David Brooks, "We Take Care of Our Own": Nice?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "We Take Care of Our Own," David Brooks concludes:

"Unfortunately, the forces of multiculturalism destroyed that commitment to cultural union. That has led to Trump, who has upended universalistic American nationalism and replaced it with European blood and soil nationalism in a stars and stripes disguise.

The way out of this debate is not to go nationalist or globalist. It’s to return to American nationalism — espoused by people like Walt Whitman — which combines an inclusive definition of who is Our Own with a fervent commitment to assimilate and Take Care of them."

Brooks fails to take into account the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, which left 130 dead and more than 360 wounded, and yesterday's attack in Nice, which left a death toll of 84.

France, once very much a party to "European blood and soil nationalism," attempted a pirouette and sought to assimilate Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. The consequences are plain to see.

Will France maintain its "fervent commitment" to assimilation? Stay tuned.

More to the point, notwithstanding Paris and Nice, should America reassess whether assimilation in all instances is possible? Assimilation, as also evidenced by the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, can also come with a price tag steeped in blood.

Bill Keller, "Living With the Surveillance State": Ignoring the Real Threat

In an editorial entitled "Taking the mystery out of cyberwar" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cyberwar-the-white-house-is-thinking-ahead/2013/06/16/b4a0ab00-d4fa-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z3), The Washington Post today describes defensive and offensive cyber operations, should the United States find itself in such a war:

"'Defensive cyber effects operations,' or DCEO, involve reaching outside of U.S. government networks to stop an assault or imminent threat. 'Offensive cyber effects operations,' or OCEO, are intended to 'offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance U.S. national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging.' Both of these describe attacks, and, according to the directive, the president has ordered targeting plans. Stuxnet, the computer worm developed by the United States and Israel and used to sabotage Iran’s nuclear equipment a few years ago, was in the vanguard of such operations. Just recently, an online magazine that spreads al-Qaeda ideology was taken down, presumably another example."

Stuxnet, the product of a US and Israeli collaboration initiated when Bush was still president, can now be described as a fossilized worm. Should there be a future cyber war, look for a combined attack on transportation systems, power grids, telecommunications and financial markets. Although not as deadly as the tragic events on 9/11, such an assault could shut a country down and cause overwhelming destruction.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Living With the Surveillance State" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/opinion/keller-living-with-the-surveillance-state.html?pagewanted=all), Bill Keller begins by showering compliments on Thomas Friedman for his June 12, 2013 op-ed entitled "Blowing a Whistle" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/thomas-friedman-blowing-whistle-nsa-is.html). Keller writes:

"Tom’s important point was that the gravest threat to our civil liberties is not the N.S.A. but another 9/11-scale catastrophe that could leave a panicky public willing to ratchet up the security state, even beyond the war-on-terror excesses that followed the last big attack. Reluctantly, he concludes that a well-regulated program to use technology in defense of liberty — even if it gives us the creeps — is a price we pay to avoid a much higher price, the shutdown of the world’s most open society. Hold onto that qualifier: 'well regulated.'"

Well, I have news for both Bill and Tom: The bigger current danger to the US is not another 9/11 type attack, but rather a massive cyber assault. Moreover, even with warnings from Moscow concerning the Tsarnaev brothers, the data accumulated by PRISM couldn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing.

Keller continues:

"But in most cases the advantages of intrusive technology are tangible and the abuses are largely potential. Edward Snowden’s leaks about N.S.A. data-mining have, so far, not included evidence of any specific abuse.

The danger, it seems to me, is not surveillance per se. We have already decided, most of us, that life on the grid entails a certain amount of intrusion. Nor is the danger secrecy, which, as Posner notes, 'is ubiquitous in a range of uncontroversial settings,' a promise the government makes to protect 'taxpayers, inventors, whistle-blowers, informers, hospital patients, foreign diplomats, entrepreneurs, contractors, data suppliers and many others.'

The danger is the absence of rigorous, independent regulation and vigilant oversight to keep potential abuses of power from becoming a real menace to our freedom. The founders created a system of checks and balances, but the safeguards have not kept up with technology. Instead, we have an executive branch in a leak-hunting frenzy, a Congress that treats oversight as a form of partisan combat, a political climate that has made 'regulation' an expletive and a public that feels a generalized, impotent uneasiness. I don’t think we’re on a slippery slope to a police state, but I think if we are too complacent about our civil liberties we could wake up one day and find them gone — not in a flash of nuclear terror but in a gradual, incremental surrender."

No "evidence of any specific abuse"? The fact that Snowden was privy to PRISM is in and of itself a significant failure. Add to this, Snowden's declaration: "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail." In short, I would bet that a serious investigation would reveal massive abuse by NSA staff and subcontractors. Randomly select 100 NSA and subcontractor employees and ask them to take a polygraph to determine whether they ever abused the system. My guess is that there would be much "unhappiness" within the ranks.

Congress might also want to ask James Clapper about the hacking of Sharyl Attkisson's computer.

Indeed, the employment of Snowden and his freedom of action are evidence of the absence "of rigorous, independent regulation and vigilant oversight to keep potential abuses of power from becoming a real menace to our freedom."

I agree with Keller that "if we are too complacent about our civil liberties we could wake up one day and find them gone." In any given instance, a balance must be struck between the intrusiveness of technology and its ability to prevent disaster. The Boston Marathon bombing demonstrated PRISM's limited value.

More important, PRISM is powerless to prevent the real threat currently facing the US, i.e. a massive cyber assault on America's infrastructure, whose cost could prove immeasurable.

Thomas Friedman, "Blowing a Whistle": The NSA Is Going to Save Us from Another 9/11

Suppose terrorists have hidden a dirty bomb in Manhattan and are threatening to detonate the bomb unless the US releases all of its Guantanamo prisoners. The bomb is timed to go off in another two hours, and there is no time to evacuate the city. Millions are expected to die slow painful deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer unless the bomb is found and defused. Then suddenly, one of the al-Qaeda conspirators is captured, but he refuses to talk. Would you waterboard him, or read him his rights and wait for his lawyer?

Me? Wait for his lawyer? I wouldn't hesitate to go far beyond waterboarding the bastard, and yet I am appalled by the revelations of NSA information gathering, which contribute very little to American security. Even with warnings from Moscow, this data didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing. You see, it has nothing to do with the quantity of the data accumulated, and everything to do with theory and focus.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Blowing a Whistle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html), Thomas Friedman plays on our 9/11 paranoia:

"Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.

I worry about that even more, not because I don’t care about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: 'Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.' That is what I fear most.

That is why I’ll reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining to look for suspicious patterns in phone numbers called and e-mail addresses — and then have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress — to prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime."

Tom wants to "prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime"? Me, too. But didn't Snowden just tell us that "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal e-mail" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance)?

Friedman quotes from an essay by David Simon, the creator of HBO’s "The Wire": "this kind of data collection has been a baseline logic of an American anti-terrorism effort that is effectively asked to find the needles before they are planted into haystacks, to prevent even such modest, grass-rooted conspiracies as the Boston Marathon bombing before they occur." Okay, but did it stop the Boston Marathon bombing? Not a chance.

Sure, I want to prevent a future 9/11, which is more likely to arise today as the result of an Iranian cyber attack, but unlike Tom, I'm going to be politically incorrect. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey (http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec.aspx):

"Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam."

Only 1% of US Muslims "say violence against civilians is often justified," and only 7% say that such violence "is sometimes justified"? These numbers are frightening. As I said earlier, everything has to do with theory and focus - here is your focus. Thanks to Pew, there is no additional need for theory.

And where is Obama in the midst of this storm? From the isolation of Rancho Mirage in California, he will soon be traveling to Tanzania. On Tuesday, Politico reporter Glenn Thrush Tuesday asked Jay Carney whether President Obama should "have a fireside chat with the American people" about the NSA’s surveillance program. Carney's answer (see: http://freebeacon.com/carney-refuses-to-answer-why-obama-wont-speak-to-american-people-directly-about-nsa-scandal/):

"I’m not saying — I think I just said, Glenn, although I appreciate yours and the former Attorney General’s specific recommendations about the modalities of presidential communication, the president has and will speak about this subject."

Yup, they're already firing up the teleprompters, but in the meantime, the president is doing what he does best: He likes to watch.

Gail Collins, "The Luv Guv’s Last Stand": My House Is Hit by a Tsunami

What happened this morning? My daughter woke up early and turned on "E!". News of the Kardashian Family washed over the house like a tsunami and had me struggling against the giant wave, gasping for air, trying to avoid losing consciousness. Meanwhile, my youngest son had also risen, and instead of making sandwiches for school, he had turned on his computer and was back to online game playing.

I could feel my foot ensnared on the bottom and doubted whether I could make it back to the surface.

"Don't pay any attention to dad," my daughter said to my son, as she prepared me a cup of coffee, the only sedative occasionally known to work on this bedlamite. "He woke up on the wrong side of bed."

The wrong side of bed? Ordinarily we're talking about the wrong side of the floor.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Luv Guv’s Last Stand" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/opinion/collins-the-luv-guvs-last-stand.html?_r=0), Gail Collins decided to add to my anguish with a description of former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s campaign for Congress. Collins tells us that Sanford has run "a full-page ad comparing himself to the defenders of the Alamo" and quotes this buffoon as saying:

"I’m outnumbered right now but will fight to the end toward freedom and financial sanity in Washington so important to sustaining it."

The Alamo? Travers, Crockett, Bowie and the other defenders of the Alamo will remain heroes for me until the day I die. Sanford would have us believe that he is a modern day Davy Crockett? Don't go there, Governor.

The tsunami is dragging me down again, hurling me into sunken debris and detritus.

Why did Gail feel the need to add to my emotional distress this morning with this piece of fluff, replete with sexual innuendo? Is there nothing else important to address from the pulpit of the editorial page of The Times? Gail explains:

"Right now in New York, we need all the guidance we can get on this point, since we’re facing the distinct possibility of having to live through an Anthony Weiner for Mayor campaign."

Gail should take Anthony's weiner elsewhere. Me? I'm troubled by something else.

The Obama administration systematically lied to the American people in its effort to portray the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate as the consequence of a "spontaneous" demonstration, and now we are being told that it's ancient history.

More recently, however, it was leaked to us that the Boston Marathon bombing was the "lone wolf" work of two deranged brothers. Ignore Tamerlan Tsarnaev's trip to Dagestan. Ignore the DNA of others on pieces of the bombs. Ignore the arrests of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's friends.

A "lone wolf" terror attack? Poppycock. You don't believe me? Even Arnold, my Anatolian Shepherd, knows better.

Why does the Obama administration again feel the need to avoid addressing the ugly reality of Islamic fanaticism underlying this latest horror?

You certainly won't find an answer in Gail's frivolous opinion piece.

However, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of Muslims around the globe (http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec.aspx):

"Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories."

Only 1% of US Muslims "say violence against civilians is often justified" and only 7% say that such violence "is sometimes justified"? How reassuring . . .

Frank Bruni, "The Lesson of Boston": Go Back to School, Frank

I like much of what Frank Bruni writes, but today he is wearing his ignorance on his sleeve. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-lesson-of-boston.html?pagewanted=all), Bruni opines on the motivation behind the Boston Marathon bombings:

"Our insistence on patterns and commonalities and some kind of understanding assumes coherence to the massacres, rationality. But the difference between the aimless, alienated young men who do not plant bombs or open fire on unsuspecting crowds — which is the vast majority of them — and those who do is less likely to be some discrete radicalization process that we can diagram and eradicate than a dose, sometimes a heavy one, of pure madness. And there’s no easy antidote to that. No amulet against it."

Pure madness. Yeah, right. I suppose that's the reason for the following findings by the Pew Research Center(http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/):

"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt . . . say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion."

So now you know that most Egyptians are "purely mad."

Then there was the recently foiled, al-Qaeda backed plot to derail a Canadian passenger train, but Raed Jaser and co-accused Chiheb Esseghaier are not Egyptians. More "pure madness"?

Perhaps 9/11 was also "pure madness"?

And all the "honor killings" being perpetrated against Muslim women around the globe also amount to "pure madness"?

Wake up, Frank. These hate crimes are something that I would describe as "pure evil," but I suppose that any such dark thoughts would be categorized as politically incorrect.

Thomas Friedman, "Judgment Not Included": The Bullshit Never Stops

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Judgment Not Included" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-judgment-not-included.html), Thomas Friedman opines on the Boston Marathon bombings and Islamic radicalism. Friedman writes:

"Moreover, some 70,000 people, most of them Muslims, have been killed by other Muslims in the Syrian civil war, which the U.S. had nothing to do with — although many Muslims are now begging us to intervene to stop it. And every week innocent Muslims are blown up by Muslim suicide bombers in Pakistan and Iraq — every week. Thousands of them have been maimed and killed in attacks so nihilistic that the bombers don’t even bother to give their names or make demands. Yet this does not appear to have moved the brothers Tsarnaev one iota.

Why is that? We surely must not tar all of Islam in this. Having lived in the Muslim world, I know how unfair that would be. But we must ask a question only Muslims can answer: What is going on in your community that a critical number of your youth believes that every American military action in the Middle East is intolerable and justifies a violent response, and everything Muslim extremists do to other Muslims is ignorable and calls for mostly silence?"

"We surely must not tar all of Islam in this"? All of Islam? No. But consider Bill Maher's interchange with Brian Levin, director of the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism. "Could they do the 'Book of Islam' on Broadway?" No way in hell.

Friedman concludes:

"And that’s why the faster, more accessible and ultramodern the Internet becomes, the more all the old-fashioned stuff matters: good judgment, respect for others who are different and basic values of right and wrong. Those you can’t download. They have to be uploaded, the old-fashioned way, by parents around the dinner table, by caring but demanding teachers at school and by responsible spiritual leaders in a church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Somewhere, somehow, that did not happen, or stopped happening, with the brothers Tsarnaev."

Spiritual leaders in mosques are going to take a stand against "honor killings" against women and declare that Muslims who convert to other religions should not be executed? Some 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe that those abandoning Islam should die (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/). From where do Egyptians, many of them illiterate, form these views if not from the sermons of their "spiritual leaders"?

Go back to sleep, Tom, before you hurt yourself.

Maureen Dowd, "Lost in Space": The Best Coverage from Boston Came from The Times? Covering Their Posteriors!

Has a New York Times op-ed ever caused you nausea?

In her latest Times op-ed entitled "Lost in Space" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/opinion/dowd-lost-in-space.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd would have us know with regard to media coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings:

"The best reporting in Boston last week was not in cyberspace. It was in the two great daily newspapers that were on the scene, The Boston Globe and The Times."

Well, I don't read The Boston Globe, but with respect to The Times, did we indeed witness such "marvelous" coverage, as Dowd would have us believe? First, Fearless Leader and his media disciples couldn't decide whether the bombings constituted a "terror" attack until the following day. Hmm, three dead and more than 200 wounded from bombs constructed from pressure cookers packed with BBs, nails and pellets, yet no one had the guts to say explicitly that this was an "act of terrorism" or to question the president's timorousness.

When the perpetrators were caught, we learned that they were Chechans, but efforts were taken to avoid mentioning that they were radical Muslims, and needless to say, insipid questions concerning their possible "motives" made for the next series of headlines.

Discussion by the op-ed columnists of The Times? An embarrassment.

There was Thomas Friedman's saccharine opinion piece entitled "Bring on the Next Marathon" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/thomas-freidman-bring-on-next-marathon.html), in which he didn't bother to ask who actually perpetrated this horror.

And then there was Charles Blow's inane opinion piece entitled "The Mind of a Terror Suspect" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/charles-blow-mind-of-terror-suspect.html), in which he provided us with tweets written by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and explained to us that the whole matter was "complicated."

Okay, Jeffrey, you're one heck of an arrogant smart-ass. Could you have done any better? In fact, I tried my best.

On Monday, April 15, one day after the Boston Marathon, I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/david-brooks-what-youll-do-next-data.html):

"Two bombs have killed at least three people at the Boston Marathon. A small part of my life has been devoted to the war against terror, and I again recoil at this latest travesty, but I am confident that those responsible will be swiftly identified. Voluminous quantities of physical evidence will be collected, videos from every angle will be reviewed, and the data will be sifted. The murderers have left a trail and will not get away.

And in case you were wondering, Mr. President, this was a terror attack, and you need not hesitate to label it as such. In this instance, there is no cause for political correctness or ambiguity."

On Tuesday, April 16, two days after the bombings, I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-cias-angry-birds-after.html):

"Well, allow me once again to be politically incorrect and 'theorize' . . . that this horror was the work of radical Islamists. I know: the design of the device is available on the Internet, and there is no way of being 100% sure, but in this instance do we really wish to play parlor games in an effort not to offend anyone?"

And on Saturday, April 20, I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-no-bully-in-pulpit.html):

"'Radical Islamic terror'? You don't see these words in the headlines of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Rather, you see idle talk about discovering the motive for this latest travesty. The motive? It's as clear as day: radical Islamists hate the U.S. and will do all they can to destroy America's infrastructure, culture and way of life. You don't believe me? Type the words 'Islam death to America' into Google, and spend the rest of the day educating yourself. Travel from Iran to Egypt, to Yemen, to Indonesia.

Radical Islam opposes women's rights. It opposes gay rights. It opposes religious freedom. It opposes freedom of speech.

It's time to wake up."

The "best reporting" came from The New York Times? The coverage that I saw, particularly from their op-ed staff, amounted to efforts to obfuscate and paper over their posteriors.

Thomas Friedman, "How to Put America Back Together Again": "Change" and "Forward" Aren't Working?

Unlike Maureen Dowd (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-no-bully-in-pulpit.html), Thomas Friedman has the decency to make passing reference today to the travesty in Boston. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How to Put America Back Together Again" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-put-america-back-together-again.html?pagewanted=all), Friedman begins:

"UNTIL we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men. With all our warts, we have built a unique society — a country where a black man, whose middle name is Hussein, whose grandfather was a Muslim, can run for president and first defeat a woman in his own party and then four years later a Mormon from the opposition, and no one thinks twice about it. With so many societies around the world being torn apart, especially in the Middle East, it is vital that America survives and flourishes as a beacon of pluralism.

Rebuilding our strength has to start with healing our economy."

Friedman doesn't understand "what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers"? Let me provide Tom with the answer: It's called radical Islam, and all the kindness showered upon these two refugees from Chechnya did nothing to prevent them from turning Boston's Boylston Street red with blood. Radical Islam opposes women's rights. It opposes gay rights. It opposes religious freedom. It opposes freedom of speech.

Friedman thinks that "healing our economy" is going to change the minds of jihadists intent on destroying America? True, ten years of US economic growth ended in March 2001, just months prior to the September 11 attacks; however, does Friedman really wish to contend that if the US economy had remained strong going into the fall of 2001, we would not have seen 9/11? Sorry, Tom, but Radical Islamists are going to hate the US whether the economy is good or bad.

Regarding his miracle cure for the economy, Friedman writes:

"A phased-in carbon tax of $20 to $25 a ton could raise around $1 trillion over 10 years."

A total of $1 trillion "over 10 years" and possibly "revenue neutral"? Well, that would be truly remarkable were it not for the fact that federal debt is now more than $16.8 trillion and growing by the second.

A phased-in carbon tax? As W.C. Fields once said, "Sounds like a bubble in a bathtub."

Maureen Dowd, "No Bully in the Pulpit": Bitching About Obama, Ignoring Boston

As I explained to my wife earlier today, our family has had its fair share of trauma. Two of my army buddies lost their faces to a Molotov cocktail, and my son's officer died a yard away from him. I'll spare you the details of both of these incidents, but if there is such a thing as post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), we both suffer from it. I've seen a lot over the course of a lifetime, but nothing left me prepared for what happened in Boston. Just a month ago, my daughter and I were spending quality time together on the streets where this horror played out. I had hoped that radical Islamic terror would not revisit America's shores, but my dreams were shattered.

"Radical Islamic terror"? You don't see these words in the headlines of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Rather, you see idle talk about discovering the motive for this latest travesty. The motive? It's as clear as day: radical Islamists hate the U.S. and will do all they can to destroy America's infrastructure, culture and way of life. You don't believe me? Type the words "Islam death to America" into Google, and spend the rest of the day educating yourself. Travel from Iran to Egypt, to Yemen, to Indonesia.

Radical Islam opposes women's rights. It opposes gay rights. It opposes religious freedom. It opposes freedom of speech.

It's time to wake up.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "No Bully in the Pulpit" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/dowd-president-obama-is-no-bully-in-the-pulpit.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd again ignores what happened in Boston and busily berates Obama for failing to gain Senate approval of new gun control legislation. Dowd writes:

"President Obama has watched the blood-dimmed tide drowning the ceremony of innocence, as Yeats wrote, and he has learned how to emotionally connect with Americans in searing moments, as he did from the White House late Friday night after the second bombing suspect was apprehended in Boston.

Unfortunately, he still has not learned how to govern.

How is it that the president won the argument on gun safety with the public and lost the vote in the Senate? It’s because he doesn’t know how to work the system. And it’s clear now that he doesn’t want to learn, or to even hire some clever people who can tell him how to do it or do it for him.

It’s unbelievable that with 90 percent of Americans on his side, he could get only 54 votes in the Senate. It was a glaring example of his weakness in using leverage to get what he wants. No one on Capitol Hill is scared of him."

Obama is a fabulous teleprompter speaker, but an incompetent leader? You don't say. It took Dowd more than four years to find this out.

Gun control? As I've stated repeatedly, I favor a ban on the sale of assault rifles and stricter background checks. But I also acknowledge that each year knives kill four time more Americans than rifles (see: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8).

And now Americans have painfully come to learn of the dangers of pressure cookers packed with explosives.

Guns don't kill, people do, and there are plenty of organizations like al-Qaeda prepared to teach them how to do it.

Charles Blow, "The Mind of a Terror Suspect": Giving Radical Islam a Free Pass

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Mind of a Terror Suspect" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/opinion/blow-inside-the-mind-of-a-terror-suspect-in-the-boston-marathon-bombings.html?_r=0), Charles Blow tells us:

"It’s complicated.

. . . .

'A picture has begun to emerge of 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an aggressive, possibly radicalized immigrant who may have ensnared his younger brother Dzhokhar — described almost universally as a smart and sweet kid — into an act of terror,' The Boston Globe reported Friday.

. . . .

[Dzhokhar] was a proud Muslim who tweeted about going to mosque and enjoying talking — and even arguing — about religion with others. But he seemed to believe that different faiths were in competition with one another. On Nov. 29, he tweeted: 'I kind of like religious debates, just hearing what other people believe is interesting and then crushing their beliefs with facts is fun.'"

Blow then provides us with additional tweets from Dzhokhar, before concluding:

"The last tweet on the account reads: 'I’m a stress free kind of guy.' The whole of the Twitter feed would argue against that assessment."

That's all? A "sweet kid," a "proud Muslim," who was led astray by his brother? Maybe we should give him a lollipop instead of a prison sentence.

This opinion piece is intended to provide us with insights into the workings of Dzhokhar's mind?

Charles, you haven't even scratched the surface. Yes, it is "complicated," but perhaps not as complicated as you would have us believe.

The mainstream media continues to turn triple somersaults to avoid having to examine the underpinnings of radical Islam. It's written in black and white, and you can easily find it on the Internet if you have the courage to face facts.

I already explained on Tuesday that the travesty in Boston was the "work" of radical Muslims (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-cias-angry-birds-after.html), but there were those pundits who still hoped to pin the horror on America's crazy homegrown right.

Michael Moore is busy telling anyone who will listen that "both Tsarnaev brothers were registered voters and U.S. citizens" (see: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/04/19/Michael-moore-Boston-bombers), i.e. they're not from the right, but at least they're homegrown. Give us a break!

Or as Star-Kist Tuna used to tell us in the '70s, "Sorry, Charlie."
 

And So, the Perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Travesty Were Indeed Radical Muslims . . . Oops, I Meant Chechens

As I informed those who read this blog on Monday, the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon travesty would be identified by examining the videos (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/david-brooks-what-youll-do-next-data.html). I also explained on Tuesday that this was the "work" of radical Muslims (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-cias-angry-birds-after.html).

But given my background, what could I possibly know?

Oops, did I say "radical Muslims"? That's politically incorrect, and I'm not permitted to say that.

Instead, let's call them "Chechens," so most Americans won't have a clue, or even half a clue, who they are. Maybe they'll think that they are Russians . . .

Djohar Tsarnaev's world view? As can be seen below: Islam. How quaint!

Thomas Friedman, "Bring on the Next Marathon": What Does It Matter Who Perpetrated This Horror?

Thomas Friedman always has asinine advice for those addicted to frothy saccharine pap, and in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon travesty, Tom again flaunts his talent. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bring on the Next Marathon" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/opinion/friedman-bring-on-the-next-marathon.html), Friedman blithely declares:

"So let’s repair the sidewalk immediately, fix the windows, fill the holes and leave no trace — no shrines, no flowers, no statues, no plaques — and return life to normal there as fast as possible. Let’s defy the terrorists, by not allowing them to leave even the smallest scar on our streets, and honor the dead by sanctifying our values, by affirming life and all those things that make us stronger and bring us closer together as a country."

Friedman's conclusion:

"So hug your kids tonight, but also encourage them to start training for the next marathon tomorrow. Now that I think of it, maybe we should make this one longer — from Boston to the site of the World Trade Center to the Pentagon — to remind ourselves and anyone else who needs reminding: This is our house. We intend to relax here. And we are not afraid."

Telling us to go on with our lives, Friedman doesn't bother to ask who actually perpetrated this horror. Friedman is content to label the attackers as "terrorists," something which Obama took until Tuesday to acknowledge.

As noted in my prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/maureen-dowd-cias-angry-birds-after.html), it doesn't take much brain power to theorize who stands behind the killing and maiming in Boston.

As observed in an article in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/boston-marathon-bombs-had-simple-but-harmful-design-early-clues-indicate/2013/04/16/c2b061cc-a6d8-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html?hpid=z1):

"The [explosive] devices’ design was immediately recognized by counterterrorism experts as a type touted by al-Qaeda for use by its operatives around the world. Similar devices have been used by terrorists in mass-casualty bombings in numerous countries, from the Middle East to South Asia to North Africa."

Yes, we can't yet be absolutely certain who was responsible for this horror, but the trademark signs are there for all to see.

Careful not to point an offending finger, Tom would have us return unafraid to our daily routines. Well, we should be afraid. Not panicked, but certainly cognizant of the danger posed by radical Islam.

Relax in our homes? We cannot afford to relax for even a moment as we fight this ugly war against terror.

Maureen Dowd, "The C.I.A.’s Angry Birds": After the Boston Marathon Attack, We Should All Be Angry

On Tuesday, President Obama finally got around to acknowledging that the bombing of the Boston Marathon was an "act of terrorism." Hmm, three dead and more than 170 wounded from bombs constructed from pressure cookers packed with BBs, nails and pellets - that sure as heck sounds like an "act of terrorism" to me. But why the delay in acknowledging it as such? Might it have been politically incorrect to do so too precipitously and have cost votes in future elections? Or was this simply the Procrastinator-in-Chief doing what he does best?

And now we have the White House and the media attempting to dance around the issue of the origin of this travesty. As observed in an article in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/boston-marathon-bombs-had-simple-but-harmful-design-early-clues-indicate/2013/04/16/c2b061cc-a6d8-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html?hpid=z1) written by Joby Warrick and Sari Horwitz:

"The [explosive] devices’ design was immediately recognized by counterterrorism experts as a type touted by al-Qaeda for use by its operatives around the world. Similar devices have been used by terrorists in mass-casualty bombings in numerous countries, from the Middle East to South Asia to North Africa."

Well, allow me once again to be politically incorrect and "theorize" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/david-brooks-what-youll-do-next-data.html) that this horror was the work of radical Islamists. I know: the design of the device is available on the Internet, and there is no way of being 100% sure, but in this instance do we really wish to play parlor games in an effort not to offend anyone?

I am offended by this attack. And although the Obama administration in the past would have us believe that the war with al-Qaeda is over - hence, efforts to attribute the attack upon the US consulate in Benghazi to "demonstrators" - it is far from that. The US is under fire from an organization seeking to undermine America's landmarks, institutions and way of life.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The C.I.A.’s Angry Birds" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/opinion/the-cias-angry-birds.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd takes the CIA and the intelligence wing of the United States Army to task for the seemingly casual manner in which they undertake targeted assassinations of Muslim jihadists. Dowd writes:

"After two bloody, money-sucking, never-ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of a weapon for war that precluded having anyone actually go to war was too captivating. Our sophisticated, sleek, smart, detached president was ensorcelled by our sophisticated, sleek, smart, detached war machine.

. . . .

But as The Times’s Mark Mazzetti notes in his new book, 'The Way of the Knife,' 'the analogy suggests that this new kind of war is without costs or blunders — a surgery without complications. This isn’t the case.'

Mazzetti raises the issue of whether the C.I.A. — which once sold golf shirts with Predator logos in its gift shop — became 'so enamored of its killer drones that it wasn’t pushing its analysts to ask a basic question: To what extent might the drone strikes be creating more terrorists than they are actually killing?'

Mazzetti writes that Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, watched one of the first drone strikes via satellite at Langley a few weeks after 9/11. As he saw a Mitsubishi truck in Afghanistan being blown up, Dearlove smiled wryly. 'It almost isn’t sporting, is it?' the Brit asked."

In trademark snarky fashion, Dowd concludes:

"President Obama, who continued nearly every covert program handed down by W., clearly feels tough when he talks about targeted killings, and considers drones an attractive option. As Mazzetti says, 'fundamental questions about who can be killed, where they can be killed, and when they can be killed' still have not been answered or publicly discussed.

It almost isn’t sporting, is it?"

Sorry, Maureen but the savage ongoing war with al-Qaeda is not sport. The Boston Marathon, which most likely was attacked by radical Islamists - again, I admit it's too early to be certain - is sport.

Regrettably, rules - and sometimes laws - get bent in war. Yes, I think we can all agree that given an ideal set of circumstances, it would be much preferable to engage in far-reaching debate and to seek judicial review before taking the life of suspected terrorists by remote control from above. But then, during wartime, circumstances do not always permit reflection and procrastination. Anyone who has ever found himself or herself in a battle zone knows that if you procrastinate too long, you die.

Unlike Maureen, I have every reason to believe in the underlying decency of those working out of Arlington and Langley, notwithstanding my opposition to the Second Gulf War and America's ground war in Afghanistan.

And unlike Maureen, I am also someone who has witnessed up close the aftermath of terror attacks, and know that there are limits to oversight and due diligence when confronting al-Qaeda.

In short, a balance must be drawn, but it must not be forgotten, as we proceed with our everyday lives, that the US is engaged in a war that threatens its existence. The attack on the Boston Marathon, i.e. a violent intrusion upon our everyday lives, was yet another wake-up call.

David Brooks, "What You’ll Do Next": Data Mining Will Help Find the Perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Terror Attack

Two bombs have killed at least three people at the Boston Marathon. A small part of my life has been devoted to the war against terror, and I again recoil at this latest travesty, but I am confident that those responsible will be swiftly identified. Voluminous quantities of physical evidence will be collected, videos from every angle will be reviewed, and the data will be sifted. The murderers have left a trail and will not get away.

And in case you were wondering, Mr. President, this was a terror attack, and you need not hesitate to label it as such. In this instance, there is no cause for political correctness or ambiguity.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "What You’ll Do Next" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/opinion/brooks-what-youll-do-next.html?_r=0), David Brooks muses over the theory of big data. According to Brooks:

"The theory of big data is to have no theory, at least about human nature. You just gather huge amounts of information, observe the patterns and estimate probabilities about how people will act in the future."

A theory with no theory? Interesting. And what has it yielded? As observed by Brooks:

"Wal-Mart executives looked at the data and noticed that, as hurricanes approach, people buy large quantities of Strawberry Pop-Tarts. They began to put Pop-Tarts at the front of the stores with storm supplies."

I rebel at the thought of using data to sell Pop-Tarts, be they strawberry or any other flavor.

There is indeed a data revolution underway. Today, vast quantities of data can be collected and stored, but without a theory, it cannot be analyzed in a meaningful way.

Theory combined with data will lead to the capture of those responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing.

Theory combined with data can lead to the rationalization of America's health care system.

Theory combined with data will lead to the next generation of potent medicines against cancer and other diseases as well as personalized medicine.

Brooks writes:

"Big data is like the offensive coordinator up in the booth at a football game who, with altitude, can see patterns others miss. But the head coach and players still need to be on the field of subjectivity."

Indeed, without proposed solutions deriving from instinctive human thought processes, i.e theories, you can't possibly mine and make use of that ocean of data in a meaningful manner.

Unless you might be hoping to seek new ways of marketing Pop-Tarts . . .