American Airlines Introduces Stand-Up Seating

Fort Worth, Texas, Oct. 1, 2014--American Airlines CEO W. Douglas Parker announced today that new planes being ordered will feature stand-up seating for coach passengers.

“We’ve been trying to squeeze more profit out of our coach passengers for some time,” he said, “and we’ve reached the limit of how many seats we can stuff in. But we can fit 20% more people into coach by standing them up. So we are confident that this new seating will do wonders for our bottom line.”

Asked how passengers might react to having to stand for hours, Parker said people already accept standing for hours at concerts, on line to buy new Apple products and so on. “They’ll be able to lean back and rest their butts on a rail, so it will be relaxing,” he insisted during a news conference at which reporters seemed skeptical at first. He said it would remind passengers of the fun they have at amusement parks on rides that stack them against a wall while the ride spins and subjects them to centrifugal force.

The announcement follows new seat configurations in airplanes that now have 9 or ten seats across, and which have also cut front-to-back space as well.  Some seat backs are now closer than normal reading distance to the passengers, but work fine for the incredibly near-sighted.

Parker said that with the new seating, passengers could use Google glasses for reading and gaming while flying. Passengers can rent the glasses for a fee expected to be about $59. Touch-operated compartments above their heads will have drop down drinking tubes that attendants can fill with  drinks of choice. No food will be served, but passengers can fill their pockets with snacks and sandwiches. When the "Torso Belt" sign is turned off, passengers will be able to move their arms and get to their pockets.

To further add to profits, soft drinks and water, formerly free, will now cost $4 each.

Reached by phone after Parker’s news conference, Arizona Senator John McCain applauded the innovation. Asked if it might be time for regulators to set minimum standards for seating—or standing, he said, “Hell no! We need government to stay out of civil aviation and let private industry continue to do a great job. The important thing is that we continue to buy more planes for the military, obsolete them quickly, and then stock pile them in the Arizona desert.”

The announcement apparently sat well with investors. American Airlines stock rose 5% following the announcement.##

Need I say that this press conference never occurred? It is the fantasy I had while sitting and fuming for the time it took to fly from New York to Chicago in an American Airlines Boeing 738. Not only was the seat very narrow, but the back of the seat in front of me was so close it was disturbing.  I tried to read but I needed to hold my Kindle a couple of inches further from my eyes. That was impossible  because the seat back was too close. The tray table, on which I've always been able to rest a book and see it well, also was too close. It's also a joke to say the seats "recline." If they move 5 or 6 degrees, I'd be surprised.

I could have gotten a seat with a bit more room, but that would have cost over $50, at least for some categories. A multiplcity of categories of seats now exist for we coach passengers; the airline geniuses, taking their cue from the Wall St. geniuses, slide and dice the inventory to create prices for newly optional services--like being able to read.

It all got me to wondering just how far this  airline industry will go in their effort to squeeze every bit of profit from their customers. With mergers leading to fewer competitors, there's little incentive to do anything but squeeze us tighter and tighter. So, even though I do think it's time for some minimum standards for seating--don't large people have a right to fly for coach prices?--John McCain lawmakers are as likely to back any bit of government regulation as I am to go sky diving.  So folks, get ready to stand up.

Free To Buy Ineffective, Dangerous Supplements

As they did back in the 90s, the manufacturers of dietary supplements are revving up to protect their multi-billion dollar market from regulation, and they're getting help from liberals and libertarians who seem blind to how they are being manipulated.

It's sad. Clinging to the idea that government regulation is bad, bad, bad, champions of freedom are actually arguing that the public should continue to have the right to waste money on ineffective and possibly dangerous dietary supplements. In a response to my inquiry, the folks behind The Pen--who didn't bother to sign their names--actually equated Americans' right to privacy from government spying on our phone calls, etc., with the freedom to buy dietary supplements that have never been tested for effectiveness or safety.

Hello? Can't you tell when you're being used? Why should for-profit manufacturers be free to put anything on the market without first testing it for safety and effectiveness? Why should we trust these manufacturers any more than we trust auto manufacturers, or for that matter, drug manufacturers? Why do you trust them, you unnamed folks at The Pen? Because you believe, in the absence of any reliable reporting system, that no one died from using a supplement in 2008? (That is their primary argument.) Manufacturers right now aren't even required to register their existence, provide information on exactly what is in their products, or adhere to specific formulations for products so buyers can be sure about what's in those pills.

As I pointed out in my last blog, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe. Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Health Research Group, offers the example of St. John's Wort. This plant, he says is pharmacologically active, just like a drug, and interacts with hundreds of other substances.

Under the 1994 legislation that unleashed the supplement industry from almost all regulation, the FDA has such weak authority that it has been able to ban only one supplement--ephedra--and instead has issued only warnings about comfrey and kava kava, both associated with liver toxicity, for example.

Sen. John McCain, ironically, is being vilified for proposing a bill that would only slightly improve regulation of supplements. This is all part of the right-wing effort to whip up opposition to someone who is not considered conservative enough. Read it yourself. You'll see there's nothing there to warrant the conclusion that anyone's trying to take away your vitamins.

Dr. Wolfe calls the proposal "a step forward" but adds that "80% of what's wrong with supplement regulation will still be wrong even if this bill passes."

What's wrong is that manufacturers, under this bill, would only have to prove the safety of new ingredients. All the ones already out there get "grandfathered" in. And, they need not prove effectiveness. As long as they don't make an actual claim of curing disease--which would then tip the product into the category of a drug--they can just imply it, saying things like "promotes prostate health" or "supports cardiovascular health."

So folks worried about their prostate or heart spend hundreds and thousands of dollars a year on these products, with no proof at all that they'll make any difference at all to their health.

We're babes in the woods when we approach the crowded shelves of supplements. We need help to figure out how to wisely spend our hard-earned money. Sure, the FDA has proven itself susceptible to political and corporate pressure. But let's focus on improving their performance instead of inflaming people with the false notion that someone is trying to take away their vitamins.

Shame on anyone who promotes that point of view.

Liberal Group "The Pen" Wrong on Supplement Bill

I'm on the mailing list for the liberal-leaning organization, The Pen, which also uses the name "The Peace Team" on a web page devoted to causes like impeaching George Bush. I usually find I agree with their stance, so I was quite surprised to see their attack on legislation that would require proof of safety before manufacturers could add a new ingredient to a dietary supplement.

The Pen's email starts with this alarmist and outrageous subject line: Big Pharma Is Trying To Kill Us By Trying To Outlaw Natural Food Supplements.

The message then opens with this far-fetched comparison: "It wasn't enough for Congress to kill off the public option. Now they want to kill us directly by trying to outlaw nutritious food supplements."

Wow. First blame Big Pharma, and then link the failure to legislate a public health insurance option with outlawing DANGEROUS food supplements.

Because that's what the bill would do: first, by requiring supplement manufacturers to have evidence that a new dietary ingredient "will reasonably be expected to be safe," and second, by giving the FDA power to recall supplements that "would cause serious, adverse health consequences or death."

The people behind The Pen seem to have forgotten about ephedra. That's the supplement that was a real favorite of athletes. In 2004, the RAND Corporation's Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center reviewed 16,000 reports of adverse reactions to ephedra. It blamed the supplement for 2 deaths, 4 heart attacks, 9 strokes, 1 seizure and 5 cases of adverse psychiatric episodes.

Don't trust RAND? How about the Public Citizen Health Research Group, which is hated by Big Pharma, Big Insurance and corporate America in general. Director Sidney Wolfe, M.D. says 155 people died from using ephedra, and he castigated the FDA for not acting sooner to ban sales of the substance.

Remember, just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe. The active ingredient in ephedra is ephedrine, which when chemically synthesized is regulated as a drug--and therefore can't be sold unless it is safe and effective for the specified use.

I emailed The Pen to find out if they had any facts to back up their accusations about this legislation. Let's see if they respond.

Right now, everyone should be supporting this proposal, even if one of the two main sponsors is Senator John McCain. Nobody's wrong all the time! And liberals aren't necessarily right--not if they ignore the facts!

McCain Wrong on Head Start

John McCain's nose grew a bit longer last night during the final presidential debate as he continued trying to tar Barack Obama with the same tired accusations. But he also managed to get in a new falsehood: that Head Start is a failure.

McCain asserted that by the third grade, the advantages bestowed by the pre-kindergarten program disappear, leaving the children with no long-term benefit. f

Well, that study was done in 1969, only four years after Head Start began. Since then, its methodology has been criticized as flawed, according to The National Head Start Association.

Newer studies since then have found solid evidence that Head Start is most worthwhile.

That doesn't surprise me. I worked as an assistant teacher back in the early days of Head Start while I was still in college. The children in my class had health problems that I or the teacher noticed; we reported them and the children got the care they needed. We read to the children, did crafts with them, played with them, and exposed them to the larger world. We gave them the kind of coaching and attention that their parents were either too overworked or under-educated to provide.

Studies in 2003 and 2007 that McCain didn't mention found that Head Start children have higher achievement test scores and higher graduation rates than children who did not take part. Furthermore, a 2004 study projected that for every $1 spent on Head Start, society received $9 in benefits including increased earnings for the graduates, decreased dependency on welfare, and fewer children repeating grades and needing special education services.

When I had my own children, I realized how much of a head start affluent children have. One of my sons began struggling with school in the second grade despite having a high IQ revealed by tests. The school seemed unable to deal with his situation, so I had him privately evaluated. It turned out he had a visual problem that made it very difficult for him to put down on paper what he saw on a blackboard. 

Two months of occupational therapy changed him from an unhappy school child to an enthusiastic one who thereafter had consistently good grades. Among the simple tools that the therapist introduced were chunky pencils that he could hold more easily. 

Every child should have not only a Head Start program if they need one, but also screening for learning problems such as my son had. Investing in early childhood programs and screening pays dividends later, and not only in dollars. 

Imagine how much parental stress and childhood anguish would be avoided if all children received the help they need early in life.

What were you thinking, John McCain?

Who said being a citizen is easy?

I usually blog about newsworthy issues like liquid natural gas and offshore drilling. But not today. Here we are in the  final weeks of what seems like the most important national election of my lifetime, and people in my circle of friends are complaining that the political competition is tiring them out, confusing, or boring.

Usually they finish their complaint by asserting that it doesn't matter anyway, that whoever wins, it won't make a difference. 

I'm here to say, suck it up and stop copping out.

No one ever said it was easy being a citizen. 

Of course, no one ever really instructs us in what's expected of citizens of this great country. We take for granted that we not only get to vote, but also to write, phone, email our representatives if we so choose. Likewise, our ability to run for office, or, unwilling to take on the job ourselves, to support candidates we favor with our money and time. We even get to engage in public demonstrations--sometimes, these days fenced in by hostile police, sometimes beaten or arrested, but at least there's always an outcry when that happens and some resolution of the matter later on.

For comparison, just ask the people of China what it's like not to have the freedoms we citizens of America take so lightly. Start with the Chinese citizens who applied for permits to protest during the Olympics, and got arrested for just asking. Or the people of Myanmar, better known to us as Burma, where even outside aide to tsunami victims was blocked by the military government. I could go on...and on, but you get my point.

With Wall Street collapsing while the top executives walk away unscathed, with health care out of reach for so many, with our infrastructure falling down, a ruinous war still in progress, now is the time to make being a citizen a top priority in our lives. Above watching our favorite sports teams, tuning in reality shows, getting our nails done, shining the car, and any of the other optional diversions on which we spend time.

Now is the time to bother to listen carefully to the competing claims, and anyone who does look at the platforms of the Republicans versus the Democrats, or at Obama's resume and positions versus McCain's, will find it impossible to claim both will bring about the same future. Who gets elected matters, and I don't just mean who gets to be president, but who gets into the Senate and House of Representatives.

Inform yourself and then use the tools we have as citizens. Donate money to your favored candidates. Could be the best investment you'll ever make, one that might actually protect your portfolio and the Social Security benefits you hope will be there when you need them. Stop avoiding political discussions with your friends (how many times have I heard people stop conversations with the flat assertion--I never talk politics? Well, why not?) Such discussions help us clarify our thinking.

If you feel strongly, go make phone calls to voters in other states or otherwise assist in the campaigns. Or, go help with a voter registration effort.

Give it a try. You just might discover that this reality show has all the others beat.

 

TV News Misleads About Offshore Drilling

Recent polls show that 51% of Americans believe that opening up coastal areas to offshore drilling would significantly lower gasoline prices. But the U.S. government agency that reports data on energy issues says it's not so, that the impact of new drilling would be minimal.

So how come so many Americans think otherwise? They heard it on TV,  in the mouths of their favorite newscasters.

 A study of transcripts of 267 news programs between June 16 and August 9 found that only one--that's right, just one-- bothered to mention that the Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicts that increased offshore drilling would have no significant effect on oil prices. At peak production in 20 years, the new wells would yield 200,000 barrels a day, two-tenths of one percent of world production.

The study of the newscasts was done by the Center for Economic & Policy Research, an independent, non-partisan think tank whose advisory board includes Nobel Laureate economists.

So what's going on here? Nothing less than an abdication of journalistic responsibility.

Reporting on the government prediction would have meant contradicting assertions by Republican presidential candidate John McCain that we urgently need to risk our coastal environment for the sake of more oil.  CNN, for example, mentioned the proposed drilling 139 times, but only once also bothered to mention the EIA forecast. None of the other broadcasts studied--ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, etc.--ever referred to it at all. 

Neither did Fox News, behind only CNN with 86 reports on the proposed drilling.

These newscasts treated the issue as simply open to opinion because the falsehood about the benefits of new drilling came out of the mouth of a man running for president. To have knocked him down would have incurred the wrath of Republican leaders with ready access to the owners of the major media. Rather than take any heat that might have come, the editors and anchors of these broadcasts simply sat on their microphones.

Remember that the EIA is like the Labor Department and the Federal Reserve, an agency that is non-partisan and whose mission is to gather information for everyone's benefit, including corporations. This is one of the legitimate reasons why we pay taxes, folks, so armies of bureaucrats can go out and collect data. We don't guess about the employment or inflation rates, and we certainly listen to the economic forecasts from agencies like the Federal Reserve. Energy forecasts are no different. 

It bears repeating that the most important function of the media is to provide the public with the information we need  to be engaged in the running of our democracy. That's why the founders of our country enshrined freedom of the press in the First Amendment. Shame on the TV newscasts for failing us so badly.