Archive for July, 2005

There has been a lot of talk lately about profiling and whether it works or doesn’t; whether it’s right or wrong; or whether it’s legal or not. So, I thought I would put it my two cents.

In late 2002, I was flying back from San Antonio with my son, and he got randomized. For those of you who don’t fly, when the airline prints your ticket, it’s coded with a symbol designating whether you are to be searched or not. Now, this policy is good, because it’s supposedly completely random and free of controversy. So anyway, as we are walking through the gate, the flight attendant stops us saying, “We have to search him.” I asked my son jokingly, “Did you hide something in your SIPPY CUP?” So, my son, who was 14 months old at the time, was searched from head to toe! At the time, I didn’t think about it too much, because it was still relatively early after September 11th, and any deterrent was good thing. But the more I think about it today, the more I realize how idiotic that policy is. Don’t get me wrong, I think random searches are a good thing, but shouldn’t we focus our attention? When was the last time you heard of a 14 month-old homicide bomber? The typical terrorist is not a 76 year-old lady from Des Moines.

Here’s a little history lesson:

April 18, 1983: A member of Hezbollah, a Lebanese group of militant Islamic extremists, killed 63 people when he rammed a truck full of explosives into the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon.

December 12, 1983: An Iranian backed group of militant Islamic extremists killed six and wounded more than 80, when it bombed several locations in Kuwait, including the US and French embassies.

September 20, 1984: Members of Hezbollah killed 24 and wounded more than 50 went they bombed the US Embassy in Aukar, Lebanon.

June 14, 1985: Members of Hezbollah hijacked TWA Flight 847, held the hostages for 17 days, and killed one American.

December 21, 1988: Two Libyan nationals were later convicted of bombing Pan Am flight 103 which killed 270 people.

February 26, 1993: A Kuwaiti member of al-Qaeda, killed six people when he detonated a car bomb in the underground garage of the World Trade Center North Tower.

October 12, 2002: Members of the militant Islamic group Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia killed 202 people at a nightclub in Bali.

Does anyone see a pattern here? Not only do I think that profiling should be legal, but it should be mandatory. I am not a mathematician, but it seems to me that there is a real high probability that the next terrorist attack will be committed by militant Islamists of middle-eastern descent. That’s not racism, that’s just fact.

If I was carrying a backpack outside an abortion clinic in the Deep South, I would expect to get stopped and checked, because, thanks to Eric Rudolph, there is a higher probability that a white male pro-life southerner will blow up an abortion clinic. If I pulled up in front of a federal courthouse in a large moving van, I might expect to get searched. Thanks to Timothy McVey, there is a higher possibility that a white male southerner might blow up a federal building.

So what’s the problem with profiling? We all do it. If you get on a bus, and someone of middle-eastern persuasion gets on behind you, you become more aware. If you see someone of middle-eastern descent is loitering around a national landmark, you watch that person a little closer than someone else. We all do it. It’s not racism; it’s personal protection. It’s not racism; it’s just common sense. If I happen to get stopped and searched, I will oblige willingly. I don’t have anything to hide, and I certainly don’t want anyone to get hurt.

Those who know me personally know that I am mostly a Bush supporter. I have given him kudos on the War on Terror, tax cuts, and other matters, but I have been critical of Bush on a number of issues as well: McCain-Feingold, Medicare reform, immigration, and the blatant double standard with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Earlier this month, President Bush released his decision on the status of the Palestinian Authority (PLO). Basically it works this way, every six months or so, the President evaluates the conduct of the PLO and determines whether to sanction or not based on terrorist activity. Sanctions include downgrading the Status of the PLO office in the US, designating groups representing the PLO or PA as terrorist organizations, reducing or eliminating assistance, all of that soft sort of discipline. It’s all cotton-candy diplomacy and part of the so-called “Road Map to Peace.”

Anyway, earlier this month, Bush released his opinion and after apparently a great deal of deliberation, soul searching, hand ringing, and brow beating decided to downgrade the Status of the PLO office in the United States, which basically limits the PLO’s representation in the United States- a proverbial slap with a wet noodle; then waived the sanction as a matter of national security. Apparently Bush has been issuing the same decision since before December of 2003. [President's Evaluation]

Since December 2003, Israel has suffered seven major attacks, 59 people have been murdered, and over 380 have been wounded. [Palestinian Attacks] Now, I am not a diplomat or a politician, but I would consider that a significant amount of terrorist activity. Why does the President have a double standard in regards to the PLO? He refuses to endorse serious sanctions for obvious terrorist activities; and he refuses to support the Israelis in carrying out his own agenda under the Bush Doctrine. There is only one way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- and it’s not through negotiations.

This weekend I took the family out to supper, and my four year-old son wanted to go to McDonalds. So off we went… where would kids be these days without happy meals?

After ordering our food, the total bill came to $12.73. So, I gave the casher $22.75, and he looked at me like I had handed him Chinese Yen. Not knowing whether to scratch or wind his watch, he laid the money beside the register proceeded to give me change of $10.02 in the following way… one $5, two $1, the two $1 I had just given him, $1.00 in quarters (three of which I gave him), and two pennies. Walking away laughing, I remembered this email I got from my grandfather… I offer it to you as a public service…

The evolution in teaching math since the 1950s

1950: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

1970: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

1980: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

1990: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers).

2005: Un hachero vende una carretada de madera para $100. “La cuesta de la producción es $80”.

First of all, I am white, Caucasian, whatever you want to call it; I am also American. I don’t claim that I am British-American, Irish-American, or Italian-American, or any other country represented in my lineage. I am American just like every African-AMERICAN, Spanish-AMERICAN, or whatever-AMERICAN.

Now, that being said…

This past Saturday, July 9th, marked the beginning of the annual convention for the NAACP, and delegates are harping about a perceived regression in the rights that people of color have obtained through years of civil rights activism. Regression!? What regression? What opportunities are presented to people “without color,” that are not presented to people of color? Here are few statistics. According to the 2002 Census, similar percentages of black men and white men (non-Hispanic) were employed in technical, sales, and administrative support jobs. Over 52% of black families had incomes over $52,000.00, and only one-quarter (25%) of the poverty population in 2001 was black.*

Why doesn’t the NAACP change its name and be truthful about its agenda- nothing more than a propaganda machine for the liberal left designed to hinder blacks from achieving those things available to every American. When conservative blacks speak out against the NAACP and talk about personal achievement, they are lambasted by the media and other groups. We all remember Clarence Thomas and his confirmation hearings during the early 90s. What about the comments made about Colin Powell when he was chosen as Secretary of State? The black community called him a puppet and a sellout. Or how about Bill Cosby? The NAACP went berserk when the comedian made comments about the black lifestyle. Or better yet is Janice Rogers Brown, a newly appointed DC appellate court judge, who was born and raised in the Jim Crow days of the south. As a single mother, she paid her own way through college and law school and became a justice on the California Supreme Court. Ms. Brown is a black female conservative, and she was dramatically protested and maligned by the NAACP. (NAACP:)

The NAACP continually pushes the issues of reparations, affirmative action, and how blacks deserve more. Yes, America screwed up, no person should be owned by another, but I am pretty sure that there aren’t any blacks alive today that were owned by another person. What good would reparations do, other than create a deeper racial divide and more bitterness by making all Americans pay today for something that was outlawed 140 years ago? As for affirmative action, how can any American, regardless of color, fill satisfied about being selected for a job or admitted to a law school based on color instead of ability?

If the NAACP wants respect from people like me, they should be honest about who they are. If they represent all colored people, why do they ridicule people like Lynn Swann and Don King, just because they support George Bush? Or they should stop pushing an agenda that suggests blacks are owed something because of their color, and start pushing ideas like education, hard work, and family values. They should quit ridiculous campaigns like those against the National Hurricane Service because of a lack of black names, and start campaigns against gangster rappers and others who spew disrespect and distrust. And they should focus on the teachings of Dr. King, equality! Equality for ALL!

*The Black Population in the United States: US Census Bureau, March 2002

This Independence Day, amidst the hamburgers, the hotdogs, and the fireworks, I am taken back to grade school and the stories of what happened in Philadelphia 229 years ago. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence were simple men: farmers, doctors, store owners, bankers, lawyers, and judges, some were self-educated, but all were outlaws. Had their plan not worked, and the British had one the war, they would have been charged with treason and hanged. But they didn’t seem to care. They were determined to make a government for the people and by people; a government with a limited central control; a government where people had direct influence over its control; a government where people were free to worship; a government where people were free to protect themselves, their family, and their property; a government that protected those less fortunate; an envied government; a government with integrity.

So what happened to the revolutionary dream? What happened to “by the people for the people?” Why do we only elect career politicians who have been to an Ivy League law school? Why does the government insist on making itself “bigger and better?” What happened to personal freedoms and personal responsibility? We can’t pray in school, but we can murder a seven month old baby as she is being delivered. It is unconstitutional for us to say “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but it’s not unconstitutional to stop a small group of political activists from putting a campaign ad in the local newspaper. And now, according to the Supreme Court, all property in America is ultimately owned by the government.

So where are the outlaws? Where are the Thomas Jefferson’s, the John Adams’s, the Samuel Chase’s, the Ben Franklin’s, the Thomas Nelson’s- where are the people who would risk life and limb for the protection of individual freedoms and property rights?

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.” Declaration of Independence, 1776

With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor I began to ask why is the Supreme Court so important… why the Supreme Court… why now? The answer to that question is simple, power. Unable to secure legitimate power in Washington, the ACLU, liberal Democrats, and other members of the left establishment, have wrapped themselves around US court system, unelected and uncontrolled, as the last bastion of liberalism in government.

The ACLU, the People for the American Way, the AFT, the mainstream media, the Democratic left, and other so-called champions of people rights, have issued a public cry for a “main-stream” appointee to replace O’Connor. The problem is that unless Bush appoints another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, those on the left will not be happy with his choice. If the candidate is pro-life, forget it; if the candidate is pro-business, forget it; if the candidate is against gun control- forget it. No one will make the left happy unless they get another Stephen Breyer, and replace a conservative with a liberal. Personally, I think Bush should nominate Janice Rogers Brown. She is more than qualified, and nothing would stir up the liberal left than a black conservative female.

Thomas Jefferson once said “there is not such a word in the Constitution which has given that power to [The Supreme Court] more than the Executive or Legislative branches.” Jefferson was talking about the Supreme Court’s ability to make laws “unconstitutional.” The framers of the Constitution knew 250 years ago that having the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of the law was a mistake. Jefferson also said, “But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not…would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” The final arbiter should always be the people’s representation.

Italian justice officials have issued arrests warrants for the “illegal” abduction of Abu Omar, a radical Egyptian cleric aka a terrorist. Apparently, in a covert operation in February of 2003, the US nabbed Omar off the streets of Milan. But, according to Italy, the abduction was conducted without approval. So, in an obvious show of support for US anti-terrorism efforts, the Italian justice department has issued arrest warrants for the 13 CIA agents who took Omar into custody!

Okay, so we took him without telling the Italians, I find that hard to believe, but who else would have gotten him? The Italians? The Italians who have basically opened their doors to terrorist recruits from all over the Mediterranean, or the Italians who teeter on reverting back to socialism every time there is an election? I don’t think so. I have a better idea, next time let the French get him. At least then, when they fail, they’ll call the US for help.