Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 449
- 48
Lame Excuses
By Jonah Goldberg, National Review
July 29, 2005
Theres a big difference between excuses and arguments. For example, I cant do it now, Ive only seen this part of Roadhouse 612 times is an excuse for not mowing the lawn. I mowed the lawn yesterday is an argument. In the wake of the London bombings, it seems were hearing a lot of excuses but not a lot of arguments for why we shouldnt do certain things.
Take closed-circuit security cameras in public areas, like they have in London. I dont like the idea that much myself, so Im a bit sympathetic to those who oppose such things here. But at the end of the day, opponents are offering excuses not arguments for their recalcitrance.
Opponents say its an intrusion into privacy. No, its not. A policeman or anybody else not burdened with a restraining order (man, I hate those things) can watch you in a public area to his or her hearts content. Thats why they call it a public area. It isnt any more of an infringement if they watch you with an unhidden camera than if they do it with their naked eyeballs.
Another claim is that cameras wont prevent attacks. Well, who says? Doesnt it become slightly more problematic for a terrorist cell to send one of its stooges to his death if his face can be traced back to the mosque from which he came? Isnt it possible that cameras, combined with other intelligence, may alert authorities that an areas being cased before the actual attack?
Besides, is it so outrageous that preventing a suicide bombing might come at the cost of certain folks moderately curbing their wild, freewheeling ways on the morning train to work?
Or consider New Yorks new policy of having the cops search the bags of passengers on New York subways. No one is shocked that the New York Civil Liberties Union is aghast. They say its an infringement of peoples constitutional rights and will do nothing to prevent terrorism. Well, I suppose it is a very low-level infraction, on the order of the tyranny of airport searches. But somehow most people still think they live in a free country when they fly to Tampa.
Its flatly batty, however, to argue that such searches will do nothing to prevent terrorism. Sure, it may not do enough, but it will surely do something. Presumably young Pakistani or Arab terrorist men will have a slightly more difficult time carrying backpacks full of bombs, nails, and broken glass into the subway, and blowing them(selves) up at the moment of maximum damage.
Which brings us to complaints over racial profiling.
for full article: http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/gamble/gamble1.asp
By Jonah Goldberg, National Review
July 29, 2005
Theres a big difference between excuses and arguments. For example, I cant do it now, Ive only seen this part of Roadhouse 612 times is an excuse for not mowing the lawn. I mowed the lawn yesterday is an argument. In the wake of the London bombings, it seems were hearing a lot of excuses but not a lot of arguments for why we shouldnt do certain things.
Take closed-circuit security cameras in public areas, like they have in London. I dont like the idea that much myself, so Im a bit sympathetic to those who oppose such things here. But at the end of the day, opponents are offering excuses not arguments for their recalcitrance.
Opponents say its an intrusion into privacy. No, its not. A policeman or anybody else not burdened with a restraining order (man, I hate those things) can watch you in a public area to his or her hearts content. Thats why they call it a public area. It isnt any more of an infringement if they watch you with an unhidden camera than if they do it with their naked eyeballs.
Another claim is that cameras wont prevent attacks. Well, who says? Doesnt it become slightly more problematic for a terrorist cell to send one of its stooges to his death if his face can be traced back to the mosque from which he came? Isnt it possible that cameras, combined with other intelligence, may alert authorities that an areas being cased before the actual attack?
Besides, is it so outrageous that preventing a suicide bombing might come at the cost of certain folks moderately curbing their wild, freewheeling ways on the morning train to work?
Or consider New Yorks new policy of having the cops search the bags of passengers on New York subways. No one is shocked that the New York Civil Liberties Union is aghast. They say its an infringement of peoples constitutional rights and will do nothing to prevent terrorism. Well, I suppose it is a very low-level infraction, on the order of the tyranny of airport searches. But somehow most people still think they live in a free country when they fly to Tampa.
Its flatly batty, however, to argue that such searches will do nothing to prevent terrorism. Sure, it may not do enough, but it will surely do something. Presumably young Pakistani or Arab terrorist men will have a slightly more difficult time carrying backpacks full of bombs, nails, and broken glass into the subway, and blowing them(selves) up at the moment of maximum damage.
Which brings us to complaints over racial profiling.
for full article: http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/gamble/gamble1.asp
