It's curious to me that liberals wear their "tolerance" like a badge of honor. To tolerate something is to endure it without repugnance. That is, you can barely put up with it without having to hold your nose or look away.

A modern, softer, political definition of tolerance is "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own." Even it says that if you're tolerant of something you inherently disagree with it.

Tolerance is also defined as "freedom from bigotry." How can someone promote "freedom from bigotry" and practice tolerance at the same time? Bigotry is a practice that most of us abhor, but it seems that we aren't supposed to be tolerant of bigotry. So who gets to choose what is to be tolerated or not tolerated? Apparently the liberals do.

Anyway, what constitutes tolerance? Where do we draw the line between tolerating something that we disagree with and not tolerating it? The race hustlers demonstrated the limits of their tolerance when Don Imus called some women basketball players nappy-headed hos. Why are celebrities forced to apologize when they do or say something stupid? It would be fine with me to just tolerate them. It seems that tolerance is something you practice only when it doesn't really matter to you that much.

Tolerance, like diversity and multiculturalism, is just another empty, meaningless concept that liberals are trying to use to advance their agenda -- which seems to be to destroy the American culture.

---

The Associated Press reports on a brawl involving thirty women in South Los Angeles. They state that "Unique Bishop, 21, fled but turned herself into authorities and was booked for investigation of murder." This raises several questions:

• If Unique now has the power of "authorities" why was she unable to avoid being booked?
• Why did she not choose to turn herself into a bird and fly away?
• Why doesn't the AP do a better job of editing its articles?

Okay, you can probably find a mistake or two in my writings, but I'm just an armature.

---

In a column at FoxNews.com Mike Baker describes a recent airline flight that he took across the country. It seems that the whole process -- getting through security and the flight itself -- was a nightmare. He blames the other passengers as much or more than the airline and the TSA. He asks, "who in their right mind wants to run an airline anymore?" Well, perhaps I do.

I've come up with a way to make air travel less expensive, less irritating and safer. A bonus is that you will always be well rested when you get to your destination. But it will require some rather dramatic changes in our travel habits.

The key to my revolutionary scheme for air travel is that all passengers -- but not the crew -- will be put to sleep for the entire trip. Instead of going through security out in the concourse passengers will enter a private cubicle where they will relinquish all their carry-on items except their wallets and passports, strip down to their underwear, put on airline provided pajamas, and then climb into a casket-like padded capsule where they will be medicated to induce a coma-like sleep. The capsule will then be closed and placed on a conveyer belt that will transport it to the plane. The capsule will be ventilated and connected to the plane's oxygen supply system.

The capsules will be carried on the plane much like bombs are now carried on the big bombers. If there is an emergency and the pilot becomes convinced that he can't save the plane he will be able to release all the capsules and they will drift to earth using their own individual parachutes.

After the capsules are off-loaded and opened at the destination the passengers will be revived, reunited with their carry-on items and clothes and sent on their way well rested and in a good mood.

Money will be saved because (1) there will be no need for in-flight service and all the staff and equipment that it requires, (2) there will be no need for space for flight attendants and passengers to walk around the plane, (3) there will be no need for restrooms, and (4) there will be no need for in-flight entertainment. The weight of the capsules will be offset by the weight of the seats that are no longer needed. The size of the plane needed to carry X number of passengers will be reduced.

If one of my planes is hijacked it will have to be done by a member of the crew. No one in a coma has ever hijacked a plane. If a bomb is carried on- board it will have to be in the luggage or the collected carry-on items which can be thoroughly inspected before they are put on the plane. By definition there will be no profiling of passengers because everyone will be treated alike.

Perhaps the greatest benefit from my scheme though is that you will never again be bothered by another passenger.

Okay, there are a few details that I will have to work out before launching my new airline -- like turning a coma-like state on and off at will without killing a few passengers on each flight -- but you have to admit that it's a great idea. You could wake up on the other side of the country or ocean without even feeling like you were on an airline flight. But you might be a little hungry and thirsty.

As the title of this post suggests, I plan to call my airline Coma-Air. Think that will sell?

---