Gobble-Dee
…gook.
Advocates hopeful Congress will ban racial profiling
The repercussions of an airline’s decision to remove a group of imams from a commercial flight in Minneapolis could be heard in Congress this year, where newly dominant Democrats are ready to consider a national ban on racial profiling.
…”I’m convinced that once the body of evidence of racial profiling occurring in our nation is presented before the U.S. Congress and the American people, that indeed they’ll be compelled to do something about it,” said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington Bureau.
…Feingold’s bill, the End Racial Profiling Act, didn’t come up for a vote in the GOP-controlled Congress in the last session, and there was no House version. The bill would have banned racial profiling by federal, state and local law enforcement, defining profiling as “the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion” during investigatory activities.
It included an exemption when specific information “links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified incident or scheme.”
…Peter Gadiel, of Kent, Conn., president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, mocked the legislation.
“The 9/11 atrocity was committed by 19 young single men from Arab nations. If you want to hand this country over to terrorists, why don’t you say it right out front?” said Gadiel, whose son, James, died in the attacks on the World Trade Center. “We don’t have to worry about 80-year-old ladies with bleach-blonde hair and southern accents.”
I dunno about that statement. Our 80 year olds here are usually from Sheboygan.
UPDATE: Like, if you look back on it, WAS 9-11 such a big deal? I mean, really? Worth all this fuss afterward?
Really, cooler heads should prevail.
…Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.
Via Crittenden.
Nanny State | tree hugging sister | 
January 29, 2007 9:29 am
Subscribe
I won’t say it I won’t say it I won’t say it…
“But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.”
As I recall, the barbary pirates were not, in fact, a threat to our existence. But we did something about them nonetheless.
For that matter, a lot of those we fought were not a threat to our existence. Spain, the Kaiser, Mexico…
Well – how about enemies who say, out loud and at every opportunity, that they ARE a threat to our existence and wish to destroy us?
We need to build bridges to them, ‘Fly.
And send them aid.
And everybody gets a Coke.
Cherry Vanilla Coke please.
Exaggerating threats and minimizing risks of any kind is a political right usually only available to the party in power. It’s the care and feeding of the ‘situation’ that takes the skill.
Jesus Mary and Joseph. If not every enemy is out to destroy us, then why consider them enemies?
Politicians make me ill. I touch on this in a post I wrote last night. I swear, this country is asleep.
http://www.pinkcosmopolitan.com/2007/01/28/why-we-fight/