Let's get one thing out of the way first, I'm pro-immigration. I think it's good for the country, and for business. My support however, only extends to legal immigration. I'm vehemently opposed to the illegal one. I'm also unclear as to what's being debated when the issue of illegal immigrants is discussed. It is still against the law to enter or remain in this country without proper authorization, right? (And as laws go, this isn't a bad one, in fact, it's vital) So since when is it that law enforcement became optional?
And regarding this whole boycott thing… Heard a good question from a guy on some news show, "Are they going to boycott our emergency rooms too?" Hey, I don't mind mowing my own lawn (to be honest, I don't have one, but if I did, I wouldn't mind it), or having an American cabdriver (wouldn't it be refreshing if he actually understood what the hell I'm saying?) I have a feeling that most doctors, cops, teachers, and other professionals will be working today. Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying - illegal immigrants don't matter much. This boycott is a good thing. If we as a nation find it painful, and can't do without the illegals, then we need to address it via legislature. Deciding to only legalize them would be a mistake though. It will encourage further influx of illegal immigrants, and will not address absolutely anything. They say that they perform an important role within this society, and hold jobs that most Americans don't want. Well, here's a question, once they become legal here, will they still want to work for the minimum wage or less? And if not, who is going to fill those spots? I know, I know! Other illegal immigrants. Yipppeee! Problem solved. We might have to start paying more for lettuce, and increase the wages of construction workers, but that's a different issue. Caving in to any criminal segment within a society is a stupid, stupid thing to do; but to foreign criminals?! That's just insane.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
A Comment on Disclosure of Exec's Comp
I didn’t make it clear that I was advocating a wiser approach for the boards of directors, not legislature. In fact, if anything, I’d get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley and other such idiocy. An entire industry of a special breed of consultants has sprung up in the wake of corporate scandals. What do they consult on? – How to properly navigate the latest round of idiotic legislature that seeks to control the activity of those who actually produce. The legislature that was created by and for the benefit of those who couldn’t make something worthy of human consumption if their lives depended on it. Everyone has heard the cliché that those who can’t do, teach. Well, these good folks do even better. They charge exorbitant amounts of money to advise corporations on how to abide by the regulations, some of which seem to have been lifted directly from Alice
Friday, January 27, 2006
HAMAS' Victory
Enough commentary has been written on this victory of democracy without my two cents. One however (and unfortunately, I forgot where I read it), had a particularly interesting insight. It tied the results of the Palestinian's democratic elections to Bush's view of democracy. The article highlighted Bush's black-and-white perception of the world, where liberty inevitably leads to democracy (the post-nukes argument for going into Iraq). This election should hammer the last nail into the coffin of that argument, but I'm not holding my breath. (I just came across a quote by Schiller that rang so true: "With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.") And no, I don't hate saying, "I told you so." - I told you so. And I don't mind repeating myself, for any state to be democratic, and for any people to be free, THEY GOTTA WANT IT! Neither liberty nor democracy can be received as gifts, they can only be won. And neither Iraqis nor the Palestinians wanted them. Why anyone would be surprised by the results of this election is a mystery to me.
Another noteworthy aspect of this election was Kremlin's (official statement from the ministry of foreign affairs) prompt response to the will of Palestinian people. It comes to us by way of gazeta.ru:
Another noteworthy aspect of this election was Kremlin's (official statement from the ministry of foreign affairs) prompt response to the will of Palestinian people. It comes to us by way of gazeta.ru:
«В Москве рассматривают выборы в палестинский законодательный совет как крупное событие на пути дальнейшей демократизации палестинского общества, создания институтов будущего государства. Мы всегда уважали и будем уважать демократический выбор палестинского народа, на основе которого предстоит формирование нового состава палестинской законодательной и исполнительной власти…”
Roughly translated:
Moscow sees the elections of Palestinian governing body as a significant event on the path of further democratization of Palestinian society, and creation of institutions for the future state. We have always respected and will always respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people, which will serve as a basis for creation of new constituency for Palestinian legislative and executive branches.
January 27, 10:24 AM
Kremlin's blatant disregard for the fact that HAMAS is a self-avowed terrorist organization with a clearly stated objective of eliminating Israel from the face of the earth highlights Russian duplicity in dealing with terrorists, as well as their undying commitment to state-sponsored anti-Semitism.
Well, as the saying goes, what's good for the goose… When the Beslan tragedy occurred, like any normal westerner, I unequivocally condemned it as an act of beastly brutality by the group that deserves to be eliminated. I also fully supported Russian efforts in quelling the Chechen rebellion and eliminating the terrorists. In light of Kremlin's statement, I have come to reconsider my position. Perhaps they're not "terrorists" after all, but freedom fighters, which deserve to have democratic elections in their pursuit of autonomy and statehood. And once they elect Basayev and his thugs, um, I mean democratically elected officials; they will be equally entitled to creation of various institutions necessary for the formation of their democratic state.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Disclosure Of Executives' Compensation
Suddenly, everyone’s concern with executives’ pay has surfaced. It has always been a fun subject at the water coolers and union-sponsored events, but now it’s making inroads into legislature. Should executives’ compensation packages be publicly disclosed? – No. Why? Because it’s a matter of basic privacy. It is simply nobody’s (except the shareholder’s) business. Executives are entitled to the same level of privacy as anyone else. Luckily, it’s not just my opinion, it’s the law.
Having said all this, I think it’s the wrong question. The reason for this question is the apparent lack of correspondence between their pay and the company’s performance. By no means does this apply to all executives. Ellison, Gates, Jobs are some of the notable exceptions. But what about the likes of Wagoner, Ford Jr. or other executives whose companies have been consistently in the red, show complete lack of strategy, and the only way they know how to narrow the losses is by downsizing or outsourcing? Should their compensation packages be made public? – No. However poor their performance is, they’re still entitled to the same privacy as the rest of us. Additionally though, whatever that package is, it’s too much. There’s no justification for any pay increase to an executive whose company does not consistently outperform the market. Why? – If it’s unclear to you, you should not participate in this discussion.
Furthermore, executive packages should be completely restructured to reflect the difference in job requirements. They’re hired for a single purpose: make the company profitable. Um, if you’ve just agreed with this, and have nothing to add, you’re missing the same key component as the boards of directors of GM and Ford. No, they’re not hired to simply make the company profitable. Their job is to ensure that the company is profitable now AND in the long term. It’s not a subtle difference. The Wall Street is in the business of making money this quarter; next quarter they can invest elsewhere. The executive’s job is to ensure the company’s success LONG TERM (tip my hat to Costco). Their compensation packages should reflect that. I don’t understand how an executive can leave a failing company within a year or two after having stolen, I mean received, millions of dollars (and the board of directors just let them!). There are only two potential reasons for that: utter incompetence or corruption.
Here’s what I would propose: executives should be required to manage the company for a term of at least six years. During this term, their salary should be in the same range as their well-qualified professionals (engineers, accountants, etc.). A part of their salary should be put in an escrow account (let’s say 20%). They should not be allowed to make extra money off the company in any way during the first term. By the end of the first term, the company’s performance, and its strategic position should be evaluated, and based on the findings the executives should receive a percentage of the profits (I don't think anyone is going to argue about their salaries if the company is consistently profitable and growing). If the company’s health is found wanting, their escrowed salary should be reinvested back into the business (since they’re clearly not as well-qualified as they claimed). The numbers might be off, but the basic principle behind this is very sound. Executives are hired for their strategic vision and their ability to implement it. Neither one can be appropriately evaluated in the short term. Thus their compensation should be commensurate with the company’s performance over some reasonable period of time.
Having said all this, I think it’s the wrong question. The reason for this question is the apparent lack of correspondence between their pay and the company’s performance. By no means does this apply to all executives. Ellison, Gates, Jobs are some of the notable exceptions. But what about the likes of Wagoner, Ford Jr. or other executives whose companies have been consistently in the red, show complete lack of strategy, and the only way they know how to narrow the losses is by downsizing or outsourcing? Should their compensation packages be made public? – No. However poor their performance is, they’re still entitled to the same privacy as the rest of us. Additionally though, whatever that package is, it’s too much. There’s no justification for any pay increase to an executive whose company does not consistently outperform the market. Why? – If it’s unclear to you, you should not participate in this discussion.
Furthermore, executive packages should be completely restructured to reflect the difference in job requirements. They’re hired for a single purpose: make the company profitable. Um, if you’ve just agreed with this, and have nothing to add, you’re missing the same key component as the boards of directors of GM and Ford. No, they’re not hired to simply make the company profitable. Their job is to ensure that the company is profitable now AND in the long term. It’s not a subtle difference. The Wall Street is in the business of making money this quarter; next quarter they can invest elsewhere. The executive’s job is to ensure the company’s success LONG TERM (tip my hat to Costco). Their compensation packages should reflect that. I don’t understand how an executive can leave a failing company within a year or two after having stolen, I mean received, millions of dollars (and the board of directors just let them!). There are only two potential reasons for that: utter incompetence or corruption.
Here’s what I would propose: executives should be required to manage the company for a term of at least six years. During this term, their salary should be in the same range as their well-qualified professionals (engineers, accountants, etc.). A part of their salary should be put in an escrow account (let’s say 20%). They should not be allowed to make extra money off the company in any way during the first term. By the end of the first term, the company’s performance, and its strategic position should be evaluated, and based on the findings the executives should receive a percentage of the profits (I don't think anyone is going to argue about their salaries if the company is consistently profitable and growing). If the company’s health is found wanting, their escrowed salary should be reinvested back into the business (since they’re clearly not as well-qualified as they claimed). The numbers might be off, but the basic principle behind this is very sound. Executives are hired for their strategic vision and their ability to implement it. Neither one can be appropriately evaluated in the short term. Thus their compensation should be commensurate with the company’s performance over some reasonable period of time.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Russia’s March toward Freedom
Excerpts translated from www.gazeta.ru:
…
In summarizing the new law, Gazeta said the following: Russian Registration (a government institution) will track activities of foreign and Russian non-government organizations. Under this law, chapters and filial offices of foreign organizations will have to register (with RR). Besides the registration, affiliates of the foreign non-commercial organizations will have to disclose to RR their planned activities, as well as the amounts of financing, and other agencies, with which they intend to cooperate on the territory of Russia. The infusions of foreign financing and the goals they seek to achieve, will have to be disclosed by Russian organizations as well as the foreign.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Ah, sweet, sweet, liberty
Palestinians at war as blood feuds follow Israeli pullout
Law and order has collapsed in
It is the family wars that best underline the escalating sense of crisis. Guns and bombs, not the courts and police, have become the medium for restitution. Nasser Shabbat, a community leader in Beit Hanoun, blames the authority for the conditions spawning the violence.
I find absolutely nothing surprising there, except for maybe one thing: they’re not blaming the Israelis (yet). On the other hand, nobody is rushing to take responsibility for any of it either, so I guess the world still makes sense.
But more complex issues are at work. Since the Israeli withdrawal ordered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the unity of rival groups against the occupation has collapsed, and the young former fighters have turned their violence within. In the Kamal Edwan hospital … one gunman was killed in an intensive care unit by rival fighters.
“… I've told staff, if they think there is a risk of fighting, to leave them to kill each other outside.”
'This will never end,' says one who called himself Abu Nahed. 'The weak will be hit by the strong, because there is no one to protect them.'
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Respect Australian values or leave: Costello
Generally, I’m not given to just pasting almost entire articles, but in this case, there isn’t much more I can add. Except perhaps, I wish somebody around here would grow some balls (and common sense) like Mr. Howard’s.
Australian Broadcasting CorporationTV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm
Broadcast: 23/08/2005
Reporter: Tony Jones
TONY JONES: On the morning of the Prime Minister's Islamic summit, Mr Howard was greeted by his Treasurer's surprising contribution to the debate on the front page of The Australian newspaper. The headline read: "Costello tells firebrand clerics to get out of Australia".
Well, early in the day Peter Costello was not suggesting that any of the firebrands be deported. But by the time he spoke to us, that notion appeared to have matured.
His latest intervention into topics of national interest comes only days after his speech to the Australian-American leadership dialogue in which he focussed on growing anti-Americanism in the world. "That phenomenon", he later told the Sunday program, "Can easily morph into anti-Westernism, which picks up and encapsulates Australia and threatens our interests as well."
So was he suggesting that our close relationship with America makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? I spoke to Peter Costello in our Melbourne studio earlier this evening.
Peter Costello, thanks for joining us.
PETER COSTELLO: Good to be with you, Tony.
TONY JONES: Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment?
PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.
TONY JONES: It sounds like you're inviting Muslims who don't want to integrate to go to another country. Is it as simple as that?
PETER COSTELLO: No. I'm saying if you are thinking of coming to Australia, you ought to know what Australian values are.
TONY JONES: But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it.
Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values.
TONY JONES: I take it that if you're a dual citizen and you have the opportunity to leave and you don't like Australian values, you're encouraging them to go away; is that right?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option.
TONY JONES: But isn't this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio? Essentially, the argument is if you don't like it here, you should go back home.
PETER COSTELLO: No. Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared.
TONY JONES: Who exactly are you aiming this at? Are you aiming it at young Muslims who don't want to integrate or are you aiming it at clerics like Sheikh Omran or Abu Bakr both from Melbourne?
PETER COSTELLO: I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it.
TONY JONES: But you're not moving to the next stage, as they have in Britain, of actively seeking out clerics who teach what they regard as dangerous philosophy to young Muslims and forcing them to leave the country?
PETER COSTELLO: The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society.
TONY JONES: All right. But the situation now, as far as you're concerned, if they are to leave, it should be completely voluntary.
PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'm just saying if they object to a secular state with parliamentary law, there might be other countries where the system of law is more acceptable to them.
TONY JONES: Alright. Could that situation change? I mean, the voluntary nature of it at least, could you compel people to leave, including radical preachers, if there were a terrorist attack in Australia, as there was in London not so long ago?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, where a person has dual citizenship, Tony, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship where they could just as easily exercise a citizenship of another country. That might be a live possibility.
TONY JONES: You mean to force them to leave?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, you could ask them to exercise another citizenship.
TONY JONES: But you would only do that if there were a terrorist attack in the aftermath of it. You wouldn't do it, for example, if there were a thwarted terrorist attack as ASIO has told us there has been in this country?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, I am not going into individual circumstances. I just make the point that where people have dual citizenship and they're not comfortable with the way Australia is structured, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.
TONY JONES: Forcibly?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship.
TONY JONES: Let's move on. You made a speech at the weekend in which you warned that Australia could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism or Australia's interests at least could be hurt by growing anti-Americanism in the world. How could that happen?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, I think there is a lot of anti-Americanism in Australia. It's not just in Australia. It there's anti-Americanism in Europe and other parts of the world and to some degree it may be less in Australia than in countries like France or in parts of the Arab world. But I don't believe we can be complacent about it. It is a real strand of public opinion and I think we ought to engage it and discuss it. The point I'm trying to make is we in Australia have no reason to be anti-American; that where American power has been exercised, such as in the World War II, it was exercised in the defence of Australia, not the attack of Australia. By and large, American power, which is exercised in defence of democracy and in individual liberty, is supportive of Australia in its interests and not a threat to it.
TONY JONES: You said to Laurie Oakes on Sunday that anti-Americanism can easily morph into anti-Westernism and effectively that could threaten our interests. How could that happen?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, we've seen with some terrorist attacks already that Western places are targets. Not necessarily because there are Australians present, but because in the terrorist mind there are Westerners present, whether they be Americans or Britons or Australians.
TONY JONES: This is to do with anti-Americanism?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, anti-Westernism, and terrorists don't particularly distinguish when they're setting off bombs, can hit Australians as much as it can hit Americans or it can hit Britons.
TONY JONES: But this is anti-Americanism morphing into a broader anti-Western feeling which could affect Australian interests. Is that what you are saying?
PETER COSTELLO: Well, there have been occasions when Australians have been hit by terrorist incidents where people haven't distinguished between whether it's Americans or Britons or Australians. There is a strand of terrorist thinking that says that anybody who is a Westerner is a legitimate target.
TONY JONES: But the core of it is anti-American from what you are saying? The logic of what you are saying is pretty clear.
PETER COSTELLO: In some terrorist minds, if you're hitting a Westerner, you're hitting a legitimate target. The point I want to make is that because we're Westerners, in the minds of some terrorists we can be targets. So it's in our interests to defend the values of the West and it's in our interests to explain our policy. It's in America's interests to defend its own image and I would urge it to do so and I would also say to Australia's security -
TONY JONES: You seem to be suggesting that anti-Americanism is in fact a dangerous thing for Australians.
PETER COSTELLO: Well, it is in a security sense because the US is Australia's principal defence partner. When I say there is a danger of anti-Americanism in Australia amongst Australians, what I'm saying is, particularly amongst younger Australians, if they don't understand the events of 1942 when the US was the principal ally defending Australia and without which we wouldn't have been able to defend the islands to our near north, if they don't understand that, they may not understand what the importance of the American alliance is to the defence of Australia and our strategic interests.
TONY JONES: I don't want to keep coming back to this necessarily, but you've made the point quite clearly that anti-Americanism can morph into anti-Westernism and that threatens our interests. It threatens our interest, does it, because we could, like Americans, as a result of anti-Americanism become terrorist targets?
PETER COSTELLO: We have become terrorist targets because we are perceived to be Western. We've become terrorist targets because we are perceived to stand for a whole lot of values, which in the terrorist mind they oppose. Australians became terrorists in Bali not because of anything Australia did, but because in Bali they were perceived to be Westerners and in a sick terrorist mind that makes you a target.
TONY JONES: Right. Given that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably the leading cause of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, does that make us, as an ally of the Americans, a greater target for terrorists?
PETER COSTELLO: I don't think it's the principle cause at all. I think if you want to look for perceived areas of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, it was around a lot before Iraq. It's been around for a very long time, Tony, and most of it, I believe -
TONY JONES: I'm talking about what's happening right now. We're seeing it even in the lead-up to the Islamic summit we've been having in Canberra. What we are hearing is young Australian Muslims are particularly angry with the
American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
PETER COSTELLO: No, I couldn't disagree with you more profoundly. There was substantial hostility to the US in the Arab world long before Iraq. Whether it's over perceived injustices to Islam, whether it's over the Palestinian issue, whether it's over support for Israel. Most of these things, and I don't believe justify hostility at all, but it's been there long before Iraq. Let me tell you this, Tony - you are profoundly wrong if you thought hostility to the United States started in 2003. It was around a long before that.
...
Alito
I'll admit right off the bat, I haven't been following it too closely; that is to say, I've seen less than two hours of the hearings and read a few articles on the subject. So far, the most controversial subjects seem to be his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, his view of Roe vs. Wade, and his support of anauthorized wiretaps.
Whether or not he was an active member of C.A.P., one thing is certain: his views today are different from those expressed by C.A.P. members 25 years ago. It would've been better if he belonged to the Habitat for Humanity, but as "sins" go, it's not a mortal one. Nobody is going to mistake him for a flaming liberal, but it doesn't look like he's got a white hooded robe in the closet either. If however, more recent evidence of him espousing such views should surface, it would be a whole different matter. I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by my memberships in some organizations over the last 25 years (if nothing else, I'd have to be committed for a severe bi-polar disorder with equally severe delusions). My current views would be misrepresented 100% by that information. (Those who know me will know exactly what I mean.)
According to usatoday.com, "Alito, then 35, said he was especially 'proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.'"
Roe vs. Wade is a legitimate concern, though. Alito refuses to say whether he would recognize it as an established law of the land. And treating it "with respect" is a far cry from recognizing it as a law. Clearly, there are other, more important, considerations for the Supreme Court nominee, but as issues go, this is pivotal for a lot of people in this country. Its importance stems not only from the subject it addresses, but from the symbolic value it has acquired over time. It has come to represent liberal and humanist advancements in this country, along with the abolition of slavery, and equal rights. Judge Alito's track record on opposing abortions by overturning Roe is a considerably greater detractor from his qualifications, in my opinion. (Then again, I'm unequivocally pro-choice.)
Alito also supported unauthorized wiretaps on Americans, and blanket immunity for attorney general when he acts in the interests of national security. (AP 12/23/05 16:47 PST Washington)
While I support his stance on racial and ethnic quotas, his views do, seem to create a very conservative and statist pattern. A pattern that would undoubtedly further the erosion of American civil liberties while strengthening the Office of the President, and the government in general. Personally, I would prefer to see a candidate with a more centrist set of views, and one not as eager to step over the Constitution.
Whether or not he was an active member of C.A.P., one thing is certain: his views today are different from those expressed by C.A.P. members 25 years ago. It would've been better if he belonged to the Habitat for Humanity, but as "sins" go, it's not a mortal one. Nobody is going to mistake him for a flaming liberal, but it doesn't look like he's got a white hooded robe in the closet either. If however, more recent evidence of him espousing such views should surface, it would be a whole different matter. I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by my memberships in some organizations over the last 25 years (if nothing else, I'd have to be committed for a severe bi-polar disorder with equally severe delusions). My current views would be misrepresented 100% by that information. (Those who know me will know exactly what I mean.)
According to usatoday.com, "Alito, then 35, said he was especially 'proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.'"
Roe vs. Wade is a legitimate concern, though. Alito refuses to say whether he would recognize it as an established law of the land. And treating it "with respect" is a far cry from recognizing it as a law. Clearly, there are other, more important, considerations for the Supreme Court nominee, but as issues go, this is pivotal for a lot of people in this country. Its importance stems not only from the subject it addresses, but from the symbolic value it has acquired over time. It has come to represent liberal and humanist advancements in this country, along with the abolition of slavery, and equal rights. Judge Alito's track record on opposing abortions by overturning Roe is a considerably greater detractor from his qualifications, in my opinion. (Then again, I'm unequivocally pro-choice.)
Alito also supported unauthorized wiretaps on Americans, and blanket immunity for attorney general when he acts in the interests of national security. (AP 12/23/05 16:47 PST Washington)
While I support his stance on racial and ethnic quotas, his views do, seem to create a very conservative and statist pattern. A pattern that would undoubtedly further the erosion of American civil liberties while strengthening the Office of the President, and the government in general. Personally, I would prefer to see a candidate with a more centrist set of views, and one not as eager to step over the Constitution.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
“Cleanliness” advocate
Hamza wanted "caliph in the White House": UK court
Me? Dirty?! Hey! I shower at least once a day, damn it! Blasphemous? I'll give you that. But that's not even my worst offense against the Allah, and already I'm good to go? Awww. At least give me a chance to fully implicate myself. Wouldn't it make my death even more enjoyable to Allah? I guess his followers are benevolent like that, and are willing to overlook the rest.
On a slightly different topic, I have to say, I disagree with the Brits' decision to try the venerable sheik, Hamza, in court. Why cast the pearls before… the sheik? (not like he can pick 'em up, anyway. ha-ha. I'm a cruel bustard, too.) Deport him, instead (it's cheaper), and have him knocked off shortly thereafter (still cheaper). He'll be enjoying his virgins, and I won't have to be so self-conscious about my hygiene.
Me? Dirty?! Hey! I shower at least once a day, damn it! Blasphemous? I'll give you that. But that's not even my worst offense against the Allah, and already I'm good to go? Awww. At least give me a chance to fully implicate myself. Wouldn't it make my death even more enjoyable to Allah? I guess his followers are benevolent like that, and are willing to overlook the rest.
On a slightly different topic, I have to say, I disagree with the Brits' decision to try the venerable sheik, Hamza, in court. Why cast the pearls before… the sheik? (not like he can pick 'em up, anyway. ha-ha. I'm a cruel bustard, too.) Deport him, instead (it's cheaper), and have him knocked off shortly thereafter (still cheaper). He'll be enjoying his virgins, and I won't have to be so self-conscious about my hygiene.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Afghanistan's Progress
"Yes, yes, education IS a terrible thing. Next thing you know, Allah has to make room for astronomy. And to top it off, for women (of all creatures)! Tsk-tsk-tsk. More beheadings, definitely more beheadings. Yep, that's the way to go. Lemme get my mule and my yataghan, and let's go behead someone smart."
Meanwhile, back at the farm… "People of Afghanistan are entering the new age of Democracy!.."
Meanwhile, back at the farm… "People of Afghanistan are entering the new age of Democracy!.."
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Civilization at its peak
Being a part of a minority, I too appreciate and support the spirit of pluralism and open-mindedness. I’m afraid my open-mindedness about other cultures and customs has its limits though. It’s become less and less acceptable to criticize other “cultures”. Well, as should be evident from my previous posts, I don’t give a rat’s ass.
With that, what the fuck kind of a culture is that?! Not only did he kill his step-daughter (niece), but figured, let’s add three more for a good measure; or just in case. Go ahead and tell me how it’s a different culture, and it requires understanding, acceptance, and chanting together. A culture that habitually lets such atrocities go on cannot, and should not be understood. God forbid our police should develop “an understanding” for honor killings (and isn’t it an oxymoron?). Feel like slaughtering a couple of kids to set an example? Here’s an idea: go hang yourself in a public square (that WOULD constitute an honor killing).
We’ve had our own wackjobs who suddenly become vessels of God or Satan, and must do their biddings (strangely, it’s never, picking up garbage, annoying telemarketers, or reading to the blind), but it’s not “cultural”, just insane and evil. And it’s treated and recognized by everyone as such. With fundamentalist Muslims, it’s cultural, or they put it, “a family dispute”. As cultural “issues” go, this one disqualifies them from being considered a civilization altogether.
Hardly a day goes by without seeing a rep from some Muslim association for promoting cultural understanding (or some other shit like that) point out how their fellow Americans are not being very understanding or downright hostile. Here’s another idea (I’m full of them today), get in touch with your brethren in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other “Stans”, and find out what the fuck is going on there, why it’s going on, and what you can do to stop it. Then get back to us. And for god’s sake, if you disapprove of these kinds of things, get on the fucking tube and tell that to everyone (at least as frequently as you condemn Israel for killing known terrorists); maybe then we won’t associate you with terrorist-supporting charities and defenders of rights for suspected terrorists.
With that, what the fuck kind of a culture is that?! Not only did he kill his step-daughter (niece), but figured, let’s add three more for a good measure; or just in case. Go ahead and tell me how it’s a different culture, and it requires understanding, acceptance, and chanting together. A culture that habitually lets such atrocities go on cannot, and should not be understood. God forbid our police should develop “an understanding” for honor killings (and isn’t it an oxymoron?). Feel like slaughtering a couple of kids to set an example? Here’s an idea: go hang yourself in a public square (that WOULD constitute an honor killing).
We’ve had our own wackjobs who suddenly become vessels of God or Satan, and must do their biddings (strangely, it’s never, picking up garbage, annoying telemarketers, or reading to the blind), but it’s not “cultural”, just insane and evil. And it’s treated and recognized by everyone as such. With fundamentalist Muslims, it’s cultural, or they put it, “a family dispute”. As cultural “issues” go, this one disqualifies them from being considered a civilization altogether.
Hardly a day goes by without seeing a rep from some Muslim association for promoting cultural understanding (or some other shit like that) point out how their fellow Americans are not being very understanding or downright hostile. Here’s another idea (I’m full of them today), get in touch with your brethren in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other “Stans”, and find out what the fuck is going on there, why it’s going on, and what you can do to stop it. Then get back to us. And for god’s sake, if you disapprove of these kinds of things, get on the fucking tube and tell that to everyone (at least as frequently as you condemn Israel for killing known terrorists); maybe then we won’t associate you with terrorist-supporting charities and defenders of rights for suspected terrorists.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Merry Christmas!
A lot of interesting stuff is going on lately, alas, not nearly enough time to talk and think about it all. Here's an easy subject to pontificate on - "Merry Christmas!"
A historic update: this country was founded by people of Christian heritage. They may have been not very cosmopolitan or politically correct by today's standards, but they were the ones who brought Western civilization to these shores. And since most of them were Christians, they celebrated Christmas (it follows nicely, doesn't it?). To this day, majority of the inhabitants of this land continue with this tradition. Given all this, on what grounds would anyone object to being wished a Merry Christmas?
I'm Jewish. About as secular as they come. I think Hanukah trumps Christmas easy - we have eight (8 !) days of presents and no fat men abusing endangered species or extorting cookies and milk. Yet, it never even occurred to me to get upset because someone wished me a Merry Christmas. That's just insane! Sometimes I'll respond with Happy Hanukah instead, or Happy Kwanza (I'm also trying to find out what the season's greeting used by Druids is. Meanwhile, I took the liberty of coming up with my own Druid greeting - Merry Bush Day. - Just saying that, warms my cockles.)
Anyway, keeping in the spirit of things, God Bless, Happy Hanukah, and Merry Christmas to you all!
And to those who found this offensive - fuck off!
A historic update: this country was founded by people of Christian heritage. They may have been not very cosmopolitan or politically correct by today's standards, but they were the ones who brought Western civilization to these shores. And since most of them were Christians, they celebrated Christmas (it follows nicely, doesn't it?). To this day, majority of the inhabitants of this land continue with this tradition. Given all this, on what grounds would anyone object to being wished a Merry Christmas?
I'm Jewish. About as secular as they come. I think Hanukah trumps Christmas easy - we have eight (8 !) days of presents and no fat men abusing endangered species or extorting cookies and milk. Yet, it never even occurred to me to get upset because someone wished me a Merry Christmas. That's just insane! Sometimes I'll respond with Happy Hanukah instead, or Happy Kwanza (I'm also trying to find out what the season's greeting used by Druids is. Meanwhile, I took the liberty of coming up with my own Druid greeting - Merry Bush Day. - Just saying that, warms my cockles.)
Anyway, keeping in the spirit of things, God Bless, Happy Hanukah, and Merry Christmas to you all!
And to those who found this offensive - fuck off!
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Iranian Pres. speaks again
Iranian president is quickly becoming the most frequently commented upon topic of this blog. After giving some thought on what response would be appropriate, I've decided to stick with mature, and well-thought out approach. With that, I must confess that reading about Mr. Ahmadinejad's views leaves me with the heavy feeling of regret and a flicker of hope. I regret that the Israelis didn't bomb the entire Iran into the Stone Age (oh, wait, hm… ok, bad choice, they never really progressed much beyond that), into oblivion; and I hope that this grave error will be remedied in my lifetime.
Some would say that this kind of sentiments only ignite more hatred, mistrust, and violence. And they would be right. At the same time, how would you expect the Israelis to react to such statements? They've done their best in attempting to negotiate. They've shown great restraint in dealing Palestinian terrorists, Iran and the likes. But these folks just simply don't get it.
Negotiation and peaceful resolution is always the preferred way of addressing conflicts among civilized people. But one doesn't negotiate with rabid dogs or Islamic fundamentalists.
Some would say that this kind of sentiments only ignite more hatred, mistrust, and violence. And they would be right. At the same time, how would you expect the Israelis to react to such statements? They've done their best in attempting to negotiate. They've shown great restraint in dealing Palestinian terrorists, Iran and the likes. But these folks just simply don't get it.
Negotiation and peaceful resolution is always the preferred way of addressing conflicts among civilized people. But one doesn't negotiate with rabid dogs or Islamic fundamentalists.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Univ. Prof bullied by fundies
I wonder just how this thing started...
John: "Hey, Pete, dija hea 'bout dis smartass teacher at U of K?! He's calling our inte… herr.. hm.. inteligent desine a mifology or somethn!" Pete: "That bustard!" John: "Let's go bash his head in!" Pete: "Should we pray about it first?" John: "Neh!" Pete: "What's a miphology?" John: "it's bad." Pete: "let's go set this smarty pants straight!" "God bless America!"
John: "Hey, Pete, dija hea 'bout dis smartass teacher at U of K?! He's calling our inte… herr.. hm.. inteligent desine a mifology or somethn!" Pete: "That bustard!" John: "Let's go bash his head in!" Pete: "Should we pray about it first?" John: "Neh!" Pete: "What's a miphology?" John: "it's bad." Pete: "let's go set this smarty pants straight!" "God bless America!"
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The inescapable fact...
Cool article on Iraq by Brian Whitaker of the Guardian.
Without the histrionic posturing, it offers a sober and insightful perspective on the war in Iraq. The entire article is very interesting and thought-provoking, but here are the last two paragraphs:
The thing that never fails to ignite my temper is a blithe disregard for reality. I find myself befuddled by having to prove the obvious, or that which will be obvious tomorrow, but meanwhile has a theoretical chance of a benign outcome.
A lot of people (though not enough) were right about W, and his abilities. In the end, all of us voted one way or the other, frequently basing the decision on the candidates stance on one or just a couple of specific issues.And to this end, I wanted to make a couple of points:
1. Intellectual ability matters! His faith or the quality of his relationship with the Almighty cannot be measured. His IQ, on the other hand, can. And yes, I suggest that that alone shouldve disqualified him from the presidency (below average should be unacceptable THIS should be an amendment to the Constitution. - Hey, let him take the test and prove me wrong.) There a LOT of people that cast their votes for him based on what he DOESNT support (just think of the litany of liberal causeshere). Reason, as an ethical and economic value, is grossly underrated. Reason, not faith, machismo, hatred, or fear shouldve been the guiding principle.
2. Consider pure facts. (Yes, there is such a thing, contrary to what you mightve come to believe watching FOX.) The simplest illustration of the point is the way military records of Bush and Kerry were examined. We dont know (and at this point, will never fully know) just how well they served. The only things that are beyond dispute are the mere facts. One served in active combat, the other one didnt. Its a naked, stark fact. All the commentary in the world isnt worth 5% the actual value of this simple FACT.
Reason and Facts instead of faith and beliefs... wouldn't that be refreshing.
Without the histrionic posturing, it offers a sober and insightful perspective on the war in Iraq. The entire article is very interesting and thought-provoking, but here are the last two paragraphs:
| The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr Bush unleashed on March 20 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his "mission accomplished" speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them. In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave. |
The thing that never fails to ignite my temper is a blithe disregard for reality. I find myself befuddled by having to prove the obvious, or that which will be obvious tomorrow, but meanwhile has a theoretical chance of a benign outcome.
A lot of people (though not enough) were right about W, and his abilities. In the end, all of us voted one way or the other, frequently basing the decision on the candidates stance on one or just a couple of specific issues.And to this end, I wanted to make a couple of points:
1. Intellectual ability matters! His faith or the quality of his relationship with the Almighty cannot be measured. His IQ, on the other hand, can. And yes, I suggest that that alone shouldve disqualified him from the presidency (below average should be unacceptable THIS should be an amendment to the Constitution. - Hey, let him take the test and prove me wrong.) There a LOT of people that cast their votes for him based on what he DOESNT support (just think of the litany of liberal causeshere). Reason, as an ethical and economic value, is grossly underrated. Reason, not faith, machismo, hatred, or fear shouldve been the guiding principle.
2. Consider pure facts. (Yes, there is such a thing, contrary to what you mightve come to believe watching FOX.) The simplest illustration of the point is the way military records of Bush and Kerry were examined. We dont know (and at this point, will never fully know) just how well they served. The only things that are beyond dispute are the mere facts. One served in active combat, the other one didnt. Its a naked, stark fact. All the commentary in the world isnt worth 5% the actual value of this simple FACT.
Reason and Facts instead of faith and beliefs... wouldn't that be refreshing.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Rand on "the barometer of a society's virtue"
"When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsionwhen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice you may know that your society is doomed."
OK, it's no surprise I'm a fan of Rand, right? You know what attracted me first to Rands ideas? They have the same feeling as the words "The emperor has no clothes!" in that old tail. Nobody had uttered them before, but everyone thought it was the case. But now that theyre in the air, and the truth is plastered on the world, there's no escaping it. Kind of like the law of gravity. It was there all along, only Newton pointed to it, described it, and named it.
Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsionwhen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice you may know that your society is doomed."
OK, it's no surprise I'm a fan of Rand, right? You know what attracted me first to Rands ideas? They have the same feeling as the words "The emperor has no clothes!" in that old tail. Nobody had uttered them before, but everyone thought it was the case. But now that theyre in the air, and the truth is plastered on the world, there's no escaping it. Kind of like the law of gravity. It was there all along, only Newton pointed to it, described it, and named it.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Part Deux
Chicago Tribune, 11/10/05
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0511100303nov10,1,1658818.story
“A Muslim civil rights group demanded an apology Wednesday from U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for remarks he made condoning discrimination against some Arabs.”
…
“Kirk, a Navy Reserve intelligence officer, [said]… I'm not threatened by people from China. I'm not even threatened by people from Mexico. I just know where the threat is from. It's from a unique place, and I think it's OK to recognize that.”
…
In a letter faxed Wednesday to Kirk's office, Yaser Tabbara, director of the Muslim civil rights group, wrote that he was shocked by the comments.
’It's one thing for me to hear it from Joe Schmoe on the street and deal with it as an ignorant attitude and give that person the benefit of the doubt," Tabbara said. "It's another, and 100 times more disturbing and dangerous, to hear something like that spewed out of the mouth of a public figure, a political representative who represents a constituency of Americans. This, to me, is a manifestation of ... a classic, malicious, bigoted attitude.’”
First, why does Mr. Tabbara think that it’s rather common and acceptable for “Joe Schmoe” to be ignorant? Right off the bat, this strikes me as an insolent discriminatory comment. Second, while Mr. Tabbara throws around terms like, “ignorant” and “malicious, bigoted attitude” with authoritative insouciance (I learned this term at the peak of my education, at the 6th grade of parochial school); he fails to substantiate his views.
“…to hear something like that spewed…” Something like what?!! Kirk’s observation is based on hard facts. Mr. Tabbara’s dismay, on the other hand, is based on nothing more than… hm, nope, I guess it’s just on nothing.
And one more thing, why did it take months before there was a single fatwa issued against Bin Laden by any imams in the U.S.? I’d like to find out exactly what this enlightened Muslim civil rights group (isn’t it an oxymoron?) has done to aid the fight against terrorism. Or even, to simply further democracy in their neck of the woods.
In conclusion, I’d like to mention a Russian proverb that is rather fitting for this situation. “Don’t blame the mirror for the ugly face.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0511100303nov10,1,1658818.story
“A Muslim civil rights group demanded an apology Wednesday from U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for remarks he made condoning discrimination against some Arabs.”
…
“Kirk, a Navy Reserve intelligence officer, [said]… I'm not threatened by people from China. I'm not even threatened by people from Mexico. I just know where the threat is from. It's from a unique place, and I think it's OK to recognize that.”
…
In a letter faxed Wednesday to Kirk's office, Yaser Tabbara, director of the Muslim civil rights group, wrote that he was shocked by the comments.
’It's one thing for me to hear it from Joe Schmoe on the street and deal with it as an ignorant attitude and give that person the benefit of the doubt," Tabbara said. "It's another, and 100 times more disturbing and dangerous, to hear something like that spewed out of the mouth of a public figure, a political representative who represents a constituency of Americans. This, to me, is a manifestation of ... a classic, malicious, bigoted attitude.’”
First, why does Mr. Tabbara think that it’s rather common and acceptable for “Joe Schmoe” to be ignorant? Right off the bat, this strikes me as an insolent discriminatory comment. Second, while Mr. Tabbara throws around terms like, “ignorant” and “malicious, bigoted attitude” with authoritative insouciance (I learned this term at the peak of my education, at the 6th grade of parochial school); he fails to substantiate his views.
“…to hear something like that spewed…” Something like what?!! Kirk’s observation is based on hard facts. Mr. Tabbara’s dismay, on the other hand, is based on nothing more than… hm, nope, I guess it’s just on nothing.
And one more thing, why did it take months before there was a single fatwa issued against Bin Laden by any imams in the U.S.? I’d like to find out exactly what this enlightened Muslim civil rights group (isn’t it an oxymoron?) has done to aid the fight against terrorism. Or even, to simply further democracy in their neck of the woods.
In conclusion, I’d like to mention a Russian proverb that is rather fitting for this situation. “Don’t blame the mirror for the ugly face.”
On racial profiling
I’m so sick and tired of hearing why and how racial profiling is bad. Primarily because the arguments are so goddamn stupid, that I’m not sure whether I should get a tissue for the idiot, since he’s bound to start drooling any second, or to humor him, and actually try to reason.
Do you fish? I used to. Generally, when I went fishing, I’d look at the river, and spot a couple of places where the fish is more likely to be. And usually I was right. When I wasn’t, I’d try other spots, and would stick with the ones that worked. I can also look at the neighborhood and say how likely it is to find a crack dealer there. Isn’t that ingenious of me? - Not really. While I do find the necessity of explaining how it’s done rather ludicrous, this is where the obsession with political correctness has gotten us.
Here’s why it’s good and absolutely necessary to conduct racial profiling. – How many whites were there among the terrorists of 9/11, London bombings, Madrid, Bali, Jordan? How many blacks? Anyone from the Midwest? No, huh? (gotta say it, it pisses me off to no end when I see some security guard waving his magic wand over some 80-year old lady from Wisconsin. Does anyone sincerely believe she might be concealing something other than her annoyance?!) “But does that mean that there couldn’t be one from Cuba or Midwest?” – is a typical response. Yes, actually, for all practical purposes, it does. All of them were Muslims, and most, of Arabic origins. In 9/11 most were Saudis. Absolute majority of the terrorists in the U.S. so far, have been Muslims from the Middle East. Since most of the terrorists seem to come from there, it seems only logical to focus more efforts on screening people from that region. Could it be any more self-evident? “Do most terrorists come from there?!. What about Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski? Were they also Saudis?!” – Got me there. Are there domestic wackjobs? Yes! White supremacists, disgruntled postal workers, depressed teenagers, self-appointed defenders of the disenfranchised, etc. HOWEVER, if we look at the proportion of Arab Muslims (or to be more inclusive, the good folks hailing from terrorist-producing states) to the general population of the U.S. it will be less than 10% (I’m guessing here, but I don’t think it’s more than that, probably much less). The same slice of population however would comprise well over 60% of terrorists in the U.S. So the benefit of focusing on this slice of the population is humongous.
“But if we start focusing on Arabs, the real terrorists will then coerce or bribe a Mongolian man or a Midwestern woman into carrying out the next attack. And thanks to your disregard of these groups as potential suspects, you’ll have missed them.” (Or something to that extent.) First, nobody suggests that everyone else besides Arab Muslims just waltzes into the plane or goes buying TNT unquestioned. Second, good luck to them trying to recruit an 80-year old Midwestern woman for such a mission. Third, when that happens, we’ll adjust the tactics. Trying to recruit potential terrorists outside of their “comfort” zone is a difficult and dangerous undertaking for them. Therefore it is also rather unlikely. Meanwhile, if we DID, focus on Arab Muslims or militant Muslims (call them whatever you want, we all know whom I’m talking about), our chances of preventing more attacks would be increased tremendously.
Those who oppose racial profiling, do so on the grounds of it being “racial”. And these days, anything “racial” is just unacceptable and undemocratic. Sickle cell anemia tends to afflict people of African origins considerably more than any other. Should we start screening others too, since we’re clearly selecting them based on their race? What about Tay-Sachs disease? Most (but NOT ALL) of the afflicted are of Ashkenazi Jewish origin. That’s a pretty specific group of population as well. Generally, they’re the only ones screened for it. Isn’t it a discriminatory practice then? Yes it is. In as much as discrimination means discernment, it is. And this discernment happens to be based on ethnic and geographic origins. I’d love to hear the argument for why we should make the Tay-Sachs screening tests for everyone.
And lastly, I don’t think that even those who say that racial profiling is a form of discrimination and should be illegal believe it themselves. To those who do, I say put your money where your mouth is. If you’re genuinely convinced that the chances of the next major terror act (or let’s take two out of three next ones) being perpetrated by a non-Muslim from a country that has NOT been identified as a terrorist-producing region are equal or greater than that they will be, let’s make a bet. If the next two out of three major terrorist acts are committed by individuals that fall into my “evil stereotype”, you pay me $100. If not, I pay you $100. If you believe what you say, why not make an easy hundred bucks off of an ignorant idiot like me.
Do you fish? I used to. Generally, when I went fishing, I’d look at the river, and spot a couple of places where the fish is more likely to be. And usually I was right. When I wasn’t, I’d try other spots, and would stick with the ones that worked. I can also look at the neighborhood and say how likely it is to find a crack dealer there. Isn’t that ingenious of me? - Not really. While I do find the necessity of explaining how it’s done rather ludicrous, this is where the obsession with political correctness has gotten us.
Here’s why it’s good and absolutely necessary to conduct racial profiling. – How many whites were there among the terrorists of 9/11, London bombings, Madrid, Bali, Jordan? How many blacks? Anyone from the Midwest? No, huh? (gotta say it, it pisses me off to no end when I see some security guard waving his magic wand over some 80-year old lady from Wisconsin. Does anyone sincerely believe she might be concealing something other than her annoyance?!) “But does that mean that there couldn’t be one from Cuba or Midwest?” – is a typical response. Yes, actually, for all practical purposes, it does. All of them were Muslims, and most, of Arabic origins. In 9/11 most were Saudis. Absolute majority of the terrorists in the U.S. so far, have been Muslims from the Middle East. Since most of the terrorists seem to come from there, it seems only logical to focus more efforts on screening people from that region. Could it be any more self-evident? “Do most terrorists come from there?!. What about Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski? Were they also Saudis?!” – Got me there. Are there domestic wackjobs? Yes! White supremacists, disgruntled postal workers, depressed teenagers, self-appointed defenders of the disenfranchised, etc. HOWEVER, if we look at the proportion of Arab Muslims (or to be more inclusive, the good folks hailing from terrorist-producing states) to the general population of the U.S. it will be less than 10% (I’m guessing here, but I don’t think it’s more than that, probably much less). The same slice of population however would comprise well over 60% of terrorists in the U.S. So the benefit of focusing on this slice of the population is humongous.
“But if we start focusing on Arabs, the real terrorists will then coerce or bribe a Mongolian man or a Midwestern woman into carrying out the next attack. And thanks to your disregard of these groups as potential suspects, you’ll have missed them.” (Or something to that extent.) First, nobody suggests that everyone else besides Arab Muslims just waltzes into the plane or goes buying TNT unquestioned. Second, good luck to them trying to recruit an 80-year old Midwestern woman for such a mission. Third, when that happens, we’ll adjust the tactics. Trying to recruit potential terrorists outside of their “comfort” zone is a difficult and dangerous undertaking for them. Therefore it is also rather unlikely. Meanwhile, if we DID, focus on Arab Muslims or militant Muslims (call them whatever you want, we all know whom I’m talking about), our chances of preventing more attacks would be increased tremendously.
Those who oppose racial profiling, do so on the grounds of it being “racial”. And these days, anything “racial” is just unacceptable and undemocratic. Sickle cell anemia tends to afflict people of African origins considerably more than any other. Should we start screening others too, since we’re clearly selecting them based on their race? What about Tay-Sachs disease? Most (but NOT ALL) of the afflicted are of Ashkenazi Jewish origin. That’s a pretty specific group of population as well. Generally, they’re the only ones screened for it. Isn’t it a discriminatory practice then? Yes it is. In as much as discrimination means discernment, it is. And this discernment happens to be based on ethnic and geographic origins. I’d love to hear the argument for why we should make the Tay-Sachs screening tests for everyone.
And lastly, I don’t think that even those who say that racial profiling is a form of discrimination and should be illegal believe it themselves. To those who do, I say put your money where your mouth is. If you’re genuinely convinced that the chances of the next major terror act (or let’s take two out of three next ones) being perpetrated by a non-Muslim from a country that has NOT been identified as a terrorist-producing region are equal or greater than that they will be, let’s make a bet. If the next two out of three major terrorist acts are committed by individuals that fall into my “evil stereotype”, you pay me $100. If not, I pay you $100. If you believe what you say, why not make an easy hundred bucks off of an ignorant idiot like me.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Where are his manners?!
WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801683_pf.html
France. "…his [Sarkozy's, who's the interior minister] attempts to reach out to Muslim and immigrant communities have foundered amid rage over his undiplomatic references to marauding youth as 'scum.'"
According to WaPo it all started "when two teenage boys from the northern suburbs of Paris [leapt] into a power substation on Oct. 27 while trying to dodge police at a checkpoint, according to their parents… [and] were electrocuted."
13 Nights of rioting, looting, and burning down property. Perhaps "scum" was too harsh. Naughty? Misbehaving? Maybe unseemly?.. But "scum"?! After all, they haven't killed anyone. Clearly, Monsieur Sarkozy needs to learn some good manners. Tsk-tsk-tsk, what a shame.
France. "…his [Sarkozy's, who's the interior minister] attempts to reach out to Muslim and immigrant communities have foundered amid rage over his undiplomatic references to marauding youth as 'scum.'"
According to WaPo it all started "when two teenage boys from the northern suburbs of Paris [leapt] into a power substation on Oct. 27 while trying to dodge police at a checkpoint, according to their parents… [and] were electrocuted."
13 Nights of rioting, looting, and burning down property. Perhaps "scum" was too harsh. Naughty? Misbehaving? Maybe unseemly?.. But "scum"?! After all, they haven't killed anyone. Clearly, Monsieur Sarkozy needs to learn some good manners. Tsk-tsk-tsk, what a shame.
Friday, October 28, 2005
"Bring it on!"
Iranian President’s remarks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5376901,00.html
Never thought I'd resort to quoting our illustrious president, but for once, his asinine response is the most rational one: "Bring it on!" Generally, I'm not a warmonger, but when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't believe that negotiation is possible. Isn't it just plain fucking obvious that they're not willing to negotiate?! Seriously, who in his right mind can possibly think after these kinds of statements that Arabs are genuinely interested in reaching a peaceful solution? Please, somebody tell me. And it's been like this since 1948. They threaten continuously, they act on their threats (luckily, unsuccessfully), and they threaten again. After which time exactly are we supposed to take these threats seriously?
A friend of mine has suggested that it's only "political posturing by radical barbarian". Most likely, he's right. But time is not on our side. If this is only a precursor of the things to come, then I hope to read about some spectacular air strikes in that region very soon. This is no longer a tyrant who usurped power unlawfully. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected, and supported by his people; therefore Iranians fully share the responsibility with their leader. Hitler was elected too. - Sometimes, entire countries, entire people make wrong choices. Ahmadinejad was a wrong choice. But it was their bed to make. I suggest it's time for them to lay in it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5376901,00.html
Never thought I'd resort to quoting our illustrious president, but for once, his asinine response is the most rational one: "Bring it on!" Generally, I'm not a warmonger, but when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't believe that negotiation is possible. Isn't it just plain fucking obvious that they're not willing to negotiate?! Seriously, who in his right mind can possibly think after these kinds of statements that Arabs are genuinely interested in reaching a peaceful solution? Please, somebody tell me. And it's been like this since 1948. They threaten continuously, they act on their threats (luckily, unsuccessfully), and they threaten again. After which time exactly are we supposed to take these threats seriously?
A friend of mine has suggested that it's only "political posturing by radical barbarian". Most likely, he's right. But time is not on our side. If this is only a precursor of the things to come, then I hope to read about some spectacular air strikes in that region very soon. This is no longer a tyrant who usurped power unlawfully. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected, and supported by his people; therefore Iranians fully share the responsibility with their leader. Hitler was elected too. - Sometimes, entire countries, entire people make wrong choices. Ahmadinejad was a wrong choice. But it was their bed to make. I suggest it's time for them to lay in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)