THE BIGOT STREET JOURNAL

The passion with which The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) embraces the most bigoted positions is both alarming and sad. I have concluded that as far as opinions and editorials go, this newspaper is to the world of American journalism what Dick Cheney has been to America's political leadership (ideology-driven, what others say never matters, never admit any mistakes, offense is the best defense, decency is over-rated). Well, I wish it had kept its bigotry only to its editorial content, it goes further and taints its news, what it reports and how, with a fierce ideology.

In recent days, nearly every report on the scandal surrounding Illinois' governor Blagojevich has focused on somehow connecting President-elect Obama and his team with it. The MAIN headline on its online edition in the past 24 hours has been "Obama, Two Aides Questioned in Probe." Choosing to lead with such headlines and trying to make this about the President-elect than the governor of the Prairie State, requires some effort, possibly an agenda?

If WSJ were a publication in Russia, it would certainly hail Putin as the great guardian of the great nation and regard every opposition leader as a traitor. Ideology and tribal affiliations seem to mean more than any effort at trying to embrace a balanced view point and looking at all sides of any story.

I base this on the way the editorials and op-ed selections have glorified Sarah Palin, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, etc. Apparently, one of its op-ed writers still hasn't received the memo that the election is over, and proclaimed concerning Sarah Palin: "I know Maggie Thatcher. The two women have a lot in common." If you don't like Maggie Thatcher, there's one sure way to diss her. The heading of the same article was "Conservative Snobs Are Wrong About Palin." Wow, reads more like Rush Limbaugh's monologue transcript than the heading of an op-ed in one of the world's most prestigious daily newspapers.

The editorial yesterday called for President Bush to issue a full pardon to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Mind you, within hours of being found guilty and sentenced to jail, President Bush rushed to commute Scooter's jail sentence. Anyone else would have been jumping in joy, clapping their hands and sending thank you notes... but the bigots at WSJ call this "a half-measure" and "a chilly arms length" treatment. And the audacity of their bigotry - they then go on to say "Many in (the Bush) Administration failed to behave honorably, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell..." Cheap attempt at obfuscation. Drawing from a famous exchange in American history, one may ask the WSJ editorial team, "have you no sense of decency, folks?" And what will they ask next - Scooter be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Even the choice of books they review propagates bigotry and a monolithic view of the world. In their review of a book called The Blind Spot, they highlight the work of two authors who believe that any attempt to explain acts of terrorism by Muslims as a result of "oppression, economics, freedom and progress" is "stunningly naive" because such acts are solely the product of Islam's "fundamental religious dimension."

It is sad when news organizations become mouthpieces of any ideology. Fox News, MSNBC and WSJ do not serve the American people or American democracy well in their ideological slant. In so many ways these organizations are parochial and medieval, the difference is they have money and power today with which they cover it up. Shame on them and their sad agendas.

Their approach has a marked impact on the sort of nation we become. I have occassionally peeked at the "discussion" section most newspapers have started where online readers can leave comments. How is it that only the most bigoted and extreme people seem to participate in these? The passions, the bigotry, the downright hate that people spew on these forums - it's stunning. How come no one there sounds like my neighbors and co-workers? Slanted media serves the extremist appetite in our nation and that appetite grows as it consumes more of the "red meat." History shows us, that is not a good path for any nation.

A Hoover Correction is Due

One of America's most admired traits is that it is a land of laws and equal justice - illa ma sha'Allah - meaning, with some unintended exceptions within the realm of human imperfections.

Yet, it seems, every once in a while, a man rises who challenges this core of this great nation, and gets away with it. In a prior generation, such a man was J. Edgar Hoover. An amazing feat of this man was that he headed the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1935 to 1972. Only death managed to get him out of that powerful position he frequently and abundantly abused. Not quite the tenure of Fidel Castro, but definitely that league.

There is a beautiful hadith where the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said the equivalent of the fact that it doesn't behoove a believer to be bitten out of the same snake hole more than once - the Islamic equivalent of "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice shame on me." And boy do we believe in this in America! A fool tried to bring a plane down with explosives in his shoes, so for six years now we have been removing our shoes to be screened before boarding a plane.

It's what I'd like to call the Hoover Correction. After Hoover's highly controversial and abusive career-to-grave, congress passed a law that limits the tenure of an FBI director to a max of ten years. That doesn't mean we won't ever be abused by a crook of a FBI director again, but it won't be because he or she is in power for that long.

I think a Hoover Correction is also due over the abuses of Dick Cheney. For eight years this man has reduced transparency and accountability in public office not just to nothing, but lives to ridicule it. This has been documented in an award-winning series by Washington Post journalists Barton Gellman and Jo Becker. I just can't find enough people who have read it...

I hope they take measures so America's democracy is never tarnished and abused by a man like Cheney again.

I'm Stumped, Help Me...

In recent years, we have seen Iraqis fight with abandon.

With no care for what became of their own bodies, with no regard to what happens to their families, so many there have embraced suicide bombing and carried out missions that just seem irresistible. It's hard to fight someone who is fighting to die, especially if you are restricted to fighting by a civilized code (Abu Ghraib and others of Messrs Rumsfeld and Cheney's misdeeds aside, on which there will be another post another time).

For a moment, I want to set aside any debate on what inspires or motivates them - whether it's desperation, religion, brain-washing, patriotism, etc. Let's consider that only in the limited context that I am posing the question:

Where were these "brave" men when Saddam ruled over that land with an iron fist for decades? Just where were they? Why was it that whatever is "inspiring" them to "fight with whatever and everything they have" didn't come out against a sadistic ruler who just wouldn't go away, but it flows so easily against an effort to establish a system that gives them more power and a greater say. I have a few theories, but I could be wrong:

1. Good ol' Tribalism - which says something along the lines "he may be wicked and stink, but he's OUR wicked and he's got OUT stench." Our stench is better than a "foreign perfume." Abuse at the hands of someone from MY TRIBE is better than something that benefits me at the hands of a FOREIGNER.
2. Inertia: Yes, this is Uncle Isaac Newton's First Law. People resist change, they accept the old. So maybe Saddam faced some problems in his early days, but the generations that opened their eyes in the world with Saddam as the head, came to accept that as "normal." An attempt to change that even with the promise of something better is change and Newton can't have any of that - not without a fight.
3. Things really were not that bad under Saddam: OK, I am putting this down to prove I am trying to be exhaustive in my brain-storming.
4. People fighting now are those who were privileged under Saddam: Sort of like in Europe, it was harder for the serf class to start a rebellion. So the Kings kept the Lords and Nobles happy and everything was peaceful.
5. Saddam crushed rebels more ruthlessly than Americans and Iraqi government dare: This could be true. There are reporters in Iraq now (how else would we get the video of the Shoe-Attack on President Bush?) and it's not just the official news state anymore. So Saddam could carpet bomb the rebels and bury them with bulldozers, and no one would find out?

Help me, I am confused. Where were the brave men of Iraq when Saddam plundered their land? got into one misadventure after another? Why was it so easy for him to suppress their yearning for self-determination?

Who'll Cover This Story?

Marc Gopin writes a real blog and I couldn't think of anything more worthwhile to write than what he recently wrote about a story that deserves greater coverage.

Shoe-Attack

A lot has gone wrong in Iraq in the past 6 years.

An American president possibly defined by his lack of curiosity, likely overwhelmed by a mentor and a mentor's mentor (Cheney and Rumsfeld), rushed a 9/11-scarred nation to invading this sovereign nation over flimsy UN resolutions and shameful lies. What a shameful scar on the history of America and what a horrible tragedy for the people of Iraq and humanity! Some experts estimate nearly 1 million Iraqi civilians may have been killed. That's the count of innocent Iraqis, not soldiers, not militia folks, just your average men, women and children.

An uninstigated ought to be sufficient reason for Americans to be ashamed of what their country was doing...but for the thick-skinned, God sent images of Abu Ghraib and reports of rapes by American soldiers. We have yet to figure out how we ensure something like this never happens again.

All of this is so jarring that I shouldn't be able to see any humor in anything associated with Iraq.

Yet, yesterday's shoe-attack on President Bush made me laugh and cry, both simultaneously.

Many things went through my mind all at once:

1. For all that Iraq endured, and I can't even begin to appreciate it, at least the country has gotten to the point where you can hurl your shoes at a VVIP and not immediately face a firing squad. That seems like progress.
2. Then again, maybe he will rot in a dungeon somewhere? So there may not have been much progress after all?
3. You can always count on Muslims doing the most high-risk and stupid thing when charged with emotions. For some reason, we lack the ability to carefully lay out constructive plans with long-term strategies and remain steady on them. I suspect we have the steady-types, it's just that the shoe-attackers and suicide bombers keep making headlines?
4. Does this mean all future presidential press events will require journalists to leave their shoes behind?
5. That was one fast shoe-pitch, if I ever saw one...I mean he didn't merely toss his shoes, he surely meant to hit W!
6. That was some fast ducking and evading by Bush. Then again, as this lady on TV said, he's been practicing evasion and ducking through much of his presidency!
7. On a serious note, there is something wrong about attacking any political leader or head of state like the journalist did. An act like this is all despots need to usurp more freedoms of press. The journalist got to get his frustration out of his system but the cause to which he claims allegiance was not advanced, I would argue it suffered.

The Classiest Act of Campaign '08

A picture is still worth a thousand words...sometimes more. I wrote this morning about how Colin Powell has been a bit more outspoken lately. Here's the picture that pushed him over the edge. Scroll down and get the full story by watching the clip of his interview on MSNBC (he gets into some stuff at 6min 40sec that might bring tears to your eyes...but every second is worth watching).

God bless Karim Rashad Sultan Karim and his family. And may God bless all our soldiers and their families.

As I said earlier this morning, blessed is America for among her sons are men like General Powell.

Lesser Instincts and Better Instincts

Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in an interview yet to be aired, is reported by CNN to have said the following concerning the Republican Party:

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"

Every nation in history has always had its demagogues who appeal to the the fears and prejudices of their fellow citizens. The power and magic of leadership cuts both ways, though. Every nation in history has also always been blessed with truly inspired individuals who see the truth for truth and the lies for lies. Such men and women have an opportunity and duty to appeal to the better instincts of their fellow citizens. Where a nation goes as a whole depends on which type of leaders take over the reins of that nation - but it's a collective fate, the good and the bad end up in the same place.

For all the mistakes Colin Powell made as GWB's "Yes Man" Secretary of State, America is blessed that he is now speaking his mind. It is my hope and prayer that clear-thinking, educated and experienced men and women in Muslim societies will start to speak out and act against the way our faith has been hijacked. It's never too late to turn the tide against those who appeal to our lesser instincts. It's time to take back.