Nothing in the question states anything about profiling people of Middle Eastern origin. Yes profiling should be used, but mostly against suspicious peoples, not just ones of Middle Eastern decent, but those of Caucasian, African American, Asian, and Latino as well. And yes, anybody could be a terrorist, and profiling is no substitute for security, but looking out for ALL suspicious people, rather than all people like the Average Joe is the way to go.
Although profiling may seem to be "wrong" and "unethical" to some, it gets the job done, and that is what matters. In most cases, profiling doesn't discriminate race or religion, but it discriminates how somebody looks. The acronym "B.O.L.O" means, Be On the Look-Out, and is a very good example of profiling. It simply means to search for suspicious looking characters, whether it be an Aryan brother tatted up with Swastikas or somebody wearing an excessive amount of clothes. Anything that looks out of place should be checked, regardless if somebodies feelings are hurt. I would rather one person's feelings be hurt in vain rather than hundreds in a plane hijacking or bombing. Terrorism doesn't just mean attacks by the common image of radical Muslims, it could be a pissed off white person taking out their anger in a wrong way. Suspicious person profiling set by the B.O.L.O example is the way to go.
Bargaining or reasoning may not always work, because there is only one thing that most humans value more than anything, their life. Torture is a form of bargaining, it's bargaining for their life. If somebody is going to cause death to millions of people, then why would they uncover it for just some simple bargaining or reasoning? The one thing they would protect is their life, and torture is what puts that one item at stake.
While torture is inhumane and violent, it can be justified and possibly necessary in certain circumstances. When torture is used by morally corrupt people to just mess with people, it is socially accepted as wrong and disgusting. But when government forces use techniques of torture to obtain information to obtain information vital to national security, it is justified, but that does not mean it is morally correct or socially acceptable. Though some may disagree, torture is a just evil, meaning that although it is seemingly wrong, sometimes it is just necessary. Torture has led to the unveiling of plots to kill thousands of people, while the process of torture only hurts one. It is a decision worth making; make one suffer, save a thousand.
The analogy of the smart student in a below average school is invalid, because that allows the student to shine and be noticed above their lackluster peers. The story of smart students rising from nothing is seen a lot these days, and if a student is devoted to their education enough, it doesn't matter whether they are placed in a school or not.
If students were allowed to choose what high school they went to, that would create no balance between the populations of the multiple schools in an area. For example, if most students in Irving wanted to go to MacArthur and did, then Irving, Nimitz, and the Academy would all be underpopulated and lose funding. Schools get taxes from the certain taxpayers in their school districts, so that the parents of the student attending the school in that area are paying taxes for their specific school. Typically, the larger the population of a school, the better funding, and with a messed up balance of student population, funding would be messed up as well. Plus, in certain circumstances you can apply for a transfer anyways, which is very similar to attending the school of your choice.
The first president of the United States, George Washington, began the unspoken president of two terms as president which later evolved into a set law. Washington could have been unanimously elected to a third consecutive term, but stated to the public that "no president should serve more than two terms." One reason Washington believed this is because if somebody did, they life of presidency would cut them off from life as a normal citizen. Try to imagine being the most powerful figure in one of the most powerful countries in the world for more than eight years, then imagine going back to living a normal life as an everyday citizen. You would lose connection with the people, and this is already seen today in Congress. Millions of Americans disagree with the new public option health care bill that many polititians and even Obama are trying to pass; it hasn't even been two years since recent elections and they've already lost connection to their citizens. If anybody were allowed to serve over 8 years, the central government would shatter due to being severed from the people of this great country.
The deportation of illegals immigrants is fairly just, because in technical terms it's federal crime under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by an Alien," stating that entering the United States while avoiding the proper entry procedures or evading immigration stations or officers is a federal crime. My position on illegal immigration is not one of an opinion nor moral issue, but a legal issue. Although many citizens of the United States are immigrants from foreign lands, only the ones that have followed the set procedure should be allowed to say. Many people say that this nation was founded upon immigrants, but times have changed and laws have been formed to prevent urban sprawl. There is a way to not be deported, and that is to be a legal citizen, and if they are denied, they must follow the process like any other person should, because bypassing these methods will ensue consequences.
Why should we entice smaller countries to clean up their environment when the United States can't even clean their act up on their own. For example, the U.S is accountable for 36.1% of the greenhouse emissions, and we are only 4% of the population. China is also accountable for much of the pollution, in one city the citizens claim they can barely breathe from the pollution. Hearing this from developed nations kind of questions their ability to even know how to restrict the pollution of other countries. If these countries want to be able to breathe, they should change it within their own country before telling others what to do.
Forcing developing countries to protect the environment isn't a good idea, because that will limit the resources they have to become a "developed" country. When the current developed countries were being developed, they attributed a fair share of pollution to the environment. When America was first becoming industrial, we were one of the most polluting nations, and today we still are among the top nations that pollute the environment. So before we intrude on their own development, we should look back at our own roots to see how this country was made, and other developed countries were made. Not only do we need to do that, but before we try forcing other countries to protect the environment, we need to get on the ball and protect it ourselves.
All of the war and suffering in the U.S seems to be bad, but if you look at the big picture, all of the war and suffering led to a brighter future, which we currently live in today. Slavery and the wiping out of the natives is seen as brutal and heartless today, but without slavery or conquering, we wouldn't be anywhere. Our economy and technology wouldn't have built up to what it is now, and without slavery, we wouldn't have all of the laws and amendments that allow freedom to all now. In addition to that, the U.S was not the only country that had slavery or wiped out other civilizations, we were just following the fad. Yes, there are many cons, but the pros simply outweigh them. Without past mistakes, we would have nothing to learn off of, and we wouldn't know what was right or wrong.
I believe that schools are honestly the base source of all creativity, because without school, students would have nothing to be creative with. For example, authors, musicians, and other artists do not just pull creativity out of the air, they usually have an education to base it off of, and school is that education that feeds the creative fire. Without school nobody would know anything, and so many things would be totally abstract, and creativity might not even be a thought, due to it not being taught through example. All in all, school does not kill creativity, it does quite the opposite and creates all of the creative artists, musicians, and authors in the world.
