I had a big travel hassle this morning, and it had nothing to do with the Thanksgiving holiday crush.  I had to go to LA for a meeting of the California Firearms Strategy Group.  My ride was leaving LA Airport for the meeting at 9:30 a.m.

Usually, I take a 2 hour bus ride from Santa Rosa to Oakland or San Francisco Airports to catch a flight.  It's not so bad going down, but coming home is a bother because the bus doesn't run frequently, and if you miss it, you have to wait a good while for the next bus, then travel two hours to get home.  So, I decided to be smart and take Horizon Airlines (part of Alaska Airlines) from Santa Rosa to LA and back.

That turned out to be a disaster.  When I got to the airport, boarding pass in hand, at 5:30 a.m. for my 6:00 a.m. flight, I discovered the flight -- for weather reasons -- had been cancelled.  Of course, the airline, which had my phone number, never called me (or several other passengers at the airport) to let me know of the cancellation.   No email either.  And there were no other connections through Oakland or San Francisco that would have gotten me to LA in time for my appointment.

I ran out to get my husband who had dropped me off at the airport and saw our car being driven away.  I yelled at Jim but he didn't hear me.  I came back into the airport and asked for a taxi which Horizon ordered.  I then learned I would have to pay for the taxi myself -- an additional 35 dollars.  Fortunately, Jim was willing to come back for me.

I then asked for my ticket refund and was told I had a nonrefundable ticket.  I was incredulous that an airline wouldn't refund a ticket -- even a nonrefundable ticket -- if THEY cancel the flight.  I was told I could use the ticket to go on other Alaska Airlines flights, for example, I could make a trip to Alaska.  I stared at the ticket agent incredulously.  Who, after Sarah Palin and Ted Stevens, would ever want to go to Alaska?

I threatened to write a letter to the local paper, to send out an email to all my Santa Rosa contacts, to blog, for God's sake, about the despicable behavior of Alaska Airlines.  At that point, the agent gave me a phone number for Customer Relations in Seattle.

I called the phone number and got a recording informing me that my nonrefundable ticket could be used on a different flight for up to a year, BUT there was a $75 charge for transferring to a different flight.  I was enraged but held on long enough to finally get a real person to hear my complaint.  

Jillian from Customer Relations was pleasant.  I asked her why no one had called me.  She told me the flight was cancelled at ten p.m. in the evening and people don't like to be called that late.  I was dumbfounded.  Wouldn't someone having to get up at 5 a.m. for a flight want to know at any hour that the flight had been cancelled?

Next, Jillian informed me that the airport agent was incorrect -- I could get a refund in the event a flight was cancelled for weather reasons.  She promised to call the airport and let them know they were giving out incorrect information.  Let's wait and see if I get my refund.

What is the moral of the story?  Domestic airlines will screw you any way they can.  If you scream loud enough -- even threaten to blog -- you might possibly get your problem resolved.

Should I also conclude it's time to give up on travel?  I just can't do that.  I LOVE to travel.  My solution, temporarily, will be to fly foreign airlines as much as possible.  I'm sure they have their problems, but they can't be anywhere as bad as U.S. domestic airlines.

Happy holiday travell!!!

For a long time, the National Rifle Association has perpetuated the myth that it plays an unbeatable role in U.S. elections through its endorsement of gun-friendly candidates and financial contributions to their campaigns.

The NRA announced, prior to the election, that 2008 was "arguably the most important year" in its 137 year history.  It predicted that Barack Obama, who was endorsed by the Brady Campaign, would be the most anti-gun president in American history.  It endorsed its own preferred candidates for the House and Senate (rated "A" by the NRA) and it opposed Brady-endorsed candidates.

What Actually Happened?

The NRA myth was debunked this year, as in previous years, by the success of candidates who support sensible gun laws and who were endosed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Presidency:  Obama/Biden beat McCain/Palin by 52 to 46 percent and won in many states where there are large proportions of gun-owners such as Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.  In the 13 states where the NRA ran ads related to the presidential election, Obama/Biden won in 11.  The NRA spent $6.9 million on its ads, a healthy loss for its lobbying budget.

Senate: 100 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.  In head-on contests between Brady-endorsed candidates and NRA-endorsed candidates, Brady candidates won 100 percent of the seats.  

House of Representatives: 90 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.  In head-on contests between Brady-endorsed candidates and NRA-endorsed candidates, Brady candidates won 84 percent of the seats.  

State Races: in Senate races, 95 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.  In House/Assembly races, 90 percent of the candidates endorsed by Brady won.

Disappearance of the Single Issue Gun Voter

A large part of the NRA's past claim to fame has been that NRA supporters are single issue voters who vote solely on the basis of candidates' positions on guns.  There was no evidence of single-issue gun voting in 2008, or even in 2006, a non-presidential election year.

What Does This All Mean?

First, it means, based on Brady election victories, that the next couple of years should be good ones for passing sensible gun laws.  A first step would be to close the gun show loophole which allows gun purchasers in some states to buy guns at gun shows without going through a background check.  A second step would be banning the sale of assault weapons.  Such a ban was in effect for ten years but when the law expired, the Bush Administration opposed its renewal.  A third step would be to prohibit people on terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.  All of these measures have the support of more than 75 percent of the U.S. population.

Second, it means politicians should stop running scared of the NRA.  They can safely join forces for passage pf laws that will prevent gun violence without worrying about negative political consequences.  Let's challenge them to do so.

Please get out there and share the news -- it's time to dispel the NRA myth forever.

P.S.  I am not an unbiased blogger.  I was just selected as the President of the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, so you can expect many more blogs on the subject of guns.

I'm still basking in the glory of Election Day.  Although we may feel exhilarated, relieved, optimistic, I bet none of us ever wants to go through another 22 month election campaign.  American campaigns are too long, expensive, repetitive, nasty, and ultimately, boring.

I have a proposal for a new electoral system and would love to hear from readers with their ideas.  I present my thoughts below, fully recognizing that vested interests in the existing system will try to resist anything that smnacks of major reform!

National Primary

Our nominating system is archaic, ridiculously long and expensive, and anticlimactic since presidential candidates are determined before the conventions.  My system would:

Start the primary season on March 1 of election year
Legitimate candidates would have to be nominated by 10 state political parties that could make five choices each (this is to narrow the field to serious contenders)
Hold two debates for legitimate candidates -- one on domestic issues and one on foreign policy -- before the primary vote.
Terminate the nominating process with a nationwide vote on June 1.
Allow only party members to vote in the primary.  -- If Independents want to vote in the national primary, they'll have to register in a party .  (They can return to Independent status after the election but not after the primary.  This would hopefully keep party members from switching to the other party to influence primary results.)

I haven't quite figured out what to do about small parties -- any suggestions?

One-Day Conventions

There is nothing more boring and expensive than our national conventions.  Here's my proposal:

Each party would have a one-day convention on consecutive days -- June 15 and 16 -- in which the Vice Presidential candidate is announced and the Presidential candidate is presented to the country.
Party platforms would be worked out before the convention and voted on at the convention.

Election Campaign

The election campaign would run from June 2 to the first SUNDAY in November.
Three debates would be held -- one on domestic issues, one on foreign policy, and one town hall-type meeting.
Early voting would be allowed for two weeks prior to the election by mail or ballots completed at designated  election offices.

Eliminate the Electoral College

The President will be elected by popular vote.

Paying for the Election

All federal candidates -- presidential and congressional -- would be offered government funding or the option of raising their own funds, but not spending more than twice the government allocation.
Individuals would have a total contribution limit which would include contributions to candidates and parties.
All federal candidates would be given a specified amount of time for commercials.  They would not be allowed more time.

Again, I can't figure out what to do about small parties -- ideas?

Opposition to My Proposal

Who won't like it?

The states with early primaries that love being first.  The parties will like some of the proposal since they still play a role in the election, but they'll hate the limit on contributions to parties.  The small states will hate losing the Electoral College.  The small parties are left dangling until we figure out what to do.

While my proposal is good for the voters and candidates and pretty good for the major parties, the other "small" interests in the U.S. will be incensed.  As someone from the biggest state, I'm not that sympathetic!

I have had a hard time in the last few weeks deciding whether I am voting Democratic based on positive feelings for Obama/Biden or negative feelings for McCain/Palin. I've also wondered how the rest of the electorate feels.  Fortunately, I have just seen a poll by Hart/Newhouse, done on October 17, 2008, for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, that helps me figure out where others are.

Rethinking Bush

Before getting to the 2008 choice, the electorate is truly negative (at last) about the Bush Administration.  Of course, we knew that, but look at the numbers -- a comparison of today versus Bush's high after September 11, 2001.

    -- On the question of whether Bush is headed in the right direction or off on the wrong track, 78 percent said he was off on the wrong track (compared to 11 percent in Sept., 2001)
    -- On the job Bush is doing, 66 percent disapproval today (versus 7 percent in Sept., 2001)
    -- On Bush's handling of the economy, it was even worse -- 75 percent disapproval today (versus 25 percent in Sept., 2001)

Oddly, the Congress comes in for an even worse rating, with a 79 percent disapproval rating today.

Feelings Toward Candidates and Parties

Respondents were asked to rate their feelings today toward Bush, McCain, Obama, Biden, Palin, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.  I'm providing only the extremes -- very positive or very negative.

                                          Very Positive  Very Negative

Bush                                          11                 45
McCain                                       19                 21
Obama                                       37                23
Biden                                         28                 14
Palin                                          23                 34
Democratic Party                         16                 21
Republican Party                         11                 25

What do these results tell us?  Twice as many people are very positive about Obama versus McCain; about equal numbers are very negative about the two.  Biden is slightly ahead of Palin in positives; Palin is way ahead of Biden in negatives.  Finally.  Neither party is well-loved, but the Democrats are doing slightly better than the Republicans.

Or, to put it simply, Obama has been a strong positive, Palin a strong negative.

How People Will Vote -- The Impact of Negative Campaigning

As of October 17, 2008, 51 percent of respondents respond that they will vote for Obama, 41 percent, for McCain (about 1 percent are leaning toward either Obama or McCain, 4 percent still undecided, and the rest will vote for other candidates).

Given that Obama elicits much stronger positive feelings than McCain, why isn't his vote lead any higher than 51 percent?  Are voters, who have already decided, voting more FOR one candidate or AGAINST another?
    Among McCain voters,  FOR McCain     46       AGAINST  Obama  27
    Among Obama voters,  FOR Obama    67       AGAINST McCain     8

The FOR Obama and AGAINST Obama are both higher than for McCain.  The FOR Obama is clearly a response to his charisma, youth, message of change.  The AGAINST Obama reveals either racism or the impact of negative campaigning by McCain's campaign.  (I suspect negative campaigning is having more of an effect than racism.  A scary number of voters I canvassed in Nevada told me Obama was a Muslim or terrorist.)

For that reason -- McCain's negative campaigning -- more than any other, I, unlike most other voters, am voting more AGAINST McCain than FOR Obama (although I remain incredibly positive about Obama).