Subject:
|
Re: Does Political Correctness Kill?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jun 2002 15:07:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
383 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/printer/printer.asp?f=/stories/20020530/39
0318.html
This has an interesting thesis, but I think that the difference between silly
political correctness and fair treatment are significant.
It seems that Mr. Steyn thinks that because various federal agencies dropped
the ball, we should hassle all Saudis. I don't buy it. For the same reason
that I'm offended by blacks getting pulled over on the turnpike for DWB, I'm
offended by Saudis all being treated a certain way for the actions of a few.
The only problem that I see my stance leaving, then, is what _do_ we do for
security. And I'm not sure. But I'd guess the first thing would be to hire
security specialists that aren't a joke. I guess that's what we're trying with
the new FBI mandate, but I'm not too impressed. In any case the security
measures need to be even handed.
> Three weeks ago, FBI Director Mueller was asked why the Bureau
> had declined to act on the memo. He said: "There are more than
> 2,000 aviation academies in the United States. The latest figure
> I think I heard is something like 20,000 students attending
> them. And it was perceived that this would be a monumental
> undertaking without any specificity as to particular persons."
I do agree with the author's scorn toward this comment. For one thing, it
seems odd that the mean enrollment in "aviation academies" is ten. Can that be
right? And, it does seem like screening 20,000 names is exactly the kind of
thing that the FBI ought to be able to just whip out. Don't they have software
to do it?
He claims that career-fear is the problem...no one wanted to be responsible for
"Check out the Arabs." Fine. Run all 20,000 profiles through the computer.
Isn't that what computers are for? Why would we have to stoop to racism? The
ball was dropped...but not in the way Steyn seems to think. The problem was
that they just didn't take it seriously.
> In August, 2001, no one at the FBI or FAA or anywhere else
> wanted to be seen to be noticing funny behaviour by Arabs.
> Thousands of Americans died, at least in part, because of
> ethnic squeamishness by federal agencies.
I guess it's hard for me to debate this statement because of the "at least in
part" bit, but the author is really presenting ethnic squeamishness as the
primary cause. But just because he says so, doesn't mean that's how it is.
The corroborating testimony to his connecting the dots seems to be absent.
> "There will be another terrorist attack," FBI Director Mueller
> told the National Association of District Attorneys the other
> day. "We will not be able to stop it."
I'm glad people are listening to this. It seems obvious, but our sense of
invulnerability, I think, is returning. If we accept this as real, then what
do we do? Absent any specific intelligence, NYC is still the single most
likely target. What is New York going to do about it? What are New Yorkers
doing? What about Chicago? What about cities immediately down-stream of major
dams? Some of you are in lots more danger than others. Is anyone doing
anything to change their lives yet? It seems that many more people did stuff
in preparation for the possible Y2K disaster...is that just because the scale
and probability is so low when concerned with terrorism?
It seems like we could head for the hills, increase security in measured ways,
and/or change our behavior abroad. We have changed our behavior abroad -- a
little, but I'm not sure we're making fewer enemies.
Do y'all actually think we will get whacked by terrorists again in the near
future?
Mr. Steyn thinks what we should do is prevent entry by Saudis. That seems
somewhat naive. And really, when he asks:
> If it lessened the "inevitability" just ever so slightly of
> that second attack, wouldn't it be worth declaring a
> temporary moratorium on Saudi visitors, or at least making
> their sojourns in the U.S. extremely rare and highly
> discretionary?
wouldn't the answer be based on _how slightly_ it worked out to be? And
anyway, why should Saudis merit special discrimination just because of
temporally local perturbations? If we want to background check everyone who
enters the US, then let's do it (though I guess I'd rather not fund it). But
profiling carries significant social costs in my estimation and I'm not
convinced that they are outweighed by the benefits.
And what if his question were turned around? What if we could slightly lessen
the probability of some big damage by lobotomizing males, concentrating people
named Mark, destroying all automobiles, or enslaving people with a genetic tan?
Should we? Do we, or do we not, believe that all men are created equal, that
we bear certain unalienable rights, and that included among these are: the
right to assemble, travel, express oneself, and worship? Who are "we the
people?" And do we believe that it's better for ten guilty men to go free than
for one innocent to be punished?
> Ask why the Saudis are allowed to kill thousands and still
> get the kid-glove treatment, and you're told the magic word: oil.
This where the author really shows himself to be a nut case. It's like, while
reading through the article -- even the good points that are made, there's this
little guy on my shoulder whispering "koo-koo...koo-koo" to me, and it's a
relief when he finally shows himself to be nuts.
So who exactly was he asking? And who is dumb enought to accept his poisoning
of the well by suggesting that "the Saudis" were responsible? And who exactly
answered that oil made it OK?
He then goes on to complain that Saudis get treated better than Albertans in
DC. He even suggests, I guess, that as governer of Texas, Bush should have
stayed the execution of an Albertain because we get lots of oil from them.
That whole paragraph (fourth from the bottom) is raving.
> So it's not oil, but rather that even targeting so obvious
> an enemy as the Saudis is simply not politically possible.
The problem with this is that Saudi Arabia is kind of an ally of ours...not an
enemy. Which is complex because we like the rulers that currently keep the
nation (mostly) in line, but we wouldn't get along with any conceivable post
revolutionary government.
> Cries of "Islamophobia" and "racism" would rend the air.
Or maybe, if we started boycotting them it would destabilize the current regime
and the result would be even worse for us.
> The Saudis discriminate against Americans all the time:
> American Jews are not allowed to enter the "Kingdom," nor
> are American Episcopalians who happen to have an Israeli
> stamp in their passports.
Um...that's not discrimination against someone for being an American, but
rather for being a Jew or Jewish sympathizer. It's not good. I don't approve.
But he got it wrong. Why is someone with such flakey analysis skills paid to
write?
I happen to think we tollerate too much evil in many of our international
partners. Saudi Arabia is one. China, Israel, the UK and Germany are others.
But I think that making it harder to export our values to members of those
cultures is a bad(!) idea.
Security mustn't come at the cost of righteousness.
So did you have an opinion about it Larry, or did you just think it would make
good conversation fodder?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Does Political Correctness Kill?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <big snip> (...) Speaking of flakey, since we were, indeed, speaking of flakey writers... Too much evil? In the UK? In Germany today? Okay then... I know that Israel has a little skirmish (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
