Fareed Zakaria, "America’s self-destructive whites": The Collapse of Hope and Change

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "America’s self-destructive whites," Fareed Zakaria writes:

"The United States is going through a great power shift. Working-class whites don’t think of themselves as an elite group. But, in a sense, they have been, certainly compared with blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and most immigrants. They were central to America’s economy, its society, indeed its very identity. They are not anymore. Donald Trump has promised that he will change this and make them win again. But he can’t. No one can. And deep down, they know it."

I am unaware of the basis for Zakaria's claim that Trump has promised to make whites in America "win again," however, it is certainly true that the US is undergoing significant demographic change. The United States Census Bureau declared in March 2015:

The U.S. population is expected to grow more slowly in future decades than it did in the previous century. Nonetheless, the total population of 319 million in 2014 is projected to reach the 400 million threshold in 2051 and 417 million in 2060.

Around the time the 2020 Census is conducted, more than half of the nation’s children are expected to be part of a minority race or ethnic group. This proportion is expected to continue to grow so that by 2060, just 36 percent of all children (people under age 18) will be single-race non-Hispanic white, compared with 52 percent today.

The U.S. population as a whole is expected to follow a similar trend, becoming majority-minority in 2044. The minority population is projected to rise to 56 percent of the total in 2060, compared with 38 percent in 2014.

While one milestone would be reached by the 2020 Census, another will be achieved by the 2030 Census: all baby boomers will have reached age 65 or older (this will actually occur in 2029). Consequently, in that year, one-in-five Americans would be 65 or older, up from one in seven in 2014.

By 2060, the nation’s foreign-born population would reach nearly 19 percent of the total population, up from 13 percent in 2014.

A cause for concern for white Americans? I don't think so. What should be troublesome, on the other hand, for all Americans is that child poverty in the US is horrendous compared with other developed nations.

Similarly, all Americans should be worried that, as reported by Gretchen Livingston of the Pew Research Center, "the share of children born outside of marriage now stands at 41%, up from just 5% in 1960."

All Americans should be outraged that the US is effectively bankrupt. America's debt has risen to an unsustainable $18.8 trillion, or more than $157,000 per taxpayer.

And all Americans should be concerned that President Obama has trashed US overseas credibility and deterrent power.

Work hard and you will succeed? No more. "Hope" and "Change" have proven hollow catchwords. The American dream is dead. Moreover, the collapse is black and white.

New York Times Editorial, "End the Gun Epidemic in America": Treating the Symptom While Ignoring the Disease

Tweet

In a front page editorial entitled "End the Gun Epidemic in America," The New York Times responds to the San Bernardino shooting by declaring:r

"It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition."

The Times editorial fails to note that there are now more guns than people in the US. Query: Is it still possible to return the genie to the bottle?

Moreover, which categories of weapons and ammunition should be "eliminated"? Eliminate, for example, semiautomatic AK-47s? Okay, but do you also eliminate semiautomatic Glock 19 pistols? The 33 bullets in an extended Glock 19 magazine can be fired in 15 seconds.

Legislate against large magazines for both rifles and pistols? Maybe. But once again, good luck at rounding them all up.

But more to the point, the Times editorial would treat the symptom while ignoring the disease.

Over the course of the some 20 years that I served in combat units of the regular Israeli army and the reserves, I would bring my automatic rifle home on leave. My sons also brought their automatic weapons home on weekends. Yet instances of Israelis turning their weapons against civilians are extremely rare.

And Israel is not the exception. In Switzerland reservists keep their weapons at home, yet Switzerland does not experience the gun violence plaguing the US.

Is it poverty (there is also a high level of poverty in Israel) or a general climate of intolerance that fuels shootings in the US? I don't know the answer, but gun control, in and of itself, is not going to eliminate violence in the US.

Meanwhile, a Washington Post editorial entitled "After San Bernardino, Americans cannot abandon tolerance" calls upon the "United States to redouble its resolve to destroy the Islamic State and other barbarously radical Islamist groups," but warns against intolerance against American Muslims:

"By threatening to forcibly register American Muslims, as Donald Trump did, or likening Syrian refugees to 'rabid' dogs, as Ben Carson did, blustering politicians play perfectly into the hands of jihadists."

However, as I have repeatedly observed in recent days, there can be no ignoring the significant level of intolerance present within the American Muslim community. As reported by the Pew Research Center in an August 30, 2011 article entitled "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," eight percent of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing can "often/sometimes" be justified. Or stated otherwise, if you randomly place 100 American adult Muslims in a room, only eight of them think that it's "often/sometimes" justified to blow you to bits.

And in a June 2015 poll of 600 Muslim-Americans, The Polling Company determined:

• 29 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "violence against those that insult the prophet Mohammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable."
• 25 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad."
• 19 percent believed that "the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country."

I ask the editorial board of the Washington Post, is this not evidence of intolerance, too?

Yes, the US has a problem with radical Islam, and as "politically incorrect" as this may be, answers to the dilemmas of gun violence and terrorism in the US also require that America's political leadership and progressive media acknowledge radical Islam's existence and seek solutions.

[President Obama declared today, "It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror." Is Obama finally acknowledging the existence of radical Islam? Time for Obama to take a prolonged golf junket and let Joe Biden take up the reins of government.]

New York Times Editorial, "The Horror in San Bernardino": Ignoring Radical Islam

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "The Horror in San Bernardino," The New York Times concludes:

"Congress has allowed the domestic gun industry to use assorted loopholes to sell arsenals that are used against innocent Americans who cannot hide. Without firm action, violent criminals will keep terrorizing communities and the nation, inflicting mass death and damage across the land."

"Violent criminals"? The "domestic gun industry"? What about "radical Islam," or are we forbidden to make use of these politically incorrect words? After all, Hillary Clinton cannot bring herself to say them, and not surprisingly, there is also no mention of "radical Islam" in yesterday's Times op-ed entitled "On Guns, We’re Not Even Trying" by Nicholas Kristof, who also penned for us that gem "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun" in the not so distant past.

As reported by the Pew Research Center in an August 30, 2011 article entitled "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," eight percent of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing can "often/sometimes" be justified. Now that's a relief! If you randomly place 100 American adult Muslims in a room, only eight of them think that it's "often/sometimes" justified to blow you to bits.

And in a June 2015 poll of 600 Muslim-Americans, The Polling Company determined:

• 29 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "violence against those that insult the prophet Mohammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable."
• 25 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad."
• 19 percent believed that "the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country."

Given these numbers, why should anyone be surprised by the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Chattanooga shooting, and yesterday's atrocity? I would further observe that Muslims comprise less than one percent of America's population.

Yes, the US has a problem with radical Islam, and there can be no answer to the problem until America's political leadership and "progressive" media acknowledge its existence.

Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin, "Could Paris Happen Here?": Sorry, Boys, It's Coming

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Could Paris Happen Here?," Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin, authors of "The Age of Sacred Terror" (I've read it, and it's on a shelf in front of my computer as I type this blog entry), would have us know that American anxiety over terror attacks similar to those in Paris are "unwarranted" and "no one should panic." Simon and Benjamin contend:

"The slaughter in France depended on four things: easy access to Paris, European citizens happy to massacre their compatriots, a Euro-jihadist infrastructure to supply weapons and security agencies that lacked resources to monitor the individuals involved. These are problems the United States does not have — at least not nearly to the degree that Europe does, undermining its ability to defend itself.

. . . .

It appears the Paris attacks involved both Middle Eastern operatives and Muslims from France and Belgium. But some high-profile exceptions aside, American Muslims are much less attracted to the Islamic State and its ideology than European Muslims seem to be. Americans have traveled to ISIS-controlled territories at a rate of roughly a third that of their European Union coreligionists.

Yes, some of the worst attacks of recent years here at home have been by deeply alienated Muslims, including Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, and the Tsarnaev brothers, perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing. But the incidence of such malcontents is lower than in Europe, whose larger Muslim communities, social science data shows, are markedly less integrated.

Although European governments have been working to ameliorate grievances, European Muslims remain poorer, more ghettoized and more discriminated against than American Muslims, whose levels of education and income mirror those of the entire American population."

Or stated otherwise, American homeland security has improved markedly since 9/11, American Muslims are more integrated than their European co-religionists, and there is significantly less reason to worry. I disagree. Sure, Simon has degrees from Harvard, Columbia and Princeton, and Benjamin has degrees from Harvard and Oxford, but in my opinion (I worked a "bit" in counter-terrorism, and the West should be focused on choking off the flow of funding to the Islamic State via Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait), they're ignoring key factors weighing against their conclusion.

First, these Islamic State f*ckers (a term of art used widely in academia) are as shrewd as they are vicious. For example, they can beat US airport security and American passport checks. (Compare American airport security staffing with the highly motivated students doing the job in Israel.)

Second, American Muslims are not as "passive" as Simon and Benjamin would have us believe. As reported by the Pew Research Center in an August 30, 2011 article entitled "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," eight percent of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing can "often/sometimes" be justified. Now that's a relief! If you randomly place 100 American adult Muslims in a room, only eight of them think that it's "often/sometimes" justified to blow you to kingdom come.

But why rely only on Pew? In a June 2015 poll of 600 Muslim-Americans, The Polling Company determined:

• If shariah conflicts with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 33 percent answered that shariah "should be considered supreme."
• 36 percent declared that Muslims in the US should be free to choose courts or tribunals in the US that apply shariah law, whereas 15 percent opined that Muslims in the US should be subject only to shariah courts.
• 29 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "violence against those that insult the prophet Mohammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable."
• 25 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad."
• 19 percent believed that "the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country."
• Nine percent believed that the beliefs of the Islamic State are "correct and consistent with shariah."
• Eight percent believed that the beliefs of al-Qaeda are "correct and consistent with shariah."

Having perused these numbers, are you feeling better? I'm not.

Sorry to disagree, boys, but it's coming.

A Republican Attack on Muslims? What About a Democratic Attack on the Truth?

Tweet

Sorry, but it's once again time to be politically incorrect.

Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "The Republican Attack on Muslims," The New York Times declared:

"The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is drawing criticism over the bigoted comments he has been making recently about Muslims. It is well deserved, and is not a matter of 'P.C. culture,' as Mr. Carson has claimed. Nor does Mr. Carson represent some minor fringe element in the Republican Party.

This latest sordid mess to arise from the G.O.P. nomination contest touches on bedrock American values, constitutional principles and American history. It reflects a pernicious habit among the leaders of the Republican Party to play with fire by pandering to an angry, disaffected and heavily white base by demonizing selected minorities. Muslims are just the current target."

Muslims are just the current target of Republicans? Let's put it to the test. As reported by the Pew Research Center in an August 30, 2011 article entitled "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," eight percent of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing can "often/sometimes" be justified. Now that's a relief! If you randomly place 100 American adult Muslims in a room, only eight of them think that it's "often/sometimes" justified to blow you to bits.

But why rely only on Pew? In a June 2015 poll of 600 Muslim-Americans, The Polling Company determined:

• If shariah conflicts with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 33 percent answered that shariah "should be considered supreme."
• 36 percent declared that Muslims in the US should be free to choose courts or tribunals in the US that apply shariah law, whereas 15 percent opined that Muslims in the US should be subject only to shariah courts.
• 29 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "violence against those that insult the prophet Mohammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable."
• 25 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad."
• 19 percent believed that "the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country."
• Nine percent believed that the beliefs of the Islamic State are "correct and consistent with shariah."
• Eight percent believed that the beliefs of al-Qaeda are "correct and consistent with shariah."

Having perused these numbers, are you feeling much relieved? Fabulous! So now let's move away from the so-called Republican attack on Muslims, and have a look at Democrats attack on the truth - and I'm not referring to Hillary's burgeoning email scandal or attempts to manipulate intel to support the Obama administration's effort to downplay the danger of the Islamic State. Rather, let's have a look at what Iran has been saying in recent days about the United States and Israel in the wake of Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei, and what Senate and House Democrats are choosing to ignore.

As translated by MEMRI, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan stated on Lebanon's Mayadeen TV on September 1, 2015 (my emphasis in red):

"Hizbullah does not need us to supply them with rockets and arms. Israel and the US need to know this. Today, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah have the capability of producing their own resources and weapons themselves. Nevertheless, we shall not refrain from supporting them. They received the technology from us and from others, and today they produce them themselves. I officially declare that under no circumstances will we refrain from providing material and moral support to Hizbullah, or to any group of the resistance to the US and Israel. We say this loud and clear. We have declared this officially, and we intend to continue on this path."

In addition, as observed by Yigal Carmon in a September 22, 2015 MEMRI brief entitled "Iran Openly Declares That It Intends To Violate UNSCR 2231 That Endorses The JCPOA":

"In a July 20, 2015 interview on Iranian Channel 2, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and senior negotiator Abbas Araghchi said that there had been tough bargaining between the Iranian and American delegations over the issue of the arms embargo on Iran and the sanctions related to Iran's missile development project. 'The Americans sought their inclusion in the JCPOA, claiming that otherwise they could not face criticism from Arab countries in the region. When they said that they could not lift the sanctions altogether, we told them explicitly that in that case there is no agreement. We told them that the national security issues are non-negotiable and that we will not accept an agreement which continues the embargo on weapons and the sanctions on missile development. In the end, the Americans said, We will put the issue of the embargo and the missiles in the UN Security Council Resolution separate from the agreement.'"

However, as further observed by Carmon, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Zarif, and Araghchi have "emphasized that Iran has no intention of abiding by UNSRC 2231," which incorporates the JCPOA and places restrictions on Iran's missile development.

More? No problem. As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article, Ataollah Salehi, commander of Iran’s army, declared on Tuesday:

"Israel only barks, no matter how much weapons are given to [it], we are going to destroy them, we will promise this task will be done."

But heck, why should we believe anything that these Iranian leaders are currently saying? You see, if we believe President Obama, these gentlemen are all going to experience an epiphany and profess pacifism over the coming decade. Moreover, what's more important to Senate and House Democrats, Obama's legacy or the prevention of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile attack on the US and the survival of Israel, America's only true ally in the Middle East? I suppose we now know the answer.

Thomas Friedman, "Walls, Borders, a Dome and Refugees": Saying No to Syrian Refugees

Tweet

Did you happen to see the results of the September 8 Pew Research Center poll in the US regarding the Iran nuclear deal?:

"As Congress prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, public support for the deal has declined. Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement, while three-in-ten (30%) offer no opinion."

Yes, I would call that overwhelming disapproval, but why should Democrats in Congress abide by the will of the American people? Obama knows better.

Meanwhile, the chaos in Syria is giving rise to a horrific refugee situation (four million Syrians have fled the country and another six million are internally displaced out of a total population of some 23 million). But why should that weigh on American consciences? After all, the US has granted asylum to some 1,500 refugees, and as observed by Thomas Friedman in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Walls, Borders, a Dome and Refugees":

"Your heart aches for the Syrian refugees flocking to Europe. And Germany’s generosity in absorbing so many is amazing. We have a special obligation to Libyan and Iraqi refugees. But, with so many countries melting down, just absorbing more and more refugees is not sustainable."

Got it: The US has no "special obligation" to Syrian refugees, and therefore they need not be allowed into the country. What a relief! But wait a moment! As observed by Fred Hiatt in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s Syria achievement":

"This may be the most surprising of President Obama’s foreign-policy legacies: not just that he presided over a humanitarian and cultural disaster of epochal proportions, but that he soothed the American people into feeling no responsibility for the tragedy.

. . . .

When he announced in August 2011 that 'the time has come for President Assad to step aside,' critics worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and 'barrel bombs,' but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S. homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees destabilizing Europe. "

Hiatt, however, does not address the reason for Obama's empty words, which were explicitly explained by Michael Gerson in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The horrific results of Obama’s failure in Syria":

"For four years, the Obama administration has engaged in what Frederic Hof, former special adviser for transition in Syria, calls a 'pantomime of outrage.' Four years of strongly worded protests, and urgent meetings and calls for negotiation — the whole drama a sickening substitute for useful action.

. . . .

What explains Obama’s high tolerance for humiliation and mass atrocities in Syria? The Syrian regime is Iran’s proxy, propped up by billions of dollars each year. And Obama wanted nothing to interfere with the prospects for a nuclear deal with Iran. He was, as Hof has said, 'reluctant to offend the Iranians at this critical juncture.' So the effective concession of Syria as an Iranian zone of influence is just one more cost of the president’s legacy nuclear agreement."

Similarly, Lee Smith wrote yesterday in a Weekly Standard opinion piece entitled "Obama Avoided Syria Action to Help Iran Negotiations":

"Obama decided to steer clear of the Syrian conflict not just to avoid doing anything, but just as importantly, to avoid damaging Iranian interests in Syria. As Obama wrote Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, 'the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.' Obama didn’t do anything to bring down Assad because he was afraid it might anger the Syrian president’s patrons in Iran, and getting a nuclear deal with Iran was Obama’s foreign policy priority.

There is plenty that Obama might have done to support Syrian rebels— an opposition he derided as 'former doctors, farmers, pharmacists'—without ever risking putting American forces on the ground in Syria. By 2013, all his national security cabinet officials—Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Thomas Donilon, et al.—argued for supporting Syrian rebel units.

Obama however kept his eyes on the prize: the Iran deal. Same when it came to enforcing the red line he drew against Assad’s use of chemical weapons. No one in their right mind believes that firing missiles on Assad regime facilities was likely to compel the White House to land forces in Syria. Obama’s concern rather was that if the United States signaled that it was no longer protecting Assad it might turn the balance of power against the Syrian regime. But that of course would anger the Iranians, and all Obama wanted was an accommodation with the regime—and now he has one in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action."

Obama bears no responsibility for the Syrian refugee tragedy? The US only has a special obligation to Libyan and Iraqi refugees? Sorry, Tom, but I don't buy it.

Thomas Friedman, "How ISIS Drives Muslims From Islam": Yet More Drivel About Shariah Law From Tom Terrific

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How ISIS Drives Muslims From Islam," Thomas Friedman writes:

"THE Islamic State has visibly attracted young Muslims from all over the world to its violent movement to build a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. But here’s what’s less visible — the online backlash against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, by young Muslims declaring their opposition to rule by Islamic law, or Shariah, and even proudly avowing their atheism."

Fascinating! A backlash against ISIS and Shariah law. The fly in Friedman's ointment? That's simple. As reported by the Pew Research Center in April 2013, the "% of Muslims who favor making sharia the official law in their country" is as follows:

Indonesia: 72
Malaysia: 86
Afghanistan: 99
Pakistan: 84
Bangladesh: 82
Iraq: 91
Morocco: 83
Egypt: 74
Jordan: 71
Tunisia: 56
Palestinian Territories: 89

Of course, according to the Pew Research Center, there are also Muslim countries with lower percentages, e.g., Kazakhstan with 10 percent. However, the percentage in Indonesia, the country with the largest population of Muslims in the world, is not going to decline overnight.

Friedman's examples of opposition to Shariah Law are meant to warm our hearts? Remember how Friedman gushed over the Arab Spring from Tahrir Square . . .

Spare me. I no longer have the patience.

Sabrien Amrov and Alaa Tartir, "Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza": Thanksgiving Israel-Bashing From The New York Times

In yet another Israel-bashing New York Times op-ed entitled "Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza," Sabrien Amrov and Alaa Tartir write:

"Palestinians under Israeli occupation need a police force to maintain internal law and order, but one that is accountable to the people themselves, not to Israel or the donor community."

Their conclusion:

"There can be no security for Israel if Palestinians do not have their basic rights."

The Palestinian police must be "accountable to the people themselves, not to Israel or the donor community"? Palestinians must "have their basic rights"? Fascinating. And just what do the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza want?

As reported by the Pew Research Center in April 2013:

• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "favor making sharia the official law in their country."
• Among Muslims in the Palestinian territories who say sharia should be the law of the land, 84 percent "favor stoning as a punishment for adultery."
• Among Muslims in the Palestinian territories who say sharia should be the law of the land, 66 percent "favor the death penalty for converts."
• 40 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "say suicide bombing in defense of Islam is often/sometimes justified."
• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that homosexual behavior is "morally wrong."
• 44 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "honor killings" are "never justified" when a "female committed the offense."
• 87 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband."
• 33 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "say a wife should be able to divorce her husband."
• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "Islam alone" leads to heaven.
• 82 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "converting others is a religious duty."

"There can be no security for Israel if Palestinians do not have their basic rights"? Given the findings of the Pew Research Center, perhaps Amrov and Tartir should have delineated just what those basic rights are. They obviously don't apply to women or homosexuals, and a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza believe that suicide bombing is often/sometimes justified, even if it deprives others of their "basic rights."

But heck, this isn't what New York Times readers want to know while gobbling their turkey and stuffing.

Fareed Zakaria, "Let’s be honest, Islam has a problem right now": Wait a Few Centuries and Islam Will Come to Its Senses?

Commenting on Bill Maher’s recent HBO television show during which Maher, Sam Harris and Ben Affleck debated the "merits" of Islam, Fareed Zakaria, in his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Let’s be honest, Islam has a problem right now," acknowledges that "There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today." However, Zakaria would also have us know that in the past, Islam demonstrated tolerance. Zakaria writes:

"Harris should read Zachary Karabell’s book 'Peace Be Upon You: Fourteen Centuries of Muslim, Christian and Jewish Conflict and Cooperation.' What he would discover is that there have been wars but also many centuries of peace. Islam has at times been at the cutting edge of modernity, but like today, it has also been the great laggard. As Karabell explained to me, 'If you exclude the last 70 years or so, in general the Islamic world was more tolerant of minorities than the Christian world. That’s why there were more than a million Jews living in the Arab world until the early 1950s — nearly 200,000 in Iraq alone.'"

Islamic tolerance of minorities? Zakaria fails to explain why those "million Jews living in the Arab world until the early 1950s" fled to Israel with only the clothes on their backs, leaving behind their homes and businesses. Upon the establishment of Israel in 1948, American Jews, living in a tolerant society, did not do the same.

Zakaria also alludes to the tolerance of Muslim Indonesia:

"I know the arguments against speaking of Islam as violent and reactionary. It has a following of 1.6 billion people. Places such as Indonesia and India have hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t fit these caricatures.

. . . .

A small minority of Muslims celebrates violence and intolerance and harbors deeply reactionary attitudes toward women and minorities."

Indonesia is Islam's poster child? By all means, let's have a quick look at the tolerance of Muslim Indonesians. According to the Pew Research Center:

• 72 percent of Indonesian Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land.
• 48 percent of Indonesians who say sharia should be the law of the land, favor stoning as a punishment for adultery.
• 95 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that homosexuality is immoral.
• 93 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that a woman should always obey her husband.
• 32 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that a woman should be able to divorce her husband.
• 65 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that converting others is a religious duty.

This is Muslim tolerance? If so, it kind of makes you want to shudder.

Zakaria would also have us believe that Muslim extremism is a passing phenomenon:

"If there were periods when the Islamic world was open, modern, tolerant and peaceful, this suggests that the problem is not in the religion’s essence and that things can change once more.

. . . .

That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state. On the contrary, intellectuals and theologians celebrated the elements of the religion that were tolerant, liberal and modern, and emphasized them, while giving devout Christians reasons to take pride in their faith. A similar approach — reform coupled with respect — will work with Islam over time."

Or in other words, be patient with Islam and choose gentle words. In a few more centuries, Islam could again come to its senses.

Yeah, right.

Nicholas Kristof, "The Diversity of Islam": No Mention of "Honor Killings"

Do you remember Nicholas Kristof's June 2012 New York Times opinion piece entitled "Hugs From Iran," which he started by telling us, "My 1,700-mile road trip across Iran began with a giddy paean to America, reinforcing my view that at the grass-roots level, this may be the most pro-American nation in the Middle East." Honor killings in Iran? Not a mention. Stoning to death of women for adultery? Not a mention. Hangings of homosexuals? Not a mention. Horrific persecution of Kurds, Sunnis and Christians? Not a mention. Discrimination against Baha'is? In fact, there is a passing reference:

"'Iranian people are happy with their leaders,' Monad Omidvar, a 38-year-old farm laborer, told me as he played marbles with his friends beside the road near Mashhad. He has a ninth-grade education, and his only source of news is the government media.

When I asked about human rights activists and members of the Bahai faith who are in prison, he shook his head skeptically. 'I don’t think that in our country innocent people go to jail,' he said. 'They must have done something.'"

That's all Kristof has to say about this oppressed minority group, whose leaders remain imprisoned in Teheran's notorious Evin Prison.

Today, on the other hand, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Diversity of Islam," Kristof, expanding on comments expressed as a panelist on Bill Maher’s HBO television show which debated the "merits" of Islam, tells us:

"The persecution of Christians, Ahmadis, Yazidis, Bahai — and Shiites — is far too common in the Islamic world. We should speak up about it."

So in 2012, during his trek around Iran, why didn't Kristof do this, and also denounce the oppression of women, homosexuals, Kurds, Sunnis and journalists willing to express their opposition to this monstrous regime?

Kristof goes on to say in today's opinion piece:

"Third, the Islamic world contains multitudes: It is vast and varied. Yes, almost four out of five Afghans favor the death penalty for apostasy, but most Muslims say that that is nuts. In Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, only 16 percent of Muslims favor such a penalty."

Wonderful! Only 16 percent of Muslim Indonesians favor the death penalty for apostasy. Indonesia has a population of some 250 million people, which means that only 40 million Muslims in that country support killing those who abandon the faith.

But as long as we're on the topic of Indonesia, why is it that Kristof fails to mention that according to the Pew Research Center:

• 72 percent of Indonesian Muslims favor making sharia the law of the land.
• 48 percent of Indonesians who say sharia should be the law of the land, favor stoning as a punishment for adultery.
• 95 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that homosexuality is immoral.
• 93 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that a woman should always obey her husband.
• 32 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that a woman should be able to divorce her husband.
• 65 percent of Indonesian Muslims believe that converting others is a religious duty.

Concerning the rights of women in Muslim countries, Kristof notes that "of the 10 bottom-ranking countries in the World Economic Forum’s report on women’s rights, nine are majority Muslim," but also observes that "historically, Islam was not particularly intolerant, and it initially elevated the status of women." How comforting! Mention by Kristof of the plague of "honor killings" in the Muslim Middle East? None.

And of course, Kristof warns us, "Beware of generalizations about any faith because they sometimes amount to the religious equivalent of racial profiling." He explains:

"The Dalai Lama today is an extraordinary humanitarian, but the fifth Dalai Lama in 1660 ordered children massacred 'like eggs smashed against rocks.'

Christianity encompassed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and also the 13th century papal legate who in France ordered the massacre of 20,000 Cathar men, women and children for heresy, reportedly saying: Kill them all; God will know his own."

Such wonderful news! In another couple of centuries, Islam might also come to its senses!

Kristof's conclusion:

"Let’s not feed Islamophobic bigotry by highlighting only the horrors while neglecting the diversity of a religion with 1.6 billion adherents."

Indeed, bigotry should be avoided, yet when according to the Pew Research Center 60 percent of young Muslims in America think of themseves as Muslim first and only 15 percent of American Muslims under age 30 believe that suicide bombings "can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam" (no mention by Kristof of the Boston Marathon bombing), it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fareed Zakaria, "Why they still hate us, 13 years later": Nonsense

Why The Washington Post continues to publish Fareed Zakaria's inane opinion pieces is beyond my ken. In his latest WaPo op-ed entitled "Why they still hate us, 13 years later," Zakaria declares:

"Barbarism is designed to provoke anger, and it succeeded. But in September 2001, it also made me ask, 'Why do they hate us?' I tried to answer that question in an essay for Newsweek that struck a chord with readers. I reread it to see what I got right and wrong and what I’ve learned in the past 13 years.

. . . .

It’s not an Islam problem but an Arab problem. In the early 2000s, Indonesia was our biggest concern because of a series of terrorist attacks there after 9/11. But over the past decade, jihad and even Islamic fundamentalism have not done well in Indonesia — the largest Muslim country in the world, larger in that sense than Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the Gulf states put together. Or look at India, which is right next door to Ayman al-Zawahiri’s headquarters in Pakistan, but very few of its 165 million Muslims are members of al-Qaeda. Zawahiri has announced a bold effort to recruit Indian Muslims, but I suspect it will fail."

It's just an Arab problem? Yeah, right.

As reported in a July 15, 2014 Pew Research Center article entitled "Which countries don’t like America and which do," 73 percent of Turkey's population of some 76 million (Turks are not Arabs) have an unfavorable view of the US. In addition, 59 percent of Pakistan's population of some 185 million (Pakistanis are not Arabs) have an unfavorable view of the US.

And back in 2009, 77 percent of Iran's population of some 78 million (Persians are not Arabs) had an unfavorable view of the US. This percentage cannot possibly have improved since that time, when Obama was at the height of his global popularity and actively engaged in an outreach program to Iran.

Yes, Islam's hatred for the US in not confined to Arabs.

Zakaria should go back to sleep.

David Brooks, "The Leaderless Doctrine": The Death of Hope and Change?

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

- King James Bible, Revelation 6:8

Do I believe in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? No, but I suppose you could say that with Her Hideousness Catherine Ashton busy chatting up Rouhani and his monster friends in Tehran (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/her-hideousness-catherine-ashton-plays.html), my outlook is something less than sanguine.

Kudos to David Brooks on his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Leaderless Doctrine" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/opinion/brooks-the-leaderless-doctrine.html?_r=0). Pointing to Pew Research Center data indicating that "[f]or the first time in half a century, a majority of Americans say that the U.S. should be less engaged in world affairs" and that "[f]or the first time in recorded history, a majority of Americans believe that their country has a declining influence on what’s happening around the globe," Brooks declares:

"Americans have lost faith in the high politics of global affairs. They have lost faith in the idea that American political and military institutions can do much to shape the world. American opinion is marked by an amazing sense of limitation — that there are severe restrictions on what political and military efforts can do."

Brooks's conclusion:

"We live in a country in which many people act as if history is leaderless. Events emerge spontaneously from the ground up. Such a society is very hard to lead and summon. It can be governed only by someone who arouses intense moral loyalty, and even that may be fleeting."

Is Brooks correct?

Empowered with real-time knowledge by the Internet, are we able to reach more objective, better informed determinations than our leadership? Does this omniscience spawn helplessness, despondency, disaffection and a sense of abandonment? Do we turn inwards to avoid being overwhelmed by the meanness and rapacity of all that surrounds us?

If the US can only be governed by someone who arouses intense moral loyalty, how is such a person to arise from a system that demands moral compromise? Maybe there is no room for ethics in politics.

Obama promised hope and change, but even young voters, who brought him into the Oval Office and kept him there, have lost faith in a president who "found out on the news like the rest of us," i.e. failed to lead. Remarkably, Harvard University's Institute of Politics recently determined that 52 percent of America's youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, now favor throwing Obama out of office (see: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/millennials-abandon-obama-and-obamacare-20131204). The bloom is off the rose; however, there is nothing better waiting in the wings.

But more to the point, can Americans afford to retreat inwards? Will Americans arise from their solipsistic slumber only after an Iranian ICBM, currently under development  (see: http://freebeacon.com/iran-north-korea-secretly-developing-new-long-range-rocket-booster-for-icbms/), falls in their laps?

Well on its way, this rude awakening will most likely arrive with a bang, sure to interrupt our favorite music, messaging and Facebook postings.

New York Times Editorial, "Military Madness in Cairo": Dishonest

In an editorial entitled "Military Madness in Cairo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/opinion/military-madness-in-cairo.html), The New York Times concludes:

"Washington’s influence on Egyptian public opinion generally is limited. That has less to do with the low-key tone Mr. Obama has taken than with the preceding decades of uncritical United States support for past dictators like Mr. Mubarak and the military forces supporting them, to the neglect of most of Egypt’s 84 million people. It is past time for Mr. Obama to start correcting that imbalance. Suspending assistance to Egypt’s anti-democratic military would be a good place to start."

Of course, we must never blame President Obama, but let's have a look at the numbers. As we were informed by the Pew Research Center in May, 2013 (http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/16/egyptians-increasingly-glum/):

"Despite President Barack Obama’s efforts to improve America’s image in the Arab world, beginning with his famous June 2009 Cairo speech, his ratings have slipped steadily in Egypt since he took office, and ratings for the U.S. are lower now than they were during the Bush administration. Moreover, few Egyptians place much value on a close relationship with the U.S.

. . . .

Just 16% have a favorable view of the U.S., lower than the 27% registered in 2009 shortly after President Obama took office, and lower than the 22% who expressed a positive opinion of the U.S. in 2008, President George W. Bush’s final year in the White House."

Yes, anxious not to find fault with "fearless leader," The New York Times again has its head in the sand.

Congratulations, Mr. President, on another foreign policy success, which indeed will one day help place you in the pantheon of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln. Enjoy your time at Martha’s Vineyard!

David Brooks, "The Secular Society": Is There Still a God in 2013?

Is it only me? If I remember correctly, when I was a child some fifty years ago, people were reluctant, at least in public, to question the existence of God. Today, in a world of narcissism, in which we - at least in the West - are more devoted to ourselves, remonstration against the existence of God has become commonplace, prosaic and pedestrian. After all, Facebook has turned us into idols and demigods, at least in our own minds.

Seeing himself as "someone who tries to report on the world of ideas," David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Secular Society" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/opinion/brooks-the-secular-society.html?_r=0), tells us a little about Charles Taylor’s book "A Secular Age," which, Brooks reports, is almost 800 pages long. Brooks writes:

"Taylor’s investigation begins with this question: 'Why was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say 1500, in our Western society, while in 2000 many of us find this not only easy but even inescapable?' That is, how did we move from the all encompassing sacred cosmos, to our current world in which faith is a choice, in which some people believe, others don’t and a lot are in the middle?"

Whoa! Hold your horses, David! Shouldn't you say: "Why was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say 1500, in our Western society, while in 2000, in our Western society . . ." Consider how in many places outside of the West, belief in God is not a choice. Consider how the Pew Research Center discovered in 2010 that in Egypt, which is currently aflame, that 84 percent of Egyptian Muslims believe that those who abandon Islam should be executed and 95 percent of Egyptian Muslims believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/).

I have not read Charles Taylor’s book - a pity - and given its length, I don't know how I could possibly fit it into my work schedule, except at the expense of sleep, which even now goes lacking. However, I wonder to what extent our belief in God should be portrayed in terms of black and white, yes or no. Is it not possible that our belief in God is undergoing evolution?

My father was an electrical engineer in the defense industry, and I still remember visiting his offices and seeing a computer, which filled much of a large room, and marveling at the punch cards. To run a program and obtain results could take an entire weekend. Today, almost all of us have laptops connecting us with the rest of the world at lightning speed. Ecce homo! Behold the man!

Me? I consider myself blessed to work with a couple of remarkable life science companies. Can life be modeled by computer on a molecular level? Answer: An emphatic yes, but we are still at the beginning of the journey. The complexity of billions of years of evolution leaves me, a simpleton, in awe, and I believe that human understanding of life on the molecular level may never explain - no matter how hard we try - the beauty of "poetry and music," which Brooks refers to as "the realms beyond the ordinary," or the evolution of conscience and morality.

And as we continue to build this Tower of Babel, reaching up into heaven, one wonders whether it will ultimately be struck down by "God" or the folly of man. The West continues to nap as the Islamic Republic of Iran  readies its first atomic weapon.

Is it possible that "God" and the folly of man are part and parcel? Could the folly of man be a fail-safe device? God forbid!

Every day, I grow grayer, and will probably never reach acceptable answers.

Thomas Friedman, "Takin’ It to the Streets": Sorry, Tom, but Don't Go Comparin' Egypt with the US!

Today we learned that a 21-year-old American, Andrew Pochter, who had come to Egypt to teach English and improve his Arabic, was stabbed to death in Alexandria when protesters set fire to the offices of the Muslim Brotherhood. As reported by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/friday-protests-in-egypt-portend-violence/2013/06/28/ac413f3e-e016-11e2-8cf3-35c1113cfcc5_story.html?hpid=z1):

"Thousands of Egyptians took to the streets in competing protests for and against the nation’s Islamist president Friday, ahead of the planned anti-government demonstrations on Sunday that many Egyptians are convinced will turn deadly.

By Saturday, clashes that erupted between the rival sides in the coastal city of Alexandria had left three dead and more than 200 wounded, and attackers in Nile Delta cities had set fire to offices belonging to the president’s supporters in the Muslim Brotherhood."

Egypt, with only some $16 billion in foreign reserves, soaring unemployment, a weakening currency, poverty, illiteracy, discrimination against women (90 percent of whom have had their genitals mutilated), oppression of its Christian Coptic minority, and a population that is growing beyond the country's means, is headed for disaster.

No, it's not going to be pretty tomorrow in Cairo and Alexandria.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Takin’ It to the Streets" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/takin-it-to-the-streets.html?_r=0), Thomas Friedman asks, "Why are we seeing so many popular street revolts in democracies?" Friedman would have us believe that what is happening in Egypt is somehow similar to protests in the US (and Israel). Friedman writes:

"The former C.I.A. analyst Paul R. Pillar asked this question in a recent essay in The National Interest: Why are we seeing so many popular street revolts in democracies? Speaking specifically of Turkey and Brazil, but posing a question that could be applied to Egypt, Israel, Russia, Chile and the United States, Pillar asks: 'The governments being protested against were freely and democratically elected. With the ballot box available, why should there be recourse to the street?'"

Well, unbeknownst to Tom, there is a world of difference between the violence that characterizes Egyptian demonstrations and the relative orderliness and absence of violence that typically characterizes American demonstrations, which are protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Nevertheless, Friedman would lump all of these protests together and attribute them to the convergence of three phenomena:

• "the rise and proliferation of illiberal 'majoritarian' democracies.
• "the way middle-class workers are being squeezed between a shrinking welfare state and a much more demanding job market."
• "much greater ability to link up with others who share their views to hold flash protests."  

Friedman's conclusion:

"The net result is this: Autocracy is less sustainable than ever. Democracies are more prevalent than ever — but they will also be more volatile than ever. Look for more people in the streets more often over more issues with more independent means to tell their stories at ever-louder decibels."

In short, Friedman fails to differentiate between recent riots in Turkey and Egypt, resulting in dead and wounded, and political protests in the US, which can be loud and boisterous, but typically do not turn violent. Riots as opposed to protests - there is a big difference.

There can also be no comparing American democracy with whatever now exists in Egypt. Again, consider the 2010 findings of the Pew Research Center that 84 percent of Egyptian Muslims believe that those who abandon Islam should be executed and 95 percent of Egyptian Muslims believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/).

It never occurs to Tom that there is a link between Islamic militancy and intolerance and the violence that characterizes demonstrations in the Muslim Middle East.

Compare deadly riots in Egypt and Turkey with orderly protests in the US protected by the Constitution? Go back to sleep, Tom.

New York Times Editorial: "More Overreach by the N.Y.P.D.": Who Is Causing Whom "Suspicion and Mistrust"?

In an editorial entitled "More Overreach by the N.Y.P.D." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/more-overreach-by-the-nypd.html?_r=0), The New York Times takes the NYPD to task for installing a surveillance camera at the entrance to a mosque in New York City. The editorial concludes:

"Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has responded to such complaints by insisting that the department’s surveillance program is perfectly legal and implying that critics are undermining public safety. This is the same response he offers when challenged on the stop-and-frisk program. This arrogant approach tries to discredit legitimate criticism while justifying further overreach by a department with a history of abusive behavior. It is up to the courts to determine whether the Muslim surveillance program and the stop-and-frisk program are constitutional. What already seems clear is that these surveillance policies create suspicion and mistrust, which does not help the Police Department or anyone else."

Needless to say, the editorial does not make mention of a recent Pew Research Center survey (http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec.aspx), which determined:

"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 astonishing.

Recently, we have heard repeatedly from left-leaning pundits, e.g., Thomas Friedman, who are willing to endure NSA surveillance of their phone calls, e-mails and Internet surfing to prevent another 9/11 (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/tom-friedman-9-11-new-york-times_b_3429219.html).

But surveillance of mosques? How horrifying! How politically incorrect!

Query: Who Is Causing Whom "Suspicion and Mistrust"? Hint: It's not a corpulent, intellectually challenged (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/thomas-friedman-postcard-from-turkey.html) Thomas Friedman.

Yes, I'm mad. How mad? I'm not "mad enough" to go see "World War Z" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/maureen-dowd-zombie-scare-with-zombie.html), but consider the enduring relevance of "Network" from 1976: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Thomas Friedman, "Egypt’s Perilous Drift": Yes, His Brain Is Fried

Thomas Friedman has a solution for everything.

The final paragraph of Friedman's latest gem of a New York Times op-ed entitled "Egypt’s Perilous Drift" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/friedman-egypts-perilous-drift.html?pagewanted=all) reads:

"What is different about Egypt, though, is that it is bursting with talented young people who understand that Egypt needs an inclusive, long-term, sustainable plan for national renewal. And what they also understand is that those who say that the Arabs have tried everything — Nasserism, socialism, Communism, Baathism, liberalism and Islamism — but that nothing has worked, are wrong. There is one ism they haven’t tried: environmentalism. The only way Egypt and the other Awakening states will have sustainable democracies with sustainable economies is to elevate an environmental ethic to the center of political thinking. Without that, it’s all just musical chairs."

Environmentalism is going to provide Egypt with a sustainable democracy and sustainable economy? Should I laugh or cry?

Tom, tell it to the women of Egypt, 90% of whom have had their clitorises removed.

Tell it to Egypt's Christian Copts, who have known nothing but brutal discrimination from the country's Sunni Muslim majority.

Tell it to the generals and colonels, who own somewhere between 25 percent and 40 percent of the Egyptian economy.

Tell it to the 28 percent of Egyptians who are illiterate.

And tell it to the 82 percent of Egyptian Muslims who believe that people who commit adultery should be stoned to death, and to the 84 percent of Egyptian Muslims who believe that those who abandon Islam should be executed (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/).

Sometimes I just can't believe that Friedman is paid to write this trash.

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.

Eugene Robinson, "The End of the ‘War on Terror’": It's No Longer "Terror," it's "Mental Health"

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The end of the ‘war on terror’" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-the-end-of-the-war-on-terror/2013/05/27/5ef7a4a2-c4b4-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html?hpid=z2), Eugene Robinson posits:

"President Obama wisely avoided the phrase 'mission accomplished' in his major speech last week about the 'war on terror,' but columnists aren’t obliged to be so circumspect: It is time to declare victory and get on with our lives.

. . . .

Was there really any meaningful connection between the bloody Boston rampage and international jihadism? It seems likely that an al-Qaeda Web site taught the Boston bombers how to build their pressure-cooker bombs, but what about the alienation they obviously felt? What about their mental health? Was jihad anything more than a label, an affinity-group logo like the Red Sox insignia on a baseball cap?"

Yup, we can attribute all those daily "honor killings" involving mothers, daughters and sisters around the Muslim Middle East to "mental health."

The attack on the Benghazi consulate? Problems involving "mental health."

The beheading of the soldier in London? A problem involving "mental health."

The murder of homosexuals? You guessed it . . . problems involving "mental health."

Savage attacks against Christian Copts, Kurds and Baha'is? "Mental health."

Terror operations around the globe conducted by Iran and its Lebanese surrogate, Hezbollah? All a matter of "mental health."

It's "time to declare victory and get on with our lives." After all, 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"? What a relief . . .

So let's eliminate Homeland Security and the CIA and instead enlist the aid of psychiatrists, because all of these ghastly killings involve no more than an "affinity-group logo" like the "insignia on a baseball cap."

Have I lost my mind? Does Robinson really believe this?

David Brooks, "Beyond the Fence": A New JG Caesarea Challenge Round! Win Yourself a . . .

Hey, you're in luck! It's time for a new JG Caesarea Challenge Round!

I want each of you to go to the home page of The New York Times and tell me what's missing. As I sit here writing in my underwear, socks and t-shirt, it's just past midnight in the Big Apple, and among the lead stories being proffered by the Gray Lady: Chinese cyberattacks, the Syrian crisis, farm reliance on immigrants, psychiatry out of touch with science, transgender students and sports, and, further afield on the opinion pages, David Brook's latest op-ed entitled "Beyond the Fence" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/opinion/brooks-beyond-the-fence.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0). More on the Brooks opinion piece in a moment. For now, you must stay focused on what's most important, the Challenge Round, of course!

Three, two, one. Sorry, time's up, all pencils down! Not enough time? I wasn't "fair"? Life's not fair, as more and more depressed middle-aged men (see: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/study-suicide-rate-for-middle-aged-americans-up-28-percent-over-decade-40-pct-for-whites/2013/05/02/cb339740-b341-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html) have come to learn! Get over it!

You want the correct answer? Do a search of the Times home page using the word "Benghazi." My computer tells me: "No matches found."

Odd.

A top story at The Washington Post is "Special ops halted from responding to Benghazi attacks, U.S. diplomat says" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-ops-halted-from-responding-to-benghazi-attacks-us-diplomat-says/2013/05/06/c3f311d4-b677-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html?hpid=z1). Moreover, if you go to WaPo's "Opinions," you will immediately see a link to Marc Thiessen's opinion piece entitled "A Benghazi bombshell" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-a-benghazi-bombshell/2013/05/06/d7a4e3fe-b651-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html?hpid=z3). Thiessen writes:

"The Obama administration wants to consign the Benghazi terrorist attack to the history books, but this week three State Department officials will tell Congress that the Obama administration’s version of history is false — and that the falsehoods it told the American people were willful and deliberate."

Heck, that sounds like a "bombshell" to me. Why is there no mention in The New York Times? Is this so much less important than psychiatry out of touch with science, or the content of its editorial, "Corruption in Albany"? My goodness, this could prevent Hillary from running in 2016, but I suppose we don't want to contemplate anything as unseemly and disturbing as that . . .

And now back to Brooks's most recent opinion piece that provides us with a laundry list of the goals sought by opponents to immigration reform, which in turn threaten the demise of the Republican Party. In a nutshell, according to David, these opponents are seeking to restrict:

1. "the flow of conservatives into this country."
2. "assimilation."
3. "love affairs."
4. "social mobility."
5. "skills."
6. "the inevitable," i.e. the United States becoming "a much more cosmopolitan country than it is now."

Why do I smell a straw man? No mention by Brooks of unemployment. If Brooks were to go his own newspaper's home page, he would read under the link to the article "Workers Claim Race Bias as Farms Rely on Immigrants" that "Americans, mostly black, who live near large-scale farms say they are illegally discouraged from applying for work and treated badly by employers who prefer foreigners’ malleability."

Also, no mention by Brooks of heightened concern over the violent radicalism of certain immigrants. According to a new 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"? What a relief . . .

What's that? You correctly answered today's JG Caesarea challenge round and want to know what you won? Sorry, but in the aftermath of Benghazi and Boston (I know, I shouldn't make too much of the Boston Marathon bombing, because it was carried out by that tiny 1% of violent US Muslims), it's time you learned that today there are no winners, and there are only losers.