unicorn

I don't know if any of you watch Drag Race France, but in a recent episode, one of the judges, Kiddy Smile, blasted one of the contestants for wearing braids in her hair, calling it "cultural appropriation" (this was a hair coutoure challenge). I felt dumbfounded by her voicing this opinion, given that I had recently seen Kiddy Smiler herself do the exact same thing, wearing an exaggerated Mexican sombrero in her outfit: Wearing portions of styles typically associated with other cultures can be regarded in either a positive light, as in an homage, or in a negative light, as in an offense. Obviously the intention of the wearer should be taken into account, IMHO. However, I would think that if one wants to voice the opinion (and force a contestant to lip synch for her life) that these stylistic expressions, regardless of intention, are always offensive, then one should at least practice what one preaches. I definitely believe that while "cultural appropriation" can be distasteful, hypocrisy represents an even greater sin. 😉

Well, it's definitely too early to say "Trump is Toast" and ring the victory bells. The vice-presidential pick only affects results in that candidate's home state, so Harris would be wise to pick someone from Michigan, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania. She'll definitely need at least one of those states. National polls are irrelevant with the electoral college system. What matters is the polls in the swing states, especially the populous ones.

Did you say TONS of friends? Where do you meet these friends? 😳

No, I doubt I could sue United. All of these airlines provide only guarantees which are required by law (and they fight tooth and nail against those laws). Some may recall when another physician, who had patients he had to see, was forcibly carried out, bloodied, when he didn't just move out of his seat as I did (also on United). United does have a program called Global Services, to identify the very few passengers for whom maltreatment would have catastrophic consequences. For example, my brother's wife was the CEO of a major corporation, so she, her husband, and her bratty daughter were enrolled. At family gatherings, my brother loved to regale us with annoying stories of how well United treated them. Obviously, United knew that pissing her off would result in tens of millions in revenue, if she instructed her employees on company business not to use them. What they should have figured out, though, was that pulling passengers out of their seat will result in any good passenger avoiding that airline for life. I've flown other airlines for well over a million miles instead of them since then, and I almost always have at least one travel companion with me. I'm sure that physician they beat up will never fly them again, nor will any of his family, and possibly many of his friends. United hasn't figured out that just because you can do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it. Yes, there are customers who will always go the cheapest way, regardless. However, those customers are probably not your best revenue generators. United has been way under average for airlines' Customer Satisfaction Index for decades (and index which includes such awful airlines as Spirit). Given the length of time this has been going on, it seems United isn't terribly interested in figuring out why.

Doing what's simply easy, as you've learned, can lead to some pretty expensive mistakes. I can only think of one place that I repeatedly go to because it offers an experience so unique and pleasant, that I don't do a whole lot of investigating before booking. There's no place quite like the Almar Hotel in Puerto Vallarta, and I've gone to Puerto Vallarta most years for decades. As long as I can get a decent room rate, I'll go there year after year (though some years, if they ask for their full rate/rack rate, I will go elsewhere). I'll introduce my husband to Paris in April, and have already spent hours comparing hotels, and am not ready to decide at this time. I always try to go to one of the hotel chains with which I have high status and lots of points--Hilton, Marriott/Bonvoy, and InterContinental--but in this case I may not go to one of those places. I compare rates, room size, walking distance to the nearest Metro station, TripAdvisor reviews, photos, etc., including how much of it I'll be able to pay in points, if available. If it's an airport hotel, I also look into the airport shuttle--how often it runs, is it able to accommodate all guests (i.e. size), customer complaints regarding the shuttle service, and so on. All of this is difficult to do on a phone. I often get compliments on how well I plan these trips.

It's useful to know that the US State Department warnings apply to heterosexuals. For example, Jamaica is classified level 3 (although many places within the country as level 4). However, for the LGBT community, it really should be a level 4 for the whole country. Same for Uganda--classified as Level 3 by the US State Department, but should really be a Level 4 for the LGBT community.

I'm surprised that you don't get charged for two rooms when that happens, since almost no reservation arrangements allow for same-day cancellations. There are two methods I use which prevent me from making that mistake. First, I have a folder at home with all of my travel arrangements, arranged in chronological order. When I need a hotel, I refer to the flights (which I usually book first), then the schedule of where I'm supposed to be. If I cancel a hotel, I keep the cancellation notice there. Also, I enter all of the data into my iPhone's calendar application. In that application, it's quite simple to change the time zone to the local one. (As a third measure, I also have a written "black book" record, which I usually carry with me, but that's overkill). This is my third measure, which I agree is simply nerdy overkill:

As indicated on the posting, the diagram represents the US State Department warnings. Any country which takes US citizens hostage (with hopes for concessions from either US or other Americans) will get a Level 4 warning. Russia earned itself that level after the wrongful detentions (hostage-taking) of Brittney Griner, Evan Gershkovich, Marc Fogel, etc. Belarus is a puppet state of Russia's, and can be expected to do the same. You are correct, however, that Japan and Poland are mislabeled on that map; they're Level 1. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Poland.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/japan-travel-advisory.html And, as I suspected, New Zealand is Level 1 as well: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/NewZealand.html

I don't think New Zealand is really Level 3.

When going to Europe, we take a late afternoon flight, then some hypnotics and booze so we can sleep on our way there, arriving in the morning in Europe. 2 days of methylphenidate in the morning will keep up us during our first couple of days. On the way back, noonish flight from Europe gets us at LAX after rush hour. Just stay up until evening-time, and conked out until morning. Rarely need drugs on the way back to Los Angeles.

Not with my current preferred carrier, American Airlines. Since I lived in the SF Bay Area, I used to fly primarily with United, and was in the 2nd highest elite tier with them, when I was actually seated in the seat for which I had the boarding pass. Before the flight took off, a flight attendant told me to get up, as I was being moved to another seat (further back in the plane). When I asked why she responded "I don't have to tell you," to which I answered "And I don't have to fly United again." I never flew United again, and am now a Million Miler™ with American Airlines, and have had Executive Platinum status with them for the last several years. I take my hubbie with me, of course. I have occasionally flown with Delta or Alaska since dumping United. For example, when we went to Iceland, Delta and United, but not American, fly to KEF, so we went on Delta, and went we to Alaska last month we flew Alaska Airlines from Burbank to Victoria, and then back from Fairbanks to Burbank. That incident with United wasn't the first time their flight attendants had been rude with me (not due to anything I did), but it was the straw which broke my willingness to keep flying with them. I will add that the ticket I had on United was a regular ticket I purchased on their website (not Priceline, etc.), and I had no interactions with any of the other staff or passengers on the plane, so it was definitely not anything I'd done.

I remember a taxi driver probably tried to trick us when we were leaving our hotel in Ipanema for the airport. We asked the driver to take us to the airport, and he asked "Dumont?", a small domestic airport which he must have known was not our destination. Fortunately, I knew the name of the international airport, so I said "Não, Aeroporto do Galeão." As for airplane tickets, in the US at least you have 24 hours to correct your mistake for a full refund. That being said, one has to check everything very carefully, especially connection times, and so on. When airlines send updated flight info by e-mail, once again has to be very careful in reviewing these, including connection times. If the connection is too tight, you have the right to ask for rebooking to different flights, with no additional charge. You also have to review your seat selection online as well, as you may be mysteriously moved out of your chosen exit row seats, etc.

Well, the second she said "I take full responsibility" is the second she needed to resign. Had she said "I asked for more funding, to allow for more staff, but my requests were denied," or some other exculpatory statement, then it would require more investigation. When she admitted the fault lay squarely on her shoulders, she had to resign. That was pretty straight-forward, in my view.

Dude, you constantly use insulting language when arguing with others, and definitely not just with me. Calling someone a "right wing crank" is not said with the intention of toning things down. When @Moses chimed in, you deflected around Putin's atrocities, which have nothing to do with this string, nor of anything he was saying. I don't expect someone who isn't a physician, RN, or PA-C to know, but one cannot "test negative" for Alzheimer's, or any other form of dementia. It's not like you can tell someone you had a negative blood test for syphilis, or a positive urine test for gonorrhea. As I've mentioned previously, the diagnosis has to be based on the patient's past and current behavior. The MOCA questionnaire is a tool that can sometimes assist in making the diagnosis, but it's certainly neither necessary nor sufficient for the diagnosis. It works very poorly, for example, for those with IQ's under 100 or over 140. One item in the test asks someone to subtract 7 from 100 (and keep going). Well, I've had patients who dropped out of school in the 4th grade and were never able to hold down a job. They'll do very poorly on that test, so one has to go by other clues. Therefore, anyone who says that he or someone else "tested negative" for dementia is merely trying to deceive. In the last year or two of his Presidency, Reagan was clearly stumbling over his words, saying some pretty silly stuff (as Trump and Biden are doing now). This was a clearly observable change, and solid evidence of a significant loss of cognitive function. I certainly wasn't the only person to notice. The fact that he or his family only chose to share the diagnosis years later is certainly not evidence the illness wasn't present earlier. Reagan pointedly stayed out of the public eye after leaving office, probably for good reason. It may very well be that Biden has not been diagnosed with Parkinson's. However, I can't imagine that he hasn't been diagnosed with something, and if it's not Parkinson's, it's probably something far worse. His neurological deficits are quite obvious. Today's "Candorville" strip hit it on the nose:

Your friends agree with you P.S. Carnac the magnificent predicts that the diagnosis will be made public within the next few years. He also predicts you won't admit what a fool you were in this string.

Then it's really very simple. You said that I said Biden had Parkinson's. That was a lie. Be a man, admit it, and apologize. Oh, but you're not a man. Sorry. (While the letter is irrelevant to the fact that you lied, you're one of the few people dumb enough to take it at face value. Do you really believe all of the stupid shit Trump's doctor says?)

This is a lie, since you keep bringing it up. I cannot know for certain his diagnosis, obviously, since I don't have access to his medical records. His movements are definitely consistent with PD (which is common at his age), but could also represent Lewy Body Dementia (which is quite similar), Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, or other conditions. What I can say, with almost complete certainty, is that he doesn't have "no diagnosis," as you claim (without access to Biden's medical records).

I knew you wouldn't apologize about your lie when you stated that I knew Biden had Parkinson's, when I didn't make that statement. You're just being you. Only you have the arrogance to claim to know the unknowable (namely, Biden's medical records). At least I have the honesty to acknowledge when I'm making inferences about what is known. And only you are foolish enough to believe unsubstantiated statements (i.e. that Biden has "no diagnosis"), when such statements are obviously contradicted by what we do know. Of course, so many people believe that the earth was created in 6 days, though the facts say otherwise.