"Controversy sells"

July 15, 2005 5:00 AM

Houston rapper fired as baggage screener. It wasn't your standard old "f*ck tha police" rap, and management evidently felt it conflicted with the intent of his job: "Once we discovered these Web sites, we fired him." Trust the art and not the artist?
posted by alumshubby (137 comments total)

When management starts firing people who participate on white supremacy, violent Christian and militia sites, then I'll believe this firing is about national security and dealing with legitimate terrorism — even putting aside whether the firing decision is right or not on that basis. Until that time, this is just more Islamophobia from the top down, and deserves criticism on that basis.
posted by Rothko at 5:10 AM on July 15, 2005

"Controversy sells," Khalaf said. "It brings a lot of attention. Everybody wants to label all Arabic terrorists just because a couple of people messed up. Well, I'm going to play along with that character. I'm going to let you think I'm one."

Okay.

I'm all for keeping work and private lives separate, essentially compartmentalized from one another; though I would think Mr. Khalaf's employer, the George Bush Intercontinental Airport, has an interest in terminating his employment, considering Mr. Khalaf chooses to let people think he is a terrorist.

I would have suggested he go the route of rappers such Common, Outkast or Mos Def, rather than Eminem. Stay rather innocuous, until you get famous. Then you can act like an asshole.

Though a genuine rapper of Middle-Eastern descent who rhymes about Middle-Eastern ethnic identity and the potential hardships such identity could present after so many years of escalating Islamic extremist violence, would be refreshing. So refreshing. That doesn't sound like the Arabic Assassin.

On preview, I tend to agree with Rothko, Islamophobia is unfortunate indeed.

Here's a link to some Arabic assassin MP3s.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 5:20 AM on July 15, 2005

I don't know about other instances, but I think in this case they did right to cover themselves by not letting this guy work with them. What would the reaction have been if some reporter had 'discovered' this rapper working where he does? They don't let ex-cons work with children, so why let people who are or pretend to be extremist work in airports?
posted by Acey at 5:23 AM on July 15, 2005

When Bassam Khalaf raps, he's the Arabic Assassin. His unreleased CD, "Terror Alert," includes rhymes about flying a plane into a building and descriptions of himself as a "crazy, suicidal Arabic ... equipped with bombs."

Rothko here's a thought: Tell the TSA that you are a "crazy, suicidal Christian... equipped with bombs" the next time you go through airport security - or apply for a job with the TSA - you know, just as a joke, and I am sure you will be treated in exactly the same manner as any brown-skinned person who says the same thing.

Even if Khalaf is not a real Arabic Assassin, he demonstrates incredibly bad judgement for a baggage screener. Taking him away from the X-ray screen seems like a prudent thing to do. Or will phobia against dipshits be the next victim of politically correctness.
posted by three blind mice at 5:31 AM on July 15, 2005

George Bush Intercontinental Airport

1. wtf
2. ive never heard of an intercontinental airport
3. wtf
posted by tsarfan at 5:32 AM on July 15, 2005

politically

*still blaming lingering hangover*
posted by three blind mice at 5:33 AM on July 15, 2005

It's misconstruing to suggest this is Islamophobia. Arabophobia? Maybe. He's got an American accent just by the by.
There's an interview with him under news at the website. He's just a publicity whore. This probably helps him if anything.
There's mention of him being in the 2 year probabation period so likely they had the right to dismiss him (guessing here).

That said, whilst free speech is an issue, I imagine there's some good arguments to raise, were he to sue for wrongful dismissal or whatever, that his identifying himself with actual assassins is likely to cause some people to not want to fly. So his sideline activities can be seen as some sort of hindrance of the airline trade perhaps.
posted by peacay at 5:35 AM on July 15, 2005

Let the ACLU countdown begin. I don't necessarily agree with his chosen hobby or methods but by detailing haven't they violated his rights? Free speech? The signed employment agreement better be clear on this. Should have let him go with a terse, 'your services are no longer needed'. Doesn't an explanation open this to litigation?

Wouldn't Arabian Assassin be a better name?
posted by geekyguy at 5:38 AM on July 15, 2005

Tell the TSA that you are a "crazy, suicidal Christian... equipped with bombs" the next time you go through airport security - or apply for a job with the TSA - you know, just as a joke, and I am sure you will be treated in exactly the same manner as any brown-skinned person who says the same thing.

You are aware that most lyrics in hip hop are pure hyperbole, right?

Here's a thought: this isn't about political correctness. It's about not applying a company policy in a consistent matter.

What you do in your free time is your own damn affair and nothing to do with your employer. And even if it is, then if so, the employer had better check the habits of all its employees, and not just those who are black Muslims with rapper monikers.

In other words, to say there isn't a pattern about how Muslims fare under public and private security is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. The only difference here was that the victim was an employee instead of a customer.
posted by Rothko at 5:55 AM on July 15, 2005

tsarfan: In Texas, international airports are a dime a dozen, considering that it is within turboprop range of another country. So they wanted people to know that IAH has flights that go really far away.

Ahhh, airport pissing contests.
posted by grouse at 5:56 AM on July 15, 2005

"pointed to other rappers who have rhymed about terrorism. He specifically cites Eminem"

Yeah, and I bet they would fire Eminem too.
posted by boymilo at 5:57 AM on July 15, 2005

He was on local (Houston) radio last night. One, he claims he's Christian not Muslim, he just plays one on tv. Two, he sure is fond of "You know what I'm sayin'?"

For what it's worth, Texas is a right to work state, which means employees can be fired at will unless the firing is in relation to a federally protected class such as gender, race, etc.
posted by beowulf573 at 5:57 AM on July 15, 2005

2. ive never heard of an intercontinental airport - I'd like to think someone chose that name on purpose
posted by Lanark at 6:13 AM on July 15, 2005

This is definitely de facto rightlessness, since economically speaking, it doesn't matter if you can be free if you will also be broke and shiftless. Although I guess Kerouac has already been there.
posted by nervousfritz at 6:18 AM on July 15, 2005

Rothko,
you are a prime example of PC run amok. Are you out of your mind? Do you really think it is, what did you call it, "Islamaphobia"? This company finds out that ANYONE is saying in their free time that they are going to blow up planes, I think they have every right to fire that person, regardless of their ethnic heritage. I wouldn't want this guy or Eminem working for the TSA.
It's because of this stupid PC culture that we live in that I seethe every time I have to go through security. When I fly with my family, my children have to take off their shoes. My four year old, very blond child was pulled over on a random check. He is not a national security threat. This is insanity all in the name of not "racial profiling."
posted by davenportmom at 6:23 AM on July 15, 2005

His flow is good, but his lyrics are retarded. He blames the Jews for his lack of airplay, and his best line is, "I cam from sand, a one-man band, affiliated with the Taliban."
It's dicey. The TSA is a federal employer, so it has to abide by regulations that private businesses don't (like, at a private business, you can be fired just for having a blog). I'd like people not to be fired for their off-work activities, but I can see why George Bush Incontinental would get jumpy. No one wants to be the guy in charge if someone who openly purports to endorse terrorists actually aids terrorists, y'know?
posted by klangklangston at 6:24 AM on July 15, 2005

I remember hearing "Houston Intercontinental Airport" referred to as far back as the mid-1970s; I wasn't aware they renamed it.

This firing reminds me of a White House press conference of yore:

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.
posted by alumshubby at 6:26 AM on July 15, 2005

Davenportmom: It's not "political correctness" that you should blame. It's ineptness. And what, you're saying that Arabs are a threat? But don't let me get in the way of a good right-wing knee jerk.
posted by klangklangston at 6:26 AM on July 15, 2005

"They don't let ex-cons work with children, so why let people who are or pretend to be extremist work in airports?"

Maybe because he is a pretend extremist? Honestly, you don't see the difference between an actual criminal and someone who acts like a criminal in a work of art?
posted by oddman at 6:37 AM on July 15, 2005

Here's a thought: this isn't about political correctness. It's about not applying a company policy in a consistent matter.

Dude, do you have any evidence to support this claim? Who's to say that a bunch of violent Christian and militia website participants haven't gotten canned? Maybe the journalists just decided to write a story on this particular guy because (1) he's publicized his story and (2) Arabs make for good press right now.

I would have fired this guy too. If you're publicly writing those sorts of thoughts, whether it's in the name of art or not, you've got no business working in a security position.
posted by Galvatron at 6:38 AM on July 15, 2005

Um.

Anyone else here think that this guy is just an idiot?

If I worked at a fast food restaurant and rapped in my spare time (and posted the results on a website) about poisoning the burgers, shoving customers into the fry vat and putting severed fingers in the chili ... I'd expect to get fired.

If I was a beat cop who rapped in my spare time (and posted the results on a website) about knocking off liquor stores, mugging pensioners and blowing up a police station ... I'd expect to get fired.
posted by grabbingsand at 6:39 AM on July 15, 2005

"Controversy sells," Khalaf said. "It brings a lot of attention. Everybody wants to label all Arabics terrorists just because a couple of people messed up. Well, I'm going to play along with that character. I'm going to let you think I'm one."

Ok! Welcome to the unemployment rolls. Enjoy your character acting!
posted by dsquid at 6:53 AM on July 15, 2005

klang,
I don't think Arabs are a threat. I think a PERSON posting rap songs, art, thoughts, rants anything about about blowing up America is a threat.
posted by davenportmom at 6:55 AM on July 15, 2005

My four year old, very blond child was pulled over on a random check. He is not a national security threat. This is insanity all in the name of not "racial profiling."

Don't you think that children would be a great way to hide weapons or explosives? I always do, and I'm sure security would as well. I don't see anything wrong with treating EVERYONE equally in security lines. If one person gets picked for more screening, then who cares if it's a four year old or a 104 year old? I'd rather it be that way then security only targeting brown people and having it be the crazy white guy who blows up the plane.
posted by agregoli at 7:00 AM on July 15, 2005

said Khalaf, (...) his rhymes are exaggerations meant to gain publicity.

Hey, it worked!
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:05 AM on July 15, 2005

davenportmom writes "My four year old, very blond child was pulled over on a random check. He is not a national security threat."

So your saying we should open a loop hole that encourages terrorists to kidnap kids and strap bombs to them?

oddman writes "Maybe because he is a pretend extremist? Honestly, you don't see the difference between an actual criminal and someone who acts like a criminal in a work of art?"

But how can we tell that he isn't an actual terrorist pretending to be a terrorist? When might this guy decide that pretending isn't getting him enough street cred and instead he should actively take part? Been quite a few rappers embrace the criminal lifestyle they started out emulating.
posted by Mitheral at 7:06 AM on July 15, 2005

Davenportmom: It's not "political correctness" that you should blame. It's ineptness. And what, you're saying that Arabs are a threat? But don't let me get in the way of a good right-wing knee jerk.

klangklangston I guess anyone who doesn't agree with you is a right-wing wacko. Orthodoxy of thought on the left is as unappealing and moronic as the orthodoxy of thought on the right. It also makes claims about "tolerance" coming from the left appear hollow.

I agree with Davenportmom. She's not saying Arabs are a threat. She is saying four years olds are NOT and making a four year old take off her shoes to mollify absurd concerns about racial profiling is political correctness run amok.

14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, the four London bombers were British born Pakistanis. I'm not making this stuff up. It is not bigotry that leads me to this conclusion. So far, to my knowledge, no blond haired four year olds have blown themselves up in the name of Allah.

Although I voted for Kerry (to get rid of Bush) the fear of left wing nutters taking over the government and imposing their own brand of foolishness of us all doesn't seem any more appealing.
posted by three blind mice at 7:17 AM on July 15, 2005

the main things they should be asking in my opinion
* is he a citizen?
* is he guilty of any crime?
posted by nervousfritz at 7:25 AM on July 15, 2005

the four London bombers were British born Pakistanis

Except for the one who was Jamaican, yes, you're absolutely right.
posted by flashboy at 7:48 AM on July 15, 2005

What Devil's Rancher said. I'm surprised it took anyone that long to see that it's a ploy to get attention, and it paid off. That's the whole MO behind gangsta rap, anyway.
posted by fungible at 8:05 AM on July 15, 2005

Mitheral, are you kidding? Yes a few musicians (let's not pretend that it's only rappers) have turned to a life of crime, and so have a few football players, and a few actors, some teachers, a handful of postal clerks, the occasional clergyman (of many denominations/religions), the odd housewife, quite a few heads of state/commerce, etc. . In short, every single walk of life has given birth to people who became criminals. So, let's just assume that everyone who might become a criminal (not just a terrorist, be fair) is in fact going to become one and punish them right now.

That seems to be the natural conclusion to your reasoning.


On preview:
TBM, so blonde four year olds shouldn't be screened but Muslims should be? What about blond fair-skinned Muslims? Oh an suggesting that entire group of people be treated differently because of something one (or even a few) of their members did is, in fact, bigotry.
posted by oddman at 8:06 AM on July 15, 2005

I am not in favor of an employer scrutinizing someone's free time activities or hobbies. Ever.

If I am engaged in criminal activities on my free time, then I will be arrested, and my employment will no longer be a problem. It is not my employer's responsibility.

Would those of you favoring his dismissal been in favor of it regardless of the topics of his raps? What if instead of rapping about being a terrorist, he rapped about some other criminal but non-terrorist related activity? Would that be okay?

What if he rapped about beating his wife? What if he rapped about forging checks?

Neither of those have anything to do with being a baggage handler. Would those have been "ok" for him to rap about and still be trusted to handle your suitcase?

This is no different than the "guy was fired for writing in his blog" that usually gets a pretty friendly reception on MeFi.

I guess even some of those in favor of civil liberties are still afraid of "terrah".
posted by Ynoxas at 8:11 AM on July 15, 2005

making a four year old take off her shoes to mollify absurd concerns about racial profiling is political correctness run amok

No, it's how mixed-strategy Nash equilibria work.

Searching only swarthy Muslim-looking men is equivalent to always running a blitz in football: your predictability makes you vulnerable. In the long-run, with goal-oriented terrorist leaders vying against goal-oriented security people, both sides do things probabilistically, introducing controlled amounts of randomness into their behavior in order to keep from being too predictable. It's finding the "right" probabilities that's the hard part.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:26 AM on July 15, 2005

If you were a systems analyst working for a large corporation and also known to maintain a web site containing tips and tricks on how to crack into secure systems, you'd be out on your ass too.

The guy's a freakin' dumbass. If you work for the TSA, an agency not exactly known to have a sense of humor, you don't put songs out there that speak of flying planes into buildings...
posted by clevershark at 8:31 AM on July 15, 2005

Yes, four year olds are not a threat.

Until they are.

Keep in mind "shoe-bomb" is a new addition to the terror-lexicon. Remember when shoes were just shoes?
posted by hellbient at 8:34 AM on July 15, 2005

What if he rapped about beating his wife? What if he rapped about forging checks?

If he worked as a counselor at an abused woman's center and rapped enthusiastically about beating his wife, yeah, I can see his employment being in a little jeopardy. And I think, if you're honest, you can probably see that too.
posted by flashboy at 8:39 AM on July 15, 2005

My four year old, very blond child was pulled over on a random check. He is not a national security threat. This is insanity all in the name of not "racial profiling."

They actually do profile, though they do a certain amount of random search as well.

This is too bad, of course — it will never be as effective as 100% random searching.
posted by rafter at 8:39 AM on July 15, 2005

What you do in your free time is your own damn affair and nothing to do with your employer.
posted by Rothko at 8:55 AM EST

I am not in favor of an employer scrutinizing someone's free time activities or hobbies. Ever.

If I am engaged in criminal activities on my free time, then I will be arrested, and my employment will no longer be a problem. It is not my employer's responsibility.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:11 AM EST

I'm all for free speech, but I also think that one should be held accountable for one's words. In this case, I have no problem with him:

a) being questioned by the government
b) being placed on a "watch list" by the government
c) being fired by his employer

I would only object if he were being criminally prosecuted for his lyrics.

I think his employer has every right to fire him in the same way an elementary school should fire someone who sang about the joys of pedophilia or a woman's shelter should fire someone who wrote poetry about the pleasure of rape or a fire department who should fire an employee who blogged about the thrill of pyromania.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:40 AM on July 15, 2005

Anyone else here think that this guy is just an idiot? Yes, I do, and I'd fire this idiot in a second. Just for the record, people can be fired for coming to work in filthy clothes, insulting coworkers, wearing obscene lapel buttons, and other obscure infringements. Writing and singing songs that celebrate the very terrorists that he's been hired to foil is certainly grounds for dismissal. Similarly, if you were going through airport security and you started chanting terrorist slogans, you'd be pulled aside. The Federal gov't isn't obliged to keep every idiot out there on its payroll.
posted by QuietDesperation at 8:42 AM on July 15, 2005

Oh an suggesting that entire group of people be treated differently because of something one (or even a few) of their members did is, in fact, bigotry.

oddman really? And what is strip searching blue haired old ladies, or four year olds, just to avoid the appearance of racial profiling? I call it political correctness run amok.

ROU_Xenophobe no problem with that and your point is very well taken. If random searching is done for statistical reasons, fine. There is a scientific basis for it. What I object to is politically driven silliness that has no basis in fact. My understanding is that politcal correctness rather than Nash equilibra is what is driving events within the TSA.
posted by three blind mice at 8:45 AM on July 15, 2005

the four London bombers were British born Pakistanis British, born in Britain of Pakistani descent.

My four year old, very blond child was pulled over on a random check. He is not a national security threat.

That's what's called presumption of white privilege. First, not all Muslims are brown; some are pale-skinned, and even blond. Second, as has been mentioned above, when some people, even little kids, get a pass at security checkpoints, they become more likely to be used to carry bombs onto planes. Profiling creates loopholes, and those loopholes can be exploited. Third, being white and/or Christian does not exempt you from being regarded as a potential security risk. Timothy McVeigh, William Krar, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, Lucas Helder, and so on, and so forth. It's not PC, it's just good sense. See also this AskMe thread.

On preview: I see a lot of people have already said it all.

Oh, and I have no problem with that guy getting fired.
posted by skoosh at 8:49 AM on July 15, 2005

"I've been screening your bags for the past six months, and you don't even know it," said Khalaf, who also said Thursday that he is not really a terrorist and that his rhymes are exaggerations meant to gain publicity.

Please, he brought his work into his 'art'. It dosn't even sound like he was too suprised about being fired ("oops, they found my website"). This guy is an american born christian trying to cash in on his ethnicity, not some poor oppressed terrorist.


When I fly with my family, my children have to take off their shoes. My four year old, very blond child was pulled over on a random check.

God forbid the blond people should be inconvienced. I totaly agree, it's your right as a person born with white skin not to have to put up with various inconviences. Nevermind that there are plenty of white Al-Queada types in Chechneya and Kosovo, or that terrorists would have no qualms packing bombs on little kids if they thought they'd get through security. That dosn't matter, the principle of white privalage is at stake here, people

In summary, fuck you.

I agree with Davenportmom. She's not saying Arabs are a threat. She is saying four years olds are NOT and making a four year old take off her shoes to mollify absurd concerns about racial profiling is political correctness run amok.

If we never checked 4 year olds, the terrorsts would have a 100% effective way to get bombs on to airplanes, idiots.

the main things they should be asking in my opinion
* is he a citizen?
* is he guilty of any crime?

He was born in Huston.
posted by delmoi at 8:52 AM on July 15, 2005

how is an album any different from a play? would you make someone playing Humbert Humbert register as a sex offender?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:04 AM on July 15, 2005

This is insanity all in the name of not "racial profiling."

Writing as someone who has done all of my post-11 sept travelling with my other half, a young muslim guy, if you think they aren't racially profiling at airports you're the one who's insane.

But firing this guy seemed like the right move to me. Apart from the fact that it's prudent in the PR sense, who the hell wants such an immature, self-centred ass on their team at work?
posted by jamesonandwater at 9:05 AM on July 15, 2005

This "white privilege" nonsense is a shrill strawman.

The question is not whether everyone should be checked and inconvenienced. Apparently we have already decided they should. We are checking little white kids, asians, mexicans, etc.

The question is whether specific groups should have added scrutiny. Logic and evidence shows that there is currently a strong correlation between incidences of terror and Arab/Muslim descent. It is completely irrational and unthinking to suggest that we ought to ignore this fact. Profiling is essential to crime prevention. And profiling encompasses everything, including race.


Does it mean that all Arabs or Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. And no one says this so it shouldn't be brought up as if it is an argument.

Does it mean that non-Arabs can't be a danger? Of course not. And no one says this so it shouldn't be brought up as if it is an argument.

But we do know there is a strong statistical likelihood that if an act of terror is going to occur on a plane, it will be done by a a male in a certain age range of Arab/Muslim descent. So, if we want to prevent it, we should screen everyone, but give extra scrutiny to the people from whose class terrorists are most likely to come. Does that suck for male Arab Muslims in that age range? Yes it does. I feel bad for them. Would that it were not the case. But it would be criminal stupidity to ignore the reality of the situation and not put extra scrutiny on people in that class from whom terrorists are most likely to come. Reason ought to overcome faux righteous indignation and vacant-headed political correctness on this matter.
posted by dios at 9:09 AM on July 15, 2005

So, does this set a precedent for ones employment being dependent on the content of off-hours free speech?

What happens when my boss fires me for my opinions, not my job performance or eligibility?

Is there any evidence that this guy let dangerous baggage pass through the checkpoints? Does he misbehave on the job? Does he even know any violent extremists? If he's still doing duties, then he got fired for his words. Words that he spoke on his own time.

Even though we might find his lyrics to be tasteless, stupid, inflammatory, or gratuitous, it's none of our business. Really. It's his life, his time, and his message.

Since when do rap lyrics constitute conspiracy or intent?


Just for the record, people can be fired for coming to work in filthy clothes, insulting coworkers, wearing obscene lapel buttons, and other obscure infringements.
Yes. That's because those are things that you do at work.

Writing and singing songs...
No. That's their own business, as long as they're not bringing it to their job with them.
It's not the same, QuietDesperation, your argument is making employment eligibility related to private activity.

Please, he brought his work into his 'art'
Sure. He gets to do that. But did he bring his art into his work? Did he behave in a way consistant with his lyrics while he was working? If not, then there's no reason to fire him.

This is like firing a teacher for being gay because some parents are operating under the delusion that all gay people molest children.


So what now? Do we fire people like this because "they might not be guilty of anything but if they do something illegal, it'll be too late!" Are you kidding? Your speech is protected. Period. You're innocent until proven guilty. Period. You might be comfortable sacrificing your rights for some security. I'm happier with my rights intact, personally. My rights are security.
posted by Jon-o at 9:18 AM on July 15, 2005

Delmoi is right. Profiling isn't just a justice-safety tradeoff. It's a justice-safety-money tradeoff. If we need to do more screening of certain people we could screen everybody more. That would have significant costs, but it's not impossible. So when we don't do it we're saying that those costs are too high to pay for racial equality. The time has come and gone for the costs of policy to fall unfairly on certain people with the explanation that we "feel bad for them." Those words are incredibly hollow, especially coming from people who can rest assured that they will never find themselves on the other side of the equation. (This is not addressed to dios, whom I know nothing about.)

When I hear people complain about their blond selves or their peer's blond selves being inconvenienced I think: would you accept this cost if it were only for the goal of attaining racial fairness?
posted by Wood at 9:24 AM on July 15, 2005

If random searching is done for statistical reasons, fine. There is a scientific basis for it. What I object to is politically driven silliness that has no basis in fact. My understanding is that politcal correctness rather than Nash equilibra is what is driving events within the TSA.

Your "understanding"? Where could this "understanding" possibly come from?
posted by delmoi at 9:26 AM on July 15, 2005

Threeblindmice, Davenportmom: "I guess anyone who doesn't agree with you is a right-wing wacko. Orthodoxy of thought on the left is as unappealing and moronic as the orthodoxy of thought on the right. It also makes claims about "tolerance" coming from the left appear hollow."
No, anyone who argues that searching Arabs and not their Aryans is an idiot. That they run congruent with right wing foolishness is coincidence, though right wing foolishness is a good predictor for being an idiot.
Political correctness? Wait, what's wrong with scrutinizing everyone equally? Including your drug mule child? This isn't "liberal orthodoxy," it's (as others have pointed out) common fucking sense.
" klang,
I don't think Arabs are a threat. I think a PERSON posting rap songs, art, thoughts, rants anything about about blowing up America is a threat."
Then you're an idiot. Sorry. You've lost the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and are intentionally abandoning your responsibility to defend others' rights (even to things you don't agree with) for the benefit of an illusion of safety.
You'll note that I didn't say that I was against this guy getting fired, but I sure as hell don't think that he was a threat. You do, and that means that your calibrations are way the fuck off.
posted by klangklangston at 9:29 AM on July 15, 2005

The question is whether specific groups should have added scrutiny. Logic and evidence shows that there is currently a strong correlation between incidences of terror and Arab/Muslim descent. It is completely irrational and unthinking to suggest that we ought to ignore this fact. Profiling is essential to crime prevention. And profiling encompasses everything, including race.

Dios: putting "extra" security on a certain group is the same thing, mathematically as taking away security from the larger group. Every time you deviate from 100% random security, you increase the probability that terrorists will be successful if they use members from non-scrutinized groups. A Chechnian with a fake ID wouldn't be that hard for Al-Quaeda to come by.
posted by delmoi at 9:30 AM on July 15, 2005

Jon-o: Your speech is protected. Period. You're innocent until proven guilty. Period. You might be comfortable sacrificing your rights for some security. I'm happier with my rights intact, personally.

Eh? This guy has free speech. And to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't been accused of any crime here. But the day employment becomes a right is the day we've abandoned capitalism.
posted by Galvatron at 9:35 AM on July 15, 2005

But we do know there is a strong statistical likelihood that if an act of terror is going to occur on a plane, it will be done by a a male in a certain age range of Arab/Muslim descent.

No, we don't know that at all, if the terrorist chose their attackers randomly from the available pool of willing candidates, that would be true. But why would the terrorist do that? There's no reason to at all. As long as they have at least one white guy (like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber) willing to die for the cause, there is actually a higher probability of attack from a non-Arab, if they are profiled differently.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 AM on July 15, 2005

Just to back up Delmoi: That's because we're operating within a zero-sum equation. Scrutiny of any one passenger necessarily lessens it on another. While I'd argue that we shouldn't embrace a dogma of randomness to the exclusion of noting the guy with the one-way ticket wearing a parachute, ethnic profiling is pretty wasteful and inefficient, especially noting how few Arabs are terrorists out of the greater population.
(And how by focusing on them, we could let Chechen terrorists through).
posted by klangklangston at 9:36 AM on July 15, 2005

Galvatron: People have a right not to be fired arbitrarily. You must have missed all of the labor law from, oh, the '20s on...
posted by klangklangston at 9:38 AM on July 15, 2005

If this guy hadn't been fired, and then blew something up, all the people saying he shouldn't have been fired would be tearing the TSA a new one with, "They let a guy with a web site about blowing shit up work as a baggage handler while making me wait 3 hours in security!" or some equally asinine thing.

The idiot deserved to be fired regardless of his race/beliefs. You work in airport you don't rap/joke/sing/pretend/act/fart about blowing shit up.
posted by dobbs at 9:41 AM on July 15, 2005

When management starts firing people who participate on white supremacy, violent Christian and militia sites, then I'll believe this firing is about national security and dealing with legitimate terrorism — even putting aside whether the firing decision is right or not on that basis. Until that time, this is just more Islamophobia from the top down, and deserves criticism on that basis.

Comedy gold.

I was wondering when the limp red herring about Christian militia groups hey wtf you forgot to mention Tim McVeigh! would come up, though I didn't expect it to be the first comment.

The guy got what he asked for: notoriety via tedious, macho, violence-glorifying persona. Losing his job just helps with his 'cred' so he should be thanking his employers if anything. Mission accomplished. He's still a choad, but no one's blaming his choadness on Islam — that's a flimsy pretext to sound 'fair' and contrary, and it doesn't sound like anyone's fooled, Rothko. Any Oklahoma civic employee with a personal website glorifying Tim McVeigh would be canned immediately and you know it.

If the public & the media could agree to completely ignore poseur-gangta douchebags and poseur-terrorist douchebag rappers alike, the world—and the music industry—would be a much better place.
posted by dhoyt at 9:42 AM on July 15, 2005

If this guy hadn't been fired, and then blew something up, all the people saying he shouldn't have been fired would be tearing the TSA a new one with,

Exactly. And there'd be an FPP saying

"OMG BushCo isn't protecting us sufficiently, they're letting terrorists operate out in the wide open, they're ignoring domestic terrorism!"

Etc.
posted by dhoyt at 9:45 AM on July 15, 2005

Thank you dios. I am always glad when someone else (smarter than I) finds a more accurate and more eloquent way of saying what my stumbing attempts at posting fail to convey.

Your "understanding"? Where could this "understanding" possibly come from?

delmoi Obviously from my self-righteous sense of white privilege.

Thank you PC police for reminding me that the left can be as obnoxious and as far removed from rational thought as the right.
posted by three blind mice at 9:45 AM on July 15, 2005

Using added scrutiny to a particular person means we are showing less scrutiny for everyone else? Wow.

That's tortured logic. We have a base line of things that we can reasonably do regarding security. In some instances, it may be feasible to go beyond that. But there is a reasonable limit that we can't give everyone the maximum amount of scrutiny possible. It is not possible to do that.

The question then becomes whether you don't give anyone added scrutiny or you do based on logical factors. Apparently, you would choose no added scrutiny instead of one that might factor in race. Your are sacrificing reasonableness and logic for some sort of forced equality of conditions.

Look, apparently you have decided that everyone has to be treated exactly the same always, in every instance and in every manner, or else something isn't fair or right or whatever you call it. That is utterly unworkable and a completely naive view.

If I can tell you with 100% certainty that in the next month a 20 something Arab male will board a plane and blow it up, is it your position that every 20 something Arab male shouldn't be given as much scrutiny as possible?
posted by dios at 9:46 AM on July 15, 2005

But we do know there is a strong statistical likelihood that if an act of terror is going to occur on a plane, it will be done by a a male in a certain age range of Arab/Muslim descent.

No, we don't know that at all
posted by delmoi at 9:35 AM PST on July 15

Now you are just plainly denying reality.
posted by dios at 9:48 AM on July 15, 2005

Dios: Yeah, but you can't tell us that. And by not being able to predict the race, emphasizing race becomes a waste of time and money.
I know, I know, you Texans want to listen to Ray Stevens and round up Ahab, but that doesn't make us any safer. It just makes us dicks.
posted by klangklangston at 9:51 AM on July 15, 2005

Dios: Denying reality? What was the race of the last person to try a terrorist attack on a Western plane? What was the race of the shoe bomber?
Don't let the reality-based community harsh your buzz, Dios.
posted by klangklangston at 9:54 AM on July 15, 2005

klangklangston: "People have a right not to be fired arbitrarily."

Hey, would ya come on over and talk to my "at will" employer about that? They can fire me, and they don't even have to give me a REASON.
posted by boymilo at 9:57 AM on July 15, 2005

Dios: Yeah, but you can't tell us that. And by not being able to predict the race, emphasizing race becomes a waste of time and money.

Ok, so if I can guarantee it, you would do it. Of course I can't. I can't guarantee it is not going to happen either. So somewhere in between we see a tipping point from where such a scenario moves from likely to unlikely. Recent history suggests that if it is going to happen, it is more likely than not that it will be a person from an identifiable group. So to ignore that is irrational.

I know, I know, you Texans want to listen to Ray Stevens and round up Ahab... Don't let the reality-based community harsh your buzz, Dios.

That is just pathetic ad hominem crap. Try to rise above that if you want to engage in a discussion.


Dios: Denying reality? What was the race of the last person to try a terrorist attack on a Western plane? What was the race of the shoe bomber?

Oh, come on. Do you really want to get in a statistical argument over this? Are you so fatuous to try to argue that the numbers aren't overwhelmingly in my favor on this?
posted by dios at 9:59 AM on July 15, 2005

Boymilo: Bet you signed a contract that said you're "At Will." Though I will say that some states have much better protection on this than others do. The law can't stop you from giving up your rights for cash.
posted by klangklangston at 10:00 AM on July 15, 2005

oddman writes "Mitheral, are you kidding? Yes a few musicians (let's not pretend that it's only rappers) have turned to a life of crime, and so have a few football players, and a few actors, some teachers, a handful of postal clerks, the occasional clergyman (of many denominations/religions), the odd housewife, quite a few heads of state/commerce, etc. . In short, every single walk of life has given birth to people who became criminals. So, let's just assume that everyone who might become a criminal (not just a terrorist, be fair) is in fact going to become one and punish them right now."

Of course criminals are spread across society. What I was saying is that rappers popular with some groups seem to have made the transition from singing about killing people to actually killing people. And sometimes the transition was for crass commercial and/or community status gain. When some clerk goes postal his job hasn't been advocating violence and he doesn't realise an increase in pay. If my stock broker starts a band that advocates pure communism I'm going to take my money to someone else even if he's "just pretending to be advocating the nationalisation of all production". I know I'm not explaining this very well, if you can't see what I'm saying we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ynoxas writes "Would those of you favoring his dismissal been in favor of it regardless of the topics of his raps? What if instead of rapping about being a terrorist, he rapped about some other criminal but non-terrorist related activity? Would that be okay?"

What others have said. If he was rapping about robbing a bank or heck even murdering people I'd have a problem with him being let go (though not much, he is in a security role after all). However anyone rapping/singing/writing poetry about bring their employer down isn't garner much sympathy from me when they get kicked to the curb.

dios writes "But we do know there is a strong statistical likelihood that if an act of terror is going to occur on a plane, it will be done by a a male in a certain age range of Arab/Muslim descent"

Actually I'd argue this isn't the case. One of the problems with the US's wild over reaction is that the next Al Queda target is unlikely to be airplanes. As we saw in London they'll choose a different weakness to attack. The US is making a classic mistake of fighting the last war not the future war. I'd say it would be dang near impossible for a terrorist of any type to successfully hijack a US domestic flight, and that ain't because the TSA is seizing nail clippers.
posted by Mitheral at 10:00 AM on July 15, 2005

Boymilo: Bet you signed a contract that said you're "At Will." Though I will say that some states have much better protection on this than others do. The law can't stop you from giving up your rights for cash.

Right, but if you live in an "At will" state, it's either sign or not have a job.
posted by agregoli at 10:03 AM on July 15, 2005

dios writes "If I can tell you with 100% certainty that in the next month a 20 something Arab male will board a plane and blow it up,"

That's a pretty big IF. Are you saying a 20 something Arab male will board a plane and blow it up in the next month or aren't you. Cause if you ain't your point is moo[1] and if you are exactly how did you come by this presentient information? Tea leaves? The ghost in your closet? God?

[1] A cows opinion, it doesn't matter.
posted by Mitheral at 10:07 AM on July 15, 2005

Boymilo: Bet you signed a contract that said you're "At Will."
posted by klangklangston at 10:00 AM PST on July 15
A contract? I've worked in an at will state my whole life. I have never signed an employment contract. That's kind of the point: you don't have them in at will states.

You get a job offer ("You want to work here?"), you take it ("yes"), you start to work, and they can fire you or you can quit at any time from the very first day or 50 years later. There aren't employment contracts.
posted by dios at 10:08 AM on July 15, 2005

klangklangston: Yeah, I'm sure I signed something that said "I have read the employee handbook and agree to the conditions therein."
When I found a good job in a tough market, I guess I did "sign away my rights for cash," but damn, that really makes me sound cheap.

"The law can't stop you from giving up your rights for cash."

What if I were to accept a job for below minimum wage? If secure employment is my "right", shouldn't the government step in when an employer attempts to circumvent that right?
posted by boymilo at 10:19 AM on July 15, 2005

three blind mice et al:

The vitriol's been kind of surprising here, given that it started out about a not-so-smart guy who turned out to have one hell of a head for P.R. (and probably did not have airport security in his long term life goals anyway), and there has been far too much throwing around of "idiot" and "fuck you" and whatnot, but there have also been a fair number of posts here arguing that a) there are better methods to security than racial profiling, and b) there is racial profiling already anyway.

I'd also add that this unwillingness to submit to some extra searching just because you and yours are *clearly not going to blow anyone up* fits in to an odd pattern of the current Wartime America being somewhat reluctant to sacrifice. No matter which side of the war issue they're on. We were attacked. People are clamoring for security. This is America. We will let Arabs fly, and white people will be searched. We have to deal with this now. Whining is uncool.

Anyway, the responses haven't been leftist/PC groupthink, and to throw them all into the same pit isn't intellectually fair.

I'll give you a pass on thanking Dios. :)
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:21 AM on July 15, 2005

Geez, what a barfight this has devolved into. All I was thinking when I posted this was, Here's a guy who's fired from being a screener for being a terrorist wannabee in his personal life, but if I go through airport screening and smart off about terrorism I'd probably be body-cavity-searched or something -- you can't even joke in these airport screening lines anymore.
posted by alumshubby at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2005

Dios: You want to tell me that you have a statistically significant sample? How many plane hijackings have Western countries had in the last 10 years? How are you going to limit your sample, Dios? If you start talking about looking at ethnicities of terrorists, I'm gonna whip out Chechens, the Black Hand and the IRA.

(On the At Will and Contracts, Boymilo lives in Michigan, same as I do. Michigan allows at will work, but you have to agree to it before you're hired. Further, I find it odd that a purported lawyer has never had a contract while working. I sign contracts all the time, and only rarely are they "at will." Usually, the only at will stuff is for hourly work, which admittedly the TSA is.)
posted by klangklangston at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2005

I HEARD A BLOND PERSON WAS SLIGHTLY INCONVIENCED IN THIS THREAD OH GOD NO WHAT A TRAGEDY HELP IS ON THE WAY
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2005

Look, what this guy did was not a private act, it was public. It related directly to his work, a job which involves very direct and sensitive interaction with members of the public. It's not a gay teacher being disapproved of by some bigoted parents, it's not somebody playing Humbert Humbert in a play, it's not someone using recreational drugs in their own home, it's not someone belonging to a political party, and it's not an anonymous blogger bitching about work colleagues. It's a government employee in a public position of trust very deliberately and publicly undermining that trust.

If the government tried to stop him rapping, that would be wrong. If the government placed him on a list of suspected terrorists, that would be wrong. But the government stopping employing him? That's okay. Free speech doesn't mean protection from all and any consequences of your exercising that freedom. It means that you are free to speak, and it guarantees protections against a large number of coercive methods (from both the state and from private individuals or institutions) of stopping your protected speech. But it doesn't mean an employer is forced to retain an employee who publicly undermines their own ability to do their job.
posted by flashboy at 10:23 AM on July 15, 2005

You go dios. You are running like a scythe through this straw army.

If Mithreal and OptimusChyme and Klangklangston want to fly on airplanes where passengers are only randomly checked and no particular emphasis is given to anyone matching the racial profile of known terrorists and whose engines are randomly inspected with no extra emphasis given to parts that have been known to fail in the past, I think you should let them. Discrimination - even when based on solid and compelling statistical evidence - is such a terrible thing that it can never be justified.
posted by three blind mice at 10:30 AM on July 15, 2005

(sigh)
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:34 AM on July 15, 2005

Discrimination - even when based on solid and compelling statistical evidence - is such a terrible thing that it can never be justified.

Still waiting on that solid and compelling statistical evidence, my man. Be sure to include all data, not just the stuff that agrees with your conclusion. Then we can talk.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:49 AM on July 15, 2005

Threeblindmice: Yeah, dumbass, that's exactly what I want. But first, I want you to learn to read.
Boymilo: You can sign a contract to work for less than minimum wage. The most common way that I've found is when you're getting paid based on results, not on time spent. If I agree to shovel all the snow off the sidewalks in my neighborhood for $80, and it ends up taking me 20 hours, I've worked for less than minimum wage. You are right, though, that there are generally more protections with regard to this.
posted by klangklangston at 10:58 AM on July 15, 2005

I think a PERSON posting rap songs, art, thoughts, rants anything about about blowing up America is a threat.
No, they're just talking. It's only hot air until you can show that they've been actively pursuing blowing things up.

It's a government employee in a public position of trust very deliberately and publicly undermining that trust.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that they're privately employed by airports, respectively.

It related directly to his work
Yes, but he didn't do it at work!

but if I go through airport screening and smart off about terrorism
Sure, if you're at an airport and you make a scene, they get to investigate you. But again, this was something he was doing on this own time.

I mean, feel free to investigate him. Maybe suspend him while you look into his activities. But Khalaf, from what we've read, didn't seem to let his personal beliefs interfere with his job performance. Unless he's actually engaged in the activity that he's discussing in his music, there's no reason to fire him. Especially if it's a knee-jerk solution.
posted by Jon-o at 10:59 AM on July 15, 2005

Discrimination - even when based on solid and compelling statistical evidence - is such a terrible thing that it can never be justified.

I think you mean certain types of discrimination, not discrimination in general. Discriminating between good and bad food is a form of discrimination, but we don't think of that as a problem. Discriminating between good and bad employees based on the quality of their work is a good type of discrimination. Discriminating between employees on the basis of a list of things that as a society we have deemed irrelevant (race, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, etc) is a bad thing. Please be more clear in what forms of discrimination you think are bad.

Also, under your definiton it would be discrimination to not allow blind people to fly 747's despite sound statistical evidence that blind people make bad pilots. If that's wrong then I'm not sure I want to ever fly with you.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:02 AM on July 15, 2005

despite sound statistical evidence that blind people make bad pilots

That's obviously not what he's saying. It's not that there's statistical evidence that points to blindness resulting in poor piloting. It's that vision is a requirement of the job.
posted by Jon-o at 11:11 AM on July 15, 2005

I'm gonna whip out Chechens, the Black Hand and the IRA

To determine the likelihood that a hijacker/bomber on a US flight will be of a given ethnicity? Should TSA policy be shaped as much by what sort of people hijack flights between Tasmania and Iceland and what sort hijack flights to and from the US?

I'm sure if you were to examine all the data on US flights that have been bombed or hijacked since the Wright brothers you'd find some pretty statistically significant patterns with respect to ethnicity, religion and nationality.
posted by shoos at 11:12 AM on July 15, 2005

People have a right not to be fired arbitrarily. You must have missed all of the labor law from, oh, the '20s on...

klang: You really ought to stay away from legal topics. It's called "employment at will". In states that follow this theory you can be fired for "good reason, bad reason or no reason at all". You can't be fired if the reason for the firing is the same reason you are a member of a protected class (race, sex, etc.) but you can be fired because you wear red shoes, the boss doesn't like the way you comb your hair or because it was your name he pulled out of a hat.
posted by Carbolic at 11:14 AM on July 15, 2005

(Devildanced: He was being sarcastic.)
posted by klangklangston at 11:17 AM on July 15, 2005

Well we are flying blind here without actual statistics. I think mitheral and Dios both have reasonable arguments. I think that it's when looking for drugs that the argument that discriminatory screening is a complete loss because such a wide variety of peoples have been found to have smuggled.

One thing with airline bombers is that there is a very small sample space (thank fuck) from which to be drawing conclusions. I'm imagining if you spoke to people and baggage screeners, the most reliable indicator of something being amiss would be their instincts when seeing such passenger.

So I'm not sure how I feel about any possible discrimination about passenger screening. I agree that if you take 2 arabian appearing people out of 20 passengers in total for instance you are perhaps taking less notice of the overall passenger manifest.

I'd also imagine that there's different levels of screening now - by sight, by random bag search, by sniffer dogs, by xray and most assuredly by specific people watchers -- now, as to whether their brief is to concentrate on the so-called likely bomber group of young male arabians, I don't know. And they probably want it that way.
posted by peacay at 11:19 AM on July 15, 2005

It's not that there's statistical evidence that points to blindness resulting in poor piloting. It's that vision is a requirement of the job.

The problem is that he IS saying that the blind pilot scenario would be a form of unjustifiable discrimination because his statement is so broad. Vision is a "requirement" of the job because we have evidence to suggest that pilots without sight don't do very well. If you are a blind person, and you want to fly a plane, you will be discriminated against. You will not have a chance to show that you are able to fly with an adaptive device, or using other senses, or with the aid of a dog, or whatever. Just because of your disability you will be barred, period, regardless of your ability. That is a form of discriminating based on physical ability. We happen to use it as a heuristic because we strongly suspect that no adaptive device currently available will make a blind pilot as safe as a sighted pilot, but it's still a form of discrimination since it's entirely possible that there is or will be such a blind pilot.

Trust me, I get what he's trying to say, I was just pointing out that we shouldn't condemn all forms of discrimination, just those that have some property of violating a social norm or standard (ie, discrimianting for the wrong reasons).

On preview: (Devildanced: He was being sarcastic.)

Thanks, I hadn't read the posts above and below the one that stood out. Oh well, most of the commentary above is noise in that case, but I'll leave it since I stand by the "some forms of discrimination are socially accepted even if they shouldn't be" position.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:25 AM on July 15, 2005

Yeah, I've been an at-will employee pretty much since I've started my career (working in both LA and NYC). Not much you can do if the employer doesn't like the cut of your jib...
posted by fet at 11:27 AM on July 15, 2005

I find it interesting that no one has brought up the most unfortunate fact about "random" searches: they're illegal in America.

We are constitutionally protected from illegal search and seizure of property without probable cause. Most people agree, historically speaking anyway, that a certain degree of privacy invasion is acceptable when flying on private airlines - they're businesses and they have every right to set rules for who can and cannot use their service. If the airlines want to x-ray my baggage and run me through a metal detector, I'm prefectly capable of using some other form of transportation if I don't like it.

However, when the government steps in and passes laws that allow federal employees (i.e. TSA security screeners) to randomly choose American citizens and search them with no justification other than they were the 10th person to pass the checkpoint we have a problem. There is no provision anywhere in our constitution that allows for such an invasion of privacy aside from our own personal paranoia that has lead us to give up valuable rights in the name of "safety."

If you ask me, any sort of searches are illegal unless the agency can provide a warrant. Warrants mean evidence, and somehow I don't think many judges will issue them based on your place in line.
posted by Lokim at 11:29 AM on July 15, 2005

Whoops...shouldn't have used warrant in that last paragraph; "probable cause" allows police to search your vehicle and thus I imagine it would also be sufficient support for searching baggage. Of course, I maintain that being the Xth person in line isn't probable cause.
posted by Lokim at 11:32 AM on July 15, 2005

Still waiting on that solid and compelling statistical evidence, my man

No kidding. Moussaoui is black. Reid is white. At least three of the guys who blew themselves up in London were Pakistani. There just isn't any compelling evidence that profiling any specific ethnic group is going to increase security (particularly because the idea that statistically, a terror attack against US citizens was perpretrated by an Arab is completely ignorant). And there are a number of good arguments that it will not increase security.

The story about this guy is simple: one of his co-workers doesn't like Arabs, and looked him up on the Internet, then reported it to his boss. It's simple racism.

Should the guy be a baggage handler? Hell, no. Do the ends justify the means? Hell, no.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:33 AM on July 15, 2005

Hey, let's all link to his site and give this asshat the publicity he needs to spread his message about love and unity. This is about the same as someone who works at the post office writing songs about mailing people bombs or anthrax.

Pretty stupid and thoroughly uncool.

solid-one-love, perhaps its less racism and more someone with a conscience thinking this guy really does represent a security risk in his position? Nah, racism's much sexier.
posted by fenriq at 11:34 AM on July 15, 2005

Of course, I maintain that being the Xth person in line isn't probable cause.

It seems like a knotty issue, but there must be some sort of implied consent given that we've been being searched by the government for years anytime we go into a courthouse, federal building, the White House, the Capitol, etc etc etc. If the searches there are legal (they make me empty my pockets and put my bag on the x-ray, just like the airport), then why are the searches at an airport different?

The story about this guy is simple: one of his co-workers doesn't like Arabs

*blink* do we have any evidence of that whatsoever? Based on this guy's endless self-promotion I wouldn't be suprised if all his coworkers knew who he was and what he did. Or that he's just a jerk.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:36 AM on July 15, 2005

I'm sure if you were to examine all the data on US flights that have been bombed or hijacked since the Wright brothers you'd find some pretty statistically significant patterns with respect to ethnicity, religion and nationality.

Yup. You'd find that most of them were white, US-born men. How many US flights were hijacked and ordered to Cuba starting in 1968? Forty? Fifty?
posted by solid-one-love at 11:37 AM on July 15, 2005

perhaps its less racism and more someone with a conscience thinking this guy really does represent a security risk in his position? Nah, racism's much sexier.

So what reason did the whistleblower have to look him up on the Internet in the first place? Surely the whistleblower didn't know that he was rapping about bombing before he looked him up.

What possible reason could he have? Perhaps the employee's name and skin colour?

*blink* do we have any evidence of that whatsoever?

Someone looked him up on the Net; that's compelling evidence right there. Do you often Google your coworkers? I sure don't.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:40 AM on July 15, 2005

Carbolic: I know that you have this great hard-on for me, but you'll notice that both you and I had to qualify our statements about At Will employment to be based on the state in which they reside.
posted by klangklangston at 11:44 AM on July 15, 2005

Shoos: Did you manage to read what I wrote? I asked him how he was going to limit his sample size, noting that the sample size within the US is very small, and that if you broaden it to include the incidents that he would no doubt like to (Lockerbie, etc.), that he's going to have to include a lot more that don't support his supposition.
Further, if you've got the data, bring it. If not, hush yo' mouth.
posted by klangklangston at 11:46 AM on July 15, 2005

What possible reason could he have? Perhaps the employee's name and skin colour?... Someone looked him up on the Net; that's compelling evidence right there. Do you often Google your coworkers? I sure don't.

Maybe this is you projecting your tendencies onto the entire popultion of the Houston TSA, but I've googled people I know when they've mentioned hobbies, interests, and activities. Maybe that's not "often", but it's not infrequently.

But you insist that racism is the only reason to ever look somebody up on the Internet? I'm hoping that you're sarcastic. How about:

1 - Sheer curiosity: you get 100 screeners working together and at least one of them is bound to have a bad Google habit
2 - Rapper mentioned it in conversation
3 - Rumor that the guy was a rapper
4 - Left a CD or other paraphanalia at his desk/locker/station
5 - Guy is a jerk
6 - Saw a news/radio story about a coworker
7 - Happens to like the style of music, came across it
8 - Googled for a different, non-rap-related, reason (eg, Googlestalking a potential date)
9 - etc etc etc

But, with no evidence other than "he was googled" you're willing to jump to the conclusion that somebody hates Christian Arabs who were born in the US? I mean, seriously, the guy isn't Muslim and doesn't have an accent but you still assume that race is the only possible reason?

Talk about jumping to conclusions.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:47 AM on July 15, 2005

Wow, nearly 100 comments on this guy. The firing seems pretty justified to me, being a pretty security-sensitive position, but whatever.

Now this story really hacks me off -- a conservative employer fires a guy for podcasting a show that was apparently critical of establishment, religion, etc. The employer was never mentioned, even tangentially, on the show AFAIK.

Interestingly, the fired guy (and his wife) don't seem too upset about it!
posted by LordSludge at 11:53 AM on July 15, 2005

Someone looked him up on the Net; that's compelling evidence right there.

Also, if I were racist against non-Muslim US-born Arabs whom I worked with, why would I express that by Googling them? Why would racism increase my liklihood of using Google to look up a co-worker? I would personally expect racism to be shown by all the normal thing like calling him degrading names, making jokes, making assumptions about his work, etc. But, hey, that's just me.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:53 AM on July 15, 2005

TDDL: Because, as we all know, Google has a white background. White background, need I say more?
posted by klangklangston at 11:58 AM on July 15, 2005

But you insist that racism is the only reason to ever look somebody up on the Internet?

What percentage of his co-workers do you think could spell his name without writing it down? For them to Google him, they'd have to make a specific effort to write down his name and pull out that piece of paper when they got home. It's not like some spur-of-the-moment "Oh, I'll look up George Smithson" curiosity.

Someone had to plan to Google this guy for some purpose, and frankly, none of the reasons you listed are remotely compelling in this case.

Why would racism increase my liklihood of using Google to look up a co-worker?

I think that this has been adequately explained. Please don't feign ignorance; it does not serve the discussion.

I would personally expect racism to be shown by all the normal thing like calling him degrading names, making jokes, making assumptions about his work, etc. But, hey, that's just me.

In this day and age, I would expect this to happen very infrequently in the workplace, even in Texas. Instead, I would expect Joe Redneck to look up his A-rab coworkers on the Net to see if he kind find any dirt. There are people in the US who think that every non-Jewish Semite and Arab in the country should be deported, even if they were born in the US and even if they were Jamie Farr. It is not a stretch to think that one of his coworkers didn't like the fact that an Arab was working in an airport. Hell, it's a virtual certainty.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:00 PM on July 15, 2005

If the searches there are legal (they make me empty my pockets and put my bag on the x-ray, just like the airport), then why are the searches at an airport different?


You make a good point; I hadn't really considered that angle before. I could argue that I'm not sure you can implicitly revoke consitutionally protected rights based on precedent, although it certainly gives them a reason to think that the searches are okay.

I think the root of my problem with the system lies with the concept that random searches are somehow "fairer" than non-random ones. I also don't understand why everyone assumes that the only way to profile someone is based on race. For example, I flew to Seattle and back last summer and was chosen for random inspection both ways. I was also chosen once when I flew to Japan two years ago, and again when I went from China to Japan.

Was I chosen so often because I am white? Maybe, but probably not. More likely I was chosen because I'm a young 20-something male with little (in the case of Seattle no) checked baggage and (in the case of China to Japan) a one-way ticket. There are other ways to target searches, and honestly I feel better about being searched because terrorist acts of all kinds are overwhelmingly commited by young men and I happen to be one than I do that I was simply chosen at random to be inconvenienced.
posted by Lokim at 12:03 PM on July 15, 2005

solid-one-love, reread the article, he told his co-workers about his rapping. One of them probably got curious and checked him out. I don't see how you're leaping to racism as the reason, maybe it was curiousity about his music (especially since he probably wouldn't go into much detail about his subject matter).

I think you've leapt to some unsupported conclusions and have tried to make race the issue when the main issue is that this guy works in airport security and writes rap songs about using planes as terrorist weapons and killing lots of people.

Part of my job is to track my company's mentions in the media, I google my co-workers regularly because its part of my job. If I came across a hate site administered by someone I work with, I'd for damn sure pass that information along to my boss. Double time if it looked like he was planning on killing people.
posted by fenriq at 12:03 PM on July 15, 2005

solid-one-love, ok, let me change the criteria to "hijackings resulting in at least one intentional killing." And, btw, Richard Reid is mulatto.
posted by shoos at 12:04 PM on July 15, 2005

I google my co-workers regularly because its part of my job.

Including the guy in the mailroom who isn't a spokesperson for your company in any way?

I think you've leapt to some unsupported conclusions

Paranoid people investigate their fears. People fear Arabs working in airports. I think the evidence is compelling and not remotely unsupported. Someone at work tells me that they're a competitive quilter, I don't Google them. But reasonable men can always disagree honourably.

Shoos writes: solid-one-love, ok, let me change the criteria to "hijackings resulting in at least one intentional killing."

So we're only trying to prevent hijackings where people are likely to die? And we can predict which hijackings are likely to have fatalities in what way?

C'mon. Why not change the crteria to "coordinated hijackings resulting in at least two thousand deaths and the partial or total destruction of at least three buildings"? That way, you can say that Islamic Arab males under the age of 40 fit the profile perfectly.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:12 PM on July 15, 2005

More likely I was chosen because I'm a young 20-something male with little (in the case of Seattle no) checked baggage and (in the case of China to Japan) a one-way ticket.

I often hear "one-way tickets" as a criteria for pulling someone aside for more checking - why wouldn't terrorists buy both way tickets to avoid extra screening.
posted by agregoli at 12:17 PM on July 15, 2005

tbm writes: Just to back up Delmoi: That's because we're operating within a zero-sum equation. Scrutiny of any one passenger necessarily lessens it on another.

Of course it does. Ideally, we would search every single passenger, as they do in Isreal. Every single one. We chose not to do that here in the US, and there is apparently some limit on the number of passengers screened. If any particular identifiable group has a lower probability of being searched then the terrorists can use that knowledge to increase the probability of a successful attack.

If there is a budget of, say, 700 searches, and you say lets do an additional 200 searches on arab looking people, well, that means we could be doing 900 searches total.

Thank you PC police for reminding me that the left can be as obnoxious and as far removed from rational thought as the right.

I'm the one removed from rational thought? You made up an assertion based on nothing at all (that racial profiling works) which doesn't stand up to any kind of logical analysis and suddenly I'm the one who's 'detached from rational thought'.

Your "understanding"? Where could this "understanding" possibly come from?

delmoi Obviously from my self-righteous sense of white privilege.

This doesn't make any sense at all. First of all, profiling based on several factors (such as country of birth) is being done. Yet, you "understand" that the reason racial profiling is not being done is because of a desire to be PC, not a desire to it in a mathematically sound way. This is such a bizarre line of reasoning to wrap my head around.

I'm not a hard-core PC leftist, I just don't want to get searched at the airport by some redneck idiot because of my skin color, you fucking honkey (there, is that un-PC enough for you?). I don't want to be personally inconvenienced because of innumerate morons such as yourself.

If Mithreal and OptimusChyme and Klangklangston want to fly on airplanes where ... whose engines are randomly inspected with no extra emphasis given to parts that have been known to fail in the past, I think you should let them.

I'm confused. Are you saying airplane engines are ploting amoungst themselves to blow up the plane and are therefore choosing parts which recive less scrutiy then others to fail? Or are you saying terrorist organizations choose their martyrs randomly so that members certan groups are more likely to be chosen?


Dios writes:
The question then becomes whether you don't give anyone added scrutiny or you do based on logical factors. Apparently, you would choose no added scrutiny instead of one that might factor in race. Your are sacrificing reasonableness and logic for some sort of forced equality of conditions.

Simply using the word "logic" does not, in fact, make a logical argument. If we want additional security, then we can do more random searches. rather then the same number of random searches plus some targeted searches. Logic, reason, mathematics, etc all say the same thing. Do random searches. I have no idea why you think targeted searches are better, but it certainly isn't logical reasoning.

If I can tell you with 100% certainty that in the next month a 20 something Arab male will board a plane and blow it up, is it your position that every 20 something Arab male shouldn't be given as much scrutiny as possible?

No, of course not. Giving every 20 something Arab "as much scrutiny as possible" would mean that no one else received any scrutiny at all, because scrutiny is limited, and if you gave one group the maximum, then no other groups would get any. Including, for example, 20 something male Pakistanis. Or 20 something male Chechnyans.

That said if you could really tell us that, then certainly I would put more (but not all) scrutiny on 20 something Arab males. But you can't tell us that, so it's kind of a moot point.

No, we don't know that at all
posted by delmoi at 9:35 AM PST on July 15

Now you are just plainly denying reality.

As I recall, the last Muslim fundamentalist (Richard Reid) to try to blow up a plane was white. How am I denying reality?

Ok, so if I can guarantee it, you would do it. Of course I can't. I can't guarantee it is not going to happen either. So somewhere in between we see a tipping point from where such a scenario moves from likely to unlikely. Recent history suggests that if it is going to happen, it is more likely than not that it will be a person from an identifiable group.

Again, Richard Reid was white.

Oh, come on. Do you really want to get in a statistical argument over this? Are you so fatuous to try to argue that the numbers aren't overwhelmingly in my favor on this?

The "statistical" argument only holds true if terrorists chose their attackers randomly. They won't. They'll pick the people they think will have the most success with the attack. If they have 10 white guys willing to martyr themselves, and 2 million Arabs, they'll go with the 10 white guys if they think doing so will increase their chances of success. And they will if we used non-randomized tests.

Lokim:

If you ask me, any sort of searches are illegal unless the agency can provide a warrant. Warrants mean evidence, and somehow I don't think many judges will issue them based on your place in line.

If I owned a nightclub, I could randomly search the people entering, should be the same with an airplane. Screeners used to private, also.
posted by delmoi at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2005

solid-one-love writes "What percentage of his co-workers do you think could spell his name without writing it down?"

What the heck is hard to spell about Bassam Khalaf?

shoos writes "And, btw, Richard Reid is mulatto."

Thread on how wildly inappropriate this word is.

agregoli writes "I often hear 'one-way tickets' as a criteria for pulling someone aside for more checking - why wouldn't terrorists buy both way tickets to avoid extra screening"

I the past it was an economy measure, apparently even as a terrorist you can't get away from expense reports. You can be sure only the terminally stupid will do this in the future.
posted by Mitheral at 12:34 PM on July 15, 2005

In the past ...
posted by Mitheral at 12:37 PM on July 15, 2005

solid-one-love, ok, let me change the criteria to "hijackings resulting in at least one intentional killing." And, btw, Richard Reid is mulatto.

No he's not.

Also, solid-one-love: You have no idea why he was googled, so please shut up.
posted by delmoi at 12:39 PM on July 15, 2005

Also, solid-one-love: You have no idea why he was googled, so please shut up.

I am drawing a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence, so please lick my balls.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:43 PM on July 15, 2005

Can we just come out today and declare that all mulattos and all hispanics are "white."
posted by shoos at 12:45 PM on July 15, 2005

...as long as they commit a crime.
posted by shoos at 12:46 PM on July 15, 2005

Looks white to me. I mean I don't know what his parents looked like, but he's got pink skin and non-kinky hair.


I am drawing a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence, so please lick my balls.

No, you drew a resonable possibility based on speculation.
posted by delmoi at 12:50 PM on July 15, 2005

I am drawing a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence

Whuh huh?!? what evidence?

You're making a freaking off the cuff guess as to why they found his website. Hmm maybe one day at work he told some one he raps, had a show that weekend and told someone where they could download his music. Heck I used to pimp my band at work regularly.
posted by bitdamaged at 12:52 PM on July 15, 2005

Can we just come out today and declare that all mulattos and all hispanics are "white."... as long as they commit a crime.

Why do you have such a hangup about race?
posted by delmoi at 12:52 PM on July 15, 2005

Actual "mullato"


posted by delmoi at 12:55 PM on July 15, 2005

If I owned a nightclub, I could randomly search the people entering, should be the same with an airplane. Screeners used to private, also.

Most people agree, historically speaking anyway, that a certain degree of privacy invasion is acceptable when flying on private airlines - they're businesses and they have every right to set rules for who can and cannot use their service.

I agree, delmoi, and I said as much in my first post - private businesses have the right to do just about whatever they please. The TSA is not a private business, though, it's a government organization, and as such it's subject to all the same laws as any other branch (i.e. the police).

I'm just trying to point out that the entire debate over the legality or morality of profiling is rather moot - the whole concept, profiling or otherwise, isn't legal to begin with. For example, did you know that the TSA isn't allowed to tell you why, or under what section of law, you were detained? The text of the law falls under SSI security clearence because, if terrorists had access to the rules used to choose detainees, they would be able to get around them. Theoretically, you could petition for an NDA to sign to gain access, but the government isn't required to give you that. In fact, for the system to work in the first place they can't just go around handing out copies of the law to everyone who asks - you might be a terrorist.
posted by Lokim at 1:00 PM on July 15, 2005

It's not a hangup about race, it's a hangup about lies.
posted by shoos at 1:04 PM on July 15, 2005

Anyways, why isn't Richard Reid an "actual" mulatto?
posted by shoos at 1:06 PM on July 15, 2005

The story about this guy is simple: one of his co-workers doesn't like Arabs, and looked him up on the Internet, then reported it to his boss. It's simple racism.

I am drawing a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence, so please lick my balls.

I don't usually bother saying this, but: please don't feed this troll.
posted by jenleigh at 1:12 PM on July 15, 2005

For fans of: BONE THUGS N HARMONY, EMINEM, TWISTA, TECH N9NE, 2 PAC, 3-6 MAFIA

----

Bragging & hip-hop being no stranger to one another, it's likely the "Arabic Assassin" told everyone about his exploits then reaped the benefits when he was 'controversially' fired, shooting his cred up another hundred points because he'd gotten canned by the Man. It seems he got what he wanted.

"Controversy sells" is what the title tag aptly states. The stuff about racism seems pure, fluffy conjecture.
posted by jenleigh at 1:24 PM on July 15, 2005

Anyways, why isn't Richard Reid an "actual" mulatto?

Because he looks white, as opposed to "mulattos" (an offensive term, by the way) who have darker skin. You really think Richard Reid looks like Halle Berry? Why do you keep saying he's a mulatto, anyway? I havn't seen any evidence of that it's just an assertion you keep making.

And finaly, what diffrence does it make? Having a black parent wouldn't make him an Arab. Are you trying to say that we should also be screening half white, half black people as well? as Arabs, or what?
posted by delmoi at 1:32 PM on July 15, 2005

Delmoi, do this:

1. Look up a definition of "mulatto," say, on Wikipedia or somewhere.
2. Google Richard Reid's father. Then his mother.

It really doesn't make what ethnicity/race he's of, but it should correspond with what you claim about him.
posted by shoos at 1:53 PM on July 15, 2005

Delmoi, just wanted to say thanks for cutting through the anti-"PC" nonsense with such eloquent and informed points.
posted by Rothko at 1:54 PM on July 15, 2005

Delmoi: Just as a note, that was me you were quoting about zero-sum, not TBM. TBM quoted me backing you up. And now, because this is a barfight thread, I think I have to call you a cocksucker or something. You know, to be safe from terror.
posted by klangklangston at 2:22 PM on July 15, 2005

So... Shoos... Your point is that we should profile mulattos too? But not white people? What about octaroons?
posted by klangklangston at 2:24 PM on July 15, 2005

No, it's that you shouldn't say things that aren't true.
posted by shoos at 2:41 PM on July 15, 2005

I've never heard of an Arab calling himself "an Arabic." It's a bit fishy. Just saying.
posted by leapingsheep at 2:52 PM on July 15, 2005

I think that flashboy has been the most reasonable in this thread. The racial profiling/quasi-legal searches arguments are interesting reading, but the people claiming that this particular guy was somehow wronged by the government because he was fired are silly.

He is a uniformed federal employee placed in a position (however minimal) of authority. As such, he's duty-bound to act professionally and not to engage in activities which disgrace the uniform he wears and the position he holds. Even though he was fired for what he gets up to in his free time, those activities were public.

These days it seems it's all "rights" and no "responsibilities". If the guy had wanted to pursue a fulfilling lifelong career as a baggage screener (which I doubt), he should have thought about the consequences.
posted by Hal Mumkin at 2:59 PM on July 15, 2005

Shoos: Earlier, you were holding forth that Arabs should receive increased scrutiny because they were more likely to commit acts of terrorism. When it was pointed out that Richard Reed was not Arab, with Delmoi saying that he was white, you replied that he was mulatto. So... from this it seems to follow that you're arguing that we should profile based on skin hue and not on national origin? Because your "you shouldn't say things that aren't true" bit is a bit thin, you know, ex post facto.
posted by klangklangston at 3:12 PM on July 15, 2005

was I "holding forth" that? I didn't realize it. Thanks for the heads up.
posted by shoos at 3:59 PM on July 15, 2005

Shoos: I was gonna say something snarky, but I went back and reread your comments. I apologize for misrepresenting you. I still don't think that you've proven your prior contention that there is a specific patter (which I though you were implying was Arab) to the general pool of hijackers.
posted by klangklangston at 4:33 PM on July 15, 2005

1. Look up a definition of "mulatto," say, on Wikipedia or somewhere.

Ah, I did see a picture of Reids dad, but he could have been a "mulatto" himself, making Richard a "quadroon", no? I mean as long as we're using antiquated, racist terminology why not be precise?

In any event "Mulatto" is not a race, its a combination of races, So calling a white looking person with some african in his blood white is not a "lie" or "wrong" or anything else. I mean these terms are mostly made up nonsense anyway, but its clear that when we use the term "white" we mean "person with white skin" not "person with 100 european ancestry". Reid is lighter skined then some Italians, for example.

I stand by my statement.

No, it's that you shouldn't say things that aren't true.

It is true, unless you belive in the "one drop" rule.

And now, because this is a barfight thread, I think I have to call you a cocksucker or something. You know, to be safe from terror.

Hmm... Couldn't you call me a muffdiver or something?
posted by delmoi at 7:01 PM on July 15, 2005

I may be the only one, here, but I find the Arabic (sic) Rapper's schtick kind of funny.

He has a sick sense of humor (good), but is most likely a fucking moron (Houston). Hell, I'd fire his ass too.
posted by Kloryne at 7:10 PM on July 15, 2005

I may be the only one, here, but I find the Arabic (sic) Rapper's schtick kind of funny.

I thought it was kind of funny as well, and figured I'd download the mp3s.
posted by delmoi at 11:33 PM on July 15, 2005