Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Her head must be full of flour as well

I know I deal with a lot of stupidity in the news. I also know that the objects of my ridicule are often supporters of global warming and the legal system and those who abuse it. But, hey, it’s my blog, and that seems to be what is in the news.

In 2003 a woman was arrested in the Philadelphia International airport while transporting flour-filled condoms. She was imprisoned for three weeks while the substance in the condoms was analyzed. When the woman was released, she sued Philadelphia. Apparently her civil rights were violated.

Well, on the 5th of January a city official announced that the suit was settled for $180,000 (93,000 pounds), and I am torn. I can’t decide who is stupider here – the woman, the lawyers, or Philadelphia.

Let’s start with the woman (by the way, it would be just as stupid were it a man, so save the hate mail). What kind of idiot carries condoms filled with white powder in an international airport (except of course drug smugglers, terrorists, and moronic collegians)?

Now the lawyers. She shouldn’t have been able to get anyone to file that case or, for that matter, a judge to entertain it. What is wrong with our legal system? Do all lawyers trade their common sense for that diploma?

And do I even need to comment on Philadelphia? They settle out of court on a civil rights case that should never have been.

The only people who I won’t call stupid in this are the police officers who arrested this moron. They should be given a medal for protecting us from stupidity.

Until next time,
I’ll be in my trailer.

16 comments:

Liz said...

Did she ever say why she was carrying flour in condoms? She was truly an idiot as you say.

Thanks for dropping by my blog.

Victor Allen Winters said...

It had something to do with a joke, but the article wasn't clear(and to be honest, I didn't hear about it in 2003 nor did I look up anymore info).

tom sheepandgoats said...

Alas, Victor, I fear you are mistaken.

It's not the woman, the lawyers, or the city. It's the judges. (or fear of the judges)

Your report sounds an awful lot like the following scam:

A "shoplifter" shoplifts something small, making sure he is noticed. Just before leaving the store, he discards the item. He is stopped by Security outside the store and detained. He raises holy hell...the bigger the scene, the better!

When it turns out that he has nothing in his possession, he sues. And settles.

It happens a lot.

It's the judges.

Victor Allen Winters said...

That is true; it is the fear of litigation, caused by the judges that allows the system to be exploited. But I still think that the woman, the lawyers, and the City were all dumb in this case.

Romulus Crowe said...

I agree with Tom here. It sounds like she set it up.

In the UK, if you go through airport security and joke about, say, having a bomb, you'll be on the floor with a gun at your head before you know it. You won't be catching that flight, and you might well be banned from the airline.

So far, if you then tried to sue, you'd be laughed at. So far, anyway.

Victor Allen Winters said...

That is the same way here. That is what makes this case so weird. It sets a precedent.

Liz Burton said...

And don't let us forget about the imams (is that the right plural form? I'm not sure) who said their rights were violated as well when they were removed from a flight. Hmm. Lemme look at the clues there. Some had one-way tickets. Bad-mouthing the US. No checked baggage. Very blatantly enthusiastic about their religion (which happened to be muslim, but that's not even the point, really). You know, if they'd blown up the plane, everyone who'd had any contact with them would've gotten slaughtered in the media for not doing their job.

As far as this maiden's flour-filled luggage goes, I hope she spends some of her winnings (oops, I mean settlement,) on some real drugs and gets arrested for possession. What goes around...

Scary Monster said...

Me is somewhat confused was she trying to make a loaf of french bread or possibly transporting goods for the erotic baker?
Me personally stuff me condoms with something quite different.

Serena Joy said...

I was about to ask why on earth anyone would carry flour in condoms. Then I saw Scary Monster's comment. LOL! Makes sense to me. Now I have to go put on dry pants.

I think the whole legal system is hopelessly screwed up, from the judiciary on down. Unfortunately, businesses/governments/organizations often settle these nuisance suits before trial because it costs so damn much to litigate them.

There ought to be a law against being stupid in public. Maybe that would help keep people like Flour Girl off planes and scammers at home.

Southern Writer said...

What kind of idiot carries condoms filled with white powder in an international airport?

How about the kind with nothing to hide? She was a student, and she and her fellow students knead the condoms while studying, kind of a worry ball. They used to sell something similar in Vail, and they felt very much like the real thing. She was taking them home to give some to friends.

Ballpoint Wren said...

I'm with Tom and Romulus... it's sounds like a big scam!

Everybody's always looking out for a way to cheat the system.

Victor Allen Winters said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Victor Allen Winters said...

LB - True, I just didn't want to be the one who mentioned it.

Sm - Erotic baker...Wish I'd thought of that.

SW - I did say that I didn't research it past what the article said. And I still think it is stupid to carry condoms full of white powder through an international airport. Just like I don't travel with little baggies of herbal tea when I travel (glass jars are less suspicious for some reason).

BW - It is possible, although I think SW, has the details I was lacking. This one could be chalked up under a simple I-didn't-think-about-it mistake.

Moristotle said...

What do you mean, Mr. Winters, by "supporters of global warming"? Is global warming a sports team?

Victor Allen Winters said...

Moristotle - No more than the Bush administration (which has its share of supporters).

What I should have said is, proponents of "Global Warming", or even closer, the Daft fools who believe in global warming for no better reason than they heard it on the news.

My problem is that Global Warming is so surrounded by junk science and Dogmatism, that anyone (Science type) who disagrees with it, is blackballed from the scientific community, made to look like a laughing stock, refused funding. Disagreeing with Global Warming is a career killer for a Scientist.

Additionally, there is data manipulation, intentional short-sightedness (show me a graph with more than a hundred years or so), and propaganda (In case you are wondering I am still talking about Global Warming and not the Bush Administration.

Chris said...

So basically you have presented no evidence that global warming does not exist. Furthermore why would funding to scientists be cut if they did not agree with global warming when the number one contributer to global warming(if it does exist) are the gas and oil producing corporations. These coroporations control most of the smaller sub companies that you claim fund global warming study. If you had also read up slightly on the subject then you could realize that there are defintily graphs with more then a hundred years. Try roughly about 10 to 12 thousand years. They drill ice tubes in the artic and then extract the ice that has been compacted for centuries. Following the levels of compaction they can create a timeline with temperatures of each year for the last 12 thousand years. So before we discount global warming we should really think about those who would benefit from that course of action. Furthermore career killing occurs in just the same manner for those that admently support global warming.