Renewed Debate From Forever Ago...

Hey it's Ben...who you all love and/or hate...
I haven't been on the blog in forever, to tell you the truth I sort of forgot about it. I HAVE intended to though (half credit?) but my internet adventures more often than not land me on Facebook or YouTube.
I'm not really that good at sifting through dense Puritan poetry or identifying the intended audience of neoclassic works, but there is one thing I'm half good at, however, and that is the general act of disagreeing...
That being said, I am going to bring up a debate we had in class (we as in mostly Mr. Lazarow and I) from AGES ago. I seriously can't even remember how or why we were talking about this but the "random security checks" at Airports were brought up. We all know that Muslims and Arab Americans seem to be checked more than anyone else. Mr. Lazarow was of the opinion that this unfair distribution of random searches was a bad thing because it was stereotyping, discriminatory, and generally unnessesary. I am of the complete opposite opinion. In the following paragraphs I will tell you why the argument that opposes my opinion is more bogus than the outcome of OJ Simpson's first trial.
Ahhhh where to begin...
I completly agree that the "random" searches are far from random. Muslims are definatley checked more. Is there anything wrong with this (as Mr Lazarow suggests)? NO. There is nothing wrong with this at all. Not only is this unequal screening system Right...it is neccessary. It made seem rude but the phrase "bang for the buck" coems to mind. Here me out...
The airport security division would be putting many lives in danger if they checked NOBODY. The airport security division doesn't have the time or manpower to check EVERYBODY. Therefore, they are forced to check SOMEBODY...
Let's use the example of police officers given the task of finding and fighting drug problems in a city. It would be unsafe to check no neighborhoods and there's not enough police officers to check every neighborhood, so the safest and most efficient thing to do would be to check places where there were problems in the more recent past. So let's say a team of cops goes out to a particular neighborhood where there have been drug problems in the recent past...does this mean that everyone that lives there is a druggie? Of course not. Is is wrong to label a resident of this neighborhood as such? Of course it is. HOWEVER, is there a greater chance that a person in this neighborhood might be connected to drugs (however small that chance is)...YES.
If I was given a small police force of 20 officers to investigate and root out drug situations in a small area of Camden and Cinnaminson I would send almost every one of my officers to Camden. Am I sterotyping Camden residents as druggies by doing this? No. Am I suggesting that drugs don't exist in Cinnaminson? No. I would be doing nothing more than concentrating the most resources in the most important places. If I told the public how I was unequally using my police force, I am positive there would be Camden residents knocking at my door, screaming "injustice!"
This ties right into the "Muslim = terrorist idea." Nowadays are many Muslims terrorists? NO. NOT AT ALL. Are many terrorists Muslim? Yes. And you'd be wrong to deny that. Read the papers, people. Mr. Lazarow then brought up Timothy McVeigh, the American terrorist. This example fails to hold any signifigance because it is such an outlier. It exhibits no trend. Mr. Lazarow then said "Do you realize that in the 1700's, the British would've considered the colonists terrorists?" So? What's your point? That example holds no value because it is so incredibly outdated and isn't even tangentally related to the world of modern terror. I'll tell you what...the next time I see a guy in a three cornered hat saying "down with the King" in an airport, I will PERSONALLY frisk him. I beleive the IRA was also added to the list of outdated examples.
In Mr. Lazarow's opinion, 70 Year old Grandmas should be check just as much as Muslims apparently, because, after all, that is the meaning of the word "random". I ask you this...how many 70 year old Grandmas have blown themselves up in the past year? Exactly. Maybe I missed the news story about the one time that it maybe might've happened, but in general, women named Gladys and Bev aren't prone to detonate. I understand that they have the same ability to do so as anyone else but have they done so in the recent past. Nope. Let's be serious now people...
In class, upon being asked to back up my claim (that Muslims are blowing themselves up more than other people recently) with facts and figures, I was unable to do so. I was unaware of the need to prove the obvious. It's in the papers. It's on the internet. It's on the radio. Give me a break, people.
Just as I used drugs as my example, Mr. Lazarow used mutual funds. Mutual funds always give you the disclaimer "past results don't guarentee future success" before you invest. This seems to be good advice and it relates to the whole terrorist situation too because just because in the recent past most of the terror acts have been Muslim but this doesn't guarentee that this will be true in the future bla bla bla. I can definatley see where Mr. Laz is partially correct with this example. HOWEVER, this example backfires strongly. Sure, past results don't guarentee future success but what else do you have to go by? If I am looking to make money off mutual funds or stocks am I going to close my eyes and "randomly" select one or am I going to use recent results to make my decision? According to Mr. Lazarow's school of thought I should also take into account the company's fincancial records from the late 1700's, because, that kind of evidence seems to be just as important as more recent evidence, I guess. I wonder how many quills Office Max sold in 1776?
Basically this whole "random search" debate is about something much more important than morality. It's about SAFETY. It is purely irresponsible to let morality even enter the arena of a safety debate. Some Muslims say they feel "degraded" and "singled out" by this system, but it is unfortunatley necessary until recent history changes. It is my hope that this post will just be the beginning of a fiery debate...