Replies

I just don't think that we should make policy based on fear and anger. There's a valid argument to step up vigilance on the group that Noonan described, in the manner of her son. But her strong implication is that we should go beyond this into...who knows. What do you suggest?

Well, I would suggest you read an editorial I will post in a moment, from a very LIBERAL New York newspaper, which feels as I do now: we need to focus on America.

And, if all the Muslims cited in this editorial -- which was citing a recent NY Times story about Muslims -- is true: that they are SO UNHAPPY living in America, then, I suggest we restore their right to happiness by helping them to return to the Mid East ASAP.

Why should we stand by and do nothing if they are all so miserable in America? We should help them leave this country. Let them go to school, and live, and do whatever they want in their own countries.

Hijacking planes, terrorizing American citizens, remaining silent if they know of impending mass murder, and forcing Americans to jump to their deaths out of skyscrapers, are not, in my very humble opinion, very valid reasons for them to remain here.

Of course, you may feel differently. Maybe they should be allowed to stay in this country and engage in such behavior -- if that is their version of the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness." However, it's not my version.

I just don't think that we should make policy based on fear and anger.

Who said we're basing policy on fear and anger? (Or is that just your own personal interpretation?) I submit that the policy just might be based on prudence and common sense.

Although I'm no fan of internment camps, some level of racial profiling may be appropriate at times.

For instance, no one complained of looking for White Males when the KKK was bombing Black churches in the 1960's. There are simply times when one group is comprised of distinct racial groups, and it makes sense to intelligently narrow your focus to those groups for short periods of time.