All Hank, all the time.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is the crux of the whole debate. When the profile of a likely terrorist is being compiled, can ethnicity be one of the criteria they use? So far I think (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) you are the only one that doesn't think so.

I am saddened by that, but not swayed.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Hispanic isn't a race, it's an ethnicity. Speaking of which, where does it say what ethnicity you are on your passport? Because mine's pretty unclear on that, and I'm not really sure what it'd say if ethnicity were to be identified. Texan-Mexican-Polish-Italian? Same goes for my drivers license. And I've never seen the "ethnicity" section when I'm filling out my creditcard information at Southwest.com. Ditto for all of the above on religion.

Do we have to prove ethnicity back to our grandparents, or is parents enough? What if our grandparents are dead? Is an affidavit from my father saying my grandfather was an 9th generation Texan enough? What if we were born here, but English isn't our first language? If we were confirmed but haven't been to mass in 20 years do we still click off "Roman Catholic"?

You don't need to worry. You're an aristocratic Mexican. Them are the good kind.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Gotta admit, it's a good way to get out of a Thai prison. I can't imagine that was much fun.

That's pretty much what I figured was going on all along.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Not really. He was never going to get control of the plane. The biggest threat is conspiracies. Like with 9-11 or what happened in Britain. To be successful it takes many players, and they have to coordinate. Such organizations don't just spring up spontaneously. You need a whole group of people that have a common ideology.

It is in uncovering such conspiracies that profiling - especially ethnic profiling - is so important.

I see. What you're saying then is that we don't need to worry about catching lone terrorists. Okay.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I have repeatedly said that I do not have a fundamental objection to profiling.

I am only trying to point out the practical problems -- one, that it can be so broad as to be meaningless, and two, that it can and likely would become the dispositive factor so that a guy who actually intends to blow up a plane doesn't get extra scrutiny because, well, he looks white and has a british name.

So, what the hell is my point? My point is that your test misses the one guy we know about who has actually boarded a plane with explosives and the intent to use them in recent years. What the hell is your point?

Who ever said anything about a test? I never said there was a test. I was just trying to defend ethnic and religious profiling. You were attacking my defense of ethnic and religious profiling (instead of pointing out the practical problems) so it would seem logical that you were attacking ethnic and religious profiling.

And as far as your "practical points" which you say are not arguments against ethnic and religious profiling, didn't I already say that everyone gets checked randomly and that ethnic and religious profiling would be added to the other profiles they already use (like nervous people, one way tickets etc). Its like you are saying that I was implying that ethnic and religious profiling would be the only profiling used, and such profiling would make the system perfect. I never said either of those things making your points irrelevent.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And to answer your other question (since you are following ppnyc's mode of responding to the same post twice) -- according to the BBC, the explosive in Reid's shoes may have been powerful enough to destroy the plane -- it's not entirely clear. But, c'mon -- if you can get on board without being searched, it can't be too hard.



link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1783237.stm

I don't know why were are discussing him in the first place. He was brought up to show that ethnic and religious profiling do not help. His example did not do that because I never said that it would be the only tool used, and I never said it would make the system better, not perfect. So if he does not show that religious and ethnic profiling does not help, then why are we still discussing him?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
So if you are getting on a plane, and six guys who are traveling together and are speaking Arabic (and have thick accents when using English) to eachother are getting on your plane, you don't want them to have a little more scrutiny?

If you do what them scrutinized more then what the hell is your point?

If not ( I think you are lying) don't you think they will be more likely to mess with the plane than your average passenger?

I think that if you're following this line of reasoning you're a bit of an asshole.

Note that you haven't said anything about where they are from, where they are going, their age, their demeanor, whether or not they have carry-on bags, or anything else other than the fact that they are Arabs.

In other words, you have pretty much laid waste to all your protestations that their ethnicity is just one factor in a profile. Of course, pretty much all your posts on the subject, when read carefully, have made it clear that you are saying the mere fact of their ethnicity is enough for you to label Arab males suspect.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that statistic is utterly irrelevant compared to the fact that there are far more Arabs don't blow up planes (hi Hank!) than Arabs that do. As a consequence, to suggest that Arabs are more likely, because they are Arabs, to be terrorists, is to act upon prejudice and not reason.

That has got to be the dumbest statements any one has ever made on this board. Did you ever take statistic in college (or hell did you pass fourth grade math)?

Not all Arabs are Muslim. But is it prejudicial (or with out reason) to say that an Arab is more likely to be Muslim than a Frenchman. Or that an Arab is more likely to commence on the Haj than a Frenchman - of course not. That is just a fact.

Of course there are more Arabs that don't blow up planes than do. Otherwise there wouldn't be any planes left. But, like I said, more Arabs blow up planes per capita, than Norwegians. So it is a fact, all other factors being equal, that an Arab is more likely to blow up a plane than a Frenchman. Just like it is a fact that you are I are more likely to be serial killers than an African American women.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think that if you're following this line of reasoning you're a bit of an asshole.

I would rather be that than dumber than a lump of paste.

Originally posted by taxwonk Note that you haven't said anything about where they are from, where they are going, their age, their demeanor, whether or not they have carry-on bags, or anything else other than the fact that they are Arabs.

I didn't have to.

Originally posted by taxwonk
In other words, you have pretty much laid waste to all your protestations that their ethnicity is just one factor in a profile. Of course, pretty much all your posts on the subject, when read carefully, have made it clear that you are saying the mere fact of their ethnicity is enough for you to label Arab males suspect.

Who said anything about suspects? If you are saying that you would feel fine getting on a plane with a group of Arab males, who have thick accents, between the ages of fifteen and sixty, without them getting an extra search, as you would feel with their Norwegian counterparts (all other factors being the same), you are lying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was just trying to defend ethnic and religious profiling.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of what you mean by "profiling."

[Spanky]

The Religious Right is not Happy with Arnold. Cry me a river.

Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Targeting People of Faith
SB 1441 an Assault on Freedom of Organized Religion, Religious Schools

Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1441 (Kuehl-D) into law today. SB 1441 would require all businesses and organizations receiving funding from the state to condone homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality or lose state funding. There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions.

“This isn’t even a veiled attempt at subtly advancing the radical homosexual agenda,” stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “SB 1441 is an outright, blatant assault on religious freedom in California.”

This legislation will prevent parochial schools, such as private, Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and many other religious universities, from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a student code of conduct preventing behavior deemed immoral by their religious beliefs. By withholding state funding from schools, students’ educational opportunities will be severely limited. And limiting educational opportunities will result in a less diverse, less educated citizenry.

“As a citizen of California and a religious person, I am terribly disappointed in Governor Schwarzenegger,” stated Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. “It is bad public policy to add to the list of protected classes a sexual behavior. Equating sexual preference with the immutable characteristics of age, national origin or race will result in other variable behaviors being added to the list of invariable classes rightfully protected.”

Forcing private education institutions to accept students engaged in behavior offensive to the school’s moral code is a serious infringement of the constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

“This bill is yet another attempt to prevent citizens with moral and religious principles from expressing their beliefs and educating their children according to those beliefs,” continued England. “On behalf of California families, private schools and other private organization, I express our outrage at this attack on our freedom. Unfortunately for California families, there are several other radical homosexual bills heading towards the Governor’s desk.”

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm still waiting for an explanation of what you mean by "profiling."

What is wrong with what I posted earlier where I used your definition:

Originally posted by Spanky
I kind of liked your definition: Where the "government (pays) more attention to people who are more likely to pose a threat and pay less attention to people who are less likely to pose a threat".

Profiling is coming up with a likely description of a person who is more likely to highjack a flight (or as you say, pose a threat). Nervous, figity, muslim, one way ticket, Middle Eastern descent, flying without children or wife, flying in groups of males etc. If someone has a few of those characteristics they get searched more thoroughly, if most of them, a full interrogation.

[Spanky]

If you notice, the final thing Karen England said was:

"Unfortunately for California families, there are several other radical homosexual bills heading towards the Governor’s desk.”

I can hardly wait.

P.S. I have never understood why the so called Homosexual agenda is anti-family. Can someone explain it to me? Maybe one of my more conservative bretheren. Slave? Penske?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is wrong with what I posted earlier where I used your definition:

I don't think it's much of a definition. I don't think anyone here disagrees with it. What do you think we're arguing about?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you notice, the final thing Karen England said was:

"Unfortunately for California families, there are several other radical homosexual bills heading towards the Governor’s desk.”

I can hardly wait.

P.S. I have never understood why the so called Homosexual agenda is anti-family. Can someone explain it to me? Maybe one of my more conservative bretheren. Slave? Penske?

Islam is to women as Bible Belt Fundamentalism is to homosexuals.

I don't subscribe to the notion that gay-haters have latent sexual confusion. I just think they're the sort of people who want you to think their way.

How great would our world be if the 20 % of people always trying to force others to live by their idea of what's good or best for everyone minded their own motherfucking business?

I am a bigot. If you have a moral agenda you want enforced on anybody else, regardless of their beliefs, I don't want you sitting on the bus with my kids, working near me, drinking from the same water fountains or going to the same theatres. Those people deserve some serious fucking discrimination. It should be written into our Constitution that one must be libertarian on all minor moral issues, such as where another person likes to shove his cock...

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be a moron. I didn't say that. Try reading my posts for a change.

just a thought. after 5 years of having to write this same basic post to a half dozen different people, it might be time to look in the mirror. no offense.