Have you ground your teeth today? No? Then have a read of this terrific article by Heather Mc Donald outlining the idiocy of the PC world that President Bush seems unable to shake free of. Love this paragraph where Richard Reid (Shoe Bomber) was denied boarding and then forced aboard the next day by the PC French. On that flight he attempted to blow it up. Neat. The letter Big Breasted Norwegian Grannies was as good as the article. Read both of them.
- OpinionJournal – Featured Article: “On its face, the government’s charge that American engaged in discriminatory conduct was absurd, given how few passenger removals occurred. But the racism allegation looks all the more unreasonable when put in the context of the government’s own actions. Three times between 9/11 and the end of 2001, public officials warned of an imminent terror attack. Transportation officials urged the airlines to be especially vigilant. In such an environment, pilots would have been derelict not to resolve security questions in favor of caution.
Somehow, DOT lawyers failed to include in their complaint one further passenger whom American asked not to board in 2001. On Dec. 22, airline personnel in Paris kept Richard Reid off a flight to Miami. The next day, French authorities insisted that he be cleared to board. During the flight, Reid tried to set off a bomb in his shoe, but a stewardess and passengers foiled him. Had he been kept from flying on both days, he too might have ended up on the government’s roster of discrimination victims.”
- Big-Breasted Norwegian Grannies
DOT is an executive agency, and so the buck stops at Harry Truman’s old desk now occupied by President Bush, so he gets the heat, not DOT.
American Airlines and the others also get the heat for not fighting these governmental abuses of prosecution. When the next hijacking occurs, survivors should sue the airlines (the government has sovereign immunity) for not suing the agencies that interfere with rational operations. Rational operations include the heightened suspicions of persons matching the profile of known hijackers, namely the 19 hijackers we know.
Thus the “but for” argument must be modified, so that “but for” membership in a demographic and other attributes also, not just the demographic membership, becomes sufficient grounds for extra scrutiny.
So, when wheel chair bound Norwegian grandmothers, with large breasts (the latest airline abuse is breast exams by hand by male screeners with no screen for privacy) start to hijack airplanes, then these persons may be, er patted down, but not until then.
Speaking of which, the justification for these breast exams is the possibility that the Chechen hijackings were done by brassiere-hidden bombs, not confirmed.
So if we can demographically profile chesty blondes, not only chesty Chechen blondes and brunettes and burkha wearers, we can demographically profile members of other demographic groups. Speaking of which, what is DOT’s policy on burkha and head scarves and veils, and turbans and caftans and cassocks, and oh well you get the idea.
But then, most of us think these airport pat downs are foolish, since the hijackers, as we have seen in the surveillance videos shown in lawsuits against airlines for inadequate security, these hijackers were pulled aside for extra scrutiny, etc. We also had Capps (computerized airline passenger profiling system), which pointed to a few of these hijackers, who were then passed on to the planes, so the whole system stinks.