The Status of Women

Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times has been fighting a quixotic war of words these days - he defends women's rights and extols the virtues of several women who are going against the odds in their medieval country of Pakistan. One who was gangraped to punish her brother refused to kill herself in accordance with muslim law. Instead she sued, won money, started schools and has to face her rapists all the time since their prison time was cut. The latest is about a young woman who was hit over the head on her way to school and forcibly kidnapped into a brothel. For six years, she fought her captors, was beaten, drugged, sexually assaulted and denied even the most fundamental rights. A good man, doing work at the brothel helped her escape and married her. Now the brothel owner has claimed he was "married" to her and is demanding her returned in accordance with muslim tradition. He wants to re-enslave her, and then probably beat her to death since she dared to defy him and not appreciate the life he imposed on her.

In a rare confluence, right wing conservative christians and liberal women's groups are working to make certain that these types of abuses are stopped. Insidious thougth they are, they have been going on for centuries. And we are suprised? Slavery is the next logical step in the treament of women. It's a dream of so many men in their ongoing quest to keep women as an uneducated, powerless babymaking or whoring machine. It's just another aspect of control over someone else's body - and making certain that she has no choice as to how to live her life. Look at how the taliban treated the women under their regime.

Throughout history men have feared women and have used their greater strength to keep them under control. Take Eleanor of Aqutaine - she dared to go on crusade, she ruled her own lands and when she became too uppity, she was imprisoned by her husband for 14 years, trotted out only for holidays and important ceremonial occasions. Elizabeth I of England had to play her male counselors off against each other and keep them guessing if she was a virgin and would marry a strong man to rule for her, for her entire life in order to rule her country the way she wanted. When she died she left England more prosperous and peaceful than the day she ascended the throne. Less than 30 years after her death, her male successors had managed to plunge England into civil war.

And another outcome of the fear of a rule of women? Men spent the next century making certain that women's education was nonexistent and that her role was that of a wife or a mistress, so that by the time the next ruling woman came to the throne, she was under her husband's thumb and made him co-ruler and her sister who succeeded her was dumb as a post from 17 pregnancies and no living children and dependent only on her male advisors. Nice image huh? And don't get us started on the Puritans! In our day, if a woman is strong and able, say like Ms. Clinton, her detractors are certain to call her names that they would never use to label a male counterpart - bitch, feisty, masculine or any of the other epithets that their fear conjures up.

But it isn't just women in power who are part of this ongoing war against women. Whenever a strong woman rears her head, she is castigated and punished. Sometimes in small petty ways, sometimes in the harsh and venal ways such as those described by Mr. Kristoff. Throughout the past several years there has been a systematic chipping away of women's rights - in our country as well as throughout the world. It's really nice that the consevatives and feminists are joining forces. Too bad they can't afford all women the freedom they seek and the respect they deserve.

A letter regarding Recent Statements National Security Whistleblower

The following is a letter sent by our friend Sandy who is a federal whistle blower and was punished accordingly. Congressman Souder's words just added salt to the wounds....

Congressman Mark Souder

U.S. House of Representatives
2231 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

SUBJECT: Recent Statements Regarding National Security Whistleblowers

To Congressman Souder:

As a whistleblower and a Republican, I am shocked, dismayed, and disgusted at your utter insensitivity to the plight of whistleblowers who speak out in order to protect the public welfare. Your statements show a crass and ill-informed (and I do mean ILL-INFORMED) disregard for the fact that every single whistleblower that I am aware of at the federal level has not only lost everything to include their careers, their financial stability, their retirement, their health, but much more. They have also, as in my case, lost family members from the stress that this has placed upon the families. Further, many of them (like myself and many others I know) have also been blackballed from finding employment. I venture to say, Sir, that if the shoe was on the other foot, then you would get a very quick taste of what a whistleblower’s life is REALLY like. Then, you would not be so emboldened to make such ridiculous and frivolous statements as the one you made recently. Trust me, I will do all within my power to ensure that every single Republican I know throughout the country and everyone else who votes in your district, will get a copy of your statement in their inbox as well as a copy of the video showing your disgusting display.

You do not deserve your office. And unless you issue a very swift public apology, I would suggest you begin looking for another job. Elections are coming up. And based on what I am seeing in this country right now, Americans are fed up with this kind of ridiculous rhetoric from legislators, particularly given the fact that the people of this country are beginning to see right through the Government’s rhetoric regarding our readiness to deal with terrorism.

Sincerely,

Sandra Nunn
President, SIG International
Former Federal Agent (1988-1999)
National Security Whistleblower
Member, NSWBC

CC: Congressman Ed Markey
CC: Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney
CC: Congressman Henry Waxman
CC: Congressman Tom Davis

Thank you, Barbara

It should always be a reminder to everyone on this world of ours, that if you wish to post controversial issues on a blog, you are going to have to expect your share of people who for some reason or another disagree with your views -- and will, in some form or another, make sure you know it. :-)

We are pleased for people like Barbara, who reminds us all that while we, The Scribes, may have different viewpoints, we are mature enough to not let those viewpoints interfere with the way we do business. This was not the case in an email sent to us.

---------------

We do not share the same political or investment philosophy – people like you cause more harm to our soldiers (of which our son is one) and residents of the area than do the insurgents. If Bush would only do what the Democrat President Roosevelt did in WWII, he’d stop media from politicizing this war and at least momentarily control people like you, misled Hollywoodites and so called -democrats. Only historians will analyze the right or wrong of what’s happening in the Middle East. My husband’s family is from Middle East, and know more about what’s going on than you do from you distant, narrow and clouded perspective.

---------------

We sent the following reply, which we thought was very mature:

---------------

We believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion here; that is what makes this country what it is, and we are free to express them in whatever shape we choose.

We will unsubscribe you from our list, but we frown on your obviously immature, narrow-minded approach in contacting us for the purpose of attack.

It is people like you that make us worry about the future of our nation. Those that believe censorship is the only solution and that everyone should just play the ignorance card and leave it at that.

We both have had cousins in Iraq; if you really want to wager we have no idea of the terrible circumstances surrounding that country, that is a bet you would lose. It is VERY disingenious of you to assume that because you have a son serving in Iraq, that you hold some incredible knowledge of what is going on. We too support our troops and our country; but we don't want to see tham maimed or wounded for an UNJUST cause.

Paula and Paul

--------------

First, we should clarify something for Barbara here. Because we have different political views, that in itself seems to be a good enough reason not to deal with us as an investment firm? If everyone dealt with things in that manner, than our economy would REALLY be screwed. Republicans not doing business with Democrats? Preposterous! We can see the signs in the local hardware store in Alabama already. Instead of "No coloreds allowed", we'd see "No liberals allowed".

But it'd be pretty easy to foil that; just wear a nice suit and tie, or come riding up in an SUV, or joke about your golf game. OR you can come in in a regular liberal outfit (God knows what that IS, of course, maybe it's jeans, a t-shirt, you know, casual stuff), and say something funny like, "Hey, I heard Bush is speaking today! I came in to buy an American flag!"

Business is business. Politics is politics. Religion is religion. And never the twain, er, thrain shall meet.

We salute those brave GOPs, liberals and the like who continue to work hard together for the democracy and economy of our nation. Thank goodness we live in a society where just because you voted for someone that someone else doesn't like too much, you can still laugh, and cry and play and work, and have fun together! That's really what God wanted us to do when he made this big bright beautiful world for us. Tolerate and love one another.

Why, we even love George W. Bush... without him, we'd have no idea just how much we take our freedoms and liberties for granted. Like the old Joni Mitchell song says, "You don't know what you got, til it's gone."

TheScribes...

Are they kidding about letting the UAE have our ports?

Our Friend Sandy who is a former customs officer has this to say about letting Dubai and the UAE have access to running our ports:

I've listened to both sides of this argument since all of this came to light in the media. Unfortunately, I cannot accept this way of thinking because having been on the inside and worked at the largest port (the Port of Los Angeles) for over 12 years as a Special Agent with Customs and having seen the breaches taking place, I know the reality of what is going on there in terms of real commerce and actual security. I have testified before the Senate about this issue in July 2001 and I am very familiar with the problems. I have discussed the issues in the media and have even collaborated on a book that is coming out in the next 30 days about border security.

Unfortunately, keep in mind that while everyone would like to think that the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and other port security personnel have the security under control, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Security means having access secured, which in fact, it is not. Case in point, two years ago, I took a film crew down to the Los Angeles Port, drove all over the place and accessed all sorts of areas. But, not once during that all day session were we ever stopped or questioned by anyone of authority. If we could do that so easily, so could a terrorist.

Next, we come to the issue of inbound shipments of goods coming into the harbor. Many Americans are under the mistaken impression that our security personnel can stop one of these inbound shipments if it was laden with a nuclear device or any other weapon of mass destruction (i.e, chemical or biological agent). Wrong again. One of the guys whom I do national security consulting work with also happens to be the same guy who ran a major exercise in the port a couple of years ago involving the Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, the FBI Special Operations Team, Customs, Port Security, etc. The purpose of the exercise was to stop the "terrorists" from making port and detonating a nuclear device. Sad to say that our team (the good guys) failed miserably. The fact of the matter is that they were not equipped nor were they remotely capable of stopping this. It was a tough lesson that the Government has failed to inform the public about because it was embarrassing to say the least. The reality is: there is no security. They do not even have a special team at the port equipped to do the job. Homeland Security will not allow them to form one even though requests to the powers that be have been made.........and turned down. There is not enough money and resources, so they say.

Then, we get to the containers themselves. With only 2-4% of of the more than 300,000 containers entered through just the Port of Los Angeles per month even being intensively examined (i.e., opening the container and pulling out every single box and item therein), stuff gets through the system. That's the reality of the situation. That means a nuclear device, biological agents and chemical agents can get through. Ah, you say, but they have devices that will detect these things. Well, I don't know if any of you caught the show on ABC News with Brian Ross a couple of years ago when they smuggled in a 15 lb. cylinder of depleted uranium into the Port of Los Angeles (the largest port in the US). But, that show demonstrated quite clearly how "good" everything works. Depleted uranium has a radioactive signature which can easily be detected. Therefore, in theory, that should have shown up when it went through. Guess what? It didn't. Then, when Brian Ross brought this to the attention of Homeland Security, rather than thank the media for pointing out the problem, Homeland Security put ABC under investigation. True story and I have a copy of the videotape of the actual airing to prove it.

I have known about the port security problems since April 1997 when I did an investigation of a major arms shipment that entered through the port undetected until somebody accidentally found it. I did a major report of my findings, which by the way, were also reported to Congress that same year. The problem is not new.

Now, we are wanting to put our ports under the administrative authority of a foreign company. I don't care which way one slices it: if we want to have true security, we must have full control of our ports from the administrative aspect down to the law enforcement side of it. Do we really want to be so blind, and I do mean blind, to entrust security of goods entering our country to foreign nationals who don't care if things meet our standards or not? I think not. That's not prudent or wise in my opinion. Because here's the bottom line, if anyone ever succeeded at blowing up any one or several of our ports, they would effectively disable our country economically in ways that 9/11 only was able to scratch the surface of. We have become such a global economy and our country has become so interdependent on the importations and exportations of goods that ANY disruption in the system would cripple us for years and would cost our economy billions in terms of lost trade, lost sales, lost jobs, and so forth.

Unfortunately, I have predicted for years that our ports and our borders our the most vulnerable. Therefore, I feel that future terrorism will emanate from these weak areas of our country. And when it does, then we'll see how quickly people understand the seriousnous of this issue. It should not be taken lightly nor ignored. I think to do so would be a grave error in judgement.

Sandy G. Nunn

President, Security & Investigative Group International

www.sig-international.net

Former Special Agent, U.S. Customs Service (1988-1999)