Don't Touch My Junk

Flying has never been one of my favorite things to do.  Even before 9/11, I just didn't like flying.  It wasn't that I was particularly nervous or afraid of flying, it was more just the amount of time spent at the airport waiting for my flight.  Plus, let's face it, planes are just loud, cramped, and generally uncomfortable.

I still remember my first flight.  It was a flight from Maryland to California for an assessment center to test for a promotion with the company I was working for at the time.  The person sitting next to me was a wreck.  She was holding on to her armrests, white knuckled the whole way up.  When we got in the air, she turned to me and apologized for how nervous she was.  I asked her if it was her first flight.  Turns out it wasn't. Had I known that, I might have been a little more nervous that I was.

Of course, since 9/11, flying has gotten considerably more complicated.  I remember when my wife and son could sit with me at the gate until my flight took off or meet me when I landed.  Now you need a ticket to get close.  Every year, security has gotten tighter and tighter, until we have gotten to where we are today.  Now we have scanners that essentially can take a nude photo of you or you can be subject to the now infamous new patdown policy from the TSA Agents.

 

I fully understand the uproar out there over the new screening procedures.  Nude photo or groped by a stranger?  Not much of a choice.  I wouldn't want either of those options either.  Having said that, on those occasions where I have to travel for business, if I have to choose one or the other, I would probably opt for the scanner.  Though it might be fun to tell the agent "a little more to the left please" while they are performing the patdown.

As I said, I understand the outrage.  However, at the same time, I do not understand the logic of some, like this one lady I heard call in to Sean Hannity's radio program.  She felt that people should not stand for these new procedures and should boycott the airports.  The sad thing with this narrow mindedness is that would have no impact on the TSA.  It would only impact the airlines, retail shops, restaurants, and the workers that are employed at the airports.  It would only harm those folks.

Related articles

• TSA: Pose Nude, or We'll Touch Your Junk (bigthink.com)
• Touch My "Junk" And I'll Miss My Flight! (chicagonow.com)
• Airline passengers fed up with security pat-downs (ctv.ca)

Senator Cardin vs Spirit Airlines

Image via Wikipedia

A day or so ago, Spirit Airlines announced that they were going to start charging passengers for carry on bags.  Today, one of my Senators (I use the term my Senator only in that he is from my state, I did not vote for him), Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced legislation with Mary Landrieu of the Lousianna Purchase that would prohibit airlines from charging for carry on bags.  The Senators argue that many passengers carry life essential items in their carry on bags and should not have to pay to bring those items on board.

Ever since the airlines started charging passengers for checked baggage, more and more people are using carry on bags in lieu of checking bags. As such, it is harder and harder to find space in the overhead compartments of the aircraft.  This is the logic that Spirit is using in implementing this new policy.  Personally I have always tried to pack light and bring a carry on bag rather than checking a bag.

I agree with Senator Landrieu that people should not have to pay a fee to carry on items that are vital to their personal health and well being.  In addition, I would not want to have to pay for bringing a carry on bag aboard.  Having said that, I am not sure how I feel about the Senate taking up this type of legislation.  Is this really what we want our federal government involved in?  I usually prefer to let people vote with their wallets and let the marketplace decide the outcome. A case in point would be to look at the success of Southwest Airlines and their no bag fees compared to all the other airlines. The market can work.    

Related articles by Zemanta

• Spirit's Carry-On Bag Fees Draw Senate Legislation (Update1) (businessweek.com)
• Senator Schumer asks Treasury to block carry-on luggage fees (americablog.com)
• Bashing the Airlines - Always a Safe Political Bet (swampland.blogs.time.com)

Harry Reid Losing Ground

Image via Wikipedia

I am home after my three day business trip to Vegas. These trade shows are a lot of work, but very important to the company I work for.  There is a lot of walking and standing over the course of the show, and my feet and back just don't hold up like they used to. My dogs are barking and it sure is good to be back home to relax for the weekend

We also don't get a lot of time to ourselves while on these trips. After spending the normal workday hours walking the trade show floor, we usually get about an hour break before going out to a business dinner.  By the time that ends it is pretty much time for bed.  When in my hotel room, I usually have the television on for some background noise.  This brings me to main point of the post.

Harry Reid is really in trouble in Nevada.  Here it is, still more than a year before the next election for his Nevada Senate seat, and what do I see on the tube?  A Harry Reid campaign commercial touting all of the great things he had done for the state of Nevada. 

A recent poll of registered voters in Nevada shows Reid with a 38% approval rating.  We don't even know who his opponent is going to be yet, but polls currently show that Reid would lose to either of the two likely Republican opponents.  There is nothing I would like more than to see that twit lose next year.  Well, maybe if the Republican take back the House and knock Pelosi off of her high horse.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Two Challengers Would Beat Reid (politicalwire.com)
• Trouble in Nevada: Sen. Reid’s Numbers Slip (blogs.wsj.com)