But it will never happen

I was reading an article online today. about the passengers that airline employees most dislike.  One of them was people who shout and complain, who become belligerent, when they are getting bumped.  As those it was perfectly OK for the airline to sell something they don't actually own (a seat they have sold to someone else) even though if you or I did the same thing that would be fraud.

Now it is in the airline's best interest to leave the airport full.  Actually, that is not completely true.  I have read that for many types of aircraft, they actually make more money with a couple of empty seats. The amount of additional fuel they use flying completely full is not paid for by the fares paid by those last few passengers.  But for arguments sake, let's just say full.

So they want to leave full, and they done want last minute cancellation cause them to leave half empty.  So they sell more seats than they have, and somebody gets screwed.  But let's look at it a different was.  Not completely one-sided, just different.

Have you ever bought a non-refundable airline ticket?  The airline is requiring that your travel plans be cast in stone, or you forfeit your money.  So that should work both ways.  It is simple.

If the ticket is non-refundable, then you own that seat.  If you miss the plane, the airline cannot sell it to someone else unless they are going to give you back your money.  If they only get half what you paid, you get half back.  If they get twice what you paid, you get all your money back, and the airline gets to keep the difference.  And if they can't sell it, you lose all your money and they use a little less fuel.  Isn't that fair for everyone?


And since you own the rights to that seat, you cannot be bumped.  They want to overbook, they do it only with seats that are refundable.  You buy a refundable seat, you do so knowing the risks.


How about some of the airlines that don't treat you like shit?  Even if a Southwest ticket is non-refundable, they let you change it for a different flight.  You only pay the different in the cost between the old and new ticket.  You do not want to punish a company for treating you fairly.  So let's add a couple more caveats.

Say even a refundable ticket becomes non-refundable 48 hours before your flight is due to depart.  Maybe 5 days for international flights.  And after that point, you have to pay for the ticket if you cancel and the airline does not re-sell it, and you cannot be bumped.

Yes the airlines have been screwing their customers forever, but that doesn't mean the rules should be revised to screw them.  We just need a little balance.

A modest proposal

As I was driving in to work this morning, one of the radio shows I listen to was talking about a caller who had said that $250,000 a year is not really all that much.  This from the same people that say a teacher making $50,000 is greedy and overpaid.  It is time for a small dose of reality, and I think I know how it can be accomplished.

• Members of congress and the senate would no longer be paid by the federal government, but by the states they represent.
• The salaries of U.S. Representatives would be fixed at the median income for a K-12 public school teacher in their home state.  Their benefit packages would also be the same.
• The salaries of U.S. Senators would be fixed at the median income for public high school principals in their home state.  They too would recieve the same benefit packages.
• There would be no federal retirement for members of congress or the senate, rather they would participate in the same plan as the teachers in their home state.
• In recognition of the cost of maintaining two residences, the elected representatives would qualify for Section 8 housing in our nation's capital.

OK, it will never happen.  Because if it did, then our elected representatives would have to find someone else to demonize other than teachers and the working poor.

Another take on "freedom isn't free"

You hear that a lot, "Freedom isn't free".  That is the excuse you hear all the time for letting the government listen in on your phone calls, torture suspects, and arrest and threaten people without a warrant, and lie to you every day.

But that is not what I think about when I hear that.  When I hear that phrase, a completely different thought comes into my mind.

Freedom is not for the timid.  By that I do not mean that a timid individual has no place in a free society, but that society as a whole cannot be timid.  Freedom is dangerous.  In a free society, bad people will do bad things, and it is the responsibility of society to punish them for those bad things.  But until they have actually done something bad, they are just free people in a free society.

But what about....there are a whole lot of those.  And the answer is the same.  You want to be free, you have to give that freedom to everyone else.  And that means big brother is not constantly stepping in to prevent someone from hurting you.

Does that mean they government cannot tap the phones of organized crime or suspected terrorists?  Of course not.  But it does mean they have to stand up in front of a judge and lay out a real reason why they should be allowed to.

Would we miss some threats, if the government could not be constantly mining all of your cell phone calls and emails for key words and patterns?  Probably yes, although not as many as the government would like you to believe.  But you know what?  That is the price of freedom.  That is what freedom not being free really means.

There really are only two choices.  A free society, or a police state.  Yeah, you can put a pretty face on a police state, make most people feel like they are mostly free, but it is all a facade.  You are free or you are not.  And it takes courage to be free.  The politicians who write things like the Patriot Act are counting on you been too much of a coward to object.

Nuclear Power and the free market

There has been a lot of talk about our need to be getting more of our electricity from nuclear power, and of course a lot of people raising concerns in view of what has been happening in Japan.  But for all you free market get the government off our back types, there is one more tiny little gotcha.

A lot of the free market types (except for the tiny percentage that is ultra rich, who are living off your back, and your tax dollars) believe in self reliance.  That means taking responsibility for your actions, and the consequences of those actions.  Sometimes you take risks and you lose, and you suffer those losses.  This is essentially the way the rapidly diminishing middle class lives today.

But when you are talking about nuclear power, there is a different set of rules.  The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act limits the liability of the operators and builders of these power plants.  And the government offers loan guarantees for the construction of new ones.  These were part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and there has been a proposal by the Obama administration to expand them significantly.

So I pose these questions.

• If they are really safe, and it is the intent of the operators to operate them in a safe manner, then why can they not purchase private insurance.  Why are they unwilling to accept the consequences of their own actions?  
• If the consequences of their actions are limited by law, what is their incentive to not cut corners?  After all, if they screw up, you pay for it, not them
• If nuclear power plants are such a good bet, why cannot the money be found on the private market?

So all of you rugged individualist types, how does the idea of subsidizing a power plant on the other side of the county with your tax dollars sound to you? 

A small step for a more polite society

I had occasion to got to Kohls department store today, to pick up some dress shirts for work.  I am mentioning the store not because they are unique to this practice, only because it just happened there.  I know Target does it too.

There were three registers open and six to eight people in each line.  The lines were not moving quickly.  Then the cashier rung up the woman about four customers in front of me.  A big notice on the display at the check stand told the woman that she could receive an additional twenty percent off if she applied for a Kohls credit card.  The cashier reinforced that idea with her own pitch.  The woman said yes.

For the next ten minutes, that line did not move.  I moved to another line, and was finished with my purchases while that woman (and of course the people behind her) was still waiting for approval of her card.  When my cashier told me I could receive an additional twenty percent off if I applied for a Kohls credit card this was my reply.

"I cannot imagine being so rude as to make the people behind me wait in line while I apply for a credit card, and I find it offensive that you as a store would encourage such rude, antisocial behavior."

So next time you are offered a discount if you will inconvenience the people waiting behind you, tell them the same thing.  If enough people say that, perhaps the customer behind you will think twice before being so rude, and maybe, just maybe, the stores will find a less offensive way of drumming up credit card business.

It has always been here

As was true in Europe, there has always been class warfare in the United States.  The difference is that in this country it has been, for the most part, a one-sided fight.  The middle and lower classes have always been pitted against each other, made to fight over the same scraps.  It is another variation of the game of 'blame the victim'.

When Malcolm X suggested that blacks should respond to violence against them by having guns to defend themselves, that was called advocating violence.  When someone points out that the disparity between the ultra rich and everyone else in society is the largest it has ever been, they are 'instigating class warfare'.

Think about it this way.  When was the middle class was growing, when people were moving out of poverty into the middle class?  What is different about then, than now?

• The income tax rates were higher, particularly for the most wealthy
• Inheritance taxes were higher, which, despite the rhetoric, had little impact on the lives of ordinary Americans.  The tax has never applied to the passing of an estate between a husband and wife, and the amount excluded from taxation for everyone else in 2001 (the earliest date I found in a very brief internet search) was $675,000.
• There were real limits on how many media outlets in the same market a single company could own, so that a real diversity of voices existed.  One or two companies did not control all you see and hear.
• Your tax dollars were not subsidizing the shipment of your job overseas.

Was life worse for you then?  Were your kids likely to find decent jobs when they graduated from college?  Could you actually afford to send them to college without having to bankrupt yourself or make your child hang debt to last the rest of their life around their neck?

Yes, there is class warfare going on..  And we are losing.

Checking my kid's homework is too hard, let's blame the teacher

You read all about declining graduation high school rates and how hard it is get rid of bad teachers.  Couple that with complaints about them being over paid, and having bloated benefit packages.  And while you're at it, you can blame them for not doing a good job of instilling your kids with good values, a strong work ethic. Wait a minute, that was your job.  Oh, whatever.

Getting kids to graduate is not the teacher's job, it is your job.  It is the teacher's job to give them the information, and the work they need to make sure they learn it.  It is your job as a parent to make sure they do the work.

And on the subject of compensation, who can name another job requiring that much education, and that many hours of work that pays so little?  You do realize that preparing lesson plans, grading Junior's papers, and a lot of times going out and buying classroom materials with your own money is all time spent outside of the classroom?

So if you want to make sure your child is one of those statistics that cannot finish high school, let alone go to college, here is my prescription.

• Don't check their homework to see if it is right, or if they even did it.
• Make it clear, in the example that you set for them, that their goal in life should be to do as little as possible.  They should not find any honor or self satisfaction in doing something well, it is just about getting by with as little effort as possible.
• Remind them that their teachers are lazy, overpaid incompetents, and they should not pay any attention to them.
• Make sure they know how bad you think their school is.  Give them an excuse to fail..It is not their fault, and it certainly isn't yours.
• And finally, don't read.  Spend your free time camped in front of the TV, the remote firmly in your hand.  If you read you may be exposed to ideas.  That might make you think, and we all know thinking is dangerous.

An after you have carefully followed that recipe, blame the lazy, overpaid, incompetent teacher for your child's failure to finish high school.