Sad News

R.I.P. Ted Kennedy.

I'm really sad. :(

Headlines

I contemplated starting a new feature last week with a "Headline of the Day."  The reason I thought of it was because of the headline that the GOP was sending a lawyer to Alaska to get Sarah Palin's clothes.  (A lawyer? To get clothes? Seriously? But if they're going to do that, I'd go... sounds like a nice thing to get paid to do...)

 

The story gets odder, apparently, according to a new AP report.

 

Sarah Palin apparently spent the weekend looking through her clothes to see what belongs to the RNC.  (This after some press conference where she said all the clothes she had now were her own and that they weren't sending anyone up to get her clothes.)  Her dad told reporters that she was "frantically" sorting it all out and that things happen, such as kids losing underwear.

 

Why did the RNC need to buy Sarah Palin's children underwear?  Why would they need to buy anyone underwear?  Was their current underwear not good enough?  Could they not buy their own?  If that's true, it's completely ridiculous to think that the RNC went out to buy underwear... And their claims that the clothes would go to charity?

 

And why was she frantically searching through clothes if she supposedly left everything behind when the campaign was over and things were getting inventoried?  How much could there be to sort through?  She couldn't possibly have taken all $150,000+ of clothes back to Alaska, could she?

 

Confused.

 

The article also mentions the elementary school her daugher attends and how the secret service is no longer there.  But when was her daughter in school?  I thought we saw her constantly on the campaign trail to the point where we wondered if she even went to school.

 

Just bizarre.

Bus

I can't remember where I saw this headline (and I wish I could), and I certainly can't take credit for it, but "Governor Palin, Meet Bus."  It's not even 48 hours from the end of the election and the McCain staffers are clearly trying to kill her career.  Not that I don't enjoy seeing the interesting things that come out of it (especially considering her campaign tactics), and not that I'm surprised seeing as how "unity" didn't even make it to the election, but I do find it odd that they are trying to push all the blame to her... when they're the ones that picked her.  They could have avoided the whole thing by actually having a vetting process, but if they did, who knows if we would be in the wonderful place we are today.

 

Anyway, in the past 24 hours, we have learned, if Newsweek and Fox News are to be believed:

 

- That the Neiman Marcus/Saks shopping spree may have been more than $150,000 as previously reported (and the whole thing was hidden from McCain)

 

- That Palin wanted to give a VP concession speech which is not traditional and was vetoed

 

- That Palin thought Africa was a country and not a continent

 

- That Palin did not know what countries were part of NAFTA

 

- That aides tried to prepare her for the Couric & Gibson interviews but she refused (great idea, that one was)

 

- That some campaign people went to visit her for the first time and she appeared in a towel to greet them

 

... and I'm sure there's more to come.

 

And it's bizarre but this morning I was thinking about how much fun it would be to go on an American road trip right now.  I think it was prompted by some report from Mike Seidel that MSNBC was airing where he was in North Dakota under a blizzard warning.  So it makes no sense.  And it's cold in many places...

Anxiety

I don't like negative ads. Therefore, I don't like where this looks like it's going. Sigh.

I also don't like candidates who state that the nominee for the other party is more qualified for the job than their primary opponent. So, in the event she doesn't win, she wants her supporters to vote for the other side? Nice way to bring the party together... I also don't like that the media isn't calling her out on it.

I am also having issues with the media. I never understood why they (a) talked about people "winning" states when it's the delegate numbers that mattered or (b) bothered counting superdelegates when they could change their mind every minute.

Driving

I am generally in favor of congestion pricing. I think it works in other cities, and something really needs to be done here.

But one of the proposed "alternatives" this morning that I heard on the news annoyed me. Perhaps they didn't give all of the details, but what it sounded like was that if your license plate ended in a certain number, then you couldn't drive on a certain day. Sure, that would cut down on congestion. But it's a bit impractical! We live in the "congestion zone." So does that mean that if I really need to take my car out one day, but it happens to be the wrong day, I can't do it (without penalty, I'm assuming)? What if I want to drive out of the city? What if I'm just taking my car to get inspected? It's not like I can avoid the zone. Maybe there's some exception for residents. But this sounds a lot like Survivor alphabet strategy.

Luggage

Remember way back when I was complaining about a NY Times editorial about how carry-on baggage should be banned?

 

Here's a good example of why a ban would not be practical and why it would be horrible for travelers (and would make me either drive or use luggage forwarding, wherever possible):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/business/12baggage.html

 

Funny that it comes from the same paper.  I wonder if they have changed their minds.

Carry-on Luggage

I think, in the case of this article, I must disagree with the New York Times.

Their editorial advocates banning all carry-on luggage from airplane cabins until technology is developed to detect dangerous materials in carry-on luggage. Their editorial purports to examine all the advantages and disadvantages of this type of ban but a lot of things are left out.

Here's a quick summary of the pros and cons according to the Times.

On the plus side -

• Shorter security lines
• Faster boarding of the cabin
• Safer because terrorists won't have their bomb materials with them
• Tougher scrutiny for checked luggage

On the minus side -

• Greater burden on lines for luggage screening and screeners may rush bags through without checking adequately or flights get delayed because of wait for bags
• Out of concern for their laptops and other electronic devices, some people won't fly and the airlines could lose money

Their only compromise solution -

• Have bins on the plane to lock in valuable electronic devices

A few thoughts with regards to their editorial:

1. Their primary reason for banning carry-ons would be because technology can't screen for dangerous items yet and once we can, we can bring stuff on board again. However, hasn't history shown that if you're constantly reactive as opposed to proactive, you will never be ahead on that front? Technology will match the current "threat," but will it be equipped to handle the next one? If you stop things one way, people will just find another. If this is the logic, a "temporary ban" until technology catches up, who can ensure that the ban will ever be lifted?
2. One of the advantages is shorter security lines for travelers. Yes, but since everyone has to now check in a bag, how about longer check-in lines? When I traveled in O'Hare in August, the line to check in was dreadfully long and winding, but the security lines moved fairly well. The only problem was that people were cutting it close for all their flight times since the lines were so long. Sure, the security lines may be shorter, but you're making up for it somewhere else.
3. Faster boarding. Sure, slightly faster, but does that really outweigh security of personal belongings that people value?
4. Terrorists won't have their bomb materials, better scrutiny for checked luggage - that sounds good, but see #1 above.
5. I agree with both of the cons that they list, and because of the hassle of flying, a lot of people already are switching, especially for short trips. Why bother if you have to get to the airport 2 hours earlier and it takes forever to get your bags once you land?
6. Compromise solution - I think it is good, because it answers the concern of important and valuable items getting stolen, getting damaged, etc. by baggage handlers, but are you really going to store every person's digital camera in one of these bins? Seriously?

Now for a couple of thoughts of my own:

When the ideas of banning carry-on baggage first started floating around the time of the liquid ban, I thought of two HUGE reasons why people are hesitant to check their bags. (As someone who 90% of the time traveled with only a carry-on suitcase, it didn't take long to figure out). Why check your bag when you can't trust that it will make it to your destination with you?

Two big reasons - (1) all those stories on the news magazines about things getting stolen from checked luggage and (2) bags get lost all the time! Why would you check your bag when the chances are so high that it won't be there with you?

I noticed that this editorial never once mentioned lost bags. Did they travel in the airports during the liquid ban? Did they notice just how many people did not get their bags when they got off the plane? We stood in LaGuardia at the baggage carousel (well, the mini one) and not only was it 4 rows of people deep, but I listened to all these people talking to the guy working for United talking about how their bags weren't there. They could track down some of them, but they were all coming in on later flights because of the baggage volume. Our systems can't handle the volume of checked baggage we have now, and if we have to check in MORE, it's not going to work! Not to mention that, since things often get lost, all the travel experts tell you to travel with a spare set of clothes so that you don't get stuck at your destination with nothing. Or if you're going to a wedding or something, you don't exactly want to check all your dress clothes. The only answer the editorial seems to have is that the airports can figure it out through the "ingenuity of aviation planners." That's not all that comforting, as it's quite vague...

I think a lot of people who can afford it are going to end up turning to luggage forwarding services. Maybe that's the way to go. Although I'm concerned that they just leave it at the destination like a hotel - what do they do at the destination point? I'm curious in case I ever need to turn to that. But should a ban like this ever go through, the dilemma is then what to do with my digital SLR? No way is that getting checked in, but do I trust someone else to carry it? I will be quite annoyed if I can't have that on my person.

And on the electronics point, it sounded from the introduction to the editorial that they were not in favor of electronics being allowed on the planes. The description of their proposed carry-on was "travel documents, keys, vital medications, reading materials and any other minimal items that are allowed." Who is going to draw that line? Do you include cell phones? Blackberries? PDAs? What if you allow cell phones and not blackberries and someone has a combo one? Do you allow laptops? Digital cameras? If you allow a small digital camera, how do you exclude an SLR (or the bag you need to carry it in)? Handheld video games? iPods? Are electronics "minimal items"? If they are, does it depend on size? Argh, you can tell what items I carry that are important to me... (Seriously, do they intend for the same "ban" to exist on international flights? 15 hours to Asia with NONE of your belongings? That would be a nightmare.)

Anyway, now that I have been thorougly annoyed by this article, I'm going to see what's in the articles I pulled out. Usually I enjoy reading the Times since I ignore all the real "news" articles. For me, this is a travel article. But it's got me really annoyed. I understand the logic and the simplicity behind the idea, but thinking about it realistically, I don't think a carry-on ban can legitimately be proposed unless our baggage handling system is dramatically improved so that we can be sure that items aren't stolen and bags aren't lost as frequently as they are now.