Jump to content

Kush

Members
  • Posts

    428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Kush

  1. Derek, Is there any way I could buy the game and put the extra $20 directly into your pocket?
  2. Hey Derek, It's been a long time since I've posted. Had a lot of life stuff get in the way, but I've been keeping my eye on things, eagerly waiting for the release of UC (formerly BG) and I feel now that I have to chime in with my .02. I feel for you. Really do. I was placed in a very similar situation just recently and without going into the details I have a lawyer going after a large company trying to get them to do what they promised they would do in the contract. The thing that gets me is the hurt. My guess is that the money isn't the biggest issue, it's the complete lack of communication and the hurt. The whole BC series is like your baby, not as precious as your real life child, but pretty damn close and if you're anything like me, it breaks your heart to see your child get beaten up and abused by those who claim that they have your best interests at heart but don't. A bit of your soul just fizzles. I know you're strong, I know you can take it, but I just want to tell you, I have an idea of the amount of pain you must be experiencing and my heart goes out to you brother. If I were you, I'd get your lawyer to get as much money out of them as you can as quickly as you can, make sure the contract is finished and move on real quick to the Xbox project. Make a bushel load of cash and then laugh your way to the bank. PS, If [email protected]#$er is as underhanded at the company I'm dealing with, be careful that they don't draw out the process. Every email and call to that lawyer eats away at your funds. I'm learning this the hard way. Kush
  3. quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Kush, et.al.; What happened to c) the poor bastard earns a little more by: c1) taking a second job, c2) taking a night class and getting a job, or c3) does without? The whole point is, in a Keynsian (sp?) capitalist society you don't have to. In Sweden, you don't HAVE to struggle to live. You don't have to hold down two jobs to have a little more. If you want to earn more money, you get a job that pays more money. If you like to work hard, go for it, have two jobs. No one's stopping you. Working hard is a good thing and is rewarded. But you don't HAVE TO. Not to live. Not to survive. The idea that you would actually have to have a firearm in your possession to simply walk down the street of a city... sadens me. It's... it makes me very sad for the people who live there. You may not feel the paranoia that someone living in Cuba may feel, but what's the difference really? You're not afraid of the government, but you're still afraid of losing your life. In my books, that's the same. I grew up living in a city where you can walk down any street. Say hello to anyone. You may need to know French for them to respond, but no where in the city, do you have to worry about getting shot at, or mugged. There are poor people in Ottawa. They're just not desperatly poor. That's not luck. That's not breeding, or the result of genetic experimentation. It's social policy. I think really we are all debating what flavour of Capitalism do we like the best. I think sometimes some people label anything that smacks of compassion as being socialist, and therefor communist, and therefor evil. I think you can have a Capitalist society and also have a compassionate society. The two are not mutually exclusive.
  4. quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Keynesians suggest that this can be achieved through government taxation and expenditure to fund a welfare state: by providing the means of subsistence to the unemployed, businesses have more people to whom they can sell their products, thus stimulating the economy while providing much-needed assistance.Good point. If my memory serves me correctly, it was Bismark in merry old Germany who implimented the first modern social welfare programs. One of the reasons why the civil war in England was not as brutal and destructive as the civil war in France was because England had begun some rudimentary social welfare programs. Even the most die hard capitalist has to admit they help. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: So how do you get away from those who make welfare a lifestyle? I don't know about you but a person should have to do something worth while for society. Not just drink wine and make crappy art heh heh.....Heeeeey... I drink lots of wine, and I make tons of crappy art! So what! A sad and awkward truth is that there are people out there who don't have much direction in life. Some people just aren't that smart. Some people are, but don't believe in themselves. Some are emotionally and mentally scared for one reason or another. Some people suffer a great misfortune. And some people are just plain lazy. Lets say said person wants a television set. You could a) Re-distribute wealth a little, give these people a monthly allowance. They go out and lease a television set. (The ones that aren't too bright lease the TV set.) The money gets put back into the economy through i) retailer for sale of television set ii) interest to leasing firm iii) manufacturer of television set etc. so on. You could Give the poor bastard nothing. They go out, break into someone's house. Beat up the owner, and steal the television set. Now we're paying all over the place. In insurance goes up. We pay for the hospital bills, the police report. That's an over simplification of a very complex process that happens every day in a capitalist society. Certain countries use a, certain countries use b. All I'll say is, I'm going to feel much safer walking the streets of Brussels than I ever felt walking through South Central LA. There's a reason why there are low crime rates in certain countries and high crime rates in others. Is it socialists that are responsible, or Keynesians? You be the judge. PS : I just can't keep away. I need help. [ 05-13-2002, 13:43: Message edited by: Kush ]
  5. Lotharr! Do you realize what you are doing?!!! Do you realize the unholy forces of nature you are setting free? Sure. Let's debate Capitalism and Socialism. Seems simple enough. Heh. Right. I wish I could stay and participate, but I'm leaving for Europe soon and I'll be there for a month and a half. I'll be too busy to post. So I'm going to get everything I want to say out now. FIRST OFF, Let's keep it clean. No personal attacks, no low blows, pot shots. No questioning intelligence. I think we're all pretty seasoned debaters here, but things could get out of hand. SECOND OFF, When you guys do finally come up with the answer, could one of you tell the World Bank. Win or lose, the IMF aught to find out. Every now and then this debate comes up, and like Menchise pointed out, when you pit Capitalism VS Socialism you really do need to pick your flavours. And I would add, culture as well. There are many cultural differences to both Capitalism and Socialism. And those flavours also have slight variations over the history of the nation. Being Canadian, we like to bandy about the word Socialism alot, but heck, we're about as Socialist as Disney is an independant film company. We've experimented with different social programs that have originated from the socialists in parliament, but federally, we've never had socialists form the govt. Not like England. And as left leaning as I am, that is a GOOD THING Sure I vote for them on occasion, but the NDP has to realize that there is more to running a country than a bunch of antiquated economic theories preached by intellectuals. You have to have a cultural policy, you have to have a law and order policy, trade policy, etc, so on. Holding hands and talking about the Boss Man, and how the World Trade Organization is going to kill us all, does not tell me how you're going to deal with National Unity. A BIG issue here. Now for the big picture. The cynical side of me would say 'How can you debate Socialism VS Capitalism' Socialism and Capitalism are two sides of the same coin. At their extremes they don't work. In their purest forms, they are both cruel and inhuman. Personally I think that what you want is something that takes the positive, functioning aspects of both. The ends of the spectrum are pretty dire. Take Cuba and Jamaica. One very socialist, one very capitalist. Very high literacy rate in Cuba. Very low in Jamaica. Many Cubans are trained lawyers doctors and engineers, but do not work in their field of study due to a glut in the work force. Many Jamaicans cannot afford any form of education and the ones who do often take their education and leave. If you get sick in Cuba, you don't pay a cent. You have many highly trained professinals, there are shortages of medicine, but you can still get a pace maker, or brain surgery. If you get sick in Jamaica, and you are not rich, you die. Period. Cuba has a very low crime rate. Jamaica has a very very very high crime rate. Certain areas of Kingston, you are taking your life in your hands walking down the street on a sunny day. Cuba, you have no worries. You can go anywhere, and you don't have to worry about getting robbed, or attacked. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM. You have no freedom of speech. You live with a certain level of constant paranoia. At any point in time, a soldier can pull you off the street, and you disapear. Without a trace. Gone. Human rights? Nice try buddy. Which is better. Living in a violent chaotic freedom, or a peaceful, orderly oppression. Personally the jury is still out, but I have to admit, the honeymoon in Cuba my wife and I had was pretty sweet. The Cuban people really are amazing. I have a relative who lives in Jamaica, and he has kind of scared me out of visiting him any time soon. That's it. I'm done for now. Sorry bout the long ass post. I'll be watching. This should be REAL entertaining. PS : Go Menchise Go! PPS : Don't mean to sound like I'm slagging the Jamaican people. They are super cool too. But even a Jamaican will tell you, the crime level is getting out of control. PPPS : I say this thread goes 5 pages. Any takers? [ 05-12-2002, 18:07: Message edited by: Kush ]
  6. I thought he took the photo. If he didn't take the photo, I really don't see the problem. And if they they're not going to charge him with something, they should let him get back to work. Yeah he should get the bronze star. He should get one here too. No wonder the moral is so low in the forces.
  7. The reason why he was punished is because of an incident in Somalia where memebers of the Airborne tortured and killed an innocent Somali boy and then took pictures of themselves with the dead body. Those pictures sickened every Canadian who saw them. The memory of it is sickening. There are now strict rules. A soldier cannot take pictures of himself with a defaced dead body. No matter who the enemy is. That's the rule. He knew the rules. If he doesn't want to follow them, he doesn't have to be in the Airborne.
  8. Rats?! Rats are nothing. A RATTLESNAKE?! That can cause some serious injury, and they're fast as hell when they strike, and they hurt. I've had rats. Big HUGE rats. A whole family of big huge rats moved into my basement when the building next door was torn down. Started with a glue trap. Boy am I stupid. The rat stepped in the trap. Then spent the next little while flipping himself over to an extension cord that was sitting on the dryer. He was able to grab the end of the cord that was hanging near the ground, pull the entire cord off the dryer and use it to pry the sticky pad off. He then left the cord and the pad as a way of saying, 'Nice try bub.' The next day, I saw the little bastard. I was going to do some laundry, and he just looked up at me like I was a minor annoyance. If he could speak, he'd say something like, 'You again? I'm busy. What do you want?' Then I got the big Rat Traps. Huge Rat traps. Tried cheese, nothing. Tried meat sauce. Nothing. Tried Peanut butter. Bang! Caught four in one night. At first I was real cautious, plugging my nose as I gently placed the dead body in the garbage. By now, I can juggle their dead carcasses without flinching. No problem. But a rattlesnake. They can do some damage. I have to admit, your wife's reaction would probably be my reaction.
  9. quote: Thankfully, I don't think that's something we have to worry about anytime soon, as Judge Limbaugh's ruling should be fairly easy to have overturned ? assuming the industry gets its act together. But as gaming companies prepare for their annual trade show next month, they need to realize that in order to be accepted as professionals in the entertainment community, they need to act like it. And shoddy arguments, which allow overly restrictive court rulings against them, are a bad start. Sounds to me like it's a temporary problem, but it's chilling none the less. Not a very surprising ruling from a relative of Rush Limbaugh.
  10. You've got some pretty good genes there Derek! She's adorable, but the old man might need a shave!
  11. Well, we both agree that we are free to think whatever racsist thoughts we want. Yeah. Break out the champagne. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: If a Klansmen owns a business, and doesn't want to hire blacks (mind you I'm talking about a small business not a corporation.) then I believe that since it is he who forks out the money, it is he who should hire whomever he likes. As much as I doubt a black person would want to work in a small shop run by a Klansman, it's still wrong to stop any person from working in that shop. One thing I haven't approached is the three month probation period. I don't know about in the States, but up here, you can fire someone for any reason in the first three months. After that period, you have to document what they're doing wrong, give them three warnings, then you can fire them. If that Klansman wants to get rid of Shaq in the first three months, fine. Fire him. No questions asked. Just don't meet up with him in an alley afterwards. And as you suggest, large corporations often times have a responsibility to the community, and to the society at large. Employment has a major effect on everything from school taxes, to infrastructure, to the general health and welfare of a community. Coors got into a little trouble a few years ago. Some one in a board meeting tape recorded himself making rascist comments and suggesting that blacks will never get promoted in the Coors company. Someone got a hold of that recording and all hell broke loose. It was a perfect case study in what not to do. Basically if a company the size of Coors decides not to hire people because of their skin colour, it has a much larger effect than the klansman with the hardware store. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: In conclusion to my main thesis, it doesn't matter what color you are as long as you can do the job. But if someone who is equally qualified as a white and happens to be black doesn't get hired, tough luck. If the person doing the hiring says it's because he doesn't like blacks I think that's wrong, but at the same time - if he doesn't say anything about why he didn't hire him and just said, "sorry you aren't hired" the black person shouldn't assume "it's because i'm black". In my personal experience, when someone doesn't get a job that they applied for, and they know their qualified to do, they all look for something to blame. 'They didn't hire me cause I'm black.' 'They didn't hire me cause I'm white.' 'They didn't hire me cause I've got a third nipple.' That's fine. It is totally natural, rational, and legal to blame and rationalize till the cows come home. I think we've all done it, one time or another. (Hell, it's one of the reasons why I started my own company!) It's very rare that someone actually gets upset enough to actually take a company to court. It's even rarer that the person will have enough evidence to try the case successfully. Most discrimination cases have two, to three years of waiting before their even investigated. And when they are, the vast majority are thrown out. If you're terrified that some black guy is going to get you fired cause you didn't hire him, you're wasting your time. And if you're hiring someone because you're scared, you're not doing your job. As I said earlier, in my experience, the real trouble is when two people are pretty well evenly balanced in terms of good/bad qualities. Rarely do you get two people who have exactly the same qualifications. Personally I go on whether the person in front of me seems like a team player. If three months into the project, Bob is capable at his job, but everyone in the office hates his guts, you've got a problem. If you hired Bob because he's white, you made a mistake. If Bob is black, you gotta treat him the same way you'd treat anyone. reprimand him the same way you would any other employee. Now, here's some fuel for your argument. There are times when it is absolutely important to not hire someone because of their race, gender, gender preference etc. I could apply to be a councellor at a rape crisis centre, but I'm not going to get the job. I'm a guy. A straight guy. The last thing on earth a woman who was just raped wants to see. I don't think it would be appropriate right now for Yasser Arafat to apply to work on a kibbutz. And nothing personal $ilk, but if I go to an authentic Japanese restaurant, I don't want to see you waltzing around in a kimono. I don't care how good you think you may look in it. There are some rare cases where your gender, race, etc will exclude you from employment. But these are very few and very far between. And it is better for the economy, better for the general health of the country if we get as many people employed and working as possible. Restricting where people could work based on their race was the old way of doing things, and it wasn't efficient. It didn't work.
  12. Very good point Menchise, thanks for the assist! I can have all the bigoted thoughts I want. I can even express them publicly. If I send a memo saying 'I ain't hiring no homeys, go bling bling someone elses business!' I could get my ass sued. And I should get my ass sued. America USED to be a place where not hiring blacks was the norm. It used to be a place where Lena Horn could entertain hundreds of thousands, but she couldn't walk in the front door of the very theatre she was singing in. It used to be a place where going to school a school in Little Rock meant a black person would have to walk through crowds of people spitting and throwing rocks and racial epithets. It used to be a place where Tiger Woods couldn't play in certain country clubs because of his skin colour. And that wasn't in our parents life time. That was a couple of years ago. I really think we should be moving away from those years. Not back to them. If someone accuses me of rascist hiring practises and I AM rascist, I should be fired. a) You're a legal time bomb waiting to go off. You're counter productive to the organization. You're less able to see if someone is properly skilled. You're not focused on hiring the best person for the job. And that can be deadly to any company. If someone accuses me of rascist hiring practises, even though I know, in my heart, I wasn't being rascist all I can really do is a) Provide all my documents. Give an honest appraisal of why the person wasn't hired. c) Hope for the best. While I was working at another company, a few years ago, someone outside the company accused our boss of being rascist. Everybody, of all colours shapes and sizes rushed to his defense. Everyone had the same story. The boss was demanding, and fair, to everyone, no matter what colour they are. That's what you want. That's what you want your employees saying about you. That's what I want my employees saying about me. I want everyone working to the best of their ability. I want everyone to feel like their contribution to each project is fully appreciated. I'll make mistakes (I've made a couple already and I'm not telling anyone!) but I want people to know that the best is expected of them, and will be appreciated. No matter what colour, gender, gender preference, religion, or race they are. My field is too competitive. I can't afford to turn away a potential Jackie Robinson. I find it hard to believe anyone can. Again, I don't want to sound like I'm on a high horse, cause Canada sure does have it's fair share of problems. (And you'll notice I never mentioned any of them. ) And I don't live in America, but I find it hard to believe that the biggest threat to America right now is Affirmative Action.
  13. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: Kush, please don't infer so much from my posts. What I'm saying is that everyone has a right to their own bigotries. I'm not infering anything from your post. You say that EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BIGOTRIES. I disagree. It is not a right to be a bigot. It is actually counter productive, illegal, and down right stupid. Every baseball team in America had, at one point, agreed to not hire blacks in baseball. It was never an official policy, but it may as well have been. Jackie Robinson changed all that. He actually started off his baseball career here in Canada (shameless plug for my country coming, hold on to your hats) The Montreal Royals hired him. And witnessed what was clear to anyone who knew anything about baseball at the time. He was able to play here, without restriction, without worrying about what hotel he could sleep in. Without worrying about what restaurant he was allowed to eat in. Anyone at that time who saw him play knew that he was one of the great players. When he was picked up by the Brooklyn Dodgers it was a HUGE deal in America. Most people thought that black Americans were little more than animals who knew nothing about the complexities of America's favourite sport. Then came, THE CATCH. In one moment, running towards the wall, arm outstreched, he caught a baseball in a way that no one had ever caught a baseball before. It was as if he had calculated the tragectory in his mind in an instant and placed himself where he needed to be. That's how good he was. Anyone who over looked his ability as a ball player, because he was a negro, was a moron. It's true. Now I know I'm standing on a pretty high horse right now, and I shouldn't be. Here in Canada, we treat our native population worse than we treat animals. I know I'm going to stir up a lot of controversy when I say this among our Canuck members, but the Native situation here in Canada is abismal. I really shouldn't talk. There are those who would like you to believe that Natives here in Canada just drink their lives away. That they are stupid. That they are genetically inferior. The fact that we took their land away from them, and left them powerless, with no way of creating self worth, has no bearing on the fact that they feel a hoplessness, and depression that kills their soul. My last girlfriend was from Trinidad. It was an amazing, three year relationship, full of great passion, and incredible pain. The fact that she's black means nothing. It didn't work out. She realized she didn't love me. I realized that I shouldn't still love her. We had issues to resolve, we dealt with them. The woman I married is from my home town. I didn't marry her because I was looking for a white wife, or I was afraid to trust a black woman with my heart, the world just works in funny ways, I met my wife and I am very happy. VERY HAPPY. My ex and I, when we were still together, visited Washington DC once to see a thanksgiving football game. That weekend, I learned a few things. a)Americans love their football almost as much as we Canadians love our hockey. b)West Indian blacks feel sorry for Black Americans. Most West Indian blacks won their freedom from the British, fair and square. I met a Scottish guy once who said that the West Indians have something that most Scots will never know. I don't want to get involved in Scottish Nationalism, (really, as a Canadian, I don't!) but I'm trying to point out that as a West Indian, she felt a strong sense of pride in herself. And her people. And she made it clear that it's something Black American's don't have. She told me, Black Americans have been told for so many centuries that they are sub human, that they are worthless. She doesn't understand it. She doesn't feel that way about herself. She said this is why Colin Powell did so well in America, because his background is West Indian, not American. And what most Black American's need is to be told that they are not genetiacally born to be criminals. That they are not genetically inferior. They're just human beings, with all that being human entails. One thing she made me understand is that it helps no one to tell a group of people that they are genetically inferior to you. For one reason, it's probably not true, and for another reason, it doesn't help them in any way. It doesn't help our native population to simply say, 'Hey, you guys are drunken bastards who live off of us taxpayers.' That does nothing to help the Native community. As a matter of fact, it hinders them. If all you're trying to do with this thread is 'prove' through statistics that black Americans are stupid and lazy, and that people should be allowed to not hire stupid and lazy black Americans, then I don't really have much more to say. In my job I have to hire people all the time. So does my wife. If you don't want to be in a position to hire people, don't get yourself in that position. If you like being in the position to hire people, do it right. Do it legal. Do it fair. [ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]
  14. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: If someone is racist, they ought not have to hire someone of a certain color if they don't want to. But at the same time they can't make it known that that's why. So what you're suggesting is that if someone is rascist, we should find a way to hide the fact that he's rascist. So that if someone doesn't want to hire a person because of their skin colour, they don't have to. That's a great idea! Okay, lets to that. I... wait, wait wait a second... That's the way things are now. I've got an idea. How about if I'm a black person, and I think someone has passed me over because of my skin colour, I can take them to court. There's a great... hold on, hold the phone. That's the way things are now. I've got an idea. How about we not look at a persons skin colour. How about we only judge people based on the content of their character. ... Naw. That would never work. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]
  15. quote: But if someone doesn't want to hire someone of a certain color, if it's their private business I say they should be able to refuse them without fear of reprisal. It's not their private business. It's illegal. If someone can prove you did not hire them because of their colour, gender, gender preference, or religion or ethnic background, they can sue you. That's the law. Here and in your country. Asking people not to be rascist isn't a bother. It's a responsibility of all citizens who value the belief that all people are created equal. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]
  16. I don't live in America, so I can't really comment. I do know someone who works in a law firm here in Toronto (Big Huge Lawfirm) who told me that his firm will never ever hire a jewish person. And that they'd never promote a woman to a top position. He know's it's wrong, but that's the way it is. Just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean we have to accept it. [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]
  17. It's been down for a while now. Starting to miss those Shirley bashing sessions.
  18. What I have said, in this thread, over and over again, is check everybody. Regardless of race. At all times. quote: All males who set off a metal detector should have the wand put over them and patted down. All arab males should be patted down regardless. Right there you have a security loop hole. First loop hole, Arab meaning from where? Iran? The Arab Emirates (A U.S. Ally)? Kuwait (Another ally)? Afghanistan? Remember, Osama isn't from Afghanistan, he's from Egypt. What about Jews who live in Iraq, and Kuwait, and Afghanistan? What about the Christians? What about terroritst who are muslim, but not from the middle east. There are muslims from Pakistan. Do we consider them Arab or South Asian? What about Muslims from south Sahara Africa? Are they Arab? Let's say you mean all middle Eastern Muslims, second loophole, how are you going to tell a male is Arab? Their skin colour? Their nose? I worked with someone two years ago, palestinian, he had blond hair, blue eyes. Why? I don't know. Obviously somewhere in his families genes they have what it takes to make blond blue eyed offspring. Alas, these are few and I'm sure far between, so lets say any male with dark skin, and a nose of a certain shape. Third loophole, if I know you only pat down Arab males, what if I get an Arab female. Fourth loophole; there are still threats from people who aren't arab, fellow Americans, who in their misguided thinking, want to create terror and havok. American's who don't look Arab, and who maybe need a patting down before they enter a plane. quote: All males who set off a metal detector should have the wand put over them and patted down. All arab males should be patted down regardless. The moment you say a higher security standard should be set for a particular race, that means those not of that race have a lesser security standard to pass through. That can be exploited. Personally, right now, before I get on a plane, I want the highest security standard met by all people. I'm a nervous flyer already. When the big event happened, it became crystal clear that these people, these terrorists are more than capable of shrewdly exploiting any and all weaknesses in the system. What I felt, right after, and what I still feel, is that all security exploits must be found and plugged. ALL. Every one. The reason why I am so emphatic about this, is because it is so obvious the terrorists are capable of highly sophisticated operations. And we should step up our security in any and every way concievable. I don't want to be on a plane, plummeting into a building thinking, "Those clever b%$%s! I never would have thought of that!" It may suck rocks that we have to wait in line longer, it may really be annoying for some clerk to go through my bag, and pat me down, but I would rather have them get too cautious. I'd feel a little nervous if some security guy looked at me and winked assuming I was okay just because I didn't look like an arab. And I'm certain that any terrorist would shrug off any racial profiling, and say it's just another loophole to exploit, and a pretty easy one at that. [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]
  19. And my point is watch ALL people, ALL the time. If you set up racial criterea for security, it becomes an exploit. (ie Mr Arab terrorist gets unscupolous caucasian grandmother to hold onto butcher knife, tell security it's a gift for her daughter. On plane Mr Arab terrorist now has weapon.) You think focusing on one race improves security better than focusing on all races? I know it now becomes a pain to have greater security, it's a pain to have someone go through your stuff with a fine tooth comb when you know that you're not a terrorist, and you should just be able to scoot through, but that's not the world we live in anymore. In Toronto, one way to save your seat in a restaurant is to leave your bag at a table. I did that once in London Eng, and a bartender gave me the scare of my life. It had nothing to do with race. No bags left unattended. Period. Ever. It's a security measure that Londoners have come to just accept as a part of their lives. It sucks, but that's the way it is. The bartender doesn't say, 'Excuse me, you wouldn't happen to be of Irish heritage would you? No? Great, you can leave your bag anywhere you want.' 'What's your name? Patrick O'Flannagan? Sorry, you're going to have to keep your bag with you at all times.' And the police should just focus on the activity of the person. Not the race. If a black guy anywhere in the country, dressed like a gang memeber starts walking around the back of a house that doesn't belong to him, take him to the station. If a black guy starts walking around the back of the house after getting out of a gas company truck, and he's got a clip board to do a reading of the gas meter, then you're wasting an officers time to send him on a wild goose chase, just because one race commits crime in one area more than another. And if a white guy smashes a window, hops in the house, and walks out of the house with a TV set. ARREST HIM for crying out loud. It's behaviour, what is the person doing. Not race. [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]
  20. I remember last year I was flying through England, and somewhere (I have no Idea where) in Heathrow, going through one of the gates, there was line up of airport security who were patting everyone down. I mean EVERYONE. We had all gone through the metal detector, we'd all checked our baggage. And I still had to get my butt patted. I actually felt safer then when I go through security here in Canada. I don't need to save time going through security at an airport. I arrive two hours early for a reason. I also felt sympathy for those security people. They got their hands right in there. Between your legs, under every woman's breasts. They went right under the butt of an old lady in front of me. Imagine if it was your job to run your hands over the breasts and butt of old women, all day long. That's gotta suck. The more I think about it. The more I realize how hard that job must be, and how much I appreciate them.
  21. quote: Terrorist cells are next to impossible to infiltrate, and even if you do - it doesn't lead anywhere beyong that one specific cell. That's what you said. And my point was that next to impossible doesn't mean impossible. Give some credit to the professionals. And yes you can link one cell to another. It ain't easy, but it's been done. And no, I'm not going to take a Denzel Washington movie as an indicator of what American intelligence is capable of. And I'm sure the CIA would appreciate that. quote: I agree. My whole point is simply that some pose a greater risk than others, and if someone was behind you and someone in front of you, and you had to choose which one to watch - who would it be? Both. quote: Like I said in my second post, about the white cop pulling over a car in which the driver was clearly not fit to drive. First thing he hears out the window: "RACIAL PROFILING! YOU PULLED ME OVER BECAUSE I WAS BLACK" A black driver can say what they like, if they were speeding they should be pulled over for speeding. If the black driver was not speeding, was not driving eratically, was not drunk, if the only reason why the driver was pulled over was because he's black, then, hey, guess what, he was pulled over because he's black. And that's wrong. And if a cop lets a white guy break into my house at two in the morning because usually only black people break into homes at two in the morning in my neighbourhood, then I swear I'll have his badge for breakfast. Same thing with airport security. If I'm on a plane, going down because of some terrorist that doesn't fit some racial profile, I'll be mighty P.O'd. What you're infering is that a police officer should allow a possible suspect commit a crime because they don't fit a racial profile. That's dangerous. And not very wise. So if you take race out of it, then profiling is another name for looking for people who have, or are about to commit a crime. That's a good idea. Well done. Hey, wait a second, police already to that. Neat. You may want to rethink the excellence of your second post. [ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]
  22. Aramike, The NAACP was started because the residents of Springfield Ill, lincoln's birthplace, tried to remove all black residents from the town through lynchings and terror. They actually had to hold one of their meetings here in Ontario once for fear of violence. They've gone on to force the desegregation of American public schools. So that black children can study anywhere in America they wanted. I don't get how you can say the NAACP is a rascist organization. I don't get it. And Tac, if it's really true that there are absolutely no grants or scholarships for white people in America, then come on up to Canada. You'll do just fine. (If your marks are up to snuff )
  23. Again, I point out, you assume that a terrorist is going to say "Oh my goodness, this airport has racial profiling! I'm sunk. Guess I should just look elsewhere for my terror fix today!" They're not stupid. And they are (unfortunately) very, VERY persistent. You make a lot of assumptions. You assume that someone born in American would not take part in a terrorist act. And you assume that terrorist cells are impossible to infiltrate. You greatly underestimate the skills and abilities of the FBI and the CIA. (As critical of their history as I am, not even I underestimate their ability that much!) And finally, the scariest thing is, you may only be able to find a couple of Americans to go along with the whole plan, but that's all you need. Just a couple. I think everyone should be on the alert. Not just the authorities, not just the INS, not just airport security, EVERYONE. And we should be looking for any suspicious activity from ANYBODY. I think it was Gomez who said eloquently in his post, racial profiling can just become another loop hole to exploit. We should try hard to be diligent, and cautious, fair and just to all people till the situation changes.
×
×
  • Create New...