Phaedrus

Delicious!

Excellent job, my inquisitive friend! Keep 'em up!

Wondering if I want to spend a sizeable chunk of money on a new toy. I wasn't planning on it, but it's a good offer...

Congratulations, Brad!

Traditionally, I spend Christmas Eve having a huge panic over all the things I should have done weeks ago and haven't :)

I'm easy on the date. Really, you guys who are getting off your asses and running the show should do whatever's best for you. The rest of us can damn well fit in! I don't really like the idea of nametags, because discretion. And half the fun is finding out who mysterious people are :) And then finding out who was there but you missed, dammit!

Finally getting somewhat organized for Christmas. Finally...

Have a great birthday, Kiki!

So.... my back hurt. Too much sitting in a chair staring at a monitor all day. I'm sure I'm not the only person around here who does this. At times like this, you need to see someone who'll give you a good massage... and if you ask about that around here, there's one name that comes up over and over again. So, I went to see Jude recently. Quite why I hadn't been to see her before, I have no idea, but... better late than never, eh? After the exchange of a few emails, I found my way to Jude's studio, which is very nicely appointed. Jude herself is a delight to see, a delight to talk to, and what she can do with her hands... well, to be completely honest, some of that made me wince - but I guess that's my own fault for saying things like, "Get the knots out" :) Suffice to say that Jude will absolutely give you a good massage if that's what you want - and she'll pay attention to everything that needs attention. And then, yes, she'll pay attention there, too... and that's just as fantastic as everything else she does. Fortunately, there were no knots to be worked on at this point ;) I'll be back. In fact, speaking of back, it's starting to feel like it needs some attention again... :)

It wouldn't be an issue for me. If I decide I want to see someone, then an extra few minutes' drive isn't going to be a dealbreaker. Sure, I won't come and see you at rush hour... but I won't attempt to see anyone else when the roads are horrible either :)

Arranging a meeting with someone :) Happy thoughts!

Someone should get an award for this.

[URL="http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x934972413/Alleged-subway-Peeping-Mike-appeals-before-Massachusetts-SJC"][B]Alleged subway 'Peeping Mike' appeals before Massachusetts SJC Lawyer argues 1st Amendment protects Andover man while taking pictures up women's skirts[/B][/URL] BOSTON â?? The lawyer for an Andover man argued before the state Supreme Judicial Court yesterday that women â??can not expect privacyâ? in a subway from people like her client who is accused of using his cellphone camera to snap â??up-skirtâ? pictures of female passengers. â??If a clothed person reveals a body part whether it was intentional or unintentional, he or she can not expect privacy,â? Attorney Michelle Menken told the seven justices on behalf of her client, Michael Robertson, 31. Robertson was arrested in August 2010 for allegedly trying to take photos up womenâ??s dresses on Bostonâ??s Green Line subway. Robertsonâ??s trial in Boston Municipal Court has been stayed pending the appeal before the stateâ??s highest court. He was not in the courtroom yesterday for the arguments. Menken maintains that the laws regarding taking unwanted pictures of women are outdated and actually protected under the First Amendment. Menken told the justices that peeping Tom laws protect women and men from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms who are nude or partially nude. However, the way the law is written right now it does not protect clothed people in public areas. Robertson is being charged with two counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person that involved an undercover transit cop and another T passenger. He faces more than two years in jail if convicted. Attorney Cailin Campbell, argued on behalf of the state â??there is an understandable expectation that one can have on not being photographed like that in that kind of setting.â? Campbell said that because they were up-skirt photos of women, they can be considered partially nude even if they were fully clothed. â??So by that standard, everyone in this courtroom could be considered partially nude,â? said Justice Ralph Gants. Menken said the women in the photographs can not be considered partially nude because their underwear covered everything and no private parts could be seen in the pictures taken. â??They have to be in an exposed state to violate the current law and these women were not,â? she said. Menken also argued that someone would have to be secretive about taking such photographs to violate current laws and Robertson was not. â??The use of a cellphone in public is not secret surveillance,â? she argued. However, Campbell said that Roberston was being sneaky. Campbell arged that witnesses said that Robertson was standing as he used his phone by his waist directing it towards a womanâ??s private area discreetly. Menken said she is worried about First Amendment rights being violated if Robertson is convicted. â??For example, say a woman is breast feeding in public and someone who is morally opposed to this or even a journalist takes a picture. The woman may be covered but for some reason the picture shows a little bit of her breast. Now, that person who took the photo can be charged with the same thing,â? Menken maintained. Justice Gants seemed to be worried about this as well. â??What if a photographer is doing a project of people on the subway or out in public and he wants to get candids. Can he now not do that,â? he asked Campbell. â??Just because somebody wants to take a picture, doesnâ??t mean they should,â? she responded. Chief Justice Roderick Ireland asked, â??Is there any difference between what the naked eye can see and what a camera can see?â? Campbell said because of the camera, Roberston saw parts of a womanâ??s undergarments that he otherwise couldnâ??t have seen. Menken explains things differently. â??What he saw was in plain sight. He did not place his camera directly up a womenâ??s skirt. He saw what was in front of him,â? she said.

I wouldn't be too inclined to get hung up on exact numbers at the moment. What's really being debated at this stage is the principle of replacing the current welfare system with a flat payment made to everyone, no matter what. You can pick the numbers to suit any particular budget later on; the concept is the important thing here. You'd have to keep Revenue Canada as the government would still require income, obviously. The savings would be in the elimination of most of the vast bureaucracy that exists to hand money out again, and try and get it to the people that need it. I have no clue where you managed to get that idea from. The government could end up dishing out more money, or less, or about the same... depending on what figure you choose for the per-capita allowance. And as with government expenditures today, they can be funded by more or less taxation and borrowing. The spectre of runaway inflation has nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever. It's an interesting and innovative proposal, and a lot of sensible economists are giving it very serious thought. What's ridiculous is rejecting it out-of-hand without serious consideration. In fact, one of the things I've really liked about debates I've seen on this topic is that politicians and pundits are being forced to actually think about it, which is quite rare. On most issues there are well-established party lines and talking points for the left and the right to follow, but this issue has aspects that will appeal to both sides (and be unpopular with both sides). That makes the conversation rather more interesting than most conversations about welfare.

Never mind the draw for Brazil... what's important today is that they've just unveiled one of the new stadiums they're going to build in Qatar. Apparently it's supposed to resemble "the sails of the Arabian pearl fishing boat, the Dhow". Any resemblance to genitalia is clearly wide of the mark. Got that? Good. Glad we cleared that up.