I posted earlier "Random is not a Strategy" in reference to New York's new policy, put into effect by Mayor Bloomberg, of searching back packs of people using the subway.
Michelle Malkin writes," "In the wake of the latest terrorist attacks in London, Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD announced plans to conduct random searches of packages and backpacks carried by subway riders. 'Random,' of course, is a synonym for blind. And we all know what it means when you put blind bureaucrats in charge of homeland security: Grannies and toddlers, prepare to be on heightened grope alert."
Heh, heh.
Michelle Malkin writes," "In the wake of the latest terrorist attacks in London, Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD announced plans to conduct random searches of packages and backpacks carried by subway riders. 'Random,' of course, is a synonym for blind. And we all know what it means when you put blind bureaucrats in charge of homeland security: Grannies and toddlers, prepare to be on heightened grope alert."
Heh, heh.
posted by HeavyHanded at
6:26 PM
8 Comments:
This a typical Left solution to a typical Left problem. For our own safety, some must be inconvenienced. The left does not wish to inconvenience anyone based on who/what they are, so we do it randomly. Now, the same amount of inconvenience befalls the same number of people but it is done in way derift of reason and thereby less effective. Better, much better.
By
Anonymous, at 10:04 AM
They fail to realize (or don't care) that while you are busy searching granny (randomly of course) the young - to - middle age Middle Eastern man next in line right behind her with explosives in his backpack gets a free pass onto the bus/subway. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Or what if you search every 12 (this would be considered random, of course, by most, although by definition, not truly random since random is just exactky that - random, as in no pattern)and you have 6 suspicious men (by profiling naturally)and one is caught with explosives because he happens to be #12, do the other 5 get a pass because they are not #12?
I know these are tough questions for the left to answer.
Ah, yes. Derift of reason. There must be a joke here somewhere. We are in fact talking about Leftists' solutions.
By
HeavyHanded, at 11:35 AM
typo: exactky: should be "since random is just exactly that"
By
HeavyHanded, at 11:39 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 12:15 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 12:17 PM
On second thought, too many embarrassing errors to tolerate. Could you just delete the first one?
Heavy-handed; over lunch I thought more about my previous remarks and realized that I had made a serious error. (Another admission the Left thinks we won't make). In thinking through the error I was struck with an absolute epiphany!!!
First, the error. I assumed that number of people stopped, searched and/or interrogated is the same in now as if profiling were followed. In fact, that is most unlikely as to accomplish that would required that the randomizing algorithm must hit as frequently as profile hits. Even if possible, it would, in itself, be profiling so the Left wouldn't do it.
However, if either more or less people are stopped, my case for profiling still holds. My case for profiling is not based on mean-spirited discriminatory racism, as the Left would have others believe, but strictly on pragmatic cost/effectiveness. I want to make the general public less likely to get blown up to the greatest extent possible at the lowest 'cost', 'cost' including the total inconvenience to the public. If fewer people are searched then the effectiveness goes down, lowering the cost/effectiveness. Similarly, if more people are searched, then the cost of inconvenience goes up again lowering the cost/effectiveness.
The Left can and will judge, (bad word?), that they would rather the total cost of inconvenience go up than that the political correctness go down. That is fine. They have a right to that opinion. (By the way just because everybody has a right to their opinion does not mean that every opinion is right.)
All fair 'nuff in my view. Now for the epiphany: Let us confine this discussion to security at airports. (The idea remains the same elsewhere but the implementations details may change). The way it is now, there are one or more lines in airports where security checking is carried out on a random basis with no profiling. What if the airports also offered at least one other line, strictly voluntary, in which profiling did occur. Take a few beats to think through the implications of that.
People who did not fit the profile and who voluntarily chose to go in the profiling line would not be stopped as by definition, they do not fit the profile. People who do fit the profile and who voluntarily chose to go in the profiling line would be stopped. No one could legitimately object to that because it was known that it would be the case when they volunteered for that line. To object would be the same as objecting to a Muslim who is adamantly opposed to the terrorists and so determined to stop them that and distinguish himself from them that he insists on being searched.
In the other line, those who do not fit the profile may be searched anyway on a random basis as would those who do fit the profile. To whatever extent those who do not fit the profile chose the profile line, then more of those who do fit the profile in the random line would be stopped because they make up a larger proportion of that line.
No 'unfair' profiling occurs, only to those who volunteer for it, and more profiling fitting people would be stopped but without having been profiled.
By
Anonymous, at 12:35 PM
Interesting idea. I wonder what the break down would be (hypothetically) in each of the two lines. If we are talking a U.S. scenario, we would have more travelers that would have characteristics falling into the "non-profile" realm and would probably opt for the profile line, making that line longer.
But they would probably make that choice knowing they don't fit the profile and won't get searched. I think that would be their over riding factor; that they won't be subjected to intrusive, demeaning searches and the longer line would not deter them. They just don't want to be searched.
Those that "fit the profile" would probably opt for the random line whether they have something to hide or not, because the odds would be better for them not to be searched. This line would be smaller (in the U.S.) since the travelers fitting the profile would be substantially less in numbers than those that don't fit the profile.
By
HeavyHanded, at 1:55 PM
Bottem line is, we should profile out of necessity, if nothing else. We shouldn't forget that our entire lives on a daily basis is affected immensely by different forms of profiling.
There may be a statistical basis for it, but it happens nonetheless. Insurance is but one example, and a great one, I might add; Auto insurance rates by age and gender; Health and life insurance by age or age groups, etc.
But how is that any different than saying statistics show more Middle Eastern looking men are blowing people up than are those who are not Middle Eastern looking?
The fact is the Israelis have been confronting this problem for years and profiling is one of their best tools. And quite frankly, they think we are nuts to get wrapped up in PC and make the choice not to profile.
By
HeavyHanded, at 2:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home