7 Color Lagoon

Thursday the Norwegian police under Iver Stensrud, head of the police investigation, reported the recovery of two Edvard Munch paintings. The Scream and Madonna were stolen two years ago from a museum in Oslo. Blogcritic’s Shark reported on that crime in “Munch’s THE SCREAM Stolen From Museum”. At that time two thieves dressed in black walked into the relatively unsecured museum, threatened guards with guns and pulled the paintings from the wall. They walked out to their car and left (there is even a photo of them leaving with the canvases).

Mr. Stensrud reported “The pictures came into our hands this afternoon after a successful police action. All that remains is an expert examination to confirm with 100% certainty, that these are the original paintings. We believe these are the originals.”

Edvard Munch turned the existential cry of pain for all the ills and tragedies of the world into a masterpiece of painting. It has both the abstracted feeling of the cry in its color, the figure heavy with emotional baggage and the frame centered in a way so modern and so direct as well as the literal reality of the cry that wells up from the pit of our collective stomachs as we recognize the world and its’ madnesses for what it is. It is a masterpiece in that it stands alone, bravely facing the viewers.

If our world were civilized — and this is yet another proof that it is far from that — the masterpieces of painting, sculpture from all ages, photography, music and writing would be sacrosanct. They would be known as the glue that maintains the fabric of civilization. They would be understood to be the best that man has to offer for his thousands of years of trying to control the earth. We have not controlled it nor has it controlled our nonsensical attacks on that (art) which is closest to the creator — if indeed there is one.

The paintings were part of Munch’s Frieze of Life series, focusing on sickness, death, anxiety and love. Munch died in 1944 at the age of 80. In The Scream the subject cries and he is us.

In 2004 the BBC archives reports that “Two masked men enter through the museum cafe. One man holds staff and visitors at gunpoint. The other man goes to the gallery and tears the Scream and Madonna from the walls. The two men make their escape, fleeing in a black Audi.”

Norwegian Culture Minister Valgerd Svarstad Haugland suggested with some under-statement that, “We have not protected our cultural treasures adequately. We must learn the lessons.” A French radio producer, Francois Castang, who was in the museum at the time and witnessed the assault said that security was not very tight in an interview with French radio which was later reported by the AP.

What’s strange is that in this museum, there weren’t any means of protection for the paintings, no alarm bell. The paintings were simply attached by wire to the walls. All you had to do is pull on the painting hard for the cord to break loose - which is what I saw one of the thieves doing.

In the discussions following the 2004 heist the FBI reported that art theft is a “small but ugly criminal speciality” that is, surprisingly or not, the third largest criminal endeavor in the world. They estimate $8 Billion (with a “B”) worth of art works are stolen world-wide yearly. Ton Cremers, founder of the Museum Security Network says that the theft of art works around the world remains a constant threat. Museums are the victims about 15% of the time.

What was not mentioned then is the threat that art, the symbol of civilization and freedom of thought, action and expression, could become yet another target for the barbarian hordes presently centered in the Muslim world. If they strike at two gaudy office buildings and thousands of people merely because they think the towers were symbols of financial power and American freedom; what will they do to the legacy of Vincent Van Gogh, Jackson Pollock or Edward Degas? Art is not equal to human life but it symbolizes the best aspect of life, love, beauty and knowledge. The barbarians hate our civilized world because it encompasses the freedom to create and the love of beauty. So far, we have been lucky that they are violent and increasingly sly but not yet aware of the world of the mind. They strike at buildings and planes, enjoy the act of mass murder and brazenly build nuclear weapons under the world’s collective nose but they are not yet interested in beautiful things and intellectual symbols. That is still the province of the crook — who is easier to understand and obviously easier to apprehend.

Museums should maintain their security against crooks (The Munch Museum probably now has alarms when paintings are pulled from walls, perhaps doors that close to trap bold thieves) and certainly should begin planning for the religious zealots from within and without who now threaten the foundation of civilization whenever possible.

Use this link to get to our new Amazon Store with supplies for your expatriating, dreaming and traveling. VISIT THE EXPATRIATED STORE

Photography and Art

Photo ©Beringer-Dratch.
American Heritage magazine on-line recently published a reminder of the collision of one of the last, great passenger liners for regular trans-Atlantic crossings, the Andrea Doria. She was hit by the Stockholm on 25 July 1956 about 50 miles south of Nantucket.

It is a great story of the end of an era that those of us who cannot fly and must make crossings — for me from Mexico to Miami — regret. The romance of it all is also a memory. Now there are cruise ships which I will be writing more about since I use them so much. But it is not the same.

The crux of the Andrea Doria story is that

A $30-million ship had been lost and 51 persons had died, but seamen had also pulled off the greatest peacetime rescue in history, saving more than 1,600 lives.

Travel
History

A recent article in The Hoover Digest, “Do Latin Americans Want Development?” by William Ratliff, a Hoover Institution research fellow described the crossroads where Latin America finds itself. It says much about the state of the nations south of the border and something about the Chinese and Indian economic “miracles”.

Ratliff describes the Buenos Aires Summit of the Americas in late 2005 which was muddied by Hugo Chavez’ attacks on George Bush, the candidacy of President Evo Morales and news in the world of futbol/soccer. The next big conference on the future of Latin American economies was the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) conference in October on the growth of trade relationships between A.L. (America Latina) and the Asian nations. The major issue there was identifying why living standards for so many have improved during the past decades in Asia and “so few” in A.L.

The first question is whether the Latin American peoples really want development and whether they can live with the sacrifices that might be necessary to earn it. Latinos are famous for flowery talk (and political, legalese writing in Spanish is amazingly 18th or 19th century) and grand meetings but, like many of us, short on follow-through. The Hoover Institute conference asked why Asians have been so much more successful over the past forty years. No one showed any evidence that Latinos are less intelligent. But there is evidence that Asians have shown themselves “…more serious, pragmatic, farsighted, and committed.”

Whereas Asia was growing steadily for decades, Argentina passed through military dictatorships, incompetent civilian governments, a “dirty war,” the biggest debt default in world history, and the sudden impoverishment of millions. Recent economic growth is on a very shaky foundation of incomplete—and sometimes reversed—reforms.

Today Brazil, at the heart of Latin America, is again in crisis. President Lula da Silva’s term took a very negative turn with one of the biggest corruption scandals of the decade. But as Latin American expert Alvaro Vargas Llosa points out, corruption is the symptom in this crisis, not the cause. The cause is a labyrinthine political system, with deep historical roots, that invites corruption and serves the powerful cliques, not the people.

A.L. remains rife with scandals, tensions and corruption. Hugo Chavez is being… Hugo Chavez. Even Costa Rica which has been so admired for its democracy “… is rife with scandal.” Latin America accepts the fact of corruption and influence so surprisingly easily. Do they really want change? The 2004 Latinobarametero poll showed that a small majority want democracy, a majority wish for better homes, food, education and opportunities. It also showed that many are so frustrated with their national systems that non-democratic regimes which can offer the goods might be welcomed.

Mexican food store worker. Chetumal, MX. ©Beringer-Dratch.

The New York Times article of 21 August by Simon Romero describes the strengthening of Venezuelan relationships in the Middle East. Venezuela has been related to the OPEC countries since the 1980s but this new turn has made Iran “… Venezuela’s closest ally outside Latin America’” Chavez recently proclaimed,

“We stand by Iran at every moment, in any situation,” Mr. Chávez said in Tehran, where he received the golden High Medallion of the Islamic Republic from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Venezuela, Syria and Cuba were the only countries to oppose referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council at a meeting in February of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Chavez is also courting Syria, China, Malaysia and Angola. He is also changing the nature of Venezuelan foreign policy to “… distance itself from the United States by reaching out to countries on the margins of American influence, including Belarus, Zimbabwe and Cuba.” Chavez has also jumped onto the traditional anti-semitic bandwagon. In Qatar he said on Al Jazeera that “… Israeli military actions in Lebanon were “being carried out in the style of Hitler, in a fascist fashion.””

Mexico appears to accept Felipè Calderòn for President in the footsteps of globally-conscious Vincente Fox. Harvard educated and moderate he promises a government of manos limpia — clean hands. The opposition mirrors much of the feeling of Latin America — progress for the poor immediately with little regard for the nature of the governmental system. If Calderòn has six years of policies that try to push Mexico toward more education, modernization and globalization, the future of Mexico may lean toward democratic development.

The question for the industrialized nations, the G8, the powerful nations is whether Latin America, like China and India, is another sleeping giant waiting for the opportunity to grow a billion person economy and whether the giant will be friendly or not. Asia and India have made themselves known. In spite of the problems of developing societies, they are striding into the future. A.L. now has some serious questions to face and choices to make.

The U.S. has serious issues to face in its’ relationship with the neighbors who share this hemisphere. It cannot paint a black and white picture of Central America and South America because they are not B&W nor shades of grey. Colors and tempers explode here. This is another world and the US must accept that fact and begin to deal with its’ diplomatic, economic and social relations in a way that shows the hemisphere that it is not a swaggering giant to be toppled but a potential friend and ally of those countries that make the transition to democracy.

Politics
Current Affairs
Latin America

The New Scientist published an article on “Why Doesn’t America Believe In Evolution?” in the August 20 on-line issue.

It reports a study showing that the U.S. is above only Turkey (in the 32 countries polled — US, Japan, and 32 EU countries) in its’ unwillingness to accept the fact of evolution. The reasons they give for the national blindness are poor science education, a fiery political debate, and religious fundamentalism. “Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue.” according to Jon Miller of Michigan State who conducted the survey.

Miller’s report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765). That’s despite a series of widely publicised advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. “We don’t seem to be going in the right direction,” Miller says.

Religious fundamentalists lead the fight against science. Fundamentalist, zealot Christians in numerous sects and cults fight against education about evolution because of a belief that the bible (the English, King James version, I assume) is literal. They have a belief that the world and humans were created 6000 years ago and no amount of fact or evidence moves them.

I always thought white and red wine would both be good for the heart. Now Web MD reports,

White wine fans, raise your glasses! A new study suggests the lighter wines may be just as good for the heart as red.

Until now, research has suggested the bulk of grapes’ heart-healthy benefits come from antioxidant compounds primarily found in their skins. These compounds are called anthocyanins and contribute to the red color of the fruit.

In the making of red wines, the grape skins are crushed along with the pulp. But the skins are quickly separated out during the making of most white wines.

That led to the conventional belief that red wines, which contain more of these compounds, are responsible for the drink’s beneficial effects in fighting heart disease.

But researchers say new evidence suggests the pulp of grapes appears to be just as heart-healthy as the skin, thanks to other types of antioxidants present in the flesh.

Health
Food and Drink

This amazing NASA image is of

In December 2004, a neutron star flared up so brightly, it temporarily blinded all the x-ray satellites in space, and lit up the Earth’s upper atmosphere. This tremendous blast of energy was from a giant flare created by the neutron star’s twisting magnetic field. Objects like this are called magnetars, and they produce magnetic fields trillions of time more powerful than those here on Earth. These fields are so strong they can actually buckle the surface of the neutron star causing these powerful star quakes.

“Liberty” Memphis, TN. ©Beringer-Dratch.

Our system, many seem to forget, is a marvel of checks and balances. Perhaps it was a reflection of the growing Industrial Revolution where machines were becoming more functional. The Framers of the Constitution wrote into their version of levers and pulleys, buttons and bells and whistles. The President has great, administrative power. The Congress speaks for the people (and theoretically an ear for their needs) and the Judiciary watches over everything so that no one goes off on wild and dangerous tangents — especially in times of stress.

In the Federal District Court of Eastern Michigan, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor just wrote the opinion in the case of the

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN

versus

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; and LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service.

A PDF download of the entire case is available and fascinating. The case number is 06-10204

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is 73 and was the first African-American woman to serve on the District Court in the Michigan district, the first to be chief federal judge. She attended Barnard and Yale Law School. She is not a judicial force to be ignored.

She, Judge Diggs Taylor, begins the opinion identifying the action as “a challenge” to a secret organization in the government she will call TSP which was “undoubtedly” set up by the N.S.A. (the National Security Administration) by the year 2002, which “… intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations…” and which continues into the present day. The secret government group was “… authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.”

The plaintiffs are groups and individuals who regularly communicate with others on an international basis by telephone and internet “… for various uncontestedly legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship.” These people have reason to think that the U.S. government is routinely intercepting their private communications. They are, by the government’s admission, “U.S. persons”.

Plaintiffs have alleged that the TSP violates their free speech and associational rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; their privacy rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the principle of the Separation of Powers because the TSP has been authorized by the President in excess of his Executive Power under Article II of the United States Constitution, and that it specifically violates the statutory limitations placed upon such interceptions by the Congress in FISA because it is conducted without observation of any of the procedures required by law, either statutory or Constitutional.

We may not be surprised to learn that the government’s defense was primarily based on “national security” and on the concept of “state’s secrets privilege”. These concepts have been upheld often since the Civil War (the Southerners’ “War Between The States”) in a landmark case (Totten v. United States) where Totten sued the government to pay for spy services he did for them during the War. The courts ruled for the government because “The secrecy which such contracts impose precludes any action for their enforcement.” This rule kept people from suing for defective war planes in WWII and for Viet Nam era suits against the C.I.A. because “… It is self-evident that the disclosures sought here pose a “reasonable danger” to the diplomatic and military interests of the United States.”

Then came Ellsberg v. Mitchell where the court noted the “absolute” nature of the secrets defense but very carefully pointed out that,

However, because of the broad sweep of the privilege, the Supreme Court has made clear that “[i]t is not to be lightly invoked.” Thus, the privilege may not be used to shield any material not strictly necessary to prevent injury to national security…

In this case the government used, as part of its’ defense, that they could not defend themselves because any defense would force the disclosure of state secrets. Judge Diggs Taylor didn’t go against the secrets rule. She distinguished the fact that these plaintiffs were not asking for any further investigation which might uncover state secrets. Their suit was based only on what the government had readily admitted,

Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.

The people suing to be able to communicate freely contend that, as journalists, lawyers and scholars (like scholars and journalists, Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin) must be allowed to talk or write privately to sources, clients and contacts who could be terrorist suspects. The judge wrote that “… . It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of
Rights. She reminds us that the courts exist for the purpose of checking and balancing the powers of government and that “… It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power is never “condense[d] … into a single branch of government.” We must always be mindful that “[w]hen the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law.” “It remains one of the most vital functions of this Court to police with care the separation of the governing powers . . . . When structure fails, liberty is always in peril.”

George Bush brought us warrantless wiretapping (note the “warrantless”) and therefore must face the Fourth Amendment,

The right the of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the two-page “Judgment and Permanent Injunction” Judge Diggs orders very specifically that “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way…” and “… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution…”

The judge is to the point (for a lawyer), organized and very direct. She has separated this case from others because we are not dealing with terrorists nor foreigners, because the Feds tried to hide behind the tired “national security” line and because real people doing real work for valid reasons were being hurt by a Presidential power play that has been allowed in the terror and fears of the past years.

Here in Blogcritics John Bambenek in “Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional” lets us know his orientation in the headline. This “ongoing deception”, he wrote, “… is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a “police state” and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists.” Judge Diggs, who just may have noticed that this is one of those opinions that is not going to be ignored during her career, did not, at any time, write or describe the case or plaintiffs in this light.

He goes on to say that “… the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe.” It sure would. However, the decision has to do with the fact that our own government is flaunting its’ power to pry into anyone’s life whether or not they are terrorists and without the required procedures and then hiding behind the specter of more murderous violence. I, for one, cannot condone either wanton murder and destruction nor the abuse of power within our fragile island of civilization in an increasingly violent world.

Mark Schannon writes in “Judge Rules Bush Domestic Wiretap Program Violates Civil Rights” a more reasonable opinion (which is to say he agrees with me and Judge Diggs).

Do I think that we absolutely must infiltrate, monitor, find and stop or destroy any terrorists who threaten Americans or America? Brother, believe it! My wife lost her leg to an anti-American gang here in our expatriate paradise (which is another story). Intelligence is going to be the deciding factor in the war against the barbarians at our gates. Even that will not be enough. As Israel has found out, this is a new century with new rules, old enemies with undiscovered strengths. We have to believe in all-out war and the burning desire of the enemy to burn down our civilization. Another group wants to raise another grey, dismal autocracy that would control the minds of men (and women if they allow them to have minds).

However — and this is a huge “however” — we cannot lose touch with the free society under a brilliant and flexible Constitution. It changes with the times but it cannot be allowed to move so far that individual rights are stomped by either mobs or faceless g-men.

Current Affairs
Law

There has been a great deal of worry in the US about the state of literacy and education of the young. The great schools with the highest standards still attract and educate. Many other schools spoon-feed vocational courses into lethargic kids. However, new studies that prove teenagers in Britain and the United States do not know how to use condoms are disconcerting.

An interesting Fox.com article in 2002 by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, “Teen Sex and Media Hype” makes a good point about the infantalization of teens in our society. He wrote of teens coddled to the point where they did not have to accept responsibilities nor to act in constructive paths. Perhaps, he mused, if they were, they would behave in the role of citizens and be less like the traditionally irresponsible leisure classes “… with all the vices that have historically attended leisure classes.”

He also noted that treating them as infants in growing and sexual bodies keeps them from developing the “base of judgment and self-respect” that allows for appropriate decision-making. Appropriate decisions imply deciding when they are ready for sex (always a difficult choice given the flooded hormonal circuits of the adolescent) and should be better about learning about and taking responsible precautions.

The forces against science and knowledge and even a group who are opposed to education about sex (hard to imagine, isn’t it?) continue to dominate school boards or try to. More than a few times they have managed to ban books and work their censorship incantations over library choices.

It is not a slight lessening of intellectual interest in young people that is the problem. This week’s report from the U.K. proves that the world faces a real problem of dumbness (or is it numb-ness?)

USA Today published the article, “Report: Teenagers often shun condoms” early in the month. It reported on a study appearing from Child Trends, a not-for-profit agency in Washington, D.C. that those teens who are sexually active do not use condoms regularly. This activity puts them in danger of acquiring STDs, passing them and creating pregnancies.

Almost fifty percent of the male teens who were sexually active, during the year before the survey, said they regularly employed a condom. Only 28% of the girls reported that one had been used.

Their good news was that,

Efforts to promote contraceptive use may be having an effect. The teen birth rate has been declining: in 2004 it was 41.2 births per 1,000 girls ages 15-19, down from a peak of 61.8 births per 1,000 in 1991, says Child Trends’ Kerry Franzetta, lead author of the report.

Medicinenet reported on a study of 1373 British teenagers done by London’s National Children’s Bureau. Get ready! The title of the article was, “Many Teens Use Condoms Incorrectly”. This is a hard one to believe but read it I did. We knew teens have sex (I did and it was fun). We know those who have sex should use condoms to protect against STDs and unwanted pregnancies. How could anyone have guessed they couldn’t figure out what to do with a rubber cylinder and a, dare I write it, penis? How many teenagers does it take to stick it on before the fun begins and take it off after it’s over? Quite a few, it seems.

In the London study published in the online edition of The Journal of Sexually Transmitted Infections the 1373 were interviewed and, where possible their diaries were examined. About half reported that they had had vaginal intercourse and two-thirds of them said they used a condom the last time they had sex.

Does that mean they are protected against sexually transmitted diseases? Not necessarily. Hatherall and colleagues find that 6% of the kids (who had reported that they used a condom the last time they had sex) said they put the condom on after vaginal penetration — and 6% said they continued vaginal penetration after condom removal.

There is room to worry when the arts are ignored and the sciences shunned. Playing video games instead of reading Dickens is sad. Not being attracted to books, libraries, serious film, creative acts and burning with the desire to learn all there is to know is depressing.

An interesting and, probably, worthwhile website is Cool Nurse.com in their section on sexuality says that “Despite our collective wish that teenagers postpone sexual activity until adulthood, the reality is that more than half of them will not wait.” This is hardly a new phenomenon in the growth process. This is not an American problem even though “… we do have the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of adolescent pregnancies among the world’s industrial countries.” The most important distinction between the U.S. and the other “advanced” countries (where teens are at least as sexually active as are ours) is that the U.S. has failed in the provision of information and access these adolescents need to protect themselves in the battle against STDs (including AIDS) and unwanted pregnancies.

As a result, teenagers rarely use any form of contraception during their first episode of sexual activity and it usually takes about a year before they use any effective birth control method. It is not surprising, therefore, that most teenage pregnancies occur within the first six months after teens begin to have intercourse. Currently, about one million teens become pregnant each year in the United States.

However, consider the intellectual gap that includes not knowing how to use a condom. This is a dangerous place to park your dunce cap. I don’t have a teen-ager and I am too old to start one now. But obviously there is something missing in communication at home, in school and in the media. You can tell them “Don’t” but they have to have the ability, desire and ready access to information in order to know how to protect themselves.

Health
Education

The London Times On Line reported further on the issue of all your valuables being shoved into the hold of the airliner in “Insurers refuse to cover iPods and phones in airline luggage”.

At first insurance companies promised great cooperation. That stopped quickly enough in Britain. Can the US be far behind? Is your insurance carrier your favorite partner?

According to The Times

Companies have decided to take a hard line, fearing that some travellers will try to exploit policies
MILLIONS of British air passengers were told last night that they will be travelling without insurance cover for valuable items such as jewellery, laptops, mobile phones and MP3 players that must now be packed in the aircraft hold.

There is also a fine article in The Times by Michael Clarke, Professor of Defence Studies at King’s College London on “…Why Jihadis Just Love To Fly”.

“Aircraft”, he writes, “…are a symbol of modernity and look vulnerable — the ideal target in a holy war.”

He goes on to say,

Commercial aircraft represent globalism and high technology — they shrink the world and threaten cultural conservatism. The Boeing 747 was the last of the “great machines” that characterised the 20th century: it opened up air travel to the mass market. And it was so very American; big, brash and useful. But aircraft also appear vulnerable. In truth, civil aircraft are a lot more robust than people think, but the aviation industry is selling safety almost as much as it is selling transport and passengers need constant reassurance that aircraft are operating well within their technical limits.

And prognosticates

Airlines, however, will continue to be attractive targets for terrorists and the vulnerability and glamour of any machine travelling at 600mph at 30,000ft, will not diminish, whatever measures are taken at airports. The most effective way to deal with terrorism is still intelligence-led policing, and if yesterday’s operation is as significant as the security services indicate, they will have struck a good old-fashioned blow against a bad new fashionable terror technique.

Well worth the read. The subject is far more complex and will affect more people than I originally thought.

The BBC reported in “Cabin Baggage Ban Hits Musicians” something the rest of us hadn’t quickly realized. The terrorist plot to fling burning aircraft and dying people from the skies (in order to please their god) will result in disruption for everyone. It will particularly hit musicians and artists who need instruments that they care deeply about.

For example,

Russian musicians returning from London after the Bolshoi Theatre’s season face an overland journey because of the new UK cabin baggage ban on planes.

They are under contract to keep their instruments with them and cannot check them in as hold baggage, chief conductor Alexander Vedernikov said.

They will probably have to travel by rail via Paris, he added.

Celtic style Bodhran (visit Hobgoblin-USA ).

The terrorists may be widely hated and many people will support each other to help in travel. But will the sticky-fingered baggage people or the big-city airport mafias stop shopping the baggage carts? If your clothes are lost for a few days you can buy some T-shirts and jeans. If your four Nikons, twelve lenses and four flashes go missing (probably never to return) will you be able to rent quickly enough to splash your genius in the client’s face? Will the symphony wait until you find a replacement cello, piccolo, bass, or kettle drum?

Julia Morneweg, a German freelance cellist, always booked an extra seat for the cello. Many musicians do. The BBC quoted her as relating,

“These restrictions are a disaster for me,” she wrote in a posting on the BBC’s Have Your Say before flying to Zurich.

After her arrival in Switzerland, she recounted the ordeal of having to hand over the cello, valued at up to £10,000 ($19,000) and not covered by her insurance if carried in the hold.

“It is never safe enough in the hold and they don’t treat instruments properly,” she told the BBC News website.

She was not allowed to see the cello being put in and had to hand it over to the bulky items desk despite asking for it to be treated like a child’s pram, which would have allowed her to keep tabs on it right up until boarding.

“I looked out the window and could see it wobbling on the luggage trolley,” she said.

CNN just published a guide to “Airline Security Rules” by country. These are the guidelines, for the moment, for the USA.

Travelers boarding commercial flights at a U.S. airport will not be allowed to carry “any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions” onto airliners.

Passengers on flights from Great Britain are prohibited from carrying electronics on board. There are no such restrictions on people traveling on domestic flights or from the U.S. to Great Britain.

Beverages purchased beyond security checkpoints must be consumed before boarding — they will not be permitted aboard the aircraft.

TSA screeners will recheck every bag at boarding gates for banned items, preventing passengers from carrying items purchased in boarding areas.

Gate-side inspections are taking place for all passengers on flights to Great Britain. On other flights, the TSA is conducting random gate-side inspections.

Federal security directors — the top TSA officials at airports — have discretion on how to implement the new policy. They can also use any resource available to conduct the inspections, meaning they can use their own screeners, state and local law enforcement personnel or airline personnel.

Are musicians and photographers the only people to be hurt by this latest attack on civilization? Hardly! Businessmen won’t want to see their laptops on that baggage cart and what, I wonder, will the diamond merchant do with his sample case? But the crazies are targeting your music now! It is surely time to nip their buds. Said one composer who travels lightly and would not, himself, be affected, he is looking forward to his next tour with his musicians as being a long trip — by ship.

Current Affairs
Music
Travel