From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #50 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, February 13 2002 Volume 11 : Number 050 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines [FS Thomas ] Re: Postponing Hibernation [Ken Weingold ] Racial profiling [The Great Quail ] Re: Loaded [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines ["JH3" ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines [FS Thomas Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines At 11:17 AM 2/13/2002 -0500, gSs wrote: >On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Jason R. Thornton wrote: > > > There's a big difference between your example and what was being advocated > > here. > >I was just using that as a simple example to show how profiling is used >regularly in crime prevention. No, the example you gave had nothing to do with group profiling, but only with an individual's description. What you were doing was justifying a racist blame game by advancing an ineffective means of prevention and attempting to suggest that since we can profile an individual based on his or her physical characteristics, we can then we can in turn profile groups of individuals that share physical characteristics based on the actions of a few that also share those characteristics. > > If you're going after a certain person tied to a terrorist group, and you > > know this person to be of Middle Eastern decent, then there's nothing > wrong > > with looking for a specific Middle Easterner that looks a certain way. > >The specific specifics are the problem. That is why we use profiles. The "problem" here is with the assumption being made that targeting an entire group is somehow akin to "profiling" or describing an individual. >When the army coming over the hill has outfited each of its soldiers >with a destinct uniform and a big red star on their cap, the enemy is >easy to spot. When the army coming over the hill is made of people that >fit any number of profiles then it can be very difficult. So far >the army coming over the hill fits a specific profile. But airport security isn't JUST about stopping a single army, it's about preventing ALL potential criminals and terrorists and nutjobs from harming innocent civilians. > > It's another thing entirely to target a group as *potential* criminals, > > based solely on their ethnicity. > >Not if they fit the profile. If you have the profile of a specific individual that you're looking for, and someone seems to fit it, then by all means, "target" that individual. By no means is it justified however to succumb to the sort of bigotted paranoia where everyone of specific ethnicity is viewed as *more dangerous* or *more likely to commit a crime*. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:49:47 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines At 09:40 AM 2/13/2002 -0800, Jason R. Thornton wrote: >No, the example you gave had nothing to do with group profiling, but only >with an individual's description. What you were doing was justifying a >racist blame game by advancing an ineffective means of prevention and >attempting to suggest that since we can profile an individual based on his >or her physical characteristics, we can then we can in turn profile groups >of individuals that share physical characteristics based on the actions of >a few that also share those characteristics. That should read: >What you were doing was justifying a racist blame game by advancing an >ineffective means of prevention and attempting to suggest that since we >can profile an individual based on his or her physical characteristics, >then we can in turn profile groups of individuals that share physical >characteristics based on the actions of a few that also share those >characteristics. Somehow an extra "we can" got stucked in theres. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:53:40 -0800 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Postponing Hibernation On Wed, Feb 13, 2002, Abydos * wrote: > My first Robyn show, 87 or 88, the Chestnut Caberet in Philly. Ken > and Max, I made every NY/Hoboken date till '90, so I saw him several > times at the Ritz an Maxwells. Any distinctive markings for those > show? Well there's an odd sort of star-shaped birth mark on its right inner thigh. > >I uploaded the mp3 to my website. > > Oh Ken, thank you. You liked it? I love that song. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:04:34 -0800 (PST) From: FS Thomas Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines > Are there not little old Middle Eastern women, or > children, or midgets, or > businessmen, that are perfectly innocent and deserve > targeting no more than you do? Look at the original post. 1. 1979, the US embassy in Iran 2. 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut 3. 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 4. US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 5. 9/11/01 NY, DC, and PA attacks Perpetrators? Middle Eastern men 18-40(-ish.) It stands to reason that if you want to prevent terrorism in the US (especially airline-borne attacks) you go to the lowest common denominator: Middle Eastern [Arab] men. The gender bias won't hold true for long in light of the suicide bombing by Wafa Idrees. > And almost all serial killers are white guys, so you > should probably have > your house bugged. As, I'm sure, you should too. > ...if you think Middle Easterners are > the only people capable > of evil, you're sadly mistaken. Let's not broaden the scope to world-wide evil, shall we? Profiling of Arabs is the topic du jour. > ...it should be looked at in the most > unbiased, logical fashion > possible, and not in such a way to target specific > groups without solving > the overall problem. The problem (or at least a portion of it) is profiling of airline passengers. That IS targeting an overall problem, or at least diminishing the likelihood of it. > ...if you base your security screening > on illogic or obvious fallacies What's so illogical about re-screening passengers who fit the profile of airline hijackers? With the exception of Pablo Moreira (Argentinian in the recent cockpit break-in) when was the last time you had a hijacking/bombing/destruction of an American-based airliner that was undertaken by a non-Arab? (just a question.) - -f. - --- Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:05:35 -0800 (PST) From: FS Thomas Subject: RE: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines - --- Brian Huddell wrote: > ...my standard with my own kid was > that life begins at the > moment you are able to hold your head up and focus > on an entire Tellytubbies episode. > Until then all bets are off. Bravo, my good man. Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:07:46 -0800 (PST) From: FS Thomas Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines - --- "Jason R. Thornton" wrote: > It's another thing entirely to target a group as > *potential* criminals, > based solely on their ethnicity. Except in this case, under the threat of another airliner-as-a-weapon case, you: 1. Don't know until it's too late, and 2. Won't be so much arresting the guy after the act then cleaning him up with a shop vac. - -f. - --- Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:17:12 -0600 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Postponing Hibernation > Kay, putting her head between her legs... (which leads me to > an thought(or should I say longing) I had the other day while watching > Cory. If humans, like dogs, could lick their own genitals, would civilization > as we know it have developed?) Kaaayyy!? What's a low-minded ape like me supposed to do with *this*? +brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:25:33 -0800 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Postponing Hibernation > Kay, putting her head between her legs... (which leads me to an > thought(or should I say longing) I had the other day while watching > > Cory. If humans, like dogs, could lick their own genitals, would > civilization as we know it have developed?) Yes, it would have. Think of the difference between you touching them and someone else touching them. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:32:56 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Racial profiling Well, it seems pretty obvious to me.... Several interrelated organizations have been carrying out escalating acts of violence against the United States. These acts have self-proclaimed political and religious motivations; they are not random acts of crime. These organizations are made up, primarily, of men who call themselves Muslims; but more, they generally fit one of several ethnic/racial categories commonly falling under the "Middle East" rubric -- specifically Arabs (mostly hailing from our "allies," Saudi Arabia and Egypt) but also occasionally Iranian/Persian. These organizations have declared war, both in deed and in words. They have a proven reputation for suicide-bombing and hijacking, and have publicly proclaimed that these acts will continue. These are the facts. Now, should racial profiling be used at airports? I for one am comfortable with it -- given the facts. Do I think it is unfair? Of course it's unfair. Does it alienate or upset the vast majority of peaceable young men from the Middle East? I am sure it would, and rightfully so. But these are abnormal situations, and given the facts, it seems to me to be ridiculous to proclaim that profiling is wrong-minded, based on a few incidents with US-born crazies, or Latin American events, and so on. That sounds like liberal-minded sophistry to me. I would rather entertain an argument that it is wrong because it is against the "American Way" or the principles of freedom; and preserving those rights are worth the sacrifice of security. I wouldn't agree -- at least for this particular example -- but at least that argument does not elide the facts under a screen of good-intentioned fuzziness. Now, I am not an Ashcroft supporter; I think he's an asshole fascist control-freak, and a danger to the Constitution. And Bush is on my shit list for sure. This is not about detention, Geneva rights, and so on. This is about specific racial profiling at security checkpoints during a time of severe conflict. As I have said here before, I do not think stricter airline security is a grievous curtailing of liberty; and the sad fact of the matter is that the majority of Middle Easterners in the US right now do feel unfairly persecuted because of the actions of unrelated people of the same basic skin color. That sucks. But what would also suck is if one - -- just *one* -- incident that could have been prevented, wasn't. But what can we do to counter these anti-Arab, Muslim, whatever feelings that have arisen since 9-11, and will likely keep increasing as the scenario plays itself out? I believe that we should invest in a program of full education about the Middle East and the history of Islam. It should be taught in our schools, it should be the subject of healthy and compassionate TV shows, it should be something that every US citizen should learn more about. The way the media presents Islam as some alien, monolithic bloc is atrocious -- severely limiting, childish, and lacking of any real political context. Of course, part of this serves the interest of corporations and government; but I do believe that at least a start should be made in introducing the history of the region and the bewildering complexity of the religion of Islam. Wishful thinking, perhaps; but education is the only way we may eventually produce a population that looks to the Middle East with awareness and understanding, and may instigate eventual changes in policy -- changes that may address some of the causes of US hatred in the region. Not that I think we are solely responsible for creating the monster of Islamicist violence; of course we are not. But we are certainly not helping matters by remaining in ignorance. I suppose what I am saying is simple, if somewhat idealistic -- let's accept the fact that we are under attack and act appropriately, but let's try to better understand all the root causes of the situation the best we can. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:44:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Loaded On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Abydos * wrote: > Hey--Reed is the only singer who writes songs in my range! All 9 notes of > it;-) Like it! > He's perfect proof of my pet contention that phrasing, mood and tude are > what make a singer, not just hitting notes. > Nevertheless, Im no real good as a fangirl. I didn't even know Loaded had > two versions. Yup, the copy I own is on vynal and dates back to the year of > its release. Is the new one part of the box set I cant afford? It came out on a double-CD a couple of years ago. Not _too_ expensive. > --------------------------- > > So Godwin, what is the addy for this tantalizing Webpage of yours? I have favourite-books-and-records links from my hobbies and interests page at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~hssmrg/int.html - - MRG PS How's your German? See: http://www.r-j.de/abydos.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:48:08 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines At 10:04 AM 2/13/2002 -0800, FS Thomas wrote: > > Are there not little old Middle Eastern women, or > > children, or midgets, or > > businessmen, that are perfectly innocent and deserve > > targeting no more than you do? > >Look at the original post. > >1. 1979, the US embassy in Iran >2. 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut >3. 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 >4. US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania >5. 9/11/01 NY, DC, and PA attacks > >Perpetrators? Middle Eastern men 18-40(-ish.) Of course. If you look only at acts of terrorist violence committed by 18-40 year old Middle Eastern men, you're only going to find 18-40 year old Middle Eastern men as perpetrators. And what sort of "groups" were even put forth in a potential comparison? Dead rocks stars and senile rest-home residents? >It >stands to reason that if you want to prevent terrorism >in the US (especially airline-borne attacks) you go to >the lowest common denominator: Middle Eastern [Arab] >men. But, that isn't by any means the "lowest common denominator." It's simple scapegoating. It's ONE single characteristic that all the individuals in your incomplete list of violent acts share. It's illogical to turn around and assume then that people of other ethnicities can't also share the capacity to commit grossly violent acts, or that millions of other Middle Easterners are in any way more likely to. > > ...if you think Middle Easterners are > > the only people capable > > of evil, you're sadly mistaken. > >Let's not broaden the scope to world-wide evil, shall >we? Profiling of Arabs is the topic du jour. What exactly are you talking about? It's the "topic" only because you're out to justify the profiling of "Arabs" (I see you've reduced your targeted group from all Middle Easterners down to Arabs now?) as being more likely to commit "terrorist" acts than members of other ethnicities. We have to look at this suggestion in the context of other groups, whether you seek to support it or discredit it. > > ...if you base your security screening > > on illogic or obvious fallacies > >What's so illogical about re-screening passengers who >fit the profile of airline hijackers? The illogic stems from the fact that you seem to want to base your entire "profile" on ethnic background, which is both an extremely incomplete and often inaccurate picture of a "terrorist," and unfair to the vast majority of members of that ethnicity. What's so illogical about re-screening passengers randomly, on the off-chance that Middle Easterners aren't the only people willing to hijack, or commit acts of mass violence? Or, better yet, why not make sure the airline screening process is thorough enough to catch as many weapons, bombs, etc. as possible without stepping on the rights of a few? Wouldn't it be better to come up a system that systemically searches and finds the tools of terrorism instead of simply rounding up anyone that closely physically resembles a limited description of the perpetuators of PREVIOUS crimes? >With the >exception of Pablo Moreira (Argentinian in the recent >cockpit break-in) when was the last time you had a >hijacking/bombing/destruction of an American-based >airliner that was undertaken by a non-Arab? (just a >question.) All it takes is one disgruntled non-Arab American airline employee with a gun to crash another plane into another San Luis Obispo county hillside. And, as this has happened before, flight 1771 in 1987 (my mother, god rest her soul, saw the plane go down) don't think other suicidal "non-Arabs" are not equally willing to kill themselves and a whole fuselage-load of strangers. My argument is simply this - there are more threats to airline security than just Middle Eastern Muslim extremists. Is this country at war with a group of Middle Eastern Muslim extremists? Unquestionably. But, airline security isn't that war, nor should it be designed to only face the challenges of it. More importantly, should all Middle Easterners, of which there are millions, suffer inequalities in the justice system because of this? No. If their liberties are in any way diminished, it's a tremendous violation of the freedoms and principles of democracy that do make this country worth fighting for (above and beyond simple, basic self-survival instincts). I see no difference in the profiling of Middle Easterners at airports and the internment of the Japanese during World War II. It's nothing more than haphazard, lazy bigotry, and an example of America at its worst. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:53:53 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines At 10:07 AM 2/13/2002 -0800, FS Thomas wrote: > > It's another thing entirely to target a group as > > *potential* criminals, > > based solely on their ethnicity. > >Except in this case, under the threat of another >airliner-as-a-weapon case, you: 1. Don't know until >it's too late, and 2. Won't be so much arresting the >guy after the act then cleaning him up with a shop >vac. So, all Middle Easterners should be assumed "guilty" because of something that *might* happen? Hell, at least one of them might planning something else right now. Let's just round them all up and throw them in a camp so the rest of us feel safe. The question isn't whether or not the threat of the use of a plane as a weapon still exists, it's whether or not you're looking at the problem extensively and thoroughly enough to truly solve it, or whether or not you're just resorting to a misdirected paranoia which only serves to villify a vast population based solely on the actions of a handful. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:08:52 -0800 From: "Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" Subject: RE: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines After looking at this subject heading all day as some who actually lives in Ballard I have to say that there are really not that many pines in Ballard. Some Douglas Firs but it's not a very well treed neighborhood unless you go to parks like the Locks or at Golden Gardens. Those Norwegian Settlers cleared out all the tress long ago. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:13:57 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: Postponing Hibernation Kay: > > Cory. If humans, like dogs, could lick their own genitals, would > > civilization as we know it have developed?) Quite possibly faster. Ken: > Yes, it would have. Think of the difference between you touching them > and someone else touching them. I'm thinking of it right now. Thanks a bunch, everyone. Michael "hmmmmmmmmmmmmm" Wells "If God had intended us not to masturbate, he would have made our arms shorter" G. Carlin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:15:13 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines "Jason R. Thornton" wrote: > At 10:04 AM 2/13/2002 -0800, FS Thomas wrote: > >With the > >exception of Pablo Moreira (Argentinian in the recent > >cockpit break-in) when was the last time you had a > >hijacking/bombing/destruction of an American-based > >airliner that was undertaken by a non-Arab? (just a > >question.) a Jamaican born Brit, Richard Reid, rumored to have al Qaeda connections attempted to blow up an airplane flying to the US last november or so, using explosives in his shoes. it was on the news, rather big story. maybe you were still in a turkey induced coma. > All it takes is one disgruntled non-Arab American airline employee > with a > gun to crash another plane into another San Luis Obispo county > hillside. And, as this has happened before, flight 1771 in 1987 (my > mother, god rest her soul, saw the plane go down) don't think other > suicidal "non-Arabs" are not equally willing to kill themselves and a > whole fuselage-load of strangers. > > My argument is simply this - there are more threats to airline > security than just Middle Eastern Muslim extremists. > > Is this country at war with a group of Middle Eastern Muslim > extremists? Unquestionably. But, airline security isn't that war, > nor should it be designed to only face the challenges of it. > > More importantly, should all Middle Easterners, of which there are > millions, suffer inequalities in the justice system because of > this? No. If their liberties are in any way diminished, it's a > tremendous > violation of the freedoms and principles of democracy that do make > this > country worth fighting for (above and beyond simple, basic > self-survival > instincts). I see no difference in the profiling of Middle > Easterners at > airports and the internment of the Japanese during World War II. > It's > nothing more than haphazard, lazy bigotry, and an example of America > at its > worst. ===== "This week, the White House says President Bush meant no disrespect when he referred to the Pakistani people as 'Pakis.' But just to be on the safe side, White House staffers have cancelled his trip to Nigeria" -- Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt . Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:26:37 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Racial profiling At 01:32 PM 2/13/2002 -0500, The Great Quail wrote: >As I have said here before, I do not think stricter airline security is a >grievous curtailing of liberty; and the sad fact of the matter is that the >majority of Middle Easterners in the US right now do feel unfairly >persecuted because of the actions of unrelated people of the same basic >skin color. That sucks. But what would also suck is if one -- just *one* >-- incident that could have been prevented, wasn't. I for one haven't a problem with stricter airline security, but I think it's short-sighted and unfair to model our plan of security simply around the characteristics, especially just the ethnic ones, of the handful perpetuators that committed this one devastating act, albeit the worst attack on US soil in history. But as I've said, airport security needs to protect us not just from the potential acts of violence in this war, but also from the potential acts of violence from all sources, be they internal or external, group organized or individually deranged, connected to these particular events or wholly unrelated. When going after the organization that planned THIS attack, we are going after a group of people, most of whom do fall into a certain ethnic category, just as in World War II, our enemies just happened to be Germans and Japanese. I understand that. When looking to defeat the "enemy" of this particular conflict, the US has mainly be looking to members of a specific ethnicity. But this in turn does not justify the vilification of American citizens who happen to share these ethnic traits, because ethnicity alone isn't an indicator of violent tendencies or national loyalties. And it's not even completely true that this "war on terrorism" is solely focusing on Middle Easterners. We've already moved into the Philippines in an "advisory" role to address the issue of Asian extremists there. If anything, you've got to admit that racial profiling simply isn't thorough enough - there are ways around it. Terrorist organizations will begin recruiting more and more Caucasians to their cause to get through the loopholes in security. Or work harder at disguising their ethnicity with hair coloring and colored contact lens. Heck, they could even start kidnaping white babies in the process, and strapping explosive devices to their child-carrying devices, because they know the authorities are too busy checking out the "more likely" Arab-looking suspects to bother screening a white guy and his perfect "All American" kid. What this nation needs is a more comprehensive security plan, not just in airports, and a financial commitment to it. Law enforcement resources should be diverted from petty, victimless "crime" like minor individual drug possessions to more important issues, like keeping us alive. Targeting specific ethnic groups is just a delusionary band-aid solution that serves absolutely no purpose other than to unfairly discriminate against a minority and alienate them from rest of that nation. >I believe that we should invest in a program of full education about the >Middle East and the history of Islam. Honestly, call me idealistic, but I think this would help a lot. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:29:46 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines > After looking at this subject heading all day as > some who actually lives in Ballard I have to say > that there are really not that many pines in > Ballard. Some Douglas Firs but it's not a very > well treed neighborhood unless you go to parks > like the Locks or at Golden Gardens. Those > Norwegian Settlers cleared out all the tress > long ago. Hey, now you're profiling Norwegians! Some of them were quite into forest preservation, I hear... What bothers me about this whole thing is whether or not you're supposed to be near some *specific* pine trees in Ballard while looking soulful, or whether one simply gazes in the general direction of *any* pine trees that happen to be in the Greater Ballard Metro Area, whilst displaying some vaguely-defined facial expression. John "don't ask what my middle name is" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:34:39 -0800 (PST) From: FS Thomas Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines - --- "Jason R. Thornton" wrote: > But, that isn't by any means the "lowest common > denominator." It's simple > scapegoating. It's ONE single characteristic that > all the individuals in > your incomplete list of violent acts share. But one that they DID share. Aside from the recent Argentinian cockpit break in and the screw-loose high school kid armed with a Cessna, can you come up with a non-ME high-jacker? (ME, for the record, being easier to type having two letters as opposed to the fourteen in Middle Eastern.) > It's illogical to turn around and assume then that > people of other > ethnicities can't also share the capacity to commit > grossly violent acts It is, but the violent acts we're talking about (keeping planes out of buildings) have yet to be undertaken by anyone other than ME men. > What exactly are you talking about? It's the > "topic" only because you're > out to justify the profiling of "Arabs" Whatever. I'm not out to tackle all that's wrong in the world right now. I /thought/ this was regarding profiling. > [you've reduced] your targeted > group from all Middle Easterners down to Arabs now > as being more likely > to commit "terrorist" acts than members of other > ethnicities. When fundamentalist Phillippino or Indonesian Muslims on Jihad are implicated then the scope can change from ME to other ethnicities. 'Why pick on Muslims? It's such a wrong bias' you say? Because theocratic governments under Muslim rule have called for the destruction and 'opportunistic killings' of Americans. The Soviet Union of the 40s-90s did, too, but never acted on it. Action brings impetus. > The illogic stems from the fact that you seem to > want to base your entire > "profile" on ethnic background, which is both an > extremely incomplete An airline screener standing in JFK isn't going to have your FBI/CIA/NSA dossiere at his fingertips. He's not going to have the last fifty emails you sent out, or the numbers of everyone you've called on your cell phone (nor should he.) What he's got is a good look at you and, if he's lucky, your real name on a genuine driver's license. When looking for threats you have err on the side of caution. > What's so illogical about re-screening passengers > randomly, on the > off-chance that Middle Easterners aren't the only > people willing to hijack, > or commit acts of mass violence? They may not be, but they're not the ones who have recently. > All it takes is one disgruntled non-Arab American > airline employee with a > gun to crash another plane into another San Luis > Obispo county > hillside. The last I checked firearms weren't allowed on planes unless you were an air marshal or other law enforcement official. Do you fly often? Honestly? Let's end racial profiling and just do a random 2% passenger search. Would you be comfortable getting on, say, a 767 wide-body with two hundred and forty passengers if only three of them (rounding up) was fully screened? Would you be entirely comfortable if, while walking through first class on your way to your seat back in steerage if you noticed that eighteen of the twenty four seats in first class were ME men, say around the age of 24? > More importantly, should all Middle Easterners, of > which there are > millions, suffer inequalities in the justice system > because of > this? No. No, probably not. Then, again, you're dealing with people of the same religion who, even though they claim not to be fundamentalist, refuse to turn over former officials now in hiding. Why? > I see no difference in the profiling of > Middle Easterners at > airports and the internment of the Japanese during > World War II. Who've we rounded up and put into camps this time? (on that scale--Guatanamo doesn't count.) - -f. - --- Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #50 *******************************