Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Have you seen this... man?

More and more, I hear people say that political correctness will get us all killed. The slavish adherence to PC by airport security in this country certainly played a hand in allowing the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen, and in England, a quivering attempt to not offend Muslims has made it possible for a cop killer to flee from justice.

The United Kingdom has a law in place that dictates the prohibition of requiring a Muslim woman from removing her face veil (called a niqab, and pictured above) at security checkpoints for purposes of positive identification. Well surprise, surprise: this insane law was exploited by the most wanted man in the UK and made possible his escape to Somalia where he is now under armed protection, while the British policewoman he shot and killed lies in her grave, unavenged.

The suspect, Mustaf Jama, evaded British law enforcement by using his sister's passport and niqab to impersonate her and board a flight for Somalia. Knowing that British airport officials would not make him remove the niqab from his face, Jama flashed his sister's passport, and walked right on the plane to freedom.

This may have happened across the pond in the United Kingdom, but c'mon, can't you easily see the same thing happening here in the near future? Too many Americans are under the spell of political correctness to the point where they are so scared to death of being considered intolerant or insensitive, that they apparently would rather die for real.

A big hat tip to Little Green Footballs (see blogroll) for bringing this tongue-clucking story to my attention.

Good Day to You, Sir

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why are you so scared of the world? You really seem to like perpetuating the idea that we should all constantly live in fear.

You ought to relax, because if someone really wants to kill us, he/she will. There are plenty of ways. There's nothing sacred about using airplanes. For example, if someone wants to walk into a school cafeteria during lunchtime with twenty magazine clips and a gun, it would be pretty easy wouldn't it?

Should we surround the schools with armed guards and metal detectors like we do the airports? How about the shopping malls? Beaches and boardwalks? Etc.?

If you like history, why don't you read the U.S. Constitution? And if you've read it, then you seem to have missed a key point.

When the framers drafted the 4th Amendment and required that a warrant based on probable cause be obtained before certain searches and siezures could occur, they knew that meant that some "evildoers" would not be discovered. They knew that some of those evildoers who didn't get discovered might even end up killing somebody later on. Still, the framers, who gave this issue a great deal of thought (much more than you have), properly realized that protecting our privacy was more important than catching the extra bad guys.

So don't worry if we don't catch every last damned evildoer: that's the way the framers wanted it. And if you don't like the 4th Amendment the way it is, then maybe you just don't like the United States of America!

That's your reality and history lesson for the day.

Good day to you, bud!

Chanman said...

Anonymous,

I wish I could have your attitude: to just blissfully skip along in life and depend on people greater than myself to protect me.

There is a famous quote: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." I am being vigilant; how about you? What makes your "what, me worry?" attitude possible is the fact that we employ, in the disputed words of Orwell, rough men willing to do violence on our behalf, which in turn, makes it possible for us to sleep soundly in our beds at night. You obviously enjoy your secure existence, yet you belittle the very people who make it possible.

Why am I so scared of the world? The only thing that scares me is the people in charge could be people who think like you.

I would like you take your "relax, if someone wants to kill you, they will" message to the families of the 3,000 victims of 9/11; to the families of the victims of Pearl Harbor; to the families of the victims of Hitler's death camps; to the families of the 100 million people murdered by communist regimes in the 20th century. See what they would have to say to you on that subject.

You want to throw the Constitution at me? How about the 2nd Amendment? This conversation is incomplete unless I know your views on gun control. I would not be as worried about someone walking into a cafeteria at lunchtime if we law-abiding citizens were not stopped by our goverment from arming ourselves. What makes people "scared of the world" is when our government disarms us and then either cannot or will not protect us. Once upon a time, armed guards and metal detectors were not necessary because by and large, most criminals knew that their careers would not last very long because it would be ended at the hands of armed citizens. Just ask the James Gang about their adventures in Northfield, Minnesota in 1876. Does this mean there was no crime or malfeasance in our nation's past? Of course not; but there was a hell of a lot less.

So you go on being a sheep, Anonymous and "baaaaa" your way through life. This sheepdog will continue to live my life in a fashion that will protect myself, my family, and yes, even you.

Anonymous said...

So you think that people who aren't living in constant fear of terrorists are blissfully skipping along and relying upon others for protection?

You mentioned the 3,000 victims of 9/11 (actually victims of arrogant U.S foreign policy, but that's a different issue).

Considering that there are about 300,000,000 people living in the U.S., and that 3,000 of them died as the result of so called "terrorist attacks," that means that you and I had a 0.00001 chance of being killed by a terrorist BEFORE we adopted the Patriot Acts and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. I wonder, incidentally, whether our chances have increased or decreased since then. In any case, that 0.00001 chance is very insignificant, isn't it?

So instead of expressing so much concern about something so extremely unlikely to happen, why don't you turn to something more realistic?

Why not write about the fact that your kids' chances of dying prematurely of lung cancer because of the federal government's lax pollution emission standards is unreasonably high? Have you even ever considered that issue? Do you care?

If you knew that your children were, for example, 100,000 times more likely to be victims pollution-related cancer than of a "terrorist attack", would you still belabor your perverted fascination with the terrorists?

If you want to protect your family from the real and meaningful threats, it won't be a gun that you'll need. What you'll need is the power to overcome the lobbying effects of companies like Dow, Exxon and General Motors.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, because you also have to worry about whether proper medical care will be available to your kids if they do become unfortunate victims of our terrible domestic policies.

But maybe you won't worry about all that because the good ol' troops are out there defending us from evil!

Chanman said...

Yes, I did mention the 3,000 victims of terrorism on 9/11. I also mentioned the 13 million victims of Hitler, the 30+ million victims of Stalin, the 60+ million victims of Mao, the 3 million victims of Pol Pot... but you chose to ignore that and focus on 9/11; good debating technique.

Let's talk about 9/11: If it ended with that attack and that was it, I would agree with your statistics about it being nothing to worry about. The problem is that you are not looking at the bigger picture. Militant Islam is on the rise throughout the world, and 9/11 was just one of thousands of atrocities committed by Muslim terrorists and murderers each year. At what point should we worry? When a nuclear weapon is set off in the U.S? If our water supply is poisoned? If anthrax or some other disease is released over a major city? Your side always focuses on what has happened rather than what could happen. The people who are proactive rather than reactive are the ones who make the world go 'round.

And please give the whole "It's all America's fault" talking points a rest; it's old and it's tired. So
America was attacked by Muslim terrorists because of what we did. Great, what did we do? What did we do to justify being attacked like that on 9/11? What did India do? They are attacked by Muslim terrorists on an almost daily basis? What did the Philippines do? They are dealing with the Abu Sayyaf Muslim terrorist group in their country. What did the black christians in southern Sudan do to the Arab Muslims in northern Sudan? What did the Coptic Christians in Egypt do? The Buddhists in Thailand? Jews everywhere in the middle east? All of these people are being persecuted by Muslims? What have they done to deserve it? Is it all the fault of the United States as well? I get so tired of people like you talking as if we are the problem instead of the solution. Has our country made mistakes in its history? Of course; humans make mistakes, and our country is just as human as any other. But for you to extrapolate upon that and paint the United States as the world's bad guy is just moronic. We are the beacon of hope and a bastion of freedom in this world. It's easy to prove: think to yourself how many people are trying to get out of this country, and how many are trying to get in? When people in Haiti are taking the roof of their house and turning it into a boat with the hope of making it the United States, then we must be doing something right. I am so tired of people like you who wring your hands, worrying about what we might have done to offend the world, when in reality. we have been the ones who (too many times) have saved the world.

Also, sorry to burst your bubble, but since the 1970s, pollution, both in the air and in the ground, has been going down. Here you go:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/
sab/enviro/06_enviroindex/
15_air.html

Bye!

Anonymous said...

You're living in a dream world if you think pollution has gone down since 1970. By the way, note that the American Lung Association ranks your area, Sacramento, as the 8th most polluted area in the U.S.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752

Do you seriously think that pollution in Sacramento (where it matters for you) has only gone down since 1970? Sure, you can bury your head in the sand and pretend like the "terrorists" are a bigger threat to you than air pollution.

The legacy that people like you would leave your kids is a country of people running around armed and paranoid. When you or members of your family or friends are diagnosed with some weird, inexplicable cancer, you'll wonder how it could have happened; but the answer is literally right under your nose.

The only real terrorism that's on the rise is that committed by U.S. and Israeli military. They routinely murder kids and other civilians (and commit rape), and your tax dollars fund it.

Of course, when they do that, it makes more people want to kill us; and then people like you will claim that we need to kill more of those "new" bad guys (the ones we created). And so on, ad infinitum.

If militant Islam is on the rise, I think that's a good thing. It's good when the U.S. military is humbled, and they certainly have been humbled in Iraq. It's great to see the arrogance transformed into humility. Regarding Iraq, I am proud to be among the folks who "told you so."

As for our water supply, it's much more likely to be poisoned by greedy U.S. corporations than by so-called "terrorists" (what a corny word!). Ask the residents in that nice little town of McCloud you visited. Ask them what the Roundup did to their pristine river (and then Lake Shasta). No, it wasn't foreign terrorists: it was domestic ones. And we have plenty of them!

You're really dreaming if you think this is a "free country." You seem to digest and regurgitate just about everything George W. Bush tells you. I hope you're smart enough to realize that the Bush administration has made you much less free today than you were before he came into power. That's right, you have fewer freedoms than you had before he was President. And the Republicans want to take away even more of those freedoms.

If you like freedom, then you ought to contribute to the ACLU, because they've secured more freedoms for you than any other organization. I know what you're thinking now, but you're wrong: the military does nothing to secure freedom; they only acquire and defend "territory." How the U.S. Constitution is interpreted has nothing to do with who controls any property.

On the other hand, when an ACLU attorney stands before the U.S. Supreme Court and argues to the nine Justices why, for instance, the 1st Amendment should be interpreted to protect your right not to be fired by your school employer for the things you say outside of the workplace, and the Court is persuaded, then you only have the ACLU to thank, not the military. The ACLU is one of the few organizations out there that actually protects your Constitutional rights, so why don't you send them some money for the holidays!

Chanman said...

It's nice to see your true colors become more apparent with each comment. When you start to talk about the United States and Israel being the terrorists, and wanting to see us humbled by an emergent militant Islam, you lose me completely.

And yes, George W. Bush is indeed working to take away our freedoms, which is why I have been railing against his more oppressive policies since the day I started this blog, or haven't you noticed? But as you sufferers of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) seem to forget, George W. Bush is not this country, anymore than that treasonous weasel Clinton was.

So you keep living in your dreamworld where the United States is the enemy, and Al Qaida, Hezbollah, and the other Islamic fascists are the good guys.

Oh, and by the way, you should probably study up on the shenanigans of the ACLU; they are rather choosy about which parts of the Constitution they want to defend. Among other things the ACLU is constantly working to take away my right to defend myself and my family; it would be a cold day in hell before they get one voluntary red cent from me.

Good luck to you.

Darren said...

I see I'm not the only blogger with a troll.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I just realized that I meant Dunsmuir, rather than McCloud, regarding that Roundup spill. No biggie.

Darren, do you consider anyone who visits a blogger's site but who disagrees with the political statements of the blogger to be a troll? Do you think Chanman only wants to hear from "yes men"? And are those the only people you'd like to have visit your site?

Chanman said...

Anonymous,
Once you traveled into the land of moonbattery with your assertion that the United States and Israel are the terrorists and that the U.S. needs to be "humbled" by the Muslims, you officially became a troll.

I served as a Sergeant in the U.S. Army, and Darren was a West Point-trained officer in the Army. For you to root for the deaths of our brave soldiers, you totally crossed the line. With unnecessary troll-like comments like that, I would ban you from further comments, but it's fun to find out what kind of whacked out nonsense you are going to spew next. Please give my readers a further education in how the left really feels about our country.

Anonymous said...

It's too bad that West Point and the Army don't teach logic. We'd certainly be a lot safer today if they did.

So a troll is a "moonbat" who thinks it's good when arrogant people learn some humility? If so, then I'm a troll only if I'm a moonbat.

I think this country's fine, geographically. We just need to change some of the rules and policies; and that, of course, will require educating a lot more people first.

Chanman said...

No, you are a troll because you are saying absurd and morally reprehensible statements such as wanting American troops to be killed; how else can we be "humbled" in Iraq? By the terrorists shaking their fists at us?

You just happen to be on the left-wing moonbat side of the aisle. If you were some right-wing type who thinks all Arabs should be "humbled", I would treat you the same way.

Face it, you're not one of the good guys here; you hate this country and you want Americans to die just so you (think) you can prove your pathetic point.

Anonymous said...

One good humbling lesson is that more Americans now realize that we're not invincible like the movies and GWB depict us. We're not the "most powerful" nation in the world, and we're far from being the most educated and literate one.

It's good when people learn these things, because it gives them incentive to strive to be better.

There are a lot of reasons why we shouldn't be overly proud of ourselves. For example, we have a long way to go before we can boast about our access to medical care. We should humbly acknowledge that our country is not so great in that respect.

So although there are a lot of good things happening here, there's a lot of work to do.

Once we got so arrogant that we unjustly and unilaterally invaded and occupied another country, and committed mass murder upon that country's civilian population, and committed rapes, and tortured prisoners and held leashes around their necks while other soldiers stood by and laughed, and bombed sacred religious buildings, and arbitrarily and capriciously used various forms of deadly force, then, yes, I think that when the Iraqi civilians acting in self-defense responded in kind--when so many of them responded that we were overwhelmed by the resistance--the humbling lesson to us was quite valuable.

Chanman said...

We don't have access to medical care? We are the envy of the world for medical care. You have Canadians tripping over one another trying to get medical service in the United States because Canada's socialized health care system is backlogged for months, even for people with cancer. People in the United States are never turned away from the hospital, and there are charities out there that pay for all kinds of indigent people. Issues that are killing our health care system include the crush of illegal aliens who are bankrupting hospital after hospital near our southern border, and health care became way too expensive once government got involved with medicare. Just like college tuition: once it was subsidized with government money, the price went up, up, up.

I see you are not denying my assertion that you want to see Americans die at the hands of radical Islamists. Bully for you! Keep on educating my readers about the true agenda of the left!

You go for the anti-American angle hook, line, and sinker don't you? Mass-murdering of civilians? Do you mean innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war? Wow! That's a shocker. People get killed in war? Does that mean we "murdered" French citizens in World Wars I and II when we saved France from the Germans? Yes, your use of the loaded word "murder" was not lost upon me. "Murder" is what Saddam Hussein was doing to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. "Murder" is what not just Iraqis, but foreign terrorists are doing to other Iraqis every day in that country through bombings, mortar attacks, shootings, and beheadings. Far more Iraqis are being killed by other Iraqis and foreign terrorists operating in Iraq than you could ever conceive of our soldiers killing - accidentally or intentionally. All I hear from you is what evil deeds our country has done. The real torture, and beheadings, and eye gouging, and shooting, and blowing up, and burning of Iraqi civilians by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr apparently don't warrant your attention. Why would they? It doesn't fit your "World good, America bad" template.

I also notice that you apply the actions of a few wayward U.S. soldiers to our entire military. A couple of moronic Army reservists pose for some S&M photos with Iraqi prisoners, and you extrapolate that to mean that our entire military does it. I remind you that the perpetrators of this and other American crimes against Iraqis were punished and given prison terms. What happened to Iraqi military officals under Saddam who killed prisoners by shooting them, running them through plastic shredders, pushing them off buildings, and pulling their limbs off by tying them to truck bumpers? Nothing obviously, since it was Saddam and his two krazy sons who ordered it. Oh, and God forbid we bomb religious buildings. You mean the ones that the terrorists are using as cover to store weapons and shoot at our soldiers, as the terrorists hide behind human shields in the form of women, children, and the elderly? Those religious buildings?

You are rather choosy about what constitutes being unilateral. Is Great Britain, Australia, and Italy not good enough for you? Does only France and Germany count? I'm confused; please clarify. And if you are worried about being unilateral, how about those 1998 bombings of Iraq that Clinton ordered? How many Iraqis did he kill? Are you worried about them? Or were there just not enough of them to worry about? Only Iraqis killed by our current administration count? Oh and you want to talk about unilateral, how many thousands of innocent Serbs did Bill Clinton kill in 1999? Hell, he didn't even get permission from the U.N. before he started his bombing campaign against Serbia? Unilateral indeed. Where was all the indignation and street protests - CLINTON LIED, SERBS DIED - from the left in this country when all that was going on?

As the recent quote goes:

SAY NO TO WAR... unless a Democrat is president.

Anonymous said...

I hope the army taught you that whenever you wore that uniform and acted inappropriately, it would reflect upon the entire army. You did learn that basic principle, didn't you? Those were the terms of the bargain you entered into when you joined the army.

Similarly, whenever any member of the U.S. military acts inapproriately, it reflects poorly upon the entire military. All members of the military are expected to understand the terms of that bargain, aren't they?

Therefore, when I apply that principle to those U.S. military scumbags who torture prisoners and rape Iraqi women and kill innocent Iraqi civilians--that is, when I blame the entire U.S. military for those actions and say that those actions reflect upon the entire U.S. military--you ought to swallow some of your false pride and respect the terms of that bargain you knew would apply.

So don't try to cowardly blow off all of that misconduct as the work of "a few bad apples." The problem is systemic, and everyone in the U.S. military is responsible, from top brass on down.

There's another free lesson for the day.

Merry Christmas!

Chanman said...

Reflecting badly upon the entire organization and blaming the entire organization - which is what you are doing - are two separate things.

By your logic, I am a child molester because a "few bad apple" teachers have had sex with underage students. Do these teachers reflect badly the whole teaching profession? Of course. Are mature people able to realize that 99% of teachers are morally straight? Yes. It is the people of limited intellectual and emotional capacity who, in a blanket motion, blame the entire profession of teaching for the actions of a few. The same principle applies to the military, to corporate employees, i.e. Enron, or any other profession.

I made no qualms about pointing out that the soldiers in Iraq who have acted illegally deserve what they got, but unlike you, I refuse to slander the entire U.S. military because of the actions of a few. During World War II, dozens of American soldiers were hanged by our military for the crimes of rape and murder. Should we condemn all 16 million American military members because of their actions then? You talk as if illegal and immoral acts by our military during wartime are some new and unique thing. Time to stop hanging out in that left-wing echo chamber you seem to inhabit.

Merry Christmas!