Skip to main content

Thoughts while traveling again . . . and again . . . and again . . .

I am on the road--or in the air--an awful lot this month (eighteen days in five different states in five weeks), which finds me logging on in a variety of airports and hotels.

Some of the more intriguing things I have learned about net access in various airports:

In Philadelphia you can get free internet service on weekends or if you are a college student any day. . . .

In Phoenix you can get free net access anytime, but for some reason the server won't let you log on to AOL. . . .

In Louisville you have to pay for access, but while most such rip-offs require at least $9.95, there you can log on for two hours for just $2.95. . . .

As for hotels, I'm fascinated to learn that--as a rule of thumb--the lower rated the chain the more likely the net access is to be free (and reliable). Move up from the Sleep Inns of the world to the urban conference centers, and you're going to pay and get poor service.

These are details, incidental at best. What really strikes me is this: supposedly our airlines are privately owned transportation companies, at least in theory free to carry the passengers of their choice, They certainly have the freedom to charge me two bucks for a coke, $15 for a checked bag, and $5 for a box with assorted snacks.

But they can't say, "Hey, this is Take Your Chances Air! We'll sell you a cheap ticket, get you there on time, and you can carry anything you damn well please in your baggage. You can keep your damn shoes on the whole time. Oh, by the way, if somebody gets up to try to hijack the plane, it's up to you to handle it, OK? Don't like our plan? Fly with somebody else, pay more, and get naked pictures taken of you by TSA Gestapo agents."

I'd fly TYC Air in a heartbeat, because I know the truth: if I'm going to die on a commercial airline, it's a whole lot more likely to be due to supposedly discharged oxygen cylinders in the hold, pilot error, wind shear, or the antiquated State-run air traffic control system than by Omar and Hassan getting on board with box cutters.

In point of fact, I seriously doubt any hijackers with a freaking gun could get a planeload of American passengers to go crashing into buildings these days without being torn limb from limb.

We have, however, accepted the Nanny State proposition that only the Gummint can keep us safe, and that any indignities they choose to perpetrate on our bodies, our luggage, or our collective dignity are all our patriotic American duty to bend over and comply with.

(See, I'm so ticked I actually ended a sentence with a dangling preposition.)

I have no solution for this problem, because we have now formally incorporated moral cowardice and servile compliance into the definition of American exceptionalism.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...