As IF Times

link Please, Dont Let This Be the Future of Air Travel | Popular Science.

As if.  We know that the idea of cubbyhole hotels has been proved successful in high rent cities like New York and Tokyo.  These are bare bones accommodations which are little more than closet sized sleeping quarters for travellers on a budget.  We are accustomed to seeing Smart cars, which are essentially roller coaster cars with doors and a roof.  But unless I misread human nature entirely, the latest proposal for airplane seats will be an iffy sell.  It will give new meaning to flying ‘standby’.

As can be seen by the photo, people are expected to buy into the notion of being half perched on a saddle scrunched within inches of the next passenger.  We can see the demographic for this type of seating will be huge.  There may be a few exceptions: Anyone over 4 feet 10; Anyone over 92 pounds;  Anyone wearing a skirt; Anyone suffering from hemorrhoids. I understand that the airlines will push a marketing campaign in order to sell this method of travel.  Everyone who boards will be ink branded with a number to correspond with their perching position.  It will be like collecting hand stamps at a fair.  How fun is that! The similarity to herding cattle is purely coincidental.  Since there is no room for any tray tables, there will be two modes of drink offerings for the  passengers.  The first one will be drop down tubes from the overhead area from which riders can take liquids.  The second method will be the carts pushed by the stewards.  Long tubes will be extended to each of the riders like tentacles at a chicken farm.

No one will be able to read or work on a computer, so people will be forced to converse with their seatmates.  Since there will likely be 8 people within 3 feet of you, it will be like a dinner party.  How social!   The hours will just zip by.  And if they think that’s bad, wait until they see how the washrooms are configured.  Let’s just say, don’t wear new shoes on these types of flights.

link Nick Clegg to denounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

Good for Nick.  It is curious though that it is someone representing a foreign government and not the Americans directly making the speech denouncing the ravings of statesman Mahmoud in his recent charm offensive.  We all know that politics and diplomacy is all about thrust and parry, maneuvering and feinting.  What is said in public can be intended for very distinct audiences. 

It’s doubtful that what Ahmadinejad had to say would find many sympathizers in the U.S. except perhaps the  911 conspiracy crowd.  These are the same people who insist the moon landing took place on a Universal Studios soundstage, who think Elvis is alive and living at The Villages in Florida and that Stephen Colbert has talent.  

It’s possible that Mahmoud’s words were taken out of context when he says,

“…That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime…”

and

“…should the United States attack Iran over its nuclear program, it would become embroiled in a war that would make previous American conflicts pale in comparison…”

It’s more likely that these remarks were aimed at his brothers back in the ‘hood. After all, when you can come right into the bowels of the Great Satan, poke them in the eye and then have them pay and ensure your personal safety, that’s a big win for the home team.  It looks great on your resume and ensures that you will get people to listen to you back in Sandville.  You have to admire the guy for the deft play in the diplomacy field. 

Meanwhile, the Americans showed just how irascible they can be in the face of overt threats.  They walked out of the speech.  Boy, they sure showed him!  It’s one thing to pretend to be accepting of views of tyrants, dictators and other modern day Napoleons of small stature and belligerent egos, but when they basically spit in your  soup and dare you to do anything about it, there should be some indignant response from the aggrieved.  Why wouldn’t the highest representative of the U.S. government stand up forcefully and make a statement that in no uncertain terms excoriates the opinions of the Mahmouds of the world and make it clear that further aggravation will not be tolerated.  Instead of allowing him to come to New York to see a Broadway play, he can stay at home and shake his fists there. 

In this enlightened age of civility, I suppose it would be considered unsociable to set off some devices which would result in mushroom shaped clouds in his neighborhood.  Ok, we can accept that.  But at the very least, when the guy swaggers over here to rail and rant, let security be his own concern.  What do we care if he falls down an open manhole? Let him ride the subway and risk mugging like everyone else.  Given a choice, do U.S. citizens really want to surround our hero with police escorts and security bubbles? Given a choice, I think they’d prefer to listen to their own domestic unshaven nutbar, Michael Moore.  At least the people don’t have to pay for his security.