Antifa

AntiFa is going to be a problem in opposing the so-called President. This group will be the convenient and easy excuse for him to justify selective crackdowns and moral equivalencies. Please note that AntiFa assumes in advance that their opponents are violent - in other words their opponents, they assume, typically the alt-right or worse, have ALREADY been violent and deserve a physical confrontation.

Now I understand that the KKK and neo-Nazis actually exist to HARM others and that AntiFa claims to exist to DEFEND, but that defense is not guaranteed to be within the bounds of legality if their definition of defense is to "disrupt" alt-right rallies for example.

Of course, all this is EXACTLY what the alt-right wants them to do so that they can say that the left wing is the real danger to the US. This scenario is not unlike Al Qaeda hoping the the US would attack in Iraq so that they could promote the narrative of the US being at war with Islam. And AntiFa will deliver in this case to the alt-right. Let's not encourage this movement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/antifa-left-wing-faction-far-right.html?smid=fb-share

A Newsday article covered the slaughter of Coptic Christians in Egypt that left dozens dead.  Muslim extremists took credit for the killings.  Go to http://www.newsday.com/long-island/killings-shock-long-island-s-coptic-christians-1.13669730

The article features a brief interview with a Coptic Christian couple on Long Island who were understandably upset with the massacres.  To quote from Newsday, "Still, they did not blame Muslims in general. “It’s not a question of religion,” Nabil Awad said. “It’s a question of terrorists. Some people put in their heads that this is the way you are going to heaven, if you kill a Coptic Christian.”

It is admirable that they obviously do not blame Muslims in general - they should not and they do not.  But to absolve the concept of religion is incredible.  The murders were precisely all about religion - it is the religion that inspired the terrorists to perpetrate the terrorism.  As Mr. Awad said, "Some people put in their heads that this is the way you are going to heaven, if you kill a Coptic Christian.”"

This is not socialism, capitalism, libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, liberalism, communism or fascism or any secular ideology at work; it is a fundamentalist religious ideology at work, the religion of the followers of ISIS or Al Qaeda.

It is incredible but typical that many religious persons will deny the completely religious motivation of religious terrorists in an effort to absolve the concept of religious belief from any blame - but they are just in denial.  Holding a belief beyond question, holding a belief that is at complete odds with the evidence and holding a belief no matter how much misery it continues to create is the exact problem and it is the problem we continue to refuse to acknowledge.

What are they worried about?  Religion or some ideology is not a person; religion does not have feelings; it does not even have rights - people have rights.  Yes people have rights to believe what they choose to BELIEVE but they do not have the right to DO anything they want.  You should be able to say the obvious truth about a religion, that is part of the right of religious freedom - and who is harmed by your opinion?  Well, there is an answer to that question; the person who has their "feelings" harmed is the person that has placed their religion or the very concept of religion beyond question, and cannot objectively judge the value of religion by its consequences - even when dozens of innocent people are killed because of it.  There should be and there is no right to never having your feelings harmed.

Until it is generally admitted by most of humanity that evidence matters, that everything can be questioned, even one's faith and the faith of others, and that what really matters are the consequences of our actions and beliefs, we will not have a winning argument against those who have a deep faith in their murderous ideologies.

Benghazi - What We Should Do About It

Benghazi - the "scandal" that won't go away or be explained in any way that makes sense.  Exactly what is being "covered up" and why was there a so-called "cover up"?

As far as I can tell, the "scandal" consists of the Obama Administration claiming through statements made by then UN representative Susan Rice shortly after the tragic events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya, that the cause of the killing of our envoy and other US Embassy employees was possibly a spontaneous attack on the Embassy as a response to an inflammatory amateur video made in the US that questioned the Islamic religion.  The attack instead turned out to be a planned attack by a local Al Qaeda group that just happened to coincide with riots then taking place in other Islamic countries that were indeed in response to this film.

The scandalous story line asserts that the Administration made this false claim to deflect criticism that they should have supplied more security to the Embassy staff beforehand.  If the attack were spontaneous, such security needs could not have been anticipated but an Al Qaeda threat should have been anticipated.  Or so the story line goes.

Or perhaps the Administration made their claim to avoid some other line of criticism.  I really am not clear on  what advantage the Administration had to gain by offering a misleading explanation for the attack knowing that the actual truth would inevitably come out and fairly soon at that.  Indeed, it came out within the week and that should have been that. The original explanation could have been taken as a mistake.

If there was any scandal, it lay in the decision about security before the attack; this is a decision that should now be scrutinized fully, keeping in mind, however, that hindsight is 20-20.  But it does seem that a cover up would be pointless; there is no way that if this was an Al Qaeda related attack that the truth would never come out, nor does it seem possible that the Administration would be motivated to not let the blame fall on an Al Qaeda related group if that was where the blame should lay.

Whether this was a spontaneous attack inspired by religious fanaticism or a planned attack inspired by religious fanaticism, the attack was inspired by religious fanaticism.  Planned or spontaneous, who really cares?  What difference does it make?  It would seem that security would be a concern in any country that either harbors religiously fanatical regular people in the streets or religiously fanatical people in terrorist cells.

A constructive exploration of this tragedy would consist of a true examination of the role of religious extremism in the so-called "Arab Spring."  Can anything good come from any change in governments unless the resulting new regime is a secular, free democratic republic where the rights of the individual are protected fully or at least somewhat?   Is it really better to be governed by a democratically elected majority of religious fanatics as opposed to being ruled by a more secular dictator who did not oppress women and/or non-believers as much as the clerics or fanatics that would replace him?  The goal is individual freedom of which democracy is an indispensable aspect but not the sole factor.  This is the conversation that needs to be had.

Instead, all we have is politics.  I mean that in the worst way.

There is a way to address the poisonous political discourse.  It's called term limits.  If Congressional members did not have to constantly worry about raising money and getting re-elected, perhaps they might have time to consider the welfare of the citizens of the US.  As I've written before in this blog, Job One is re-gaining control of our democracy.  Campaign finance reform, an end to voter suppression, outlawing Gerrymandering, reforming the electoral college and term limits for all branches of government may not solve all our political problems, but it is a guarantee that they would be a great help.