At a bare minimum, flying is to get you and your luggage from point 'A' to point 'B' in as near the condition that it left point 'A' in.

Now that's the minimum. If an airline can't meet that then they don't deserve to operate. Come on, losing luggage is something that happenes (shit happens) but some of the airlines appear to take it to a higher art form.

Now, with the minimums set, there are other things that should also be classified as, maybe desirable.

Comfort. If you can't sit in the 'seat' because it's actually more uncomfortable on the rear end than a bleecher seat, that is a problem. If the restroom facitities remind you of a gas station restroom on podunk Texas in the summer, or a hole in the floor that is a problem.

What I'm getting at is that there are certain things that could be called 'rights'. People on a plane have a right to be able to go to relieve themselves in a clean environment. They have the right to be respected as human beings. They don't neccesarily have the right to food or booze or to behave like an ass.

Since flying a human from point 'A' to point 'B' is the primary function of an airline, charging for luggage is crazy. It would be like charging for air, or for each shoe. Yeah, you can fly without luggage, and maybe shoes, but how many people want to buy new clothes (or shoes) at their destination?

There is something strange about paying premium prices for primative service that is tolerated in America. I fly NorthWest. I know but I have to fly them to get out of my town unless I want to drive.

Life ebbs and flows. Things evolve. If the airlines keep this unbundling up, more and more people will be flying less and less and soon they will either need another government bailout or the boards of these corporations are going to realize that the idea of screwing the customer doesn't work anymore and start replacing the greedy and vacuous management teams and their warped ideas. (Didn't I hear that the guys that almost ran US Air into the ground work at United and that they were advising NorthWest?)

I hate to fly. I can't imagine the airline employees that I've seen loving it any more than I do. It's a business but it's lost its romantic appeal, unless being rolled by a drunk and left in an outhouse is your idea of a 'good time'.

'Customer service' is dead in American business and soon American business will be too...

Pinky And yet you have quoted Politico articles.

If they are so bad, why use them at all? I realize that every dog has its day but to use their articles in a positive instance gives them credence when they are totally wrong and

'off the reservation' in others.

There are times when they publish information that is relevant to things I write about that nobody else is publishing -- things they pass along from Capitol Hill sources about what scheming Blue Dogs are planning on FISA and the like.

Do you think I should just ignore those things and keep them from my readers until someone else gets around to printing it?

Also, there are times when a right-wing publication makes an admission -- as they did when they published a decent article on the media's black-out of the military analyst story. I think it's better to use them when they can be used.

But my point is that the potentially rare instances where they and other outlets are coherent and on the point are potential 'loss leaders' to allow them to either appear coherent and relevant or as marketing to get their name into as many alternative arenas as possible. In other words, get their name out there. By quoting them so much, the progressive outlets end up adding a higher level of respectability that they do not deserve. By using them, they benefit. At times I thought that The Politico was more mainstream after seeing their stuff on Salon.com for a number of weeks. It's all a front to pay the bills for the way out on the right fringe that appeals to trolls and other lower forms of life.

Only a fool trusts his government...

Case closed.

Dictatorial executive branch? Didn't Bush declare himself a dictator when he was appointed for his first stint?

Uh huh...

My grandfather had a saying that rings true over and over: An empty gourd makes the most noise... ;-)

It must be hard trying to run a campaign for a candidate that is from a party so hated and distrusted by most of the non-corporate people in this country.

I just have to wonder though if McCain wants to lose bigtime or what. He's taken some great stands and torched them into the ground. Does he really stand for anything except defiance against gravity? And will that change in time?