If you watched the Five tonight and saw the 2nd section, then you know the topic of conversation was about the renewing of the Patriot Act.
For the first time I agreed with Eric Bowling and not Greg Gutfeld. Eric Bowling and Geraldo Rivera stood against renewing it, and Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, and Kimberly Guilfoyle stood for renewing it.
The argument for renewing it is that it helps fight terror. It uses data-mining to gather statistics in order to find terrorists.
The argument against renewing it is that it is a violation of our privacy rights. That the information "mined" could be used in instances other than catching terrorists.
Neither side really has a significant foundation:
AGAINST: The data-mining hasn't stopped any terrorist activities.
FOR: You can't prove that.
FOR: They are not reading your e-mails.
AGAINST: You can't prove that.
The other argument FOR the Patriot Act is "How else will you find terrorists?" Which poses an interesting question, but not an insolvable question. The FORs act as if the Patriot Act is the only way to find terrorists. And yet technology today is overwhelming and fascinating. Doesn't ISIS have a facebook page? and a twitter account? How about targeting anyone who connects to those? any repeat viewers? And that's just ONE idea.
AGAINST says "Use Profiling." Let's be clear, "profiling" IS NOT EVIL. The idea of profiling is not a bad thing; yes, it can be abused. But if you have ever watched a crime investigation show, then you have seen how they bring in profilers to profile the extreme criminals (like serial killers). The problem arises when one over-simplifies profiling. When one says, "Oh the terrorists are extremist muslims? Then we should target all muslims." That's insane. It would be like a criminal profiler coming in and saying, "Oh, a bunch of women were killed? Then it must be a man. Target all men." Accurate, intelligent profiling would absolutely work.
The real question is "How much freedom are you willing to give up for your safety?"
Freedom is having choice. Although it is important to remember that that includes choosing the wrong thing as well. The opportunity to make a good choice or a bad choice. Removing choice is not just anti-freedom, it's fascism. Privacy protects our choices. When a person or entity knows our individual secrets, he/she/it/they can manipulate us (whether that's targeted advertising or wrongful arrests). The Patriot Act is an invasion of privacy, but by how much.....
I always recommend less regulations, because it is a slippery slope that is rarely reversed.
Consider this: Patriot Act ends up being used to catch a serial killer. Yay! It becomes a regular tool in catching serial killers. Yay! Then it is used to catch murderers as well. Yay! Then it is used to catch thieves. Yay. Then it is used to catch people who commit identity fraud. yay. Then it is used to catch people who speed. yay? Then it is used to catch you.
Showing posts with label The Five. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Five. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
The Five on Fox News - 2/26/2015: ISIS - Will Jobs solve the problem? ......I mean, seriously....
On The Five today, there was a debate regarding whether ISIS people are poor, needing jobs or whether they are middle class, well-educated people.
It is important to remember that within any structure there are the upper echelon and the lower ranks. When it comes to ISIS, the upper echelon like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (their Caliph), who has a BA, MA and a PhD in Islamic Studies, and Jihadi John (Mohammed Emwazi), who comes from the middle class and received a computer programming degree from University of Westminster, are well-educated, purposeful megalomaniacs. These are people who are intelligent enough to create effective propaganda and navigate through today's technological advances (social media in particular). While the lower ranks consist of people who are primarily motivated, to join ISIS, by ideology. Juan Williams is correct (probably) in asserting that these are lost souls. Whether they are middle class or not, they are people looking for purpose and meaning in life, which so many of us struggle with. And like many of us, they are finding it through religion. Unfortunately the religion that ISIS promotes is not just antisocial, but truly grotesque to the human race. It is a "religion" that promotes genocide, murder, and ultimately ego-centric selfishness (yeah, I know that's redundant, but the emphasis is necessary, as the "religion" excludes the rights AND the existence of other human beings).
AGAIN, the only effective (non-military) way to "combat" this "religion"/ideology, aka propaganda, is with counter-propaganda. the most effective of which would be to denounce ISIS' interpretation of Islam. The first step would be to gather other Muslim leaders and countries to stand in opposition of ISIS and their beliefs. Without their support, there will always be a level of legitimacy to ISIS' claims. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if such leaders and nations were holding their tongues, just to see if ISIS can pull off a Worldwide Caliphate.
The second step would be to use Islam against them. By delving into the Islamic religion and finding contradictory ideas, philosophies, verses, and quotes, we can create a rift between the ISIS propaganda and the true meaning of being a Muslim. Then each recruit will be rejecting Islam in favor for ISIS gibberish. So that those that join ISIS will, in fact, garner NO benefits from their suicidal and violent actions. There will be no "72 virgins" waiting for them when they die; there will be no place in Heaven for them; there will only be fire and damnation.
Unfortunately all of this goes back to Marie Harf and her poor statements, which I assume, reflect the thoughts from the White House. The comments she made were so naive and ignorant, that I, as a proud United States of America citizen, am embarrassed.
It is important to remember that within any structure there are the upper echelon and the lower ranks. When it comes to ISIS, the upper echelon like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (their Caliph), who has a BA, MA and a PhD in Islamic Studies, and Jihadi John (Mohammed Emwazi), who comes from the middle class and received a computer programming degree from University of Westminster, are well-educated, purposeful megalomaniacs. These are people who are intelligent enough to create effective propaganda and navigate through today's technological advances (social media in particular). While the lower ranks consist of people who are primarily motivated, to join ISIS, by ideology. Juan Williams is correct (probably) in asserting that these are lost souls. Whether they are middle class or not, they are people looking for purpose and meaning in life, which so many of us struggle with. And like many of us, they are finding it through religion. Unfortunately the religion that ISIS promotes is not just antisocial, but truly grotesque to the human race. It is a "religion" that promotes genocide, murder, and ultimately ego-centric selfishness (yeah, I know that's redundant, but the emphasis is necessary, as the "religion" excludes the rights AND the existence of other human beings).
AGAIN, the only effective (non-military) way to "combat" this "religion"/ideology, aka propaganda, is with counter-propaganda. the most effective of which would be to denounce ISIS' interpretation of Islam. The first step would be to gather other Muslim leaders and countries to stand in opposition of ISIS and their beliefs. Without their support, there will always be a level of legitimacy to ISIS' claims. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if such leaders and nations were holding their tongues, just to see if ISIS can pull off a Worldwide Caliphate.
The second step would be to use Islam against them. By delving into the Islamic religion and finding contradictory ideas, philosophies, verses, and quotes, we can create a rift between the ISIS propaganda and the true meaning of being a Muslim. Then each recruit will be rejecting Islam in favor for ISIS gibberish. So that those that join ISIS will, in fact, garner NO benefits from their suicidal and violent actions. There will be no "72 virgins" waiting for them when they die; there will be no place in Heaven for them; there will only be fire and damnation.
Unfortunately all of this goes back to Marie Harf and her poor statements, which I assume, reflect the thoughts from the White House. The comments she made were so naive and ignorant, that I, as a proud United States of America citizen, am embarrassed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)