AdamSmith

If Kim and Kanye were drowning, and you only had time to save one of them, what kind of sandwich would you make?

A compromise? Exorcise the programmers, using an enema of boiling Holy Water, as in Ken Russell's The Devils.

???

A bit more on his chances of winning: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/01/clay_aiken_considering_run_for_congress_what_are_his_chances.html

Taking your question literally -- how about Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria? Seriously, I seem to be practically alone on earth in thinking this, but astounding how to me she managed to give off not one iota of sexual allure of any kind whatever in that role.

"I flew here with Pazuzu, in a trance, to see Kokumo. It's difficult to explain." Richard Burton, Exorcist II: The Heretic Site needs an exorcism?

Exactly! Behind the paywall. The other giveaway is they picked the wrong guy.

Her recipes got (somewhat!) more moderated after Mastering the Art of French Cooking I & II, as she developed and published her own recipes. Although she always enjoyed saying, "I don't use too much butter -- I use enough butter."

Truly: http://www.boytoy.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2449-zany-brits/ http://www.boytoy.com/forums/index.php?/topic/14663-scratchy-bottom-beats-brokenwind-but-shitterton-takes-the-prizefor-unfortunate-place-names/

"Now, take a leek..." -- The Galloping Gourmet

North Carolina. TY, please! NC has always liked to style itself, relative to SC & VA, "a vale of humility between two mountains of conceit." As for Clay, the assets of fame and relative youth might play well in an electoral contest in the district he is considering running in, which has swung back and forth between electing Dems and Repubs for some time now, after a long stretch as solidly Democratic.

...fairly cool even though I prefer Clarke as a futurologist: http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/isaac-asimovs-1964-prediction-of-2014-is-frighteningly-accur?s=mobile

Already happening, not to worry. http://www.rt.com/news/russian-thrill-seekers-dead-accident-social-media-picture-408/

One I hadn't seen before.

This could get interesting. Clay Aiken may run for Congress The out singer has been active on LGBT issues in recent years. | AP Photo By TAL KOPAN | 1/3/14 6:13 AM EST politico.com Former American Idol runner-up and singer Clay Aiken is taking steps toward a run for Congress, according to a new report. Sources told The Washington Blade that Aiken has been meeting with political operatives in D.C. and is actively considering launching a bid for Congress in North Carolina. Aiken has reportedly reached out to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to North Carolina strategist Betsy Conti and polling firm Hart Research Associates. If he were to run, Aiken would be vying for the seat currently held by second-term GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers, who may also face a primary challenge from the right and who last summer ruled out a run for Senate. The out singer has been active on LGBT issues in recent years. Aiken would have to file by Feb. 28 at noon to run in the May 6 primary. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/clay-aiken-congress-run-north-carolina-101708.html#ixzz2pLqmWsab

No doubt. Feds steamed at New York Times Snowden editorialBy JOSH GERSTEIN |1/2/14 7:01 PM EST politico.com Federal officials are ticked about a New York Times editorial published Thursday, not so much over its call for clemency or a plea deal for leaker Edward Snowden, but for accusing intelligence agencies of intentionally violating the law. Drawing the particular ire of Obama administration officials is the Times's suggestion that Snowden should be off the hook because he revealed that the government set out to act illegally on a broad scale. "When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government," the Times's editorial board wrote in making the case for a deal to return Snowden to the U.S. Some practices of the National Security Agency, such as the collection of telephone metadata in the U.S., may be ultimately ruled unlawful or unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, that's a far cry from justifying the Times's implication that officials set out to violate the law. In this case, officials repeatedly obtained authorization from 15 federal court judges for the metadata gathering. Spokespeople for various government entities, including the White House, declined to offer an on-the-record response to the Times editorial. Some referred questions to the Justice Department, since the central theme of the Times editorial was about Snowden's potential criminal liability. However, one government official speaking on condition of anonymity called the editorial "frustrating." "There's absolutely no evidence any government officials or employees violated the law," the official said Thursday. "The piece is based on an absolutely inaccurate premise and that is that laws have been broken…Snowden broke the law and the people conducting these activities were doing so in compliance with the law." To be sure, there have been reports of abuses by a small number of NSA employees or military personnel involving gathering of data on girlfriends and boyfriends or for other personal reasons. However, none of these cases involved the telephone metadata program and most or all related to traditional NSA signals intelligence from overseas. Whether Snowden broke the law may ultimately be for a jury to decide. However, it seems quite possible to make a case for clemency or a plea deal for Snowden without asserting that officials intentionally violated the law. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/feds-steamed-at-new-york-times-snowden-editorial-180482.html?hp=l4

The Guardian opines likewise. Must say that regrettably I find it difficult if not impossible to imagine the Obama administration's views on this "evolving" however. Snowden affair: the case for a pardon Snowden gave classified information to journalists, even though he knew the likely consequences. That was an act of courage Editorial The Guardian, Wednesday 1 January 2014 18.16 EST In an interview with the Washington Post just before Christmas, Edward Snowden declared his mission accomplished. At first sight it seemed a grandiose, even hubristic, statement. In fact, it betrayed a kind of modesty about the intentions of the former NSA analyst. "I didn't want to change society," he explained. "I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself." Mr Snowden through journalists, in the absence of meaningful, reliable democratic oversight had given people enough knowledge about the nature of modern intelligence-gathering to allow an informed debate. Voters might, in fact, decide they were prepared to put privacy above security but at least they could make that choice on the basis of information. That debate is now actively happening. In a remarkable week before Christmas, a US judge found that the "almost Orwellian" techniques revealed by Mr Snowden were probably unconstitutional. A review panel of security experts convened by President Obama himself made more than 40 recommendations for change. The leaders of the eight major US tech companies met the president to express their alarm. Parliamentarians, presidents, digital engineers, academics, lawyers and civil rights activists around the world have begun a wide-ranging and intense discussion. Even the more reasonable western security chiefs acknowledge a debate was necessary. Man does civic duty, and is warmly thanked? Of course not. Should Mr Snowden return to his homeland he can confidently expect to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and, if convicted like Chelsea Manning before him locked away for a very long time. For all his background in constitutional law and human rights, Mr Obama has shown little patience for whistleblowers: his administration has used the Espionage Act against leakers of classified information far more than any of his predecessors. It is difficult to imagine Mr Obama giving Mr Snowden the pardon he deserves. There has been some talk of an amnesty with NSA officials reportedly prepared to consider a deal allowing Mr Snowden to return to the US in exchange for any documents to which he may still have access. The former head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller recently predicted such an outcome, though Mr Obama's own security adviser, Susan Rice, thought he didn't "deserve" it. A former CIA director, James Woolsey, suggested he "should be hanged by his neck until he is dead". The first world war vintage Espionage Act is, like its British counterpart, the Official Secrets Act, a clumsy and crude law to use against government officials communicating with journalists on matters where there is a clear public interest if only because it does not allow a defendant to argue such a public interest in court. It is at least possible that, should he ever face trial, there could be a "jury nullification", where a defendant's peers acquit him even though technically guilty as in the UK in the 1985 case of Clive Ponting, a civil servant who leaked defence information. Such an outcome would be a humiliating rebuke to those bringing a prosecution. Mr Snowden gave classified information to journalists, even though he knew the likely consequences. That was an act of some moral courage. Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan have issued pardons. The debate that Mr Snowden has facilitated will no doubt be argued over in the US supreme court. If those justices agree with Mr Obama's own review panel and Judge Richard Leon in finding that Mr Snowden did, indeed, raise serious matters of public importance which were previously hidden (or, worse, dishonestly concealed), is it then conceivable that he could be treated as a traitor or common felon? We hope that calm heads within the present administration are working on a strategy to allow Mr Snowden to return to the US with dignity, and the president to use his executive powers to treat him humanely and in a manner that would be a shining example about the value of whistleblowers and of free speech itself. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/01/snowden-affair-case-for-pardon-editorial

Nice thing about paper -- unlike electronics, it never crashes. Excepting paper airplanes.

But ... but ...

Because one can't but. As stated above. One can, of course, butt. How much butt could a butt but butt If a butt but could but butt?