Let's win this thing with words!

Unfortunately the TSA has made it necessary to speak quite plainly and precisely about things for which we would otherwise use a circumlocution.

 

I think using certain words will harm our efforts more than help. We need to move more people into our camp. We have to sell them on our position. Why alienate people if we can take the high road and accomplish our goal at the same time?

Just my opinion.

 

That can be accomplished without profanity.

 

100% Agree!

 

Well, I am going for anatomically correct terms, which may be harder on the TSA, as Maude Lebowski has pointed out:

 

The aim is not to be some missionary to convert the unbelievers. It is to make a statement that might have dual salutory effects. Most importantly, it will tell the smurfs exactly what you think of them and raise their stress level. It might even incite them to do something really, really stupid, which doesn't take a huge leap. Then you go after them personally. If the TSA attempts to provide representation for them, a motion can be filed to disqualify the TSA's lawyer from joint representation on the grounds that he/she/it has a huge conflict of interest because it helps the TSA for the groper to be shown to have exceeded his authority so that he is not acting within the course ans scope of his duties and is, therefore on the hook by himself. So, which client is the poor lawyer going to really represent? The organization that needs to throw the groper under the bus? Or the poor groper who needs to show that what he is doing is SOP? The second possible effect is not to convert the Kettles but to at least cause them to think by a little shock. They may wonder, "Why is that man in a wheelchair wearing such a shirt? What did the TSA do to him?" and that may trigger just a little cognitive dissonance causing a questioning of the belief that everything for security is worth it.
But mostly, I want to push the buttons of the criminal class TSOs. I want to goad them into doing something that will result in poverty, homelessness, divorce, destructive self=loathing, and, ultimately, suicide.

And for a quote fom Cohen, "One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures -- and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation."

Or this, "The State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive(F***) a criminal offense."

The entire majority opinion is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0015_ZO.html

 

Do you have friends at the Cornell "law department" also?

 

Actually, there is one professor at the Cornell Law School that I dated some when we were in law school together. I guess we're still friends. I used the Cornell link because they have just about the most comprehensive online law library on the web. And wasn't it confirmed that Ron really isn't a TSO?

 

How do you really feel?

It appears not to be an issue with CafePress. If you search for "f***" (without the "*") they offer over 32,000 (nice round number, probably stopped searching at 32,000) designs for the "F****" aficionado. However, I'm still reluctant to go there.

 

Would rather not use that as well. Too much of a shock factor for some people to deal with. Good call.

 

The goal is to win the war not just one battle. Using words that are clear on what is happening without causing anger in people we wish to move to our side of the question will benefit our cause to a much greater extent that pissing off one TSA employee.

As far as taking an individual TSA employee to court I simple don't have 20 or 30 thousand dollars laying around to do such a thing. Now if one of you guys are willing to pony up the funds I'll wear any shirt you want.

 

Correct. "The goal is not to fight them, but to defeat them". The government, compared to the individual, has infinite power and unlimited life. (That's why they used to have this quaint thing called a "Constitution".) When a person says he or she will be touching your "sensitive areas", you simply ask "Oh, do you mean my penis/vulva/testicles/buttocks/breasts"? No one can criticize you for that. What would be the complaint speaking the proper and formal English language? But if that happened once or twice a shift, the gropers would have to come to terms mentally with what they were doing.

 

Let's not forget this one:

 

How about, instead of f***, "Bugger the TSA"? Only Brits could possibly be offended. It sounds positively quaint to American ears. I love quaint combined with profane.

Tangentially related, when the Austin Powers movies came out, I was smitten with "shag" this and "shag" that. To Americans, of course, it sounded charming. It had on us nothing like the effect it has on the British. At the time, I was working on a classical music show. The temptation for word play was too much. I went around saying, "shagadelic!" and profaning Bach (I love Bach, but it was fun): "My soul doth shagnify the Lord," and re-titling major works (in the hallways, of course, not on the air): "the Shagnificat." There was a guy on staff at the time who was English. He blanched. He was horrified. I had no idea how it sounded to him.

Anyway, we got a lot of giggles out of that.

 

However, "shag" in British English is not nearly as taboo as "f***" in American English. It's not unusual to see "shag" in mainstream British papers.

 

That's why when the clerk asks me if I had the pat-down grope, my standard response is: Yes, I've experienced the full testicle touching version. It answers the question and reminds the clerk what he is really doing.