<p>Damned if we do and damned if we don't.</p>
<p>If the CDC/government had quarrantined this man immediately, the usual suspects would be up in arms screeching about individual rights and the heavy-handedness of the Bush administration. Since they DIDN'T, now will come the howls of protest of negligence and, most importantly, the real threat of contagion this guy posed as a traveller.</p>
<p>Either way, the "Me first" mentality strikes again. Hooray.</p>
<p>Who said anything about the Bush administration and politics? Come to think of it, Andrew Speaker does bear a striking resemblance to the younger George Bush in a number of ways.</p>
<p>What seemed perfectly clear to me (but not to the usual suspects, who will take any opportunity to bash those they hate) is that once again America is faced with the consequences of the freedoms it enjoys.</p>
<p>We cannot completely prevent another 9/11 or Oklahoma City, or even a Fort Dix or JFK Airport, without becoming a police state. Since a police state is unacceptable to us (or is it?), we must now live with the fact that unless we kill them first or somehow convince them to actually behave like civilized people, we are going to remain at some risk of future terrorist attacks. It's just the way it is.</p>
<p>The same goes for situations like this, where the threat is a contagion rather than a terror strike. We are used to being able to travel freely, and to not allowing the government (ANY government) from restricting our movements. If this man had been quarantined pre-emptively, you know damned well that howels of protest would have been heard. On the other hand, now we have everything: protests from the guy's lawyers and civil libertarians, questions of why he wasn't quarantined sooner, AND the danger of an extended contagion.</p>
<p>Where do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Where does a person's right to be stupid end? Some may say when it infringes on the rights of another, but who gets to decide THAT?</p>
<p>Anyone read "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy? Best of both worlds: a terrorist strike against the United States using an airborne strain of the Ebola virus. President Jack Ryan, in an attempt to keep the contagion from wiping out millions of American lives, slams the door on public assembly, interstate travel, and any number of other rights. His political opponent (who cares only about getting the Presidency back from an "illegitimate usurper" - sound familiar?), sues to prevent the restrictions from being implemented. The result is near chaos as the nation wrestles between its freedom and its safety.</p>
<p>I highly recommend the book for those who may not have read it yet. It presents a shockingly-believable scenario and makes you wonder just how far you would be willing to go, either permanently or temporarily, to ensure your safety. (It also has several sub-plots that make the book simply un-put-downable!)</p>
<p>So this guy was diagnosed with TB and released "on his own merit", as it were. He decided to be a selfish idiot and fly all over the place in reckless disregard of medical advice. If anyone else gets sick because of it, he is rightfully to blame, but you have to stop and wonder if you would prefer the alternatives. </p>
<p>Anyone traveled by air lately? It has become a total joke! Zip-Lok is making a killing on the security racket, you practically have to strip naked to get through to your gate, and computers and videocameras are for some reason more dangerous than real cameras and DVD players. Oh, but you're not allowed to profile! Frankly, I'd rather they profile everyone and then simply scan the luggage for bombs. Allow me and anyone else to carry a sidearm onto the plane, and I guarantee you that plane isn't going to be taken over by anyone. I'd rather accept the inherent risks than endure the stupidity of the "security" process as it exists now.</p>
<p>Are we ready to accept medical screenings prior to travel? If not, are we ready to accept the risks involved with having people like this guy running around, who are obviously part of the "ME!" generation?</p>
<p>In short, this incident with the foolish lawyer from Georgia should cause everyone to stop and think a bit, and about a lot more than what the foolish lawyer was thinking. It's not a political issue of Right vs. Left (despite what some so desperately seem to crave). It's a matter of freedom and acceptable risk. If you want to make it about Right vs. Left, feel free, but I won't play.</p>
<p>As for "forgiving" him, it will be damned hard to forgive this creep if someone else gets sick because he KNOWINGLY violated medical advice.</p>
<p>now there's a questions surfacing as to why Andrew Speaker left the Academy....sometime to do with a drug scandal in 1996???? Evidently, CBS is working on a story</p>
<p>^^^^^
And the plot thickens. Speaker was a member of the Class of 1997, he left the Academy in 1995 before classes started his 2/C year. If there was a drug scandal in 1996, Speaker missed it.</p>
<p>The scandal happened in 1995 with the punishment occuring in the spring of 1996. The article I read said that 15 Midshipman were separated from the Academy</p>