Bill O'Reilly's December 19th Talking Points Memo
Bad teaching is a bad thing. No question about that. Of course, what Bill O'Reilly is here to examine is how bad teachers are those teachers who teach anti-religious or anti-republican messages. Now let me begin by saying that I actually agree with Mr. O'Reilly about Dr. James Corbett who clearly has gone from teaching to preaching in his lectures. But there's a slippery slope here that needs to be avoided at all costs. For instance, is teaching the theory of evolution anti-religious? Is calling Richard Nixon a crook anti-republican? Is calling the Iraq war a mistake anti-American? Sure, you've got Dr. Corbett saying "How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion." But is that really anti-religion or is it more anti-manipulation of religion? The problem here is simply that you can't be sure where to stop. I think Americans as a people have to trust that their children will be exposed to enough teachers that one particularly opinionated teacher doesn't overwhelm them. And the school board has to make the decision as to whether that teacher is teaching all the items in the curriculum successfully. I know I had a government class with a teacher who was an outright conservative. Her occasional shots at democrats didn't interfere with my ability to make my own choices or learn what needed to be learned, though.
I think Mr. O'Reilly makes a conclusion jump when he suggests that teachers "intimidate students into believing what they believe." While Dr. Corbett made some very opinionated statements about conservatives, I don't see any evidence of intimidation. Apparently Mr. O'Reilly has decided that this teacher is bullying students into succumbing to his beliefs. That to me is crazy. It's almost as if O'Reilly believes that this one person is the only person to which these children listen. Those students have at least three other teachers with which to listen. Those students have parents with which to listen. Those students have Mr. O'Reilly with which to listen. And an hour a day with Mr. O'Reilly could be considered as anti-liberal as that teacher is considered anti-conservative.
I understand, of course, that the issue here concerns government employees. I fully agree that government employees should not be imposing religious or anti-religious and conservative or anti-conservative views on their students. Unfortunately this is a very subjective area and I tend to lean more towards the side of leniency than censorship. Teaching the crusades, for example. Yes, there were Christians who went up against Muslims. Should this not be taught because it makes Christians look barbaric? The Theory of Evolution is another example. Should this not be taught because it violates some religions' version of creation? The Great Depression and FDR's New Deal. Should those not be taught because they have a pro-democrat / anti-republican slant? I think people need to use common sense and deal rationally with these issues. If a parent has an issue with a teacher, request that their student be moved to another class. If the teacher is that much of a problem, the requests will add up and the principal will see something is awry.
Finally, I will share an experience I had regarding religion in school. It was my senior year at high school and I was tasked with writing a literary criticism on "The Book of Job" from The Bible. My conclusion was basically that God is evil for allowing all the bad things to happen to Job. However, in my essay I wrote that Satan, in "The Book of Job", was God's advisor. My teacher not only gave me a failing grade on my paper, but also took it upon herself to write "not in my Bible" in the margin. Clearly an example of a teacher losing sight of what she was teaching for religious reasons. She was a good teacher otherwise, though. Should a single opinion given in the classroom force a teacher out? Like I said before, if parents have an issue with a teacher giving an opinion in class there are better ways to deal with it. Request your child be moved to a different class if a private conference with the teacher is not sufficient. Whatever you do, though, don't send a letter to Bill O'Reilly so he can start a teacher witch hunt. I think Senator McCarthy has shown us that is not the way.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
'TheFactor's' Person of the Year
Bill O'Reilly's December 18th Talking Points Memo
Bill O'Reilly has decided on his person of the year and it's General David Petraeus. I don't have a problem at all with his selection. The situation is Iraq is improving based on US death tolls. The "surge" in Iraq is apparently working in that regard. What is lost, I think, is Iraqi civilian deaths. According to www.iraqbodycount.org, there has been a steady increase in civilian deaths per day in Iraq from vehicle bombs from 2003 to 2007 (from .9 to 14 per day). As for deaths per day in Iraq from gunfire/executions, the number has declined from 55 in 2003 to 35 in 2007. In 2003, however, the number was at 14 per day, and in 2005 the number was at 25 a day. So there is a moderate improvement from the year before, but not exactly better overall. I guess the question could be, why do I bring up these numbers? We're losing less troops so the fight must be going well, right? I bring up these numbers because the Iraq war is not like other wars we've fought before with the possible exception of Vietnam, though even that war differs greatly. It pretty much stems from one question: what is our mission in Iraq? It's not a situation where we are trying to topple an invading government as it was in WWII, nor are we trying to defeat an army so we can keep the union together as it was in the Civil War, nor are we attempting to remove a foreign power's army from our soil as it was in the Revolutionary War. This is a situation where we are attempting to clean up the mess we have made after toppling a government. We are attempting to force our own government on the people of Iraq and bring security to the region. And we are attempting to defeat terrorist activity in the region as well. So, civilian casualties are very much at the crux of success. As long as civilians are getting killed in great numbers, we are not doing a good job of securing them and we are not doing a good job of creating a democratic nation. So when Mr. O'Reilly claims that "[General Petraeus] has given the good people of [Iraq] a chance to prosper", I question that claim. But, I will say that General Petraeus has probably done a better job than his predecessors. I just don't think this is a war that can be won based on the criteria for success. No country can have democracy forced upon it. They need to desire it.
Now I'm going to harp on a consistent theme in Mr. O'Reilly's Talking Points Memos. Since he harps upon it, it is only right that I should harp in counterpoint. Mr. O'Reilly again brings up "Americans who desperately want the USA to lose in Iraq." He brings up the "hate-Bush crowd" who "simply never will admit anything good can come from the Iraq conflict." He includes media in that group, though won't disclose which media sources. Once again I respond with the point that nobody wants the United States to lose the war in Iraq. We simply disagreed with going into Iraq and we don't think it is a war that can be won. The United States damages its image more and more in the region each day. Regardless of the intentions the United States military has (and I think they are fine intentions), the continual civilian deaths in Iraq will be blamed on the United States as instigators in this unjustified war. The question will be whether Iraq would be better served without our presence or not. I honestly cannot answer that question, but I believe we should make it our primary goal to extricate ourselves from this unfortunate situation. This might also be where the "hate-Bush crowd" comes in. I'm none too happy that the Bush Administration has put us in this disastrous situation. I'm anxious for the day he leaves office. Does that mean I automatically consider every decision he makes to be bad? No. It just means I haven't been pleased with his past decisions. So once again I need to explain to Mr. O'Reilly the difference between dissent and treason. That's a shame.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Bill O'Reilly has decided on his person of the year and it's General David Petraeus. I don't have a problem at all with his selection. The situation is Iraq is improving based on US death tolls. The "surge" in Iraq is apparently working in that regard. What is lost, I think, is Iraqi civilian deaths. According to www.iraqbodycount.org, there has been a steady increase in civilian deaths per day in Iraq from vehicle bombs from 2003 to 2007 (from .9 to 14 per day). As for deaths per day in Iraq from gunfire/executions, the number has declined from 55 in 2003 to 35 in 2007. In 2003, however, the number was at 14 per day, and in 2005 the number was at 25 a day. So there is a moderate improvement from the year before, but not exactly better overall. I guess the question could be, why do I bring up these numbers? We're losing less troops so the fight must be going well, right? I bring up these numbers because the Iraq war is not like other wars we've fought before with the possible exception of Vietnam, though even that war differs greatly. It pretty much stems from one question: what is our mission in Iraq? It's not a situation where we are trying to topple an invading government as it was in WWII, nor are we trying to defeat an army so we can keep the union together as it was in the Civil War, nor are we attempting to remove a foreign power's army from our soil as it was in the Revolutionary War. This is a situation where we are attempting to clean up the mess we have made after toppling a government. We are attempting to force our own government on the people of Iraq and bring security to the region. And we are attempting to defeat terrorist activity in the region as well. So, civilian casualties are very much at the crux of success. As long as civilians are getting killed in great numbers, we are not doing a good job of securing them and we are not doing a good job of creating a democratic nation. So when Mr. O'Reilly claims that "[General Petraeus] has given the good people of [Iraq] a chance to prosper", I question that claim. But, I will say that General Petraeus has probably done a better job than his predecessors. I just don't think this is a war that can be won based on the criteria for success. No country can have democracy forced upon it. They need to desire it.
Now I'm going to harp on a consistent theme in Mr. O'Reilly's Talking Points Memos. Since he harps upon it, it is only right that I should harp in counterpoint. Mr. O'Reilly again brings up "Americans who desperately want the USA to lose in Iraq." He brings up the "hate-Bush crowd" who "simply never will admit anything good can come from the Iraq conflict." He includes media in that group, though won't disclose which media sources. Once again I respond with the point that nobody wants the United States to lose the war in Iraq. We simply disagreed with going into Iraq and we don't think it is a war that can be won. The United States damages its image more and more in the region each day. Regardless of the intentions the United States military has (and I think they are fine intentions), the continual civilian deaths in Iraq will be blamed on the United States as instigators in this unjustified war. The question will be whether Iraq would be better served without our presence or not. I honestly cannot answer that question, but I believe we should make it our primary goal to extricate ourselves from this unfortunate situation. This might also be where the "hate-Bush crowd" comes in. I'm none too happy that the Bush Administration has put us in this disastrous situation. I'm anxious for the day he leaves office. Does that mean I automatically consider every decision he makes to be bad? No. It just means I haven't been pleased with his past decisions. So once again I need to explain to Mr. O'Reilly the difference between dissent and treason. That's a shame.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Friday, December 14, 2007
No Joy in SP-Ville
Bill O'Reilly's December 13th Talking Points Memo
Ah, the Christmas spirit is in the air, and Bill O'Reilly is feeling it so much he's started a crusade to defend it. Personally I was unaware there was a war going on for Christmas. I haven't seen military personnel outside churches trying to keep people from celebrating Christmas. I haven't seen police taking down tree dealers. Oh, this is about someone deciding to call a Christmas tree a "Holiday tree." How dare they? I personally don't have issue with calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree. I don't consider it the same thing as having the Ten Commandments at a courthouse. It's a celebration time. But it's a decision that different groups have to make on their own. If a department store prefers to have its employees say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas", that's their perogative. They don't want to alienate some of their Jewish, Muslim, or any other religious sect's beliefs. As for the public square, I don't think the issue is even worth debating. The Christmas tree isn't exactly the most religious of symbols anyway. I'd have more of a problem with a government building having a Nativity scene than a Christmas tree. I think that's partly why nobody cares that the mall features Santa.
What's interesting to me is when Carol Towarnicky says that "no religion should be in the public square", Mr. O'Reilly suggests that Mao Tse-Tung, Joseph Stalin, and Fidel Castro salute that. Yes, take some American villains and suggest that they are just like Carol. That's the Christmas spirit, Mr. O'Reilly! Nevermind that a certain Thomas Jefferson would also have supported Carol's views. Then he has the gall to suggest that John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin would all object, to the point of moving out of town or cancelling a newspaper subscription. First of all, while I'm not saying some of those people wouldn't object, they were all reasonable people who understood a thing or two about religous freedom. Also, Mr. Madison was on board with Thomas Jefferson regarding keeping religion out of the government. To suggest that all the founding fathers "encouraged spirituality in the public square" is flat wrong.
Now I have to question why reporting on Christmas is one of the most important things "The Factor" has done. I suppose this "war on Christmas" is far more important than say the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism. Much more important than keeping a close eye on our elected officials. Kudos to you Mr. O'Reilly. All the Whos down in Whoville are happy. And I guess all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. should just get out.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Ah, the Christmas spirit is in the air, and Bill O'Reilly is feeling it so much he's started a crusade to defend it. Personally I was unaware there was a war going on for Christmas. I haven't seen military personnel outside churches trying to keep people from celebrating Christmas. I haven't seen police taking down tree dealers. Oh, this is about someone deciding to call a Christmas tree a "Holiday tree." How dare they? I personally don't have issue with calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree. I don't consider it the same thing as having the Ten Commandments at a courthouse. It's a celebration time. But it's a decision that different groups have to make on their own. If a department store prefers to have its employees say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas", that's their perogative. They don't want to alienate some of their Jewish, Muslim, or any other religious sect's beliefs. As for the public square, I don't think the issue is even worth debating. The Christmas tree isn't exactly the most religious of symbols anyway. I'd have more of a problem with a government building having a Nativity scene than a Christmas tree. I think that's partly why nobody cares that the mall features Santa.
What's interesting to me is when Carol Towarnicky says that "no religion should be in the public square", Mr. O'Reilly suggests that Mao Tse-Tung, Joseph Stalin, and Fidel Castro salute that. Yes, take some American villains and suggest that they are just like Carol. That's the Christmas spirit, Mr. O'Reilly! Nevermind that a certain Thomas Jefferson would also have supported Carol's views. Then he has the gall to suggest that John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin would all object, to the point of moving out of town or cancelling a newspaper subscription. First of all, while I'm not saying some of those people wouldn't object, they were all reasonable people who understood a thing or two about religous freedom. Also, Mr. Madison was on board with Thomas Jefferson regarding keeping religion out of the government. To suggest that all the founding fathers "encouraged spirituality in the public square" is flat wrong.
Now I have to question why reporting on Christmas is one of the most important things "The Factor" has done. I suppose this "war on Christmas" is far more important than say the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism. Much more important than keeping a close eye on our elected officials. Kudos to you Mr. O'Reilly. All the Whos down in Whoville are happy. And I guess all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. should just get out.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Monday, December 10, 2007
Another Big Victory for Those Who Hate America
Bill O'Reilly's December 10th Talking Points Memo
Bill O'Reilly and myself are on the same page with regard to the destroyed interrogation tapes of Abu Zubaydah. They should not have been destroyed and it makes America look more and more like a torture country. No doubt about it. Then Mr. O'Reilly calls Senator Biden a big hero in Tehran for calling President Bush a liar. Well, that may be the case, but it's good that Senator Biden is willing to question the President on issues of intelligence. After all, President Bush hasn't had the best track record in that area. In my mind, that makes Senator Biden an American hero as well, though I will say he might have used language that was a bit too strong.
Where Mr. O'Reilly is wrong, however, is in his assertion that "every far left nut in the world" is "gleefully jump[ing] up and down over the fact that somebody destroyed two interrogation tapes." I don't really get where Mr. O'Reilly perceives every situation that makes President Bush look bad as spot where people to the left are jumping up and down with joy. I think every left-minded person would prefer that the tapes still exist so we could have a look at them. If torture is taking place, most democrats would disagree with it. That's a position. Why then would democrats be happy to see torture taking place simply to make President Bush look bad? Sure, if politics of left and right are all that matter, that might be desirable. As a citizen of the United States, it is my goal, and I hope the goal of all those serving in Congress, that the United States look the best it can to the world. That means setting the proper example to the world with regard to torture. Mr. O'Reilly appears perfectly content that had torture occurred, it was justified and resulted in the capture of major Al Qaeda terrorists. I respond to say that torture is never justified. It is a brutish and medieval technique that should not be practiced in a civilized country.
The New York Times is perfectly justified in running a huge headline about this news. It is important news regardless of the torture claims. The CIA should not be destroying tapes. But for Mr. O'Reilly, it is just a case of The New York Times trying to push an anti-military tribunal for captured overseas terror subjects, anti-coerced interrogation, anti-foreign wiretapping, anti-every terror measure put in place by the Bush administration agenda. And that's bad journalism, right? After all, Bill O'Reilly's not pushing a pro-military tribunal for captured overseas terror subjects, pro-coerced interrogation, pro-foreign wiretapping, pro-every terror measure put in place by the Bush administration agenda, is he? Wait a minute. He is. So I guess it's tit for tat then, Mr. O'Reilly. Maybe you should spend less time whining about what articles The New York Times writes, and spend more time concerning yourself with your own articles. And I don't know where you get this idea that there is this "anti-American lobby" (aka left wing liberals). Having values that currently conflict with the Bush administration is not anti-American and never will be under the tenants our forefathers created when this nation was born.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Bill O'Reilly and myself are on the same page with regard to the destroyed interrogation tapes of Abu Zubaydah. They should not have been destroyed and it makes America look more and more like a torture country. No doubt about it. Then Mr. O'Reilly calls Senator Biden a big hero in Tehran for calling President Bush a liar. Well, that may be the case, but it's good that Senator Biden is willing to question the President on issues of intelligence. After all, President Bush hasn't had the best track record in that area. In my mind, that makes Senator Biden an American hero as well, though I will say he might have used language that was a bit too strong.
Where Mr. O'Reilly is wrong, however, is in his assertion that "every far left nut in the world" is "gleefully jump[ing] up and down over the fact that somebody destroyed two interrogation tapes." I don't really get where Mr. O'Reilly perceives every situation that makes President Bush look bad as spot where people to the left are jumping up and down with joy. I think every left-minded person would prefer that the tapes still exist so we could have a look at them. If torture is taking place, most democrats would disagree with it. That's a position. Why then would democrats be happy to see torture taking place simply to make President Bush look bad? Sure, if politics of left and right are all that matter, that might be desirable. As a citizen of the United States, it is my goal, and I hope the goal of all those serving in Congress, that the United States look the best it can to the world. That means setting the proper example to the world with regard to torture. Mr. O'Reilly appears perfectly content that had torture occurred, it was justified and resulted in the capture of major Al Qaeda terrorists. I respond to say that torture is never justified. It is a brutish and medieval technique that should not be practiced in a civilized country.
The New York Times is perfectly justified in running a huge headline about this news. It is important news regardless of the torture claims. The CIA should not be destroying tapes. But for Mr. O'Reilly, it is just a case of The New York Times trying to push an anti-military tribunal for captured overseas terror subjects, anti-coerced interrogation, anti-foreign wiretapping, anti-every terror measure put in place by the Bush administration agenda. And that's bad journalism, right? After all, Bill O'Reilly's not pushing a pro-military tribunal for captured overseas terror subjects, pro-coerced interrogation, pro-foreign wiretapping, pro-every terror measure put in place by the Bush administration agenda, is he? Wait a minute. He is. So I guess it's tit for tat then, Mr. O'Reilly. Maybe you should spend less time whining about what articles The New York Times writes, and spend more time concerning yourself with your own articles. And I don't know where you get this idea that there is this "anti-American lobby" (aka left wing liberals). Having values that currently conflict with the Bush administration is not anti-American and never will be under the tenants our forefathers created when this nation was born.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Deaths of Two Illegal Aliens Near Houston...
Bill O'Reilly's December 6th Talking Points Memo
I think we'll see this as a classic O'Reilly argument as we move towards the future. What Mr. O'Reilly does is take an isolated instance involving someone he wishes to target for a broader issue and relate the two as though they are tightly bound together. In the end, though, the two cases are completely unrelated. So here's the story as I see it. Joe Horn, a business owner in Houston, is robbed by two burglars. He calls 911 to alert the authorities and then decides to take justice into his own hands by grabbing a shotgun and shooting the two burglars. The two burglars happen to be illegal aliens. For me, the critical issue here would be vigilante justice. Mr. Horn's life was not in danger. The burglars were running away. It is the police's responsibility to apprehend the felons and serve justice, not Mr. Horn's. But Mr. O'Reilly has a different take on this. The whole event would never have happened if not for the fact that the burglars entered the United States illegally. And Houston is directly responsible as a "Sanctuary City." I think the key here is to look at border enforcement. With or without laws deporting illegal aliens whenever they are found in the United States, those two burglars would have entered the United States. Now both were at one point arrested, and one was even deported and returned illegally to the United States. I suppose my view on this is that the fact that these people were illegal aliens has no bearing on their crime. It could have been two United States citizens just as easily (and more often would have been). But Mr. O'Reilly is citing this instance as a reason why Houston should be cooperating more with Homeland Security regarding Illegal Immigrants. Now if Mr. O'Reilly could show me significant statistics on crimes and illegal immigrants that would be interesting to see. Are illegals more likely to commit a crime? Are illegals more violent than citizens? That would be relevant and important data. Instead, he has chosen to take one isolated case and mark it as a generalization for how illegal immigrants are causing deaths.
That brings me to another point. O'Reilly asks "how many more people have to die before the federal government denies federal funding to sanctuary cities?" That's an interesting question because in the isolated example he's citing, the only people who died were the illegal immigrants themselves, whom he hasn't shown much value to their lives anyway. So in his pressing example, there were actually no American deaths involved. Now certainly there are examples of illegal immigrants killing American citizens as the murder of Nick Erpol shows. But again, is the problem with sanctuary cities or is the problem with border enforcement? And even so, is the purpose of denying immigration to a foreigner to limit the number of crimes committed in the United States or more for population control? Would it be a big story if a legal immigrant committed those crimes? Should we be concerned that legal immigrants commit more crimes than American-born citizens? I think it would be racial profiling if we looked at the statistics and went out targeting immigrants (legal or illegal).
The issue is not complex for Mr. O'Reilly. We simply notify Homeland Security every time an illegal alien is arrested and he will be deported. But it's not quite as clear cut as Mr. O'Reilly would have us believe. Who pays for the Homeland Security personnel who will be tasked with this project? Who pays for the prisons we keep the illegal aliens in before they are deported? Who pays for the transport of these illegal aliens back to their originating countries? The answer is the taxpayers. I have no problem paying taxes. I think it is an important role for any American citizen. But people don't get elected saying they are going to raise taxes. So, without raising taxes, where does this money come from? Education, social security, local law enforcement, local fire departments, national defense, and any other government program that will be cut or downsized because of it. I personally think this country has bigger fish to fry than worrying about illegal immigration to this level. But that's just my opinion. And when you cast your vote for President next November, you'll have to decide where illegal immigration falls on your prioritization of issues. Mr. O'Reilly simply believes "we should not vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't support the immediate confinement of criminal aliens." I don't know about you, Mr. O'Reilly, but I'm a bit more concerned about what my candidate thinks about the war in Iraq, diplomacy with Iran and North Korea, education, the environment, and the economy. So if Candidate X says he wants to invade North Korea and Iran and is also for the immediate confinement of criminal aliens, but Candidate Y says he is interested in diplomatic solutions to Iran and North Korea and isn't too concerned about immediately confining criminal aliens, I will have to vote for Candidate Y. And so we all should make our own choices.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
I think we'll see this as a classic O'Reilly argument as we move towards the future. What Mr. O'Reilly does is take an isolated instance involving someone he wishes to target for a broader issue and relate the two as though they are tightly bound together. In the end, though, the two cases are completely unrelated. So here's the story as I see it. Joe Horn, a business owner in Houston, is robbed by two burglars. He calls 911 to alert the authorities and then decides to take justice into his own hands by grabbing a shotgun and shooting the two burglars. The two burglars happen to be illegal aliens. For me, the critical issue here would be vigilante justice. Mr. Horn's life was not in danger. The burglars were running away. It is the police's responsibility to apprehend the felons and serve justice, not Mr. Horn's. But Mr. O'Reilly has a different take on this. The whole event would never have happened if not for the fact that the burglars entered the United States illegally. And Houston is directly responsible as a "Sanctuary City." I think the key here is to look at border enforcement. With or without laws deporting illegal aliens whenever they are found in the United States, those two burglars would have entered the United States. Now both were at one point arrested, and one was even deported and returned illegally to the United States. I suppose my view on this is that the fact that these people were illegal aliens has no bearing on their crime. It could have been two United States citizens just as easily (and more often would have been). But Mr. O'Reilly is citing this instance as a reason why Houston should be cooperating more with Homeland Security regarding Illegal Immigrants. Now if Mr. O'Reilly could show me significant statistics on crimes and illegal immigrants that would be interesting to see. Are illegals more likely to commit a crime? Are illegals more violent than citizens? That would be relevant and important data. Instead, he has chosen to take one isolated case and mark it as a generalization for how illegal immigrants are causing deaths.
That brings me to another point. O'Reilly asks "how many more people have to die before the federal government denies federal funding to sanctuary cities?" That's an interesting question because in the isolated example he's citing, the only people who died were the illegal immigrants themselves, whom he hasn't shown much value to their lives anyway. So in his pressing example, there were actually no American deaths involved. Now certainly there are examples of illegal immigrants killing American citizens as the murder of Nick Erpol shows. But again, is the problem with sanctuary cities or is the problem with border enforcement? And even so, is the purpose of denying immigration to a foreigner to limit the number of crimes committed in the United States or more for population control? Would it be a big story if a legal immigrant committed those crimes? Should we be concerned that legal immigrants commit more crimes than American-born citizens? I think it would be racial profiling if we looked at the statistics and went out targeting immigrants (legal or illegal).
The issue is not complex for Mr. O'Reilly. We simply notify Homeland Security every time an illegal alien is arrested and he will be deported. But it's not quite as clear cut as Mr. O'Reilly would have us believe. Who pays for the Homeland Security personnel who will be tasked with this project? Who pays for the prisons we keep the illegal aliens in before they are deported? Who pays for the transport of these illegal aliens back to their originating countries? The answer is the taxpayers. I have no problem paying taxes. I think it is an important role for any American citizen. But people don't get elected saying they are going to raise taxes. So, without raising taxes, where does this money come from? Education, social security, local law enforcement, local fire departments, national defense, and any other government program that will be cut or downsized because of it. I personally think this country has bigger fish to fry than worrying about illegal immigration to this level. But that's just my opinion. And when you cast your vote for President next November, you'll have to decide where illegal immigration falls on your prioritization of issues. Mr. O'Reilly simply believes "we should not vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't support the immediate confinement of criminal aliens." I don't know about you, Mr. O'Reilly, but I'm a bit more concerned about what my candidate thinks about the war in Iraq, diplomacy with Iran and North Korea, education, the environment, and the economy. So if Candidate X says he wants to invade North Korea and Iran and is also for the immediate confinement of criminal aliens, but Candidate Y says he is interested in diplomatic solutions to Iran and North Korea and isn't too concerned about immediately confining criminal aliens, I will have to vote for Candidate Y. And so we all should make our own choices.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Cutting Through The Fog
Bill O'Reilly's December 5th Talking Points
It is excellent news that Iran has stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon a few years back. I agree completely that the US can not handle another war at this point, and invading Iran is out of the question. That's pretty much where my agreement ends. It seems that Mr. O'Reilly believes that anyone who disagrees with the President is un-American and that those people are all happy that this intel is contradicting what President Bush has been saying about the imminent threat Iran poses. I suppose the "loony left" should've been hoping that Iran was just days away from a nuclear weapon so George W. Bush could be vindicated and he'd have an excuse to start another war. Perhaps it could be that the left-leaning people of the United States are happy that this tense situation is cooling a bit and we can worry a bit less about President Bush invading Iran (as he has been making preludes towards for years). Maybe the left is happy that their viewpoint on the Iran situation was correct and this is more proof that Bush has been leading the country in the wrong direction. I do not for a second believe the majority of left-leaning Americans are going "nah nah-nah nah nah" at George W. Bush or other Republicans. Rather, the democrats in congress and presidential candidates are using this as another reason why we need change. After all, doesn't the statement go: "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me?" Or I could quote the George W. Bush version: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." The point is that we cannot be making pre-emptive strikes on countries based on faulty intelligence. And who knows, the intelligence we just got about Iran not having a nuclear weapons program may be wrong. But we need to be very sure about our intel before making decisions that have such far-reaching effects on the region.
O'Reilly mentions Jane Fonda's statement about the Vietnam War following our withdrawal. While the United States may not have been directly responsible for the slaughter of millions of people after the US withdrawal, it is pretty clear to see that we didn't help the situation by being there in the first place. I also don't think Jane Fonda's statements match the majority of left-leaning people. Jane Fonda was on the extreme side of the spectrum, just as Ann Coulter is for Republicans. You should take their opinions with a grain of salt.
With regard to Joe Biden's comment, I think perhaps he overstepped his bounds by saying the President knowingly disregarded intelligence, but I don't think he is going too far by saying he misrepresented intelligence. And ultimately President Bush is responsible for his actions regardless as to whether he based them on faulty intelligence. George W. Bush has a poor history of jumping at intelligence as fact rather than being able to evaluate reliability of intelligence and what sorts of actions should be taken from intelligence. This is none clearer than his mistake to invade Iraq based on WMDs. War is not something you do based on rumors. War should be undertaken based on fact and action, not pre-emptive based on intelligence, faulty or not. I think that Joe Biden is fully justified in showing his displeasure with how the Bush Administration has handled the entire Iran affair.
Now Mr. O'Reilly claims that this new intel about Iran is actually a bad thing because "it will be more difficult to hold Iran and other nations accountable for their murderous activities in the future." I think this is absolutely ludicrous. If intelligence is good enough it shouldn't be a problem and I think this event will hold the intelligence community to higher standards in the future. No longer will we be allowed to take unilateral action without some very solid intelligence to back it up. None of this "I think there is a 95% chance that Iraq has WMDs" or the sort. And hopefully the United States will feel that the intelligence they gather must be good enough to convice the United Nations of its veracity before taking action. So in my mind, if this new intelligence puts the United States under a microscope and forces us to provide more evidence to the court of world opinion, it is a good thing. As for claims that Iran is killing American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan by providing weapons, I don't find that reason to take military action against Iran. After all, wasn't it Ronald Reagan's administration that was selling arms to Iraq to use against Iran? One is okay while the other is not?
The finale is that "Islamic terrorism is a real threat. Those who reject that truism put us all in danger." Here is where Bill O'Reilly takes one of his classic illogical leaps. He basically is saying that because we found intel that contradicts what George W. Bush has been saying about Iran, that people will stop considering Iran as much of a threat, let our guard down, and allow Islamic terrorism to thrive in the world. Mr. O'Reilly loses his logic when he suggests that we will let our guard down. The war on terrorism is still going on. We must be ever vigilant to uncover and prevent terrorism where possible. The fact that Iran does not pose a nuclear threat does not change any of that. Our targets in the war on terrorism are not countries (except in the diplomacy of helping them fight terror within), it is on terrorist organizations spread across the globe. I've noticed a trend in Republican thought that correlates a country gaining a nuclear weapon with terrorists gaining a nuclear weapon. I do not see that correlation. I believe that we should attempt to limit and stop the creation of nuclear weapons in general, but a terrorist group has as good a chance of obtaining a nuclear weapon from Russia or another country as it does getting one from Iran. Any government is going to protect such powerful weapons. Why? Because, like the United States philosophy, who knows what someone else is going to do with it? Iran does not want someone using their own weapon to blow up Tehran. And believe me, Iran has their own enemies in the Middle East. That area has not been the paragon of peace over the last century.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
It is excellent news that Iran has stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon a few years back. I agree completely that the US can not handle another war at this point, and invading Iran is out of the question. That's pretty much where my agreement ends. It seems that Mr. O'Reilly believes that anyone who disagrees with the President is un-American and that those people are all happy that this intel is contradicting what President Bush has been saying about the imminent threat Iran poses. I suppose the "loony left" should've been hoping that Iran was just days away from a nuclear weapon so George W. Bush could be vindicated and he'd have an excuse to start another war. Perhaps it could be that the left-leaning people of the United States are happy that this tense situation is cooling a bit and we can worry a bit less about President Bush invading Iran (as he has been making preludes towards for years). Maybe the left is happy that their viewpoint on the Iran situation was correct and this is more proof that Bush has been leading the country in the wrong direction. I do not for a second believe the majority of left-leaning Americans are going "nah nah-nah nah nah" at George W. Bush or other Republicans. Rather, the democrats in congress and presidential candidates are using this as another reason why we need change. After all, doesn't the statement go: "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me?" Or I could quote the George W. Bush version: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." The point is that we cannot be making pre-emptive strikes on countries based on faulty intelligence. And who knows, the intelligence we just got about Iran not having a nuclear weapons program may be wrong. But we need to be very sure about our intel before making decisions that have such far-reaching effects on the region.
O'Reilly mentions Jane Fonda's statement about the Vietnam War following our withdrawal. While the United States may not have been directly responsible for the slaughter of millions of people after the US withdrawal, it is pretty clear to see that we didn't help the situation by being there in the first place. I also don't think Jane Fonda's statements match the majority of left-leaning people. Jane Fonda was on the extreme side of the spectrum, just as Ann Coulter is for Republicans. You should take their opinions with a grain of salt.
With regard to Joe Biden's comment, I think perhaps he overstepped his bounds by saying the President knowingly disregarded intelligence, but I don't think he is going too far by saying he misrepresented intelligence. And ultimately President Bush is responsible for his actions regardless as to whether he based them on faulty intelligence. George W. Bush has a poor history of jumping at intelligence as fact rather than being able to evaluate reliability of intelligence and what sorts of actions should be taken from intelligence. This is none clearer than his mistake to invade Iraq based on WMDs. War is not something you do based on rumors. War should be undertaken based on fact and action, not pre-emptive based on intelligence, faulty or not. I think that Joe Biden is fully justified in showing his displeasure with how the Bush Administration has handled the entire Iran affair.
Now Mr. O'Reilly claims that this new intel about Iran is actually a bad thing because "it will be more difficult to hold Iran and other nations accountable for their murderous activities in the future." I think this is absolutely ludicrous. If intelligence is good enough it shouldn't be a problem and I think this event will hold the intelligence community to higher standards in the future. No longer will we be allowed to take unilateral action without some very solid intelligence to back it up. None of this "I think there is a 95% chance that Iraq has WMDs" or the sort. And hopefully the United States will feel that the intelligence they gather must be good enough to convice the United Nations of its veracity before taking action. So in my mind, if this new intelligence puts the United States under a microscope and forces us to provide more evidence to the court of world opinion, it is a good thing. As for claims that Iran is killing American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan by providing weapons, I don't find that reason to take military action against Iran. After all, wasn't it Ronald Reagan's administration that was selling arms to Iraq to use against Iran? One is okay while the other is not?
The finale is that "Islamic terrorism is a real threat. Those who reject that truism put us all in danger." Here is where Bill O'Reilly takes one of his classic illogical leaps. He basically is saying that because we found intel that contradicts what George W. Bush has been saying about Iran, that people will stop considering Iran as much of a threat, let our guard down, and allow Islamic terrorism to thrive in the world. Mr. O'Reilly loses his logic when he suggests that we will let our guard down. The war on terrorism is still going on. We must be ever vigilant to uncover and prevent terrorism where possible. The fact that Iran does not pose a nuclear threat does not change any of that. Our targets in the war on terrorism are not countries (except in the diplomacy of helping them fight terror within), it is on terrorist organizations spread across the globe. I've noticed a trend in Republican thought that correlates a country gaining a nuclear weapon with terrorists gaining a nuclear weapon. I do not see that correlation. I believe that we should attempt to limit and stop the creation of nuclear weapons in general, but a terrorist group has as good a chance of obtaining a nuclear weapon from Russia or another country as it does getting one from Iran. Any government is going to protect such powerful weapons. Why? Because, like the United States philosophy, who knows what someone else is going to do with it? Iran does not want someone using their own weapon to blow up Tehran. And believe me, Iran has their own enemies in the Middle East. That area has not been the paragon of peace over the last century.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Radio Redemption
Bill O'Reilly's December 4th Talking Points
It's nice to know "The Factor" believes in redemption. So everyone makes mistakes. Everyone should be forgiven if they ask for it. That's a wonderful sentiment. I believe in forgiveness. I also believe in integrity. And I also believe it's not the media's business to pass forgiveness on anyone. The media's goal is to present the facts and let the public decide. Sure, there can be commentary on what the "talking heads" think about specific issues. People enjoy a good controversy. But while we're on this subject of forgiveness, how many journalists decided that once Bill Clinton asked for forgiveness for his affair with Monica Lewinsky that he should be forgiven and just let the issue go? I doubt either Fox News or Bill O'Reilly let that one die. So much for "since every human makes mistakes, if someone asks for forgiveness, it should be granted."
So here comes Mr. O'Reilly to discuss responsible journalism and media deceiving the public with regard to Don Imus. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. This is the same Bill O'Reilly who works for Fox News Network. The same network that defended George W. Bush's plans for invading Iraq. The same network that, when its viewers were polled, showed that the majority of them thought that WMDs were actually found in Iraq. The same network that declared George W. Bush President in 2000 when most other networks considered the race too close to call on Election Night (which wasn't fully resolved until months later; thank you Fox News, I'm glad you have people on the ground counting votes). The same network that has shown time and time again that they lean to the right. But that's irrelevant. We're talking about Bill O'Reilly here. He's not a corrupt journalist, is he? Considering how many times I've seen far-left loon or far-left nut said by him on his show (compared with far-right, which I never hear him utter), I would say he isn't exactly the utopic journalist with integrity that he would have us believe. So here we have Mr. O'Reilly explaining how few journalistic standards are left today and how the media smears and destroys people all the time. I really can't dispute that. But, I would include Mr. O'Reilly in that list of corrupt journalists. He may speak his mind and claim not to be corrupted by outside interests, but the fact is that he is only giving his side of a story and not allowing for healthy debate. But I guess I should thank him for that, because it gives me a chance to address the other sides.
I love this nugget of wisdom: "The upcoming presidential race will clearly demonstrate what I am telling you right now. Pay attention." Oh, you mean there will be some media outlets smearing candidates and creating falsehoods? You are so wise, Mr. O'Reilly. Did you come up with that all by yourself? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ring a bell, Mr. O'Reilly? I believe Fox News spent some time reporting on that false story. I'm truly glad you are out there on the front lines warning us about what your own network will likely do this upcoming election. Thank you for that.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
It's nice to know "The Factor" believes in redemption. So everyone makes mistakes. Everyone should be forgiven if they ask for it. That's a wonderful sentiment. I believe in forgiveness. I also believe in integrity. And I also believe it's not the media's business to pass forgiveness on anyone. The media's goal is to present the facts and let the public decide. Sure, there can be commentary on what the "talking heads" think about specific issues. People enjoy a good controversy. But while we're on this subject of forgiveness, how many journalists decided that once Bill Clinton asked for forgiveness for his affair with Monica Lewinsky that he should be forgiven and just let the issue go? I doubt either Fox News or Bill O'Reilly let that one die. So much for "since every human makes mistakes, if someone asks for forgiveness, it should be granted."
So here comes Mr. O'Reilly to discuss responsible journalism and media deceiving the public with regard to Don Imus. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. This is the same Bill O'Reilly who works for Fox News Network. The same network that defended George W. Bush's plans for invading Iraq. The same network that, when its viewers were polled, showed that the majority of them thought that WMDs were actually found in Iraq. The same network that declared George W. Bush President in 2000 when most other networks considered the race too close to call on Election Night (which wasn't fully resolved until months later; thank you Fox News, I'm glad you have people on the ground counting votes). The same network that has shown time and time again that they lean to the right. But that's irrelevant. We're talking about Bill O'Reilly here. He's not a corrupt journalist, is he? Considering how many times I've seen far-left loon or far-left nut said by him on his show (compared with far-right, which I never hear him utter), I would say he isn't exactly the utopic journalist with integrity that he would have us believe. So here we have Mr. O'Reilly explaining how few journalistic standards are left today and how the media smears and destroys people all the time. I really can't dispute that. But, I would include Mr. O'Reilly in that list of corrupt journalists. He may speak his mind and claim not to be corrupted by outside interests, but the fact is that he is only giving his side of a story and not allowing for healthy debate. But I guess I should thank him for that, because it gives me a chance to address the other sides.
I love this nugget of wisdom: "The upcoming presidential race will clearly demonstrate what I am telling you right now. Pay attention." Oh, you mean there will be some media outlets smearing candidates and creating falsehoods? You are so wise, Mr. O'Reilly. Did you come up with that all by yourself? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ring a bell, Mr. O'Reilly? I believe Fox News spent some time reporting on that false story. I'm truly glad you are out there on the front lines warning us about what your own network will likely do this upcoming election. Thank you for that.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."
Monday, December 3, 2007
Containing Radical Islam
Bill O'Reilly's December 3rd Talking Points
I can concur that the left generally sees Muslim-generated terror as a police-type deal and the right sees it as an all-out-war. I can probably agree that the threat from fanatical Muslims is now at an all-time high. Is the world at great risk? I think that's a severe overstatement. Terrorism is always a risk in free society. You put your security in place as best you can and use intelligence to weed out terrorist strikes before they happen where possible. Is the current terror threat beyond police action as Mr. O'Reilly asserts? That poses an interesting question which really needs resolution because it's not simply a matter of saying that police action isn't enough. You have to consider what action should take place and what the ramifications of such action are. Assuming it's beyond police action, that implies to me that we should be looking at a military solution. Consider this: terrorist groups have been hiding out and operating out of many countries (including our own). Is Mr. O'Reilly implying that we should invade every country that has any ties to terrorism? If so, this is unreasonable and infeasible. We simply don't have the troops to deploy to such a far reaching campaign. I don't think we can occupy the entire Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, North America, and South America...oh, why don't I just say the entire world? Even if we did, the ramifications of such an action would be catastrophic. In attempting to eliminate terrorism, we would be guilty of creating it. All the countries we occupied would not be grateful for the occupation, but furious with it. The normally peaceful residents would join resistance movements which we would term terrorist insurgents. Iraq is a microcosm of this. Iraq is a perfect example of where military action causes more problems than it solves. As Bruce Willis eloquently puts it in "The Siege": "The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel." The implication is if you want to find and eliminate terrorist threats, you have to be careful in doing so. Terrorists live among civilians and collateral damage is not an acceptable loss in the war against terror as it is in traditional warfare. You cannot expect the army to take down terrorism, except in small and well coordinated strikes based on solid intelligence. In other words, all out invasions of other countries is not the solution. A combination of diplomatic and intelligence operations with small surgical strikes is the answer. So in my long winded way, I am in total disagreement with Mr. O'Reilly that the threat is beyond police action. Police action is the only way to go in this scenario. Anything more is simply counterproductive.
So to the crux of the counter point. Mr. O'Reilly mentions Jillian Gibbons' sentence of 15 days in jail for allowing her second grade students to name a teddy bear Mohammed. First of all, I am entirely for the separation of church and state. I don't think government should be dictating any action for the "crime" Ms. Gibbons is accused. But, my disagreements with a foreign government are secondary in this case. Did she break Sudanese law? Yes, she did. Given the nature of the crime and the fact that Ms. Gibbons is a foreigner to Sudan, I don't feel the sentence was severe, and in fact diplomatically the British Government has secured her release. So while the New York Post chooses to title their story "Islamo-nuts jail teacher for naming teddy Mohammed", I find that fairly outlandish. Essentially the New York Post is calling the Sudanese government nuts. You and I may disagree with the Sudanese law, but since we are not residents of Sudan and no human rights violations are involved, it really isn't much of our business. The fact is that this has become a big deal simply because it was a British teacher involved. Had the teacher been Sudanese, we would hear nothing of this. So this is an interesting news item to me in the diplomatic work that the British government went through to secure Ms. Gibbons' release, but fairly much a non-issue with regard to the crime involved.
Mr. O'Reilly mentions that there were protests by Sudanese Muslims who were calling for the execution of the British teacher. He then makes the leap that these Muslims calling for the execution of Ms. Gibbons are "Muslim killers" and are supporting Hezbollah, assisting in harboring the Taliban, and supporting Al Qaeda. First of all, there are always going to be radical elements in society. Protests are a completely legitimate means for expressing outrage at a particular event. It happens all the time in the United States. Let's remember the OJ trial where both sides were out protesting. People protest in favor of execution here in the United States all the time. People protest against execution, too. This is all considered good democracy. Let people voice their opinions. So why is there such outrage when a group of people protest calling for the execution of someone? Is it because she's British and not Muslim? I think the answer is a resounding "yes." This trial and protest symbolizes the battle between Christianity and Islam. Between the Middle East and the west. Mr. O'Reilly plans to use this as ammunition for why we should all be against these "Muslim killers" who are attempting to kill a saintly British Christian. I find that abhorrent. I find it abhorrent that Mr. O'Reilly says we need to go after "Muslim killers." I find it abhorrent that Mr. O'Reilly is not going after terrorists or killers in general, he is targeting Muslims. Why? Because there is a radical Muslim population that would kill because someone decided to name a teddy bear Mohammed. And he doesn't target them because of their actions, he targets them because of their thoughts. If a Muslim extremist killed Ms. Gibbons, I would be outraged. I would call for justice to be carried out because Ms. Gibbons is a British citizen and was ignorant of the crime she was committing. I would be outraged because the punishment does not fit the crime and the World court needed to come to bear on the issue. I would be outraged because a murder had taken place. Am I outraged that a group of Muslims are calling for the head of a teacher who offended their religious beliefs? I'm not. Do I disagree with their opinion? I do. But I most certainly will not be calling up my congressman and telling him we need to go to war with Sudan or take out those Muslims who think Ms. Gibbons should be executed. That is ludicrous.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo"
I can concur that the left generally sees Muslim-generated terror as a police-type deal and the right sees it as an all-out-war. I can probably agree that the threat from fanatical Muslims is now at an all-time high. Is the world at great risk? I think that's a severe overstatement. Terrorism is always a risk in free society. You put your security in place as best you can and use intelligence to weed out terrorist strikes before they happen where possible. Is the current terror threat beyond police action as Mr. O'Reilly asserts? That poses an interesting question which really needs resolution because it's not simply a matter of saying that police action isn't enough. You have to consider what action should take place and what the ramifications of such action are. Assuming it's beyond police action, that implies to me that we should be looking at a military solution. Consider this: terrorist groups have been hiding out and operating out of many countries (including our own). Is Mr. O'Reilly implying that we should invade every country that has any ties to terrorism? If so, this is unreasonable and infeasible. We simply don't have the troops to deploy to such a far reaching campaign. I don't think we can occupy the entire Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, North America, and South America...oh, why don't I just say the entire world? Even if we did, the ramifications of such an action would be catastrophic. In attempting to eliminate terrorism, we would be guilty of creating it. All the countries we occupied would not be grateful for the occupation, but furious with it. The normally peaceful residents would join resistance movements which we would term terrorist insurgents. Iraq is a microcosm of this. Iraq is a perfect example of where military action causes more problems than it solves. As Bruce Willis eloquently puts it in "The Siege": "The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel." The implication is if you want to find and eliminate terrorist threats, you have to be careful in doing so. Terrorists live among civilians and collateral damage is not an acceptable loss in the war against terror as it is in traditional warfare. You cannot expect the army to take down terrorism, except in small and well coordinated strikes based on solid intelligence. In other words, all out invasions of other countries is not the solution. A combination of diplomatic and intelligence operations with small surgical strikes is the answer. So in my long winded way, I am in total disagreement with Mr. O'Reilly that the threat is beyond police action. Police action is the only way to go in this scenario. Anything more is simply counterproductive.
So to the crux of the counter point. Mr. O'Reilly mentions Jillian Gibbons' sentence of 15 days in jail for allowing her second grade students to name a teddy bear Mohammed. First of all, I am entirely for the separation of church and state. I don't think government should be dictating any action for the "crime" Ms. Gibbons is accused. But, my disagreements with a foreign government are secondary in this case. Did she break Sudanese law? Yes, she did. Given the nature of the crime and the fact that Ms. Gibbons is a foreigner to Sudan, I don't feel the sentence was severe, and in fact diplomatically the British Government has secured her release. So while the New York Post chooses to title their story "Islamo-nuts jail teacher for naming teddy Mohammed", I find that fairly outlandish. Essentially the New York Post is calling the Sudanese government nuts. You and I may disagree with the Sudanese law, but since we are not residents of Sudan and no human rights violations are involved, it really isn't much of our business. The fact is that this has become a big deal simply because it was a British teacher involved. Had the teacher been Sudanese, we would hear nothing of this. So this is an interesting news item to me in the diplomatic work that the British government went through to secure Ms. Gibbons' release, but fairly much a non-issue with regard to the crime involved.
Mr. O'Reilly mentions that there were protests by Sudanese Muslims who were calling for the execution of the British teacher. He then makes the leap that these Muslims calling for the execution of Ms. Gibbons are "Muslim killers" and are supporting Hezbollah, assisting in harboring the Taliban, and supporting Al Qaeda. First of all, there are always going to be radical elements in society. Protests are a completely legitimate means for expressing outrage at a particular event. It happens all the time in the United States. Let's remember the OJ trial where both sides were out protesting. People protest in favor of execution here in the United States all the time. People protest against execution, too. This is all considered good democracy. Let people voice their opinions. So why is there such outrage when a group of people protest calling for the execution of someone? Is it because she's British and not Muslim? I think the answer is a resounding "yes." This trial and protest symbolizes the battle between Christianity and Islam. Between the Middle East and the west. Mr. O'Reilly plans to use this as ammunition for why we should all be against these "Muslim killers" who are attempting to kill a saintly British Christian. I find that abhorrent. I find it abhorrent that Mr. O'Reilly says we need to go after "Muslim killers." I find it abhorrent that Mr. O'Reilly is not going after terrorists or killers in general, he is targeting Muslims. Why? Because there is a radical Muslim population that would kill because someone decided to name a teddy bear Mohammed. And he doesn't target them because of their actions, he targets them because of their thoughts. If a Muslim extremist killed Ms. Gibbons, I would be outraged. I would call for justice to be carried out because Ms. Gibbons is a British citizen and was ignorant of the crime she was committing. I would be outraged because the punishment does not fit the crime and the World court needed to come to bear on the issue. I would be outraged because a murder had taken place. Am I outraged that a group of Muslims are calling for the head of a teacher who offended their religious beliefs? I'm not. Do I disagree with their opinion? I do. But I most certainly will not be calling up my congressman and telling him we need to go to war with Sudan or take out those Muslims who think Ms. Gibbons should be executed. That is ludicrous.
And that's "The CounterPoints Memo"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
