Month: February 2020

Here’s an easy, guaranteed way to save $200 and the best part is, you don’t have to do anything.

It’s what you’re not going to do that will save you that $200:

Don’t do this:

No, this is not the first settlement of humans on the moon.

It’s Dinner with a View, or DWAV, and those in the know call it.

DWAV is San Diego’s latest pop-up dining experience – excuse me, experiential dining event – and was deemed “Instagram-worthy” by the San Diego Union-Tribune.

And not only “Instagram-worthy,” but “Instagram-worthy luxury event” and “Instagram story dream come true.”

The article sounded more like an ad for Instagram than a restaurant review.

As does the DWAV website:

“…opportunities to capture that perfect photograph…a wondrous environment perfect for sharing via social…

Here’s what happened.

DWAV sent a bunch of worker bees to a location in San Diego (above) to hand-assemble 36 domes – excuse me, dining pods – from dozens of Plexiglass-style hexagons.

This is outdoor dining in the dead of winter, and yes, while it is San Diego and temperatures at this time of year can reach the 70s during the day, they can drop to the 30s at night.

And in those chilly temps…

Want a pre-dinner cocktail?  It’s a GYO – Get Your Own – at the outdoor bar.

Indoor bathrooms, the reviewer assures us, “are happily close,” which could be anything from a few steps away to a trip over the river and through the woods.

Thus, the reviewer recommends “cold-weather clothing and shoes”:

And, the reviewer assures us, each dining pod has a space heater.

But before you start zipping up your down jacket, you must “book your dome.”

Cost:

That’s right – $200 just to sit in a Plexiglass-style dome, shivering with cold while you eat.  And speaking of eating…

Next:  You pay for your dinner in advance.

Cost:

Next:  You make your meal selection from something I’d never heard of:

A blind menu.

That means you can choose meat, fish or vegan, but you have no idea what you’re ordering, or paying for in advance.

So “meat” could mean a juicy, perfectly cooked ribeye steak, or beef tripe (a cow’s stomach lining) or whatever was left over from last night.

You won’t know until your server serves it.

Same for fish and vegan.

The DWAV website says that beverages are not included, and they mean NONE:

“There will be no complimentary water available.”

Other extras:  Gratuity, taxes, and ticketing/processing.

And, added the reviewer, “the food needs a boost” and “service…was slow.”

As for the “view” in Dining with a View, this “dazzling winter wonderland scene” happened in Toronto:

But in San Diego,

“It’s not quite as romantic at Liberty Station, with the domes set up on a concrete patio behind the Navy’s National Training Center building.”

Yeah, just to the left of the dumpsters.

Your reservation must be for a minimum of four guests, so throw in one round of GYO cocktails and a bottle of wine, and I figure $800+ for you and three others to dine in a dome.

And take a shivering selfie.

Dinner With a View will dissemble its domes on March 9, so you have till then to decide:

$200 shivering selfie…………………………………….or $200 in your pocket?

No one has ever accused Trump of being a student of history.

His numerous mistakes when speaking about historical events and the people involved are legendary.

Like this one on July 4^th in 2019:

Trump said,

“In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York.  Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory.”

This prompted a Twitter storm, including this:

I’ll also point out that the battle of Fort McHenry occurred during the war of 1812, and not the American revolutionary war which took place several decades earlier.

Then there was this gaffe:

During a Black History Month breakfast, after mentioning several African American historical figures Trump said, “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.”

Frederick Douglass, the famed abolitionist, died in 1895.

And another:

“Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War.  He was a very tough person but he had a big heart.  He was really angry that he saw with regard to the Civil War, he said, ‘There’s no reason for this.’”

Jackson died in 1845, 16 years before the Civil War began.

During his recent visit to India, Trump and Melania visited the Taj Mahal, the mausoleum commissioned in 1632 by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan to house the tomb of his favorite wife.

While posing for pictures like this in front of the Taj Mahal:

Trump called the world-famous landmark “truly beautiful” and added this historical fact:

“They named it after my hotel in Atlantic City, you know – the Trump Taj Mahal.”

He then pulled up these images on his phone to compare:

And said, “See?  India made their version white, just like mine, and those pointy things?  Exactly the same.  Their building looks almost as good as mine – almost.  They don’t have the neon, that would add a lot.”

Trump went on to say, “My Trump Taj Mahal is the greatest – not just casino, but greatest building ever built.  Yeah, you can talk about the pyramids and that stuff, but Trump Taj Mahal – hey, when we opened it, I called it ‘the eighth wonder of the world,’ and everybody agreed.

People would come in and say, ‘Donald, your hotel is the eighth wonder of the world.’  Michael Jackson came, and he said, ‘Donald, your hotel is the eighth wonder of the world.’

“So I don’t mind that the nice people of India – and they’re great, these Indians are great, not like those Indian troublemakers we have at home – if the Indians here want to copy my Trump Taj Mahal and steal the name, hey, I won’t even charge them for it.”

Trump added, “I might buy it from them, though.  They tell me they get millions of visitors every year, so they’ve already got the foot traffic, I’d add some neon, restaurants, McDonald’s, badda-boom, badda-bing, you got Trump Taj Mahal Casino India.

“And I promise you, Michael Jackson will come to the opening.”

As the coronavirus continues to spread, many in the world are wringing their hands in anxiety.

At least one group, however, is rubbing its hands in glee:

Airlines.

Says one article:

“United Airlines is facing the impact of suspending its 12 daily flights to China due to steep traffic declines from the coronavirus outbreak.”

I’m sure this is true – United’s flights to China were revenue generators, and that revenue stream has dried up for now.

But instead of taking the hit as a cost of doing business – a temporary cost of doing business – United came up with this solution:

That’s right.

United is raising its checked baggage fee by $5, to $35 for the first checked bag and $45 for the second.

I can just hear the conversation in United’s boardroom, as The Powers That Be were sitting around thinking about their next way to gouge us passengers:

Power #1:  I’m pissed off about the lost China revenue.  That virus thing – what a nuisance.  Suggestions?

Power #2:  How about a new fee?

Power #3:  Well, we’re already charging for carryon bags, checked bags, oversize bags, the bags under your eyes, snacks, drinks, priority seating, priority boarding, seat selection, ticket booking/ changes/cancellations, Wi-Fi, traveling with pets, traveling without pets, runway fees, take-off fees, landing fees, segment fees, and fee fees…

Power #2:  OK, instead of a new fee, how about we just raise a current fee?

Powers #1:  Here, here!  I like the way you think!  We’ll go with checked bags – that’s a guaranteed revenue stream.  Let’s see (shuffling papers) …Yeah, it says here in 2018, our checked baggage revenue was $888.7 million.  So how much do we raise it?

Power #3:  Um…I’m a tad concerned about raising any fees right now.  It will look like we’re sticking it to passengers because we’re losing money on the China flights.

Power #2:  And…your point is?

(Silence…)

Power #1:  OK, then – we’re agreed.  Let’s raise it $5 per bag.  I like nice, round numbers.

Power #3:  May I ask…once the coronavirus has run its course, will we lower the checked bag fee by $5?

(Silence…)

Online articles are predicting that Delta and American will also raise their checked baggage fees.

No coincidence – Delta and American were also flying to China.

But take note – United just announced a clever way to distract us from the flap about fees:

Apparently United has something they call a “rotating selection of complimentary snacks.”  Biscoff cookies were part of that rotation, but now Biscoffs are out and Oreo Thins are in:

“Our complimentary snack options continue to be a hit and we’re always looking for opportunities to introduce new selections,” a spokesperson for the airline said.  “We plan to add Oreo Thins into the mix soon and look forward to the response from our customers.”

United didn’t have to wait long for a response:

The United spokesperson hastened to assure the disgruntled that their beloved Biscoffs would eventually resume their place in the rotation selection.

But as for lowering those raised baggage fees after airlines resume flights to China?

And missing the opportunity to make money off others’ misery?

When I publish a post on this blog, and later find an error in it…

I hate that.

An error in spelling or grammar or punctuation, a typo, a “your” instead of a “you’re,” a “continuously” that should be “continually…”

(And I get that last one wrong continually, which means “something that is frequently occurring but intermittent” vs. continuously, “something that occurs without interruption.”)

I hate it even more when someone else spots an error.

I’m embarrassed and annoyed and even ashamed.

I really aim to make my posts perfect, but my aim is sometimes off.

But now I’ve decided to feel slightly less embarrassed and annoyed and ashamed.

Because I found a WHOPPER of an error in the book I’m reading.

An error so glaring, so obvious, so egregious that at first, I thought I’d misread it.

So I read it again.

And it still said the same thing.

I was flummoxed.

I won’t reveal the book’s author or title, but will say it was published in late 2019 and described as a “a compelling novel.”

The setting:  It’s 1949.  A 19-year-old woman is in a swimming pool.

The error:  She “swam to the metal ladder and with all the grace of Ethel Merman, climbed out of the pool.”

I wondered if this was a joke, or perhaps the author was being sarcastic?

But – no.

The author got it wrong.

And not just the author – the steps in book publishing from author’s hand to bookstore also involve an editor, one or more copy editors, and then the page proofs review by the author and editor and proofreader.

A whole host of people missed the whopper:

The author said, “Ethel Merman,” but meant “Esther Williams.”

Ethel Merman (1908-1984) was an American actress and singer.

Esther Williams (1921-2013) was an American actress and swimmer.

Ethel singing.	Esther swimming.

Williams was famous for her “swimming” movies including Bathing Beauty (1944), Neptune’s Daughter (1949) and Million Dollar Mermaid (1952).  She made non-swimming movies as well, but what she’s most remembered for are those swimming scenes:

Mermen was famous for her voice, described as “big” and “brash” and “powerful.”  She earned the recognition of “undisputed First Lady of the musical comedy stage” and her performances included Annie Get Your Gun (1946), Call Me Madam (1950) and Gypsy (1959).  Merman also made movies, television appearances, and record albums:

So:  They were both popular actresses with long careers.

But Ethel didn’t swim.

And Esther didn’t sing.

Maybe the author associated “swimming” with “Merman” because a merman is the male equivalent of a mermaid?

Or, maybe not.

Either way, that Ethel/Esther error is out there forever.  I suppose the eBook could be corrected, but all those hard copies?

Nope.

I, at least, can open my blog post, click “Edit,” and fix my mistake(s).

And I will do that continually.

I mean, continuously.

I think.

Publication date:  October 2019

Review, short version:  Four roses out of four.

Review, long version:

The last time I reviewed a John Grisham book – The Reckoning – I gave it three out of four skunks.

I also gave three out of four skunks to the Grisham book I reviewed before that:  Camino Island.

So you’d have good reason to wonder why I keep reading John Grisham books.

Here’s the reason:

Grisham’s latest, The Guardians.

Everything’s coming up roses for this one!

Grisham chose a subject I’m hugely interested in – the exoneration of people wrongly imprisoned.

You might have read or seen the stories, like this one:

The length of time wrongly convicted men and women spend in prisons is staggering, and it happens because somewhere, someone along the line from arrest to conviction made a mistake or lied.  Sometimes multiple people make mistakes or lie.  As Grisham puts it,

“This can be a dirty business.  We are forced to deal with witnesses who have lied, police who have fabricated evidence, experts who have misled juries, and prosecutors who have suborned perjury.”

From Grisham’s point of view, there are no mistakes, only lies.

Lies that put innocent people behind bars, many of them on death row.

In The Guardians, the “we” in the above quote is first-person narrator Cullen Post, a lawyer and one of three people that comprise the Guardians, a non-profit committed to freeing the wrongly convicted, or “innocence cases.”  The plot concerns Post investigating a murder and the man, Quincy Miller, convicted for it 22 years ago – 22 years spent in prison for a crime that the Guardians believe Miller didn’t commit.

Post spends his time driving endless miles to talk to cops, snitches, and past witnesses – or trying to talk to them – and dealing with a prosecutor who, according to Post:

“Instead of pursuing the lofty goal of finding the truth and unraveling an injustice, he attacks me because I’m trying to prove him wrong and exonerate and innocent man.”

Post also spends his time meeting with clients in various prisons, his descriptions of which are unfailingly grim:

“Prison is a nightmare for those who deserve it.  For those who don’t, it is a daily struggle to maintain some level of sanity.  For those who suddenly learn that there is proof of their innocence yet they remain locked up, the situation is literally maddening.”

And Post spends a lot of time waiting – for the justice system to work, for juries to vote, for judges to decide:

“Waiting is one of the hazards in this business.  I’ve seen a dozen courts sit on cases involving innocent men as if time doesn’t matter, and I’ve wished a hundred times that some pompous judge could be forced to spend a weekend in jail.  Just three nights, and it would do wonders for his work ethic.”

Grisham weaves a tangled web, but he wrote this book so well that the storyline and multiple characters are easy to follow.  You can’t help but cheer for Post and the Guardians team, and want them to win Quincy Miller’s freedom.

But will they?

And since I believe that Grisham did his homework on this one and knows what he’s talking about – you can’t help but curse our justice system when it allows the innocent to pay for the guilty.

And the guilty free to offend again.

I highly recommend The Guardians.

And I strongly encourage you to get acquainted with the nonprofit organizations that are committed to doing what the Guardians do:  correct the injustice of wrongful convictions that occur in the U.S. Judicial system.

A good place to start is A-JustCause.com, which lists a number of those organizations (click the Affiliates tab on the home page).  You can read some success stories, and maybe donate some money so they can keep doing this important work.

After all, you might need their help one day, just like this innocent man did:

And of course, Trump also tweeted about it:

That was then, and this is now:

And here’s the latest “draining”:

No one can doubt that hate is a growing trend in our country:

Now, even a zoo is getting in on the hate:

Yes, the San Antonio zoo is celebrating Valentine’s Day by inviting you to participate in its first-ever “Cry Me a Cockroach” event.

I’ll let the zoo tell you in its own words:

The live-streaming they’re referring to is just a quick scroll down the page, where for now you see their cockroach cam:

But today – Valentine’s Day – just stay tuned, and you can watch this new and sickening outlet for hate…

As your live cockroach or dead rodent, named after your ex, is devoured by San Antonio Zoo animals:

“OK, kids!  It’s time to watch that horrible, nasty cockroach we named after your daddy get killed and eaten!”

A full-page ad in a newspaper catches the eye.

But this full-page ad in the February 9 San Diego Union-Tribune?

Both eyes:

OK – I should have said my less-than-perfect ad replication, since my scanner couldn’t take it all in, in one pass.

And who could take in all this news?

The Rolling Stones are coming to San Diego!

In fact, their “No Filter Tour” kicks off in San Diego on May 8!

Presale tickets go on sale TODAY, February 12, at 10am, and the take-what’s-left tickets on February 14.

As I marveled at the full-page ad, something else caught my eye:

The Stones’ proudly sole sponsor:

Alliance for Lifetime Income.

There’s just something so ironic about that sponsor:

That the Rolling Stones, now all in their mid-70s, are sponsored by a company whose website states:

Could there be any people less likely to “outlive their retirement income” than the Rolling Stones?

• Mick Jagger 2020 estimated net worth: $300 million
• Keith Richards 2020 estimated net worth: $400 million
• Ronnie Wood 2020 estimated net worth: $100 million
• Charlie Watts 2020 estimated net worth: $170 million

The sponsor, of course, is a nod to the Stones’ concert attendees, many of whose ages may be similar to the Stones’ but whose retirement incomes certainly aren’t.

On the Alliance website, the executive director states,

“With their outstanding success in the 21^st century and creative forward thinking, the Stones have set an example for all of us by reimagining and redefining the exciting future they can create for themselves.”

Back in 1963, when the Stones cut their first single, I’m pretty sure they were not focused on “outstanding success in the 21^st century,” “creative forward thinking” and setting “an example.”

I checked out TicketScalpers.com and No Filter Tour tickets come in lots of prices, but the VIP Front Row Seats tickets are selling for $5,031 each.

And where else would you want to see the Stones except from the front row?

So I say:

Hit that ticket presale at 10am THIS MORNING!

Dust off your tight leather pants and get down with some major Stones attitude!

Spend the money!

And as for outliving your retirement income, well…

I’m a writer, and I find it mostly easy to imagine conversations – for others, and for myself.

Sometimes I imagine having a conversation with a Trump supporter.

And since it’s my imagined conversation, I’ll chose to have it with a male adult Trump supporter.

I’ll call him “Bob.”  Bob has a wife, and they have two teenage daughters.

Here goes:

Me:  Bob, you’re a Trump supporter, correct?

Bob:  Yes, I voted for Trump in 2016 and I’ll vote for him in November.

Me:  OK.  Now, do you recall, over the past several years, the negative things Trump has said about women?

Bob:  Not particularly.

Me:  Then how about if I recall an example?

Bob:  OK, I guess.

Me:  In 2018, referring to a woman who used to work for him, Trump said she was  “a crazed, crying lowlife” and a “dog.”

Bob:  And…so?

Me:  I was wondering if you’d like it if Trump called your wife a “a crazed, crying lowlife” and a “dog”?  Or your daughters?  Would it be OK if Trump called your daughters “crazed, crying lowlifes” and “dogs”?

Bob:  Oh.  OK, no.

Me:  How about if Trump said this about your wife or daughters:  “Does she have a good body?  No.  Does she have a fat ass?  Absolutely.”  Would that be alright?

Bob:  No.

Me:  OK, Bob, last example.  Suppose Trump said this about your wife or daughters:  “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

Bob (long pause):  Is there a point to this?

Me:  Yes.  I’m wondering why it wouldn’t be OK for Trump to make these statements about your wife and daughters, but you’re fine with him saying these things – and worse – about other women?

Bob:  I didn’t say I was fine with it.

Me:  But you’re going to vote for him, right?

Bob:  Yes.

End of my imaginary – though I think real enough – conversation.

I culled the above Trump insults from this article:

Articles about Trump’s verbal abuse of women are easy to find, like this one:

And this one:

And back in 2017 the Brits got in on the act with this article:

But the Brits are behind the times; just think of all the demeaning things he’s said about women since then – this one, for example:

It’s so obvious to me that Trump is a misogynist:

He hates women.

He likes to fuck women, but he hates women.

What I can’t find are articles that tell me why.

I thought I might find articles written by or quoting experts, but no – it’s widely that accepted no ethical psychiatrist or psychologist would speak publicly about Trump’s mental state, having never had Trump as a patient.

And of course, if they did have Trump as a patient, those conversations would be kept private due to patient/doctor privilege.

So I’ll jump in and offer my opinion on why Trump hates women.

Here she is:

Mary MacLeod Trump, his mother.

Mary grew up poor, crammed into a two-bedroom rented cottage with her parents and 10 siblings.

Homes in the community were considered “indescribably filthy” and characterized by “human wretchedness.”

She had less than a high school education.

But worst of all…

She was an immigrant.

And Trump has made his feelings clear about immigrants:

Mary was poor, Scottish immigrant who spoke English with an accent.  She came to this country in 1929 when she was 17, and worked as a maid before marrying Trump’s father.

A maid.  Sometimes called a “domestic.”  Or, a “servant.”

Trump is ashamed of his mother’s – and therefor his – “lowly” roots.

When you feel ashamed of someone, and because of someone, it can be easy to hate them.

Trump hates his mother.

And he extends that hate to all women.

Oh, I know – he’s been married three times, and considers himself the greatest cocksman of all time…

But he hates women.

I did find one article with a headline that matched my theory – it’s the first image at the top.

The article is thoughtful and well-written, but nowhere is there any mention of Trump’s mother.

So, the author had his theory, and I have mine.

And I’ll stand by my theory.

But…why have a theory?

Why write about “Trump hates women” at all?

Because, come November, I want his female supporters to remember, while he’s courting them for their vote…

He hates them.

And I want Trump’s male supporters to remember that every time Trump demeans a woman…

He’s also talking about their wives…

And their daughters.

When we hear the term “price fixing” it’s usually associated with high-profile items:  prescription drugs, computers, air travel.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) issues a news release like this one:

And this one:

And this one:

Names are named, fines are fined, and sometimes heads – metaphorically – will roll.

So, pharma, airlines, computers – all high profile.

But these guys?

The canned tuna people?  As in, the canned tuna I, and millions of others, have in our cupboards?

The canned tuna that, combined with mayo and celery, is the foundation for my beloved tuna fish sandwiches?

Yes, the very same.

And it turns out, this canned tuna price fixing is very high profile, too.

But, briefly – what is price fixing?  The Federal Trade Commission explains it far better than I could:

Price fixing:  Hurts consumers, and profits the companies doing the price fixing.

Unless they get caught.

And the above-pictured canned tuna companies – Bumble Bee, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea – all got caught.

This hit close to home – my home – both because I’m a canned tuna consumer, and the tuna industry is an integral part of San Diego’s history.  Back in the 1920s, San Diego was known as the “tuna capital of the Pacific.”

By 1940, 95% of packed tuna was canned right here.

In the 1970s, tuna was San Diego’s third-largest industry, employing some 40,000 San Diegans in catching, canning and marketing the product.  Two of the three big tuna canning companies were based here, and the waterfront was home to four canneries and scores of fishing boats.

The industry has mostly vanished, but Bumble Bee is still headquartered in San Diego.  It’s the nation’s largest branded canned seafood company, and a major player in the industry – a 41% U.S. market share for canned albacore and 13% percent of the canned “light meat” tuna market.

Bumble Bee’s U.S. and Canada sales totaled $933 million last year, according to bankruptcy records.

Yes, Bumble Bee filed for bankruptcy in November:

This was part of the fallout from price-fixing charges first brought in 2016:

All three companies were charged with price fixing – “collusion in the seafood packing industry” in government-ese – from at least 2011 to 2013.

Which was followed by this:

And this:

The price-fixing scheme came to light when Chicken of the Sea’s attempt to buy Bumble Bee failed in 2015, according to court records.

Chicken of the Sea executives then alerted federal investigators, and the company received conditional leniency from the Justice Department for its cooperation with the price fixing investigation and didn’t have to pay fines.

At StarKist, Stephen Hodge, a former senior vice president for sales, pleaded guilty in 2017 to price fixing.

In September 2018 a federal judge ordered StarKist to pay a $100 million fine for its role in the collusion.

And Bumble Bee Foods?

Bumble Bee agreed to pay a $25 million fine after pleading guilty to price fixing in 2017.

Two executives at Bumble Bee, Kenneth Worsham and Walter Cameron, pleaded guilty in the price fixing scheme.

The three companies face lawsuits from wholesalers, food service companies and retailers.

And, finally:

Bumble Bee had pleaded guilty; Worsham and Cameron at Bumble Bee had pleaded guilty.

But Bumble Bee former CEO Chris Lischewski apparently decided to take his chances in court – he pleaded not guilty.  (Lischewski had “stepped down from his leadership position” in May 2018.)

According to a 12/1/19 article in the Los Angeles Times, Lischewski was

“a major prosecution target because he was one of the most respected and influential executives in the tuna canning industry.

“And also because, by the government’s reckoning, he was a mastermind of the scheme.”

In early December, Lischewski was convicted in the price-fixing conspiracy by a federal jury in San Francisco:

Lischewski faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $1 million, according to the indictment.  His sentencing is set for April 2020.

Experts say this is likely the final piece of the DOJ probe.

I remember thinking over the years, “These cans of tuna are getting smaller.”

The Los Angeles Times article confirmed this:

“Bumble Bee, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea took several steps to shore up profits.  They shrank the size of their cans without a commensurate price reduction.  The seven-ounce cans that were the standard as recently as the 1980s gave way to six-ounce cans, and a couple of years ago to five-ounce cans.”

But apparently less tuna for the same (or more) cost to consumers wasn’t enough “shoring up” for these guys.

So they added price fixing to their recipe.

I’ll keep using those five-ounce cans to make my sandwich, which takes three ingredients:  tuna, mayo and celery.

This price-fixing conspiracy involved three companies, but required only one ingredient:

Looks like former-CEO-now-felon Lischewski will have plenty of company:

Update:  January 31, 2020:

A “rough few years” for Bumble Bee, indeed.

According to the article,

“Bumble Bee Foods has been sold for $928 million to Taiwan-based FCF Co., after years of legal troubles and bankruptcy for the San Diego-based company.

“Fines and litigation cost Bumble Bee millions of dollars, according to bankruptcy documents, eventually leading it to explore a sale.”

I expect FCF Co. president Max Chou is doing the Happy Dance.

I expect FCF Co. president Max Chou has written a thank-you note to Bumble Bee former-CEO-now-felon Chris Lischewski, “mastermind” of the price-fixing scheme:

If you’ve flown on commercial carriers over the past 10 years and wondered, “Gosh, is this seat smaller and do I have less leg room?”

It is, and you do.

It’s called “high-density seating” and the airlines aren’t bashful about it:

High-density seating means airlines utilize smaller seats in rows that are closer together to allow for more seats.

Bottom line:  More seats = more passengers = more profits.

Here’s just one example.  The Airbus A380 – a very popular commercial aircraft – “has a typical seating capacity of 525, though it is certified for up to 853 passengers.”

If you put 853 people in the same space you’d put 525 people, something’s got to go.

What goes is seat room and leg room.

And we tend to just grin and bear it – well, not grin, but bear it – because we’ve got to get to New York for a meeting or we want to go on vacation to California or seeing the sun rise over Uluru has been on our bucket list for years.

I mention high-density seating for a reason:

This is a miniature horse.  They generally stand between two and three feet tall and weigh between 150 and 250 pounds.

On an airplane, they don’t curl up in a pet carrier like a cat does.  They don’t contort themselves into a small space at their owner’s feet, like a dog does.

But they do produce manure, like any horse does.

In August the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) confirmed that it was okey-dokey for miniature horses to be in all cabins of commercial planes.

I’m guessing no one at DOT involved in this decision ever experienced this:

These are high-density seats 20E and 20F.

You’re in 20F, the window seat, and so glad you paid extra to be adjacent to the bulkhead in front of you.

You have more leg room, and no fool sitting in front of you, about to drop his seatback into your lap for the duration of the 10-hour flight.

Yup, you done good, buying your ticket early.

You hear a bit of a commotion, and see passengers standing up to get a better look at something moving down the aisle.  A few people are taking pictures with their phones.

Then you hear, “Ah.  Here’s our seat – 20E.”

A passenger is talking to a small horse.

A horse.  On your airplane.

The passenger smiles at you and says, “Hi!  This is Parsley.”

The passenger then backs Parsley the horse into the space between the seats and the bulkhead, all the way in, until the horse’s ass is right under the windows.

And right in front of your knees.

Say hello to your seatmates for the next 10 hours.

OK:  I want to be kind, and I want to be fair.

And in my research I learned that miniature horses actually can become effective trained service animals.  According to an article in the 8/17/19 New York Times,

“…guide horses serve as a compelling alternative to guide dogs.  The animals are mild-mannered and fast learners, with nearly 360-degree vision.  They may also offer balance support to individuals with physical disabilities.”

As for ESAs – emotional support animals – I’ve never felt the need for one, so I can’t put myself in the shoes of someone who does.

And we know that there is an abundance of owners who are claiming their animals as “necessary” to their emotional well-being during a flight.  Animals including pigs, lizards, ferrets, squirrels, hamsters, hedgehogs, mice, spiders, turkeys, monkeys, Dexter the peacock, kangaroos, and this…

And we’ve all heard the horror stories, like the ESA dog that injured a child on a Southwest Airlines flight, and the ESA dog that lunged at a seated passenger, attacking his face that leaving him with 28 stitches and a set of scars that may require plastic surgery.

And this story:

And it’s hard to be kind and fair when the flight attendant is walking down the aisle with this, instead of my martini:

Going back to the The New York Times article, it talked about a lady and her trained service animal:

“Mona Ramouni, 39, who is blind, has been traveling with her miniature guide horse, Cali, for the past 10 years.  She has flown from Michigan, where she lives, to New York City and Georgia, among other locations.

“Ms. Ramouni has created a tidy defecation setup for long flights:  When she senses that Cali needs to go, she signals the horse, who then goes into a deodorized bag.”

And if Cali’s butt is parked in front of my knees…

Better make that two martinis.

So the next time I’m on a commercial aircraft and my seatmates include a miniature horse, I’ll stay calm and take a deep breath.  I’ll remind myself about “kind” and “fair.”

And that the horse could be a trained service animal.  If it’s an emotional support animal, I’ll hope that it, too, has been trained.

And when the owner pulls out that deodorized bag, I’ll take another deep breath and…

Update:  January 22, 2020

In mid-January the U.S. Department of Transportation announced that the organization was seeking public comment on proposed amendments to its Air Carrier Access Act regulation on the transportation of service animals by air.

Or, as one flight attendant succinctly put it, “The days of Noah’s Ark in the air are hopefully coming to an end.”

“Noah’s ark,” meaning…

Yes, these are just some of the “emotional support animals” people have brought (or tried to bring) on airplanes.

It’s clear that airline passengers have been abusing the emotional-support-animals-on-planes situation.

According to the ABC News article,

“Southwest Airlines handles more than 190,000 emotional support animals per year.  American Airlines carried 155,790 emotional support animals in 2017, up 48% from 2016, and United Airlines carried 76,000 comfort animals in 2017.

“The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposed changes.  Officials highlighted a few areas where they are most eager to get comments, including whether miniature horses should continue to qualify as service animals.”

So whether or not the above-mentioned Mona Ramouni and others will be able to continue bringing their miniature guide horses on commercial flights is subject to public comment, and then a Department of Transportation decision sometime in March.

I sure don’t know the right answer.

My sympathy is with Ramouni…unless she parks her horse in front of me.

Another article spelled out the proposed changes, if you’re interested in reading them:

• Define a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability.
• No longer consider an emotional support animal to be a service animal.
• Consider a psychiatric service animal to be a service animal and require the same training and treatment of psychiatric service animals as other service animals.
• Allow airlines to require forms developed by the Department of Transportation, attesting to a service animal’s good behavior, certifying the service animal’s good health, and if taking a long flight attesting that the service animal has the ability to either not relieve itself, or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner.
• Allow airlines to require passengers with a disability who are traveling with a service animal to check-in at the airport one hour prior to the travel time required for the general public to ensure sufficient time to process the service animal documentation and observe the animal.
• Require airlines to promptly check-in passengers with service animals who are subject to an advanced check-in process.
• Allow airlines to limit the number of service animals traveling with a single passenger with a disability to two service animals.
• Allow airlines to require a service animal to fit within its handler’s foot space on the aircraft.
• Continue to allow airlines to require that service animals be harnessed, leashed, tethered, or otherwise under the control of its handler.
• Continue to allow airlines to refuse transportation to service animals that exhibit aggressive behavior and that pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others.
• Continue to prohibit airlines from refusing to transport a service animal solely on the basis of breed.

Release date:  September 2019

Review, short version:  Thumbs up for the film, thumbs down for repulsive Roy Cohn.

Review, long version:

I once referred to Roy Cohn as “pond scum,” and the person I was speaking to said, “But you’re insulting pond scum.”

She was right.

Who was Roy Cohn?

That story is told in the documentary Where’s My Roy Cohn? which I’ll recount, briefly:

Roy Cohn (1927-1986) was New York born, became an attorney, and became famous for his roles in the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg espionage trial (1951), and later as Senator Joseph McCarthy’s supportive sidekick in the McCarthy hearings (late 1940s to mid-1950s).

He spent the remainder of his life as an attorney, cozying up with politicians, celebrities, mobsters, shysters and sleazeballs until he was disbarred by the State of New York in 1986.  A few weeks later, he died of complications from AIDS.

When I said, “pond scum,” I was trying to come up with an original description of Cohn that wasn’t included in the film, or in the many reviews that appeared when it debuted.

Here are excerpts from some of the film’s reviewers, and comments from people who knew Cohn, about his psyche, personality, and modus operandi:

“…certain slippery charm, a relish for verbal combat, and what can only be called a passionate disdain for the truth…blatant amorality…”
The New York Times, September 19, 2019

“…tactics that included smearing the enemy, scapegoating the dispossessed, alternately courting and demonizing the press and brazening out any accusations of wrongdoing or mendacity, no matter how well-founded…wherein truth is malleable, relationships are transactional and ethics are strictly for losers.”
Washington Post, September 24, 2019

“a snake, a scoundrel, a new strain of son of a bitch…savage, abrasive and amoral behavior…truculent, unrepentant…sneering, sinister sheen of invulnerability…a braggart of a tax cheat…incorrigibly unethical…

“…couldn’t have given less of a shit about rules…preening and combative, look-at-me lavish and loud…a quintessential hypocrite…an intimidator and a bluffer…he’ll bend the rules to the limit…he will stop at nothing…

“He was roundly, practically fetishistically unapologetic, remorseless, shameless…totally impervious to being insulted…deflect and distract, never give in, never admit fault, lie and attack, lie and attack, publicity no matter what, win no matter what, all underpinned by a deep, prove-me-wrong belief in the power of chaos and fear.”
Politico, September 9, 2019

“…a real-life supervillain…using the cloak of patriotism to disguise his hypocrisy…he was most expert at burnishing his own ego.  Caught in a lie, he’d quickly deny it in his loudest voice…toxic, insidious amorality…”
Rolling Stone, September 19, 2019

“…a person who was in denial about a great many things, including his own capacity for delusion and the harm that he caused to friends, business partners, and the political institutions of the United States…the gutter tactics, including scapegoating and media manipulation…celebrating himself as a ruthless individual who seemed proud of his reputation for manipulation and viciousness…”
RogerEbert.com, September 20, 2019

Why did I take the time to read all these reviews, and excerpt quotes about repulsive Roy Cohn?

Because Cohn left us a legacy:

Cohn was Trump’s Mentor

From the early 70s into the mid-80s, while Cohn was one of Trump’s attorneys, he was the man whom the much-younger Trump chose to admire and emulate.

Let’s go back and read the review excerpts again, especially the words in bold:

“…certain slippery charm, a relish for verbal combat, and what can only be called a passionate disdain for the truth…blatant amorality…”
The New York Times, September 19, 2019

“…tactics that included smearing the enemy, scapegoating the dispossessed, alternately courting and demonizing the press and brazening out any accusations of wrongdoing or mendacity, no matter how well-founded…wherein truth is malleable, relationships are transactional and ethics are strictly for losers.”
Washington Post, September 24, 2019

“a snake, a scoundrel, a new strain of son of a bitch…savage, abrasive and amoral behavior…truculent, unrepentant…sneering, sinister sheen of invulnerability…a braggart of a tax cheat…incorrigibly unethical…

“…couldn’t have given less of a shit about rules…preening and combative, look-at-me lavish and loud…a quintessential hypocrite…an intimidator and a bluffer…he’ll bend the rules to the limit…he will stop at nothing…

“He was roundly, practically fetishistically unapologetic, remorseless, shameless…totally impervious to being insulted…deflect and distract, never give in, never admit fault, lie and attack, lie and attack, publicity no matter what, win no matter what, all underpinned by a deep, prove-me-wrong belief in the power of chaos and fear.”
Politico, September 9, 2019

“…a real-life supervillain…using the cloak of patriotism to disguise his hypocrisy…he was most expert at burnishing his own ego.  Caught in a lie, he’d quickly deny it in his loudest voice…toxic, insidious amorality…”
Rolling Stone, September 19, 2019

“…a person who was in denial about a great many things, including his own capacity for delusion and the harm that he caused to friends, business partners, and the political institutions of the United States…the gutter tactics, including scapegoating and media manipulation…celebrating himself as a ruthless individual who seemed proud of his reputation for manipulation and viciousness…”
RogerEbert.com, September 20, 2019

It’s easy to connect the dots between Cohn and Trump.

It’s so appallingly easy to do.

“Donald calls me 15 to 20 times a day…Donald is my best friend…”
Roy Cohn quoted in Vanity Fair, June 2017