This is why I do crossword puzzles instead of reading the political news half the time
The reliably insufferable Chuck Schumer—a walking, talking argument for term limits if ever there was one*—apparently got his knickers in a twist over a flight attendant who was following FAA regulations this weekend and was, delightfully, overheard by someone else on the plane showing his true ruling-caste arrogance (via Instapundit):
According to a House Republican aide who happened to be seated nearby, the notoriously chatty New York Democrat referred to a flight attendant as a “bitch” after she ordered him to turn off his phone before takeoff.
Schumer and his seatmate, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), were chatting on their phones before takeoff when an announcement indicated that it was time to turn off the phones.
Both senators kept talking.
According to the GOP aide, a flight attendant then approached Schumer and told him the entire plane was waiting on him to shut down his phone.
Schumer asked if he could finish his conversation. When the flight attendant said “no,” Schumer ended his call but continued to argue his case.
He said he was entitled to keep his phone on until the cabin door was closed. The flight attendant said he was obliged to turn it off whenever a flight attendant asked.
…
Through her office, Gillibrand said Schumer was “polite” with the flight attendant Sunday and “turned off his phone when asked to.”
But moments after the flight attendant had told Schumer to shut it off, the phone rang again.
“It’s Harry Reid calling,” the source quoted Schumer as saying. “I guess health care will have to wait until we land.”
It’s unsurprising that someone who sailed from undergrad to law school to the State Assembly to the United States House of Representatives to the United States Senate wouldn’t know this, but all those rules that get made in Washington (or Albany)? Little people working in private industry follow them. To my knowledge, the FAA says it’s the operator of the aircraft that gets to determine whether you’re allowed to use your “portable electronic device,” no matter what health-care shenanigans you and Harry Reid are brainstorming over at the time. As always, these people need to be reminded that they work for us. Eric has it exactly right:
First, we have one of the quintessential champions of massive federal power — a guy whose daily existence consists of figuring out new ways to tell people what to do and how to run their lives — demonstrating for all the world that he does not think the rules should apply to him. It would difficult to find a better example of the pure arrogance of power.
Second, there’s the rudeness issue.
Yeah, from the Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, no less. Cad.
Amy Alkon also identifies what exactly it is that Schumer probably “regrets.” (Hint: It’s not his unseemly behavior.)
* And he’s only on his second senate term, I think.
*******
Also via Instapundit (and Ace of Spades), another mask-slip, this one alerting AndrewSullivan.com readers to the fact that Sullivan himself doesn’t post everything that appears on the site:
As always [writes Patrick Appel], it a pleasure to step in while Andrew gets some much needed rest. Guest-blogging is not all that different than my day-to-day activities on the Dish – 24 of the 50 posts currently on the front page were written by me. All the substantive posts are Andrew’s work, but it’s my and Chris’s job to read through the blogosphere and pick out the choicest bits. Andrew edits, approves, and spins what we find, but the illusion of an all-reading blogger is maintained by employing two extra sets of eyes.
Appel seems puzzled that some readers were taken aback at this revelation, but I’m not sure why. Even he referred to it as “the illusion of an all-reading blogger,” which is a pretty candid acknowledgment that there’s a false front being maintained. In real terms, I doubt it matters very much; it’s been clear for years that Sullivan considers himself a marketable brand, so I don’t see why he shouldn’t have a Sullivan-branded website that others help him maintain. But considering how quick Sullivan (assuming he wrote the posts I’m thinking of—what qualifies as “substantive” over there is clearly a matter of opinion) is to label other people liars, evaders, and what-not, I’d say it behooves him to set us all an example of the transparency he so histrionically professes to hold dear.
Also, can we please not hear any more about Sullivan’s juices, cerebral or otherwise?
And that excuse about the bylines? (“We tried bylines once and it made the blog read funny. […] Bylines would fracture the solitary voice of the blog.”) Bilge of the lowest quality. If Sullivan or his marinatee thinks he’s going to put it over on us that a 9-point byline tucked under a 13.5-point, bold, color title line is altering the flow of the blog, he has even more contempt for his audience than I thought. Boo.