Many enterprises are engaged in rendering decisions as a primary element of their existence, banks, insurance companies, any company that extends credit are examples. The processes they use allow them to expedite the decision-making process as quickly and efficiently as possible while minimizing misjudgment. To compete effectively renders this function a core competence. If they are poor at this, they will soon cease to exist.
The processes for these kinds of decisions involve discriminant analysis. People assume that discrimination means something bad. Not so. Only when discrimination is used incorrectly does it necessarily invoke something bad. Deciding on whether to extend credit based upon skin color is not only bad because it relies upon an independent variable (skin color) that is not descriptive of the dependent variable in question (the likelihood of repayment) , it is also illegal. But deciding to extend credit only for people whose credit scores exceed, for example, 620 can be smart business depending on the product or service being transacted. Credit scoring is a discriminating independent variable, that while not perfect, is a reasonably good predictor and is used by a large swath of the business world in order to make the best business decisions possible.
One aspect of political correctness can be described as an allergic reaction to making informed judgments. Much of it is driven by the leftist’s idea that discriminating against anyone for any reason is essentially unfair even though it occurs everyday thousands of times in every facet of our lives.
The most recent example of the infiltration of this belief set is the recent introduction of the passenger screening process in our airports. The TSA screeners have the unenviable task of screening passengers for passage onto a commercial aircraft with the goal of preventing another 9/11 occurrence or an underwear bomber, a shoe bomber, or any other terrorist act from occurring. Bureaucratic groupthink and an overblown anti-discriminating psychosis have taken control of the function of managing safety for our airways. Operationally, the TSA substitutes process as a proxy for discriminating judgment and hoping for the best.
Their objective is to prevent the admission of terrorists on board our airplanes. What they are engaged in is searching for objects that terrorists might use to commit their acts of suicidal terror. Do you see the disconnect between their activities and their objectives? Looking for terrorists would actually require making judgments about people, collecting intelligence on them, and asking them questions. They have gone to great pains to treat all classes of passengers as equals even though there are obvious independent variables (Muslim) that are present with each of the terror attacks. And while it is clearly the case that not all Muslims are terrorists, it is also the case that all of the terrorists have been Muslims. In fact, if anyone spends any time listening to the Muslim’s who are hell-bent on committing acts of terror, their faith is the guiding principle behind their motivation.
This exercise while difficult, is what El Al, the Israeli Airline has been doing for a very long time. Suffice it to say that if any airline in the world is a likely target for Islamic terror it would be El Al.
Yet TSA does not do this. Rather, they inconvenience the entire customer base with their inane search for objects and they are always looking for the objects that were successfully brought on board during previous failures. This practically guarantees that the next technique employed will not be anticipated. This is a monumental folly and is wasting a huge amount of money on the appearance of keeping the flying passengers safe when they are not. Further, the process of looking for objects indiscriminately ignores the intelligence available for passengers of suspicion. What will TSA do after a suicide terrorist hides a bomb inside their anal cavity? If this does not expose the folly of their approach, then nothing will.
With the recent episodes of “junk” touching and child molestation, it is abundantly clear that judgment is not only lacking but has been replaced by an ineffective and counterproductive process. There is a secondary reason why this policy is so counter-productive. In order to properly explain this it is necessary to take a slight detour into the world of Islam.
Informed observers of Islam conclusively document the requirement that there are two worldly domains according to Islamic scripture, the House of Peace and the House of War. The House of Peace incorporates the Umma, the Islamic believers. All Muslims exist here within the brotherhood of Islam. The House of War is where all of the non-believers reside and this doctrine signifies the religious obligation of conquest resulting in either submission (conversion) or subjugation.
There are several schools of thought at work within Islam about how to carry out the obligation of conquest. The most dangerous of these (for western observers) is embodied by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the organization behind many of the Islamic organizations here in North America. Federal Authorities have managed to obtain documents detailing the strategy employed by the Brotherhood for taking over the Western World and converting it into the House of Peace. They eschew violent terror attacks in this phase of the conquest and believe them to be counter-productive. They are therefore opposed to al-Qaeda type operations since these are perceived to be too ineffective at achieving military victory while simultaneously steeling the resolve of westerners against Muslim encroachment. At the same time, they are clearly of the mind of using the westerner’s rules against him and are behind CAIR, which agitates for civil rights, and anti-discrimination policies as well as other Islamic organizations here in the US.
One of the most common laments of casual observers is the lack of push back within the Muslim community itself for the terror tactics employed in the name of their religion. Why do they not police themselves if they are truly a religion of peace?
The answer to this is multifaceted. 1. A very high proportion of Muslim’s approve of Islamic dominance as it is central to their religion. 2. For those who do not approve of the tactics associated with terror operations, they do know that it is consistent with Islamic scripture, 3. Islamic doctrine permits Muslims to say anything to non-believers including lying to them if it advances the Islamic cause. 4. Vocal opposition to these tactics will take the form of apologists who will lie to those uninformed and claim that Islam is not to blame, that rather, their religion has been hijacked by extremists (see item 3). These explanations are purely for Western consumption. 5. Only those who truly and deeply oppose these tactics have no choice but to renounce Islam and by doing so they have put a target on their chests as apostates and deserving of the death penalty.
This is why there is virtually no internal policing of terrorism within Islam. And that which does occur is done almost entirely for western consumption.
If as a society, we acted rationally, and engaged in appropriate discriminant analysis in the process of deciding who was a threat for terror activities and who was not, there is a high likelihood that we would discriminate against Muslims for obvious and sound reasons. Not all Muslims of course, but those who engaged in behavior likely to draw suspicion. And we would be entirely justified in doing so were we not crippled with the psychoses prohibiting rationally based discrimination. This policy would have the beneficial effect of adding to the social cost of Muslim’s silently supporting the conquest agenda while blaming extremists for hijacking their religion. As it stands right now, there is no cost whatsoever for them to carry out their conquest by stealth tactics.
Unfortunately the TSA, operating with the appearance of keeping us safe, by substituting process for judgment, is in reality enabling the jihadist mission by removing the social cost of silently supporting it.
Update: See John Wohlstetter’s Eight Air-Security Myths