AdamSmith

LOL. Exactly. Best putdown ever was in "Barbershop," character Eddie (played by inimitable Cedric the Entertainer) finally driven to scream in outrage: "Fuck Jesse Jackson!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MAn36ziR2Kw

You are correct. Believe it or not, I tasted a Safe Sex on the Beach one time. My reaction was as you might imagine.

Indeed. And as for Russia hungering for Snowden's laptops, one Guardian commentator makes the case that Moscow already knows full well most of what's on them, having its own versions of the technological infrastructures for digital spying and the resultant data. I buy this argument that Putin's main thing right now is just the opportunity to, as Schumer, this article and others have said, stick a finger in our eye.

LOL. There is a nonalcoholic version called, of course, Safe Sex on the Beach.

That is how I have usually bought wine, if not ordering/pre-ordering a case. It has the benefit of leading you to something you can purchase right then and there. I got to know several good wine shops in & around Boston that were owned & run by a knowledgeable buyer, had helpful (and honest!) staff, and to boot ran 'cast-off' bins where they would put out, on mark-down, pretty good (sometimes quite good) bottles that were the last of a lot that they wanted to be rid of. (One of the best: http://www.thewineandcheesecask.com/)

Pretty good dissection of Roberts' "crafty" "cynical" opinion: http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/25/supreme-court-voter-rights-act-racism-over

Fr Hans Kung on 'the paradox of Pope Francis': http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/paradox-pope-francis

LOL still traumatized I see! As per the link, the article is from The Hammer: Canadian Satire, Humour and Hard-Hitting News.

With TY all the way on whites today. The only exception I would make is well rated first-growth chablis. The one white varietal in which when lucky one can find the same depth & interest as in many reds. Alas not, however, without considerable damage to the wallet.

Sickening.

"Like many other men, Swann had a naturally lazy mind, and lacked imagination. He knew perfectly well as a general truth, that human life is full of contrasts, but in the case of each individual human being he imagined all that part of his or her life with which he was not familiar as being identical with the part with which he was. He imagined what was kept secret from him in the light of what was revealed. At such times as he spent with Odette, if their conversation turned upon an indelicate act committed, or an indelicate sentiment expressed by some third person, she would condemn them by virtue of the same moral principles which Swann had always heard expressed by his own parents, and to which he himself had remained faithful; and then she would arrange her flowers, would sip her tea, would inquire about Swann’s work. So Swann extended those attitudes to fill the rest of her life, and reconstructed those actions when he wished to form a picture of the moments in which he and she were apart. If anyone had portrayed her to him as she was, or rather as she had been for so long, with himself, but had substituted some other man, he would have been distressed, for such a portrait would have struck him as lifelike. But to suppose that she went to brothels, that she indulged in orgies with other women, that she led the crapulous existence of the most abject, the most contemptible of mortals—would be an insane aberration, for the realisation of which, thank heaven, the chrysanthemums that he could imagine, the daily cups of tea, the virtuous indignation left neither time nor place."

I rather love the rest of Putin's remarks as quoted by The Guardian: “Assange and Snowden consider themselves human rights activists and say they’re fighting for the spread of information,” Putin said. “Ask yourself this: should you hand these people over so they’ll be put in prison?” “In any case, I’d rather not deal with such questions, because anyway it’s like shearing a pig – lots of screams but little wool."

Do you not recall my image post from several years ago? Ask TY to jog your memory. (He declared his "eyeballs seared," if I recall.)

Paula Deen Scandal Continues As Employees Tell Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Of Alleged DiscriminationThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution | By Fran Jeffries and Wayne Washington Posted: 06/23/2013 1:18 am EDT | Updated: 06/24/2013 8:30 pm EDT An attorney for the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition said current and former Paula Deen employees told him the famous cook and her brother discriminated against black employees, one of whom was consistently referred to as "my little monkey." After Deen acknowledged using a racial slur, the story went viral and the Food Network announced on Friday that it would not renew her contract when it expires at the end of June. Deen and her brother, Bubba Hiers, are being sued by Lisa T. Jackson, a former employee who claims she endured a hostile work environment replete with racial slurs. Robert Patillo, an attorney for Rainbow/PUSH, a civil rights group founded by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr., said one current and two former employees told him white employees are routinely paid more than black employees and are promoted more quickly. A black man who had threatened to go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Deen's brother told him "you don't have any civil rights here," Rainbow/PUSH said in a press release. Rainbow/PUSH said it has "found evidence of systemic racial discimination and harassment" by Deen and that "a family member consistently referred to a black cook as 'my little monkey.'" Patillo, who conducted interviews in Savannah where Deen's restaurant is located, said current and former employees told him that Deen "preferred white and light-skinned blacks to work with customers" and that darker-skinned blacks were relegated to "back-of-the-house operations." Patillo said employees have been reluctant to talk to him about their experience with Deen because they fear retaliation. Deen could not be reached on Saturday for comment on the Rainbow/PUSH allegations... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/23/paula-deen-scandal-continues-employees-tell-rainbow-push-alleged-discrimination_n_3484607.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Looks good to me... Klein Has Pickle Removed From Ass Government sources confirmed today that Alberta Premier Ralph Klein underwent surgery last weekend to have a five-inch dill pickle removed from his rectum. While the premier’s office originally reported Mr. Klein had left the Ottawa First Ministers' conference on health care last week to attend an oil show in Lloydminster, rumours emerged late Sunday that he had in fact been admitted to Edmonton's Royal Alexandra Hospital for a cucumectomy. Dr. Bruce McGilliam, head of colorectal surgery at the Royal Alex, confirmed the surgery had been a success, and the premier was expected to make a full recovery. "It's a fairly routine procedure," said Dr. McGilliam. "He'll be back reading his poorly-written university term papers in the Legislative Assembly in no time." Mr. Klein, who last smiled in 1977, had been on a waiting list for a cucumectomy since the errant dill was discovered during a rectal examination last year. "He could have gone to a private pickle removal clinic and had this done more quickly and discreetly, but Premier Klein wanted to demonstrate his commitment to the public system by waiting his turn," insisted a spokesperson for Klein in Edmonton. Sources have speculated that the pickle may have become lodged in the premier's rectum as recently as 1995, when Klein received a 'Most Excellent International Fiscal Performance' Award from the Razor Institute, a conservative think tank. Manfred Twillsbottom III, head of Health Policy Research at the Institute, refused to comment on his organization’s involvement in the pickle insertion. "However, our data indicate that under a two-tier health care system, the Premier would likely have had the pickle removed 28.9% sooner, with a 36% faster recovery time, and 19.7% lower risk of complications," commented Twillsbottom. Many political analysts, pundits and wags were eager to attribute Klein's noted erratic behaviour to ‘the pickle.’ "Maybe that's why he threw a chair at me last month when I asked him a routine question about budget expenditures," surmised Calgary Sun political reporter Ken Bulbous."Who knows? Maybe Ralphie boy will be a little less...angry now." http://www.thehammer.ca/content/view.php?news=2004-09-21-klein-pickle

Where's Eddie? Can you spot the world's most wanted man? Speculation was rife yesterday that Snowden had left Hong Kong for Moscow on a plane … but when the plane landed in Russia he wasn't anywhere to be seen. Maybe he was still back in Hong Kong, cannily hiding himself among the crowds at a triathlon … If Snowden is en route to somewhere in South America – as was expected – then the opportunities for disguise are pretty good Joining forces with Pussy Riot in Moscow could be a bad option Here's the pic which the Independent ran yesterday, purportedly showing Snowden arriving in Moscow. For some reason they suggested he was the man at the centre of the frame, in red ... Too late for sycophancy? Pretty sure that won't work either http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2013/jun/24/wheres-edward-snowden-in-pictures#/?picture=411453984&index=6

How PRISM etc spy on ordinary citizens while largely missing the "Undernet" used by actual terrorists: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-23/u-s-surveillance-is-not-aimed-at-terrorists.html

The top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrantFisa court submissions show broad scope of procedures governing NSA's surveillance of Americans' communication • Document one: procedures used by NSA to target non-US persons • Document two: procedures used by NSA to minimise data collected from US persons Glenn Greenwald and James Ball guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 June 2013 18.59 EDT The documents show that discretion as to who is actually targeted lies directly with the NSA's analysts. Photograph: Martin Rogers/Workbook Stock/Getty Top secret documents submitted to the court that oversees surveillance by US intelligence agencies show the judges have signed off on broad orders which allow the NSA to make use of information "inadvertently" collected from domestic US communications without a warrant. The Guardian is publishing in full two documents submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (known as the Fisa court), signed by Attorney General Eric Holder and stamped 29 July 2009. They detail the procedures the NSA is required to follow to target "non-US persons" under its foreign intelligence powers and what the agency does to minimize data collected on US citizens and residents in the course of that surveillance. The documents show that even under authorities governing the collection of foreign intelligence from foreign targets, US communications can still be collected, retained and used. The procedures cover only part of the NSA's surveillance of domestic US communications. The bulk collection of domestic call records, as first revealed by the Guardian earlier this month, takes place under rolling court orders issued on the basis of a legal interpretation of a different authority, section 215 of the Patriot Act. The Fisa court's oversight role has been referenced many times by Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials as they have sought to reassure the public about surveillance, but the procedures approved by the court have never before been publicly disclosed. The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection. However, alongside those provisions, the Fisa court-approved policies allow the NSA to: • Keep data that could potentially contain details of US persons for up to five years; • Retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity; • Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications; • Access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the US, for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance. The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants. The documents also show that discretion as to who is actually targeted under the NSA's foreign surveillance powers lies directly with its own analysts, without recourse to courts or superiors – though a percentage of targeting decisions are reviewed by internal audit teams on a regular basis. Since the Guardian first revealed the extent of the NSA's collection of US communications, there have been repeated calls for the legal basis of the programs to be released. On Thursday, two US congressmen introduced a bill compelling the Obama administration to declassify the secret legal justifications for NSA surveillance. The disclosure bill, sponsored by Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Todd Rokita, an Indiana Republican, is a complement to one proposed in the Senate last week. It would "increase the transparency of the Fisa Court and the state of the law in this area," Schiff told the Guardian. "It would give the public a better understanding of the safeguards, as well as the scope of these programs." Section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act (FAA), which was renewed for five years last December, is the authority under which the NSA is allowed to collect large-scale data, including foreign communications and also communications between the US and other countries, provided the target is overseas. FAA warrants are issued by the Fisa court for up to 12 months at a time, and authorise the collection of bulk information – some of which can include communications of US citizens, or people inside the US. To intentionally target either of those groups requires an individual warrant. One-paragraph orderOne such warrant seen by the Guardian shows that they do not contain detailed legal rulings or explanation. Instead, the one-paragraph order, signed by a Fisa court judge in 2010, declares that the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with US law and the fourth amendment. Those procedures state that the "NSA determines whether a person is a non-United States person reasonably believed to be outside the United States in light of the totality of the circumstances based on the information available with respect to that person, including information concerning the communications facility or facilities used by that person". It includes information that the NSA analyst uses to make this determination – including IP addresses, statements made by the potential target, and other information in the NSA databases, which can include public information and data collected by other agencies. Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues. "In the absence of specific information regarding whether a target is a United States person," it states "a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States or whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person." If it later appears that a target is in fact located in the US, analysts are permitted to look at the content of messages, or listen to phone calls, to establish if this is indeed the case. Referring to steps taken to prevent intentional collection of telephone content of those inside the US, the document states: "NSA analysts may analyze content for indications that a foreign target has entered or intends to enter the United States. Such content analysis will be conducted according to analytic and intelligence requirements and priorities." Details set out in the "minimization procedures", regularly referred to in House and Senate hearings, as well as public statements in recent weeks, also raise questions as to the extent of monitoring of US citizens and residents. NSA minimization procedures signed by Holder in 2009 set out that once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately. However, these circumstances do not apply to large-scale data where the NSA claims it is unable to filter US communications from non-US ones. The NSA is empowered to retain data for up to five years and the policy states "communications which may be retained include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on the NSA's ability to filter communications". Even if upon examination a communication is found to be domestic – entirely within the US – the NSA can appeal to its director to keep what it has found if it contains "significant foreign intelligence information", "evidence of a crime", "technical data base information" (such as encrypted communications), or "information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property". Domestic communications containing none of the above must be destroyed. Communications in which one party was outside the US, but the other is a US-person, are permitted for retention under FAA rules. The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria. Holder's 'minimization procedure' says once a target is confirmed to be in the US, interception of communication must stop. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images A separate section of the same document notes that as soon as any intercepted communications are determined to have been between someone under US criminal indictment and their attorney, surveillance must stop. However, the material collected can be retained, if it is useful, though in a segregated database: "The relevant portion of the communication containing that conversation will be segregated and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice will be notified so that appropriate procedures may be established to protect such communications from review or use in any criminal prosecution, while preserving foreign intelligence information contained therein," the document states. In practice, much of the decision-making appears to lie with NSA analysts, rather than the Fisa court or senior officials. A transcript of a 2008 briefing on FAA from the NSA's general counsel sets out how much discretion NSA analysts possess when it comes to the specifics of targeting, and making decisions on who they believe is a non-US person. Referring to a situation where there has been a suggestion a target is within the US. "Once again, the standard here is a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States. What does that mean when you get information that might lead you to believe the contrary? It means you can't ignore it. You can't turn a blind eye to somebody saying: 'Hey, I think so and so is in the United States.' You can't ignore that. Does it mean you have to completely turn off collection the minute you hear that? No, it means you have to do some sort of investigation: 'Is that guy right? Is my target here?" he says. "But, if everything else you have says 'no' (he talked yesterday, I saw him on TV yesterday, even, depending on the target, he was in Baghdad) you can still continue targeting but you have to keep that in mind. You can't put it aside. You have to investigate it and, once again, with that new information in mind, what is your reasonable belief about your target's location?" The broad nature of the court's oversight role, and the discretion given to NSA analysts, sheds light on responses from the administration and internet companies to the Guardian's disclosure of the PRISM program. They have stated that the content of online communications is turned over to the NSA only pursuant to a court order. But except when a US citizen is specifically targeted, the court orders used by the NSA to obtain that information as part of Prism are these general FAA orders, not individualized warrants specific to any individual. Once armed with these general orders, the NSA is empowered to compel telephone and internet companies to turn over to it the communications of any individual identified by the NSA. The Fisa court plays no role in the selection of those individuals, nor does it monitor who is selected by the NSA. The NSA's ability to collect and retain the communications of people in the US, even without a warrant, has fuelled congressional demands for an estimate of how many Americans have been caught up in surveillance. Two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall – both members of the Senate intelligence committee – have been seeking this information since 2011, but senior White House and intelligence officials have repeatedly insisted that the agency is unable to gather such statistics. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

If the stakes weren't so high for Snowden (and for all our freedoms, but what the hey) this would be classic farce. An AP reporter tweets: max seddon @maxseddon Standing next to Edward Snowden's seat on flight to Cuba. He ain't here. pic.twitter.com/NVRH3Pzved 6:07 AM - 24 Jun 2013 Guardian further notes: Ricardo Patiño Aroca, Ecuador’s foreign minister, is holding a press conference in 10 minutes time. Ricardo Patiño Aroca @RicardoPatinoEC @claudettewerden I will give a press conference at 7 pm. in Melia hotel, Hanoi. You are invited. 2:45 AM - 24 Jun 2013 He seems to be in Hanoi.

My best wishes too. Chuck50, we miss your voice and good heart here.