A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Quick non-substantive aside. you can't keep calling me dense and stupid, then use "everyone." those 2 actions are contradictory.

What makes you dense is that you are continuing to argue the point even though there's no fundamental disagreement.

Or do you think the 89-year-old woman in the wheelchair from Salt Lake City should be searched just because she's Muslim?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Right now, sure. But 20 years ago we were worried about groups like the IRA, too. Who's to say another one ofehost won't come along?

One could. But its not like security for everyone is not tight and the next group probably won't be trying to kill everyone on board including themselves.

Even the PLO wasn't planning to kill everyone on board. They hijacked the planes to get their buddies out of jail or some other goal. Yes people got killed, but these new muslim terrorists are a whole new level. They just want to kill everyone, themselves and as many other Americans as they can. No negotiations, no media attention grabbing stunts, just kill as many people as possible.

We know that Al Queda is trying to kill as many Americans as possible. We also know what the profile of the average Al Queda recruit is. Why make it harder or possibly detrimental to ones career for using that profile when screening?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
One could. But its not like security for everyone is not tight and the next group probably won't be trying to kill everyone on board including themselves.

Even the PLO wasn't planning to kill everyone on board. They hijacked the planes to get their buddies out of jail or some other goal. Yes people got killed, but these new muslim terrorists are a whole new level. They just want to kill everyone, themselves and as many other Americans as they can. No negotiations, no media attention grabbing stunts, just kill as many people as possible.

We know that Al Queda is trying to kill as many Americans as possible. We also know what the profile of the average Al Queda recruit is. Why make it harder or possibly detrimental to ones career for using that profile when screening?

So, based on that, none of the hijacking information is relevant. What's relevant is whether you're al qaeda--that applies outside of the airport too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What makes you dense is that you are continuing to argue the point even though there's no fundamental disagreement.

Or do you think the 89-year-old woman in the wheelchair from Salt Lake City should be searched just because she's Muslim?

dimwit, i wasn't arguiing anything. i posted the list. i thought it might be interesting. as support that it could be interesting see the fact that another "non-dense" poster did the same.

since then I was only responding to burger's point about the relevence of foreign hijackings. burger continued to argue it, so unless I was whiffing and he wasn't serious there was some disagreement.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Our relations with Russia notwithstanding, I agree that it's hard to see into men's souls, and for similar reasons discount your claim to read Nancy Pelosi's mind.

She was trying to make a political point. She was trying to communicate with the public. If I have to read her mind to know what she is saying, then she was not doing a good job of getting her point across. And she wasn't intentionaly trying to be vague - she wasn't responding to a question by a reporter that she wanted to avoid - she chose to go and make this statement. She made a strong and clear statement. Religion should not be used as a profiling criteria.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In any event, I'm still not sure who you're arguing with, because no one on this board thinks that religion -- or national origin, etc. -- should be ignored in profiling.

Its the politics board. If there is not an argument you need to create one. Sidd isn't around so I have to pick up the void.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, based on that, none of the hijacking information is relevant. What's relevant is whether you're al qaeda--that applies outside of the airport too.

Do you think there are a lot of non-muslim Al Queda operatives? In that case, don't you think religion could be a helpful factor in deciding whom to search?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dimwit, i wasn't arguiing anything.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
isn't the danger in making it illegal to "profile" that it might chill some a cop from searching someone he thinks he should because of the fear that any Moslem they search could call profiling?

Whatever.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sidd isn't around so I have to pick up the void.

Somewhat apropos of this, this reminds me a little of the PB.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Somewhat apropos of this, this reminds me a little of the PB.

That was classic.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So searching muslims is over inclusive. Is it underinclusive?

Of course it's under inclusive.

How is the determination of who is "muslim" made?

Is it solely based on the individual's name? Wouldn't that miss Richard Reid, regardless of his appearance?

Or is the determination made on appearance plus name? Wouldn't that miss some (many?) Indonesian muslims?

And doesn't any of the pre-textual reasons miss the Irish girlfriend of the terrorist who puts a bomb in her luggage?

I'm all for using name+national origin+recent travels+destination+number of bags+shifty eyes+ragged appearance+whatever else to make a determination of who should be subject to scrutiny. But a determination by some dimwit TSA employee who thinks that anyone swarthier than their Italian neighbor and with a funny name (like, maybe, Yehudah) must be muslim is asinine.

[Spanky]

(it is interesting to note that these people are so attached to Walmart that they can only boycott it for one day).

Wal-Mart Contributes 5% of Online Sales to Homosexual Group

Wal-Mart has entered the culture war and, unfortunately, it has chosen to join the anti-family side.

In a strong show of support for homosexual marriage and other special rights for homosexuals, Wal-Mart has agreed to automatically donate 5% of online sales directly to the Washington, D.C. Community Center for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender People.

In addition to this cash donation, coming from online purchases made at Wal-Mart through the homosexual group’s website, Wal-Mart has also joined (and agreed to financially contribute to) the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Wal-Mart has also given a large cash donation to the Northwest Arkansas Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center, helping to provide a place for homosexuals to “socialize.”

Rather than being neutral in this particular culture war, Wal-Mart has chosen an alliance with the anti- family homosexual movement.

Because of Wal-Mart’s recent, pro-homosexual actions, the American Family Association (AFA) is asking for help to recruit 1,000,000 families who will agree to not shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club (owned by Wal-Mart) on the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving.

To sign AFA’s petition, letting Wal-Mart know that you will not be supporting their business the two days after Thanksgiving, go here.

To print and distribute a Wal-Mart Pass Along Sheet, published by the AFA, go here.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
She was trying to make a political point. She was trying to communicate with the public. If I have to read her mind to know what she is saying, then she was not doing a good job of getting her point across. And she wasn't intentionaly trying to be vague - she wasn't responding to a question by a reporter that she wanted to avoid - she chose to go and make this statement. She made a strong and clear statement. Religion should not be used as a profiling criteria.

:td:

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wasn't a couple involved in the attempted London hijacking attempting to put their baby on board with a bomb? Couldn't someone be wiring Granny to blow up?

If the old lady is a black muslim from Chicago, the chances of her blowing up the plane are almost nil. But if she is a naturalized muslim from Pakistan or Jordan, that is a different story.

But of course my analysis has used all sorts of non PC criteria. Religion, ethnicity and national origin.

That's part of why it is important to include a certain percentage of folks selected at random in the "intensive" screening along with the folks who trigger whatever criteria are used to create the security profiles.

Thus, searching Hank's 11 y/o daughter at the airport may seem silly in isolation, but makes perfect sense as part of systematic secuity program. (Of course, they're not so worried about the girl as about Mom and Dad.)

And, if you use national origin as one of the screening factors, you don't really need to include religion.

S_A_M

P.S. I get intensively screened every single time I end up with one way tickets. Never any other time (except in the week after 9/11).

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't know much about tasers, except they're supposed to be some sort of non-lethal force. I know that there's some evidence that they can kill people, and I know that they hurt like a motherfucker.

Should they be used to encourage compliance with a police order?

The video is here.

I tend to think that you generally do what the police ask you to do and sue them later, but then I'm not an obnoxious college student (anymore) and I grew up in Texas, where you're taught to respect the hell out of anyone in uniform*. But I also tend to think that people who join smaller police forces (like those dedicated to Universities) didn't somehow make the cut for "real" police and aren't really good about policework. They are, to me, a step up from rent-a-cops.

It seems to me, watching the video, that the cops here didn't know what to do with this kid and so they resorted to their tasers. It seems to me that there is no seeming difference between the cop beating the shit out of the guy with his baton and beating the shit out of the guy with electricity. The guy did seem to be resisting them, but as far as I could tell, they weren't arresting him, just escorting him off the property.

BTW, the student's name is Mostafa Tabatabainejad.


*I remember once encountering a cop out of state with a friend, and my friend was so irritated at me for my frequent use of the word "sir" in addressing the cop. Can't help it. It's habit. And I'm not the type that cops go out of their way to hassle.

Malkin's got a lot on this.

Two emails to her that she posted are, I think, rather enlightening:

Reader Joel e-mails:

I watched the taped you had posted on your blog about the UCLA officer. I am a police officer, as well as a trainer in situations similar to this.

What the officer did wrong was continue to ask the subject for compliance. I can tell by his (the officer’s) actions and his words that he is so afraid of doing the “wrong” thing that he has let the safety and well being of both himself and the others in the area become secondary. Police officers across the country are taught to take action quickly and most importantly “don’t’ do it like they do in California.” In other places without the PC police, that guy would have been jacked up and carried out in under 30 seconds, without tasers, noise, or video.

It is a very simple principle: 1+1… if a person uses one type of resistance, a police officer (even in California) is justified in using a force GREATER than that of the offender. If you say NO, then I can lay hands on you! If you fight, I can pepper spray, taser, even hit with a stick! If you have a knife or a club, I can shoot you.

Police officers that attempt to match a person’s resistance with the same amount of force all to often end up in litigation or dead.

I always ask new recruits, “Would you rather hit a person with your nightclub one time as hard as you can in the leg and gain control, OR hit him softly (the pc version) over and over until he gives up. Inevitably, new recruits are afraid to answer until I add…” don’t forget a TV camera is recording.” One solid strike is usually all it takes to gain compliance from someone like the offender in the video, and by the time that is over the folks with the cameras don’t even have time to push record.

Update: 8:37am...reader Andrew K. writes in:

I have been a long-time fan of your blog and am presently a freshman at UCLA. Clearly, the recent use of a Tazer by UCPD officers to subdue a student refusing to leave the library has caused quite a stir, and I thought I might provide you with a bit more information on the incident, as well as the zeitgeist of the campus.

First and foremost, I wish to clarify that, regardless of what some might attempt to claim, it is absurd to believe that Mr. Tabatabainejad was targeted based on his race or ethnicity. Random ID card checks are standard procedure in Powell Library after 11 PM, to ensure the safety of students. Furthermore, these checks were performed by Community Service Officers (CSOs), not UCPD officers. CSOs are UCLA students hired by UCPD to aide in security and service activities, and to support UCPD. Thus, Mr. Tabatabainejad was the subject of a very ordinary, very standard ID card check by his own, fellow students. He failed to produce an ID, so the CSOs requested he leave (as they would of anyone without an ID). Of course, the situation deteriorated from there and the chain of events from there is detailed (albeit in a rather biased manner) by the Daily Bruin.

It appear to me that the facts of this case speak for themselves in justifying the UCPD’s actions. In any case, I simply wished to stress that it is wholly fallacious to claim the Mr. Tabatabainejad was the target of racism or some kind of profiling.

The attitude towards the incident on campus is frankly difficult to judge. Clearly, my evaluation of the situation is somewhat biased, simply because I am a conservative Republican, and a large portion of my friends are as well. However, I believe that a substantial minority of students believe that the UCPD acted justly and that Mr. Tabatabainejad was so utterly unreasonable, and frankly dangerous, that the use of a Tazer was fully justified. Many of the students I have spoken to follow this line of reasoning and frankly have similar sentiments, in regards to supporting the UCPD officers.

Regrettably, we have a decided liberal bent here at UCLA, as most colleges nowadays do. This accompanies popular and common anti-authority beliefs which, in some of the more extreme cases, manifests as a bizarre anti-police attitude. Thankfully, these more extremist beliefs are not as commonly held as one might think, and there has not been a violently anti-authority reaction to the incident on campus. Nonetheless, a large portion of students (likely a majority) believes that the officers acted with "unreasonable or disproportionate force," and I have already seen posters and ads for civil rights protests and other associated anti-police nonsense (I'm frankly unsure which civil rights they plan to protest in support of. The right to resist arrest, perhaps?).

In any case, although a majority of students appear on the face of things to support Mr. Tabatabainejad, I do want the word to get out that most of these students are not frothing lunatic anarchists (though we certainly do have a few of those). Moreover, I want you and your readers to know that there is a very good sized minority of students here at UCLA who support the police in these matters and who support the rule of law. Despite the best efforts of a few of our professors, we're not all ultra-liberals here in college.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Malkin's got a lot on this.

Two emails to her that she posted are, I think, rather enlightening:

Reader Joel e-mails:



Update: 8:37am...reader Andrew K. writes in:

I don't understand why there's so much attention* about the race of the student. From the scientific poll taken at my West LA gym yesterday, the consensus was that the kid got tasered largely because the University cops didn't know what the fuck they were doing. As Tiny put it, "LA, man. Fuck."

Gattigap






* Wait -- we're talking about Malkin's blog. Never mind.