Superb article from Michelle Malkin

[TheAnvil 0]

clicky

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Trent 0]

What an intelligent observation! Let's see who disagrees with her....

Oh, hello again!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What an intelligent observation! Let's see who disagrees with her....

Dayum, she makes a might good point!

The Bush administration supports racial profiling -- as long as it's lining the pockets of the right people.

Bean-counting government bureaucrats are free to take race, ethnicity and gender into account when doling out public funds to non-white-male contractors.

But God help law enforcement officers, air marshals and border agents who try to use those same factors to combat terrorism and protect American lives.

What Bush Department of Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta stubbornly refused to do in the name of enhancing homeland security, he'll gladly continue to do under the guise of boosting politically correct "diversity."

I can't wait to hear the liberals cry about the hypocrisy!

[waltappel 1]

Quote

clicky

That kind of BS is nothing new. It is an outrage but nothing can be done about it because of the large population of pinheads who cry "Racist!!!!" at any opportunity and the large population of pinheads who actually listen to them.

IMO it's generally ok for anyone to be as racist or as non-racist as they want to be. To think otherwise is to feel that you have the moral authority to deprive someone of their right to have an opinion. That's about as arrogant as you can get. It's a "thought police" kind of attitude.

There are exceptions, of course because of the law. Denying someone a job, housing, or whatever based on their race is illegal. I'm actually ok with that even though they have taken it waaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard by instilling a high level of paranoia among business owners, managers, and employees.

Walt

[Trent 0]

At least we can still blame Clinton for some of it!!

But for Bush and his Clinton holdover, Norm Mineta, it's business as usual at the Transportation Department. You can profile for profit, but not for public safety.

Oh, hello again!

[waltappel 1]

Quote

At least we can still blame Clinton for some of it!!

But for Bush and his Clinton holdover, Norm Mineta, it's business as usual at the Transportation Department. You can profile for profit, but not for public safety.

The "let's show how non-racist we are by giving out free money based on skin-color and gender" attitude pre-dates Clinton by many years. The MBWE clause in government contracts has been around for quite a while. It's been a while since I have had the displeasure of seeing it directly in the workplace, but I'm sure it became institutionalized long ago.

Walt

[Trent 0]

Screw it, let's blame him anyway.

I agree that it is both unproductive and goes against what many people in the US have worked for... building a successful business based on doing good work for good prices.

Oh, hello again!

[jdhill 0]

Where are the usual suspects from the other side of the fence?

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kelpdiver 2]

profiling at the security checkpoints presumes that terrorists won't enlist white hippie sympathizers. It lowers what little security we gain from these annoying long lines.

Or is this discussion about favoring minority owned businesses? Personally I think I'd prefer seeing a bias towards local/small businesses rather than a genetic makeup requirement, if we're getting away from low bidder criteria.

[Trent 0]

It's more about how it's okay to use race to award contracts from the government for the transportation system, but not okay to use race/looks/whatever to identify suspicious persons using our transportation system.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Where are the usual suspects from the other side of the fence?

J

Which side is that?

Racial profiling has a record of serious abuse and poor results, and is a bad idea.

Minority set-aside programs have a record of abuse too, and are also a bad idea.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's more about how it's okay to use race to award contracts from the government for the transportation system, but not okay to use race/looks/whatever to identify suspicious persons using our transportation system.

I don't really see any connection between the two. One is about safety, the other about affirmative action. Each is a political issue with no overlap to the other.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Each is a political issue with no overlap to the other.

Except that in one using race as a criteria is acceptable, and in the other it is not...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Trent 0]

Look harder. Using race to identify people in one case, and not being allowed to use race to identify people in another.

Oh, hello again!

[wmw999 2,560]

The problem is that race doesn't exist in a vacuum, especially in the US, and pretending it does isn't going to change the facts.

Does that make the set-asides right? Not really. On the other hand, there are years and years of evidence of people giving contracts to their buddies/families/whoever, with race VERY often coming into play (on both sides). People like to do business with those like them -- "like them" often includes race and ethnicity, on both majority and minority sides.

Doesn't make it right, but, ya know, it doesn't take a lot of people who deal better with people of their own race to make it a much less even playing field. Can't control private companies, so public contracts is where you go. The assumption is that companies of various races are equally qualified on a macro scale -- therefore you try to manage to that scale. Sometimes you get burned, but, ya know, sometimes you get burned when you hire the guy that was recommended by your buddy, too.

What's the best way to have it be fair? Well, evaluate each person you deal with individually. Go looking for people who are qualified -- if your circle of friends is all white, then you're limiting your opportunities to find qualified people, aren't you?

As far as racial profiling is concerned, it does make sense in one way. On the other hand (you knew there had to be another hand didn't you?), it's easy to get blinders on there, too, and then be surprised because it was someone you weren't watching for who did something. Just look up "DWB" on the web to see what the impact of racial profiling is on people. Imagine being stopped, regularly, just because you drove a nicer car than people thought you should based on your color. Wouldn't you end up resenting those people? And wouldn't that drive later behavior?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,090]

>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.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

The assumption is that companies of various races are equally qualified

You know what happens when you assume...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[wmw999 2,560]

You quoted out of an incompletely-provided context. If one is to assume that, on a macro scale, companies of different racial/ethnic ownership are qualified in proportion to their general makeup in the community...

That might not be a valid assumption, but one has to assume some things. Why? Because you can't know everything, and if a contract or a job is so simple that you can use a bald shopping list to make a selection, then it's probably not much in the first place.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

It's more about how it's okay to use race to award contracts from the government for the transportation system, but not okay to use race/looks/whatever to identify suspicious persons using our transportation system.

Start researching how security works, then you'll understand why it's frowned on.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Trent 0]

Alex- I don't have to research security to know that someone fitting a certain profile SHOULD have a higher chance of being searched. Just because you pay more attention to the people who are similar to those who have been terrorists in the past doesn't mean you have to completely stop randomly searching everyone else. What do you lose here? You add focus on a certain description of person (notice, not necessarily race), but maintain the random aspect for all others not fitting that description. Most people's problem with this kind of focus is that it just makes sense.

Wendy- I'm not going to argue any points about how rampant it is to give contracts to nephews. I don't think ANYONE should get a government contract just because they are of a particular class or race. Race shouldn't be used in who gets work. Profiling people who fit certain descriptions (which includes but is not limited to race) should be used. The problem is that it seems we've got it backwards in practice.

Bill- So it's okay to profile when lives are at stake? Sounds like you agree that profiling terrorists is a good idea! Nice! Now just out of curiosity, what medicines can't be given to certain races?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,090]

>Bill- So it's okay to profile when lives are at stake?

Nope. It's not OK to put all blacks in jail because you believe that will save lives.

>Sounds like you agree that profiling terrorists is a good idea!

Again, no. Profiling terrorists will increase the odds of terrorists being able to harm us. Profiling against arabs, for example, would guarantee that the two Chechen women who killed hundreds of people on Russian airlines would get less scrutiny. The old mindset of "terrorists are stupid and would never think of using someone who looks 'safe' " went out the window with "terrorists are stupid and could never coordinate a mass hijacking of aircraft, much less fly them into targets." Relying on terrorists to be stupid and easy to identify is a foolish approach.

If you're going to propose giving extra scrutiny to arabs, for example, then apply that scrutiny to everyone. It's foolish to leave intentional holes in your security for certain races.

>Now just out of curiosity, what medicines can't be given to certain races?

BiDil is a drug prescribed only to black cardiac patients. It is not effective enough when used in patients of other races.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Nope. 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...

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,090]

>Who said anything about ONLY using race to profile for security?

That's what "racial profiling" means. If they used race as part of an ID (i.e. "be on the lookout for a black man, 6' 1", wearing a blue sweater and carrying an umbrella") then it's not racial profiling. If they don't go by any specific race guidelines, but instead go after people who look suspicious, or who act suspicious, then it's using your brain - and again, that's not racial profiling.

>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?

Yes. It is bad to pay some people less attention, which is the inevitable result of paying others more attention. Because it means you're looking for arab males when the chechen women get on the plane. And then you're looking for the chechen women when the Tamil Tigers plan their attack. And then you're looking for Indonesians when the North Korean goes nuts and tries to blow up an airplane.

>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?

It is better for people to use their brains rather than profiling based on race.

>Unless you can figure out how to have every airline passenger
>and everyone coming into the country interviewed and searched
>completely...

I flew El Al back in 1990. They figured out how to do it. Surely if El Al can do it, United can too.

[Trent 0]

When did I say ONLY to use race, Bill. 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?

And you also keep implying that I'm advocating ONLY pay attention to those that fit the current "maybe terrorist" profile and letting everyone else escape all scrutiny. Stop that too. I don't think it is an inevitable result that we will ignore people not fitting profiles if they are used. A simple flagging system built into the customs computers and airline check-in machines will keep that honest.

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.

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.

Oh, hello again!

[Kennedy 0]

Reminds me of an old comment about airline hijackings.

[this is paraphrased]

Quote

When 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)?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*