unicorn

I did not suggest that most criminals are illegal immigrants, nor that most illegal immigrants are criminals, nor even that it's a good idea to deport otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. What I did (and do) suggest is that those who are known to be violent, dangerous criminals (i.e. this one, who'd been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon) should be incarcerated and then deported when they've finished their sentences.

https://nypost.com/2025/01/13/us-news/la-case-of-blow-torch-homeless-man-sparks-new-debate-over-vagrant-crisis/ "...Juan Manuel Sierra-Leyva, an illegal migrant from Mexico, was nabbed Thursday by LA residents who allegedly saw him torching old Christmas trees and debris with what one local described as a “flamethrower” soon after a massive wildfire began in the region. Cops arrested him, but he has not been charged, at least yet...“50% of the fires in Los Angeles are homeless related, costing LA hundreds of millions,” former Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Chief Patrick Jordan wrote on X on Sunday...". https://krcrtv.com/news/nation-world/illegal-migrant-is-person-of-interest-in-californias-kenneth-fire-ice-says-juan-manuel-sierra-leyva-woodland-hills-los-angeles# "Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials on Tuesday announced a "person of interest" in relation to a California fire entered the U.S. illegally. The Los Angeles Police Department on Friday arrested Juan Manuel Sierra-Leyva, 33, on felony probation violation. He entered the U.S. illegally at an unknown date and time, according to ICE. Witnesses claimed to KTLA Sierra-Leyva was seen attempting to start a blaze with a “propane tank or a flamethrower" in Woodland Hills near the Kenneth fire. Neighbors who witnessed the scene reportedly cornered Sierra-Leyva and forced him to his knees. The neighbors then performed a citizen’s arrest using zip ties and rope to restrain the illegal migrant until authorities arrived, KTLA reported. The Kenneth fire was eventually fully contained, according to officials. ICE noted Sierra-Leyva has “multiple encounters with law enforcement from November 2016 to present for a variety of charges," as well as was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in October 2023...".

I just read that the man believed to start one of the Los Angeles County fires (found with a blowtorch near the site where one of the blazes started) was an illegal immigrant with multiple convictions, including a felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, for which he was on parole. I find it insane that this man wasn't even deported. It's news items like this which infuriated much of the public. I mean, one could make an argument for not notifying ICE for petty theft, but assault with a deadly weapon or any other felony? https://www.newsweek.com/la-wildfires-cause-illegal-immigrant-ice-sanctuary-state-2014914 "...According to ICE, Sierra is a 33-year-old Mexican national who arrived in the U.S. illegally. He also goes by the names Juan Manuel Sierra-Leyva, Juan Leva, Leyva Moniker and Juan Sierra. He entered the U.S. at an unknown date and has had multiple encounters with law enforcement since November 2016. Sierra was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon on October 10, 2023, in Van Nuys, California. The Times reported he had been under probation supervision since that time...".

We don't need all of Canada--just Alberta! 😄

Do you think that China threatened to wreak havoc on its internet or other infrastructure if it didn't send the Uyghurs back? These people probably have little strategic interest to the Chinese, so it would all be for show. Do you think China would take hostile action if these people were allowed to settle in a third country?

I was reading in the papers that Thailand is not only refusing to grant asylum to Chinese Uyghurs, but is preparing them to send them back to China, where they almost certainly will face death or worse at the hands of the Chinese. I know that there are quite a few readers who now live in Thailand, so I'm wondering if someone closer to the issue knows why the Thai government is behaving like this. Are they that afraid of the Chinese? I wonder if the Uyghurs would have fared better in Vietnam. My husband and I remembered from our trip to Vietnam that the Vietnamese recounted their bravery "We beat the French, we beat the Americans, we beat the Chinese. We're not afraid of anyone." If the Thai government is that afraid of the Chinese, couldn't they at least send the Uyghurs to a country which isn't that afraid of them? https://apnews.com/article/uyghur-china-deportation-thailand-xinjiang-human-rights-d6f813654cf40ce464bc19203a226de0 "A group of Uyghur men who were detained in Thailand over a decade ago say that the Thai government is preparing to deport them to China, alarming activists and family members who say the men are at risk of abuse and torture if they are sent back. In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, 43 Uyghur men held in Bangkok made a public appeal to halt what they called an imminent threat of deportation... Advocates and relatives describe harsh conditions in immigration detention. They say the men are fed poorly, kept in overcrowded concrete cells with few toilets, denied sanitary goods like toothbrushes or razors, and are forbidden contact with relatives, lawyers, and international organizations. The Thai government’s treatment of the detainees may constitute a violation of international law, according to a February 2024 letter sent to the Thai government by United Nations human rights experts... all of the Uyghurs detained in Thailand submitted asylum applications to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which the AP verified by reviewing copies of the letters. The U.N. agency acknowledged receipt of the applications but has been barred from visiting the Uyghurs by the Thai government to this day, the people said... an April 2023 letter authored by the chairwoman of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand first leaked to the New York Times Magazine and independently seen by the AP said there are “countries that are ready to take these detainees to settle down.”... "

On the subject of professional organizations (as opposed to USPSTF, WHO, and Cochrane), the American Heart Association recommends hydrating with water, except for athletes and sick people: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/staying-hydrated-staying-healthy "...For most people, water is the best thing to drink to stay hydrated. Some foods can be a source of water, such as fruits and vegetables. Sports drinks with electrolytes may be useful for people doing high-intensity, vigorous exercise...".

The optimal rehydration drink depends on the purpose of the rehydration drink (i.e. reason for water loss). In particular, it matters if the water loss is rapid (such as exercise or diarrhea), or whether it's gradual, such as lounging on a beach chair in a hot tropical climate, or a desert poolside party. Most of the research has been done on the optimalization of hydration for endurance exercises and for illnesses which result in water loss (particularly diarrhea). For these two categories, ingestion of beverages with carbohydrates and electrolytes has been shown to improve exercise performance and health outcomes (not zero-calorie electrolyte solutions). In the case of just having fun at the beach or poolside, perhaps snacking on chips and salsa (or a sandwich and fries), plain water is just fine, as there will be plenty of salt in most peoples' foods. While athletes and sick people benefit from getting as much liquid as possible into their blood vessels, this is probably not the case for people who are just walking around in a warm climate, where the resulting increase in blood pressure may be deleterious. Increasing BP is good for athletes and hypotensive diarrhea patients, but probably not for the average person. Here are some Cochrane-gathered data: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=related&urlTitle=%2Fcentral%2Fdoi%2F10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-00119256&doi=10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-00119256&p_p_id=scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay&_scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay_action=related-content&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_mode=view&type=central&contentLanguage= And an original study: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15438620802103155

I agree with most of what you said, in particular this statement, although I would qualify it by saying that one can also get good health information by following the advice of large national or international public health organizations and other organizers of reliable scientific data. I personally give my highest credibility to the United States Preventative Services Task Force, a group which really pores over all of the studies, and provides hard data. The World Health Organization also has reliable information, though more limited. The Cochrane organization from the UK also provides extremely reliable summaries of what's known in certain subjects. National professional societies also have evidence-based guidelines, although occasionally there may be a slight bias in interpreting data towards the societies. Let's just say I trust professional society guidelines 98%, and USPSTF, WHO, and Cochrane guidelines 99.8%. No question that it's far wiser to trust a competent physician than some information you might glean from social media or the lay press, especially sources quoted by Reader, since, as nice a guy as I'm sure he is, he tends to be overly trusting in some unreliable sources. That being said, it's a good idea to double-check any advice with what the world's experts have to say on the subject.

Not to discourage anyone from drinking plenty of water, but the science is lacking in that statement (though obviously hydration is good for the kidneys and helps prevent kidney stones).

Hopefully they'd only take off if all of the paid passengers had boarded.

Then I don't have to go there, since I've already been to Russia. 😁

Swiss International Airlines is not among the top 5: In Europe the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures Iberia Express (I2) 99.49% 72.03% 84.69% 86.72% Iberia (IB) 98.83% 74.16% 81.58% 79.77% SAS (SK) 99.09% 62.86% 81.40% 82.72% Vueling (VY) 99.09% 76.33% 81.20% 79.43% Norwegian (DY) 99.18% 68.71% 79.23% 79.58% It doesn't surprise me to see Aeromexico on top. They're a really great airline which take special pride in its on-time performance. In North America, the top airlines are, not surprisingly: In North America the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures Delta Air Lines (DL) 98.95% 77.34% 83.46% 83.74% United Airlines (UA) 98.35% 74.95% 80.93% 81.98% Alaska Airlines (AS) 98.56% 63.15% 79.25% 81.70% American Airlines (AA) 98.68% 72.05% 77.78% 79.13% Southwest Airlines (WN) 99.38% 76.55% 77.77% 76.65% In Asia-Pacific, it's: In Asia Pacific the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures JAL (JL) 98.37% 64.95% 80.90% 82.83% ANA (NH) 98.61% 62.63% 80.62% 81.96% Singapore Airlines (SQ) 99.92% 68.45% 78.67% 80.13% Air New Zealand (NZ) 96.89% 75.03% 77.58% 74.73% Thai AirAsia (FD) 99.97% 67.89% 77.46% 77.44% For West Asia and Africa, it's: In the Middle East and Africa the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures FlySafair (FA) 99.86% 81.64% 93.82% 93.69% Oman Air (WY) 99.64% 74.33% 90.27% 93.89% Royal Jordanian (RJ) 99.31% 74.94% 87.02% 87.34% Saudia (SV) 99.82% 68.34% 86.35% 88.82% Kuwait Airways (KU) 99.40% 67.45% 84.63% 87.10% For Latin America, we have: In Latin America the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures Copa Airlines (CM) 98.73% 68.58% 88.22% 91.77% Aeromexico (AM) 99.32% 75.82% 86.70% 87.73% Caribbean Airlines (BW) 99.06% 42.67% 85.47% 87.82% Gol (G3) 98.78% 69.88% 84.09% 83.90% Aerolineas Argentinas (AR) 97.54% 63.40% 83.06% 84.62% I've flown Copa before, and they have a pretty good product. I had a Paraguayan boyfriend for 2.5 years, and Copa is the only way to get to Paraguay with only one plane change (in Panama City). I'm surprised Gol, a low-cost Brazilian airline made it so high on the list, though.

https://www.cirium.com/thoughtcloud/most-on-time-airlines-airports-2024-revealed-cirium/ "...Aeromexico claimed the prestigious title of the most On-Time “Global Airline” in 2024, achieving an impressive On-Time performance rate of 86.70%. Saudia followed closely as the runner-up with 86.35%, while Delta Air Lines secured third place with 83.46%, continuing to showcase its operational reliability on the world stage...".

True, for the single traveler. Few cruise lines accommodate single travelers well. For couples, it's not that expensive, especially when one considers that the price includes transportation, food, and lodging. With the better cruise lines, that includes gourmet meals, which are frightfully expensive. The best part of cruising is the absence of packing and unpacking, which one does on trips with rail, bus, car, or air travel. My husband and I are taking a Mediterranean cruise in May, leaving from Tarragona. Prior to the trip, we're going to spend a few nights in Barcelona, including a day-trip to Andorra. While we will not spend the night there, we will be having lunch there and visiting the city, and I will definitely count that as having visited Andorra. Our cruise ship will also stop in Malta, and, although we'll spend several hours there, not spend the night. I will consider myself down to three unvisited European countries: Belarus, Bosnia, and Moldova. We do have plans for Moldova next May (2026). I'm not sure if I'll be able to visit Belarus until Lukashenko dies...

Yes, by those criteria, I would not have been to Kansas or Kentucky since, while I ate and spent money there, did not spend the night. At least it's a little less ridiculous than Noel Philips' assertion that he's "been to" Maryland just because spent an hour crossing over a thin sliver of the state (and even less of Delaware, for which he passed only a few km). Staying overnight is a bit of a tough criterion, though. I've twice driven across Nebraska, taking 7.5 hours each way, and have seen the entire length of the state and eaten 4 meals there, so I feel quite comfortable saying I've been there (I've never counted changing planes in an airport as being there). Idaho's another state where I've spent quite a few hours on different occasions, stopping at various sights, but have never actually spent the night. I've also visited quite a few sights in New Hampshire and had quite a few meals there over the years. I've been to the top of Mount Washington, the highest peak in New England (and the windiest place in the US), visited Franconia Notch State Park, lunched in Portsmouth, and hiked Flume Gorge. I feel confident in saying I've visited the place, but it's always been in the context of a wider New England trip, either travel from Maine to Vermont, or Massachusetts to Maine, or Vermont to Massachusetts. Never spent the night, though (might be going from Ogunquit, ME to Woodstock VT, for example). Very commonly, a lot of people stay in West Yellowstone, Montana, when visiting Yellowstone National Park, which is primarily in Wyoming. They might even spend several days visiting the park, although their accommodations are in a different state.

They're now saying the death was due to heart failure and pneumonia. The former was probably due to misuse of recreational drugs.