Precisely.
Well, it is a good point nonetheless. However the victims’ families represent a decided minority. My heart goes out to them, but a lot of Jews got torched because a government was allowed to single them out as the root of Germany’s post WWI problems. “Stab in the back” anyone? Same deal today: Anyone’s a potential terrorist, but we’re singling out a group already held in general disfavor as the primo perpetrator. That’s just dense in the degree it ignores recent history.
Why? Why is it “cheap” of me to ask someone who is against profiling (which I think might help stop another 911) to consider those who were most closely involved with terrorism, as victims? Do there opinions count less than the rest of ours? It seems particularly on point, especially after the person it was directed to had attempted to simplistically associate the pro-profiliing position with Soviet Russia, Red China, Castro and Saddam.
I still await his/her answer, by the way, regarding my hypothetical. I don’t know where you stand on profiling, but perhaps Inigo Montoya would like to offer on which train he would take his daughter. Inigo?
And you know their opinions how, exactly? When did they nominate you as their representative? And how did they do so, exactly? Ouiji board? Since when do you speak for the dead, magellan? By what right do you have that authority? Not everyone in those towers would have agreed with you before they died. To claim that they would have changed their minds after they died does an immense disrespect to their memories. I’d honestly thought you were better than this sort of crap. I hope I was not entirely wrong about that.
: sigh :
OK. For the same reasons I pay too much for organic food for my kids, for the same reason I don’t eat meat I haven’t killed my way, and for the same reason I pay someone to recycle my trash rather than send it all to the landfill, my daughters, my son and I pay the extra cost of travel and ride the train that screens EVERYONE. Absent THAT choice, we walk. Absent THAT choice we take the risk and take the unscreened and, allegedly, more dangerous train. Why? Because I don’t think it’s OK to participate in a system that is either too cheap to screen all passengers equally or that thinks it’s alright to single out a group for special attention based on certain factors that only reflect past events, and all but ignores the possibility of a trick play.
It’s only partly a question of moral outrage at institutionalized racism. The other part is outrage at a system that ignores the fact that “terrorists are creative” in favor of pandering to the masses screaming “Do Something” without really doing anything at all. I don’t want a pacifier jammed into my mouth, I want to be safe. And if that carries a financial burden then I’ll pay it. If you don’t want to then you can ride the cheaper train that doesn’t sceen anybody.
I know that’s kind of a nutty turn around, but I refuse to accept profiling as anything other than a lazy system designed to please everyone from the tightwads to the terrified. Nobody gets what they want in the end. If, as you say, it’s the government’s job to make us safe, then I’m sure you’ll understand that angle even if my reservations about repeating WWII events sound tin-foily to you.
What a fucking stupid answer. So, the bigger whoever gets the more credit should be given for less effort? Let’s divide the world into two nations, one with 10 citizens giving $10, the other with 10 bilion citizens giving $11. Let’s hail the 10 billion for their amazing contribution. Idiot.
The dark side of the coin is that there isn’t always really money behind the numbers. For example, a wealthy country replaces their emergency stock of old wheat with fresh wheat, giving the old wheat as aid, and yet calculate the value of the aid as retail price for fresh wheat. Or aid is given only if the recipient uses some of the money to buy equipment from the donor.
I know that this is the pit but still …
And if we fast-crank these numbers in particular, we see that $5.4 million is given as development aid, while $1.5 billion is given as military financing. And while I don’t know of all the locations where the US keeps military bases, from those I do know from the list, these countries receive 2.3 billion of the total 2.7 billion. Wouldn’t it be fun if every donor nation had a military base or two in each country they gave aid to. What an interesting world it would have been. Yup, fun to play with numbers.
You will never get an answer because your hypothetical is flawed. As for racial profiling, this will only be useful (at whatever cost) against citizens of one’s own country. And to be as safe as you imply you want to be you need to lock up everybody who fits the profile, in camps or prison or something. In 20 years they can be joined by their sons and daughters. Incomers are already screened in advance based on intelligence, not on race.
You know that is not what I am doing. If you look at my post it said “I wonder how…” and I included both the dead and their families. (And it was in reply to claims about Saddam, Castro, etc.)
As you can see from the rest of that post, I was trying to personalize the phenomenon of terrorism: first by bringing to mind what the victims themselves and their families might think, and second by putting Jackknifed Juggernaut in the place of having to make a decision for him and his family. Do I think the 911 victims and their families, and any other victims Islamist terrorists we agree with my position? I do. Do I think that many would disagree. I do. Is it possible that the majority would not agree. Yes, but I don’t think that to be the case. At no point did I put words in their mouth.
And fpr the record, even if every one of them agreed with me it would NOT make the position correct. I was pointing to an extreme to counter the extreme brought up by Jackknifed Juggernaut.
Miller, I am genuinely offended by your accusation. I hope you now see that it was misplaced. If so, I kindly request that you retract it.
I’m not sure I get what you’re saying. Can you expand on these three points?
Thanks.
What a stupid retort. You’re chastising people for collectively giving more than other people. They don’t have to give at all, and if there are enough people like you they won’t give at all, and then what?
Well, that works both ways, though. If we have a better relationship with the country, we’re more likely both to give them millitary aid and to base in their country. And the bases, while they do help us, also help the country we’re in, both by providing defense from foreign invasion, and because the base itself requires supplies and maintence, some of which comes from the host country. This is why, in some German towns where we’re closing our bases, the people are complaining. The bases brought jobs to the towns.
Sorry for the late response. Magellan, there are lots of methods that other governments have used that have been shown to be quite effective in preventing crimes. Certainly, methods even more effective than profiling. If effectiveness in preventing terrorism is your main concern, you should be happy to entertain ideas that other governments have used. This is why you shouldn’t hastily discard the ideas of Red China and Nazi Germany. If your main goal is effective terrorism prevention, why be so closed-minded?
Before I answer your question (which entirely misses the point, by the way), let me ask you a few things. It’s possible that one day, a bomb or weapon could be invented that could pass through airport security without being detected. In order to fly on a plane, young brown men would have to go through complete body cavity searches. All of their bags would be opened and inspected every single time they fly. This process would be extremely effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Would this be OK with you? Once airport security procedures become more efficient, the women and children would have to go through this process as well. This would clearly be even more effective, since Arab men might use their wives and children to smuggle aboard the weapons. I’m guessing that you’d be OK with this as well? Where would you draw the line? Brown men could potentially use their white girlfriends to bring weapons on board. You wouldn’t mind if all white females had to go through this as well, would you? I mean, we might be able to win the war on terror this way. BTW, I understand that this is a slippery slope argument, but it underscores my point that effectiveness in combatting crime is not the sole responsibilty of government. Preserving the rights of its citizens is also a responsibility. Racial profiling basically reduces the rights of a small percentage of citizens simply based on their race.
You seem to think that the families of the 9/11 victims would be on the side of racial profiling. This might be true, although I highly doubt it. I live in the NYC area, and I know the families of 2 of the victims and I’d guarantee that they’d be against it. But even if you are correct, this is the precise reason that we don’t allow crime victims or their family members to sit on the jury.
Now, your question to me. Of course I would take my daughter on the “safer” transportation system. Just the same way I take tax deductions when I’m in favor of increasing taxes during budget deficits. Individuals make decisions that benefit themselves. But our government has to make decisions that do not contradict the spirit of the Constitution. I’m against torture but I would gladly torture a man who has sexually attacked my wife or child. But a responsible government cannot allow these things to happen, for the good of society and to protect the rights of ALL of its citizens (not just the white ones). If you’re on the side of racial profiling, you’re not a true American. You’ll only understand this when your daughter gets strip-searched every time she gets on the train.
I guess that makes two of us, then. Seems I overestimated your character. Don’t worry, won’t happen again.
Care to explain your thinking?
As I try to swim through the sarcassm. let me say that safety is, indeed, my main concern. But that does not equate with life amid the atrocities of a Nazi state. There are trade-offs. Am I willing to trade increased security (granted, an assumption) for hurt feelings. Yes. As a person of Italian descent with a darker complexion and a beard, I was singled-out much more than chance would dictate in the year or so after 911. Was it inconvenient? Yes. Did I mind? No. I was happy to cooperate and do what they thought made sense. I would welcome them to search me every time if it would help.
It seems you understand from your first paragraph that I consider safety to be the main concern, not my only concern. It is my opinion that it should be the same for our governement. As I mentioned above, there are trade-offs.
I agree with your sentiment completely (except, obviously, with your second sentence). Please see my post #49. Also, I, too, am from NY and know families of the victims of 911. Some I know would agree with you. Some I know would agree with me. One family, I’m not sure about.
The governement has to often weigh competing rights. For instance, on the one hand ,a pedophile who has sereved his time and paid his debt to society should be let out and that would be the end of it. On the other hand, we know that is a bad idea that often leads to more child abuse. So they have to “weigh” the rights of someone who as erred and paid his debt with the rights of the communities at large.
Such is the case with security. The Constitution is a document designed to guarantee us certain rights. Sometimes on of those rights will compete with our right to be secure, our right to life. Without which, I would contend, the other rights are pretty useless. I also think that, first and foremost, our government has the responsibility to ensure our safety. That is the basic reason why governements are formed and people agree to live under their rule. How much extra consideration it is given when weighed against other responsibilities is a matter in which, I think, reasonable people can disagree.
First, what we’ve been discussing under the heading of racial profiling I think is better referred to as physical profiling. True, that often amounts to the same thing, but nationality or region is not the same as race. If gangs of white youths had gone on crime sprees in Harlem, I’d profile white youths in the vicinity. If Scandinavian-types were robbing cars from the Arthur Avenue part of The Bronx and I saw a few of them hanging around there, I’d keep an eye on them. If midgets were known to rob electronics stores, I’d “profile” midgets who own or rent vans and trucks. I just don’t think it is wise to discount race or other physical characteristics that might be noticeable and helpful to law enforcement.
Well, so much for diversity and an open society, I guess. Or does that concept only apply to skin color and sexual orientation. Sorry I don’t lock-step with all you’re thinking, my fellow American.
Seen Indonesia, Chechnya or the Philipines recently?
Magellan, you seemed to have skipped over my 2nd paragraph (the one in which I asked you a few questions). You’re in favor moving the rights line for the purpose of protection from terrorism. But where would you stop? I’m guessing that you surely wouldn’t accept strip searches for all females boarding a flight, or would you?
Like you, I don’t mind getting searched. It rarely happens to me, and it causes me no personal issues when it does. I didn’t at all mind getting my bag checked on the subway (that didn’t last very long, did it?). And there are people in this country who might not even mind getting strip searched every time. But our individual tolerances are not important.
What’s important here is that we’re taking the easy way out. Profiling only works because Arabs are a minority group here. So we’re depriving them of some rights simply based on the fact that they’re easy to recognize and there aren’t many of them. How can you not see this as being inherently racist?
Lousy people come in all shapes and sizes.
If one is bitter about a biased e-mail, one should not lower themselves to refute it.
The common answer in any type of fake questionairre/test will be: People.
Which I normally would have done. But it was sent to me by someone I was crushing on, and sent to a new, spam-free e-mail account. I just lost my mind, what can I say? 