"Containers are only one of dozens of places vulnerable to low-tech attacks, to speak nothing of biological or chemical weapons. Passenger airplanes can be easily shot down with a shoulder-launch rocket during take-off. (The U.S. admitted it has lost track of dozens of such weapons, given to anti-Soviet militias in Afghanistan in the '80s.) Subways and sidewalks can be bombed, Hamas-style, using material easily obtainable here in the U.S. The reactors at nuclear plants are well-protected, but the pools where they store nuclear waste much less so--a plane nose-diving into that could eject tons of radioactive material. Each of these is virtually impossible to prevent."

My point is this: a security arms-race is a poor, even futile, way of dealing with terrorism. Israel, perhaps the most security-heavy country in the world, is a sobering example. Unless we want to live in a tyrannical state, this approach will always fail. Instead we should pursue peace in the Middle East and elsewhere through serious and aggressive diplomacy, and with a critical eye on our entire foreign policy, especially our position in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Northern Africa, and other developing areas."

Also regarding the article "Open Borders in Post 9/11 World", Achilles Speliotopoulos writes:

"The problem is that shipping containers are made out of metal, probably around 1/8th of an inch thick. This metal is probably thick enough to block any signal from the orbiting from reaching a GPS placed within it for it to work (think of the problems you have of using your cell phone inside an elevator). The GPS would have to be jury rigged and connected in some way to the container’s metal sides; this way it could use the container as an antenna. Or else it would have to be located OUTSIDE the container and someway will have to be found to connect it with the weapon inside. Either way, there will be tell-tale signs that the shipment the weapon was camouflaged in is suspect ... The point I am making is not that we shouldn’t be thinking of what-if scenarios. It is to realize that any foolproof security schemes that we can think of either has holes, or else is so onerous that it ends up choking off our economy and way of life. The only effective way is to attack the problem at its source; to prevent to weapon to be made and sent in the first place. This is not an easy problem. Active hunts for terrorists, and even war, are only the beginning. To do any lasting good, we have to address and correct the societal injustices that were the reason why these men and women become terrorists in the first place."

Again regarding the article "Open Borders in Post 9/11 World", George Koo comments:

"In response to your scary scenario, to me it's another argument why the missile defense system is so absolutely wrong-headed and takes our attention away from real threats."

Regarding February's article on jetBlue, one reader writes:

"I work for American, my wife works for JetBlue. I've been in the airline industry for twenty years, my wife has been in it barely two years. When I come home from work I don't even want to think about work, nor do I want any of my friends to call me and talk to me about work. My wife comes home from her job as a jetBlue Crewmember (that's what they are called) and she wants to fill me in on the details of her workday. The phone rings on average six times a day from other jetBlue crewmembers. They talk shop, and they don't get tired of it! ... Does jetBlue take care of their employees? You bet! They may not be the highest paid, but they have pay raises every year, they have profit sharing, 401K with matching funds from the company, and the talk within my wife's crewmember friends is that they will soon participate in stock options. Among my wife's friends, although I work for a larger airline, and make more money than they do, they are extremely happier than I or any fellow AA'er that I know. David Neeleman must be doing something right. Then again he is the father of nine :)."

Regarding the link to Coincidence Design, Christine Herron writes:

"Dear god! Coincidence design! Oddly enough, while the offering is outrageous, I can't say that I wouldn't be flattered by someone spending $100K just to have a leg up on meeting me. It's the 'clearance' of things like debt or family disease which is off-putting..."

Clarifying the link to Coincidence Design, Hunter Walk writes:

"Here's the scoop on Coincidence Design - it's a wonderfully elaborate hoax. Snopes (www.snopes.com) keeps tabs on urban legends - http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/stalker.htm for detailed info on this one."

(Write Auren your thoughts: auren@summation.net)