we get it... daily
August 1, 2005
Profiling - you say that like it's a bad thing...
We read some statistics from Charles Kranthammer, columnist from the Washington Post, with interest this morning. It's all about terror, and making sense. Got us thinking about how effective our government is about stopping terror, and why they would want to be effective in the first place.
First off, the government has to decide if they want to stop or impede terrorism, or just look like they're trying. That sounds kind of weird at first, but think about it. As long as there are successful attacks, you sheep will continue to give the enforcing arms of Homeland Security their personal investigative-wet-dream of repealed rights and free intrusion into the lives of Joe and Jane Six-Pack, as well as Muhannad and Majida. How could they possibly look like they're trying, but actually set themselves up to fail? Well...
Take the random airport check. In our democratic method of security checking, we believe that the Canadian and Swede in line for boarding is just as likely to be carrying a bomb as the Middle Eastern or South Asian camera bag carrying tourist. So we do these silly numeric checks, randomly pulling folks from the line for the extended strip search. Supposedly the presence of the check is a deterrent... yeah right. Ever notice that terrorists send teams of these guys in just in case one or two doesn't make it? (We're waiting for some wannabe bomber to blow themselves up in the crowded waiting line when they get called aside for the check, a relatively obvious "plan b".)
So checking based on racial profiling would make some Birkenstock wearers uneasy. Hey, we're uneasy every time we even see a pair of Birkenstocks, so there's no love lost there. Profiling seems a potential violation of our "everyone's equal" democracy, but then again not using profiling plays right into the inefficient security that assures additional attacks and an extension of government's abuse of personal freedoms... well you can ride that Mobius Strip of logic 'till your head starts spinning.
But what got us thinking about this today was Kranthammer's statistics on the British bombings; they made us really want to ignore the anti-profiling crowd. Granted this is about Brittan, but we're not as assured as Kranthammer that the same couldn't be said about the US.
6% of British Muslims thought the recent attacks were justified.
20% of British Muslims feel little or no loyalty to Brittan.
25% of British Muslims feel some sympathy with the bombers.
Gee, thank god we're not in Brittan. That could never be the case in America. Everyone in America loves America, cuz our borders are secure and our immigration techniques are infallible and we all sing god bless America at the drop of a cowboy hat (and we check out of the corner of our eyes to see that everyone is singing along.)
Finally, remember - we're just talking bag-checks here people. If you want to start talking about slippery slopes in reduction of personal liberties we've gone way past that with the Patriot act. Efficient anti-terrorist practices, without really impinging personal liberties, make us safer and freer.
Shit, where's the punch line? There was supposed to be a punch line!
|
Oh, here it is... Wake up you damn sheep! Oh, and before someone calls this out as "anti-Muslim" we have nothing against Muslims who are peaceful and loving and happy to be here - except for the fact that they need to join the 20th century where Women's Rights are concerned. Frankly, talking about scary fundamentalists, we'd rather hang with Muslims than Texans any day of the week. And don't get us started on those Texan Extremists! |
Read the Lies
Read the Shouts
Read the Archives
Read the Static
Read the Financials