All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, the whole point of racial profiling is to use knee-jerk reaction as opposed to reason. It's easier to target a whole ethnic/religious/racial/national/group than it is to use discretion and reasoning to isolate those most likely to represent a risk.

Racial profiling is not a knee Jerk reaction. The Knee Jerk reaction is to not use racial profiling. Racial profiling is part of a whole set of profiling criteria. Of course you check people who look nervous etc. But racial profiling is just one profile used among many. Is it reasonable to check males of Middle Eastern Descent? What is unreasonable is to not check males of Middle Easter Descent because you are worried about some ridiculous PC concept.

Originally posted by taxwonk
And actually, the more I read what people have to say, the more I become opposed to it. I guess my answer is yes, after all. I do oppose racial profiling. If we are going to search ten year old Arab boys and girls, then we should search Georgia Cracker grandmas.

The whole point of racial profiling is to act on reason. Searching little kids is not acting more reasonably because you are not using a good profile. The little kids get searched when you are being forced to act randomly instead of profiling. Wouldn't you agree that it would make sense to search the young Middle Eastern males between the age of fifteen and fifty? Wouldn't you agree that they are more likely to be terrorists? Of course, they probably aren't, and it is possible that the grandmother from Des Moines is, but you need to go with the odds. Isn't that what is reasonable? Racial, religious, ethnic and religious profiling are all tools added to the arsenal. To take them out of the arsenal is just plain stupid.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Thanks folks, for helping me regain some pride in being an American.

I knew it was too much to expect for some people on this board to acknowledge the painfully obvious.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm pretty sure SHP and Spanky would agreed that an Arab with a note of reference from a white person could get a pass on the screening.

Depends. Does the white person drive an SUV? If so, the Arab gets a thorough going over, since their reference obviously loves Osama.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Its a waste of time seraching 99.99% of the people who go through the process. But until the screeners can read minds they have to work with the resources that they have. To not use racial profiling is not using the resources that they have.

Frankly, I think it should be similar to affirmative action. Ethnicity should certainly be a factor, but not the only factor in making the decision on who to screen.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Depends. Does the white person drive an SUV? If so, the Arab gets a thorough going over, since their reference obviously loves Osama.

Just filled it up this morning. So comfortable. Sometimes, I just drive around in it listening to music. Did I mention how great the A/C unit in the thing is?

Best money I ever spent.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
So if there are hundred people entering onto a plane and six are males from Lebanon with their six wives who are wearing headscarf’s and the other eighty eight are all Caucasian Christians from Midwest - , who gets the extra search - should it be random?

Give me a break. Of course those twelve people from Lebanon may hate Islamofascists more than I do. They may even have had relatives killed by Islamofascists. But that is beside the point.

The point is probabilities. The odds that the Midwesterners are terrorists is probably one in one hundred million and the odds of the Lebanese being terrorists are one in one hundred thousand. The safety of travelers is increased when you accept that those are how the statistics work and you don't sit in denial of them.

What do you think the odds are of the next terrorist attack on an airliner being done by a person who is not a male of Middle Eastern descent? Doesn't it makes sense to keep searching all males of Middle Eastern descent. Yes you will give extra searches to a lot of innocent people, but you will be a lot safer.

The more you talk about how reasonable it is, the worse it sounds.

And as for statistics:

Timothy McVeigh
John Walker Lindh
John Reed

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Racial profiling is not a knee Jerk reaction. The Knee Jerk reaction is to not use racial profiling. Racial profiling is part of a whole set of profiling criteria. Of course you check people who look nervous etc. But racial profiling is just one profile used among many. Is it reasonable to check males of Middle Eastern Descent? What is unreasonable is to not check males of Middle Easter Descent because you are worried about some ridiculous PC concept.



The whole point of racial profiling is to act on reason. Searching little kids is not acting more reasonably because you are not using a good profile. The little kids get searched when you are being forced to act randomly instead of profiling. Wouldn't you agree that it would make sense to search the young Middle Eastern males between the age of fifteen and fifty? Wouldn't you agree that they are more likely to be terrorists? Of course, they probably aren't, and it is possible that the grandmother from Des Moines is, but you need to go with the odds. Isn't that what is reasonable? Racial, religious, ethnic and religious profiling are all tools added to the arsenal. To take them out of the arsenal is just plain stupid.




I knew it was too much to expect for some people on this board to acknowledge the painfully obvious.

And the only reason there are more Blacks than Whites in prison is because the Blacks commit more crimes. So, if I'm a cop in Rancho Mirage and I see a balck male in his 20s, it only makes sense for me to stop and search him, right?

I mean, sure, he is an American and he theoretically has the same rights as the rest of us, but you can't ignore statitstics, can you? How else are we gonna keep the White women safe?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Frankly, I think it should be similar to affirmative action. Ethnicity should certainly be a factor, but not the only factor in making the decision on who to screen.

Like Communism, in theory that works. As we know in practice, you end up with separate buckets and the assessment is made solely on race/ethnicity. In other words, don't search all muslims, but search the suspicious-looking ones.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
SUVs are evil and aid terrorists.

Your position is shortsighted:

1. As long as they have oil, the Middle East will be a major problem for the rest of the world;

2. The only way to rid them of their oil is to use it up;

3. Driving an ultra-economical car actually prolongs the Middle East's oil supply, thus prolonging its strangehold on us, and prolonging our use of the fossil fuel;

4. Driving a Prius gives comfort to the regimes that aid terrorists.

We can either slowly kill off the oil supply over many years, or use it with abandon and kill off the supply more quickly. I say the sooner we rob the Arabs of their stranglehold over the world, the better.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your position is shortsighted:

1. As long as they have oil, the Middle East will be a major problem for the rest of the world;

2. The only way to rid them of their oil is to use it up;

3. Driving an ultra-economical car actually prolongs the Middle East's oil supply, thus prolonging its strangehold on us, and prolonging our use of the fossil fuel;

4. Driving a Prius gives comfort to the regimes that aid terrorists.

We can either slowly kill off the oil supply over many years, or use it with abandon and kill off the supply more quickly. I say the sooner we rob the Arabs of their stranglehold over the world, the better.

Are you a R member of Congress? Because this sounds suspiciously like current economic policy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are you a R member of Congress? Because this sounds suspiciously like current economic policy.

It's obviously a half-joke, but after I wrote it, I realized it's no less valid a response than that offered by the crowds screaming for a ban of SUVs. If we all bought Priuses tomorrow, the Middle East (and out own archaic energy policies) would never change.

The anti-SUVers would probably counter that there's no reason we can't change our energy policies without first having to run the planet out of oil. I disagree. China and India will just pick up the slack our decreased consumption creates.

I guess the anti-SUVers' next argument would be that reckless consumption over a short period of time would hurt the environment much more than minimal consumption over a longer period. I don't know whether that argument holds water, or if it could be proven or disproven based on the obvious lack of previous instances to use for scientific comparison.

I do know this. My half-joke is worth making to the next Prius driver who accuses you of aiding terrorists. If for no other reason than to amuse yourself with his response...

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's obviously a half-joke, but after I wrote it, I realized it's no less valid a response than that offered by the crowds screaming for a ban of SUVs. If we all bought Priuses tomorrow, the Middle East (and out own archaic energy policies) would never change.

The anti-SUVers would probably counter that there's no reason we can't change our energy policies without first having to run the planet out of oil. I disagree. China and India will just pick up the slack our decreased consumption creates.

I guess the anti-SUVers' next argument would be that reckless consumption over a short period of time would hurt the environment much more than minimal consumption over a longer period. I don't know whether that argument holds water, or if it could be proven or disproven based on the obvious lack of previous instances to use for scientific comparison.

I do know this. My half-joke is worth making to the next Prius driver who accuses you of aiding terrorists. If for no other reason than to amuse yourself with his response...

I drive an SUV. I'm not happy about it, but I'd end up spending a hell of a lot more on car payments than I do on gas if I bought a new car.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I drive an SUV. I'm not happy about it, but I'd end up spending a hell of a lot more on car payments than I do on gas if I bought a new car.

You never need an SUV until that day you're leaving a concert or a football game and the difference between being home in a half hour or two hours is being able to drive over a concrete median or barriers. It's also a lifesaver if you're stuck behind an accident you could get around by pulling off the road through a ditch and driving through some grass. My wife's got a low to the ground car, and I always feel trapped in it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I drive an SUV. I'm not happy about it, but I'd end up spending a hell of a lot more on car payments than I do on gas if I bought a new car.

This is what amazed me. People gripe about gas prices all the time. But how much do you spend on gas a year? Sure, if you drive 20k miles/year, it starts to matter. But even at 20k miles, if you get 20mpg, you're looking at 1000 gallons/year. That's $3000. But if gas were a dollar less, you're saving only $1000. Is that significant? Sure, but it's not the end of the world. And if you're driving 20k miles, it's probably for business, and you're making some money. And if you're not making money, but driving that much, you probably have a car getting better mileage.

To me, the price of gas is nearly irrelevant. I take public transit, so drive less than 10k/year. And I get 25mpg. I buy maybe 300-400 gallons a year. That's a nice dinner out I'm saving, or maybe two nice dinners. per year.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You never need an SUV until that day you're leaving a concert or a football game and the difference between being home in a half hour or two hours is being able to drive over a concrete median or barriers. It's also a lifesaver if you're stuck behind an accident you could get around by pulling off the road through a ditch and driving through some grass. My wife's got a low to the ground car, and I always feel trapped in it.

RT-you could use sebby's spin ability to explain your offroading.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This is what amazed me. People gripe about gas prices all the time. But how much do you spend on gas a year? Sure, if you drive 20k miles/year, it starts to matter. But even at 20k miles, if you get 20mpg, you're looking at 1000 gallons/year. That's $3000. But if gas were a dollar less, you're saving only $1000. Is that significant? Sure, but it's not the end of the world. And if you're driving 20k miles, it's probably for business, and you're making some money. And if you're not making money, but driving that much, you probably have a car getting better mileage.

To me, the price of gas is nearly irrelevant. I take public transit, so drive less than 10k/year. And I get 25mpg. I buy maybe 300-400 gallons a year. That's a nice dinner out I'm saving, or maybe two nice dinners. per year.

Yeah, I love how all the car places are advertising "bring in your car to get this overhaul to increase your mileage" and it's only going to bump up the mileage a teeny increment, and the $$ saved on gas by doing that is way less than the cost of the service.