Why High-Speed Rail might be a good idea.

Spirit's $100 carry-on bag fee just the tip of the iceberg

By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY

 

 Spirit says that beginning Nov. 6 it will charge $100 for fliers who pay for a carry-on bag at the boarding gate. That's a big jump from the $45 the airline is charging now at airport gates and means it could cost $200 round-trip to carry a bag on board. Most airlines don't charge to carry on a bag

 

 

To carry on a bag. $100 for you to carry your bag onto the airplane. This would be a bag that their baggage handlers don't have to touch, that doesn't have to ride the conveyor belts to the merry-go-round of luggage, a carry-on bag. And they're going to charge $100 for the privilege.

I've never flown Spirit Air, but the missus used to travel a lot for work, so she's familiar with pretty much all of the airlines, let me just ask her real quick

"Hey, Schmoopie! What's the shittiest airline you've ever flown?"

"United stranded me in Denver once, and they're the ones who stranded Brent in the Philipines, so probably. . . Oh no, wait! Spirit!"

Swear to God, that was verbatim the conversation we just had.




I have had it with these airlines. They screw you at every turn. They started in with all these extra bag fees when jet fuel prices were so super high, and we all said "I bet when fuel prices come down they still keep fucking us with the same fees," but we were wrong. The fees are getting worse.





This is one of many reasons we need to catch up with the rest of the civilized world and get more and better rail travel. Especially on highly-travelled corridors like San Francisco - Los Angeles - Sacramento or New York - Boston - DC.  We need a better option. Right now, the choice we have is which airlines would we like to be fucked by. That's a hell of a choice.

If you need to get from one place to another, see if there's a viable non-air option. Is it drivable? Could you take AmTrak? Do what you can to keep these bastards from screwing you any more than they already do.




And yes, United Airlines once stranded my brother in Manilla. He arrived at the airport, ticket in hand to discover that United had decided to stop flying in and out of the Philipines. Even though they had already sold tickets for these flights, they just weren't going to go there anymore. So tough luck. He called my father who managed to get him on a Singapore Air flight into Tokyo where he could get a flight home, but apparently, United Airlines is perfectly okay with leaving a paying customer stranded in a foreign country with no warning and no recourse. Despicable. But according to the missus, who is the expert, Spirit Air is even shittier than United.

Oh, come on!

Kentucky restaurant shut down after roadkill found in kitchen

Oh, come on! It's Kentucky. Are there any restaurants that don't have roadkill in the kitchen?

Boom!

Yeah! Suck it, Kentucky!

How to tell if you are losing a debate.

If your opponent is unable to stop herself from laughing





You just might be losin' a debate!

Jeezus Christ, Todd Akin is a Fucking Psycho!

Somebody found dome old C-Span footage of Todd "legitimate rape" Akin, and turns out he's even more awful than we thought.

Some of the highlights include:

"Now an embryo may seem like some scientific or laboratory term, but in fact the embryo contains the unique information that defines a person. All you add is food and climate control, and some time, and the embryo becomes you or me."

  

Pictured: Climate Control Mechanism

And, if stem-cell research is allowed, there is some sort of step two (underpants gnomes?) then we go straight to step three, which is the hellscape predicted in a science-fiction story written by his daughter. Really.




And Todd Akin's scathing expose on abortion clinics who perform abortions on women who are not actually pregnant.

You find that along with the culture of death go all kinds of other law-breaking: not following good sanitary procedure, giving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant, cheating on taxes, all these kinds of things. . .

 

Negative, huh? Don't worry, hon, you can still have an unnecessary invasive medical procedure!

Why Bother, Congressman Ryan?

Everyone's been giving Paul Ryan shit about his "I don't have time to explain the math" line on FOX, and rightly so. But here's what really sticks with me from that interview. Ryan claims that his tax cuts will be "revenue neutral." If that's true (spoiler alert: it isn't) then why bother?

Why bother cutting tax rates and closing loopholes if the end result is the same?
Seems like the process goes something like this:

So last year, your tax rate was x amount of dollars. 

Congratulations, you're getting a 20% tax cut!

Whoopee!

But we're getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction

 and whatever other deductions you used to take.

Um, okay? So how much am I going to owe this year?

 

Hmm, let's see. . . . carry the one. . . divide by . . . aha!

 This year your tax bill will be x-amount of daollars!

But that's exactly the same!

 It's pronounced "revenue neutral."

 

Maybe Ryan can explain this better:

How much would it cost?" Wallace wondered. "The cut in tax rates."

"It's revenue neutral... Lower all Americans' tax rates by 20 percent," Ryan replied.
"Right, how much will it cost?" Wallace pressed. "It's not revenue neutral unless you take away the deductions."
"I won't get into a baseline argument with you because that's what a lot of this is about," Ryan explained. "We're saying, limited deductions so you can lower tax rates for everybody. 

 But let me say it this way, you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we're saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates."

So, besides the fact that he's completely full of shit, that there is no way that a 20% across-the-board tax cut can be revenue neutral, especially if you're preserving deductions  for home purchases, charitable contributions, health care, etc, even if that were somehow magically true by the power of wishing really hard, what's the point? If the revenue is going to be the same, if, in other words, taxpayers are going to be paying the same, then why bother? And I haven't heard anyone in the media asking that question, so maybe it's just me that doesn't get it. But I kinda doubt it.