Three links from Mark Steyn

Steyn is one of my favorite pundits but he has been on hiatus for a while. Here are 3 links from his website, as he labeled them, each with a brief question from me.

Guess The Religion
Any guesses on how the Swedes will handle future cases like this one?

Even Al Qaeda is Laughing
What’s scary about this story: is Bin Laden smarter than we are? Sure seems like it.

Reap What You Signed at Copenhagen
If NZ is going to lose $1 billion, who is going to win it? None of the stories about the carbon-credit pseudo-economy ever explain that.


About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Three links from Mark Steyn

  1. RebelliousVanilla says:


  2. Polymath says:

    Thanks for the link, it was great to see Steyn back in action. The gropes are an attempt to move the window of acceptable security policies to the left so that the nudifying scanners will seem acceptable by comparison. I personally would go through the scanner but wouldn’t expect more modest people be forced to, so it’s useless. If we were like the Israelis, and made security scanning a high-prestige job with smart and motivated people with common sense doing it, we would be safer, but the TSA prefers to hire people with IQs about 30 points lower than would be appropriate to do it the way the Israelis do it.

    This is not about safety at all, it is part of the left’s continuing attempt to turn us into sheep. But they’ve gone too far, as they have been doing ever since the 2008 election. Their clueless post-mortem showed that they still don’t understand how fed up ordinary Americans are. Keep it up, TSA, you’re doing exactly what’s needed to keep people’s anger focused at the Obama Administration even though Republicans will control the House.

  3. RebelliousVanilla says:

    They should scan only Muslims. And give cavity searches to Muslim women just to piss them off. That’s what I’d do in my empire. lol

  4. Scammer Hammer says:

    How possible do you think it would be to provoke the personnel, without doing anything actually illegal, into doing the sort of “private” search that would form grounds for a lawsuit?
    This seems like a nice opportunity to scam the government out of some money, even if it’s by settlement rather than by actual victory. What do you think?

    RV, it does seem as though racial profiling would be the real deal here. I’ve also thought that we should make potential immigrants eat (a) a pork chop and (b) a cheeseburger — the idea being that anyone who would actually kill themselves for their religion wouldn’t be willing to eat things that violate it.

  5. RebelliousVanilla says:

    Scammer, better have them burn a Quran before boarding a plane and saying that Islam is the totalitarian theopolitical construct of an idiotic middle ages warlord, slave trader, paedophile and rapist that should have never been born. And I still think cavity searches on Muslim women would be in order, just to fuck around with them. Terrorism for terrorists. And racial profiling should be used everywhere. It’s called proper policing.

    And any type of search without probable cause is illegal.

  6. Scammer,

    The drones who work for the TSA and similar government agencies are easy to provoke without breaking any rules, the trick is to exude contempt for them so they know you know they are idiots. But you’d better have someone recording the encounter (and someone else ready to record the confiscation of the first person’s cellphone camera).

    Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims by denying their religion, but if you gave them a bacon sandwich their revulsion would be hard to hide, though of course the real terrorists would have practiced that.

    My solution would be to let the market work, let each airline have its own security policies in its own section of the terminal. A private company can’t force you to submit to a search or pay a fine, but they can not let you fly and not refund your money if the rules were agreed to during the ticket purchase.

  7. RebelliousVanilla says:

    Polymath, they are allowed to lie, but most Arabs are Muslim, which means that you just have to see who looks Arabic. For the rest, you just have to tear a Quran(blow your nose with it, stuff like that) or have sniffing dogs. lol

  8. Thanks for all the comments, I’m getting lots of hits now even though other commenters are being lazy. Have you seen my recent comments on your blog?

  9. RebelliousVanilla says:

    Nah, I’m not that in the mood for politics anymore. Hence why I keep my comments really brief.

  10. Most of them are not about politics at all. You don’t have to reply on old threads but I hope you at least read them.

  11. Here’s a great article by Christopher Hitchens on how al Qaeda is making fools of us:

    Don’t Be an Ass About Airport Security

    Despite his grave illness, Hitchens writes as well as ever. I hope he stays with us for a long time.

  12. Polymath says:

    More on the incompetence of our airport screeners:

    Gaping Holes in Airline Security: Loaded Gun Slips Past TSA Screeners
    Secret Tests At LAX, O’Hare, Newark Show TSA Screeners Missed Guns, Bombs

    How bad they are is classified, lest Al Qaeda voters find out. But the article says that in Newark Airport in 2006, screeeners failed the tests 20 of 22 times; in 2007 they failed 50 of 70 times at Los Angeles Airport, and failed 45 of 75 times at O’Hare.

    The DHS Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin (wonder if he can detect Kryptonite?), explains the failures as follows:

    Ervin said a combination of factors is likely to blame for the persistent failures on the part of screeners. Low pay, poor training, and the monotony involved in watching bags pass through x-ray machines are a recipe for trouble, Ervin said.

    “To be fair to screeners, it’s very difficult work,” he said. “After so many hours of seeing things that are innocuous, there’s really a limit for the human brain to process something anomalous.”

    So hire real professionals, check alertness by having the screen randomly flash a symbol requiring the screener to press a button, and don’t put them in front of the screen for hours at a time (every 15 minutes they should switch places with a worker doing a different job like waving the metal detector wand or threatening people who don’t want to be groped or electromagnetically undressed with $11,000 fines).

    Note the subtle use of language there. Why, exactly, should “low pay” make someone less alert? What they actually mean is that they prefer to hire idiots, who are willing to work for less, in order to avoid the dreaded “disparate impact” if they actually selected people with some ability to become highly skilled at the job and who would need to be attracted by higher wages.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s