| Thursday,
July 15, 2004 The
following subject is distasteful, and you may want to skip past it.
Over in another forum, in a discussion of AIDS in
Africa I asked:
Am I deceived? My last information on female to
male AIDS transmission was years ago, but at that time there was not one
single unambiguous case. Male to female with normal sex would eventually
give the woman AIDS, but female to male was a very low probability event.
Consequently, the way to not get AIDS (other
than abstention or mechanical barriers) was to avoid being buggered whether
you were male or female, and not to use soiled hypodermic needles, which is
a pretty bad practice to begin with and surely conveys no pleasures. Thus
the chances of a person of normal intelligence with reasonable control over
impulses for getting AIDS was low.
Is this wrong? Is there something about
Africans that makes it easier to get AIDS in normal sex with women? Is it
something about African women I don't know?
And have things changed in the United States? I
am not trying to be cute here: I just don't know. I do know that a decade
ago I did a fair amount of due diligence on this matter and concluded that
if you don't do drugs and don't get buggered, a male rake -- what was called
a gay blade in my youth -- is more likely to be killed by a protective
father (whether or not he becomes a statue) than to get AIDS.
I got a number of answers, none of which were
terribly satisfactory because they involved various practices that are
themselves voluntary: that is, it may be unrealistic to expect monogamy and
abstinence, or even the use of condoms in all cases, but surely under the
threat of death one is not required to practice "dry sex" and various other
acts that may or may not enhance pleasure, but are certainly dangerous.
In the discussion came the following pair of
comments:
>It is my understanding that the risk of
female-to-male transmission is
>a lot higher in Africa. But I've yet to see any measures male versus
>female rates of infection. We'd expect to see higher female rates than
>male rates if most HIV transmission was happening heterosexually in
>Africa even though men can get it from women.
> >One explanation advanced for higher rates of female to male
>transmission is that the males are more likely to have open sores from
other STDs.
> >Another explanation is that heterosexuals in Africa have more sexual
>partners.
> >I'd be curious to hear a knowledgeable non-P.C. analysis of what is
>known about African HIV transmission.
And the reply
Ten or fifteen years ago, Phillip Adams, one of
Australia's best known columnists and broadcasters (former evangelical,
one-time youthful Communist, advertising tycoon, still left - Australia's
Mike Moore, physically, and in what he is willing to say about "Shrub" as he
calls George W., but personally agreeable - so, in short, on this subject
without obvious bias) wrote very assertively, on probably good expert
authority, that heterosexual anal sex was common in sub-Saharan Africa as a
contraceptive method. He was arguing strongly against the PC attempts to aim
expensive government advertising as much at heterosexuals as at homosexuals,
as though Australian heteros needed to be frightened out of their socks as
it was clear gays needed to be. That is the last I have heard or read of the
matter but I suspect that it does indeed identify an additional factor in
the way AIDS has spread in Africa. (I wonder whether there is a similar
problem with transexual prostitutes in South and South East Asia.)
I have just emailed to Phillip for an update so I hope
to be able to pass it on.
James
Which is where matters stand now. It seems to me an
important question. In Thailand they are concerned about 3% infection rates,
while in Uganda there is dancing in the streets because the rate is almost
down to 5%.
What is going on here? Is there a non-PC
analysis of the vectoring mechanisms? Or is the entire subject simply part
of that body of the scientifically unspeakable? We all know what we can't
say and who we can't say it about. Is inquiry into this part of that
package?
Subject: AIDS issue
Jerry,
Concerning the AIDS issue posted today on your
website, I’m in a position to give a bit of insight. I’ve been to Uganda
several times in the past two years on several projects, and the most recent
project I’ve been working on is the distribution of Anti-Retroviral drugs to
AIDS infected individuals in that country. I’m leaving on the 25th for
Uganda and Botswana (another hard hit nation re: AIDS). My CEO is leaving
next week for Vietnam to enter discussions with Medical professionals and
the U.S. Ambassador there.
The biggest issue causing the spread of AIDS in Uganda
is indiscriminate and unprotected sex. Men in Uganda tend to “sleep around”
quite a bit, married or not. It was very much accepted until recently, and
folks there are beginning to frown on the practice, but it still a very
common thing for a man to support multiple lovers. In fact, many young women
work their way through college this way. Another problem in the more remote
areas is the “Traditional Healer” practice of advising infected males to
sleep with a young virgin in the belief that it will cure them. All it does,
of course, is infect them too. Open sores are a way of life in Uganda due to
the hard life people have, and transmission can be done this way, according
to advice I have received from medical professionals I have spoken to, based
on my concerns of getting in a wreck in Uganda and having AIDS be
transmitted from blood from someone else involved in the accident. It seems
this is a valid concern (especially when you have an opportunity to
experience the bedlam that is automobile traffic in Kampala city, or the
reckless game of Russian Roulette you play on the highways throughout the
country, especially at night). My understanding is thhe one issue with
transmitting via open wounds is that it takes quite a bit of blood to
transmit it this way, as long as the wound is bleeding out, as it will be
difficult for the transmission to take place.
There are however, many, many cases of the husband
coming home with the disease and infecting his wife. I’ve met many of these
women during installation and testing of the ARv tracking systems. Most of
them have just accepted it, a few are angry (very few), others are just too
sick to care. I believe this is the most common occurrence of the
transmission of AIDS in that country. There is also the issue of mothers
transmitting to their children, although a vaccine has been developed
(through research in Uganda) that if administered in a very short time near
birth, the child has a very good chance of not getting the disease.
There are billboards all over promoting the use of
condoms, people hand out free condoms at the weekend dances, and there are
boxes in many public or restaurant “water closets” that have condoms for
free.
The Ministry of Health in Uganda has made great
strides through information campaigns in print and radio media (there is
little in the was of television in Uganda, and it is almost all from outside
the borders on satellite TV, and quite recently, cable in Kampala. I work
closely with people from the Ministry and they are very committed to
battling AIDS in any and every way they can.
Tracy
I thoroughly understand how the husband comes home
and infects the wife. It happens here also.
But how did the husband get it in the first place?
In the US there is still no well documented case of
female to male AIDS transmission (at least none I know of; my due diligence
in this is a couple of years old). In every case I ever looked at there is a
probability of dirty needles or that the man got buggered and did not want
to admit that so claimed to have got it from women.
In the US if you don't get buggered and you don't
use dirty needles you don't get AIDS, and it don't matter if you have normal
intercourse with a different infected woman every night: you don't get AIDS,
or so it would appear, and given the politically correct people trying to
make AIDS the only disease worth putting money into I would think if female
to male transmission were easy and demonstrable we would see lots of
documented cases. If there are such I would like to be shown that.
But we see NONE that I know of. Now I could be
deceived. But the last time I looked, in the US you don't get AIDS if you
don't get bad blood (Asimov's method of getting AIDS: bad transfusion) or
you don't share needles, or you don't get buggered.
Has that changed in the US??? If not, then why is
Africa different?
Subject: female to male AIDS
xmission
Dr. P.,
I read an article a few months ago which stated that
some study had discovered female to male AIDS transmission was almost
negligible in circumcised males, but was much, much higher in uncircumcised
males, presumably due to something in the foreskin: I speculate, is that
skin more "open pored?" Is the virus harboured in its folds? Does the
foreskin develop damage (in "dry sex") which makes it more likely to
transfer the virus? I do not know the answer to any of these questions but I
do recall the above study, for what it's worth. (Those who examined the
results suggested that circumcision of all males might be the way to control
the transmission of the disease. I haven't seen any other articles on this
subject.)
-P.
My friend Priscilla Reining (one place I found her
on the web
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-valley.html ) has compiled a list of
tribes in Africa and compared AIDS rates of those who practice circumcision
and those who don't, and the AIDS rate is much lower in those who
circumcise. I had nearly forgotten that and I shouldn't have, since it's
probably one part of the explanation. The web site I show above seems
devoted to proving she's nuts, or perhaps it was so boring I didn't read far
enough; but I assure you she's a very careful anthropologist.
Here is a better presentation of her views:
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/aids071900.htm
====================
Dr Pournelle,
AIDS in Africa
My cousin, who is a consultant gynaecologist, used to
practice in South Africa until quite recently.
He puts the very high incidence of HIV/AIDS in
southern Africa down to the traditional practice there of employing anal
intercourse as a sort of poor man’s contraception. The danger is exacerbated
by more traditional sexual diseases being endemic among the population, as
these diseases tend to cause lesions on the sexual organ that make HIV
transmission very much easier—and into the bargain , diseases such as
syphilis or gonorrhea weaken the body’s resistance generally.
I hope that is helpful,
Jim Mangles
====================
Dr Pournelle,
Talking of Jacobins...
There is a strange parallel between the French Revolution with its Jacobins
and Girondins, and the Russian Revolution with its Bolshevists and
Mensheviks. Both revolutions evolved (Can you talk of
revolutions evolving?) through reigns of terror into dictatorships, of
Napoleon on the one hand, Lenin and Stalin on the other.
Many, I suspect the vast majority, of revolutions turn out in the end to
deliver something worse than that which they overthrew. The question is why
this was not so for the American Revolution?
I would suggest the following:-
This was not really a revolution at all but a war of independence, and the
two are quite different in many ways. The leading American revolutionaries
were not really revolutionaries of the kind found later in France and
Russia; all they had sought was to preserve their ‘rights as Englishmen’ but
in the end concluded it was necessary to cast off England to achieve these.
I would be curious to learn your thoughts on this.
Jim Mangles
Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution postulates
something similar. The short answer is that the Colonists wanted "the rights
of free Englishmen", and their leaders having read about the history of the
English Revolution of 1648 and the Commonwealth, wanted little to do with
the full monty; your observation is entirely correct.
There are at least a thousand books on why the
American experiment succeeded when so many failed. Alas, I think those who
planned the Iraqi War have not read a single one of them.
And here is the end of the
Wilson matter, I think:
Subject: La Plame redux . . .
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html
--- Roland Dobbins
One less stick to beat Bush with...
And a quick follow-on to the 9/11 commission report, I
refer you back to
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=780 "....DEBKAfile went back to
its most reliable intelligence sources in the US and the Middle East, some
of whom were actively involved in the subject before and during the Iraq
war. They all stuck to their guns. As they have consistently informed
DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly , Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons
programs were present on the eve of the American-led invasion and quantities
of forbidden materials were spirited out to Syria. Whatever Dr. Kay may
choose to say now, at least one of these sources knows at first hand that
the former ISG director received dates, types of vehicles and destinations
covering the transfers of Iraqi WMD to Syria. "
My take is debka.com, although marching to its own
drummer, is right more often than not. If there is truth to these
allegations, why are we tip-toeing around the question?
Whether or not these banned materials were still in
Iraq is moot. Saddam did have them. He did use them, early and often. He
deliberately cultivated the impression that he still had them and would use
them again. And that is no different than if I hold up a liquor store with a
plastic squirt gun painted to look like an Uzi and the cops shoot me. My
fault, not the cops.
Should the US have played the role of cop? Certainly
no one else was going to.
Did the appeasement of Hitler in the Munich Pact bring
peace? Letting Saddam continue to play his little brinksmanship games wasn't
going to make the middle east any safer either.
Now, comparing Saddam and Hitler is not fair. Saddam
modeled himself on an even more ferocious dictator of the times, good ol'
Joseph Stalin.
Cheers!
Greg H
Well, I agree no one else was going to do it, but I
don't think we should have either; but the vituperation heaped on Bush now
is undeserved. If the reasons he gave for going to war were valid, they were
valid: that is, the intelligence we had was about as good as we would get,
and not many disputed much of what was said with the exception of the Prague
meeting. I didn't think we should have gone in, but finding out that much of
what we suspected was not true doesn't change anything.
=======================================
TSA FIDDLES:
The following is very long. It is from the Women's
Wall Street Journal, and I strongly recommend you go there and look at the
original article as a courtesy to them for printing it.
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/ The
subject matter is somewhat important:
Subject: Terror in the Skies, Again?
Greetings, sir. I fly frequently, and the following
account is similar to several I've either been a part of or witnessed
firsthand. I don't know the author, and I'm not familiar with the
publication, but this rings true.
Thanks for providing a forum for this sort of
information.
Tim Elliott
Terror in the Skies, Again? By Annie Jacobsen
A WWS Exclusive Article
Note from the editors: You are about to read an
account of what happened during a domestic flight that one of our writers,
Annie Jacobsen, took from Detroit to Los Angeles. The Womens Wall Street
Editorial Team debated long and hard about how to handle this information
and ultimately we decided it was something that should be shared. What does
it have to do with finances? Nothing, and everything. Here is Annie's story.
On June 29, 2004, at 12:28 p.m., I flew on
Northwest Airlines flight #327 from Detroit to Los Angeles with my husband
and our young son. Also on our flight were 14 Middle Eastern men between the
ages of approximately 20 and 50 years old. What I experienced during that
flight has caused me to question whether the United States of America can
realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even
non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats.
On that Tuesday, our journey began
uneventfully. Starting out that morning in Providence, Rhode Island, we went
through security screening, flew to Detroit, and passed the time waiting for
our connecting flight to Los Angeles by shopping at the airport stores and
eating lunch at an airport diner. With no second security check required in
Detroit we headed to our gate and waited for the pre-boarding announcement.
Standing near us, also waiting to pre-board, was a group of six Middle
Eastern men. They were carrying blue passports with Arabic writing. Two men
wore tracksuits with Arabic writing across the back. Two carried musical
instrument cases - thin, flat, 18 long. One wore a yellow T-shirt and held a
McDonald's bag. And the sixth man had a bad leg -- he wore an orthopedic
shoe and limped. When the pre-boarding announcement was made, we handed our
tickets to the Northwest Airlines agent, and walked down the jetway with the
group of men directly behind us.
My four-year-old son was determined to wheel
his carry-on bag himself, so I turned to the men behind me and said, You go
ahead, this could be awhile. No, you go ahead, one of the men replied. He
smiled pleasantly and extended his arm for me to pass. He was young, maybe
late 20's and had a goatee. I thanked him and we boarded the plan.
Once on the plane, we took our seats in coach
(seats 17A, 17B and 17C). The man with the yellow shirt and the McDonald's
bag sat across the aisle from us (in seat 17E). The pleasant man with the
goatee sat a few rows back and across the aisle from us (in seat 21E). The
rest of the men were seated throughout the plane, and several made their way
to the back.
As we sat waiting for the plane to finish
boarding, we noticed another large group of Middle Eastern men boarding. The
first man wore a dark suit and sunglasses. He sat in first class in seat 1A,
the seat second-closet to the cockpit door. The other seven men walked into
the coach cabin. As aware Americans, my husband and I exchanged glances, and
then continued to get comfortable. I noticed some of the other passengers
paying attention to the situation as well. As boarding continued, we watched
as, one by one, most of the Middle Eastern men made eye contact with each
other. They continued to look at each other and nod, as if they were all in
agreement about something. I could tell that my husband was beginning to
feel anxious.
The take-off was uneventful. But once we were
in the air and the seatbelt sign was turned off, the unusual activity began.
The man in the yellow T-shirt got out of his seat and went to the lavatory
at the front of coach -- taking his full McDonald's bag with him. When he
came out of the lavatory he still had the McDonald's bag, but it was now
almost empty. He walked down the aisle to the back of the plane, still
holding the bag. When he passed two of the men sitting mid-cabin, he gave a
thumbs-up sign. When he returned to his seat, he no longer had the
McDonald's bag.
Then another man from the group stood up and
took something from his carry-on in the overhead bin. It was about a foot
long and was rolled in cloth. He headed toward the back of the cabin with
the object. Five minutes later, several more of the Middle Eastern men began
using the forward lavatory consecutively. In the back, several of the men
stood up and used the back lavatory consecutively as well.
For the next hour, the men congregated in
groups of two and three at the back of the plane for varying periods of
time. Meanwhile, in the first class cabin, just a foot or so from the
cockpit door, the man with the dark suit - still wearing sunglasses - was
also standing. Not one of the flight crew members suggested that any of
these men take their seats.
Watching all of this, my husband was now beyond
anxious. I decided to try to reassure my husband (and maybe myself) by
walking to the back bathroom. I knew the goateed-man I had exchanged
friendly words with as we boarded the plane was seated only a few rows back,
so I thought I would say hello to the man to get some reassurance that
everything was fine. As I stood up and turned around, I glanced in his
direction and we made eye contact. I threw out my friendliest
remember-me-we-had-a-nice-exchange-just-a-short-time-ago smile. The man did
not smile back. His face did not move. In fact, the cold, defiant look he
gave me sent shivers down my spine.
When I returned to my seat I was unable to
assure my husband that all was well. My husband immediately walked to the
first class section to talk with the flight attendant. I might be
overreacting, but I've been watching some really suspicious things... Before
he could finish his statement, the flight attendant pulled him into the
galley. In a quiet voice she explained that they were all concerned about
what was going on. The captain was aware. The flight attendants were passing
notes to each other. She said that there were people on board higher up than
you and me watching the men. My husband returned to his seat and relayed
this information to me. He was feeling slightly better. I was feeling much
worse. We were now two hours into a four-in-a-half hour flight.
Approximately 10 minutes later, that same
flight attendant came by with the drinks cart. She leaned over and quietly
told my husband there were federal air marshals sitting all around us. She
asked him not to tell anyone and explained that she could be in trouble for
giving out that information. She then continued serving drinks.
About 20 minutes later the same flight
attendant returned. Leaning over and whispering, she asked my husband to
write a description of the yellow-shirted man sitting across from us. She
explained it would look too suspicious if she wrote the information. She
asked my husband to slip the note to her when he was done.
After seeing 14 Middle Eastern men board
separately (six together, eight individually) and then act as a group,
watching their unusual glances, observing their bizarre bathroom activities,
watching them congregate in small groups, knowing that the flight attendants
and the pilots were seriously concerned, and now knowing that federal air
marshals were on board, I was officially terrified.. Before I'm labeled a
racial profiler or -- worse yet -- a racist, let me add this. A month ago I
traveled to India to research a magazine article I was writing. My husband
and I flew on a jumbo jet carrying more than 300 Hindu and Muslim men and
women on board. We traveled throughout the country and stayed in a Muslim
village 10 miles outside Pakistan. I never once felt fearful. I never once
felt unsafe. I never once had the feeling that anyone wanted to hurt me.
This time was different.
Finally, the captain announced that the plane
was cleared for landing. It had been four hours since we left Detroit. The
fasten seat belt light came on and I could see downtown Los Angeles. The
flight attendants made one final sweep of the cabin and strapped themselves
in for landing. I began to relax. Home was in sight.
Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in
unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories. One by one, they went
into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in
front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for
the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves
and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby. One of the men took his
camera into the lavatory. Another took his cell phone. Again, no one
approached the men. Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down.
I watched as the man in the yellow shirt, still in his seat, reached inside
his shirt and pulled out a small red book. He read a few pages, then put the
book back inside his shirt. He pulled the book out again, read a page or two
more, and put it back. He continued to do this several more times.
I looked around to see if any other passengers
were watching. I immediately spotted a distraught couple seated two rows
back. The woman was crying into the man's shoulder. He was holding her hand.
I heard him say to her, You've got to calm down. Behind them sat the once
pleasant-smiling, goatee-wearing man.
I grabbed my son, I held my husband's hand and,
despite the fact that I am not a particularly religious person, I prayed.
The last man came out of the bathroom, and as he passed the man in the
yellow shirt he ran his forefinger across his neck and mouthed the word No.
The plane landed. My husband and I gathered our
bags and quickly, very quickly, walked up the jetway. As we exited the
jetway and entered the airport, we saw many, many men in dark suits. A few
yards further out into the terminal, LAPD agents ran past us, heading for
the gate. I have since learned that the representatives of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the
Federal Air Marshals (FAM), and the Transportation Security Association (TSA)
met our plane as it landed. Several men -- who I presume were the federal
air marshals on board -- hurried off the plane and directed the 14 men over
to the side.
Knowing what we knew, and seeing what we'd
seen, my husband and I decided to talk to the authorities. For several hours
my husband and I were interrogated by the FBI. We gave sworn statement after
sworn statement. We wrote down every detail of our account. The
interrogators seemed especially interested in the McDonald's bag, so we
repeated in detail what we knew about the McDonald's bag. A law enforcement
official stood near us, holding 14 Syrian passports in his hand. We answered
more questions. And finally we went home.
Home Sweet Home The next day, I began searching
online for news about the incident. There was nothing. I asked a friend who
is a local news correspondent if there were any arrests at LAX that day.
There weren't. I called Northwest Airlines' customer service. They said
write a letter. I wrote a letter, then followed up with a call to their
public relations department. They said they were aware of the situation
(sorry that happened!) but legally they have 30 days to reply.
I shared my story with a few colleagues. One
mentioned she'd been on a flight with a group of foreign men who were acting
strangely -- they turned out to be diamond traders. Another had heard a
story on National Public Radio (NPR) shortly after 9/11 about a group of
Arab musicians who were having a hard time traveling on airplanes throughout
the U.S. and couldn't get seats together. I took note of these two stories
and continued my research. Here are excerpts from an article written by
Jason Burke, Chief Reporter, and published in The Observer (a British
newspaper based in London) on February 8, 2004: Terrorist bid to build bombs
in mid-flight: Intelligence reveals dry runs of new threat to blow up
airliners
Islamic militants have conducted dry runs of a
devastating new style of bombing on aircraft flying to Europe, intelligence
sources believe. The tactics, which aim to evade aviation security systems
by placing only components of explosive devices on passenger jets, allowing
militants to assemble them in the air, have been tried out on planes flying
between the Middle East, North Africa and Western Europe, security sources
say.
...The... Transportation Security
Administration issued an urgent memo detailing new threats to aviation and
warning that terrorists in teams of five might be planning suicide missions
to hijack commercial airliners, possibly using common items...such as
cameras, modified as weapons.
...Components of IEDs [improvised explosive
devices] can be smuggled on to an aircraft, concealed in either clothing or
personal carry-on items... and assembled on board. In many cases of
suspicious passenger activity, incidents have taken place in the aircraft's
forward lavatory.
So here's my question: Since the FBI issued a
warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane
who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14
Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?
Apparently not. Due to our rules against
discrimination, it can't be done. During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11
Commissioner John Lehman stated that ...it was the policy (before 9/11) and
I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than
two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory.
So even if Northwest Airlines searched two of
the men on board my Northwest flight, they couldn't search the other 12
because they would have already filled a government-imposed quota.
I continued my research by reading an article
titled Arab Hijackers Now Eligible For Pre-Boarding from Ann Coulter (_
www.anncoulter.com _
(
http://www.anncoulter.com/ ) ):
On September 21, as the remains of thousands of
Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, [Secretary of Transportation
Norman] Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from
implementing the one security measure that could have prevented 9/11:
subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight
scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to
discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or
ethnic origin or religion.
Coulter also writes that a few months later, at
Mr. Mineta's behest, the Department of Transportation (DOT) filed complaints
against United Airlines and American Airlines (who, combined, had lost 8
pilots, 25 flight attendants and 213 passengers on 9/11 - not counting the
19 Arab hijackers). In November 2003, United Airlines settled their case
with the DOT for $1.5 million. In March 2004, American Airlines settled
their case with the DOT for $1.5 million. The DOT also charged Continental
Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab,
Middle Eastern or Muslim. Continental Airlines settled their complaint with
the DOT in April of 2004 for $.5 million.
From what I witnessed, Northwest Airlines
doesn't have to worry about Norman Mineta filing a complaint against them
for discriminatory, secondary screening of Arab men. No one checked the
passports of the Syrian men. No one inspected the contents of the two
instrument cases or the McDonald's bag. And no one checked the limping man's
orthopedic shoe. In fact, according to the TSA regulations, passengers
wearing an orthopedic shoe won't be asked to take it off. As their site
states, Advise the screener if you're wearing orthopedic shoes...screeners
should not be asking you to remove your orthopedic shoes at any time during
the screening process. (Click _here_
(
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1571.xml ) to
read the TSA website policy on orthopedic shoes and other medical devices.)
I placed a call to the TSA and talked to Joe
Dove, a Customer Service Supervisor. I told him how we'd eaten with metal
utensils moments in an airport diner before boarding the flight and how no
one checked our luggage or the instrument cases being carried by the Middle
Eastern men. Dove's response was, Restaurants in secured areas -- that's an
ongoing problem. We get that complaint often. TSA gets that complaint all
the time and they haven't worked that out with the FAA. They're aware of it.
You've got a good question. There may not be a reasonable answer at this
time, I'm not going to BS you.
At the Detroit airport no one checked our IDs.
No one checked the folds in my newspaper or the content's of my son's
backpack. No one asked us what we'd done during our layover, if we bought
anything, or if anyone gave us anything while we were in the airport. We
were asked all of these questions (and many others ) three weeks earlier
when we'd traveled in Europe -- where passengers with airport layovers are
rigorously questioned and screened before boarding any and every flight. In
Detroit no one checked who we were or what we carried on board a 757 jet
liner bound for American's largest metropolis.
Two days after my experience on Northwest
Airlines flight #327 came this notice from SBS TV, The World News, July 1,
2004: The U.S. Transportation and Security Administration has issued a new
directive which demands pilots make a pre-flight announcement banning
passengers from congregating in aisles and outside the plane's toilets. The
directive also orders flight attendants to check the toilets every two hours
for suspicious packages.
Through a series of events, The Washington Post
heard about my story. I talked briefly about my experience with a
representative from the newspaper. Within a few hours I received a call from
Dave Adams, the Federal Air Marshal Services (FAM) Head of Public Affairs.
Adams told me what he knew: There were 14 Syrians on NWA flight #327. They
were questioned at length by FAM, the FBI and the TSA upon landing in Los
Angeles. The 14 Syrians had been hired as musicians to play at a casino in
the desert. Adams said they were scrubbed. None had arrest records (in
America, I presume), none showed up on the FBI's no fly list or the FBI's
Most Wanted Terrorists List. The men checked out and they were let go.
According to Adams, the 14 men traveled on Northwest Airlines flight #327
using one-way tickets. Two days later they were scheduled to fly back on
jetBlue from Long Beach, California to New York -- also using one-way
tickets.
I asked Adams why, based on the FBI's credible
information that terrorists may try to assemble bombs on planes, the air
marshals or the flight attendants didn't do anything about the bizarre
behavior and frequent trips to the lavatory. Our FAM agents have to have an
event to arrest somebody. Our agents aren't going to deploy until there is
an actual event, Adams explained. He said he could not speak for the
policies of Northwest Airlines.
So the question is... Do I think these men were
musicians? I'll let you decide. But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to
fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play
instruments?
To receive any follow-up articles about Annie's
experience, go to _www.WomensWallStreet.com_ (
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/
) and register to become a member. You will receive an e-mail notifying you
of any subsequent articles on this subject.
Do you have any thoughts about this article
that you'd like to share with our e-ditors? Send them an email by clicking
_HERE_ (
mailto:editors@womenswallstreet.com ) ; Source:
_
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/
WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711 _
I am unfamiliar with Ann Coulter other than to have
seen her advertisements and once in a while to have seen her participate in
a verbal free for all of some kind on one of the news channels : I seldom
watch those because I don't understand much of what is said, and I see no
reason at all to devote time to people who are paid to be rude to each other
in public. Nothing is going to be learned beyond some personal facts about
the abilities of the participants.
But it is clear to me that the TSA was born in
anarch-tyranny. It does the each things like confiscate scissors and an
elderly general's Medal of Honor, but it can do nothing about serious
matters like this.
Are we doomed as a nation? Would we not be better
off with far less "security" of the Gomer Gestapo TSA variety, since it
isn't going to do much about situations like this? Or have I missed
something?
Subject: So, we probably are not any safer
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
I like her finish "So the question is... Do I think these men were
musicians? I'll let you decide. But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to
fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play
instruments?"
The hell of it is, there are reasonable measures that
could be taken to increase security, but that isn't the direction that has
been taken. What is wrong with the people who are supposed to be running
things?
Mark
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
