Are we really trying to hide in Iraq? And if we are, is it for the reasons given in the article?
Failure to stamp passports is common practice at may country's borders, so we shouldn't be floating the idea of a war against Iran based on the flimsy excuse offered by the practice. That's the argument, anyhow.
Bill O'Reilly tells lies to make the Bush Administration sound better? Never believe it.
So, there's no right to sexual privacy? Baaaad ruling. When you start subdividing the concept of privacy and saying some kinds are protected and some kinds aren't, you start down a slippery slope.
This isn't a question of criminality, so why the nitpicking? (Possibly because some people can not be convinced they're not entitled to dictate what other adults do in their bedrooms.)
I don't believe in prisons for non-violent 'crimes' like smoking pot. Any time you find yourself imprisoning an outrageous percentage of your population, you should start looking at the laws. (Reports vary, but if these figures and these and these are to be believed, we need to rethink our drug laws, because an awful lot of those over two million prisoners are in for minor drug "offenses."
I don't believe in "racial profiling" but as we all know, it's been officially approved for fighting terrorists, so the Census Bureau has ponied up data on Arab-Americans. And the article itself explains why "racial profiling" is a joke.
The categories were Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan, Palestinian, Syrian, "Arab/Arabic" and "Other Arab."
Looks like we're actually looking for, let's say, Saudi Arabians like the ones who hijacked planes on 9/11. We're not looking for people from Afghanistan. (Remember Afghanistan? Home of bin Laden and the group that we're told masterminded the 9/11 attacks?) We're not looking for Iranians, either, which is a surprise to me, considering our checkered history with that country. I guess those three countries constitute "other Arab" which I find offensive on a level I find hard to articulate.
From the looks of that list, we're scrutinizing people with dark skins who have not particularly been involved in the recent "war on terror." (And, for the record? Had there been any danger, no matter how remote, that I might not have voted for Kerry/Edwards in November, the danger would have disappeared the instant I heard Edwards' speech the other night and his reference to the "war on terrorism." I was almost moved enough to write a check.)
Would the USofA media "kill" a story that put Iraq's future in a bad light? Of course they would, but I'm not sure this is what's happening now. I think the domestic media is bored with overseas coverage where their star 'journalists' and commentators can't do breezy, on-the-spot commentary and are hoping to turn our attention to the Conventions. They know how to cover Conventions, they've been doing them for years. (It's arguable that someone decided coverage of the ongoing unrest in too much detail would be met with claims bias of being "anti-Bush' at best or more likely "anti-American" during this election season.)
Remember that story about USofA soldiers forcing a couple of Iraq men to jump from a bridge, resulting in the death of one of them? Well, the story isn't gone (even though it didn't make cut for the USofA major mainstream media. First, the military 'commanders have been granted immunity. It seems that the defense is relying upon another soldiers report that he saw two guys get out of the river, and a lack of DNA evidence to defend against the charge.
Let's add arresting people for stupid things to the list of things I disapprove of. Although, I must say that I'm impressed that the level of, you know, actual crime in D.C. is so low that they have the time to watch for chewing on the subway station platforms.
And, of all the things I missed of the Convention coverage, I regret missing Barack Obama's speech the most. Krugman is right, the media tends to ignore issues and focus on the trivial. I tried, I really tried to listen to some of the talking head commentary that surrounded the tiny bit of actual Convention coverage we were being given, but it was impossible. When you turn on the television to see supposed professionals discussing the hand gestures to be used in an upcoming speech, you know these are not people with anything to add to the debate. Apparently Kerry made a great speech last night. I'll know tonight, after I turn on the VCR, fast-forward through the underbrush and debris of media personalities trying to make themselves into stars, and listen to the speech.
I found this interesting.
In South Africa, we have a term, "Ubuntu," which refers to the spirit of the community. It is a shortened version of a Xhosa saying which means that I am a person through other people. It means that my humanity is tied to yours.
It goes on to say the USofA needs to get out and meet the rest of the world.
And then, 30 seconds ago, I find myself in a conversation with someone at my office who thinks you should just randomly kill drug users and criminals as a means of crime deterrence and now I have a massive headache so I'm going back to work.