The Liberal Response to Terror
Ruben Navarette argues that America is in an "intolerant mood" because people are reconsidering the wisdom of engaging in some degree of racial profiling.
To Navarette's way of thinking, the open acknowledgement that Muslims are, indeed, more likely to engage in Islamofascist terrorism than, say, Jews is the thought that dare not speak its name.
How silly. If short, blue-eyed thirtysomething Christians were the demographic most likely to blow up an airplane, I'd be willing to submit to extra scrutiny -- and rather than objecting to the fact that not everyone is being subjected to the same inconvenience, my wrath would be directed at my co-religionists who were the source of the problem, rather than those who are trying to find efficient ways to respond to it.
"Equal protection of the laws" doesn't mean that everyone must be treated alike by the U.S. government at all times (as is obvious from the distinctions made in the conferral of government benefits). It simply means that the government can't decide to enforce the law against some, but not against others, simply because of who they (or their victims) are.
Trying to find the most intelligent ways to identify and stop those who are the source of terrorism obviously makes more sense than treating every American like a potential terrorist. But people like Navarette are willing to have everyone treated like a terrorist to prevent any obvious, but politically incorrect, distinctions being recognized based on gender, ethnicity or religion.
To Navarette's way of thinking, the open acknowledgement that Muslims are, indeed, more likely to engage in Islamofascist terrorism than, say, Jews is the thought that dare not speak its name.
How silly. If short, blue-eyed thirtysomething Christians were the demographic most likely to blow up an airplane, I'd be willing to submit to extra scrutiny -- and rather than objecting to the fact that not everyone is being subjected to the same inconvenience, my wrath would be directed at my co-religionists who were the source of the problem, rather than those who are trying to find efficient ways to respond to it.
"Equal protection of the laws" doesn't mean that everyone must be treated alike by the U.S. government at all times (as is obvious from the distinctions made in the conferral of government benefits). It simply means that the government can't decide to enforce the law against some, but not against others, simply because of who they (or their victims) are.
Trying to find the most intelligent ways to identify and stop those who are the source of terrorism obviously makes more sense than treating every American like a potential terrorist. But people like Navarette are willing to have everyone treated like a terrorist to prevent any obvious, but politically incorrect, distinctions being recognized based on gender, ethnicity or religion.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:02 AM
6 Comments:
Political Correctness equates to Less Freedom, Wasted $ and Less Security.
Hell yes I'm intolerant. I'm intolerant of scumbags trying to blow my ass up! I'm also intolerant of people like editor, who is more interested in smearing conservative bloggers than doing what is necessary, efficient and effective in combatting those scumbags trying to blow my ass up.
Profiling is NOT racist in and of itself. If that rich white neighborhood was being terrorized by black or Latino street gangs, why would the cops waste their time pulling over white kids? What's the point in doing so, if only the stated gang members are ever caught breaking the law? I would also state that I don't believe there was any such problem concerning all the black congresswomen, just the one idiot who thankfully has lost her gig. But as women change their appearance on a whim, ANY congresswoman, or man for that matter, alters their looks should expect to not be recognized, and keep their ID's at the ready.
And when white guys, neo-Nazis or whomever, start pulling crap, you can damn well believe people like Carol and other conservatives will be on board to do whatever it takes to deal with the problem. But wackjobs like yourself, eddy-boy, will still be getting in the way with your obstructionist ways.
I'm all for profiling.
It is simiply STUPID not to look for known characteristics when searching for terrorists or criminals. I guess that's why it's the official policy of liberals and Democrats.
I'll be tolerant of them when they are tolerant of my Christianity. They want to destroy our way of life, plain and simple, and that includes athiests, marxists, dittoheads, agnostics, evolutionists, humanists, and hippies. If you live in the most free and yes liberal democratic society ever on the face of the earth, then they want to blast you back to the 8th century where they are stuck on stupid.
That's just it, Cliff. eddy doesn't understand...much of anything.
I'd be more interested in stopping the ones who seem excedingly nervous, are talking to themselves, and holding their "sports drinks" like they are a bottle of nitroglycerin (or something even MORE unstable.)
Rather than stopping with the "professionalization" the corps of baggage screeners we already had--and by that I mean "giving them spiffy TSA uniforms"--we should have brought in some retired police detectives to watch the security lines. Guys like that are pretty good at the kind of profiling that matters: behavioral profiling.
Post a Comment
<< Home