Aiding and abetting
Submitted by Dave on Fri, 2006-08-18 10:17.
Islam | Politics | Stupidity
Here is an entertaining and informative multiple choice question: How might one best protect air travelers against terrorist activity?
a) Based on evidence from past terrorist incidents, rigorously investigate those passengers who are most likely to commit terrorist attacks.
b) Give members of an organization known to be a front for terrorists a guided tour of the procedures currently used to screen for terrorist activity.
If you answered "b," congratulations! You just passed the Homeland Security entrance exam. It seems that "b" is exactly what the DHS did a couple of months back. They took members of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) on a tour of the security procedures in place at O'Hare.
If you get on a flight, the chances that you will be a victim of terrorism are incredibly small. (Of course, you can minimize them further; I'd feel pretty safe on a flight from Dubuque to Billings, for example.) But don't think for a second that the rigamarole they put you through before getting on the plane is making you any safer. You can read more on this issue in Ilana Mercer's latest column. I want to pull a couple of quotes from the column that I think are particularly choice:
Sounds more like a headless and very malevolent chicken (although to be fair to fowl, they're too stupid to harbor complex emotions).
But there is a constant among these allegedly fluctuating variables: the religion, ethnicity and origins of the putative perpetrators.
Happy flying. You won't see me inside an airport any time soon.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/433
Maybe this is why
It seems that President Bush's approval rating has gone up recently. This is attributed, at least in part, to the arrest of the terror suspects in London. This leads me to raise a rather cynical question: If Republicans are the party that is "tough on terrorism," might they believe that the odd terrorist incident (or near-incident, as in this case) is good for their cause?
As support for this viewpoint, I cite two examples where it seems clear that organizations are not interested in actually solving particular problems because those problems help to define the basis of their political existence. The first example is the race demagogues, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan. The careers of these idiots depends on the perception of discrimination and racial inequality on the part of those who support them. Take away that perception, and they are out of a job. Consequently, the battles they choose to fight (like getting the Georgia state flag changed) have no impact whatever on the lives of their supporters; and issues that could have a positive impact (such as have been advocated by Bill Cosby of late) are taboo topics.
Another example, which may hit closer to home, is the relationship between the Republican party and abortion. Most Republicans adopt an anti-abortion platform, because it typically provides a clear distinction between them and their Democratic opponent. However, once they get into office, they rarely if ever lift a finger to change the status quo. President Bush recently stated his approval of FDA commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach's decision to allow Plan B, a morning-after drug, to be sold over the counter.
Vox Day wrote about this issue a while back. He includes a quote in his column which states, in effect, that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in the election of many more Democrats. The Republicans say that they oppose, but they can't afford to actually eliminate it. The existence of the issue helps get them elected.
Sadly, the same may be true of the issue of terrorism. If it were actually eliminated, then the Republicans would lose the single most important plank in their platform since 9/11. Are they willing to risk the next election in order to achieve their stated purpose? Episodes such as I described in my original post would seem to answer that question quite clearly.