for a "serious" compromise to be offered. In this case, it was Watt's amendment. But by the time the vote was called Thursday afternoon, committee members had seen through his measure, recognizing that it was not a compromise effort to bring real transparency to the Fed but an attempt to further shut the the doors. 
 
The Watt amendment will fully obliterate everything 1207" -- Paul's measure -- "is intended to do," said Paul during Thursday's debate. 
For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt's, a member of Congress who asked for confidentiality told HuffPost.
 
Paul's opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed. 
 
As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt's amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul's. 
 
To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt's amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide. 
 
The GOP broadly backed the amendment, though Frank chided them for finding their love of Fed transparency only after they lost power, noting that Paul has been introducing some version of the measure since 1983. 
 
Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. "Perception is very important in monetary policy," said Frank.
 
He urged a no vote, yet 15 Democrats bucked him, voting with Paul. Key to winning Democratic support was a letter  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/audit-the-fed-effort-wins_n_363410.html)posted early Thursday from labor leaders and progressive economists. The letter, organized by the liberal blog FireDogLake.com, (http://firedoglake.com/) called for a rejection of the Watt substitute and support for Paul. 
 
Grayson was able to show Democratic colleagues that the liberal base was behind them. 
 
"Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy," a victorious Grayson said afterwards.
 
 
Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/fed-beaten-bill-to-audit_n_364546.html)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/fed-beaten-bill-to-audit_n_364546.html" target="_blank">Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle</a><br />
 <br />
 <br />
In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.<br />
 <br />
The measure, cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal. <br />
 <br />
The amendment expressly blocks Congress from interfering with the independence of monetary policy decision-making, but opponents of the measure said that the political pressure would inevitably follow. <br />
 <br />
A desperate, last-minute attempt to thwart the move came in the form of an amendment championed by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and described by its supporters as more reasonable. On Tuesday, however, the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/audit-the-fed-effort-unde_n_361389.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">Huffington Post reported </font></a>that, on a close reading, his amendment would in fact decrease transparency at the Fed by adding additional restrictions. <br />
 <br />
Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a &quot;political cross section of prominent economists&quot; backing a measure like Watt's. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/economists-opposing-fed-a_n_362287.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">HuffPost reported,</font></a> however, that those economists might well have be prominent, but they certainly aren't a &quot;political cross section.&quot; Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed -- and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.<br />
 <br />
The playbook in Washington often goes like this: When a measure that threatens the establishment builds enough momentum that it must be dealt with, it is labeled as &quot;unserious.&quot; The <i>Washington Post </i>editorial board, true to the script, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303004.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">called</font></a> Paul's measure &quot;an unserious answer to a serious question.&quot;<br />
 <br />
And it particularly rankles the center that a pair of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/grayson-called-wingnut-by_n_341982.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">&quot;wingnuts&quot; </font></a>are behind a successful effort to challenge the prevailing order.<br />
 <br />
Step Two is for a &quot;serious&quot; compromise to be offered. In this case, it was Watt's amendment. But by the time the vote was called Thursday afternoon, committee members had seen through his measure, recognizing that it was not a compromise effort to bring real transparency to the Fed but an attempt to further shut the the doors. <br />
 <br />
The Watt amendment will fully obliterate everything 1207&quot; -- Paul's measure -- &quot;is intended to do,&quot; said Paul during Thursday's debate. <br />
For anyone remaining confused, the debate was further clarified by the central bank itself: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Don Cohn and General Counsel Scott Alvarez spent much of the day calling committee members, urging them to oppose the Paul-Grayson amendment in favor of Watt's, a member of Congress who asked for confidentiality told HuffPost.<br />
 <br />
Paul's opponents also placed a letter from former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker on the seats of every committee member. Such a move is in violation of House rules and Grayson was able to have the letters removed. <br />
 <br />
As the day wore on and support held for the Paul-Grayson side, the Fed still could hope that both would pass. Watt's amendment, which included additional restriction, would then trump Paul's. <br />
 <br />
To counter that possibility, the Paul-Grayson side moved to fully replace Watt's amendment with theirs, leaving only one amendment to vote on. The motion carried and the amendment passed in a landslide. <br />
 <br />
The GOP broadly backed the amendment, though Frank chided them for finding their love of Fed transparency only after they lost power, noting that Paul has been introducing some version of the measure since 1983. <br />
 <br />
Frank said he was opposing the Paul amendment because it could be perceived as influencing monetary policy, which can have inflationary pressure. &quot;Perception is very important in monetary policy,&quot; said Frank.<br />
 <br />
He urged a no vote, yet 15 Democrats bucked him, voting with Paul. Key to winning Democratic support <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/audit-the-fed-effort-wins_n_363410.html" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">was a letter </font></a>posted early Thursday from labor leaders and progressive economists. The letter, organized by the liberal blog <a href="http://firedoglake.com/" target="_blank"><font color="#058b7b">FireDogLake.com,</font></a> called for a rejection of the Watt substitute and support for Paul. <br />
 <br />
Grayson was able to show Democratic colleagues that the liberal base was behind them. <br />
 <br />
&quot;Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy,&quot; a victorious Grayson said afterwards.<br />
 <br />
 <br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/fed-beaten-bill-to-audit_n_364546.html" target="_blank">Fed Beaten: Bill To Audit Federal Reserve Passes Key Hurdle</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/">U.S. Politics and Issues</category>
			<dc:creator>witchcurlgirl</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/117762-paul-grayson-bill-audit-fed-passes-key-hurdle.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Oscars best dressed</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/117761-oscars-best-dressed.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:10:41 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[*Kate Hudson at the 2003 Oscars*
Kate Hudson chose this stunning Versace gown for the 2003 Oscars. She makes our top ten for getting every element right, from the glowing make-up, to the vintage style gems and soft up-do. Simply gorgeous.
Image: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2009/02/20/hudson2003,0.jpg 
 
*Penelope Cruz at the 2007 Oscars*
Penelope may have missed out on the best actress award at the 2007 Oscar's, but she won in the style stakes. In a blush Versace gown with feathered sweeping train, she glittered in Chopard diamonds and a Swarovski clutch.
Image: http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/10/13/cruz_comp_gallery__600x400.jpg 
 
*Julia Roberts at the 2001 Oscars*
Julia Roberts walked away with the best actress Oscar in 2001 for her role in Erin Brockovich, and also took the accolade for most stylish performance of the night, wearing a vintage Valentino monochrome gown.
Image: http://images.watoday.com.au/2008/10/13/232892/oscar7-600x400.jpg 
 
*Jessica Alba at the 2006 Oscars*
Jessica Alba showed off her enviable figure in this glittering gold Versace dress at the 2006 Academy Awards. The flash of bare back and slinky halterneck shape make it sophisticated, yet sexy choice.
Image: http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m3/feb2008/2/3/095BF602-FE87-F566-62B07229E1309662.jpg Image: http://coquette.blogs.com/coquette/jessicaalba.jpg 
 
*Kate Winslet at the 2002 Oscars*
Kate Winslet put Ben de Lisi on the fashion map, when she chose a stunning red dress from his collection for the 2002 Oscars.
Image: http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2008/specials/redcarpet/reddresses/kate_winslet.jpg  Image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gwZTIHwSxdU/R8X3VN52Q_I/AAAAAAAAAaM/Lv_RulKVryY/s400/oscars2.jpg 
 
 
10 best Oscar dresses | 10 Best | Marie Claire (http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/fashion/best/4110/1/0/10-best-oscar-dresses.html)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><b>Kate Hudson at the 2003 Oscars</b><br />
Kate Hudson chose this stunning Versace gown for the 2003 Oscars. She makes our top ten for getting every element right, from the glowing make-up, to the vintage style gems and soft up-do. Simply gorgeous.<br />
<img src="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2009/02/20/hudson2003,0.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
<b>Penelope Cruz at the 2007 Oscars</b><br />
Penelope may have missed out on the best actress award at the 2007 Oscar's, but she won in the style stakes. In a blush Versace gown with feathered sweeping train, she glittered in Chopard diamonds and a Swarovski clutch.<br />
<img src="http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/10/13/cruz_comp_gallery__600x400.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
<b>Julia Roberts at the 2001 Oscars</b><br />
Julia Roberts walked away with the best actress Oscar in 2001 for her role in Erin Brockovich, and also took the accolade for most stylish performance of the night, wearing a vintage Valentino monochrome gown.<br />
<img src="http://images.watoday.com.au/2008/10/13/232892/oscar7-600x400.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
<b>Jessica Alba at the 2006 Oscars</b><br />
Jessica Alba showed off her enviable figure in this glittering gold Versace dress at the 2006 Academy Awards. The flash of bare back and slinky halterneck shape make it sophisticated, yet sexy choice.<br />
<img src="http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m3/feb2008/2/3/095BF602-FE87-F566-62B07229E1309662.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><img src="http://coquette.blogs.com/coquette/jessicaalba.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
<b>Kate Winslet at the 2002 Oscars</b><br />
Kate Winslet put Ben de Lisi on the fashion map, when she chose a stunning red dress from his collection for the 2002 Oscars.<br />
<img src="http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2008/specials/redcarpet/reddresses/kate_winslet.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /> <img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gwZTIHwSxdU/R8X3VN52Q_I/AAAAAAAAAaM/Lv_RulKVryY/s400/oscars2.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
 <br />
<a href="http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/fashion/best/4110/1/0/10-best-oscar-dresses.html" target="_blank">10 best Oscar dresses | 10 Best | Marie Claire</a></div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/">Fashion</category>
			<dc:creator>word</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/fashion/117761-oscars-best-dressed.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>What kind of pet would you get?</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/pets-animals/117760-what-kind-pet-would-you-get.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:07:18 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[inspired by the bulldog & kitty thread:
 
whenever there is a cute animal thread, a lot of us usually say we want one.  what would you get if you didn't have to worry about taking care of it, etc.?
 
i want a teacup yorkie but i don't have a yard for it to run in, i work a lot and i'm still a little too selfish to care for something other than myself on a full-time basis.
 
Image: http://www.canadafreeads.com/images/20081215152406_11111.jpg 
 
Image: http://www.canadafreeads.com/images/20090126184504_0011.jpg 
 
Image: http://www.dog-bows.com/yorkiephotos/jigger.jpg 
 
what would you get?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>inspired by the bulldog &amp; kitty thread:<br />
 <br />
whenever there is a cute animal thread, a lot of us usually say we want one.  what would you get if you didn't have to worry about taking care of it, etc.?<br />
 <br />
i want a teacup yorkie but i don't have a yard for it to run in, i work a lot and i'm still a little too selfish to care for something other than myself on a full-time basis.<br />
 <br />
<img src="http://www.canadafreeads.com/images/20081215152406_11111.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
<img src="http://www.canadafreeads.com/images/20090126184504_0011.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
<img src="http://www.dog-bows.com/yorkiephotos/jigger.jpg" border="0" alt="" onload="NcodeImageResizer.createOn(this);" /><br />
 <br />
what would you get?</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/pets-animals/">Pets and Animals</category>
			<dc:creator>fgg</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/pets-animals/117760-what-kind-pet-would-you-get.html</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Changes in U.S. pap smear guidelines released</title>
			<link>http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/health-fitness/117759-changes-u-s-pap-smear-guidelines-released.html</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:55:22 GMT</pubDate>
			<description><![CDATA[
---Quote---
*New cervical cancer screening guidelines released*
By Saundra Young, CNN Medical Producer
November 20, 2009 10:51 a.m. EST


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new mammogram recommendations out earlier this week caused quite an uproar. Now comes another change in screening tests for women -- this one for cervical cancer.

*The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) releases new guidelines Friday, saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening -- or Pap test -- until they're 21 years old. And, they don't need followup examinations as often as previously recommended.

According to the guidelines, women younger than 30 should be screened every two years, instead of annually. Women 30 or older can be examined once every three years.*

"The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence," said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who developed the document for ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. "A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful."

The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence. 

--Dr. Alan G. Waxman
 
The current guidelines, from 2003, recommend that women get a Pap test three years after they begin having sexual intercourse, but no later than age 21. And that women younger than 30 have an annual exam. For women 30 or older, the recommendation was every two to three years, if they'd had three consecutive negative Pap tests.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) supports the guidelines and said it is reviewing new data and updating its own recommendations.

"There's good data since the last guidelines in 2003 that show that screening teens or before age 21 is not having an impact on reducing cervical cancer," said Debbie Saslow of the Cancer Society.

And, Saslow added, this is completely different from the new, hotly debated mammogram recommendations.

"Getting an annual Pap test is the equivalent to getting a mammogram every four months. Breast cancer on average is growing at a point where, if you get a mammogram every two years, you will miss a lot of deadly cancers that you would have caught if you're having them every year. This is not true for cervical cancer; we are detecting pre-cancers that are taking 10 to 20 years to develop into cancer."

According to the ACS, there are about 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer each year, and more than 4,000 deaths. Over half were found in women who never had a Pap test. Most cases are in women younger than 50, and rarely occur in females younger than 20.

The risk simply is not there, though the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for 70 percent or more cervical cancers, is high among sexually active teens, said Dr. David Soper of the Medical University of South Carolina.

The vast majority of those infections will resolve and not cause any significant pre-cancerous lesions, according to Soper. Females, particularly adolescents, develop immunity to HPV and can resolve the infection without treatment.

The ACS expects to release its new guidelines in late 2011.

*STORY HIGHLIGHTS*
*  American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends first Pap tests at 21

*  After age 21, women should have a Pap test every two years, instead of every year

*  Rates of cervical cancer have declined by 50 percent since the 1970s
---End Quote---
New cervical cancer screening guidelines released - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20/cervical.cancer.guidelines/)

I'm over 30, but I won't be waiting 3 years between paps - that's just too long, imo.  I hope my insurance will cover it.

I can't help but wonder if these guidelines would be different if breast and cervical cancers were primarily a man's disease.[/paranoid]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
	<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
	<table cellpadding="9" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td class="alt2">
			<hr />
			
				<b>New cervical cancer screening guidelines released</b><br />
By Saundra Young, CNN Medical Producer<br />
November 20, 2009 10:51 a.m. EST<br />
<br />
<br />
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new mammogram recommendations out earlier this week caused quite an uproar. Now comes another change in screening tests for women -- this one for cervical cancer.<br />
<br />
<b>The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) releases new guidelines Friday, saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening -- or Pap test -- until they're 21 years old. And, they don't need followup examinations as often as previously recommended.<br />
<br />
According to the guidelines, women younger than 30 should be screened every two years, instead of annually. Women 30 or older can be examined once every three years.</b><br />
<br />
&quot;The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence,&quot; said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who developed the document for ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. &quot;A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful.&quot;<br />
<br />
<div align="center">The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence. <br />
<br />
--Dr. Alan G. Waxman</div> <br />
The current guidelines, from 2003, recommend that women get a Pap test three years after they begin having sexual intercourse, but no later than age 21. And that women younger than 30 have an annual exam. For women 30 or older, the recommendation was every two to three years, if they'd had three consecutive negative Pap tests.<br />
<br />
The American Cancer Society (ACS) supports the guidelines and said it is reviewing new data and updating its own recommendations.<br />
<br />
&quot;There's good data since the last guidelines in 2003 that show that screening teens or before age 21 is not having an impact on reducing cervical cancer,&quot; said Debbie Saslow of the Cancer Society.<br />
<br />
And, Saslow added, this is completely different from the new, hotly debated mammogram recommendations.<br />
<br />
&quot;Getting an annual Pap test is the equivalent to getting a mammogram every four months. Breast cancer on average is growing at a point where, if you get a mammogram every two years, you will miss a lot of deadly cancers that you would have caught if you're having them every year. This is not true for cervical cancer; we are detecting pre-cancers that are taking 10 to 20 years to develop into cancer.&quot;<br />
<br />
According to the ACS, there are about 10,000 new cases of cervical cancer each year, and more than 4,000 deaths. Over half were found in women who never had a Pap test. Most cases are in women younger than 50, and rarely occur in females younger than 20.<br />
<br />
The risk simply is not there, though the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is responsible for 70 percent or more cervical cancers, is high among sexually active teens, said Dr. David Soper of the Medical University of South Carolina.<br />
<br />
The vast majority of those infections will resolve and not cause any significant pre-cancerous lesions, according to Soper. Females, particularly adolescents, develop immunity to HPV and can resolve the infection without treatment.<br />
<br />
The ACS expects to release its new guidelines in late 2011.<br />
<br />
<b>STORY HIGHLIGHTS</b><br />
*  American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends first Pap tests at 21<br />
<br />
*  After age 21, women should have a Pap test every two years, instead of every year<br />
<br />
*  Rates of cervical cancer have declined by 50 percent since the 1970s
			
			<hr />
		</td>
	</tr>
	</table>
</div><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20/cervical.cancer.guidelines/" target="_blank">New cervical cancer screening guidelines released - CNN.com</a><br />
<br />
I'm over 30, but I won't be waiting 3 years between paps - that's just too long, imo.  I hope my insurance will cover it.<br />
<br />
I can't help but wonder if these guidelines would be different if breast and cervical cancers were primarily a man's disease.[/paranoid]</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<category domain="http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/health-fitness/">Health and Fitness</category>
			<dc:creator>Laurent</dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/health-fitness/117759-changes-u-s-pap-smear-guidelines-released.html</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
