Superb article from Michelle Malkin

[tso-d_chris 0]

From page 63:

Quote

Admittedly, not all terrorism within the United States is
performed by foreigners. Most is not.

You are right, it is an interesting read, although I admit I have thus far only skimmed it.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

From page 63:

Quote

Admittedly, not all terrorism within the United States is
performed by foreigners. Most is not.

You are right, it is an interesting read, although I admit I have thus far only skimmed it.

It's over 70 pages, so I've only skimmed it too. I threw it into the discussion because even though it is 10 years old, it seems to be well-researched and has material that could be used on both sides of the discussion.

Walt

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I have, you just don't accept it

Would you be so kind as to provide a link where you showed how the majority of terrorist were Muslim or middle-eastern? I must have missed the support for your argument.

The current threat is Muslim Extremists. During WW2 it was Nazi's. Would you have us waste money profiling all Germans?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

The current threat is Muslim Extremists

I am aware you keep saying this. And, still, until you are able to provide a single shred of something resembling supporting evidence, I will continue to call BS.

Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that no danger is posed to the US by any Muslim male. What I am saying is that there has not been evidence presented to support your assertions that:

1. Male Muslims pose the greatest threat to America, even in airports.

And

2. Using Racial profiling will not decrease effectiveness of security measures already in place.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The current threat is Muslim Extremists

I am aware you keep saying this. And, still, until you are able to provide a single shred of something resembling supporting evidence, I will continue to call BS.

Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that no danger is posed to the US by any Muslim male. What I am saying is that there has not been evidence presented to support your assertions that:

1. Male Muslims pose the greatest threat to America, even in airports.

And

You gotta be kidding? You are kidding, right? You can go right ahead and call BS all you want. Why do you suppose all those security people are at the airports for? Why do you think the Dept. of Homeland Security was created? You think they are looking for the IRA? You think the Border Patrol is looking for Germans or Religious Zealots?

Quote

2. Using Racial profiling will not decrease effectiveness of security measures already in place.

You've not provided any proof it won't. So until we are sure, I suggest we go with what works.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

You gotta be kidding? You are kidding, right? You can go right ahead and call BS all you want. Why do you suppose all those security people are at the airports for? Why do you think the Dept. of Homeland Security was created? You think they are looking for the IRA? You think the Border Patrol is looking for Germans or Religious Zealots?

You are still unable to find any proof, I see. So you bring more baseless hysterical rhetoric to the "debate."

Quote

Quote

Using Racial profiling will not decrease effectiveness of security measures already in place.

You've not provided any proof it won't.

As you just pointed out, I have indeed offered no evidence that using racial profiling will not decrease the effectiveness of security measures already in place. That is because I think racism in police work will decrease the effectiveness of security measures already in place.

Quote

. So until we are sure, I suggest we go with what works.

So true. Just don't forget about your inability thus far to provide any evidence of racial profiling working.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

You gotta be kidding? You are kidding, right? You can go right ahead and call BS all you want. Why do you suppose all those security people are at the airports for? Why do you think the Dept. of Homeland Security was created? You think they are looking for the IRA? You think the Border Patrol is looking for Germans or Religious Zealots?

You are still unable to find any proof, I see. So you bring more baseless hysterical rhetoric to the "debate."

.

It's the Ann Coulter style of debate.

...

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

[waltappel 1]

Quote

So true. Just don't forget about your inability thus far to provide any evidence of racial profiling working.

Guys, you seem to be reaching a bit of a stall. How about bringing in some discussion of the followers of the Wahabi interpretation of Islam?

While profiling religious sects is not truly racial profiling, it may have some value.

Walt

[Gravitymaster 0]

So in the face of all the threats from Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Zarquawi etc. You feel our greatest threat is not from Muslim Extremists? All I can say is WOW.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You gotta be kidding? You are kidding, right? You can go right ahead and call BS all you want. Why do you suppose all those security people are at the airports for? Why do you think the Dept. of Homeland Security was created? You think they are looking for the IRA? You think the Border Patrol is looking for Germans or Religious Zealots?

You are still unable to find any proof, I see. So you bring more baseless hysterical rhetoric to the "debate."

.

It's the Ann Coulter style of debate.

As opposed to not engaging at all but sitting in the front row and throwing one sentence comments? Thanks for your contributions.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Pssst.. Chris, don't tell anybody, but the police and Homeland Security have been using racial profiling for years and we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. They weren't looking for Germans or Irish either. How's that for proof?

[TheAnvil 0]

Reading what you wrote isn't one of your strong points, is it?

Quote

***

Let's look at your assertion that affirmative action is not racist by the definition quoted above. If race based affirmative action is not racist, then you could give us an example of a race-based affirmative action program that does not discriminate based on race.

You're must be right. Not being allowed to discriminate against minorities because of their race is rascist.

Now granted, your grammatical and spelling errors make it a bit clumsy to read at first, but your above response is clearly sarcasm on your part employed to convey to the reader your opinion that not having race-based affirmative action is discrimination against minorities. Anyone making any such assertion obviously believes minorities incapable of competing sans benefit of AA, and therefore believes minorities inferior. Conclude whatever you desire about my reading comprehension skills - it matters not to me. Perhaps your grammatical and spelling errors somehow masked the true intent of your message.

You quote me with regards to police work, offer no counterpoint to the contrary of what I've stated, then ask for evidence that Middle Eastern men are more likely to pose a danger to citizens than any other group - something I've never stated anywhere. You were speaking of placing words in the mouths of others earlier, were you not?

Your argument holds no water. None. Zero. Nada. Your attachment shows pretty much nothing about FOX news, though it does seem to indicate that the lady who sued one of its subsidiaries will be having to pay some attorney's fees.

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

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

So in the face of all the threats from Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Zarquawi etc. You feel our greatest threat is not from Muslim Extremists?

I feel at far greater risk walking by an abortion clinic than I do in an airport. That's not because of the security, either. They merely make feel like a criminal for no good reason.

But since you brought up good ol bin Laden, he is in fact the best reason yet to change our foreign policy to a more diplomatic approach. We created him. If he is a monster, it is because we trained him to be one. And now he has a nice following of Merry Men. If we don't want monsters running around with Stinger missiles and AK-47s, perhaps the wisest path would be to stop using covert force to implement foreign policy. I'm not convinced visible force is a much better option.

I see no benefit to be gained for a civilized nation by using race as an initial means to locate potential criminals. All it will do is undermine civil rights and the effectiveness of law enforcement. It creates relative weaknesses in the system.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Psst...Hey GM...Proof would be demonstrating an overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim males. Anything short of that would indicate racial profiling would create new security weaknesses.

That is not the case. There are more domestic terrorists than foreign ones.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

your above response is clearly sarcasm on your part employed to convey to the reader your opinion that not having race-based affirmative action is discrimination against minorities.

Try again. It is making fun of those who are able to spin affirmative action into a form of racism. I think that's crazy thinking. I have offered no opinion on affirmative action.

Quote

You quote me with regards to police work, offer no counterpoint to the contrary of what I've stated, then ask for evidence that Middle Eastern men are more likely to pose a danger to citizens than any other group - something I've never stated anywhere. You were speaking of placing words in the mouths of others earlier, were you not?

What are you talking about , sir? I am quite certain, if I quoted you, my reply was relavent. If you were unable to comprehend the reply, let me know and I will rephrase the point in a manner you are able to understand.

Quote

Your argument holds no water. None. Zero. Nada. Your attachment shows pretty much nothing about FOX news, though it does seem to indicate that the lady who sued one of its subsidiaries will be having to pay some attorney's fees.

You must have missed the link. FOX won a lawsuit when they fired two award winning journalists because they had the integrity to not distort the truth to the extent of lying in their stories. Are you saying you support lying in the news reporting? FOX has little credibility as an unbiased source of news.

[TheAnvil 0]

You just did:

Quote

It is making fun of those who are able to spin affirmative action into a form of racism. I think that's crazy thinking. I have offered no opinion on affirmative action

Another quote from you:

Quote

Racism n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race

To quote you again, so sorry if you do not like the word, but it applies to race-based affirmative action just as much as it does racial profiling just as much as it would any police officer who uses race as a discriminating factor when deciding whom to pull over. Face that fact whenever you like, but fact it remains. Again, if you can't see the difference between a brief inconvenience at the airport and not getting into a school, getting a job, getting a promotion, or something of that nature, then that's your problem.

You again fail to offer counterpoint to my police work statement, so I'll quote myself again - when middle eastern terrorist groups known to employ middle eastern men to carry out terrorist attacks against Western targets, it's COMPETENT POLICE WORK to profile potential terrorists in and around such targets. Airliners having been a traditional target, it's COMPETENT POLICE WORK to racially profile in security screening there.

Reading the files one posts is always helpful, especially when referencing them. The material contained in the file you posted does not say anything about the FOX subsidiary firing any award winning journalist at all. It's a written opinion on an appellee's motions. None of what you posted is discussed therein.

No water. Nada. Zilch-o.

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

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

To quote you again, so sorry if you do not like the word, but it applies to race-based affirmative action just as much as it does racial profiling just as much as it would any police officer who uses race as a discriminating factor when deciding whom to pull over. Face that fact whenever you like, but fact it remains. Again, if you can't see the difference between a brief inconvenience at the airport and not getting into a school, getting a job, getting a promotion, or something of that nature, then that's your problem.

Yours is the most short sided understanding of affirmative action I have seen, I believe. Not that it's unique to you. Unfortunately, many people are unable to see past the reverse racism claims.

The supporters of affirmative action rightfully believe that since minorities of relatively recent past have, in general, received an inferior primary and secondary education from the state, and are thus at an unfair disadvantage after secondary school.

To quote Lyndon Johnson, "you do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."

To claim reverse racism is, in most cases, projection.

That is not to say that I am a huge fan of affirmative action. It is a flawed system. However, currently, there are no better alternatives being championed.

Quote

when middle eastern terrorist groups known to employ middle eastern men to carry out terrorist attacks against Western targets, it's COMPETENT POLICE WORK to profile potential terrorists in and around such targets. Airliners having been a traditional target, it's COMPETENT POLICE WORK to racially profile in security screening there.

Most domestic terrorism is not carried out by foreigners. Therefore, it would be INCOMPETENT police work to primarily target foreigners. It would undermine the security efforts in airports, not help them.

I will ask one more time before I assume that you have no facts to back up your argument. Can you offer any eveidence that the overwhelming majority of terrorists attacking US are Muslim males? Listing bin Laden and his followers does not comprise a majority. I have never claimed that NO Muslim male poses a threat to America. But to assume they pose the largest threat would be wholly unsubstantiated.

Did you understand that time?

Quote

Reading the files one posts is always helpful, especially when referencing them. The material contained in the file you posted does not say anything about the FOX subsidiary firing any award winning journalist at all. It's a written opinion on an appellee's motions. None of what you posted is discussed therein.

The link explained it. The attachment was merely to lend credibility to the claim that the FOX subsidiary did in fact win a case allowing them to severely distort the truth in their reporting. I could have given you more links and attachments, but I assumed you were capable of finding keywords within what was presented, and doing your own advanced search. I apologize for overestimating your researching skills. My mistake.

[Gravitymaster 0]

You know Chris, acting out of pity for your very misguided assertions and acting on a desire to see you end this ridiculous tirade you've been on, here are some facts for you:

As of 2001 there were an estimated 20,000 members of AQ who had gone thru training camps. I'm sure you and I don't have to go over the oath AQ has taken to kill Westerners. All 20,000 could potentially carry out an attack on the U.S. That number has grown since 2001. Of course thats just members who have gone thru training camps. there may be no way to know the exact number pledged to AQ.
http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=803

I will also let the Lefties on this site tell you how we have created even more terrorists since the Iraqi War. I think I recall estimates of over 50,000. I'm sure Billvon or someone else can provide you with more facts since they are the ones who constantly make this claim.

Here are some more groups to whom AQ is affiliated with. Mostly Sunni Moslem fundamentalist views.

Armed Islamic Group
Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group
Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya
Jamaat Islamiyya
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
Asbat al Ansar
Hezbollah (Lebanon)
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed - JEM
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba - LET
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)

It is unknown exactly how many members these groups have but estimates are over 20,000.

So lets make it easy and just agree, based on these facts that there are at least 50,000 Muslims associated with AQ who have the desire and potential to enter the US and helf bring about a terrorist attack. Since you have stated you are more afraid of being near an Abortion Clinic, lets see you present some facts to back up your fears that Abortion Clinic bombers present a greater threat.

[Kennedy 0]

So, according to you, affirmative action is not racist, correct?

Giving advantages in admissions or employment based on race is not racist?

What if it were whites being giver preference in admissions and employment, would it be racist then?

See, I have this little idea, more of a dream really, that one day men will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Affirmative action doesn't really fit that dream, now does it.

Racism is wrong, no matter which group it is helping. Why? Because in helping one person, it is hurting someone else because they are the "wrong" race.

Wouldn't you prefer that we judge people on who they are rather than where they come from?

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

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Here are some more groups to whom AQ is affiliated with. Mostly Sunni Moslem fundamentalist views.

Armed Islamic Group
Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group
Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya
Jamaat Islamiyya
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
Asbat al Ansar
Hezbollah (Lebanon)
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed - JEM
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba - LET
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)

It is unknown exactly how many members these groups have but estimates are over 20,000.

Like AQ was affiliated with Saddams regime? Let's stick to what we know, and not the scare tactics. How many Muuslims have been caught in Airports with weapons since 9-11? How many non-Muslims? The Muslims don't make up the overwhelming majority. No matter how you spin it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Here are some more groups to whom AQ is affiliated with. Mostly Sunni Moslem fundamentalist views.

Armed Islamic Group
Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group
Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya
Jamaat Islamiyya
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
Asbat al Ansar
Hezbollah (Lebanon)
Al-Badar
Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
Al-Hadith
Harakat ul Jihad
Jaish Mohammed - JEM
Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Laskar e-Toiba - LET
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)

It is unknown exactly how many members these groups have but estimates are over 20,000.

Like AQ was affiliated with Saddams regime? Let's stick to what we know, and not the scare tactics. How many Muuslims have been caught in Airports with weapons since 9-11? How many non-Muslims? The Muslims don't make up the overwhelming majority. No matter how you spin it.

Oh, but we do know that. You just choose not to acknowledge it because it completely destroys your argument. I backed up the 20,000 figure with a credible link. I'm sure when Billvon or one of the other Lefties chimes in here and gives you the evidence they have based their contention that the Iraq War has created even more terrorists than the 20,000 AQ we knew about in 2001, you will dispute them too?

Pretty Lame if you ask me.

Interesting you failed to respond to the rest of my post. Please support your contention that we have to be more concerned about Abortion bombers. Lame also.

Perhaps the reason Muslims haven't been caught in Airports is because they know we are looking for them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here's some more proof for you Chris. Please find the abortion clinic bombers.

Quote

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on “soft targets,” such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

Thirty-five U.S. citizens died in international terrorist attacks in 2003:

Michael Rene Pouliot was killed on 21 January in Kuwait when a gunman fired at his vehicle that had halted at a stoplight.

Thomas Janis was murdered by Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists on 13 February in Colombia. Mr. Janis was the pilot of a plane that crashed in the jungle. He and a Colombian service member were wounded in the crash; the terrorists shot them when they were discovered. Three U.S. citizen passengers on the plane -- Keith Stansell, Marc D. Gonsalves, and Thomas R. Howes -- were kidnapped and are still being held hostage as of June 2004 by the FARC.

William Hyde was killed on 4 March in Davao, Philippines, when a bomb hidden in a backpack exploded in a crowded airline terminal. Twenty other persons died, and 149 were wounded. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) denies any connection to the suspected bomber, who claimed he was a MILF member.

Abigail Elizabeth Litle was killed on 5 March when a suicide bomber boarded a bus in Haifa, Israel, and detonated an explosive device.

Rabbi Elnatan Eli Horowitz and his wife, Debra Ruth Horowitz, were killed on 7 March when a Palestinian gunman opened fire on them as they were eating dinner in the settlement of Kiryat Arba.

The deadliest anti-U.S. attack occurred in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on 12 May when suicide bombers in booby-trapped cars filled with explosives drove into the Vinnell, Jadewel and Al-Hamra housing compounds, killing nine U.S. citizens. Killed at the Vinnell compound were: Obaidah Yusuf Abdullah, Todd Michael Blair, Jason Eric Bentley, James Lee Carpenter II, Herman Diaz, Alex Jackson, Quincy Lee Knox, and Clifford J. Lawson. Mohammed Atef Al Kayyaly was killed at the Al-Hamra compound.

Alan Beer and Bertin Joseph Tita were killed on 11 June in a bus bombing near Klal Center on Jaffa Road near Jerusalem.

Howard Craig Goldstein was killed in a shooting attack near the West Bank settlement of Ofra on 20 June.

Fred Bryant, a civilian contractor, was killed on 5 August in Tikrit, Iraq, when his car ran over an improvised explosive device.

Three U.S. citizens were among the victims of a deadly truck bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad’s Canal Hotel on 19 August. They were Arthur Helton, Richard Hooper, and Martha Teas. UN Special Representative Sergio Vieira de Mello was also among the 23 fatalities.

Five U.S. citizens were killed in Jerusalem on 19 August when a suicide bomber riding on a bus detonated explosives attached to his body. They were Goldy Zarkowsky, Eli Zarkowsky, Mordechai Reinitz, Yessucher Dov Reinitz, and Tehilla Nathansen. Fifteen other persons were killed and 140 wounded in the attack.

Dr. David Applebaum and his daughter, Naava Applebaum, were killed on 9 September in a bombing at the Cafe Hillel in Jerusalem.

Three U.S. citizens were killed on 15 October in the Gaza Strip as their U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv motorcade was struck by a roadside bomb. They were John Branchizio, Mark T. Parson, and John Martin Linde, Jr. All three were security contractors to the U.S. Embassy.

Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring was killed on 26 October in Baghdad during a rocket-propelled grenade attack on the Al-Rasheed Hotel. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz was staying at the hotel at the time of the attack.

Two U.S. citizens, William Carlson and Christopher Glenn Mueller, were killed in an ambush by armed militants in Shkin, Afghanistan, on 27 October. Both were U.S. Government contract workers.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here's another link for you Chris. This one you really should read. You might learn something about terrorists and terrorism. You also might try reading the AQ Training Manuel if you think changing our Foreign Policy will make the terrorists love us. Let me know if you need a copy.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

So, according to you, affirmative action is not racist, correct?

Giving advantages in admissions or employment based on race is not racist?

What if it were whites being giver preference in admissions and employment, would it be racist then?

See, I have this little idea, more of a dream really, that one day men will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Affirmative action doesn't really fit that dream, now does it.

Racism is wrong, no matter which group it is helping. Why? Because in helping one person, it is hurting someone else because they are the "wrong" race.

Wouldn't you prefer that we judge people on who they are rather than where they come from?

Let's use a nice metaphor, to offer a more objective perspective.

Imagine you have a traditional footrace, with a history spanning hundreds of years. Traditionally only the members of one team were allowed to actually race. This insured that that team remained perennial champions.

The best thing was, every time the team won, they were allowed to apply their winning lead to their starting point for the next race. And they were free to change the rules of the game a they saw fit.

About one hundred forty years ago, the competition was opened up to any team that wanted to race. Except that only the original team was allowed to train. And winnings from previous races had to be provided in order for them to participate in the rule changing procedings.

Meanwhile, the original team kept training, racing and winning, for about a century, every race, acquiring more of a head start for the next race. In fact, it got so that the original team was only having to run half the race at this point.

Suddenly, things change. All the teams are allowed to train and participate in the rule changing procedings. And, since it was impossible to make the original team start back at the beginning of the race, the other teams were now allowed to start at a point much closer, though still behind, the original team.

The Original Team had many members that were not happy about this handicap given to the Other Teams, because even though the Original Team was still easily the winningest team, there were now the occasional defeats. The had won automatically for so long, without any serious competition, they never realized that it was possible to lose a race.

Okay, let's face it. That was no Allegory of the Cave. I should probably explain the symbolism. The Original Team quite obviously represents the American Caucasion.

The competition is the economy are transition points, such as a job change or a school admission.

The other teams are American minority races. The timeline was based on Black American history (as opposed to Hispanic American or Native American).

The head start that the winning team gets to apply during the next race is the benefits that come from being raised in a successful family and/or community.

The rule changing procedings are elections.

The handicap the Other Teams are allowed near the end of the story is representative of affirmative action.

You are right, Kennedy, racism is wrong. That is exactly what would it would be if you ended affirmative action and returned the unfair advantage back to the racial majority, completely ignoring the racist policies of the past centuries that gave them that unfair head start. That would be retroactive racsism.

Don't get me wrong, affirmative action is a flawed policy in implementation, but it is better than any alternative yet proposed.

When we no longer perceive differences in race (ie. When the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes), affirmative action (or something like it) will no longer be necessary. All this talk of racial profiling tells me we are not anywhere close to that point. Fortunately, all the opposition to racial profiling tells me we are making progress.

Still, it would probably be more efficient to just eliminate any race differences through procreation.

[tso-d_chris 0]

What are you quoting?