Powered by WebAds

Friday, August 31, 2007

Coming Soon: Sheitel Searchs

Mark my words: Your wife will soon be asked to remove her sheitel for airport security, or have it "patted down" for bombs and the like.

OK, OK, maybe I'm just a little sensitive about articles like this one on searching Turbans after The PT (age 6) was frisked on her way through Atlanta security recently.

Can we start screening more intellingently, please? Sikhs aren't blowing up airplanes! Neither are 6 year old girls and little old ladies from Miami! Muslims are!

28 comments:

RaggedyMom said...

I've been asked to come to a separate room so that a female security officer could 'pat down' my sheitel (darn those metal hair barettes I was using to hold up my own hair!), and another time so that one could look under a bandana (darn my failed attempt at biker chic). But a six-year-old? C'mon!

Ezzie said...

That's why Serach always wears tichels. :) Of course, explaining those large pins in a sheitl box can be pretty rough, too...

Meanwhile, do a search for Jeff Jacoby's article on profiling and the difference between smart (Israeli) security and dumb (American) security. It's really great.

PsychoToddler said...

Ezzie, the article is here.

And yes, there was a very noticable difference between Israeli security techniques and American.

In Israel we felt safe, because we could tell that they knew what they were doing. In Atlanta we were annoyed because we were about to miss our flight while they were forcing little old ladies to unpack their bags.

Idiots.

Anonymous said...

What is scarier are the COMMENTS underneath the article you referenced about the turbans!!! "I may be old-fashioned, but I think America should remain to the Christians and the like who can evolve to modern rules"...?

OY!

tnspr569 said...

Yeah, in Israel they actually know what they're doing. I feel safest there.

Profiling will never happen in America, obviously.

Sweettooth120 said...

Mark, I totally disagree with you. C'mon what kind line is that at the end. It's extremely offensive. Unfortunately, it ain't just the 'muslins' that security has to worry about. Face it, the whole world is screwed up with every minority/majority against each other, drug smugglers, etc.

It may seem ridiculous to frisk a six year, but it's the world we live in, and I am sure children have been and are being use for adults' illegal and dangerous missions, such as being mules.

Do you remember the story in the 80's about the pregnant woman who carried a bomb in her suitcase for her palestinian boyfriend? Should security today not frisk a pregnant white woman? or pull her aside because she is white and pregnant?

When looking online to find this story, I found this website...

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=79679

I'm sorry about the PT, but you owe a group of people an apology.

PsychoToddler said...

I'm sorry, ST, but I just don't agree with YOU, and I don't think I owe anyone an apology. When little old Jewish ladies from Florida start blowing up airplanes, or six year old white kids, I'll be the first to demand they all get screened.

Until then it makes the most sense to focus on those that have a track record for terrorism, just like Israeli security does.

When I'm flying, I care about my safety and my family's safety, and that means I'd much rather the airline screeners be given the right to use their brains and focus their efforts where they will be most effective.

I'd love to live in your fantasy world. Let me know when it's safe.

Sweettooth120 said...

You can't compare Israeli security to the US. It's like comparing apples to oranges. But I bet if Israeli security thought there was a threat or even a remote reason to do so, they would frisk a six year old or bother a Sikh or even an old lady from Miami.

Again, it may not always make sense to you and I, and even though I think many airport screeners are not really all that affective, I sure hope that in the bigger scheme of things, there is a reason behind the madness.

No, I don't live in a fantasy world and your comment about Muslims is very offensive. That's a huge group of people that you've just said are all terrorists.

PsychoToddler said...

I didn't say all muslims are terrorists. But virtually all terrorists are muslims.

Yeah there are a few groups here and there (and mostly in the '60s) that are not muslim, but by and large they are not trying to blow up american jetliners.

debka_notion said...

So my Israeli friend who's an 8th generation Sabra and well, looks no different from a Palestinian deserves to get frisked and I don't? Just because I'm pale as a ghost? As far as I know, the kids who shot up Columbine high school weren't Muslim. And mental illness doesn't discriminate and only strike Muslims, either.

Oh- and not all Muslims are Palestinian, Middle Eastern, or dark skinned. If you're paranoid about Muslims, then why don't you want everyone to be searched- I know Muslims who look pretty much like any white Christian or Jew, certainly in coloring. Racism in security is just as dangerous as lackin security.

Mark said...

"C'mon what kind line is that at the end. It's extremely offensive."

I'm going to jump in the fray here.

Let's look at the phrase:

"Can we start screening more intellingently, please? Sikhs aren't blowing up airplanes! Neither are 6 year old girls and little old ladies from Miami! Muslims are!"

Why IS that offensive? It's a statement of fact.

Offensive, to me, would be if it was stated that ALL Muslims blow up airplanes. Or "ONLY Muslims blow up airlanes." Or "We should slaughter all Muslims because SOME of them blow up airplanes."

I think PT's comment was not at all out of line or offensive unless one chooses to read more into it than is there.

Just my two cents, and I liked your dog joke at Jack's.

Sweettooth120 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sweettooth120 said...

Virtually all terrorists are Muslim.

Someone needs to catch up on his current events or contemporary history. Hmm, lemme see, the Irish ... I think that was a Catholic/ Protestant thing. And ask anyone in Europe, especially during the heyday of the IRA, and they will have plenty of stories of bombs being blowned up everywhere, esp. in London. Rwanda - I think that one was about the Tutsi/Hutu or what about Liberia. Perhaps, here in the US we didn't have to worry about being slaughtered, but ask anyone who survived it and they will describe it as terrorism.

Even if you look around in today's world, genocide is still happening, terrorism is still occuring in many countries from feuding tribes, religions, etc.

Look, no doubt Islam fundamentalism is responsible for a high number of terrorist activities throughout the world TODAY. But it lacks intelligence to say that "virtually all terrorists are muslim".

Mark said...

"But it lacks intelligence to say that "virtually all terrorists are muslim".

Not really. The greatest single group that is and has been using terrorism as a tactic is, in fact, Muslims.

One can point to the isolated incidents of Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kozinsky all day long, throw in the JDL and IRA and ETA, and whatever other isolated fringe group one can dig up and the numbers fall far short of Muslim terrorism. Besides, I can't think of a single group BESIDES Muslims that is responsible for the taking out of an airliner. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened but if someone knows of one, please speak up. And again, let's compare the frequency of attacks.

Mark said...

Or to put it another way, are Americans, the Irish, the Basque Separatists, Israelis and Jews, Rwandans and Liberians combined really responsible for even close to this amount of global terrorism?

I think any reasonable person would answer with a resounding "NO".

Facts are facts no matter how much one might want to paint them over with the brush of political correctness.

Anonymous said...

Not to disagree with your central point, but Sikhs were blowing up airplanes in the 80s. (Air India, Toronto to London. It's still a big deal in Canada.)

PsychoToddler said...

But we're not asking Sikhs to take off their turbans (or women to take off their hats/sheitels) because we're afraid that Sikhs are going to blow up airplanes, something they haven't done, even by your report, in 20 years. We're doing this because we're afraid Muslims are going to blow up airplanes.

So my point is focus your efforts where they are more likely to pay off. Instead of ensuring that everyone on the flight will listen to a screaming baby because mommy was forced to toss the bottle preflight.

And, BTW, Israelis do screen everybody. But not evenly. They focus appropriately. That's basic security procedure.

Anonymous said...

Ugh! Your weird world gives me a headache. I've got to start reading something else. Sorry.

PsychoToddler said...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Deborah Shaya said...

There is No codified Halacha that a married woman must cover her hair totally and constantly whenever she steps out of her house.

The Halachah has been MISinterpreted. When the Halachah refers to "Covering hair," it does not mean "Cover your hair with hair!" and "constantly for life." The Halachah is that:

A married woman is required to cover her hair when:
(1) she lights the candles to welcome in Shabbat and Yom Tov – lechavod Shabbat ve Yom Tov, and

(2) when she goes to the Synagogue, because that is the place of Kedusha.

The Halacha does not require anything more from married women. This is the true interpretation of the Halacha.

The misinterpretation of the Torah is completely Assur, and a twisting of the Torah.The Torah must remain straight.

Deborah Shaya said...

In ancient times, a woman would only cover her hair upon entering the Beit HaMikdash. Similarly for the Sotah-otherwise she would not be required to cover her hair ordinarily, day to day.

It is very important for people to know and realise that when a married woman covers her hair with 'Real Hair' the woman is covering herself with 100% Tumah. This is totally against the Torah.

Nothing could be more nonsensical than for a Jewish woman to cover her hair with someone else's hair -who was not Jewish as well! She can never fully be sure that this 'hair' has not come from meitim-despite any guarantee by the seller.This 'real hair' is doubly and in some circumstances, triply Tumah.

1.It will contain the leftover dead hair cells from another person - however much it has been treated, the tumah is still there.

2.This other person (likely to be a non-Jew who most likely was involved in some kind of Avodah Zarah) may have eaten bacon, ham, lobster etc, all of which are totally forbidden as unclean and non-kosher foods in Halacha.

3.If the woman happens to be the wife of a COHEN, then she is bringing her husband into close contact and proximity with meitim and Tumah Every day, and throughout their married life. This is clearly strictly against the Torah.

There is nothing more degrading and demeaning to a woman than to make her cover her hair FOR LIFE upon marriage. It is an abhorrent practice.

Deborah Shaya said...

Any man who makes such a ridiculous demand on his wife, or wife-to-be, should similarly also be required by his wife to wear: long white stockings, even in the summer; a fur streimel; grow a long beard; wear a black hat and coat constantly, and cover his face when he speaks to his wife. Wigs -"la perruque"- were merely a fashion item in the time of Louis XIV-they are not for the Jewish woman!

Rabbi Menachem Schneerson tz”l, known as the, “Lubavitcher Rebbe” gave the directive that a married woman must cover her head with a “sheitel.” This needs to be corrected. Rabbi Schneersohn a"h, was a Tzaddik, – but on this – he was, unfortunately not correct.

Deborah Shaya said...

It is extremely unhealthy and unhygienic for a woman to cover her hair constantly.

1. The hair needs oxygen to breathe, as well as some exposure to sunlight.

2. Her hair will turn one shade darker, and will become dull and matt.

3. A woman will lose the natural bounce and shine of her hair.

4. Scalp problems may develop, and some of a woman’s hair may fall out.

5. She may get headaches, and suffer with itchiness and sweat.

6. The woman may end up cutting her hair short like a man, when she always wore it long - in order not to have too much discomfort from her hair covering.

Do you think that HaKadosh Baruch Hu commanded this of women? I can assure you that He did not. It is not a mitzvah for a woman to sweat and suffer. That is not Torah.

The commmandments are not meant to make a woman feel so oppressed and repressed. In addition, when a woman “loses” her hair through a permanent hair covering, she may become very sad. This sadness may cause a certain depression in her, which are negative states to be avoided.

We are commanded to serve Hashem with joy: “Ivdu et Hashem beSimcha!” (Tehillim: 100:2)

The women are very holy. They are much more holy than the men.

And the Shechinah is suffering with the women. Every day.
Whatever happened to a woman’s intuition? Hashem gave the woman a very, high level of intuition – over and above the man.

Was Chava created with a wig? Of course not! Did she start wearing a wig? Of course not!

Please Wake Up.

Use the spark of intelligence that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave to you and blessed you with.

And give your wig back to your husband if you wear one.

Deborah Shaya said...

1. To all the women who are wondering about the sources:

We have all been created, "Betselem Elokim" - "in the image of Elokim."
This means that we have been given something called "intelligence." The source is the very first Parsha, Bereishit - 1:27. It is time that people use the spark of intelligence and Kedusha with which Hashem has blessed them.

If your rabbi will tell you to go and jump into the depths of a glacier, presumably you would do that too – and give me a source for it?

“According to the Zohar”, I should also be covering my hair with a wig when I have a bath. “According to the Zohar and the Gemara” and all the sources that have misinterpreted the Halachah, and MIStranslated the Zohar, I should also have been born with a WIG on my head.

These sources and translations are incorrect, as they have deviated very far from the true and correct interpretation, of the Halachah.

Deborah Shaya said...

2.Remember that the Jewish women are very, very holy. They are much more holy than the men. Look at the exemplary behaviour of the women at Har Sinai.

The women never sinned at the Eigel, and so are greatly elevated. Many of the men, unfortunately, ran after a calf made out of a lump of gold – after they had just been given the Torah, and seen the greatest of all Revelations. The women refused to give their gold for the avodah zarah of the men.

The women were greatly elevated after such a wonderful display of Emunah, and they are regarded very highly in Shamayim.

That is why women are not even required to pray. They can pray at home on their own. Nor do women have to make up a minyan. That is how holy the Jewish women are. Men have to pray 3 times a day to remind them of their Creator.

The men are telling the women to put the hair of a non-Jewish woman who may have eaten things like snakes and sharks and alligators, and has worshipped in churches, Buddist temples or Hindu temples : on their own Heads. They had better wake up.

If the men don’t want to wake up to the truth, and the true interpretation of the Halacha, the women will wake them up – whether they like it or not.

Deborah Shaya said...

3. Many righteous women influenced their husbands for the good at the Chet Haeigel and at the time of Korach.

It was these righteous women who succeeded in bringing their husbands back to their senses.

And because of these great women, the lives of their husbands were saved. Those men therefore turned away from the madness of avodah zarah, and the rebellion of Korach against Hashem's choice of Aharon, as Cohen HaGadol.

Deborah Shaya said...

4. Look at the Jewish women in history, and remember how holy they are.

(a) Yaakov, who was the greatest of the Avot, came to marry the 2 daughters of Lavan, Rachel and Leah. Lavan was not exactly a tzaddik. Yaakov went to Lavan, of all people, to marry his 2 daughters – not 1 daughter, but his 2 daughters. Nothing could be greater than that.

(b) Rut, who came from Moav, became the ancestor of David Hamelech.

(c ) Batya, the daughter of Paroh, was given eternal life because she rescued Moshe from the river. No one could have been more evil than Paroh.

(d) Devorah, was a Neviah, and also a Judge.

Women who came from such adverse backgrounds, were able to become builders of Am Yisrael. That is how holy the women are, and how much more elevated they are than the men.

This was never the case with men. It never happened the other way round.

Don't tell me it is holy for me to wear a WIG! Hair over my own hair? This is ridiculous!

Similarly, don’t tell me it is holy for me to clamp a permanent head covering on my head for the rest of my life. This is equally vile.

Please Wake Up.

Use the spark of intelligence that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave to you and blessed you with. And your intuition.

And give your wig back to your husband if you wear one.

5. Remember: Not a single “dayan” or “rabbi” has the slightest bit of interest in correcting the situation for the women. Therefore, the women will have to correct the situation................for ..................themselves.

When the Halachah is interpreted correctly - by the women themselves - there will be tremendous relief. And Simcha...

Whether you wish to accept the correction – which is true – is up to you. Are you going to live by the truth? Are you going to use the spark of intelligence that Hashem gave to you and all women? Or are you going to follow rabbis and dayanim who tell you to wear a wig in a Heat Wave – and you thank them for it as well?

Eliyahoo William Dwek said...

The next things the ‘rabbis’ will come up with is to tell the woman to wear a CARPET on her head.

Not a sheitel AND a hat, but a Carpet. Or you could go for 5 shaitels on your heads and a rug.

And do you know what the Jewish woman will say to her husband?

‘Yes, husband! I am now wearing a carpet on my head!’

You women must either be extremely thick, or petrified.