Nowhere To Hide

Eric Felton has a piece in today's WSJ on how difficult it's becoming to avoid video screens in public:

If you have traipsed through a hotel lobby lately; tramped on a health-club treadmill; guzzled a beer at a bar; or nervously anticipated your turn in the dentist's chair, you likely found your eyes wandering to a video screen. The business of "captive TV," as it is called, is booming. According to Nielsen, the television audience-measurement people, we collectively viewed a quarter-billion video advertisements in the last four months of 2009. Whatever the exact number, we don't need Nielsen to tell us that it is getting harder and harder to find a public space free from the tireless and tiresome electronic beckonings of "location-based video."

The business has grown by boasting several advantages for advertisers. A crowd of people with nowhere to go and nothing to do will look at the screens--plus the ads--grateful for anything to "help pass the time," as one of the services says in its promotional material. Doctors' offices, airports and the DMV get to turn the inconvenience of their clients into a revenue stream. The place-based systems also promise to deliver narrowly defined audiences that can be given tailored pitches. How better to market to drinkers than with ads in bars? Then there are the screens in bathrooms, which provide ads that one media company crows are, "perfectly gender segmented." Perhaps most attractive to marketers in the age of digital video recorders: The passive public viewers don't have access to a remote control. There's no fast-forwarding through the advertisements.

Unless you have tremendous discipline and willpower, there's no ignoring them either. The many companies specializing in television for public places brag that their "content is optimized to be visual." TV screens are insistent to begin with, but the ones placed in public spaces are trebly so, pulsing and flashing and glaring and flickering and otherwise creating the inescapable casino aesthetic that has invaded every corner of the public square.

I have to admit that these screens tend to draw my attention like a moth to a flame (so much for discipline and willpower). Especially if I'm in a bar or restaurant and there's a sporting event (almost any kind of sporting event) on the ubiquitous televisions. I know that's it's rude to allow your gaze to be distracted in such a manner when you're in the company of others, but I usually find myself succumbing to the temptation at some point. Hmmm...that tractor pull over there looks interesting...

But even worse than the multiple screens that never seem to be turned off--even when nothing is on--at restaurants and bars are the airport televisions. You truly are a captive audience when you're at the gate waiting for your plane to depart and the manner in which these audio/visual screens assault your senses violate several sections of the Geneva Accords. They're almost universally loud. So loud that there's really no place in the seating areas at most airports that you can escape the blare. I often like to read (and occasionally write) when playing such a waiting game, but the booming noise makes that all but impossible unless you elect to throw on the 'phones and listen to your own music. Even worse, these televisions are almost always tuned to CNN. I've lost count of how many times I've seen Wolf Blitzer's mug peering down as I tried to figure out where best to sit or heard Jack Cafferty's annoying ranting as I'm trying to collect my thoughts. I'd rather be bombarded with a steady stream of commercials--even infomercials--than be force-fed CNN's stale gruel.

UPDATE: My better half e-mails to add:

Granted we choose to do a lot of this as well, we are programming ourselves and the next generation to NEED tv. MP3 players can't be just music anymore, you have to download tv shows, movies, as well. Let's try to make it MORE convenient to watch the mindnumbing show you missed because you had to talk to real live people that were over at your house, you can watch it anytime you please....And let's not forget that automobiles needs screens as well. And phones....

Back to Basics

Like many Republicans in Minnesota, I believe that the current MN GOP Party Platform is desperately in need of a major overhaul. We're not talking about a little pruning here and there either. We're talking about taking a chainsaw to it and getting rid of as much of the dead wood as possible (upwards of 90% of its current form).

If you share this sentiment, you should check out Mitchell Berg's post at Shot in the Dark. Mitch has gotten together with some of the best and brightest activists on the local conservative political scene to come up with a proposed alternative.

I still think their effort is too lengthy and in need of a little nip and tuck, but it's a heck of a lot better than the unwieldy beast that we're stuck with today. See what you think and drop your feedback into the comments section at the post.

Location, Location, Location

One last Ford Field Frozen Four riptose from James:

Someone posted the attached photo from the Frozen Four over at Gopher Puck Live. It's obviously taken from the "risers" behind the BC bench. Probably considered a "premium" seat too ($197). I suppose it is possible to have worse seats at a hockey game than the first six or so rows depicted here, but I cannot imagine it.


Nice view of the equipment manager's arse though.

Special Teams

Article in USA Hockey Magazine on A Team For The Ages:

If special can be measured by degrees, one team photo would stand out above the rest. It features the Shattuck-St. Mary's squad that captured the 2003 USA Hockey Tier I 17 & Under National Championship in Laurel, Md.

A closer look at the names under the photo would make any hockey coach drool.

There's the baby-faced Ryan Duncan, the 2007 Hobey Baker Award winner, stretched out in the front row. Huddled around the USA Hockey championship banner to the right is Matt Smaby, the hulking defenseman who is in his third year with the Tampa Bay Lightning. Over his shoulder is Buffalo Sabres standout forward Drew Stafford. Jack Johnson, most recently of the silver-medal winning U.S. Olympic Team, crouches nearby, smiling from ear to ear.

Sandwiched in the tangled web of smiles and index fingers thrust in the air are Brian Salcido and Matt Ford, who are currently playing in the American Hockey League.

And right in the middle of it all is a bright-eyed Sidney Crosby, who won a USA Hockey National Championship long before he captured a World Junior Championship title, captained the Pittsburgh Penguins to the Stanley Cup or raised his hero status to new heights by scoring the golden goal for Canada in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

Duncan, Stafford, Johnson AND Crosby? Yeah, that's a pretty decent little squad there alright. All playing together at a prep school in Farribault, Minnesota. JB and I actually were lucky enough to see this team in action in January of aught-three as they dismantled our high school alma mater. We knew that we were watching something special with Crosby. Little did we know about the other talent on the team.

Speaking of hockey, the NHL playoffs finally start tonight. Since the Wild players are working more on their back-swing than back-hand these days, I'm forced to adopt other teams to pull for. In the West, I'd love to see the Hawks reach the Finals. They've got some great young players and play an exciting style of puck. In the East, it's gotta be the Caps simply because Ovechkin is so damn fun to watch. Top seeds usually don't fare well as well in the NHL playoffs as they do in other sports, but I think with the experience they gained last year, the Caps should be able to get over the hump and get past the Pens this time around. No matter how they turn out, the playoffs are always must see television. It would just be nice if they could get 'em wrapped up before the end of May.

No Roof For Rubes

They say that a story is only as good as its sources. Which means that a piece in today's WSJ on Target Field by Mark Yost called If They Build It You Will Pay should be journalistic gold:

For the past six months, I've had a friendly online debate with some blogger friends in Minnesota: Would the Twins get snowed out when they opened their new outdoor stadium?

Actually a good part of our debate consisted of Mark speculating how funny it would be to see Twins fans in parkas when it was forty-five degrees on opening day and us explaining to him that when it's forty-five in the spring, Minnesotans wear shorts. On to the impeccable sources:

"The question is would the Twins have paid Mauer $184 million if the taxpayers hadn't paid for the stadium?" asks King Banaian, chairman of the St. Cloud State University economics department and a candidate for the Minnesota Statehouse. "I don't think they would have."

Prof. Banaian is absolutely right. Target Field cost $545 million, according to the Twins. The Hennepin County taxpayers are on the hook for $350 million of it. Since money is fungible, it's fair to argue that the taxpayers are paying Mr. Mauer.

So not only are us hard working taxpayers in Hennepin County paying for the stadium that Twins fans from across the metro area, state, and region get to enjoy, we're also the ones responsible for ensuring that Joe Mauer remains a Twin? The least you non-Hennepin County free riders could do is buy us a beer or two. Preferably at a Hennepin County watering hole of course.

Then there's the issue of a roof. While the Metrodome was a horrible place to watch baseball, it would have been wise to put a retractable roof on Target Field, as the Milwaukee Brewers did at Miller Park. A dome allows smaller-market teams to draw from a larger geographic area. That's because a family in, say, Fargo, N.D., is more confident buying tickets to a Twins game four hours away when a dome guarantees it won't be rained out.

"As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for a roof so a family from Fargo can be guaranteed to see a game," said Chad Doughty, a lifelong Twins fan who blogs at Fraters Libertas.

There was local pressure to get the team itself to pay for a roof. It would have cost the team $200 million, a rounding error compared with the Pohlads' estimated net worth of $3.6 billion. Instead, they opted for heat lamps on the concourses.

If there's anything worse as a Hennepin County resident and baseball fan than being forced to pay for a stadium that Twins fans everywhere benefit from, it's hearing this silly bellyaching about how we should have also ponied up for a retractable roof so that people who come from out of town can be assured that they see a game. Guess what? There are no guarantees in baseball or life. You want to come down to "the Cities" to see a Twins game? Fine. But no one here's going to guarantee you that the game won't be rained out (although rainouts at the old Met were rather infrequent so the odds are in your favor). Make alternative plans. Go to a museum. See a play. Get your hair cut. Gawk at the tall buildings. Better yet, go to the Mall of America and buy a bunch of stuff to help us pay for the stadium. Just quit yer whining.

In the interests of accuracy, I should also point out that my actual quote about the roof was: "As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for a roof so that some rube from Fargo can be guaranteed to see a game." Obviously, Mark though that changing this to "a family" would better serve to portray me as some sort of outside the mainstream, wide-eyed, anti-tax extremist (why do you hate families from Fargo, Chad?). Mission accomplished.

And like all good journalists, Mark knows how to close it out:

So if the false economics of stadiums are so well known, why do city councils and county boards continue to finance them? And why aren't taxpayers more outraged?

I think Jim Styczinski, a lifelong Twins fan who blogs as "Sisyphus" at The Nihilist in Golf Pants, gave me the answer. "Fundamentally, I was against the stadium," he said as we shared a beer after the game. "But I'm glad I lost this argument."

This is disturbing on two levels. Firstly, as someone who does not live in Hennepin County, the price that Sisyphus will have to pay for losing the argument is minimal. Secondly (and most importantly), for contributing a quote to Mark's piece and being portrayed as a voice of reason in the debate, Sisyphus received liquid remuneration courtesy of a WSJ expense account. Me? I got nuthin' for being presented as the cold-hearted bastage who wants to leave North Dakota children out in the rain. Who says no one is outraged?

SISYPHUS ADDS: I don't know what the Elder is complaining about. He received a free 2010 Twins Media Guide courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. We were even sure to give him the guide that happened to absorb some of the spilled liquid remuneration he missed out on. More than someone who hates families from Fargo probably deserves.

Anyway, thanks to Chad and the Nihilist in Golf Pants for paying Atomizer to build me a nice ballpark.

Not The Way God Intended

Cheers to the Boston College Eagles for crushing the hated Badgers of Wisconsin 5-0 on Saturday night to win the NCAA Hockey Championship. Jerry York (pronounced "Yawk") has created quite the hockey powerhouse at BC and their recent record of success in the NCAA playoffs is remarkable.

Jeers to the NCAA for ever allowing a Frozen Four to be played on a football field. As much as it pains me to admit it, announcer Gary Thorne nailed it during the game when he expressed utter dismay that a championship hockey game would ever be played under the conditions that we saw at Ford Field on Saturday night. The ice looked to be terrible shape, both from the way it appeared on TV and its suitability for play. The entire setting was visually dismal with a huge curtain on one end, gaps between the boards and the stands, and an overall atmosphere that was entirely unconducive to the game of hockey.

When you take that stage and then consider the two semi-final blowouts and a championship game that for the most part lacked for drama, it was probably the worst Frozen Four in years, at least since the debacle in Cincinnati in 1996. Having an occasional regular season game in a unique setting such as a baseball or football field is fine. But when you're playing for the NCAA Championship, you gotta play on a real rink. Next year, with the Frozen Four set to return to the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, the atmospherics and ice conditions will almost certainly not be a problem. But in making plans for the future, the NCAA should take a valuable lesson from this year's fiasco at Ford Field: never again.

UPDATE-- James from California--a man who's seen more than a few Frozen Fours in his day--writes in with more about the Ford Field clusterfarg:

Don't be to hasty in assuming that the NCAA may have learned a lesson. At the Frozen Four they made quite the big deal about the "record setting" attendance figures (approx 36,000 each night). The money grubbing bastards are probably salivating over those kind of numbers being achieved every year.

While Ford Field looks like a great place for a football game (it being a football field and all), it was terrible as a venue for the Frozen Four. From what I heard there and could see from my seats, the people in maybe the first ten or so rows of the risers on the sides could not see the entire ice. I was at the end behind one of the goals and could not see any of the goals scored in that net (and I was 14 rows up). And of course the fact that the place was half empty made any display of spirit by the fans just seem sad.

Glad BC won. Did not want to see the Badgers win another won. I'd already sat through that once.

Damn BC is a fast team.

Hockey aside, I did take in the Detroit Tigers Opening Day (and the three games after that) at Comerica, across the street from Ford. What a great ballpark. Fortunately for the Tigers they got to open against Hugh Hewitt's Hapless Cleveland Indians.

Will Work For Beer

Article in Saturday's WSJ on workers in Denmark organizing to fight for one of their most basic rights (sub req):

Michael Christiansen, a truck driver turned union representative, is fighting hard to preserve one of the last, best perks of the beer industry: the right to drink on the job.

Mr. Christiansen's union brethren are wort boilers, bottlers, packers and drivers at Carlsberg A/S, Denmark's largest brewer. For a century, they've had the right to cool off during a hard day's work with a crisp lager.

But on April 1, the refrigerators were idled and daily beer spoils were capped at three pint-sized plastic cups from a dining hall during lunch hour.

"This is a right workers have had for 100 years," Mr. Christiansen says. "Carlsberg has taken it away without any negotiating at all."

This week, Mr. Christiansen led a strike of 260 Carlsberg employees at a distribution center in this Copenhagen suburb. On Wednesday, 500 workers at Carlsberg's Fredericia brewery in southern Denmark joined in. On Friday afternoon, Mr. Christiansen sent his men back to work temporarily after management agreed to renegotiate workers' right to free beer in coming weeks.

You gotta love that. Carlsberg is not stripping workers of their right to free beer during work entirely, they're limiting it to only three pints over the lunch hour. Cry Oppression!

Mr. Christiansen, a tall man with a salt-and-pepper goatee, argues the right to tip a cold one at work is as sacred as other rights enjoyed by Copenhagen-based Carlsberg workers, such as a year's sick leave at full pay, an average annual salary of $59,000 and two free crates of beer monthly.

At 2 p.m. here Friday, about 100 workers congregated in a parking lot full of empty beer crates and forklifts and agreed to temporarily end their strike.

"We need to keep our beer," said employee Juseif Izaivi, 32 years old. "I need a beer when I take a cigarette break."

Easy to sympathize with that guy's plight. What's a cigarette break without a beer?
The article goes on to explain that while almost all brewers once rewarded their workers with free beer at work, today very few retain that perk. Here's hoping that the Carlsberg workers win their fight to keep their beer benefit. The fact that there's still an oasis or two out there where you can enjoy a beer at work (in moderation of course) provides the rest of us with a chance to dream of what could be.

Beer of the Week (Vol. L)

Son: Wow dad, you must have reviewed like fifty beers of the week by now.

Dad: Nothing to be proud of son...

[pauses as son walks away]

Dad: [proudly]...Fifty beers...

Yes, believe it or not, this is the fiftieth installment in our Beer of the Week series. When Dan, the owner/operator of Glen Lake Wine & Spirits first suggested the idea of a weekly beer review, I doubt if either of us would have imagined that it would continue this long. But we're still going strong and with new beers coming onto the market almost every week, I don't see why it won't continue for the foreseeable future.

While I know that a lot of our readers don't live anywhere near the store, I would encourage those in the area to stop by Glen Lake Wine & Spirits when you get a chance. For a small, independent businessman like Dan there isn't going to be any government bailout to help him get through these tough economic times. In fact, with the increasing burden of regulation and the prospect of higher taxes right around the corner, it's probably tougher than ever to run a small business. His livelihood is solely based on the patronage of thirsty customers like you and he wants to do whatever he can to earn your loyalty.

Now, I'm not saying you have to do all your booze buying from your friendly neighborhood liquor store. I occasionally patronize some of the local chains (with the notable exception of one with an acronym name whose data collection polices have caused me to boycott their stores entirely for the last seven, eight years) and there are times when filling your liquor needs really is all about location, location, location. But one thing you should never do is shop at the municipal or "muni" liquor stores. What business the government has in being in the booze selling business in the first place is beyond me. But what's really appalling about munis is that they don't have to operate under the same regulations (many that are relics left over from the immediate post-Prohibition era) that privately owned liquor stores do. Government monopolies competing against private business on an unlevel playing field? Pretty easy call to make on whom you should support.

Okay, enough with the preamble. Let's get down to the business at hand. This week's beer is a newcomer to the Twin Cities market. Deschutes Brewery in Bend, Oregon has been cranking out quality craft beers since 1988. But it was only of late (as in the last few weeks or so) that any of their product could be found on local shelves. We welcome Mirror Pond Pale Ale to Minnesota and hope it's a prelude of more to come.

Brown 22oz bomber bottle. Label has a tan background with oval picture depicting a glass-surfaced pond in the foreground and snow-capped mountains in the background.

Beer Style: American Pale Ale

Alcohol by Volume: 5.0%

COLOR (0-2): Dark gold and clear. 2

AROMA (0-2): Pleasant floral hops. 2

HEAD (0-2): Bright white and full. Good lacing. 2

TASTE (0-5): Nice combination of moderately bitter hops with sweetly mellowed malt flavors. Light to medium-bodied with a slightly oily mouthfeel. Very drinkable. 3

AFTERTASTE (0-2): Smooth yet tasty. 2

OVERALL (0-6): A very good example of an American Pale Ale. The flavors are subtle, but well balanced and rounded. Even though it came from a bottle, it had something of the taste and feel of a draft to it. The drinkability and smoothness make it a great summer ale option. 4

TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 15

She's Still Standing

Still some buzz about town following Wednesday's Republican rally at the Minneapolis Convention Center. More than ten thousand folks apparently turned out to see Sarah Palin join a host of local GOP leaders including Governor Pawlenty, Congressman Kline, and Congressman Paulson. But the real co-star of the event--if anyone can ever really share top billing with Palin--was Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. The sight of Bachmann on stage with Palin during the rally and afterward on Fox's Sean Hannity was just the latest example of the ascendancy of her star on the conservative political scene. She has become a nationally known figure and has attracted a following far outside the bounds of Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District. She's one of the leading voices of the conservative effort to push back against President Obama's initiatives and is regularly featured on national media outlets.

It's interesting (and amusing) to think about all the energy and effort put forth in recent years by her opponents to try to stop her rise and realize how amazingly futile it's all been. I can't think of another Minnesota politician who's been as oft pilloried by local media, be it the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, City Pages, MPR, TPT, local television and radio stations (just yesterday I heard a host on one of the sports talks stations--the "new" one--going off on how often Bachmann lied and distorted facts). Local left-wing web sites and blogs have made her their bête noir. The level of invective and outright hatred directed against her has been amazing. One particular blog called "Dump Bachmann" started up in 2004--two years BEFORE she was elected to Congress--and has done nothing but launch unrelenting attacks on everything about her ever since. How's that working out for you guys? Rarely in the course of human events has so much time been invested for so minimal a result.

Seriously. These people have spent a good part of their last six years of their lives stalking Bachmann's every move and deconstructing her every utterance and what have they got to show for it? Nothing! Oh, I'm sure if you asked them they would detail all the ways they've "exposed" her to the world and "unmasked" her real motives and "evil" intentions. But what has the result been? She was elected to the House in 2006, reelected in 2008, and--barring significant unforeseen circumstances--she's going to be reelected in 2010.

I know the hordes of Bachmann haters out there are all excited about Tarryl Clark's chances of beating her this year, but c'mon get real. By all indications this is going to be a Republican year. And there's a good chance it could be a very big Republican year. Do you really think that a GOP candidate who won in awful years for Republicans (2006 & 2008) is going to lose in a good year? Unlikely. And while the Democrats are going to raise a bunch of money both locally and nationally to retire that "crazy" Michele Bachmann, that campaign cash is going to probably be matched or even exceeded by what Bachmann will be able to pull in given her national prominence. And don't forget Bachmann's track record when it comes to winning elections both for the state legislature and Congress. She's pretty much had everything--including the kitchen sink--thrown at during those campaigns and has always emerged victorious.

It almost seems as if the old Nietzsche maxim "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger" applies in spades when it comes to Michele Bachmann's political career. Her enemies have not only epically failed in their efforts to destroy her, these efforts actually seem to have helped propel her forward.

The Ghost Of Health Care Yet To Come

The state of Massachusetts has a health care system similar to what Obama's gang is imposing on the entire country and things are getting rather interesting in the Bay State. An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal gives us the frightening vision of what health care will be like nationwide if we don't turn things around.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has effectively imposed a premium cap on the state's insurers by rejecting 90% of the premium increases they have requested. Several top insurers suffered operating losses last year and in order to avoid huge additional losses, and possible insolvency, they filed suit in Boston superior court and simply stopped offering quotes.

What was the state's response, you ask? As if you didn't know. The state of Massachusetts is now demanding that these insurers immediately resume selling new policies, at year old base premiums no less, or face fines and penalties.

So just to sum it up. The government is forcing private companies to sell health insurance at a loss, or face fines and penalties, which can only result in these companies going out of business. The government is also requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance, or face fines and penalties, and since there will now no longer be any private insurers left they will be forced into the welcoming arms of their loving government.

How can this be, one could ask? President Obama promised that Americans would be able to keep their current insurance and that the government would never be taking over the insurance industry.

Well, I guess the President technically didn't lie. You could keep your current insurance but the evil insurance company you had your policy with is no longer in business...and good riddance because they died trying to raise your premiums. And the government didn't directly take over the insurance industry. They had no choice because all of those evil insurance companies are no longer in business...and good riddance because they died trying to raise your premiums.

I gotta hand it to Obama. That's a pretty slick way of getting what he wanted after promising the exact opposite. It's also incredibly sleazy and dishonest, but it's pretty slick.

Coming and Going

A few years ago, a couple of the major airlines started charging passengers for checked luggage, ostensibly to help offset higher fuel prices. Now, nearly all airlines--with the notable exception of Southwest--have followed suit with an array of fees and surcharges that apply to almost all checked luggage. Despite the fact that fuel prices have fallen from their 2008 highs and since stabilized, it seems unlikely that the airlines are going to roll back these charges and give up this new found revenue streams any time soon.

Since airline passengers are at least a semi-rational lot, many have reacted to these checked baggage fees by taking steps to avoid paying them. The most commonly employed tactic is to pack smaller bags that can be carried on. This allows passengers to not only save a little lucre by not checking a bag, but also allows them to avoid having to wait for the checked luggage after deplaning. Can you really blame passengers for behaving in such a logical manner?

Well, if you're an airline you certainly can. On a recent Delta flight from Denver to Minneapolis, I found it amusing (and a little irritating) to listen to flight attendants haranguing passengers about the quantity and size of carry-on luggage. During boarding, the chief attendant made a couple of scowling, snippy announcements along the lines of:

"Since we have a lot of passengers carrying on luggage today," (eyes rolling) "...you're going to have to make sure your bag is stowed properly in the overhead bin." ( Bitter sigh) "And if you have two bags, only one can go in the overhead bin. You'll have to place the other bag under the seat in front of you."

"You stupid f***ing people and your stupid f***ing carry-on bags can all just go to hell!"

Okay, the last line is bit of an exaggeration, but that was definitely the vibe that we were getting from Delta's representatives. I was tempted to stand up and scream:

"Quit yer bitchin'! You don't like us carrying our bags on? Then tell your airline to quit gouging us for checking bags. This ain't rocket science here lady. Your airline created the problem, now shut up and deal with it."

But discretion and even more fear that my outburst would be labeled as terrorism and I'd get a one-way ticket to Gitmo (still open, eh?) or be placed on President Obama's Predator Drone Hit List of American Citizens lead me to keep my peace.

The solution to the problem of too many bags being carried on because of fees to check luggage? If you're in the airline business it's obvious: charge fees to carry-on:

One solution to paying fees for checked baggage -- carrying your baggage onto the flight -- is on its way out. Privately-held Spirit Airlines announced today it's going to start charging as much as $45 for carry-on luggage that's put in an overhead bin. The airline said anything stuffed under the seat in front of passengers will still be free, which should add a new headache to the boarding process.

"Bring less; pay less. It's simple," Spirit's Chief Operating Officer Ken McKenzie said in a statement.

So far no other airlines have followed suit. "I personally think that would spark a major customer backlash," Standard & Poor's analyst Jim Corridore told Reuters. "The general public is sick and tired of fees. They pay them because they have to."

Is that true? Does the paying public have to? Or do they just consider exercising what little power they have as consumers (not flying) a less appealing alternative to paying airline fees?. Airlines charge fees because customers will pay them.

We've close to reaching a level of absurdity where airlines are trying to game it so that whatever option you choose involves a fee of some sort. Oh, you want to wear pants on the flight? That'll be an extra thirty dollars. A shirt? Twenty dollars. Wear less; pay less. It's simple.

Filling King's Coffers

If you had problems with the PayPal link to donate to King Banaian's campaign that I posted yesterday, try this one. It seems to be working and I've gone back and updated the link in the original post as well. Thanks for your support.