SamSaid!

LONDON

     London has made headlines 2 days in a row. First, there was he big news that London had been awarded the Olympics of 2012  — besting Paris, France, whose Premier, Jacques Chirac had strongly insulted the British the day before. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

     But then came the ominous news that terrorists bombs had exoploded in the London subway/bus system  — killing over 30 civilians. Not a good sign. Many years ago in the heyday of the British Commonwealth, Britain opened the immigration doors to citizens of Commonwealth nations, and many people from all over the world found their way to London and other English cities. Over time,  Britain, which had been a very homogenous country  — white, Christian, one language, one culture, one set of values  — suddenly became multi racial, multi cultural, multi lingual, multi religious, etc etc, reflecting the influx people with  non-British heritage. Now, there is a sizeble element of Muslims in Britain  — just as there is in France.

     Britain is not a police state, and the Londom Muslims can use their “freedom” to pursue their nefarious activities without a lot of legal interference. Very activist Muslim mosques now operate  — in full view. The Olympics will test the administrative competence of the British to handle the tourism, the competition, and security of both citizens and guests. The bombings on 7/7 should be of great concern to a country that prides itself on being “civilized”. 

     In our country, the left wingers are abolutely aghast at the thought of “profiling” middle east muslims. Why on earth should we seek or be alert to middle east muslims who meet the profile of suicide bombers and airplane hi-jackers? Should we profile them just because they are blowing up people?? After all, shouldn't we be on the look-out for those little old Swedish grandmothers with knitting needles??  The British are civilized, but not blindly so. Something tells me that they will not hesitate to keep a sharp eye on those who are the likely suspects.

     Over there, it is just common sense, not indiscriminate profiling. 

MORE ON SANDRA

     The reputation of being the “swing” vote is well earned. I visualize Sandra Day O'connor standing on the 50 yard line  –  occasionally drifting over to the Liberal 40 yard line, and then straying back over to the Conservative 40 yard line. Not too many cases of planting her feet on hard rock principle. She obviously agonized over the abortion issue and looked for ways to finesse it. And on affirmative action, she cleverly (?) rationalized that Affirmative Action (i.e., quotas) was no good in the Michigan law school, but was OK in the undergraduate school. I still can't figure out whether that qualifies as solving a problem, or just evading or postponing it.

     I'll always remember her comment that the US will have to live with race-based affirmative action for the next 25 years. I'd feel a lot better if she had started the count in 1975. But all in all, a classy lady.