My Photo

Recent Comments

COMMENTS?

  • We love comments, but they are treated like letters to the editor -- only some are permanently published. Comments may be depublished or edited if they contain profanity or personal attacks or if they include statements that are false, defamatory, unethical, immoral, or illogical. Rude or inappropriate comments or spam may result in a permanent website ban (comments auto-deleted), so don't do that. Thanks.
  • Google

Like This Blog?

  • Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to Google

    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Add to My AOL

  • Word of the Day

    This Day in History

    In the News

    Quote of the Day

    Spelling Bee
    difficulty level:
    score: -
    please wait...
     
    spell the word:

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

5 entries categorized "Travel"

January 29, 2008

Global Non-warming Grips Canada

By DemocracyRules

Most people have never experienced -58 F temperatures, but Western Canadians have.

With wind chill, here are some predicted temperatures in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for Tuesday:

Beach

  • Edmonton: -65 F
  • Calgary: -47 F
  • Regina: -60 F
  • Churchill Manitoba (Polar Bear country): -47 F

These temperatures include wind chill factors, which makes the bite harder.  With just jeans on your legs, it feels like a bunch of people are thrashing your bare legs with icy piano wires.  Bundled up properly, things are just fine.  I once walked to school when it was -90 F wind chill, and I was confused when the school doors wouldn't open.  The school was closed, so I walked home.  The skating rinks were closed when it went below -10F, which was always a disappointment for us kids.

"Police in Calgary are trying to determine whether a man found lying in the middle of a street Tuesday morning froze to death as overnight temperatures in the city dipped to -27F."  As a general rule, napping in the middle of the road is not a good idea, but when the pavement is that cold, and the wind chill makes things even colder, don't get drunk and don't lie down.

"Schools in parts of Saskatchewan are closed for a second day Tuesday after blizzard-like conditions rolled through the province a day earlier. Whiteouts have also made driving treacherous on some Saskatchewan highways...   There was traffic chaos ... as drivers tried to start their vehicles and then spun their tires and fishtailed on snow-covered roads made icy by the deep freeze." 

The global warming goons could call it a climate change 'anomaly', if it weren't for irritating statements like this: "With the wind chills and the bitter temperatures, this is the coldest cold snap since last year," said Dan Kulak, who said frigid temperatures could last for several days.  Ho hum, another Canadian winter.

Did I mention that many Canadians are global warming sceptics?

November 08, 2007

For Your Amusement: An Actual Airline Complaint

If you're in need of a laugh today, this will definitely do it:  An actual airline complaint filed by a passenger.

Via Digg, where this letter has received 7743 digs and 301 comments (so far).

November 05, 2007

Flying on a Partial Wing and a Prayer? Passengers Say No

Let's hear it for assertive airline passengers!

London's Daily Mail reports that passengers at London's Heathrow Airport revolted when they were scheduled to fly on an airplane with its wingtip missing.

Airplane_200710_heathrow

An airline crew faced a rebellion when they told passengers they were going to fly on a jet that had lost its wing tip in a runway crash.

The SriLankan Airlines customers had been on the Airbus A340 a day earlier when it sliced through a wing of a stationary British Airways 747 at Heathrow, delaying departure by 24 hours.

So they were amazed to be boarding the same plane next day for the ten-hour flight to Colombo.

When cabin crew then admitted there was still a 5ft wing tip missing, there was "a minor revolt" as seven passengers demanded to be let off the aircraft.

A further two-hour delay followed as their baggage was removed before the aircraft could take off.

Club-class passenger Ian McKie, 54, from Loughton, Essex, said: "We were put up in hotels the night of the crash and next morning we were told we would be on a different plane that day.

"We only realised that we were actually going on the same aircraft when we got to the Club lounge and saw the plane but without its wing tip.  . . . .  On board, the cabin crew admitted that it was the same one as last time and that the tip had been ripped off.  They assured us it didn't matter but a number of the passengers insisted that they would rather get on the next flight."

The collision happened shortly after 10pm two weeks ago when the BA011 flight to Singapore was waiting on a runway, followed by the SriLankan Airbus.

The SriLankan aircraft wing ripped through the BA flight's wing, tearing off a huge chunk and resulting in the BA jumbo being grounded.

SriLankan Airlines insisted there was no danger in flying without a wing tip.

It added: "They are purely for aerodynamics and to keep fuel costs to a minimum. There is no impact on safety at all. Safety is our absolute priority."

I espcially like some of the comments at the Daily Mail:

Apart from missing the wing tip, would you fly with a pilot who cannot even steer his plane on the ground without hitting another one?

- Bk, Edinburgh

There could have been all sorts of stresses throughout the whole wing. I would not fly on that plane until it had been repaired by the manufacturer. I think ground mechanics are not qualified to declare the aircraft safe.

- Ray B, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

When I pay 100% of the airfare, 100% of the plane is a minimum requirement.

- Et, New Iberia,LA,USA

July 18, 2007

If Al Qaeda Is "Evolving," Why Can't America's Iraq Strategy Evolve Too?

Here's what passes for the conventional wisdom on Iraq:  The war was badly planned and therefore is failing miserably.  As a result, America's only option is to fold up the entire operation and slink away, leaving the Iraqis to whatever bloodbath awaits them.  We've reached the point of no return; the war is irretrievably lost; and no amount of rethinking or redoubling of effort will make any difference.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:

Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.

"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.

Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.

The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."

"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."

Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?

Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."

But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States.  The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war.  Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.

Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer.  Nonsense.  Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.

What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight.  Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost.  The solution is quite simple:  Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.

In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal.  The margin of victory usually turns on one thing:  motivation.  If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts  and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.

By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.

Update:  Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

September 18, 2006

You Go, Girl! First Female Space Tourist Lifts Off

Ansari_1 From CNN:

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- A Russian-built rocket carrying the world's first female space tourist lifted off Monday in Kazakhstan on a flight to the international space station.

Anousheh Ansari, an Iranian-American telecommunications entrepreneur, was accompanied by a U.S.-Russian crew on the Soyuz TMA-9 capsule.

Ansari is aiming to realize a life-long dream.

As the fourth space tourist, the Iranian-born American also becomes the first woman to pay her way into space, and the first person of Iranian descent to get there.

Storynewrocketaptn_2 Ansari is a self-made telecommunications multimillionaire along with her husband, and a quick learner of several languages, including English and now Russian.  The CNN story linked above makes for interesting reading if you're wondering how an Iranian-American woman became the fourth space "tourist" and the first female space "tourist" ever.  (As Ansari points out, the term "space tourist" is a bit of a misnomer because she had to spend six months in Russia training for her journey, learning many different systems and technologies.) 

For more, visit Ansari's space flight website and Ansari's space blog (being updated by X Prize founder Peter H. Diamindis).

158042main_exp14_launch2_3
Admit it.  It kind of looks like fun!

_______________________________

Update 9/18/06:  And here's a reminder that space travel still has plenty of risks to go around:  Harmful chemical leaks in space station.  But inbetween the moments of hair-raising mortal peril -- it still looks fun.

NEWS & BUZZ

DAILY CARTOON click to enlarge
ANDERTOONS.COM DAILY CARTOONS

WEBSITES TO EXPLORE

  • Blogroll Me!

    "New!" websites were updated within the last 6 hours

SUPPORT OUR ADVERTISERS

GINA COBB

  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog." (Jack Jones)
  • ". . . Gina Cobb is proof that not all lawyers deserve the death penalty." (Gringoman.com)(Gee -- thanks!)
  • "Let the charming and talented Gina Cobb show you how important rhetorical argument can be." (No-Pasaran.blogspot.com)