“Ladies and Gentlemen,” the captains voice crackled through the cabin. “Bad news … our back up hydrolic pump has failed. We are returning to the gate to have it check out.”

At the gate, we were asked to deplane and told it would be 45 minutes or so. After 45 minutes we were told it would be 30 minutes. After 30 minutes we were told it would be another 30 minutes. Then another 30 minutes. Then another 30 minutes.

At 6 o’clock they finally had the plane ready to roll (the flight was originally scheduled to depart at 1PM). BUT WAIT, the crew had timed out. So we waited for a new crew. They gave us drink coupons, but they weren’t redeemable for beer. So I paid $6.50 for a Ziegen Bock just so I wouldn’t lose my mind. At 6:30, I realized there was another flight to NWA at 7PM. I made the switch.

I arrived at 8:30PM. 12 hours after my trip began. I could have driven here that fast. And I wasn’t the only one. A woman sitting next to me had also been delayed for nearly five hours after her plane had experienced equipment trouble. Yikes. Will I ever fly Continental Airlines again. I don’t know, but I’m not looking forward to the return flight.

Original intent arguments have always driven me a little insane. If there were but one founding father, the notion of intent would be problematic to say the least. What about positions taken for political reasons? And can his intent really be taken out of the historical moment and projected onto the future? As it happens we have dozens of so-called “Founding Fathers” each of whom had differing and often conflicting “intents” as to the purpose of the constitution. I understand that it is probably prudent to consider intent when interpreting law, and yet I find it a little absurd. It seems more about justifying an interpretation politically than getting an interpretation right?

I need my lawyer friends to chime in here.

Apparently there was a brawl at one of the games this weekend. Just imagine if we end up in the World Series playing the Sox. There will be blood I’m sure.

Hat tip: Busted Coverage

This decision is along time coming. City-wide gun bans are clear attack on 2nd Amendment rights. Period. Mayor Daley is vowing to “fight” attempts to invalidate the Chicago ban. In doing so he will waste taxpayer dollars and his own credibility.

I’ve never understood why so many are obsessed with gun bans. Ask yourself this, is Chicago safer than it was 32 years ago when it enacted the hand-gun ban? The answer is no. The murder rate peaked in 1992. Obviously there’s no correlation.

I also found it insulting that Daley commented, “Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” The words ooze with paternalism. Clearly, without Daley telling us what we can and cannot own, we’d all run out in the street and start killing one another. Arg.