Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 7, 2010
Life No One Keeps Joan Rivers Off an Airplane
Posted by Eli Sanders on Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:59 AM
As discussed on Tuesday, Joan Rivers barely survived being given extra security scrutiny as she was trying to fly back to the United States from her recent vacation in Costa Rica. But wait, there's more! Watch as Rivers, safely back on American soil, furiously tells Larry King about "premenstrual" Costa Rican airport workers ("How dare they," she seethes), her terror of being "totally alone" in a lovely foreign country, and her "heart attack." After which she shouts down a caller who tells her she should be ashamed of her entitled, crazy tourist self.
2
She's a threat to good taste, certainly.
(I remember when she made fun of Gloria Vanderbilt's numerous facelifts. What goes around, comes around, they say.)
(I remember when she made fun of Gloria Vanderbilt's numerous facelifts. What goes around, comes around, they say.)
3
She is ridiculous and I love it. She was before my generation but I caught her stand up special on Bravo awhile back and felt like I had really missed out on her.
Besides, how can you not love someone that decorates their house like this that would make a filthy sailor blush whens he opens her mouth?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_61djkGwfEZo/Si…
Besides, how can you not love someone that decorates their house like this that would make a filthy sailor blush whens he opens her mouth?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_61djkGwfEZo/Si…
6
I can't stand Joan Rivers. Maybe, every now and then on the stage as a comedian. But, off the stage? She's crazy, and puts a point on why we shouldn't pay any attention to celebrities outside the reason they are famous.
13
Her ability to get away with this crap is why she won the Celebrity Apprentice. She'll make up whatever sob story she wants and people just say "aw, it's Joan Rivers".
14
@5 you would've gotten a FTW if you quoted the overdubbed version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4t6zNZ-b…
15
I'm posting this agian because by your comments I don't think this has ever happened to you. It has happened to me though, so I can see exactly where joan is coming from and she's being unjustly labeled a primadonna. What happened to her caused her DAYS of inconvienence in a foriegn country. I wonder if this happend to any of you if you'd be so quick to judge her anger.
Having dealt with something similar in Peru, making it through 5 security check points and *4* hours of waiting in lines in a hot overcroweded airport, I ran into trouble with security right as I was boarding the plane. It was a dumb technicality that I didn't even know was a problem, but the final boarding people's rules were totally different then everybody else's rules up to that point. Had I been told what the problem was by any of the past 15 airport/airline/immigration/security agents I had previously been cleared through, I would've had enough time to talk to a ticket agent to fix things and make my flight. instead I had to make immediate and expensive arrangements to spend another night in the hell hole that is Lima which meant another 2 hour cab ride, and then spend another 4 hours going through all that security agian the next day. The really galling thing is that the boarding agent who made the call REFUSED to help me or look at my other documentation or call a supervisor or an airline rep or anything at all except just glare at me like I'm about to blow up a bomb.. They just totally shut down and classify you as 'enemy' It was absolutely maddening.
So, I can COMPLETELY EMPATHIZE with Joan in this. It is frustrating and infuriating when a peon steadfastly REFUSES to do anything to help you. They make a call based on a rule, which is fine, but even a slight bit of checking would've resolved the situation but instead they just dig in with a dull gleam in their eye and watch you squirm.
I can understand why they do this, and it's more a fault of the airlines for not having a 'questionable boarder' response team or person to arbitrate situations like this rather then putting all the onus on the poor boarding agent in isolation. If they see something not right, they should not let you on the plane, that's their job, but they should also have the resources or RESOURCEFULNESS themselves to get a second opinion, or at least not treat the passenger like an enemy combatant.
More...
Having dealt with something similar in Peru, making it through 5 security check points and *4* hours of waiting in lines in a hot overcroweded airport, I ran into trouble with security right as I was boarding the plane. It was a dumb technicality that I didn't even know was a problem, but the final boarding people's rules were totally different then everybody else's rules up to that point. Had I been told what the problem was by any of the past 15 airport/airline/immigration/security agents I had previously been cleared through, I would've had enough time to talk to a ticket agent to fix things and make my flight. instead I had to make immediate and expensive arrangements to spend another night in the hell hole that is Lima which meant another 2 hour cab ride, and then spend another 4 hours going through all that security agian the next day. The really galling thing is that the boarding agent who made the call REFUSED to help me or look at my other documentation or call a supervisor or an airline rep or anything at all except just glare at me like I'm about to blow up a bomb.. They just totally shut down and classify you as 'enemy' It was absolutely maddening.
So, I can COMPLETELY EMPATHIZE with Joan in this. It is frustrating and infuriating when a peon steadfastly REFUSES to do anything to help you. They make a call based on a rule, which is fine, but even a slight bit of checking would've resolved the situation but instead they just dig in with a dull gleam in their eye and watch you squirm.
I can understand why they do this, and it's more a fault of the airlines for not having a 'questionable boarder' response team or person to arbitrate situations like this rather then putting all the onus on the poor boarding agent in isolation. If they see something not right, they should not let you on the plane, that's their job, but they should also have the resources or RESOURCEFULNESS themselves to get a second opinion, or at least not treat the passenger like an enemy combatant.
16
@15 Aeropuerto Juan Santa Maria is neither hot nor overcrowded and it takes less time to get through security there than it does in any U.S. airport. And since ticos are the happiest, and I think most friendly, people on earth, I doubt they didn't try to help her.
18
'Old Woman Rivers' provides us PEOPLE plebes with good Zsa copy that brightens up our otherwise dreary, sunless lives - or would you rather watch Ballmer the Huckster? I can only imagine the high dudgeon of several sloggers should they be thrown off a flight because some functionary has never seen a passport with an AKA before.
19
@9:
Hard to say. I think the problem is her eyes are now looking out through what used to be her nostrils.
Hard to say. I think the problem is her eyes are now looking out through what used to be her nostrils.
20
I do not believe that she showed her ticket to a half a dozen people but never even bothered to look at it herself to notice the name was wrong. Anyone here ever NOT check their ticket between the time they get it and the time that they board?
24
"I went through four checkpoints, which I was happy to do. Take off your shoes, take off everything..."
wait, what?
wait, what?
25
It's ironic, the underpants bomber used cash, came from countries we know have a higher number of people who want to bomb us, had no luggage and had a name that, if names were really the issue, should have thrown up every red flag in the book, but he got through.
Joan on the other hand is a monetarily successful tv box star, likely didn't use cash (and I would assume at least one of her names is on the plastic in her purse), probably was carrying half a million bags with her, has a US passport, has more plastic in her face than a barbie, and has an address in the US and she was denied entry into the US.
Everything we do in security is backasswards, I don't know who to blame, or why (although if screeners are really denying people access to entire airports based on their name only, or at least have the power to, it seems a bit heavy handed). I would understand if the resolution was, "you're missing this flight so we're going to investigate and get you on another plane", but this was people in Costa Rica claiming one of our TV stars is too dangerous for America but fine to stay in their country. If Joan really was some kind of threat, and they turned this threat back into the population of Costa Rica on the basis that she's a threat to the United States, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of security? If this person really was some kind of threat to society in some way by releasing this person back into the regular population you're all but sanctioning mass murder. That's why I'd be pissed at that screener, contrary to Joan's idea that her gender played a role, which is why no one will ever take Joan seriously.
Joan on the other hand is a monetarily successful tv box star, likely didn't use cash (and I would assume at least one of her names is on the plastic in her purse), probably was carrying half a million bags with her, has a US passport, has more plastic in her face than a barbie, and has an address in the US and she was denied entry into the US.
Everything we do in security is backasswards, I don't know who to blame, or why (although if screeners are really denying people access to entire airports based on their name only, or at least have the power to, it seems a bit heavy handed). I would understand if the resolution was, "you're missing this flight so we're going to investigate and get you on another plane", but this was people in Costa Rica claiming one of our TV stars is too dangerous for America but fine to stay in their country. If Joan really was some kind of threat, and they turned this threat back into the population of Costa Rica on the basis that she's a threat to the United States, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of security? If this person really was some kind of threat to society in some way by releasing this person back into the regular population you're all but sanctioning mass murder. That's why I'd be pissed at that screener, contrary to Joan's idea that her gender played a role, which is why no one will ever take Joan seriously.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS