$100 Diet - How Naughty Pin Up Girls Stay THIN is the secret to getting and staying incredibly thin without giving up life's guilty pleasures, as well as simple exercise plans to keep a girl's figure looking especially fit and trim without the backbreaking and time consuming effort. Can you have champagne, cocktails or wine? Yes you can! Can you have dessert? But of course! Is it easy to learn and to follow? Well, it must be if it's kept it's author's fleeting attention span. Also included are many tasty recipes and meal plans. This mini-ebook with a catchy title written by artist and performer Rachel Car Johnson gives you secret that keeps you thin and feeling foxier than ever before.
At last, "The $100 Diet; How Naughty Pin-Up Girls Stay Thin is a new e-book that aims to share the real secrets of pin up girls. Author Rachel Car Johnson, gives busy women the facts about how to lose weight safely so they can have their champagne and cake and eat it too. Her intention is to show Women how
they can be fit and foxy without doing backbreaking exercise. Can you imagine a diet that allows fattening foods and alcoholic beverages? Have you ever heard of "on days" and "off days" on a regular basis? That is what this unorthodox diet guru explains in her best selling mini-book, "The $100 Diet; How Naughty Pin-Up Girls Stay Thin." Its a fun and safe weight loss program that saves you money and time finding the right program.
Author Rachel Car Johnson was terrified after she was told the news that she had to wear nothing but high heels and a bathing suit for a music video shoot. Ms Car had never been on a diet before but the prospect of being on camera so intimately was the stimulus she needed to start to find the right diet for her eating habits. Ms. Car Johnson grew up in Los Angeles, California ' the land of the size 0, where girls are known for being small and petite, but often fall victim to the celebrity=2 0diet fads that constantly plague Hollywood. "I was okay, but had to worry about how I would look on film. I don't have a naturally rail-like figure and had to work at what I did to begin with” she says. Ms Car Johnson attempted all sorts of diets such as Macrobiotic and high protein diet but melded a combination of several lifestyles to get the figure she was most proud of. The fruits of her labor was the breakthrough diet book for busy girls “The $100 Diet; How Naughty Pin-Up Girls Stay Thin”
Von Teese bound to provoke
The queen of the slow, sequinned striptease is on the phone, talking sex, seamed stockings and more sex.
What are you wearing right now, Dita?
Actually, I didn't even have to ask. The woman who was born Heather Sweet, who claims that without make-up she's an ordinary looking natural blonde from Michigan state, has come straight from work-out to interview.
"I wear, like, black simple Capri pants and a shapely T-shirt."
No baggy trackpants?
"I don't like looking in the mirror and feeling sloppy. It's not good for me and it's not good for how I feel about myself, so why do it?"
Dita Von Teese is a self-made sexpot who makes no excuses for her particular brand of manufactured feminity.
"A lot of women are looking for an alternative role model for 'sexy' than just that natural beauty who looks great in a bikini running on the beach with blonde hair flowing and no makeup.
"That's like our beauty icon of modern times. I never felt like I could fit into that, because I am not that. Maybe I stand for someone who is an alternative, who is telling people that you can make yourself into something sexy instead of being born with it."
The Art of the Teese, re-released this month, is the step-by-step bible to being Dita.
"Glamour above all things is what I say," she writes in the introduction.
"There was a time when a lady dressed to the nines no matter what her destination. This great girl wore seamed stockings and garter belts every single day. She curled her eyelashes and she set her hair in luscious waves.
"She painted her lips a flushed, rich scarlet. Wherever the day took her, she wore high heels and satin gloves to her elbows, soaring cocque feathers and veils of the finest netting over her eyes. And so do I."
Take-home message: Anyone can be Dita if they can afford a $10,000 corset that sucks 16cm off their waist; if they have time to paint their nails perfectly; if crucially they don't mind getting their gear off.
Von Teese, 36, has led a worldwide revival of burlesque, the art of getting all-but-naked to music, that had its heyday when dancers such as Sally Rand and Gypsy Rose Lee dominated the American stage.
Von Teese bound to provoke | Stuff.co.nz
By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: March 5, 2009
Wall Street is trading at its lowest level in more than a decade, some American automakers are on the verge of bankruptcy and the government is bailing out the nation’s biggest banks.
But in these troubled economic times, one big company is bucking the trend.
Exxon Mobil put on a show of strength on Thursday, pledging to increase investments in coming years, chiding rivals for mistimed acquisitions and reminding everyone it had the financial strength to make headway even as other companies pulled back.
“The question now becomes who can be successful in more challenging times,” Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, said at the company’s annual investor presentation at the New York Stock Exchange.
Mr. Tillerson had a ready answer for his own question. Exxon, based in Irving, Tex., earned $45 billion in 2008, gave back $40 billion to its shareholders, invested $26 billion around the world, and managed to find more oil than it produced. It also outperformed all of its rivals, like Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell.
Undaunted by a collapse in oil prices and the most severe global financial crisis since the 1930s, Exxon said it would dial up its investments over the next five years. It plans to spend as much as $150 billion through 2014.
Its oil and gas production, which was stagnant recently, is expected to grow 2 to 3 percent a year in the next five years, thanks in part to the company’s big natural gas projects in the Middle East.
Since 2004, Exxon has distributed $146 billion to its shareholders, either through dividend payments or share buybacks, more than was given back by Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Chevron combined.
(CNN) -- Ten co-workers from New Jersey say they will split a $216 million Mega Millions jackpot, thanks to the five bucks they each kicked into a pool.
The 10, who work for Chubb Commercial Insurance in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, held a news conference Wednesday to announce their win.
Bob Space of Toms River, New Jersey, held up a lottery ticket that clearly showed the winning numbers from Tuesday's drawing: 26, 32, 35, 43, 52 and 10.
"I checked and I rechecked and then I sent it to my wife," said Space, who purchased 50 sets of lottery numbers for himself and his nine co-workers from a Singin Oil gas station near his house on Monday.
Space went to work as usual on Wednesday morning, playing it coy.
"I got an e-mail," said Todd Ellis, the company's chief information officer. "It said, 'We won the big one' and then he just put the numbers down."
Joanne Roth got the same e-mail.
"I thought we won $4, because last week we won $7," she said. "I said, 'Don't mess with me.' "
Space played hardball with co-worker Oscar Oviedo, who hadn't paid him yet for his share of the lottery tickets.
"This morning, I come into work early with him," said Oviedo, who soon received an instant message from Space. "I got a surprise for you. Come over," the message said.
Oviedo went to Space's cubicle.
"He's like, 'You got my money?' " Oviedo said he thought, "Wow, that was rude," but paid up. Space shook his hand and said: "Now you're a millionaire."
They aren't officially millionaires at this point, because the winning ticket hasn't been presented to lottery officials yet.
"In due time," Space said. "We have a year." But another Chubb employee said they'll cash in their ticket soon.
"If you have that winning ticket ... please sign the back of the ticket, put it in a safe place and seek legal and financial advice before you come to talk to us," New Jersey Lottery spokesman Dominick DeMarco said at the news conference, held at the gas station where the winning ticket was sold. "Be careful with it."
None of the co-workers, who have been with Chubb for seven to 30 years, said they had immediate plans to quit. The ticket is worth an estimated $216 million if the money is paid out over 26 years, or about $140 million if they choose an immediate cash payout.
"It relieves a lot of stress ... and it also gives a nice cushion to be able to help the people we want to help," Ellis said. "I feel incredibly blessed. I can't even absorb it at this point."
Roth, recently divorced, said she'll pay off her bills. "I'm shocked. ... The whole thing is cool."
Job Losses Show Breadth of Recession
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: March 4, 2009
Every state, except a band stretching from the Dakotas to Texas, is shedding jobs at a rapid pace.
Stop the recession
There is still time to avoid a recession — a recession being technically defined as two quarters of negative economic growth.
What needs to be done, and can be done in the next 60 days, follows. But first, it is important to realize the present economic slowdown was caused by a series of mistakes by the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the administration, and Congress. Many of our government policymakers and politicians still insist it was the other guy's fault and pretend that taking money from one group of taxpayers and giving it to another (a k a, a "stimulus package") will somehow miraculously revive the economy.
The administration is guilty of having both proposed and acquiesced to spending that resulted in more costs than benefits to the economy, which has slowed growth. Even though those in the administration cannot suddenly reverse much of the wasteful spending on their own, they can do several things by presidential directive to make things better immediately.
Energy risk management guru, Jeffrey LeMunyon of Linwood Capital, has correctly noted that the U.S. government could immediately bring down the price of oil by selling near-term oil contracts in the oil futures markets and, at the same time, buying long-term contracts. Currently, the short-term contract price is above the long-term price because of the expectation by some speculators of short-term supply disruptions. If the government did sell "short" and buy "long," the taxpayers would make an automatic profit — by selling high and buying low.
The reason the government can do this without risk, whereas the typical private investor cannot, is that the government owns the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) so, even if it had to make a short-term delivery from the SPR, an equal amount of oil would be redeposited within a few months, thus having no effect on the nation's oil security. In reality a delivery would be very unlikely because, normally in futures' markets, speculators and hedgers take the other side of the contracts. Once the word got out that the government was doing this, many speculators would sell short-term contracts, thus driving down the price of oil.
Courts have previously ruled it is within the purview of an administration to define terms such as "cost" and "income" for tax purposes. Thus the administration has the power to define these terms properly (unlike what the Internal Revenue Service has done) so changes in price levels of assets due solely to inflation would not be taxed under the capital-gains provisions.
This indexing of capital gains for inflation (as many good tax economists have long recommended) would give the stock market a very positive push because of the reduction in the cost of capital, which would also have the benefit of restoring the value of pension funds. The only reason this has not been done is because timid people in the administration are afraid of Democrat criticism for not using a legislative corrective. (Such a debate is a political winner for the policy advisers in the administration, if they would only realize it. Would you not love to debate someone who advocates taxing phantom income due solely to inflation?)
Congress and the administration should immediately announce (before spring planting) they are getting rid of the ethanol mandates they just passed. These mandates have driven up the cost of food for not only Americans but everyone else on the planet, including those who are close to starvation.
Senior officials in the United Kingdom and the United Nations have said in recent days that rush toward biofuels puts millions at risk because of the global escalation of food prices. The politicians now have the perfect excuse for the policy reversal. Recently released peer-reviewed scientific studies now show ethanol and other biofuels are actually worse for the environment than are fossil fuels.
Second, new peer-reviewed scientific papers show the feedback mechanism for CO2 in the major climatic models has been incorrectly specified and, as a result, we will not have runaway global warming (a major climatic model builder has acknowledged the error). Third, the Northern Hemisphere had a record cold winter, and recent indications are the planet is not warming according to the projections of the models.
In fact, the record (measured) warmth occurred back in the 1930s, not in recent years. In light of all these new facts, it would be grossly irresponsible to continue the ethanol mandates, given the suffering they cause.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, having loaded businesses with additional unnecessary and costly regulations over the last few years, and having driven some major financial activities (such as IPOs) to London and elsewhere, is still in denial. So far, it has not even admitted the technical mistake of requiring companies to "expense" the noncorporate expense of stock options, which is just one part of the regulatory plaque clogging the arteries of previously healthy companies. The SEC needs to (and can if it so desires) immediately get rid of regulations that don't meet reasonable cost benefit tests. Doing so would give the financial markets an immediate positive jolt.
The open question is: Will our political leaders in both the administration and Congress have the courage to admit they were wrong about many of the laws, regulations and rules they passed that are now causing major hardship? Or will they stay in denial because they are more interested in protecting their own egos, rather than removing unnecessary hardship from their fellow citizens?
Richard W. Rahn is the chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.