My Middle Brother sent me this link to an OpEd by Mr Frank Rich, from Sunday's New York Times.
I can't really say what is typical of a Frank Rich OpEd, since I tend to only read them on Sundays, but I do find him a monomaniac. He is not so much an analyst as a polemicist. So, here is what I wrote my Brother; well with the edits that an additional reading bring to mind.
Frank Rich is a danger himself, but at least he recognizes that Shep Smith is fair and balanced. This OpEd was not.
It is all about the Right with Mr Rich. What about that Muslim terrorist who killed one US soldier and wounded another, in our country? Not a mention.
And, as for the Dep't of Homeland Security booklet that is supposed to be a "report about far-right domestic terrorism," I read it. It wasn't "plausible," as Frank Rich asserted it was. It was a terrible amateurish job. Mr Dibbs, my Nineth Grade Social Studies Teacher, would have given me a "C" for such work, but only out of sympathy for my having made an effort, however bad it was.
There is—there always has been—a group of folks who are the followers of the "No Nothings." Some bring us political reform, like cleaning up City Government, a hundred years ago. Today some just talk a good game and some are a danger. My concern is that Frank Rich is out to paint all the Republicans into that "No Nothing" corner with these incidents.
Besides not talking about the Muslim who killed the soldier (how do we classify that?) why does he not try to capture some of the Republicans instead of just speaking to the Democrats? Why doesn't he say, for instance, look at Gov Palin, who understands bi-racial affairs, even in her own marriage, and then build on that? His overheated rheoteric makes it sound like all of us Republicans are nut cases.
Yuch!
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
I'm beginning to believe that the word "terrorist" is actually a more insidious opponent than the homicidal nut cases at whom we're throwing the pejorative. We're losing our way here.
That man, who you characterized by a religion he quite clearly fails to respect, isn't a "terrorist"--he's a murderer who looked for and found an excuse. Just like the Holocaust Museum murderer. And the Lutheran church murderer. Crazy, dangerous and looking for an excuse.
Why would we ever repeat the word and keep giving them one???
I agree that here in the US we are mostly dealing with people whose mental processes are off. On the other hand, the terrorist is a revolutionary who has given up on the ballot box and the street demonstration. Where is the line? I don't know. While we all condemn terrorism, it is a natural process when people decide to move outside legitimate channels for obtaining their goals. Fanatics of all stripes use it. Guerrillas use it. The Mexican drug cartels, which are moving north, will be using terrorism to intimidate official government organs. Ugly. Wrong. To be expected.
Maybe the distinction is the lone gunman versus the member of an organized group. But, then, how do we characterize the lone gunman out to assassinate a blood thirsty tyrant? (Or is that a (fallacious) ticking time bomb question?)
One thing I worry about is the State using the mental health system to deal with dissenters. That is the old Soviet trick. An abuse of both the individual and what should be a legitimate health service.
Regards — Cliff
Unfortunately, our own government, via instruments like the "patriot" act, has likewise given up on the ballot box and our own constitution. It's up to us to insist that this trend does not continue.
"Asymmetrical warfare", whether by and against group or individual or state, is a test of our faith in the rule of law, and of our enforcement tactics. We're learning that combating organized ideological zealots requires offensives towards "hearts and minds". We should also learn that combating disorganized individual killers requires a diligent and responsible police mentality, not an hysterical one.
"Terrorism" is the product of political manipulation as sure as we can pin it on any individual or group. Keeping our heads, and refusing to be cowed or terrorized is the first and most important step in overcoming.
Guys,
I usually don't have much good to say about Bill O'Reilly, but I do give him credit for reporting on Private Long's death. I've tuned into him a couple times in the past week, and he's not only brought it to light, but also called out the rest of the news media for not touching it (I had written earlier on my blog about a rough 8.5-1 ratio I'd counted of news reporting of that murder vs. the doctor's, O'Reilly put it at 10-to-1).
As for what to call people, I'll be consistent here...as a Christian, I would still say "Christian terrorist" to describe Dr. Tiller's killer just on the grounds alone that it's easier than saying "a guy who terrorizes people using the Christian religion but doesn't really follow its precepts." That's too much of a mouthful, so ditto for Pvt. Long's killer.
best,
gp
Post a Comment