“The world that we have made as a result of the level of thinking that we have done so far, has created problems we cannot solve at the level of thinking at which we created them.” – Albert Einstein(1879-1955) Physicist and Professor, Nobel Prize 1921
With all the bad press the TSA has received recently, we canâ€™t be sure if the acronym stands for Transportation Security Administration, Touches Sensitive Areas or Truly Scandalous Attention. But, for sure, its pat downs and sci-fi radiation screeners give many of us another good reason to avoid the increasingly unfriendly skies. Yet while the TSA right now has supplanted the IRS as the bureaucracy we most love to hate, its policies are merely part of a longstanding cultural trend: the failure to recognize that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
Itâ€™s the same reason why certain cities, most notably London, are now surveilling their residents with thousands of video cameras. If youâ€™re not willing to administer punishment sufficient to deter all the criminally inclined save a few intractable miscreants, some of whom you can catch, the only other solution is to have an all-seeing Big Brother that can catch all. Itâ€™s much like treating a cancer: If you cannot target just the affected tissue, the only other solution is to treat the whole body.
Because the former is preferable not just in medicine but also law enforcement, behavioral-sciences specialists long ago developed the method called â€œprofiling.â€ Unfortunately, social-engineering specialists soon after discredited the universal application of profiling with a method called propaganda. Consequently, when we want to administer targeted treatment in the effort to thwart terrorism, weâ€™re told that itâ€™s â€œracial profilingâ€ and beyond consideration. This is utter nonsense.
As I have said before, â€œracial profilingâ€ is much like â€œassault weaponâ€: Itâ€™s an emotionally charged term designed to manipulate the public. In reality, there are only two types of profiling: good profiling and bad profiling. Whatâ€™s the difference? Good profiling is a method by which law enforcement can accurately determine the probability that an individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent; bad profiling makes that determination less accurate. Good profiling considers all relevant factors â€” age, sex, dress, behavior and, yes, race, religion and ethnicity â€” without regard for political or social concerns. Bad profiling subordinates common sense, criminological science and security to political correctness.
Good profiling is also fair. That is to say, it discriminates on the correct basis: If a group â€” any group â€” commits an inordinate amount of a given crime, it receives greater scrutiny. Period. Bad profiling is invidiously discriminatory. It says, â€œHey, if youâ€™re male, youâ€™ll be viewed with a jaundiced eye. If youâ€™re young, then you, too, will be viewed more suspiciously. Donâ€™t like it? Take it up with those in your group who commit crimes!â€ There is no talk of stamping out â€œsex profilingâ€ or â€œage profiling.â€ But when we propose applying the same criteria to higher-crime-incidence groups sheltered by the thought policeâ€™s umbrella of protection, we hear shouts of â€œracial profiling!â€ There then are news stories and Dept. of Injustice investigations, and people lose their jobs.
Good profiling is also nothing unusual; itâ€™s just the application of common sense within the sphere of law enforcement and something we all do continually. If you cross the street upon seeing a bunch of rough-hewn young men walking your way, youâ€™ve just engaged in profiling. Youâ€™ve also done so if you cut a wide swath around a leashed dog; after all, he may be a very nice pooch, but, since canines are known to sometimes bite, your action is prudent. And it doesnâ€™t mean youâ€™re hateful or bent on discriminating against rough young men and dogs but simply that youâ€™re in a situation in which the cost of obtaining more information would be too great. Consequently, as Professor Walter Williams wrote,
â€œWe can think of profiling in general as a practice where people use an observable or known physical attribute as a proxy or estimator of some other unobservable or unknown attribute.â€
He then goes on to write:
Let’s look at a few profiling examples to see which ones you’d like outlawed. â€¦Some racial and ethnic groups have higher incidence and mortality from various diseases than the national average. The rates of death from cardiovascular diseases are about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. Pima Indians of Arizona have the highest known diabetes rates in the world. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men.
Knowing patient race or ethnicity, what might be considered as racial profiling, can assist medical providers in the delivery of more effective medical services.
Now, should doctors be prosecuted for taking these statistics into consideration when delivering medical care? If not, why would we prosecute law enforcement for considering racial and ethnic factors (along with sex, age and other characteristics) when tackling the moral disease known as criminality?
This brings us back to our current security concerns. The profile here is very specific, as itâ€™s a rare person who will sacrifice his life to destroy an airplane. Protestants arenâ€™t doing that. Catholics arenâ€™t doing it. Nor are Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians or Hare Krishna. In our age, this is a method of people who 100 percent of the time are Muslim jihadists and 99 percent of the time are non-white. And only the idiotic â€” or the suicidal â€” ignore such correlation.
Now, we all know what kind of suicidal idiocy engenders such blindness: a politically correct brand that panders to the sensitivities of vocal, politically favored minority groups such as Muslims. But what about the sensitivities of millions of Americans who have to tolerate intrusive body scanning and pat-downs and watch their children subjected to same? And the kicker is that when Janet Incompetano was asked if Muslim women sporting hijabs would have to go through the same full-body pat downs, she equivocated and said, â€œadjustments will be made where they need to be madeâ€ and â€œWith respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come.â€ Are you kidding me? Is this Total Recall meets One Flew Over the Cuckooâ€™s Nest? Muslim women are the demographic second-most likely to commit Islamic terrorism. If they arenâ€™t subjected to scrutiny, what is the point (besides â€œsecurity theaterâ€)?
Moreover, why should Muslimâ€™s imperative of modesty be respected but not others peopleâ€™s? Not only do devout Catholics place a premium on the quality as well, but millions of other individuals find it very offensive to be exposed in front of strangers and groped. Yet weâ€™re told that the very group criminological science dictates should receive more scrutiny may receive less due to political correctness. And if this actually happens, it will be yet another example of de facto Sharia law in deference to an alien culture and dhimmitude for us infidels.
Of course, I realize that Incompetanoâ€™s equivocation doesnâ€™t necessarily mean a Muslim dispensation is in the offing (although I put nothing past leftists), as she might simply have been overcome by the typical liberal reluctance to express unfashionable truths. But is this an excuse? If she expects Americans to tolerate the indignity of intrusive security screening and basically tells them itâ€™s tough luck if they donâ€™t like it, she has a duty to be just as firm with the over-coddled Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its minions. And to not be so was a slap in the face to you, me and anyone who has ever fought for our freedoms. How dare she?
To cement this point, Iâ€™ll say that this is not first and foremost about whether a given security measure is or isnâ€™t prudent. Itâ€™s also unrealistic to think that we can have satisfactory security without some inconvenience. The point is that whatever methods are settled upon â€” screening devices, bomb-sniffing dogs, pat downs, etc. â€” political correctness must not factor into the decision. But it does, and this robs the government of all credibility. And I, for one, do not take its efforts seriously.
The truth is that we donâ€™t just have security theater but, sadly, war-on-terrorism theater. We launch foreign military campaigns while leaving our back door to Mexico â€” through which terrorists and WMDs can pass â€” unsecured. We even announce the charade by calling the conflict â€œthe war on terror.â€ As Ann Coulter once pointed out, using this euphemism is much like having called the WWII conflict with Imperial Japan â€œthe war on sneak attacks.â€ Terrorism is a method, not an enemy â€”Islamists are the enemy. And if weâ€™re too effete to even name names, itâ€™s no surprise that we wonâ€™t identify groups.
What Iâ€™ve expressed here is just common sense, but it will remain uncommon unless we experience a cultural transformation. Until the politically correct must keep their death-cult ideology to themselves for fear of scorn, social ostracism and career destruction â€” the very tactics theyâ€™ve used to silence others â€” nothing will change. We will continue to exhibit a lack of seriousness about what is a life-or-death issue, a failing that will lead to an inevitable outcome: a mushroom cloud over an American city. When that happens, it will have been enabled by those who gave us our cultural mushroom cloud, ushering in a cold winter of lies and preventing people from seeing the light. And come that time, I hope we remember to thank them appropriately.
Border: As lawlessness spreads in Mexico, the governor of Texas speaks of sending in U.S. troops â€” a dramatic statement underscoring the fact that the region needs help and isn’t getting it.
Attending a conference of governors in San Diego on Thursday, Rick Perry startled some by saying defeating Mexico’s cartels may require U.S. military intervention.
“You have a situation on the border where American citizens are being killed,” he told MSNBC. “I think we have to use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military. I think you have the same situation as you had in Colombia. Obviously, Mexico has to approve any type of assistance that we can give them.”
That may sound extreme, but it underlines that Washington has shortchanged Mexico on even military aid that would help it win its drug war. It has also done little for border states such as Texas and Arizona that bear the brunt of the war, other than deliver lawsuits.
To Washington, the only motive for states’ efforts to resist the violent drug cartels is racism, not security.
SideBear: I would be very much in favor of introducing the United States Marines to the drug catels.
Napolitano Says Texas Should Pay for Border Protection?
SideBear by Rick: So letâ€™s get this straight, Ms. Director of Homeland Security â€“ you think that this is an issue of financial responsibility in which Texas should foot the bill for the aggressions of Mexican drug traffic? Exactly what in the hell does she think Homeland Security â€“ not to mention our, our national defense â€“ is all about? This is what happens when a Marxist, elitist man-child with no leadership experience takes over the White House. His desires are totally out of synch with what policies and decisions that would best serve our nationâ€™s security, economy, and freedom.
The Obama Administration plans to withdraw National Guard troops from the Texas, New Mexico and California borders by the end February under a new Southwest security plan, even as turmoil in Mexican border cities grows, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner.
A letter sent to various members of the Texas Congressional delegation from Texas’ Gov. Rick Perry’s office says, “In February, 2011, the Texas, New Mexico, and California National Guard forces that were deployed to the border in September, 2010, under President’s Obama’s Southwest Border Augmentation Plan, will have 30 days to complete a total draw down of forces.”
The roughly 550 troops will have the month of February to redeploy back to their units, Texas Congressman Ted Poe told The Examiner. Troops would not be pulled off the Arizona border under the plan, and about 100 of the troops would re-deploy there from other states, officials said.
Poe received the letter today. His office confirmed with Department of Homeland Security officials that the plan came from the administration.
SideBear: Border violence is on the rise and over 30,000 people have been killed on our southern border since 2006. The lame stream media diligently reported a daily body count from Iraq but you would hard pressed to find any mention of the death toll on the border.
The primary function of the United States government and specially the Office of the President is to protect and defend our borders.
What Obama is doing violates the very Constitution that he swore to uphold, he should be impeached.