Or Timothy
Idiots:
Baptists, even.
Radio host Mike Gallagher recently said, “There should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed,” and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) raised the idea of profiling people based on their religions.
Baptists, even.
Labels: Republicans
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
9 Comments:
How would this be idiotic? Actually, it's likely to be an effective tactic.
Does it fly in the face of our societal attitudes about religion? Yup. Does profiling on such grounds make us queasy? Yup. However, it is a topic worthy of discussion. At day's end we need to decide whether the honoring of a hopeful ideal is worth the sacrifice of innocent lives.
PS - The "or Timothy" line merely shines a light on the reality that the additional scrutiny of Muslims, even if wise, is certainly not sufficient alone to make our world safe.
By
Tar Heelz, at 10:25 PM
Because it does not, in the least bit, make any aspect of our lives "safer."
All it does is give those among us who are easily manipulated into thinking there is a magic security blanket out there a scapegoat on which to project their fears.
There isn't. This is the sheerest and cheapest demagoguery, and you would hope that our highest elected officials would concentrate on, however marginally, making our world a better place.
Sigh.
By
Barry, at 10:37 PM
Ok. Sorry. Keep denying a link between [a religion that shall not be named] and terrorism in general and airliner terrorism in particular.
PS - Are the jokers you named gaming this for political purposes? Sure! (It doesn't however make their points idiotic.)
By
Tar Heelz, at 11:22 PM
How many Baptists have used prayer meetings to organize blowing up planes while shouting "Praise Jesus"?
By
Locomotive Breath, at 5:50 PM
You could pull aside Akbar, Mohammed and Jeff all you want.
They'll just get good at giving the right answers.
Profiling feels good, but it's not the most effective policing method.
What pisses me off is the FREE PASS given to laid-back Dutch authorities. If the plane took off from GERMANY (that's right, GERMANY), the GERMAN's aggressive "pat down" techniques would have found the load attached to the would-be terrorist's Johnson.
Just sayin'.
To review:
Aggressive.
Pat-down.
Technique.
Works better than profiling every time.
Grab a nad. Find a bomb.
By
Tony, at 9:10 PM
Okay, I spelled something wrong.
It should read:
The GERMAN aggressive "pat down"...
By
Tony, at 9:12 PM
So let's see.
We have a national security apparatus comprised of the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, the NSA, the TSA, the HSA, the Border Patrol, probably another half dozen federal agencies, countless state and local authorities, all of which we spend, at minimum, half a trillion dollars a year on, and the best solution we can come up with is to do full body cavity searches on guys named Mohammed and Abdul before they get on the plane?
fine.
If that makes you feel safe, then let's do it.
but maybe we can take that $500 billion (or more) every year and spend it on something useful, like affordable health care for every American, or repairing our century old water and sewer infrastructure. If that's too commie for you guys, maybe we use it to pay down the national debt, which hasn't been reduced since Clinton was President.
Jesus Christ on a crutch, i've pretty much had with morons.
By
Barry, at 9:15 AM
The last time I flew back to the States from Amsterdam (2005, I think) it was the most scrutiny I'd undergone before boarding a plane, anywhere in the world, ever. They were certainly more polite and professional than their American counterparts, but they were very thorough and not "laid back" (esp. for being Dutch!)
There is absolutely no way to prevent a determined individual (or at least all determined individuals) from doing bad things on planes. The only post-9/11 developments that have contributed to increased security are 1) reinforced cockpit doors, and 2) the fact that passengers now know that complying with hijackers is a very bad idea. Everything else is security theater, and at tremendous expense (both in direct spending and the deadweight drain on people's time and productivity.)
Our psychotic need for the illusion of absolute security is the greatest gift we can give to any terrorist.
By
Brian, at 3:38 PM
One of the things Al-Qaeda hates about us is our freedoms. They are doing a great job, with help from the fear-mongering Right, at reducing or eliminating them.
Seriously is an increase in your safety of 0.00001% worth loosing your privacy and having to submit to full body searches when you want to travel to Grandma's house? Not to mention Grandma has to submit to them, and wouldn't that be a dream job for a pedophile? Patting down children? Let's get some perspective people!
By
Bad Kitty, at 5:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home