tso-d_chris 0 #26 August 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhen asked why American airlines suffer more security lapses and actual attacks than their Israeli counterparts, the Israeli answer is that Americans look for bombs while Israelis look for bombers. Which do you think is more effective? Banning zippo lighters and nail clippers and searching 80 year old Texan medal of honor winners, or paying a little more attention to people who fit a profile (of which race, nationality, ancestry, religion and other things are a part)? Timothy McVeigh was a white American war hero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #27 August 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteNope. It's not OK to put all blacks in jail because you believe that will save lives. Who said anything about putting people in jail? Who said anything about ONLY using race to profile for security? If the people blowing themselves up pretty much all fit a certain profile (coming from a jihad country, middle eastern, chechen, whatever), why is it a bad thing to pay a little more attention? Is it better to put a focus on what we're looking for or to just be totally random? If the people NOT fitting those profiles are still randomly searched as they are now... how are we worse off? The old mindset of "We would ONLY look at arabs if we profile" will guarantee that we pretty much do nothing different than we're doing now. Unless you can figure out how to have every airline passenger and everyone coming into the country interviewed and searched completely... Well then, how bout profiling white, right wing, gun loving, neocons? They are angry, aggressive and willing to trample the right of others for what they believe. They are passionate about owning guns, gun powder and associated paraphanalia? jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #28 August 25, 2005 Quote>Using race to identify people in one case, and not being allowed to >use race to identify people in another. Doctors use race to decide whether to treat people with specific drugs, and to decide on what treatments to pursue. That is literally racist, but as it helps save lives, I don't think you're going to see people protesting it. Actually, I take that back. This is the USA; of course someone will protest it. I'm not sure that it is. Defining the term "racism" seems to like defining the term "porn", in that it often leads to an "I know what it is when I see it" kind of mentality. Most people that scream "racism" seem to feel that it consists of a race-based action or judgement that has negative consequences for the recipient. Giving people better medical care by taking race into account, e.g., sickle cell anemia screenings and high blood pressure screenings for blacks, probably would not be seen as racist by most people. Great observation on the possibility of people protesting it in the US! Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #29 August 25, 2005 QuoteWell then, how bout profiling white, right wing, gun loving, neocons? They are angry, aggressive and willing to trample the right of others for what they believe. They are passionate about owning guns, gun powder and associated paraphanalia? jen Not a bad idea, except that many, if not most of us routinely have background checks, drug tests, etc. done on us because of our jobs and/or concealed handgun licenses, etc. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #30 August 25, 2005 > If you go back and read my posts you'll see I'm advocating what >you called "using your brain". You seem to keep pushing to make it > sound like I'm only wanting to base this on race. Stop that. I've >said "fit the profile (meaning more than just race)" how many times > now? If you are profiling for a guy who fits the description of a recent suspect, you are not doing racial profiling, you're looking for a suspect. Doesn't matter if they are white, black, male, female etc. If you are going after all arab 18-40 year old males, you are. If you are smart enough to use your brain rather than stick to an easy-to-defeat profile, then good for you! You won't be fooled by terrorists that use the 'safe' profile to try to get past you. >You want to run everyone through a full check, fine by me. I'll bring > a book to the airport and when I pass through customs. You'll find > plenty of people who will argue against that though for various > personal and financial reasons. I have no doubt of that. People will often support a new security measure as long as it doesn't affect them. That's one reason there's so much support for racial profiling - it won't affect non-Arabs, or at least the typical traveler perceives it that way. >You don't think El Al looks closer at an Arab than an Israeli of >european descent? I'd be surprised if they didn't. El Al looked quite closely at me, and I look a lot more Irish than Arab. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #31 August 25, 2005 QuoteWell then, how bout profiling white, right wing, gun loving, neocons? They are angry, aggressive and willing to trample the right of others for what they believe. They are passionate about owning guns, gun powder and associated paraphanalia? jen I am not angry, nor aggressive and I am not willing to trample anyones rights as enumerated by the constitution. Yes, I am passionate about owning guns. What does that mean? Do you own a car? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 August 25, 2005 Quote Well then, how bout profiling white, right wing, gun loving, neocons? They are angry, aggressive and willing to trample the right of others for what they believe. They are passionate about owning guns, gun powder and associated paraphanalia? jen Use projection, much?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #33 August 25, 2005 Profiling gun owners would bring about a drop in crime? You haven't really done your research on gun lovers. If you had, you would realize that folks who obtain guns legally - especially those of us that are licensed to carry concealed weapons - don't really commit crimes very often. Extremely rarely in fact. 'tis the guns that are obtained ILLEGALLY that are used to commit crimes, which is why gun control laws simply do not work when it comes to reducing crime levels. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #34 August 25, 2005 QuoteReminds me of an old comment about airline hijackings. [this is paraphrased] QuoteWhen asked why American airlines suffer more security lapses and actual attacks than their Israeli counterparts, the Israeli answer is that Americans look for bombs while Israelis look for bombers. Which do you think is more effective? Banning zippo lighters and nail clippers and searching 80 year old Texan medal of honor winners, or paying a little more attention to people who fit a profile (of which race, nationality, ancestry, religion and other things are a part)? So you suggest targeting people of the same race as Tim McVeigh? Or Basques, and the Irish Catholics? Don't think that will be popular.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #35 August 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteWell then, how bout profiling white, right wing, gun loving, neocons? They are angry, aggressive and willing to trample the right of others for what they believe. They are passionate about owning guns, gun powder and associated paraphanalia? jen Not a bad idea, except that many, if not most of us routinely have background checks, drug tests, etc. done on us because of our jobs and/or concealed handgun licenses, etc. Walt Pretty much like postal workers, eh? ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #36 August 25, 2005 QuoteProfiling gun owners would bring about a drop in crime? You haven't really done your research on gun lovers. If you had, you would realize that folks who obtain guns legally - especially those of us that are licensed to carry concealed weapons - don't really commit crimes very often. Extremely rarely in fact. 'tis the guns that are obtained ILLEGALLY that are used to commit crimes, which is why gun control laws simply do not work when it comes to reducing crime levels. I have nothing against guns or gun owners. My whole family are cops (Father, both brothers and my sister-in-law). I grew up with guns and my Dad started giving me lessons when I was eight. I own three and go to an indoor range just about every week and an outdoor range every couple of months. I seldom leave the house without one. It's the white, right wing, angry, aggressive freedom trampling neocons who own guns (and oil companies) that we need to watch out for. jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #37 August 25, 2005 QuoteQuote Well then, how bout profiling white, right wing, gun loving, neocons? They are angry, aggressive and willing to trample the right of others for what they believe. They are passionate about owning guns, gun powder and associated paraphanalia? jen Use projection, much? ?????? Projection: Projection is one of the defense mechanisms identified by Freud and still acknowledged today. According to Freud, projection is when someone is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these impulses to someone else. For example, a person in psychoanalysis may insist to the therapist that he knows the therapist wants to rape some women, when in fact the client has these awful feelings to rape the woman.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 August 25, 2005 QuoteIt's the white, right wing, angry, aggressive freedom trampling neocons who own guns (and oil companies) that we need to watch out for. As opposed to the left wing, pacifist, passive-aggressive rights-destroying liberals who (seemingly) only react on feeling? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 August 25, 2005 From the link: QuoteProjection About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1 How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #40 August 25, 2005 Does it say anything about penis envy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 August 25, 2005 Not that I recall, but I'm sure I recall someone referring to that, recently... the misquote of Freud, that is....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #42 August 25, 2005 >Profiling gun owners would bring about a drop in crime? Makes about as much sense as profiling arabs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 August 25, 2005 Quote>Profiling gun owners would bring about a drop in crime? Makes about as much sense as profiling arabs. you mean taking pictures of them from the side? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #44 August 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell then, how bout profiling white, right wing, gun loving, neocons? They are angry, aggressive and willing to trample the right of others for what they believe. They are passionate about owning guns, gun powder and associated paraphanalia? jen Not a bad idea, except that many, if not most of us routinely have background checks, drug tests, etc. done on us because of our jobs and/or concealed handgun licenses, etc. Walt Pretty much like postal workers, eh? Ok, I have to admit that you get the prize for one very clever response! I have no clue what the root cause of the whole "going postal" thing is, but my best guess is that it is the result of a very hostile work environment that in some case, has sent marginally sane people way over the edge. Kind of a special set of circumstances here. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #45 August 25, 2005 Far, far less, actually. What percentage of legal gun owners commit violent crimes? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #46 August 25, 2005 >What percentage of legal gun owners commit violent crimes? A small percentage. Larger than the percentage of arabs who are terrorists, I'd be willing to bet. There are a lot of arabs in the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #47 August 25, 2005 QuoteA small percentage. Larger than the percentage of arabs who are terrorists, I'd be willing to bet. There are a lot of arabs in the world. But a slightly larger percentage of terrorists are people coming from jihad countries. And by slightly I mean significantly. Look, until it is feasible to search the entire haystack for bad guys, what is the problem with increasing scrutiny on one section of it while maintaining your usual search through the rest of it? Notice I didn't say ignore everyone else... again. And since the US does have quite a few pictures and descriptions of actual terrorists... looking at people matching those descriptions isn't racial profiling then is it? Bill, ideally... we would increase security across the board: borders, customs, airlines, ships, etc. I don't think anyone will argue that that is a bad idea. (nevermind someone will) UNTIL then, it makes sense to look for people who match a profile of the people who have caused us harm in the past WHILE maintaining scrutiny on everyone else as it is. Even Bill Mahr agrees with that.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 August 25, 2005 In a Utopia Mecca where unlimited funds are available to check every single person, your ideas would be admirable. However, given the Real World cold reality of a budget and somewhat limited funds, I'd rather they be spent in the most effective (bang for the buck) way. If thats going to entail racial profiling, so be it. While you can argue there are Left and Right Wing wackos out there blowing up abortion clinics, sending mail bombs and blowing up Federal Buildings, I can't recall a single incident of them using an airplane as a bomb. So yes, I think it's OK to racially profile if thats going to yield the greatest chance of stopping a terrorist attack. I also don't want limited Homeland Security Funds being spent to check everyone, if thats going to increase the odds of uncovering an attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #49 August 25, 2005 >In a Utopia Mecca where unlimited funds are available to check every > single person, your ideas would be admirable. ?? Estimates to search every passenger on every airline flight run about 2 billion a year. We spend about 50 billion a year on the Iraq war; one of the revised goals of the war is to "keep us safe from terrorism." If you can accomplish that goal with 4% of the money we spend on Iraq why wouldn't you? Or you can choose not to; that's fine. But then we should admit it. "We want the war; we don't really want airline security." In which case just apply the lesser security to everyone. We'll lose an airplane once in a while, but it will be cheap and easy and won't cut into war funding. >If thats going to entail racial profiling, so be it. Racial profiling (the real definition, not the PC definition) will decrease the effectiveness of our security by leaving intentional holes in it. >I can't recall a single incident of them using an airplane as a bomb. Let's go with this line of thinking. "I can't recall a single incident of any terrorist using an MD-80 as a bomb. So clearly we shouldn't search passengers on MD-80's. We should stick to the known profiles, and that means searching passengers only on 757's and 767's." That would save money too! And I'm sure the terrorists would never figure it out and switch airplanes. >I also don't want limited Homeland Security Funds being spent to > check everyone, if thats going to increase the odds of uncovering an > attack. That's fine. Don't check everyone, save money, and live with the greater odds of not discovering an impending attack. But for god's sake don't complain about it afterwards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #50 August 25, 2005 QuoteDoes it say anything about penis envy? I differ with Freud on the concept of penis envy. I don't think it's limited to women. jen----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
