Bobby Jindal heads to Iowa for a fundraiser next month. We just finished this election cycle and the next one is already beginning.

Final predictions before I go to bed:

McCain will win Missouri, but by less than 10,000 votes.

Obama will win North Carolina and Indiana.

McCain will win Montana.

Obama is closing the gap in Missouri. It's now 12,000 votes with 94% reporting. To compare, it was 35,000 with 93% reporting.

In Washington State, incumbent Christine Gregoire (D) leads Dino Rossi by about 15,000 votes with 35% reporting. This race in 2004 was decided by less than 200 votes between these two candidates.

California: with 10% reporting, the ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California is winning 55% to 45%. This is pretty shocking; I knew it'd be somewhat close, but I figured it would be the exact opposite. The abortion measure is a pure 50% 50% tie.

Colorado: even more terrifyingly, NBC is reporting that Amendment 48 (to define a human being) is winning 74% of the vote in Colorado right now, with 37% reporting. This would functionally make abortion murder. CNN is reporting the exact opposite, 74% against. Someone is wrong. I hope it's NBC.

As my friend Phillip Ripper pointed out, the Obama campaign should be playing "Bringing Sexy Back" at the Grant Park rally.

Here's what matters now:

SENATE

It seems impossible for the Dems to get a supermajority (filibuster-proof of 60). It will be between 57 and 59, depending on the following races: Smith vs. Merkley in Oregon, Stevens vs. Begich in Alaska, and Coleman vs. Franken in Minnesota. I think Dems will pick up at least the Stevens spot, and Merkley and Franken are both about 60% chances for the Dems.

LANDSLIDE/PSYCHOLOGY

If Dems pick up North Carolina, it will be a huge blow to the Republican southern coalition, having already lost Virginia tonight. Georgia seemed week and might be a pick up in future elections.

If Dems pick up Arizona, I don't even need to describe how devastating that would be.

Montana would be another nice pick up, but it doesn't seem likely.

If Obama can hold McCain to less than 200 electoral votes (which seems probable right now), it'll look numerically even more significant.

I know the election is technically over, but here are some states that might contribute to a landslide:

Indiana - Obama up by 8,000 with 96% reporting. This one has gone back and forth and is now really tightening, with fewer and fewer votes left. I would call it for Obama, though, but just barely.

North Carolina - Obama up by 29,000 with 94% reporting. Mecklenberg is nearly done, but Franklin County (a suburb of Raleigh) hasn't even started. Suburbs go for McCain.

Let there be no doubt that John McCain is a class act. I sincerely hope he can go back to being himself and not what his party wants him to be.

And now they're booing Joe the Biden. "YEAH, FUCK THAT GUY!!! HAVING EXPERIENCE AND TRAGICALLY LOSING YOUR FAMILY IN A CAR WRECK IS SO OFFENSIVE TO ME!!!" America wouldn't be as hilarious a country without Republicans.

Is McCain about to cry?

Those Republicans at the McCain rally are classless and worthless human beings. You're booing? Yeah, "BOOO!!! FUCK THE BLACK GUY!!! LET'S LYNCH THE ARAB!!!" Grow up. And while you're at it, get the fuck out of our White House.

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC just tried to claim that the reason that college graduates tilted for Obama was because these are the people with 401k's who care about the economy and voted against McCain after the stock market tanked in the last month.

Did it never occur to him that the Republican party has celebrated anti-intellectualism and anti-rationality so much that your average educated person fears another 4 years of Republican rule? Do Republicans seriously still think they are the party of the well-off, educated professional elite? They forfeited that claim a long time ago.

Virginia is officially blue.

Obama is officially declared President Elect.

I'm personally calling Virginia and Florida for Obama now. Obama has made huge inroads in Florida, expanding Kerry leads in all swing counties. Virginia has swung back for Obama in the last hour and he's now expanding his lead because Fairfax and other urban counties are being tallied.

North Carolina is still for Obama, but now the gap has closed to 4,000 votes. Mecklenberg County is still at 57%, but the gap has rapidly closed.

Indiana is the opposite. Obama has closed the gap to 4,000 votes, and Lake County is still at 74%.

Both of these states may switch.

Jim Himes beats Christopher Shays, eliminating the last Republican representative in New England.

Close races:

Obama recently took the lead in Virginia. With 83% reporting, Obama is up by 1%, but large parts of Fairfax County (which is wildly for Obama) hasn't been counted.

McCain leads Obama by about 9,000 VOTES in Indiana, with 85% reporting. Lake County is at 74%.

North Carolina has Obama up by 1%, and Charlotte is still reporting.

Update on the Senate races:

It looks like Chambliss will beat Martin in Georgia.
Wicker will beat Musgrove in Mississippi.
Udall will beat Schaffer in Colorado. Dem pick-up.
Franken leads Coleman in Minnesota. Potential Dem pick-up.

Ohio and New Mexico go Obama. It's completely over.

gangsta

FOX News accidentally called Ohio for Obama, then rescinded. Psych!

Now 3 pick-ups for Dems in the Senate: Shaheen def. Sununu in New Hampshire, Warner rolls through Virginia, and Hagan def. Dole in North Carolina. They're 3 for 4, as it looks like McConnell will keep Kentucky.

McCain now needs every swing state left: Virginia, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico. All of them.

Florida is currently 57-43 for Obama, but all of those are absentee and early voting numbers. I was expecting Obama to be leading by even more.

Obama is already given Pennsylvania by NBC. It just closed.
Obama is already given New Hampshire by NBC.

There's a good chance the Senate race in Georgia, between Chambliss and Martin, will go to a runoff. It looks unlikely either candidate will get to 50%.

NPR is reporting that the exit polls are in the tank for Obama in Virginia. The Obama turnout effort way surpassed the McCain turnout effort there.

Election Night Guide

Ignore all the national polls and the spin from the pundits. Here's how the elections will break down:

Obama must keep all of Kerry's states while picking up one somewhat significant Bush state to win. The only Kerry state where McCain is making a push is Pennsylvania. Therefore,

Pennsylvania + One Swing State = Obama Win

What are the swing states? In order of leaning Obama to leaning McCain: Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri.

Start paying attention at 6PM central time. That's when the first polls close, including Indiana (leaning McCain), Georgia (likely McCain), and Virginia (leaning Obama). If Obama picks up 2 of these, Pennsylvania will be irrelevant and McCain will have no chance. If Obama picks up 1, he's still on course so long as he keeps Pennsylvania. If he loses all 3, he's still in decent position, though it'll show that polls were very wrong in Virginia.

At 6:30PM central time, Ohio (leaning Obama), West Virginia (likely McCain), and North Carolina (pure tie) close. An Obama win in Ohio would be devastating. An Obama win in North Carolina would not only be catastrophic for McCain but would signal a fracturing of the Republican base in the south.

7:00PM central time is when things get very interesting: polls close in Pennsylvania (likely Obama), Florida (leaning Obama), and Missouri (pure tie). Every McCain win scenario includes Pennsylvania. If Obama has already picked up 2 significant swing states (such as Ohio + Virginia, or North Carolina + Florida), Pennsylvania won't matter. If Obama has picked up 1 swing state, Pennsylvania will decide the election.

Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada will be later in the night. Obama will hope it won't come down to the American West. McCain's goal is to try to stay alive until late in the evening, and then hope for some more luck.

Watch this immediately.

I was going to write a whole post about how Sarah Palin's experience makes her the presidential election equivalent of a LOLcat, but Jonathan Alter of Newsweek does a better job of it:

"Obama won 18 million votes, faced countless tough interviews and emerged with a reputation for fluency in discussing affairs of state, whatever one thinks of his politics. Palin's vote totals for mayor were measured in the hundreds; she has served only 20 months as governor of a state half the size of Brooklyn, and knows nothing of national or international issues beyond energy.

No matter. The argument stands.

Here's the logic, if you can call it that. Governors and mayors have executive experience, and the presidency is an executive job. Palin has been a manager and Obama has not. When faced with the obvious question—"So does that mean that Palin is more qualified than McCain, who has never been an executive?"— Republicans (working from talking points) have an answer. McCain commanded a training squadron in Florida in 1976 (the fact that he was not promoted to flag rank afterwards doesn't get mentioned)."

I've heard McCain campaign advisors argue that Palin has more foreign policy experience than Obama because: 1) her state borders Russia and Canada, and 2) she's been commander of a unit of the National Guard. Nevermind that Obama has unquestionable direct foreign policy experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Honestly, experience with Russia? If Vladimir Putin has even heard of this woman before last week, I will amputate my right arm.

And here's more:

"Will it work? It depends on how successful the McCain campaign is at keeping Palin from embarrassing herself. Her lack of experience will only become an issue if it is manifested during the campaign. To decrease the odds of a gaffe, expect her to be carefully shielded from the questions of tough-minded reporters.

I'd imagine that Palin will dodge press conferences in favor of interviews with people like Sean Hannity, Larry King and Ellen DeGeneres. Then, when the media complain that she is being kept away, the McCain campaign will cite the half dozen or so interviews she has granted as proof that the campaign press is just bellyaching. Brief press "avails" on the plane will be useless, unless reporters ask open-ended queries designed to elicit proof of real knowledge.

That should get Palin through the next three weeks. By the end of the month, the McCain camp can say she has to go to ground to prepare for the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate, where expectations will be so low for Palin that she will likely emerge intact. It will be up to the press and public to raise enough of a stink about this, that Palin is forced to submit to real interviews with real questions that show whether her real-life experience is any preparation for assuming high office. In that sense, the Palin nomination is as much of a test of us as it is of her."

This is pathetic. The McCain campaign will shield Sarah Palin to intentionally prevent Americans from being able to fairly and objectively judge her abilities. Actually, this isn't just pathetic, but it's also irresponsible.

One last thing I want to add: in the 72 hours after McCain announced his pick, the media have questioned Sarah Palin's experience to the point that expectations are at the lowest they can be for her. Let's face it: nobody, even the Republicans, expect her to be thoroughly qualified to do anything presidential. But that means the bar is set so low that she can do anything to overachieve. The best example is last night's speech. Article after article this morning argues that Sarah Palin shows she can punch back and attack the Democrats. Other articles talk about how Palin knows how to give a smooth speech. Uh, duh? Why is this surprising, or even a qualification to do anything? Punching back isn't a bonus or a plus, but a necessity as a politician. And her old job required her to read from a teleprompter. The mere fact that people are surprised by these characters of Sarah Palin tells me that she's not ready to be President.

Finding vice presidents shouldn't be a matter of setting a low bar and then letting the candidate step over it. That's an irresponsible way to elect someone who could be the president of the United States. Seriously, people.

Time to rant about Republicans and the RNC.

Terrorism

There's been this big deal made that John McCain can better protect America than Barack Obama. But how? Through what means? The last 7 years prove that America still can't find bin Laden and can just barely control a country it invades (Iraq) while simultaneously fucking up on another country it once thought it controlled (Afghanistan). The last 7 years prove that America doesn't do shit about containing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. John McCain, what the fuck do you do differently?

All I've heard from Republicans is that McCain will protect America. Do you have some alternative strategy? In fact, what the fuck is your strategy in the first place? Apparently it involves chanting "USA! USA!" at the top of your voice and waving as many American flags as possible. Obviously this will work because nothing scares al Qaeda more than American patriotism. Perhaps you might be able to confuse those terrorists if you wave your flags fast enough.

No, seriously: I can assure you that if chanting words in a loud manner and showing spirit were the keys to defeating terrorism, we would be dropping cheerleaders instead of paratroopers in the Middle East. Your external patriotism has nothing to do with your ability to fight those radical jihadists. Like, chants and flags don't make you better to combat terrorism, and they don't even make you more patriotic. And I can assure you that as a former policy debater, I can blow through more chants at a quicker pace than anyone at that RNC. Does that make me a better American?

The Republican strategy against terrorism is like dealing with constipation: if America ate bean burritos everyday and then was consequently constipated on a daily basis, the Republicans would tell America to suck it up and power through. No pain, no gain, right? We should not negotiate with the feces. We will not give in. We are America and we will defecate if it takes every ounce of determination that we have. Nevermind that we should probably consider a change in diet, because goddamnit we're the U-S of A and we don't negotiate with feces.

Another favorite strategy of Republicans is to argue that we can beat terrorists by showing them how powerful we are. Right! Because the US being the sole superpower of the world certainly stopped bin Laden the first time.

Giuliani's Speech

Rudy Giuliani gave one of the most offensive speeches I have ever heard in my life. Apparently Rudy was told that his job was to do as much smearing as possible. And it wasn't like he even did it in an effective manner. My anger is only overshadowed by my disappointment at the complete ineptitude of this debacle of a speech.

The entire speech was one tongue-in-cheek attack on Obama and Biden. It sounded like it was written by a 5th grader who was recently taught how to be sarcastic and who was a bit too eager to use this new technique on her next essay.

I'm going to skip most of his attacks because they're so incompetent it's not even worth my time to address them. But after going through John McCain's history and background (honestly, it's the RNC, so you could tell people that he gave up nuclear secrets to the Vietcong and people would cheer). He concludes by saying that John McCain is selfless and serves his country and not himself. He then begins his (what at this point could only be a mockingly delivered) biography of Barack Obama. When he says that Obama was a community organizer, people in the crowd start laughing. He then repeats this line over and over to more laughter.

I find this outrageously offensive.

Three reasons why this is offensive:
1. You just mentioned that McCain is selfless. Obama turned down a big income after graduating from Harvard Law School so he could get paid nearly nothing to be a community organizer in a poor south side neighborhood of Chicago. That's some selfish shit right there.
2. Is being a community organizer some kind of joke? I'm not even going to get into this one.
3. Apparently Republicans haven't realized that they have an image problem with poor people and minorities. Obviously, based on the recovery effort from Hurricane Katrina, Bush loves black people. But making fun of a community organizer certainly shows you care about poor people and minorities. Are Republicans really this out of touch?

Then Giuliani says that only in America can someone like Barack Obama get to his position. He echoed a line Obama has used in his speeches, except in a mocking tone (to more laughter). First, I'm not sure combating Obama's message of hope with a mocking tone is the best political strategy. Second, the speaker after Giuliani is Sarah Palin, who has an even more unlikely story. But I guess that only in Alaska can someone like Sarah Palin get to her position.

Sarah Palin's Speech

Sarah Palin makes my blood boil.

Let's ignore the fact that Sarah Palin can't write her own speeches and spent the last few days getting caught up on what exactly McCain believes in (all covered in the previous post). Sarah Palin reminds me of Professor Umbridge from the Harry Potter series: she has this calm, sweet, and nice tone, but if you actually pay attention to what she says, she is only capable of making fun of others. That's pretty pathetic. I feel like she's talking down to me or something.

There's also this strange phenomenon going on: despite all the negative media coverage, most people want Sarah Palin to succeed, especially Republicans (after all, they're stuck with her). She could have shown up tonight and burped and still received applause. There was no scenario in which she would be judged poorly by her party. I find this disturbing, because picking a vice president or president shouldn't be a matter of how much you like someone. It should be that the candidate is guilty until proven innocent: we should thoroughly scrutinize the candidate before we support them. Tomorrow morning, the press will say that Sarah Palin showed shes nice and she's a real human being. Let's add up all the qualifications she has going for her so far:

1. She's nice and a human being.
2. She has blue-collar roots and understands the common American's needs.
3. She has (minimal) executive experience.

I can probably find you half a million people with these same qualifications. None of these make her uniquely qualified to be vice president.

After hearing Obama's speech last week, I thought, "wow, that was pretty good." But after hearing Sarah Palin's speech, I immediately went to www.barackobama.com and donated to the campaign. That's how livid I am right now.

Last topic...

Dumb People

I think the Republican party has been hijacked by dumb people. That's right: I said it. I think that 25% of the Republican party consists of highly-educated individuals who understand economics, foreign policy, and whatever else. I respect these people and their judgments. But the Republican party now caters to the 75% that lack intelligence and vote on things like social issues or how loudly you can sing the national anthem. And when you cater to these people, you dumb down both your policies (gas tax holiday my ass) and your speeches (examples galore from tonight).

So much for Sarah Palin being ready. The Washington Post reports that:

"Since Sunday night, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been holed up in her suite in the Hilton Minneapolis while a parade of Sen. John McCain's top advisers have briefed her on the nuances of his policy positions, national politics and, above all, how to introduce herself to the national audience she will address Wednesday night at the Republican convention."

And...

"In the speech, Palin is likely to emphasize her areas of policy expertise -- particularly energy and political reform -- rather than focusing on her biography or gender. An initial version of the address, which speechwriter Matthew Scully started crafting a week ago for an unnamed male vice-presidential pick, included plenty of attacks aimed at Democratic nominee Barack Obama along with ample praise for McCain, aides said. But they said Palin's speech will focus more on substantive matters.

'There's an expectation that she doesn't have a depth of knowledge on issues," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "That's absurd.'"

Yes--her depth of knowledge on issues is clearly illustrated by the need to coach her on those issues and write her introduction speech for her. It looks like we'll be hearing from McCain's aides instead of Sarah Palin on Wednesday night.

Now, in regards to her foreign policy credentials:

"Palin has rarely traveled overseas: Last summer, as governor, she journeyed to Canada on one trip and to Germany, Iraq and Kuwait on another, and Comella said she may have traveled to Mexico once on a personal trip."

Based on Facebook's Where I've Been application, she has travelled to about 5% of the world. Awesome.

And finally, Senator Lindsay Graham had this to say about Palin:

"'She can do fine in foreign policy because of the infrastructure we have around us. She's smart and she will learn over time,' [Graham] said, adding that when it comes to selecting a vice president, 'there is no perfect person. If we could have found someone who's an expert in everything, we would have picked 'em, right?'"

Well, I hate to be a hope-monger, but one would certainly hope so.

In case you haven't heard, John McCain has picked Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, to be his vice presidential running mate.

I think this is a brilliant pick, and the best possible move McCain could have made to try to create a splash in the political world.

With Internet news sources, the blogosphere, and 24-hour cable news networks spending the last few months doing their own vetting of the handful of candidates they think would likely be picked, voters are tired of hearing names like Pawlenty, Romney, Lieberman, and Ridge. Even if any of these individuals would make great vice presidents, they no longer shock and surprise the voting public. But with Palin, McCain has managed to neutralize any media bounce in coverage from Barack Obama's acceptance speech last night. Merely picking a vice president today was not enough--John McCain had to pick someone so outrageously unknown that everyone would be talking about his decision.

Much of the discussion in the past few weeks has centered on what McCain should aim for with his VP pick: should he go for youth, executive experience, and the social conservative vote with Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota (a swing state, no less)? Should he strengthen his national security credentials in another swing state with former governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania? Should he really show that he's a bipartisan uniter by picking Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut? What about picking Mitt Romney, someone with a history of success running businesses, Olympics, and governments? The ponit is that it didn't matter which of these candidates he picked, because none of them would energize any particular group of people. Voters were never going to see a McCain-Romney bumper sticker and think, "Wow, he really knows a lot about the economy."

Instead, McCain took a huge gamble with Palin. She's been governor for less than two years, and previously was mayor of some suburb of Anchorage. That's pretty much the extent of her political experience. The point, though, is that she's shocking enough to grab media coverage and get people thinking. It also doesn't hurt that she's reliably socially conservative (something McCain isn't), at least has some executive experience (something McCain doesn't have), and young (something McCain most certainly isn't). And most importantly, she's a woman, and she will make those Hillary supporters who may have only recently given in to the Obama campaign rethink their decision. In fact, given Palin is only 44, she would have one of the best chances to be President if McCain were to win this year.

There are still some serious (and obvious) problems with this gamble: with almost as little political experience as a possum, nobody would want her only a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. She also lacks experience and knowledge in foreign policy (where Biden will destroy her in the VP debate) and the economy (where McCain is already in trouble to begin with). Her youth contrasts so much with McCain's age that it only reminds voters just how old John McCain really is. And I don't think there are that many Hillary supporters up for grabs in the election to begin with. But in a year where the current President is wildly unpopular, the economy is still tanking, and all polls seem to indicate that the Democrats should run away with the general election, John McCain was always going to have to take a huge risk. With Palin, he takes that risk but also hits every target he should be aiming for: solidifying the social conservative base while trying to reach out to independents and disillusioned female Hillary supporters.

I'm going to write about the Olympics.

Ever since Beijing was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics, they've never let up an opportunity to tell everyone that the Games are kind of a big deal. The question now, as evidenced by numerous articles in the last few months, is whether China is making this into too big of a deal.

It's been widely accepted that the 2008 Games are seen by the PRC as an opportunity to show the world how far China has come--essentially, a big coming out party (to clarify: not coming-out-of-the-closet). With that view, the Chinese government is perfectly willing to overspend and overdo everything in order to make the Games the most wildly extravagant spectacle in history. But is it costing too much?

One major concern is cost: the Wall Street Journal reports that the total cost of hosting the Olympics will be approximately $42 billion. For comparison, the Athens 2004 Games cost Greece $15 billion (though admittedly, they were pretty mediocre). The WSJ wonders whether this blank check for spending is leading to rampant corruption, and also questions whether that money could be put to better use (example: combating poverty).

I think that while corruption is a legitimate and credible concern, arguments for how the money could be better used lack mileage. Problems like poverty and underdevelopment are widespread and a common problem for almost all countries. This is not a problem that can be quickly and effectively addressed, much less solved, with even a significant chunk of that $42 billion bill. And if this were truly a big concern for critics, they should be calling for an end to all Olympics, as there's nothing really necessary about two weeks of athletic events.

Another concern brought up by the WSJ article is that very few cities will be able to host future Olympics because of the high cost. If Beijing sets a new standard of $42 billion for a Summer Olympics, London will feel the pressure to outspend and outdo Beijing for 2012. Certainly a potential problem, but I can see some solutions, such as setting a minimum timeframe between hosting two Games in the same city and/or setting a cap on maximum spending. Plus, keep in mind that most of this spending isn't just pure extravagance, as it promotes the improvement of infrastructure and is a catalyst for more commercial development. Having more international sponsors would allow poorer cities and countries, who need the development boost that comes with hosting the Games, to make successful bids.

That's pretty much it.

Hiatus is over. Blogging will return soon.

ALERT: The following is a bad policy (CX) debate judge.

Michael Cunningham
Apparently the coach at Del Valle HS (do I even need to say any more?)
He voted on OSPEC when there wasn't a voter.

Are you serious, Michael Cunningham? You voted because you think specifying an agent of action is bad for debate? Are we in the fucking middle ages of debate or something? Good god. Oh, and I bet specifying an agent means you're not topical because you affirm only part of the resolution, right? Because saying the courts should do the plan means you can't defend Congress and the President doing the plan...at the same time?

Michael Cunningham, I will strike you at every opportunity, both literally and figuratively.

You can email this idiot at mcunningham@del-valle.k12.tx.us

I don't usually blog anymore, but today I'm pissed.

Check out this story: Apple is being sued by a woman because she's angry that Apple dropped the price of the iPhone on Sept. 5th by $200.

Dongmei Li (leave it to Asian people to gripe about prices) waited in line for the iPhone's release on June 29, 2007. She claims that Apple was being unjust because by the time she got to the store, they were sold out of 8GB models and she had to settle for a 4GB model. She also claims that because Apple has stopped selling 4GB models as of Sept. 5th, she's the owner of a discontinued model.

Has Li never experienced holiday shopping before? I don't see Sony or Nintendo being sued because they didn't supply enough Playstations or Wiis. She also could've just not bought a 4GB iPhone, waited a week, and then ordered an 8GB model. Apparently Apple is now liable for its customers' impatience. Also, if discontinuing products were a crime, no company would ever innovate.

She also claims injustice because she only received a $100 Apple store credit while other customers who purchased their iPhones within two weeks before the price drop got their money back.

Oh wait, that policy is clearly written in Apple's price protection policy.

People need to grow up and stop whining.

In Norway now. Allow me to redirect you:

Travel Blog: http://blogofthemidnightsun.blogspot.com
Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yaosquared/collections/72157601450613087/

This guy deserved it. But I guess it's OK...God will forgive him, right?

Asshole of the week award goes to this guy.

-----

MILAN (Reuters) - A Qatar sheikh held up a British Airways flight at Milan's Linate airport for nearly three hours after discovering three of his female relatives had been seated next to men they did not know.

When none of the other business class passengers agreed to swap seats, the sheikh, a member of Qatar's ruling family, went to the pilot, who had already started the engine, to complain, an airport official said.

But the pilot ordered him and his traveling companions, the three women, two men, a cook and a servant, off the plane.

The London-bound flight took off nearly three hours behind schedule Thursday evening and around 50 of the 115 passengers missed connecting flights.

Traditions in the conservative Gulf Arab region bar women from mixing with unrelated men.

EPIC.