Logo Tribute
Home Page
Products Page
Services Page
Frequently Asked Questions Page
Personal Rant Page
Contact Information Page
Off-site Links Page

Personal Rant

Racial vs. Suspicious Character Profiling

Racial Profiling? No. Suspicious Character Profiling. Get it right or shut the hell up. Please.

Note the first word - Racial. To use this phrase without coming under justified scrutiny, you had better have proof that racism is taking place. Otherwise, you are just another loudmouth out there, misusing words and phrases to capitalize from the shock value produced in ignorant people. You'll be just another loony person who has convinced himself/herself that "the system is after our rights".

Let me give you some instances where true Racial Profiling is taking place. I'll then follow with Suspicious Character profiling, in hopes that you can see the difference. Because I am a caucasian male, I'm going to use caucasian males as examples.

Examples of Racial Profiling:

  • A caucasian male owns a business. He was brought up in a hateful family that embedded the ridiculous belief of caucasians being superior in all ways to non-caucasians. He has to hire a new employee but decides to be on the lookout for non-caucasians so that he can quickly adapt and achieve his misguided goal of hiring only caucasians. In effect, he is observing candidates for the reason of excluding them based on his personal discrimination of non-caucasian people. That, is racial profiling. Profiling based on race discrimination.
  • A caucasian male owns a business. He was not brought up to believe that caucasians are superior to non-caucasians. However, his business has to interact with people that do favor caucasians over non-caucasians. Not wanting his business to suffer the loss of the potential customers who do have this hang-up, he decides to be on the lookout for non-caucasians so that he can quickly adapt and achieve his misguided goal of hiring only caucasians. In effect, he is observing candidates for the reason of excluding them based on his customers' potential discrimination of non-caucasian people. That, is racial profiling. Profiling based on race discrimination. It matters not who is discriminating. Just that discrimination is taking place.

Examples of "Suspicious Character" Profiling:

  • A caucasian male owns a drug store. He was not brought up to believe that caucasians are superior to non-caucasians. He is using his senses in an attempt to discern suspicious characters that are appearing as candidates to a new job position he is trying to fill. This is what he is "on the lookout" for as he allows a non-caucasian candidate a one-day trial:
    1. suspicious behavior (ex: constantly sniffing)
    2. suspicious appearance (ex: white powder on the nostrils)
    3. suspicious language (ex: words that are used on the street between criminals)
    4. suspicious smells (ex: the odor of marijuana)

He is not swayed in his hiring practices based on the fact that the candidate is non-caucasian. He cares only that he is not hiring a potential drug dealer or addict. To hire someone who is addicted to drugs (or worse, dealing them) would not only be a danger to his business, but a danger to society. Since he has noted that this candidate is constantly sniffing and wiping white powder from his/her nose, using language rarely used by anyone but street thugs and reeking of marijuana, he elects not to hire this candidate. He is not passing on the candidate because the candidate is a non-caucasian. He is passing because the person exhibits the traits of a Suspicious Character.

Don't you dare call this Racial Profiling just because the person is a non-caucasian! Be a part of the solution. Not the problem.

  • A caucasian male owns a day-care center. He was not brought up to believe that caucasians are superior to non-caucasians. He is using his senses in an attempt to discern suspicious characters that are appearing as candidates to a new job position he is trying to fill. This is what he is "on the lookout" for as he allows a non-caucasian candidate a one-day trial:
    1. suspicious behavior (ex: touching children in clearly unacceptable ways)
    2. suspicious appearance (ex: no desire to "lead by example" by maintaining personal appearance)
    3. suspicious language (ex: discussing private parts with children as the day progresses)
    4. suspicious smells (ex: the odor of marijuana)

He is not swayed in his hiring practices based on the fact that the candidate is non-caucasian. He cares only that he is not hiring a potential child molester or drug addict. To hire someone who is addicted to drugs, was covered earlier. But to hire a person who displays the same ethical shortcomings that a child molester would, is not only a danger to his business, it is also a danger for the children that candidate will be interacting with. Since he has noted that this candidate has touched and talked to children inappropriately (beyond coincidence), is dressed in a disheveled and dirty fashion and reeks of marijuana, he elects not to hire this candidate. He is not passing on the candidate because the candidate is a non-caucasian. He is passing because the person exhibits the traits of a Suspicious Character.

Don't you dare call this Racial Profiling just because the person is a non-caucasian! Be a part of the solution. Not the problem.

"Racial Profiling" is a convenient phrase often used when someone wants to "cry foul" at "the system" in lieu of actually having to help the system be successful at protecting society's physical well-being. It is also frequently used when no other complaint is valid enough to keep the doors open for those that want to exploit the system - for instance, when a valued "loophole" is closing and "the race card" has to be played to keep it open.

Regardless of when or why it is used, the single-most damaging aspect of this travesty is this:

The irresponsible use of the phrase "Racial Profiling" continuously highlights and underscores the ridiculous myth that some people should not be treated equally based on their ethnicity, biological differences, or hereditary background. It reminds the ignorant among us of an imaginary reason to perpetuate discrimination down through our family trees - to keep the misconception alive.

As an example of "fueling the racial fire", I give you the media. Not long ago, I tuned to the local news to hear:

And in local news; tonight marks the one-year anniversary of the tragic rape and murder of an elderly white woman, [Woman's Name], by a black man, [Man's Name]. The woman was unlocking her door when [Man's Name] jumped out of her bushes and attacked her, dragging her into her own apartment. After raping her and torturing her to death, he then attempted to begin a convenience store robbing spree. With the help of...[Man's Name] was immediately apprehended. He was convicted of this heinous crime just this morning...

Do you see the problem here? How about "rape and murder of an elderly white woman by a black man"? What the hell good is it to report that information? I can see reporting the man's description if he is still out on the loose. But this happened a year ago!

I'll tell you why the local news made it a point to highlight the racial difference:

Because race fuels the fire of most any sensationalism the media can get its hands on; it feeds the subconscious misconception that "we are not equal". Thinking you are not equal plays on your media-fueled misconception that you "need to fear people who are different".

Fear is overcome by being informed. We try to be informed by watching the news ("the media"). The media can only make money if they can control the informing process, in essence, "how" it is delivered to us. They make money by "informing" those who have fears that those fears are "well founded, so you better keep watching our news channel". If there is less "fear" in society, there is less sensationalism to report - therefore, less money for the media. In a sick way, the actions of the media have caused racism to become the catalyst for entertainment (and entertainment sells), as the media sees it.

The media are constantly guilty of telling the public, through innuendo, that people of different races should be feared.

Keeping in mind that "racism sells", what could be better for the media than finding a way to apply this concept to the latest and greatest news! Take terrorism, for example. That's in the news lately, right?

The protectors of our society take a hard look at what the distinguishing factors are that give us clues as to how we can spot terrorists. They first define commonalities - the things that are usually the same - about terrorists. Above, we realize that constant sniffing, rubbing white powder off the nostrils, using language only thugs use and the smell of marijuana are good indicators that a person is a suspicious character - a person who displays the suspicious traits for the kind of character we do not want around us.

Following the same vein, there are some startling commonalities about terrorists - suspicious traits that help us identify them. For example, most terrorist acts are committed by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40. Take a look:

  1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 69 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard with his wheelchair by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  6. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver on board as a passenger was murdered by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed over Scotland by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  10. On September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed. Thousands of people were murdered by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  11. On December 22, 2001, Richard Colvin Reid (aka Abdul Raheem and Abu Ibrahim), a Muslim males between the age of 17 and 40, was foiled when flight attendants noticed a burning smell and found Reid using matches to try to light his bomb-laden sneakers.
  12. In 2002 the United States was forced to fight a war for Afghanistan against these Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  13. In 2002, WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered on videotape by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
  14. In 2002 countless numbers of civilians died of relentless suicide-murder-bombings in Israel by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Hmm. See any "startling commonalities" here? How about "Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40"? Why isn't this called "Age Profiling" since "between the ages of 17 and 40" comes up frequently? And why isn't this called "Religious Profiling" since "Muslim" comes up frequently? I'll tell you why:

Age discrimination and religious discrimination can't hold a stick to the power of race discrimination when it comes time to "sell news to the public". Age changes and people's opinions change with it. Religions are open doors to people moving back and forth between them. But RACE! Your age will change. Religion could change. But Race is an unchangeable constant and therefore a much more appealing target for the money-hungry media.

The trick is, the media has to get people offended by suspicious character profiling. They have to convince you that your feelings are hurt. The only way to to that is to portray suspicious character profiling as racial profiling.

My goodness. We certainly don't want to offend anyone, now, do we? Even if people will die because of it. I mean, hurting someone's feelings is worse than death, right? Well... some bleeding-heart liberals want you to believe just that.

With the success the media has gained in portraying suspicious character profiling as racial profiling, the ambiguity is lost on the average person. Therefore, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, airport screeners will not be allowed to profile suspicious people. They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, clowns, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors. But somehow, the Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 will slip through - at the risk of being "racist".

Racism

Racism is defined as "prejudice or animosity (a feeling or spirit of hostility and resentment) against people who belong to other races".

Here's my opinion - which I am entitled to, by the way. Muslims, Chinese, Italians, Germans, Japanese, Russians, Israelis, Blacks, hell - even Street Punks - these are not races! These are all humans. These all belong to the Human Race. Even the word "racist" is oxymoronic in this sense. These are simply diverse ethnicities. The problem is that people don't realize that profiling needs to occur against suspicious characters - regardless of creed or ethnicity.

Prejudice

Prejudice is defined as a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one based on:

  1. insufficient knowledge
  2. irrational feelings
  3. inaccurate stereotypes

So, are we prejudice? Let's see:
  1. Do we have "insufficient knowledge" of atrocities committed by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40?

  2. No, the number of cadavers are quite sufficient to prove our knowledge of these atrocities is sufficient.

  3. Are our feelings "irrational" in response to the constant pattern of murder exhibited by Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40?

  4. No, there is nothing irrational about fearing death.

  5. Are our fears of Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 "inaccurate stereotypes"?

  6. Not to the mourners of the murders committed - which by the way clearly amounts to the entire United States of America. We have accurately identified the perpetrators of all of the above atrocities as Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40.
No, there is no prejudice here - just fear of suspicious characters.

Conclusion

Therefore, the path is clear. Through a history of murder and deceit, Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 have earned a place on the list of "suspicious characters". That's the same list that has held gangsters, drug addicts, child molesters, and many others. The Suspicious Character List.

Be on the lookout for - nay PROFILE - suspicious characters. ALL suspicious characters. Or suffer the consequences of your pathetic bleeding-heart liberalism.

And one other thing: don't you dare bastardize the true impact that reporting racism should have by crying wolf when the situation doesn't involve race. Those that have suffered because of racism are owed that much, at the very least.

- Kerry B. Rogers -


This site was designed by Kerry B. Rogers.
Unless otherwise noted, all contents included herein are Copyright © 2016
by Kerry B. Rogers, with all rights reserved.