Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?
lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

Posted on 12/21/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham

 

Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

by Nicholas Monahan

This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees.

On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis.

At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me àla a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings.

After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard. I marched up to the woman who’d been examining her and shouted, "What did you do to her?" Later I found out that in addition to touching her swollen breasts – to protect the American citizenry – the employee had asked that she lift up her shirt. Not behind a screen, not off to the side – no, right there, directly in front of the hundred or so passengers standing in line. And for you women who’ve been pregnant and worn maternity pants, you know how ridiculous those things look. "I felt like a clown," my wife told me later. "On display for all these people, with the cotton panel on my pants and my stomach sticking out. When I sat down I just lost my composure and began to cry. That’s when you walked up."

Of course when I say she "told me later," it’s because she wasn’t able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldn’t be flying that day – that I was in fact a "menace."

It took me a while to regain my composure. I felt like I was one of those guys in The Gulag Archipelago who, because the proceedings all seem so unreal, doesn’t fully realize that he is in fact being arrested in a public place in front of crowds of people for...for what? I didn’t know what the crime was. Didn’t matter. Once upstairs, the officers made me remove my shoes and my hat and tossed me into a cell. Yes, your airports have prison cells, just like your amusement parks, train stations, universities, and national forests. Let freedom reign.

After a short time I received a visit from the arresting officer. "Mr. Monahan," he started, "Are you on drugs?"

Was this even real? "No, I’m not on drugs."

"Should you be?"

"What do you mean?"

"Should you be on any type of medication?"

"No."

"Then why’d you react that way back there?"

You see the thinking? You see what passes for reasoning among your domestic shock troops these days? Only "whackos" get angry over seeing the woman they’ve been with for ten years in tears because someone has touched her breasts. That kind of reaction – love, protection – it’s mind-boggling! "Mr. Monahan, are you on drugs?" His snide words rang inside my head. This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife who’d been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...and my anger is simply unfathomable to the guy standing in front of me, the guy who earns a living thanks to my taxes, the guy whose family I feed through my labor. What I did wasn’t normal. No, I reacted like a drug addict would’ve. I was so disgusted I felt like vomiting. But that was just the beginning.

An hour later, after I’d been gallantly assured by the officer that I wouldn’t be attending my friend’s wedding that day, I heard Mary’s voice outside my cell. The officer was speaking loudly, letting her know that he was planning on doing me a favor... which everyone knows is never a real favor. He wasn’t going to come over and help me work on my car or move some furniture. No, his "favor" was this: He’d decided not to charge me with a felony.

Think about that for a second. Rapes, car-jackings, murders, arsons – those are felonies. So is yelling in an airport now, apparently. I hadn’t realized, though I should have. Luckily, I was getting a favor, though. I was merely going to be slapped with a misdemeanor.

"Here’s your court date," he said as I was released from my cell. In addition, I was banned from Portland International for 90 days, and just in case I was thinking of coming over and hanging out around its perimeter, the officer gave me a map with the boundaries highlighted, sternly warning me against trespassing. Then he and a second officer escorted us off the grounds. Mary and I hurriedly drove two and a half hours in the rain to Seattle, where we eventually caught a flight to Vegas. But the officer was true to his word – we missed my friend’s wedding. The fact that he’d been in my own wedding party, the fact that a once in a lifetime event was stolen from us – well, who cares, right?

Upon our return to Portland (I’d had to fly into Seattle and drive back down), we immediately began contacting attorneys. We aren’t litigious people – we wanted no money. I’m not even sure what we fully wanted. An apology? A reprimand? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter though, because we couldn’t afford a lawyer, it turned out. $4,000 was the average figure bandied about as a retaining fee. Sorry, but I’ve got a new baby on the way. So we called the ACLU, figuring they existed for just such incidents as these. And they do apparently...but only if we were minorities. That’s what they told us.

In the meantime, I’d appealed my suspension from PDX. A week or so later I got a response from the Director of Aviation. After telling me how, in the aftermath of 9/11, most passengers not only accept additional airport screening but welcome it, he cut to the chase:

"After a review of the police report and my discussions with police staff, as well as a review of the TSA’s report on this incident, I concur with the officer’s decision to take you into custody and to issue a citation to you for disorderly conduct. That being said, because I also understand that you were upset and acted on your emotions, I am willing to lift the Airport Exclusion Order...."

Attached to this letter was the report the officer had filled out. I’d like to say I couldn’t believe it, but in a way, I could. It’s seemingly becoming the norm in America – lies and deliberate distortions on the part of those in power, no matter how much or how little power they actually wield.

The gist of his report was this: From the get go I wasn’t following the screener’s directions. I was "squinting my eyes" and talking to my wife in a "low, forced voice" while "excitedly swinging my arms." Twice I began to walk away from the screener, inhaling and exhaling forcefully. When I’d completed the physical exam, I walked to the luggage screening area, where a second screener took a pair of scissors from my suitcase. At this point I yelled, "What the %*&$% is going on? This is &*#&$%!" The officer, who’d already been called over by one of the screeners, became afraid for the TSA staff and the many travelers. He required the assistance of a second officer as he "struggled" to get me into handcuffs, then for "cover" called over a third as well. It was only at this point that my wife began to cry hysterically.

There was nothing poetic in my reaction to the arrest report. I didn’t crumple it in my fist and swear that justice would be served, promising to sacrifice my resources and time to see that it would. I simply stared. Clearly the officer didn’t have the guts to write down what had really happened. It might not look too good to see that stuff about the pregnant woman in tears because she’d been humiliated. Instead this was the official scenario being presented for the permanent record. It doesn’t even matter that it’s the most implausible sounding situation you can think of. "Hey, what the...godammit, they’re taking our scissors, honey!" Why didn’t he write in anything about a monkey wearing a fez?

True, the TSA staff had expropriated a pair of scissors from our toiletries kit – the story wasn’t entirely made up. Except that I’d been locked in airport jail at the time. I didn’t know anything about any scissors until Mary told me on our drive up to Seattle. They’d questioned her about them while I was in the bowels of the airport sitting in my cell.

So I wrote back, indignation and disgust flooding my brain.

"[W]hile I’m not sure, I’d guess that the entire incident is captured on video. Memory is imperfect on everyone’s part, but the footage won’t lie. I realize it might be procedurally difficult for you to view this, but if you could, I’d appreciate it. There’s no willful disregard of screening directions. No explosion over the discovery of a pair of scissors in a suitcase. No struggle to put handcuffs on. There’s a tired man, early in the morning, unhappily going through a rigorous procedure and then reacting to the tears of his pregnant wife."

Eventually we heard back from a different person, the guy in charge of the TSA airport screeners. One of his employees had made the damning statement about me exploding over her scissor discovery, and the officer had deftly incorporated that statement into his report. We asked the guy if he could find out why she’d said this – couldn’t she possibly be mistaken? "Oh, can’t do that, my hands are tied. It’s kind of like leading a witness – I could get in trouble, heh heh." Then what about the videotape? Why not watch that? That would exonerate me. "Oh, we destroy all video after three days."

Sure you do.

A few days later we heard from him again. He just wanted to inform us that he’d received corroboration of the officer’s report from the officer’s superior, a name we didn’t recognize. "But...he wasn’t even there," my wife said.

"Yeah, well, uh, he’s corroborated it though."

That’s how it works.

"Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive."

But I thought it was destroyed?

On and on it went. Due to the tenacity of my wife in making phone calls and speaking with relevant persons, the "crime" was eventually lowered to a mere citation. Only she could have done that. I would’ve simply accepted what was being thrown at me, trumped up charges and all, simply because I’m wholly inadequate at performing the kowtow. There’s no way I could have contacted all the people Mary did and somehow pretend to be contrite. Besides, I speak in a low, forced voice, which doesn’t elicit sympathy. Just police suspicion.

Weeks later at the courthouse I listened to a young DA awkwardly read the charges against me – "Mr. Monahan...umm...shouted obscenities at the airport staff...umm... umm...oh, they took some scissors from his suitcase and he became...umm...abusive at this point." If I was reading about it in Kafka I might have found something vaguely amusing in all of it. But I wasn’t. I was there. Living it.

I entered a plea of nolo contendere, explaining to the judge that if I’d been a resident of Oregon, I would have definitely pled "Not Guilty." However, when that happens, your case automatically goes to a jury trial, and since I lived a thousand miles away, and was slated to return home in seven days, with a newborn due in a matter of weeks...you get the picture. "No Contest" it was. Judgment: $250 fine.

Did I feel happy? Only $250, right? No, I wasn’t happy. I don’t care if it’s twelve cents, that’s money pulled right out of my baby’s mouth and fed to a disgusting legal system that will use it to propagate more incidents like this. But at the very least it was over, right? Wrong.

When we returned to Los Angeles there was an envelope waiting for me from the court. Inside wasn’t a receipt for the money we’d paid. No, it was a letter telling me that what I actually owed was $309 – state assessed court costs, you know. Wouldn’t you think your taxes pay for that – the state putting you on trial? No, taxes are used to hire more cops like the officer, because with our rising criminal population – people like me – hey, your average citizen demands more and more "security."

Finally I reach the piece de resistance. The week before we’d gone to the airport my wife had had her regular pre-natal checkup. The child had settled into the proper head down position for birth, continuing the remarkable pregnancy she’d been having. We returned to Portland on Sunday. On Mary’s Monday appointment she was suddenly told, "Looks like your baby’s gone breech." When she later spoke with her midwives in Los Angeles, they wanted to know if she’d experienced any type of trauma recently, as this often makes a child flip. "As a matter of fact..." she began, recounting the story, explaining how the child inside of her was going absolutely crazy when she was crying as the police were leading me away through the crowd.

My wife had been planning a natural childbirth. She’d read dozens of books, meticulously researched everything, and had finally decided that this was the way for her. No drugs, no numbing of sensations – just that ultimate combination of brute pain and sheer joy that belongs exclusively to mothers. But my wife is also a first-time mother, so she has what is called an "untested" pelvis. Essentially this means that a breech birth is too dangerous to attempt, for both mother and child. Therefore, she’s now relegated to a c-section – hospital stay, epidural, catheter, fetal monitoring, stitches – everything she didn’t want. Her natural birth has become a surgery.

We’ve tried everything to turn that baby. Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, underwater handstands, elephant walking, moxibustion, bending backwards over pillows, herbs, external manipulation – all to no avail. When I walked into the living room the other night and saw her plaintively cooing with a flashlight turned onto her stomach, yet another suggested technique, my heart almost broke. It’s breaking now as I write these words.

I can never prove that my child went breech because of what happened to us at the airport. But I’ll always believe it. Wrongly or rightly, I’ll forever think of how this man, the personification of this system, has affected the lives of my family and me. When my wife is sliced open, I’ll be thinking of him. When they remove her uterus from her abdomen and lay it on her stomach, I’ll be thinking of him. When I visit her and my child in the hospital instead of having them with me here in our home, I’ll be thinking of him. When I assist her to the bathroom while the incision heals internally, I’ll be thinking of him.

There are plenty of stories like this these days. I don’t know how many I’ve read where the writer describes some breach of civil liberties by employees of the state, then wraps it all up with a dire warning about what we as a nation are becoming, and how if we don’t put an end to it now, then we’re in for heaps of trouble. Well you know what? Nothing’s going to stop the inevitable. There’s no policy change that’s going to save us. There’s no election that’s going to put a halt to the onslaught of tyranny. It’s here already – this country has changed for the worse and will continue to change for the worse. There is now a division between the citizenry and the state. When that state is used as a tool against me, there is no longer any reason why I should owe any allegiance to that state.

And that’s the first thing that child of ours is going to learn.

December 21, 2002

Nick Monahan works in the film industry. He writes out of Los Angeles where he lives with his wife and as of December 18th, his beautiful new son.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com

     

 

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,040 ... 1,141-1,147 next last
To: Bob Mc
Hmmm...seems like 30+ cities (Drudge reports some 60 more are ready to follow) who have passed ordinances to defy the federal government on implementing aspects of the Patriot Act...claiming parts of it are un-constitutional.

I guess these people are a bunch of wild-eyed, tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts too?

Looks like some people are starting to wake up.
1,001 posted on 12/22/2002 9:22:30 PM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
I asked about "hired columnists", not "crackpots".

Would Free Republic hire "crackpot" columnists, only to end up discrediting itself?

Do you think that this is what LewRockwell.com is doing?

1,002 posted on 12/22/2002 9:26:42 PM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1000 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
"Looks like some people are starting to wake up."

I so very much hope so!

1,003 posted on 12/22/2002 9:28:35 PM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: Gore_ War_ Vet
Thanks for the homework assignment. I read some of the first 100 replies and think I get it... but I'm not even gonna bother to respond to all the ignorant comments I read. A baby gestates not in the mother's breasts, but in the belly; so, if the "terrorist hunters'" goal was to find a bambino bomb, his/her story would be more convincing if he spent more time feeling up her belly.

Since I'm not now in an airport, I don't think I'm breaking any homeland security laws by stating here that I think the TSA's new so called anti-terror M.O. is BS.

As for your last question, you still have a very poor friend. :-) I'll still buy you lunch, though.

1,004 posted on 12/22/2002 9:28:41 PM PST by tgslTakoma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"If anyone it is to blame, other than these particular nitwits, it is Little Tommy Daschle, who insisted that all airline security jobs should be federalized, and President Bush, for going along with him rather than fighting it."

Absolutely. Ditto. Amen and amen.

1,005 posted on 12/22/2002 9:43:05 PM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bob Mc
I asked about "hired columnists", not "crackpots".

And I am going to move off of that "hired columnist" contention, I confused this author with another, sorry. Looks like he is just a "crackpot". Here is a list of LewRockwell's columnists. Columnists and Commentators

1,006 posted on 12/22/2002 9:43:13 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
"Looks like he is just a "crackpot".

So, LewRockwell.com allows articles from "crackpots" to get published?

If they hire columnists, then I assume they are a news organization. Since they state they are "anti-statist" I also assume they are not just another liberal rag, but are right wing.

So explain to me, why would a right wing Internet News site allow bogus stories from "crackpots" to get published?

Again, wouldn't you think they would be concerned about their future credibility when this crackpot is eventually shot down?

Seems to me LewRockwell.com is commercial and depends on advertizers. Could they continue to keep business if they lose credibility?

I don't see how you can dismiss this article based on the source. Perhaps there is something I don't know about LewRockwell.com.

1,007 posted on 12/22/2002 9:56:30 PM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Holy cow! I have read many articles from several of these LewRockwell columnists! Talk about credibility! Some are awfully popular people here at Free Republic. I see and enjoy their articles here often!

Really, I seriously doubt a conservative right wing organization with these kind of columnists is an unreliable source as you contend. (Are you a liberal/democrat disrupter perhaps?)

I think I'll start visiting this LewRockwell.com. Thanks for the pointer.

1,008 posted on 12/22/2002 10:31:59 PM PST by Bob Mc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]

To: tgslTakoma
Actually, this has been a wonderfully informative thread. I'd really like to see what someone who comes here uncertain of his/her opinion on the matter thinks after reading these thousand-plus posts. What is most extraordinary to me is that anyone can believe these security measures are effective and put their faith in them. There have been SEVERAL highjacking attempts since 9/11 , and several people going bonkers and trying to get into the cockpit. Every would-be highjacker got through security...and every one was stopped by passengers and crew who were deprived of the means of deadly force. Now I guess that's a good thing if you can stop a bad guy with fists and blankets. So far, so good. But if Al-Qaeda has plans to recapitulate 9/11, we don't know about them...and I have no doubt that if they try, they can evade any and all security we can afford to put into place. We also seem to have a lot of people who don't mind being touched by strangers, even in a businesslike way, and who cannot accept that to some of us it is a profoundly painful experience. All right, believe that I'm warped to feel that way about it. When the airlines go bankrupt, please remember that it is people like myself who were completely excluded from buying tickets by invasions of our fundamental rights that we find unacceptable. "If you don't like it, don't fly" is an attitude that is going to cost us all flight. You won't be able to fly either when the airlines shut down. (Post picture here of the hundreds of mothballed commercial jets lined up neatly in the desert...can't find it, unfortunately.) On a humorous note, my mother-in-law told me, "HEY! You shut up about that! That's the only chance to be groped by anybody that I've got left!"
1,009 posted on 12/23/2002 4:47:47 AM PST by ChemistCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1004 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
Scientifically, touching the breasts of a pregnant woman could release the hormone prolactin. This hormone could trigger many things including pre-mature labor.

I don't think our forefathers would encourage our government to believe that they have the right to infringe on the citizens personal rights in the name of supposed "safety". Meanwhile there are probably undocumented illegals working at the airport in foodservice, security and other employment positions that would indeed cause concern for everyone's safety!

1,010 posted on 12/23/2002 5:25:58 AM PST by all4one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Not sure...haven't Sheperdized it lately. BTW - I was commenting on the Maryland's requirements to pass the muster before our Court of Appeals. It is an interesting read and it isn't often I disagree with Rhenquist and Scalia. In that case I do.

The Dissent is more in line with previous 4th Amendment cases and contains a discussion regarding the original subject of this thread. Even the dissent in Sitz would likely agree that security checkpoints in airports are constitutional - if there was a proper protocol in place that eliminates arbitrary decisions by the screeners.

In this case, any screen of a female should be done in private by two female screeners and the subject of the screening should be allowed to have her husband/family member accompany her into the private area. I'm not sure how to handle a female traveling alone.

1,011 posted on 12/23/2002 5:39:18 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: inquest
But when it's the government telling me that I can't ride in your car without submitting to a search, then they're getting out of line.

Is this one of your not-a-libertarian arguments? ;)

It's "we the people" who told you you can't get on an airplane without being searched. We decided, as a society, to elect representatives who would act to help prevent airline hijackings. The people who brought this to you was all of us, your friends and neighbors. No totalitarian imposition of airport searches was necessary - we asked for this.

And, of course, "we" includes you. If you happen to disagree with what we have done, the proper remedy is, as always, to convince "we" to change our minds.

1,012 posted on 12/23/2002 5:49:47 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Two posts I can't resist. ;)

Actually, the way to begin is by getting the federal government out of the process altogether, and allow the airlines themslelves to have full and absolute discretion over: - who gets to work for them, and who doesn't; - who's allowed to carry a weapon on board, and who isn't; - who's allowed on board at all, and who isn't; - and who gets intensively searched, and who doesn't.

Suppose for a moment that came to pass, and you were in charge of an airline. Would you screen passengers for weapons before boarding? If so, would it be more or less stringent than current requirements? Would you search everyone, certain types of people, or just random folks?

TIA.

1,013 posted on 12/23/2002 5:55:38 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Is this one of your not-a-libertarian arguments?

Huh?!

It's "we the people" who told you you can't get on an airplane without being searched. We decided, as a society, to elect representatives who would act to help prevent airline hijackings. The people who brought this to you was all of us, your friends and neighbors. No totalitarian imposition of airport searches was necessary - we asked for this.

And does the Constitution fit into this equation anywhere, or is that irrelevant?

1,014 posted on 12/23/2002 5:56:42 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I'm not a professional when it comes to these things, but in general, I'd keep in mind what someone at El Al once said about our practices: "In America, you search for weapons. In Israel, we search for terrorists." Their approach seems to have served them well for the most part. As such, I'd go heavier on the profiling side (not just ethnically, either, but on all aspects of a scientifically valid profile), and probably go a little easier on weapons in general. If it means that a terrorist slips by with a weapon, it would also mean that the other passengers are armed as well, and so his effectiveness would be, shall we say, diminished.

But like I said, I'm not an expert.

1,015 posted on 12/23/2002 6:01:46 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
My family wouldn't fly on a carrier that would skrimp on security, perfect target for hijack attempts.

So I take this to mean that your family wouldn't fly on any carriers in operation today, seeing as how they don't live up to the standards you posted at #928? You started off saying that we'd be begging for protection from such oppressiveness, and now you're suggesting that people wouldn't be satisfied with anything less. My position is simple: Let the market decide.

1,016 posted on 12/23/2002 6:09:10 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]

To: Bob Mc
Really, I seriously doubt a conservative right wing organization with these kind of columnists is an unreliable source as you contend. (Are you a liberal/democrat disrupter perhaps?)

Think again. This writer is a frustrated liberal playwright who didn't get his way at the airport and had a tempertantrum. Conservative you say? HA! This guy wrote a short lived play that ran in L.A. , the play (Jimmy Christ)was a comedy done in bad taste about Jesus and his family. Blasphemy is not a conservative trait the last time I checked. The one review I was able to find blasted it.

In a television-oriented mush of bad old jokes played like outtakes from Leave It to Beaver, playwright Nicholas Monahan takes a totally sophomoric view of the Holy Family that from beginning to end is infantile and dull. Why this company chose to do it boggles the imagination.

Link

The following is another example of the fine conservative values exhibited by this author and associates.

PETE TO PLAY JOSEPH IN COMEDY ABOUT JESUS

It's official. Pete Punito, one half of the singing duo Natural Phenomenon Ocean, has been hand plucked to play the part of Joseph in Nick Monahan's "Jimmy Christ". The play will run throughout the entire month of June at L.A.'s famed Space Theater. Also appearing in the play is none other than Panos Koronus. What does it mean to the band now that Punito is experiencing his first taste of acting stardom? "I like acting," responded Punito, "but my first love is that shit I do with Breakfast."

Link

____________________________________________________________

I would place absolutely no value in this author's writings. No corroboration, no mention of the incident in any other publication, no interviews with the screeners, etc. No facts, this is a hypothetical at best.

1,017 posted on 12/23/2002 6:23:33 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: inquest
No I'm saying that once there is a distinct difference in the security from one airline to the other, customers will flock to the safer one and terrorists will flock to the less protected. The market will decide which suits the needs of the public. In today's market, security is pretty much equal across the board and there are no distinct targets for terrorists.
1,018 posted on 12/23/2002 6:30:49 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
(Sorry to join late...I couldn't log on this weekend)

While I agree that getting hysterical is never a helpful response to a difficult situation, I think that all of the discussion assessing the correctness of the author's response is missing the point. You (and some others here) seem to be saying that the only appropriate response to arrogant behavior by govt officials is to blandly accept it. I don't agree. Just "bucking up" and letting these willful children have their way is wrong.

If we're going to question anybody's judgement here, I think the response of the authorities should come under scrutiny. Having been in positions of authority myself, I apply a ruthless double standard to the behavior and judgement of those to whom authority has been delegated. I expect such people to be able to make sensible judgements and not simply resort to force to resolve any difficult situation. A distraught husband who shouts at me needs to get control of himself but he is NOT committing a crime. Someone who cannot handle such a situation without resorting to mindless force has no business being in a position of authority.

I think that any place where an arrogant petty bureaucrat abuses his/her authority is a good place to "make a stand". If more of us did this we wouldn't have it happening so much. It is possible to make a stand for your dignity without going hysterical. If you think your dignity isn't worth defending, then it doesn't exist.

1,019 posted on 12/23/2002 6:43:28 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: inquest
You started off saying that we'd be begging for protection from such oppressiveness,

I said that the poster I was addressing at the time would be "begging for protection" not me.

1,020 posted on 12/23/2002 6:44:51 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,040 ... 1,141-1,147 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson