unicorn

I started reading David Archuleta's book Devout: Losing my Faith to Find Myself in the ER, where I accompanied my husband, who'd injured his finger. At the start of the book, Archuleta finds similarity in abandoning his religious faith to figuring out Santa's not real. I asked my husband at what age he found out, and how he felt about it. My husband said that he was relieved to find out Santa was a myth at the age of 8, because he knew boys who were not as good as he was, yet who got better gifts. He'd always wondered why these boys got better and more gifts than he did. I have no idea what it felt like, since I never believed in Santa (obviously a preposterous notion). So were you relieved or disappointed to learn Santa wasn't real? According to AI: To visit every household in 24 hours, Santa would need to spend roughly 0.0003 to 0.0004 seconds (300-400 microseconds) at each house, assuming around 500 million to 1.6 billion homes. Including time zone advantages (32–34 hours), he must visit roughly 2,000 to 3,500 households every second. Key facts about Santa's workload: Total Stops: Estimates suggest 385 million to 500 million homes (accounting for those celebrating) or over 1.6 billion (total homes). Speed Required: Santa would have to travel at roughly 4.7 million to 7.5 million miles per hour (roughly 1% of the speed of light) to make all stops.

How dramatic! (But for the record, I have no ill feelings towards you--just your stubbornness & hot-headedness at times 😉)

As you may know, AH didn't actually win that election. But, yes, Trump does try to play by his rulebook.

You don't know that. It would have been more reasonable to say "Looks like you fucked up," or "I believe you fucked up," or some other phrase acknowledging that things may not be as they first appear, and you have the maturity to acknowledge this.

The SF Chronicle wasn't "duped." It simply reported the accusations. It did not say these accusations are a known fact. I most certainly don't discount the possibility the accusers are telling the truth. What I object to is the immediate knee-jerk reaction resulting in action before the facts are even laid out. It may be that , in fact, that Swalwell is a horny dumb-ass. Obviously, the timing is troubling, and there is also a possibility these accusations represent political dirty tricks. For one, I'm suspicious that the chief complainant states she was "too drunk to give consent," yet remembers the (repeated, according to her) sexual encounters so well. And if she remembers the first time, why would she put herself in that situation again? Once again, I'm not saying she's lying, but I'm bothered that a mere accusation can immediately end a career. What's wrong in having the facts laid out?

Obviously, they can't fight for free and fair elections. Even those who protested, much less fought, were slaughtered by the thousands (maybe tens of thousands) by the theocratic regime. However, most would probably be pleased were free and fair elections to happen. As much as Trump is trying to destroy the US's free and fair elections, there's just so much he can do, and his reign of terror will come to an end. I agree with most posters that there's no way for the US to exit gracefully at this point. Bombing infrastructure, as Trump has threatened to do (obviously illegal), will only turn the people against the US. Hopefully the US military leaders will resign rather than commit such war crimes, but who knows. No country has ever capitulated in a war due to bombing alone (other than Japan in WWII). Outside of Iran, the Iranian diaspora mostly hope that Trump will invade, resulting in a true regime change. I suspect that's too big of a risk to take.

Just as US Representative Eric Swalwell was about to become a front-runner in his run for California governor, former staffers have accused him of sexual improprieties, basically destroying his campaign. The story in the San Francisco Chronicle hadn't even been published yet before staffers quit, and supporters bowed out. The ink had literally not even dried before the axe came down. Representative Eric Swalwell played a prominent role in both of Donald Trump’s impeachments, serving as a House Impeachment Manager for the second trial (2021) and a vocal investigator during the first (2019). As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he focused on charging Trump with incitement of insurrection and pursuing claims of obstruction. I was going to vote for him myself, but will have find someone else to support. Why spend money on a campaign when you smear someone in a matter of minutes? The reaction will be immediate, with permanent consequences, and no need for evidence! https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/10/swalwell-campaign-imploding-amid-sexual-assault-allegation-00867619 "Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor was reeling Friday after two news reports detailed accusations of sexual assault and misconduct, with multiple staffers resigning and both prominent allies and rival candidates calling on the California Democrat to exit the race. The exodus, which began just before the San Francisco Chronicle published a report detailing a former staffer’s claims, jolted California’s marquee race just weeks before ballots start landing in voters’ mailboxes. The former staffer told the newspaper that Swalwell had sexual encounters with her while working for him, and that he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too drunk to consent... The dominoes tumbled quickly. Top staffers departed the campaign shortly before the Chronicle story published. Major endorsers began rescinding or pausing their support. And a pro-Swalwell independent expenditure committee said it was suspending operations. Swalwell’s two campaign co-chairs, Reps. Jimmy Gomez and Adam Gray, called on Swalwell to drop out — a stunning rebuke from key surrogates who had helped introduce Swalwell to power players in Sacramento, where both served in the state Assembly...". Well, if Swalwell did those things, he's a major idiot. But this rush to judgment and acting before even pausing to think really gets to me. He's been a great Congressman.

Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I doubt the IRG or the people would put up much of a fight, especially if the US were to guarantee free elections. Obviously, there wouldn't need to be a US soldier in every corner of the country. The government would just have to resign (or be captured). I definitely agree that Trump has put the US into a big mess of a problem.

I'm not implying that it's necessarily wise, and I doubt even Trump would do it, but the US did occupy Iraq and at least was able to oversee free elections there, so the US probably could occupy Iran. I doubt the IRG loves their Supreme Leader so much that they'd be willing to die in droves to support him. What will probably happen is just what happened in Venezuela. One dingbat replaced by another, no elections, and the status quo remains (but with an even more hostile leader). Just getting rid of a few leaders is just a silly plan destined to failure. Of course, even after elections are held, if the people won't fight for the leader they elected, it's ultimately hopeless (i.e. what happened in Afghanistan, where the people don't believe in democracy). Trump is a childish cur who acts on impulse and doesn't think things through (nor would he ever hire someone who could give him good advice). If there's any silver lining, it's that the independents in the US can now see what a disaster the Republicans are, and there should be a major swing in the US Congress with November's elections, which will finally put some brakes on Trump.

Either the US occupies Iran, and sees a real regime change via fair elections (monitored by the UN and/or US), or Trump goes down in defeat with his tail between his legs. No way for Trump to gets what he wants without changing the people at the top. He can't bomb his way to success.

By the way, anyone who grew up in the US from the 1970's through the 1990's would be familiar with that "No More Kings!" video, which played on NBC from 1973-2000. Both my hubbie and I grew up with it! I'm sure it's where the name of these "No More Kings" rallies came from. I can't imagine that those Schoolhouse Rock cartoons were shown on UK or Canadian TV.

Well, I guess you one (Trump) can fool some of the people almost all of the time. 🙄

Yes. Emphasis on MUCH reduced. I suspect the House will flip strongly, like a good 60% Democratic, but I doubt the Senate can be flipped so strongly as to avoid the 60% filibuster threshold. Obviously not ALL House seats will flip, especially Georgia's most right-wing district, the 14th (MTG's). In the last several elections, Republicans have won with no less than 65% of the vote. The fact that Georgia's most right-wing district only voted 56% Republican this time is highly significant.

They were protesting Trump in London, but failed to see the irony of brandishing signs saying "No More Kings." You appear to be surprisingly correct about that. I was surprised to learn that a substantial plurality of Canadians want to dump their king. Australia is in a weird situation, since, at least as of the last time they voted, every single state would have to vote to become a republic in order for them to get rid of the King of Australia. I think Queensland and one other state (Western Australia?) blocked the transition. Which will be the next nation to say "No More Kings"? https://www.canadian-republic.ca/polls

I would be surprised if the House doesn't flip to Democratic at the end of the year. It's difficult to flip the Senate, because only 1/3 are elected every 2 years, but that might be flipped as well, although probably with a smaller majority than in the House. Trump's insanity and dementia are coming increasingly evident to all. Smooth talking and lies can only fool fools.

Here's his Instagram, in case anyone here's interested: https://www.instagram.com/bigzee2002/?hl=en He apparently makes money selling his dirty socks.

https://en.mercopress.com/2024/01/03/royal-navy-sailor-fired-for-producing-porn-on-hms-prince-of-wales "A Royal Navy sailor, Zak Blackman, has been dismissed from service for creating and selling explicit content aboard the HMS Prince of Wales, Britain's largest warship, following a three-month deployment to the US. Zak, who rose to the rank of Naval Airman, reportedly earned £20,000 a month through OnlyFans by sharing X-rated pictures and videos. His side hustle came to an end when his content was discovered, leading to his dismissal for bringing the Navy into disrepute. In response to his firing, Zak expressed an unexpected sense of relief, stating, “I joined the Navy on March 30, 2020, at the lowest rank... It was really hard work for the money I was getting. I decided to post videos and images of me in my uniform. They started to take off, and after a few weeks, I was earning £20,000 a month from that.” Despite being paid £1,500 a month by the Navy, Zak saw his content creation as a lucrative opportunity. However, his venture was brought to light when a colleague or superior discovered the material on OnlyFans, he told The Sun...". I suspect that if he'd done this on a US Navy ship, he'd be jailed and brought up on criminal charges, not just discharged. https://gay.blog.br/en/boys/british-sailor-expelled-from-the-armed-forces-after-producing-adult-content-aboard-warship/ I can't imagine him being able to buy any car, let alone a Lambo with £1,500 a month's sailor's salary!

Apparently there were "No More Kings" rallies in the UK. I wonder if anyone told them they lived in a monarchy. 😄 Similarly in the Kingdom of Canada:

Apparently they were able to flag where the ticket was issued but not your originating flight. I agree that one should be able to transit in the US. It would require an investment, however, which officials don't seem to have a taste for. I feel a song with handsome dancers coming on...

Yup. A lot of people send money just because they're fans. He never responded to my coffee offer nor my hiring magician gig. Why be bothered to pick up a hundie when your fans are sending in the $$, and you don't even have to lie face to face?

It would be logistically complex to just rescreen those whose first flight originated from a suspect country. What if the passenger originated in Libya, for example, and transited in CDG before his flight in the US? It could get quite messy. As I mentioned in a prior post, the countries for which one can go through US customs at the airport of origin are Canada, Aruba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Ireland, and the UAE. What's especially nice is that you can basically buy extra duty-free liquor if you like, and bring it in, since you've already gone through customs. The duty-free shops at those airport, however, will not sell Cuban Havana Club rum or Cuban cigars.

Not a very good reason. I suppose, theoretically, since you had to pick up your checked luggage to go through customs, a wily terrorist could transfer, say, a knife from his checked luggage to his carry-on. In that case, although his carry-on went through security at the departing airport, an item which is allowed in checked luggage but not in a carry-on could be snuck into the cabin. Also, the US probably also feels (probably correctly) that it's a higher-threat target, so doesn't trust every other country's security procedures. What if the original flight came from, say, Libya or Burkina Faso?

That was my suspicion from the beginning. We'll see soon enough.

It's a stupid pain in the ass, no doubt. Always allow for 3 hours for international connections when arriving in the US.