pageok
pageok
pageok
Gilmore v. Gonzales:
The Ninth Circuit decided Gilmore v. Gonzales today. (This was the airport ID requirement/ secret law case that I blogged about before.) The Court upheld the ID requirement in a unanimous opinion by Judge Paez. The Court didn't seem particularly troubled by Gilmore's legal claims, either about the Fourth Amendment or the "secret law" Due Process claim.

  The Court held that the law did not violate Due Process because the law was not a criminal law and Gilmore was fully informed about the rule at issue:
Gilmore had actual notice of the identification policy. He alleged that several airline personnel asked him for identification and informed him of the identification policy. They told him that in order to board the aircraft, he must either present identification or be subject to a "selectee" search. He also saw a sign in front of United Airlines' ticketing counter that read "PASSENGERS MUST PRESENT IDENTIFICATION UPON INITIAL CHECK-IN." Although Gilmore was not given the text of the identification policy due to the Security Directive's classification as SSI, he was nonetheless accorded adequate notice given that he was informed of the policy and how to comply.
  Judge Paez also rejected Gilmore's Fourth Amendment claims relying on Ninth Circuit precedent. The gist of the analysis was that forcing Gilmore to submit to a search if he refused to provide an ID was reasonable, because it gave him a choice of options:
Gilmore had a meaningful choice. He could have presented identification, submitted to a search, or left the airport. That he chose the latter does not detract from the fact that he could have boarded the airplane had he chosen one of the other two options.
  Thanks to Howard for the link.
Pio (mail):
Gilmore had a meaningful choice. He could have presented identification, submitted to a search, or gone to prison. That he chose the latter does not detract from the fact that he could have gone free had he chosen one of the other two options.

Would this be considered reasonable logic? After all, a meaningful choice is offered. That the government gives one "a meaningful choice" is irrelevant when none of the options the feds have oh so graciously seen fit to offer us are particularly pleasant or acceptable.
1.26.2006 6:49pm
T E (mail):
So there is no intereference with his right to travel because there are other means available?

There may be a way to get to the same result, but that reasoning is craptacular.

Govt suspends your internet access? No worries, you can always get info from library. Prevents you from using a cellular or regular telephone? There's always the mail.
1.26.2006 6:50pm
Justice Fuller:
Pio,

I just read the Constitution, and couldn't find a guarantee of pleasant airline travel. Is that hidden somewhere, or am I just missing it?
1.26.2006 6:53pm
billb:
Pio, as much as I disagree with it, if you read the decision, you'll find that there was never any danger of Gilmore ending up in prison. His choices were present ID and be allowd to fly or do not and not be allowed to fly.
1.26.2006 7:00pm
JohnAnnArbor:
Govt suspends your internet access? No worries, you can always get info from library. Prevents you from using a cellular or regular telephone? There's always the mail.

Um, neither of those examples provide you with a ready-made way to kill lots o' people. A plane full o' people does. Duh.
1.26.2006 7:00pm
T E (mail):
J. Fuller,

Right-o. My text of the constitution doesn't say anything about the right to operate automobiles either. No wait, there nothing re horse and buggies either. I guess if you can still walk there there isn't a constitutional problem.
1.26.2006 7:01pm
Splunge (mail):
I'm assuming it would be Constitutional for Congress to give TSA the authority to regulate common-carrier interstate rail traffic, e.g. you could be required to show ID or be searched for bombs, knives and knitting needles when boarding an interstate train (if you aren't already).

But what about private automobiles? Could Congress direct the TSA to generally require people to stop at state borders and show ID or be searched for high explosives, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, plutonium, or any overlooked cash donations to the Department of Homeland Security Agents' Christmas Ball Fund?

I understand DHS can do so for specific reasons related to international border control, e.g. they do stop you near the international border to search for illegal aliens. But could they just routinely search you when you cross state borders for anything they feel could conceivably be used for a Bad Purpose, the way the TSA searches airline passengers for screwdrivers and nailfiles without having any specific reason to suspect they (the passengers) are up to no good?
1.26.2006 7:03pm
T E (mail):

Um, neither of those examples provide you with a ready-made way to kill lots o' people. A plane full o' people does. Duh.

Oh yes indeed. But you can spread all sorts of dangerous information on that internet. Duh, indeed.
1.26.2006 7:04pm
T E (mail):

a ready-made way to kill lots o' people.

And if loss of life is what drives all of this, shouldn't we concentrate of programs giving calesthenics to senior citizens, since more people are killed in falls around the home every year than died on September 11.
1.26.2006 7:07pm
Grodin Tierce (www):
Um, neither of those examples provide you with a ready-made way to kill lots o' people. A plane full o' people does. Duh.

But the ID requirement has little or nothing to do hijacking/blowing up planes. Physical security can be ensured with metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs, luggage scanners, air marshals, etc. The ID requirement seems to me to be fundamentally about control.
1.26.2006 7:12pm
Justice Fuller:
T E,

Huh? What are you talking about?
1.26.2006 7:14pm
therut (mail):
Do you really think you have a Constitutional right to operate an automobile? Maybe on your own private property. If I try to do that off my property I must have permission with a license and testing and age restricion,physical ablility restrictions giving me permission from the government. At least I do not have have my automobile inspected anymore. I even have to pay the government for my permission slip every 4 years. I am forced to take a vision screenig every 4 years.I have to have that permission slip with me at all times when driving and show it to the POLICE if they stop me and ask for it. They even get to force me to show my insurance and registration papers. Now if I just drive on my property I do not have to do any of those things. Guess what on my own property I can even drink and drive. Why do you think people still like to be farmers? Have you ever looked at any farm trucks that are just driven on the farm?
1.26.2006 7:16pm
gvibes (mail):
Justice Fuller - I think T.E. was making a snide comment about the cost of airline security versus the harm that such "security" prevents.

Read "Beyond Fear" for a nice treatment of cost/benefit in security. His theory is that checking IDs has nothing to with security (the 9/11 bombers had IDs, right?), and everything to do with preventing a secondary market in airline tickets. Think about it.

1.26.2006 8:01pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
John, call NetJets. You can afford it.

Yes, it's unfortunate that Al Gore imposed these ID requirements back in '96 before he became sensitive about rights violations by the Feds. But I was never too fond of the '70s-era security inspections either. We used to be able to just board.

Substitute on-the-spot executions for wrongdoers, discrimination against suspiscious characters, and Phalanx guns on building tops -- leave honest Americans alone.
1.26.2006 8:10pm
Justice Fuller:
gvibes,

I have already read "Beyond Fear," actually. Methinks Schneier's civil libertarian instincts got the best of him.
1.26.2006 8:12pm
Neal Lang (mail):
So there is no intereference with his right to travel because there are other means available?

There is no interference with anyone's "right to travel", merely their "right to board a commercial aircraft without submitting to a reasonable search". Where's the problem? Your "right to travel" is inviolate, your method of travels depends on many varibles such as, how much money you want to spend; how quickly you want to get there; and how much "BS" you are willing to put up with. Personally, I prefer to travel armed - unfortunately it has not been permitted to do so since the 1970s. Now if I want to fly, I either do so unarmed or charter a plane.
Govt suspends your internet access? No worries, you can always get info from library. Prevents you from using a cellular or regular telephone? There's always the mail.

When did the government suspend Internet access and the telecom system?
1.26.2006 8:24pm
Neal Lang (mail):
I just read the Constitution, and couldn't find a guarantee of pleasant airline travel. Is that hidden somewhere, or am I just missing it?

It's one of the "penumbra", although I am not sure the Supremes have officially discovered it as yet.
1.26.2006 8:27pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Um, neither of those examples provide you with a ready-made way to kill lots o' people. A plane full o' people does. Duh.

I believe he was merely being facetious, perhaps alluding in a left-handed way to the terrorists' "right of an expectation of privacy".
1.26.2006 8:35pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Right-o. My text of the constitution doesn't say anything about the right to operate automobiles either. No wait, there nothing re horse and buggies either. I guess if you can still walk there there isn't a constitutional problem.

Try operating an automobile on "government roads" without an operators license, insurance, and valid tag indicating your paid for the "privilege" to put the particular automobile you are operating on the highway. BTW, you may drive anywhere you please on your own property without license, insurance and tag, however. Also, try operating on government roads outside the government established norms of operation (speed limit; lane useage; use of signals, etc.)
1.26.2006 8:42pm
OrinKerr:
Neal,

Just a request -- could you not put blockquoted material in bold, as well? It's a little hard on the eyes.
1.26.2006 8:45pm
Neal Lang (mail):
But what about private automobiles? Could Congress direct the TSA to generally require people to stop at state borders and show ID or be searched for high explosives, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, plutonium, or any overlooked cash donations to the Department of Homeland Security Agents' Christmas Ball Fund?

Common carrier trucks are stopped all the time as they cross State borders to check for permits, safety equipment, log status, weight carried, proper documentation of cargo, etc. Adding TSA check for Nukes, chemicals, explosives. etc. could be accomplished with minimum additional hassle. Attempting the same for private autos would require an investment in government personal and infrastruture that would break the "piggy bank". It could never happen on any scale other than "spot check".
1.26.2006 8:51pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Just a request -- could you not put blockquoted material in bold, as well? It's a little hard on the eyes.

I merely use the bold quote to differentiate between quotes from on the blog v. other material that I might quote. Actually, it helps keep the two separated. However, if you have a problem with it, then I seeing that you're the host, and I am your guest, so of course I will respect your "druthers".
1.26.2006 8:58pm
t e (mail):

When did the government suspend Internet access and the telecom system?

Not yet. But one chunk of the legal reasoning needed to justify such a ban was provided by this opinion.

So far, it seems that our overseers are content to let us use the internet as long as they can intercept our communications without the drudgery of getting a warrant.
1.26.2006 9:07pm
Neal Lang (mail):
And if loss of life is what drives all of this, shouldn't we concentrate of programs giving calesthenics to senior citizens, since more people are killed in falls around the home every year than died on September 11.

Actually, "Unintentional Injuries" (of all kinds including falls) kill less senior citizens (65+) than any cause except "Septicemia", according to the CDC.
1.26.2006 9:12pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Not yet. But one chunk of the legal reasoning needed to justify such a ban was provided by this opinion.

I believe you have a much too high an opinion of your "opinions".
1.26.2006 9:16pm
t e (mail):

I believe you have a much too high an opinion of your "opinions".

Now there is an insightful post.
1.26.2006 9:25pm
t e (mail):

Actually, "Unintentional Injuries" (of all kinds including falls) kill less senior citizens (65+) than any cause except "Septicemia", according to the CDC.

I don't know or care if that is correct, but it has nothing to do with my post noting that falls kill more old folks in a year than all the people who were killed on 9/11.

So says the CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/falls.htm:


In 2002, nearly 13,000 people ages 65 and older died from fall-related injuries (CDC 2004). More than 60% of people who die from falls are 75 and older (Murphy 2000).

Nice try at a rebuttal, though.
1.26.2006 9:29pm
Neal Lang (mail):
But the ID requirement has little or nothing to do hijacking/blowing up planes. Physical security can be ensured with metal detectors, bomb sniffing dogs, luggage scanners, air marshals, etc. The ID requirement seems to me to be fundamentally about control.

Perhaps "Big Brother" isn't nearly as confident in his detection abilities as your are. Possibily the ID check is a means allocating manpower and facilities to highter probability targets.

On several trip through DeGaulle in Paris in the late 80s I was all but strip-search by French Security types, mainly because I was travelling to or from Africa. In Rome, an 18 year old Italian security type disarmed me of my Swiss Army Pocket Knife (probably because he thought it was an assault weapon), at the same time left someone else pass with a Leatherman that had a larger blade than my Swiss Army Knife. Go figure. Most foreign airport security profile travellers, and have been since the late 80s and early 90s. Until 9/11 we had it pretty easy in the US, with inbound Customs far more intrusive than any boarding security routine. In Swizerland and Germany, airport security patrolled the terminal in teams armed with Submachine guns.
1.26.2006 9:32pm
DK:
TE said "...No problem, you can always get information from a library."

Does your local library let people check out books without showing ID? Mine doesn't. Nor do my neighborhood video store, bank, the non-ER portion of the local hospital, or my cellphone provider let people get videos, cash, treatment, or contracts without requiring a photo id at first and some lesser identity verification later, some due to their corporate choice, and some due to government regulations or pressure. I support Mr. Gilmore's right to live "off the grid" if he so chooses, and I'd prefer greater privacy across the board, but I fail to see any reason airplane travel should involve any greater privacy protection than any of these other aspects of modern life.

Some people have also remarked here that ID's didn't stop their hijackers. IMHO, that is a little bit like saying having air defenses didn't stop the Japanese from attacking Pearl Harbor. In both cases, it would be more accurate to say that no defense mechanism is effective against sufficient surprise.
1.26.2006 9:51pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Nice try at a rebuttal, though.

I thought so, too.

BTW, considering that Heart Disease killed some 700,142 US seniors in 2001 (the highest cause), and that generally, most cartiologists recommend exercise to minimize the impacts of Heart Disease, your proposal to "concentrate of programs giving calesthenics to senior citizens" - is particularly inane. Especially since you made no case for a causal relationship between "programs giving calesthenics to senior citizens", and falling deaths (your cite was completely silent on the subject). In fact, I would speculate that far more fatal falls occur in unsupervised baths and showers, than occur in supervised calesthenics programs, further minimizing the efficacy of your proposed solution. However, desite its nexus to "loss of life" of senior, I would be loath to recommend that seniors take less baths and showers.
1.26.2006 9:55pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Now there is an insightful post.

I thought so, too!
1.26.2006 9:56pm
t e (mail):

Does your local library let people check out books without showing ID? Mine doesn't. Nor do my neighborhood video store, bank, the non-ER portion of the local hospital, or my cellphone provider let people get videos, cash, treatment, or contracts without requiring a photo

These widespread erosion of privacy and civil rights makes each further erosion all the more acceptable. You're right about that.
1.26.2006 9:57pm
t e (mail):
FIgured out how to read those CDC tables yet Mr. Lang - or are we going to just ignore that brain-fart.
1.26.2006 9:59pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Read "Beyond Fear" for a nice treatment of cost/benefit in security. His theory is that checking IDs has nothing to with security (the 9/11 bombers had IDs, right?), and everything to do with preventing a secondary market in airline tickets. Think about it.

That an interesting observation as Israel Airport security includes ID checks at several locations - ticketing, boarding control, and randomly, anywhere in the terminal. They have been quite successful in minimizing both aircraft highjacking and airport terror acts. Had our airport security been at their level on 9/11/2001, most likely the terrorist plot would not have been successfully executed.
1.26.2006 10:03pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Substitute on-the-spot executions for wrongdoers, discrimination against suspiscious characters, and Phalanx guns on building tops -- leave honest Americans alone.

Saudi Air use to have scimiter armed security on their flights. They had a reputation of using them, too. Generally, Saudi Air flights were considered the safest in the Gulf. Profile screening is probably the best way to insure safety with a minimum of hassle. The Israelis and French were using this method in the 70s and 80s.

In Nigeria I would often be able to board domestic flights with no screening or weapons check. Ticket and seat assignments were meaningless, too. Terror was not the biggest safety threat to domestic Nigerian passengers - losing a landing gear or engine on takeoff or landing was. Most were "white knuckled" flights. I even once boarded on international flight on a Nigerian Airways without a security check. It always made me wonder!
1.26.2006 10:19pm
Neal Lang (mail):
FIgured out how to read those CDC tables yet Mr. Lang - or are we going to just ignore that brain-fart.

In fact, I did and I assure you I accorded it all the attention it deserves. BTW, your cited source seems to highlight my suggestion that your proposal to reduce falls by "concentrat(ing) of programs giving calesthenics to senior citizens" is quite counterintuitve, to wit:
How can seniors reduce their risk of falling?

Through careful scientific studies, researchers have identified a number of modifiable risk factors:

*Lower body weakness (Graafmans 1996)
*Problems with walking and balance (Graafmans 1996; AGS 2001)
*Taking four or more medications or any psychoactive medications (Tinetti 1989; Ray 1990; Lord 1993; Cumming 1998).

Seniors can modify these risk factors by:

* Increasing lower body strength and improving balance through regular physical activity (Judge 1993; Lord 1993; Campbell 1999). Tai Chi is one type of exercise program that has been shown to be very effective (Wolf 1996; Li 2005).
* Asking their doctor or pharmacist to review all their medicines (both prescription and over-the-counter) to reduce side effects and interactions. It may be possible to reduce the number of medications used, particularly tranquilizers, sleeping pills, and anti-anxiety drugs (Ray 1990).

Strong studies have shown that some other important fall risk factors are Parkinson's Disease, history of stroke, arthritis (Dolinis 1997), cognitive impairment (Tromp 2001), and visual impairments (Dolinis 1997; Ivers 1998; Lord 2001). To reduce these risks, seniors should see a health care provider regularly for chronic conditions and have an eye doctor check their vision at least once a year.

What other things may help reduce fall risk?

Because seniors spend most of their time at home, one-half to two-thirds of all falls occur in or around the home (Nevitt 1989; Wilkins 1999). Most fall injuries are caused by falls on the same level (not from falling down stairs) and from a standing height (for example, by tripping while walking) (Ellis 2001). Therefore, it makes sense to reduce home hazards and make living areas safer.

* Researchers have found that simply modifying the home does not reduce falls. However, environmental risk factors may contribute to about half of all home falls (Nevitt 1989).
* Common environmental fall hazards include tripping hazards, lack of stair railings or grab bars, slippery surfaces, unstable furniture, and poor lighting (Northridge 1995; Connell 1996; Gill 1999).

To make living areas safer, seniors should:

* Remove tripping hazards such as throw rugs and clutter in walkways;
* Use non-slip mats in the bathtub and on shower floors;
* Have grab bars put in next to the toilet and in the tub or shower;
* Have handrails put in on both sides of stairways;
* Improve lighting throughout the home.

Gee, I do not see your suggested course at all, as "exercise programs" are not identified as a "risk factor". On the contrary, it would seem that such programs are, in fact, suggested to as forms of "physical activity" (like "calesthenics programs" perhaps?) as the best mean to help mitigate fatal falls. BTW, Tai Chi is really just an glorified Chinese "calesthenics programs" with a fancy name.

As Forrest Gump's mom would say: "Stupid is as stupid does!"

Did you note, also, that my contention about "baths and showers" was recognized by your chosen source recommending "grab-rails and non-slip mats in the bathtub and on shower floors" as a way to further improve the situation. Unfortunately, your recommendation was not considered, possibly because it was pretty stupid (or at least the CDC thought so, but what do they knew?. But don't feel bad, you can't be right everytime - but it was "nice try at a rebuttal, though." Better luck next time.
1.26.2006 10:57pm
Neal Lang (mail):
These widespread erosion of privacy and civil rights makes each further erosion all the more acceptable. You're right about that.

Could please provide a good cite that defines how "checking out" library books or videos without ID is a "privacy or civil right"? I would be real interested in springing it on the "Block Busters" clerk the next she insists on some ID.
1.26.2006 11:02pm
t e (mail):
Mr. Lang says:


Actually, "Unintentional Injuries" (of all kinds including falls) kill less senior citizens (65+) than any cause except "Septicemia", according to the CDC.

CDC says:

Among older adults, falls are the leading cause of injury deaths (Murphy 2000) and the most common cause of nonfatal injuries and hospital admissions for trauma (Alexander 1992).

Cite is http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/falls.htm

Goodnight.
1.27.2006 12:12am
arbitraryaardvark (mail) (www):

He also saw a sign in front of United Airlines' ticketing counter that read "PASSENGERS MUST PRESENT IDENTIFICATION UPON INITIAL CHECK-IN."

One thing that this case has already accomplished is that he's shown they were lying. They've admitted you can fly without ID if you submit to an unwarranted search.
This panel's opinion, for which I have little respect, was compelled partly by an earlier erroneous opinion of the 9th circuit, Davis. En banc review should be the next step - I hope Kozinski will be on the en banc panel. Davis said that a person can consent to a frisk, or choose not to fly, so the search is reasonable. But that's wrong in two ways. If you don't get to fly, you've been seized. Making a choice between a search and a seizure is not consent. Consent cannot not the basis for finding that an unwarranted suspicionless search is reasonable - if there had been consent, it wouldn't have been a search. I don't expect Gilmore to win the en banc, but it might get a nice dissent.
I am dealing with some of the same issues regarding a search policy at my city hall. I seek legal representation, if any of you folks are so inclined. gtbear at gmail.
1.27.2006 12:53am
alkali (mail) (www):
I was disappointed that the opinion dealt so quickly with Gilmore's challenge to the law on the basis that it was secret. I think that's really the most troubling issue raised by the case.
1.27.2006 9:32am
Michael Kleber (mail):
The decision relied several times on the fact that alternate forms of transportation were available. This raises the natural question of what would happen if similar constraints were placed, one by one, on those alternate forms.

Gilmore asserted that rail and bus travel offered a similar situation, but he was denied standing on those issues; would that have made a difference? (You can't really travel anonymously in a car, since they're already required to show a unique identifier to the world.)

There is the spectre of a host of must-show-ID-to-travel laws, none of which are individually problematic per this decision, but which in toto make it impossible for Gilmore to get to D.C. without hitchhiking. What happens then?
1.27.2006 11:30am
Sigivald (mail):
t e: I was not aware that renting a video from a private business, or even borrowing a book from a public library, without showing any identification so they can track you down if you do not return it, was a "civil liberty" that had been "eroded".

Where, pray tell, do you get the idea that either was ever a civil liberty in the first place?


Arbitrary: Could you provide references to the jurisprudence involved in your claims that the search or seizure involved are unreasonable, such that the Fourth Amendment should have protected Gilmore?

Because it's not at all obvious to me, or to, er, the Ninth Circuit, that such a search or siezure (assuming you're correct about being denied a flight being a seizure, which while plausible sounding, is outside my competence) is, in fact, unreasonable, at least on its face.
1.27.2006 12:45pm
T E (mail):

I was not aware that renting a video from a private business, or even borrowing a book from a public library, without showing any identification so they can track you down if you do not return it, was a "civil liberty" that had been SO "eroded".

Where, pray tell, do you get the idea that either was ever a civil liberty in the first place?

Actually, my post said the following:

These widespread erosion of privacy and civil rights makes each further erosion all the more acceptable.

So I was not limiting my comment to what may or may not pass as "civil rights" as interpreted by our government and courts. The erosion of "civil rights" by the government is just one symptom or aspect of the overall decay of privacy rights, trust, rationality, etc..
1.27.2006 12:57pm
Neal Lang (mail):
Why is this:
Actually, "Unintentional Injuries" (of all kinds including falls) kill less senior citizens (65+) than any cause except "Septicemia", according to the CDC.

Incompatible, in your mind, with this:
Among older adults, falls are the leading cause of injury deaths (Murphy 2000) and the most common cause of nonfatal injuries and hospital admissions for trauma (Alexander 1992).

In fact, in 2002 the CDC's stats show exactly that the results I noted. Of course, fall account for a portion of the "Unintentional Injury Deaths" - in fact, if the CDC Stats on the subject that you reference are correct, less even than "Septicemia". Of course, none of this mitigates your particular silly suggestion to curtail exercise programs for seniors to offset their deaths from falling, when the CDC, your preferred source, says exactly the opposite, on the very cite you offerred. Go figure!
1.27.2006 2:22pm
can u read (mail):

none of this mitigates your particular silly suggestion to curtail exercise programs for seniors to offset their deaths from falling,


And if loss of life is what drives all of this, shouldn't we concentrate on programs giving calesthenics to senior citizens,
1.27.2006 5:00pm
arbitraryaardvark (mail) (www):


Arbitrary: Could you provide references to the jurisprudence involved in your claims that the search or seizure involved are unreasonable, such that the Fourth Amendment should have protected Gilmore?

It's not my position that every unwarranted search or seizure without individualized suspicion or probable cause always and automaticly violates the 4th, but such a search is presumptively unreasonable and puts a heavy burden of persuasion on the government. Davis is unpersuasive in meeting that burden. An example: In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), my roommate Joell Palmer was stopped at a drug roadblock, without warrant or cause. The court said the search was unreasonable. He was awarded damages and legal fees. In the courthouse cases I've been looking at, one factor is whether there are clear standards publicly posted. In Gilmore's case, and my case about being searched every time I go to city hall, the standards are hidden and secret - that tends to support a finding of unreasonableness.
1.27.2006 9:28pm
Neal Lang (mail):
And if loss of life is what drives all of this, shouldn't we concentrate on programs giving calesthenics to senior citizens,

I believe the comparison was with rstrictions on travel. Seeing how you didn't specify, obviously one would assume that for you to make such a comparison, you were suggesting curtailing "calesthenics to senior citizens" instead of restricting travel as a means of improving mortality. Perhaps a little more precison might minimize confusion.
1.30.2006 10:14am