The fact is that airlines have no incentive to end their cumbersome boarding processes

In response to an Economist piece on a how a faster way of boarding planes could save time and money, Hugh Rooney writes that

I think you missed the point in your article about efforts to find faster ways to board planes that could “save time and money” (“Please be seated”, September 3rd). The fact is that airlines prefer to keep their cumbersome boarding processes. That way some travellers will pay more to avoid the chaos by purchasing first class, or priority access, or some other premium-priced ticket. Airlines also reward frequent flyers by allowing them to board early. They have no incentive to end a practice that enhances their revenues.

Hugh Rooney
Glenview, Illinois

Related:
• Airplane Etiquette:
Undue Deference Is Not Applicable When Exiting an Aircraft

• Do airline companies assume that
terrorists can only afford a seat in economy class?

• Do Airline Safety Rules Make Sense? Yes,
But Not in the Way You Were Taught to Think

Quotas: According to the Obama Administration, the U.S. Air Force should be 51% female and 13% black because the general population is

Grab your ankles

warns Benny Huang,

the Secretary of the Air Force is talking about diversity again.

Deborah Lee James, a career bureaucrat who has never worn the uniform of any service, announced last week that she aims to remedy the supposed problem of too many white men in positions of authority.

“America is a diverse population, and we don’t want to shut down pieces of the population from which we can recruit,” said James. “We want the best we can possibly get from all sectors.” Oh yeah? Well why not just hire the best person for the job and let the chips land where they may? She doesn’t say.

This most recent policy comes about a year and a half after Secretary James announced another equally discriminatory “diversity” initiative. In March of 2015, she unveiled her nine step plan to diversify the Air Force, particularly its most glamorous career fields such as pilots and air battle managers. One of her nine points was to reduce height standards for pilots, thus making it easier for women to qualify—as if height standards were arbitrary obstacles dreamed up by sexist men to preserve their boys’ club.

A year and a half has passed and Secretary James is not satisfied with the “progress” made thus far so more drastic measures will be imposed. … Of course, that one “diverse candidate” has to be “qualified”—a term that is highly malleable whenever race or sex is of paramount importance.

It’s no wonder that the blurb on the cover of the Air Force Times cover blared: “Minorities, Women, Now Have Edge in Key Positions.” Yes, they do. In years past affirmative action proponents framed the issue in terms of “leveling the playing field” but these days it’s all out in the open—minorities and women have an “edge,” which is another way of saying that they’re favored. It is literally impossible for favored groups to exist without the existence of corresponding disfavored groups. Don’t be fooled—this policy has real victims with names and faces.

But the Rooney Rule alone isn’t discrimination, is it? After all, no one is saying that the “diverse candidate” has to get the job. Well…not exactly. While it may be true that the “diverse candidate” isn’t guaranteed to get the job, commanders will now have to explain their decision to a board which will consist of a certain proportion of women and minorities. Commanders who care about their careers will take the hint from on high—things like performance are no longer considered to be as important as race and sex. Commanders are not under any explicit mandate to select the “diverse candidate” but there is pressure to discriminate against white men in order to meet “goals”—or what used to be called quotas.

No one dares use the “Q” word anymore, at least not since the landmark 1978 court case of California v. Bakke. … Secretary James’s 2015 “diversity” initiative failed to reach some critical mass of women and minorities in key positions so she resorted to more drastic measures in her 2016 initiative. If she’s allowed to stay on into the next Clinton Administration she will surely continue to tighten the screws until she gets the numbers she wants. As long as she has any number in mind—the “right” proportion of women and minorities who should be in key positions—that’s a quota and it’s illegal.

 … Secretary James’s lickspittle Chief of Staff, General David Goldfein, is completely on board with the policy. If you listen closely, you can hear him speak openly of quotas: “Having a diverse group of leaders, having a diverse group of airmen that are representative of the nation, that can come together and bring those diverse backgrounds and [ways of] thinking, to provide creative solutions to some of these complex challenges is as much a war-fighting imperative as it is about improving our Air Force.” (Emphasis added).

When the general speaks of creating a force that is “representative of the nation,” he is clearly implying that the program’s goal is to adjust the demographics of the Air Force to match the demographics of the country as a whole—or at least in regard to sensitive categories such as race and sex. In other words, the Air Force should be 51% female and 13% black because the general population is. Not only that, but these proportions should remain constant across all ranks and throughout all career fields—lower enlisted through general officers, cooks, mechanics, pilots and navigators. Again, that’s a quota. Quotas are discriminatory even by the Supreme Court’s screwy logic—and they’re illegal.

General Goldfein’s comment about having airmen that are “representative of the nation” is boilerplate diversity-speak that echoes a thousand public officials before him. …

It’s possible that some discriminatory, quota-mongering bigots don’t realize that they’re discriminatory, quota-mongering bigots. They just think they’re good people who want to make everything fair. They would never use—gasp!—quotas. But alas, they do. Quotas never lapsed into disuse, not even after the Bakke decision which changed nothing except maybe the way people employ language. People learned to speak of “goals” rather than quotas, to talk about reforming institutions to “look like” the general population, and to stress the importance of achieving demographics that are “representative” of the community. These are all coded language, red flags that illegal discrimination is being employed. Watch out for phrases like these and call them out when you hear them. 

Dalrock Finds One More Major Problem with the Thrust of the Leftists' Complaints Regarding the Trump Scandal

Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!

I thought that all the liberals' double standards about Donald Trump's 10-year-old video had been said on scores of Instapundit posts (Bill Clinton, the Kennedys, etc), but Dalrock manages to find another, indeed one of the basic problems with the scandal. Indeed, they can be presented as bring two problems.

Not only may women, even those who do behave sluttily, no longer be called out, but the fact that a man goes after another's wife in no way fits into the scandal equation.

It has been telling that Republican outrage over the audio of Trump describing his attempt to cuckold other men is almost entirely focused on the fact that Trump spoke crudely in describing the way women threw themselves at him.  Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!

Trump had claimed he pushed a married woman to have sex with him and said he could grab women “by the p****” because he was a celebrity. A recording of his conversation with then-”Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush was published by NBC News and The Washington Post on Friday.

“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.

The title of Dalrock's post is

Do as you please with their wives, so long as you respect her in the morning

Don't the Main Respected Institutions Gutted by the Left Turn Out to Be the IRS, the FBI, the State Department, and the White House?

A famed Iowahawk meme has been, all to accurately, used to describe every kind of institution, from the Smithsonian and the NFL to, most notoriously, college campuses around the country:

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect. 

Of course, what is the most venerable institution of all? Isn't it the United States government — most notably the IRS, the FBI, and the State Department, as well as the White House itself?

David Burge's meme is the story of Barack "fundamentally transform the United States" Obama and the Obama administration, and David Burge's meme will be the story of the Hillary Clinton administration.

What can we expect regarding the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the House of Representatives under a Hillary administration, as well as "the miracle at Philadelphia" — the Constitution itself?!

Turning America, one step at a time, into a banana republic.


Addendum: For this, you can thank in great part the 26th Amendment.

In reply to "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," the reasonable reply ought to have been the French proverb, "si jeunesse savait, si vieillesse pouvait" ("If youth had the knowledge, if old age had the energy", i.e., Youth is wasted on the young).

To the Yahoo Answers question, "What is meant by 'youth is wasted on the young'?", the "Best Answer" reads in part:

It means that young people have everything going for them physically; they're in the best health they will ever be in; their minds are sharp and clear BUT they lack patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort.

In other words, Youth has the muscle, so it fights, it goes to war.

Adulthood has the wisdom, so it votes, it takes care of the laws.

Before you are tempted to protest, let's add to the previous sentence: Adulthood has the wisdom, so it votes, it takes care of the laws; including the laws concerning the beings for whom they have the deepest love in this life — their very own sons.

Think of this: don't the reasons given for the Amendment XXVI turn out to be some of the most extreme-leftist arguments ever raised?

Indeed, what is the main assumption behind "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"?

That a boy's (or girl's) father, and a boy's mother, are clueless clods, incapable of reflecting beyond their own self-interest, thinking of nobody but themselves, far too clueless not to vote in favor of what would be the best for their son (or daughter), especially in what concerns matters of life and death; no, for that, you need to go somewhere else.

And what would that else one should go to be? Tthe government, of course, and its politicians (those white knights in shining armor come to rescue a hapless citizenry, in this case the young), which has/have so effectively taken over the roles of family (as well as religion) — Big Brother — all over the Western world.

… young people … lack patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort

Another reasonable reply to "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote" would be the famed saying:

If, at 20, you don't lean to the left, you have no heart;
If, at 30, you don't lean to the right, you have no brains.

You have no choice but to wonder whether the United States is where it is at — institutions identified, killed, and gutted, with respect demanded (not to mention "5 Make the carcass apologize") — because it has, out of a sense of "justice" and "fairness", enacted amendment after amendment during the 20th century, most of which have undermined the Republic while building Democracy, thereby enabling the era of the Drama Queen.

You have no choice but to wonder whether the entire Western world is where it is at because it has allowed election after election to be decided by millions of immature voters lacking "patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort"; election after election to be decided by millions of immature voters with plenty of passion ("this is not who we are") but with no brains.

No brains at all…


To repeat what I wrote on Sunday:

Never would I have thought that the Republican Party, and the United States of America, was ready to commit suicide — certainly not in my lifetime…

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia … could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

— Abraham Lincoln

A "Ferocious" and "Blistering" Attack: MSM Outlet Uses Extreme Vocabulary for the GOP Candidate While Ignoring Both Clintons and Hillary's Campaign Entirely

With the words "ferocious" and "blistering" attack, the BBC has, far from unsurprisingly, shown its true colors again — spinning everything negative towards the GOP's candidate while ignoring his Democratic challenger, leaving her and her spouse out of the equation…

Abe Lincoln and the USA's Future as a Banana Republic: How Can Republicans — and Americans in General — Be So Naïve?!

I strongly reject the idea that there is some kind of moral obligation to abandon Trump.

Doesn't John Hinderaker have it exactly right (thanks to Instapundit)?

First, … I was never under any illusions as to Trump’s character, his competence or his conservatism. I think he is a horrible Republican nominee. But he is still better than Hillary Clinton. His character is no worse than Hillary’s, he is more conservative (or less liberal), and he would make a better president. So I have every intention of voting for him as the lesser of two evils. I strongly reject the idea that there is some kind of moral obligation to abandon Trump.

Second, it can be useful to ask, What would the Democrats do? Here there is no need to speculate: we saw what they did in the 1990s. They circled the wagons and defended their man to the hilt, using whatever smears and lies were helpful, even though he was credibly accused of rape and multiple instances of sexual harassment. Indeed, that is what the Democrats are doing now with Hillary Clinton, as revelations much more material to her performance in office than the Trump video have come out over the past year or two. See, generally, Clinton Cash. Republicans are always held to a higher standard than Democrats, but why? Maybe this is as good a time as any to reject the double standard and fight fire with fire. E.g., this Drudge headline: “KATHLEEN WILLEY CALLS FOR HILLARY TO RESIGN FROM CAMPAIGN…”

Finally, calling on Trump to resign signals, at best, an unprecedented and humiliating disarray within the GOP. It still may make sense if the party has an opportunity to substitute a better candidate with a greater chance of winning. But, as Paul noted earlier, it is not clear that such a switch is practical. If Mike Pence (not Mitt Romney) could be substituted on the ballot for Trump, it would be an improvement. But I doubt that any such smooth transition is possible.

Ted Cruz's (non-brainer) prediction is coming true (is there no way the GOP can make the Texas senator the party's nominee?). The Alinsky Democrats, having maneuvered a highly controversial candidate into the opposition party's front ranks with the help of the media and idiot Republicans, in true banana-republic fashion, are bringing their October surprises

Applying Alinsky's principles, the Democrats are tempting Republicans — Americans — to live by their higher standards, standards that they never have applied, or had any intention of applying, to themselves (see Clinton, Bill, as well as Kennedy, Anyfirstname).

And those idiots are falling for it.

Paul Mirengoff ponders whether

it may be that no course is better than letting this horror show play out, learning the lessons it has to teach us, and then picking up the pieces

That is, if there are any pieces to pick up, and anybody, any party, left to take heed of the lessons…

As Peter Ingemi, who refuses to let himself "be played" (thanks to Instapundit), puts it,

Right now a lot of people are forgetting that for good or I’ll the only thing standing between us and the financial, military, security, cultural and constitutional rights disaster that a Hillary Clinton administration would be is Donald Trump.

See also Ed Driscoll on the 1990s' "It's just sex", with Kathy Shaidle pointing out that

If ‘it’s just sex!!!’ in 1995, then it’s ‘just sex’ in 2005, and this year and every year forever. THEY made that rule. Make your enemy play by his rules — remember your Alinsky.

Never would I have thought that the Republican Party, and the United States of America, was ready to commit suicide — certainly not in my lifetime…

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia … could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”

— Abraham Lincoln