The "gotcha" hidden-camera conservatives who posed as a pimp and hooker with ACORN now punked NPR's chief fundraiser. He thought he was soliciting donations from a leftist group, so he started talking crap about how US conservatives and Tea Party types are racists and xenophobes. He may have a point, but he's obviously not allowed to say stuff like that. He also claimed that NPR would be better off without federal funding. Of course the GOPers in Congress pounced on that as a way to cut spending and screw over a "liberal" media org. America and the world would be much worse off without a strong NPR presence. And then what would I do with myself, listen to my 1990's CDs in the car?
I know I am biased, but in all honesty NPR is not liberal. They report the news and don't inject opinion (that's my job). For discussion or debate programs, they almost always have a conservative voice to balance out the liberal voice. In many cases they only have the conservative/libertarian viewpoint. They interview GOP politicians respectfully and don't try to embarrass them, and they can play hardball with liberal politicians. I guess NPR chooses to report on controversial stories that mainstream or conservative media won't, but that doesn't make them biased. They think it's newsworthy, while the other media have their own reasons to avoid such stories. Commercial media has become so shameful and biased that it makes NPR look leftist, but in reality they have just shifted their own bar while NPR has remained in place. I honestly can't think of many better ways to spend our taxes than the information that NPR provides, and they account for a much smaller chunk of discretionary spending than say, handouts to the rich or big oil/corn. Meager budgetary savings, big loss of information and a cultural icon. NPR wouldn't die without federal funding, but they would have to close many rural affiliates, and maybe the quality of their reporting and journalistic resources would suffer. Plus I don't want to have to donate more than I already do.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/
A Gallup survey ... found that the people of [our ally] Kuwait were the most likely of any in the world to cheer the 9/11 attacks on the United States. And yet Kuwait has generated almost no terrorism. The connection between words and deeds turns out to be tenuous at best.
“The bad news for Americans is this: Islamist terrorists really are out to get you. They cannot be deterred by prison sentences, ‘enhanced’ interrogations, or the prospect of death,” Kurzman writes. “The good news for Americans is this: there aren’t very many Islamist terrorists, and most of them are incompetent. The odds of their getting lucky and repeating an operation on the scale of 9/11 seem like a long shot.” - Daily Beast
So there's going to be a show trial in Congress about Muslim radicalism in the US. I agree that sometimes people are too sensitive with radical Islam, and we should be able to call a spade a spade without being labeled as a bigot. But they are not the only religion/philosophy with radicalization problems. If King wants to hold a hearing, what about investigating the people who were radicalized to violence by Fox News (shootings in Oakland and the Midwest linked to FNC), or radicalized by extremist Christian cults and anti-government militias? Remember the Feds busted several Christian militias last year who were stockpiling arms and intent to use them against the cops? They wouldn't even call them "terrorists". Yet a Muslim who buys a bunch of hair care products is nabbed and branded a terrorist in a heartbeat. We have Islamic violence in the world and brewing here in the US, but it is not the only threat to us. So just treat everyone equally and fairly - isn't that the American way? Don't pick on an already marginalized group.
Plus, I don't think a Congressional hearing is the best way to inform the public about these matters, and I question its utility. The FBI and other agencies have been researching this stuff for years, and they actually know shit, unlike detached legislators like King. Maybe their investigations are classified, but the public deserves to know some of it through Freedom of Information. You know how hearings go, the chairman only calls witnesses who will support his argument with anecdotes. Some Imam said this bad thing, and this website wants to do this bad thing, gang bangers become Muslim in jail, yadda yadda. It's a skewed look at the overall issue. I could produce plenty of crazy fringe witnesses to support ludicrous claims like Boehner is gay and Obama is not a citizen. That doesn't add any value to the conversation. If they want to help, set up a task force or think tank to actually collect impartial DATA about radicalism in the US, the causes, and how to stop it.
And as others have said, these types of selective persecution hearings (while not as bad as McCarthyism or Japanese Internment with which they have been compared) only serve to alienate good US Muslims, make them less likely to be helpful, and maybe push them towards the terrorists' cause. "America doesn't like you and doesn't trust you. You do everything right and still they want to humiliate you and your faith in public. You'll never get a fair shake here, and no matter how much you help them in their fight, they will always think of you as the other. You might as well side with us - we are your brothers and we have the tools to take revenge against the Great Satan that torched our lands, killed our children/women, pillaged our resources, and disrespect the Prophet." You can see how it goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment