Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (222038)	1/25/2002 9:29:32 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Anyone feel safer now that Washington bureaucrats run airport security? WSJ: January 25, 2002 Profiles in Timidity Is there racial profiling at airport security checkpoints? If only it were so. Instead, U.S. policy seems to be to search just about everyone except Arabs and Muslims, the very groups most likely to belong to the terrorist al Qaeda network. Can someone explain how this will protect U.S. airlines from more attacks? Anyone who's traveled by air lately can speak from personal experience on this matter. We're not the only ones who know a grandmother who's been given the head-to-toe treatment while a Mohamed Atta lookalike is waved onto the plane. We suggest readers visit the Department of Transportation's Web site and click onto the eye-opening document, "FAA Guidance for Screeners and Other Security Personnel." If a would-be Islamic terrorist from the Middle East logged on to the guidelines, he'd have to conclude that one of the best ways to get through airport security would be to disguise himself as, well, an Islamic terrorist from the Middle East. According to DOT standards, speaking Arabic, appearing to be from the Mideast, wearing a veil (for women) or a beard (for men) are all reasons not to be singled out. Airport screeners are informed that they may not "rely on generalized stereotypes or attitudes or beliefs about the propensity of members of any racial, ethnic, religious, or national origin group to engage in unlawful activity." This is of course absurd. No one disagrees that at this moment in history terrorists come overwhelmingly from the ranks of radical Islam; it follows logically that screeners ought to give special scrutiny to Arab-Americans, Muslims and others who fit into certain other ethnic categories. This isn't discrimination; given the threat, it's common sense. The innocent will suffer at most a few minutes of inconvenience, but the possible benefit is hundreds of lives spared. Instead, Secretary Norm Mineta's Transportation Department sets forth what it calls the "but for" screening test. Security personnel are told to ask themselves: "But for a person's perceived race, ethnic heritage or religious orientation, would I have subjected this individual to additional safety or security scrutiny?" If the answer is no, then, presto, a civil rights law has been broken. So much for the safety of a planeload of people. "But for" the stupidity or timidity, or both, of the Transportation Department, air travel might even be safe. People who work at airports and on airlines have more than a professional stake in ensuring that their facilities are safe from terrorists; they take the threat personally. But instead of being allowed to use their experience, instincts and common sense, they are told to rely on random checks, which inconvenience grandmothers while passing on more likely suspects. Foreign airports already profile passengers for their potential as threats, so why not in the U.S. too? The answer is partly fear of that American disease, the lawsuit. No airline or airport-security company wants to have to go to court to defend itself against charges that it searched the wrong passenger or refused to let a harmless person board a plane, as the odds say they inevitably will. A smaller share of the blame goes to airline executives who aren't willing to go public with sentiments they voice privately about the need for better passenger profiling. They apparently are more fearful of being branded "racist" by the PC police than they are of seeing their airlines fail because frustrated business passengers cut back on travel. Political correctness is also a blind spot of President Bush, as his recent defense of the Arab-American Secret Service agent shows. A pilot wouldn't let the agent board his plane because he wasn't satisfied with the paperwork on the agent's firearm. Another pilot might have made a different decision, but that's not the point. After September 11, pilots are allowed to err on the side of being too careful. We can understand how the Secret Service agent could be upset, but he didn't help his cause by running to an ethnic interest group and shouting discrimination. Since September 11 Mr. Bush has gone to great lengths to encourage all Americans to show respect for the vast majority of Arab- and Muslim-Americans who are peace-loving. With rare exceptions, the nation has obliged. But asking the country to abandon its judgment and ignore the likeliest terror threats is taking tolerance too far. It's a good way to turn Americans against airport security, against the war on terrorism and, eventually, against Mr. Bush.

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (222038)	1/25/2002 9:53:17 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

poor poor texi-retard, now listening to brain dead tv folks. In the latter sec reports there were 10% beneficial owner who sold out their positions at less than a buck. If mr. lay recently has sold 60% of his position at less than a buck and you want to define that as dumping. Well you reported lies when you had no proof and now you report stupidity with less than credible proof. learn to use your brain and think and research. And be envious of a system like this. pbase.com can you handle a download like this. pbase.com