Remember the images of some Muslims overseas celebrating the attacks on America of September 11, 2001? Well, apparently there are some individuals right here in the States who celebrated the attack on Fort Hood.
Reporting by CNN.
September 11, 2001. From Fox News.
The Media and Known Uknowns
There are multiple news angles to this week’s terrible shooting incident at Fort Hood. One noteworthy aspect of the coverage is the extent to which some legacy media outlets will go to downplay the shooter’s religious identity and political beliefs.
What do we actually know about the incident and the perpetrator that might shed light on motive? In particular, if we wanted to rule in or out the possibility which obviously demands consideration, that Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage was connected to his religiously inspired beliefs?
Few outlet seem willing to seriously investigate this possibility or even highlight its potential. Instead, the early narrative seemed to be that of a simple disgruntled soldier, upset about possible deployment, and frustrated with harassment by peers. To even gather up information on this part of the story requires tracking down tidbits from various news sources.
In this case, motivation has not been definitively determined, at least beyond a reasonable doubt on the grounds of direct evidence. (Circumstantial evidence gives me strong suspicions, but we do not yet have all the facts). There are known unknowns, and sometimes the mainstream media would like to keep them that way. When journalistic integrity succumbs to subservience to political correctness, the mission of the craft and has failed and the public is impoverished because of it. This seems to be another example of just that.
That’s one aspect of the coverage I found interesting.
The Army and Known Unknowns
Another part of the story itself was why this guy was still serving in the Army. Apparently, he was under investigation by the FBI for posting comments online equating suicide bombers with soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save their fellow soldiers’ lives. He also, according to this NPR interview, once delivered a shocking lecture at Walter Reed that was infused with his own radical Islamic viewpoints. And he apparently was known to some of his peers for his strong opposition to US foreign policy and military actions – I need to track this link down, but I saw in one story that an Army officer up the chain of command had been alerted to some troubling information about Hasasn, but apparently did not want to investigate the matter further.
The Common Thread
In both these cases, established, respected, vital national institutions (the military and the media) seemed – or seem – unwilling or unable to do anything that might expose this man’s true identity. Why?
The answer seems obvious. He was a Muslim, and political correctness dictates that Muslims not come under any special scrutiny – even when the facts call for it. I’m all for tolerance, diversity, openness, cultural and religious pluralism and the like. There comes a point, however, when blind allegiance to such ideals can cause one to discard reason and responsibility. Whatever other values they embrace, the media and the military should never jettison these two obligations.
One of Iran’s top backers has taken over the top Iran post at State. From the American Thinker:
“John Limbert will be the senior Iran official at the State Department, replacing Dennis Ross who has moved to the National Security Council (and who has not been heard of publicly since). Should America be concerned? Yes. Limbert is not a neutral arbiter; he serves on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), widely considered to be the de facto lobby for the Iranian regime in America.”
Disturbing. But not surprising. Soon we’ll see a NAMBLA admirer heading up the country’s Safe Schools initiative. Oh wait…
[UPDATE: McDonnell (R) wins Virginia. Christie (R) wins New Jersey. Owens (D) holds close edge over Hoffmann (C) in NY 23. Politico seems to have one of the better live update boards tonight.]
Virginia. Latest Polling: McDonnell (R) +13.4%
New Jersey. Latest Polling: Christie (R) +1%
New York 23. Latest Polling: Hoffmann (R) +5%
California 10. Latest Polling: Garamendi (D) +10%
TOMORROW MORNING on Principally Political: We’ll look at the “Obama Impact,” which I use to label the difference in each of these electoral jurisdictions between the vote total percentage Obama won in November 2008, versus the votes earned by the Democrat in November 2009. It’s been a year since Obama was elected and Democrats increased their margins in the House and Senate. Does the public like what they see? Are these races even fair or accurate proxies for that question? How, if at all, will the results impact current congressional ongoings? That and more, coming up…
Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana on resisting Nancy Pelosi’s health care nationalization plans, and the future of America.
Watch.
The Drudge Report’s top headline today draws attention to President Barack Obama’s exceedingly thin appearance. From the brief story:
“Rigorous workouts and high-stress basketball games are said to be behind the dramatic weight loss. ‘No, he’s not chain smoking,’ claims an insider. ‘He’s working non-stop for the country…yes, he does occasionally skip meals.’”
So, apparently the official story at this point is:
I’ll buy that. But let’s dig a little deeper. No doubt Obama’s personal schedule has changed dramatically since the time he started campaigning full-time for the presidency, and again upon becoming president.
When I was younger, I took a night shift job stocking shelves at a local grocery store. It may not have been the only factor, but I definitely lost weight as the dramatic change in schedule and the unusual hours affected my metabolism, eating schedule and more. This is simply a personal anecdote and speculation; but it certainly seems reasonable to me that long working hours and a more demanding and unusual schedule could be a contributing factor to the president’s gaunt physique.
Also, I could be over-analyzing but I found it interesting that the source said that the president is not “chain-smoking.” He did not say he’s not smoking. “Chain-smoking” generally refers to the practice of lighting one cigarette after another, often even using the former to spark the latter. Just because someone is not “chain-smoking” does not mean they might not be heavily smoking. The source did not rule that out. I’m not attempting to suggest that smoking is the cause of this apparent weight loss, but merely wondering if it could be.
Rigorous workouts. Sure. “High-stress” basketball games. Fine. (Although, that seems an odd way to describe scrimmages on the hard court. “Intense,” maybe, but “high-stress?”). Occasionally skipping meals? Okay. Probably not a good thing, but fair enough. And, as discussed above, a demanding and sometimes unusual schedule.
Could there be additional or alternative explanations for the president’s weight loss? I’d be interested to hear ideas or suggestions, particularly from anybody in the field of nutrition or other human sciences.
Today, a post on an important topic for the future of the GOP.
That is the current tendency of some among the conservative base to see conservatism as a substitute for competence. It is not. Or passion as a substitute for pragmatism and professionalism. Again, not the same. All of these are good things. Yet they are not the identical or interchangeable, and ought never be confused as such.
Over and over, I see people make the case for Sarah Palin because she is a “conservative” leader. A “visionary” even, as Claude Sandroff ridiculously asserted in the American Thinker today. These same energetic advocates either shrug off her demonstrated weaknesses or worse, deny them or ignore their relevance completely. This is not only illogical, but suicidal politically.
There is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin’s conservatism – as far as it actually serves as the basis of her intellectual formation. The only problem is, if you don’t actually have much of an intellectual formation, how conservative could you actually be? That is to say, Palin has never distinguished herself as a serious thinker on major policy issues. Facebook notes don’t count. Anybody could’ve written those. So why are people so jazzed about her?
She’s hot, yes. Absolutely. And that helps, as it should. An appealing image is always going to be a plus in winning the public. She’s got a nice life story. A winsome young Sarah married her high school sweetheart, and from nearly every appearance has been an active, loving parent. She’s tough, too, as all the while she was rising to the top of state politics, a tough and tricky business no matter where you are. And she’s conservative – again, as far as you can say she actually has a substantial and coherent political worldview.
All of these things are great. As I must repeat in every Sarah Palin post – I like Sarah Palin. Nothing against her whatsoever. She is an impressive and dynamic woman, and probably even a good soul. Undoubtedly she has been unfairly maligned by some.
However, it is painfully obvious to any reasonable and honest observer that she was not ready for the national stage in 2008. Not ready to lead a movement, not ready to lead a nation (not that the current occupant is). She was dynamic and inspired, but not in the way that mattered most: as an assertive and authoritative voice on a range of serious foreign and domestic policy issues.
There’s no doubt that on the issues she’s interested in and takes positions on, she’s genuine and emphatic in those positions. The GOP needs that kind of principled authenticity. However, we also need somebody who beyond merely personifying traditionalist political impulses, presents grounded and nuanced understandings and arguments for the broader conservative agenda.
For its potential symbol and spokesperson to evoke little more than gut level cultural conservatism on a narrow range of issues, yet lack competence in discussing and dealing with issues on the broader national agenda, invites the supposition that conservatism is not a serious intellectual possibility as a set of governing principles, but little more than simplistic rightish populism to be offered up as red meat for rowdy red-staters.
I worked for the McCain-Palin ticket for a time, yet I do not say this as any kind of McCain moderate. After the primary had been decided, I went to work as a local field director because the choice between McCain and Obama for me was obvious and compelling.
It is precisely because I believe that the timeless ideals of conservatism can guarantee strength and prosperity for this nation for years to come that I advocate identifying and recruiting, if necessary, a candidate who is not only conservative, but whose competence matches his or her charisma. Right now, Sarah Palin is not that candidate.
Post Script 2: Rarely, I think, have I used harsh descriptions to describe the personal work of a fellow conservative commentator. I take little pleasure in doing so in regards to Sandroff’s column. I say little, because there is always some pleasure in defining something accurately. Any assessment of the philosophical contribution to the conservative movement and practical contribution to the Republican Party which describes Newt Gingrich as a “hack” in contrast to Sarah Palin, “visionary,” is not only ridiculous but absurd, obscene, and patently offensive.
Post Script 3: On Friday, Dr. Catherine Rymph of the University of Missouri delivered a lecture on the topic of Sarah Palin and the Republican Party. Rymph is a feminist historian so I anticipated a relatively hostile treatment of the subject, but nonetheless she did offer some interesting points of analysis which I hope to discuss on Principally Political this week.
