Lileks:

That he himself was rebuked for failing to stay his own desire to squeeze, some say, was proof of a Natural Law above Whipple and the society he represented, but this was seen quite correctly by critics as a reflexive sop tossed to the reactionaries, a way of undercutting the existential truths Whipple’s failings represented. In a society without meaning or purpose, is there anything more absurd that setting up the petty bourgeois rules that keep people from applying manual pressure to Charmin in a public setting? Here, the reactionaries pounce: Whipple did not oppose squeezing; he merely attempted to establish some sort of public standard. But the personal is the public; how can the act of squeezing be acceptable in the personal realm and transgressive in the public sphere?

Also, monorails and the Rifleman.

monorails are a work of a genius. Both "pearls of Asia", Kuala Lumpur and Singapore have excellent monorail and other light rail system, i have ridden with both of them and its a sheer delight. If i had something like this in my town, i would never need a personal car.
Monorails are fast, efficient, dont get in the way of other traffic and just generally cool.

if not for Homer Simpson, i'd go around in a t-shirt saying "Monorails! Monorails!"