The lucky JetBlue passengers were the ones whose flights were cancelled last week. They were fortunate enough to remain stranded in well-heated airports with restrooms and food courts. As for the unlucky ones, hundreds of them were trapped for as many as 10 hours in planes on the tarmac, with overflowing toilets, dwindling supplies of drinking water, and of course no food when the pretzels ran out. So far there have been no reports of cannibalism aboard immobilized JetBlue flights, but, with the company’s post-ice storm PR campaign in full swing, who knows?
I could do 10 hours on the tarmac, provided I had a sufficient supply of Xanax and protein bars. But with children? JetBlue’s CEO David Neeleman has nine of them. Would he dare risk a family vacation in the Caribbean if any of them are in the challenging 0 to 10 age range? According to CNN, parents on stranded planes were ripping up t-shirts to make diapers for their babies. And how many times can you read Curious George out loud anyway?
Neeleman has admitted to being “humiliated and mortified” by his company’s post-storm meltdown (one might wish that his status included “fired.”) But JetBlue’s outbreak of passenger abuse reflects larger problems in corporate America. One is a premium on youth at the expense of experience. According to Aero News, this may have had something to do with the company’s decision, shortly after the storm, to push planes off to the tarmac rather than canceling flights, as the older airlines did. JetBlue’s approach certainly succeeded in clearing some boarding areas of noisy, disgruntled passengers, but a stun gun might have been more humane.
“There’s a lot more gray hair at older airlines than there is at JetBlue,” Aero News quoted Tim Sieber, general manager of the Boyd Group, an aviation-consulting firm. But youth is part of JetBlue’s branding, even if it means having no one around who’s ever seen snow.
The other widespread problem is a simple shortage of employees. Since the late eighties, corporate America has pursued the beautiful dream of an employee-free company. Imagine: no payroll except for the top executives, no benefits to provide, and of course no unions! So the pattern has been that every time a company downsizes, its stock rises and its top managers drool over their burgeoning portfolios.
Since 9/11, the airlines in particular have been shedding employees like unwanted ballast, with predictable results. As the New York Times reports, there’s been an industry-wide “thinning of staff,” meaning that in bad weather, airlines often “do not have enough people…” Which might be OK if bad weather hadn’t become so routine that it’s crowding out all other news on CNN.
The budget airlines are especially skimpy when it comes to human employees. In late 2006, Neeleman announced plans to reduce its number of full-time employees per plane from 93 to 80. He should rethink that, since the major reason JetBlue couldn’t get back off the ground after the Valentine’s Day storm was that it lacks the personnel to connect crews to their flights. Pilots and flight attendants remained stuck in their hotels while passengers slept on airport floors.
Neeleman might also want to rethink the paltry passengers’ “bill of rights” JetBlue is offering as part of its effort to regain customer trust. What it’s missing is the crucial right to be freed from an airplane that isn’t going anywhere at all. According to a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, the industry’s major trade group, such a right would “impose[s] inflexible standards on a carrier's operations” – just as laws against kidnapping place a terrible burden on ransom-seekers.
If I get stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours, I plan to use my cell phone to call Homeland Security. Let’s face it, JetBlue and the rest of you: Anything more than three hours on the ground isn’t an airline delay, it’s a hostage situation.
For me, your last paragraph describes what I have thought of this situation and a similar one a few weeks ago at the Denver airport...it seems like a hostage situation. Aside from the inhumanity, is it legal to hold people against their will for that long? Must be...sickening.
Posted by: annie | February 20, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Wow - I hadn't heard about this story (being far away, even virtually) and I'm speechless. I'm surprised this hasn't received more attention - oh wait, I guess I'm not.
Posted by: BlondebutBright | February 21, 2007 at 12:33 AM
JetBlue's meltdown is just the most recent. Almost all the major carriers have had incidents of leaving passengers in planes for an extraordinary amount of time with no provisions or working toilets.
There ought to be a law. Shall we add it to the UP to do list?
Posted by: mixpixlix | February 21, 2007 at 05:02 AM
I just learned that Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe are sponsoring passengers' rights legislation that would include a 3 hour limit. The industry is of course resisting such stringent "regulation."
Posted by: Barbara E | February 21, 2007 at 06:25 AM
Well I agree with Barbara E. on this. Of course, the airline doesn't keep hostages for any malicious purpose. But it certainly is negligent and irresponsible. Maybe caused by, as she says, a minimal staff with minimal experience.
Posted by: realpc | February 21, 2007 at 08:14 AM
I agree with you, even tho I've been getting much flack on the issue. I was a "hostage" (i'm using quotes now as some have been sensitive to my use of the word) for 11 hours on a JetBlue flight on Valentines day.
www.jetbluehostage.com
Somehow, CNN picked my blog up and now I'm meeting with the CEO of JetBlue. Go figure. I'd love to get your input on how what you would have done to change the situation or how you would change the airline industry. In the meantime, I'm just reading the stories and finding solace in knowing people have found a place to vent.
Posted by: jetbluehostage | February 21, 2007 at 01:49 PM
Airlines have been doing all kinds of outrageous things such as making people take off their shoes and telling them what they can or cannot carry on a plane, not to speak of ethnic profiling, and you are only outraged now that they are actually making people wait for many hours? It is surprising that there are still people who are willing to put up with that, especially when it's not because of their jobs or for some other important reason. In fact, even for such reasons, things like videoconferencing may replace travel in many cases. Why don't people just refuse to travel unless they have absolutely no choice? If it's for a vacation, there may be places where they could go some other way. In fact, in a large city, fun activities may be available right there, perhaps in a different area of the city. With that money, perhaps they could pay for health insurance, pay off credit cards, have some money left for a rainy day, and so on. And if people won't travel, maybe terrorists won't try to blow up planes any more. Eventually, market forces will create better transportation services, but for that, many people have to refuse to use those that are now available.
Posted by: Monica | February 22, 2007 at 12:41 AM
JetBluehostage: Thanks for writing. I would urge the CEO to accept a bill of rights that limits the time people can be imprisoned on a plane to 3 hours. Right now JetBlue is suggesting that they "pay" people for their hours on the tarmac -- in JetBlue vouchers! (like you want more of this?) Ask him what his time is worth per hour. And let us know what comes of your meeting.
Posted by: Barbara E | February 22, 2007 at 05:01 AM
Well, those sexy little airlines are fun when all is going well, but when things get serious, give me the old and seasoned carriers.
Posted by: Hattie | February 22, 2007 at 09:33 PM
Well, this is Barbara's blog and she is free to write about whatever topic she wishes ... but this has nothing to do with the day-to-day experience of working class people in the U.S. in my opinion.
There is a major strike of retail workers imminent in the northeast, which if unsuccessful in its aims (which I predict it will be) ... will be the deathknell of organized labor in this part of the country ... disappointed that Barbara hasn't commented on this.
But I do realize it's her blog to do with what she sees fit. And for the record, most working people I know have never even been on a plane or it is at least a rare enough event that such a bill of rights is nowhere on their radar.
Posted by: lc2 | February 23, 2007 at 01:20 PM
The empty half of the glass is always at the top.
Speed Limit
http://speedlimit.home.att.net
Posted by: Speed Limit | February 23, 2007 at 07:43 PM
IC2, even the working poor fly today---and get treated just as badly as the miidle class passengers. Suffering---I mean flying---is one of the truly egalitarinan/democratic experiences left in our society!!! Hattie, Northwest Airlines was an "old and seasoned" carrier when it did (in 1999?) the same thing as JetBlue. Lack of personel and/or experience is not the problem. Lack of caring about people, by the airlines, is.
Posted by: barbsright | February 25, 2007 at 07:27 AM
The week before the storm, I laughed at the ridiculousness of being booked on a nonstop direct flight that a) had a stop, and b) required switching not only planes, but regional carriers. The four of us who were traveling to the final destination were scolding by the flight attendant for not keeping our boarding passes handy -- why would we if we didn't know that we would need to re-board? But I can laugh at that. Laugh that the flight I routinely take out of LaGuardia on Friday nights has 52 minutes added to 'total flight time' to account for time sitting on the tarmac. But JetBlue is promising not to keep me on a grounded plane for more than 5 hours? Are they kidding? I'd be so outraged that I think I'd be arrested for my bad behavior -- it would be way past grumbling by hour 4. But, that would at least get me off the plane wouldn't it -- and placed on a discriminatory no-fly list.
There was a airline representative (although she was presented as a unbiased commentor on the airlines) on one of the morning news programs following the JetBlue incident. She said that ultimately the captain is responsible and that there was nothing wrong with what happened -- that the captain and the airlines were acting out of concern for their passengers. For 10 hours? Who are these people kidding?
Posted by: Cam | February 25, 2007 at 02:28 PM
lc2 wrote:
"There is a major strike of retail workers imminent in the northeast, which if unsuccessful in its aims (which I predict it will be) ... will be the deathknell of organized labor in this part of the country ..."
I can't wait. This rumored event, of which I've heard nothing, would most certainly help to open the door for Wal-Mart in New York City, I hope.
Posted by: chris | February 27, 2007 at 07:03 AM
Monica, you wrote:
"Airlines have been doing all kinds of outrageous things such as making people take off their shoes and telling them what they can or cannot carry on a plane, not to speak of ethnic profiling, and you are only outraged now that they are actually making people wait for many hours?"
How old are you? 18? Apparently this will come as news to you: Airlines are not in charge of Airport Security. The US Government handles that chore. JetBlue, nor any other airline demands you remove your shoes and empty the metal objects from your pockets.
Airlines would rather do anything than antagonize customers. An airline seat is a commodity, which means one airline is almost as good as another. Fliers know they can quit flying on one airline and switch to another any time.
As for ethnic profiling, well, I hope airport security personnel do more of it. Maybe it's news to you, but certain ethnic and racial groups commit a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes.
You opined:
"It is surprising that there are still people who are willing to put up with that, especially when it's not because of their jobs or for some other important reason."
You must be 18. Do many people fly around simply to kill a few free hours? Whenever a passenger boards an airplane the reason is always important, though you might not agree.
You noted:
"In fact, even for such reasons, things like videoconferencing may replace travel in many cases."
Yes, video-conferencing does affect airlines, just as conference calls do. But the simple fact is this: as prosperity grows around the world, air travel increases. Meanwhile, even if the family has a web-cam, the whole gang will head out to visit Grandma and Grandpa as often as possible. We're funny that way.
You wondered:
"Why don't people just refuse to travel unless they have absolutely no choice?"
They have no choice. Is there a business you can name that doesn't require someone to travel?
You offered:
"If it's for a vacation, there may be places where they could go some other way."
Like how? By train? Train-travel is more expensive than air-travel and it takes a lot longer.
You claimed:
"In fact, in a large city, fun activities may be available right there, perhaps in a different area of the city."
I live in New York City, where there's more to do than anyone could possibly imagine. But I still like to get out of town once in a while. Sounds crazy, right?
You calculated:
"With that money, perhaps they could pay for health insurance, pay off credit cards, have some money left for a rainy day, and so on."
I see. The Frugal Monica Plan. Good luck.
You veered into nuttiness:
"And if people won't travel, maybe terrorists won't try to blow up planes any more."
If you're referencing 9/11, maybe you should recall that the goal was to kill as many people as possible INSIDE the World Trade Center. The people killed on the planes were just an added bonus.
You incorrectly predicted:
"Eventually, market forces will create better transportation services, but for that, many people have to refuse to use those that are now available."
Wrong. In the case of travel, advances and improvements will result from technology.
We already know what travelers want. They want to get there in a hurry, but in safety and comfort. That's technology, not the market.
Posted by: chris | February 27, 2007 at 07:32 AM
chris: '... As for ethnic profiling, well, I hope airport security personnel do more of it. Maybe it's news to you, but certain ethnic and racial groups commit a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes. ...'
It is my tedious duty to enlighten you about this issue. Regardless of whether some ethnic groups commit more crimes than others, ethnic profiling will not work against organized terrorists or other criminals. Once they perceive it in operation, they will use their more ethnically obvious people to attract the attention of the guards while the ethnically non-obvious slip through. In effect, ethnic profiling _reduces_ security. Sadly for many, there is really no substitute for assuming the burdens of rationality, even in police work. Regardless of what you have seen on television.
Posted by: Anarcissie | February 27, 2007 at 07:53 AM
barbsright: '... Lack of personel and/or experience is not the problem. Lack of caring about people, by the airlines, is.'
As far as caring about people goes, I imagine the people who make up an airline are about like everyone else: no, they don't care much, except about themselves and possibly their relatives. Those who do care often want to convert you to their religion or the like, which can be a good deal worse than indifference. This may be unfortunate but it seems to be the way people are.
But as I see it the problem is not a matter of the wrong emotions but simply the result of economic pressure. People want to fly cheap. I have read that airlines have found that they would rather be crowded and uncomfortable and fly cheap than pay more and be less uncomfortable. Efficient, reliable scheduling is one more service which can be performed well or badly, but the better it's performed the more expensive it is. No amount of regulation is going to change that equation. It is, of course, very bad to leave people on a plane for ten or eleven hours, but evidently it's cheap. The airlines can be compelled to construct alternatives, and the low-end cost of fares will be raised accordingly. People could have accomplished the same thing by buying their tickets more selectively, and favoring airlines with better records, but since evidently they don't maybe a law is necessary to protect them from themselves.
Posted by: Anarcissie | February 27, 2007 at 08:10 AM
Anarcissie, you wrote:
"Regardless of whether some ethnic groups commit more crimes than others, ethnic profiling will not work against organized terrorists or other criminals."
Yes it will and yes it does.
Terrorism of the type we experienced in the US on 9/11 and the type Israel experiences all too often is not a statistical game, as you seem to think criminal activity is.
It is binary. What makes it different from common criminality? The willingness of the perpetrators to die.
Kamikazi pilots in WWII and muslims today. That's about it for people who will kill themselves to kill others.
No other contemporary -- I can't say "modern" -- culture breeds suicidal agents of death. All other groups kill from a distance.
You think:
"Once they perceive it in operation, they will use their more ethnically obvious people to attract the attention of the guards while the ethnically non-obvious slip through."
Like muslims can find non-muslims to kill themselves for a nihilistic cause that is not their own. Or like muslims can find non-muslims they would trust to carry out such a task.
This is like hiring a hit man. Nitwits are forever looking in the Yellow Pages for guys to kill their hated spouses. But every time they reach someone, they are arrested because the "killer" is actually a cop.
You claim:
"In effect, ethnic profiling _reduces_ security."
Not a chance. I live in Brooklyn, NY, an area that has seen more than a fair share of crime. Guess what? You won't find many cops patrolling in stable white neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Why? Very little crime to fight. Very little criminal intent to suppress.
Go to a black and hispanic neighborhood and you will find most of the NYPD at work, much of which consists of suppressing crime simply by being visible.
Moreover, cops keep a close eye on the known gang-bangers and they make it their business to confront people who look even a little suspicious.
You lamented:
"Sadly for many, there is really no substitute for assuming the burdens of rationality, even in police work."
Rationality? Okay. About 90% of violent crime in NY City is committed by blacks and hispanics. Thinking rationally, where should the city spend its policing dollars to get the biggest bang for its buck?
Moreover, almost 100% of street crime in predominately white neighborhoods is committed by blacks and hispanics who know where the money is.
You chided:
"Regardless of what you have seen on television."
Yeah. Right. I see it all on Law & Order. Never have I witnessed real crime or been a victim.
Posted by: chris | February 27, 2007 at 09:50 AM
barbsright, you wrote:
"IC2, even the working poor fly today---and get treated just as badly as the miidle class passengers."
Nonsense. Anyone who flies enough has a horror-story to tell. But flying is on commercial airllines relatively safe, and looks especially good when compared with do-it-yourself travel, like driving the family car to Yellowstone Park.
Over 40,000 people a year are killed in accidents on US highways. How long would airlines remain in business with a death toll like that?
You blabbed:
"Suffering---I mean flying---is one of the truly egalitarinan/democratic experiences left in our society!!!"
Yeah, that sums up every second of every flight taken by every passenger.
You mislead:
"Hattie, Northwest Airlines was an "old and seasoned" carrier when it did (in 1999?) the same thing as JetBlue."
Not likely. Northwest was plagued by labor problems for years. One tactic of disgruntled workers -- which included virtually everyone who worked in or on the planes -- was causing delays, which always angered passengers and had them complaining to management about poor service.
You might note that Northwest is now emerging from bankruptcy. Hopefully the reconfigured company will offer better service.
You wrote:
"Lack of personel and/or experience is not the problem. Lack of caring about people, by the airlines, is."
Well, with respect to Northwest, the pilots, the cabin staff, the mechanics and the baggage handlers deliberately contributed to passenger unhappiness, believing it would force management to increase paychecks. Instead, the company declared bankruptcy and was restructured by the bankruptcy court, which no doubt permanently reduced the employee headcount to enable the company to come out of bankruptcy.
In case you hadn't noticed, the airline business is not very profitable. In fact, virtually every airline disappears in bankruptcy. More often than not, the bankruptcy leads to a takeover -- like Eastern and Pan Am and People Express and Braniff and TWA and Texas Air and on and on.
But air traffic continues to increase. Amazing, isn't it?
Posted by: chris | February 27, 2007 at 10:13 AM
chris: '... Like muslims can find non-muslims to kill themselves for a nihilistic cause that is not their own. Or like muslims can find non-muslims they would trust to carry out such a task. ...'
They probably can, but even if not, "Muslim" is not an ethnic group, nor an ancestry, nor a look. And Muslims are not the only people who do terrorism. It's delusional to think that you can protect yourself from terrorism or other forms of crime based on how people look, or what their names are. Do try to figure it out.
Posted by: Anarcissie | February 27, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Anarcissie, you wrote:
""Muslim" is not an ethnic group, nor an ancestry, nor a look."
First, muslims, due to their disapproval of non-muslims, congregate in countries that are either muslim theocracies or muslim dictatorships.
Historically muslims have driven out all non-muslims from their theocratic nightmare nations. Hence, it's a sure bet anyone with a passport from the usual muslim states is a muslim.
Second, ALL terrorist groups practicing suicide terrorism today are islamic.
The only non-islamic suicidal agents for change that I can recall were a handful of Buddhist monks who set fire to themselves in Vietnam. But they died in protest of the war, not as suicidal murderers.
You attempted to spread the blame and confuse the issue by stating:
"And Muslims are not the only people who do terrorism."
Well that's true. The Irish via the IRA committed quite a few acts of terrorism over the years. But, in case you didn't notice, they did not fly planes into Buckingham Palace. Neither did the English send any jetliners crashing into The Vatican.
The Harrod's bombing was probably one of the worst attacks. But no one in Ireland is forgetting Bloody Sunday. In short, almost all the terrorist acts related to The Troubles in Northern Ireland were committed there, between the people who were struggling for control of the region where both groups live and work.
You might also note that it appears that peace may have finally broken out between the two groups. Moreover, neither group ever deluded itself into thinking the other would move out of town. The solution to problems of Northern Ireland were always viewed in terms of compromise.
That's not how it goes with muslims. They want us dead or they want full control. There is no compromise with islam. It is not within the religion to offer peaceful co-existence or plurality as part of a mixed society.
You grasped for the obvious:
"It's delusional to think that you can protect yourself from terrorism or other forms of crime based on how people look, or what their names are."
Funny. Israel has kept hijackers/killers off El Al planes for almost 40 years by profiling, and profiling with great intensity.
However, I admit that if muslim terrorists are going to remove your head and show the video worldwide on the Internet, they won't kill themselves as they decapitate you. But fortunately there haven't been many beheadings, and they've all occurred in muslim countries. What a shock.
Frankly, I hope the profiling of muslims at airports incenses them to the point that they refuse to fly. I'd love nothing better than a muslim boycott of all airlines.
Of course we learned long ago that we must inspect the baggage. Who can forget the Pan Am flight that was destroyed over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb in the luggage compartment. Guess what? It was the work of muslims! How about that?
And Khadaffy is close to forking over the final payment of compensation to the families of those killed on that flight way back in 1988.
Oh. I forgot to mention the 1,000 Americans killed by muslim terrorists from 1968 to 9/10/01.
While it's true a random gunman carelessly firing his weapon might nail me any day in New York City, there's little that can be done to eliminate that small risk from everyday life.
But it's not hard to keep an eye on and thwart the people who have repeatedly announced their desire to kill westerners.
As you suggested:
"Do try to figure it out."
By the way, my Brooklyn neighborhood is adjacent to a large muslim neighborhood. As a result, the police presence on the streets around my house has gone from the occasional police car passing through to 24/7 foot patrols.
There are many fundamentalist muslims in nearby. They dress in the al-qaeda fashion and their wives are covered head-to-toe in black burqas, chadors, hijabs or whatever else they're called and they often ride the subway.
It's my expectation that when one of them attempts a terrorist act, the perp will be dressed as a woman to rouse minimal suspicion. Of course, the cops are watching their movements in my neighborhood. And the FBI is on the scene as well.
It's not likely this ruse will work.
On the other hand, I think it's possible for an observant terrorist to cause massive damage to the subway system. They were fiendishly clever enough to exploit weaknesses in the airline industry.
The same may be possible here as well. But I'm sure the weaknesses are known to those who would defend the system from attack.
Posted by: chris | February 27, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Well, I'm just going on science, reason, and history. No need to trouble yourself about them if you don't want to. I doubt if you're in charge of anyone's airplane security anyway.
By the way, the inventors of suicide bombing, or at least the most recent fad for it, were not Muslims but the Tamil Tigers. I think they may have done a recent one, too. Conceded, Muslims seem to be ahead right now in diligence of practice, but nothing lasts forever. Eventually a certain Darwinian logic should mitigate the problem.
Posted by: Anarcissie | February 27, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Anarcissie, you wrote:
"Well, I'm just going on science, reason, and history."
Guess again.
You erroneously claimed:
"By the way, the inventors of suicide bombing, or at least the most recent fad for it, were not Muslims but the Tamil Tigers."
Wrong. The suicidal savages of hezbollah drove a truck bomb into the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in October, 1983, killing 241 Marines.
The first tamil suicide bombing occurred in 1987. Furthermore, some tamils are, surprise, muslims!
More importantly, the tamil nonsense is not unlike the idiots of the ETA in Spain. They're both separatist groups hoping to break free of the homeland.
For that reason we can sleep soundly knowing that neither suicidal tamil nuts nor suicidal eta nuts will detonate bombs in the US. They have no argument with us, though the tamil muslims might approve of other muslim terrorist actions against the US and other western nations.
Posted by: chris | February 27, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Chris, three main things:
1) Northwest is a poor American airline (and all American airlines are pretty piss-poor already). Their bankruptcy problems are caused by inept management (which, incidently, what caused the labor problems in the first place) not the other way around.
2) Minorities get CONVICTED more often of crime. They commit about the same amount as any other ethnic group.
3) Profiling is useless.
Posted by: Antigone | February 28, 2007 at 06:22 PM
The fact that the government, not the airline, is in charge of screening is not an excuse to tolerate it. I understand that airlines don't have a choice, but they, as well as concerned citizens, could lobby the government, and perhaps even refuse to provide services under such circumstances (not forever, of course, since they need to make money, but then, transportation services are necessary, too). Besides, some decisions, such as kicking some Muslim-looking individuals off the plane, were really made by airline personnel. And since it only takes one or a handful of individuals to have terrorism, of course it is possible to find Muslims from many racial and ethnic backgrounds, as such individuals actually exist and others are welcome to convert, and some do. But because of a few isolated incidents, everybody has to suffer, and those who belong to certain racial/ethnic/religious groups even more. That's not fair! Why aren't planes protected just by making it impossible to commit terrorist acts once on the plane? You may say that it is possible to hide explosives somewhere. But what for? I was going to say that, while that may seem cruel, simply not seeming to care and not doing what the terrorists want may help prevent further incidents if and when that happens. But then, there is no need to sacrifice passengers at the beginning. Maybe just making everybody without exception dress in Muslim garb while on the plane would discourage Muslims from killing their "brothers" and "sisters", as they would not know who are in fact disguised "infidels". On the other hand, one way to fight ethnic profiling would be for many passengers to always dress like that when going to the airport. It's hard to profile a planeload full of Muslim-looking people. In fact, once they are the majority, then ordinary clothes would stand out. This fashion may no longer be necessary in a few years, and it's a small price to pay for safety, and by no means as bad as the current security screening. And while some modesty in dress is badly needed nowadays, it's not as if they had to dress like that every day.
Also, covering up as much as possible is just a matter of modesty taken to an extreme. While some Muslims tend to do just that, this really has nothing to do with being "Al-Qaeda types". In fact, smart terrorists may try to blend it. You can't guess who the terrorists are.
Posted by: Monica | March 02, 2007 at 02:08 PM