Subj : Re: ah, college newspapers... To : alt.tv.farscape From : Jim Larson Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 02:12:28 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape weirdwolf wrote: > Nick wrote in news:Xns96D7C6B6A41BAndtcm@ > 68.1.17.6: > >> weirdwolf wrote: >> >>> Nick wrote in >>> news:Xns96D7C2C941BFDndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: >>> >>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nick wrote in >>>>> news:Xns96D7C1922B5BFndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: >>>>> >>>>>> John Iwaniszek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick wrote in >>>>>>> news:Xns96D7B3E543115ndtcm@68.1.17.6: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John Iwaniszek wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nick wrote in >>>>>>>>> news:Xns96D7A6E1B51CAndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tyler Trafford wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John I wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Tyler Trafford wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tyler Trafford wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> John I wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tyler Trafford wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cgpu3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's abotu that anne coulter wanna-be at UNC, isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=74527 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> While a weird thing to write (as she phrased it), it >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't sound like she should have been fired for >>>>>>>>>>>>> bringing it up. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They got her because she manipulated and distorted the >>>>>>>>>>>> interviews. It's a journalistic ethics thing. And now >>>>>>>>>>>> she gets to go on the talk show circuit and whine about >>>>>>>>>>>> how liberal academics discriminate against racist 'winger >>>>>>>>>>>> bitches. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh, okay. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They got her because it was the politically correct thing >>>>>>>>>> to do. Journalists don't have ethics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's a mystery to me how things became so inverted. >>>>>>>>> Somehow, I am supposed to be ashamed that I deplore vicious >>>>>>>>> race baiting like the sill 'winger bitch was doing because >>>>>>>>> and if I speak out against it the litle twit can can claim >>>>>>>>> that I am persecuting her. She's a racist bitch, for god's >>>>>>>>> sake! She should be persecuted! She's bad. There's nothing >>>>>>>>> good about race baiting. And when you throw in the fact that >>>>>>>>> she lied and distorted the interviews to support her twisted >>>>>>>>> point of view, there is no way she can be redeemed. She is >>>>>>>>> poison. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does she have a right to hold those points of view? hell >>>>>>>>> yes. Doe she have a right to avoid the consequences of her >>>>>>>>> anti-social lip? hell no! She made her bed, now she has to >>>>>>>>> sleep in it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From what I can see in the other Op-Ed piece in her school >>>>>>>> paper she didn't lie at all. I like the way you find it >>>>>>>> necessary to tack "bitch" onto every description of her. I >>>>>>>> think she is just a kid who wrote a column hoping to get a >>>>>>>> reaction out of people. Did you see her anti-greek column >>>>>>>> where she referred to the "sorroristutes"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> She's a supid ;winger bitch who wrote some very unnecessary >>>>>>> and cruel rascist tripe. Why you are defending her, I don't >>>>>>> know. She's bad, dishonest, cruel, and a racist and for those >>>>>>> reasons she doesn't deserve a position on the school newspaper >>>>>>> and she doesn't deserve a place in my tax-funded university. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Arabic is not a race. >>>>> >>>>> Neither is Jewish, or Christian. Would you find it ok if I >>>>> suggested that the pope should have an anal cavity search when >>>>> he goes through and airport? I mean the last one must have been >>>>> used to it, he assumed the position every time. >>>>> Ted >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, by me. >>>> >>> >>> Well, maybe that was a bad choice I mean the current one is a >>> German. >>> Ted >>> >> >> Actually, the pope is one specific person so it isn't really a good >> comparison. > > No but it was a great mental image and one that pointsout that a > minority group can be descriminated against not just because of their > race. It doesn't make it any different. > >> I think there is a lot of wiggle room between pure >> profiling and the totally random checks that they currently make. >> For example, I would assess a woman with a baby as an especially low >> risk on an airplane flight. Unless you count the baby as a >> psychological terrorist. > > There was an article a few years ago in the scientific american IIRC in > which p-sychologists showed people a mix of pictures of arabs,jews and > native americans and asked them to sort them into their racial groups. > Most of the test subjects failed. This is one of the problems with racial > profiling when it is applied. Yes it's easy to say that Arab looking guy > over there is a terrorist suspect and search him. Unfortunately he is a > hindu from the Kashmir and it totally ignores the fact that the eastern > European caucasian chap in the queue next to him is a member of the > Polish muslim community which has been in the country for centuries. > Looking at peoples faces is a shitty way to tell what they think or have > been up to, it's easy but it isn't going to help. I have a friend who is originally from Venezuela. He is a law-abiding American citizen whose idea of adventure is to volunteer time on weekends at a local hospital[1]. Unfortunately for him, he has sort of an unidentifiable look and could easily pass for an Arab. He gets "special attention" at airports all the time. This strikes me as a little messed up. -- Jim [1] He and his wife take their annoyingly cute little dog to visit sick kids. .