Monday, September 10, 2007

Linkage and whatnot

Death Nap: The dangers of tilting back the front seat—don't do it!
Interesting article in Slate about the danger of reclined seats. I am unsurprised that auto manufacturers are unmoved by research and law-suits. Auto companies are in the business of making money, not protecting people. It is the government's lack of movement on this issue that gives me pause.

The Tao of Junk: Pundits bemoan our trade deficit with China. But those container ships aren't heading home empty.
Apparently we are shipping our junk metals etc. to China to be reused there.
I don't want to shock anyone, but can't we use our own scrap to make stuff? Are we not in a HUGE trade deficit? Perhaps not selling China the materials to make things then buying those things from China would be smarter and certainly more ecologically sound.

Airline Tells Woman Her Outfit Won't Fly
Businesses should have the rights to refuse service. Furthermore, I'm tired of seeing everyone's hoohaws. I shouldn't have to see your nether-regions in a restaurant, flight, bus, or anywhere outside of a strip club.
If you wonder why no one respects you, stand in front of a mirror and think, would I vote this woman into public office? Would I trust this woman to invest my money, defend my rights in a court of law, or babysit my child. Try picturing someone who would fit these categories and dress like her.
If you dress like a hooker, don't be surprised if people treat you like one.


cymberleah said...

Wow, for once I mostly disagree with you!

Driving around with your seat reclined is... stupid. As is driving around with your feet out the window/on the dash. I really don't need the government to tell me that if I am seated in a way that the seat belt doesn't hit where it is designed to, that there will be trouble. Given the difference between bone and soft tissue, it's a no-brainer that something designed to stop you by hitting bone might not be so nifty on soft tissue.

And as far at the flight goes, as long as this person can walk by a cop and not be arrested for indecent exposure, there's not much call for walking her off the plane, snarking at her, then letting her back on. Would I dress that way? No, not even if I had the body to pull it off. But until there is a dress code printed on my boarding pass, and as long as I am legal, the airline has no reason to be dictating what clothes I can and can't wear. It's transportation!

qtilla said...

But it is private transportation, not public.

cymberleah said...

True, but there is still no dress code on the boarding pass. I mean, even ye shack restaurant will have "No shirt, no shoes, no service" posted.

If you are going to set yourself up as an arbiter of proper style, giving people some notice of that is generally considered correct. "Southwest, you are now free to move about the country; wear your Sunday best" and I'd have no issue. Up until that point, I would consider legal to be the line. Illegal = no flight. Legal = flight. At this point, they had already taken her money and at the time of sale had not told her that there would be a clothing check before getting on the plane. I'd say, at the time you took my money and we entered into this transaction, you didn't specify what clothing was inappropriate, therefore, this was not, at that time, considered a deal-breaking issue on the part of the airline. To turn it into one with no fair or prior warning is wrong. At the time that she was pulled aside, she had no recourse to either wear something that conformed to their non-specified standards, or to choose to not fly with them and fly with another carrier instead.

Also, she's not running for office, or trying to sit anyone's children. So why should her clothing reflect either of those occupations? So she dressed like a slut. Why does dressing like a girl who wants to play bed games automatically make you someone shunned, save that public mention of sex is horrifying to the typical American?

qtilla said...

I think that the point of the comment at the end regarding respectability was in regard to her response to the whole thing which is essentially, 'why am I being scrutinized? you can't judge me as a ho.'
i have no problem with sex, but if you don't want people to judge you to be trashy, and you can't actually change what will form their judgments (i.e. their standard), perhaps you should conform to their standard. Or live with their opinions.
You can't really have it both ways.

Additionally, a business can refuse to grant service. They offered to put her on another flight. Surely that must be good enough in the eyes of the law.

I usually am pretty liberal about this, but I think there is a societal standard and people should hold to it.

As far as posting dress-codes, I have no idea who would be able to do that other than the good people at Emily Post. I think that people understand what is acceptable, they just don't care.

I think there has been some kind of catastrophic slip in America, wherein everyone thinks that they should have the right to do whatever they want regardless of other people. This simply should not be the case.

cymberleah said...

Actually, it was more of an automatic ho = I have no respect for you and you can't ever expect to have any. That's rather silly, in my opinion. Also, the person who walked her off the plane was punishing her for not conforming to an unwritten interpretation of the proper standard of attire.

Another flight isn't really right, unless it's a flight by another carrier. If you say I can't fly in my bikini at 12, why am I able to fly in my bikini at 5?

I do agree that standards are a good thing, but the correct time to tell me to conform to your rules is not after you have taken my money. If I am not someone you want to have a transaction with, then do not enter into a transaction with me. If the rule is, not skirts more than two inches above the knee, then make that knowledge availible to me before I enter into a transaction with you. A business has really no right, in my opinion, to take my money and then tell me I have to paint my house purple before they will deliver my books.

Also, as far as standards go. I like them in the abstract. I tend to follow my own personal view of them. But when you have some people who view scanty clothing as something good to wear in 90 degree weather, and then people who feel that Michaelangelo's David is pornographic, I am not certain who I really want to be setting these standards, because it's certainly neither of those.

It's really, in my opinion, not a bad thing that someone said "ok, put some clothes on." But what is bad is that Southwest was willing to break their contract for her inability to conform to an unwritten and unspecified standard that was not mentioned as a potential breach of contract at the time that the commercial transaction took place. As far as I am concerned, this is not much different from me walking into a McDonalds to buy a hamburger, paying for it, and before my food comes out having the manager harrangue me in front of the entire dining room for wearing shorts, and then letting me eat at Burger King. Which would be entirely not an issue if there was a messgae on the menu that said one cannot wear shorts in McDs. At that point, I would either know to wear pants, or know to go to Burger King in the first place and save myself the aggravation.

qtilla said...

I fear that we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

cymberleah said...

For once!

PalinDrome said...

You have both missed the best part of this entire story. Last week she went on the Today show wearing the same outfit. And ends up showing her panties to the world. Jump to 1:30 or so if don't want to here Matt blather on and on. I must say that until the flashing I did not see anything at all objectionable about her outfit.