reflectivepundit

From Wichita to Fort Hood: Justifying Terrorism as God-Given Responsibility

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Earlier this year, Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, in a Wichita church, where Tiller served as an usher. The other day, in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, the jailed Roeder justified his deed with the necessity to defend pre-born children’s lives. As Roeder admitted and defended his act of terrorism, the most fanatic and violent anti-abortion fringe released the third edition of a so-called “Defense Action Statement” that characterizes Roeder’s action as a just and defensive action—obviously because he discharged his “God-given responsibility” that is explained at great length in the document. The latest declaration that ends with the call “Take defensive action!” mirrors the hate messages publicized on the web sites of the so-called Army of God.

All indications are that the killer of Dr. Tiller acted as a lone wolf without the backing of a terrorist cell behind him. But since Roeder was a frequent visitor to and participant in discussion board exchanges on extremist anti-abortion web sites, there is no doubt that his is a case of inspirational recruitment to the unholy cause of violence by extremists who deem the relevant laws of the land as contrary to the will of God.

To recognize Scott Roeder and previous killers of abortion providers as terrorists who claim to be the instruments of God does not mean an association between the large mainstream of the pro-life movement and the very small fringe of violent anti-abortion terrorists. The non-violent mainstream of that movement works within the legitimate political process for change and has the right to do so.

It seems that there are parallels between anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder and the Fort Hood mass-shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan. There are indications that both had psychological problems and that both had become intensely religious in the years preceding their steps toward violence. Just as Roeder drew from and contributed to extremist anti-abortion web sites, Dr. Hasan visited reportedly jihadi web sites and corresponded with an extremist Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who once associated with several of the 9/11 terrorists and who now praises Dr. Hasan on his web site as a model for doing the right thing in attacking soldiers on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Starring in the Media: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Today, the New York Times published an article by Motoko Rich that describes TV- and radio talk show host Glenn Beck as the new Oprah for the writers of thrillers. Yesterday, Maureen Dowd devoted her column in the Times to Rush Limbaugh. The paper wrote about and referred to Sarah Palin repeatedly before and after Tuesday’s election, especially in the context of the election contest in the 23rd congressional district in up-state New York. While one would expect that the press reports on the influence of the triumvirate Beck, Limbaugh and Palin on conservatives and politics in the Republican Party, one wonders how much of this trio's influence is the result of the extraordinary media attention that these three noise-makers rake in.

Never mind that stories about and references to those three are often critical in nature. That actually enhances their credibility as attackers of the so-called liberal media and as darlings of the conservative fringe. More importantly, their starring roles in the mainstream media helps their promotion of what Palin calls “grass-root patriots” and their intimidation of the few moderates left among Republican Party leaders.

To be sure, Palin, Limbaugh and Beck have a core of enthusiastic followers that share the triumvirate’s ideology and believe whatever they are told. But the extraordinary attention that the mainstream media bestow on them bolsters their star status at a time when celebrity tends to matter most in our society. 

My too-much-attention-argument is backed up by a quick count of newspaper articles and radio- and television transcripts during the last three months (August 5 through November 5) as contained in the Lexis/Nexis electronic archive.

During that period, newspapers across the country carried a total of 1,986 stories that were about or mentioned Sarah Palin with The Washington Post (93), The Washington Times (87), and the New York Times (86) publishing most of such articles. There were 1,988 news transcripts from TV- and radio networks—342 from CNN, 181 the Fox News Network, 141 MSNBC, 59 National Public Radio, 47 NBC News, 35 ABC News, and 17 CBS.

1,591 newspaper stories were about or mentioned Limbaugh—53 of those in The New York Times, 46 in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and 46 in The Washington Times. Television and radio networks reported about or mentioned Limbaugh in 962 segments. CNN has 191 such stories followed by Fox (150), MSNBC (85), National Public Radio (33) NBC (31), ABC (27) and CBS (12).

Finally, Glenn Beck was covered or mentioned in 1,394 newspaper stories, 66 of those in The New York Times, 56 in The St. Petersburg Times and 51 in The Washington Post. Beck was covered or mentioned in 502 TV- and radio segments (not counting 170 on the Fox News Network that carries Beck’s talk show) with CNN (100) segments paying most attention followed by MSNBC (85), National Public Radio (33), NBC (31), ABC (27) and CBS (12).

That much for Palin’s, Limbaugh’s, and Beck’s big publicity helpers in the media!

What Does It Take to Win in Afghanistan?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Recently, when former Vice President Richard Cheney attacked President Barack Obama for “dithering” over a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, he urged him to “do what it takes to win.”

The problem is that nobody can be sure “what it takes to win” in Afghanistan. Worse yet, nobody seems sure what “winning” and “succeeding” means in this context. Neutralizing Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders that hide in Pakistan’s mountainous tribal areas—not in Afghanistan? Installing a non-corrupt government in Kabul that wins over leaders in the fragmented country?

There are no encouraging answers as long as the U.S. and NATO are dealing President Hamid Karzai’s regime or a similarly unreliable and corrupt one and as long as the CIA continues to have Ahmed Karzai, the president's brother and a suspected player in the country’s booming opium trade, on its pay-roll as it has had since the beginning of the war eight years ago.

No wonder that Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent writes, “At this point, everything about the U.S. policy toward the Afghan drug trade — from tolerance to eradication during the Bush administration to an evolving approach to cultivating alternatives — now ought to be questioned….CIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?”

And then there is the news that the defense bill President Obama signed into law this week contains the authorization to pay Taliban fighters to renounce and quit the insurgency.

The record on buying the support of Afghan war lords and their fighters did not work well at the beginning of the war shortly after 9/11. While open to the dollar bonanza at the time and seemingly helpful to American forces, when push came to shove the leading  Al-Qaeda and Taliban figures managed to flee into Pakistan—hardly without the assistance of some of those war lords.

On today’s “Morning Joe” show, Lawrence O’Donnell, an MSNBC analyst who is more knowledgeable and thoughtful than most of television’s talking heads, made a remarkably candid statement with respect to Afghanistan. “I don’t know what to do next,” he said. And O’Donnell, for sure, is familiar with the various options that President Obama and his national security advisers are considering.

The White House--a Bastion of Jocks? And What About Gender Bias in Sports Reporting?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Has President Barack Obama committed an unforgivable offense against gender equality by playing hoops with male members of the administration and congress only?

Two weeks after ABC News reported on an all-male game of basketball on the White House court and comedian Jay Leno enlisted Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services and a former college basketball player, to poke fun at the president for excluding women, the New York Times revisited the president’s alleged faux pas and its larger meaning in today’s edition.

According to reporter Mark Leibovich, the issue transcends that one particular all-male basketball game in that the “technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.”

And not enough with Obama’s preference to play hoops with the guys, the Times mentions also that according to “Mark Knoller of CBS, the president has played 23 rounds of golf since taking office, none of which have included women…”

Is it true or a figment of media hype that at a time of pressing foreign and domestic policy  problems and issues—just think Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, health care reform, economic woes, etc., etc.--, the people in the White House are concerned about this so-called gender issue?

In spite of Hillary Clinton at State, Valerie Jarrett as the closest Obama adviser in the White House, Sonia Sotomayor as pick to join the Supreme Court, and a number of influential women in White House and cabinet, were are told that Obama’s White House is a bastion of male power and according to the Times “rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities…” 

While I am not sure that female members of the administration and congress would want to play basketball with the guys, there are probably enough female golfers who would love to give the president and the guys a run for their money.

Since the lack of female participants in the president’s relaxation time on basketball courts and golf courses is deemed evidence enough for the political correctness guardians to weigh in, the Times should be the last one to dwell on this.

Deceptive Propaganda and Health Care Reform

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The images of mostly old Americans in chaotic townhall meetings this fall are unforgettable as are the untrue arguments against meaningful health care reform made in those gatherings. Although enjoying the benefits of their government-run Medicare entitlements, the elderly in particular ranted and raved against a public alternative to private health insurance.

The deceptive propaganda campaigns (just think of death panels) by conservative ideologues and a greedy insurance industry have misled rather than educate certain segments of society. Thus the outcry against the alleged horror of government bureaucrats making decisions about health care needs—although bureaucrats in insurance companies decide day-in and day-out what medical treatments will be paid for--or not.

When a propaganda of fear warns of socialism and communism taking hold and replacing good, old capitalism, such nonsense tends to scare the hell out of those who fear to be the losers of reforms.

It is a disgrace that a rapidly growing number of Americans do not have any health insurance. But not only Republicans but also several Democrats in the U.S. Senate do not embrace meaningful health care reform that must include a public option. Therefore, MSNBC’s talk show hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow called for setting up temporary free clinics for the uninsured to shame those conservative Democrats--Lincoln and Mark Pryor (both D-Ark.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.)—into joining the majority of Democrats and prevent a filibuster against health care reform in the Senate.
 
Until last night, when I happened to look at Larry King Live, I had never heard of “The Dr. Oz Show” and its host Dr. Mehmet Oz. But this physician’s account of his involvement in such a clinic in Houston drove home the plight of many, many millions of men, women, and children without health insurance.

There was the gripping account of a little girl that was recently examined in one of those temporary clinics in Houston. Although working, her mother has not been able to afford health insurance. As it turned out, the little girl had a hole in her heart. One wonders how many treatable health problems are not discovered for lack of insurance.

And that in the United States—not some third world country!