Last seen I was telling you that I'd resume writing just after my arrival in the Seattle area on Tuesday. With exacting promptness I then violated precisely that on Wednesday. But today, Thursday, I'm here to report that though yesterday's transgression was real, what I committed against the Transportation Security Administration on Tuesday was one of a sinless phantom.
Not to boast of my infinite virtues, but I'm a gentle soul. Still, on rarest occasion, my fuse will shorten and my larynx explode with a stream of invectives aimed at any knuckleheaded organization that abuses my sainted nature. In the cranium-musclebound opinion of TSA, however, the wrongdoer was I. My crime of heinous enormity: In a carryon was a bottle of body wash.
This grave offense called for summary confiscation, although the Big Book of Rationality defines it as theft. The offending object was to be a belated Christmas present for my Seattle-based daughter; the item, a pricey little thing with some sort of exotic odor, brilliantly marketed as a niche product to gullible gift-giving ignoramuses like me.
I'll spare you the megillah's almost impressive torrent of TSA's stupefying rules, regulations and stern, immovable proscriptions. Some, though, just might contain an on-the-spot workaround, assuming an on-the-spot agent possesses comprehensive knowledge of the subdepartment's own measures and obliges the baffled traveler with the appropriate countermeasure.
My pit bull official was not of that breed. (After my final arrival and later digging around in TSA's website I discovered the puzzle's solution.) And so the ensuing theft of my property converted to ashes what little was left of my fuse; I bent to slip shoes on and arose with a volcanic eruption of seething profanities.
I confess my untoward part of the needless, even silly conflict — an instance comparable to a traffic cop writing someone a ticket for doing 36 mph in a 35 mph zone and then impounding the car, while obvious good sense would have precluded both acts. An exaggeration, though still comparable.
But my far greater regret? Rather than blowing up I should have whipped out what for quite some time I've hoped becomes a commonplace among baffled others. It's a hugely valid stance to take — especially against official pettiness — even though it lacks the wobbliest of civilized legs. That's okay, it's the principle of the thing, and more so the much-needed continuing exposure of what the president-elect has exhaustingly called our two-tiered system of justice. He's damn right about that.
Every U.S citizen is expected to kindly and quietly obey officialdom's countless rules — including the super dumb but perfectly by-the-book evadable ones — and of course every law. Today, a correction, or update. You are expected to do so. A few of the privileged are not.
Trump has made a joke of Georgia state felony charges, two extraordinarily serious federal indictments, and the presiding judge of his New York state felony conviction — primed for a toss-out by the incoming president's personal Supreme Court — recently announced that sentencing would be bare of even a fine, let alone any jail time.
Or, take the civil side of such things. Monday, again in NY, a U.S. district judge held Rudy Giuliani in contempt of court for a second time; the former lawyer has repeatedly defied court orders to help satisfy a $148 million defamation judgment against him. You, I — we would have been in big trouble, right then and there. And tomorrow another judge will hold hearings on yet another of Giuliani's contempt, unless he weasels out of it via his claim of sudden poor health.
I should be so privileged, whether facing mountains of criminal charges or staring down all manner of unwelcome behavior. You too should share in the privilege. The first above malefactor was the selfsame everyday citizen of these shaky United States — shaky only because of his many, many other acts of illegality and chronic boorishness — when his legal woes began and then, one by one, collapsed.
It just seems to me that the ideal way all other U.S. citizens confronted by disagreeable governmental authority should loudly and, perhaps, even profanely proclaim that since such powers allowed Citizen Trump to simply wave them off, they're due the same right. It wouldn't be long, I should also think, before a great majority of citizens came to understand that it was the sitting president of the United States who uncorked these acts of civil disobedience on a massive scale — that he brought down our once-reasonably civil society.
You know, I gotta say, as someone who experienced both pre and post 9/11 air travel, I kind of like it now. Anytime I fly it’s usually for business and this gives me an excuse to show up way early and pound beers for “lunch”. But I get you, there is a dance you have to do now to get clear of the checkpoint and it can be annoying. I confess to getting into it though. Does that count as complying in advance, or is it just me gaming the system to get to the bar faster? You decide!
Posted by: ssdd | January 09, 2025 at 11:42 PM
Jeebus H. Christ, PM. It's not like the 4oz. maximum for liquids in your carry-on hasn't been a rule since 2001. You don't get out much, do you?
Posted by: Uncle Billy | January 10, 2025 at 08:05 AM
"Fella, we're confiscating this. You're in violation of TSA rules. 4 oz. is monstrously over the limit. With 4 oz. you're a menace to society, a national security threat and, quite possibly, a wild-eyed terrorist cleverly disguised. For Christ's sake, fella, this isn't news. It's not like the 3.4 oz. maximum for liquids in your carry-on hasn't been a rule since 2001."
Of course I was aware of this idiotic rule. In a draft I explained that when packing I saw nothing but a Christmas gift for my daughter. It wasn't a bottle, there was no liquid — it was simply a gift I'd been holding for a couple months; eager to give it. I dumped that from the draft; too many words and too sentimental.
As for your question, I don't get out as much as I'd like, given the high cost of travel. Writing is not a lucrative livelihood — especially when 90% of the writer's everyday-like-clockwork readers choose to ride free. Some of them even comment. Appalling? In a way, maybe. But I welcome everyone, and more than that, I get a kick out of the nasty ones; says something about utter self-unawareness and the warped human condition.
Oh, by the way, wanna know who the nasty ones are? And by that I mean without fail? They're readers who once always wrote friendly, informative, civilized comments, often for years on end. But let just one of their "facts" be challenged or some silly opinion be noted — and whammo, their ultra-thin skin turns dark and ugly, their brain, downright stupid. Still, as noted, I really do get a kick out of such readers. This I beg of them — keep it up.
Posted by: PM | January 10, 2025 at 12:44 PM
That may be the answer. Get hammered. Better yet, stay hammered for 4 years. But seriously, ladies and germs, what also pissed me off is that TSA "rules" can depend on the TSA agent. Case in point: I'm supposed to take morphine (liquid) 4 times a day. In, as I recall, Detroit, an agent said my bottle was over the limit, so he was "seizing" it. I gently replied, "No, you are not seizing it." This became a carousel of words that gained speed, intensity, the pressuring of blood and creative language (a preview of Tuesday). Guess what? He finally relented. Two items about that. 1. This TSA agent was ignorant of TSA rules. Only later did I learn that liquid Rxs clearly marked as such have no limit. BUT, 2. That's not really the point. The point is that he genuinely believed my bottle was in violation of TSA rules. Yet what did he do? Notwithstanding this certain belief, he himself, a TSA agent, violated a TSA rule. So violations are, IN FACT, permitted.
Or so I learned. Just depends on the agent, which is a capricious system, which translates to lawlessness — no one can ever really know what might be legal, what might be illegally privileged, or what might get one's property seized (or worse). Ultimately, capriciousness of the law will (not could) lead to a society very much like, oh, let's say, Trumpism.
Posted by: PM | January 10, 2025 at 01:23 PM
Thin skinned? Methinks the shoe is on the other foot, judging by the length of your response.
Posted by: Uncle Billy | January 11, 2025 at 07:54 AM
I'll give you credit for not denying stupidity.
Posted by: PM | January 11, 2025 at 10:33 AM