Wednesday, August 23, 2006

You have GOT to be kidding me...

Here is the latest list of prohibited carry-on items.

I am thoroughly confused. So if I wear my Frederick's Liquid Bra onto the plane, how are they going to confiscate it? I can picture the conversation:

Random TSA Jerkoff: "Excuse me, miss?"

Me (trying desperately not to trip and fall as I try to put my shoes back on without losing sight of my personal belongings, some of which have been dumped out onto the gray tray because apparently the x-ray machines can't see through everything in my purse): "Hmm?"

RTJ: "I'm going to need you to remove your bra, miss."

Me (taken aback): "I *beg* your pardon?"

RTJ: "Your bra. I don't believe your breasts are actually that large. I think you've got a gel bra on under there and I need to see it."

At this point I start saying things that are horrifically inappropriate for the ears of the children in line behind me. It would probably involve me ranting about how fucking retarded this is, and culminate with me pulling my bra out of my shirt and, for effect, waving it in the air and yelling to everyone who cares to listen that I hope they feel safer because TSA now has my bra.

I mean, seriously, how would this play out? Either they have to check every woman's bra, or only women with breasts that "seem" larger than they ought to be. And, seriously, how are they going to deal with the fallout from parents who are pissed off that their kids watched a strange woman remove her bra in public at the request of a TSA agent? I mean, this is like borderline obscenity here. They can't make me believe for a second that they would "randomly" search disproportionate numbers of women who appear to have larger-than-normal breasts (or larger-than-they-"should"). Especially in Los Angeles -- I mean, let's face it, all the women here have bigger breasts than they were born to grow. And even if they do randomly search some women who happen to have gel bras, how do they figure it out? I don't care what you think is constitutional, George Bush does NOT have the right to give TSA employees permission to feel me up.

Just in case, I guess I better remember not to wear a white shirt when I fly to Vegas next week. Jesus Fucking Christ.

14 Comments:

At August 23, 2006 at 6:27 PM, Blogger heartinsanfrancisco said...

This is insane. What about women who have endured mastectomies w/o reconstruction? So now they have to show-and-tell on airport lines? How terribly sensitive. Jesus Fucking Christ indeed. They've gone too far.

How many more ways will our government come up with to punish US for 9/11? We can't catch Them, and Somebody has to pay.

Shall I list the logical fallacies therein alphabetically, chronologically, or haphazardly?

 
At August 24, 2006 at 4:00 AM, Blogger NWsixer said...

I'm sorry... a liquid bra? I seem to remember bras being hard enough to get off without some nefarious water based contraptionmaking them more complicated.

However...

[rant begins]

when will the governments realise that there is a distinct difference between trying to make the people feel safe and actually keeping them safe. Both the US and the UL intelligence services have an appalling intelligence network in both muslim communities and in the countries that sponsor the terrorists.

It's not about bombs or guns or security checks or 200 armed police per airport... its about finding them and stopping them and no-one seems to be keen to step up to the plate.

[rant ends]

p.s. have fun in Vegas... was over for the WSOP and had a plendid time!

 
At August 24, 2006 at 9:08 AM, Blogger Drewcatt said...

Just wait until they begin telling women with silicon implants that they can't get on the plane...

 
At August 24, 2006 at 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what you fail to realize is that the terrorists who were arrested in london had gel bras that they modified to carry liquid explosives in thier homes along with all of the other shit you are not allowed to bring on the plane. all of these security meaures are in place for this reason and the fact that the government does not believe that they caught everyone involved with this particular plot.

 
At August 24, 2006 at 1:21 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

<3insf -- seriously. The terrorists are only going to learn ways around these things -- all these restrictions do is make it harder to detect. Our government is in fact *helping* the terrorists by doing the very thing terrorism is designed to do -- spread terror!!! I *get* that there's a legitimate threat out there to worry about... but the restrictions we have are just ridiculous, and what's even more frightening is how willing people suddenly are to just forget that civil liberties are still important in "war"time (or for that matter, that Congress hasn't declared war and thus, constitutionally speaking, We Are Not At War). And so that the naysayers don't think they've got me cornered: I'm not referring to carry-on items as a civil liberties issue. I'm talking about things like illegal wiretaps and illegal detention. Not that anyone cares about little things like the Constitution, right?

nwsixer, lol. You know, you could always just ask her to do it... ;) As for your rant... you just said it so well, I really can't add anything.

drewcatt, I will be fucking PISSED if they start taking issue with impants before they start making fat people pay for two seats. UGH.

anon, that's an interesting tidbit there. As in, non-public. As in, either you've just gone and done something horrifically illegal by revealing classified information, or you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I never said there's no reason for what they're doing -- unreasonable means that the reason is *insufficient* to support the action. That's the case here. Yes, they have a reason for the restrictions. A valid one, even. That doesn't mean this is a good plan. You're going to have the government waste time and taxpayer money confiscating harmless items, irritating already stressed-out and irate airline customers, and there's *still* going to be something the terrorists have thought of that you haven't yet. All it takes is one lazy security screener at just the wrong time, and you've confiscated and discarded millions of dollars' worth of private property for no good reason, and The Terrorists Still Win.

We are obviously going about this the wrong way. Pointing out that the government is retarded doesn't mean I don't know what's going on. Pretending that the government actually has a grasp on what it's doing here is naive at best.

 
At August 24, 2006 at 4:21 PM, Anonymous Roonie said...

Good question. I would really like someone to make themselves a guinea pig to test the system.

 
At August 24, 2006 at 5:23 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

roonie, I would, but I <3 my Frederick's bra. It would just be too sad to part with it.

Not to mention I'd be left flappin' in the breeze the entire flight. And those flights have CRAZY air conditioning. And you just KNOW I'd end up sitting next to Creepy McCreeperson...

 
At August 25, 2006 at 10:31 AM, Blogger NWsixer said...

Anon's post is, oddle enough for an Anon poster, nonsense according to a chum at Paddington Green nick.

 
At August 28, 2006 at 8:36 AM, Blogger Drewcatt said...

Anon's post was nonsense you say Sixer... well, I'll be....

All I'm saying is that if we want to be totally safe, then we all need to be buck-naked when we travel, otherwise some wily terrorist might think to soak his shirt in a flammable gasoline-mix, and think up some fun way to light it in the potentially oxygen-rich environment of airplane flight.

The fact of the matter being that, with enough creativity, anything could be turned into something that could be used against you in a plane.

 
At August 28, 2006 at 4:03 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

nwsixer, thanks for the info. Can't say I'm surprised...

drew, even buck naked won't make us safe, unless they also make everyone undergo a full-body x-ray before boarding. A terrorist willing to commit suicide will have no problem surgically installing a bomb in his chest and calling it a pacemaker. Or putting explosive gel in her breasts and calling them implants. If people really want to kill us at all costs, they can do it. Mutually assured destruction is no longer the deterrent it used to be...

 
At August 29, 2006 at 9:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a pretty big civil liberties nut, and hate plans that are simply designed to make one feel safe but not actually make you safe, but requiring some additional screening of a liquid-based item seems to make sense to me given recent events. There's absolutely no reason to believe that one's nail clippers are any more dangerous than, well, anything else available on a plane, but the danger of liquid explosives is real. And while I agree that terrorists will adapt, making them adapt is, at worst, a good way to delay an attack.

Yes, we can all be killed by someone committed enough. But no need to make it easier. Pack the fancy bras (btw, I was half-expecting to see a modeled shot when I clicked that link, and for a half-second thought it actually was you until I checked the URL) and wear something less fun until TSA starts using technology that is available and can detect a larger array of problematic substances. We all must bear some of this burden.

Your friendly former ACLU pres,

Daddy pose

 
At August 29, 2006 at 10:18 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Daddy Pose!!! Hope you are enjoying a FAB bar trip :)

As for modeling the bra, I guess you will just have to live with the memory of my 3L musical costume for now ;)

I definitely see the point of added screening given recent events, I am just not convinced that the *extents* to which they're going are called for. With the extra time it takes (from what I hear) to screen checked luggage now that basically everyone has to check luggage for every trip, they could just as easily isolate the actual potentially dangerous liquid stuff at the security checkpoint, imho. Sniff the drinks. Make the person take a big ol' swig. Make her apply the lip gloss. Make him use the gel-based deodorant (actually, I really like that last one, especially if said person is sitting anywhere near me...).

I just think there are less intrusive ways of trying to keep us safe -- the problem is, I don't think this administration is about doing things reasonably -- it's all about blunt, closed-fist power-wielding. It doesn't make me feel safer and I don't think it makes me actually safer either.

I get that some sacrifices may be called for... but I don't think that bottled water or heart medication should be among them (HT due to drew for the second example, which I think is relevant even if it is from Canadia. Yes, CANADIA).

 
At August 30, 2006 at 8:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, on your 'use' point, what exactly would you do to prove you don't have explosive ta-tas?

And yes, there are real problems with the new restrictions, particularly insofar as they make flight impossible for some people with particular medical conditions. But I think we will adapt in a little time- either by using available technology to test liquids (it exists! three firms in my home state have created effective devices to test liquids through the bottle!) OR will find a way to safely accomodate people with peculiar needs. I sure hope so. But the answer isn't just to say "yes, bottled liquids are dangerous. But water? Let it go."

BTW, really glad to hear about your new commute. I just moved into my new place and am looking forward to a fairly quick commute myself! Long story re: my bar trip, one that I hopefully will share soon.

Back to procrastinating on turning 25 (t-10 minutes)...

 
At August 30, 2006 at 10:09 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

You know what, I actually HAD that idea, even if I haven't said it here... (the idea about testing the liquids through the bottle). I think that sounds WAY better and more cost-effective.

As for explosive boobies, I really don't know how to deal with that problem. I guess we just hope that their puritanical ways win the day on that one -- of course that still doesn't rule out the possibility of sewing explosive pacemakers into their chests. But I don't think this discounts my point -- I don't think the methods being used are going to be effective or worth it. If they're as smart, abundant, and sneaky as Homeland Security says they are, they're going to win. If Homeland Security is as smart as it says it is, then it's just making our lives needlessly hassled. The plot in the UK, from what I understand, was allegedly foiled before anyone even got to the airport. So I'm not seeing the point, I guess.

I don't think there are perfect solutions, and I think we agree there. I do think they're being ridiculous are this point. I am not saying I don't understand *why* they're doing it, I just disagree with where to draw the line. I think it's too much time and money being spent on things that are unlikely to make a difference, which 1) creates fear and distrust in Americans, 2) hurts the airline industry, which is bad for our economy, 3) takes time and money away from more effective means of deterrence, including things that could be developed with appropriately-directed R&D, and 4) is unlikely (in my opinion) to work anyway. Hopefully the content scanners will be a short time coming!

I hope "long" story means good. Or at least entertaining :) And I can't remember, are you clerking or going the firm route?

And HAPPY FREAKING BIRTHDAY!!! Young law grads are the most coolest.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home