India is a socialist nation. It has far tougher labour laws than US, which is more of a capitalist nation.
You have been brainwashed by US (and possibly Indian) government propaganda. India is not socialist and it certainly does NOT have stronger labour laws than USA!!! USA is more capitalist but due to the worker movements in the 20's to 60's, US worker laws are FAR better...
Actually it is you who doesn't know what a neoconservative is (why do I get the feeling you are one?). It is not just the left that uses that. The right uses it too. Consider the example of and Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative). Also, left-wing anti-war activists are REACTIONARY? lol Whatever! The bogus invasion of Iraq is more reactionary than any anti-war position.
Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld... all life-long conservative Republicans.
Bush, Powell, and Rice are not neoconservatives. Bush is pretty much belongs to the Christian Right. However, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, et al are neoconservatives (along with a whole hoard of people at National Review and The Weekly Standard).
Oh, one more thing... Neoconservatives are a branch of the Republicans. So it doesn't matter what they were doing before. Most of them are ex-Trotskyites. If anything, most of the neoconservatives in power now are recycled Reganites.
Read this article for some information about the neoconservative family.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Not all... not in monarchy (king is limited by territory), feudalism (primitive to engage in complex international relationships), communism (workers matter), socialism (profit not a big goal), anarchism (haven't been tried but unlikely to be very international), fascism (country/race/ethnicity above all), theocracy (too many religious limitations)... I'm not saying all those systems are good but you can hardly claim that every economy is driven by profits. Only capitalism and its relatives (eg. merchantilism) are driven by profit.
Generally, one system wins out. It doesn't mean that you end up with it right away. But eventually one will win over the other.
Practicing a mix of things is unstable... When I say unstable, I'm talking about the long term (which is longer than one's life). In the short term, anything is possible...
Yeah but if some guy worked hard and ended up with nothing, that guy is going to get angry. That's the cause of these worker shootings you hear about. Some guy works hard for a long time and then they lay him off. In the dot-com companies, you didn't work long but you certainly worked a lot of hours...
Of course, people are acting irrationally. If they were rational, there wouldn't be any of these problems...
It wouldn't surprise me... I mean a lot of people probably have their compensation tied up with the company. Many people in dot-com companies worked for almost nothing. If the company restructures and the CEOs get off with very little damage (as they always do), some employees aren't going to take it lightly...
Of course, I am not endorsing any of this. I'm just speculating on the situation..
As someone below says, your analogy isn't very good. The cube wouldn't really slice through earth. It would, instead, suck the whole earth into it. I know what you are getting at...but it could be misleading:)
I think a better example (although still not as easy) is to think of a black hole relative to our sun. If our sun had the same mass as now, while being 2 kilometers in radius (intead of the hundreads of thousands(?) now), it would be a black hole. So... take the sun... squeeze the same mass into a few kilometers... and you get a blackhole...
That's how everything is--including science. In some sense, everything that you perceive to be real is just that: your perception. We think gravity exists because that's the best explanation we can come up with (as a side note, under some interpretations of Theory of Relativity, gravity doesn't--itstead it is acceleration). We think we live on earth because that is the best theory we came up with. And so on...
What we call science is nothing more than "efforts to explain the heavens". Unlike religion, which relies on faith, science relies on logic. It's nothing more than a way of thinking. Instead of worshipping Gods (at least not me), we worship science/rational thought...
Didn't you read what I said? They wouldn't pay YOU to become one of THEM. They would pay you to facilitate their activities. Just like how a drug trafficker won't pay you so that you use the drugs on yourself, a terrorist won't pay you to kill yourself.
I don't think you know what capitalism is. Here is a very good reference of capitalism. You can also read stuff from Milton Friedman (God of capitalism) or the CATO institute (bastion of capitalism). Capitalism requires FREE MARKETS. The stuff I mentioned involve government intervention and is against capitalism. Minimum wage, for example, is anti-capitalist. All the capitalists call for the abolishment of it. Public healthcare, schools, libraries, etc are government MONOPOLIES. Therefore capitalists call for privatizing all of it (just read the capitalist press like the Wall Street Journal or what economists say (90% of all economists are capitalists)). Tariffs and subsidies are anti-capitalist because they distort the free market. And so forth.
You can't call these things "supplemental" when they conflict with the key requirements of capitalism.
Based on what you are saying, you don't sound like a capitalist to me. Take this test to see what you are.
This post is flavored by my being a US citizen, so take it as you will.
I hope you read this post because I am going to justify everything I said as much as I can. I can't guarantee that I can find sources for everything. Some of the links I cited aren't 100% related to my point but they are the best I can find without spending even more hours searching for links.
Obviously you haven't heard of the totalitarian regimes in Germany, USSR, and USA's close friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt. A couple of stories on the state of Egypt (USA's 2nd large recipient of military aid)
Obviously you have never been targetted by the police. (I have no proof of this but if you let me track you, I can find out:) )
Obviously you are not a minority man (particularly black) living in some parts of USA. (Don't know this either. But I can easily verify this if you send your driver's license to me)
Obviously you believe the legal system represent justice. (I can't prove this to anyone. It is something that you will realize as you grow up and leave the cave that you have been living in--if you actually manage to do that!)
Al-Qaida is morphing. Some of what you say is wrong IMO.
All the Al-Qaida members are not Arab men. Depending on who you listen to (governments pin everything on Al-Qaida), here is what you would observe:
Bombing in Turkey is not carried out by Arab men (Turks)
Many attacks in South-east Asia are not carried out by Arab men (orientals)
Many Al-Qaida members in Afghanistan are NOT Arab (Pakistani, Iranian, etc)
Richard "shoe bomber" Reeves was not Arab (white)
Some members of Al-Qaida are from the US-backed Kosovo Liberation Army who are not Arabs; same with some Chechens (white)
Kenyan bombings were not solely carried out by Arab men (black)
...targeted the same location, Twin Towers, on three different attempts...
The reason Al-Qaida targets the same target multiple times is because they generally target SYMBOLIC buildings. All the identified Al-Qaida targets have been symbolic: Statue of Liberty, UN building, Golden Gate bridge, etc. Al-Qaida could cause more economic damage by blowing up a highway or bridge, and it can cause more human deaths by blowing up an apartment building. Yet they don't. Because they only target symbolic things. They may change their tactics in the future; but right now, they aren't.
Chances are the next terrorist attack will be by individual(s) who have been to afghanistan or other middle east nations (Saudi Arabia). There will always be a possibility of an 'inside' job, but that possibility is far lower than a 'foreign' job.
Recent media reports point out that Usama bin Laden said that there will be some major operation before February. He also said that he might end up dying in a martyr operation. If UBL dies, I think he will only do it if he can take the Saudi monarchy down with him. So there may be some major attack on Saudi Arabia, or USA... Remains to be seen...
Nice post... A very eloquent analysis of the situation...
I agree with everything you say, although I wouldn't place so much emphasis on statistics. Statistics is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to human rights. There is no excuse for killing innocent people. If you justify killing innocent people with some excuse, you violate human rights and there is no point in having the rights in the first place...
Also don't forget that the FBI investigation of the Anthrax Assasin, who incidentally killed more Americans than Saddam Hussein, is being blocked. In all likelihoods, the Anthrax Assasin is NOT a dark skinned, funny speaking terrorist.
I don't get that... I can't tell if it is positive towards me... or if it is a joke... or if it is a poem...or if it's insightful... ???
Are you saying my life is under threat because I openly use my real name to post anti-government views? All I can say is that when you live in a somewhat free country (Canada), you exercise your rights. You might as well use your rights before they expire (yes, governments can make you lose your rights--just study something called history:( )
Don't call me a troll without knowing what a troll is. Someone with a dissenting view is not a troll--although I doubt you see the difference.
Who the hell is an EXTREME anti-war activist? Anti-war activists are organized criminals now? Do you even know what organized crime is? Stop making accusations without any proof.
BTW, if the anti-war activists are doing something illegal, you charge them in court. The police has enough powers to do that. Unfortunately for you, there is nobody to charge because none of what you say is real (except in a tiny minority of the cases).
Oh and your name sucks.
lol I have NEVER EVER had anyone make fun of my NAME. Is that an attack on me? lol So what's a good name? Adolf Hitler? Joseph Stalin? George "Warmonger" Bush? Are those better names?;)
Nope... but based on that link some guy lists above (although relying on NSA documents relating to their own activities can be misleading), what's your point? How has the Venona Project affected citizen rights? McCarthyism led to innocent people being accused of bogus charges (Senator McCarthy had no proof whatsoever). It led to people losing their jobs. And so on. I don't see how the Venona Project did anything like that.
You go ahead and hide under a rock, intelligent people can use their brains to realize that if you are being attacked by Muslim terrorists, searching blue hairs is stupid.
Actually it is you that is lacking some intelligence. Apart from the fact that there is no one with blue HAIR, criminals can circumvent profiling. Obviously you are too stupid to realize that.
Here is an example of how it is circumvented. (NOTE: Everything I say is pure conjecture. I am not implying that revelaing any revelations related to ethnicity). Do you know why profiling is next to useless when it comes to drug trafficking? Let's say that you profile all Mexicans at the airport because you think the drug cartels are all Mexican. So you implement some policy where you check all Mexicans ignore everyone else. After all, a white guy is not into the drug trade right? (assume that is true--in reality, whites are as much part of the drug trade as anyone but more on the selling side than cultivation or transportation). So you check every Mexican thoroughly and let the whites go freely--or at least you spend most of your resources on the Mexicans.
Do you know what a Mexican drug dealer will do? Well, they will get some white guy to move the drugs across the airport. Instead of the Mexican carrying the drugs, he will pay some white person to carry it across customs. Once through, he/she will pick it up themselves. If the police does spend a ton of resources profiling the Mexicans, they will likely let the white trafficker through. That is why profiling does not work. To make matters worse, the organized criminals (who are always smarter than the petty criminals) keep using sophisticated techniques. For instance, once upon a time, white people were used as drug mules. Then came blacks. Now it's more like hispanics. Tomorrow it might be browns. Then orientials. Who knows? The system will never catch them.
The same thing applies with terrorism. Obviously you live in a cave and have no understanding of these issues. You are nothing more than reactionary who is probably influenced more by the government/police apparatus than anything. But here is what I see happening.
If a country profiles Arabs/muslims/browns, a terrorist will carry out something similar to the drug trafficker. Let's say you are the wise leader of the police force. You decide to profile only (or at least spend a ton of resources on) these groups. Well, a terrorist would get someone else to carry the gun, or the bomb, or whatever, past customs. Customs will be very lax when it comes to these (non-profiled) guys. It should be very easy for the terrorists to do this. I mean, I'm sure there are hundreads of thousands of Americans who will be willing to sneak something past customs if they were paid oh $100,000. There are a lot of people who will kill for $100,000 so why not this? Also don't forget that the terrorists won't even say what they are carrying. Instead of saying that they are trying to sneak some bomb, they'll say that they are trying to sneak some illegal stolen diamonds. How are the mules to know what is inside the wooden box that they are transporting for a fee?
Furthermore, criminals often try to sneak things onto other people. If all the white grandparents weren't checked well by customs, why not sneak a gun onto their bags when they aren't looking. And then try getting it back. I have heard of cases like this happening when it comes to drugs. Things show up in innocent people's luggage that doesn't belong to them.
BTW, this has already happened to some degree. You'll remember that the Richard "shoe bomber" Reeves was white. If you were only checking Arabs/muslims/whatever, you would miss someone like him. I have no idea if the authorities were profiling but who knows. Remember that he actually got on the plane and was attempting to set off the bomb.
I guess we are all stupid and you are the smart one. Maybe you should take over the Department of Homeland Security.
While the "politically correct" thing is to forbid profiling, it's the only way to focus law enforcement resources to the people that really need attention.
Profiling to some degree (very precise traits) is fine. But blanket profiling is VERY wrong. Profiling all blacks because they are "likely to be criminals", or all muslims because they are "likely to be criminals" is just plain wrong. Whatever I say will likely not change your view....but if you ever were profiled, I'll guarantee you that you wouldn't support it. Blanket profiling is nothing more than racism at the state level carried out by the majority.
Ummm, can't they both just leave me alone? You make it an either/or choice.
The original guy came up with the proposition of one or the other. So I was picking one. In reality, I don't want ANYONE spying. However, if one has to pick the government is ALWAYS worse.
simple. Sometimes the government has to spy on innocent people. I hate that, but I know it is neccessary.
Can you explain why? Show me why the government has to spy on innocent people.
I hate to say it but your view (which, unfortunately, is held by many citizens of hte world) is precisely why governments have killed more people than all the private criminals combined! You have just been brainwashed by your environment (possibly by government propaganda) to believe that. You are a conformist!
Your view is no different than the view held by many a few hundread years ago, where it was deemed necessary to lynch and convict accused criminals without any proof. It was a widely held "principle". In addition, you can even find intellectuals justifying the need for the police to "randomly" arrest people on some bogus charge. The reason the US Constitution (Fourth Amendmant) (along with other countries including the UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 12)) prevent unreasonable search without charge is to prevent that. The Founding Fathers of USA, who were all radical liberals, knew that the generally accepted view of letting the government/police search at will (which was the norm) was unnecessary. However, if you took a poll of the citizens, I'm sure 90% would say the police should have the right to search at will.
I'm not saying that you support searches without any cause (after all, it is against the US Constitution and the UN Constitution, which pretty much covers the vast majority of the world). All I'm saying is that your preconceived notion that the police/goverment NEEDS to spy on citizens is the same line of thinking. My view is a minority view I admit. BUT I'm sure my view will triumph over yours in the end...
It's funny that you think that I'm making all this up. I don't know what's worse: the fact that you think the government should be spying or the fact that you think I'm lying. I'm going to try backing up what I say. It's going to take me HOURS to find the links but I have the time. I just hope thaty ou read what I am about to post (over the next few hour) and read it.
That is true because the vast majority of people support anti-capitalist measures. I'm sure I can find stats if you want but it'll take some effort (since newspapers and stuff don't have free archives). To see what I mean, just think about people you have encountered or polls you have read, or whatever. I would say a majority support things like minimum wage, subsidizing things, socialist institutions (eg. public free schools, public free libraries, public free roads, etc), and so forth. All of these are government intervention against free markets. Therefore, I would say the majority of humanity are not capitalists. Outside of economists, think tanks, and wealthy people, very few actually support capitalism.
But density is what matters. I mean, someone wiretapping 1 out of 2 citizens is worse than someone doing it for 5 out of 25 people. In the first case, you have subjucated half the country under your will; in the later, you only have 20% of the population under your watchful eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
India is a socialist nation. It has far tougher labour laws than US, which is more of a capitalist nation.
You have been brainwashed by US (and possibly Indian) government propaganda. India is not socialist and it certainly does NOT have stronger labour laws than USA!!! USA is more capitalist but due to the worker movements in the 20's to 60's, US worker laws are FAR better...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually it is you who doesn't know what a neoconservative is (why do I get the feeling you are one?). It is not just the left that uses that. The right uses it too. Consider the example of and Pat Buchanan (paleoconservative). Also, left-wing anti-war activists are REACTIONARY? lol Whatever! The bogus invasion of Iraq is more reactionary than any anti-war position.
Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rumsfeld... all life-long conservative Republicans.
Bush, Powell, and Rice are not neoconservatives. Bush is pretty much belongs to the Christian Right. However, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, et al are neoconservatives (along with a whole hoard of people at National Review and The Weekly Standard).
Oh, one more thing... Neoconservatives are a branch of the Republicans. So it doesn't matter what they were doing before. Most of them are ex-Trotskyites. If anything, most of the neoconservatives in power now are recycled Reganites.
Read this article for some information about the neoconservative family. Sivaram Velauthapillai
Not all... not in monarchy (king is limited by territory), feudalism (primitive to engage in complex international relationships), communism (workers matter), socialism (profit not a big goal), anarchism (haven't been tried but unlikely to be very international), fascism (country/race/ethnicity above all), theocracy (too many religious limitations) ... I'm not saying all those systems are good but you can hardly claim that every economy is driven by profits. Only capitalism and its relatives (eg. merchantilism) are driven by profit.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Generally, one system wins out. It doesn't mean that you end up with it right away. But eventually one will win over the other.
Practicing a mix of things is unstable... When I say unstable, I'm talking about the long term (which is longer than one's life). In the short term, anything is possible...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yeah but if some guy worked hard and ended up with nothing, that guy is going to get angry. That's the cause of these worker shootings you hear about. Some guy works hard for a long time and then they lay him off. In the dot-com companies, you didn't work long but you certainly worked a lot of hours...
Of course, people are acting irrationally. If they were rational, there wouldn't be any of these problems...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It wouldn't surprise me... I mean a lot of people probably have their compensation tied up with the company. Many people in dot-com companies worked for almost nothing. If the company restructures and the CEOs get off with very little damage (as they always do), some employees aren't going to take it lightly...
Of course, I am not endorsing any of this. I'm just speculating on the situation..
Sivaram Velauthapillai
As someone below says, your analogy isn't very good. The cube wouldn't really slice through earth. It would, instead, suck the whole earth into it. I know what you are getting at...but it could be misleading :)
I think a better example (although still not as easy) is to think of a black hole relative to our sun. If our sun had the same mass as now, while being 2 kilometers in radius (intead of the hundreads of thousands(?) now), it would be a black hole. So... take the sun... squeeze the same mass into a few kilometers... and you get a blackhole...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's how everything is--including science. In some sense, everything that you perceive to be real is just that: your perception. We think gravity exists because that's the best explanation we can come up with (as a side note, under some interpretations of Theory of Relativity, gravity doesn't--itstead it is acceleration). We think we live on earth because that is the best theory we came up with. And so on...
What we call science is nothing more than "efforts to explain the heavens". Unlike religion, which relies on faith, science relies on logic. It's nothing more than a way of thinking. Instead of worshipping Gods (at least not me), we worship science/rational thought...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Does this mean the idea of time travelling through wormholes is completely wrong? Wormholes were the best chance at time travel and now... :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Didn't you read what I said? They wouldn't pay YOU to become one of THEM. They would pay you to facilitate their activities. Just like how a drug trafficker won't pay you so that you use the drugs on yourself, a terrorist won't pay you to kill yourself.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
When you can do better than making up bedtime stories I'll read the rest of your comment.
I guess that proves without a doubt that you lack intelligence...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think you know what capitalism is. Here is a very good reference of capitalism. You can also read stuff from Milton Friedman (God of capitalism) or the CATO institute (bastion of capitalism). Capitalism requires FREE MARKETS. The stuff I mentioned involve government intervention and is against capitalism. Minimum wage, for example, is anti-capitalist. All the capitalists call for the abolishment of it. Public healthcare, schools, libraries, etc are government MONOPOLIES. Therefore capitalists call for privatizing all of it (just read the capitalist press like the Wall Street Journal or what economists say (90% of all economists are capitalists)). Tariffs and subsidies are anti-capitalist because they distort the free market. And so forth.
:)
You can't call these things "supplemental" when they conflict with the key requirements of capitalism.
Based on what you are saying, you don't sound like a capitalist to me. Take this test to see what you are.
This post is flavored by my being a US citizen, so take it as you will.
I'm much closer to you than you think
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Maybe you'll learn something... just maybe.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
All the Al-Qaida members are not Arab men. Depending on who you listen to (governments pin everything on Al-Qaida), here is what you would observe:
The reason Al-Qaida targets the same target multiple times is because they generally target SYMBOLIC buildings. All the identified Al-Qaida targets have been symbolic: Statue of Liberty, UN building, Golden Gate bridge, etc. Al-Qaida could cause more economic damage by blowing up a highway or bridge, and it can cause more human deaths by blowing up an apartment building. Yet they don't. Because they only target symbolic things. They may change their tactics in the future; but right now, they aren't.
Chances are the next terrorist attack will be by individual(s) who have been to afghanistan or other middle east nations (Saudi Arabia). There will always be a possibility of an 'inside' job, but that possibility is far lower than a 'foreign' job.
Recent media reports point out that Usama bin Laden said that there will be some major operation before February. He also said that he might end up dying in a martyr operation. If UBL dies, I think he will only do it if he can take the Saudi monarchy down with him. So there may be some major attack on Saudi Arabia, or USA... Remains to be seen...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Nice post... A very eloquent analysis of the situation...
I agree with everything you say, although I wouldn't place so much emphasis on statistics. Statistics is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to human rights. There is no excuse for killing innocent people. If you justify killing innocent people with some excuse, you violate human rights and there is no point in having the rights in the first place...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Also don't forget that the FBI investigation of the Anthrax Assasin, who incidentally killed more Americans than Saddam Hussein, is being blocked. In all likelihoods, the Anthrax Assasin is NOT a dark skinned, funny speaking terrorist.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't get that... I can't tell if it is positive towards me... or if it is a joke... or if it is a poem...or if it's insightful... ???
:( )
Are you saying my life is under threat because I openly use my real name to post anti-government views? All I can say is that when you live in a somewhat free country (Canada), you exercise your rights. You might as well use your rights before they expire (yes, governments can make you lose your rights--just study something called history
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Don't call me a troll without knowing what a troll is. Someone with a dissenting view is not a troll--although I doubt you see the difference.
;)
Who the hell is an EXTREME anti-war activist? Anti-war activists are organized criminals now? Do you even know what organized crime is? Stop making accusations without any proof.
BTW, if the anti-war activists are doing something illegal, you charge them in court. The police has enough powers to do that. Unfortunately for you, there is nobody to charge because none of what you say is real (except in a tiny minority of the cases).
Oh and your name sucks.
lol I have NEVER EVER had anyone make fun of my NAME. Is that an attack on me? lol So what's a good name? Adolf Hitler? Joseph Stalin? George "Warmonger" Bush? Are those better names?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Nope... but based on that link some guy lists above (although relying on NSA documents relating to their own activities can be misleading), what's your point? How has the Venona Project affected citizen rights? McCarthyism led to innocent people being accused of bogus charges (Senator McCarthy had no proof whatsoever). It led to people losing their jobs. And so on. I don't see how the Venona Project did anything like that.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You go ahead and hide under a rock, intelligent people can use their brains to realize that if you are being attacked by Muslim terrorists, searching blue hairs is stupid.
Actually it is you that is lacking some intelligence. Apart from the fact that there is no one with blue HAIR, criminals can circumvent profiling. Obviously you are too stupid to realize that.
Here is an example of how it is circumvented. (NOTE: Everything I say is pure conjecture. I am not implying that revelaing any revelations related to ethnicity). Do you know why profiling is next to useless when it comes to drug trafficking? Let's say that you profile all Mexicans at the airport because you think the drug cartels are all Mexican. So you implement some policy where you check all Mexicans ignore everyone else. After all, a white guy is not into the drug trade right? (assume that is true--in reality, whites are as much part of the drug trade as anyone but more on the selling side than cultivation or transportation). So you check every Mexican thoroughly and let the whites go freely--or at least you spend most of your resources on the Mexicans.
Do you know what a Mexican drug dealer will do? Well, they will get some white guy to move the drugs across the airport. Instead of the Mexican carrying the drugs, he will pay some white person to carry it across customs. Once through, he/she will pick it up themselves. If the police does spend a ton of resources profiling the Mexicans, they will likely let the white trafficker through. That is why profiling does not work. To make matters worse, the organized criminals (who are always smarter than the petty criminals) keep using sophisticated techniques. For instance, once upon a time, white people were used as drug mules. Then came blacks. Now it's more like hispanics. Tomorrow it might be browns. Then orientials. Who knows? The system will never catch them.
The same thing applies with terrorism. Obviously you live in a cave and have no understanding of these issues. You are nothing more than reactionary who is probably influenced more by the government/police apparatus than anything. But here is what I see happening.
If a country profiles Arabs/muslims/browns, a terrorist will carry out something similar to the drug trafficker. Let's say you are the wise leader of the police force. You decide to profile only (or at least spend a ton of resources on) these groups. Well, a terrorist would get someone else to carry the gun, or the bomb, or whatever, past customs. Customs will be very lax when it comes to these (non-profiled) guys. It should be very easy for the terrorists to do this. I mean, I'm sure there are hundreads of thousands of Americans who will be willing to sneak something past customs if they were paid oh $100,000. There are a lot of people who will kill for $100,000 so why not this? Also don't forget that the terrorists won't even say what they are carrying. Instead of saying that they are trying to sneak some bomb, they'll say that they are trying to sneak some illegal stolen diamonds. How are the mules to know what is inside the wooden box that they are transporting for a fee?
Furthermore, criminals often try to sneak things onto other people. If all the white grandparents weren't checked well by customs, why not sneak a gun onto their bags when they aren't looking. And then try getting it back. I have heard of cases like this happening when it comes to drugs. Things show up in innocent people's luggage that doesn't belong to them.
BTW, this has already happened to some degree. You'll remember that the Richard "shoe bomber" Reeves was white. If you were only checking Arabs/muslims/whatever, you would miss someone like him. I have no idea if the authorities were profiling but who knows. Remember that he actually got on the plane and was attempting to set off the bomb.
I guess we are all stupid and you are the smart one. Maybe you should take over the Department of Homeland Security.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
While the "politically correct" thing is to forbid profiling, it's the only way to focus law enforcement resources to the people that really need attention.
Profiling to some degree (very precise traits) is fine. But blanket profiling is VERY wrong. Profiling all blacks because they are "likely to be criminals", or all muslims because they are "likely to be criminals" is just plain wrong. Whatever I say will likely not change your view....but if you ever were profiled, I'll guarantee you that you wouldn't support it. Blanket profiling is nothing more than racism at the state level carried out by the majority.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Ummm, can't they both just leave me alone? You make it an either/or choice.
The original guy came up with the proposition of one or the other. So I was picking one. In reality, I don't want ANYONE spying. However, if one has to pick the government is ALWAYS worse.
simple. Sometimes the government has to spy on innocent people. I hate that, but I know it is neccessary.
Can you explain why? Show me why the government has to spy on innocent people.
I hate to say it but your view (which, unfortunately, is held by many citizens of hte world) is precisely why governments have killed more people than all the private criminals combined! You have just been brainwashed by your environment (possibly by government propaganda) to believe that. You are a conformist!
Your view is no different than the view held by many a few hundread years ago, where it was deemed necessary to lynch and convict accused criminals without any proof. It was a widely held "principle". In addition, you can even find intellectuals justifying the need for the police to "randomly" arrest people on some bogus charge. The reason the US Constitution (Fourth Amendmant) (along with other countries including the UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 12)) prevent unreasonable search without charge is to prevent that. The Founding Fathers of USA, who were all radical liberals, knew that the generally accepted view of letting the government/police search at will (which was the norm) was unnecessary. However, if you took a poll of the citizens, I'm sure 90% would say the police should have the right to search at will.
I'm not saying that you support searches without any cause (after all, it is against the US Constitution and the UN Constitution, which pretty much covers the vast majority of the world). All I'm saying is that your preconceived notion that the police/goverment NEEDS to spy on citizens is the same line of thinking. My view is a minority view I admit. BUT I'm sure my view will triumph over yours in the end...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's funny that you think that I'm making all this up. I don't know what's worse: the fact that you think the government should be spying or the fact that you think I'm lying. I'm going to try backing up what I say. It's going to take me HOURS to find the links but I have the time. I just hope thaty ou read what I am about to post (over the next few hour) and read it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That is true because the vast majority of people support anti-capitalist measures. I'm sure I can find stats if you want but it'll take some effort (since newspapers and stuff don't have free archives). To see what I mean, just think about people you have encountered or polls you have read, or whatever. I would say a majority support things like minimum wage, subsidizing things, socialist institutions (eg. public free schools, public free libraries, public free roads, etc), and so forth. All of these are government intervention against free markets. Therefore, I would say the majority of humanity are not capitalists. Outside of economists, think tanks, and wealthy people, very few actually support capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But density is what matters. I mean, someone wiretapping 1 out of 2 citizens is worse than someone doing it for 5 out of 25 people. In the first case, you have subjucated half the country under your will; in the later, you only have 20% of the population under your watchful eyes.
Sivaram Velauthapillai