Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (165908)	3/27/2003 1:03:18 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583677

The reason McCarthy times were not witch hunt is that there are no witches, but there were plenty of communists, working within the institutions of this country, working for Stalin. While McCarthy's tactics might have gone overboard, the basis of his argument was solid. There is no evidence that that's true. The people he mostly went after were Hollywood types and many of the accusations proved to be inaccurate. Unfortunately, by cleverly manipulating the press, McCarthy ruined many a career. People like McCarthy create more damage then good. On the enemy within, they are right on target, and profiling is the way to go. If the enemy were Slovak immigrants, it would be the right thing for FBI to target them, and I would be the first to sign up and provide information to the FBI. Not in a democracy. The point of profiling is that if there is a serious crime, and you know the "profile" of the perpetrator, say a radical muslim, or Russian mafia, you instantly narrow down your search from 260 million to say 2 millions (of muslims or Russian) and the further qualifier (radical, mafia) may narrow it to few hundred or thousand. This means that when one of these groups does something, you are not wasting time interviewing British nannies, you go right to the source. This is so illogical.........if there is a crime committed, it is very unlikely Brit. nannies would even be considered with or without profiling. The problem with formal profiling is that its usually redundant........ typically, humans on their own already are performing informal profiling; profiling, btw, that usually is subject to a lot of error. By discouraging profiling, investigators are forced to consider more variables and not rely on informal profiling. In any case, if we were to make profiling legal, OBL would make sure his next plot perpetrators did not meet our profiling expectations. The only reason this is controversial (while it is supremely logical) is because the Liberal dogma created some untouchable classes. Any negative information about the untouchable classes is censored. There is no such thing as untouchable classes.........that's conservative propaganda. Case in point.......you all make such a big thing about the Muslim background of the grenade thrower. Well, the articles I read at first made no mention of his background since they didn't know who the perpetrator was. Upon establishing his identity, every article I have read since refers to him as bla bla Jones, an American Muslim. You all are looking for evidence that there are some who are untouchable. In my experience, the only class that is more untouchable than the rest of us are the rich........and they tend to belong to the GOP. Now that's profiling I can get behind. <g> ted