>Let me suggest the following extremely generous
>summary of what Odrirg posted:
>
>"Political correctness prevents government entities from
>utilizing profiling techniques that would serve to reduce the
>likelihood of future terrorist actions against the United
>States."

I'd say this is a summary of a part of the essay.

>Now, for all those who dismissed Odrirg's post (myself
>included):
>
>1. Are you against profiling?

No. I, infact think that profiling should be allowed. There would need to be a lot of oversight, however, because the line between profiling and racial discrimination is pretty slim. I also think that it is ridiculous for an 80 year old lady to be selected for random searches. If you are a young arabic man however, you should expect, and accept that you may face tougher scrutiny than the old lady. I could go on about my reasons here, but I don't have the time right now.

>2. If so, is it because you don't think it would be effective,
>or because it's "wrong" regardless of how effective it may
>be?

It *might* be effective... I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the problem. Some security measures are neccessary. The problem is that no security can be 100% effective (bet mouse trap etc.) so some risk has to be acceptable. I wish I had the time and desire to look up statistics, but I'd bet being injured (or worse) by a terrorist action (for an American) is right up there with getting struck by lightning, or eaten by a shark. Just above getting kill by a sting ray barb to the heart. It's an overblow issue. Step up security slightly to plug some of the obvious holes, then ignore it. Terrorism only works when it insights fear. So far 9/11 has been extraordinarily effective because people who (like me) have zero chance of ever even seeing a terrorist are afraid of terrorism (unlike me).