Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Home taping is killing music (again) | Main | Win 2K users get worms »
Baby can't board
I'm not big on faux security but I can't say that I'm against anything that keeps babies and children off of planes. Apparently "every major airport" has prevented a child under 2 from flying because his/her name was the same as someone on the no-fly list.
Maybe I'm just being selfish but if I can't get to sleep on the redeye back from the West Coast because of a crying child, [joke has been deleted by the dignity of the author and he asks that you forget it was ever here].
Posted by Charles Star on 08/16/2005 | Permalink
Comments
For fuck's sake. Could you just report the news item and spare us your anti-child bullshit? I don't give a damn if you don't like children. I don't give a damn if you think small humans shouldn't be able to fly. Your comfort is not more important than someone else's right to travel. Put it in your personal blog, not the magazine's blog. Discuss the news item and then shut the fuck up. I'm sick to my ass of this inane garbage.
Posted by: cere | Aug 16, 2005 3:02:44 PM
"I'm not big on faux security but if it - coupled with injustice - means I can fly more comfortably, then I'm all for it!"
Glad to see you've got your priorities in order.
Posted by: boggled | Aug 16, 2005 3:10:47 PM
Personally, I like jokes.
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Aug 16, 2005 3:17:07 PM
Rats, I want to see the joke. Ain't no shame in not wanting to fly with screamers. Keep your spine strong, Charles, and don't cave to the pressure (and cussing) of breeder-centric pronatalists like cere, who writes:
"Could you just report the news item and spare us your anti-child bullshit?"
I'd sure love the mainstream media to just report news and spare us its pronatalist bullshit.
Posted by: Nina | Aug 16, 2005 3:49:18 PM
The person who said that children should be seen and not heard was only half right. If airlines wanted more kids on planes they would install more overhead storage bins.
Posted by: LaTreen Washington | Aug 16, 2005 4:30:01 PM
Forget the overhead bins. You'd probably still be able to here the little sods "fussing quietly". I think what's needed here is some wing space and plenty of sticky tape.
Posted by: Cluedweasel | Aug 16, 2005 4:44:40 PM
"For fuck's sake", you're all missing the point. Young children often exhibit erratic and unstable behavior -- classic indicators of terrorist activity. They should be kept behind a soundproof "security partition" at the rear of the plane.
Posted by: Damian | Aug 16, 2005 4:53:13 PM
p.s. Charles, perhaps you could e-mail me the "aristocrats"-style joke you must have had in there...
Posted by: Damian | Aug 16, 2005 4:54:30 PM
I have had to endure screaming hellspawn on far too many flights. Calling them "tiny humans" does not give them the right to disrupt an entire aircraft cabin. If their parents can't (or more likely won't) control them then they should leave them the hell home. Or maybe consider putting them in a pet carrier and stowing them in baggage.
Posted by: Old Fart | Aug 16, 2005 4:54:42 PM
Where are these children flying to? A job interview? A class reunion? An industrial seminar? If they didn't pay for their tickets, they shouldn't be allowed to fly.
I suppose one could be stuffed into a Sherpa carrier and allowed into cargo, if under the weight limit. But that means dogs get to sit up front, where they belong.
Posted by: Mischo | Aug 16, 2005 5:16:46 PM
Nina and Damian: I deleted the joke because it was hacky, not under pronatalist pressure or because it was offensive.
But since you mentioned The Aristocrats, Damian, I have an opinion about that also.
Posted by: Charles | Aug 16, 2005 5:26:31 PM
As a former child, I recall having to endure the endless, inane prattle of many adults, with their breath stinking of booze and garlic, their massive, scary pores and wrinkles, clumps of weird hair peeking out from everywhere, and that stench, oh that hideous adult-who's-been-on-a-plane stench!
So I say ban all those fuckers from planes. No more shreiking kids, no more boring smelly adults. Now we're getting somewhere.
Posted by: Jason | Aug 16, 2005 5:33:30 PM
You know what is always the truth? Those braindead miscreants who refer to their fucktrophies as "little humans" are invariably the big humans who think it is their intrinsic right to force the rest of the planet to endure the antics of their "little humans."
And my prior work experience also tells me that such miscreants are the first ones to get all profane on a blog, braying about "the RIGHTS of FAMBLEES" and the importance of Da Chiyuld...but they can't spring for a $300 seat in Coach to keep their little darling safe.
They are the most important thing in the world...that is, until their breeders have to shell out a couple hundred bucks for them. Then, it's Lap City, baby! (No pun intended.)
Posted by: Former United Airlines Stewardess | Aug 16, 2005 8:23:26 PM
For fuck's sake. Could you just read the damn news item, then go away if you don't like it and spare us your pro-child bullshit? I don't give a damn if you do like children. I don't give a damn if you think kids should be able to fly. Your opinion of someone else's opinion is not more important than his right to freely express his opinion. Put the pronatalist censorship crap in your personal blog, not the magazine's comments, then shut the fuck up. I'm sick to my ass of this inane garbage.
Posted by: erec | Aug 16, 2005 8:47:41 PM
Charles wrote: "Nina and Damian: I deleted the joke because it was hacky, not under pronatalist pressure or because it was offensive."
Then you'll just have to write us another, better one!
Posted by: Nina | Aug 16, 2005 9:08:18 PM
Children do not belong on public means of transportation, and neither do breeders.
I say drag them naked behind a truck.
Posted by: Pete | Aug 16, 2005 9:29:25 PM
Cere writes:
"For fuck's sake. Could you just report the news item and spare us your anti-child bullshit?"
FFS, I'm sick to death of entitlement-minded
breeders and their crotch crickets. I'm sick to death of constantly having pro-natalist views shoved at me. Could you just discuss the news item and spare us your pro-child bullshit? I'm sick to my ass of breeder's inane garbage.
Posted by: Caine | Aug 16, 2005 9:35:13 PM
Oh dry up, cere. You're no more tired of so-called inane garbage than everybody else is of whiny-ass breeders. Shut the fuck up yourself, loser
Posted by: Wade | Aug 16, 2005 10:04:35 PM
I feel obligated to make clear that intense loathing of children is not the official policy of Stay Free! magazine or this author.
Posted by: Charles | Aug 16, 2005 10:46:39 PM
Oh looky, Stay Free is run by BREEDER-PLEASERS!
What a fucking shock.
Please, all of you stayfree minipads, just die.
Or is it maxi-pads?
Posted by: Pete | Aug 16, 2005 11:04:44 PM
I travel for business a 15-20 times a year. I would really appreciate the pet carrier or "child room" approach. I can't tell of how may ruined mornings travelling with these glooping POS chewing on the seat in front of me giving me yet another cold while I try my best to ignore your poor parenting skills. Can't you make your kids sit the fuck down?
Going back 30 years... I travelled with my parents several times. They would not have tolerated anything like running up and down the aisles, blubbery snot running down the back of the seat (4 yr old as an example).
I had to *sit* there like an *adult*. What is wrong with that? Are kids that hard to control anymore?
Have you heard of Ritalin/Effexor/Adderall/Valium
That is all.
Dave
Posted by: Dave | Aug 17, 2005 12:00:28 AM
Hey, other people like jokes too! Horay!
Posted by: Steve Lambert | Aug 17, 2005 12:01:03 AM
WHY can't they put up a partition and put the childed and their charges into a soundproofed area. The last trans-Atlantic flight I was on contained a squealing toddler who literally did not shut up for more than 10 minutes at a time for over 9 hours. Why should a couple hundred exhausted, cramped, thoroughly uncomfortable travellers on long hauls be deprived of a precious few hours of semi-sleep because someone can't shut their child up. Idiot procreator: See your Dr. before you leave and get the kid some sedatives already. You and everyone else, including your kid, will be very grateful.
Posted by: Caelan | Aug 17, 2005 12:12:07 AM
The answer to this vexing problem is located -- hidden, some would say -- deep within the past. Back in "the day," children were actually mailed via the US Postal Service. This is not a lie, I am not lying, and that was not a lie. They weren't stuffed in bags, they actually rode with the postal carrier. This wasn't nationwide, and I can't remember the area/time in which it happened. Google isn't helping, either, but there was at least one webpage about it, and also a smallish author-published book, the type with those plastic comb bindings.
What could be safer than a child riding to his or her destination in the constant care of an official agent of the United States government? And surely some of those packages contain food, wouldn't you think? Let's open a few of them, no one will ever know.
The parent(s) get a few days sans child at their destination, the child inhales deeply the hardy scent of adventure, and the harried postal worker has a free junior gopher to boss around. "Get the letter!" "Throw all those rubber bands on the ground in a small pile!" "Kick the package! No, harder!"
Mailing children: Everyone wins.
Posted by: Anonmouse | Aug 17, 2005 1:48:40 AM
well, it's great to know that lots of people who frequent progressive/left sites & read progressive/left magazines can still act like UTTER MISOGYNISTS.
I too am annoyed by screaming children on planes & disturbed by our culture's obsession with fertility, but I don't think joking that people who have kids are/should be second class citizens is funny, original or okay. and I don't even want to have 'em myself.
we all know which people you're talking about, folks: women are the breeders.
children are a biological fact. hating on the people who carry and primarily care for them is some privileged bullshit if I ever heard any.
Posted by: colleen | Aug 17, 2005 10:15:54 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
