Air America's Ron Reagan on/off the mark

Air America Radio's Ron Reagan was on and off this week, in his remarks criticizing Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg for suggesting that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's children might become terrorist targets for kidnapping, due to the upcoming Manhattan trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM).  Here are some excerpts from Mr. Reagan's comments, with my remarks:

• "...planting the idea of kidnapping the mayor's daughter in any wayward nutjob's head [involves potential risk to innocent people]..." - Mr. Reagan, you are correct to strongly criticize Rep. Shadegg for his comments, but do you really think that no "wayward nutjob" (read Radical Islamist terrorist) had thought of this possibility already?  I would be quite nervous to be in New York City during this trial, as every new day will bring with it the possibility that some terrorist will blow himself up, with the hopes that this act will contribute to the chances of KSM's release.  A more likely scenario would be the threat of blowing up various sites unless their demand for KSM's unconditional release is granted.  Just think: "There is a bomb somewhere in the Empire State Building.  Unless you release KSM in two hours, we will detonate it.  You do not have enough time to find it on your own.  When we knew he is safe, we will give you further instructions as to how to disarm the bomb."  Is this so out of the realm of possibility?  Does anyone think they have not considered this option?
  
• (In response to Rep. Shadegg's apology to Mayor Bloomberg, issued through the AP) "...as apologies go, that was really weak and transparently insincere, a little like retracting a front page error at the bottom of the obit page." - I agree completely.  If you are going to make the statement on the floor of the House, have the guts to issue the apology there, too, or call the person whom you offended.  I strongly agree that apologizers should be as open with their regrets as they were in making their remarks to begin with.  Issuing a statement to the AP just does not cut it.

For Ron Reagan this week, one thumb up, and one thumb down.

Had the Ft. Hood murderer been a devout Jew or Christian...

Just when you think the media cannot be any more politically-correct (read falsifying the news), we hear about the slaughter of at least thirteen US soldiers and others at Ft. Hood, Texas.  Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was shot by fellow soldiers to end the killing spree.  And of which religious faith was he a member?  Surprise!  Islam.  But reading the vast majority of reports about the incident, one might never find this out.  We know that he was upset about his upcoming deployment to Iraq.  But are not more soldiers of this same feeling?  Why have they not burst out in anger as Maj. Hasan did, mowing down their fellow American servicemen and -women?  Here are the two New York Times stories of today, November 8, 2009:

• Painful stories take a toll on military therapists
• When soldiers snap

According to the Associated Press, Maj. Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting.  A Google search of the New York Times comes up with zero references to this fact.  (Even the Huffington Post reported it!)  A few questions for my readers here:

1. Is it not noteworthy that what should be a beautiful phrase (God is great!) has become besmirched by the practitioners of one faith in particular?  For those who read things that are not being implied, I do not mean to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but that nearly all terrorists seem to be Muslim.  Are there Jewish terrorists?  Christian terrorists?  Yes and yes, of course.  But the scale is not even close, and terrorists of other faiths hardly ever claim that their actions are in fulfillment of their religion's dictates.  Muslim terrorists nearly always make it abundantly clear that their actions are motivated by a desire to worship their god.
2. Had the Ft. Hood shooter been a practicing Christian or Jew, and  cried out "Praise Jesus!" or "Am Yisrael Chai!" (the Jewish people live!) before shooting, would this fact not have been splayed over every headline about the attack?  Would we not have read demands to root out the evil from among the Christians and Jews, to ensure this would never re-occur?  The questions are rhetorical.
3. Why is the New York Times, flagship of mainstream liberal thought, barely mentioning the fact that Maj. Hasan was a practicing Muslim?  They have been focusing on other, possibly-related, aspects of the story, as mentioned above: the psychological effects of counseling so many soldiers returning from war, and the occasional occurrences of soldiers "snapping."  Is not Maj. Hasan's Muslim background, with parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, as relevant, if not more so, than the other Times perspectives?
4. On May 20, 2009, a Nidal Hasan wrote on scribb.com that a suicide bomber is the same as a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades' lives, since both committed suicide for a "noble cause."  In its mention of this, the Times wrote: "It could not be confirmed, however, that the writer was Major Hasan."  Is it possible that there was another Nidal Hasan who wrote this?  Undoubtedly yes.  Is it possible that had the Ft. Hood shooter been a Yaakov Moshe Goldberg, and a Yaakov Goldberg had posted a similar message months before, the Times would have offered the same disclaimer?  I will let you, my readers, decide.
   

As long as our media continue to whitewash terrorist acts by Muslims, there is no chance we will ever decisively defeat the terrorists.  In general, political correctness is an annoyance; when life, limb, and national security are at stake, it can be deadly.