unicorn

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:

I'd think Mr Phumiphiphat should know better than to waste his time. US visa policy is dictated neither by negotiation nor by a "monkey-see, monkey-do" policy (in which the terms are reciprocal). Decisions on which citizens are entitled to visa waivers are based on the statistics for the previous year from that country, namely what percentage of those granted tourist visas overstay their visa, and/or otherwise violate the terms of the visa, and on the visa refusal rate from citizens of that country. The US cannot safely handle the number of illegal immigrants into the country, and must base its visa policy on the likelihood that the citizens of that country will overstay. This seems to be the only intelligent visa policy. There are, of course, poorer countries who require visas of citizens of any country that requires visas of their own country. This is highly unwise, as it simply reduces the tourist dollars to that country without a commensurate decrease in risk in illegal immigration. https://skift.com/2023/04/17/brazils-retaliatoryvisa-rules-would-hurt-its-international-tourism-recovery/

Not a bad idea, but difficult to implement in practice. Airlines don't often label the aircraft as such on their websites. Plus, aircraft changes can happen between when you buy the ticket and when you fly. Will you deplane if, upon entering the aircraft, you find out it's a MAX?

Well, that link is misleading, since it refers to problems with the rudder control system: "The Federal Aviation Administration says it is closely monitoring inspections of Boeing 737 MAX jets after the plane-maker requested that airlines check for loose bolts in the rudder control system...". Plenty of loose screws to go around, though. "The problem here is relatively insignificant, but it does speak to continued serious problems with the production ramp, both at Boeing and with its suppliers."

The latest news is that there were some screws loose. Perhaps someone sleeping on the assembly line?

Glad to know that the iPhone (presumably Siri) was tactful! 😄

Or 70s/80s singers who never came out...

Speaking of 60s singers who never came out...