Most Americans take it for granted that some degree of profiling makes sense. For example, when looking at a group of airline passengers to assess the risk that they’re going to hijack or blow up a plane, it makes sense to spend more time examining the young Arab man with the “Allah Akhbar” T-shirt than the tiny 95-year old Korean grandmother in a wheelchair.
Amazingly (to me, at least), not everyone agrees with this. Some people believe that by spending more time examining that young Arab man we are perpetuating a cultural stereotype, and sending a message of intolerance. Well, actually, I’m ok with that — I am a very tolerant man, but I am very intolerant of terrorists and the societies and cultures that produce them.
So, with all that in mind, here’s a hint for the Department of Homeland Security — some blatant profiling that they can use to help efficiently detect terrorists in the airport:
In the old blog, d.challener said:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this. And I think many people are getting this kind of profiling with some of the racial profiling that happens in…say affluent white neighborhoods where cops pull over young black men a little too frequently.There’s a difference between profiling someone and then searching their car to see if you can find something on them, and profiling people from a group who have proven to have bombs more often than other groups.
In the old blog, Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteThat picture is a bad joke, and very intolerant. One problem with profiling young Arab men is that it misses all of the Timothy McVeigh’s that might have malicous intent.
So…you’re saying it’s “intolerant” to recognize that the vast majority of terrorism is carried out by young Arab men?
ReplyDeleteAnd who said there would be only one profile? Timothy McVeigh fits another profile (radical Christian white supremacist) very well, and I’d definitely be in favor of profiling them!
I’ve never figured out how observing the reality in a situation equates to “intolerance” in the left’s view. It’s such a strange position to take — an outright denial of the oh-so-obvious evidence. I once read a scathing commentary piece about the New York Police department, castigating them for their investigations of dogs being eaten in restaurants in the city. The author of the commentary was furious that the police were only investigating Asian restaurants. As if French restaurants would be serving dogs! I just don’t understand that mindset…
In the old blog, Simon said:
ReplyDeleteOK, so I can see that a terrorist is quite likely to be driving the Mercedes. But who would be riding that camel ?
In the old blog, d.challener said:
ReplyDeleteCould also be the gut in line wearing the shirt that says “I killed innocent kids in exchange for 600 virgins, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"