I found this on the Larry Elder website a few years ago. In light of the London bombings I thought I should bring it out again.
Don
Profiling Quiz
To ensure we Americans never offend anyone—particularly fanatics intent on killing us—airport screeners will not be allowed to profile people. They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year-old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal-of-Honor-winning former Governors.
Let’s pause a moment and take the following test on whether or not we should engage in profiling:
1.) In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped & massacred by:
(a) Olga Corbutt
(b) Sitting Bull
(c) Arnold Schwartzeneger
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40
2.) In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
(a) Lost Norwegians
(b) Elvis
(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40
3.) During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
(a) John Dillinger
(b) The King of Sweden
(c) The Boy Scouts
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40
4.) In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
(a) A pizza delivery boy
(b) Pee Wee Herman
(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
5.) In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70-year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
(a) The Smurfs
(b) Davy Jones
(c) The Little Mermaid
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
6.) In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, & a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:
(a) Captain Kid
(b) Charles Lindberg
(c) Mother Teresa
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
7.) In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
(a) Scooby Doo
(b) The Tooth Fairy
(c) Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid who had a few sticks of dynamite
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
8.) In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
(a) Richard Simmons
(b) Grandma Moses
(c) Michael Jordan
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
9.) In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
(a) Mr. Rogers
(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems
(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain: “Mustapha the Merciless”
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40
10.) On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked & destroyed & thousands of people were killed by:
(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
(c) Mr. Bean
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
11.) In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
(a) Enron
(b) The Lutheran Church
(c) The NFL
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
12.) In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
(a) Bonny and Clyde
(b) Captain Kangaroo
(c) Billy Graham
(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 & 40.
Hmmm ….. Nope, no patterns anywhere to justify profiling.
I’m on the fence about racial profiling. On the one hand, it’s unarguable that it makes good statistical sense — your quiz illustrates that. On the other hand, it’s discriminatory against the majority of Muslim males mostly between the ages of 17 & 40 (I removed “extremists” because you can’t tell that just by looking) who aren’t planning to blow shit up. And it’s not guaranteed effective anyway: Muslims don’t have an exclusive contract on terrorism — witness Oklahoma City and several of Randall Terry’s pals.
The arguments for racial profiling seem to hinge on the implication that because we’re not specifically looking at a particular group, we’re not looking at them at all. Which simply isn’t true; we’re looking at them — and everyone else. But if we were looking at a particular group, wouldn’t that make it more likely we’d miss a bad guy in a non-targeted group? Or that the bad guys in the targeted group would adapt to get around what we’re looking for, since now they know what the main criteria is?
Racial profiling may instinctively feel like the right way to go, but truly random screening is, I think, the most effective way to go about it. It may seem ridiculous to search the diaper of the little blue-eyed, blonde-haired baby girl, but you never know if her daddy is a nut job with a plan to take a plane down. Racial profiling would increase the odds that she — and her diaper full of C4 — wouldn’t be checked. Random searching levels that out.
Comment by Chuck — Saturday July 9, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
And I agree with most of what you said Chuck. The thing that got me a few years ago was when one of Bush’s homeland guys said it would be wrong to question a group of muslims saying a prayer right before boarding a plane. That’s taking PC to the wrong extreme. I would hope anytime you see a group a people saying a group prayer before boarding a plane your suspicion would be aroused.
But, how many daddys have taken down a plane by putting C4 in their kid’s diaper? Hence the above quiz’s point.
Comment by Don — Saturday July 9, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
Sometimes, I’m proud of you, son. Today’s one of them.
Comment by Mom — Saturday July 9, 2005 @ 9:34 pm
Should my suspicions be aroused if I see a group of evangelical Christians saying a group prayer pre-boarding?
Comment by Chuck — Monday July 11, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
That qualifys as a group so yes, it would arouse my curiosity. People acting different than the norm should always raise a flag regardless of their ethnicity.
Comment by Don — Monday July 11, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
Holy crap! We’re in agreement, then.
My whole beef with profiling and religious displays and much of the other stuff the Right puts forth that I disagree with isn’t the issues themselves, but rather the way they want them applied. I think things should be done fairly, equally, without preference given to one group or another.
Take religious displays on state property, for example: I’m all for displaying the 10 Commandments as long as we also display equivalent icons from all the other religions. It’s the Right’s insistence on emphasizing the Christian religion that I find problematic, not religion itself.
Comment by Chuck — Monday July 11, 2005 @ 11:05 pm
Chuck,
I’m in agreement as well. Except I think the ten commandments are a pretty good set of rules if you leave out the GOD relationship ones. Plus, there is only one way to get a Nun pregnant, dress her as an alter boy.
Comment by Scott — Tuesday July 12, 2005 @ 7:18 pm
I’ll pray for you, Chuck, but all by myself, and quietly, so that I don’t disturb your sensitive nature. You won’t have to be offended.
Comment by Mom — Thursday July 14, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
Thanks, Mom, I’ll pray for you too. Keep working on the sarcasm; you haven’t quite mastered it yet.
Comment by Chuck — Friday July 15, 2005 @ 1:18 am
“…the ten commandments are a pretty good set of rules…”? You must be kidding! They contain a couple of reaonable guidelines for living, but are mostly silly, incomplete and irrelevant.
The numbering and wording depends on which version from which chapter of the bible, but here’s an anaysis:
The first few feed the vanity of a petty god. (OK, you did say leave out the GOD relationship ones).
Honor your mother and father. Pretty much automatic for little kids, but for adults they need to make that decision for themselves, based on the behavior of those parents. What if your father raped you? And this certainly provides no basis for modern law. It’s second nature when it is reasonable and shouldn’t be otherwise.
No killing. Very vague. Is it OK to kill other species? It probably was in the original intent. Pretty good law and no “unless” or “excepts” thrown in. So that means no executing prisoners, no soldiers shooting anybody, no killing in self defense. The basic concept of no killing is a part of modern law, but that’s certainly true for all societies, even before Moses.
No adultery. What is adultery? Two unmarried people? Sex with a married person other than your spouse? In the original Hebrew, the word we translate as “adultery” means sex with a married woman; the marital status of the man didn’t matter, which is why David, Solomon et.al could have so many concubines. Is that a good rule for today?
Avoiding extramarital sex is probably a good rule for living a stress-free life and keeping a good relationship with your spouse and friends. But it isn’t and shouldn’t be modern law beyond the extent of violating a marriage contract.
No stealing. Good idea, though vague.
Don’t bear false witness against your neighbor. Why are the words “against your neighbor” included? Is it OK to lie to strangers? Ignoring this question, are there any exceptions to the “no lying” rule? Of course there are! If a crazed child molestor with a gun asks you if there are any children hiding in your house, and there are, then a lie is the only reasonable answer. So this may be a good guideline for general living, but not a law except in contracts or in court.
Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or possessions. How would capitalism function if we didn’t want the same things our neighbor has? But even if we wanted HIS item (not a copy), it isn’t the basis for any law unless we act on that desire and try to steal it. Boy, I sure wish I had Bill Gate’s money, but I’m not breaking any law by coveting it. (But I guess Bill’s not really my neighbor, so maybe that doesn’t apply..) And why is it only against coveting his wife? Can I (or my wife) covet my neighbor’s husband?
10 commandments reduced to a couple of useful guidelines (don’t kill, or steal, and to some extent don’t lie) surrounded by a bunch of vague, illogical, irrelevant and downright silly rules.
How about assault? Rape? Child molesting? Traffic violations? Talking loudly in theaters? None of these extremely important concepts are covered.
The 10 commandments certainly don’t form the basis for modern law. The only commandments that are clearly in the US lawbooks are also laws in every other country and society in the world, Christian, Budhist, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, etc. The only possible reason to want to post them in a public place is to support a particular religion and government has no business supporting a particular religion.
Comment by Daryl — Sunday July 17, 2005 @ 1:01 pm