What a load of crap.  The eco nuts are pissing and moaning that American Airlines flew a 777 airliner from the US to London, despite only having 5 people on it.

Plane flies five passengers from US to London

A major airline is under fire from environmentalists for flying an aircraft across the Atlantic with only five passengers on board.

The flight from Chicago to London meant that the plane, a Boeing 777, used 22,000 gallons of fuel.

The latest "eco- scandal" flight took place on February 9 after American was forced to cancel one of its four daily services from Chicago to London.

While it was able to find places for nearly all the passengers on the fully-booked flight, five still had to be accommodated. Those who did fly were upgraded to the business class cabin.

So, to be fair, those five should have been left stranded....

"With such a small passenger load we did consider whether we could cancel the flight and re-accommodate the five remaining passengers on other flights.

"However, this would have left a plane load of west-bound passengers stranded in London Heathrow who were due to fly back to the US on the same aircraft.

And who cares about those people, let them be stranded too.

Look, flying empty like that cost American a hefty price, but bottom line, so what? 

They have a responsibility to their customers and sometimes this happens.  Get over it.

Exit question:  Do the rich liberals in their private jets always fill the empty seats?

Nope, they just buy carbon credits and make Al Gore richer...

What idiots.

 Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Stageleft, Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke Gingrich, Wake Up America, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

OK, this does not make sense to me. 

Obama and Hillary are in a debate and NAFTA comes up as a topic.  Hillary and Obama both agree that they would threaten to pull out of NAFTA unless the environmental labor standards were renegotiated.

OK, not being a huge fan of NAFTA, I would have yawned and move on. 

Next thing we knew, here comes Canada with a memo surfacing in which Obama's economic adviser Austan Goolsbee says something to the effect that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.

In political jargon, that means Obama is lying.

I am a cynic based on years of being lied to, so I am perfectly willing to accept that politicians sometimes employ nuance and other tricks to say one thing and mean something else, to appeal to all people in all things.  It is what it is.  So that was hardly a shock.

No, what surprised me was this reaction by Canada:

Canada says leak was "blatantly unfair" to Obama

Right...how unfair is it to expect that candidates would speak the truth, and that when they are trying to be deceptive, that the people might want to know?

How unfair of us to expect them to be accountable to their words.

The leak of information about Barack Obama's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement was "blatantly unfair" to his campaign, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Wednesday.

Right because if he is lying people might not vote for him.  Distressingly unfair.

Harper said the government was mounting an "internal security investigation" to find out who leaked the information, which suggested Obama's campaign had said not to pay too much attention to his protectionist rhetoric on NAFTA.

OK, my bottom line reaction is What the Hell?

When it comes to voters, elections and all the tricks in that trade, there is little to nothing I will not believe where Democrats are concerned.

Whether it was Al Gore in Florida crying "Every Vote (for me) must count" to Christine Gregiore who won with 1800 illegal votes after recounting until she won.

Now, Hillary has joined Al Gore with the "every vote should count" mantra as she tries to back door the delegates for Florida and Michigan with, of all things, a do-over:

Do-Over in Michigan and Florida?

Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.

The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated.

Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules.

The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all their delegates for holding the primaries too early...

...

Clinton has been insisting that the desires of more than 2 million people who cast Democratic ballots in the two states should be reflected at the convention, which would help her catch up to Obama in the race for convention delegates.

Obama takes a nuanced position:

Obama has said he wants to see the delegates from the two critical swing states participate, too, but not if Clinton is rewarded for victories in boycotted primaries.

OK, here is the ugly truth:  The Democrats can essentially create any dog and pony show they want to select their delegates, or for that matter, their nominee.  It is their party.  They dictate the rules, the procedure and the policies.