The enemy within?

Well over 200 years ago, one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, stood in a city called Philadelphia and announced to the public at large that if an Imam wished to preach here, he could.  Cut to 29 September 2009, and a republishing of a Cal Thomas editorial in the Spokesman-Review , he presents Imams living in this country as “the scary other;” certainly in light of 9/11/2001 it can come as no surprise.  Almost 3,000 people died in a single day because of an Islam belief  that followed the course of radical jihad.

However, it is what Mr. Thomas has to say in the course of his editorial that has me shaking my head:  “Democracy is not a revelation, and democracy does not equal freedom, for in democracy you have apartheid, you have slavery, you have homosexuality, you have lesbianism, you have gambling, you have all the vices that are against the spirit of truth…”  If this had been written by a “Christian,” would Mr. Thomas go haywire?  The author of this Facebook excerpt Imam Abdul Malik is deemed an “enemy of the state” in Mr. Thomas personal opinion because of his “thumbs down” on Democracy and all the human failures it allows; esp. where Thomas freaks at the idea that Democracy can be “Islamized.”  OK?!?

Let us remind Mr. Thomas that Christians made decades of public pronouncements that this country wasn’t a “democracy” at all and instead a republic.  The evils to be found in a “democracy” IE demos, the people and the inherent socialism behind it.  —Effectively, any Christian has already made the argument that democracy doesn’t equal freedom long before the Imam Malik from Brooklyn, NY made his Facebook declarations.  And any “Christian” out there has discussed the vices of this society from gambling to gay rights and sought gvt intervention to oppose anything that would keep this nation from being next door to heaven.  In short, such activists only sought to Christianize democracy.  Quite frankly, beyond the Imam’s belief, I don’t see much difference between himself and radical activist “Christians” who have certainly turned out in massive numbers to either:  oppose abortion, oppose the Obama administration.  Or small “church groups” consisting of families who carry protest signs from one soldier’s burial to another condemning them for “defending” homosexuality in this nation and “Thank God for 9/11/2001.”  But, I guess as long as they are “Christians,” they can’t be the enemy.  Nor could they have the capacity for terrorism that is only possible in Islam.  Say again?

PBS had a special on Christian terrorists post the Dr. George Tiller death.  Radical anti-abortionists who do more than simply oppose a legal operation for its “immorality.”  They go so far as to engage in vandalism, threats of violence, create websites that have hit lists of abortion providing doctors to be eliminated, they have prayed for the deaths of judges who rule against them.  Surviving doctors who perform late term abortions have called them terrorists because of the safety precautions these doctors must now take in order to stay in operation.   Well, when you create a fear factor that literally changes how people conduct their personal lives; wouldn’t that be terrorism?

How about Timothy McVeigh?  How about the “militias” that suddenly sprang up proclaiming their utter opposition to the gvt?  How about “Christian Identity” that made common cause with racism?  Excuse me, but democracies do allow some extremely radical types to operate with a degree of freedom in this nation.  Mr. Thomas just doesn’t want to include Islam, however.

Seems Imam Malik does have a point about the history of this nation, whether Mr. Thomas wants to acknowledge it or not.  What is Jim Crow after all, but racial apartheid?  Who created Jim Crow if not racist Christians?  Democracy didn’t always mean freedom in this nation; the Whiskey Rebellion was one such example.  Civil Rights came only because of a long and intense struggle and ultimate sacrifices.  Democracy in this nation did allow slavery.  Slavery only ended effectively with a civil war and an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And those who had the most objections to minorities achieving an equal status put on white robes, pointed white headgear and white masks.  They burned crosses in a very twisted and radical perversion of how they came to see Christ.  In their time, the Ku Klux Klan were terrorists; as the Neo Nazis that came after them.

Thomas does have a point to make about that it only takes a few to wreak havoc.  But it always that “scary other,” not those who believe as I do.

Thomas then goes on to refute the “deceptions” of Muslims where it concerns the infidel.  Now that does sound a bit like Fundamentalist Mormons who engage in deceptions of their own because one shouldn’t actually tell the truth to one’s Christian neighbor deemed an infidel.  Never mind the commandment against bearing false witness.

Granted that Iran’s president Ahmedinejad probably does not care to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his nuclear ambitions.  And there is without question that he is a very scary guy.  However, Thomas goes to great and convoluted lengths to “tie in” Muslims living in this nation with the crazy guy who is president of a country who has been a declared enemy for more than 20 years.  Exactly why do these Muslims live in this country if Iran’s ruling party has long called us a Great Satan?  You’d think they’d make common cause with the purists and stay well away from “corrupting influences.”  Or is there another reason why they’d come to this nation?  Well, try economic reasons for one.  Try gvt oppression for another.  Try guys like the late and not so great Saddam Hussein who butchered his “enemies” except for those who got away successfully and sought refuge in this nation.  Never mind the very legitimate reasons that these people could be here, they are all now suspect terrorists.  And all because of a Facebook statement by a single Imam.  Or because of crazy dude Ahmadinejad.

And finally, let us even go a little further and posit that there must be something terribly wrong with the current administration that somehow (with very dark whispers here) makes excuses for Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions.  Uh, those nuclear ambitions were very much evident long before Obama ran for the presidency.  Exactly what excuses did GW come up with as to why he wasn’t prepared to resolve them over a period of 8 years?  Interesting that Thomas spent more time whining about “liberals,” Dems and abortion than he could find time for with regards to GW’s foreign policy failures.

Fear factor:  “Are we being infiltrated and surrounded by people who want us dead and our country destroyed?  Try a little experiment, Google “Islam near” and then type in the name of any city or town.  When I tried the small town of Bryn Mawr, Pa., 10 Islamic-related sites came up.  In larger cities, there are as many, or more.  Deception is part of the terrorist’s battle strategy…”  Or is what Thomas’ calling for in his dark heart of an editorial a new apartheid; a call to arms by racists; an xenophobia that could easily lead to violence against a people who surely don’t all agree with Imam Malik.

The wonders of democracy, Thomas; is that allows freedom of religion, precisely, freedom for all religions.  Even though the capacity for evil does exist in the hearts of men, men are still free within a democracy to change what they deem wrong in society.  To over time correct the social ills that can come endemic with the human condition.  In that respect, Imam Malik is wrong about what democracy is capable of.  It may allow social vices, but it also allows men to act for the greater good.  And that is how progress is made.  Thomas on the other hand makes clear that he wants to be part of the social ills rather than part of the solution to them.

The “enemies” we submit to

Exactly what does it take for a nation to be perceived as “weak” before the potential enemies of this world? Cal Thomas thinks he knows, our foreign policies, especially those created by Democrats, put us in a “weak” position.  Remember, only Democratic presidents ought to actually be named, and their foreign policies in particular ought to be trotted out so that we can be “warned” against voting for them the next time.

But, isn’t it the partisan hack jobs that truly does make this nation weak?  In the full 8 years of GW’s presidency; he caved to Ahmedinajad (sic?) a great many times; changing the U.N. goal posts continually rather than drawing a line in the sand and declaring that  bullying dude would not cross here.  Must have been that Ahmedinajad felt he could use the exportation of foreign oil or even the lack of same as a leverage against the U.S.  And of course, the U.S. under GW was business profits over all.  The aftermath of GW’s refusal to stand firm?  The mistreatment by Iran’s gvt of a people who protest what they regarded as a fraudulent election.

The internet is great thing, isn’t it?  You can find an abundance of blogs, and plenty of places to park them where opinions can be generated across the political spectrum of any issue of the day, or of the hour.  It can also generate websites by people also across the political spectrum who use their websites as hatchet jobs against a political opposition, or even an idea, or a tradition.  While GW was in office, there happens to be this website, Townhall.com, run primarily by fringe new lefties who went on record after Spain pulled out of Iraq following an election in which the opposition party took over; in the aftermath of an 11 March terrorist attack on commuter trains; of attacking an ally who didn’t have much of a military presence in Iraq to begin with.  Spain had become “cowardly” for wanting to deal with its own internal affairs, including dealing with domestic terrorists, first.  The problem for Townhall.com; anyone at all can check out their website and read all the comments from some very juvenile people.  The sort of people who actually regard their most juvenile conduct and even more juvenile commentary (believe it or not) as conservative.  If an act of terrorism possibly changed the outcome of whom the Spanish people would choose for a gvt; then it was also probably a tipping point as well; the Spanish people might have seen terrorist acts against their nation as 1.  retaliation for investing in this war or 2.  they simply didn’t want in this war in the first place.  Whereby, the latter was the base reason for how they would ultimately vote and the terrorist act served as an excuse.  The vast majority of the world as to the populace of various countries did not support GW’s foreign policies on terrorism and Iraq.  GW could “stand firm” against opinion polls run by various news media; he would do as he chose regardless.  But when you looked at the full span of his over all foreign policies; especially when it involved Kim Jong Il; the man did more to cave in to gvts than show any sign of strength.

Cut to the pro-democracy rebellion by Hungarian civilians against a Soviet supported gvt.  Seems to me that a Republican administration was in place that refused to lend aid in what would become an humanitarian crisis.  Apparently, we either had some lingering fond memories of the Soviet Union as an “ally” during the second world war or we were still tangled up in the Korean conflict and the then existing administration concluded that to start another conflict before we had concluded the one we were embroiled in would likely drain our resources…  Or to lend aid to Hungary’s rebellion while still in tough negotiations with keeping the gvts of Korea from each other’s throats; would have been a grave mistake.  To put it bluntly, Thomas could trot out a lot of history in his column, without it would seem, caring to discuss anything in-depth.

While Reagan was in office; he made common cause with bullies who slaughtered in the thousands many of their own people (on the presumption that they were sympathetic to commie insurgents) as long as the bullies in those respective gvts weren’t communist themselves.  Just as he was more than prepared to make specific trade deals with communist gvts at the behest of business interests.  The same thing with Bush (41).  Preceding Iraq wars 1 & 2, we could make common cause with Saddam Hussein because of our extreme hatred of Ayatollah run Iran.  And that was regardless of Hussein the bully who was so ruthless where his own citizens were concerned that anyone could be deemed an enemy and killed by the thousands.

Only years later, would we bring up such “humanitarian concerns” (more than the presumption of harboring terrorists) that would serve as an excuse for GW to go to war in Iraq and forcibly install a new gvt.  But of course, “humanitarian concerns” didn’t factor into the Reagan/Bush (41) foreign policy considerations at all.

And in that same era; “hawks” who’d whine about our “weakness” on the foreign stage if Democratic presidents were in power, such as Charles Krauthammer; then turned about and made excuses for why we didn’t fight every war or topple every hated gvt as long as the administration was indeed GOP.  Apparently, foreign policy “weakness” was dependent on one’s political views.  Or the undercurrent was more in line with; as long as we could do business with the bullies, why would we want to topple their gvts?  And to put it very bluntly, our foreign policy of any administration was driven more by business $$$ than by “standing firm” ideologically on the behalf of democracy, or human rights, or other political considerations.  The fact that print editions of Time or Newsweek or other publications could be sold all over the world; appearing ultimately on line for the world to read what got presented; we could be seen as “weak” by potential enemies just because of what our talking heads, Krauthammer, Thomas, et al had to say about our foreign policies or even our respective administrations.  The more a Thomas or a Krauthammer engaged in strident partisan attacks of an opposition administration; the more likely “the world” would have cause to be dismissive.

In a democracy, and only in a democracy is it possible for a people to roundly and sometimes legitimately to criticize their gvt.  But to wax hysterical of the current administration goes a bit beyond the pale.  It is as though the past 60 years could be rolled up, packaged and tied in a bow and presented to the current Obama administration as the years of failure when the nation didn’t do the right thing and therefore submitted to the enemy who could then find us “weak.”

A Republican administration, Nixon; discovering that the vast majority of Americans were now turning against Vietnam; pulled out of that highly misbegotten war.  If Osama bin Laden could cite Vietnam as the reason why he thinks he can “out last us” in any war on terrorism as per Thomas’ opinion; Thomas could look a little closer to Iraq and the current polling about Afghanistan instead.  After all, GW had to whip up fears about terrorism to get this nation into a war with Iraq.  To use terrorism as a foil to bring a GOP majority into Congress.  Not that ultimately the GOP majority in Congress were ultimately to seek this nation’s safety from terrorism but rather the gift that terrorist acts had brought to try to keep themselves in power and the opposition a weak minority.  As a consequence, a foreign policy that was hit and miss and full of whimsy.

Remarkable, isn’t it that Thomas spent more time excusing the foibles of a GOP administration and wastes no time engaging in rancid attacks on the current one?  Oh and I’d like to remind one and all; that on CBS Evening News last night, Katie Couric let loose a fundamental flaw; did GW actually give the generals on the ground in Iraq everything they needed?  Or was that what he claimed while the war in Iraq went south?  And the generals were so busy sucking up to the GOP administration at the time that they were themselves proclaiming they didn’t need more troops while indeed the situation was going south in Iraq.  Was Obama honestly not wanting to give McChrystal carte blanche on more troops in Afghanistan the reason why Thomas would write his column?  Neither did GW, actually when it came to Iraq; and we didn’t get a history lesson of “caving in” to our enemies.  Partisanship wins out.

Our intrusive world

You have to love Leonard Pitts at times. His most recent commentary that was republished in the Spokesman-Review this Labor Day, 8 September 2009 involved just how wired and interconnected we truly are.  Where he describes cameras mounted at ATMs, our purchases logged in various retail stores, we can be ratted out by our e-mails and etc.  And it all began with his having left his cell phone in his car while he was taking a plane trip.  He then included an article in “Wired” where the author was going to do his best to “disappear” off the grid and set up a reward for anyone who could “find” him.  An interesting challenge to be sure.  And to put it bluntly, amusing as hell.

Even though Pitts put it rather narrowly about the more private intrusions into our personal lives I am very prepared to put it into a far broader perspective.  Any more, we take it for granted that our lives are going to be “intruded upon.”  You set up an e-mail account to communicate with family and friends, to track whether someone is posting comments to blog or you are learning about people who want to “add you as a friend” on Facebook or who want to “follow you” on Twitter and here come a massive flood of ads into your in-box.  And the repetition of these ads is nothing short of astounding.  Esp when they were first seen on TV.  If I wanted to buy a snuggie, I get catalogs that actually features snuggie.  If I truly wanted a tweeze, the moment they were sold in stores I’d consider whether it was a luxury I could well afford.  I don’t need endless ads that become useless spam in my in-box and then have to be wearily over many hours cleaned out of my web-mail account.  Over 6,000 ads before I find e-mail of far more importance?  Excuse me, but I can do without that.

Or of far greater importance still, is that the people who currently clamor about our far too intrusive gvt are living with on a daily basis and are probably taking for granted all other forms of intrusion.  Businesses that put up security cameras at ATMs are correctly trying to protect themselves from theft.  Cameras set up along various routes in big cities can correctly be in response to high crime areas.  Or when people drive through stop lights and the camera can be used to send along tickets to the malefactor in question.  Or the owner of the car being driven.  But, when purchases are being logged at customer service counters by that oh so quick and efficient bar code; that is the business attempt to discover what was most being purchased on that given day or even just how much of a profit is being realized through the frequency of bar codes being passed through a scanner.  You may indeed be “faceless” as far as the corporate office is concerned, but your purchases decidedly are not.

Of course I can understand all that.  But, it is still intrusion, isn’t it?  And private enterprise is equally intrusive if not more than gvt itself.  Yet, what we hear most often is the complaints of “big bad government.”  Take Fox News and their “majority of those polled.”  Fox News Channel has to rely upon those who actually watch that channel (I don’t) for people to be polled.  And invite the same people who are actually watching the channel to visit their web site to actually participate in any polls.  Interconnectedness to be sure.  But if 98% actually agree with the talking heads of Fox News that is because the 98% are viewers who watch Fox News and agree with its format and political positions already.  The 2% who don’t agree are those who watch Fox News with an eye to disputing what the talking heads have to say.  But that such a poll is hardly “scientific.”  Not if Fox News is only taking the pulse of its actual viewers.  Fox News Channel depends on “intrusiveness” by the viewer, the interconnectedness ultimately being loathed by the fellow who “wants to disappear” and will offer a reward for any of his readers to try to find him in 30 days.  Well, I don’t loath the technology and won’t stay unhooked from the grid.  But I could still do without the tons of useless ads in my e-mail in-box.

On the other hand, there is a degree of irony when it comes businesses that want to go “unwired.”  They still have websites to generate business and it takes technology to publish their catalogs.  I am not about to be opposed to technology when advantages can be had to having it around.  And if I want to “disconnect,” well, just shut down the computer, shut off the TV, and go take a walk.  As for my cell phone, I happily leave it at home.  I don’t panic at the thought of leaving it behind.

Yeah, you just have to love Leonard Pitts, jr.  It is what he inadvertently says in his commentary that leads to far broader avenues of discussion.