Profiling Fauxfiling

 
Well, one of the things you can count on is that progressives will ride a word or slogan into the ground, and that they reduce issues to a word or soundbite. Take profiling, for example, when so often profiling is not the whole issue at hand. It just replaces an entire argument. Presently “profiling” is used as a sword, and it’s a popular one.

Naturally, to hear the progressives use the term everywhere is sort of ironic, considering their stance on issues. When it comes to many of their programs, profiling is not only involved it is often the direct intention. They are all for profiling when it comes to affirmative action. But all they ever do is bemoan the evils of profiling.

When someone captures a criminal based on a description that is a good thing, or so you would think. But if it is a white guy they’re after, I sort of doubt they screen or profile every black guy they can find.

Just for one example, then Senator Obama in Illinois actually called for profiling to deal with crime. He brought along the law enforcement community, at their resistance, to the idea. Probably one of the only things he did push by himself. So he called for profiling to deal with profiling. He wanted to document and keep records on race in law enforcement. Only Liberals can interpret more profiling as leading the fight against profiling.

So the problem is not profiling, as the libs suggest, it is about the way it is used. If used the right way, their way, like affirmative action, it is celebrated as noble. When used in law enforcement it is condemned.

Just like with language, there is one standard for blacks and one for whites. There are words whites cannot use regardless of circumstance, while blacks can freely use them and even encourage their use — even as a compliment — but are condemned if used by someone else. Similar rules apply for profiling.

Profiling, very bad and not acceptable say the progressive police. But the same ‘social police’ will rail against any attempt to deny affirmative action.

When a Supreme jurist steps down, they have to replace her with a woman or a Latina. Profile for the right replacement. And, having found the right one for the seat, anyone arguing against that is promptly branded a woman-hater or a racist bigot. The same people skewered Clarence Thomas and Judge Bork.(creating a new term) They borked Bork by labeling him a bigot. That’s how profiling works for the left, justifiably.

How many whites are in the black caucus? I think its still zero. Speaking of profiling, this administration seems to be big on profiling for radicals. Obama fit the profile nicely, as does Hillary now. And they are constantly profiling for any conservatives.

 
Here’s what the ACLU says:

“Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field.”

” Avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow. We need affirmative action now more than ever.”

So they want to use profiling — i.e. affirmative action — as a means of social justice, just not as a means of law enforcement. They see the former as very good and necessary; the latter as very bad and should be eliminated everywhere.

Majority of Americans Oppose Affirmative Action in College Admissions

    Overall, respondents favored affirmative action more generally, but college admissions should be based on merit

    A clear majority of Americans, 67 percent, are opposed to considering race and ethnicity in college admissions, instead saying that students should be admitted solely based on merit, according to a recent Gallup poll.

Yet don’t anyone even talk about touching it, according to the social police on the Left.

Clarence Thomas compared affirmative action to Jim Crow: (US News)

“Clarence Thomas suggested affirmative action was comparable to the Jim Crow segregation laws enacted in the American South in the 1880s and in place until the 1960s.”
/…
While the court did not strike down affirmative action at the university, it punted the case back to a lower court, saying the admissions policy needed to be more strictly scrutinized.”

In his opinion, Thomas said that the “worst forms” of racism have “always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”

“Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life,” he said. “Segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks.”

 
SCOTUS failed to address it head on only that the policy needs more strict scrutiny. Compare that to the public scrutiny profiling gets, at every opportunity to do so.

Leftists claim they want equality while they clearly want deliberate, conscious preferences made for college admissions. Does that make sense?

Profiler- in-Chief is against profiling

So all the hooplah over profiling is just great, if you are a minority, or fit one of the key demographics, or you’re just looking for a cause celeb to hang your hat on. But we know they’ve been profiling right along. And some of the biggest offenders are the very people who are against profiling.

4. A biographical essay presenting the subject’s most noteworthy characteristics and achievements.
5. A formal summary or analysis of data, often in the form of a graph or table, representing distinctive features or characteristics

Profiling has been very good for politics.

Obama sees everything through the eyes of race, ethnicity, union label, income status, etc. etc. And worse yet, he talks to people the same way, by stereotyping them by demographic and group. Look at his campaigns where he had a drop-down menu on his campaign site, Latinos or Hispanics, African Americans, immigrants and on and on. You name it. It was amazing. That is his way of organizing, which is largely credited with taking him to the White House.

So yes, if you are a profiler, you can make people swoon you into office. Just don’t call it profiling, call it…ah, “organizing”. Call it campaigning, even pandering – not “pofiling”.

In his book, he made no bones about seeking out Marxist professors — radicals as I call them. Now we have an administration chock full of radicals. Obama the profiler? You bet. How did Eric Holder, Chu, or Van Jones get their jobs? Profiler-in-Chief.

Even when Congress holds Holder in contempt, they call it racism and stage a walk out. They make a science of it.

Beyond that they even profile what laws to enforce and which not to. And don’t be surprised when it’s in ObamaCare too. He cuts breaks for his union buddies but throws Catholic institutions to the wolves. Notice he holds rallies and makes his speeches on college campuses. Or he goes to speak at Planned Parenthood’s convention. No profiling there.

His allies in the Democrat party are profilers. They literally make a living at it, it’s their bread and butter. It is what they do. Now they are offended by the idea of profiling. Profiling has been very good for them. How else can one pander so effectively? It’s a way of life for career politicians.

The very same people who have problems with voter ID laws are habitual profiling panderers.

In the illinois senate, Obama pushed a bill to profile. He actually claimed that profiling was the answer. Theirs has not been a “profile in courage”. Today, our profiling comes straight from the top. ‘Shhh, we don’t want anyone to profile.’

As far as I’m concerned, we could do a little more profiling of Congress. Maybe if we the people did a little better job profiling in elections, we wouldn’t be in the state we are in? So don’t be surprised any solutions they propose to profiling involve profiling.