On the 8 Spot

I Love Traveling, but I Hate Flying

I’ve always hated flying, but since 9/11 the security theater in the US has become absurd. Every time I fly there are new regulations, new hassles, new reasons and means for dehumanizing passengers and treating them like cattle, and new excuses for airlines to delay flights (maybe I just have really bad luck, but I haven’t had a flight without delays, usually hours long, in nearly three years). I don’t feel safer because of it, I just feel a constant mild discomfort at how cowardly I and my fellow Americans are that we need and quietly accept such outrageous procedures in order to feel like our government is protecting us. I ought to be downright angry at how poorly I’m treated at airports, but I usually just feel tired and defeated. Since I don’t like feeling tired and defeated, I’ve avoided flying for the past several years as much as possible, mostly limiting my travel to northern California destinations.

I also like to bring my dog when I travel. She loves travelling, as well, and is a lot of fun to have at the beach, hiking, etc. She’s usually sociable (though she doesn’t like strangers touching her), particularly with other dog owners, so she tends to lead to more conversations and me meeting more new people, which is probably a good thing.

via The RV Loophole.

The thing that makes flying problematic is not the flying per se its the airports and airport regulations.

There will be more to say on all this tomorrow. For now, it's worth observing that a Democratic Party that would abandon their central initiative this quickly isn't a Democratic Party that deserves to hold power. If they don't believe in the importance of their policies, why should anyone who's skeptical change their mind? If they're not interested in actually passing their agenda, why should voters who agree with Democrats on the issues work to elect them? A commitment provisional on Ted Kennedy not dying and Martha Coakley not running a terrible campaign is not much of a commitment at all.

Speaking of Kennedy, he anticipated this reaction back in 1980. On the eve of his defeat to Jimmy Carter, and Carter's defeat to Ronald Reagan, he warned his supporters against letting electoral setbacks dampen their commitment to their cause. “If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose–and deserve to lose,” he said. “The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.”

Pity he's not around to remind Democrats of that today.

via Ezra Klein – What Ted Kennedy would tell the Democrats.

Ms. Zielinski, the fashion stylist, said her best friend, a man, told her once: “ ‘You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?’ He laughed, but I found that pretty depressing.”

via More Men Marrying Wealthier Women – NYTimes.com.

Sorry for stating the obvious, I’m taking a half-day today and need to post this soon.

Just buy Erap Estrada off and Villar would probably win.  If I was Noy I’d convince Erap to vindicate himself by running.

“Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women,” said Paul Fucito, spokesman for the Pew Center. “In recent decades, with the rise of well-paid working wives, the economic gains of marriage have been a greater benefit for men.”

The analysis examines Americans 30 to 44 years old, the first generation in which more women than men have college degrees. Women’s earnings have been increasing faster than men’s since the 1970s.

via More Men Marrying Wealthier Women – NYTimes.com.