are things complicated yet?

There's a Fanny Pack Revolution going on and I didn't even know it.

3 down.  1 to go.  Business Travel Month continues with a jaunt to Orlando and the theme parks.

Flights to Orlando are always different because of the enormous volume of children, strollers, frazzled parents, people that haven't flown much and are slow to board (annoying!) and also because of all the fanny packs.

Yes, people.  I said FANNY PACK.

What is wrong with a purse?  A backpack? A tote? A simple pocket?  They're all fine ways to transport items and keep them close at hand.

And yet, there must be millions of Americans out there, hoarding their fanny packs from 1989 (it will be a shock to many of you to realize that was 18 whole years ago), just waiting and anticipating the joyous moment that they can pull them from hiding and crow to naysayers like Stacy and Clinton, who have encouraged them to purge their fanny packs over the years:

"I KNEW there was a reason I kept this!  It will be perfect for walking around a theme park so I can put two hands on my 800 calorie Coke and funnel cake!  See?  You think I'm a pack rat but I'm not.  This stuff is USEFUL.  Just wait.  And tomorrow, someone will want to see all those magazines I've been keeping from when Brad and Jen got divorced.  Those are historic."

How do I know that fanny packs across the country are being stashed away like a squirrel hoards nuts for the winter?  Because you can't buy them anywhere respectable anymore. 

Target is not stocking them for a very good reason. 

Sure, the internet will sell you one but let's be serious, what will the internet NOT sell you these days?  Just because you can buy it online does not mean that you should. 

Other than the Fanny Pack Blight sweeping Orlando there's not all that much else to report.  Children still get cranky in the afternoon, people leave their manners at home, fat ladies fail to wear enough clothes, strollers with toddlers who are not old enough to remember their visit are numerous.

Of additional concern is the tween who wears a bikini to the park as an outfit.  I saw many 11 - 14 year-olds sporting teeny bikinis with flip flops, as if to say:

"Hey!  Don't I look cute in my "outfit" that will allow me to go on the River Raft ride without getting my pants wet?  Because I'm not wearing any!  Get it?  My mom totally okay'ed this outfit because she is here with me in cutoffs and a triangle top too!  Rockin'!!"

Good job Mom.  Show her that pole dancing move you know too and she will absolutely succeed in life.

I bet they can't spell "Mississippi" either

TSA in San Francisco has a BIG sign by the security area that states all of the rules that have changed since last September.

Specifically, it says "AMMENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 2006."

AMMENDED.  2 m's. 

An extra m that piteously does not belong.  An m that some twit at TSA no doubt typed as he was savoring all of the new rules about plastic bags. 

That makes sense though.  TSA does not need spell check.  They know EVERYTHING that is good and proper in the democratic world and nobody will tell them how to spell.  Hell, they probably just changed the way we officially spell the damn word since obviously they have carte blanche to do anything they want.  Who cares if it's practical or reasonable?

It's particularly unfortunate that this specific word was so grossly misspelled and then printed in 4 inch tall orange letters. They really wanted you to notice that word - it's underlined for emphasis.

The verb "amend" and all of its conjugative forms are really building blocks of our fine democratic country.  The very freedom and safety that TSA is trying to protect could not exist without this fine verb. 

This verb that they can't spell.   It's only three syllables for crying out loud.

If they can't spell "Amended" properly then what else are they missing out on?  Seriously, how many people had to approve that document before it went to press? 

How many people that make important, nation-changing decisions?

Also, why hasn't it been updated with the proper spelling yet?  Surely I'm not the first person to notice this.

So many questions.  Only one answer: "Please put that in a plastic bag ma'am." 

*Sigh.*  Sure thing.  Plastic bags will save us all.

Will someone please draft Michael Moore and finally give him a haircut? PLEASE?

There's just something about Michael Moore that is utterly fascinating to me in a sort of disgusting way.

For starters, he's hyper-opinionated (which is annoying) and looks like he might not shower every day.  He's argumentative and insistent and someone has decided to fund him so that he can get his message (whatever that is) out to the American people. 

He's using his right to free speech to say really wild and crazy things and I think that's fine but sometimes, I wish he would like, get a haircut or something.

Anyway, as I am sure you've heard Moore recently made a trip to Cuba in an effort to show how superior Castro's medical system is to that of the US.

This was sort of a problem since Americans really aren't allowed to go to Cuba without getting permission from the US Treasury Department first, which he did not.

Because he is Michael Moore.  He does whatever he wants and he doesn't really care what the government thinks.  Except, when they try to infringe on his free speech rights.  THEN he's happy he's got some government.  Anyway.  Off topic.

Michael made a comment to maybe Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson about the trip and said that Thompson smoked embargoed cigars and challenged him to a debate on health care.  Within hours, this showed up on YouTube. 

Love the deliberately unclear reference to the mental institution; is he saying Moore should consider going himself as a matter of personal health?  Or that if he's not careful in Cuba, Castro might just put him there anyway?  Heh.

Don't sit there. I'm saving that seat. Yes, all ten seats.

Is there anything more annoying than one woman who shows up at an event early and proceeds to almost undress herself by placing articles of clothing and accessories on seats to "save" them for upwards of ten people who are not there yet?

No.  I think not.

This really pushes my buttons.  You can save one or three seats but anything more is obnoxious and rude to the people who are punctual (ahem!).  Those people deserve good seats!

It's happened to me a few times.  Teenagers saving twenty seats at a crowded movie theatre on opening night.  A women declaring that an entire swath of lawn at an outdoor concert was for her family that wasn't there yet.  She was literally the sole representative of thirty people.

Me:  "You can't save this entire section of grass.  I'm sitting here."

Her: "NO!  I AM SAVING THIS FOR MY FAMILY!  IT'S MINE!"

ME: "You don't even have a blanket.  You can't do that.  I'm sitting here.  Ha!"

Her: "NONONONONONONO!"

Et cetera.  Always a delightful conversation with such rational people.  Maybe if your stupid family was ON TIME this would not be a problem.  Obviously you did not grow up in a military household where such a trait was valued and rewarded. Humph.

Last night we went to a charming outdoor patio concert with another couple.  We sat at a table for 4, saving two seats.

There was a table of adults next to us that had pushed two round tables together to form a giant, space-taking-up, chairs don't fit together area of their own.  Every woman was blonde and wearing many accessories.  Husbands were outfitted in golf attire telling us about the fah-bulous places they play.  They just reeked of obnoxious entitlement.

Anyway, one of the women pushes together FOUR additional tables and starts gathering chairs after a while.  I am thinking "Holy crap!  They have MORE people coming?!"

They put two giant handbags on the table.  Sort of like "This is reserved because of these big purses on it!"  And really, is that smart to put your purse and its contents on display when you're all the way across the patio?

I overheard a few minutes later that table was being reserved for the kids.  It was the kids table.

Do you see ALL OF THOSE EMPTY CHAIRS AND NO CHILDREN SITTING IN THEM?

How incredibly rude to save this enormous table when other adults were around.  People even asked them if they could have a few of the seats and those obnoxious people said no!  Many times!

Eventually, as the night wore on, people stopped asking since it was obvious nobody was using the table.  When people sat there I could tell that the lady that pushed them all together was annoyed.  It was her table.  Didn't they see her big ass purse on it earlier?    

It took great personal strength not to tell them exactly what I thought of them and their seat-saving handbags and then make a snarky comment about botox or wrinkles or collagen.

Because dude, I totally have them beat there.

**********************************
Updated to note that I am not the only one who finds this really irritating!

You can't save a seat at the National Gallery of Art.  This girl asked her classmates to quit saving seats because they're creating an incentive to arrive late.  YES!  That is exactly it!  This guy says that saving more than one seat is “what we ethicists call being piggish." 

Piggish! 

And this.  This I love.  I think I'm going to say it next time to the seat saver.

The appropriate response is, "Your wife and kids aren't here.  I am.  I came early precisely so that I could get a good seat.  Your wife and kids will arrive after me and therefore do not deserve better seats than me.  Saving seats is both selfish and inconsiderate."

Erm, yeah. Las Vegas is the perfect place for a nine-year-old's birthday party

Will the King of Pop never normalize?  I fear not.  Why can't he just stay in whatever Arabian country he's been living in and not come back? 

We do not want you back unless you sing "Bad" and dance like you used to and not that weird crap you do nowadays.  Especially the part where you make out with Lisa Marie Presley on TV.  That was so weird.

From People:

TIME FOR PEACE

Michael Jackson takes time out from browsing for Rolexes on Tuesday to send his greetings from Las Vegas. The King of Pop was in town reportedly celebrating his daughter Paris's 9th birthday with a spree at FAO Schwarz at the Forum Shops in Caesars Palace.

Why do I even bother going anywhere these days?

7 hours on an overnight flight is really just pure torture.  Not torture as in what Sayid did on Lost (really, I have got to stop watching that show, it's such crap now) but a sort of first world, middle class torture that is both legal and endorsed by the government. 

Air travel these days is bad for a lot of reasons, most of which you are all-too-familiar with.  Small seats, nowhere to put your legs, the indignity and charade of being screened by TSA, surly employees, delays, cancellations...I could go ON AND ON. 

You know it's bad.  It's really bad and you pay to be treated that way and every time you swear that you're just going to be one of those people that refuses to travel.  I know.

But in the interest of public awareness and because I know that you'll board that airplane again quite soon, here are a few new ones that I discovered:

Water isn't free any more on American Airlines

American Airlines still hauls that drink cart up and down the aisle, but there's a new twist. 

For $2 they will sell you a small bottle of water.  It's wrong that they are trying to sell me this very basic necessity at a very inflated price - especially since I can't bring my own from home any more.They've taken the security issue and turned it into an incremental sales opportunity.  I am sure they are thanking TSA for that one.

What they do not announce is that they will still give you a cup of water for free (poured from the same bottle they are selling)! It's really insulting, rude and maddening that they are trying to make more dollars for something they include in the price of a ticket anyway that I can't bring on-board myself.

In case of emergency, a plastic bag is also a good bullet-proof vest

I am not the sort of person who can fit an entire tropical vacation's worth of toiletries in a quart-size bag so I simply put them in my checked baggage.

I did have a small container of hand lotion that I wanted to take on board.  It was a single item so I did not bother with the plastic bag.  A bag's purpose is to contain multiple items and I only have the single item, which would obviously fit into the bag since there's just the one.  I opted not to waste a plastic bag.

WELL.  That is apparently wrong.  Very wrong.  How foolish of me to think practically within 500 feet of a TSA run operation.

They have all these signs stating that the reason you need the bag is "One-quart bag per person limits the total liquid volume each traveler can bring."

BUT I ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM.  It's not like I had ten items and it was in doubt whether I was busting the quart-limit per person.  At this point I am very close to making the assumption that I'm smarter than a well-funded government agency. 

Incidentally, and for conversation purposes only, how well are they funded you ask? $5.7 billion was requested for 2005.  Yes, please pause and consider what an enormous amount of money that is.

Every security person held the hand lotion and said "Do you have a bag for this? You really need to have it in a bag.  Next time, put it in a bag.  We'll let you take it on board, but it has to be in a bag next time." 

Even after it had been screened and approved and x-rayed and examined by no fewer than four people, they still wanted me to put it in a bag. They even asked if I had one on me that I was withholding.  Because if I did? Before I get on the plane?  Put it in a bag please.  OMG!!!!!!!

It was as if putting it in a bag, after it went through all of the security, made it more secure. 

Um.  Yeah.  I had no idea that a sandwich bag with a zip top was doing so much for the nation these days.

And, of course, reasoning with them was impossible.  It is as if TSA hires, on purpose, people that are incapable of practical and independent thought, who can make a judgment call and see that one item in a bag is unnecessary and a procedural waste of time.

Thus we come to what is the natural conclusion:  Are they really keeping us safe?  Or, are they just putting on a really big, expensive show?

Ridiculous TSA Rules Part II

When we checked in to come home, the TSA checked-baggage screening point was in front of the check-in counters.  Usually, you check your bags and they do all of that behind-the-scenes while you busy yourself with getting on the plane.

Here, you have to wait for the TSA person to screen EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S bags that is in front of you.  Obviously, this takes a long time. 

The check-in process is thus entirely dependent on the speed of the TSA employees.  Yeah.

You cannot access a ticket agent without getting through them first.  It's an obvious bottleneck and an overall bad idea.

But the really strange part?  They want you to put the bags on the screening table yourself.  In fact, they demand it.  And then the TSA agent removes the bag from the table and gives it to the ticket agent to label and send it on its way to the aircraft.

So, I'm not really sure what the point of that is since I don't do that at any other airport.  I initially thought it was a health/liability thing.  That maybe they weren't supposed to be lugging bags all day because they could get hurt. 

But then they take all the bags OFF the table and haul them 5 feet away. I'm not allowed to remove my bag myself.  So that can't be it.

What is the point of this?  Why do they make up rules for no reason?  Don't we have enough rules at the airport?  And now, it seems like there are different rules at different places?  Could this be any more frustrating??  ARGHHHH!!!!

And yes, my vacation was wonderful and I'll tell you all about it later...The short version is: "I went to the beach.  I ate a big piece of tuna for dinner.  Repeat 7 times."

The Nancy drama continues

Never before have so many mass media been in complete agreement with me!  I feel drunk on my obvious intelligence concerning national politics.

Today we are quoting from The Wall Street Journal.  This article is pretty good too though.
 

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flaunt the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security.

Finally! WaPo agrees with me!

Finally, oh finally, the Washington Post has written an editorial where all I can say is:

"YES!  JUST THAT!   THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING TOO!"

From The Washington Post. 

Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy

Thursday, April 5, 2007; A16

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

If you own this product, I'm afraid we can't be friends

This is the Scrubbing Bubbles Automatic Shower Cleaner.

You hang it in the shower and push a button every day and it sprays cleaner-type-stuff all over the shower, thus "cleaning" the shower for you.

I say "cleaning" because in the house I grew up in, spraying something from a bottle and letting it be would never, ever, EVER be construed as "cleaning."  In fact, it would probably get you sent to your room.

Anyway, if you can get over that detail it specifically promises to "clean a dirty shower in days."

Days.

What I would like to know is, if you want a clean shower why would you go all the way to the store and spend $20 on this, when a little elbow grease and ten minutes will do the job just fine? 

Probably a lot better even.

I will let you pontificate on your own the greater social meaning of that.  *Sigh*

It's crass, dirty and everyone is rude. What's not to like?

Right now, I have a suitcase packed and I am wearing a travel-friendly outfit.  In just a few hours I will be comfortably (or maybe uncomfortably, more like) seated on a marvel of modern engineering, on a sub-par airline (that is not of my own choosing), that will whisk me to America's favorite vacation destination in a matter of hours - all for free. 

Yes kiddos, I'm going to LAS VEGAS!  Now, normally this would be exciting.  Magical even!  Free! Bright lights and bell noises aplenty!

I am apparently the only person in America that hates Las Vegas.  It is the number one travel destination in the US and Canada.  What am I missing out on? 

Where others see good times and fun and a no rules atmosphere reminiscent of rebellious teenage years, I see a nightmare of such enormous proportion that I would pay money NOT to go. 

Let's list some reasons why, shall we?

• It is a dirty, dirty city and I'm not talking about the strippers.  There is trash everywhere and a sort of grime that permeates every surface and makes the OCD person in me come out and want to hose down the place with a giant bottle of Purell.


• It is an expensive city! In a city that is all about money and how you can get more, you sure can spend a lot of it in a hurry.  Want a nice place to sit by the pool?  $100 please.  One hand of blackjack on the strip?  $20 for thirty seconds of fun.  Oh boy.  That was soooo worth it.


• Everyone is rude unelss you have a wad of cash.  When I say I want more towels I mean I do not want to tip someone $20 for them.  Just bring me the damn towels!


• Everyone smokes there.  I wonder if they smoke not because they are addicted or enjoy it (shudder), but perhaps just because it's allowed and they just can?  Either way, there's no escaping it.


• The attitude problems.  Everyone is there on vacation and everyone will HAVE FUN DAMMIT come hell or high water.  Las Vegas is one of those cities that brings out the worst in people.  It makes them act bratty and do things they'd never do at home and I'd prefer not to be around that. 

But this is a business trip and I like my coworkers.  Fun Internet Company is genuinely FUN and knows how to have a good time.  So maybe it won't be so bad.  Maybe this trip to Las Vegas is where I turn the corner and turn into a Las Vegas Enthusiast like everyone else and discover my inner sinner and indulge.

I don't know.  Probably not.   Wish me luck.