Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on September 17, 2001, 07:34:00 AM
-
In the USA Today, they have a poll today, Poll Finds A United Nation (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/16/poll.htm#more).
One part troubles me:
"Support among almost three in five, 58%, for requiring all Arabs, including U.S. citizens, to undergo special and more intense security screening before boarding planes to help prevent terrorist attacks."
Maybe I'm reading to much into this, but my immediate thought was that 58% of the people who answered this poll are bigots. IMHO, there should be no separate rules for different races of U.S. citizens. We are in this together.
-
gotta agree with that, there should be no special rules for US CITIZEN arabs, they are americans just like us. But for foriegn nationals? Hell I am all for not letting em into the country even.
-
Zigrat, and Sandman_SBM, how kind hearted, compassionate and good of you to be inclusive. 58% are bigots, but not you!! 58% are evil, but not you. You are good to say you aren't a bigot. You stand tall above everyone else because you know who the bigots are.
Now, my question for you today is just where are you flying today?
-
Yeah, leave 1776 and his bigotin business alone!
-
Why shouldn't we try to be more careful?
If you have a group of people who seem to be the ones causing most of the problems then why not watch them closer?
Just because you are a U.S. citizen does not mean you don't have loyalties to another country/group. If they are of the same belief(religion and/or political)as a country or group that is out to destroy us then they should be treated the same as we would the country/group.
If this makes me a bigot then I'm one and proud of it.
-
There are those that cling to political correctness. They are hunkered in their bunkers lobbing PC grenades at those who are on the front lines of this new war. There is no excuse to not be on alert from this point. I believe it has been said,"Trust,but verify." Not unreasonable in these times :)
-
I didn't say the searches were unnecessary.
If it's good enough for one person, it's good enough for all. To think otherwise is exactly the same line of reasoning that got us Manzanar. If you don't know what it is or can't remember, do a search for it... a proud moment in U.S. history.
U.S. citizens are just that, citizens. They enjoy the same rights as all of us, quaranteed. This has nothing to do with political correctness. This has everything to do with treating the people of this country fairly without regard to race, creed, or color.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
No 1776, we are not clinging to PC. We are clinging to the Constitution.
-
Calling people polled "bigots" is pure PC.
-
Across-the-board, sweeping improvements in travel security across the country in all venues, not excepting any ethnicity, race, or creed.
Muslims are not the only terrorists, you know. ;)
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Kieran ]
-
"This has everything to do with treating the people of this country fairly without regard to race, creed, or color." Quote by Sandman
Then retract your statement of characterization.
-
Well, I'm all in favor of protecting citizens' rights, but if someone is seen leaving the scene of a crime, it seems more reasonable to search based on a description of that person, than to just start arresting everyone in the area. No?
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: popeye ]
-
Not a chance. I believe that anyone who thinks we should single out U.S. citizens because of their color or heritage is a bigot.
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
Bigots ? Racist ? Definitely.
Singling them out by their appearance ?
:mad:
BEGIN EXTREME SARCASM:
Hmmm. OK how about we include young white males that used to be in the military. ?
If they look like Tim McVeigh then they MUST NOT BE TRUSTED !
Hey.. strip search all black people before they board flights, they are normally criminals too.
END SARCASM
As the song said " Sign said long haired freaky people, need not apply, so I tucked my hair up under my hat..."
Cmon...Simply search everyone the same.
Just implement the same rules as EL AL has for flight in Israel.
People need to make a choice.
Relative safety in the sky
OR no safety at all just because the alternative might inconvenience you.
EDIT: Singling out Arab-Americans will just increase anger and hatred.
OOOOHH... MAYBE THAT"S WHAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ATTACK WAS.....
Get the world to distrust ALL Arabs more, thereby making them hate the U.S. and becoming a good recruitment pool for terrorist groups.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Snoopi ]
-
I do believe 1776's main assertation is that when criticizing someone for labeling another individual, its best not to label them.
A blanket "Anyone who answered yes on the poll is a bigot" isn't much better than "Anyone that looks like an Arab deserves increased scrutiny at airports." Labels labels labels.
BTW... does the US/Mexican border patrol treat everyone equally regardless of skin color?
I guess some people just have to get huffy about things as if they mean something. The people being polled are not the people making the decisions. The people making the decisions are going to do what they think makes sense.
How about this: Two Intel litho engineers traveled to Israel to help a fab get its new state-of-the-art equipment up and running. Both men were dark skinned and were traveling together. El Al held them for 3 hours under questioning because they fit a profile. How many hijackings has El Al Airlines had again?
AKDejaVu
-
1776 I don't think anybody who suggests racial profiling for airline security has to be a racist. Hell, if all arabs were banned from air travel in the US, the WTC/Pentagon attacks would never have happened. Period. Seems to me that is a valid reason for profiling that has nothing to do with hatred for any particular race.
But security measures like that are not consistent with the principles that this nation is based on, the principles that supposedly make us different from the barbarians who want to destroy us.
So I don't think it should be done.
However for people who are not US citizens and are here for work/travel/education/etc., there should be some very strict measures taken.
-
Of course, El Al can do quite a bit in the name of security. They don't have that pesky Constitution gettin' in the way.
-
LOL Snoopi
Since the last terrorist attack was done by American conservatives, Tim McVey et al, everyone wearing a
John Dere cap should have a lil’ poke up their fanny just to check if they got any homemade C-4 stashed up there.. jk
Hey Snoop are you back to hosting h2h games?.. I’d check but there’s a firewall at my server and I can’t seem to host or log in.
Got a couple of maps for ya.
-
IIRC, El Al does have and use a sophisticated profiling system. It appears to work.
We'll have to decide if we want to go that way. It's a major, major decision with very far reaching implications. Not one to be made as a knee-jerk response.
-
Wow sandman.. you just keep going and going.
Are you referring to the same US constitution that protects freedom of speech? Ever try to say "I have a bomb" on an airline? How about refusing to have your luggage searched? Are we picking and chosing what parts of the constitution are ok to skimp on? Or are we concerned with safety?
Profiling will occur regardless. The setting the guidelines will be operating from a pretty large number of factors. Things like people traveling with little or no luggage, young females traveling alone, any group of males traveling together, any skin color deemed high % risk or whatever other indicators have been presented as high-risk.
I'd like to see them scrutinize anyone and anything suspicious. I'd like there to be some kind of experience/information to back that profiling up. I'd like to see them catch or deter people before making it on the plane.
How about if we just call it descrimination if the airlines only use white anglo males to do the profiling? Maybe we could call THAT discrimination.
AKDejaVu
-
<sigh>
I'm sorry... you can't possibly justify violating someone's rights simply because they fit a racial profile. It's wrong.
Hmmm.. how are young females traveling alone a threat?
On September 16, an Indian immigrant gas station owner was shot to death and a Lebanese Amercan clerk was targeted but not injured by gunfire at another gas station in Mesa, Arizona. Frank Roque was charged with one count of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder. Roque was quoted as shouting, "I stand for America all the way!"
Racial profiling in action...
-
Okay, ask everyone to pull out their ID and/or green card if they have one.
Of course, when's the last time you heard of a Mexican coming to this country to do anything other than get a job and live a free life? I've never heard of a Mexican terrorist. Or an African, I've never heard of an African coming to our country simply to destroy it. Or a Jamaican, or a.... Well you see where I'm going.
From what background do the majority of terrorists come from?
Then that's your answer why they have to be racially profiled, you simply can't let them all walk by- unless you want a repeat of Tuesday.
-SW
-
I'm sorry... you can't possibly justify violating someone's rights simply because they fit a racial profile. It's wrong.
What part of their rights would be violated? Asking them extra questions? What? A little more inconvenience while boarding an aircraft?
BTW.. did you know that some states require the elderly to come in for more frequent and stringent drivers tests? I wonder why that is.
Hmmm.. how are young females traveling alone a threat?
How about the notion that a young female would be absolutely no threat, thus would be one of the premier smuggling platforms. You see, terrorists and smugglers profile people too. Some people realize this and take apropriate measures, others climb up on the high horse and refuse to acknowledge it.
If 90% of all highjackings involve an individual with Arab features... its pretty safe to say they will undergoe greater scrutiny at an airport. I'm sorry that you feel that is a violation of their rights, but I'm even more sorry that there is so much data to back it up.
Now, if someone is refused service because of their skin color... or forced to move seats so that someone doesn't have to sit next to "a damn A-rab"... then there is a clear issue to be dealt with. But if a recent rash of bombings involved a VERY large percentage of Arab citicenz, then some scrutiny at the gate is expected (I'm sure most being scrutinized will know this too).
Is it a good thing? Nope. Is it necessary? Not really. Is it racist? Perhaps. Is it based on false data? Nope.
I'm all for giving eveyone a serious interrogation before entering a plane to avoid any misgivings here. If that's what would make you feel better. Or, we can endure the hysteria right now and know that it will die down sooner if people prove they are just as if not more trustworthy than those being let by.
On September 16, an Indian immigrant gas station owner was shot to death and a Lebanese Amercan clerk was targeted but not injured by gunfire at another gas station in Mesa, Arizona. Frank Roque was charged with one count of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder. Roque was quoted as shouting, "I stand for America all the way!"
Racial profiling in action...
Yeah.. right. And this is a person that would not have done this under any other circumstance. This person is a bigot. He is labled a "racial profiler". Anybody that does any kind or "racial profiling" must then be a bigot.
100% of the terrorists that highjacked aircraft were Arab. Therefore, anyone that is Arab is a highjacker.
Wow... this is fun. Lets keep picking and chosing who we can and can't label. Then we can sit back and know that the people we chose to call names really deserved it while the people they chose to call names did not.
According to the tone of this thread, I must be a bigot. I am not a bigot because of how I treat individuals, but rather how apropriate I think an airline's screening methods are. I am a bigot despite working for a multinational group of people from most of the countries recently spat upon in this board with the same level of respect for each and every one of them that I'd have for any engineer with their experience and know-how.
Yes... it is so cut and dry. Labeling should be as easy as it was made in the first post of this thread. That way we wouldn't even have to ask Arab nationals more questions since they'd already be in jail. yeah.. that's the answer... indescriminant descrimination.
AKDejaVu
-
"Bill of Rights, Amendment IV - Right of search and seizure regulated.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Sorry, I don't consider it reasonable to search someone simply because they are Arab-American.
-
"probable cause" says it all, anyone can bend the law to fit their motives.
If we need to do that to make our country safer, why does it matter? The people who are innocent and honest citizens will only have to go through the added hassle for a while, while those who are terrorists are caught.
-SW
-
Technically... you are asserting that searching anyone prior to getting on an aircraft is unconstitutional. That is flawed to the core.
People are not be subjected to searches right off the street. People are being subjected to searches prior to boarding a commercial airliner.
Someday ask a customs inspector if they are more prone to search through the luggage of a mid 30's bearded long haired scruffy looking dude wearing an army fatigue jacket returning from Bogata.
So.. profiling occurs and has occured on airlines for some time. That's pretty much widely accepted and widely ignored. Now that its Arabs being profiled... it becomes vile. There is a "lets pick the topic of the day and have fun" double standard being applied that smells like Ahi tuna.
Now... if someone is advocating searching and/or detaining citizens in their homes simply because of their heritage, we are going to have a problem. I won't stand for it and I doubt many others will either. The main difference is that one is an invasion of a private life while the other is someone willing to use someone's services at a price and at the risk of being searched.
But you should also know... that if we go to war with Afghanistan, any Afghani nationals will most likely be asked to leave the US. That is also another form of security often times mistaken as discrimination.
AKDejaVu
-
I agree with wulf on this one.
others have pointed out that for quite some time, a good majority of terrorists have been from arabic descent.
Those that are Just, and honorable will have nothing to hide.
Those that are not and have somthing to fear, know something.
its simple. This isnt a time to squabble over little rules and "we cant do this because of.."
This is a time of action, this is no game.
If we are to get down to busness with this issue, It needs to be addressed NO MATTER HOW it is done.
I think that we need to take the gloves off.
thats the reality of it.
-
yeah... you could make them wear a yellow crescent on their clothes, just for good measure.
-
Are you willing to die for freedom? Are you really? If yes then the profiling of an indiv because he's Arab is wrong. Thats NOT what America is about. We should STAND for freedom and equality... till our destruction or fall.
xBAT
-
the terrorists that are sure to come are going to be arabs.
therefor, it's logical to pay special attention to arabs and make sure to search them more thoroughly.
it's unfortunate for patriotic arab americans, but so what? that's life...there isn't always a feel good solution, sometimes people just get a tough break.
it would be irresponsible for law enforcement to forego any clue and if they scrutinize arabs they take away the ability for the terrorists to disappear.
to be clear though - i think shouting racial epitaphs and engaging in violence against arab americans is stupid and juvenile because it doesn't lead to a more secure america or really accomplish anything. scrutiny however, is supported by logic (so long as it is done correctly) so i'm in favor of it regardless of how it makes people feel.
-
I bet that far more of the poll respondents, much less the authors(USA Today and CNN), don't even know what an Arab is and isn't.
"And Americans are split when asked if Arabs and Arab-Americans should carry some form of special identification."
Armbands seemed to be effective for this 60 years ago...
The poll was pretty stupid and pointed in its choices of questions and answers. Small wonder that it was USA Today and CNN that teamed up for it.
-
I served 10 years in public service, both in the military and in civilian law enforcement. And under no circumstance will I support any incursion upon the Constitution.
In many different cases across America over the last 3 years racial profiling done for the "sake" of drug enforcement have been shot down as unconstitutional.
I paraphrase a quote from earlier, should all young white males also be singled out because of Timothy McVeigh?
The IRA also harbors terrorist amongst its ranks, should all red headed "irish looking" people also be under more scrutiny?
"Bending" laws, creating new one's or setting policy that singles out U.S. CITIZENS because of their beliefs,or racial background IS unconstitutional. And any person, or entity that sanctions such things is a bigger enemy to democracy than a terrorist for THEY are the ones that have the ability to change things politically.
Talk of this kind is not about security. It's about a bigger threat against what this country stands for. After seeing the sickening backlash against people that "look" middle eastern in the past several days if we start "Bending" where is the line drawn? Hell half the people targeted by violence in the last few days haven't even been MUSLIM! They only "Looked" the part.
If there are extra security measures it should apply to all not one of a certain ethnic background.
I Pledge Alligance to my flag, and the Republic for which it stands, One Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
"Bill of Rights, Amendment IV - Right of search and seizure regulated.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You have the right idea, Sandman, but the wrong Amendment. The one that really applies here is the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of that Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The last part is the important one; it basically means that laws must be applied equally to all citizens regardless of race or ethnicity. It's very likely that singling out Arab-Americans violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
OTOH, this Amendment makes it clear that equal protection applies to citizens only. So it may be possible (unless some Supreme Court cases I'm not aware of expanded the scope of the equal protection clause) that non-citizens can be singled out as security risks.
-- Todd/DMF
-
I am a mick. The first time I got shot at, the man in the bunker next to me was black. I had never seen him before in my life. But he was wearing an American uniform. When the shooting started I was so happy he was there, I could have kissed the son of a squeak.
Its time to grow up guys. Bigotry is a waste of resources, and a distraction we don't need right now.
-
wonder how many of you would support this "profiling" if you were of Arabic descent...
-
I don't know nifty. You don't by chance know if the 4 airliners crashed last tuesday stop to let anyone of Arab decent off do you?
AKDejaVu
-
security and scutiny of all - whatever color/sex you are.
more face recognition cameras and software - if this was at the borders/airports, tues terrorists would never of got into the country..
I'll suffer the inconvience for the safety and security of my family
-
The apparent desire for some to appease to everyone through more diplomatic ways (read: political correctness) might work when you want to be hired for a job, run for president or be the cool guy.
Unfortunately, if you expect your country to remain free and for the sake of the freedom of others in this country- then racial profiling does indeed play a big part in this.
Whether you like it or not, not one member of any other race except of Middle Eastern decent stepped aboard those planes on Tuesday with the intent of crashing them into largly populated buildings.
Apply more strict policing methods when someone who is of Middle Eastern decent and is a non-natural born citizen wants to board a plane seems to be the only answer.
Unless I'm mistaken, how else do you stop hijackers that can easily blend in with someone of the same ethnic background?
This isn't about Timothy McVeigh, this isn't about the IRA, this is about what happened 6 days ago. This is about a cult of insane and self-righteous terrorist groups that happen to reign from the Middle East.
I see it as safety, you see it as bigotry.
When your safety is compromised because my so-called bigotry in which I wanted to more carefully screen non-natural born US citizens of Middle Eastern decent is not allowed in this country, look at yourself to blame for your death.
-SW
-
Either we all get searched, or nobody does. It's what America's about, equality and freedom.
-
Awww, what a load.
Being an American has nothing to do with ethnicity. That isn't PC, that's patriotism. Using race as the basis for police scrutiny is giving into fearful ignorance. Don't be scared to truly be an American.
-
Originally posted by Kratzer:
Using race as the basis for police scrutiny is giving into fearful ignorance.
Oh my! You mean there were actually Africans, Russians, Italians and Japanese that hijacked those planes too?
Whether you believe me or not, you think that a special eye won't be dovoted to keepin' a watch on people that are of Middle Eastern decent?
I mean, I guess you believe that african americans aren't paid more attention to when it comes to drugs....
-SW
-
Its funny watching conservatives run to give up some freedoms in the name of safty when they are so fond of the Ben Franklin quote in the context of gun control.
Paraphrase:
"Those who would trade freedom for a little security or safety deserve neither."
I can't tell you how many times I've seen conservatives use this statement in gun control debates, but it seems as soon as it is somebody else's freedoms on the line they are more than willing to give those up.
Based on this behavior I think it is pretty clear where they'd stand if they were Arab-Americans.
-
what's with the shakey-jawed huffy teared patriotic soundbites and racial overtones?
it isn't racism it is profile matching!
every terrorist involved in the tues bombing has been arab: fact.
if there are 20 non-arabs and 1 arab in a boarding line, and you want to try to narrow your search to the most likely target,the arab is statistically far more efficient of a search target than the others, even though the probability of him/her being a terrorist is still extreeeeemely small. any probability is too much to ignore in the quest to protect human lives.
should we waive that guy/lady through without a search and then spend resources searching people with 0 matching characteristics?
there's no reason to accuse them or be rude or violent and kick people's doors in, but targeting arabs for searches in a boarding line scenario as a priority ahead of but not excluding others is very reasonable if you can divorce yourself from the emotion of it and just think about the magnitude of the act of narrowing down a nation of millions to find agressors.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]
-
LOL Karnak!
And I wonder how many people would be fine with this if it hit EVERYONE. I for one would be. Many others would say they were too. But would that affect your decision to fly? Do you think it should do so on an even smaller scale?
Now... this is going to sound a little out of place here... what was used to take those planes down again? I'm somewhat amazed you found a way to throw gun control in there. Fricking pathetic.
AKDejaVu
-
What you are going to get is the maximum amount of "safety" that doesn't impede the operation to the point that the airlines cannot be profitable. They will pay the absolute minimum price they can get away with to achieve this. That's how the industry works.
If you think otherwise, you're dreaming.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:
You have the right idea, Sandman, but the wrong Amendment. The one that really applies here is the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of that Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The last part is the important one; it basically means that laws must be applied equally to all citizens regardless of race or ethnicity. It's very likely that singling out Arab-Americans violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
OTOH, this Amendment makes it clear that equal protection applies to citizens only. So it may be possible (unless some Supreme Court cases I'm not aware of expanded the scope of the equal protection clause) that non-citizens can be singled out as security risks.
-- Todd/DMF
Thanx DMF... that's what I was thinking. As for non-citizens, single them out, I don't care.
Were any of the hijackers U.S. citizens? I rather doubt it.
The U.S. has made this same mistake in the name of security, Manzanar (http://www.nps.gov/manz/) and other internment camps (http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/anthropolgy74/) created after the attack on Pearl Harbor to hold Japanese Americans for no other reason than ethnicity. In 1988 President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided for reparations for surviving interns. The following year President George Bush issued a formal apology for the actions of the U.S.
We were wrong then and you're wrong now if you think it's okay to treat citizens this way.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
Nice try, but you might want to spend more time reading and thinking than reacting.
I'm sadly aware the race IS used as the basis for the opinions of many people.
What IS is not always what is RIGHT.
-
I read somewhere once that the greatest number of losses in the intel community, during WW2, were Japanese Americans. They died while gathering info on Japan.
It has been said that the Intelligence community will bare the brunt of this war. Who do you think will do this work. I don't see blond haired, blue eyed, Nordic types sliding up next to these middle eastern. It will like as not take Americans of middle eastern decent to do this.
We can get back to our sibling rivalry when this is over. Right now we need to close ranks like the family that we are.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]
-
Originally posted by Kratzer:
Nice try, but you might want to spend more time reading and thinking than reacting.
Thinking about what? Ways to better secure our airports? Our government buildings? Tighten up security around the nation? I don't know what you mean by 'nice try' nor do I have any idea what else I should read and think before 'reacting'. By reacting, I assume you mean pointing out the obvious.
Originally posted by Kratzer:
What IS is not always what is RIGHT.
Okay, but what is more right. Searching natural born citizens of the US or searching those that are not natural born or are not even citizens?
What makes more sense to you, searching a Mexican then relentlessly interrogating him after you find out he is an illegal immigrant here just trying to earn a living with a toejam job that you nor I nor anyone else on this board OBVIOUSLY does not want or have? Or searching and relentlessly interrogating someone of Middle Eastern decent who is here illegally and is more likely to be associated with a terrorist group than the Mexican fellow?
I don't pretend to know the answers, but it's a waste of resources, time and money to search everyone's baggage as opposed to those who happen to be of the same ethnicity as those who perpetrated this crime.
You think this is bigotry because we single out a particular ethnic group? I'd say so, *IF* last Tuesday went by as a normal day. Now it's simply a safety measure.
I don't think anyone is saying "move them into internment camps", "tap their phone lines", "strip search them and then cavity search them if they sneeze!"
But certainly pay more attention to their luggage and their forms of identification than say an african american or a mexican.
-SW
-
Apparently blinded by late events, many americans seem to think that hijacking airliners to crash them into american landmarks is a natural, genetically brought behaviour of arab people or a mandate of the muslim religion.
However the will to commit suicide, taking many lives with you in the proccess, and getting the most possible attention can be noticed in people of all sorts.
For example, let's take on white male american bussinessmen... not quite McVeigh nor any islamic fanatic:
"Samuel Byck, a failed businessman with a history of mental illness, was investigated by the Secret Service in 1972 on the basis of reports that he had threatened President Nixon. In 1974, he hatched a plan called "Operation Pandora's Box" to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into the Executive Mansion. On February 22, less than a week after the Preston incident, Byck went to Baltimore/Washington International Airport carrying a pistol and a gasoline bomb. He forced his way onto a Delta flight destined for Atlanta by shooting a guard at the security checkpoint. He entered the cockpit and ordered the crew to take off. After the crew informed him that they could not depart without removing the wheel blocks, Byck shot the pilot twice and the co-pilot three times (the co-pilot died). Police outside the airplane shot into the cockpit and hit Byck twice. Byck fell to the floor, put the revolver to his head, and killed himself."
United States Secret Service.
PUBLIC REPORT
OF THE
WHITE HOUSE SECURITY REVIEW
-
Takeda, you are mistaken.
"Apparently blinded by late events, many americans seem to think that hijacking airliners to crash them into american landmarks is a natural, genetically brought behaviour of arab people or a mandate of the muslim religion."
No one said anything along these lines. However, you seem to think that we are blinded by recent events. Actually, our eyes are wide open. No one is assuming or thinking that it's only arabic or muslim people. That's just ignorance speaking on your behalf, we know who the perpetrators of this attack were. They are a terrorist group, and unfortunately for muslim nations they happen to be psychotic extremist muslims.
Does this mean that all muslims are likely to do this? NO! But it leaves SOME as suspect, which in turn means that all have to be searched to find those few.
It's plain as day to see this, but I guess that's because I'm a bigot according to these people.
-SW
-
*sigh*
-
Look Kratzer, I have no idea how you can beat around the bush to appease to people. It seems so spineless.
We know EXACTLY which ethnic group these terrorists are from.
Does this mean that there is a chance of turning up some of these terrorists in the african-american community? Doubt it. How about the Hispanic community? Hmmm don't think so. Maybe the Italian community? Nope!
Again, I will restate it: We know EXACTLY which ethnic group these sub-humans come from. Now we just have to search through the innocent to find the guilty.
But- this of course makes me a bigot, right?
-SW
-
If the shoe fits...
-
And it's clear to see that you missed my point, so i'll rephrase it:
There are black muslims,
catholic arabs, and wicca asians... while you spend your time thinking who is the most suspicious, your average-dull looking-bored- bald-i'm nobody-guy could well be the madman, as I showed.
For your interest, you should notice that there are lots of poor, fanatized and trained as terrorists muslims in the Balcans. Many of them happen to have blue eyes and a blond hair.
Looking for the obvious bad guy based on a pointy nose and darker hair only works in Disney movies. The real world, sadly, is much more complicated.
-
Originally posted by takeda:
And it's clear to see that you missed my point, so i'll rephrase it:
There are black muslims,
catholic arabs, and wicca asians... while you spend your time thinking who is the most suspicious, your average-dull looking-bored- bald-i'm nobody-guy could well be the madman, as I showed.
Now that I see what you are saying, I understand.
However, I don't think that it is "muslims" we are after. It's this particular terrorist group and others that we are singling out. In order to get them all, we have to find them amongst their ethnic group. Like arabic, iranian, afghanistan, etc
I can't really explain it, other than to say we have to find the guilty amongst the innocent of the same ethnic (race) background.
Sandman, blow it out your ass. You don't know me, you only assume. And we all know what ASSumptions do to people.
-SW
-
LOL!
-
"...not one line of the constitution or the bill of rights should be construed as a mandate to commit national suicide... "
Our government WILL Screen EVERY passenger.. we ALL walk thru the gawdamned xray machine; right? And I got news for yah.. Security profiling is in place now.. put an arab in a car and send him into the que for the MidTown Tunnel RIGHT NOW, and I guarentee he'll be stopped and searched before he gets in there. I won't be.
Like it or not, our Customs Service, the US Post Office, the Border Patrol and Airport Security IS profiling, as is the highway patrol, the FBI, the police and every fediddlein citizen in this country.
And THATS reality NOW. It ain't "should we or shouldn't we"... WE ARE. period.
Get used to it. Oh; and BTW, I'll sleep a lil better on my next flight because of it. So will the arab-american sittin next to me... he ain't any more anxious than I am to become a smear on the pavement.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
"...not one line of the constitution or the bill of rights should be construed as a mandate to commit national suicide... "
What is this from?
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
[QB]
it's unfortunate for patriotic arab americans, but so what? that's life...there isn't always a feel good solution, sometimes people just get a tough break.
QB]
Not to sound like a PC liberal know-nothing, but think about what you're saying, Mr. White American. You say that it's not a big deal - well, you don't have to worry about it, now do you? Who cares - it's them, not you! To make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs. As long as you're not one of the eggs, no problem, right?
That's too easy to say when you are not someone who is going to feel the results... wise up. If you were an Arab-American, you would be singing a different tune, I imagine.
-
AKDejaVu,
I think that some security increases need to be implimented at the airports, but they should affect all citizens, not just a select group.
FWIW, I wasn't commenting on gun control at all, it is simply that context in which I've most often seen that quote. I oppose gun control, despite being a Liberal.
The method for gaining control of the aircraft seems to have been with knives/box cutters and threats of "There is a bomb on board!" I kinda doubt that there really was a bomb on board, but the threat was probably enough given past tendencies of hijackers. This has now changed.
-
Originally posted by ispar:
[QB]
Not to sound like a PC liberal know-nothing, [QB]
no, you sound more like someone fresh out of highschool still trying to be everyone's friend by saying things you think sound inclusive and patriotic.
the hijackers were all arab. at this point the probability that the next event will be by an arab based on that sample set is 1.
based on everyone in the world as the sample set, the probability is much lower for each arab but still substantially higher than any other group. should we dumb down what we know to make you feel better?
why should we ignore the highest probability in the name of feelings?
i guess under your world we should wave the 3 arab guys through and interrogate the 1st white male right? or maybe we should hire mcdonalds to make sure (like their commercials) we get one member of every race searched in line.
it is irrelevent that they are arab - arab is a characteristic, it could have been beards, glasses, green hair, nose rings etc.....if every hijacking had a shared characteristic you have to be aware of it - if not then you are a sorry cop.
if we are down to the point where we throw statistics and common sense out the window in favor of sparing feelings then we are at the end of an empire that was felled by good intentions and minimal brainpower behind them.if i were an arab it wouldn't change a thing, it would simply be my bad luck. i'm an adult so i realize that the world doesnt always present the possibility of happy endings - some day you might come to that conclusion as well.
-
Once again mrfish, you show your remarkable inability to read anything but what you want to into what I say. I simply said that for you to say that it doesn't matter that we pay closer attention to Arabs, because we will all be safer is laughable coming from your mouth. I doubt you would be saying as much were things reversed.
To even imply that I suggested paying more attention the white passengers is hilarious too. This is related to affirmative action, by the way, in that it represents racial profiling that is unfair to others. Unfair to others because it is unequal, not because they are Arab and are a greater threat group.
I concede that they are. But to think that we can just blithely go about and warn people to be careful about Arabs is ludicrous. It spreads paranoia and more resentment. And it means that others may be over looked. There is a very real danger that in watching out for all those terrorist Arabs you may miss the terrorist former army guy, or Irish guy, or South African guy, or Spanish guy...
You call for equal treatment for all under the law as strongly as anyone I've seen when YOUR rights may be in danger. Why the reversal when it's someone else?
Are Arabs the number one threat group? Sure.
Should we be more careful with them? Perhaps.
Should we warn against the dangerous Arabs, focus on them, and place additional restrictions on them just because they happen to be Arabic? No. And to hear it suggested makes me sick.
The Arab Terrorist is a myth in the making, one that will stand alongside the Black Criminal. Lets nip this one in the bud.
Originally posted by mrfish:
no, you sound more like someone fresh out of highschool still trying to be everyone's friend by saying things you think sound inclusive and patriotic.
Am I trying to be YOUR friend? No, because I think you're being a hypocrisy spouting right-wing idiot. Hey, I call it like I see it...
the hijackers were all arab. at this point the probability that the next event will be by an arab based on that sample set is 1.
Sure, if the world were all Arab. Do the math. The number of other people in the world who are not Arabic dispels that idiotic statement by itself
based on everyone in the world as the sample set, the probability is much lower for each arab but still substantially higher than any other group. should we dumb down what we know to make you feel better?
Oh yeah, that'll make me feel better all right... I'm your right-wing stereotyped Liberal, no brains and all heart.
why should we ignore the highest probability in the name of feelings?
feelings? when did I say anything about feelings?
i guess under your world we should wave the 3 arab guys through and interrogate the 1st white male right? or maybe we should hire mcdonalds to make sure (like their commercials) we get one member of every race searched in line.
I really love this one. Keep going fish, you sound really stupid now...
it is irrelevent that they are arab - arab is a characteristic, it could have been beards, glasses, green hair, nose rings etc.....if every hijacking had a shared characteristic you have to be aware of it - if not then you are a sorry cop.
Oh, certainly. And because people with piercings are more likely to commit crime, we should single them out as potential criminals and do our best to impose restrictions that make it harder for them to get around and get into places where they might "cause trouble"
if we are down to the point where we throw statistics and common sense out the window in favor of sparing feelings then we are at the end of an empire that was felled by good intentions and minimal brainpower behind them.if i were an arab it wouldn't change a thing, it would simply be my bad luck. i'm an adult so i realize that the world doesnt always present the possibility of happy endings - some day you might come to that conclusion as well.
You can talk all you want about how you would feel if you were an Arab, but that doesn't mean that you actually know jack toejam about how that perspective would affect your thoughts and feelings and outlook on the world.
Tard.
-
i stated:
"the hijackers were all arab. at this point the probability that the next event will be by an arab based on that sample set is 1."
you reacted:
"Sure, if the world were all Arab. Do the math. The number of other people in the world who are not Arabic dispels that idiotic statement by itself"
but the very next sentence said:
"based on everyone in the world as the sample set, the probability is much lower for each arab but still substantially higher than any other group. should we dumb down what we know to make you feel better?"
so you obviously jumped before you read. take a breath.
your still trapped inside the same old tired cliches - where did i imply that pierced people steal more? i simply listed it as a possible characteristic, good grief! i guess i'll have to be more bland and pc in my choices from now on ....shoe color height or something.... you missed the point entirely - you are on a hair trigger looking for a reactionary and are blinded.
well, no more arguing with teenyboppers tonight,go flip on mtv and make sure you have the right opinion on this to stay cool with your friends - get your notepad out, your instructions are waiting. :rolleyes:
-
mrfish, if you are paying attention you would realize that my opinion is flying in the face of pretty much everyone in the nation. And I abhor mtv.
I think that you are missing my point as much as I am yours (if I am, indeed). You did not state that piercing people steal more - you listed it as a characteristic. The same you consider being arabic a characteristic. A characteristic that you believe implies "terrorist." I was simply using a counter example to make a simple point, one that you keep seeming to miss: just because we believe that an Arab is more likely to be a terrorist, this is in no way a justification for greater scrutiny, suspicion, and restriction of these people than the rest of the population.
I think that you are over-estimating the degree of pc'ness in my post, and how much of a place pc'ness has in my life. Sometimes the only thing between the lines is paper. I despise it, actually. It just so happens that the obscure and twisted notion that discrimination based on an inherited characteristic is wrong jives with what is pc in this nation today, I guess. Of course, that's the same argument that you use in opposing Affirmative Action - something that you are quick to denounce because you feel it threatens YOUR rights.
Your implication that I am incapable of forming my own opinions and must check with my friends to make sure I have the right idea is absolutely pathetic, given that NONE of them agree with my standpoint on the current situation, and people with your stance are in the vast majority in this country right now. Check the bloody poll!
The Rightist myth that the Leftists are incapable of thinking for themselves and must follow the crowd holds no more water than the Leftist myth that Rightists are either backwater under-educated rednecks or high-powered rich bastards with no interest than themselves. My viewpoint is MY viewpoint. Think what you will of that, but don't slander me by calling me a slave to pop-culture, which is another institution I abhor. Along with teeny-boppers.
Oh, and of course: wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
:D
-
If we intend to racial profile blacks and hispanics, then we might as well chunk in the arabs too. Profiling is a fact..whether its official or "unofficial"
-
Defending the U.S. goes far beyond defending its people and land, it is defending the Constitution. I twice swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. Think about those words. I didn't swear an oath to defend the "motherland" against foreign attackers. Why is that?
The Constitution is why we are what we are. Sometimes it may seem inconvenient to the greater good. The government could easily dispense with many threats if they didn't have to deal with things like Habeus Corpus, and the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments among others. But then we wouldn't be who we are. In fact, we'd just be another country among many where you wouldn't want to live. The Franklin quote is a truth, and it cuts in every direction.
Our Constitution states that every citizen has equal rights and equal protection. Is someone supporting and defending, and bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, and therefore the U.S., when they state that that should not be followed, no matter how good they perceive their objective?
It only took a single death to provide the excuse for Kristallnacht. I'm glad to live in a country and time where that won't happen. As strong of a foundation as we have, we've made our mistakes in the past but have learned. One of the goals of these terrorists is to rid Islamic countries of Western influence. To stir up anti-Islamic sentiment in America furthers their goal by stirring up more anti-American sentiment there. I believe that plan has backfired. Instead, we will end up with an opportunity to have carte blanche to act against these extremists with the backing of other Islamic countries. Instead of them driving a wedge between us and Islamic countries, it is our opportunity to drive a wedge between them and the people they are trying to influence their way. Getting some people and destroying immediate capabilities is a necessary step, but it is not a permanent victory.
-
Well said Pyro.
And, I must say, a bit telling how some individuals who have been very adament in their defence of the constitution in some regards have no qualms when it comes to bending it in others.
As mentioned before, terrorists come in many shapes and forms. Some are even white Americans. Equal rights means just that: nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps it's time you chaps do what's done in Europe: hire professional people to stand at the x-ray machine and handle security, instead of minimum wage slaves. Make sure they're properly educated and certificated. Ensure job satisfaction. Might even go so far as to make 'um state employees.
Sure, the government will grow a bit. Checking in etc will take a bit longer for *everyone*. But it seems to me that this is far better than tampering with the Constitution.
Too expensive for the airlines? Well, some seem to survive in nations with different laws. Not sure why the US situation would be so different. Prices would go up a bit, aye, some companies would go belly up, but it's capitalism at its best.
The US has at least one great thing - the constitution and does at least one thing well - capitalism. It makes sense to me to use both in this situation.
-
WOW, go to work and a thread really grows.
It's amazing!! Like your's best, Hangtime :)
Every Lib will have to retreat to thier bunker and reload their PC guns to get ya!!
INCOMMING!!!!!
-
Actually... Pyro trotted out the guns quite nicely.
We "libs" are bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. If you think it's okay to treat people this way, you're not.
-
Go back and reread Hang's post. I believe he is close to the frontline of this war. I am given that someone reporting from the frontline is going to have accurate information.
BTW Sandman, did you fly anywhere yesterday?
-
it's called "playing the odds".
It is done everyday, everywhere, in all aspects of life...
-
Hmmmmmm, a lot of talk about the Consititution in this thread. I wonder if the 2nd had not been suspended in airports and planes if what happened Tuesday would have?
<prepares for firestorm>
-
Oops,double post :(
[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: 1776 ]
-
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it has too much room for interpretation in it. No one can agree on what a "well regulated militia" actually is and that's pretty much the source of the argument. You'll also find plenty of argument to what "infringed" means. Obviously, those states that have passed background check laws do not consider these laws to be an infringement that violates the 2nd Amendment.
You'll not find that much latitude with the 14th Amendment. It is quite clear, IMO.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it has too much room for interpretation in it. No one can agree on what a "well regulated militia" actually is and that's pretty much the source of the argument. You'll also find plenty of argument to what "infringed" means. Obviously, those states that have passed background check laws do not consider these laws to be an infringement that violates the 2nd Amendment.
You'll not find that much latitude with the 14th Amendment. It is quite clear, IMO.
That's only become an 'interpretation problem' in the last 10 years, and primarily by the liberals trying to re-write the 2nd amendment. Most understand it the way it is written.
-
Ah, now I understand. We can pick an chose what part of the Constitution is absolute and what part is up for "interpertation".
-
Heh "deflect and cover" tactic.
Also known as a strawman argument.
Keep building 'um and knocking 'um down; amusing to watch :)
-
Please... explain.
I think that you'll find that the debate is not new. I've done a cursory search and found articles in case law as far back as 1822 regarding 2nd Amendment issues.
1776, you tell me what is open for debate here: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
There wouldn't be a debate at all if the 2nd Amendment were written this well. As I interpret the 2nd Amendment, arms includes quite a number of things. I could use the the 2nd to justify my keeping anything from a sword to a cannon at home.
Is the military considered to be the "well regulated militia" or is that some group in Montana?
[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]
-
Please, spare us case law. :rolleyes:
We aren't lawyers here. Am just a mid-western bigot,sexist, homophobe, right winger.
Is it true that only part of the Consitiution is open to interpertation?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,"
Hmmmmmmmmmm, and what can of worms has been opened with this? ;)
We need to start a new thread as this puppy is getting long!!!
[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: 1776 ]
-
Yesterday I heard a FBI big-shot on CNN recruiting people who speak Arabic...
In spite of the fact that they are hearing stories about their friends and relatives being mistreated and their churches being burned, many American citizens (of Arabic decent) are about to step up to the front line in our new war, and dedicate their lives to a honorable form of public service, because of their patriotism...
I do not like going through airport security, and have always dreaded the idea of being pulled out of line for a closer look into my intents. Being treated differently at airport security IS a bid deal. It says "You look like a Bad Person". I just guess I'm lucky that they don't profile ugly people...
I honestly do not think that most folks who do not understand what is wrong with racial profiling are bigots or racists, they just have not taken a serious look at it's full implications. Sometimes us white guys are kind of slow at these kind of things...
eskimo
-
Don't turn this into a "2nd thread".If you want to do that, start another thread. We've hashed this out before. Those who don't understand the 2nd or find it confusing almost of necessity have to start with an anti-gun bias. The Amendment itself is pretty clear and the Case Law that supports it has made it even more so.
*****
One thing you ARE going to see, IMO, is a large restriction on carry-on baggage. This has always been a problem; it's hard to get it all stowed on the aircraft, people have been injured when big bags fall out of bins when the bins are opened..etc.
I suspect we'll see a restriction to ONE carry on bag. A purse, a computer case, perhaps a briefcase size bag. The F/A's were asking for this long BEFORE the 11th.
This will make it possible to have better security at the X-ray machines. Right now, most people bring at least 2 carryons, some still try to slip thru with 3.
Cutting the carryon inspections by 50% will definitely help the problem. It gives more time to deal with each passenger without making security such an issue that people will just drive.
There's the BIG problem I see right now.
If driving from A to B takes 6 hours, many people would rather fly.
However, if you have to be at the airport 3 hours prior to flight for "security" and then fly for 1.5 hours and pick up your bags (another .5 hours)... People are just going to drive if they possibly can.
The airlines NEED that shorthaul traffic to survive. They can't make it in just a "long haul" configuration.
The short haul commuters are a major part of the revenue stream and they fly to places that you can generally drive to in 3-4 hours.
Somehow, we've got to get adequate security in a short-duration mode.
I think the "one carry-on" is going to be a logical step.
-
Constitutional encroachments are not a liberal vs conservative issue. It comes from both sides. In sacrificing liberty for security, people really want to sacrifice other people's liberty for their security. Unfortunately, people pick and choose what rights are important and tend to ignore or attack the others. I don't care whether you're talking about the 1st, 2nd, or any other Amendment. They all come in one package.
-
They are also interdependent. Change one and you may have unintended consequences to others!!
Founding Fathers were inspired!! I believe they had Devine guidence.
Now take it easy on me for the last statement it is only my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
Constitutional encroachments are not a liberal vs conservative issue. It comes from both sides. In sacrificing liberty for security, people really want to sacrifice other people's liberty for their security. Unfortunately, people pick and choose what rights are important and tend to ignore or attack the others. I don't care whether you're talking about the 1st, 2nd, or any other Amendment. They all come in one package.
No argument from me. My references to the 2nd Amendment were simply for comparison and contrast.
-
Amen.
-
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." Thomas Jefferson, 1801
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." Thomas Jefferson, 1823
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, 1823
-
Dammit..
Lets remember who the enemy is.. and who we are... and what it means to protect ourselves, our future, our children.
We have in the past, as a nation under seige, taken extrordinary liberties with the constitution in order to preserve and defend this nation and it's citizens. No one here is about to state that ALL those decisions were correct, that ALL those decisions were just... but guess what?? Suprise, lo and behold folks; we survived, our nation endured.
Now, we are in an extrordinary battle, one unforseen by our fore-fathers. Some freedoms HAVE ALREADY become temporary casulties of this war, and we may yet see more.
I doubt we'd have much of a chance of victory against terrorisim, and we'd be doing our citizens a grave injustice by NOT 'profiling' in this case, at this time.
If I see our government PERMANENTLY derailing large parts of the constitution and reserving for itself ALONE the rights of it's citizens, then I'll be out in the street; kickin bellybutton again and takin names. And so; I'm sure; will every one of YOU. AFTER this fight is over.
For now, HERE, as it stands, in this battle, changes ARE necessary.. and it's not liberals vs conservitive, arab vs white or muslim vs christian. It's good vs evil; civilization vs the darkness. That's an awful mandate, one that begs a rethink of 'personal' liberties in the light of saftey for all.
Lets do what we gotta do to win this. Then we can go back to being the complacent american amazinhunks everybody loves to hate.
To WAR gents; WE GO TO WAR! Remember NYC!
-
In December of 1941, I am sure that many similar discussions took place in regards to American citizens of Japanese decent. What our government did, as a result of how the majority of people felt about Japanese Americans, is despicable.
In 1941:
We were angry.
We had a lot at stake.
We were frustrated.
We couldn't do much to vent our frustrations.
We couldn't do much to help ourselves feel safer about our nations security.
We turned to the obvious scape-goat.
We screwed up.
I hope that we learned something.
eskimo
-
Ahem...
The enemy is the enemy because we are the way we are. I see no reason to stoop to their level.
Like Pyro, I too have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Consitution... twice. I will not violate that oath for vengeance sake nor would I advise anyone else to.
-
Patrick Henry's immortal words "Give me liberty or give me death" may take on new meaning for many of us.
I believe we will have to decide over the coming months and perhaps years just what liberties we are willing to die for.
-
Funny you should mention Patrick Henry. He wanted no part of the Constitutional Convention.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Lets remember who the enemy is.. and who we are...
That is the whole point right there in a nutshell. I have seen every level of our political leadership from every side, up to and including the President iterate and reiterate this. That very subject in the quote has been a constant message given to the American people by our leaders. They've gone out of their way to provide this message, from the President visiting a Mosque and speaking about it, to Sen. McCain on the Tonight Show tonight specifically addressing this subject. They know. They have gone out of their way to share that. Unfortunately, not everybody is listening or accepting that, despite so many proclamations of unity and backing our leadership.
-
Sorry, wrong thread.
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Syzygy ]
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Syzygy ]
-
it's a human trait to categorize ... everything related to one's past experiences.
We ALL do it consciously and/or subconsciously..
One's reaction to this fact displays one's intelligence and character...