Follow by Email

Sunday, July 21, 2013

In Defense of Profiling

“The thought police would get him just the same.  He had committed – would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper – the essential crime that contained all others in itself.  Thoughtcrime, they called it.  Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever.  You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.”
-          George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 1 defines profiling as “the use of specific characteristics, as race or age, to make generalizations about a person, as whether he or she may be engaged in illegal activity.”  In other words, to profile is to form an opinion.  This means that if profiling is akin to a crime, as it’s being parlayed by the media and the Left, then it is a ‘thoughtcrime’ a la Orwell’s “1984.”  It’s funny that when we read about ‘thoughtcrimes’ in that classic book it sends shivers up our spines; yet when it’s actually happening to us in real life we just go along like sheep.

Everyone on this planet makes generalizations about people based on characteristics like race, age, sex, appearance, etc., which is to say that everyone profiles.  I profile people.  As a woman, I am cautious about putting myself in vulnerable situations with men whom I don’t know, and the same is true for most of the women I know.  That’s because we know from stories in the news and/or from our own experience that when women are the victims of crime, especially violent crimes, it’s almost always at the hands of men.  So it’s just common sense and natural instinct that we would focus our self-protective energies on the people who statistically present the greatest danger to us.  And although they don’t call it profiling, profiling is precisely what parents train their children to do when they teach them about who they should trust and who they shouldn’t.  The following advice on profiling is from a blog on parenting:”

“… I was in the car listening to NPR and I heard a child safety educator say, ‘Stop telling your kids not to talk to strangers. They might need to talk to a stranger one day. Instead, teach them which sorts of strangers are safe. You know who’s safe? A mom with kids. Period. Your kid gets separated from you at the mall? Tell her to flag down the first mom with kids she sees.’” -

“…teach them which sorts of strangers are safe.”  That’s great advice, absolutely.  It’s also profiling, which we are being told by the Left is a bad thing to do.  I can’t help but smile at the irony of this coming from NPR.

Teaching kids to profile is something parents instinctively do in order to protect their young and help ensure that they make it to adulthood.   The only difference between Left and Right when it comes to profiling is that those on the Right are truthful about it while those on the Left pretend they don’t profile so that they can adopt a false air of superiority over the Right and attempt to control us

So in light of all that let’s look at the case of George Zimmerman.  Was he profiling Trayvon Martin?  The answer is yes.  He may not have been racially profiling, but does anyone believe he would have called the police if he’d seen an elderly man or a middle-aged woman walking on the grounds that dark, rainy night?  The reason he had concerns about Trayvon is that it was apparent from his size and clothing that he was a young adult or nearly adult male.  And the reason that raised alarm was because young adult or nearly adult males commit the vast majority of violent crimes and property crimes in just about any area.  Mr. Zimmerman was doing the very same thing that women do when they profile and that children do when they profile as taught by their parents.  He was using the limited amount of information available to him to guide his actions, i.e. calling police and keeping an eye on Martin.  Those who defend Zimmerman by arguing that he wasn’t profiling unwittingly give credence to the false argument that profiling is bad and unnatural and that people should be answerable to others for their thoughts rather than their actions.

As for racial profiling, I wish someone would explain to me why race should be treated differently than gender, age or any other characteristic that’s naturally common to profiling, other than because the Left says so.  If crime stats vary by race, just like they do by gender and age, then it stands to reason that people will make judgments based on race, particularly in situations where they feel vulnerable.   To intentionally harm someone based solely on their race, gender or appearance is a crime – always has been, always will be.  But that’s not what profiling is.  It’s not a physical act.  To profile is to think, and as far as I know that’s still legal.  So far.


Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Redistributing Consequences

In an ideal world every able adult would assume responsibility for caring for themselves and for their own families.  This would result in a highly productive, well-cared-for society with very little need for welfare.  We should all want that, right?  Well in order to get to such a place, people must be taught to become responsible adults through exposure to the laws of natural consequences.  You touch the fire, you get burned – that’s how it works.  It’s a very simple, powerful dynamic upon which societies are able to function and flourish, therefore this can only mean one thing – liberals have to mess with it.  Here are a few examples.

The Single Mom Phenomenon
Experience over the centuries taught us that bearing children out of wedlock was not good for society for reasons that should be obvious.   People learned to frown upon this behavior, often considering it immoral, and public pressure against it became a very effective tool for societies to protect themselves from the irresponsible actions of others, as did the probability of financial hardship for those who chose that route.  But then along came liberals.  Seeing the opportunity to free themselves from the pesky judgment of society while at the same time holding themselves up as more compassionate and “open-minded” than everyone else, they embarked on a campaign to bully anyone who dared to pass judgment on illegitimacy.  Then, with the “War on Poverty” launched, they were able to eliminate the financial deterrents to out-of-wedlock pregnancy as well.  The result was that illegitimate births in the U.S. soared from 10% in 1960 to 41% in 2010 and, not surprisingly, welfare spending increased from about $20 billion to nearly a trillion dollars during that same time.  What a wonderful blessing for society, eh?

The Union Mentality
Unions, staunchly promoted and protected by the Left, are another prime example of the way liberals encourage people to disassociate themselves from the laws of natural consequences.  Unions are designed to allow people to choose low-skill careers or to be only mediocre at work without experiencing the lower pay and benefits that traditionally result from such choices.  Instead of encouraging people to advance economically through hard work, education, experience and unique skills, they encourage people to use bully techniques for what they want.  The result is a lower-skilled workforce, higher prices and failing businesses.  Yippee.

The Healthcare “Crisis”
This one is a two-fer for liberals, as their meddling has led to the removal of natural consequences for individuals as well as natural market incentives in the healthcare industry.  Through the adoption of Medicare and Medicaid the government has exponentially expanded the customer base for the healthcare industry, absent the essential consumer mentality that usually drives healthy competition and helps to balance supply and demand.  By creating an endless demand for healthcare, liberals have removed many of the natural consequences to providers for not offering affordable rates to those who must self-pay.  And whereas it used to be that the expectation of having to pay for your medical services caused people to do things such as self-ration their visits to the doctor, prioritize their spending, aspire to better-paying jobs and to make arrangements to pay for services over time, the government subsidizing of medical care for the “needy” along with forcing providers to treat people regardless of commitment to pay has made these behaviors a thing of the past.  And their answer to the mess they’ve created?  The multi-trillion dollar wealth-transfer fraud known as “Obamacare, thank you very much. 

Bought a house you couldn’t afford?  That’s okay!  The Left will force the banks to reduce your debt and the rest of us will absorb the cost in higher fees.  Borrowed too much for that expensive liberal college?  That’s okay!  The liberals are busy thinking of ways to help you get out of it and leave the taxpayers stuck with the bill.   Want to be an artist but the consequence of that choice is that you can’t afford healthcare?  That’s okay!  Liberals like Nancy Pelosi don’t think you should be deprived of doing what you love.  Let others be deprived instead.

Liberals are a plague upon society not only for their instinctive quest to insulate people from the consequences of their own behaviors and create a nation of irresponsible deadbeats, but also because they make all the rest of us bear the price that the others are spared from.  Worse still, they cannot be reasoned out of this behavior, because they are not motivated by concern for the nation or even concern for the disadvantaged, but by the need to appease their own egos.  That’s a need that knows no logic.