Profiling

Submitted by peter debellis (United States), Dec 10, 2008 at 11:47

I agree that we (in the USA) should be careful about not institutionalizing profiling. This is how Nazi Germany got its start. However, we should not be foolish enough to think we don't all profile in our personal lives on a daily basis.

Given unlimited time and resources profiling would not be necessary, but we all know most public services are under-funded and over burdened. The is an efficency to profiling.

Profile is a pragmatic means of getting the greatest bang for your buck. For example, if we know Islamic extremists have the desire to undermine our Western culture, it would be very irresponsible (criminal) not to monitor Islamic groups and instead demand all groups (jewish, christian, hindu, buddhist) be monitored equally. We simply don't have the resources and if poltical correctness demands an all or nothing approach to profiling, you're simply handing an advantage to our common enemy,

I understand from reading your article you are talking from an idelogically pure perspective with respects to profiling, which is important to mantain. However, the strength of the USA is our balanced approach between idealism (not religious) and pragmatism. We can't survive and thrive using just one of these approaches, These approaches (idealism and pragmatism) are simply tools and it is up to us to determine which one to use, at what time and in what amount to get the outcomes we desire.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".