Where's the Outrage?

I am a naturally cynical person. My personal mottoes are not of the "Today is the first day of the rest of your life" variety but more like "No good deed goes unpunished" or "Hope for the best; expect the worst." This attitude shields me from some of the dismay I might feel regarding so many current events. Yet occasionally there are news items that raise my dander beyond the point of my simply sighing and rolling my eyes. Two of them occurred within the past week.

The first was at an NRA convention that hosted Republican leaders, including McCain and some of his also-rans. Of McCain's flip-flopping on issues to woo renegade conservatives I have little comment; it is to be expected. What was not were the comments made by Mike Huckabee, that creationist nudnik who so charmed the media early this year with his maverick down-home manner. Taking the podium, he was interrupted by a banging noise off-stage. His remark was "That must have been Barack Obama jumping off his chair, when someone aimed a gun at him."

There was a smattering of nervous laughter but Old Home Boy Mike realized that he had said something that was beyond the pale, for any election anywhere. To joke about an opposing candidate being shot at is awful enough, but given the special circumstances of Barack's candidacy, and our own fears that he could well be the target of a racist assassin, the quote was beyond belief. This was far more offensive to me than Eliot Spitzer's bawdy behavior, but will Huckabee step down from his post? Unlikely. Unless, as is his wont, he gets nominated for Vice President. Then, perhaps, he'll also be crossing his fingers that McCain gets blasted too.

The media made some comment about it, but spent just as much time tsk-tsking Obama for calling a journalist "Sweetie", in an offhand hurried reference. To be fair, Huckabee rather quickly issued an apology, saying he meant no ill will. Well, the wish is father to the sport and all, and this crack should utterly disqualify him from serious consideration of a national position. We've had enough bad judgment and gun-toting the past eight years.

Yet my outrage has been stoked once again by the announcement--front page news in fact--by American Airlines that they are going to charge $15 for every first piece of luggage that has to be checked. Okay, I understand that the airlines have been financially drained by high fuel costs and competitive pricing, and have gradually reduced all amenities. Losing the airline dinner was not a tragedy; having to pay for sandwiches on the plane was no more inconvenient or costly than purchasing in the airport. Paying for aisle seats and extra baggage is almost understandable. But this recent announcement seems simply beyond the pale. Can I afford to pay the extra fifteen dollars? Yes, if I am flying on a discounted rate anyway. But that is hardly the point. This is a gross insult to the loyalty of the American flying public.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to raise the cost of flights by $15? That would have been much easier to digest. But now, aside from the annoyance of having to fork out $15 at the check-in counter, more passengers than ever will try to sneak their luggage on-board, already filling up the overhead bins beyond tolerance, moving more baggage down to seat level, squeezing us in more as the foot room is gradually decreased as well. Besides that, there will be a cascade of delays along all the burdensome airline queues, the ones at security, where more bags will be inspected, at the counter where passengers must pay their baggage fee, and of course on the plane itself as the bags get moved around. It will be a jarring total mess.

The other airlines have yet to respond to American's announcement, perhaps waiting to see the fallout. If the publicity is serious enough, American could lose a larger share of the market, and the other airlines can benefit. If they decide to go adopt the same policy, than we all lose, including the airline industry, which will see its own decline because of all the disgruntled riders. I am hopeful that the disgusted public response could lead to the de facto boycott of American Airlines, and the subsequent reconsideration of these demeaning restrictions on passenger comfort. If not, then maybe the only winner will be Amtrak.

David vs. David

If all's right with the Universe (OK, it never is, but it's an expression), then after tomorrow's vote is revealed on the Fox TV bulwark "American Idol" the two remaining candidates for this year's title will be whom the commentators call "The Two Davids," the wunderkind Mormon mestizo Archuleta and the tousled aw-shucks rocker Cook.

Full disclosure--I don't give a damn, and I realize that the honoree will be a brief historic flash-in-the-pan, much like the winner of this season's "Survivor." (Parvati? Give me a fucking break.) But the contest between the two Davids has been the ongoing drama 0f this year's strike-truncated TV season, their faces have been splattered across all the entertainment mags and more votes have been cast for them than in the Presidential primaries. More about that in a bit.

Setting aside easy prejudices, and focusing on the choice, as though it were important, the decision is not an easy one. These are two talented kids with totally different styles. Archuleta has a velvet Paul Anka appeal, and David Cook is an approachable, dedicated rocker. Archie is likely to win because the tweeny girl will vote en masse for him, and he should pick up the majority of votes lately cast for the other tweener favorite, the haplessly dumb Jason Castro. But both Davids will do well for themselves, and the choice boils down to two very strong candidates. If someone votes for Archuleta, it's not indicative of the weakness of Cook; and vice versa.

Now to my point--in this regard, The "American Idol" two-man battle is something of a metaphor for the Democratic Presidential primary season. Like the singing contest, the political race features two very strong candidates, each with a contingent of devoted fans. Both Barack and Hillary are deserving of our respect, despite their occasional gaffes and calculated pandering to the masses. Barack is more like Archuleta, the appealing young hope, and Hillary is the David Cook, more seasoned but less charismatic.

Although Democrats are likely to go with either candidate come November, they are forced to make a choice during the primaries. For some, like me, it was a difficult to favor one or the other. Indeed, I've gone from a Hillary backer to a Barack supporter, but only because I sense the tide of history surging behind one and the weight of the past pulling the other down. But when I voted for Hillary in the primary it was not a rejection of Barack. And when Democratic voters in West Virginia or Oregon or Indiana select Hillary that is not necessarily a vote against Barack or a signal of his weakness--it is an indication of Hillary's strength.

This is why I resent the ongoing commentary of both the media and the last-ditch Hillary fanatics who claim that Barack cannot carry the major states because Hillary fared slightly better than he did. We simply have two very appealing candidates and one of them has to lose.
This is something the Democrats should be celebrating. One David will wear the champion's crown, the other will fare quite successfully in the future. But both deserve to win.