EVERYONE should pay for what they consume. Life is not fair. These two facts combine to tell us that deliberately overweight people should pay more for their aeroplane tickets than others. This conclusion becomes important in the wake of the decision of American Airlines to charge all passengers for not the second but the first bag they "choose" to check-in. It is a practice other airlines are adopting.
In years to come – when children are reared knowing all resources are precious and that everything must be accounted for – they will look back on the 21st century with shock and ask: "Are you telling me that other people had to pay when you as an
individual decided to be fat?"
That decision for fatness may not be as explicit as the hand you stick out to stop a taxi, but it is a decision. After all, who could say they had no idea that regime of fried food and no physical exercise might result in them becoming spherical? "Wait! Are you telling me that my consumption of fish suppers and the fact that the only exercise I get is bobbing on the couch in time to celebrity ballroom dancing has contributed to me becoming neither male nor female but merely hippo? How dare you?"
That point is important because most fat people are fat voluntarily. Those who are otherwise need not worry. We are not out to punish anyone with genuine physical disability. What we are about is recognising that you should pay for what you consume. If you don't then other people will have to pay for you – and that's just wrong.
This is an environmental argument more than a personal one. I agree there is nothing worse than sitting in an aeroplane seat with the chubby matter of the person next to you lapping at your shores like the waves of a blubbery lake.
But having someone with atrocious BO, or even a habit of biting their nails in time to the engine whining is an infringement of your personal space. The argument about paying for what you weigh is all to do with right and wrong.
Airline fuel costs are increasing by the week. The heavier the load, the more is consumed. This is why they are now asking us to pay for all checked baggage. Why should someone of "ordinary weight" – and that is pretty easy to define – have to pay the same as someone who has chosen – ie has no definable medical excuse – to weigh twice as much? Airlines are entirely correct in charging for checking-in by weight when it comes to suitcases. This rationality should take the next step and include TOTAL weight per passenger.
So-called discrimination on account of physical attributes is already with us, even when it is "unfair". Those with certain eyesight cannot become fighter pilots, even with contact lenses. Children or adults of a certain size cannot get on amusement park rides. Why should anyone of normal size have to pay a luggage charge when the fat person next to them is packing two roll-on Samsonites round their ribcage?
Unlike the first two examples, most of those wedging themselves into airline seats with all the decorum of a cat trying to sit in an eggcup have a choice – lose weight. In case you're wondering what category you fall into, here's a guide. If you can't pull down the in-flight tray without it resting on your belly, you're probably overweight – and unless you've got a medical certificate, that's something you alone should pay for.
Same old songNOTHING in the world could matter to me less than who wins the Eurovision song contest. But nothing is more annoying than having the weekend chit-chat dominated by this monument to triviality.
So can we just pull out now please? It's quite clear that the voting now has nothing to do with content but instead has everything to do with geopolitical loyalties.
We can invent a new contest for the grown-up countries if need be.
Cooking the booksCAN someone in the Labour Party please explain the social inequality or public service that was righted by allowing Tony Blair to do up his kitchen for ten grand?
What possible justification can there be for deliberately exploiting available funds just because he could?
When will MPs and MSPs understand that public disgust and disenfranchisement from politics has everything to do with their behaviour and nothing to do with not liking arguments?
The full article contains 760 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
