I don't like to update posts, since nobody is ever going to scroll down to re-read old posts and the updates will go unseen. So I'll put up new posts to update old ones.

About taking a single backpack when traveling, Turtle bro writes:
One key thing to keep in mind is that "carry-on size" is not the same everywhere. ... And the need for a safe food supply means I'll probably continue to do a 2-bag approach like that, with the goal of keeping my backpack quite light.
It is essential before any trip to find the size and weight restrictions for all airlines on the internet. Also, they're less likely to check a slightly oversized backpack and they are to check a suitcase. And finally, most backpacks, even those with a suspension system, have some give in them and can be squished down somewhat to meet size requirements. For example, the limit on most airlines is 22" long, but some require 20". My pack is 21", but it can be squished down to 18" or 19".

Second, I always take a daypack and fleece jacket with many pockets when I travel. On a long flight, I put my book and some snacks in the daypack so I won't have to take down my main backpack when I need something. On shorter flights or train trips I put my book and food in my jacket pockets. The daypack is small enough to fit inside my main pack when walking around, and the fleece serves double-duty as a pillow on the plane. In both cases, I always have a backup in case I absolutely can't take my main pack with me.

Finally, if you're going to be driving around and staying in nice hotels, multiple bags and suitcases are fine. When you're going to be walking a lot with your luggage, taking the metro, getting into a strange town late at night and searching for a place to sleep, it's extremely useful to have only one piece of light luggage which you can easily carry on your back. Trust me, it's a pain to wear a 44-pound backpack on a crowded subway, and even less fun to walk up the stairs from a subway car 4 stories underground. Running 2 miles from one international terminal to another with that 44-pound pack is also very unpleasant.

About abortion, Plexist wrote:
I always thought most of the opposition to abortion was due to religious reasons. While many religions [do] want to punish people for sex, I think that's a side effect rather than the motivation.
I'm sure many of these people think that they are anti-abortion because of their religion, but I doubt they are, because there are all sorts of other things that religion bans that they're fine with. I'm sure these same people don't really think that they're trying to punish women for having sex, but they are. I would say that if you pick and choose which parts of your religion to obey, there's something else at work.

And lastly, about an AP article that harshed Bush's mellow, Plexist wrote:
When I saw your post, I thought "Wow, the media is finally, actually reporting the truth without being afraid of sounding shrill." Then I looked at the article. ... but really that's a pretty weak article. It's like writing an article with the headline "Republicans favor rich people." It's true and it should upset people, but it's hardly what I would call news.
That's very true, but it's a step up from, "The administration killed 10,000 terrorist puppies and kittens, who really deserved what they got. Martial law has been declared for Democrats and other traitors. And coming up, the news about Beniffer!" I guess I've consumed too much media and have had my standards dangerously lowered. All it takes is an article that's not groveling to make me happy. Mea culpa!


Post a Comment

<< Home