Reading so much in, and yet failing to read

Michelle Malkin is starting to get tedious. In a recent post she attempts to fit a reasonably-scary newstory regarding terrorists and ambulances to her favorite thesis, that the war on terror will be won if we just start basing more of our security decisions on the skin color of those around us. Or, as she says, "profiling, profiling, profiling." But not every dog hunts, and calling a Shih Tzu a Beagle don't change things.

Here's the part of the story where Malkin teases out her evidence in favor of profiling:

"The man, who claimed he was from Pakistan and a physician, asked a series of questions to the squad members that related exclusively to the operation of the emergency vehicles, including the speed at which the vehicles responded to calls and the use of the lights and sirens," it said."The individual appeared very nervous, did not ask about patient care, and left the premises when asked to complete a membership application."

Malkin's "Translation: Profile, profile, profile."

Umm, no, this doesn't show a case of racial profiling. Nor does it support the case for racial profiling in the future. Profiling would base security decisions primarily upon a person's race, ethnicity, or religion (or some combination of the three). That's not what happened here.

What happened here was a fact-based, flexible approach that looked at suspicious behavior. To the extent that race played a role -- and I'm not saying that it did or should not, at some level -- it played that role only after initial suspicions had been raised. And that's perfectly reasonable given the dynamics of the war on terror. But it ain't profiling.

Indeed, if we started profiling, we'd be stopping Pakistani, Indian, Afghani, Arab, and Southeast Asian doctors and EMTs at the steps of hospitals and in ambulance bays regardless of their behavior, just to "check 'em out." Aside from being unjust (remember that 'ole concept about judging folks by the content of their character, not the color of their skin?), it would result in a bunch of wheel spinning, lots of frustration, even more missed doctor appointments, and a distracted and overworked police force. We would end up paying less attention to suspicious behavior -- the real indicator of who the bad guys are.

Such a thing wouldn't seem like a good idea to most people. Except, it seems, to Malkin.*

von

*It continues to amaze me how many folks confuse rigid adherence to a thesis with rigid adherence to the facts, or, for that matter, how many confuse "being a reactionary" with "being a conservative." (See, e.g., Malkin; Charles Johnson; et al.)

UPDATE: Some folks in comments suggest that Ms. Malkin has been tedious for a good long while. For the record, my first encounter with her work was "In Defense of Internment" -- which, regardless of the accuracy of the history, seems riddled with obvious logical gaps and flaws. (The fact that a lot of folks may be impressed by it is neither here nor there; a lot of folks are impressed with Michael Moore, and he's still a fat idiot.) In the last couple weeks, I've been periodically checking in on Malkin. That experiment is now over. Time, after all, is the most precious commodity we have.

On the other hand, RedState.org is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating the breadth and thoughtfulness of the Republican party's blogopartisans. Do take a look.

Comments

[carsick]

John Lindh Walker could have tripped a behavioural profile strategy but not a visual one if he chose or was instructed to blend in.
The majority of Islamic converts in America were most likely converted during incarceration. Some of those converts percentagewise may sympathize with fundamentalists like ObL. Do we profile hip hoppers from Detroit who have some jail time under their belt. How about - just to be safe - we just profile all "darkies", "high -yellahs" and the like. I know some guys who keep very clean, in fact they often wear white robes, who would like to help America with policing/profiling those folks.

[carsick]

oops John Walker Lindh above.

[Josh]

"Starting" to get tedious?

[Gary Farber]

"Michelle Malkin is starting to get tedious."

Wait, it's 1999 again?

[sidereal]

I'm curious to know what sort of racial profiling would have led to the investigation of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani that would not also have led to the investigation of Barack Obama.

I had the great misfortune of growing tired of Malkin's narcissistic rantings in the Seattle Times editorials for years, so I'm kind of burned out on it.

What's up with the ingenues of the right dredging up the embarassments of history like HUAC and Japanese internment and trying to turn them into shining moments? Crap like that is more palatable coming from a female?

[carpeicthus]

If every government official thought like Malkin, it's incredible how much less safe we'd be, or how much would be worth keeping safe at all.

[mac]

Malkin's most infuriating post is the one in which she mocks the folks upset at the FBI for attempting a "Muslim outreach program" in which they ended up asking their participants whether they belong to any extremist groups and whether they own a panel truck. For once, my Congressvarmint Jim McDermott got something right (will wonders never cease?) such a program is counterproductive. If there are people in the community willing to let the FBI know that some crazy bastard lives next door, it's a really bad idea to discourage them by asking them about their preference in automobiles.

[carsick]

"What's up with the ingenues of the right dredging up the embarassments of history like HUAC and Japanese internment and trying to turn them into shining moments? Crap like that is more palatable coming from a female?"

There was a song that began "Shocking how nothing shocks anymore."
And it's so true that to sell books you need to defend McCarthy to even raise a spark.
The former owner of the Cincinnati Reds, Marge Schott, was possibly ahead of her time (but her example will probably soon be emulated) when she said "(Hitler) was good in the beginning but he went too far." I see a new Malkin or Coulter book in the near future.

[praktike]

"The fact that a lot of folks may be impressed by it is neither here nor there; a lot of folks are impressed with Michael Moore, and he's still a fat idiot."

ha.

Regarding RedState, it's well-done for what it is. Why do you think it hasn't been more popular? Generals without an Army? Too high-minded? Late to the dance?

What's the story?

[praktike]

Re: Malkin.

It's amazing to me that she could absorb such a devastating series of beatdowns and yet still get invited on television and retain her job.

I mean, she was just ... brutally destroyed.

[sidereal]

"What's the story?"

Theory #1: It's early yet
Theory #2: Democrats are much, much more energized this cycle.
Theory #3: They're way outside the mainstream.

[Josh]

On the other hand, RedState.org is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating the breadth and thoughtfulness of the Republican party's blogopartisans. Do take a look.

Yeah, and note who they have on their blogroll in the "Allies" section...

[carsick]

Theory #3: They're way outside the mainstream.

As long as the press is inviting Coulter, Malkin et. al. to be the face of conservatism it is easy to see why folks aren't interested in seeing the 'thoughtfulness' of the (new and emerging?) right. The door is closed before folks have an interest in looking inside.
A bit like having Buchannon speak at the convention in '92.

[John Thullen]

The earnest, gun-toting Ms. Malkin is a teeny-bopper who has become editor of the high school newspaper.

My favorite column of hers was several years ago when she breathlessly exposed the plot by terrorists of some foreign sort in a southern state to ciphon cigarette taxes from a northern state (Michigan?) and through some sort of arbitrage send the money to bad guys.

Conclusion of column? Terrorism bad: check. Fraud bad: check

Politically correct cigarette taxes imposed by liberals evil and cause of all terrorism and fraud: big, fat, outraged check and the biggest outrage since the high school cafeteria served chipped beef two days in a row.

[Neolith]

Well, as a conservative myself, I've been somewhat surprised at how uncompromising some of the crew over there is about many topics, even when they are discussing it with people who already are 90% on board with them.

I for one, dislike being called a slaveholder for my belief that there might be some decision making involved in regards to abortion in the first few weeks or so. I dislike being told I am hell-bound because I don't believe in teaching creation in our schools. Yet that's been a disagreeably large part of my Red State experience. A lot of it is probably my own fault for wording things badly, but it has been an eye opener that in a year where so many important things, indisputably civilization altering things, are to be decided, there is so much obsession with things like the doomed FMA.

I guess what happens at Kos is everyone pretty much either says whatever crazy thing they want, and no matter how far it is out of main stream, no body bothers to say "hey, wait a minute" out of a sense of unity, or perhaps there just really is so little dissent in the party itself this year, which I can buy. But it seems that reading Kos would be a feel good experience for liberals of many stripes, but there is a lot of angst, soul searching, and conflict to be had for conservatives at Red State.

Part of my problem is that I lean as much libertarian as republican, yet I think the LP has some real loonies at its stump boards, so I stay away from them, yet get depressed at much of the social conservatism pushed around by republicans. I think I used one too many "yet"s in there. Clearly, I am conflicted.

Another interesting thing: There have been liberal factions threatening large scale cyber violence this and the weeks of and after the repub convention. Coincidentally, tacitus, redstate, and their host, Xlan, are all down. Many of the popular scoop sites running on Xlan are down too, like Photographica. Either this is a widespread system malfunction (pretty unlikely) or a widespread DNS attack. I'm hoping its the former, because the latter will spiral downhill very, very quickly.

[praktike]

I guess what happens at Kos is everyone pretty much either says whatever crazy thing they want, and no matter how far it is out of main stream, no body bothers to say "hey, wait a minute" out of a sense of unity, or perhaps there just really is so little dissent in the party itself this year, which I can buy. But it seems that reading Kos would be a feel good experience for liberals of many stripes, but there is a lot of angst, soul searching, and conflict to be had for conservatives at Red State.

Well, there is something of a "tyranny of the deaniacs" at work over on kos, but generally speaking the only area in which it's truly problematic is regarding foreign policy.

[von]

Neolith, from your comments at Redstate and above, I sense that we're generally in the same political boat.* Part of the reason that I post at RedState to be the "hey, wait a minute" voice. (The rest of the reason is that I'm awaiting the day that "liberal Republican" is more than a bad joke, and hoping to move the party in my direction.)

As for a potential DNS-attack-in-progress: I'm suspicious as well.

von

*I don't call myself a conservative, but sometimes labels are obscuring rather than illuminating. Indeed, so far as I can tell, I'm 99.95% in agreement with VRWC member Moe Lane -- save for the issue of organized labor, on which I'm to the right of him (I'm probably to the left of him on affirmative action, however). The difference, I think, is that I find the idiots on the far right more annoying than the idiots on the far left, whom I breezely ignore.

[carsick]

Just as you can wear a Bush shirt to a Kerry rally and no one will ask you to leave, or ask you to take it off, or, on the whole, acknowledge it in any way. Perhaps the reason why folks aren't reacting to certain posts at Kos is because they tolerate them or ignore them.
At RedState perhaps your experience is opposite because they take their lead from the administration. Differences of opinion are a distraction not to be tolerated.

Just sayin'.

[carsick]

Neolith,
Your post also brought to mind a comment my 10th grade* government teacher once said: "I'm 90% with the libertarians but that other 10% scares the hell out of me."

*It was over 25 years ago but a very memorable quote from my adolescence.

[Gary Farber]

I say to thee that some posting "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture." Let us be less bold in our posting.

"I guess what happens at Kos is everyone pretty much either says whatever crazy thing they want, and no matter how far it is out of main stream, no body bothers to say "hey, wait a minute" out of a sense of unity, or perhaps there just really is so little dissent in the party itself this year, which I can buy."

I don't have much sense that Kos and company are nearly so interested in Democratic "unity" save on their terms, which tends among many if not most towards regarding anyone who doesn't and didn't denounce the war in the strongest terms as a mindless fool of a traitor not worth having around.

I am, to be sure, both basing this on only reading the site every once in a sporadic while, and being biased by never having been blogrolled, which is quite possibly because I am simply so boring, rather than Ideologically Incorrect (ditto at Eschaton/Atrios, at Kevin Drum's old Calpundit site, and at various other of the Big Name left/liberal sites).

[carsick]

von
If you are truly 99.95% in agreement with Moe then why post? You can just read his posts to gain a sense of recognition for your opinions. Heck even a mirror doesn't give you such high agreement numbers because the image is reversed.
You haven't found your doppleganger but something far far stranger if you're really in agreement that much.

[Navy Davy]

I think, is that I find the idiots on the far right more annoying than the idiots on the far left, whom I breezely ignore.

This is a tough call. I'm a bit biased, 'cuz I live in Northern California, where the Idiots on the far left have the greater influence.

I once heard a Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a Republican, say that, Yes, there are idiot exremists on both sides, but I wouldn't trade my idiots for your idiots:

IOFL: Jesse Jackson, Jim McDermott, Michael Moore.

IOFR: Pat Robertson, Bob Jones University, Pat Buchannan

My 2 cents

[carsick]

Navy
You're being far too kind to your side. What about: Coulter; Malkin; Savage; Corsi; Novack; Boortz...the list goes on.
Bob Jones University?
Buchanan isn't even republican anymore is he?
Pat Robertson's star has waned.
Was your list from 1992?

[von]

Carsick --

It's an exaggeration to make a point. Oh, and I differ with Moe in that, this time around, I'm not voting for Bush. (I may stay home.)

[sidereal]

"I may stay home"

At least write someone in!
Like Kerry. Or Giblets.

[Phil]

See, it doesn't matter much to me what side an idiot is on -- an idiot is an idiot. I find Moore just as tendentious and awful, and in exactly the same ways, as Malkin, and the same goes for any other pair you can dig up. Being a small-l-libertarian-who-is-for-free-markets-and-social-justice-but-not-left-liberalism, I'm always in search of the sensible middle.

[John Thullen]

Well, I wouldn't compare Malkin and Moore, exactly. Limbaugh and Moore, perhaps, in that both have a certain self-awareness that what they do is schtikt (sp?) most of the time. (well, up until they see folks mounting the guillotine as a result of their tongue-in-cheek demagoguery).

I say this in full awareness that Moore demagogs for my side, and after Gingrich, Delay, and the rest of the mess, hooray for Moore, but just for awhile, until Republicans get the idea that liberals are armed, too, and might have ideas about hating government in some sort of apocalyptic way. Just to keep everybody on their toes.

Malkin is something else. She's a true believer, Phil. If you have any Muslim-looking relatives who are in the ambulance business, I hope you have contacts in Homeland Security so you can get those food packages to the camps.

O.K. I take it back about Limbaugh. Imprisoning Muslims, especially ones in the Democratric Party, is something he could dig.