Yes, there’s a seat-back pocket. No, you can’t use it

At least, on SkyWest which operates many United Express flights:

“Read the fine print.” That’s the advice of Joe Sharkey, the On the Road columnist for The New York Times[*1] . He warns us about the danger of putting any of your personal belongings – no matter how small – into the seatback pockets if you fly regional carrier SkyWest. He says on one recent SkyWest flight, a flight attendant enforced that regulation “like a drill sergeant throughout the flight.”

Solution? Avoid United, Skywest, US Airways, or any other Star Alliance airline like the plague until they sober up.

Thought for the day, newspeak edition

“Trigger” is newspeak[*1] for “We will take your money later, after promising cross-our-hearts that we won’t take your money right now.”

Those of you of a certain age and/or a Wikipedia addiction will also recall that Trigger was a horse[*2] .

So we can therefore conclude that the Democrats want you to believe that they are a horse of a different color. Or something like that.

Sometimes Thoughts of the Day can just get a bit out of control.

This is how government destroys wealth

Warren Meyer, who blogs at Coyote Blog, lives in Arizona, and occasionally considers installing a solar power setup for his house. Then, he thinks a bit more:

So — I officially reverse my past conclusions that home solar does not pay. It can in fact be a good investment — for you. For the country, it is a terrible investment. Your neighbors are contributing $57,930 in subsidies while you receive just $12,081 in benefits. The remainder, just over $45,000, is a dead-weight loss to the economy. It is money destroyed by the government.

This is surprisingly like the ethics problem of pulling a lever to get a million dollars but someone you don’t know in China dies. The only difference is that you get $12,000 and someone you don’t know loses $58,000.

Emphasis in original.

Government does not create wealth. It destroys wealth. “No country ever gained prosperity by taxing itself more.”

Keep this in mind if you listen to Obama tonight

One trillion dollars[*1] .

That’s one million million dollars.

That’s the amount of money that Obama’s health care “reform” is estimated to add to the Federal deficit. And recall that all of the estimates for the cost of Medicare were grossly, vastly underestimated.

We Can Not Afford This.

This is not about morality. It’s not about “helping those less fortunate than us.” This is not Republican vs. Democrat, or even classical-liberal vs. statist.

It’s about sanity.

We Can Not Afford This.

China is better governed than America

So says Thomas Friedman.[*1]

I suppose he must be referring to this:

So Tom, buddy, how did Tiananmen Square work out? They were all just “kooks” and obstructionists on the Long March towards the Worker’s Paradise, weren’t they? Acceptable losses, as it were.

Via Matt Welch at Reason Hit & Run[*2] , who rightly labels Friedman’s column “despicable.”

Hey, we know that guy

BoingBoing: Man hunts for poo-squirting con artist in Delhi[*1]

Sam Miller, the BBC’s former South Asia correspondent, is looking for the person who squirts poo on his and other people’s shoes in New Delhi’s Connaught Place. It’s part of a scam – foreigners get a squirt of poo on their shoo when then aren’t looking and then a shoe shiner down the road points it out and offers to clean off the poo, for a fee.

Not the poo-guy hunter, the poo-squirter–or one of them, anyway. We had a run-in with one of them. I had to get mildly physical with an elbow to shoo him away.

UPDATE: BoingBoing link fixed.

Health care comments

A person published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today:

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

. . .

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

. . .

Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

The person?

Sarah Palin[*1] .