AdamSmith

After 9/11, when check-in became the torture that lookin notes, I don't think I ever flew between Boston and NYC again. Using Acela was so much easier and more comfortable. And hardly more time door-to-door, what with schlepping to/from the airport, having to arrive way ahead of flight time, possibility of delays, etc., etc.

I feel no less safe flying now than I do living on earth after the last couple of meteorite near-misses. You pays your money and you takes your choice. I would however like for life to be arranged so that every destination could be reached by either walking or flying. Enough with all this middle-distance foolery.

Hear, hear. To be the Ugly American on this, I enjoy almost every difference encountered abroad except the surprising variations in toilet paper. Thin, rough, hard (some places it would be better stacked in little squares than tortured onto a roll!) -- why is soft comfortable paper so rare in many countries? Guess I would not have made it in ancient Rome. Toilet Issue: Anthropologists Uncover All the Ways We've WipedAn analysis of old customs makes us privy to a slice of ancient life Feb 19, 2013 |By Steve Mirsky Scientific American The last time I visited Boston's Museum of Fine Arts was in 2004 to see a Rembrandt exhibition. But I might have wandered away from the works of the Dutch master in search of an ancient Greek artifact, had I known at the time that the object in question, a wine vessel, was in the museum's collection. According to the 2012 Christmas issue of the BMJ (preacronymically known as the British Medical Journal), the 2,500-year-old cup, created by one of the anonymous artisans who helped to shape Western culture, is adorned with the image of a man wiping his butt. That revelation appears in an article entitled “Toilet Hygiene in the Classical Era,” by French anthropologist and forensic medicine researcher Philippe Charlier and his colleagues. Their report examines tidying techniques used way back—and the resultant medical issues. Such a study is in keeping with the BMJ's tradition of offbeat subject matter for its late December issue—as noted in this space five years ago: “Had the Puritans never left Britain for New England, they might later have fled the British Medical Journal to found the New England Journal of Medicine.” The toilet hygiene piece reminds us that practices considered routine in one place or time may be unknown elsewhere or elsetime. The first known reference to toilet paper in the West does not appear until the 16th century, when satirist François Rabelais mentions that it doesn't work particularly well at its assigned task. Of course, the ready availability of paper of any kind is a relatively recent development. And so, the study's authors say, “anal cleaning can be carried out in various ways according to local customs and climate, including with water (using a bidet, for example), leaves, grass, stones, corn cobs, animal furs, sticks, snow, seashells, and, lastly, hands.” Sure, aesthetic sensibility insists on hands being the choice of last resort, but reason marks seashells as the choice to pull up the rear. “Squeezably soft” is the last thing to come to mind about, say, razor clams. Charlier et al. cite no less an authority than philosopher Seneca to inform us that “during the Greco-Roman period, a sponge fixed to a stick (tersorium) was used to clean the buttocks after defecation; the sponge was then replaced in a bucket filled with salt water or vinegar water.” Talk about your low-flow toilets. The authors go on to note the use of rounded “fragments of ceramic known as ‘pessoi’ (meaning pebbles), a term also used to denote an ancient board game.” (The relieved man on the Museum of Fine Arts's wine cup is using a singular pessos for his finishing touches.) The ancient Greek game pessoi is not related to the ancient Asian game Go, despite how semantically satisfying it would be if one used stones from Go after one Went. According to the BMJ piece, a Greek axiom about frugality cites the use of pessoi and their purpose: “Three stones are enough to wipe.” The modern equivalent is probably the purposefully self-contradictory “toilet paper doesn't grow on trees.” Some pessoi may have originated as ostraca, pieces of broken ceramic on which the Greeks of old inscribed the names of enemies. The ostraca were used to vote for some pain-in-the-well-you-know to be thrown out of town—hence, “ostracized.” The creative employment of ostraca as pessoi allowed for “literally putting faecal matter on the name of hated individuals,” Charlier and company suggest. Ostraca have been found bearing the name of Socrates, which is not surprising considering they hemlocked him up and threw away the key. (Technically, he hemlocked himself, but we could spend hours in Socratic debate about who took ultimate responsibility.) Putting shards of a hard substance, however polished, in one's delicate places has some obvious medical risks. “The abrasive characteristics of ceramic,” the authors write, “suggest that long term use of pessoi could have resulted in local irritation, skin or mucosal damage, or complications of external haemorrhoids.”... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/toilet-tissue-anthropologists-uncover-all-the-ways-weve-wiped/

May I recommend... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groom_of_the_Stool

First heard it from my papa ca. 1965.

Charlie, thank you. I will count today, but meanwhile observe that depending on quality of digestion, TP needed can range from rather too little to far too much.

Or mouse traps or fly strips! Boy starts work at the local grocery as a stock clerk. Lady comes in, says 'Do you have any green beans?' Boy replies 'No ma'am, sorry, we're out of stock on those today.' She leaves. Manager storms over. 'All wrong! You should have said No but I'm sure you'd enjoy our nice lima beans or navy beans.' Boy: 'Oh, sorry. I see.' Next day another lady comes in. 'Pardon me, son, do you have toilet paper?' 'No, we're fresh out, but I'm sure you'd enjoy our flypaper or sandpaper.'

Thank you! Agree completely about MB.

Purity Of Essence...!

...The envelope, please? Don't leave us in suspense! P.S. Could it be Hannaford's? Or Market Basket, which has vastly upped its game over the past half-decade?

HAH! It was exactly that ham-upskirt dame that I was searching for when I found instead the video above of large ladies stashing bottles of hooch the same way. Suckrates may have a point about the dry rub.

Prescient.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cucumber%20pants

Hah! Have to agree with all those I know. Think I would as soon graze in the garbage as shop at Slop & Plop -- many/most of their stores have gotten disgustingly run-down. And Wal-Mart grocery prices, in NC at least, trend a good bit higher than better stores such as Kroger.

http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/creator-of-tvs-batman-lorenzo-semple-jr-dies-at-91-1201149758/

I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying. Wilde

So to speak

Acute

Hard indeed to see how the FISA Court approvals etc. are anything other than precisely the kind of "general warrant" that the 4th Amendment was specifically designed against.

Many details in how the Fourth Amendment came to be were unfamiliar to me. Quoth Wikipedia: Text The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [ 1 ] Background English law Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden established the English common law precedent against general search warrants. Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[2]Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.[3] The 1760s saw a growth in the intensity of litigation against state officers, who, using general warrants, conducted raids in search of materials relating to John Wilkes's publications attacking both government policies and the King himself. The most famous of these cases involved John Entick, whose home was forcibly entered by the King's Messenger Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax authorizing them "to make strict and diligent search for ... the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers intitled, 'The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 257, 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380,'" and seized printed charts, pamphlets and other materials. Entick filed suit in Entick v Carrington, argued before the Court of King's Bench in 1765. Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden ruled that both the search and the seizure was unlawful, as the warrant authorized the seizure of all of Entick's papers—not just the criminal ones—and as the warrant lacked probable cause to even justify the search. By holding that "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave",[4]Entick established the English precedent that the executive is limited in intruding on private property by common law.[3] Colonial America Homes in Colonial America, on the other hand, did not enjoy the same sanctity as their British counterparts, because legislation had been explicitly written so as to enable enforcement of British revenue-gathering policies on customs; until 1750, in fact, the only type of warrant defined in the handbooks for justices of the peace was the general warrant.[3] During what scholar William Cuddihy called the "colonial epidemic of general searches", the authorities possessed almost unlimited power to search for anything at any time, with very little oversight.[5] Massachusetts lawyer James Otis protested British use of general warrants in the American colonies. In 1756, the colony of Massachusetts enacted legislation that barred the use of general warrants. This represented the first law in American history curtailing the use of seizure power. Its creation largely stemmed from the great public outcry over the Excise Act of 1754, which gave tax collectors unlimited powers to interrogate colonists concerning their use of goods subject to customs. The act also permitted the use of a general warrant known as a writ of assistance, allowing tax collectors to search the homes of colonists and seize "prohibited and uncustomed" goods.[6] A crisis erupted over the writs of assistance on December 27, 1760 when the news of King George II's death on October 23 arrived in Boston. All writs automatically expired six months after the death of the King and would have had to be re-issued by George III, the new king, to remain valid.[7] In mid-January 1761, a group of over 50 merchants represented by James Otis petitioned the court to have hearings on the issue. During the five-hour hearing on February 23, 1761, Otis vehemently denounced British colonial policies, including their sanction of general warrants and writs of assistance.[8] Future US President John Adams, who was present in the courtroom when Otis spoke, viewed these events as "the spark in which originated the American Revolution."[9] However, the court ruled against Otis.[10] Because of the name he had made for himself in attacking the writs, Otis was elected to the Massachusetts colonial legislature and helped pass legislation requiring that special writs of assistance be "granted by any judge or justice of the peace upon information under oath by any officer of the customs" and barring all other writs. The governor overturned the legislation, finding it contrary to English law and parliamentary sovereignty.[11] Seeing the danger general warrants presented, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) explicitly forbade the use of general warrants. This prohibition became a precedent for the Fourth Amendment:[12] That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted. [ 12 ] Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, written by John Adams and enacted in 1780 as part of the Massachusetts Constitution, added the requirement that all searches must be "reasonable" and served as another basis for the language of the Fourth Amendment:[13] Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws. [ 14 ] By 1784, eight state constitutions contained a provision against general warrants.[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I told you before: They are testing your fitness for membership.

Mozilla staff call for new CEO to stand down over donation to anti-gay marriage campaign http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10729575/Mozilla-staff-call-for-new-CEO-to-stand-down-over-donation-to-anti-gay-marriage-campaign.html