I Love You Even if You Are a Racist

I guess we've hit on a topic that generates discussion - that's GOOOOOD.

Jared (whom I'm happy to see has re-joined the blogosphere), as usual, has an intriguing, smart, and BIG comment/proposal:

'Race' is a term for cultural patterns that arise out of biological differences (i.e. skin color, eyelid folds, dominant endocrine gland, etc.) Cultural patterns will exist as long as biological differences do. Similarly, Societal patterns will exist as long as cultural patterns do. Ergo, we'll be a post racial society when biological differences have become less noticeable than other 'first impression' like characteristics of a person.

He doesn't say it, but his solution is miscegenation - which I'm all in favor of, although I'm not sure if we could make an official policy of this.

In the prior post, Chuck accuses me of being Ashcroft-ish...to clarify: I was not advocating, nor am in favor of, racial profiling. But I'm not NOT in favor of it because of some b.s. sense of political correctness or some sense of it will undermine the whole idea of America and all that crap. I think, as a policy, it needs to be evaluated as to it's usefulness and whether it can be implemented, who and what rights it violates versus who and what rights it protects.

People have a right not to be singled out because of their race and arbitrarily harassed. I would fight for this right. People also have a right to live their lives without fear from terror. I would fight for this right as well. It is when these two rights come in conflict with one another that the debate begins. Chuck and Cindy do not want to have this debate - they believe that the right to not be harassed absolutely outweights the right for people to live without fear of terror. I disagree.

In 1961, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested "copperhead" Democrats, who were in favor of coming to a peaceful truce with the South - they were willing to let the South secede from the Union. They did so by discouraging Unionists to serve in the army and discourage any activity that provoked Civil War. They believed the United States could survive without the South. They were willing to let the South be their own country, with slavery and whatever laws they wanted. Lincolned disagreed. He did not think the United States could survive as a divided land - that if we didn't stand up for liberty, that America as an idea, would no longer exist, and that over time, we would no longer offer "the last best hope to mankind."

In order to preserve liberty, he suspended the liberty of "copperhead" Democrats. In 1866, the Supreme Court overturned Lincoln's decision and ruled it unconstitutional. How is Lincoln remembered? As the one who suspended the free speech and rights of political opponents or the greatest President in the history of the United States?

When we discuss profiling with respect to airline security, let's remember what we are discussing - the right of free people to live without fear from terror. Imagine if a plane a week was hijacked by Islamic terrorists - EVERYONE would be in favor of racial profiling. (implausible? look what happened to Israel during the two Infitadas....daily suicide attacks for months) The issue is one of degree, what degree are we willing to profile versus what degree we are able to live in fear of terrorism.

To those against racial profiling I pose a real challenge other than to protest it - to devise a better solution that reduces terrorism to an acceptable risk. The question is how to prevent terrorism, not how to ensure that everyone on flights feels hunky dory about how society views them. Sadly, even if we don't profile, passengers will still be suspicious of groups of Arabs on planes...so regardless of profiling or not, Arab men will still feel ostracized. This is an element of human nature - one that can't be legislated against.

If one is truly interested in eliminating the stereotype of Arab/Islamic terrorists, the most efficient way is to eliminate Arab and Islamic terrorism. Simple as that.

I wish people would clean their own house. I always thought and still think the NRA should lead the charge on gun safety...instead, they seem to oppose any move towards gun safety because they perceive it as a move against the 2nd Amendment. It would build trust.

I feel the same way towards moderate Islamic groups - they should at the forefront of discussion about how to stop Islamic terrorism, rather than be the forefront of discussion about how Islam is getting a bad rap by the powers that be. It would build trust.

Likewise, if I heard the left seriously address the issue of Islamic terrorism instead of simply bemoaning the right for the usual - racism, elitism, religionism, etc, it would build trust.