Airlines...

I know this blog has no political content, but it's subject pisses me off just about as much as the republicans calling my crowd "anti-Christian." This morning I have been searching for flights from Tampa, FL to Wilmington, NC next month and I'm baffled by what I'm seeing. I go to the major discount websites and enter my cities and dates and what time I want to fly... nothing available that reasonably fits my schedule. So I decide to go to USAirways.com and see what's over there... still no luck with an evening flight on a Friday night (good line for a song, innit?). Delta is my last hope. I've never had this much trouble finding flights on non-holiday weekends, what's going on? I enter my cities and dates and times... bingo! The times work.

But wait, the return flight has a problem. This can't be right... And then I'm staring directly at the reason why the airline industry in this country sucks and is going bankrupt company by company. My return flight has me going from Wilmington to Cincinnati, to Birmingham, to Tampa. To travel 650 miles I have to fly 2,000 miles. And the most ridiculous part of the whole damn stupid deal is that that trip will cost exactly $1.69 more than an option to fly Wilmington to Cincinnati, to Tampa on the same morning. So, the airline wants me to spend an extra hour and a half in an airplane and an extra 2 hours in an airport (I'm compensating for the inevitable flight delay) AND spend an extra $1.69 to unnecessarily add one more flight to my trip? And we continue to spend millions if not BILLIONS of dollars keeping these companies afloat when they go bankrupt?

Here's a thought, how about we get the five-year-olds out of the flight scheduling department and save the customer $1.69 and the company thousands, maybe millions in the long term. I've never seen a more idiotic way of doing things.

I will find two flights that work for me and I will get to my destination and home without going through Birmingham, AL. But the fact that that schedule is even an option explains to me that the industry has a long way to go before the bankruptcies end and some common sense begins.

The Stem Cell Legislation...

Go here to read the very, very short bill in the US Senate supporting the rejection of Dubbyuh's ban on stem cell research.

A debate on this legislation is even more ridiculous than the folks a the White House refusing to talk about the Karl Rove scandal. The legislation approves the use of embryos for research if three things are true: 1) the embryos were created for fertilization purposes and they are leftovers from the procedure; 2) the embryos would NEVER be used for fertilization within ANY woman and would therefore be "discarded" (thrown away); 3) those who were seeking to use the embryos for fertilization signed off on the donation for them towards stem cell research.

So, if there are leftover embryos from fertility treatment that are going to be thrown away, never to be implanted into ANYONE, this is unethical and does not promote life in America? I'm sorry, but what the hell? According to the American Cancer Society, 40,000 women die each year from breast cancer, 32,000 men die each year from prostate cancer, 150,000 die from lung cancer, and we're debating if garbage should be used for research? I would have loved to see Ronald Reagan trade his Altzheimers for lung cancer and then have the mind in his latter years to give his opinion. I'm sure it would be similar to his wife's - that these Christian Fundamentalists are hypocritical and need to back off.

That's ok, though. Most Americans, as well as members of Congress, agree that stem cell research is a good thing and should be promoted in this country. It's funny how Dubbyuh and his supporters say that killing hundreds of thousands of people on another continent promotes freedom and a way of life here in America, but doing research on some cells that would otherwise be thrown out in a biowaste bin is unethical and immoral and does NOT promote life.

What the hell?

G8...

My dad forwarded an article to me condemning the G8. This was my response...

---------

An interesting article full of half truths and one-sidedness.

I agree, pop stars are stupid and should be the last place to go to get
informed on politics. Some of them never finished high school, most of them
never went to college, and all of them are either recovering alcoholics or
fomer drug users.

But, there are three main points that can be taken from the One Campaign
(www.onecampaign.com): 1) 6,500 people each day die from starvation in
Africa. This is an epidemic; 2) In the grander scheme of foreign war
fighting and globalized economies, the cost to end this epidemic is fairly
small (sending a child to school for a year with books in Africa is about
$15. Do a little math and you'll see just how many stealth fighters can save
this continent); 3) Africa has neither the ability nor the intracontinental
connectivity to end this epidemic. It is up to the other 5 populated
continents to help.

We don't have to do anything. Our economy won't fail, terrorism won't come
sprawling out of Niger to fly planes into American buildings, no, they're
too busy eating a square inch piece of rotten bread in a bug infested metal
shack hoping they won't die before the next nonexistent meal. I didn't
learn this because I blindly believed some rock star, I read and watched it
for myself... the rock star just brought it to my attention and I figured it
out on my own.

No educated mind looking at Africa can blame anyone but Africa for it's
problems. You could argue that because, like your article states, developed
nations gave the handouts for the Africans to squander with soaring
population and thus become more poor, we are partially to blame. I won't
even say THAT. I put the entire blame on sparring African tribes, a lack of
civil order within these poor countries and, yes, evil dictators supporting
corruption and self power (30 years of drought doesn't help either, but
that's God's fault).

Now I ask you this, since when was America into the doctrine of only fixing
problems that it is responsible for causing? If you ask the current
administration, America has never been responsible for fixing ANY problem
it's created because it hasn't created any! WWI, WWII, Vietnam... Jesus,
what about the Suez and Panama Canals? Their non existence was a problem
and we fixed it. And if you think we have nothing to gain from Africa
defeating it's poverty and starvation then just think about two things...
cheap raw materials and cheap labor.

And this population thing... telling a civilization it can't procreate is a
law against nature. You have to find a way to educate the people and let
them see the benefits of social change. Dubbyuh's into this doctrine of
spending $300 billion on social change, why not share HALF of that cost with
the rest of the world for a PEACEFUL solution simply to KEEP PEOPLE FROM
DYING? The benefits are more than monetary.

Your article is based on one principle, give money to a group of people to
pull them out of poverty and they procreate their way into more poverty. I
agree with that if a half assed donation is given to some uneducated
homeless man who has to decide what to do with it. That is not social
change, that's not promoting education and a better life. That's not what
this campaign is about. It is about, for once, responsible expenditures of
large, but reasonable amounts of humanitarian aid, medicines, food,
contracts to build basic needs for people, REAL support and pressure for
political change, and a progressive movement into the world economy.

Yes, you're right, we can do nothing. We can let hungry people die and
blame it on them. But as a moral person with a value for humanity I cannot
support such a selfish, self serving mentality.

H!