unicorn

I've long had the hots for Justin Trudeau, but I was wowed when I just saw a photo of the President of the Bolivian Senate, Andrónico Rodríguez Ledezma. He's a socialist political leader and cocaine proponent.

Although you post a lot of asinine statements, this is one of the most stupid yet. As you know (or should know if you're posting about this), the ICC and the US have nothing to do with each other. The US doesn't even participate or recognize the ICC's jurisdiction. 🙄 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court "... On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to seven, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the U.S., and Yemen...". So Putin could come to the US and not getting arrested, though it'd be a bit challenging for him to fly to the US while avoiding the airspace of Canada, Europe, and Greenland. As I mentioned in the post right before yours, only the countries in green recognize the ICC's jurisdiction.

Well, there's an arrest warrant for Putin, so there's that: If he steps foot in any of the countries in green, he'll be arrested:

Trump is the consummate con man--been doing it all of his life. Some people just take longer to figure it out than others. The sooner people figure it out, the less they get burned.

Probably true, but it doesn't make it right. In my opinion, a person or entity shouldn't be held responsible over something over which they have no control, and were therefore not culpable. Again, if they had information this was a bad cop, and put him in that position, then yes, they share some culpability. I don't think they should be called "responsible" simply because they have more money. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Again, if the police department knew, or should have known, about this officer's transgressions, that might be a problem for them. Otherwise, the responsible person should be held responsible. I would think that, given the number of laws broken, the officer should be fired (and fined and imprisoned). I recently posted a string about a woman in my area (Los Angeles County) who killed a couple of kids while engaging in an exhibition of speed on a public roadway. She was actually convicted of murder. I opined in that string that I felt that a voluntary manslaughter conviction would have been more appropriate, since in California the definition of murder involves an intent to kill someone. I don't know Thai law, but I'd think that there's some crime in there which would involve imprisonment. In California, my understanding is that the prisoner must work in prison to pay restitution, with 70% of the earnings going to the family.

This makes sense from a rational perspective. Why would the police department itself be responsible, unless it had information that this officer had a history of bad driving behavior and allowed him to drive anyway? For example, if the officer had been convicted of driving under the influence, or reckless driving, but was allowed to drive for the department anyway, then they should be held responsible. I don't perceive any responsibility on their part, however, if there was no history of such behavior.

I thought it was obvious from his post: those who are hearing-impaired and can read, but don't know ASL. I'd think that there would be a significant number of people in that category, especially among the elderly. Even English/native language operas usually have supertitles. I've never seen an opera with an ASL interpreter.

How many 3* hotels have 50+ employees? To have that many employees, you'd probably need various amenities, probably only provided for by 4* hotels.

According to the reviews on Amazon, not very effective...

Not tonight dear, I'll have a headache!

The funny thing is that I've never seen ASL interpreters at any of the many musicals I've attended (Hamilton, Lion King, Book of Mormon, and so on), where one might think deaf people could at least enjoy the theatricality, dancing, sets, and so on. It surprises me that of all performances, a deaf person would go simply to watch a chorus sing. I guess one learns something new every day.

OK. I stand corrected. Thanks for educating me. It never would have occurred to me. I always have an open mind. 😉

Well, I suppose that a deaf friend might attend a performance if he had a close friend who was singing, and the ticket was complimentary. That'd be a valid reason I hadn't thought of. I don't have any deaf friends, but, since your question implies that you do, have your deaf friends ever purchased a ticket to a chorus performance? Have you ever offered a deaf friend to go to such a performance yourself? If so, what was the reaction? I can't imagine that if I were deaf, I'd be interested, except to support a particularly close friend who was in the chorus.

Last night I went to see the Gay Men's Chorus here in LA with a fairly large group of friends (12). As the chorus were singing, there was an American Sign Language interpreter on the side of the stage interpreting the words being sung. We were in the balcony, and the group tickets were $65 a pop with a group discount. I can't imagine a deaf man would ever buy tickets to a chorus performance, and I would consider offering a ticket to a deaf friend as insensitive--and downright insulting. Am I missing something, or is having an ASL translator at a chorus rather nutty?

I just learned today that this bastion of liberal academia is led by Carol T. Christ. I don't know how she may be related to Jesus H. 😉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_T._Christ

Unless you subscribe to NYT, it's behind a paywall, but an interesting read: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/business/media/russia-fake-journalists.html?te=1&nl=the-morning&emc=edit_nn_20240319 "A young man calling himself Mohamed al-Alawi appeared in a YouTube video in August. He described himself as an investigative journalist in Egypt with a big scoop: The mother-in-law of Ukraine’s president had purchased a villa near Angelina Jolie’s in El Gouna, a resort town on the Red Sea. The story, it turned out, was not true. Ukraine denied it, and the owner of the villa refuted it. Also disconnected from reality: Alawi’s claim to being a journalist. Still, his story caromed through social media and news outlets from Egypt to Nigeria and ultimately to Russia — which, according to researchers, is where the story all began. The story seemed to fade, but not for long. Four months later, two new videos appeared on YouTube. They said Mohamed al-Alawi had been beaten to death in Hurghada, a town about 20 miles south of El Gouna. The suspected killers, according to the videos: Ukraine’s secret service agents. These claims were no more factual than the first, but they gave new life to the old lie. Another round of posts and news reports ultimately reached millions of internet users around the world, elevating the narrative so much that it was even echoed by members of the U.S. Congress while debating continued military assistance to Ukraine. Ever since its forces invaded two years ago, Russia has unleashed a torrent of disinformation to try to discredit Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, and undermine the country’s support in the West. This saga, though, introduced a new gambit: a protracted and elaborately constructed narrative built online around a fictitious character and embellished with seemingly realistic detail and a plot twist worthy of Netflix. “They never brought back a character before,” said Darren Linvill, a professor and director of the Media Forensics Hub at Clemson University, who has extensively studied Russian disinformation. The campaign shows how deftly Russia’s information warriors have shifted to new tactics and targets as the war in Ukraine has dragged on, just as Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine have adjusted tactics after devastating battlefield losses...".

I don't know if our two Russian posters actually believe the ridiculous crap they put out, but it's a waste of time to present actual facts to them. They'll always come back with the same absurd BS: "the truth comes from the place where journalists are murdered, and propaganda from places where's there's a free press," "fair elections comes from the place where journalists and opponents are murdered," and so on. I have no idea whether or not they actually believe that BS or not, but they're clearly not going to change their tune, and it's a waste of time to argue with people who ignore, or seem to ignore, the obvious.

Well, seriously, I call it BS. Physiologically, I don't think it's possible for a man to orgasm without losing an erection. Refractory periods can indeed be very short, but I doubt the time can be zero. I would call it a fake orgasm.

I feel a song coming on...

Multiple orgasm/short refractory period.