Letters to the Editor
jgs
Published Letters: 20 Editor's Choice: 2
-
United does the same thing
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]babaluma says "if United followed Northwest's lead and started letting everybody compete and pay for better economy seats, it wouldn't be long before I started flying based solely on cost, rather than comfort."
Time to start shopping? Last United trip I took (DTW to SJC by way of ORD one way and DEN the other, about a month ago) when I checked in on-line United solicited me to upgrade to steerage+ for $25 per leg, if I recall correctly. In fact, I assumed Northworst had gotten the idea from United.
Oh, and I couldn't agree more (with babaluma and the article) that auctioning off the less-worse seats is a great way to further alienate your frequent fliers. My company's travel policy makes it difficult for me to use NWA; partly as a result of NWA's clever move, I've stopped even trying to use their flights despite the fact that I'm "Gold Elite" (i.e. 50k miles last year).
-
Shouldn't it be the ALLEGED plot?
[Read the article: Getting beyond our airport security obsession]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While agreeing with the sentiments expressed in the article (and by most of the letter writers) about the futility of security theatre, I have one further question --
Shouldn't we be calling it an alleged plot for now? Very few in the media are, in the reports I've heard/read. I've heard of no evidence beyond the statements of British and American government officials to indicate that there even was a plot, nor any corroboration of how dire it really was (remember the pathetic Miami "terrorist cell"?). Sad to say, one of my first reactions was to ask "who benefits from this announcement?"
I'm with suzeqzee in lamenting that I feel this way -- but I do, and I think with justification.
-
Incompetence, malice, CYA? Pick up to three.
[Read the article: Is airport security futile?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]karrsic writes (and I agree, within limits) that creating a feeling of security is a legitimate goal of government. karrsic goes on to say that government's failure is in not executing that goal effectively.
That's the charitable interpretation, of course. There are at least two other interpretations of the facts, which other letter writers have raised --
First, that government deliberatly wants to increase the citizenry's level of fear. I hope this is false, but fear it may be true.
(Actually, between this explanation and the simpler "incompetence" one, I don't know which is worse -- to think government is so cynical as to want to keep us frightened all the time, or that they're so incompetent they can't distinguish between an emergency and a false alarm... and so shrill they can't project calm and authority, only panic and bluster.)
Second, that what's really going on is CYA on the part of security officials who want to be able to support a claim that they had done all they could when and if the next attack gets through.
Of course, you can pick more than one.
Speaking for myself, I can say that the more freakish "security" procedures are foisted on us, the less safe I feel, because the more I become convinced that nobody with any sense is running the show. (I don't let it keep me up nights, though.) And their protestations to the contrary, I'm not even sure that people who do welcome new procedures feel any better because of them either. In fact, they seem awfully jumpy to me -- and are constantly being encouraged to stay that way.
I'll close with a thanks! to Patrick Smith and Salon for being a voice of sanity. And with the comment that I've just cancelled a business trip next week because it's simply not worth the hassle.
-
Hardly the first
[Read the article: Restoring honor and dignity to the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I bow to no person in my distaste for W and everything he stands for, but don't we have so much substantive stuff to roast him for that this is just a distraction? You know, like criminal behavior? Fart humor is kid stuff, and besides, he's hardly the first person with juvenile behavior to have a position of responsibility. For example, check out what LBJ had to say about his pants -- http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/haggar.htm. (Search for "nuts", about half way down the page.)
-
The other 10 percent
[Read the article: Will Americans vote for a female president?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The article mentions that "national polls show that more than 90 percent of Americans say they'd be comfortable voting for a qualified woman to serve as president". Even taking those numbers at face value, I'd be interested in knowing how the other 10 percent are distributed. If all of them are hard-core Republicans, then that's OK for a potential female Democratic candidate, Clinton or not. But if even 1 percent are Dems, well... the last couple of elections hinged on fewer votes than that.
-
Did anyone else...
[Read the article: Grandmaster Turd Blossom?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... misread the headline as "Grand Wizard Turd Blossom"?
-
Commander Guy
[Read the article: The buck stops ... over there]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Doesn't a Commander Guy outrank a mere General?