It's amusing to me that the pilot author of this article seems to express some disbelief that passengers are ready and willing to believe that an airline would mislead them.

Hate to break it to you, but you work in an industry where the only thing keeping you afloat is government subsidies and bailouts. It's not the product, the price, and it's definitely not the level of service.

The fact is most of us hate the airlines. We love to travel, we love to see family and loved ones far away, but the airlines are only afloat because our government has deemed it important enough to have ready access to air travel to distort the market forces that would otherwise render it untenable.

Flying and everything associated with it (inane airport 'safety,' being ripped off for crappy food, etc) are easily the worst portion of any travel experience.

I'm sure you fly a hell of a plane, and the things that make flying horrible have little to do with your performance as a pilot (or generally any pilot's performance).

That doesn't mean you should have your head in the sand about how most customers feel about your product: at best, a necessary evil.

I think one must have a good grounding in the past to analyze the future. Are you contending that 1980 holds little sway over today's events, both political and temporal? I hope not! Considering how conservatives still swoon over the man, I would say he still looms a bit.

I also feel like Krugman landed some nice body blows last week that Brooks left unanswered. Did Brooks not answer because he had something better to write about or because he knew he could never credibly answer the claims?

I think the latter, given his column last week was boring.

I bet K-dog is just twisting the knife a little bit with this latest column to see if Brooks has any fight left in him or if he is truly conceding the point.

Either way. Any day when liars like David Brooks are challenged and found weak is a good day. Expose their lies and punish them for having written/spoken them.

Challenging the lies allowed to promulgate our news cycle is an important and vital duty.

With the exasperation Ms. Walsh voices, I have to wonder is she with Speaker Pelosi on the impeachment question? Is the present work (ie securing a consolidation of Democratic power in 2008) more important than the problems of 2001 - 2006?

I would rather see more fights, not fewer. It means people care more about the real issues than they do about securing some political advantage. I would rather see someone take a principled stand and challenge the other side than equivocate and hedge in order to hold power, but maybe that makes me an outlier.

They say you get the government you deserve. When the Dems win in 08, won't we just be getting a crowd of people in power whose sole principle is their own advancement? Since we seem to demand nothing over mere tactical competence, I fear that is exactly what we will get; a blue coat of paint on the same naked ambition.

I prefer to see people fighting for what is right and what is true.

The first clip with the iPod and onion says you need a white onion and 2 cups of sports drink.

However, you can clearly see he is using a yellow onion and only one cup of the gatorade.

I think the figures you depict only show the rate at which population grows will decrease.

It's hard to make the additional inference in a credible way absent more data about lifespan.

Would it have been funnier to have them rape a man?

Is it the same joke?

The detail is nice if you get it right.

W00t has been around for at least 7 years, if not more.

Now we even have the illustrious www.woot.com with their bags 'o crap.

Also, suxx0rs is spelled with 2 x's.

Why can't the author do a little research on his own? I love how we're all just supposed to take him at his word because he is a pilot. Do your job. I learned more from the IEEE article and myth busters linked in the comments.

HINT: "A Pilot Said It" does not make something true.

Do you so little respect your readers that you feel free to be so blatant in your bias?

Your coverage is weak, old man.

I'm quite far from an Edwards partisan, but for chrissakes, he came in 2nd.

Here is my idea for an alternate title for your piece:

Barack delivers, Hillary disappoints, Edwards disappears.

Salon has done nothing if not defend Clinton.

Frankly, I'm a little tired of the bias.

Someone who is too afraid of what people will think to do what is right have no claim to leadership.

Think about it.

Obama sucks too. His votes in the Senate were the same garden variety triangulation and playing it safe that hers were. She was just around soon enough to make the Iraq one.

Who here among us thinks Obama would have voted differently, given his support for all these other POS bills?

I hate to be a jerk about it, but it seems like you wouldn't be using the word compliment with regard to Mr. Kristol.

"After just one caucus, in which she had garnered almost a third of votes that were split among three candidates. "

Because she was last among three, she was the least close to 1 out of 3 votes of the three candidates.

Is this poor writing or dishonesty?