Statistically the US is far safer today than when you were growing up. And a kid has about a 20x greater chance of being abused by a cop than by a sex offender. And some 200x greater chance of being abused by mom than by a random stranger.
If you listen to the airlines, they have been losing money each and every year since 1947 or thereabouts. Yet they're still around, and their CEOs are making millions in bonuses and salaries. Something tells me that the airlines aren't quite telling the whole truth.
The bad airlines have died and rightfully so. But many of the others are making money, just whining about how hard it is to make money and provide decent service.
I bought and paid for a journey. In the business world, schedules change a lot. I change my itinerary a lot. I fly with airlines that understand that; Alaska and American are good work with in this regard. United is not. If an airline tried to charge me more for providing me less - I paid for 3 flights and I used 2 - how does that work out? What price would they use for the surchage? The price on the day I bought the ticket? The current price? Some other totally made up price?
The problem is that airline pricing is not based on cost, it's based on time of day, marketing, and apparently pixie dust. The airline can't go back and retroactively charge me some arbitrary cost since they can't explain how they arrive at that cost.
You might have a point with "conditions of carriage" but it would be marketing suicide for an airline to try to attempt this.
Much better that they just provide a sane marketing model.
As a frequent traveler, if an airline attempted to do this they would be sued, not just by me but by the millions of business people out there. I buy the ticket for a price. They can't come back and renegotiate the price after the fact.
Especially since the prices change on a day-to-day basis, and bear little to no relationship to actual cost.
Because air line ticket pricing makes no sense. Literally. I fly a lot (as in somewhere around 100K miles a year) and ticket pricing is pretty absurd. A one-way ticket can sometimes cost 3x what a round trip does to the same destination. Flying from my home airport (a small regional destination) can sometimes lower the price of the ticket, even though I fly one extra leg and 100 miles to a major airport.
United is by far the worst of the price abusers; one reason I no longer fly United. The last time I needed to make a route change, they wanted to charge me $250 for the change, and $1200 for the "additional fare". I bought a one-way on American for $350. Of course, walking away from the second leg is "against ticket policy" so as a good drone I was supposed to cough up $1450 to United.
In my experience no other airline gouges its customers as badly as United when it comes to these sorts of policies, so it does not surprise me that they are on this lawsuit. They are also on the bottom of nearly every customer satisfaction survey; maybe the two are related? Anyone at United listening? Hello?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Took long enough. So long that "winning" no longer matters.
I think you have cause and effect backwards. "Liberals" run the schools in the ghettoes because the "conservatives" have all but abandonded the poor. The conservative attitude more and more is "If you're poor, you deserve to die, and don't expect me to lift a finger or spend a penny to help you."
The "conservatives" are all about preserving their own wealth and screwing everyone else.
The reality, however, is that the poor are often conservative white rural folks, who get equally screwed. And there are more rural white poor than urban ghetto poor.
So I stand by my earlier assessment; you have learned shockingly little about how society works.
This way lies feudalism. The rich have the good schools, the poor are uneducated, and the gap will never close, in fact it will only grow. Eventually you have a Dickensian world where the rich live in splendor, and the poor die in the streets, uneducated, unable to rise above their station, because it takes money to run a decent school system.
If you're really "nearing 60 years old" then you have learned shockingly little of how a society works.
Most of your rant aside. Texas is the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to school textbooks. Texas basically dictates the content of most school books, since Texas buys more school books than any other state, and thus imposes its will on the textbook publishers.
And last I checked, with the exception of Austin, most of Texas is definitely not "liberal". You have to wonder when "conservatives" find textbooks whose content is driven by one of the most conservative states too "liberal".
Unfortunately most modern "conservatism" boils down to "I don't like it, it must be liberal, and we all know that liberal is a bad thing."
Seeing as the state has laws that limit the teaching of contraception, do you really think they have a "human sexual health" class in public schools? Unless it's taught at church on Sunday.
OK, so show me one schoolboard that ripped pages out of a book because it didn't conform to a liberal agenda, whatever that is.
The law says:
"... childbirth and adoption as preferred options to elective abortion".
So according to the schoolboard, contraception == abortion.
But GT signed up for this. When I had my small business, we turned down big contracts regularly. You can't have a single client be 90% of your business, because if anything glitches,you're out of business. We would never take on a job that was more than half of our annual revenues, and we only took on one job like that at a time, filling the rest of the calendar with smaller jobs.
And by today's standards he would be a RINO, a carpetbagger, and probably a few other choice words. Let's not forget he raised taxes, let illegals stay, and a whole bunch of other things that are anathema to the current rightwing nutjob movement.
OOPS, 1968. Fat fingers strike again.