unicorn

Yikes. More very bad news for Alaska Airlines and Southwest Airlines, most of whose fleet consists of various 737's. The US's other main airlines, American, Delta, and United, have a far more diversified fleet.

Oops. What I meant to say was that I will occasionally donate to an organization which is not assessed 4*, but is assessed as 3*, if they are doing something I strongly support, and no one else is doing...

I would avoid donating to a cause based on a phone solicitation for a number of reasons, some related to personal benefit, the other to being a "good citizen." (1) Even if someone calls you claiming to be from a charity you've known, researched (i.e. you've determined they're rated 4 stars on Charity Navigator or whatever other criterion you use), and aligns with your principles, you still can't be sure they are who they say they are. Giving someone you didn't seek out your credit card information might lead to serious hanky-panky. (2) If you donate based on telephone solicitations, your telephone number will be sold to others as "someone who sometimes will send money based on a telephone solicitation." Therefore, even if you don't give your credit card information to the caller and just tell him "That sounds great. I'll go online and send your organization some money!", you will end up being bombarded by this and other organizations due to the possibility of being successful. In fact, variable ratio (VR) reinforcement is the most powerful form of reinforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_reinforcement_schedules The addictive nature of variable reinforcement is why gambling addiction can be so powerful Finally, (3) By a similar logic, donating based on telephone solicitation encourages the behavior to continue to annoy other people, most of whom don't like cold calls at random times. So even if you personally don't mind random solicitation calls, a positive response encourages behavior which annoys the majority of people who do mind such calls. When I'm ready to donate money, my approach is to look up my usual charities on charitynavigator.org to make sure they're still rated 4*, then go to the organization's website to donate. One of my favorite charities, International Rescue Committee went down to 3* in 2021/2022, primarily due to inefficiency in use of donations. I did call them to ask them if they were aware of the drop and why it occurred. Their response was that they decided not to let go of staff during the pandemic, so I was OK with that. I've noticed that, in fact, they've gone back up to 4*. I will occasionally donate to an organization which is not assessed or ranked 3* if they are doing something I strongly support, and no one else is doing, such as the Rainbow Railroad, which helps get members of the LGBT community out of hostile countries such as Uganda and Iran. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/135660870 https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/474896980

Nothing wrong with allowing stupid people on board. Everyone should be entitled to his own opinion, when the matter is truly one of opinion. However, I would put my foot down if someone promotes completely factually inaccurate statements (such as "the election was stolen," which has been 100% disproven). Allowing factually inaccurate information to spread constitutes a threat to a free society. A statement such as "Trump's a great guy," while ridiculous, is a matter of opinion. A statement such as "Trump won the election in 2020" is both factually wrong and dangerous.

The suggestion that the US's visa policy is even partially based on bigotry is factually incorrect and stupid, as I suspect you're well aware (either that or you're quite ignorant). The US's visa policy is designed to minimize the chance of letting people in who will overstay their visas. Chile and Argentina have very similar demographics, but the US requires visas from Argentinians and not Chileans, as Chile's economic situation is quite a bit more stable and Chileans don't tend to overstay their visas to the US. Same language, skin color, religion, and so on: just different statistics. Same for Brunei and neighboring Malaysia and Indonesia. Same race, religion, and language. Only the immigration statistics are different (Singapore citizens also don't need a visa). South Korea and Japan don't need visas, Chinese do. Croatians don't need visas, but Romanians do. It all comes down to past history and statistics, not to "bigotry." Don't make a fool of yourself by pretending otherwise.

I'd be surprised if you weren't aware that Trump has had tons of gaffes. I just mentioned to most recent. I suspect you know better.

Eeek. It seems that this is the problem. If I want to donate to a cause or candidate, I do so on my own, online, or perhaps because of a mail solicitation. Donating in response to a phone call, in addition to be dangerous, encourages more misbehavior. I just provide warnings; I don't get around to insulting the callers' mothers' vagina...

And dementia Trump confused Nikki Haley with the Speaker of the House. I do agree that both are too old to start a term in 2025.

Sometimes I don't know how these people get my number, but businesses, charities, and political candidates who call (especially) or text uninvited definitely get a negative response from me. If a charity calls me uninvited, I tell them that the call results in a 3-month ban on donations, with further calls result in loss of my support, both now and in my will. Political candidates who do likewise will be informed that one more call or text will result in loss of any support I may have previously had for their candidate. Are there really people out there who respond positively to such solicitations? There has to be some reason that people believe that unsolicited calls will do anything other than piss off the person receiving the unsolicited calls...

I can't agree that opposition to uncontrolled borders implies treason. That being said, Trump's meeting with Putin, with the only other person present being Putin's own interpreter can have no other reasonable interpretation except treason from that low-life draft-dodger. There's no question but that Trump puts his welfare above anything else, including, most certainly, his country. I think few borders are as open as the US/Canada border...

Well, I'm atheist, so I don't pray, but you have my best wishes. If I can believe the scientific literature, this form of arthritis has a great prognosis, and you should enjoy a good recovery, perhaps back to where you were before this even started. Thanks for the update.

My fiance and I are on a tour, and one of the women on our tour put plastic tape around her ankles so that they wouldn't get abraded, since she was wearing "no-show" socks. My fiance also sometimes wears these, and then sometimes gets blisters or abrasions around his ankles because of this. For this trip, I begged him to avoid wearing those socks, since there's a lot of walking, and I don't want to deal with unnecessary ankle skin problems. I don't understand the reasoning behind these no-show socks. Do people who wear them believe their ankles are so beautiful, that others will be enthralled by viewing their ankle skin? If anything, I thought the plastic tape around the ankles made that woman look silly. I'd love to know why some people prefer these types of socks....

It's obviously not xenophobic to point out what's simply a fact. Requiring visas in advance will reduce tourism from the country for whom the advanced visa is required. How much is a matter of debate, and obviously depends on which country, and which unique assets they may have. The intelligent thing for each country to do is to assess the cost of requiring the visa versus the risk or cost involved in possibly having citizens of the country overstaying their visa and possibly using the country's resources. That is the wise way to approach a visa policy. A policy of "We'll require a visa from any country which requires a visa from our citizens" is simply childish and self-defeating. Most countries understand that. We're now in Egypt. The US requires advanced visas from Egyptian citizens since a flood of Egyptians coming in ostensibly as tourists but staying and using resources would not be great for the US. Yet Egypt issues easy visas on arrival, $25 cash, and very much welcomes tourists from the US. When developing a visa policy, each country should decide what's wisest for that country. Wisest means rational rather than emotional thinking.

Well, Venezuela has got to be the most disastrous failure of a country on the planet. Despite one of the world's largest oil reserves, horrific corruption have led that country to be in a catastrophic economic situation. Yes, there are countries which are poorer, but none with such massive natural resources. What an outrageous, almost unbelievable fiasco.

I definitely understand the banning to prevent citizens putting themselves in dangerous situations. They also ban their citizens from travel to Syria or Sudan. One has to consider how governments should respond to their citizens knowingly putting themselves in danger by traveling to places known to kidnap or wrongfully detain citizens in order to try to shake out money and/or other concessions. I shake my head sometimes as I watch videos from Drew Goldberg/Binsky, who put himself in danger multiple times going to hostile countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Syria in his (ultimately successful) goal of traveling to every country on the planet. (I will confess that I find the videos entertaining, albeit cringe-worthy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Binsky#:~:text=Drew Goldberg (born May 24,and other social media accounts. My idea on how to deal with hostile countries would be not so much a total ban, but rather to require anyone who wishes to travel to hostile countries to sign and submit a government form which states something on the lines of "The country to which I intend to travel is known to wrongfully detain our citizens with the goal of gaining money and/or political concessions. I understand that my government strongly recommends against traveling to this country. I further understand that if I'm wrongfully detained in this country, that my government will not negotiate or assist me in any way in an attempt to secure my release, and will prosecute anyone who tries to do so."

Yikes! I wouldn't want to live in such a soggy country as the UK, either. You Northern Irish are the luckiest UK residents, as you're free to live and work in any EU country with much nicer climates!

As much as I sympathize with the sentiment, as a former government employee and union member, I must note that government employees must be careful both of what they do during work hours, and of taking work actions while under contract/MOU. We did organize and protest the murder of George Floyd, but we did the protest during our non-work hours. Protesting during their non-work hours (such as during the week-end) should not be problematic. Our union leaders made it very clear that even such a minor action such as delaying submission of billing sheets could lead to suspension or termination. There are ways to make our voices heard without breaking the law.

In terms of Spanish locations, I have some great memories (way in the past) or Ibiza, Sitges, and Torremolinos. Nothing tops Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico, though, for my tastes.

Well, I guess these lists are subjective, but WTF? Skip Venice or Iguazu Falls--go to Hurghada instead! Ridiculous.

It would be nice to receive an update from @Menaughty to see how he's doing...

I think it would be more accurate to say "it is shocking and hard to process for some inhabitants of less developed countries that they are not as wanted in rich countries as they think they should be." I think Brazil will figure that out with their travel statistics if they go through with their plans. I don't exactly remember the rationale at the time, but there was a year in the early 90s, I believe, in which France (but no other European country) required visas for US citizens. Tourism from the US plummeted by over 50%. I don't think the US has ever required the French to have visas in advance for tourist travel.

I don't let visa requirements deter me much if I really want to go somewhere, but they do for a lot of people, and in general I'll look at other countries first for anything more complicated than an eVisa or visa on arrival. Requiring visas in advance for tourists from wealthier countries is simply shooting oneself in the foot. There is no rational reason to do so. The only country I can think of for which I'd be willing to go to the trouble of getting a visa in advance at this time is China, since it's a really large and unique country. Once we need a visa to Brazil, that might be the only other exception if they go through with their plans. Countries in gray require a visa in advance from US citizens: