tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4656562700069001785..comments2024-03-19T02:31:02.140-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: A Romney PlatformUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-47041303019274133642012-05-20T09:20:20.012-07:002012-05-20T09:20:20.012-07:00"...I would agree that large numbers of peopl...<i>"...I would agree that large numbers of people can be blown up or gunned down on the ground, yet for some reason terrorists (at least AQ types) seem obsessed with air travel."<br /><br />Actually, they were obsessed with destroying the World Trade Center which was.....you know....on the ground.</i><br /><br />It seems that the architects of the destruction of the WTC had read Gustav LeBon's "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind." <br /><br />LeBon wrote:<br /><br /><i>Things must be laid before the crowd as a whole, and their genesis must never be indicated. A hundred petty crimes or petty accidents will not strike the imagination of crowds in the least, whereas a single great crime or a single great accident will profundly impress them…. The epidemic of influenza, which caused the death but a few years ago of five thousand persons in Paris alone, made very little impression on the popular imagination. The reason was that this veritable hecatomb was not embodied in any visible image, but was only learnt from statistical information furnished weekly. <b>An accident which caused the death of only five hundred instead of five thousand persons, but in a single day and in public, as the outcome of an accident appealing strongly to the eye, by the fall, for instance, of the Eiffel Tower, would have produced, on the contrary, an immense impression on the imagination of the crowd.</b><br /></i><br /><br />Perhaps coincidentally, the folks at PNAC hoped for a similar "catlyzing event -- a new Pearl Harbor.".ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81183065354831083102012-05-20T09:08:02.651-07:002012-05-20T09:08:02.651-07:00The only way you can possibly understand how Nixon...<i>The only way you can possibly understand how Nixon ever got elected is to realize that he was embraced by the American public on the rebound. </i><br /><br />Right. Unlike his successors, Nixon was elected without the MSM's approval. That's why they subsequently hounded him out of office for misdeeds that were utterly trivial when to compared to his and his successors' other misdeeds often involving aggressive war and the killing of huge numbers of people.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12845504418798111282012-05-20T08:37:14.674-07:002012-05-20T08:37:14.674-07:00So what has changed exactly, since the advent of t...<i>So what has changed exactly, since the advent of the TSA? Next to nothing.</i><br /><br />You've got to be kidding.<br /><br />You can't take liquids on the plane. So, the bottle of wine you receive as a Christmas gift has to be shipped in a depressurized chamber where it is likely to explode. You can't even take a tube of toothpaste on the plane. Et cetera.<br /><br />Not to mention the new see-through body scanners.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90779076790586023802012-05-20T08:31:38.032-07:002012-05-20T08:31:38.032-07:004. Before 9/11, your family could not accompany yo...<i>4. Before 9/11, your family could not accompany you to the gate to wish you farewell or greet you upon your return (at most airports - this was possible at some of the smaller airports)....</i><br /><br />Like ATL and DFW?ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41858091081531646452012-05-20T08:28:01.784-07:002012-05-20T08:28:01.784-07:00Plus he could counter any possible charges of anti...<i>Plus he could counter any possible charges of anti-Presbyterianism by pointing out that his namesake, Ayn MacRand, was, in fact, Scots-Irish.</i><br /><br />Rand is short for Randal, and his parents called him Randy. His wife took to calling him Rand for some reason.<br /><br />It's a hell of a coincidence, but he's not named for Alyssa Rosenberg.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25958677123800247002012-05-20T08:28:01.129-07:002012-05-20T08:28:01.129-07:00Plus he could counter any possible charges of anti...<i>Plus he could counter any possible charges of anti-Presbyterianism by pointing out that his namesake, Ayn MacRand, was, in fact, Scots-Irish.</i><br /><br />Rand is short for Randal, and his parents called him Randy. His wife took to calling him Rand for some reason.<br /><br />It's a hell of a coincidence, but he's not named for Alyssa Rosenberg.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48320185655547614182012-05-20T00:13:52.413-07:002012-05-20T00:13:52.413-07:00"Anonymous said...
The UK attempt, to take o..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />The UK attempt, to take out several airliners over the ocean simultaneously, was not aimed at anything on the ground. I would have thought this was obvious, but perhaps it isn't."<br /><br />And the Bojinka plot never came to anything - perhaps because the trial run didn't work.<br /><br />"I'm glad you know everything. We can all relax now and stop wetting ourselves."<br /><br />So what is the evidence for your baseless assertion?<br /><br />"And do you think it would not eventually occur to AQ to put more than one passenger on board with explosives? Thank heavens they're all so dumb?"<br /><br />Yeah, and five arab guys handing stuff to each other wouldn't arouse any suspicion among the passengers, whom you seem to think are dumb.<br /><br />""..(mostly) non-existent terrorists..""<br /><br />"This comment cannot be satirized."<br /><br />No, because it's true. Where are all the terrorists in this country?<br /><br />"Suggest you travel a bit in the Middle East, South Asia and the widening nonwhite parts of Europe, and just feel the love..."<br /><br />Suggest you f**k-off there forever, and let us Americans live our lives in freedom as we are want to, you contemptible bed-wetting, yellow-livered coward.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18207023978221448272012-05-19T23:14:00.091-07:002012-05-19T23:14:00.091-07:00"world trade center..on the ground.."
T..."world trade center..on the ground.."<br /><br />They tried before to take it out from a ground-based bomb and failed. Taking it out from the air worked just fine and dandy for them, however.<br /><br />The UK attempt, to take out several airliners over the ocean simultaneously, was not aimed at anything on the ground. I would have thought this was obvious, but perhaps it isn't.<br /><br /><br />"..there is no evidence.."<br /><br />I'm glad you know everything. We can all relax now and stop wetting ourselves.<br /><br /><br />"..probably rather difficult to down an aircraft with the amount of explosives.." <br /><br />I particularly enjoyed the "probably". Do you write advertising copy for the airlines?<br />And do you think it would not eventually occur to AQ to put more than one passenger on board with explosives? Thank heavens they're all so dumb!<br /><br /><br />"..killed a few people nearby." <br /><br />Gee whiz, would they get a refund on the ticket?<br /><br /><br /><br />"..(mostly) non-existent terrorists.."<br /><br />This comment cannot be satirized. <br /><br />Suggest you travel a bit in the Middle East, South Asia and the widening nonwhite parts of Europe, and just feel the love...<br /><br />Anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20417442662210927032012-05-19T22:06:44.271-07:002012-05-19T22:06:44.271-07:00"NOTA said...
JSM:
Nothing eases the pain o..."NOTA said... <br />JSM:<br /><br />Nothing eases the pain of a boot on your neck quite like the thought that somewhere, someone you dislike has *two* boots on his neck."<br /><br />This is true.<br /><br />Schadenfreude, 'tis a thing of beauty.JSMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65700512564730569422012-05-19T20:52:32.892-07:002012-05-19T20:52:32.892-07:00"NOTA said...
Mr Anon:
On the contrary, the..."NOTA said...<br /><br />Mr Anon:<br /><br />On the contrary, they are the DMV with drone-fired missiles and torture chambers and death squads.<br /><br />Touche. Kind of like in "Brazil" - ruthless and inept.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5848992758459306342012-05-19T20:51:11.279-07:002012-05-19T20:51:11.279-07:00JSM:
Nothing eases the pain of a boot on your nec...JSM:<br /><br />Nothing eases the pain of a boot on your neck quite like the thought that somewhere, someone you dislike has *two* boots on his neck.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9257133861945572262012-05-19T19:54:25.107-07:002012-05-19T19:54:25.107-07:00Mr Anon:
On the contrary, they are the DMV with d...Mr Anon:<br /><br />On the contrary, they are the DMV with drone-fired missiles and torture chambers and death squads.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24483990803851128462012-05-19T19:51:07.509-07:002012-05-19T19:51:07.509-07:00Whatever the reasons, Islamic terrorists are very ...<i>Whatever the reasons, Islamic terrorists are very focused on taking down an airliner, and the obstacles we have placed in their path have obviously been quite effective.</i><br /><br />Homer Simpson: Lisa, I want to buy your rock!<br /><br />Actually, I agree with you (to a point) but I couldn't resist making this comment.Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10961211558548723152012-05-19T19:41:02.113-07:002012-05-19T19:41:02.113-07:00"Anonymous Anonymous said...
I would agree t..."Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br />I would agree that large numbers of people can be blown up or gunned down on the ground, yet for some reason terrorists (at least AQ types) seem obsessed with air travel."<br /><br />Actually, they were obsessed with destroying the World Trade Center which was.....you know....on the ground.<br /><br />"Blowing up a plane in mid-air was indeed possible before 9/11, but the point is that after 9/11, it became much more popular as a terrorist objective."<br /><br />No, you are just wrong. There is no evidence that it has gotten more popular.<br /><br />"Whatever the reasons, Islamic terrorists are very focused on taking down an airliner, and the obstacles we have placed in their path have obviously been quite effective."<br /><br />Again, you are wrong. The security measure which has helped prevent the bombing of aircraft is x-raying and sniffing the luggage. It would probably be rather difficult to down a plane with the amount of explosives that could be carried surreptitiously on one's person. Placement is also important. As an example: the underwear bomber, had he been able to trigger his bomb, would have blown himself to bits and killed a few people nearby, but he probably wouldn't have brought the plane down. A bomb was detonated in the passenger cabin of an airliner - a Phillipine Airlines flight in 1995; it did not bring down the plane.<br /><br />"There may or may not be better ways to implement screening than with the TSA, but screen we have to. It's a small price."<br /><br />No, it isn't a small price to pay. It's a small payoff for an unacceptably high price. It is a rank violation of the 5th amendment, for one.<br /><br />Again, if you are going to wet yourself because you are afraid of all those (mostly non-existent) terrorists out there, then YOU should not fly. Don't expect the rest of us to put up with something we shouldn't tolerate just because you are a nance. Don't expect the rest of us to part with our dignity and with the historic liberties that you obviously do not value. Just stay at home, and sit - safely - in your easy chair with a crash-helmet on.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66718062978845575822012-05-19T19:22:05.133-07:002012-05-19T19:22:05.133-07:00"Anonymous said...
Do you insure your house ..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />Do you insure your house against fire? Do you insure your life?"<br /><br />Yes. I don't wrap myself in Kevlar and never leave the house.<br /><br />"One reason that successful terrorism against major airlines has been so rare is the intrusive screening"<br /><br />It was rare prior to 9/11 as well, and without the Gestapo practices employed by the TSA.<br /><br />"The other is the activities of the intelligence agencies in infiltrating terror groups and aborting the many plots that are constantly being hatched by fanatics."<br /><br />Yeah, intelligence agencies can never tell us what they have done, but - rest assured - it's great. Just great. They are top men. Top. Men. They are government agencies - they are the DMV with a black budget.<br /><br />"But if you look at the frequency of suicide bombings in the Middle East, and extrapolate, I have little doubt that if we stood down the screeners (the penultimate line of defense) there would be about one incident a week,..."<br /><br />If one looks at the frequency of suicide bombings in the middle east, one might conclude that we should not allow middle easterners to come here. I would not however conclude that we should toss out the 5th amendment.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44597930376613999762012-05-19T13:21:55.454-07:002012-05-19T13:21:55.454-07:00I would agree that large numbers of people can be ...I would agree that large numbers of people can be blown up or gunned down on the ground, yet for some reason terrorists (at least AQ types) seem obsessed with air travel.<br /><br />Blowing up a plane in mid-air was indeed possible before 9/11, but the point is that after 9/11, it became much more popular as a terrorist objective. Why? Ask them, I can only conjecture. <br /><br />My sense is that most folks would rather be in a car-crash, an air terminal bombing or a shooting incident, because the odds of survival are much higher, and because these sorts of occurrence would not put a halt to mass transit in the same way that taking out a couple of airliners simultaneously over the Atlantic would, for instance.<br /><br />Whatever the reasons, Islamic terrorists are very focused on taking down an airliner, and the obstacles we have placed in their path have obviously been quite effective. There may or may not be better ways to implement screening than with the TSA, but screen we have to. It's a small price.<br /><br />Anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44449953352412336152012-05-19T12:17:59.814-07:002012-05-19T12:17:59.814-07:00Personally, I'm
overjoyed to know that TSA, th...Personally, I'm<br />overjoyed to know that TSA, the employer of choice for overweight, obnoxious Black women, insults and terrorizes air passengers by groping them, all in service to the end of keeping us all "safe from terrists."<br /><br />Because, drawing a Venn diagram between sanctimonious, treasonous DWLs and people who fly frequently, the overlap is substantial.<br /><br />DWLs foisted integration upon the defenseless White middle and working classes. So, let them, as they go about their jetsetting, enjoy some benefits of diversity, too.JSMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82457799431766510822012-05-19T12:03:34.516-07:002012-05-19T12:03:34.516-07:00Over 40,000 people die in car accidents every year...Over 40,000 people die in car accidents every year in the USA. Yet I get in my car every day and drive somewhere. There are continual minor efforts to tweak vehicle safety, but basically, we're pretty satisfied with that level of threat.<br /><br />If terrorists killed 3000 Americans with planes <em>every year</em>, flying would <em>still</em> be safer than driving. Yet we're willing to accept massive costs and considerable annoyance just to try to <em>reduce</em> that smaller threat.<br /><br />Just imagine for a second that we hadn't changed anything after 9/11: just stayed with the technology and security systems that were already in place. You would have been able to get on a plane with a box cutters or a bottle of liquid, but the people on the plane would have been much more vigilant, and would no longer allow you to hijack a plane, assuming they'd be released safely in some other country. So with no new security at all, a 9/11 style attack was already impossible. That reduces terrorists to "blow up the plane," but that was already a threat before 9/11, and we didn't wet ourselves about it. And large numbers of people can be blown up right here on the ground. So we put up with the TSA to try to prevent something that isn't new and probably can't be prevented by them anyway. Brilliant.<br /><br />By the way, I don't think anyone's saying Romney should make the TSA the centerpiece of his campaign. That's not the point. But it's a good idea in politics to attack the other guy's weaknesses. Obama's not going to make Romney's wealth the centerpiece of his campaign, but Democrats will make sure that it's on people's minds. Ditto with any other negative features they can work into the image people have of Romney. Republicans are terrible about doing the same thing: they either shy away and refuse to touch the topic (see McCain on Jeremiah Wright) or they go whole-hog as if it's the only topic (see the GOP on Monica Lewinsky, when there were dozens of reasons to impeach Clinton).<br /><br />Reagan would have gotten it right: he would have made some joke about Obama and the TSA that would have been memorable, cutting, and yet not actually offensive. Heck, Reagan once told a joke where he equated a pile of manure to the Democratic platform. Nowadays, people (especially Republicans) would have fainting spells, start to distance themselves from him, and analyze the racial component of the remark.Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15629153841120627618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-79589295989422135602012-05-19T11:53:40.581-07:002012-05-19T11:53:40.581-07:00"..a remote threat..."
Do you insure yo..."..a remote threat..."<br /><br />Do you insure your house against fire? Do you insure your life?<br /><br />Destructive house fires are a remote threat, as is dying in your 40's.<br /><br />But most people insure themselves and their valuable property. This does not mean they are terrified, just prudent.<br /><br />One reason that successful terrorism against major airlines has been so rare is the intrusive screening; the other is the activities of the intelligence agencies in infiltrating terror groups and aborting the many plots that are constantly being hatched by fanatics. <br /><br />If you fly only within the USA, this might not be top of mind; but if you fly internationally, a lot, you start to pay attention.<br /><br />No-one would dispute that the TSA and its counterparts in other countries are far from perfect. But if you look at the frequency of suicide bombings in the Middle East, and extrapolate, I have little doubt that if we stood down the screeners (the penultimate line of defense) there would be about one incident a week, civil aviation would become curiously unpopular, and modern economies would get much worse.<br /><br />Anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85710737840242835262012-05-19T10:41:03.284-07:002012-05-19T10:41:03.284-07:00"Anonymous said...
the opportunities for ter..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />the opportunities for terror-inspired mass murder are ample,..."<br /><br />And in many ways, the TSA have opened up new such opportunities.<br /><br />Airport security is really of no concern to the "authorities", other than at the important airports (you know, the ones that the important people frequently use) in New York and DC. I flew through SeaTac a few years ago - it seemed as though just about every concessionaire in the airport was Somali. Somalia! A nation full of muslim fanatics and pirates, with whom we fought a small, nasty little war just twenty years ago - and we draw on those people to work in the secure areas of a major airport.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28917739838820706392012-05-19T10:22:54.634-07:002012-05-19T10:22:54.634-07:00The intrusive state is an inevitable consequence o...The intrusive state is an inevitable consequence of mass immigration and multiculturalism.<br /><br />The UK, for instance, is riddled with surveillance cameras; this is only the most obvious manifestation of what is a truly disturbing spectrum of policing and thought control methods. Although the purpose is ostensibly crime prevention, the British State in fact indulges not only in the indoctrination of the young, not only in the monitoring of speech, personal behavior and political activity, but in the systematic punishment and vilification of anyone who doesn't toe the multicultural Party Line.<br /><br />As for airport and mass transit security, there is a dilemma; while I can see the argument that this 'softens up' the population for a more widespread invasion of their privacy, the opportunities for terror-inspired mass murder are ample, and terrorists will definitely succeed if the state relaxes its vigilance. This has already happened once and cannot be allowed to happen again.<br /><br />The real problem is the idiocy and treason of the MultiKult/immigration lobby, throughout the West, and its pimps and catamites in the media and academe. <br /><br />The result is not only the destruction of our security and peace of mind, but of our liberties and identity as well. <br /><br />Anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18013621754458568142012-05-19T09:58:20.155-07:002012-05-19T09:58:20.155-07:00"Anonymous said...
I don't feel safe fly..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />I don't feel safe flying, but I do feel safer than I would if there were no screening."<br /><br />Maybe you would feel safer if everyone else on the plane were sedated. Maybe you would feel safer if we were all gagged and hog-tied before takeoff. Maybe you would feel safer if your mommy flew with you and held your hand. I don't give a damn what makes YOU feel safer.<br /><br />"The screening, by the way, is somewhat better than you imply; the luggage gets X-Ray'd..."<br /><br />I have no objection to luggage being x-rayed. I object to people getting x-rayed, nitwit.<br /><br />"Furthermore, the machines are constantly improving, as is the training of the TSA and other corresponding agencies elsewhere."<br /><br />Yeah, just listen to the "authorities". They have been trained. After the north tower of the WTC was struck, it was "trained authorities" who told people leaving the south tower that everything was "under control" and they should just go back inside. You're an idiot if you trust government flunkies.<br /><br />"If you look at the one airline which has been doing this the longest, and with good reason, it is El Al."<br /><br />El Al doesn't randomly grope people.<br /><br />"If you don't want to be groped, don't fly, or opt for an X-Ray, or whatever."<br /><br />As I said, you craven idiot, if you are such a coward that you are terrified of a remote threat, and if you don't value the traditional liberties that are sacred to this nation, then YOU should not fly.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63203197531624974632012-05-19T09:44:51.757-07:002012-05-19T09:44:51.757-07:00Yeah, that they're doing searches at bus stati...Yeah, that they're doing searches at bus stations kinda exposes what they're really all about. There's no terrorist threat there, or any hope of countering one if there were. Extending TSA in that way can only serve two purposes: give more jobs to the kind of people TSA employs, and/or train Americans to expect less freedom of movement. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their primary goal is the former, but the latter is still a result.Aaron B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15629153841120627618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40380123730430623812012-05-19T07:49:55.949-07:002012-05-19T07:49:55.949-07:00http://youtu.be/ejM3odcn3Tkhttp://youtu.be/ejM3odcn3TkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6226387880147188342012-05-19T00:04:59.406-07:002012-05-19T00:04:59.406-07:00If you don't want to be groped, don't fly,...<i>If you don't want to be groped, don't fly, or opt for an X-Ray, or whatever.</i><br /><br />TSA now deploys so-called Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR) teams to search and molest people enter or leaving train stations, at bus depots, at highway checkpoints, entering subways, and, most recently, on random buses (and at random bus stops) in Houston. TSA sparked an outcry in Houston when it started interrogating and conducting bag searches of people on or waiting for the bus, demanding to know where they are going and why. In the weeks the followed, TSA repeatedly changed its story as to the bag searches and why approximately fourteen people were arrested. <br /><br />TSA and VIPR are not about "security," but rather about expanding federal authority and the War on Drugs while teaching the American people to submit to government authority. One wonders how long it will be until TSA Blue Shirts are conducting warrantless searches everywhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com