Peter King and the Muslims

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is head of the House Homeland Security Committee and is about to hold hearings on "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response."

Gustav Niebuhr teaches journalism and religion and is director of the Religion and Society program at Syracuse University. He is also the grand-nephew of the influential theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.

Niebuhr is rightly concerned that the hearings will focus on Americans of one particular religious affiliation. Why not investigate radicalization and terrorism in America, period, without singling out Muslims? And why now? -- just as Muslim young people are giving their lives to establish democratic governments -- not Islamic theocracies -- in Tunesia, Egypt, and Libya.

These concerns are made ten times worse, given that the conservative Peter King is already known for his blunt conservative opinions, crude language, and loose tongue: everything you could want to "make matters worse" in the realm of diplomacy and legislative comity.

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus says we're over-reacting. She points out that home-grown terrorism is increasingly a threat. Much of it arises among young Muslim men, who are inspired and encouraged by radical recruiters who base their cause in Islam and speak in its name. It is also true that the majority of U.S. Muslims are not part of that and that their religious faith has none of that violent and anti-American sentiment.

So how do you hold reasonable hearings on a genuine threat to our country and focus it on identified groups who seem to be at the center of the storm -- without implications that will offend Muslims worldwide, as well as at home?

Well, for starters, you could put someone other than Peter King in charge.

It's too late now. For months King has been talking up his hearings, and his careless tongue slips into referring to "the Muslim threat to America." He has already inflamed outrage with his comments, such as to the New York Daily News, that the discrimination and hatred that Muslims believe they encountered after 9/11 was their own imaginations. He has also claimed that 80% of mosques in America are controlled by radical imams.

These hearings also come on the heels of an anti-Muslim rally held in California attended by two congressmen. King himself carries "terrorism" baggage, having been personally involved with the leaders, and a public supporter, of the Irish Republican Army, long listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. He justifies that, citing his Irish heritage and that the IRA never attacked the U.S., to which he gives his loyalty.

This is of course a committee of Congress over which Obama has no control; but the administration has already tried damage control in the form of a statement supportive of American Muslims and drawing distinctions between the radical few and the vast number of good citizens of Muslim faith.

Perhaps King's own crude language will be so over the top that it will evoke a backlash from moderates in his own party -- and the world will see that Americans are not all like Pete King, just as they are not all like the radical jihadists. And that it will expose the Republican strategy of putting foxes in charges of hen houses and bulls in charge of china shops.

Ralph

The Libyan dilemma

To bomb, or not to bomb. That is the question.

Shall the United States overthrow the regime in yet another Muslim country? That is what HolyJoe and McNothing want us to do, apparently.

Obama is being the adult in the room. No cowboy, trigger-happy Texan he. We're already fighting two wars in two other Muslim countries, with the American people increasingly wanting us to get out of both, now. If we use our military forces in Libya, then what about Yemen or Bahrain, if they blow up? And what about Iran . . . and others? Shall we just take on the whole Muslim world at once?

Hawks like McNothing and HolyJoe, to say nothing of all the politically motivated critics of Obama, will find fault with whatever Obama does. But that hawkish pair are calling for a military intervention.

So, what about enforcing a no-fly zone over Tripoli, which would destroy Gaddafi's means of retaliating against the rebels? It's certainly tempting to step in and give them that much help. Libyans are being mowed down in the streets by Gaddafi's air force.

The Obama administration is not about to do that alone. He and British Prime Minister David Cameron have been conferring about options. The British Foreign Secretary said a no-fly zone would require "a clear legal basis, a demonstrable need and strong international support and broad support in the region and a readiness to participate in it." Britain and France are reportedly working on a proposed no-fly zone resolution to present to the U.N. Security Council.

It's interesting that none of the dozen or so possible GOP presidential candidates has put forth a clear plan for what he/she would do in Obama's place; instead just saying that Obama's is being too cautious, too weak, too passive. It's those former presidential candidate-losers (HolyJoe and McNothing) who are saying what he should do.

It's not an easy decision -- if you have to take responsibility for the consequences. Or if you have to face the voters a year from now, which neither HolyJoe or McNothing will have to do.

Ralph

PS: Update: The ever-incautious Newt has released a statement that the U.S. should "execute a no-fly zone this afternoon." Newt knows how to throw bombs -- he doesn't have any idea that you don't just "execute a no-fly zone" with the snap of a finger. Which is why he would perhaps be more dangerous in the Oval office than She Who Shall Not Be Named. Newt would be even more incautious than Dubya.

Newt needs to go back to school and learn the difference between bold and fool-hearty. He thinks he's being bold when he's being fool-hearty.

Stinging the good guys

Wikipedia defines a sting operation:

In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime. A typical sting will have a law-enforcement officer or cooperative member of the public play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the suspect's wrongdoing.

An example would be: posing as someone seeking illegal drugs in order to catch a supplier.

I have some mixed feelings about the ethics of this: to catch drug dealers seems ok; but it was often used to catch men seeking sex with other men -- an undercover police officer making seductive gestures in a public rest room and then arresting the men who respond.

What about the ethics of politically motivated sting operations to discredit liberal organizations? They killed ACORN with these tactics -- having actors pretend to be a pimp and his woman seeking advice about housing for use as a brothel featuring underage girls brought to this country illegally; filming the responses from unsuspecting ACORN workers and then selectively editing them to bring bring down the organization they hated.

Now the same conservative group is using the same tactics, trying to poison the well of government grants to NPR -- a sting type interview with an NPR fundraiser. A two hour interview, selectively edited down to an 11 minutes clip, designed to outrage conservative House members who will shortly vote on proposed government funding of NPR.

The edited clip shows the NPR fundraiser making derogatory comments about Tea Party members and saying that NPR would be better off in the long run without government funding.

Is this a necessary part of democracy to allow this? Is it the same principle that I defend about free speech having to be free for the bad guys as well as for the good?

I don't like stings even as a means of trapping bad guys; I certainly don't like it when it brings down what I consider the good guys, who are trying to bring intelligent and rational news and analysis, as well as much needed community services to poor and disadvantaged people.

But as a principle? Maybe we have to allow it. And the answer: just as countering bad free speech with good free speech is the answer to the Westboro Baptist Church, maybe exposing the political motives of the sting operators and countering the effect with a good campaign of public education about public radio is the answer.

But . . . it's so hard just to keep up with, and counter, all the tactics of the determined opponents to progressive, intelligent, rational public life.

Ralph

Michael Moore in Wisconsin

Michael Moore addressed the protesters in front of the state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin yesterday. On behalf of all Americans and the cause of worker compensation, he thanked them, as well as the 14 Democratic senators who left the state to prevent a quorum voting on the controversial bill that would greatly reduce collective bargaining. I found it inspiring and want to quote excerpts here as a way to preserve them in my archive:

America is not broke.

Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich. . . .

400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true. . . .

Money doesn't grow on trees. It grows when we make things. It grows when we have good jobs with good wages that we use to buy the things we need and thus create more jobs. . . . But if those who have the most money don't pay their fair share of taxes, . . . If the wealthy get to keep most of their money, we have seen what they will do with it: recklessly gamble it on crazy Wall Street schemes and crash our economy. The crash they created cost us millions of jobs. That too caused a reduction in revenue. And the population ended up suffering because they reduced their taxes, reduced our jobs and took wealth out of the system, removing it from circulation.

The nation is not broke, my friends. Wisconsin is not broke. It's part of the Big Lie. It's one of the three biggest lies of the decade: America/Wisconsin is broke, Iraq has WMD, the Packers can't win the Super Bowl without Brett Favre.

The truth is, there's lots of money to go around. LOTS. It's just that those in charge have diverted that wealth into a deep well that sits on their well-guarded estates. They know they have committed crimes to make this happen . . . . So they have bought and paid for hundreds of politicians across the country to do their bidding for them. . . . To help prevent that day when the people demand their country back, the wealthy have done two very smart things:

1. They control the message. By owning most of the media they have expertly convinced many Americans of few means to buy their version of the American Dream and to vote for their politicians. Their version of the Dream says that you, too, might be rich some day – this is America, where anything can happen if you just apply yourself! . . The message is clear: keep your head down, your nose to the grindstone, don't rock the boat and be sure to vote for the party that protects the rich man that you might be some day.

2. They have created a poison pill that they know you will never want to take. . . . As the economy and the stock market went into a tailspin, and the banks were caught conducting a worldwide Ponzi scheme, Wall Street issued this threat: Either hand over trillions of dollars from the American taxpayers or we will crash this economy straight into the ground. Fork it over or it's Goodbye savings accounts. . . .

The executives in the board rooms and hedge funds could not contain their laughter, their glee, and within three months they were writing each other huge bonus checks and marveling at how perfectly they had played a nation full of suckers. . . .

Until now. On Wisconsin! . . . Your message has inspired people in all 50 states and that message is: WE HAVE HAD IT! We reject anyone tells us America is broke and broken. . . . they still crave what we all crave: Our country back! Our democracy back! Our good name back! The United States of America. NOT the Corporate States of America. The United States of America! . . .

Thank you, Wisconsin. You have made people realize this was our last best chance to grab the final thread of what was left of who we are as Americans. For three weeks you have stood in the cold, slept on the floor, skipped out of town to Illinois -- whatever it took, you have done it, and one thing is for certain: Madison is only the beginning. The smug rich have overplayed their hand. . . .

No, they had to have more – something more than all the riches in the world. They had to have our soul. They had to strip us of our dignity. They had to shut us up and shut us down so that we could not even sit at a table with them and bargain about simple things like classroom size or bulletproof vests for everyone on the police force . . . .

And that, my friends, is Corporate America's fatal mistake. But trying to destroy us they have given birth to a movement -- a movement that is becoming a massive, nonviolent revolt across the country. We all knew there had to be a breaking point some day, and that point is upon us. . . .

America ain't broke! The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on. Never forget, as long as that Constitution of ours still stands, it's one person, one vote, and it's the thing the rich hate most about America -- because even though they seem to hold all the money and all the cards, they begrudgingly know this one unshakeable basic fact: There are more of us than there are of them!

Madison, do not retreat. We are with you. We will win together.

If only . . . . Maybe?

Ralph

Michele's manufactured outrage

Michele Backmann went on Meet the Press with a new outrage against Obama and his "gangster government," for which she is demanding that he apologize to the American people.

Seems that the "Obamacare" haters are just waking up to the fact that they have been had.

The Affordable Health Care Act that was passed last March, following a year of debate on the subject, contained some "advance appropriations" to ensure the implementation of the reforms. The wisdom of that is now quite evident, because one thing it does is to make it harder for the opposition to kill it by defunding it.

In other words, implementation will not require the usual separate process of going through the appropriations bill. It contains its own appropriations: $5 million for this year, and another $100 million over the next eight years, minus any funding enacted by Congress.

Michele's outrage: she claims that this was "slipped secretly" into the bill. Really? It was in there at the time it was debated and passed. Is Michele just now getting around to reading it -- or having her staff read it and tell her what it says?

It's the law, Michele. It was not done in secret. It was clearly and plainly there in the bill. If you didn't do your homework, or weren't smart enough to realize that this perfectly legal and reasonable advance appropriations would make it harder for you to undo it -- then you are the one who needs to apologize to your constituents who elected you to do your job. Or perhaps you are doing your job as you conceive it: to make a lot of noise and distraction to rev up their fear and anger -- and don't worry about how nutty you sound.

Personally, I think this was a pretty smart thing for the Dems to have done, knowing the Repubs would try to defund it, if they couldn't outright kill it.

Ralph

Joke of the week

Sarah Palin saying that Barack Obama is too "inexperienced" to be president.

The other joke of the week: she got me to mention her name.

She wins.

Ralph

Tough choices

Democracy is a messy business, someone observed. There are good examples of this floating around these days.

One thing that makes it tough is the "herding cats" aspect. As in: look how we struggle against the politics of business interests and political pandering in trying to do anything about the environment and climate change. Meanwhile, China, with its central control has leaped way ahead, not only in making necessary changes, but in taking the lead in manufacturing wind turbines, for example. They didn't have to face the Koch brothers' billions backing the fringe right, who are determined to bring down Obama and any progressive movement; and they didn't have an opposition party who sees political advantage in catering to people's fears. They just did it.

I'm not saying, given everything, I would swap our imperfect democracy for their government. But some things are easier for them. Of course, doing bad things to people and to society is also easier -- and that's not good.

The other thing on my mind that is tough in democracy is that we are so often faced with having to choose between two values or two principles, rather than obvious good/bad, right/wrong decisions. Several good examples of this:

1. Whether to support dictators in the Middle East, who have been allies in the past, to help stabilize the area (like Mubarak) or who control vast resources we need (like Libya) or provide military bases for us (like Bahrain). Or whether to side with a populist movement for democracy. Why wouldn't we just side with democracy? Sometimes it's the risk that another, worse dictator or terrorist group will take advantage of the instability and seize power. Not always easy choices for the administration.

We armchair warriors can sit here and say, of course, side with democracy. We don't have the responsibility of weighing all the facts and taking the consequences. Still, my gut feeling was negative when I read last night that the Obama administration had a new strategy: focus on "regime alteration" rather than "regime change."

What does that mean? Rather than immediately toppling autocratic allies, encourage the revolt leaders to work with regimes that are willing to make changes they are demanding. That feels like appeasement and wrong, yet it is practical, and could avoid the instability that risks unwanted, worse groups seizing power.

2. Another is the Supreme Court decision this week on the Westboro Baptist Church's free speech rights to make vile anti-gay protests at funerals, including funerals of non-gay, fallen soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. My head says, yes, free speech is free speech, even when you abhor the message. My heart says funerals should protected as private time for families. Is there a principle that could encompass both?

The answer, of course, has to be for free speech (short of the shouting-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater" exception) -- and for countering abhorrent speech with better speech. And, as already is the case, protest can be regulated by local ordinances -- providing a space removed from the actual church/cemetary itself. And others can interpose themselves to shield them visually or to drown them out, as the bikers do at military funerals by revving up their motors.

The simplest solution for the Westboro crowd, however, would be to ignore them. They don't travel half way across the country to protest before a few hundred mourners. They do it to draw the media and get splashed on national TV. The more outrageous their signs, the more coverage. Solution: ignore them, don't film them, don't mention them in the paper. Just don't.

Ralph