Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife's Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

[Justin]

On 2004-12-21T10:38:10-0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> > put it this way it starts to make some sense. In other words, avoiding
> > travel whenever possible will (when added to sheeple starting to do the same
> > because of all the terible screening stories) eventually start putting some
> > squeeze on the airlines.
> 
> I expect that "eventually" in this context would == (hours to [one or two]
> days)

Academic.  Everyone will not boycott, so the time frame will increase.

> > (But then again, DC has plenty of our tax dollars ready to bail out an
> > incompetent set of airline managers.) It won't hurt at least.
> 
> Even DC can't bail out *all* the airlines.  That kind of boycott *would*
> hurt, and hurt badly.  And *fast*.

Never play chicken with the federal government.  They can bail out all
the airlines (minus one: they don't need to bail out Southwest
Airlines).  They'd just need to raise taxes or increase the debt,
neither of which is a major impediment.

> > 1) Phone it in
> > 2) Do some kind of lameass video conferencing
> > 3) Fly
> > 4) Get a job at McDonalds
> 
> First of all, this is a *great* example of why flying is an *option*, and
> not a "requirement".  That said, option number 4 is the obvious choice -
> however, our leggy bimbo's mileage may vary.

This is a bit misleading.  The leggy bimbo can choose option 4 if she's
not smart enough to do something else... like _local_ sales, or even
starting up a psychic reading shop and making lots of money from other
bimbos.