Arrgh. It's not about hate speech, it's about sanctimonious, self-righteous, hall-monitor-type behavior, as Mr. Leonard called it. And isn't it a bit archaic to automatically question his sexuality in a derogatory manner when you disagree with what you think is his point?

Back to the article, I wonder what makes some people so sure that they are qualified and entitled to parent other peoples' children in situations like this.

I have to say I was shocked to see the negative reaction to the Pilot's last column; especially since I had just been explaining to a friend what a reasonable assessment it seemed to be and how concisely he explained what's typically involved in a delay. I've always thought it mindboggling that any of us get anywhere on any sort of schedule, given what seems to be an overwhelming amount of technical, business and personal decisions go into commercial flight. I mean, have you ever been in the commuter area of DIA between 3:30 and 6:30 on a normal Thursday afternoon? It's absolute madness and it's astonishing to me that any of us get anywhere on any kind of schedule -- and that's not even throwing weather, labor issues, equipment problems or "security" regluations into the mix.

I'm not a business traveller or truly frequent flyer -- only someone who flies maybe three or four times a year. And even flying that infrequently, I've experienced delays and snafus that had me vowing (facetiously, as it turns out) I'd never fly again. Hours spent sitting on a sunny runway due to mysterious weather issues somewhere else; nights spent uncomfortably in cavernous concourses; the domino effect of missed connections necessitating additional expense of a rental car and multi-hour drive to reach our desitnation; lost luggage; shredded luggage; broken bathrooms and nonfunctional airconditioning on a fully loaded flight; rough landings; you name it. But when I step back and view the forest through the trees, given the sheer volume of the industry, it's miraculous to me that our commercial safety record is as good as it is and that my luggage isn't lost EVERY time and that I EVER actually get to where I'm going.

I feel that as a society, we've become so accustomed to a sense of entitlement to reparations. Shit doesn't just happen to us, someone's got to pay. Clearly, it seems to me, what happened in the infamous JetBlue Tarmacapalooza is an extreme example of what happens when Murphy's law assumes hellish proportions. It shouldn't have played out that way, and the people involved should be compensated somehow. But taking that particular incident out of the picture, I'm afraid that by introducing legislation of the sort that's being bandied about, we're pouring warm grease down an already slippery slope. The commercial flight industry is already so clearly beleaguered by financial difficulties and bureaucratic sludge -- the currently-proposed legislation might provide relief in a handful of extreme, isolated incidents, but I can't imagine that it won't do anything for the rest of the tens of thousands of more or less normal flights every day except ADD another layer of delay and frustration. I whole-heartedly agree with Patrick's assessment that it's ultimately dangerous to start trying to legislate what is essentially customer service.

For pointing this out. I have such a knee-jerk reaction to religiously-based enterprises that, at their heart, are so focused on sex; probably from growing up in a profoundly religious area, I've seen how making "DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT SEX, YOU SINNER" your primary message makes it virtually impossible to think about anything BUT sex. As if most teenagers weren't thinking about it already. And then make it all the girl's fault...

That said, I do feel like a trend toward more "modest" dress is probably not a bad thing -- I don't *want* to see your thong, no matter how cute you are (or, more likely, are not). But the underlying motives remind me so strongly of the old "she asked for it" defense.

Mr. McClelland's article may contain a grain of truth worth discussing, but the insulting, condescending and self-aggrandizing tone really diminished the import of any point he may have been trying to make. I suppose it's an opinion piece and he's certainly entitled to his opinion, however elitist and ultimately counterproductive I and others clearly find it, but by presenting this put-upon screed as a "feature" -- in the guise of honest-to-God journalism -- Salon.com seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator it so often derides. Disappointing.

...Absolutely appalling. Where's the widespread outrage? I mean, this seems to have reached levels that's no longer even conceivably a handful of isolated nutjobs. Doesn't this merit a serious, across-the-board, national-spotlight drubbing? I mean, honestly? America needs to be -- at least aspire to be -- greater than this. Right?

Should he win, President Obama will still be saddled with a portion of the country that believes to it's core that he is an anti-American, socialist, terrorist-loving Muslim.

They may not win, but Republicans still know how to poison the political well.

That is *exactly* what I'm afraid of...

Whaaaat?

(I don't understand how I continue to be surprised that these people keep crawling out of the woodwork, but I am.)

I don't know -- coming from Saxby Chambliss, that's how I took it. Given past performance, I'm not as inclined to give him the benefit of doubt.

Hunkered down with a couple of other SC Democrats at a friend's house, eating much food, drinking much beer, and weeping, one way or the other....