"It doesn't bother me," said Davon Campbell, 24, a security worker who waited about four minutes while an officer rifled through his rolling suitcase and two shoulder bags at a station in the Bronx. "I can understand why they're doing it. It's important."
Ron Freeman, 25, a stockbroker whose backpack was searched, said, "They should have done this a long time ago, ever since 9/11."
And Amy Wilson, 28, said the officers' work "makes me feel safer. I like knowing they're here."
Alright class, for your pop quiz, tell me who is the biggest moron? Is it, A) Davon, B) Ron, C) Amy, or D) all of the above? On a personal note, I think Amy is the biggest cretin for using the "safety" buzzword. There are no wrong answers children, just like in my senior relgion class. Anyway, I'll explain why they I feel they are clueless in a bit--if it's not already obvious that is.
Police had promised there would be no racial profiling, and when a woman in what looked like Muslim dress was selected by Officer Richard Dixon, he said he was simply picking "every fifth person with a bag." The woman wouldn't comment.
It's certainly okay to disagree with this whole practice of searches. It certainly seems unconstitutional to me--even if the constitution wasn't supposed to be applied to the states... alright I'll drop it--and the ACLU agrees. But an honest person has to admit that this policy is going to analogous to a screendoor on a submarine without profiling, unequivocally useless. Every fifth person? Are they kidding? I'm not sure which is the bigger surprise, that one can read this from an AP story or that the city of New York actually thinks this is a good idea.
Besides being another illustration of why invasive government is bad--this preposterous idea shouldn't have ever seen the light of day, and it wouldn't if the government ran like a business, that is to say, well--it proves why modern "liberalism" is so bankrupt. Now, we should all be able to agree that killing all the Muslims--as some nutjobs might suggest--is an abhorrent idea. Yet it is also a bad idea to not profile. It is stupid not to profile.
To continue our quiz: how many non-Muslims have committed terror in this country? How many non-Middle-Easterners have committed terror in this country? None. That is interesting. But that would mean... we shouldn't stop old white ladies and should go after Middle-Easterners and Muslims? That's not very tolerant. Hmmm.
If one is going to search bags one must profile. This every fifth person nonsense is so absurd it doesn't need further mention. Now, it is okay not to support the policy of searches at all. In a city that big, it's just not going to work. If we want to keep liberty, we're going to be hit by terrorists again, end of story. We'll probably be hit regardless.
Anyway, the point is, liberal fears of offending Muslims--interesting that they don't seem to mind offending conservative Christians though, just a thought--have rendered us incapable of instituting a credible search system. Thank you policital correctness.
We are going to lose this "war on terror". It's simple really. The public is concerned with safety above all. "To hell with liberty, give us our soma," could very well be the battle cry of many Americans. Further, liberals lack of tolerance for an intelligent anti-terrorism policy will mean every plan we try to come up with takes away liberty and does nothing to make us safer at all.
Put troops on the border. That's about the only thing that might help. Oh yeah, and how about giving up this empire fetish. Isolationism may save us yet. Once again, I am not hopeful.
If this post didn't strike you as brilliant, remember Windows is a really bad operating sytem. Run Linux. There, I'm done.
1 comment:
You're welcome RR. Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment