Via these guys (and Reader JC):
“The only honest instruction left for voters is brutal and simple: treat most polls as arguments, not measurements.”
As always, the best “polls” take place at the actual polling booths (absent Socialist trickery and lawlessness).
Roll on, November.
“Dear Dr. Kim,
“My boyfriend and I have been together for many years, and we have various routines around the house which make life predictable, and we like it that way. (Some might call it ‘boring’, but horses for courses, right?)
“These ‘routines’ even extend to the bedroom, and we have a very satisfactory sex life.
“However, recently my boyfriend asked if instead of our normal low lighting or darkness, we could have all the lights on when we make love. He says he wants to see me enjoying the act.
“Well, I won’t. I have a hangup about my appearance — I admit it — and I don’t think I could handle having him watch me flop around the bed. He disagrees, saying that after all this time together, he knows what I look like, thinks I look fine, and it would be a departure from our usual routine.
“When I continued to refuse, he even said that this might be a ‘deal breaker’ in our sex life.
“I understand all that, but I really really don’t want to do it in bright lighting. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t enjoy sex that way, and it might turn me off altogether. That wouldn’t be good for our relationship, then.
“Dr. Kim, what am I to do?”
Dear Shy:
Firstly, there’s no need to be embarrassed about your preference for sex in darkness or low light. Darkness or dim lighting has always been a mood enhancer, especially for those people who don’t look like Salma Hayek, or Brad Pitt for that matter.
Secondly, your boyfriend is a total shit for saying that this might be a deal breaker: is he going to stop having sex just because you don’t want to go along with him?
However, his shittiness doesn’t end there.
Dr. Kim’s Tenth Law of Sex says: “If a man suddenly wants to shag under bright light, there’s a 90% chance that there’s going to be a video camera involved.” So if you think you’d be embarrassed by having sex in bright light, imagine your embarrassment when re-watching the fun and games on your TV later, perhaps on many occasions. Expect your embarrassment to grow exponentially when your would-be Quentin Tarantino shares the video with his mates or with everyone in the world via the Internet.
I think your long-term relationship is going to have an expiration date. Make some plans accordingly.
— 
Reader Mike L. points me at this latest example of Panopticalism:
Baystate Health is introducing new artificial intelligence-based weapons detection systems across its hospital facilities to enhance patient and visitor safety.
The technology combines traditional hardware with AI tools to screen people as they enter the building. By detecting specific metal masses and weapon-like shapes, the system allows daily items such as pacemakers, wheelchairs, phones and wallets to pass through without setting off alarms.
The system utilizes technology similar to what is used at schools and sporting events to detect prohibited items, including firearms, knives and electronic smoking devices. To accommodate the system at Baystate Medical Center, the hospital is closing its pediatric emergency department entrance to establish a single entry point where everyone passes through the detector.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Massachusetts. (Motto: Where your pets have more rights than YOU do.)
That said, BOLO for similar fuckery in your state or city — and not just in hospitals either, because if the tech exists today, expect it to spread like the bubonic plague by tomorrow. It’s like the loathsome Flock cameras, only with added bastardy.
Here we have James May hammering on about the joys of driving a Beach Buggy, and I agree with everything he says.
However, I have one small difference of opinion with him, and it’s about that “no protection from the rain” thing. Maybe the Brits are inured to being wet, given that it’s always raining Over There; but ever since I got caught in a tropical downpour whilst riding in the back of an open Army truck, I’ve hated it. (I don’t mind a gentle drizzle falling on me, by the way, as long as I’m wearing a waterproof hat and raincoat — but trapped in an open car? Nope. Pure misery.)
So my alternative would be, lessee: something in fiberglass, wrapped around a VW engine (just like the Beach Buggy)… but with at least a token amount of protection against the wet stuff. Something like this (no it’s not a real 356, but a deepfake replica):
…and with its hat on:
I know it looks faintly ridiculous, like some old fart with his cap pulled down low over his eyes (yeah I know, I know), and that flimsy canvas thing would not be very good at fending off a Texas-style rainstorm (like that tropical rainstorm I spoke of earlier, only with Added Hail). But it would keep me dry enough until I got home, or under a freeway overpass or whatever.
Want. Badly.
For all the same reasons James May loves his Buggy. And just like the Buggy, it has a near-total lack of electronica:
…and trust me, I could do without the radio.
There’s not much certainty about life nowadays, but there is one thing that is: when Bill Clinton opens his mouth to speak, what will come out is either a lie, an obfuscation, exaggeration or misdirection.
Hours before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former President Bill Clinton told an audience in Australia about his missed chance to kill attack mastermind Osama bin Laden, according to audio released this week.
Clinton was speaking at a business meeting in Melbourne when the topic turned to terrorism.
“I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden … He’s a very smart guy. I spent a lot of time thinking about him. And I nearly got him once,” Clinton said in the audio, which was recorded by former Liberal Party head Michael Kroger and aired by Sky News.
“I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him.
“And so I didn’t do it.”
I leave it to you to decide which of the above four characterizations apply.
Incidentally, what happened to that TV show that (I think) ABC aired about this very topic? Shown once, never been seen since.
I wonder why that is?
I guess we’ll never know.
I have to say that I’m starting to get more and more impressed by young Sydney Sweeney as time goes on — and not just for the usual reasons.
First it was that wonderful jeans commercial, and her total unconcern about the critical response. Next was the followup, which also met with disapproval, and her “don’t give a damn” response.
Then came that infamous interview with some feministical harpy, which gave birth to hundreds if not thousands of memes.
Now she’s posed stark naked (well, not actually) for some sports betting commercial or other, and when the usual harpies started wailing about how she was demeaning wimmens’ sports by appearing naked, she simply responded by posting pics of several sportswomen’s naked pics from their own ad campaigns.
Gotta love the gal.
Yeah, no Sydney pics, only links. Blame the lawyers.