2010 January 01 Friday
Pilots To Decide On Pillow And Blanket Usage

On a recent flight a retarded kid kept kicking my seat behind me while one of caretakers (might not have been a mother) kept reaching across the aisle to try to distract him. I tried suggesting to the flight attendants that they shuffle people around so that the adults traveling with the retarded kid could sit directly on both sides of the kid. The flight attendants weren't buying. Episodes like that come on top of the passage thru security to make me hate flying. Well, the recent attempt by a Nigerian Muslim (who had an apartment in Londonistan of course) to blow up an airplane descending on Detroit has the US government making all sorts of absurd rules to try to save passengers. Would you believe that hiding the flight map will protect anyone? It is that hard to know that an airplane is 10 or 20 minutes away from landing?

The back and forth between agency officials and airline executives has taken place on conference calls and through the airlines’ trade group and may have resulted in the relaxation of some of the stiffest requirements that the T.S.A. put in place over the weekend.For instance, the airlines have been able to turn in-flight entertainment systems back on after they were ordered shut down during international flights because their maps show the locations of planes.

If you are on a long flight and sound asleep you might be woken to take away your blanket and pillow when the airplane is an hour away from landing. But the pilot might grant you a reprieve. I'm thinking the pilots will ask the flight attendants if any of the passengers look like potential terrorists.

The pilots can now decide whether passengers are allowed to move about in the last hour of a flight and if they can keep their pillows and blankets, instead of requiring them to stay seated with nothing in their laps.

In case a guy with a Middle Eastern or East African accent (or perhaps a British accent with Middle Eastern or East African appearance) you best bring a warm coat since you won't be able to count on a blanket for the whole flight. These are the indignities that political correctness inflicts on us.

I have a much more effective idea: Stop all Muslim immigration and offer legal Muslim residents money to leave. Muslim radicals living in Western countries are going to end up killing more people and the security procedures around airports will probably get worse Any idea how much x-ray radiation we'll get when governments start requiring full body x-ray scans of passengers? At that point trains become a lot more appealing even though they are slow.

Update: "ET" captures the potential of air travel.

Next time you need a prostate exam, just go on an airline trip and have the security check it while they are 'in there.'

Get irradiated when you travel? Or repeal the ban on public nudity?

The agency also has announced plans to buy 150 "backscatter" machines, which use low-level X-rays to create a two-dimensional image of the body, from Rapiscan Systems, a unit of OSI Systems Inc. Those machines, which cost $190,000 each, are being deployed in U.S. airports now.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 January 01 01:10 PM  Terrorists Western Response


Comments
Bob Badour said at January 1, 2010 1:53 PM:
On a recent flight a retarded kid kept kicking my seat behind me

I once had Dr. Ruth kicking the back of my seat for an hour and a half while we were stuck on the tarmac in Newark. I never thought to suggest the flight attendants re-arrange the 1st class cabin so her handlers could keep her in line. Then again, I don't think she had any handlers on the flight.

no i don't said at January 1, 2010 2:32 PM:

You are kidding right, Randall? I mean when you say "Stop all Muslim immigration and offer legal Muslim residents money to leave." You are being sarcastic, aren't you? Or are you really saying that all Muslim residents are all Muslim radicals? I'm confused now. I thank you for your patience and kind clarification.

Mthson said at January 1, 2010 3:22 PM:

If I lived in China and people with my profile were blowing up planes, I'd be first in line to advocate people with my profile receive extra screening. It seems antisocial to instead demand the entire world be inconvenienced just for my sake.

Stephen said at January 1, 2010 4:41 PM:

no-I-don't, that's one of Randall's recurring themes.

Mthson, why would you only advocate it if you lived in China? Seems to me that it would be just as anti-social regardless of the country in which one lives.

Mthson said at January 1, 2010 5:15 PM:

Stephen, yes, that's true. My point about China was that being a minority doesn't necessitate victim attitudes.

Mercer said at January 1, 2010 5:57 PM:

" are you really saying that all Muslim residents are all Muslim radicals? "

No most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists trying to kill Americans are Muslim.

The US military is currently killing Muslims in three countries. It is not surprising that this irritates many Muslims over the world. As long as the US is at war with Muslims it is stupid to have no restrictions on them coming to the US. When the US was at war with Hitler we did not allow immigration from Germany.

Wolf-Dog said at January 1, 2010 7:20 PM:

No_I_don't:

I believe that Randall Parker is talking about rejecting only those who are religious Muslims. For example, after the Shah was overthrown in 1979, nearly 500,000 secular, staunchly pro-American Iranians escaped to California. In fact, currently 20 % of the Beverly Hills population is of Iranian ancestry, and their pockets are full of money. An Iranian Muslim professor and also a graduate student at some of the top American universities said to me that they were happy to be free from Islam here. In fact, the Iranian resistance trying to overthrow the current Mullah regime, is supported by the immigrant community in the US and Europe.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5459468

But it is a VERY good idea to establish an advanced immigration interview system, to find out which applicants of Islamic ancestry are religious and which ones are not. This is not racial discrimination, since it is a question of ideology, not DNA. Various advanced polygraph tests, drug-assisted PET scans can be used for the interview. But atheist Arabs are welcome.

Isfahan said at January 1, 2010 7:45 PM:

-You are kidding right, Randall? I mean when you say "Stop all Muslim immigration and offer legal Muslim residents money to leave." You are being sarcastic, aren't you? Or are you really saying that all Muslim residents are all Muslim radicals? I'm confused now. I thank you for your patience and kind clarification-

If only the immigrant Hasan had been treated better, he wouldn't have shot a bunch of people! Newsflash: Muslims are violent religious freaks more than any other people in the world. They have killed people in Europe, Asia, India, Africa, you name it. Of course the Buddhists muslims have killed in Thailand was in response to the Thai invasion of Iran, so that makes it OK. And of course, they can't take a cartoon that mocks their top freak from centuries ago:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Danish-Police-Shoot-Man-At-House-Of-Cartoonist-Kurt-Westergaard-Who-Drew-Pictures-Of-Mohammed/Article/201001115513050?f=rss

Mean Danes!

Mercer said at January 1, 2010 7:59 PM:

"find out which applicants of Islamic ancestry are religious and which ones are not."

People do not alway have the same level of religiosity over their lifespan. Many people become more religious when they become older.

Many Muslims oppose the US even though they are not personally religious. It is a issue of group identity. Saddam was fairly secular and so is the PLO.

Wolf-Dog said at January 1, 2010 8:16 PM:

Mercer,

Understandably, the advanced polygraph test and the drug-assisted PET scan administered to the prospective immigrants, should also probe the pro-Americanism and loyalty of the candidates. But rejecting the religious and uneducated Muslims would already eliminate the great majority of the future trouble makers.

O' Brien said at January 2, 2010 5:24 PM:

I agree 100% with Wolf-Dog. We should not have a racially discriminatory immigration policy, but we should not flinch in rejecting devout Muslims and other radicals, in addition to the unskilled/uneducated/low IQ. This might mean rejecting say, 70 percent of Central Americans and 80 percent or more of Africans, but anyone meeting the requirements would be allowed to immigrate, while the especially gifted would be given money to immigrate. On the other hand, unsuccessful immigrants, and even their children would be given money to leave.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©