Listen to this fellow Aslan about Muslim reaction

Reza Aslan burst onto the national scene about a year ago when a Fox News Channel talking head tried to goad him into acknowledging that, as a Muslim, he was not qualified to write a book about Jesus Christ.

He told the talking head that she didn’t know what she was talking about and that as a religious scholar who studied all the world’s great religions he was perfectly qualified to write such a book.

Now he tells critics of Islam and the Muslim community that they aren’t paying attention to the outrage being expressed by Islamic fanatics’ acts of terror.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/01/11/reza-aslan-anyone-who-asks-why-muslims-arent-de/202086

Aslan points out in an interview that Muslims have been criticizing these actions not only after the Charlie Hebdo massacre but have been doing so ever since the 9/11 attacks.

Yet we keep hearing from critics, mainly in the right-wing media, that Islamic believers — the actual believers — have been silent in the face of these terror onslaughts.

Aslan said this: “The answer to Islamic violence is Islamic peace. The answer to Islamic bigotry is Islamic pluralism, and so that’s why I put the onus on the Muslim community, but I also recognize that that work is being done, that the voice of condemnation is deafening and if you don’t hear it you’re not listening.”

Let’s start listening to all the voices out there, not just those that are outshouting everyone else.

 

Where were POTUS and VPOTUS?

The right-wing media are going to have a serious field day with this potential error of omission.

Still, the question persists: Why weren’t the president and/or vice president of the United States among those attending the “unity rally” in Paris today?

The rally held in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre was meant to demonstrate western resolve in the fight against terrorist madness. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was there, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu … among many others who joined the throng of hundreds of thousands of French citizens.

The U.S. ambassador to France was there. OK. That’s good, too.

It might be that critics will have a point that if a rally was important to draw heads of state and government from around the world, it would have added amazingly poignant symbolism to have the leaders of the Free World at the front of the pack of dignitaries.

Secretary of State John Kerry happened to be in India attending an important meeting there with our Indian allies. I’ll give him a pass.

President Obama and Vice President Biden? They well might have been able to adjust their schedules to attend this rally to demonstrate against a murderous rampage that has shaken the world.

 

Is this guy a time bomb?

It’s a fair question to ask, so I’ll ask it: Is George Zimmerman a time bomb ready to explode?

Zimmerman has been arrested — yet again — on an aggravated assault charge. You’ll remember this guy. A Sanford, Fla., jury acquitted him of murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in a case that drew international attention and notoriety.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/10/george-zimmerman-arrested-aggravated-assault/21547875/

Zimmerman was a private security officer who got into a scuffle with Martin. He shot the young man to death and the issue turned on whether Zimmerman stalked Martin because the teenager was black.

Quite clearly, I didn’t witness the event or the trial. I wasn’t privy to the evidence.

But I’ll pose this question, too: Is it possible the jury got it wrong?

Zimmerman’s arrest is the fourth since his acquittal. His former wife accused him of threatening to shoot her; she didn’t pursue the case. A girlfriend accused him of assaulting here; she dropped the charges. Then this guy got involved in a road-rage case.

Now this. The latest incident involves an accusation that Zimmerman tossed a bottle at yet another girlfriend and he’s been charged with aggravated assault.

Hey, this kind of thing normally wouldn’t matter. Except that Zimmerman isn’t your average, run-of-the-mill loser. He became the face of a Florida “Stand Your Ground” law. The jury said he had a right under the law to protect himself with deadly force against someone jurors said was threatening him.

I know he can’t be tried again for the Martin death, but this guy cannot seem to steer clear of trouble.

Or does he look for it?

I’m just asking.

Democrats tilting toward form of term limits

My views on mandated term limits for members of Congress are firmly established.

I don’t like the idea. Heck, I am wavering on whether term limits for presidents is such a great idea.

But the House of Representatives Democratic caucus is leaning more and more toward an idea that Republicans have adopted, which is term limits for committee chairs and ranking members.

I am warming up to that idea.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/more-house-dems-want-to-limit-time-at-the-top-114143.html?hp=t1_r

A growing number of House Democrats believe their Republican friends have outflanked them on the notion of injecting new leadership into the congressional ranks.

It’s critical to point out that Republicans run the House with a strong majority that was made even stronger after the 2014 midterm elections. The Democratic reform would involve the placement of top-ranking Democrats on these panels.

Politico reports: “Former Caucus Chairman John Larson, who was term-limited from that slot in 2013, agreed. He praised House Republicans’ six-year limit for people to serve atop committees, although Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has allowed some exceptions.

“’A number of people would say Republicans have struck a better formula for advancement,’ the Connecticut Democrat said. “And I don’t think it’s a bad thing for leadership at all. I mean, it’s verboten to say it, but it’s true and I think even our current leaders would recognize it, all of whom I support.’”

Each party makes its own rules that govern how they do business internally. Republicans have for several years instituted this term-limit rule for its own leadership. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, would in theory surrender his chairmanship after three more terms in the House, unless the speaker grants an exemption.

It’s a way to freshen each committee’s agenda, its leadership style and its focus — while preserving voters’ intentions back home of continuing to be represented by individuals they have re-elected to Congress.

Despite my dislike for term limits, these internal changes make sense to me.

Go for it, House Democrats.

War on terror is not 'over'

Politicians hate taking back things they say. They aren’t disposed — given the nature of the work they do — to admit when they’re wrong, at least not openly.

President Obama has declared in recent years that “The war on terror is over.”

I cannot read his mind, but my throbbing bunion and my trick knee are telling me the same thing: He well might wish he could take it back.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/09/Krauthammer/

He pronounced the end of the war on terror as the United States was pulling its troops out of Iraq. Our ground war there had concluded. All that was left was to fight the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other splinter terror groups in Afghanistan.

The terrorists have taken a terrible beating at the hands of the greatest military apparatus in world history. They keep coming back. Their resilience is astonishing.

Al-Qaeda is now taking credit for the Paris shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. France is on high alert. French intelligence operatives are looking for a fourth terrorist who reportedly might have fled to Syria; three other terrorists were killed.

The columnist Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training who isn’t known as a counterterrorism “expert,” says we’re entering the “third stage of the jihad.” His link is attached to this blog post. I don’t quite understand how he knows what stage this we’re, or how the terrorists measure these things. He’s a smart fellow, though, so perhaps he knows something many of the rest of us don’t know.

I do know, this, though: The president spoke far too prematurely in declaring the “war on terror is over.”

Indeed, some of us have noted since the dark days immediately after 9/11 that the war against international terror may never end. I questioned at the time of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan how we could declare victory, other than by simply declaring it and going home. The late U.S. Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., once proposed such a thing — only partly in jest — when he suggested we declare victory in Vietnam and then just leave.

That well might be what President Obama has done. He declared a victory that he couldn’t define.

The Paris attack and all the attacks that have come in the years since 9/11 persuade me, at least, that the war on terror will be ongoing well past the foreseeable future.

I am not expecting an admission of error from the president of the United States. I believe, though, that we ought to stop talking like victors while continuing to act like combatants.

This war isn’t over.

 

'This is not a war against Islam'

George W. Bush said it with crystal clarity.

Barack Obama has repeated it with equal amounts of force and conviction.

The United States of America, both presidents have stated, is not waging a war against Islam. The enemy, they have proclaimed repeatedly, is the radical fringe of a great religion that has perverted its holy word and misinterpreted it for its own evil intentions.

Sadly and tragically, the other side — the enemy — doesn’t see it that way. The enemy has declared a religious war against the West. Should our side follow that lead? Absolutely, categorically not.

The attack in Paris has produced some chilling aftershocks. The massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices — where gunmen attacked staffers at the satirical magazine for publishing unflattering images of Mohammed — has led to real fear that more terror cells have been activated in Europe.

More mayhem is on its way.

But the United States and our allies must stand firm in the belief that their war isn’t against Islam.

The 9/11 attacks against the United States were not carried out by mainstream Muslims. They occurred because a monstrous terror cell decided to kill innocent victims, which is prohibited explicitly in the Quran. The leader of that cell, Osama bin Laden, had done this deed before. U.S. and allied intelligence officials knew of this individual’s evil ways, sought to kill him before 9/11, failed, leaving those victims vulnerable to paying a terrible price on that bright morning more than 13 years ago.

Did the president at the time declare all Muslims to be evil? No. President Bush laid down the marker clearly and succinctly: We are going to take the fight to the evil elements that brought to us.

The president left office in January 2009, handing the war plans over to a new commander in chief, Barack Obama. President Obama has said it time and again: This war must be fought against vicious rogue elements.

U.S. commandos finally brought justice to bin Laden in the middle of a moonless night in May 2011, killing him on sight and then burying him at sea.

Did we kill an Islamic cleric? Did this man command a religious following? He was a monster.

And other monsters must remain in our sights as we pursue this global war on terror.

The Paris attack will prompt more violence from more monsters. Yes, they belong ostensibly to the religion of Islam and they technically are “Muslim terrorists.” But the war we fight is not against the peaceful mainstream.

As for the enemy, let the other side declare a religious war. We must remain focused on the real enemy.

The terrorists.

 

 

Free college for anyone who wants it?

Is it me or is President Obama in a fight-picking mood these days?

Now it’s free community college for any high school graduate who carries a 2.5 grade point average or better. The president this week proposed a new plan to enroll more students in community college. He made the pitch in Tennessee, which has a statewide program after which the president modeled the federal idea.

What’s more, he made his pitch in the presence of Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, who once served as education secretary during the George H.W. Bush administration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-free-community-college-114094.html?hp=rc3_4

Will this plan fly in Congress? Well, it’s worth a serious look. But I am dubious about Republicans’ ability or willingness to make an “investment” in public education while it has its dander up at the president over immigration policy, health care and, oh, just about anything.

Amarillo College President Russell Lowery-Hart seems willing to give it a look, if not yet ready to give it a try. He told NewsChannel 10: “I think it’s something our community needs. When you look at last year, for every $1 of taxpayer money invested in Amarillo College, there was a $3.50 return on investment. I think the proposal today acknowledges the economic impact community colleges have on communities and we would certainly want to be a part of that conversation.”

The sticking point is going to be its cost and where the federal government will get the money.

Republicans aren’t in an investing mood these days. Job-training bills have gone nowhere. Infrastructure restoration? Forget about it.

Free college for millions of high school graduates? Well, the president of Amarillo College — which sits in the heart of Anti-Obama Territory — seems willing at least to discuss the notion.

So, let’s start talking.

 

Gov. Christie plays with fire by hugging Jerry

You’ve got to love the political back story developing with the newly revealed “bromance” between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Dallas Cowboys owner/general manager/media hound Jerry Jones.

Christie and Jones are longtime pals. Jones invited Christie to attend the Jerry World Taj Mahal-like stadium in Arlington, where the Cowboys play football. The two of them sat in Jones’s luxury suite and cheered for the Cowboys, who defeated the Detroit Lions in the first round of the NFL playoffs.

The nation saw Jones and Christie hugging in jubilation.

Big deal? Well, yeah, sort of.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/07/christie-faces-problems-in-new-jersey-while-considering-2016-presidential-run/

Jones paid for Christie’s plane ticket to Texas, which might violate New Jersey political ethics laws prohibiting elected officials from accepting such gifts.

Then there’s the booing Christie is getting from fans of the New York Jets and Giants, who play their home games in Rutherford, N.J. That’s not a big deal, given that neither the Jets or the Giants are in the playoffs.

But it gets a little trickier.

Christie might run for president in 2016. His friendship with Jones isn’t going to matter much in Texas, which already is a heavily Republican state. Christie’s GOP credentials aren’t going to be questioned here if he decides to run for his party’s nomination.

The Cowboys, though, do have fierce rivalries with the Giants and now, after the controversial game with Detroit, with the Lions — who got considerable help this past week from a couple of blown calls on the field by the officiating crew. New York and New Jersey lean Democratic in presidential elections; Michigan, meanwhile, could be considered a “swing” state in the next election.

Politics. It’s everywhere. A guy just can’t go to a football game on his pal’s dime? Not in this day and age if you’re considering a run for the presidency.

Free expression under assault

The attack this week on a French satirical magazine that killed 12 people was launched against a guiding principle of liberty.

The target was freedom of expression.

There cannot be any buckling to the forces of terror, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson.

He is so very correct. Here is Robinson’s column in full:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/09/journalists_must_stand_firm_125200.html

Charlie Hebdo is known for its biting — and sometimes crude — satire. It published some cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a less-than-flattering light. Some French Muslims took exception and opened fire at Charlie Hebdo’s Paris office. The bloodshed ended Friday with the deaths of three assassins; four hostages also died in a French commando assault outside of Paris, but other hostages were freed.

Publications around the world are going to look at how they should react to this horrifying act of revenge. Free expression is a cherished right of those who enjoy liberty. Let it stand forever.

Robinson notes in his column: “Right now, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the tendency must be to err on the side of defiance. News organizations have an obligation to demonstrate that they will not be cowed — and indeed, many are doing just that. But what happens a month from now, or a year from now?”

And then he adds: “If freedom of speech is to mean anything, we must avoid self-censorship. And if we are to avoid self-censorship, we must be able to protect and defend the right to make editorial decisions on their merits — which means being prepared to protect the journalists who make those decisions. This means that media organizations and governments must provide adequate security measures so that journalists can do their work.”

I’m with him.

 

 

Can the state can cut taxes too deeply? Yes

Oil revenue is falling in Texas. The state depends on it to pay for state government.

Yet the bean counters in the Comptroller’s Office are being told by lawmakers — namely Lt. Gov.-elect Dan Patrick — that the state is not going to ease up on providing tax relief for Texans.

https://wordpress.com/read/post/feed/12395410/595905125/

Comptroller-elect Glenn Hegar’s task is to provide the Legislature with an estimate of how much money the state will have to spend the next two years.

But those darn oil prices make these projections so very tricky.

Should the state keep cutting taxes when its revenue stream has been put in jeopardy by forces beyond its control? I don’t think that’s wise government policy.

That doesn’t deter Patrick and his tax-cutting allies in the Legislature. Patrick told panelists at a Texas Public Policy Forum gathering: “We expect to be bold and we expect to be big in tax cuts and then I’m going to trust my good friend here the comptroller.”

The state Legislature, populated by a super-Republican majority led by a TEA party faction that just cannot cut taxes enough — even if it puts important government services in jeopardy — ought to resist the temptation to keep slashing revenue just for the sake of slashing revenue.

I doubt seriously, though, anyone in Austin will follow that course. It’s politically popular in Texas to cut, cut and cut some more.

Good luck, Mr. Comptroller, as you prepare to deliver the bad news to our elected representatives.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience