Thursday, July 21, 2005

"That's Not My Bag, Baby!"

Obviously we all are intensely interested in trying to prevent any more terrorism from hitting us within our own borders. London has been another cruel reminder that the scum is out there, waiting for the opportunity to slaughter the innocent. So when I read that New York was going to start random bag searches of people using any of the mass transit systems in the city, I was very pleased. Finally, I thought, they are going to do something more than give us a color-coded warning. Let the authorities get out there and search these anti-deodorant fanatics before they can get on a subway and kill Americans!

Then I read further, and the sad reality sunk in. Just when I thought they were getting it right, they inform us that it's more important to not offend someone or hurt their feelings from being selected out, than to really try to prevent us from being blown into tiny pieces. In a New York Times article today, police commissioner Kelly said in reference to who would be checked, "No racial profiling will be allowed," Mr. Kelly said. "It's against our policies. But it will be a systematized approach."

Oops. not helpful. This will unfortunately become like the fiasco of politically correct searches at the airport. Look, we all know who and what are blowing innocent people up! It's not the Johnsons next door! You've got to profile! I suppose there could be another McVey or Rudolph out there, but they are the exception. The backpacks that need to be checked will be on the backs of morons named Mohammed, and on women wearing black shower curtains. Check them, and leave the Johnsons alone!


James said...

Yeah we wouldn't want to discriminate.

Websters on discriminate - Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.
Showing careful judgment

God forbid

Kevin The One-Eyed Worm said...

Here's an idea: Let's preface our discussions on a term's definition two based on it's definition one. This is a particularly useful tactic especially when one has little to do with the other.

1.[see above]

2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

A random deity of the reader's choice forbid.

Will is White said...

Why is everybody so down on discrimination all the time. When in fact it may be our one and only chance to keep the homos from taking over the world. You see we gotta keep them queers seperate from us normal people. If you ain't careful the sodomites will start to live amoungst us, and next thing you know they'll be turnin all us into queers. I honestly mean it. Sometimes the siren call of hairy man ass is hard to deny. I bet EVH knows what I'm talkin' about. That's why we need to be so outspoken in our war against fags, and that's why we need discrimination.

James said...

I'm sure you are trying to say something. I just cant for the life of me figure out what it is.

My point was that it is ironic that what people call to discriminate (definition 2), at times seems to be a lot more like definition one.

On second thought maybe it isn't so ironic that a word with a positive meaning over the years has been twisted to become something with a negative connotation. Whichever definition you subscribe to it makes sense to stop people who fit the "profile" of the crime.

I saw a lady on FOX News a little while ago who actually said (with a straight face I might add) that racial profiling wouldn't work because the terrorists could always get someone else to place the bag for them. Whaaa? So you admit we are on the right track. You practically admit it is "those people" that are the enemy. But then you set aside a solution because they might find a way around it.

Typical Liberal balderdash.

Following this line of logic we should just sell beer to children because they will just find someone to buy it for them anyways. It is completely laughable what passes for "progressive" thinking in the world. Common sense is an endangered commodity.

Jeff said...

As long as stereotypes are being slung: is anybody surprised that james was watching Faux News?

I have no doubt that racial profiling would be effective. Thus far, most Islamists have been either Urduan, Pakhtun, Asian, or Arabic. If you frequently shake down those ethnic types, you'll definitely create animosity. You may even create more Islamists.

I can't help but notice the religious right has had little to say about the attacks in Turkey and Egypt. Why? They don't fit their model. Much like you can't ignore DNA when you model origins, you can't ignore certain attacks when they don't fit your theory. Hint: contrary to popular belief, they could care less about our freedom.

scud said...

During WWI, German Americans were profiled and some interned in the US. During WWII, Japanese Americans were profiled and interned. Though most were good, patriotic Americans, when you're at war, where your civilian population within your own borders are at risk, you don't take chances for fear of offending someone! In this global war, that they started, we have done more to try not to offend anyone than any other conflict in human history; to our own detriment.

And Fox news is so far above the typical liberal bias tripe shoveled on the other networks, there isn't any comparison. If you actually watched rather than simply listenned to the opinions of fascists like Al Franken, you'd know that Fox presents both sides, not just one, and actually is, Fair and Ballanced.

Will is White said...

Yeah Jeff, if FDR hadn't "unjustly" imprisoned all those Americans during WWII they would have turned into traitors, and we would have lost the war. I can't believe that you actually believe that the Rights spelled out in our Constitution actually apply to all citizens. You should go back and re-read it sometime. I'm pretty sure the part about extra-Executive power is in there somewhere. I think it's on the back.

scud said...

Will, you are truly a genius beyond compare. Thank God there are true American patriots like you out there. Especially someone as well versed in the constitution as you. Your brilliance and wit is inspiring to us all. Thank you so much!

James said...

First off, as I stated it was a liberal ranting on Fox News when I posted. Isn’t that fair? I mean she was wrong but then again they all are, but she had her time to spew.

Second, the argument that we might make them "madder" is ridiculous. It is the last effort of a feeble mind with no real point to make. If you have not noticed I think there is already some animosity between us. I am not saying kick in their doors and put them in prison camps. I am saying quite searching old Jewish women in the subway. In short, use a little damned common sense. Its not about racism, it is about being discriminating...big difference.

scud said...

Right on James! It's common sense, but as you know, that is a trait that mysteriously eludes liberals.

Anonymous said...

Yeah any way. These terrorists are so stupid they would never think of using people who don't appear to be Middle-Eastern looking. After all there are no Blacks or Asians or even Whites (see Chechens) who practise Islam.

James said...

Obviously, you did not read my post above about the liberal woman on Fox news who made your same (point?). It is sheer idiocy to say we should not do something because the criminal might find a way around it.

So why the gun regulation that liberals love so much. The criminals will just get someone else to buy it.

From what we have seen, right now the terrorists are fitting a profile. PC turns suicidal if we do not use it.

Anonymous said...

I guess it would make too much sense to try something that might work as opposed to something that doesn't work, but makes you feel better.

James said...

How can you say something does not work before it is tried? What is the suggestion that in your opinion would work?

*bracing myself*

Anonymous said...

Well, I wouldn't suggest taking 80 billion dollars, and spending it to invade Iraq. I would use some of that money to bolster security in such a way as to make an attack on the transit system less likely. A more pronounced police presence may help, perhaps bomb sniffing dogs as well. Ultimately, we can never be 100% safe from a determined suicide bomber. That being the case. I see no reason or advantage to weakening our Constitution in the pursuit of some unattainable sense of security. If that happens, then the terrorists have won.

scud said...

Correction to anonymous,
The terrorists have won when there are body parts on the sidewalk, our economy collapses and we no longer are the driving force in the world for prosperity and good that we have been for the last 100 years. That is their goal. Our constitution is not being weakened by randomly searching the people that tend to fit the profile of the insane people that want to blow people up. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I suppose if you're a typical pot smoking liberal with their stash in thier backpack, you might have a different opinion, but I'm all for searches, dogs, cameras and yes, going to where they are and cutting the head off the snake before it comes here. Iraq is a good investment and history, if it's written by objective people, will prove this fact.

Anonymous said...

No you fool. The terrorists have won when they force us to abandon the principals of our nation's charter, and destroy our way of life. Our Constitution is so weakened by randomly searching people (see Ammendment IV). As a matter of fact, you're not only a fool, but also an idiot. It is not up to me as a free human being to constantly prove my innocence to the government. The burden, and all subsequent inconvieniences, fall to the government to prove my guilt in a court of law. I can't believe a grown person like yourself could not understand that basic constitutional concept. Also, as far as "going where they are..." I got news for you. They are already here. If you think that squandering lives and treasure in Iraq is gonna make you one bit safer here, you're sorely mistaken. After all the British and Spanish were in Iraq, but that hardly kept the terrorist from striking in those countries. Are you freakin' blind, or do you just ignore facts which don't fit into your preconceived world view.

On a unrelated topic. Are you still lying on your blog posts? I noticed that you didn't have an answer to the "Democrats requesting the art exhibit". I guess you're just like the President in that regard. Lie, lie, lie, and when you get caught....change the subject and lie about something else. Way to show complete disrespect for your readers.