unicorn

We've decided to take our honeymoon in the Galápagos Islands (cruise). The American Airlines flight leaves MIA for Quito at 10:05 AM. The airlines and cruise lines would rather we take an "overnight" flight of some 5 1/2 hours to make this connection (leaving late at night, arriving early morning), but I'd much rather take a flight earlier that day (say around noon), then spend the night in a hotel by MIA, and catch the flight the next day. In fact, I'd rather fly Main Cabin Extra than do the overnight flight in 1st Class, especially since it looks as though AA has gotten rid of Flagship service between LAX and MIA. The nominal cost of a hotel (looking at rates, shouldn't be much more than $100 for a night at a decent place on the dates we plan to go) more than makes up for the discomfort, and especially the difference between MCE and 1st Class. In any case, there isn't even enough time on a 5.5 hour flight to get a decent rest, even if one can sleep in those seats which don't lie flat. What do you do in these instances?

Well, according to that article, there's a video showing him kicking her, so it's not just alleged battery, it's battery. Time to leave if he can.

Well, the point is, I think, that he very much does not see this woman as a threat at all. She's not a threat--she's a bargaining chip from which he hopes to exchange for real Russian criminals (arms dealers, etc.). The sensible thing to do is disengage. Do not bargain. Make it clear that there's nothing to gain from taking hostages. And, once again, warn US citizens NOT to travel to Russia (or Iran, etc.). As I've said before, anyone wishing to travel to countries whose leaders take our citizen hostage should have to sign a waiver indicating that they are well-aware of the serious danger, and that the US will not make any concessions due to willfully foolish behavior. This should be the response to any request for concessions:

Yes, Renaissance refers to the rebirth--after too many centuries of Christians controlling all "learning," which consisted mainly in studying the Bible. Only once Europeans embraced art and science, instead of only religion, was their society able to move forward.

Putin is holding another US citizen hostage. Any US citizen should know better than to travel to Russia. Her "crime" was donating $50 for the Ukrainian aid. I think it's important that the US government put its foot down and state unequivocally that we won't be trading any Russian spies in order to secure her release. Shame on her. https://abc7.com/ksenia-karelina-russian-court-denies-appeal-arrest-for-treason-ukraine-help/14479902/ "A court in Siberia has denied 33-year-old Ksenia Karelina's appeal and she will remain in prison. The court extended her pre-trial detention until at least April 6. Karelina, who has dual Russian and American citizenship and lives in Los Angeles, is accused of treason after allegedly donating about $50 to Ukraine's war effort... If convicted, Karelina faces 20 years behind bars...". https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/world-news/russia-rejects-appeal-in-ksenia-karelina-treason-case/ "...A Russian lawyers’ group, Pervy Otdel, said it had information that Karelina had donated just over $50 from her U.S. bank account on Feb. 24, 2022 – the day that Russia launched what it calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine – to a charity that sends aid to Ukraine...". What a threat to Russia's military! 🙄

I did say that Europe, not civilization overall, faltered under Christianity. Mathematics, science, and other cultures flourished in areas controlled by the Muslims, Chinese, etc. European civilization began to move again with and following the Renaissance, when Copernicus and Galileo were able to deduce that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, artists started painting non-religious themes, the printing press allowed the dissemination of new ideas, and so on. Fortunately, once the Muslims took over Egypt, the attempts of the Christians to cover up Egyptian history were halted. Of course, now some Muslim fringe groups such as ISIS and the Taliban have used dynamite to try to erase their countries non-Islamic history.

No one is arguing that digging up burial sites of existing tribes shouldn't be forbidden. The issue is whether there is any sense in forbidding archaeological activity to find out more about long-lost cultures. My fiance and I just went to Egypt in January, where there is lots of archaeological activity, mostly in ancient burial sites, and where we have learned a tremendous amount about how our culture came to be. We were surprised to learn, for example, of the Egyptian roots of Christian stories. Whole books have been written on the subject. You can buy these on Amazon: "...The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was already in existence in Ancient Egypt, long before the adoption of the New Testament. The British Egyptologist, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, wrote in his book, The Gods of the Egyptians (1969), "The new religion (Christianity) which was preached there by St. Mark and his immediate followers, in all essentials so closely resembled that which was the outcome of the worship of Osiris, Isis, and Horus." The similarities, noted by Budge and everyone who has compared the Egyptian Osiris/Isis/Horus allegory to the Gospel story, are striking. Both accounts are practically the same, e.g. the supernatural conception, the divine birth, the struggles against the enemy in the wilderness, and the resurrection from the dead to eternal life. The main difference between the “two versions” is that the Gospel tale is considered historical and the Osiris/Isis/Horus cycle is an allegory. The spiritual message of the two is exactly the same..." Of course, we also saw evidence of the attempts of ancient Christians to try to erase their history with their defacing of Egyptian temples: Fortunately, they didn't find many of the tombs, so their attempts to erase history didn't pan out. Of course, neither my fiance nor myself consider the Gospels to be "historical" or factual in any way--just old rehashing of Egyptian lore (which we don't consider historical either, of course). Of course, once Christianity took over Egypt, their civilization soon fell. It wouldn't take too long for Christianity to destroy the Roman Empire and civilization as well--plunging Europe into many centuries of ignorance and stagnation. Those who don't remember history suffer the consequences.

This bill was passed unanimously by Ghana's parliament. Once signed into law, it will make even simply identifying as LGBTQ as a crime punishable by 3 years' imprisonment! https://abcnews.go.com/International/ghanas-parliament-passes-controversial-new-anti-lgbtq-bill/story?id=107667679 "...The bill is one of the harshest of its kind in Africa and, if signed into law, it could see people who identify as “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, pansexual, nonbinary, queer … or any other sexual or gender identity that is contrary to the binary categories of male and female” sentenced to up to three years in prison...".

Context helps understand the impetus for writing certain laws, but one can also assess that a law may have been poorly-written. There is a difference between looting a graveyard and bona-fide archaeological work. I do agree that graveyards should be considered sacred if the culture that built them is still around. However, unearthing funerary objects which are many centuries, or even over a thousand years old, serves genuine archaeological and educational goals, and does not have the potential of truly offending anyone. For example, the Hopewell culture has been gone for centuries, and there are valid reasons for studying funerary objects, which help us understand these ancient cultures. Having to ask "permission" from people belonging to a completely different culture makes no sense. In the US, the Cahokia Mounds are another example of an archaeological site from a fascinating culture which has been gone for 1000 years. There are probably countless other cultures that have long since disappeared. I personally feel that displaying these cultures' funerary objects honors these ancient cultures, and keeps their memory alive. We can learn much about ourselves by studying these ancient cultures. I agree we shouldn't condone looting graves of existing cultures (most especially when these graves are still being tended). However, once a culture has disappeared, I support almost any effort to learn more about that extinct culture.

Graphic descriptions or details were unnecessary. The news organization could have simply reported what was on the police report, rather than have the reader guess in order to try to fill in the blanks. Just lousy reporting IMHO. It seems fairly certain that the pills were irrelevant. It looks as though they're just trying to imply a salacious story.

This old Ringo Starr song from over half a century ago came up on Sirius XM The Blend while we were driving in our car. I said to my fiance "Now, there's a song which would be shocking if it came out today!". He said, "Hey, maybe we can play a modified version for you at our wedding. Just switch 'you're sixteen' to 'you're sixty!' 😄 🤣."

😲 I guess they don't have decent journalism schools in India??? What kind of BS reporting is that? Is one supposed to come to one's own wild conclusions?

They're known for their queeny FA's! 😄

Which airline?

True, but not relevant to this discussion.

I'm sure almost everyone, including myself, yourself, the judge, and the jury was incensed by the defendant's depraved behavior. Whether the judge or jury followed the law is something an appeals court will decide.

That's probably the crux of the problem. The judge probably wanted a certain outcome and got it. Jury trials can be a bit of a farce when the judge gives specious and misleading instructions, and/or filters the testimony in a certain way. As they're written, the laws in California seem clear that 2nd degree murder constitutes deliberately killing someone without planning, such as in the heat of passion or in a sudden fight like a bar-room brawl. Manslaughter happens when a person kills due to wanton disregard for the safety of others. The judge and jury were probably incensed (as I was) over the defendant's behavior and lack of remorse, so wanted to see her spend of her life in prison. While I understand the sentiment, I feel verdicts should be based on the letter of the law, not on emotions.

In my reading of those laws, the intention must be to kill someone, not to speed. Therefore, someone who reacts impulsively by killing someone upon discovering his spouse having sex with someone else is guilty of 2nd degree murder (the behavior was impulsive and without premeditation, but with the intent to kill the victim). In fact, that's the exact example given for 2nd degree murder. What the perpetrator did in this case was horrific and egregious, but she was not trying to kill the children, as wontonly reckless as her behavior was. One can make a case for voluntary manslaughter and/or vehicular manslaughter, but this did not meet the definition of murder. My sense is that the jury was incensed (as I am) of the defendant's refusal to accept responsibility for the deaths. I would have supported convictions for voluntary manslaughter, with maximal, consecutive sentences for each wrongful death. I understand (and share) the anger, but it seems the law was not followed here. We should not let our feelings get in the way with applying the law as it's written.

Confusing entry. What supposedly caused her death?

A local socialite was convicted of murder yesterday due to slamming her Mercedes into two children while engaging in a speed race on a public street. She'd had prior convictions for similar unsafe driving behavior. No question but that she should spend years in prison. But the law here in California states that murder must involve a planned intention to kill someone, so I would think the crime would be manslaughter, not murder. I can't understand how jurors could come to the conclusion that this constituted murder. I wonder if they were merely incensed by the defendant's contention that it wasn't her car which killed the kids, and that the defendant didn't show any contrition. As horrified I am of her behavior, I question whether this behavior constituted murder. https://abc7.com/rebecca-grossman-trial-boys-crash/14461388/ "Rebecca Grossman, co-founder of the Grossman Burn Foundation, was convicted of second-degree murder and other charges Friday for a 2020 crash in Westlake Village that left two young brothers dead. The nine-man, three-woman jury reached its verdict on the second day of deliberations, mulling the evidence for a total of about nine hours before rejecting a defense contention that Grossman's then-boyfriend, former Dodger Scott Erickson, was the one who fatally struck 11-year-old Mark Iskander and his 8-year-old brother, Jacob, on Sept. 29, 2020. Grossman, 60, was convicted of two counts each of second-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and hit-and-run resulting in death. She could face up to 34 years to life in state prison. She remained free throughout the trial on $2 million bond. Sentencing was scheduled for April 10...". This lawyer explains what's manslaughter and what's murder according to California law: .https://bernal-law.com/the-difference-between-manslaughter-and-homicide/ Manslaughter is a criminal offense that involves the unlawful killing of another person. It is distinct from murder, primarily in terms of intent and circumstances. Manslaughter typically falls into two categories: Voluntary Manslaughter: Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person kills another individual without premeditation or intent to kill. Instead, it often results from a sudden emotional response, such as rage or fear. In some jurisdictions, this is sometimes referred to as a “heat of the moment” crime. An example might be a situation where a person discovers their spouse in the act of adultery and reacts with a deadly assault. Involuntary Manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter is the accidental killing of another person without intent. It is typically the result of recklessness, negligence, or criminal negligence. This can include actions like driving recklessly and causing a fatal accident, providing drugs that lead to an unintentional overdose, or failing to exercise proper care while handling a dangerous weapon. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in criminal law, as they influence the charges, legal defenses, and potential penalties in cases involving loss of life. Homicide Homicide, on the other hand, is a broader and more encompassing term that encapsulates the unlawful killing of another person. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Homicide is divided into two main categories: Murder: Murder is a form of homicide characterized by the presence of malice aforethought or premeditation. It is the intentional killing of another person with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm. Murder charges are generally categorized into first-degree and second-degree murder, with first-degree murder typically involving premeditation and a deliberate intent to kill. Non-Criminal Homicide: Not all homicides result in criminal charges. Some homicides are deemed justifiable or excusable, such as cases of self-defense, defense of others, or using deadly force by law enforcement in specific circumstances.

And what if one of them turns out to be gay? Given the number of children they have, it's probable at least one will be LGBTQ. That kid would grow with the knowledge that his parents essentially sacrificed their lives due to hatred for what they are. 😬

Stupid is as stupid does. They deserve every bit of misery coming to them. Canada and Russia have the coldest climates on the planet. They need "winter clothing"???? WTF?? It's difficult to wrap one's mind around such stupidity. I guess evil hatred is a powerful motivator for some people.

We don't know how far you are from BKK... 😉