AdamSmith

...would this qualify?

As she said -- directly above the grey face! (If you don't have one, I could lend you mine.)

Weird. Loads fine on my Win7/FF laptop and on iPhone 4S.

Towleroad reports... Boy Scouts Send Out Survey to Pack Leaders Asking Questions About Gay Scenarios, Biased Policies: READ IT Towleroad has obtained screenshots from a pack leader of a survey sent out by the Boy Scouts of America asking them to rate the acceptability of various scenarios related to gay scouts and scout leaders, along with some additional questions about its policies. In early February, the BSA announced that it would not vote on lifting the ban then but delay it till May. The questions in the survey seem pointed, to say the least: Bob is 15 years old, and the only openly gay Scout in a Boy Scout troop. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the troop leader to allow Bob to tent with a heterosexual boy on an overnight camping trip? Tom started in the program as a Tiger Cub, and finished every requirement for the Eagle Scout Award at 16 years of age. At his board of review Tom reveals that he is gay. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the review board to deny his Eagle Scout award based on that admission? Johnny, a first grade boy, has joined Tiger Cubs with his friends. Johnny's friends and their parents unanimously nominate Johnny's mom, who is known by them to be lesbian, to be the den leader. Johnny's pack is chartered to a church where the doctrine of that faith does not teach that homosexuality is wrong. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for his mother to serve as a den leader for his Cub Scout den? A troop is chartered by an organization that does not believe homosexuality is wrong and allows gays to be ministers. The youth minister traditionally serves as the Scoutmaster for the troop. The congregation hires a youth minister who is gay. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for this youth minister to serve as the Scoutmaster? David, a Boy Scout, believes that homosexuality is wrong. His troop is chartered to a church where the doctrine of that faith also teaches that homosexuality is wrong. Steve, an openly gay youth, applies to be a member in the troop and is denied membership. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for this troop to deny Steve membership in their troop? A gay male troop leader, along with another adult leader, is taking a group of boys on a camping trip following the youth protection guidelines of two-deep leadership. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the gay adult leader to take adolescent boys on an overnight camping trip? Other questions include this one, which is asked both before and after the questions asked above: The current Boy Scouts of America requirements, stated above, prohibit open homosexuals from being Scouts or adult Scout leaders. To what extent do you support or oppose this requirement? More questions: Different organizations that charter Boy Scout troops have different positions on the morality of homosexuality. Do you support or oppose allowing charter organizations to follow their own beliefs when selecting Boy Scout members and adult leaders, if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next? What is your greatest concern if the policy remains in place and openly gay youth and adults are prohibited from joining Scouting? What is your greatest concern if the policy is changed to allow charter organizations to make their own decisions to admit openly gay Scouts and leaders? Do you believe the current policy prohibiting open homosexuals from being Scouts or adult Scout leaders is a core value of Scouting found in the Scout Oath and Law? If the Boy Scouts of America makes a decision on this policy that disagrees with your own view, will you continue to participate in the Boy Scouts, or will you leave the organization? How likely is it that you would recommend volunteering in the Scouting program to other friends or acquaintances? Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/03/boy-scouts-send-out-survey-to-pack-leaders-asking-opinion-on-anti-gay-policies-read-it.html#ixzz2NQuja9lb

What was really happening...

Dept. of Careful Where You Surf in the Village Voice online... Pho Sure 120 Christopher St., New York, NY 10014 (212) 929-0811 The pleasure of a bowl of pho is principally in the broth, which should be aromatic and round, a brew made of beef bones, sweet charred ginger, star anise, and cloves. The pho at Pho Sure—a jokey name predicated on a mispronunciation of the soup, which is actually pronounced "fuh"—wins more than half the battle with its properly beefy, flavorful broth. The restaurant makes three versions of the soup, but the notable addition to the pho genre this year is the mo pho, a steaming bowl replete with beef tendon, tongue, and penis, which looks disconcertingly like the human variety, and is soft, chewy and mild. http://bestof.voiceplaces.com/new-york/w/best-penis-pho-2009-35644

Also clicks through fine & dandy on Win7/FireFox.

I just clicked through to the site with no trouble, no warning. (On iPhone 4S.)

I want these.

Here is the text of the petition mentioned in the CNN article above. we petition the obama administration to: Lower the precedence of the new Distinguished Warfare Medal The Pentagon is introducing a new medal to recognized the service of pilots of unmanned drones during combat operations. This medal will be placed in precedence order just below the Distinguished Flying Cross and just above a Bronze Star Medal. Bronze Stars are commonly awarded with a Valor device in recognition of a soldier's service in the heat of combat while on the ground in the theater of operation. Under no circumstance should a medal that is designed to honor a pilot, that is controlling a drone via remote control, thousands of miles away from the theater of operation, rank above a medal that involves a soldier being in the line of fire on the ground. This is an injustice to those who have served and risked their lives and this should not be allowed to move forward as planned. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/lower-precedence-new-distinguished-warfare-medal/5KdnkBBN?goback=.gde_139773_member_221714330

Jealous! Details salacious and otherwise? Please? Yum.

An article about a German fighter pilot who took pity on an American bomber pilot and crew during WWII currently leads cnn.com. Key excerpt: ... What is this bond that surfaces between enemies during and after battle? It's called the warrior's code, say soldiers and military scholars. It's shaped cultures as diverse as the Vikings, the Samurai, the Romans and Native Americans, says Shannon E. French, author of "Code of the Warrior." The code is designed to protect the victor, as well as the vanquished, French says. "People think of the rules of war primarily as a way to protect innocent civilians from being victims of atrocities," she says. "In a much more profound sense, the rules are there to protect the people doing the actual fighting." The code is designed to prevent soldiers from becoming monsters. Butchering civilians, torturing prisoners, desecrating the enemies' bodies -- are all battlefield behaviors that erode a soldier's humanity, French says. The code is ancient as civilization itself. In Homer's epic poem, "The Iliad," the Greek hero Achilles breaks the code when his thirst for vengeance leads him to desecrate the body of his slain foe, the Trojan hero Hector. Most warrior cultures share one belief, French says: "There is something worse than death, and one of those things is to completely lose your humanity." The code is still needed today, French says. Thousands of U.S. soldiers returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. Some have seen, and have done, things that are unfathomable. A study of Vietnam veterans showed that those who felt as if they had participated in dishonorable behavior during the war or saw the Vietnamese as subhuman experienced more post-traumatic stress disorder, French says. Drone warfare represents a new threat to soldiers' humanity, French says. The Pentagon recently announced it would award a new Distinguished Warfare Medal to soldiers who operate drones and launch cyberattacks. The medal would rank above the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, two medals earned in combat. At least 17,000 people have signed an online petition protesting the medal. The petition says awarding medals to soldiers who wage war via remote control was an "injustice" to those who risked their lives in combat. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the new medal at a February news conference. "I've seen firsthand how modern tools, like remotely piloted platforms and cybersystems, have changed the way wars are fought," Panetta says. "And they've given our men and women the ability to engage the enemy and change the course of battle, even from afar." Still, critics ask, is there any honor in killing an enemy by remote control? French isn't so sure. "If [i'm] in the field risking and taking a life, there's a sense that I'm putting skin in the game," she says. "I'm taking a risk so it feels more honorable. Someone who kills at a distance -- it can make them doubt. Am I truly honorable?" ... http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/09/living/higher-call-military-chivalry/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 Reading that, it struck me that those points about drone warfare dehumanizing us even further than before, if possible, make Speer's closing statement at Nuremberg all the more chillingly prescient: Final Statement of Albert Speer: Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal: Hitler and the collapse of his system have brought a time of tremendous suffering upon the German people. The useless continuation of this war and the unnecessary destruction make the work of reconstruction more difficult. Privation and misery have come to the German people. After this Trial, the German people will despise and condemn Hitler as the proven author of its misfortune. But the world will learn from these happenings not only to hate dictatorship as a form of government, but to fear it. Hitler's dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. His was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means in a perfect manner for the domination of its own nation. Through technical devices such as radio and loudspeaker 80 million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man. The telephone, teletype, and radio made it possible, for instance, for orders from the highest sources to be transmitted directly to the lowest-ranking units, where, because of the high authority, they were carried out without criticism. Another result was that numerous offices and headquarters were directly attached to the supreme leadership, from which they received their sinister orders directly. Also, one of the results was a far-reaching supervision of the citizen of the state and the maintenance of a high degree of secrecy for criminal events. Perhaps to the outsider this machinery of the state may appear like the lines of a telephone exchange--apparently without system. But like the latter, it could be served and dominated by one single will. Earlier dictators during their work of leadership needed highly qualified assistants, even at the lowest level, men who could think and act independently. The totalitarian system in the period of modern technical development can dispense with them; the means of communication alone make it possible to mechanize the subordinate leadership. As a result of this there arises a new type: the uncritical recipient of orders. We had only reached the beginning of the development. The nightmare of many a man that one day nations could be dominated by technical means was all but realized in Hitler's totalitarian system. Today the danger of being terrorized by technocracy threatens every country in the world. In modern dictatorship this appears to me inevitable. Therefore, the more technical the world becomes, the more necessary is the promotion of individual freedom and the individual's awareness of himself as a counterbalance. Hitler not only took advantage of technical developments to dominate his own people-he almost succeeded, by means of his technical lead, in subjugating the whole of Europe. It was merely due to a few fundamental shortcomings of organization such as are typical in a dictatorship because of the absence of criticism, that he did not have twice as many tanks, aircraft, and submarines before 1942. But, if a modern industrial state utilizes its intelligence, its science, its technical developments, and its production for a number of years in order to gain a lead in the sphere of armament, then even with a sparing use of its manpower it can, because of its technical superiority, completely overtake and conquer the world, if other nations should employ their technical abilities during that same period on behalf of the cultural progress of humanity. The more technical the world becomes, the greater this danger will be, and the more serious will be an established lead in the technical means of warfare. This war ended with remote-controlled rockets, aircraft traveling at the speed of sound, new types of submarines, torpedoes which find their own target, with atom bombs, and with, the prospect of a horrible kind of chemical warfare. Of necessity the next war will be overshadowed by these new destructive inventions of the human mind. In 5 or 10 years the technique of warfare will make it possible to fire rockets from continent to continent with uncanny precision. By atomic power it can destroy one million people in the center of New York in a matter of seconds with a rocket operated, perhaps, by only 10 men, invisible, without previous warning, faster than sound, by day and by night. Science is able to spread pestilence among human beings and animals and to destroy crops by insect warfare. Chemistry has developed terrible weapons with which it can inflict unspeakable suffering upon helpless human beings. Will there ever again be a nation which will use the technical discoveries of this war for the preparation of a new war, while the rest of the world is employing the technical progress of this war for the benefit of humanity, thus attempting to create a slight compensation for its horrors? As a former minister of a highly developed armament system, it is my last duty to say the following: A new large-scale war will end with the destruction of human culture and civilization. Nothing can prevent unconfined engineering and science from completing the work of destroying human beings, which it has begun in so dreadful a way in this war. Therefore this Trial must contribute towards preventing such degenerate wars in the future, and towards establishing rules whereby human beings can live together. Of what importance is my own fate, after everything that has happened, in comparison with this high goal? During the past centuries the German people have contributed much towards the creation of human civilization. Often they have made these contributions in times when they were just as powerless and helpless as they are today. Worth-while human beings will not let themselves be driven to despair. They will create new and lasting values, and under the tremendous pressure brought to bear upon everyone today these new works will be of particular greatness. But if the German people create new cultural values in the unavoidable times of their poverty and weakness, and at the same time in the period of their reconstruction, then they will have in that way made the most valuable contribution to world events which they could make in their position. It is not the battles of war alone which shape the history of humanity, but also, in a higher sense, the cultural achievements which one day will become the common property of all humanity. A nation which believes in its future will never perish. May God protect Germany and the culture of the west. http://propagander.tripod.com/as7.html

This piece opines that the Bieb's new rap friends Lil Twist, Lil Za and related are the Bad Influence. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2290885/Justin-Bieber-London-The-scenes-power-struggle-turned-tour-fiasco.html

The word "implacably" also sounds an extraordinarily strong note given the Crown's normally veddy restrained rhetoric. Good for her!

Now this definitely belongs in the Politics forum. From politico.com... Friday cocktail: Corpse Reviver (No. 2) By DYLAN BYERS and MACKENZIE WEINGER | 3/8/13 5:00 PM EDT It's always five o'clock somewhere, and sometimes that place happens to be Washington, D.C. Every Friday, starting today, we're asking one member of the media to share a favorite cocktail recipe. This gives journalists, pundits, hacks and flacks a chance to share their personal tastes with our readers, while giving us a chance to post something pertaining neither to media perfidy nor partisanship. Because we could all use a break. Our inaugural recipe comes from Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker’s Washington correspondent and a contributor for CNN: This is one of my favorites from the Savoy Cocktail Book, which is probably the most important recipe book in cocktail history, and certainly the most beautiful. The Savoy lists several "corpse revivers," which were allegedly hangover cures, but the Corpse Reviver # 2 is the only one you'd want to drink. I recommend it for Easter brunch. Corpse Reviver (No. 2): 3⁄4 oz Lemon juice 3⁄4 oz Lillet Blanc 3⁄4 oz Cointreau 3⁄4 oz Gin (either Plymouth or a London dry like Beefeater) Shake, strain, & serve up in a cocktail glass rinsed with Absinthe (very important). No garnish. But be careful, according to the Savoy, "Four of these taken in swift succession will unrevive the corpse again." http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/?ml=bl_db

A Wet Nurse, of course. Take care of yourself and get well soon.