Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Maybe, like me, you welcomed the late 20th Century counter-culture movement and the Baby Boomer ethic. Heck, I am one. Sure, I saw excesses, but trusted everyone would settle down and straighten themselves out, Thomas Jefferson style; the virtue of the common man and all that. Then - I naively thought - we really would experience the Age of Aquarius and all the peace and harmony we were promised.
The guy in the picture flew through San Francisco airport six days before there was a baggy-pants incident that got a 20 year-old guy, Deshon Marman, ejected from his flight and arrested.
Jill Tarlow, the passenger who took this picture, turned it over to the airline - U.S. Airways - and complained. The airline ignored her.
“We don’t have a dress code policy,” Valarie Wunder, an airline representative, said to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Obviously, if their private parts are exposed, that’s not appropriate. … So if they’re not exposing their private parts, they’re allowed to fly.”
But how about the incident with Marman? He wasn’t ejected for exposing his “private parts,” but for refusing orders to pull his pants up, authorities said. His boxer shorts were showing.
Ms. Wunder wouldn't comment to the Chronicle about that incident.
“It just shows the hypocrisy involved,” Joe O’Sullivan, Marman’s attorney, said after he viewed the photo of the cross-dresser. “They let a drag queen board a flight and welcomed him with open arms. Employees didn’t ask him to cover up. He didn’t have to talk to the pilot. They didn’t try to remove him from the plane — and many people would find his attire repugnant.”
People's Republic of San Francisco is a phrase that keeps popping up in my mind.
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
River
The guy in the picture above flew through San Francisco airport six days before there was a baggy-pants incident that got a 20 year-old guy, Deshon Marman, ejected from his flight and arrested.
Meh. With airline security the way it is now, dressing like the guy in the picture is actually logical. Soon we'll all be required to show up for flights dressed in tight lingerie. (With maybe an ultra-sheer body stocking for those who desire extra coverage.)
Baggy pants, on the other hand, could conceal "a multitude of sins". And Mr Baggy-Pants was young, while the geezer in the picture clearly ain't. Traditional mores have always been that old farts can get away with stuff that young farts can't.
I can't say I'm surprised.
Edited on Jun 22, 2011 at 12:33pmJul '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
They should have put him on a flight to Riyadh.
Sep '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Who wears white before Labor Day? There ought to be a law.
Aug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Were both incidents at the same airport, with the same airline? The article is unclear on that point. If not, then it isn't really a case of hypocrisy.
Aug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
It was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) that both incidents happened at US Airways gates, S.F. International Airport. Here's the earlier story:
"Deshon Marman, 20, a University of New Mexico football player, was being held at San Mateo County Jail on suspicion of trespassing, battery and resisting arrest.
On Wednesday, San Francisco police got a call about 9 a.m. that someone was exposing himself outside a US Airways gate,
An airline employee spotted Marman before he boarded, and complained that Marman's pants "were below his buttocks but above the knees, and that much of his boxer shorts were exposed,"
The employee asked Marman to pull up his pants,, but he refused, Rodriguez said. Marman allegedly repeated his refusal after taking his seat on the plane.
"He was asked to leave the plane," Rodriguez said. "It took 20 minutes of talking to get him to leave the plane.. he was arrested for trespassing." Marman allegedly resisted officers..."
Edited on Jun 22, 2011 at 11:52amAug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Is the guy in the lingerie yet another candidate for the Republican nomination ? What a novel way to announce !
Guess that the phrase "coming out of the closet" has taken new meaning. Are there frequent flyer miles involved here ?
Obviously the guy in the lingerie was playing a joke, flying from SF and all. He doesn't even have garters on.... so it's obvious he is not playing for keeps.
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Gives me the willies. I wouldn't sit next to him on the plane.
No sense of humility or decorum.
Jun '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Tommy De Seno: Gives me the willies. I wouldn't sit next to him on the plane.
No sense of humility or decorum. · Jun 22 at 12:09pm
Amen. Here, look at me. Poster child for self-indulgence.
And his feet have got to be killing him. If you're going to be weird, at least do it comfortably.
May '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Question of the day: Would USAir allow a gorgeous 22-year-old to fly like that?
Apr '11
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
I understand he's a regular flyer on that route. So, he's a known entity.
While boarding planes in Detroit, I'd rather see a plane-full of Mr. Skinny Pants than some of the other folks I've travelled with. Their suitcases are still in the hold beneath me.
Oct '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
The pilot has the final command choice here. The pilot should have had this fool covered up with blankets and then apologized to the passengers.
Oddly, pilots and flight crews are miffed at the TSA patdowns as well.
Question.. Would anyone board a plane if the captain and copilot dressed like this ?
Aug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Thank you kindly for the clarification.
It sounds like:
I personally don't have much of a problem with Point #1. It's simply a fact of life that different people within an organization will have different views about what is "acceptable". The only "solution" to this "problem" is to take the authority to make judgement calls away from individuals and replace it with strict, (over)codified rules/guidelines about what the organization considers "acceptable".
In the long run, I think that's counter-productive because it leads to the sort of insanely-detailed rules, laws, and "codes-of-conduct" our societies have to contend with these days.
On the other hand, as Point #2 reveals, a culture that demands extreme "fairness" simply cannot allow individuals to exercise their own judgement differently, because "different" has become synonymous with "unequal".
Aug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Also, I'd be prepared to bet money (something I'm almost never prepared to do) that the real reason Baggy was arrested wasn't his pants-level, but because he was insubordinate. They hassled him, so he hassled back.
If he'd just hitched his trou like they asked, they wouldn't've called "exposure".
It's not really about violating this or that policy, is it? It's about responding to their authority in an insufficiently ovine fashion.
Aug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: Also, I'd be prepared to bet money (something I'm almost never prepared to do) that the real reason Baggy was arrested wasn't his pants-level, but because he was insubordinate. They hassled him, so he hassled back.
If he'd just hitched his trou like they asked, they wouldn't've called "exposure".
It's not really about violating this or that policy, is it? It's about responding to their authority in an insufficiently ovine fashion. · Jun 22 at 1:06pm
I think you're right.
Oct '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: Also, I'd be prepared to bet money (something I'm almost never prepared to do) that the real reason Baggy was arrested wasn't his pants-level, but because he was insubordinate. They hassled him, so he hassled back.
If he'd just hitched his trou like they asked, they wouldn't've called "exposure".
It's not really about violating this or that policy, is it? It's about responding to their authority in an insufficiently ovine fashion. · Jun 22 at 1:06pm
Now, Mr Baggy Pants let em drop below the level of his rear cheeks... Would seem to be uncivil to not be decent enough to pull them up when asked. Simple.
Edited on Jun 22, 2011 at 1:16pmAug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Exactly. Odd, isn't it, our ambivalent feelings about pleasure. The grotesque and repulsive is somehow more acceptable than the beautiful and sensual.
Can we assume two-piece bathing suits are acceptable now on US Air as long as the passengers are bizarre?
Sep '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
I didn't recognize Dame Edna at first.
Aug '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
River
Exactly. Odd, isn't it, our ambivalent feelings about pleasure. The grotesque and repulsive is somehow more acceptable than the beautiful and sensual.
Can we assume two-piece bathing suits are acceptable now on US Air as long as the passengers are bizarre?
Firstly, I think US Air would allow an "objectively aesthetically-pleasing" young woman in similar attire. As evidence, I point to the women who have gone through airport security in skimpy outfits in order to make a point about the TSA's screening procedures.
Secondly, I can easily believe that US Air employees would be hesitant to block a creepy man in lingerie for fear of a discrimination lawsuit, especially if the 20-year-old man with the baggy pants is already suing the airline for discrimination.
Rather than a case of hypocrisy, a much simpler explanation could be that the 20-year-old's lawsuit had created a "chill" at US Air when it comes to blocking passengers from boarding their flights.
After all, why provoke two lawsuits in one week?
Edited on Jun 22, 2011 at 1:49pmMay '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
But remember, Southwest Airlines told this woman NO.
Sep '10
Re: Our Brave New World; Are We Having Fun Yet?
Are we sure this isn't Dominique Strauss-Khan? I guess that story is over for now but maybe he was trying to escape to San Francisco.